ML073390454
| ML073390454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2007 |
| From: | Lawrence Mcdade Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS 14735 | |
| Download: ML073390454 (7) | |
Text
1 Extension Request of Connecticut Residences Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point (Nov. 30, 2007). We note that this request for an extension of time was received by the Board via electronic mail at 1:54 PM EST on November 30, 2007. November 30, 2007, was the date on which the Petition to Intervene was due. Such eleventh hour requests for extensions of time are necessarily frowned upon. Participants to this litigation should expect in the future that any such late requests for an extension will be denied unless it is accompanied by an explanation, that is satisfactory to the Board, outlining not only why an extension is needed, but also why the request for an extension could not have been requested at an earlier point in time.
2 The Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing must be served so that it is received by the Board, the NRC Staff and Entergy on or before December 10, 2007. Copies should also be sent to Counsel for WestCan, CAN, RCCA, PHASE, and the Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter; Sherwood Martinelli, the representative for FUSE; the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance; Counsel for the New York City Economic Development Corporation; Counsel for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 12/05/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SERVED 12/05/07 Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 December 5, 2007 ORDER (Granting an Extension of Time To CRORIP Within Which To File Requests For Hearing)
In a letter dated November 30, 2007, which was signed by Nancy Burton on behalf of Connecticut Residences Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point (CRORIP), that organization requested an extension of time within which to file a Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene.1 We grant that motion subject to conditions that are set out below. CRORIP may submit a Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing on or before December 10, 2007.2 Westchester County; Counsel for the State of New York; Counsel for the State of Connecticut; Counsel for Riverkeeper; Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt; and the representative for the Village of Buchanan, New York. See however Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-06-4, 63 NRC 32, 38-39. Pursuant to that ruling by the Commission, this Board will not act on CRORIPs Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing pending certification from the Office of the Secretary.
3 Commission Order (Granting an Extension of Time) (Nov. 16, 2007).
4 Id. at 1.
5 Clearwater Request for Extension to File Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Nov. 23, 2007).
6 Licensing Board Order (Granting an Extension of Time) (Nov. 27, 2007).
A similar request for an extension of time had been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) by Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) on November 7, 2007. FUSEs request for an extension of time was granted in part by the Commission on November 16, 20073 and FUSE was given an additional 10 days, until December 10, 2007, within which to file Requests for Hearing and Petitions to Intervene.4 Thereafter, in a letter dated November 23, 2007, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
(Clearwater), requested an extension of time within which to file a Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene.5 We granted that motion in part, and Clearwater was given until December 10, 2007, within which to submit a Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing.6 However, this Motion for an Extension of Time by CRORIP, like the similar Motion submitted on behalf of Clearwater, did not comply with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), which states that a motion must be rejected if it does not include a certification by the attorney or representative of the moving party that the movant has made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion. While this Motion for an Extension of Time was not accompanied by such a certification, mindful of our responsibility to avoid delay and maintain order (10 C.F.R. § 2.319), as we did with Clearwater, we exercise our discretion 7 Commission Order (Granting an Extension of Time) (Nov. 16, 2007).
and grant this Motion.
We reach this decision for the following reasons. First, as noted above, a similar motion has already been granted by the Commission with regard to FUSE7 and by this Board with respect to Clearwater, and we believe that it is in the interest of an orderly proceeding that all putative interveners are held to the same standards. Accordingly, we would have granted this Motion for an Extension of Time even if it had been vigorously opposed by Entergy and the NRC Staff. Second, as was the case with Clearwater, this is the first pleading that CRORIP has filed in this matter. Accordingly, they have not received the repeated admonitions from this Board and the Commission regarding the need to scrupulously follow all procedural rules set out in 10 C.F.R. Part 2. That said, CRORIP, as was Clearwater in our earlier Order, is now on notice that it must become familiar with and follow the Part 2 Rules and the Orders of this Board, and that failure to do so may well result in future pleadings being rejected.
We specifically draw to CRORIPs attention the Orders that the Board has issued to date in this proceeding, as all participants in this matter will be held to compliance with the administrative directions set out in the Boards Orders. These Orders include: Licensing Board Order (Administrative Matters and Directing Parties Attention to Requirements for Proper Service) (Oct. 29, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Authorizing FUSE to Submit a Section 2.335 Petition) (Nov. 21, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Denying an Extension of Time Within Which To File Requests For Hearing) (Nov. 27, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Granting an Extension of Time To Clearwater Within Which To File Requests For Hearing) (Nov. 27, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Denying Entergys Motion to Strike But Sua Sponte Striking FUSEs Multiple Requests For Hearing) (Nov. 28, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Denying an Extension of Time Within Which To File Requests For Hearing) (Nov. 28, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Granting 8 We note that Petition to Intervene that was submitted via electronic mail on November 30, 2007, appears to have been submitted both on behalf of CRORIP and on behalf of Ms.
Burton as an individual. The second version of this Petition, which was submitted via electronic mail on December 1, 2007, appears to have been submitted only on behalf of CRORIP. Any Superceding Petition that is submitted pursuant to this Order should clearly indicate whether it is being submitted only on behalf of CRORIP, or whether it is also being submitted on behalf of Ms. Burton as an individual.
An Extension Of Time Within Which To File Requests For Hearing) (Nov. 29, 2007); Licensing Board Order (Censure of Sherwood Martinelli) (Dec. 4, 2007).
More specifically we draw CRORIPs attention to the Licensing Board Order (Granting An Extension Of Time Within Which To File Requests For Hearing) at 4-5 (Nov. 29, 2007) in which we addressed the issue of duplicative pleadings.
In that Order we reiterated our previous directive with regard to duplicative pleadings and advised participants in this proceeding that, if the practice continued, they should anticipate that the Board would sua sponte strike such pleadings from the record and not allow them to be refilled. We directed participants in this litigation to examine pleadings before they are filed so that corrected pleadings will seldom, if ever, need to be filed and, in the event a mistake is made and a participant to this litigation finds it necessary to file a corrected pleading, they shall clearly label such pleadings, and accompany the pleading with a cover letter which clearly explains the differences between the two pleadings, and why a supplemental filing was necessary. We noted that this practice is no more than common courtesy and, without such practice, we could not conduct this proceeding in an orderly manner.
We expressly remind CRORIP of that specific Order because the Board received, via electronic mail, a Petition to Intervene that was filed on CRORIPs behalf on November 30, 2007 at 4:42 PM EST and, thereafter, we received a similar, but not identical, Petition to Intervene that was filed on CRORIPs behalf on December 1, 2007 at 6:27 AM EST.8 Accordingly, as identified in our previous Orders, neither participants in this litigation nor the Board will be able 9 A copy of this Order was sent this date by First Class Mail to: Mayor Daniel E. ONeill, the representative for the Village of Buchanan. Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to: (1) Nancy Burton as the representative of CRORIP; (2) Counsel for the NRC Staff; (3) Counsel for Entergy; (4) Manna Jo Green, the representative for Clearwater; (5)
Counsel for WestCan, CAN, RCCA, PHASE and the Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter; (6)
Sherwood Martinelli, the representative for FUSE; (7) New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance; (8) Counsel for the New York City Economic Development Corporation; (9) Counsel for Westchester County; (10) Counsel for the State of New York; (11) Counsel for the State of Connecticut; (12) Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt; and (13) Counsel for Riverkeeper, Inc.
to determine which document was intended to be the operative pleading.
Accordingly, in order to insure a clear record, we strike the two Petitions to Intervene that have been filed on behalf of CRORIP, and/or Ms. Burton, but allow it to file a Superceding Petition to Intervene which complies with the Boards instructions regarding duplicative pleadings, and all other substantive and administrative requirements, on or before December 10, 2007. Failure to comply will result in CRORIP and Ms. Burton being dismissed from this proceeding.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD9
/RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, MD December 5, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR
)
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER (GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO CRORIP WITHIN WHICH TO FILE REQUESTS FOR HEARING) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, New York 10566
2 Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR LB ORDER (GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO CRORIP WITHIN WHICH TO FILE REQUESTS FOR HEARING)
Michael J. Delaney, Vice President - Energy New York City Economic Development Corporation 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman New York AREA 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 New York, NY 10016 Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Manna Jo Greene, Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
112 Little Market St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor Village of Buchanan James Seirmarc, M.S., Liaison to Indian Point 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General of the State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney Office of the Westchester County Attorney Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
Attorney General of the State of New York John J. Sipos, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876
Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR LB ORDER (GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO CRORIP WITHIN WHICH TO FILE REQUESTS FOR HEARING) 3 Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Senior Counsel for Special Projects Office of General Counsel New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Boadway Albany, NY 12224
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2007