ML041190583
| ML041190583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/2004 |
| From: | Fernandez A NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7667 | |
| Download: ML041190583 (4) | |
Text
1 Since this proceeding was instituted prior to the Commissions promulgation of the new hearing procedures in revised 10 C.F.R. Part 2, references to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 are to old Part 2.
RAS 7667 April 26, 2004 DOCKETED 04/27/04 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
)
Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA
)
50-414-OLA (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFFS RESPONSE TO BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUES AMENDED CONTENTIONS ON DUKES SECURITY PLAN SUBMITTAL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(c),1 the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues (BREDL) Amended Contentions on Duke Energy Corporations (Duke) Security Plan Submittal. See [BREDLs]
Amended Contentions on Dukes Security Plan Submittal (April 8, 2004) (BREDLs Amended Security Contentions). In substance, BREDL is attempting to amend the bases it previously identified in support of contentions filed earlier in this proceeding. The Staff does not oppose acceptance of BREDLs amended bases.
Additionally, the Staff hereby responds to the Boards suggestion that the Staff provide support for its position, stated at a telephone conference held on April 20, 2004, that the bases of a contention define its scope. See Tr. 1720. During the conference, the Board expressed surprise at the Staffs assertion that the articulated bases of a contention define the scope of that contention. Id. In fact, the position stated by the Staff on this issue is correct. The Commission has recently reiterated, [w]hen an issue arises over the scope of an admitted contention, NRC opinions have long referred back to the bases set forth in support of the contention. Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 379 (2002) (citations omitted). Further, in a case involving the Seabrook nuclear power plant, the Appeal Board observed that [t]he reach of a contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988), affd sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991). The Appeal Board went on to state that an intervenor is not free to change the focus of its admitted contention, at will, as the litigation progresses. Id. at 97 n.11. Accordingly, the scope of a contention in the litigation is determined by the bases submitted in support of the contention.
CONCLUSION Based on the forgoing, the Staff submits that the bases proposed in BREDLs Amended Security Contentions are valid.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Antonio Fernández Counsel for the NRC staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of April, 2004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
)
Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA
)
50-414-OLA
)
(Catawba Nuclear Station
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFFS RESPONSE TO BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUES AMENDED CONTENTIONS ON DUKES SECURITY PLAN SUBMITTAL in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk (*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; and by e-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 26TH day of April, 2004.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair**
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: AMY@nrc.gov)
Anthony J. Baratta**
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: AJB5@nrc.gov)
Thomas S. Elleman**
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5207 Creedmoor Rd. #101 Raleigh, NC 27612 (E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu)
Office of the Secretary**
- ATTN: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, D.C. 20555 (E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication*
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudicatory File*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555 Diane Curran, Esq.**
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
& Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com)
Lisa F. Vaughn, Esq.**
Legal Department Mail Code - PB05E Duke Energy Corporation 426 S. Church Street (EC11X)
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 (E-mail: lfVaughn@duke-energy.com)
David A. Repka, Esq.**
Anne W. Cottingham, Esq.**
Winston & Strawn LLP 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 (E-mail: drepka@winston.com acotting@winston.com)
/RA/
Antonio Fernández Counsel for NRC Staff