ML041130606
| ML041130606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/2004 |
| From: | Mongoven J 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-1435, RAS 7649 | |
| Download: ML041130606 (70) | |
Text
TAS 14vy Official Transcript of Proceedings I.
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
- Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number:
50-41 3/414-OLA Location:
(telephone conference)
DOCKETED USNRC April 22, 2004 (9:15AM)
Date:
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.:
NRC-1435 Pages 1701-1768 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I'kpyatte= E S~y-c3'
._5ec y - 0;1-
1701 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
(ASLB) 6 7
TELECONFERENCE 8
9 10 In the Matter of:
ll Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA 11 II 50-414-OLA 12 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 13 ll ASLBP No. 03-815-03-OLA 14 Catawba Nuclear Station 15 Units 1 and 2 16
.I 17
- Tuesday, 18 April 20, 2004 19 20 The above-entitled matter came on for 21 hearing, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
22 BEFORE:
23 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chairperson 24 ANTHONY J. BARATTA, Administrative Law Judge 25 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 www.nealrnross.com
1702 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 9
(202) 371-5726 10 (202) 371-5950 fax 11 AND 12 TAMIKA SHAFEEK-HORTON, ESQ.
13 Duke Energy Corporation 14 526 South Church Street 15 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 16 (704) 382-8134 17 (704) 382-4504 fax 18 19 On Behalf of the Petitioner, Blue Ridge 20 Environmental Defense League:
21 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
22 of:
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 23 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 24 Washington, D.C.
20036 25 (202) 823-3500 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1' 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 1703 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
MARGARET BUPP, ESQ.
SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
Office of General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555-0001 (301) 451-8339 ALSO PRESENT:
MICHAEL T. CASH, Duke Energy EDWIN S. LYMAN, Ph.D., BREDL NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1704 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(10:04 a.m.)
3 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.
This is Judge Young.
4 And Judge Baratta and Judge Elleman, are 5
you both on?
6 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes.
Judge Baratta.
7 JUDGE ELLEMAN:
Yes, Judge Elleman is 8
here.
9 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. And let's start with 10 the Staff.
11 MR.
FERNANDEZ:
Your Honor, Antonio 12 Fernandez for the Staff, and along with me are Susan 13 Uttal, Margaret Bupp, and Bob Martin.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
Then, going to 15 BREDL?
16 MS.
CURRAN:
This is Diane Curran, 17 representing Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
18 I have arranged with our expert, Dr. Lyman, that if we 19 need him for this call I'll get off the line and call 20 him, but otherwise he's not planning to be on the 21 call.
22 JUDGE YOUNG:
I think we may want him to 23 be on for one part of the discussion, and that would 24 be when we discuss further clarification of our 25 refraining of contentions 1 and 2.
Judge Baratta is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1705 1
going to try to provide further explanation.
I think 2
it would be helpful if he were probably with us for 3
that.
4 Don't you agree, Judge Baratta?
5 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes.
This is Judge 6
Baratta.
Yes, if he could be on for that.
So we'll 7
give you a couple-minute warning, so you can try to 8
get hold of him.
9 MS. CURRAN:
Okay.
10 JUDGE YOUNG:
And then Duke?
Mr. Repka?
11 MR. REPKA:
Yes, I'm here.
And with me 12 are Mr. Wetterhahn and Ms. Cottingham.
Then, on a 13 separate line from Charlotte Company Counsel, Ms.
14 Shafeek-Horton.
And on a separate line, I think, is 15 Mr. Cash on behalf of the Company.
16 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
If you hear some 17 strange noises, my window is being washed as we speak.
18 All right.
I have several things written 19 down for an agenda today, and I'm going to just 20 quickly go through that list and see if there are any 21 things that anyone wants to add to that, and then 22 we'll just take them one by one.
23 First, obviously, is whether there are any 24 discovery issues that we need to talk about. It looks 25 as though you are resolving those on your own, but we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1706 1
may want to check and make sure where we are.
- Then, r
2 just notify you that we will be shortly issuing the 3
public pages of the transcript that Duke has requested 4
and the redacted public version of our ruling on the 5
security contentions, as soon as we finish consulting 6
with our security advisor.
7 We will also shortly be issuing, or as 8
soon as possible, be issuing a ruling on the Motion to 9
Dismiss contention 3.
10 We want to talk about the proposed --
I 11 think it's termed amended contentions and any need for 12 oral argument on that.
We want to have a little 13 discussion on that.
14 Then, in connection with, and separate and 15 apart from that, we need to talk about a schedule for 16 hearing and discovery, and so forth, on the security 17 contention that we did admit, to the extent that we 18 can obviously talk about that without getting into any 19 safeguards or security issues that we shouldn't talk 20 about in this conference.
21 And that's about it --
talking about the 22 schedule generally.
Are there any other issues that 23 any of you would like to add to that list?
24 MR. REPKA:
For Duke Energy, we do not.
25 MR. FERNANDEZ:
None for the Staff, Your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1707 1
Honor.
r 2
MS. CURRAN: BREDL doesn't have any issues 3
to add.
4 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
The only Motion to 5
Compel I think was filed by the Staff.
Am I correct 6
on that?
7 MS. UTTAL:
That's correct, Your Honor.
8 This is Susan Uttal.
That is correct.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
And we note that you have 10 asked that we hold that in abeyance pending receipt of 11 information from BREDL on the --
pursuant to the two 12 agreements that you reached and sent to us by e-mail.
13 Are you both on track on that? Are there any issues 14 that either of you anticipate arising that it would be 15 helpful to talk about now?
16 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. Judge 17 Young, I don't think we're going to have any issues.
18 We are working on those answers today. Ideally, we'll 19 finish them today and send them to the Staff.
If we 20 can't finish them today, I'll send them first thing in 21 the morning. We may not have the signature on it yet 22 tomorrow, because Dr. Lyman is going to be at the ACRS 23 meeting all day.
But the answers we'll get to the 24 Staff tomorrow morning, if not today.
25 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
And, Ms. Uttal, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1708 1
that --
you're okay with that?
2 MS. UTTAL:
That's acceptable.
I'm also 3
working on responses for Ms. Curran, which I hope to 4
get out today.
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Great.
Let us know 6
if you do have any issues, and we'll set up something 7
as soon as possible.
But it sounds as if you're 8
working well together.
And if we can stay on our 9
previously-set schedule, that would be fine.
10 With regard to discovery, I think that in 11 Ms. Curran's motion or request --
proposed hearing 12 schedule you had said that you wanted --
that this did 13 cover changes of certain things in our existing 14 schedule.
15 MS. CURRAN:
Right.
16 JUDGE YOUNG: And quite frankly, I haven't 17 pinpointed the --
18 MS. CURRAN:
Oh, okay.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
any change to that.
20 Could you just address that part of it?
21 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
22 JUDGE YOUNG: What was it that you wanted 23 to change?
24 MS. CURRAN:
I just moved the date for 25 filing testimony by a few days.
That was the only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1709 1
dates that change, and I proposed setting the hearing 2
date for the second week of June.
So, for instance, 3
instead of testimony being due --
oh, I'm looking at 4
April here.
Instead of testimony being due May 25th, 5
it would be due May 28th, and then rebuttal testimony 6
would be due on June 9th.
7 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
So the first date 8
would be -- just looking back at the March 30 order, 9
the corrected order, the first date that you're 10 proposing to change is the prefiled written direct 11 testimony.
12 MS. CURRAN:
Right.
Change it from the 13 25th to the 28th.
14 JUDGE YOUNG: 28th. And the next one that 15 you're proposing changing is the rebuttal.
16 MS. CURRAN:
Rebuttal.
Changed from the 17 28th to June 9th.
18 JUDGE YOUNG:
June 9th.
And we already 19 have the date of June --
the week of June 14th set 20 aside for that hearing. And that is what we had been 21 planning on, so I don't think that presents a problem.
22 Does anyone have any objection to changing 23 the prefiled date as Ms. Curran proposes?
24 MR. REPKA:
Judge Young, we do not agree 25 with the predicate for the motion to change the dates, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1710 with respect to the arguments made that the dates should change because of the status of the DOE program.
That really --
those arguments are beside the point that --
JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, okay. The reason I'm limiting the discussion right now to simply the dates that we've already set is because I don't want to get into argument on the merits of the arguments that are made, but just simply talking about what we have already set so far.
And we had already set aside the week of June 14th, and so all I'm asking at this point is, does any party have any objection to changing the prefiled written direct testimony and the prefiled rebuttal testimony dates from May 25th to 28th and May 28th to June 9th?
MR. REPKA:
Well, I guess I would say, then, that I object to all of the changes because nothing has changed.
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. But we're not getting into any of the changes other than just those two. Do you have any specific reason to object to those two?
MR. REPKA:
Other than the fact that nothing has changed, no.
Having said that, what I would say is that with respect to the May 28th date, it does conflict with if there's going to be a hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1711 1
on security issues on June 1st, which was the last 2
thing we understood, that might create a bit of a 3
problem.
4 With respect to the June 9th date for 5
rebuttal testimony, I don't have any real objection to 6
extending the date for rebuttal to maybe something 7
like June 4th.
I think June 9th is pushing it a 8
little close to the beginning of the hearing date on 9
the 14th in order to prepare for hearing.
10 JUDGE YOUNG:
- Actually, speaking for 11 myself, I think the Board might like to have the 12 prefiled a little earlier than the middle of the week 13 before --
14 MS. CURRAN:
Yes, this is Diane Curran.
15 I agree with that.
I think it might be better to push 16 it up a little earlier.
But how about the 7th of 17 June? Just to give people enough time --
the tension 18 is between giving people enough time to prepare their 19 rebuttal and getting it into other parties' hands in 20 time to prepare for the hearing.
21 JUDGE YOUNG:
But now, remember, when we 22 talked about the rebuttal, I believe that the way we 23 talked about it was that that would not be required.
24 MS. CURRAN: Well, if certain parties are 25 planning to file it, I think that everyone probably is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1712 1
2 t
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to feel that it's needed.
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So you're suggesting the 7th.
Okay.
I'm just putting those dates down as tentative, and we'll let you know more about that later.
Ms.
- Uttal, you were about to say something?
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes, because the Staff has a problem with the May 28th date.
One of my witnesses will not be available for that week, so changing the date to May 28th would impose a burden on the Staff, because I would --
JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, that's moving it later.
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes, I understand.
But he will not be available from the 25th to the 28th, or maybe the 24th to the 28th.
JUDGE YOUNG:
But you could file it earlier if you want to.
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't think we want to do that from a strategic point.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, you could write it earlier and file it on the 28th.
I mean, if you --
your objection --
I guess I'm not understanding your objection, really.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1713 1
MR.
FERNANDEZ:
Well, our objection is 2
that we would like to keep the schedule as we've 3
believed it to be.
Nothing has changed, as the 4
Licensee expressed.
There is no reason --
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
But I'm talking about 6
reason.
7 MR. FERNANDEZ:
Well, that is the reason.
8 There is no reason to change the schedule that we 9
already agreed on, and that leave has been granted to 10 several members of the Staff and plans have been made, 11 given what the Board had ordered previously. We don't 12 see what the reason is to change it.
13 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
We'll get into the 14 reasons. But let me try to encourage everyone to try 15 to accommodate each other, try to talk in terms of 16 real reasons other than just something --
this is the 17 way it is. And if an objection is that someone is not 18 going to be there between the 25th and the 28th, and 19 you could have made it by the 25th, and then you could 20 file it on the 28th because you don't want anyone else 21 to see it before the 28th, I'm not following that real 22 well.
23 But in any event, I've written down the 24 requested dates. Maybe we need to talk about those in 25 the context of the overall schedule.
I thought that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neatrgross.com
1714 1
maybe we could work out the ones related to the 2
June 14th hearing on non-security-related contentions 3
by agreement, since those didn't seem to present much 4
controversy.
5 Were there any other issues?
I think 6
earlier I was talking about were there any other 7
issues that any party wanted to add to the agenda?
8 Duke said no, Staff said no, and BREDL said no.
9 Right?
10 MS. CURRAN: That's right.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
12 MR. REPKA:
I guess I would ask for the 13 Board's clarification on the schedule, the Motion for 14 Reconsideration.
Will the Board be looking for a 15 response to that, to address the merits, or --
16 JUDGE YOUNG:
We're going to be talking 17 about the schedule.
And when we talk about that, we 18 can address that.
Okay?
19 All right.
Let's just in order --
were 20 there any other discovery issues that any party had 21 any problem with?
22 MS. CURRAN:
Not from BREDL.
23 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
What about oral 24 argument on the amendment to security --
basically, 25 the amendment to the basis of security contention 5?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.neatrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1715 One thing that Judge Baratta and Judge Elleman and I were talking before we all got together, and one thing that I'm not altogether clear about --
we're not altogether clear about --
is the document was styled amendment contention.
But really what you did was propose adding certain elements to the basis of contention 5.
Normally, a contention is the statement of the issues, so to speak.
And the basis is the information that you have at the time of filing the contention to support the contention.
There is nothing that would preclude additional evidence that would be relevant to a contention being admitted at the actual hearing on the contention.
So given our ruling on contention 5, I'm not sure --
- well, I'd like to hear the parties' positions on whether we need to have oral argument on that, whether we need to have a ruling.
I guess from one standpoint you might want to get a ruling on that in the event that there's an appeal of our ruling on contention 5, so that there would be those additional bases to consider.
That's the only possible thing that I can think of as to why we would need to give a formal ruling on additional bases for the contention.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1716 1
And then, I'd like to hear from all of you 2
on whether we need to have oral argument on that.
3 Let's start with Ms. Curran.
4 MS. CURRAN:
Well, you know, I hadn't 5
thought about it from that perspective.
But it 6
certainly makes sense that where --
well, we were 7
concerned that --
and I'm not going to discuss what 8
the contention says, obviously, but that one thing 9
that happened was that some of the information that we 10 critiqued in the contention as being inadequate to 11 support the exemption application changed.
12 So it didn't feel --
we didn't feel that 13 we could just let that go, that we needed to address 14 that because the underpinning for the contention had 15 shifted a little bit.
And it seems to me that, yes, 16 the --
you have admitted a contention that says the 17 exemption requirements are not met, and that continues 18 to be our contention.
It's just that our support for 19 it is --
has changed a little bit.
20 So it seems reasonable to me that the 21 Board would simply rule that the contention has been 22 admitted and that relevant information can be 23 presented at the hearing, and that this is just kind 24 of a nuance thing.
25 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let me hear from the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1717 1
and Duke on that.
Do you all see any need for oral 2
argument or any specific ruling or type of ruling on 3
that at this point?
4 MR. REPKA:
This is Dave Repka for Duke.
5 We do agree that procedurally there needs to be a 6
ruling, but we do not believe that there needs to be 7
any oral argument.
8 JUDGE YOUNG:
And when you say 9
procedurally there needs to be a ruling, what sort of 10 ruling are you suggesting that we would make, whether 11 to accept the bases --
I mean, generally, you rule on 12 whether to accept a contention, and sometimes provide 13 some clarification on the type of evidence that might 14 be admitted on it.
15 What would your --
16 MR. REPKA:
I think --
17 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, we can't get into the 18 arguments on it, but go ahead.
19 MR. REPKA:
The ruling would have to 20 address the filing of the amended bases. Now, if the 21 Board's position determination is that that's 22 additional bases for an existing contention that has 23 already been admitted, so be it.
24 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, that used to be what 25 it is from --
from just the face of it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1718 1
MR. REPKA: Well, I'm neither agreeing nor 2
disagreeing --
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
Right.
4 MR.
REPKA:
with that.
I think 5
procedurally, though, there just needs to be a ruling 6
stating where that amended contention is. So, really, 7
to establish where it is in the procedural process for 8
appeal and other reasons.
But I don't --
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
Do we have everyone's 10 responses on that?
I think we got a response from 11 Duke.
Have we gotten a response from the Staff on 12 that yet?
13 MR. FERNANDEZ:
No, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
Do you intend to file a 15 response?
16 MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Your Honor. Well, we 17 are deciding that today, Your Honor.
18 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
19 MR. FERNANDEZ:
Would now be a good time 20 for the Staff to respond to your questions, Your 21 Honor?
22 JUDGE YOUNG:
Mr.
- Repka, were you 23 finished?
24 MR. REPKA:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, I was.
25 JUDGE YOUNG: So I'm taking that as saying NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nearrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1719 that you don't have anything to add to your written filings that you would want us to hear from you on.
MR. REPKA:
No.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
MR. REPKA:
We just filed yesterday, and I think we stated there that we didn't think oral argument was necessary.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Go ahead, Mr.
Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The Staff's position is an agreement with the Licensee that we don't believe that oral argument is necessary. This is an issue that can be disposed of on the written pleadings.
Additionally, it would be important for the Board to rule on the admissibility of these additional bases into a proceeding.
Contentions, although, as the Board has described accurately, are just a general allegation of what the disagreement is between the parties.
The bases serve to limit the scope of the contentions, and there are specific requirements in Part 2 for what constitutes a sound basis.
The Board should examine the document provided by BREDL and assure itself that the bases that it has sought to add to the proceeding do meet NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1720 the requirements of 2.714. And if the Staff chooses to do so, it will later this week file a response to that.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Mr. Fernandez, you said something a minute ago, and this is something that I've heard discussed here in my office ever since I started working here almost four years ago. And that is, you said that you interpreted the bases as limiting the scope of the contention.
And I'm not really sure that that's true.
Do you have any particular authority for that? Because the way the Commission has talked about bases in their various the statement of consideration and the CLI --
I think it was 98-12 --
that they've talked about providing a basis that provides everything of which a Petitioner is aware at the time, so that your --
I'm just --
I'm surprised to hear you say that the basis would limit the scope of a contention.
The contention would define what the issue is, and any evidence that would be relevant to that contention would be admissible at a hearing. Are you arguing anything different from that?
MR.
FERNANDEZ:
Well, first of all, I don't have the reference as to juris prudence on how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1721 bases limit the scope of contentions.
And if the Staff is going to file something, we'll, of course, provide that along with the response to the late-filed contentions.
JUDGE YOUNG: Yes, please do, because that that is not --
that is not consistent with my understanding based on everything that I've learned or heard since I've been here. But I know that from time to time parties seem to speak as if that's their understanding of what it is, but I've never --
I've always thought that that arose out of some lack of clarity or confusion.
So if that is what you're going to argue, please do brief that in your response.
And when can we expect --
I believe that your deadline would be -- what would it be, five days from yesterday?
MR. FERNANDEZ:
That's correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Which would make that I guess Monday, correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ:
Yes, Your Honor.
That's our understanding.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
So we'll hear from you, then, on that.
If we see the need for oral NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1722 1
argument, I guess we'll let you know.
2 Ms. Curran, I don't know whether you spoke 3
specifically to the need for oral argument.
Do you 4
have anything you'd like to say on that before we move 5
on?
6 MS. CURRAN:
Well, in my view, I don't 7
think oral argument is necessary here, because the 8
issues are so similar to -- they're not identical, but 9
they're very similar to what we've already discussed 10 in the previous oral argument.
So I guess I would 11 leave it to the Board.
12 If the Board has questions for any of the 13 parties about these amended contentions, yes, an oral 14 argument would be a good idea. But otherwise, I don't 15 see it as necessary.
16 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
The only thing I 17 would suggest is that if we're going to get into some 18 new legal issues that are being raised by the Staff, 19 either in the nature of that which we've just 20 discussed or anything else, and any further filings, 21 any party wants to make any further filings on those, 22 let us know right away. Or if we want to request any 23 we'll let you know.
Otherwise, we'll assume that 24 there will not be a need for oral argument on that, 25 and just get a ruling out as soon as possible.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1723 All right. And then everyone is on track for a hearing on the non-security contentions the week of June 14th.
I don't know if we ever set that down formally, but we certainly set the time aside. And I think both Staff --
the Staff and BREDL didn't think we could make the May date, and I think we have been proceeding on the assumption that we could not meet that --
the original May date that we had hoped to meet.
And so we have reserved the --
a courtroom in the courthouse down in Charlotte for that week. We would plan to do the hearing Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. We could go into Friday if we need to, but otherwise we'll -- we will --
everyone just plan to be there Tuesday through Friday, and we'll hope to get finished on Thursday, and we'll divide that time up appropriately between all of the issues that will be heard during that time.
Let's see.
I want to get into the schedule issue, which seems to be the most significant one for us to talk about today. And I'm just looking over my list.
Does anyone else see anything apart from that that we might address before we get into that issue?
Okay. All right.
Oh, actually, I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
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 1724 it would be good to get into the clarification issue.
MS. CURRAN: Would you like me to call Dr.
Lyman, get him on the phone?
JUDGE YOUNG: Yes. That might be good to do that before we get into the scheduling issue. And to the degree that -- it might be good to have him on the phone for scheduling, because one of the things we want to do is talk about availability times for all parties. And I presume that you would want to include his availability in that.
MS. CURRAN:
Okay.
I'll be right back.
JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
(Pause.)
MS. CURRAN:
Hi.
This is Diane Curran.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
MS. CURRAN:
I think Dr. Lyman will be getting on the phone any minute.
JUDGE YOUNG:
All right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Your Honor, while we wait on Dr. Lyman, the Staff wanted to mention that we didn't receive this motion until after close of business yesterday.
So to the extent that the Board wants the parties to address the substance of the motion, the Staff is not prepared to address that today, given the lateness on which it was filed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1725 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 yesterday.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Actually, I don't think we expected the parties to speak to that. We considered that it's our responsibility to speak to that, and we want to try to do that and make sure that everyone gets on the same page on this, because I think there has apparently been some confusion about what we meant.
And I'm going to ask Judge Baratta in a minute to get into an explanation, and also discussion as need be, with the parties to make sure that we are all on the same page on that, because we tried to make clear in our last clarification what was intended by the simple words that we used and apparently may not have been successful in that.
Dr. Lyman, you're on?
DR. LYMAN:
Yes, I am.
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Judge Baratta, do you want to go ahead and explain?
And then I think it would be helpful to get the --
any of the Staff experts, Dr. Lyman, and any of the people from Duke involved in a discussion to make sure that we're all understanding each other on what we meant by the wording in those two contentions.
But I think the confusion seems to come in in terms of which category NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com
1726 1
different persons put certain concepts.
2 Judge Baratta, can I sort of turn it over 3
to you there?
4 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes.
This is Judge 5
Baratta.
- Yes, I wanted to try to clarify the 6
interpretations of contention 1,
and then of 7
contention 2.
8 MS. UTTAL:
Judge Baratta?
9 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes.
10 MS. UTTAL:
This is Susan Uttal from the 11 Staff.
Before you start, Judge Young just mentioned 12 the Staff -- wanted to discuss among the Staff expert.
13 Well, we don't --
because we were not prepared to 14 discuss this motion, we don't have any Staff people 15 here that are cognizant of these issues. So we're not 16 prepared to discuss it in any manner.
17 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, listen to what is said 18 today.
And if there remains any confusion, then we 19 can set up another conference call.
But --
20 MR. FERNANDEZ:
Does the Board intend to 21 issue this subsequent clarification that we're getting 22 today in writing?
23 JUDGE YOUNG:
We're not going to change 24 the wording of the contentions.
What we want is for 25 everyone to understand what those words mean, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1727 there appears to be some lack of understanding of what those words mean or what they are intended to mean.
So there's not going to be any ruling in terms of rewriting the contention.
And whatever assistance that we can provide to help the parties understand what the contentions are intended to encompass, that's what we want to do at this point.
JUDGE BARATTA:
Okay.
Contention 1, as written, reads that the LAR is inadequate, because Duke has failed to account for differences in MOX and LEU fuel behavior, both known differences and recent information on possible differences, and for the impact of such differences on LOCAs and on the design basis analysis for Catawba.
Now, in our order we tried to indicate that contention 1 encompasses the calculations involved in the determinations of the events up to and including LOCAs and DBAs but not released. That is to say, if you go to the regulations, there is Part 100, which deals with the releases, and there's Part --
Appendix K, which deals with the LOCA analysis, and then, of course, your design basis --
other design basis accidents that are typically in I believe it's Chapter 15 of the FSAR.
And the intent here was in contention 1 to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com
1728 1
limit it to the types of analyses that would be 2
associated with the accident itself and not the 3
release --
in other words, not the Part 100.
4 In contention 2, there are actually two 5
parts to that.
Let me read contention 2. The LAR is 6
inadequate, because Duke has:
a) failed to account 7
for the impact of differences of MOX and LEU fuel 8
- behavior, both known differences and recent 9
information on possible differences, on the potential 10 for releases from Catawba in the event of a core 11 disruptive accident; and b) failed to quantify to the 12 maximum extent practicable environmental impact 13 factors relating to the use of MOX LPA at Catawba as 14 required by NEPA.
15 Addressing the second part first --
that 16 is, part B -- clearly, the reference to NEPA indicates 17 that Part B refers to those types of calculations, 18 which would include beyond design basis or severe 19 accidents.
20 Part A talks about releases from core 21 disruptive accident. Core disruptive accident is used 22 as an all-encompassing term, which could include 23 melting of the core or disassembly of the core.
It's 24 a more generic term that is used in the international 25 community referring to a very wide range of accidents, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaJrgross.com
1729 1
not simply core melts.
2 In any event, the question there refers to 3
the releases, which, going to Part 100, is also what 4
is referred to there.
So in terms of contention 2, 5
and the information that's required for a Part 100 6
analysis, the intent was that would be included in the 7
first part of contention 2, not in the contention 1 as 8
proposed in the BREDL motion.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
In other words, the two 10 contentions together are intended to encompass 11 everything starting with LOCAs and design basis 12 analysis, and going through the entire process, and 13 nothing is intended to be excluded.
But we included 14 all of the releases and consequences in contention 2, 15 rather than in contention 1, but it really shouldn't 16 make any difference in terms of the actual subject 17 matter coverage.
18 Is that an accurate characterization, 19 Judge Baratta?
20 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes, that is an accurate 21 characterization.
22 JUDGE YOUNG:
Does anyone have any 23 questions about that at this point?
Because we 24 thought we had clarified that before, and we want to 25 make sure that everyone does understand what we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrwoss.com
1730 1
talking about here.
2 The words are used in their sort of plain 3
English meaning, and apparently there has been some 4
connotations connected with various words or concepts 5
that has caused confusion.
6 MR. REPKA:
This is Dave Repka.
That 7
explanation is consistent with our understanding of 8
the Board's order.
9 JUDGE YOUNG: There was one response that 10 caused us to wonder a little bit about that.
Judge 11 Baratta, do you want to get into that or --
just to 12 sort of make sure that we're all clear?
13 JUDGE BARATTA:
Could you refresh my 14 memory?
I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, and I don't have it in 16 front of me either, but there seemed --
17 JUDGE ELLEMAN:
Judge Young, are you 18 talking about Mr.
Nesbit's comment in the oral 19 testimony?
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
No.
I'm talking about one 21 of the responses that Duke had provided that seemed to 22 be accepting something, that we weren't clear on 23 whether you were intending to create an exception 24 there that --
and I don't have it in front of me.
I 25 apologize.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1731 1
Mr. Repka, you may know what I'm talking 2
about.
If not, and if you understand what was just 3
said, there may be no issue.
But --
4 MR. REPKA: I don't recollect what you're 5
referring to, but certainly our understanding of the 6
Board's order, based upon our last call in which we 7
discussed this issue -- Judge Baratta's explanation is 8
consistent with the way we understood it, so that's 9
the way we approached it.
10 If we were trying to accept something, it 11 was probably for different reasons. But I don't know 12 what you're referring to specifically.
13 MR. CASH:
Dave, this is Mike Cash.
I 14 think what the Judge is maybe referring to is we were 15 not clear that the scope was intended to cover the 16 design basis accidents beyond LOCA alone, in that it 17 did not appear that the original contentions or 18 anything litigated up to this point had gone to other 19 DBAs other than LOCA.
20 MR. REPKA: That's correct, Mike. I think 21 it was not so much LOCA, it was core melt.
And I 22 think we may have said something that we weren't 23 looking at other DBAs that were not related to core 24 melt, like fuel drop accidents and other things like 25 that that certainly weren't within the scope of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1732 1
contention.
2 MR. CASH:
Correct.
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
Judge Baratta, do you want 4
to speak to that? Provide any further clarification?
5 JUDGE BARATTA:
Okay.
I think you are 6
correct that we were looking at core melt accidents as 7
opposed to the all-encompassing fuel drop and things 8
like that, based on contentions. Now, I'd have to go 9
look specifically at what you said.
I'm trying to 10 find that in that discussion, but I can't seem to find 11 it at this point.
12 MR. REPKA:
I don't think we were trying 13 to limit anything beyond that. I think we understood 14 that core melt, by whatever initiator, would be 15 considered.
16 JUDGE BARATTA: I believe that's correct.
17 JUDGE YOUNG:
Ms. Curran and Dr. Lyman, 18 are you all clear?
Are we on the same page at this 19 point? Does that help you?
20 MS. CURRAN:
I'll defer to Dr. Lyman on 21 that.
22 DR. LYMAN: Yes.
I'd just like to --
can 23 you hear me? There's an echo where I'm standing.
24 JUDGE YOUNG: We can hear you.
25 DR. LYMAN:
Okay.
Just to clarify what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.zom
1733 1
our thinking -- you know, we thought from a compliance 2
standpoint that it made sense to separate out design 3
basis compliance issues with issues associated with 4
beyond design basis accidents.
And that's why we 5
thought putting the Part 100 analysis in the first 6
contention would have accomplished that.
7 But I'm perfectly happy with the way 8
you've broken it down and clarified it.
What I might 9
suggest is that contention 2 be understood as having 10 three parts, with the third part being Part 100 or 11 design basis compliance issues and the relation of the 12 uncertainties in releases to those as distinguished 13 from those affecting any other severe accident 14 analyses, although besides the environmental impacts 15 there may not be --
- well, actually, from the 16 standpoint of the risk impacts issue that we've 17 brought up, that would be distinct from the 18 environmental impact and NEPA compliance issues.
19 So I would --
I'd suggest at least 20 thinking about it in three parts and breaking out the 21 design basis compliance from the others.
But I'm 22 perfectly happy with understanding the first one to 23 deal with the likelihood issues and compliance with 24 ECCS acceptance criteria, and the second having to do 25 with all issues associated with source terms and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1734 1
releases.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
Judge Baratta, what he was 3
just talking about basically would fall under the 4
first part of contention 2.
5 JUDGE BARATTA:
Yes, I think he is just 6
further subdividing that first part into two. And how 7
-- whether you do that, I mean, that's up to you. But 8
I think it would encompass as you said.
9 DR. LYMAN: Okay. Well, that's fine with 10 me.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
Anything --
go ahead. Who 12 was that?
13 MR. CASH:
This is Mike Cash again.
I'm 14 a little bit troubled by what I heard in contention 2 15 as to what the interpretation of disruptive core 16 meant. I think -- and Steve is more knowledgeable in 17 this area than me, but I -- and Dave can correct me if 18 I'm wrong, but I think our interpretation of that 19 generally was that it was, in fact, in reference just 20 another term of art for a severe accident.
21 But I thought I heard the Judge describing 22 it as other events may cause disturbance in the 23 configuration or other effects on the core, and that 24 just -- I'm not sure that I understand what something 25 like that looks like or is.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1735 1
JUDGE BARATTA: The intent there was there 2
are --
severe accidents sometimes is used to refer to 3
not just strictly core melt but burn-through of the 4
vessel.
And the intent was to try to cover a core 5
melt where it's retained in the vessel, which is more 6
like a Part 100 analysis, as well as severe accident, 7
which is beyond design basis accident.
8 That was why that term was used as opposed 9
to --
an equally --
equivalent term would have been 10 core melt and severe accidents, which I believe does 11 appear in the regulations.
12 MR. CASH:
Okay.
13 JUDGE YOUNG:
Any other questions or 14 comments to try to get us all on the same page there?
15 And I know that, Staff, you don't have your experts 16 with you, but do you have any questions yourselves?
17 Do we still have the Staff with us?
18 MR. FERNANDEZ:
We're here, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
Do you have any questions 20 about this at this point?
21 MR. FERNANDEZ:
No, Your Honor.
22 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Can we assume that 23 everyone is pretty much on the same page here? And I 24 realize that Staff doesn't have your experts, and 25 we'll assume that if there are any questions that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1736 1
can let us know.
And if we need to set up another 2
conference call to iron those out, we can.
3 If any of the Staff counsel or people that 4
you do have with you have anything to add so as to 5
avoid the need for that, that would be great.
6 Hearing none, I'm going to --
I think we 7
will assume that everyone is on the same page, and we 8
all understand each other there, so that we can move 9
along more efficiently on that.
10 And having addressed that, I think that 11 then the thing that remains to discuss --
to be 12 discussed today is the schedule.
And I'll just say 13 this.
We --
before receiving this motion, we have 14 been discussing timelines ourselves, and I'd like to 15 hear from everyone on this.
I think we all want to 16 hear from all of you on this and on any scheduling 17 issues that you have.
18 We want to hear Duke's response to the 19 sort of underlying premises or arguments supporting 20 BREDL's motion. But based on what the Staff had said 21
-- Staff and BREDL had said earlier, and based on the 22 timing of our ruling on the security-related 23 contentions, which was done much more quickly than 24 would normally be done under the general rule of 25 thumb, but still was issued only last week.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1737 1
We don't really see how it's going to be 2
possible to do the security --
to do a hearing on the 3
security-related contentions during the first week of 4
June. We want to hear from everyone on that, and what 5
we want to do is get people's schedules and 6
availability and just sort of have a little discussion 7
about timing here.
8 We're not going to make any rulings or 9
reach any final conclusions, and we want to hear 10 anything and everything that anyone has to say on 11 that.
12 Rather than taking the proposed dates from 13 BREDL as a starting point, we really want to sort of 14 start from a clean slate.
- And, obviously, we 15 understand what BREDL is asking for here, but we want 16 to --
we want to talk about what is realistic and 17 reasonable from the standpoint of all parties and 18 what's doable from the standpoint of everyone's 19 schedule.
20 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young?
21 JUDGE YOUNG:
Yes.
22 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. I just 23 want to make a suggestion. We really tried to get our 24 motion in as quickly as possible, and I'm sorry we 25 weren't able to file it until yesterday.
I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1738 1
wondering if it would be more efficient to give the 2
other parties a chance to review and respond to this 3
and propose their own schedules in writing, so that we 4
can all have something before us to look at and 5
consider, and the Board can make an evaluation of that 6
and make a proposal.
7 I'm just concerned that we're going to 8
spin our wheels this morning, since there hasn't --
9 coming up with a schedule for an entire proceeding is 10 something that takes a little while.
11 JUDGE YOUNG: We're not going to do that.
12 We're not going to come up with a schedule today. And 13 we're not necessarily going to foreclose anyone filing 14 anything in writing.
But I think it might be helpful 15 to --
generally, when people are all.together in one 16 place, everyone has their calendar, it's a lot easier 17 to get everything out in terms of availability and all 18 points of view.
19 So I --
without foreclosing any further 20 filings on that, I think it would be helpful if 21 everyone could speak to scheduling issues.
22 We did get the SER from the Staff.
I 23 guess one question to ask is:
do you have any 24 timeline in terms of any environmental documents that 25 you might be issuing?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1739 MR. FERNANDEZ:
The Staff is close to completing their environmental review.
I would anticipate that within the next two weeks their environmental assessment of the license amendment request will be published.
JUDGE YOUNG:
And when you say "assessment" --
am I assuming that that means you're not going to be doing an EIS?
MR. FERNANDEZ:
No, that's not what I meant to say.
I meant their environmental review.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
MR.
FERNANDEZ:
Without wanting to characterize what type it may take --
what --
JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. That's fine. That's fine.
I just wanted to know, because we --
that had been something that had been left open earlier.
Okay. Would it be more helpful to go into it might be more helpful to just get from Mr. Repka you wanted to address the sort of underlying premises in some of the arguments made by BREDL in support of its motion, before we get to talking about actual dates.
Do you want to go ahead and do that at this point?
MR. REPKA: That would be fine. And I've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com (202) 234-4433
1740 1
said this before, so I don't necessarily want to 2
repeat myself.
But the premise of the motion is --
3 seems to be that the relevant date for getting the 4
approval from the NRC should be when the MOX fuel 5
assemblies would be loaded at Catawba. That has never 6
been our position.
7 As we've explained before, Duke requested 8
NRC action on the proposed license amendment by August 9
to support the Department of Energy's request.
And 10 the Department of Energy's request was that we -- that 11 the NRC amendment be in hand prior to them making a 12 shipment of feed material to support fabrication of 13 the MOX fuel lead assemblies.
14 That date has not changed.
The factors 15 that have been raised in BREDL's motion do not affect 16 that date.
The date for shipment is ultimately 17 impacted by the schedule to close the Cadarache 18 facility, plus the consideration of the time it would 19 take to fabricate the assemblies for use at Catawba by 20 the --
in the outage scheduled to begin at Unit 1 in 21 the spring of '05.
22 So all of those --
none of those factors 23 have changed that dictate the Department of Energy's 24 schedule, that in turn dictates Duke's request that 25 the amendment be granted by August.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1741 1
With respect to all of the information 2
presented about delays in the MOX fuel fabrication 3
facility, again, those don't affect the shipment date.
4 And in reality, it is Department of Energy's position, 5
as communicated to Duke, that delays in a MOX fuel 6
fabrication facility actually heighten the importance 7
of the lead assembly program, so that the lead 8
assemblies can be developed --
fabricated, used at 9
Catawba, and ultimately when the fab facility is 10 licensed and constructed the program is ready to go 11 forward as expeditiously as possible to achieve the 12 important nuclear non-proliferation benefits of the 13 program as soon as possible.
14 So all of that is really just to say that 15 nothing presented in the Motion for Reconsideration of 16 the Schedule really goes to what's dictating the 17 schedule in this proceeding, which is the shipment 18 date in late summer of '04.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
Let me ask you a question.
20 With regard to that shipment date, based on what I 21 said earlier and based on our discussions among the --
22 Judge Baratta and Judge Elleman and myself --
- also, 23 based on what we just heard from the Staff about the 24 environmental review document, whatever that is --
25 it's going to be issued in approximately two weeks, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1742 1
which would be early May.
2 It seems unrealistic at this point to 3
think that this whole proceeding could be finished by 4
the beginning of August.
And so
- well, two 5
questions.
One thing that BREDL said --
and I don't 6
find the specific line in front of me --
but is that 7
there's nothing that would stop DOE from shipping the 8
materials on schedule. And so that would be one thing 9
I would want you to address.
10 And then, secondly, just I guess the 11 general proposition of it being possible --
I don't 12 know whether you're saying this, but if you're saying 13 that you really do think that it's possible to finish 14 everything in this proceeding by August, given the 15 timing of the environmental review, given the fact 16 that we're right now at the point of --
we just 17
- issued, a week ago, the ruling on the security 18 contention, and given the amount of time between now 19 and August and the human capability, and also taking 20 into account what I think is really a significant 21 issue of the --
our responsibility to provide a 22 meaningful opportunity for a hearing.
23 What do you have to say to that?
Could 24 you speak to those two issues?
25 MR. REPKA:
Let me start with the first.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1743 1
If the NRC does not issue the amendment on the lead 2
assembly by August, I agree that that does not K>
3 preclude Department of Energy from shipping the feed 4
material.
That is a true statement.
5 I
think the Department of Energy 6
preference would be that before they ship any feed 7
material that any regulatory uncertainty related to 8
the MOX fuel lead assemblies be resolved, and NRC 9
action on the lead assembly application being the 10 paramount uncertainty in which they would like --
that 11 the Department of Energy would like to see unresolved.
12 Having said that, there is nothing to 13 preclude them from going forward in the face of 14 uncertainty.
I absolutely cannot disagree with that.
15 With respect to the human possibility --
16 well, you know, I certainly don't agree that it's 17 impossible.
I think that we've been --
we're in a 18 very difficult position right now. Given where we are 19 in the calendar relative to August and everything 20 that's gone before us in this proceeding, we're 21 clearly in a difficult position, and that includes 22 Duke Energy as much as the other parties in this case.
23 Is it possible? No, it's not impossible.
24 We could outline a schedule that would get us to --
K>
25 get us to a hearing in June on security issues as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1744 1
well.
Yes, it could be done.
2 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, let me just --
let me 3
interrupt you there.
If we get the environmental 4
document in early May, how could there be discovery on 5
that and have a hearing in June and --
while also 6
having a
hearing on the non-security-related 7
contentions, that would allow for any really 8
meaningful discovery and hearing on that?
9 And I guess I say that in addition to 10 taking into account the possibility of --
and I don't 11 think this is saying anything that anyone is not 12 perfectly aware of --
that late-filed contentions can 13 always be filed on environmental once the 14 environmental document has been issued.
15 So that's another potential problem that 16 we face here, and each one --
each issue requires a 17 certain amount of thought, work, and time on the part 18 of the parties and the Board.
19 MR. REPKA: Well, first, I'm not aware of 20 any request for discovery on the environmental 21 documents, and I'm not sure how that would relate to 22 the discovery that we've already --
are in progress 23 of, and to some degree have completed.
24 JUDGE YOUNG: But I think that --
correct 25 me if I'm wrong, I may be --
I may be misremembering NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1745 1
this.
But I think that the Staff had agreed to go 2
ahead on discovery on the safety issue, but that you 3
were holding off on the environmental issues.
4 Correct?
Ms. Uttal?
5 MS. UTTAL:
Yes, that's correct, Your 6
Honor.
7 JUDGE YOUNG:
So that would essentially 8
start the discovery on the environmental issues with 9
the Staff in May.
10 MR. REPKA:
My assumption is that if 11 that's --
if that was the understanding, then that 12 will be done to support the June hearing date on the 13 non-security issues. With respect to the possibility 14 of late-filed contentions, that is always a
15 possibility, and I can't --
I can't rule that out.
I 16 think we can't be dictated coming up with a schedule 17 by things that we don't have before us.
18 JUDGE YOUNG:
Right.
You know, and as I 19 said, our intention is that we're going to go ahead 20 and do the hearing on at least the non-security-21 related contentions that have been admitted and --
as 22 of this date or the near future in the June hearing.
23 But also into that mix goes the security-24 related contentions. And I guess we're thinking that 25 we are not seeing how it, at this point, will be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1746 1
possible to have everything absolutely completed by 2
the beginning of August.
3
- And, again, the second part of the 4
question was -- or the second question had to do with 5
how meaningful a hearing could be held given all of 6
these things that are either outstanding or remain to 7
be scheduled.
8 MR. REPKA:
I think that with respect to 9
security, in the end if you look at the issues raised 10 it is a --
it is a narrow issue.
And, you know, I 11 think that that issue can be resolved fairly 12 expeditiously. The precise calendar I can -- I think 13 it can be done by August. I think that ultimately the 14 Board has to decide that, but it certainly can be 15 done.
16 If the Board wanted to look at options 17 like a bifurcated proceeding with a separate licensing 18 board on security issues, that -- I suppose that could 19 always be done as well.
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, the other issue with 21 regard to security issues is getting into discovery on 22 security issues is going to involve some obvious need 23 to have closed hearings to talk about which -- how to 24 handle that --
protective orders.
25 I know we've issued a protective order on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1747 1
proprietary information, but when we get into 2
discovery on security issues there may --
you know, I 3
don't know whether the protective orders that we have 4
in place already will cover those, but certainly it 5
strikes me that discovery on the security issues is 6
going to be somewhat more cumbersome than discovery on 7
non-security issues.
Would you agree with that?
8 MR. REPKA:
Yes, it would.
I mean, just 9
to some degree it would. There's no question of that.
10 And, you know, we can talk about the details of that 11 at some other time.
But I don't disagree with that, 12 and I don't disagree that it would be a significant 13 challenge to --
to accomplish this by August.
14 But as I said earlier, the reasons for 15 that request are what they are, and I've explained 16 them, and the Licensing Board will have to decide.
17 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Anything else on the 18 and I didn't speak to the Staff, because I didn't 19 know --
I got the impression you didn't want to get 20 into the merits of this at this point.
21 But I certainly don't want to cut you out 22 from any argument, and I don't want to foreclose Ms.
23 Curran making any responses on the sort of general 24 reasons raised by BREDL in the --
in its motion, as 25 well as practical reasons for various timing issues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1748 1
which the Staff has raised before and which we will 2
necessarily almost get into when we start talking 3
about actual times, just to sort of get some things 4
out on the table at this point.
5 Does the Staff have anything you want to 6
say at this point?
7 MR. FERNANDEZ:
We have nothing to add, 8
Your Honor, right now.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Ms. Curran, do you, 10 on the sort of underlying premises?
11 MS. CURRAN: There was just one comment I 12 wanted to make.
I think I heard Mr. Repka say a 13 couple of times that the delays in the U.S. and the 14 U.S.-Russian MOX program has nothing to do with the 15 DOE export --
the schedule for the DOE export of 16 plutonium to France.
17 Well, it's all part of a big program. So 18 that if there's a delay in one part of it, it's 19 setting back the whole thing.
The DOE would not be 20 shipping this plutonium to France unless there was a 21 plan to have batch production and utilization of MOX 22 fuel in nuclear plants.
So I think it is relevant.
23 There's just a number of factors, a number 24 of delays
- here, that need to be taken into 25 consideration in weighing the competing interests here NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1749 1
where you --
when you're setting a schedule.
That's 2
all I would add.
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Moving, then, to 4
actual dates --
and, again, this is just to try to --
5 not to foreclose anyone filing anything further in 6
terms of your own proposed schedules, but just in 7
terms of sort of getting out on the table what people 8
would have to say on when we can realistically move 9
forward.
10 And I guess maybe I'll ask the Staff to 11 start here, because you had had some concerns earlier 12 about the timing of that we had originally 13 suggested.
And in light of the expected release of 14 the environmental document in a couple of weeks, as 15 well as your earlier concerns and any others that you 16 might have, what do you see as being a realistic 17 approach to take with regard to discovery and hearing 18 on the remaining issues in the case?
19 MS. UTTAL: Do you mean the environmental 20 issues and the security issues?
21 JUDGE YOUNG:
Right.
Well, and there is 22 the third contention outstanding. But I'm --
I think 23 we can deal with that to the degree necessary once 24 we've issued a ruling on that.
25 MS. UTTAL: The security --
I'm really not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1750 1
prepared to argue scheduling.
I think there is --
2 because the environmental documents are not going to 3
come out until two --
a week or two weeks from now, 4
whenever, and discovery can start when they come out 5
of course, there's nothing precluding the other 6
parties from doing discovery against each other on 7
those issues --
that that will necessarily somewhat 8
delay any hearing on the environmental issues.
I 9
don't see how it couldn't.
10 JUDGE YOUNG:
When would you see as being 11 a realistic date that you would expect that it might 12 be possible to do a hearing?
13 MS.
UTTAL:
Well --
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
I guess what would be the 15 earliest that you would expect?
16 MS.
UTTAL:
Judge, I would really have to 17 look at the availability of the environmental staff 18 and the availability of counsel before I could even 19 begin to answer that question.
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, let me put it another 21 way.
Could you speak to whether you think it's 22 possible to do a hearing --
to do discovery and do a 23 hearing and get proposed findings of fact and 24 conclusions of law and get decisions on the 25 environmental and security issues prior to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1751 1
beginning of August?
2 MS. UTTAL:
I suppose it's possible.
3 JUDGE YOUNG:
Is it realistic?
4 MR. FERNANDEZ:
Well, Your Honor, we 5
haven't really sat down with --
I mean, I think that 6
what Ms. Curran said earlier really bears to keep in 7
mind. It's difficult for us to, having just received 8
recently the schedule proposed by the Intervenor, to 9
lay out a Staff schedule.
10 JUDGE YOUNG: Right. In terms of speaking 11 to a motion that was filed last night, certainly 12 that's true. But in terms of what everybody -- what's 13 in the back of everyone's mind as we proceed forward, 14 and you get an issuance on the security contention, 15 and you know when the environmental review is coming 16 out, and everyone is thinking in the back of their 17 minds about timing issues. And so I guess I'm asking 18 you to address it from that perspective.
19 MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the Staff's position 20 is that it would be an ambitious schedule, but the 21 Staff would want to adhere to the Department of 22 Energy's wishes of trying to complete the licensing 23 aspects of the proceeding by August.
24 JUDGE YOUNG:
And how would you propose 25 that that be done?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1752 1
MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's where we get to 2
the specifics of dates and such that the Staff is not 3
ready to address right now.
4 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Maybe the best thing 5
to do would be, then, to --
Duke --
Mr. Repka, you 6
haven't spoken to that specifically, but I assume --
7 maybe I'm assuming too much, but I'm assuming that 8
your position is going to be that your dates would all 9
end at the beginning of August.
10 MR. REPKA: That's correct.
11 JUDGE YOUNG: Do you want to say anything 12 further, or do you think now would be a good time --
13 and I guess I'm asking --
I need to ask Ms. Curran 14 this, too --
to basically start winding down this 15 conference and we can set a deadline for all parties 16 to --
or for Duke and the Staff to file your proposed 17 schedules.
18 MR.
REPKA:
I think that we could 19 certainly submit a proposed schedule.
What would be 20 of interest to us as we do that is the availability of 21 the Board.
And I think we talked, at least 22 hypothetically in this case before, about hearing 23 dates in July. And I recollect that that was --
there 24 were problems there.
But I think --
25 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, I think if you're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1753 1
talking about a hearing date in July, that would 2
pretty much foreclose any argument, any proposed 3
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it would 4
the likelihood of getting a decision by August, if 5
we set another hearing in July, given that the 6
timeline of the existing hearing already --
we're 7
already going to be shortening the time that we would 8
take to issue a decision based on that June hearing, 9
to get it out by early August, I think that if you're 10 talking about a hearing in July I think everyone needs 11 to recognize that the --
that the ability to have a 12 meaningful hearing and get a meaningful decision would 13 be severely handicapped.
And I have my doubts on 14 whether that's possible.
15 The original dates that we had set were 16 the --
were set as more or less the latest possible 17 dates that we could do things and get the decision out 18 by early August on all of the various issues that are 19 out there.
20 So, you know, certainly anyone can propose 21 that, but given the types of issues that we're dealing 22
- with, it's not reasonable to expect to have a 23 meaningful hearing and get a meaningful decision if 24 you're talking about hearing dates in July and wanting 25 to have a decision by August.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1754 1
MR. REPKA:
Well, we certainly came to 2
this call for --
on security with a schedule we could 3
propose leading to a hearing on security during the 4
week of June 1st, as we've talked about before.
We 5
can state that on the record here. We can state it in 6
writing.
If the Board is saying that that's not --
7 JUDGE YOUNG: No, I'm --
I was responding 8
to your talking about a hearing in July.
If you want 9
to go ahead and give your proposed schedule based on 10 the June 1st week hearing, you can go ahead and do 11 that.
And I do think that it --
that the parties do 12 need to get started on discovery on the security 13 contention that we've admitted.
14 And if necessary, we can hammer out, you 15 know, at least the beginnings of a schedule on that.
16 There's no reason not to start on that at this point.
17 MR. REPKA:
Well --
18 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young, this is Diane 19 Curran.
I think I tried to explain in the Motion for 20 a Hearing Schedule we are very occupied with discovery 21 on the admitted contentions.
We have just responded 22 to a first set of discovery.
We are doing 23 supplemental responses today. We have a second round 24 due on Monday.
25 Dr. Lyman has leave time scheduled for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1755 1
end of April. We have got our hands full dealing with 2
contentions 1 and 2. That was part of the purpose of 3
my motion.
4 I just really --
it seems to me --
I'd 5
just like to make a suggestion here to cut down on the 6
amount of time that we are spending on the telephone 7
about this, because I think it's really difficult.
8 Duke is the party that wants a decision by August.
9 We've made a proposal.
10 Let Duke submit a proposed schedule. Let 11 the Staff submit a proposed schedule, and the Staff is 12 the party that knows what the availability is or what 13 the schedule is for the environmental document, which, 14 of course, is going to --
that's going to affect 15 everything, too.
16 And then the Board --
I'd just ask the 17 Board to look at these things and decide what is a 18 reasonable schedule, and, you know, give us time to 19 request reconsideration. But we are pretty far apart 20 on this, and we need some --
we need the Board's 21 guidance on this.
22 I am asking for a delay in the litigation 23 on the security issues, because we can't cope with all 24 this, not on this kind of an expedited schedule. And 25 I just --
I'd like to ask for the Board to make a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1756 1
ruling on that.
2 JUDGE YOUNG: And we're going to do that.
3 Let me ask you --
just to follow up on what we were 4
just talking about, though --
is there any reason why 5
discovery could not at least start on the security 6
contention at this point?
I mean --
7 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
I tried to explain 8
that.
Yes, because we have our hands full.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, I guess what I'm 10 trying to ask is, we know what the issues are, and 11 apart from --
and there is the cumbersomeness issue 12 and the need to deal with these --
the specific 13 security aspects, and I can see that those would 14 present a problem.
15 But from the standpoint of knowing what it 16 is that you want to ask --
17 MS. CURRAN: We have to have the time to 18 sit down and review anything --
review everything and 19 develop the questions.
And I guess one thing that 20 remains really uncertain to me is I guess I'd like to 21 see --
how is this whole thing going to work?
It's 22 very --
it's one thing to proceed in a really 23 expedited and almost break-neck pace.
This pace is 24 literally break-neck, in my experience --
when you 25 know there's a certain end that you are going to get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1757 1
to, and there's a reasonable prospect that you're 2
going to get to it.
3 And I just don't see it here. That's why 4
I mean, I'm really begging the Board, please look 5
at what the overall schedule should be for getting 6
this case resolved, and set up a schedule for the 7
whole thing that can really work, and where you can 8
see an advance, where the pieces fit together, so that 9
we're not, you know, racing to an unknown deadline 10 here.
11 JUDGE BARATTA: May I ask a question here?
12 This is Judge Baratta.
13 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
14 JUDGE BARATTA:
I don't understand what 15 you're saying. I mean, it appeared to us that we were 16 headed towards a known destination, which is to hold 17 a hearing on the non-security contentions in June, and 18 then sometime to hold a hearing on the security-19 related contentions.
20 MS. CURRAN:
But when is that? And this 21 schedule -- this schedule, as I --
I did some research 22 on this schedule and compared it to other "expedited 23 schedules."
This schedule is compressed beyond what 24 the NRC does in an expedited case. Are we going to do 25 that for security, too, to the point that our ability NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1758 1
to develop these issues is really jeopardized?
2 MR. REPKA:
This is Dave Repka.
Before 3
Ms. Curran cut me off, I was about to read the 4
proposed dates that we had that would lead to a 5
hearing on security the week of June 1st, which was 6
the date that we were working to.
7 Rather than take a matter of days to turn 8
around a written response, just I think the most 9
efficient thing is for us to go ahead and propose what 10 we think is the schedule that would get us to that 11 date.
12 JUDGE YOUNG:
Go ahead and tell us what 13 you're proposing.
14 MR. REPKA:
I'll let Mr. Wetterhahn do 15 that.
16 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Yes.
Interrogatories, 17 requests for admission, and document production 18 requests would be filed at the latest by Monday, 19 April 26th.
Objections to requests for discovery --
20 THE COURT REPORTER:
This is the Court 21 Reporter.
You're going to have to get closer to the 22 phone.
I'm having trouble picking up your voice.
23 MR. WETTERHAHN: Okay. I apologize. I've 24 got to move the phone. Did you catch the first date, 25 April 26th?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1759 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
Did you get what he said 2
before, or do you need to have him repeat that, Court 3
Reporter?
4 THE COURT REPORTER:
If he could start 5
from the beginning with interrogatories.
6 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Okay.
Requests for 7
interrogatories, admissions, and document production 8
by Monday, April 26th.
Objections to requests for 9
discovery would be due by April 29th, which is a 10 Thursday. The responses to the various requests would 11 be due by Monday, May 10th, which is approximately 14 12 days, the same period as set by the Board for non-13 security contentions.
14 Motions to compel would be due by 15 Wednesday, May 12th, and depositions would be 16 conducted during the period of May 10th through 14th.
17 There would be a single round of discovery with filing 18 of direct testimony by Monday, May 24th, rebuttal 19 testimony filed by May 31st, leading to a hearing on 20 June 1st.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: Does anyone want to speak to 22 that at this point?
23 MS. UTTAL:
I just want to note that 24 May 31st is Memorial Day, so it's a federal holiday.
25 MR. WETTERHAHN:
Well, in that case, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comn
1760 1
rebuttal testimony would be due at the hearing on 2
June 1st.
3 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young, this is Diane 4
Curran.
5 JUDGE YOUNG:
Go ahead.
6 MS.
CURRAN:
This schedule would be 7
completely unworkable for us. This requires us to go 8
basically parallel with the discovery and testimony 9
preparation on contentions 1 and 2, and 3 I suppose, 10 which is a significant amount of work by itself.
11 And then to add the burden of also 12 developing the security issues, there just isn't --
13 isn't even nearly enough time to do it.
I can't 14 imagine how any reasonable human being could do a good 15 job in this kind of a schedule.
16 JUDGE YOUNG:
I understand what you're 17 saying. And as I said, I think the Board has some 18 concerns about being able to meet the first week of 19 June that we had tentatively set earlier.
20 But I guess I would have one question, and 21 that is, given that you're familiar with the issues 22 that you've raised in your contentions, I would 23 presume that you would have a fairly good idea of the 24 types of questions that you would want to ask on the 25 on contention 5.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005.3701 www.neatrgross.com
1761 1
MS. CURRAN: Well, I don't know if that's 2
so now.
I --
that seems reasonable.
The other big 3
problem is answering questions.
That takes a lot of 4
time. But also, figuring out what you want to know to 5
prepare your testimony, that takes time. It all takes 6
some time.
7 JUDGE YOUNG: You're right. You're right.
8 You're right.
But in terms of the issue that I just 9
raised --
excuse me.
Who was that?
10 JUDGE BARATTA:
This is Judge Baratta.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
Go ahead.
12 JUDGE BARATTA:
Go ahead.
Finish your 13 thought, and then I have a question.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
No, no.
I'm finished.
Go 15 ahead.
16 JUDGE BARATTA: Well, Ms. Curran, I guess 17 I'm a little confused, because had we not had the 18 delay associated with the problem of getting the 19 original protective order out, I mean, we would, in 20 principle, be having both --
discovery on both of 21 these issues going in parallel at this time.
So I 22 don't understand your argument with regards to that.
23 MS. CURRAN: Well, my argument --
it comes 24 out of two things.
First of all, the Board took 25 longer than we expected to issue its decision on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1762 1
security contentions. And so we're at the point the 2
decision I can't
- remember, I guess it was 3
March 15th that it came out.
That was --
4 JUDGE YOUNG: April 15th.
5 MS. CURRAN: April 15th when we're a ways 6
into discovery.
7 JUDGE YOUNG: April --
let's see --
12th.
8 MS. CURRAN:
April 12th.
But the other 9
thing is we've now lived with this schedule for a few 10 weeks, and it has been very, very difficult for us to 11 meet it.
And we're certainly willing to try to, for 12 the issues that you have set a schedule for now, 13 contentions 1 and 2 and 3, we're willing to try to 14 meet that schedule.
15 But based on our experience of the first 16 round of discovery, this is barely enough time for us 17 to keep up with these issues.
And we probably would 18 have come to you and said, "We can't do all of this in 19 these short timeframes."
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
They are very short 21 timeframes, and --
and I think that we are certainly 22 going to be looking at whether it's possible to meet 23 the August deadline.
And as a Fed, I think that we 24 have our doubts given the realities of the situation.
25 However, I would encourage you, given that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
1763 1
it is your contention --
the security contention, it 2
is your contention to be thinking about and jotting 3
down the questions that you want to ask, and then, you 4
know, to --
I would presume that, as I said before, 5
you would have a sort of model that you could use as 6
a --
to plug those into in terms of interrogatories 7
and requests for documents.
8 One of the things that I think that needs 9
to be on any schedule with regard to the security 10 contention is time for us to meet to address the 11 various issues that we need to address in terms of the 12 practicalities, the need for any further discussion of 13 how this is going to be achieved, or whether you've 14 pretty much gotten that down.
15 In any event, I think that we're going to 16 need to put into the schedule times for us to get 17 together --
and it'll have to be in closed hearing.
18 I don't see any other way to do it.
It'll have to be 19 here.
20 That's one thing that, Mr. Wetterhahn, you 21 did not include in your schedule was time for us to 22 meet here in closed hearing, which involves a little 23 bit more preparation, obviously, than is necessary 24 with these telephone conferences, which are fairly 25 easily set up, you know, fairly quickly --
absent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1764 1
problems getting all the phone lines we need.
2 DR. LYMAN: This is Dr. Lyman. May I make 3
a comment?
4 JUDGE YOUNG:
Go ahead.
5 DR. LYMAN:
On the issue of the time 6
period for discovery, for responses to the first set, 7
I think it's likely that we're going to be asking for 8
documents that are safeguards information.
9 JUDGE YOUNG:
Right.
10 DR. LYMAN:
And perhaps even classified 11 information again.
And there's going to have to be 12 Staff's need-to-know determinations on each one of 13 those requests.
14 JUDGE YOUNG:
Right.
15 DR. LYMAN: And judging from experience, 16 that isn't something that is going to happen 17 overnight.
So I think having the same response time 18 for the security contentions as for the safety 19 contentions is unrealistic.
20 JUDGE YOUNG:
I'd like to ask all the 21 parties to --
and I don't think I hear --
I don't 22 think I see on your proposed schedule, Ms. Curran, 23 either time to meet to discuss these issues. I'd like 24 to hear from all the parties on times for us to get 25 together to talk about those things.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 lb 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1765 And then meanwhile, as I said before, I think it would be very helpful to go ahead and start putting together your discovery requests on the security issues.
And once we get your proposed schedules, we'll try to get a final schedule out as soon as possible, or --
well, I guess that's probably best. I was going to say or we could talk again about it to make sure that we iron out any glitches before we get started to avoid any need for any motions for reconsideration on that.
MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young, is there some way that we can get information on availability?
If you propose certain dates, that we can e-mail that to you so that --
JUDGE YOUNG:
Well, you could.
But it might be helpful to even include that at this point.
In other words, let's set a short --
a short deadline, a day or two, to get back to us with your proposed schedules, adding in and including time for closed hearing sessions.
And, you see, another issue that we have to deal with as a practical matter on that is that Judge Elleman has to come up from North Carolina every time we do one of those.
So that's one thing that people need to take into account.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com
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 1766 We do --
as Dr. Lyman said, we do need to take into account the time for need-to-know determinations to be made by the Staff, and then for any appeals of those.
I don' t know whether any party is planning to file an appeal of the --
our ruling on the security contention 5, and, you know, we don't know when we'll be getting anything from the Commission on 1.
But those are all things that will ultimately play in, which you don't need to take account of in your schedule, but certainly if you --
you know that something is going to have an effect, you might mention that.
In addition to your schedule, put your own time availability issues over the next several months, and we'll take all of those into account.
Any questions?
Anything I've left out?
Judge Baratta?
Judge Elleman?
Can you think of anything that we were going to talk about that I haven't mentioned, or that we didn't think of that you're thinking of at this point we should --
JUDGE ELLEMAN:
This is Judge Elleman.
I think you've covered it all.
MR. FERNANDEZ:
Your Honor, I have a --
the Staff has a question.
You just talked about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 1767 availability.
Did you mean just to us for counsel availability or --
JUDGE YOUNG:
No, everyone.
I mean, anyone that is going to make a difference.
It doesn't do a whole lot of good to just give counsel availability if later on finding out that witness availability would --
would change things.
So, I mean, anyone that's going to make a difference in the practicalities of the situation.
You know, and some things can be changed and some things can't. But tell us everything you have.
How soon can you all get that to us?
Is tomorrow too early?
MR. FERNANDEZ:
Yes, Your Honor.
MS. UTTAL:
We have the ACRS meeting all day tomorrow.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Let's see.
MS. UTTAL: And I was trying to respond to Ms. Curran's additional discovery request.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
How soon can you be ready? The Staff, just speaking to you first.
MS. UTTAL:
Maybe by close of business Thursday or by the end of the day on Thursday.
JUDGE YOUNG:
Thursday, April 22nd?
MS. UTTAL:
We'll try.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1768 1
JUDGE YOUNG:
Can everyone else get your 2
proposed schedules to us by then, along with 3
availability?
And to the extent that you haven't 4
already --
well, why don't you just --
everyone submit 5
new schedules, including in there time for hearings or 6
closed sessions to address discovery issues relating 7
to security.
And also, since we now know about the 8
environmental report, the schedule relating to that.
9 MR.
REPKA:
We can do that by Thursday.
10 MS.
CURRAN:
Yes, we will, too.
11 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay, great.
Thank you.
12 I will try to get an order out setting 13 that deadline. But we all know it, so even if I don't 14 get one out I'll expect to --
we will all expect to 15 hear from you on that by the close of --
or by the end 16 of the day on Thursday, April 22nd.
17 All right.
Anything else?
18 MS.
CURRAN:
No.
19 JUDGE YOUNG:
Okay.
Thank you all very 20 much.
That would conclude this session.
21 (Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m.,
the 22 proceedings in the foregoing matter were 23 concluded.)
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
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 Corporation 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.
John Mongov 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