ML042570187
| ML042570187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/2004 |
| From: | Fernandez A NRC/OGC |
| To: | Anthony Baratta, Elleman T, Austin Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 8414 | |
| Download: ML042570187 (2) | |
Text
GE tsy REG&,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 3, 2004 OFFICE OF THE NERAL COUNSEL Ann Marshall Young, Chair Thomas S. Elleman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5207 Creedmoor Rd. #101 Mail Stop: T-3F23 Raleigh, NC 27612 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony J. Baratta Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA and 414-OLA
Dear Administrative Judges:
This is to inform you that the NRC Staff has determined that it will not make any changes to the redactions made to Catawba Nuclear Station's Physical Security Plan (PSP). The Staff has assured itself that it took into account the possibility of a scenario involving diversion when it redacted portions of the PSP. Since protection of areas other than the spent fuel pool is outside the scope of the current proceeding, the Staff believes that the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) has no need-to-know regarding the information that has been redacted. Moreover, based on the premise articulated above, the Staff has reviewed Revision 15 to the PSP and has made redactions to it. In addition, the Staff, upon further review of the unredacted version of Duke's procedures, pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of August 13, 20041, the Staff has determined that Duke's decision to provide BREDL with an unredacted version of its procedures, in the interest of expediency, does not appear to 1 Memorandum and Order (Confirming August 10, 2004, Bench Ruling Finding Need to Know and Ordering Provision of Documents Sought by Intervenor in Discovery) (Aug. 13, 2004) at 8.
be consistent with the need-to-know provision of 10 C.F.R. §73.21 in the context of the issue in this proceeding. Therefore, the Staff has informed Duke of its determination and asked Duke to withhold the previously redacted portions of the procedures from BREDL.
Sincerely, Antonio Fernandez Counsel for NRC staff cc: Service list