|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML040430496 | | | number = ML040430496 |
| | issue date = 02/11/2004 | | | issue date = 02/11/2004 |
| | title = 2004/02/11-E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to David A. Repka Discussing Security Issues at Upcoming Oral Argument on 02-13-04 | | | title = E-mail from Administrative Judge Young to David A. Repka Discussing Security Issues at Upcoming Oral Argument on 02-13-04 |
| | author name = Young A | | | author name = Young A |
| | author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP | | | author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:From: Ann YoungTo:Repka, DavidDate: Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM | | {{#Wiki_filter:DOCKETED USNRC February 11, 2004 (2:19PM) |
| | OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 7352 From: Ann Young To: Repka, David Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04oral argumentThe Licensing Board's plan is to allow all who are cleared for access to Safeguards Informationto be present in the argument Friday, and to try to stay away from discussing any Classified Information in any manner that would disclose it in any way during the session. However, since the primary subject of the discussion is BREDL's "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, we are treating the session as potentially involving Classified Information, in the interests of preserving the security of the information, and to err on the side of caution in this regard.We have therefore arranged for a court reporter who is cleared for Classified Information, andare also asking Barry Manili, the security expert the Commission has assigned to assist the Board with regard to security and classification issues, to be on the alert for any possibility of inadvertent disclosure, so as to prevent this from occurring. I expect that Staff security experts will also be on the alert for this.Because, however, we will necessarily be talking to some degree "about" ClassifiedInformation, we are concerned about the possibility of discussion arising that might by its very nature move into the area of potentially and/or indirectly disclosing Classified Information. If for any reason this does occur, and if for any reason we determine that there is a need to address the issues before us in some manner that might potentially involve some indirect discussion of the material in question such that additional precautions are in order, at that point we might find it appropriate (in consultation with our security expert and after hearing from all present) to require those who do not have clearance for Classified Information to leave the room. By saying this, of course, I am not in any way suggesting that this would or should occur, but merely anticipating all possible scenarios so that we can be as alert as we can to such possibilities. Your points are well-taken with regard to appeal of any ruling Judge Elleman and I might make on BREDL's "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, so again, we will approach all these sorts of issues in a manner that is cautious and alert to the need to protect the security of the information. We do understand that Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not representing Duke in suchcapacity. If, however, the eventuality described in the previous paragraph occurs, we wouldDOCKETED USNRCFebruary 11, 2004 (2:19PM)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFFDocket Nos. 50-413/414-OLARAS 7352 permit him to stay in the room assuming proper clearance is shown, so that Duke would not becompletely absent from any discussion that might follow.I will forward my other earlier email to SECY, as requested by Mr. Repka. If any other concernsarise that need to be brought out before we meet on Friday, for example, in the nature of notice of issues to be discussed on Friday, if there is not time for a formal filing these could also be raised through email, which should likewise be copied to SECY. We would like insofar as possible to get all pending and potential security-related issues in this proceeding "on the table" on Friday, so that we can address them in the most efficient manner that would allow all participants to speak to them while we are all together.In any event, we look forward to seeing all participants on Friday. | | Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument The Licensing Boards plan is to allow all who are cleared for access to Safeguards Information to be present in the argument Friday, and to try to stay away from discussing any Classified Information in any manner that would disclose it in any way during the session. However, since the primary subject of the discussion is BREDLs "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, we are treating the session as potentially involving Classified Information, in the interests of preserving the security of the information, and to err on the side of caution in this regard. |
| | We have therefore arranged for a court reporter who is cleared for Classified Information, and are also asking Barry Manili, the security expert the Commission has assigned to assist the Board with regard to security and classification issues, to be on the alert for any possibility of inadvertent disclosure, so as to prevent this from occurring. I expect that Staff security experts will also be on the alert for this. |
| | Because, however, we will necessarily be talking to some degree "about" Classified Information, we are concerned about the possibility of discussion arising that might by its very nature move into the area of potentially and/or indirectly disclosing Classified Information. If for any reason this does occur, and if for any reason we determine that there is a need to address the issues before us in some manner that might potentially involve some indirect discussion of the material in question such that additional precautions are in order, at that point we might find it appropriate (in consultation with our security expert and after hearing from all present) to require those who do not have clearance for Classified Information to leave the room. By saying this, of course, I am not in any way suggesting that this would or should occur, but merely anticipating all possible scenarios so that we can be as alert as we can to such possibilities. Your points are well-taken with regard to appeal of any ruling Judge Elleman and I might make on BREDLs "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, so again, we will approach all these sorts of issues in a manner that is cautious and alert to the need to protect the security of the information. |
| | We do understand that Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not representing Duke in such capacity. If, however, the eventuality described in the previous paragraph occurs, we would |
| | |
| | permit him to stay in the room assuming proper clearance is shown, so that Duke would not be completely absent from any discussion that might follow. |
| | I will forward my other earlier email to SECY, as requested by Mr. Repka. If any other concerns arise that need to be brought out before we meet on Friday, for example, in the nature of notice of issues to be discussed on Friday, if there is not time for a formal filing these could also be raised through email, which should likewise be copied to SECY. We would like insofar as possible to get all pending and potential security-related issues in this proceeding "on the table" on Friday, so that we can address them in the most efficient manner that would allow all participants to speak to them while we are all together. |
| | In any event, we look forward to seeing all participants on Friday. |
| Administrative Judge Young | | Administrative Judge Young |
| >>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@winston.com> 02/11/04 11:47AM >>> | | >>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@winston.com> 02/11/04 11:47AM >>> |
| Judge Young: | | Judge Young: |
| The individuals that will attend the Friday, February 13, 2004 oral argument on behalf of DukeEnergy are: Mr. Repka, Mr. Wetterhahn, Ms. Cottingham, Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Cash, and Mr. | | The individuals that will attend the Friday, February 13, 2004 oral argument on behalf of Duke Energy are: Mr. Repka, Mr. Wetterhahn, Ms. Cottingham, Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Cash, and Mr. |
| Nesbit. A document providing the information that you requested for these individuals will be provided in an immediate follow-up e-mail to a more limited distribution list.In response to your e-mail, Mr. Nesbit is presently the only representative of Duke Energy withclearance for access to Classified National Security Information (NSI) (i.e., classified at a level beyond Safeguards information). His L clearance was issued by the Department of Energy through DOE's Chicago Operations Office. To allow the NRC to verify, Mr. Nesbit's social security number will be included in the follow-up e-mail.However, to be clear, Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not appearing at the argument torepresent the company in a legal capacity. It is Duke Energy's expectation that -- while BREDL's access to Classified NSI is the subject of the argument -- specific Classified information cannot (and need not) be discussed during that argument. The subject of the argument is a "need to know" determination, and Classified information cannot be disclosed, released, or discussed until after an affirmative "need to know" determination has been made with respect to that information. Thus, no Classified information can be discussed in the argument as part of the process of making a "need to know" determination. Moreover, any "need to know" determination with respect to Classified NSI is subject tocertification or appeal under 10 C.F.R. 2.905(d). Therefore, to preserve the process the Classified information cannot be disclosed at this juncture even to those with the requisite clearance (a prerequisite to access independent of the requirement for "need to know"). | | Nesbit. A document providing the information that you requested for these individuals will be provided in an immediate follow-up e-mail to a more limited distribution list. |
| Indeed, in its filing of January 20, 2004, Duke Energy has already requested that the Licensing Board certify to the Commission any decision to find a "need to know" with respect to Classified information (see page 14). Accordingly, we anticipate that the discussion on Friday would involve no more or less than the Safeguards information in Duke's security submittal of September 15, 2003. | | In response to your e-mail, Mr. Nesbit is presently the only representative of Duke Energy with clearance for access to Classified National Security Information (NSI) (i.e., classified at a level beyond Safeguards information). His L clearance was issued by the Department of Energy through DOEs Chicago Operations Office. To allow the NRC to verify, Mr. Nesbits social security number will be included in the follow-up e-mail. |
| We will, of course, be prepared to discuss any related issues that the Licensing Board wishesto consider, including potential impacts in this proceeding of any Commission's decision on the Staff's two pending appeals.Please also note that -- given the nature of the discussion above -- we have included the Officeof Secretary on distribution for this e-mail. (We will not send the follow-up e-mail with personal information to the Secretary.) In order to preserve the record in this matter, we believe that it would also be prudent to send the Licensing Board's earlier e-mails to the Secretary. The message to which this e-mail replies is already duplicated below.David A. RepkaWinston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726-----Original Message-----From: Ann Young [mailto:AMY@nrc.gov] | | However, to be clear, Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not appearing at the argument to represent the company in a legal capacity. It is Duke Energys expectation that -- while BREDLs access to Classified NSI is the subject of the argument -- specific Classified information cannot (and need not) be discussed during that argument. The subject of the argument is a "need to know" determination, and Classified information cannot be disclosed, released, or discussed until after an affirmative "need to know" determination has been made with respect to that information. Thus, no Classified information can be discussed in the argument as part of the process of making a "need to know" determination. |
| Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:52 PM To: lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; AntonioFernandez; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; Susan Uttal; Cottingham, Anne; Repka, David Cc: Anthony Baratta; Cynthia Harbaugh; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili | | Moreover, any "need to know" determination with respect to Classified NSI is subject to certification or appeal under 10 C.F.R. 2.905(d). Therefore, to preserve the process the Classified information cannot be disclosed at this juncture even to those with the requisite clearance (a prerequisite to access independent of the requirement for "need to know"). |
| | Indeed, in its filing of January 20, 2004, Duke Energy has already requested that the Licensing Board certify to the Commission any decision to find a "need to know" with respect to Classified information (see page 14). Accordingly, we anticipate that the discussion on Friday would involve no more or less than the Safeguards information in Dukes security submittal of September 15, 2003. |
| | |
| | We will, of course, be prepared to discuss any related issues that the Licensing Board wishes to consider, including potential impacts in this proceeding of any Commissions decision on the Staffs two pending appeals. |
| | Please also note that -- given the nature of the discussion above -- we have included the Office of Secretary on distribution for this e-mail. (We will not send the follow-up e-mail with personal information to the Secretary.) In order to preserve the record in this matter, we believe that it would also be prudent to send the Licensing Boards earlier e-mails to the Secretary. The message to which this e-mail replies is already duplicated below. |
| | David A. Repka Winston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726 |
| | -----Original Message----- |
| | From: Ann Young [mailto:AMY@nrc.gov] |
| | Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:52 PM To: lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; Antonio Fernandez; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; Susan Uttal; Cottingham, Anne; Repka, David Cc: Anthony Baratta; Cynthia Harbaugh; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| information regarding 2/13/04 oral argumentWould all participants please, no later than tomorrow, February 11, reply to this email, withcopies to Mack Cutchin, at JMC3@nrc.gov; Michael Bodin, at MWB1@nrc.gov; R. Barry Manili,at RBM1@nrc.gov; and Cynthia Harbaugh, at CGH1@nrc.gov; providing the followinginformation:- a list of all persons who will be attending the Friday oral argument; and, for each:- the organization with which the person is associated; | | information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument Would all participants please, no later than tomorrow, February 11, reply to this email, with copies to Mack Cutchin, at JMC3@nrc.gov; Michael Bodin, at MWB1@nrc.gov; R. Barry Manili, at RBM1@nrc.gov; and Cynthia Harbaugh, at CGH1@nrc.gov; providing the following information: |
| | - a list of all persons who will be attending the Friday oral argument; and, for each: |
| | - the organization with which the person is associated; |
| - his or her birth date; and | | - his or her birth date; and |
| - whether each is a US citizen.We anticipate that we will begin the session with discussion of matters relating only toup-to-Safeguards-level information, and then, after a short break, move into discussion of issues relating to Classified information up to the "L" level. Please provide the above-listed information for any and all persons you intend to bring to either part of the session, designating which part or parts of the session each will attend, pursuant to what level clearance.As of now, I am assuming that the following persons will be attending: | | - whether each is a US citizen. |
| Susan Uttal (for NRC Staff)Antonio Fernandez (for NRC Staff) | | We anticipate that we will begin the session with discussion of matters relating only to up-to-Safeguards-level information, and then, after a short break, move into discussion of issues relating to Classified information up to the "L" level. Please provide the above-listed information for any and all persons you intend to bring to either part of the session, designating which part or parts of the session each will attend, pursuant to what level clearance. |
| | As of now, I am assuming that the following persons will be attending: |
| | Susan Uttal (for NRC Staff) |
| | Antonio Fernandez (for NRC Staff) |
| Diane Curran (for BREDL) | | Diane Curran (for BREDL) |
| Edwin Lyman (for BREDL) | | Edwin Lyman (for BREDL) |
| Stephen Nesbit (for Duke) | | Stephen Nesbit (for Duke) |
| David Repka (for Duke, only during the Safeguards part of the session) | | David Repka (for Duke, only during the Safeguards part of the session) |
| Mr. Bodin will, from the information you provide, give my office a list of those persons who arecleared to have access to Safeguards Information, as well as a separate list of those cleared for access to Classified Information at the "L" clearance level. On Friday, someone from my office will be checking all attendees against the lists of those with appropriate clearance levels.As indicated above, at the beginning of the session we will address certain matters involvingonly up-to-Safeguards-level information. Then, before starting to address any Classified information, all those not cleared for access to that will have to leave the room. For each part of the session, we will query counsel for each participant regarding the specific "need to know" on the part of each person who will attend the respective parts of the session.Prior to the session, all persons should gather in the lobby area next to the entrance to TwoWhite Flint (to your left after you enter Two White Flint), and someone from my office will escort everyone to the location of the session in a group. No one will be permitted to attend the respective parts of the session without the appropriate level of clearance.Thank you for your attention to these matters. | | |
| Administrative Judge Ann Marshall YoungChair, Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardThe 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. | | Mr. Bodin will, from the information you provide, give my office a list of those persons who are cleared to have access to Safeguards Information, as well as a separate list of those cleared for access to Classified Information at the "L" clearance level. On Friday, someone from my office will be checking all attendees against the lists of those with appropriate clearance levels. |
| | As indicated above, at the beginning of the session we will address certain matters involving only up-to-Safeguards-level information. Then, before starting to address any Classified information, all those not cleared for access to that will have to leave the room. For each part of the session, we will query counsel for each participant regarding the specific "need to know" on the part of each person who will attend the respective parts of the session. |
| | Prior to the session, all persons should gather in the lobby area next to the entrance to Two White Flint (to your left after you enter Two White Flint), and someone from my office will escort everyone to the location of the session in a group. No one will be permitted to attend the respective parts of the session without the appropriate level of clearance. |
| | Thank you for your attention to these matters. |
| | Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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. | | Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. |
| CC:Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Cynthia Harbaugh; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; elleman@eos.ncsu.edu; HearingDocket; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili; Susan Uttal Mail Envelope Properties (402A73DD.EBD : 6 : 37434) | | CC: Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Cynthia Harbaugh; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; elleman@eos.ncsu.edu; HearingDocket; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili; Susan Uttal Mail Envelope Properties (402A73DD.EBD : 6 : 37434) |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument Creation Date: | | Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument Creation Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM From: Ann Young Created By: AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfvaughn CC (lfvaughn@duke-energy.com) |
| Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM From: Ann Young Created By: | |
| AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfvaughn CC (lfvaughn@duke-energy.com) eos.ncsu.edu elleman CC (elleman@eos.ncsu.edu) harmoncurran.com dcurran CC (dcurran@harmoncurran.com) nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO RBM1 CC (Robert Manili) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 CC (Antonio Fernandez) | |
|
| |
|
| | eos.ncsu.edu elleman CC (elleman@eos.ncsu.edu) harmoncurran.com dcurran CC (dcurran@harmoncurran.com) nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO RBM1 CC (Robert Manili) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 CC (Antonio Fernandez) |
| HearingDocket CC (HearingDocket) | | HearingDocket CC (HearingDocket) |
|
| |
| KAK1 CC (Kathleen Kannler) | | KAK1 CC (Kathleen Kannler) |
| | SLU CC (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 CC (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO JMC3 CC (James Cutchin) |
| | MWB1 CC (Michael Bodin) nrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DO CGH1 CC (Cynthia Harbaugh) winston.com ACottingham CC (Cottingham, Anne) |
| | DRepka (Repka, David) |
| | Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com owf4_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov winston.com Files Size Date & Time |
|
| |
|
| SLU CC (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 CC (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO JMC3 CC (James Cutchin)
| | MESSAGE 13664 Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:26 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed |
| | |
| MWB1 CC (Michael Bodin) nrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DO CGH1 CC (Cynthia Harbaugh) winston.com ACottingham CC (Cottingham, Anne)
| |
| | |
| DRepka (Repka, David)Post OfficeRoute duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com owf4_po.OWFN_DOnrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DOnrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DOnrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DOnrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DOnrc.gov winston.comFilesSizeDate & Time MESSAGE13664Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:26 PM Options Expiration Date:
| |
| None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: | |
| No Return Notification: | |
| None Concealed | |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| | | No Security: Standard}} |
| No Security: Standard}} | |
|
|---|
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
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
ML0432303782004-11-18018 November 2004
Catawba - Letter to Mark Wetterhahn Procedures
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
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
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
ML0632105362004-11-0505 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to the Licensing Board Informing That Bredl and Duke Energy Have Resolved Contention 6
ML0435000712004-11-0505 November 2004
E-mail from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges Informing That Bredl and Duke Energy Corp. Have Resolved Contention 6
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
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
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.
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
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
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 February 11, 2004 (2:19PM)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Nos. 50-413/414-OLA RAS 7352 From: Ann Young To: Repka, David Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject:
Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument The Licensing Boards plan is to allow all who are cleared for access to Safeguards Information to be present in the argument Friday, and to try to stay away from discussing any Classified Information in any manner that would disclose it in any way during the session. However, since the primary subject of the discussion is BREDLs "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, we are treating the session as potentially involving Classified Information, in the interests of preserving the security of the information, and to err on the side of caution in this regard.
We have therefore arranged for a court reporter who is cleared for Classified Information, and are also asking Barry Manili, the security expert the Commission has assigned to assist the Board with regard to security and classification issues, to be on the alert for any possibility of inadvertent disclosure, so as to prevent this from occurring. I expect that Staff security experts will also be on the alert for this.
Because, however, we will necessarily be talking to some degree "about" Classified Information, we are concerned about the possibility of discussion arising that might by its very nature move into the area of potentially and/or indirectly disclosing Classified Information. If for any reason this does occur, and if for any reason we determine that there is a need to address the issues before us in some manner that might potentially involve some indirect discussion of the material in question such that additional precautions are in order, at that point we might find it appropriate (in consultation with our security expert and after hearing from all present) to require those who do not have clearance for Classified Information to leave the room. By saying this, of course, I am not in any way suggesting that this would or should occur, but merely anticipating all possible scenarios so that we can be as alert as we can to such possibilities. Your points are well-taken with regard to appeal of any ruling Judge Elleman and I might make on BREDLs "need to know" with regard to the Classified Information, so again, we will approach all these sorts of issues in a manner that is cautious and alert to the need to protect the security of the information.
We do understand that Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not representing Duke in such capacity. If, however, the eventuality described in the previous paragraph occurs, we would
permit him to stay in the room assuming proper clearance is shown, so that Duke would not be completely absent from any discussion that might follow.
I will forward my other earlier email to SECY, as requested by Mr. Repka. If any other concerns arise that need to be brought out before we meet on Friday, for example, in the nature of notice of issues to be discussed on Friday, if there is not time for a formal filing these could also be raised through email, which should likewise be copied to SECY. We would like insofar as possible to get all pending and potential security-related issues in this proceeding "on the table" on Friday, so that we can address them in the most efficient manner that would allow all participants to speak to them while we are all together.
In any event, we look forward to seeing all participants on Friday.
Administrative Judge Young
>>> "Repka, David" <DRepka@winston.com> 02/11/04 11:47AM >>>
Judge Young:
The individuals that will attend the Friday, February 13, 2004 oral argument on behalf of Duke Energy are: Mr. Repka, Mr. Wetterhahn, Ms. Cottingham, Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Cash, and Mr.
Nesbit. A document providing the information that you requested for these individuals will be provided in an immediate follow-up e-mail to a more limited distribution list.
In response to your e-mail, Mr. Nesbit is presently the only representative of Duke Energy with clearance for access to Classified National Security Information (NSI) (i.e., classified at a level beyond Safeguards information). His L clearance was issued by the Department of Energy through DOEs Chicago Operations Office. To allow the NRC to verify, Mr. Nesbits social security number will be included in the follow-up e-mail.
However, to be clear, Mr. Nesbit is not an attorney and is not appearing at the argument to represent the company in a legal capacity. It is Duke Energys expectation that -- while BREDLs access to Classified NSI is the subject of the argument -- specific Classified information cannot (and need not) be discussed during that argument. The subject of the argument is a "need to know" determination, and Classified information cannot be disclosed, released, or discussed until after an affirmative "need to know" determination has been made with respect to that information. Thus, no Classified information can be discussed in the argument as part of the process of making a "need to know" determination.
Moreover, any "need to know" determination with respect to Classified NSI is subject to certification or appeal under 10 C.F.R. 2.905(d). Therefore, to preserve the process the Classified information cannot be disclosed at this juncture even to those with the requisite clearance (a prerequisite to access independent of the requirement for "need to know").
Indeed, in its filing of January 20, 2004, Duke Energy has already requested that the Licensing Board certify to the Commission any decision to find a "need to know" with respect to Classified information (see page 14). Accordingly, we anticipate that the discussion on Friday would involve no more or less than the Safeguards information in Dukes security submittal of September 15, 2003.
We will, of course, be prepared to discuss any related issues that the Licensing Board wishes to consider, including potential impacts in this proceeding of any Commissions decision on the Staffs two pending appeals.
Please also note that -- given the nature of the discussion above -- we have included the Office of Secretary on distribution for this e-mail. (We will not send the follow-up e-mail with personal information to the Secretary.) In order to preserve the record in this matter, we believe that it would also be prudent to send the Licensing Boards earlier e-mails to the Secretary. The message to which this e-mail replies is already duplicated below.
David A. Repka Winston & Strawn LLP 202-371-5726
Original Message-----
From: Ann Young [1]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:52 PM To: lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; Antonio Fernandez; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; Susan Uttal; Cottingham, Anne; Repka, David Cc: Anthony Baratta; Cynthia Harbaugh; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili
Subject:
information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument Would all participants please, no later than tomorrow, February 11, reply to this email, with copies to Mack Cutchin, at JMC3@nrc.gov; Michael Bodin, at MWB1@nrc.gov; R. Barry Manili, at RBM1@nrc.gov; and Cynthia Harbaugh, at CGH1@nrc.gov; providing the following information:
- a list of all persons who will be attending the Friday oral argument; and, for each:
- the organization with which the person is associated;
- his or her birth date; and
- whether each is a US citizen.
We anticipate that we will begin the session with discussion of matters relating only to up-to-Safeguards-level information, and then, after a short break, move into discussion of issues relating to Classified information up to the "L" level. Please provide the above-listed information for any and all persons you intend to bring to either part of the session, designating which part or parts of the session each will attend, pursuant to what level clearance.
As of now, I am assuming that the following persons will be attending:
Susan Uttal (for NRC Staff)
Antonio Fernandez (for NRC Staff)
Diane Curran (for BREDL)
Edwin Lyman (for BREDL)
Stephen Nesbit (for Duke)
David Repka (for Duke, only during the Safeguards part of the session)
Mr. Bodin will, from the information you provide, give my office a list of those persons who are cleared to have access to Safeguards Information, as well as a separate list of those cleared for access to Classified Information at the "L" clearance level. On Friday, someone from my office will be checking all attendees against the lists of those with appropriate clearance levels.
As indicated above, at the beginning of the session we will address certain matters involving only up-to-Safeguards-level information. Then, before starting to address any Classified information, all those not cleared for access to that will have to leave the room. For each part of the session, we will query counsel for each participant regarding the specific "need to know" on the part of each person who will attend the respective parts of the session.
Prior to the session, all persons should gather in the lobby area next to the entrance to Two White Flint (to your left after you enter Two White Flint), and someone from my office will escort everyone to the location of the session in a group. No one will be permitted to attend the respective parts of the session without the appropriate level of clearance.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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: Anthony Baratta; Antonio Fernandez; Cottingham, Anne; Cynthia Harbaugh; dcurran@harmoncurran.com; elleman@eos.ncsu.edu; HearingDocket; James Cutchin; Kathleen Kannler; lfvaughn@duke-energy.com; Michael Bodin; Robert Manili; Susan Uttal Mail Envelope Properties (402A73DD.EBD : 6 : 37434)
Subject:
Re: RE Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA; 50-414-OLA: information regarding 2/13/04 oral argument Creation Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2004 1:26 PM From: Ann Young Created By: AMY@nrc.gov Recipients duke-energy.com lfvaughn CC (lfvaughn@duke-energy.com)
eos.ncsu.edu elleman CC (elleman@eos.ncsu.edu) harmoncurran.com dcurran CC (dcurran@harmoncurran.com) nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO RBM1 CC (Robert Manili) nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO AXF2 CC (Antonio Fernandez)
HearingDocket CC (HearingDocket)
KAK1 CC (Kathleen Kannler)
SLU CC (Susan Uttal) nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO AJB5 CC (Anthony Baratta) nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO JMC3 CC (James Cutchin)
MWB1 CC (Michael Bodin) nrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DO CGH1 CC (Cynthia Harbaugh) winston.com ACottingham CC (Cottingham, Anne)
DRepka (Repka, David)
Post Office Route duke-energy.com eos.ncsu.edu harmoncurran.com owf4_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf3_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov twf4_po.TWFN_DO nrc.gov winston.com Files Size Date & Time
MESSAGE 13664 Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:26 PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
