|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML041810256 | | | number = ML041810256 |
| | issue date = 05/13/2004 | | | issue date = 05/13/2004 |
| | title = 2004/05/13-E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Parties Responding to Request for Time on 05/14/04 to Make Oral Motion | | | title = E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Parties Responding to Request for Time on 05/14/04 to Make Oral Motion |
| | author name = Young A M | | | author name = Young A |
| | author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP | | | author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP |
| | addressee name = Baratta A J, Bupp M J, Byrd H R, Cottingham A W, Curran D, Elleman T S, Fernandez A, Olson M, Repka D A, Uttal S L, Vaughn L F | | | addressee name = Baratta A, Bupp M, Byrd H, Cottingham A, Curran D, Elleman T, Fernandez A, Olson M, Repka D, Uttal S, Vaughn L |
| | addressee affiliation = Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, NRC/ASLBP, NRC/OCAA, NRC/OGC, NRC/SECY/RAS, Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Winston & Strawn, LLP | | | addressee affiliation = Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, NRC/ASLBP, NRC/OCAA, NRC/OGC, NRC/SECY/RAS, Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Winston & Strawn, LLP |
| | docket = 05000413, 05000414 | | | docket = 05000413, 05000414 |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:From: Ann YoungTo:Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Diane Curran; Helen Byrd; Lisa F. Vaughn; Margaret Bupp; Mary Olson; Office of HearingDocket; Repka,David; Susan Uttal; Thomas S. EllemanDate: Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM | | {{#Wiki_filter:DOCKETED USNRC May 13, 2004 (3:44PM) |
| | OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 7766 From: Ann Young To: Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Diane Curran; Helen Byrd; Lisa F. Vaughn; Margaret Bupp; Mary Olson; Office of HearingDocket; Repka, David; Susan Uttal; Thomas S. Elleman Date: Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motionThe Licensing Board will take up these matters tomorrow, and asks all to have your calendars,along with those of any necessary witnesses, available so that we can discuss potential dates for any rescheduling.Administrative Judge Young | | RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion The Licensing Board will take up these matters tomorrow, and asks all to have your calendars, along with those of any necessary witnesses, available so that we can discuss potential dates for any rescheduling. |
| >>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@wi nston.com> 05/13/04 02:31PM >>>I have received the e-mail this morning from Ms. Curran. I have no objection to discussing thismatter at the conference on Friday, and for planning purposes would appreciate confirmation that this issue will or will not be on the agenda. In the meantime, a brief response to the issues raised by Ms. Curran is warranted.At the outset, Duke and its counsel are deeply sympathetic to the situation involving Dr. Lyman,and our best wishes are with him.As reflected in Ms. Curran's e-mail to the Board, counsel for Duke and counsel for BREDL havediscussed various possibilities regarding scheduling in light of the present, unfortunate circumstances. However, we think it important to be clear that Duke has not agreed to any specific proposal regarding the schedule on the non-security contentions. Duke remains committed to resolving the issues in this case at the earliest possible date. Aswe have stated before, schedule is critical for the MOX fuel lead assembly program. Duke cannot accept the entire burden and the entire risk that results from these unfortunate circumstances. Timely resolution of this case simply cannot be subject to the schedule of one individual. We recognize that extreme and unavoidable circumstances can necessitate someDOCKETED USNRCMay 13, 2004 (3:44PM)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFFDocket Nos. 50-413/414-OLARAS 7766 small schedule accommodations and, accordingly, Duke can take reasonable measures toaccommodate Dr. Lyman and BREDL. However, as sympathetic as we are for Dr. Lyman, Duke and DOE should not alone suffer the consequences of circumstances that are not of their making.Duke has raised the issue of settlement with BREDL several times since this proceeding began,and is encouraged regarding the representations this week from BREDL regarding Contention II. Duke is eager to engage in further settlement discussions with BREDL on Contention II, but emphasizes the importance of a prompt conclusion in this regard. (We are willing to do that as early as tomorrow, after the scheduled conference.) A prompt settlement of Contention II may provide a means to accommodate BREDL's request for a delay on Contention I.If a settlement can be reached promptly on Contention II, and there is an available date for ashorter hearing in early July, a deferral of the hearing on Contention I is one possible resolution to the problem -- as represented by Ms. Curran. However, there are conditions to any approach involving a deferral that must be discussed and resolved with the Licensing Board. | | Administrative Judge Young |
| First, to justify any delay, there needs to be assurance of a successful outcome regarding settlement of Contention II. | | >>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@winston.com> 05/13/04 02:31PM >>> |
| Further, there needs to be an available hearing date to timelyaddress Contention I. Duke understands from past conferences that July presents scheduling difficulties for the Board. However, this approach may be possible since the hearing might be reduced to one day. Duke does not believe that it should be forced to accept a delay into August.Finally, the approach suggested by Ms. Curran, and as further clarified above, is not the onlypossible resolution of BREDL's problem. Although Duke has not discussed this with the parties, it is also possible that we go forward with hearings on Contention I in June as scheduled -- in light of the potential for narrowing of the issues to that contention. This approach would require accommodations from the Staff and Duke regarding outstanding discovery due from BREDL. However, the issues in Contention I have been discussed at recent ACRS meetings in which Dr. Lyman has participated. Seemingly, this would reduce the time required to prepare testimony and prepare for hearing.We appreciate the Board's consideration of Duke's views on this matter. We will be preparedto discuss these issues tomorrow.David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726-----Original Message-----From: Diane Curran [mailto:dcurran@harmoncurran.com] | | I have received the e-mail this morning from Ms. Curran. I have no objection to discussing this matter at the conference on Friday, and for planning purposes would appreciate confirmation that this issue will or will not be on the agenda. In the meantime, a brief response to the issues raised by Ms. Curran is warranted. |
| | At the outset, Duke and its counsel are deeply sympathetic to the situation involving Dr. Lyman, and our best wishes are with him. |
| | As reflected in Ms. Curran's e-mail to the Board, counsel for Duke and counsel for BREDL have discussed various possibilities regarding scheduling in light of the present, unfortunate circumstances. However, we think it important to be clear that Duke has not agreed to any specific proposal regarding the schedule on the non-security contentions. |
| | Duke remains committed to resolving the issues in this case at the earliest possible date. As we have stated before, schedule is critical for the MOX fuel lead assembly program. Duke cannot accept the entire burden and the entire risk that results from these unfortunate circumstances. Timely resolution of this case simply cannot be subject to the schedule of one individual. We recognize that extreme and unavoidable circumstances can necessitate some |
| | |
| | small schedule accommodations and, accordingly, Duke can take reasonable measures to accommodate Dr. Lyman and BREDL. However, as sympathetic as we are for Dr. Lyman, Duke and DOE should not alone suffer the consequences of circumstances that are not of their making. |
| | Duke has raised the issue of settlement with BREDL several times since this proceeding began, and is encouraged regarding the representations this week from BREDL regarding Contention II. Duke is eager to engage in further settlement discussions with BREDL on Contention II, but emphasizes the importance of a prompt conclusion in this regard. (We are willing to do that as early as tomorrow, after the scheduled conference.) A prompt settlement of Contention II may provide a means to accommodate BREDL's request for a delay on Contention I. |
| | If a settlement can be reached promptly on Contention II, and there is an available date for a shorter hearing in early July, a deferral of the hearing on Contention I is one possible resolution to the problem -- as represented by Ms. Curran. However, there are conditions to any approach involving a deferral that must be discussed and resolved with the Licensing Board. |
| | First, to justify any delay, there needs to be assurance of a successful outcome regarding settlement of Contention II. Further, there needs to be an available hearing date to timely address Contention I. Duke understands from past conferences that July presents scheduling difficulties for the Board. However, this approach may be possible since the hearing might be reduced to one day. Duke does not believe that it should be forced to accept a delay into August. |
| | Finally, the approach suggested by Ms. Curran, and as further clarified above, is not the only possible resolution of BREDL's problem. Although Duke has not discussed this with the parties, it is also possible that we go forward with hearings on Contention I in June as scheduled -- in light of the potential for narrowing of the issues to that contention. This approach would require accommodations from the Staff and Duke regarding outstanding discovery due from BREDL. However, the issues in Contention I have been discussed at recent ACRS meetings in which Dr. Lyman has participated. Seemingly, this would reduce the time required to prepare testimony and prepare for hearing. |
| | We appreciate the Board's consideration of Duke's views on this matter. We will be prepared to discuss these issues tomorrow. |
| | David A. Repka Winston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726 |
| | -----Original Message----- |
| | From: Diane Curran [mailto:dcurran@harmoncurran.com] |
| Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:08 AM To: Office of Secretary; Susan L. Uttal; Repka, David; Mary Olson; Janet and Lou Zeller; Ann Marshall Young; Lisa F. Vaughn; Antonio Fernandez; NRC Office of Appellate Adjudication; Anthony J. Baratta; Thomas S. | | Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:08 AM To: Office of Secretary; Susan L. Uttal; Repka, David; Mary Olson; Janet and Lou Zeller; Ann Marshall Young; Lisa F. Vaughn; Antonio Fernandez; NRC Office of Appellate Adjudication; Anthony J. Baratta; Thomas S. |
| Elleman; Cottingham, Anne; Margaret J. Bupp Cc: Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller | | Elleman; Cottingham, Anne; Margaret J. Bupp Cc: Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Line 30: |
Line 44: |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Judges Young,== | | ==Dear Judges Young,== |
| Elleman, and Baratta,I am writing to request an opportunity to make an oral motion for achange in the schedule for litigation of Contentions I and II, at tomorrow's meeting. The reason for the motion is that Dr. Lyman's father is still in critical condition, and during the past week Dr. | | Elleman, and Baratta, I am writing to request an opportunity to make an oral motion for a change in the schedule for litigation of Contentions I and II, at tomorrow's meeting. The reason for the motion is that Dr. Lyman's father is still in critical condition, and during the past week Dr. |
| Lyman has had to spend most of his time at the hospital with his family. Because of this, BREDL will not be able to meet today's deadline for filing discovery responses, nor will Dr. Lyman be prepared for his deposition on Tuesday May 18. These delays will also make it impossible to meet the deadline for filing testimony on May 25.Dr. Lyman remains uncertain as to when he will be able to return toWashington and resume his work on this case, but he hopes to be back at work by the end of May or early June.I have consulted with counsel for both Duke and the NRC Staff regardingthis situation. Although I have not yet heard back from the NRC Staff, counsel for Duke and I have agreed on the following general principles regarding a schedule adjustment:1. Complete discovery and file testimony as soon as possible, hopefullyduring the month of June;2. Undertake settlement negotiations regarding Contention II, whichboth BREDL and Duke have agreed is capable of informal resolution (BREDL to make a written proposal to Duke when Dr. Lyman returns to Washington);3. Hold a one or two day hearing in July or August. If Contention IIis settled, one day should suffice.I respectfully request an opportunity to present this request in theform of an oral motion at tomorrow's meeting.Thank you for your consideration. | | Lyman has had to spend most of his time at the hospital with his family. Because of this, BREDL will not be able to meet today's deadline for filing discovery responses, nor will Dr. Lyman be prepared for his deposition on Tuesday May 18. These delays will also make it impossible to meet the deadline for filing testimony on May 25. |
| Sincerely,Diane CurranThe contents of this message may be privilegedand confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. | | Dr. Lyman remains uncertain as to when he will be able to return to Washington and resume his work on this case, but he hopes to be back at work by the end of May or early June. |
| Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. | | I have consulted with counsel for both Duke and the NRC Staff regarding this situation. Although I have not yet heard back from the NRC Staff, counsel for Duke and I have agreed on the following general principles regarding a schedule adjustment: |
| CC:Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller Mail Envelope Properties (40A3C41C.3B0 : 6 : 37434) | | : 1. Complete discovery and file testimony as soon as possible, hopefully during the month of June; |
| | : 2. Undertake settlement negotiations regarding Contention II, which both BREDL and Duke have agreed is capable of informal resolution (BREDL to make a written proposal to Duke when Dr. Lyman returns to Washington); |
| | : 3. Hold a one or two day hearing in July or August. If Contention II is settled, one day should suffice. |
| | I respectfully request an opportunity to present this request in the form of an oral motion at tomorrow's meeting. |
| | Thank you for your consideration. |
| | Sincerely, Diane Curran The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. |
| | Please do not disseminate this message without |
| | |
| | the permission of the author. |
| | CC: Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller Mail Envelope Properties (40A3C41C.3B0 : 6 : 37434) |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion Creation Date: | | RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion Creation Date: Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM From: Ann Young Created By: AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfVaughn (Lisa F. Vaughn) eos.ncsu.edu elleman (Thomas S. Elleman) harmoncurran.com dcurran (Diane Curran) main.nc.us nirs (Mary Olson) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 (Antonio Fernandez) |
| Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM From: Ann Young Created By: | |
| AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfVaughn (Lisa F. Vaughn) eos.ncsu.edu elleman (Thomas S. Elleman) harmoncurran.com dcurran (Diane Curran) main.nc.us nirs (Mary Olson) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 (Antonio Fernandez) | |
| | |
| HearingDocket (Office of HearingDocket) | | HearingDocket (Office of HearingDocket) |
|
| |
| MJB5 (Margaret Bupp) | | MJB5 (Margaret Bupp) |
| | SLU (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO HRB (Helen Byrd) skybest.com BREDL CC (Janet and Lou Zeller) |
|
| |
|
| SLU (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO HRB (Helen Byrd) skybest.com BREDL CC (Janet and Lou Zeller) ucsusa.org elyman CC (Ed Lyman) winston.com ACottingham (Cottingham, Anne)
| | ucsusa.org elyman CC (Ed Lyman) winston.com ACottingham (Cottingham, Anne) |
| | | DRepka (Repka, David) |
| DRepka (Repka, David)Post OfficeRoute duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com main.nc.us owf5_po.OWFN_DOnrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DOnrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DOnrc.gov skybest.com ucsusa.org winston.comFilesSizeDate & Time MESSAGE10108Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:57 PM Options Expiration Date: | | Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com main.nc.us owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov skybest.com ucsusa.org winston.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 10108 Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:57 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed |
| None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: | |
| No Return Notification: | |
| None Concealed | |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| | | No Security: Standard}} |
| No Security: Standard}} | |
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Parties Responding to Request for Time on 05/14/04 to Make Oral Motion| ML041810256 |
| Person / Time |
|---|
| Site: |
Catawba  |
|---|
| Issue date: |
05/13/2004 |
|---|
| From: |
Austin Young
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
|---|
| To: |
Anthony Baratta, Bupp M, Byrd H, Cottingham A, Curran D, Elleman T, Fernandez A, Olson M, Repka D, Uttal S, Vaughn L
Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/OCAA, NRC/OGC, NRC/SECY/RAS, Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Winston & Strawn, LLP |
|---|
| SECY RAS |
| References |
|---|
| 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7766 |
| Download: ML041810256 (3) |
|
|
|---|
Category:Legal-Correspondence
MONTHYEARML0602604342006-01-12012 January 2006
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Emile L. Julian Regarding the Disposition of Protected Information Held by Winston & Strawn Llp
ML0527201292005-09-28028 September 2005
Letter from Emile L. Julian Diane Curran Requesting Return of Safeguards Documents
ML0513100102005-05-10010 May 2005
Catawba - Letter from Nathan Wildermann to Emile L. Julian Enclosing a Corrected Certificate of Service for the NRC Staff'S Reply to Duke Energy Corporation'S Brief on Review of the Licensing Board'S Final Order
ML0515700462005-04-19019 April 2005
Catawba - Letter from Kathryn L. Winsberg to Administrative Judges Informing That as of April 14, 2005, Antonio Fernndez Has Been Reinstated by the State of Maryland as a Licensed Attorney in Good Standing
ML0510903682005-04-12012 April 2005
Letter from Diane Curran to the Commissioners Requesting Measures to Correct Apparent Illegal Shipment of Plutonium MOX Fuel to the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant
ML0512305012005-04-0808 April 2005
Catawba - Letter from Kathryn L. Winsberg to Administrative Judges Regarding Antonio Fernndez'S Status as a Licensed Attorney in the State of Maryland
ML0509703242005-03-31031 March 2005
Notice of Change of Address and Telephone Numbers
ML0509703102005-03-30030 March 2005
Plutonium MOX Fuel Assemblies Not Be Sent to the Catawba Nuclear Plant Until Duke Has Fulfilled the License Conditions to the Satisfaction of the ASLB
ML0506803102005-03-0303 March 2005
Letter from Anne W. Cottingham to Emile L. Julian Enclosing the Original Affidavit of Steven P. Nesbit Submitted in Support of Duke Energy Corporation'S Response to Bredl'S Motion to Re-Open the Record on Security Contention 5
ML0436401522004-12-23023 December 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to the Administrative Judges Re Inspection of the Measures for the Protection of SGI at the Offices of Diane Curran
ML0435701562004-12-20020 December 2004
E-mail from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran Re Service of Bredl Exhibit 4
ML0435701412004-12-20020 December 2004
E-mail from Mark J. Wetterhahn to the Administrative Judges Re Bredl'S 12/20/04 Motion for Leave to File Testimony Out of Time
ML0435700492004-12-17017 December 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Parties Re Bredl'S Prefiled Testimony
ML0434802742004-12-0909 December 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Informing That Bredl Is Planning to File an Appeal of the NRC Staff'S 12/03/04 Adverse need-to-know Determination Regarding SECY-03-0215, Insider Threat Mitigation by Licensees
ML0434303982004-12-0707 December 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Informing That the Public Citrix-based Version of ADAMS Publicly Available Records System (PARS) Has Been Partially Restored
ML0435002612004-12-0606 December 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Annette Vietti-Cook Providing Additional Information That Duke Energy Corporation Considers Directly Pertinent to an Important Matter Pending Before the Commission
ML0434503102004-12-0303 December 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of the Final Report on the Pilot Expanded Force-on-Force Exercise Program with Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Activities
ML0434304512004-12-0303 December 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Mark J. Wetterhahn Re Determination That Bredl Has a need-to-know the Contents of NEI-03-01
ML0435604072004-12-0202 December 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Patricia Smith Re Safeguards Clearance for Court Reporter
ML0435700152004-12-0202 December 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Counsel for Duke Energy Corp. and the NRC Staff Re Safeguards Clearance for Edward Johns
ML0433801742004-12-0202 December 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Diane Curran Enclosing a Copy of Administrative Change to Facility Operating Licenses in Conjunction with Commission Order EA-03-086
ML0433403782004-11-29029 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Diane Curran Re Documents Relating to NRC-sponsored force-on-force Exercises Conducted as Part of the Pilot force-on-force Program
ML0435603492004-11-24024 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Antonio Fernndez Re Pilot force-on-force Exercise Documents
ML0432803412004-11-22022 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn and Diane Curran Informing That the Staff Does Not Object to the Settlement Agreed to by Duke and Bredl
ML0432303782004-11-18018 November 2004
Catawba - Letter to Mark Wetterhahn Procedures
ML0435602912004-11-18018 November 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Counsel for Parties Re Availability for Conference Call on 11/19/04
ML0432303582004-11-17017 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of NRC Guidance on Implementation of the April 2003 Revised Design Basis Threat
ML0432302472004-11-17017 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Informing of the Status of the Temporary Suspension of Public Access to ADAMS
ML0433600862004-11-12012 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark J. Wetterhahn Enclosing Redacted Copies of Duke Security Procedures 1305-C, 1304-C, 213 and 412
ML0431701382004-11-10010 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Informing That the Staff Is Unable to Provide Access to an 08/25/76 NRC Classified Letter from George P. Fisher to Maurice Eisenstein
ML0435000712004-11-0505 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Informing That Bredl and Duke Energy Corp. Have Resolved Contention 6
ML0632105362004-11-0505 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to the Licensing Board Informing That Bredl and Duke Energy Have Resolved Contention 6
ML0431703952004-11-0202 November 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran Responding to 10/20/2004 Letter and e-mail of 10/21/2004 Requesting That Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Be Given Access to a Number of Documents Through Informal Discovery
ML0431703842004-11-0202 November 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Disagreeing with Statement Made in the Letter of October 29, 2004, Submitted by Counsel for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, on Schedule Matters
ML0431001902004-11-0101 November 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran and Antonio Fernndez Forwarding Proposed Language Defining What Would Constitute Radiological Sabotage of the MOX Lead Assemblies Re Settlement of Proposed Bredl Security Contention 6
ML0431703752004-10-29029 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Responding to Duke Energy Corp.'S 10/29/04 Letter to the Licensing Board Which Purports to Clarify the Schedule for the Plutonium Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Test Assembly (LTA) Program
ML0430602532004-10-29029 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Confirming Electronic Mail Message Sent to Board and Parties on 10/28/04 Re Incorrect Identification of Enclosure 4 to Item 3 of Ms. Curran'S Informal Discovery Letter.
ML0430904522004-10-28028 October 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Discussing the Misunderstanding About the Schedule for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assembly Program
ML0430200062004-10-27027 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Request for Discovery Document
ML0430100422004-10-25025 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Informing That the Commission Has Blocked Public Access to Documents in ADAMS
ML0432303892004-10-22022 October 2004
Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Responding to the Licensing Board'S 10/01/04 Order in Which the Board Directed the Staff Counsel to Communicate to the Board and Parties Whether Invitation May Have Been Issued.
ML0429601762004-10-19019 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Antonio Fernndez and Susan L. Uttal Re Informal Discovery Request for security-related Documents and Request for need-to-know Determination
ML0429601852004-10-19019 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Mark J. Wetterhahn and Anne W. Cottingham Re Possible Settlement of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Contention 6
ML0429303712004-10-14014 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Responding to the Board'S 10/01/04 Order Re Impact of Information Provided in Duke'S 09/20/04 Letter
ML0429401452004-10-13013 October 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Administrative Judges Regarding Responses to Information Provided by the Staff Relating to Three Questions Discussed in the September 28 Closed Session
ML0430700902004-10-0808 October 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Administrative Judge Young Informing That Bredl Is Not Prepared at This Point to Comment on Whether New Information Regarding Dose Consequences That Duek Provided to the NRC on 09/20/04 Is Relevant to Contention
ML0428704752004-10-0606 October 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Enclosing a Copy of Duke Energy Corp.'S 10/04/04 Submittal Which Provides Further Information Re Issue Addressed in Mr. Repka'S Correspondence of 08/31/04 and 09/20/04
ML0428002082004-10-0505 October 2004
10/5/2004 - Letter to Diane Curran Specific Interrogatory 4
ML0427804812004-10-0404 October 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Responding to the Licensing Board'S 10/01/04 Order Re NRC Staff'S View of the Impact of the Information Provided by Duke in Its 09/20/04 Letter Related to Contention I
ML0427504572004-10-0101 October 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Antonio Fernandez to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of the Physical Security Plan for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Revision 0 (Plan)
2006-01-12
[Table view]
Category:Legal-Correspondence/Maintenance
MONTHYEARML0602604342006-01-12012 January 2006
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Emile L. Julian Regarding the Disposition of Protected Information Held by Winston & Strawn Llp
ML0527201292005-09-28028 September 2005
Letter from Emile L. Julian Diane Curran Requesting Return of Safeguards Documents
ML0513100102005-05-10010 May 2005
Catawba - Letter from Nathan Wildermann to Emile L. Julian Enclosing a Corrected Certificate of Service for the NRC Staff'S Reply to Duke Energy Corporation'S Brief on Review of the Licensing Board'S Final Order
ML0515700462005-04-19019 April 2005
Catawba - Letter from Kathryn L. Winsberg to Administrative Judges Informing That as of April 14, 2005, Antonio Fernndez Has Been Reinstated by the State of Maryland as a Licensed Attorney in Good Standing
ML0510903682005-04-12012 April 2005
Letter from Diane Curran to the Commissioners Requesting Measures to Correct Apparent Illegal Shipment of Plutonium MOX Fuel to the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant
ML0512305012005-04-0808 April 2005
Catawba - Letter from Kathryn L. Winsberg to Administrative Judges Regarding Antonio Fernndez'S Status as a Licensed Attorney in the State of Maryland
ML0509703242005-03-31031 March 2005
Notice of Change of Address and Telephone Numbers
ML0509703102005-03-30030 March 2005
Plutonium MOX Fuel Assemblies Not Be Sent to the Catawba Nuclear Plant Until Duke Has Fulfilled the License Conditions to the Satisfaction of the ASLB
ML0506803102005-03-0303 March 2005
Letter from Anne W. Cottingham to Emile L. Julian Enclosing the Original Affidavit of Steven P. Nesbit Submitted in Support of Duke Energy Corporation'S Response to Bredl'S Motion to Re-Open the Record on Security Contention 5
ML0435701562004-12-20020 December 2004
E-mail from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran Re Service of Bredl Exhibit 4
ML0435701412004-12-20020 December 2004
E-mail from Mark J. Wetterhahn to the Administrative Judges Re Bredl'S 12/20/04 Motion for Leave to File Testimony Out of Time
ML0435700492004-12-17017 December 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Parties Re Bredl'S Prefiled Testimony
ML0434802742004-12-0909 December 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Informing That Bredl Is Planning to File an Appeal of the NRC Staff'S 12/03/04 Adverse need-to-know Determination Regarding SECY-03-0215, Insider Threat Mitigation by Licensees
ML0434303982004-12-0707 December 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Informing That the Public Citrix-based Version of ADAMS Publicly Available Records System (PARS) Has Been Partially Restored
ML0435002612004-12-0606 December 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Annette Vietti-Cook Providing Additional Information That Duke Energy Corporation Considers Directly Pertinent to an Important Matter Pending Before the Commission
ML0434503102004-12-0303 December 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of the Final Report on the Pilot Expanded Force-on-Force Exercise Program with Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Activities
ML0434304512004-12-0303 December 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Mark J. Wetterhahn Re Determination That Bredl Has a need-to-know the Contents of NEI-03-01
ML0435700152004-12-0202 December 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Counsel for Duke Energy Corp. and the NRC Staff Re Safeguards Clearance for Edward Johns
ML0435604072004-12-0202 December 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Patricia Smith Re Safeguards Clearance for Court Reporter
ML0433801742004-12-0202 December 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Diane Curran Enclosing a Copy of Administrative Change to Facility Operating Licenses in Conjunction with Commission Order EA-03-086
ML0433403782004-11-29029 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Diane Curran Re Documents Relating to NRC-sponsored force-on-force Exercises Conducted as Part of the Pilot force-on-force Program
ML0435603492004-11-24024 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Antonio Fernndez Re Pilot force-on-force Exercise Documents
ML0432803412004-11-22022 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn and Diane Curran Informing That the Staff Does Not Object to the Settlement Agreed to by Duke and Bredl
ML0435602912004-11-18018 November 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Counsel for Parties Re Availability for Conference Call on 11/19/04
ML0432303582004-11-17017 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of NRC Guidance on Implementation of the April 2003 Revised Design Basis Threat
ML0432302472004-11-17017 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Informing of the Status of the Temporary Suspension of Public Access to ADAMS
ML0433600862004-11-12012 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Mark J. Wetterhahn Enclosing Redacted Copies of Duke Security Procedures 1305-C, 1304-C, 213 and 412
ML0431701382004-11-10010 November 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Informing That the Staff Is Unable to Provide Access to an 08/25/76 NRC Classified Letter from George P. Fisher to Maurice Eisenstein
ML0435000712004-11-0505 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Informing That Bredl and Duke Energy Corp. Have Resolved Contention 6
ML0431703952004-11-0202 November 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran Responding to 10/20/2004 Letter and e-mail of 10/21/2004 Requesting That Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Be Given Access to a Number of Documents Through Informal Discovery
ML0431703842004-11-0202 November 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Disagreeing with Statement Made in the Letter of October 29, 2004, Submitted by Counsel for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, on Schedule Matters
ML0431001902004-11-0101 November 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Diane Curran and Antonio Fernndez Forwarding Proposed Language Defining What Would Constitute Radiological Sabotage of the MOX Lead Assemblies Re Settlement of Proposed Bredl Security Contention 6
ML0430602532004-10-29029 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Confirming Electronic Mail Message Sent to Board and Parties on 10/28/04 Re Incorrect Identification of Enclosure 4 to Item 3 of Ms. Curran'S Informal Discovery Letter.
ML0431703752004-10-29029 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Responding to Duke Energy Corp.'S 10/29/04 Letter to the Licensing Board Which Purports to Clarify the Schedule for the Plutonium Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Test Assembly (LTA) Program
ML0430904522004-10-28028 October 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Discussing the Misunderstanding About the Schedule for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assembly Program
ML0430200062004-10-27027 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Request for Discovery Document
ML0430100422004-10-25025 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Informing That the Commission Has Blocked Public Access to Documents in ADAMS
ML0432303892004-10-22022 October 2004
Letter from Antonio Fernndez to Administrative Judges Responding to the Licensing Board'S 10/01/04 Order in Which the Board Directed the Staff Counsel to Communicate to the Board and Parties Whether Invitation May Have Been Issued.
ML0429601762004-10-19019 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Antonio Fernndez and Susan L. Uttal Re Informal Discovery Request for security-related Documents and Request for need-to-know Determination
ML0429601852004-10-19019 October 2004
Letter from Diane Curran to Mark J. Wetterhahn and Anne W. Cottingham Re Possible Settlement of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Contention 6
ML0429303712004-10-14014 October 2004
Catawba - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Responding to the Board'S 10/01/04 Order Re Impact of Information Provided in Duke'S 09/20/04 Letter
ML0429401452004-10-13013 October 2004
Letter from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Administrative Judges Regarding Responses to Information Provided by the Staff Relating to Three Questions Discussed in the September 28 Closed Session
ML0430700902004-10-0808 October 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Administrative Judge Young Informing That Bredl Is Not Prepared at This Point to Comment on Whether New Information Regarding Dose Consequences That Duek Provided to the NRC on 09/20/04 Is Relevant to Contention
ML0428704752004-10-0606 October 2004
Letter from David A. Repka to Administrative Judges Enclosing a Copy of Duke Energy Corp.'S 10/04/04 Submittal Which Provides Further Information Re Issue Addressed in Mr. Repka'S Correspondence of 08/31/04 and 09/20/04
ML0427804812004-10-0404 October 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judges Responding to the Licensing Board'S 10/01/04 Order Re NRC Staff'S View of the Impact of the Information Provided by Duke in Its 09/20/04 Letter Related to Contention I
ML0427504572004-10-0101 October 2004
Catawba MOX - Letter from Antonio Fernandez to Mark Wetterhahn Enclosing a Redacted Copy of the Physical Security Plan for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Revision 0 (Plan)
ML0430700832004-09-30030 September 2004
E-mail from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Board and Parties Informing That Duke Energy Corporation Will Not Appeal the Licensing Board Order Regarding Access to Proposed Security Plan
ML0430700682004-09-30030 September 2004
E-mail from Susan L. Uttal to Administrative Judge Young Re Site Visit
ML0430700292004-09-30030 September 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Counsel for Parties Re Site Visit of Security Expert Advisor
ML0430700442004-09-29029 September 2004
E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to Counsel for Parties Re Site Visit
2006-01-12
[Table view] |
Text
DOCKETED USNRC May 13, 2004 (3:44PM)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 7766 From: Ann Young To: Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Diane Curran; Helen Byrd; Lisa F. Vaughn; Margaret Bupp; Mary Olson; Office of HearingDocket; Repka, David; Susan Uttal; Thomas S. Elleman Date: Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject:
RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion The Licensing Board will take up these matters tomorrow, and asks all to have your calendars, along with those of any necessary witnesses, available so that we can discuss potential dates for any rescheduling.
Administrative Judge Young
>>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@winston.com> 05/13/04 02:31PM >>>
I have received the e-mail this morning from Ms. Curran. I have no objection to discussing this matter at the conference on Friday, and for planning purposes would appreciate confirmation that this issue will or will not be on the agenda. In the meantime, a brief response to the issues raised by Ms. Curran is warranted.
At the outset, Duke and its counsel are deeply sympathetic to the situation involving Dr. Lyman, and our best wishes are with him.
As reflected in Ms. Curran's e-mail to the Board, counsel for Duke and counsel for BREDL have discussed various possibilities regarding scheduling in light of the present, unfortunate circumstances. However, we think it important to be clear that Duke has not agreed to any specific proposal regarding the schedule on the non-security contentions.
Duke remains committed to resolving the issues in this case at the earliest possible date. As we have stated before, schedule is critical for the MOX fuel lead assembly program. Duke cannot accept the entire burden and the entire risk that results from these unfortunate circumstances. Timely resolution of this case simply cannot be subject to the schedule of one individual. We recognize that extreme and unavoidable circumstances can necessitate some
small schedule accommodations and, accordingly, Duke can take reasonable measures to accommodate Dr. Lyman and BREDL. However, as sympathetic as we are for Dr. Lyman, Duke and DOE should not alone suffer the consequences of circumstances that are not of their making.
Duke has raised the issue of settlement with BREDL several times since this proceeding began, and is encouraged regarding the representations this week from BREDL regarding Contention II. Duke is eager to engage in further settlement discussions with BREDL on Contention II, but emphasizes the importance of a prompt conclusion in this regard. (We are willing to do that as early as tomorrow, after the scheduled conference.) A prompt settlement of Contention II may provide a means to accommodate BREDL's request for a delay on Contention I.
If a settlement can be reached promptly on Contention II, and there is an available date for a shorter hearing in early July, a deferral of the hearing on Contention I is one possible resolution to the problem -- as represented by Ms. Curran. However, there are conditions to any approach involving a deferral that must be discussed and resolved with the Licensing Board.
First, to justify any delay, there needs to be assurance of a successful outcome regarding settlement of Contention II. Further, there needs to be an available hearing date to timely address Contention I. Duke understands from past conferences that July presents scheduling difficulties for the Board. However, this approach may be possible since the hearing might be reduced to one day. Duke does not believe that it should be forced to accept a delay into August.
Finally, the approach suggested by Ms. Curran, and as further clarified above, is not the only possible resolution of BREDL's problem. Although Duke has not discussed this with the parties, it is also possible that we go forward with hearings on Contention I in June as scheduled -- in light of the potential for narrowing of the issues to that contention. This approach would require accommodations from the Staff and Duke regarding outstanding discovery due from BREDL. However, the issues in Contention I have been discussed at recent ACRS meetings in which Dr. Lyman has participated. Seemingly, this would reduce the time required to prepare testimony and prepare for hearing.
We appreciate the Board's consideration of Duke's views on this matter. We will be prepared to discuss these issues tomorrow.
David A. Repka Winston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726
Original Message-----
From: Diane Curran [1]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:08 AM To: Office of Secretary; Susan L. Uttal; Repka, David; Mary Olson; Janet and Lou Zeller; Ann Marshall Young; Lisa F. Vaughn; Antonio Fernandez; NRC Office of Appellate Adjudication; Anthony J. Baratta; Thomas S.
Elleman; Cottingham, Anne; Margaret J. Bupp Cc: Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller
Subject:
Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion
Dear Judges Young,
Elleman, and Baratta, I am writing to request an opportunity to make an oral motion for a change in the schedule for litigation of Contentions I and II, at tomorrow's meeting. The reason for the motion is that Dr. Lyman's father is still in critical condition, and during the past week Dr.
Lyman has had to spend most of his time at the hospital with his family. Because of this, BREDL will not be able to meet today's deadline for filing discovery responses, nor will Dr. Lyman be prepared for his deposition on Tuesday May 18. These delays will also make it impossible to meet the deadline for filing testimony on May 25.
Dr. Lyman remains uncertain as to when he will be able to return to Washington and resume his work on this case, but he hopes to be back at work by the end of May or early June.
I have consulted with counsel for both Duke and the NRC Staff regarding this situation. Although I have not yet heard back from the NRC Staff, counsel for Duke and I have agreed on the following general principles regarding a schedule adjustment:
- 1. Complete discovery and file testimony as soon as possible, hopefully during the month of June;
- 2. Undertake settlement negotiations regarding Contention II, which both BREDL and Duke have agreed is capable of informal resolution (BREDL to make a written proposal to Duke when Dr. Lyman returns to Washington);
- 3. Hold a one or two day hearing in July or August. If Contention II is settled, one day should suffice.
I respectfully request an opportunity to present this request in the form of an oral motion at tomorrow's meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Diane Curran The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege.
Please do not disseminate this message without
the permission of the author.
CC: Ed Lyman; Janet and Lou Zeller Mail Envelope Properties (40A3C41C.3B0 : 6 : 37434)
Subject:
RE: Request for time on 5/14/04 to make oral motion Creation Date: Thu, May 13, 2004 2:53 PM From: Ann Young Created By: AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfVaughn (Lisa F. Vaughn) eos.ncsu.edu elleman (Thomas S. Elleman) harmoncurran.com dcurran (Diane Curran) main.nc.us nirs (Mary Olson) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 (Antonio Fernandez)
HearingDocket (Office of HearingDocket)
MJB5 (Margaret Bupp)
SLU (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO HRB (Helen Byrd) skybest.com BREDL CC (Janet and Lou Zeller)
ucsusa.org elyman CC (Ed Lyman) winston.com ACottingham (Cottingham, Anne)
DRepka (Repka, David)
Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com main.nc.us owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov skybest.com ucsusa.org winston.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 10108 Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:57 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard