ML073110434

2007/10/11- Letter Re Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, License Renewal - Petitions for Leave to Intervene

ML073110434
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/11/2007
From:	Bessette P, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY/RAS
SECY RAS
References
50-246-LR, 50-248-LR, RAS 14626
Download: ML073110434 (2)

Text

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 M iLevvi Tel: 202.739.3000 COUNSELORS AT LAW Fax: 202.739.3001 www.morganlewis.com DOCKETED USNRC Kathryn M. Sutton Partner 202.739.5738 October 11, 2007 (3:44pm)" ksutton@morganlewis.com

'" OFFICE OF SECRETARY Paul M. Bessette RULEMAKINGS AND Partner ADJUDICATIONS STAFF 202.739.5796' pbessette@morganIewis.com October 11, 2007 Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Re: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, License Renewal, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 -Petitions for Leave to Intervene

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

On August 1, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice in the Federal Register, providing an opportunity for interested persons to file petitions for leave to intervene and request a hearing with respect to the application filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3. The notice originally provided a 60-day period, until October 1, 2007, in which such petitions could be timely filed. 72 Fed. Reg. 42,134. The Commission subsequently extended that date to November 30, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg.55,834 (Oct. 1, 2007).Entergy learned that, on September 21, 2007, a petition for leave to intervene in response to the notice was filed electronically

-with the NRC only -by Ms. Susan Shapiro, on behalf of Friends United for Sustainable Energy, USA, Inc. (FUSE). Although we informally requested and obtained a copy of this petition from the Office of the Secretary, the many exhibits, declarations, affidavits and attachments referenced as necessary support for the petition with respect to both FUSE's standing arguments and proffered contentions were not included by FUSE in its initial filing with the NRC.Entergy further learned that, on or about October 4, 2007, FUSE filed a second copy of the petition that purportedly includes the supporting documents.

However, while both NRC Federal Register notices explicitly direct petitioners to send copies of their petitions or hearing requests to the licensee at a specified address, Entergy has not to this date been served with the' petition and supporting documents, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.305 and 2.309.-TE ýAIOL 1'A- -T6 SerL-Ya6T3K Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Morgan Lewis COUNSELORS AT LAW October 11, 2007 Page 2 Entergy also learned that, on or about October 2, 2007, the City of New York filed a petition for leave to intervene with the Office of the Secretary.

Entergy did not receive a copy of the petition on that date. However, on October 4, 2007 (at 11:05 pm), counsel for the City of New York transmitted a copy of the petition to outside counsel for Entergy via e-mail.As noted above, the' Commission's October 1, 2007, notice extended the period for filing intervention petitions and hearing requests to November 30, 2007. Both the FUSE and City of New York petitions were filed with the NRC well in advance of that date. Under 10 CFR§ 2.309(h)(1), the applicant/licensee, the NRC Staff, and any other party to a proceeding ordinarily must file an answer to a petition to intervene within twenty-five (25) days after service of the petition.

The Commission's October 1, 2007, notice appears to supersede this provision, however, stating that: "Answers to such petitions are now due on January 11, 2008, and replies to those answers are due on January 18, 2008." 72 Fed. Reg. at 55,834 (emphasis, added).Accordingly, the purpose of this letter is to state Entergy's understanding that all answers (including those of the Applicant and NRC Staff) to any petitions to intervene filed prior to November 30, 2007, including those filed by FUSE and the City of New York, are due on January 11, 2008. This assumes, of course, that such petitions have been properly filed with the Office of the Secretary and properly served on the Applicant and NRC Staff. In this regard, it is Entergy's position that it is has no obligation under the NRC's Rules of Practice to respond to either FUSE petition.

The first ,petition, which was incomplete, was not properly served and has been superseded by a second filing.Similarly, Entergy has no obligation to respond to the second petition unless and until that petition -including any supporting documents

-has been properly served on Entergy, in accordance with the aforementioned Federal Register notices and the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.Although Entergy believes that the NRC's October 1, 2007, notice is clear on its face with respect to the period for filing answers to hearing requests and petitions to intervene, Entergy wishes to state its understanding for the record. Therefore, unless directed otherwise by the Commission, Entergy intends to abide by the January 11, 2008, filing date for answers set forth in the Federal Register notice. Furthermore, we respectfully submit that establishing uniform or common deadlines for the filing of answers and replies -as we understand the NRC to have done -simplifies the proceedings, promotes administrative ease and economy, and avoids potential prejudice to the parties involved.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Sincerely, Kat M. Sutton Paul M. Bessette Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.cc: William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.