ML040790035
| ML040790035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/2004 |
| From: | Robert Davis Neal R. Gross & Co. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, NRC-1366, RAS 7476 | |
| Download: ML040790035 (47) | |
Text
1 AS 1q76 Official Transcript of Proceedings 7
,.I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Duke Energy Corporation Docket Number:
50-413/414-OLA; ASLBP No. 03-815-03-OLA Location:
(telephone conference)
DOCKETED USNRC March 18, 2004 (10:15AM)
Date:
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.:
NRC-1 366 Pages 1218-1262 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 1etlp/ate-s6c 0o3 a
1218 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (ASLB)
TELECONFERENCE In the Matter Of:
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2
- Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA 50-414-OLA
- ASLBP No. 03-815-03-OLA
- Tuesday, March 16, 2004 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m.
BEFORE:
ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair ANTHONY J. BARATTA, Administrative Law Judge THOMAS S. ELLEMAN, Administrative Law Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1219 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of the Licensee:
3 DAVID A. REPKA, ESQ.
4 ANNE W. COTTINGHAM, ESQ.
5 MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQ.
6 of:
Winston & Strawn, LLP 7
1400 L Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
20005-23502 9
(202) 371-5726 DR 10 (202) 371-5724 AC 11 (202) 371-5703 MW 12 (202) 371-5950 fax 13 and 14 LISA VAUGHN, ESQ.
15 of:
Duke Energy Corporation 16 526 South Church Street 17 Charlotte, N.C.
28202 18 (704) 382-8134 19 (704) 382-4504 fax 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
1220 1
On Behalf of the Petitioner.
Blue Ridqe 2
Environmental Defense League:
3 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
4 of:
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, 5
LLP 6
Suite 600 7
1726 M Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
20036 9
(202) 328-3500 10 11 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission:
13 MARGARET BUPP, ESQ.
14 ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
15 SUSAN L. UTTAL, ESQ.
16 Office of General Counsel 17 Mail Stop 0-15 D21 18 U.S. Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D.C.
20555-0001 20 (301) 415-8339 AF 21 (301) 415-3725 SU 22 ALSO PRESENT:
23 Michael T. Cash, Duke Energy 24 Edwin S. Lyman, Ph.D.
25 Stephen Nesbit, Duke Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1221 1
P R O C E E D I N G S 2
(1:37:35 p.m.)
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
This is Ann Marshall Young, 4
Chair of the Board, and I have with me here Judge 5
Thomas Elleman and Judge Anthony Baratta.
Starting 6
with the
- Staff, let's have everyone introduce 7
themselves. And counsel, you can indicate who else is 8
with you from the respective parties.
9 MS. UTTAL:
Your Honor, this is Susan 10 Uttal.
I'm losing about every other word that you're 11 saying.
12 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
We're on a speaker 13 phone and we've got all three of us here together 14 today, so we're going to try to make that work.
One 15 thing that is going to be required is that everyone is 16 going to have to be very quiet when other people are 17 speaking, because I think when it blanks out is when 18 there are two speaker phones, where noise is coming 19 into the line.
20 What I asked was to have counsel for each 21 party introduce yourself and everyone else who is with 22 you from your party, from your respective parties.
23 MS. UTTAL: Starting with the Staff, Susan 24 Uttal, Counsel for the NRC Staff.
I'm here with 25 Margaret Bupp, Counsel for the NRC Staff, and Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
1222 1
Fernandez will be joining us in a moment.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let's go to BREDL.
3 MS.
CURRAN:
This is Diane Curran, 4
representing Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
5 And on another line is Dr. Edwin Lyman.
6 JUDGE YOUNG: And for the court reporter, 7
BREDL is an acronym for Blue Ridge Environmental 8
Defense League.
And Duke?
9 MR. REPKA: This is David Repka, R-E-P-K-10 A, counsel for Duke Energy.
With me are Mr. Mark 11 Wetterhahn and Ms. Anne Cottingham.
And then on a 12 separate line from Charlotte are Ms. Lisa Vaughn, 13 counsel for Duke, as well as Mr.
Steve Nesbit, and 14 Mr. Mike Cash.
And I would just ask Mr. Nesbit if 15 that's correct, if there's anybody else there.
16 MR. NESBIT: That's it. Everybody is here 17 and that's all there is.
18 JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
Anyone else?
19 Okay.
As I indicated before we went on the record, 20 the Thursday hearing will be in our hearing room which 21 is usable this week, and we will start at 9:00.
I 22 issued an order this morning giving some basic 23 information that you need to provide as we've done 24 before.
And when you arrive they'll call up and 25 someone will come down to escort you up to the hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1223 1
room, all those who have been listed and are cleared 2
for the closed hearing on Thursday.
Are there any 3
issues about Thursday's hearing that we need to 4
discuss today?
5 MS. UTTAL:
Your Honor, just to make 6
clear, will the staff have to be escorted?
I mean, 7
we're all badged.
8 JUDGE YOUNG: No, I don't think the staff 9
will.
10 MS. UTTAL:
Okay.
Thank you.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
Last time there was a 12 possibility of classified information and so there 13 were heightened requirements for safeguards, and I 14 think that we're treating this one more as a safeguard 15 level proceeding, unless any of you think that we 16 should be prepared for classified.
17 MS. UTTAL:
The staff doesn't think so, 18 Your Honor.
19 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. And we will have our 20 assistant there to keep us on track if we stray into 21 any areas we should not be proceeding in.
And since 22 we haven't received the responses yet, we don't know 23 completely the extent of the argument.
We don't 24 anticipate that we will need the whole day, but 25 depending upon what responses come in, it may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
\\
1224 1
longer or shorter.
Are there any other security 2
issues while we're on that?
Are there any other 3
security-related issues that we need to address, or 4
that any party anticipates that we can discuss in this 5
non-safeguards environment, or in a way that would be 6
acceptable?
7 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. I just 8
want to confirm with counsel for Duke that Dr. Lyman 9
and I can come to their offices some time in the next 10 day or two to look at the RAI responses.
11 MR. REPKA:
Yes.
As I mentioned last 12 week, that would be fine.
Just let us know, if you 13 could call Ms. Cottingham.
14 MS. CURRAN:
Okay, I will.
Thank you.
15 JUDGE YOUNG:
And actually that was one 16 thing on our list.
Will this be the first time, or 17 have you been to Winston & Strawn before now to look 18 at materials? I assume you have.
19 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
Dr. Lyman has been 20 once.
21 JUDGE YOUNG:
So that's working fine for 22 both of you, for both BREDL and Duke counsel?
23 MS. CURRAN:
Well, we would still prefer 24 to be able to get copies of the documents for the 25 reasons that we stated. This is certainly better than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1225 1
going to Rockville, but we would like to continue and 2
renew our request that we be able to get copies of the 3
documents.
And we'd request that there be copies of 4
the RAI responses available in the hearing room on 5
Thursday morning.
6 JUDGE YOUNG: I don't see any problem with 7
having copies available at the hearing room on 8
Thursday. With regard to your other argument, we can 9
take that up Thursday, as well. Does anyone have any 10 problem with having the RAI responses there?
11 MR.
REPKA:
This is Dave Repka.
We will 12 have a copy of the RAI response there.
I would say 13 that to the extent we hear new argument on new 14 contentions based on the RAI response, we would like 15 the opportunity to respond in writing.
16 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, actually, that was my 17 next question; do we anticipate any new contentions 18 based on those? And if so, in the context of our 30-19 day deadline, when would that be?
20 MS.
CURRAN:
Judge Young, this is Diane 21 Curran.
We haven't looked at the RAI responses yet, 22 and we'll probably be able to tell you on Thursday 23 whether we plan to file any contentions. And it would 24 be within 30 days from when it became available to us.
25 JUDGE YOUNG:
That's what I was actually NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1226 trying to get to.
MS. CURRAN:
I'm not sure, but I got a letter from the staff -
I don't remember the date, but that's when I would mark it from.
MS. UTTAL:
I believe it was the 9 th, Your Honor.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Pardon?
MS. UTTAL:
It was the 9 th JUDGE YOUNG:
October 9 th, and that was when it was --
MS. UTTAL:
No, March 9 th JUDGE YOUNG:
Pardon me.
I don't know where I --
March 9 th.
MS.
CURRAN:
So we'd be filing new contentions before April 8t.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
So you'll --
MS. CURRAN:
We can at least give you a sense of whether we think that's likely.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Any other issues related to any of the security questions that would be helpful to at least touch on here and now?
MS. CURRAN:
I don't have anything.
Do you, Dr. Lyman?
DR. LYMAN:
No, I don't.
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Then I think the main NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433
1227 1
thing that we want to get into today, apart from any 2
issues that any of the parties have, are scheduling 3
and timing issues.
We have received Duke's two 4
filings, and I guess before moving into the scheduling 5
question -
on Duke's motion regarding Contention 3, 6
let me just ask Ms. Curran if you could tell me what 7
the --
8 MS. CURRAN: Someone just got on the line.
9 DR. LYMAN:
Hi, it's Ed Lyman rejoining.
10 I got disconnected.
Sorry.
11 MS. CURRAN:
Oh.
12 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Ms. Curran, do you --
13 what is your response to Duke's motion on Contention 14 3? Are you intending to file a response, are you just 15 going to file a new contention as Duke is suggesting, 16 or what do you anticipate --
how do you anticipate 17 responding to this?
18 MS. CURRAN:
I don't know yet.
I just 19 haven't had a chance to determine what we are going to 20 do.
21 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
I don't have a copy 22 of my rules here with me, but I believe that there's 23 generally a 10-day deadline for that. If you're going 24 to file a new contention, I think it would helpful to 25 the normal deadline would be 30 days from any new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
1228 1
information. And, Mr. Repka, what would your position 2
be with regard to the timing of a new contention?
3 MR. REPKA: I don't believe that a 30-day 4
deadline would be --
from availability of the RAI 5
response would be an accurate assumption in this case.
6 The information about feasibility of Oconee as an 7
alternative has been on the record since the oral 8
argument on this issue back in, I believe it was 9
- December, oral argument, so nothing in the RAI 10 response would have been particularly surprising, or 11 should have been.
But given that, I think that the 12 RAI response itself was made available last week.
I 13 think that it would be appropriate for the Board to 14 set a deadline of some allowable amount of time, 15 perhaps 15 days from the service of the RAI response.
16 JUDGE YOUNG:
What was that date?
17 MR. REPKA: I'll get back to you on that.
18 I believe it was March 1 1 th.
I will look it up.
19 MR. NESBIT: This is Steve Nesbit. It was 20 March lt.
21 MR. REPKA: That would have been the date 22 for the response itself, actually, which would have 23 been served on BREDL at the time that it was filed, so 24 that would be one possible date.
It was sent to the 25 Licensing Board on March 1 1 th.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1229 JUDGE YOUNG: Ms. Curran, when did you get it?
MS. CURRAN:
I'm going to have to figure that out.
MR. REPKA:
It would have been served by Duke electronically on the day it was sent to the NRC.
MS. CURRAN:
So what day was that?
MR. REPKA:
March 1st.
MS. CURRAN:
Did Mike Cash send it?
MR. REPKA:
That would be correct I believe, Steve?
MR. NESBIT:
I think so.
MS. CURRAN:
Let me see if I got --
all right.
I have --
yes, it came in on the ISt.
I've been assuming that we have a 30-day rule of thumb for doing these things. We also have a discovery deadline coming up on the 1 9 th.
I have more than one thing to do here.
I have an oral argument on the 18th, a discovery deadline on the 1 9 th*
I have a telephone conference with the Licensing Board on the 25 th.
I'd like to have our 30 days.
JUDGE YOUNG: So 30 days would take you to actually, I think about two weeks from today.
I don't have my calendar.
MS. CURRAN:
March 3 oth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433
1230 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
March 30t".
Is that a 2
Monday?
3 MS. CURRAN:
That's a Tuesday.
4 JUDGE YOUNG:
Tuesday.
Which would be 5
about two weeks from today, so that would probably be 6
appropriate.
I guess the reason I asked you if you 7
were going to file any other response, and we're going 8
to move into more timing, is obviously if they are 9
going to be a lot of filings, that's not going to work 10 towards moving this proceeding forward in an 11 expeditious manner.
And if it would be of any help, 12 this characterization of the contention -
I'm trying 13 to find a copy of the actual Contention 3 -
hold on 14 one second -
does generally fit the Commission's 15 approach to Contentions of Omission, so it might be 16 best to just move forward with filing a new contention 17 by March 3 0 th.
18 Certainly, you're not cut off from filing 19 any response, but I think unless there's any strong 20 objection that would persuade us otherwise, we would 21 go ahead and set March 30th as the deadline for new or 22 amended contentions regarding the Oconee alternative.
23 MS. CURRAN:
Okay.
24 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
In Duke's appeal to 25 the Commission, which is obviously not before us, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1231 1
have noted, however, Duke's reference on pages 2 and 2
3 of its notice of appeal -
Mr. Repka, you appear to 3
be changing your stance somewhat with regard to the 4
schedule and avoidance of delay in this proceeding, 5
and so I think given that everyone will be planning 6
their own schedules for the next several months, in 7
the summer it would be helpful to, in addition to 8
specific dates that we set in our March 5 th order on 9
deadlines and scheduling issues, to get the parties' 10 positions on whether we are still going to make an 11 effort to get an order out --
I hear someone rustling 12 papers.
I don't know whether that's cutting us off, 13 but I know that's the type of thing that does cut 14 people's voices out, so if you could try to avoid 15 that, that might be helpful.
16 why don't we just start with Duke.
Is 17 your position --
obviously, your position on the 18 merits of the contentions as set forth in your appeal, 19 and that being sent to the Commission and whatever 20 the Commission does on that, that's up to the 21 Commission.
And we would need to continue forward 22 until we hear anything differently on a parallel basis 23 to that. But I think we would like to hear from you, 24 Mr. Repka, on what it is that you're saying there in 25 your notice of appeal, and what your position is on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1232 1
the issue of scheduling at this point, and hear from 2
the other parties, as well.
3 MR. REPKA:
Okay.
This is Dave Repka.
4 First, our position on the importance of the schedule 5
and the specific schedule which Duke has asked for NRC 6
action has not changed.
We continue to believe that 7
expeditious Commission action and review of the 8
license amendment request is important to meeting the 9
scheduled objective of August of this year.
10 Having said that, however, based on the 11 contentions as admitted for the reasons discussed in 12 our appeal, we're not confident that we could conduct 13 discovery and litigation of the omitted contentions, 14 at least Contentions 1 and 2, in an efficient and 15 appropriately bounded way that would meet the schedule 16 objective in this proceeding. So given that, what we 17 propose and what we believe is the most efficient, and 18 hopefully the most expeditious resolution of the 19 proceeding, in addition to seeking the Commission's 20 expedited review would be to in the near term proceed 21 ahead with the security issues, and devote our energy 22 to resolving those issues, as well as Contention 3.
23 The motion to dismiss could be considered, and if 24 there's some new contention narrowly addressed to the 25 information on the feasibility of the Oconee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1233 1
alternative, we can proceed with that and potential 2
resolution of that issue.
3 With respect to Contentions 1 and 2, we 4
are disinclined to proceed with discovery in the near 5
term on those two issues.
We don't believe it would 6
be possible to do that efficiently without a clearer 7
definition of what the issues are.
8 Having said all that with respect to the 9
specific dates that were previously set out, I believe 10 that the date certainly for testimony on security 11 issues should still stand, the dates that we're 12 holding for hearings can stand for security issues.
13 And to the extent that we need to and can conduct any 14 hearings on Contention 3, it's possible that that 15 could be resolved in those dates.
16 I don't think it's realistic, and I don't 17 think that Duke is asking that we hold those dates for 18 Contentions 1 and 2 as admitted.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let me see if I understand 20 you. You want to move forward on the security-related 21 contentions, and on anything that comes out on 22 Contention 3, but you're saying that you do not want 23 discovery on Contentions 1 and 2 until you get a 24 ruling from the Commission.
Is that what you're 25 saying?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1234 1
MR. REPKA: That's correct. And we think 2
the better way to go on Contentions 1 and 2, to the 3
extent the Commission upholds the admission of any 4
issues, we have - all the parties have what the Board 5
believes has admitted as contentions right now, and 6
can be preparing to engage in discovery promptly upon 7
a Commission decision.
And assuming there's any 8
issues left, I think what we would propose is that 9
discovery request be filed promptly after the date of 10 the Commission order, and we would suggest seven days 11 after the Commission order, any discovery request on 12 any admitted contentions be filed, and that any 13 responses be filed 14 days thereafter.
So the idea 14 is, at that point we would have a hopefully clear 15 direction, and we could engage in prompt discovery, 16 and then proceed immediately to testimony and hearings 17 on a schedule to be determined at that time, depending 18 upon the date of the Commission's order.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
And your view is that it 20 would be possible to meet the August deadline 21 proceeding in that fashion?
22 MR. REPKA:
I cannot say one way or the 23 other, given that the Commission schedule is not 24 something we can predict.
I think our point is that 25 we should simply prepare to move as quickly as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1235 1
possible after a Commission decision. And by setting 2
prompt dates for discovery right after a Commission 3
order, that would be the most efficient, the most 4
expeditious path forward from here.
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, I think we need to 6
make something very clear here; and that is, there has 7
been no stay, so if what you're asking for is that we 8
essentially stay all proceedings on Contentions 1 and 9
2, should the Commission do anything other than 10 reverse us on Contentions 1 and 2, I frankly don't see 11 how we could possibly meet the August deadline 12 proceeding in the way that you're suggesting, because 13 what you're suggesting is delaying everything on 14 Contentions 1 and 2, and that the practical impact of 15 what you're saying seems to be that it's more 16 important for you to get a Commission ruling, than it 17 is to move forward everything, and try to keep to our 18 time line so that there would be a possibility of 19 meeting the August deadline.
Do you disagree?
20 MR. REPKA: Well, certainly if we proceed 21 forward on the time line as established in the Board's 22 prior ruling and engage in discovery, that would be 23 the only way to get to a hearing on Contentions 1 and 24 2 in June. I understand that fully, but I don't think 25 that we are confident that we could meaningfully NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1236 1
engage in discovery without devolving to a series of 2
disputes as to what the scope of the contentions are, 3
and what the scope of appropriate discovery is.
- And, 4
therefore, even on that
- schedule, given the 5
contentions that were admitted, we think it's very 6
unlikely at best that we could support a hearing on 7
the dates in the prior decision. So our approach, we 8
think, is all things considered, the most efficient 9
and the most expeditious way to proceed on Contentions 10 I and 2.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
So just again to make sure 12 that I understand what you're saying -
what you're 13 saying is that if we tried to keep to the schedule 14 that we had previously set, you would be making 15 objections to discovery.
I presume if we ruled 16 against you on any of your objections, you would be 17 seeking interlocutory review, because otherwise I 18 don't necessarily follow what you're saying in terms 19 of there being delays that would make it impossible to 20 proceed expeditiously in the context of the schedule 21 that we set, so I think we need to make it very clear 22 here that what you seem to be saying is that you want 23 to have essentially discovery stayed, and that you 24 recognize that that's going to keep you in your August 25 deadline if the Commission were to do anything other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1237 1
than reverse us on Contentions 1 and 2.
2 MR. REPKA:
Backing up, I certainly did 3
not say anything about seeking interlocutory appeal on 4
discovery rulings. But having said that; yes, what we 5
are saying would in effect be a stay of discovery 6
pending Commission action.
I do not know when the 7
Commission will rule, so whether or not we can meet an 8
August decision date following a Commission decision, 9
I frankly don't know the answer to that. But we think 10 that the most efficient, and in the end hopefully the 11 most expeditious path forward would be to stay 12 discovery on Contentions 1 and 2, until promptly after 13 the Commission issues a ruling on the appeal.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
I understand that you want 15 a stay.
I'm not sure that I understand how it would 16 be more efficient and expeditious to delay discovery, 17 and I think that that needs to be very clear.
18 MR. REPKA: Well, I think our position on 19 that is two-fold.
Number one, there would inevitably 20 be, we believe, discovery disputes.
And number two, 21 we believe the contentions as admitted are too broad, 22 if admissible at all. And, of course, we believe that 23 they're inadmissible for the reasons stated in the 24 appeal.
We are disinclined and do not see it as 25 efficient to proceed with discovery based upon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
1238 1
contentions of that nature.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
I'm sorry.
Excuse me.
I 3
was distracted.
Say that over again, the last thing 4
you said.
5 MR. REPKA: We are not inclined to engage 6
in discovery against Duke on contentions that are 7
inappropriately broad, or inappropriately admitted.
8 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, that's the subject of 9
your appeal, and what you're wanting is you're wanting 10 to stay discovery until the appeal has been decided.
11 MR. REPKA:
That's correct.
12 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Let's move for a 13 moment to another party. What is the Staff's position 14 on attempting to meet the August time line that Duke 15 had originally requested? It sounds as though Duke is 16 indicating that --
it's pretty much resting the 17 ability to meet that time line on the Commission's 18 actions on its appeal.
And by asking for a stay of 19 discovery and all proceedings on Contentions 1 and 2 20 until after that, recognizing that if the Commission 21 does anything other than reverse us, that we're not 22 going to meet the August deadline or time line that we 23 had previously set as a goal.
What's the Staff's 24 position, and is there any review sought by the Staff 25 still outstanding, any review to the Commission still NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1239 1
outstanding?
There's not, is there?
2 MS. UTTAL: There's nothing outstanding at 3
this point, although we will be filing a response to 4
the appeal filed by the licensee.
5 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. What's your position 6
on the timeliness and efficient conduct of the 7
proceedings?
8 MS. UTTAL:
Well, the Staff agrees with 9
the licensee regarding the efficiency of the conduct.
10 The Staff's position that the Contentions 1 and 2 as 11 admitted are so broad and open-ended that it would be 12 problematic to limit discovery against the Staff, or 13 against any of the other parties. Therefore, the door 14 would be open to just about anything. We don't think 15 that this is an efficient way for the proceedings to 16 go on.
17 JUDGE YOUNG:
I guess you're presuming 18 what our rulings would be, so in other words, you 19 agree that there's really no way to meet the August 20 goal if we proceeded as you wish, which would be to 21 stay all proceedings related to Contentions 1 and 2 22 until the Commission rules.
And if the Commission 23 does leave open or alive in either of those two 24 contentions, that we would then be --
that there's a 25 likely inability to meet the August time line.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1240 1
MS. UTTAL: Your Honor, I don't think that 2
that is the Staff's position. We can't say one way or 3
the other whether we will be able to meet the August 4
deadline, but the Staff will make every effort to move 5
in an expeditious fashion and cooperate to whatever 6
extent we can to have this case move along with the 7
hopeful goal of meeting the August deadline.
8 JUDGE YOUNG:
When we talked last, I 9
believe that we had set --
in our March 5th order on 10 scheduling, we set the weeks of May 1 7 th and June 14 th 11 for an evidentiary hearing on the non-security-related 12 contentions, and just looking at the practicality of 13 the matter --
we had also, just to back up, we had 14 also indicated that initial discovery requests on the 15 non-security-related contentions should be filed by 16 March 19"'.
And I think everyone was in pretty much 17 agreement that starting the discovery immediately upon 18 issuance of our order on March 5" would be the only 19 way that we could meet the dates that we had 20 previously set. And March 1 9 th is four days from now, 21 and it would seem that it's extremely unlikely that 22 we're going to get any action by the Commission in the 23 next four days, so there would be a necessary delay of 24 these hearing dates should anything remain open on 25 those contentions, which would, in effect, make it as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
\\ _ _ _, _ _..._ _
1241 1
a practical matter impossible to get this proceeding 2
finished by August, would you not agree?
3 MS. UTTAL:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
Was 4
that a question to me?
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
Yes.
6 MS. UTTAL: I missed the last part of what 7
you said.
8 JUDGE YOUNG:
Would you not agree?
9 MS. UTTAL:
Agree that any delay in the 10 discovery schedule will necessarily delay the hearing?
11 I think that if we forget about the May 1 7 th date, 12 which is probably unworkable, and keep the June 14 th 13 date for the non-security contentions, we could see 14 what happens with the Commission, and see whether we 15 can make that.
We can also move up the date for 16 filing of pre-filed testimony, 15 days before that 17 date, so that would give a little leeway. But I can't 18 predict whether the other dates will be met.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
When does the Staff intend 20 or do you still intend to issue the SER and 21 whatever environmental document you're going to issue, 22 I think you said by - was it early April?
23 MS. UTTAL:
Yes.
Yes, as far as I know.
24 JUDGE YOUNG:
Do you know at this point 25 whether it's going to be an EIS or an Environment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1242 1
Assessment?
2 MS. UTTAL:
No, I'm sorry.
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
So I do read you as 4
supporting Duke on its request that we delay discovery 5
on Contentions 1 and 2 and, in effect, all the non-6 security-related contentions.
7 MS. UTTAL:
That's correct, but I would 8
like to see if there's a new Contention 3 that comes 9
in before commenting on that.
But for Contentions 1 10 and 2, yes, we support Duke's motion to stay 11 discovery.
12 JUDGE YOUNG:
What's your position on 13 Duke's motion with regard to Contention 3?
14 MS. UTTAL:
I haven't had a chance to 15 discuss it with the Staff, Your Honor.
I don't have 16 a position yet.
17 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let's move to Ms. Curran.
18 What's your position on everything that you've heard 19 to this point on scheduling and timing issues.
20 MS. CURRAN:
I think BREDL agrees as a 21 practical matter with Mr. Repka's suggestion for 22 different reasons.
The concern that I was going to 23 raise this morning is that the schedule for litigating 24 the safety contentions is too tight to give us a 25 meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
1243 1
prepare our case.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let me interrupt you for a 3
second.
4 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
You say schedule for the 6
safety contentions.
Do you mean the non-security-7 related --
8 MS. CURRAN:
That's what I mean, yes.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
10 MS. CURRAN: Right now we have a discovery 11 deadline of the 1 9tt', and a deadline of May 5th for 12 filing testimony.
And what I would like --
I think 13 what we need here is we need to be able to do two 14 rounds of interrogatories and a period for taking 15 depositions, and then a reasonable period for 16 preparing testimony based on that.
And, of course, 17 some of this discovery period needs to follow whenever 18 the Staff issues its environmental document and its 19 safety evaluation report.
20 I'm very concerned because we have the 21 Contentions 1 and 2, let's not even talk about 22 Contention 3 right now, but Contentions 1 and 2 raise 23 complex safety issues that we're going to need some 24 time to develop. At the same time, it's difficult for 25 me to see how we can go forward and do a good job on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1244 1
those under the schedule we have, and also prepare to 2
file testimony on the security issues, which is 3
another set of complex issue that's further 4
complicated by the fact that we don't have easy access 5
to documents.
So to me, what makes sense is -- what 6
I was going to suggest this morning or this afternoon 7
was a longer period for discovery and that the 8
hearings on Contentions 1, 2, and 3 take place in mid-9 June.
And a separate hearing be held later in the 10 summer or in the fall if the Board can't do it, on the 11 security contentions.
12 At this point, hearing what Mr. Repka said 13 today, it makes sense to me to go forward with the 14 security contentions, and have the hearing on those in 15 mid-June.
I don't see how -- if we suspend discovery 16 now on the safety contentions --
17 JUDGE YOUNG:
Excuse me.
18 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
19 JUDGE YOUNG: You keep saying safety, and 20 I just --
21 MS. CURRAN:
Yes, I'm sorry.
The non-22 security contentions.
23 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
I just want the 24 record to be clear.
25 MS. CURRAN:
I'll try.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
1245 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
You're not meaning to 2
exclude any environmental.
3 MS. CURRAN: That's right, I don't mean to 4
exclude the environmental. I'm thinking primarily of 5
Contentions 1
and 2,
but there's also the 6
environmental contention, Contention 3. So we're just 7
very concerned about being able to do what we need to 8
do to prepare our case, to do a good job on discovery 9
and prepare good testimony under the schedule that's 10 established by the Board, or that was proposed by the 11 Board in its most recent order. And to me what makes 12 sense, having heard what I've heard today, is to go 13 ahead with the security contentions now, and plan to 14 have a hearing in mid-June on those.
15 I just wanted to mention one more thing.
16 If and when --
if the Commission --
and I have to 17 admit, I got Duke's brief this morning, the appeal, 18 and I haven't had a chance to read it.
I just note 19 it's 52 pages long, so that's going to be a major task 20 for us to respond to that very lengthy Memorandum of 21 Law.
22 If the Commission leaves Contentions 1 and 23 2 in place or some part of them, it makes sense to me 24 that discovery on those contentions could be going on 25 while we're preparing our case on the security NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1246 1
contention. And I do think we need 14 days after the 2
Commission's order to put in discovery requests.
I 3
think having filed a 50-page motion to dismiss 4
Contentions 1 and 2, that Duke should have to take the 5
bitter with the sweet.
And I would prefer not to 6
spend a lot of time preparing discovery on contentions 7
that I have no idea are going to survive.
8 I think it's fair to give us 14 days after 9
the Commission issues any order that restores the 10 contentions or says go ahead with these contentions, 11 and we can carry on discovery while we're preparing 12 the case on the security contentions. But the task of 13 putting together testimony on contentions is very time 14 consuming, and to say that by May 5tt that BREDL would 15 be able to prepare and submit testimony on two safety 16 contentions, one environmental contention, and several 17 security contentions is just more than is feasible, 18 reasonably doable for us.
That's our position.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
It sounds as though 20 all of you for different reasons don't think we're 21 going to be able to meet the time lines that we had 22 set earlier, and I just want to indicate, I think we 23 had been planning to sort of schedule our personal 24 time around this case so that we could meet that time 25 line.
At this point, it seems rather more open, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a_ _ _, __..._ _
1247 1
so I guess we'll all just have to do the best we can.
2 And unless everything proceeds exceedingly quickly and 3
smoothly with no unanticipated motions or other 4
things, it's beginning to seem unlikely that we're 5
going to be able to meet the August deadline, 6
especially if any of the non-security-related 7
contentions stay alive.
8 We want to confer before we make any 9
rulings.
I think we have already agreed that any new 10 contention on the Oconee alternative based on the RAI 11 response that you got on the 1st, your deadline for 12 that is the 3 0th.
Correct?
13 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
15 MR. REPKA:
Judge Young, this is Dave 16 Repka.
May I make one more suggestion?
17 JUDGE YOUNG:
Go ahead.
18 MR. REPKA:
I think that in the spirit of 19 locking in schedules that people can build around, I 20 think that was an excellent idea with respect to the 21 weeks in June.
I think perhaps we should consider 22 something similar for July on the chance that we could 23 get to Contentions 1 and 2 in July, if we at least 24 identify weeks now that the Board would be available, 25 the parties would know those dates, and we could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
\\ _ _, _,._ _
1248 1
prepared to move expeditiously.
2 The only other reaction I have to some of 3
what Ms. Curran said is with respect to preparing 4
testimony.
I do believe and presume that all parties 5
can use this time to prepare their case between now 6
and the time of the Commission appeal, and that would 7
include --
presumably, BREDL knows what it wants to 8
say with respect to its own contentions, and can 9
certainly use the time now to at least begin preparing 10 its case.
But I think targeting dates in the summer 11 would be a good and prudent thing to do.
12 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, I guess a couple of 13 things on your comment about preparing the case; 14 obviously, the lack of discovery is going to hold that 15 up to a very significant degree.
16 With regard to scheduling dates in the 17 summer, I think that sounds good from one standpoint, 18 but theoretically, we could schedule dates on into the 19 future and I'm not sure that we can just sort of keep 20 all the oncoming months set aside for you not knowing 21 when things would proceed if we hold off on the non-22 security-related contentions.
23 Let's look at -- now keeping in mind that 24 we haven't gotten the responses on the security 25 contention, we haven't heard the argument on it, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1249 1
haven't done our ruling on it.
We're going to try to 2
get a ruling out as quick as possible, but we don't 3
know how quickly we'll be able to do that, not having 4
heard the arguments or gotten any responses at this 5
point.
And certainly, while we're going to try to 6
drastically shorten our general rule of thumb 60-day 7
time in the interest of moving the proceeding along, 8
I don't know that we can --
I don't know how definite 9
any of us can be on dates for a hearing on the 10 security-related contentions, but I think I heard Ms.
11 Curran say mid-June. We had originally set aside June 12 1 through 4 for that, and I think I hear everyone 13 saying that the week of May 1 7 th -
that no one thinks 14 you're going to be ready for the week of May 17t",
or 15 for filing any pre-filed direct testimony on May 5th.
16 MR. REPKA:
This is Dave Repka.
We did 17 not say that.
We believe that all of those dates are 18 viable for security, and believe that we should stick 19 to the --
if not May 17t" for security, we should 20 certainly stick to the June 1 through 4 dates, as 21 previously ordered.
And that we would use the other 22 dates, if possible, for any issue that arises in 23 connection with Contention 3, or any additional issues 24 that arise on security with respect to the RAI 25 responses.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1250 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
Are you saying that you 2
think we can use the week of May 1 7 th for anything?
3 MR.
REPKA:
It certainly could be 4
possible.
At this point, I'm not willing to throw 5
away any weeks in which we know we have the parties 6
scheduled.
7 JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
If we get the 8
Amended Contention 3 by March 3 0 th, that would be 9
about six weeks after that, the week of May 17"' -
10 would start about six weeks after that. That would be 11 a pretty tight schedule on that for discovery and 12 filing of pre-filed testimony.
Let me hear from all 13 parties on that, as to whether there's any chance that 14 we would be able to go forward on --
I mean, certainly 15 it would compress the schedule much more than we had 16 anticipated before.
17 MR. REPKA:
With respect to discovery on 18 security, we would foresee it as being very limited, 19 given that the materials have actually been made 20 available up front.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: Mr. Repka, I'm talking about 22 Contention 3 now.
23 MR. REPKA:
All right.
With respect to 24 Contention 3, again the issue is the feasibility of 25 Oconee as an alternative, and that's a fairly limited NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1251 1
issue with limited discovery, presumably.
2 MS. CURRAN:
This is Diane Curran.
Just 3
taking a practical look at this, if we put the 4
contention in on the 3 0 th, the other parties have 10 5
days to respond, and I think the Staff may even get 6
more, so that puts it into, I don't know, the first 7
week of April, the first full week of April some time.
8 And then the Board's got to rule, so I don't think 9
we're looking at a decision to admit the contention 10 until mid-April.
And to say that we're going to do 11 two rounds of discovery and have time for depositions, 12 and then have pre-filed testimony filed on May 5th, it 13 just doesn't seem realistic to me. You'd have to have 14 an extraordinarily abbreviated schedule.
It wouldn't 15 be feasible.
16 MR. REPKA:
Well, I would see that as a 17 fairly extraordinarily broad view of discovery on that 18 particular issue.
19 MS. CURRAN:
Well, you know, to me an 20 example of really restricted discovery is Subpart K of 21 the Commission's rules. That's expedited. That's the 22 fastest that the Commission has gone in the past, and 23 there's -- my experience has been there's been 60 days 24 for discovery. And that goes fast.
25 What you're talking about is, I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1252 1
know, two weeks.
I don't think that's -- you cannot 2
with interrogatories, you need to be able to 3
follow-up with follow-up questions.
You need to be 4
able to get some documents and ask questions about the 5
documents.
You need to be able to sit down with a 6
witness and ask questions.
I don't see how you can 7
call it discovery to have one party get a chance to 8
ask a few interrogatories.
That's not meaningful 9
discovery in my view.
10 JUDGE YOUNG:
I think it might be a good 11 idea -
I'm not sure that we're going to give you a 12 ruling today.
We are going to be meeting again in a 13 couple of days, and then we have another conference 14 set for next week. And I think we need to hear from 15 all of you, but I'd like for us to have a few minutes 16 to confer here.
And before we do that, is there 17 anything else that any of you would like to say, and 18 then we might take about a five minute break, stay on 19 the phone but just put everyone on mute.
Does anyone 20 have anything further to say on any of these timing 21 issues that we've been discussing?
22 MS. CURRAN:
This is Diane Curran.
I 23 don't have anything to add.
24 MR. REPKA:
And nothing from me.
25 MS. UTTAL:
And the Staff has nothing to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
1253 1
add.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
We're going to put 3
you on mute, and we'll be back with you in about five 4
minutes.
5 (Judges confer.)
6 JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
Hello.
7 MR. REPKA:
Yes, we're here.
8 JUDGE YOUNG:
It took a little bit longer 9
than we anticipated.
We're going to be getting the 10 responses to the security contentions by the end of 11 today. Thursday we're going to be hearing argument on 12 those. After that point, I think we'll have a better 13 sense, all of us will have a better sense, when is the 14 earliest that we might do a hearing --
well, that's 15 assuming that we were to admit any.
And we're going 16 to have to be working on our rulings.
Obviously, 17 we're going to cut back our 60-day rule of thumb 18 drastically, but still we will take some time to issue 19 our ruling.
Then we're going to be looking at 20 discovery, pre-filed testimony, hearings, proposed 21 findings of fact and conclusions of law.
22 At this point, except for the -- well, let 23 me back up.
That's on security-related contentions.
24 On Contention 3, we get in an Amended Contention 3 on 25 March 3 0 th, a response.
Just assuming that we gave NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
\\ _ _, _ _.._ _
1254 1
two weeks, that would be the middle of April, and then 2
we would have to have oral argument if we did that the 3
following week.
We would, obviously, try to get a 4
ruling out that as soon as possible.
Then we would 5
need to have discovery, pre-filed testimony, a
6 hearing, and time for proposed findings of fact and 7
conclusions of law on that.
And then on Contentions 8
1 and 2, assuming that all parties agree that we wait 9
to hear from the Commission on Contentions 1 and 2, 10 and in effect stay proceedings on that until we get 11 that ruling, which is what Duke is basically asking 12 for, and which I think all parties in effect have 13 agreed to.
14 Then after that ruling, if anything 15 remains of Contentions 1 and 2, there would be 16 discovery on that, pre-filed testimony deadline, a 17 hearing, deadlines for proposed findings of fact and 18 conclusions of law.
19 Those are a lot of blanks that need to be 20 filled.
Incidentally, I guess everyone is with us.
21 Am I correct?
22 MS.
CURRAN:
Yes.
23 MS.
UTTAL:
The Staff is here.
24 MR.
REPKA:
Duke is here, as far as I 25 know.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
\\,.
1255 1
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Great. What we would 2
like you to do is to be thinking about a calendar for 3
all of those events that I've just gone through. And 4
we have another, as I said, we have another conference 5
call scheduled for the 25 th.
If we have any time at 6
the end of oral argument on the security contentions 7
on the 18'", that would profitably be spent talking 8
about this.
We can certainly do that at that time; 9
however, if we do want to move along on the security 10 contentions, I think we need to concentrate on our 11 ruling on the security contention, so that it might be 12 best to sort of think about talking about dates 13 further on the 25'".
14 Pending
- that, we're going to leave 15 everything as it stands now, except that the March 16 l9 ' deadline for initial discovery requests on non-17 security-related contentions would be set aside based 18 on Duke's request to that effect, the Staff's and 19 BREDL's agreement to that, as I understood it before.
20 Depending upon the time that we have in 21 the context of ruling on the security-related 22 contentions, I may try to get an order out setting out 23 all of the events that we need to have dates for, to 24 the extent that we can even make them at this point, 25 because we don't have rulings on everything, either NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1256 1
from us or the Commission.
But I may just count on 2
all parties to use this transcript as a guide to 3
thinking about dates. And I think I've gone through 4
all the different things that we need to think about 5
on security contentions, Amended Contention 3, and 6
then Contentions 1 and 2.
7 I think that the Board is pretty much in 8
agreement that if at all possible, we'll try to keep 9
to or as close to our original schedule on the 10 security-related contentions as possible, and we will 11 know more after we get the responses, and after we 12 hear the argument whether that will be met.
And in 13 our ruling on them, we would probably do something 14 similar to what we did in our last ruling in terms of 15 setting dates at that point for discovery and pre-16 filed testimony and hearing.
And if we can keep the 17 July 1-4 deadline or dates for that, then --
18 MS. CURRAN:
July?
I'm sorry, Judge 19 Young.
You said July.
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
I'm sorry.
June 1 through 21 4 dates for that, then we'll try to do that.
And 22 since the current schedule stands, we're going to keep 23 the times that we've set aside at this point.
24 With regard to setting aside dates in 25
- July, there are a couple of problematic aspects of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1257 1
that.
If we set aside dates in July for a hearing, 2
the parties have the right to file, and it's very 3
helpful to us to have the parties file proposed 4
findings of fact and conclusions of law after any 5
evidentiary hearing.
As a practical matter, setting 6
a hearing in July would make it virtually impossible 7
to get this proceeding finished by August.
8 Judge Baratta already has another hearing 9
scheduled for early July, and having a hearing, 10 getting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 11 law, and then getting a ruling by the end of July is 12 not very practicable, and would require beyond 13 superhuman capacities on the part of several of us, 14 I'm sure.
That's not to say that we're not willing 15 to, as we have indicated all throughout here, to move 16 things along as expeditiously as possible, but I think 17 that we, and we are encouraging all parties to look at 18 the practical reality, the practical possibility of 19 meeting the August deadline in light of the discussion 20 we've had today. And in light of that, trying to put 21 some dates to all the various items that I listed 22 earlier, and be ready to discuss those on March 25 th.
23 Is there anything that I've left out, or 24 Judge Baratta, Judge Elleman.
25 JUDGE BARATTA:
No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1258 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
Anything that any of the 2
parties would like to say with regard to these 3
scheduling issues?
4 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young, this is Diane 5
Curran.
I'd just like to say that it's going to be 6
very difficult for us to comment on what kind of a 7
schedule that we should have for litigating the 8
security contentions until we see how many of them, if 9
any, are admitted, and whether the RAI response is 10 going to lead to further contentions, so if you 11 haven't ruled on the security contentions on the 25t, 12 I'd just like to suggest that the best time to really 13 set a schedule for the litigation is once we know what 14 the scope of the hearing is.
And also, in light of 15 that, to ask the Board to continue to hold the middle 16 week of June as a possible hearing date, just 17 depending on what the scope of the hearing is, because 18 we already know that the first week of June and the 19 week of the 14"', all the parties are free.
And it 20 seems to me it's reasonable to say okay, until we know 21 a little more about what the scope of this hearing is, 22 we should save both those weeks.
23 JUDGE YOUNG:
We are saving those weeks, 24 and we're encouraging everyone to save them.
As I 25 said, the only thing we're knocking out of the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1259 1
schedule as set forth in our March 5th order, is the 2
March l9"' deadline for initial discovery requests on 3
non-security-related contentions.
Everything else 4
stands.
The likelihood of our being able to use the 5
May date seems, at this point, to be slim, because 6
those we had set aside for non-security-related. But 7
let's everyone hold everything that we have set aside 8
now, and we'll talk further about the timing on the t h 9
25 10 If for some reason we don't have our 11 rulings on the security-related contentions issued by 12 that date, then we might need to set a date the 13 following week to talk further about scheduling 14 issues.
But certainly we'll make every effort to get 15 it out by then. Without knowing further what kind of 16 issues are going to be argued, I don't know that we 17 can say anything further on that.
18 Anything else from any of the parties?
19 MR. REPKA:
Dave Repka.
Just one point, 20 and I don't recall, and I didn't write it down, if we 21 resolved the issue of a date for any further 22 contentions on security based upon the RAI responses.
23 I think we had a discussion that it would be following 24 when that was available, and we talked about March 9 th 25 being the date, but did we specify a particular date?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1260 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
Let's see.
2 MS. UTTAL: This is the Staff, Your Honor.
3 I believe Ms. Curran proposed a date of April 8th, 4
since the RAI's were made available to her as of March 5
gth.
6 JUDGE YOUNG:
You're right.
Okay.
So 7
April 8"' for any security contentions based on the 8
security RAI responses.
March 3 0 th for any Amended 9
Contention 3 based on the Oconee alternative March I" 10 RAI response.
And then we want all of you to be 11 thinking about realistic time lines.
To the extent 12 that you can, we don't have or know when various 13 precursors will be forthcoming with regard to the 14 various issues.
There are three sets of issues; the 15 security contentions, Amended Contention 3, and then 16 Contention 1 and 2.
17 JUDGE ELLEMAN:
Ms. Uttal, this is Judge 18 Elleman.
I had the impression from your earlier 19 comments that there can be additional questions coming 20 from the Staff which is going to produce additional 21 responses from Duke that will be forthcoming in the 22 future.
Is that correct?
23 MS. UTTAL:
Judge, I don't anticipate any 24 more RAIs coming out.
25 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. So the group we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1261 1
now discussing you believe to likely be the complete 2
set of RAIs.
3 MS. UTTAL:
Probably.
Nothing can be 4
guaranteed, but I don't, like I said, anticipate any 5
further ones.
6 JUDGE ELLEMAN:
Thank you.
7 JUDGE YOUNG:
Anything else from anyone?
8 Okay.
Well, then let's be prepared on the 2 5th to 9
discuss all we can at that point.
We hope that we'll 10 be in a position to have already issued the ruling on 11 security contentions at that time.
We cannot 12 guarantee that.
Obviously, that is extreme speed on 13 a number of contentions that we're sure are going to 14 be argued strongly on both sides.
15 Would it be helpful to set another date 16 the following week in the event we need it?
What do 17 you think?
No, we'll just hold off on that for now.
18 And if we need to set another date, we'll do that at 19 that time. And I will try to get an order out setting 20 the April 8 th and March 3 0 th deadlines, and indicating 21 that pending further proceedings and discussion on 22 deadlines, that our previous order remains in place, 23 with the exception of the March 1 9 th deadline for 24 discovery.
25 All right.
Thank you all.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1262 MS. CURRAN:
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3:01 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: Duke Energy Corporationa Docket Number:
50-413-OLA; ASLBP No.
03-815-03-OLA Location:
Telephone Conference were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
- c
,(
Rebecca Davis Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com