(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|---|
Category:Legal-Brief
MONTHYEARML0513902952005-05-0909 May 2005
Duke Energy Corporation'S Reply to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Brief in Response to CLI-05-10
ML0513103542005-05-0202 May 2005
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Brief in Response to CLI-05-10 Regarding Commission Review of LBP-05-10
ML0508103272005-03-21021 March 2005
Catawba - NRC Staff Response to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Petition for Review of No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Request for Immediate Order
ML0508203442005-03-16016 March 2005
Duke Energy Corporation'S Opposition to Petition for Expedited Discretionary Review of No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Request for Immediate Order
ML0507501942005-03-0909 March 2005
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Petition for Expedited Discretionary Review of No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Request for Immediate Order That Duke May Not Accept Plutonium MOX Fuel Shipment, with Attachmen
ML0431401742004-10-29029 October 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Appeal of NRC Staff'S October 27, 2004, Need-to-know Determination
ML0423006032004-08-0606 August 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Appeal of Duke Energy Corporation'S August 6, 2004 Need-to-know Determination
ML0420301772004-07-13013 July 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Reply to Duke Energy Corporation'S Response to NRC Staff Petition for Review of ASLB Ruling on Bredl Security Expert Qualifications
ML0420203822004-07-0909 July 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Opposition to NRC Staff Petition for Review of ASLB Ruling on Bredl Security Expert Qualifications and Opposition to Motion for Stay
ML0414005112004-05-12012 May 2004
Duke Energy Corporation'S Reply to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Brief on Certified Questions
ML0414004792004-05-12012 May 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Reply Brief in Response to CLI-04-11
ML0413406162004-05-12012 May 2004
Catawba - NRC Staff'S Reply to the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Response to the Commission'S April 21, 2004 Order
ML0413401392004-05-0505 May 2004
Response of Duke Energy Corporation to the Questions Certified to the Commission by Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Security-Related Contentions)
ML0412704882004-05-0505 May 2004
Catawba - NRC Staff'S Response to the Commission'S April 21, 2004 Order Relating to Certified Question Regarding Bredl Security Contention 1
ML0413303682004-05-0505 May 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Brief in Response to CLI-04-11, Regarding Admissibility of Bredl Security Contention 1; and Request for Reconsideration of CLI-04-06
ML0411005292004-04-14014 April 2004
Catawba - Certificate of Service for NRC Staff'S Response to the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff and NRC Staff Brief in Response to the Aslb'S April 8, 2004 Order
ML0411005212004-04-14014 April 2004
Catawba - NRC Staff Brief in Response to the Aslb'S April 8, 2004 Order
ML0409203282004-03-25025 March 2004
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Response to Duke'S Appeal of LBP-04-04
ML0409201352004-03-25025 March 2004
Catawba - NRC Staff'S Brief in Support of Duke Energy Corporation'S Appeal from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Memorandum and Order LBP-04-04 (Ruling on Standing and Contentions)
ML0408204762004-03-15015 March 2004
Memorandum of Law in Support of Duke Energy Corporation'S Appeal from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Memorandum and Order LBP-04-04 (Ruling on Standing and Contentions)
ML0408204162004-03-15015 March 2004
Notice of Appeal of Duke Energy Corporation from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order LBP-04-04 (Ruling on Standing and Contentions)
ML0405004602004-02-11011 February 2004
Catawba MOX - NRC Staff'S Petition for Review of the Licensing Board'S February 4, 2004 Order Relating to Bredl'S Request to Attend a Closed Meeting
ML0403604542004-01-28028 January 2004
Catawba MOX - NRC Staff Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Request to the Commission Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.904
ML0335704202003-12-19019 December 2003
Catawba - NRC Staff'S Reply to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Response to Board Questions
ML0335704342003-12-12012 December 2003
Catawba - NRC Staff'S Response to Board'S Question Regarding Executive Order 12114
ML0332405462003-11-14014 November 2003
Duke Energy Corporation'S Opposition to Petition for Review of LBP-03-17
ML0331804812003-11-10010 November 2003
NRC Staff'S Response to (1) Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Supplemental Petition to Intervene and (2) Nuclear Information and Resource Service'S Contentions
ML0331701302003-11-0404 November 2003
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League'S Petition for Review of LBP-03-17
ML0304401172003-02-12012 February 2003
Mcguire/Catawba - NRC Staff'S Response to Intervenors' Brief Filed Pursuant to Licensing Board Order of February 4, 2003
ML0304101362003-02-0707 February 2003
Mcguire/Catawba - NRC Staff'S Brief in Response to Licensing Board Order of February 4, 2003
ML0208104262002-03-12012 March 2002
Reply of Duke Energy Corporation to Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Briefs in Response to Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-02-06
ML0208502652002-03-12012 March 2002
Nuclear Information and Resource Service Reply Brief Regarding Admissibility of NEPA Issues Relating to Terrorism and Sabotage
ML0212205042002-03-12012 March 2002
Mcguire/Catawba - NRC Staff'S Brief in Reply to Responses to CLI-02-06
ML0207303032002-02-27027 February 2002
Brief of Duke Energy Corporation in Response to Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-02-06
ML0207301562002-02-27027 February 2002
Amicus Brief of Nuclear Energy Institute in Response to the Commission'S Memorandum and Orders Dated February 6, 2002, Regarding the Commission'S Consideration of Potential Intentional Malevolent Acts
ML0205904192002-02-27027 February 2002
Mcguire/Catawba - NRC Staff'S Brief in Response to CLI-02-06
ML0208102992002-02-14014 February 2002
Nirs Response to Appeal Memoranda of Duke Energy and NRC Staff to Atomic Safety Licensing Board January 24, 2002 Ruling on Standing and Contentions
ML0206506302002-02-14014 February 2002
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (Bredl) Response to NRC Staff'S Brief in Support of Appeal from LBP-02-04 and Memorandum of Law in Support of Appeal of Duke Energy Corporation from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Or
ML0205902972002-02-0404 February 2002
Memorandum of Law in Support of Appeal of Duke Energy Corporation from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order LBP-02-04 (Ruling on Standing and Contentions)
ML0205901792002-02-0404 February 2002
Notice of Appeal of Duke Energy Corporation from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order LBP-02-04 (Ruling on Standing and Contentions)
ML0203800592002-02-0404 February 2002
Certificate of Service for NRC Staff Notice of Appeal of LBP-02-04 and NRC Staff'S Brief in Support of Appeal from LBP-02-04 Granting Intervention and Admission of Contentions
ML0203800552002-02-0404 February 2002
NRC Staff Notice of Appeal of LBP-02-04 Granting Intervention and Admission of Contentions
ML0203800502002-02-0404 February 2002
Mcguire/Catawba - NRC Staff'S Brief in Support of Appeal from LBP-02-04
2005-05-09
[Table view] |
Text
March 15, 2004 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I I59NRC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION March 19, 2004 (12:41PM)
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRFTARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of: )
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA
) 50-414-OLA (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units I and 2) )
?
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION FROM ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-04-04 (RULING ON STANDING AND CONTENTIONS)
Pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") regulations in 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.714a(c), Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke") hereby appeals the March 5, 2004, Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Licensing Board") in this matter.' That Memorandum and Order refrained and admitted three contentions for hearing based on proposed contentions filed by petitioner Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
("BREDL") on October 21, 2003 and December 2, 2003. The Memorandum and Order also considered and rejected all of the proposed contentions filed by petitioner Nuclear Information and Resource Service ("NIRS") on October 21, 2003.
As discussed further in the supporting Memorandum of Law filed with this Notice of Appeal, Duke opposes admission of all three of the refrained contentions. Contrary to the Duke Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP-04-04, _ NRC (slip op., Mar. 5, 2004) ("Memorandum and Order").
I
-7e mp/cqte =seCy- o 7
ruling of the Licensing Board, none of the proposed contentions proffered by BREDL meets NRC standards for admissibility or raises matters within the scope of this proceeding. Moreover, contrary to Commission policy, the Licensing Board refrained the proposed contentions. The contentions that the Licensing Board created are themselves deficient and do not satisfy Commission standards for admissibility. The restated contentions lack a clear and well-defined basis, establish an erroneous precedent regarding the consideration of risk in a license amendment proceeding, impermissibly broaden the scope of the contentions on which they are based, and fail to provide a clear statement of the matters to be litigated. Accordingly, Duke respectfully requests that the Commission reverse the Licensing's Board's admission of these three contentions.
The license amendment at issue in this proceeding would authorize Duke to utilize four mixed oxide ("MOX") fuel lead assemblies at the Catawba Nuclear Station
("Catawba"). This license amendment supports the Department of Energy ("DOE") plutonium disposition program - an important nuclear non-proliferation program undertaken by the United States in conjunction with Russia and the international community. Duke has indicated its plan to load the lead MOX fuel assemblies at Catawba in Spring 2005. In its February 27, 2003 license amendment application, Duke requested that the NRC issue the license amendment by August 2004. This schedule for NRC action will support DOE's schedule for export of feed material to fabricate the MOX fuel assemblies.
In parallel with the Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board in this case established an aggressive schedule to attempt to complete the hearing on a schedule consistent with the Duke and DOE schedule. Given the schedule considerations, Duke evaluated pressing forward with litigation of the three admitted contentions. After careful deliberation, however, 2
Duke has concluded that discovery and hearings on the three admitted contentions would be so ill-defined and inefficient that a prompt resolution on the schedule established by the Licensing Board would be unlikely. The Memorandum and Order admits contentions that impermissibly expand the scope of the hearing; as such, it seriously compromises a timely resolution of this proceeding. Duke accordingly requests expeditious Commission action on this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, David A. Repka WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 (202) 371-5726 Lisa F. Vaughn DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 422 South Church Street Charlotte, N.C. 28202 ATTORNEYS FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 15th day of March 2004 3
DC:348580.1
