ML040920331

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Opposition to Duke Energy Corporation'S Motion to Dismiss Contention III

ML040920331
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/25/2004
From:	Curran D Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7526
Download: ML040920331 (4)

Text

-RAdS 752 6 March 25, 2004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD USNRC March 31, 2004 (11:11AM)

In the Matter of Docket No's. 50-413-OLA, OFFIEMAOFNSECEARY DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 50-414-OLA ADJUDICATIONS STAFF (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE'S OPPOSITION TO DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTION III Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League ("BREDL") hereby responds to Duke Energy Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Contention III (March 15, 2004) ("Motion to Dismiss"). Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke") argues that Contention III should be dismissed, because Duke has provided an RAI response letter demonstrating consideration of Oconee as an alternative to Catawba for testing plutonium fuel. Duke's Motion at 1-2, citing letter from H.B. Barron, Duke Energy Corp., to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (March 1, 2004) (hereinafter "RAI Response").

Contention III states that: "[t]he Environmental Report is deficient because it fails to consider Oconee as an alternative for the MOX LTAs." LBP-04-04, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on standing and Contentions), slip op. at 50-51.

Duke's RAI Response is fundamentally inadequate to satisfy the requirement for consideration of Oconee as an alternative, because its analysis is based on the assumption that "batch" use of plutonium fuel will be carried out only at Catawba. Having made this assumption, the RAI Response reaches the unsurprising, indeed inevitable, conclusion enp 1 ate= s5Y Ol sEcV

that it is appropriate to test the fuel at the same'plant where ultimately it will be used in batch quantities.

Duke completely misses the point of BREDL's Contention 5 (which was reframed as Contention III), that in light of new information regarding the hazards of operating nuclear plants with ice condenser containments, it is appropriate to consider batch use of MOX fuel at another nuclear power plant under Duke's control, i.e., Oconee, as an alternative for mitigating or avoiding the impacts of accidents. See BREDL Supplemental Petition to Intervene at 12-13. It is therefore inappropriate for Duke to limit its factual analysis of the suitability of Oconee as an alternative to the question of whether Oconee would be an appropriate location to test fuel that ultimately will be used at Catawba. Duke's analysis should have addressed, in addition, the question of whether Oconee would be a more suitable alternative for batch use of plutonium fuel.

Respectfully submitted, 5ianeCurran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 e-mail: dcurran(~harmoncurran.com March 25, 2004 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 25, 2004, copies of the foregoing BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE'S OPPOSITION TO DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTION III were served on the following by e-mail and/or first-class mail, as indicated below:

Ann Marshall Young, Chair Susan L. Uttal, Esq.

Administrative Judge Antonio Fernandez, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kathleen A. Kannler, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop 15 D21 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: AMY@nrc. gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: slu~nrc.gov axf2@nrc.gov, Anthony J. Baratta KAK1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mary Olson U.S. Nucleai Regulatory Commission Southeast Office, Nuclear Information and Mail Stop: T-3F23 Resource Service Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O Box 7586 E-mail: AJB5@nrc.gov Asheville, NC 28802 E-mail: nirs. se~mindspring. com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lisa F. Vaughn, Esq.

Mail Stop: 0-16C1 Legal Dept. (PBOSE)

Washington, D.C. 20555 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street (EC IX)

Thomas S. Elleman Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Administrative Judge E-mail: 1 fVaughn~duke -energy. cor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4760 East Country Villa Drive Janet Marsh Zeller, Executive Director Tucson, AZ 85718 Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League E-mail: ellemanseos . ncsu. edu P.O. Box 88 Glendale Springs, NC 28629 Office of the Secretary (original and two copies) E-mail: BREDL@skybest. com ATTN: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-16C1 Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKETinrc. qov

I -

2 David A. Repka, Esq.

Anne W. Cottingham, Esq.

Winston & Strawn, LLP 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 E-mail:drepkagwinston.com acotting~winston.com C, _

Diane Curran