ML043500261

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
ML043500261
Person / Time
Site: Catawba  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/06/2004
From: Repka D
Duke Energy Corp, Winston & Strawn, LLP
To: Annette Vietti-Cook
NRC/SECY
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 8982
Download: ML043500261 (2)


Text

WVINSTON & STRAWNLLP 1400 L STREEr, N.W. WAsHINGTON DC 20005-3502 202-371-5700 35 W W OW 80

&OP. A~ 3" FV~W.333 2- 4K A0.A, I01 C..K4 S'4Kt 43 lIE W P.K4 R AEE 44 4*405 10 Pf C4KoL 0000159703 ft*wy_.Ky *O01O-4193 L-A*.O.K CA 90071.1543 S0-.P400ACA 04111-5884 1204 00.Ion..4A0G~ 751 16 P-~.. ro~ 3 (E0-' cK.95,4E 31 2-558.5600 I,121294700 &I" I-1.700 dl 5.501.1000 411.2317-75-75 33-1-434-5242 1..4.. C...4 EC-4ON"0*

"4020>7429-0000 December 6, 2004 DOCKETED USNRC VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL December 14, 2004 (12:52pm)

Annette Vietti-Cook OFFICE OF SECRETARY Secretary RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA

Dear Ms. Cook:

This letter provides additional information that Duke Energy Corporation

("Duke") considers directly pertinent to an important matter pending before the Commission.

On October 28, 2004, Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke") filed a response to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League's ("BREDL") motion for reconsideration of CLI-04-29 in the captioned matter. In Section D of that response, Duke asked the Commission to provide further specific guidance on the design basis threat ("DBT") to be utilized in the ongoing proceeding relating to the licensing of mixed oxide lead assemblies. As a basis for this request, Duke stated:

[A]s this proceeding has unfolded, it has become increasingly clear to Duke that the Commission must set the specific adversary characteristics that make up the DBT for theft and diversion to be applied to Catawba during the interim between receipt of the MOX fuel assemblies at the site and insertion of these assemblies into the reactor. It is untenable for Duke, a private entity, to address that issue. Moreover, the Licensing Board -

which is not privy to classified threat information - cannot reasonably be left to make significant policy determinations on security in an individual case.

Duke further recommended that, in addressing the matter before it, the Commission should be more specific as to the DBT to assure an efficient and timely resolution of this case:

le lD/ace -5 ECY- o43 _1a

Annette Vietti-Cook December 6, 2004 Page 2 Duke recommends, however, that in addressing the current Motion, the Commission be even more specific to assure an efficient and timely resolution of this case. The Conmmission can and should weigh the relevant factors and state any specific changes (the "increment") from the 10 C.F.R. Part 50 DBT for radiological sabotage that will apply to Catawba, including any changes with respect to the number of attackers, the weaponry to be utilized, and the role of insider assistance. Duke maintains that the applicable Part 50 DBT and relevant Staff positions should apply.

On December 3, 2004, BREDL filed three supplemental discovery responses which set forth the size and other attributes of the DBT it would have the Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board consider in this proceeding. These responses, which are filed on the docket but involve Safeguards Information, are directly relevant to and illustrate the importance of defining an appropriate DBT. Duke believes BREDL's filings provide even more impetus for the Commission to act on Duke's request for supervisory guidance.

The Commission is undoubtedly aware that a timely ruling in this case is needed to enable loading the four MOX fuel lead assemblies in Catawba this spring, thereby avoiding a one year delay in the qualification of MOX fuel for the plutonium disposition program. Duke respectfully requests that the Commission review the BREDL supplemental discovery responses and consider them in its deliberation on the pending motion.

Sincerely, David A. Repka Counsel for Duke Energy Corporation cc: Service List DAR/kmj DC:390278.1