ML043070029

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Counsel for Parties Re Site Visit of Security Expert Advisor
ML043070029
Person / Time
Site: Catawba  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/30/2004
From: Austin Young
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To: Anthony Baratta, Cottingham A, Curran D, Cutchin J, Elleman T, Fernandez A, Repka D, Shafeek-Horton T, Uttal S, Wetterhahn M
Duke Energy Corp, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/OGC, NRC/SECY/RAS, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-0LA, 50-414-0LA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 8546
Download: ML043070029 (4)


Text

DOCKETED USNRC September 30, 2004 (3:05PM)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 8546 From: Ann Young To: ACottingham@winston.com; AJB5@nrc.gov; AMY@nrc.gov; AXF2@nrc.gov; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; drepka@winston.com; elleman@eos.ncsu.edu; FIY@nrc.gov; HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov; JMC3@nrc.gov; mwetterhahn@winston.com; SLU@nrc.gov; tshafeek@duke-energy.com Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2004 2:02 PM

Subject:

Re: Site visit Counsel:

We have received Ms. Uttal's e-mail of earlier today, objecting to having our security expert advisor, during the upcoming site visit, provide any explanations of any security aspects of the features of the Catawba plant, as being outside the scope of 10 C.F.R. § 2.904. We would like to provide the following clarification, to address the Staff's concerns:

First, in assisting us in understanding matters relating to security classification of various pieces of information and assuring that proper safeguards are observed in this proceeding with regard to such information, from time to time it is necessary to understand various basic concepts, such as why one piece of information is considered to be more sensitive than another - again, in the context of security classification and safeguards to be observed. And, as in some of the current security-related matters now pending before us, including disputed redactions, sometimes the pieces of information at issue are various pieces of equipment, doors, etc., the simple identification or pointing out of which will sometimes assist us with regard to our duties relating to the "security classification of material and the safeguards to be observed in this proceeding."

The sort of explanation that we had envisioned being provided by Mr. Young in the site visit was this simple pointing out and identification of various such pieces of "information" - i.e., items of equipment, doors, etc. - which we feel would clearly fall within the sort of advice and assistance "with respect to security classification of information and the safeguards to be observed in this proceeding" to which section 2.904 is directed. We also felt that having Mr. Young present to provide such basic information from a neutral perspective was preferable to opening up discussion about such things with all parties, or having Duke personnel alone provide it.

Obviously, care would be taken to assure that there was no disclosure or discussion, even inadvertent, of any inappropriate information, and upon reflection this would indeed necessitate

that some communications would not take place in the hearing of all those present, some of whom might not yet have access to various documents in which certain equipment, etc., is discussed. We would likewise expect that if at any point any party had any concern, that this could be expressed at the time and we would err on the side of caution in avoiding discussing anything that any party had any doubt about, given that we will not have a court reporter present during the tour. We felt, however, particularly given the sorts of information that we are currently addressing in various need-to-know rulings and decisions on disputed redactions, that having Mr. Young available to explain the sorts of basic information that is involved in some current matters - and likely will be involved in future such decisions - would contribute to the more timely and expeditious conduct of this proceeding.

We would like to hear from all parties by close of business today whether in light of the preceding elucidation any party still has any objection to the envisioned role of Mr. Young in the site visit.

Thank you.

Judge Young

>>> Susan Uttal 09/30/04 10:02AM >>>

Dear Administrative Judges; In response to Judge Young's e-mail of September 29, 2004, please be advised that the NRC staff objects to the attendance of Mr. Young at the site visit for the purpose of explaining any security aspects of the features of the plant, as outlined in the e-mail. While the Staff does not object to Mr. Young's attendance as an observer only, the Staff believes that asking Mr. Young to provide explanations of the security features observed, whether to Judge Young alone or to the entire group, exceeds the scope of 10 C.F.R. 2.904 and the Commission's August 2, 2004 Order appointing Mr. Young to "advise and assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with respect to security classification of information and the safeguards to be observed in this proceeding."

Regarding the protocol to be followed regarding the site visit, I have asked Mr. Martin, the project manager, to advise the resident inspector of the date of the visit and the names of the headquarters personnel who will be attending. I believe that is all the protocol requires for this site visit.

Sincerely, Susan Uttal Counsel for NRC staff Mail Envelope Properties (415C4A36.BEE : 6 : 37434)

Subject:

Re: Site visit Creation Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2004 2:02 PM From: Ann Young

Created By: AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com tshafeek (tshafeek@duke-energy.com) eos.ncsu.edu elleman (elleman@eos.ncsu.edu) harmoncurran.com dcurran (dcurran@harmoncurran.com) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 (AXF2@nrc.gov)

HearingDocket (HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)

SLU (SLU@nrc.gov) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 (AJB5@nrc.gov)

AMY (AMY@nrc.gov)

FIY (FIY@nrc.gov) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO JMC3 (JMC3@nrc.gov) winston.com ACottingham (ACottingham@winston.com) drepka (drepka@winston.com)

MWetterhahn (mwetterhahn@winston.com)

Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov winston.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5732 Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:02 PM

Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard