ML041310139

E-mail from Susan Uttal to Diane Curran Confirming Their Second Agreement Regarding More Specific Answers to Discovery Requests

ML041310139
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/16/2004
From:	Uttal S NRC/OGC
To:	Curran D Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7693
Download: ML041310139 (4)

Text

RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DOCKETED USNRC April 29, 2004 (3:49PM)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 7693 From: Susan Uttal To: Curran, Diane Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2004 4:04 PM

Subject:

Re: Agreement regarding discovery responses Dear Ms Curran; This is to confirm our second agreement regarding more specific answers to discovery requests, reached as a result of our telephone conversation on April 16, 2004.

You agreed to provide an answer to the Staffs interrogatory number 16, as to LOCAs. In addition you agreed to provide the answers previously agreed upon and the answer to number 16 on Wednesday, April 21, 2004.

Also, as I explained to you during our first conversation, BREDL seems to have viewed the terms "analyses" and "evaluations" too narrowly in answering the interrogatories. The interrogatories call for responses detailing BREDLs interpretations and theories regarding Dukes submittal, which BREDL has not provided.

Finally, in response to your request, in BREDLs response to Interrogatory 18, for a definition of "success criteria", as I indicated, a definition of that term is found in the "Standard of Probable Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, ASME RA-S- 2002, which is published by ASME and provides the industry standard in the filed of PRA. In addition, "success criteria" is briefly defined in Section 3.8 of Dukes LAR.

You advised me that you did not know whether Dr. Lyman had a copy of the ASME standard. I therefore agreed to provide you with the ASME definition:

success criteria: criteria for establishing the minimum number or combinations of systems or components required to operate, or minimum levels of performance per component during a specific period of time, to ensure that the safety functions are satisfied.

Because the Boards scheduling order designates April 16 2004, as the date to file Motions to Compel, we will be filing the Staffs motion today, with a request that the Board hold it in abeyance pending receipt of BREDLs responses.

Sincerely, Susan Uttal

>>> Diane Curran <dcurran@harmoncurran.com> 04/16 3:14 PM >>>

Dear Susan,

This is to confirm an agreement we have reached in order to avoid litigation over motions to compel in the Catawba LTA proceeding. I have agreed to supplement BREDLs responses to Interrogatories 13, 14, 17a, 18, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34 by providing specific information rather than referrring to BREDLs contentions and the oral argument. As I stated over the telephone, this exercise will not result in the generation of any additional information other than was stated in the contentions and the transcripts, because BREDL has not yet had sufficient time to develop its testimony or otherwise refine its position on Contentions I and II, beyond what was stated in the contentions and at the oral argument.

I have also agreed to give you a list of documents that BREDL intends to rely on in the hearing. As I also explained over the telephone, at this point, BREDL has not identified additional documents on which it plans to rely, other than the documents that were referred to in its contentions and the oral arguments on them. Once Dr. Lyman begins preparing his testimony, we anticipate that we will identify additional documents responsive to your requests.

I have also agreed to amend BREDLs answer to Interrogatory 25, by providing more information about retention of radionucides within a failed containment.

You have agreed to identify the owners of all of the proprietarty documents listed in the Staffs privilege log. You have also agreed to give me contact information for each owner, so that I can informally seek access to the documents under a nondisclosure agreement. If we cannot obtain access to these documents informally, we will consider seeking a subpoena from the ASLB.

You have also agreed to make inquiries to the technical Staff regarding whether some of the documents withheld under the designation "deliberative process" actually constitute predecisional documents. The titles of two documents the Staff has withheld indicate to me that they represent final Staff reports on safety issues, rather than predecisional documents. These documents are:

Technical Evaluation Report (Non-Proprietary Version) of BAW-10231P "COPERNIC Fuel Rod Design Computer Code Chapter 13-MOX Applications"

(July 2003) and Safety Evaluation Report of the Topic Report BAW-10227P (Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural Material (M5) in PWR Reactor Fuel (October 1999).

Sincerely, Diane Curran CC: Baratta, Anthony; Cottingham, Anne W.; Elleman, Thomas S.; Repka, David A.; SECY, NRC-SECY; Vaughn, Lisa F.; Young, Ann Mail Envelope Properties (40803C69.CFD : 22 : 28804)

Subject:

Re: Agreement regarding discovery responses Creation Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2004 4:04 PM From: Susan Uttal Created By: SLU@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfVaughn CC (Lisa F. Vaughn) eos.ncsu.edu elleman CC (Thomas S. Elleman) harmoncurran.com dcurran (Diane Curran) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO SECY CC (NRC-SECY SECY) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 CC (Anthony Baratta)

AMY CC (Ann Young) winston.com

acotting CC (Anne W. Cottingham) drepka CC (David A. Repka)

Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov winston.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7511 Friday, April 16, 2004 4:04 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard