ML080660209
| ML080660209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/2008 |
| From: | Riesel D Sive, Paget & Riesel, PC, Town of Cortlandt, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-17 | |
| Download: ML080660209 (20) | |
Text
R A-S -E - I I In the Matter of ENTERGY NU(
(Indian Point Ni Units 2 and 3 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD February 25, 2008 (11:55am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF CLEAR OPERATIONS, INC,
)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR iclear Generating
)
February 25, 2008
)
TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
MOTION TO STRIKE TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REPLY TO ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE INTRODUCTION The Reply filed by the Town of Cortlandt ("Cortlandt") in response to the answer filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") is both consistent with this Agency's rules and decisional law, and speaks to the obviously critical issues relating to the health and safety of Cortlandt's residents. On the other hand, Entergy's motion to strike Cortlandt's Reply, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), is both inconsistent with that regulation and without any merit.
Entergy did not make a sincere effort to contact and resolve the issues subsumed in its motion, 'and its representation that it attempted to comply with this requirement is disingenuous.
The absence from Entergy's moving papers of a certificate of a good faith effort mandates dismissal of its motion.
&3'7 SE0 0ý)
ARGUMENT I° ENTERGY'S MOTION TO STRIKE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NRC REGULATIONS AND CASE LAW "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, and that the movant's efforts to resolve the issue(s) have been unsuccessful." 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) (emphases added).
Thus, a moving party must certify that it made a "sincere effort" to (i) contact the putative respondent and (ii) resolve, if possible, the issue "before involving the [Atomic Safety and Licensing] Board."
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 62 N.R.C. 828, 837 (2005) ("Vermont Yankee") (emphasis added); see also PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Stem Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), ASLBP-07-851-01-LR-BDO1, 65 N.R.C. 281, 298 n.54 (2007) (movant must include certification with any motion other than one made orally on the record that "movant has made a sincere effort to contact the other parties and resolve the matter, and that this effort was unsuccessful:")
\\
Entergy did not sincerely attempt to contact Cortlandt's representative, and beyond peradventure of doubt, did not make any effort, much less a "sincere" effort, to resolve the issues in-the motion. That is undoubtedly the reason why the requisite certificate is missing. Instead, Entergy attempts to: sneak past this obligation by the subterfuge of a footnote. In that footnote, Entergy states that "[a]s of the time of filing, Mr. Riesel was unavailable and Mr. Wood did not return Entergy's phone call."
(Entergy Motion, at 1 n.1.)
However, the footnote is only additional proof that Entergy's motion must be struck. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b); Vermont Yankee, 62 N.R.C. at 837 (a motion that does not include a certification must be rejected).
2
Entergy had ten days to make a sincere and reasonable effort to contact and attempt to resolve the dispute with Cortlandt. 1 There is no indication that Entergy attempted to contact Mr.
Riesel via email or telephone. (Aff. of Daniel Riesel, sworn to Feb. 25, 2008, ("Riesel Af.") at
¶4.) Entergy left Mr. Wood a message at 1:15pm on February 15, 2008, the day Entergy filed its motion; Mr. Wood was unavailable because he was on vacation. (Riesel Aff., at ¶6.) In its message to Mr. Wood, Entergy stated that it was obligated to tell Mr. Wood that it was filing a motion to strike. (Riesel Aff. Exh. A.) Entergy did not state that it was contacting him to try to resolve the issues in its forthcoming motion to strike.
Of course, one phone call several hours before filing its motion is not a sincere or even a reasonable effort to contact Cortlandt. Plus, Entergy merely contacted Mr. Wood to tell him it was obligated to inform Cortlandt of its impending motion. Entergy never stated that it was attempting to resolve the issues in its motion. Ten days is an ample amount of time in which to make more than one attempt to call both representatives of Cortlandt, Mr. Riesel and Mr. Wood.
Its failure to make more than one attempt to contact the parties involved defeats the consultation requirement of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and forces the Board to become involved in this litigation, which might not have been necessary if Entergy adhered to the regulations. Instead, Entergy disingenuously misrepresents that it attempted to resolve the issues in its motion.
Therefore, Entergy's motion must be dismissed.
"A motion must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises." 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a). Cortlandt filed its Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy on February 8, 2008. Entergy filed its Motionto Strike at 6:08pm on February 15, 2008.
3
II.
CORTLANDT'S REPLY IS AN AMPLIFICATION OF ITS REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE Cortlandt's Petition raised several issues of concern to its residents, including the readily apparent danger of Indian Point's continued storage of spent fuel rods. (See Cortlandt Petition, at 6-7, 10-11.) Entergy alleges that Cortlandt's Reply raises new arguments.
(See Entergy Motion, at 1.) However, Entergy fails to acknowledge that Cortlandt's Reply addresses issues raised in the Answers of Entergy and NRC Staff and amplifies statements made in its Petition to Intervene. The reply brief "may respond to and focus on any legal, logical, or factual arguments presented in the answers", Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),
LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. 257, 359 (2006), and the "amplification of statements provided in an initial petition is legitimate and permissible." Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 64 N.R.C. 131, 152 (2006) ("Vermont Yankee"); see also 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) ("petitioner may file a reply to any answer"); Nuclear Management Co.,
LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant), LBP-05-841-02, 62 N.R.C. 735, 758 (2005)
("Nuclear Management Co.") (reply may explain the original contentions and provide greater specificity than what was originally included in the petition to intervene).
Entergy also stated that principles of fairness require Cortlandt to restrict its reply brief to those issues addressed in applicant's answer. (Entergy Motion, at 4.) Because Cortlandt's Reply focused on issues raised in the answers of Entergy and NRC Staff and cited to additional material to amplify its reply, the Reply did not prejudice or unfairly surprise Entergy. Additionally, the Reply did not address new issues, but elaborated on issues already raised by itself and other petitioners.
Accordingly, Entergy's plaintiff cry of unfairness is nothing but form over substance. The purpose of the pleading rules is to prevent surprise and prejudice to the opposing 4
parties.
See Shen v. Leo A. Daly Co., 222 F.3d 472, 478 (8th Cir. 2000); cf. Mitchell v.
Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 936 F.2d 539, 544 (1 lth Cir. 1991). Entergy's papers are, of course, silent on actual surprise and prejudice. They have been through all of these issues before. The underlying rationale of the pleading rules invoked by Entergy actually militate against the strict application that has long lost judicial acceptance.
Cortlandt has a right to participate in these proceedings, either as a petitioner or as an interested governmental body.
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c) (a local governmental body may participate in a hearing if not admitted as a party under § 2.309); Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 205 (interested governmental body "that has been admitted as a party is also given the additional opportunity to participate on another party's contentions"). Neither Entergy nor NRC Staff dispute Cortlandt's standing, (see Entergy Answer, at 5; NRC Staff Answer, at 15) and neither alleges prejudice if Cortlandt does participate.
Therefore, Cortlandt's elaboration on other parties' contentions is consistent with its right to participate in these proceedings. Entergy can expect Cortlandt to vigorously explore issues, such as the storage of spent fuel rods. Therefore, Entergy should not be heard to complain that it is obtaining an early look at Cortlandt's case.
Again, there is no surprise and prejudice.
- a. Safety of Spent Fuel Rod Pools Amplifies Issues Addressed in Petition to Intervene Entergy alleges that Cortlandt's focus on alternatives to spent fuel storage pools is a new contention. (Entergy Motion, at 7.) The issue of safety of spent fuel storage pools was a readily apparent issue and addressed by Entergy when Cortlandt submitted its Reply. It was specifically raised by several other petitioners, including New York, Riverkeeper, and Westcan. New York 6
contended that Indian Point's spent fuel pool containment structures are not enclosed by leak-tight containment structures, a zirconium fire from an act of sabotage could create a significant adverse effect on the environment, and moving some spent fuel rods to dry cask storage will not completely mitigate this safety concern. (NY Petition to Intervene, at 243-45.) New York also contended that leaks from the spent fuel pools "calls into question both safety and environmental impacts." (NY Petition to Intervene, at 250.) Riverkeeper contended that the possibility of spent fuel pool fires is a major safety concern, one which Entergy failed to identify in its LRA or to provide mitigation alternatives. (Riverkeeper Petition to Intervene, at 61.)
Westcan fully addressed the issue of dry cask storage and spent fuel pool safety in its Petition. "The increased spent fuel and dry cask storage at Indian Point must be considered as new information with potentially substantial effect [sic] on the environment and human health for not just the 20 year new superseding license period, but for generations to come." (Westcan Petition to Intervene, at 285.) Cortlandt's discussion of dry cask storage in its Reply should not be a surprise to Entergy, who responded to Westcan's contention. (See Entergy Answer to Westcan, at 128-29.) The Sansoucy Affidavit, attached to Cortlandt's Reply, further amplifies the issue of dry cask storage that Westcan previously raised.
Entergy also fails to recognize that Cortlandt's Reply addresses spent fuel pool issues raised in the answers of Entergy and NRC Staff. In its Answer, Entergy stated that Cortlandt did not.?psit any reason or support - no alleged facts and no expert opinions - as to why the application is materially deficient" and did not specify why it objected to the content of the license renewal application ("LRA"). (Entergy Answer, at 27, 29.)
NRC Staff stated that Cortlandt raised vague issues and failed to provide legal support specifying why Entergy's LRA is inadequate. (NRC Staff Answer, at 123.) Cortlandt responded to both of these objections by
positing facts and expert opinion as to why Entergy's application is materially deficient, specifically regarding the safety of the spent fuel storage pools.
Cortlandt's Reply also amplified statements made in its Petition to Intervene. Cortlandt's Petition argued that (i) Entergy's failure to comply with age-related management program rules precluded Cortlandt from adequately reviewing the legal or technical integrity of Indian Point (see Cortlandt Petition, at 3); (ii) leaks from the spent fuel pools endangered public health and safety and that failure to adequately address the proper functioning of the pools was inimical to the license renewal process (see Cortlandt Petition, at 7); and (iii) the possibility of sabotage on the spent fuel pools would likely lead to catastrophic harm to the public and environment. (See Cortlandt Petition, 11.) The Reply amplifies these already stated contentions by arguing that temporary storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel rods is the Town's primary safety concern, and Entergy must address the integrity of the spent fuel pools prior to license renewal.
(See Cortlandt Reply, at 4, 11.)
Fuel rods were raised as litigable issues prior to Cortlandt's Reply.2 Cortlandt's Reply addressed this litigable issue, and discussed spent fuel pool safety with supporting citations, amplifying its previously asserted contentions.
- b. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Entergy argues that Cortlandt's Reply discusses severe accident mitigation alternatives for the first time.
(See Entergy Motion, at 9.)
Contrary to Entergy's argument, Cortlandt See Cortlandt's Reply, at 4 (citing Licensing Board Order (Granting the NRC Staff s Motion to Strike FUSE's Superceding Request for Hearing) at 6 (Feb. 1, 2008) ("Indian Point petitioners 'have a real and legitimate interest in the safe operation of the Indian Point facility and a need to know that, if it will continue to operate, it will operate safely."))
7
enumerated the compromised condition of the spent fuel pools, the safety issues related to a possible attack on the spent fuel pools, and Entergy's failure to properly address the deteriorating spent fuel pools in its Petition to Intervene.
(Cortlandt Petition to Intervene, at 6-7, 11.)
Cortlandt's Petition posited that Entergy's Environmental Report does not identify an adequate AMP for the spent fuel pool and that Entergy must address this issue in its LRA. (See Cortlandt Petition to Intervene, at 6-7.)
Cortlandt's Reply responds to the arguments in the Answers of Entergy and NRC Staff.
Both Answers alleged that Cortlandt failed to provide sufficient information and did not include specific facts or expert testimony in its petition.
(NRC Staff Answer, at 128-29; Entergy Answer, at 35.)
In its Answer, Entergy listed some alternative management plans ("AMPs")
included in its LRA, but did not include any severe accident mitigation alternatives ("SAMAs").
(Entergy Answer, at 35.)
Cortlandt's Reply responded to Entergy's deficient Answer by specifying adequate alternatives Entergy should include in an AMP.
For example, Entergy should address alternatives to waste storage, such as dry cask storage, for its AMP to be detailed and workable. (See Cortlandt Reply, at 9.)3 Entergy also disputes Cortlandt's reference to the Thompson Report. (Entergy Motion, at 9.) Entergy alleges that including this report would unfairly deprive Applicant an opportunity to rebut its claims. (See Entergy Motion, at 4.) Cortlandt's Reply cited the Thompson Report to flesh out its original contention that Entergy never analyzed the potential impact of a severe accident at Indian Point in its LRA. (See Cortlandt Petition, at 11; Cortlandt Reply, at 18; see also Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 136.) Plus, the Thompson Report does not present an issue 3 Cortlandt's Petition to Intervene posited that Entergy's Environmental Report fails to identify an adequate AMP for the spent fuel pool and that Entergy must address this issue in its LRA. (See Cortlandt Petition to Intervene, at 6-7.)
of unfair prejudice or surprise. Riverkeeper appended this report to its Petition to Intervene,4 giving Entergy a full and fair opportunity to review.this document and rebut any claims therein.
Just like the other references Cortlandt cites in its Reply, including case law, regulations, and reports, 5 the Thompson Report provides greater specificity to what Cortlandt originally contended in its Petition to Intervene. See Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 62 N.R.C. at 758.
- c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement Cortlandt's statements regarding the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GEIS")
are not new issues, as Entergy argues. (Entergy Motion, at 10.) The Reply responds to (1)
Entergy's Answer alleging that the GEIS analysis of severe accident consequences is sufficient to foreclose the discussion regarding the need for an independent National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") analysis to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of terrorist attacks (see Entergy Answer, at 50-51) and (2) NRC Staff's Answer that the 12-year old GEIS forecloses any reference to damage to the facility, including the spent fuel pools, from internal or external incidents. (See NRC Staff Answer, at 102.) Arguing that a 12-year old GEIS is patently dated, inadequate, and needs to be updated directly responds to issues raised in the Answers, especially since Entergy put into contention the issue of the GEIS. (See Entergy Answer, at 50.)
Cortlandt did not include this discussion in its Petition to Intervene; however, a petitioner does not have to enumerate every piece of evidence on which it intends.to rely. See Nuclear Management Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 727, 732 (2006) (at the 4 The Thompson Report is Attachment 2 of Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in the License Renewal Proceeding for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (Nov. 30, 2007).
5 These citations include, inter alia, the Alvarez Report and Grace Musumeci Letter.
-9
contention phase, a petitioner does not have to introduce every document it intends to rely on in a hearing). The Reply, however, included this additional information because Entergy and NRC Staff both alleged that Cortlandt failed to provide sufficient facts and evidence to support its contention.
6 The reports, cases and regulations cited in Cortlandt's Reply support Cortlandt's response to arguments presented in the Answers of Entergy and NRC Staff to Cortlandt's Petition to Intervene.
The citations amplify Cortlandt's contentions and respond to allegations in the Answers that Cortlandt's Petition lacked sufficient factual support. See Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 136 (petitioner may use reply to flesh out contentions from petition).
III.
ADOPTION OF ANOTHER PARTY'S CONTENTIONS IS PERMISSIBLE Entergy alleges that Cortlandt may not adopt New York State's Contention 26 because it is a new claim and its adoption would "frustrate[] the Commission's contention filing rules and unfairly deprive[] Entergy of its opportunity to rebut this claim."
(Entergy Motion, at 8.)
However, Entergy fails to recognize that the regulations only require the petitioner who seeks to adopt another petitioner's contention to "either agree that the sponsoring requestor/petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(3j.
"These are the only two substantive regulatory requirements for adoption."
Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 206 (2006); see also Louisiana Energy Services, LP (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-35, 60 N.R.C. 619, 626 (2004) (the regulations "explicitly provide the option for petitioners to 'adopt' other petitioners' contentions"). In its Reply Brief, Cortlandt 6 The additional evidence included, inter alia, the Yucca Mountain Report, Grace Musumeci Letter, and Sansoucy Affidavit. (See Cortlandt Reply, at 5-7.)
designated the New York State Attorney General as the representative for Contention 26.
(Cortlandt Reply, at 11.)
Cortlandt, who has standing to participate as-of-right, 7 may adopt another petitioner's contention even though it did not adopt New York's contention in its petition to intervene. A party may adopt another party's contentions after the original deadline for filing contentions.
See Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 207 (Applicant's. "position, that all adoptions filed after the original deadline for filing contentions are automatically 'nontimely'
. would create an illogical and unfair exclusionary wall to adoption.") The regulation only requires an adopting party to designate the sponsor of the contention; it does not impose the "illogical" requirement that contentions must be adopted prior to the original deadline to file petitions to intervene. See id. In Vermont Yankee, two petitioners adopted each others' contentions "after the contentions were due and before [the Board] ruled on the admissibility of the contentions." Id. The Board held that petitioners' adoption notices were timely. Id.
In its Reply, Cortlandt adopted New York's contention early in the proceeding and before the Board ruled on its admissibility. Additionally, Entergy has not been unfairly deprived of its opportunity to rebut the contention. New York State filed its Petition to Intervene on November 30, 2007.
When Entergy answered New York's petition on January 22, 2008, it had ample opportunity to fully address New York's Contention 26. Because Cortlandt did not add any substantive material to what New York previously contended in its Petition to Intervene, Entergy had its opportunity to rebut the claim; Cortlandt did not frustrate the Commission's contention filing rules. Therefore, Cortlandt's adoption of New York's contention is admissible in this proceeding.
7 A local governmental body may participate as a party in a proceeding for a facility located within its boundaries and does not need to address standing requirements. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(2). Indian Poi.nt is located in the Village of Buchanan in the Town of Cortlandt.
tI
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Entergy's Motion to Strike Cortlandt's Reply should be dismissed.
Dated:
February 25, 2008 New York, New York Respectfully Submitted, Thomas F. Wood Town Attorney Town of Cortlandt And Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
By:.
Daniel Riesel 460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 421-2150 Facsimile: (212) 421-1891 Email: driesel@sprlaw.com 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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
)
February 25, 2008
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR EXHIBITS
- 1. Entergy Message to Thomas Wood, Esq.............................................. Exhibit A
- 2. Affidavit of Daniel Riesel, Esq....................................................... Exhibit B
0 0
0 00 0
0 0
eA -\\,
A-
ý-P
. I.,
I r
tluLC-vOrf (S)
CA.
.--!k
/4eoi)tI UErm 6\\OI'fQCLL I E00 e
r n]
r if 737 r
A N1\\
It
.] -..\\
V p
w~.
-d L~IY~7/
'77A(.
t t eLcL
&:z&&~t
-El ES Ri u A-19-V. -.
Exhibit B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
)
Units 2 and 3)
February 25, 2008 AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL RIESEL, ESQ.
- 1.
I am a member of Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., counsel for petitioner Town of Cortlandt ("Cortlandt") in this matter. This affidavit is submitted in support of Cortlandt's Answer to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Motion to Strike Town of Cortlandt's Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Answer to Cortlandt's Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene.
- 2.
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 are located in the Village of Buchanan in the Town of Cortlandt, New York.
- 3.
Cortlandt filed its Reply to (1) NRC Staffs Response to Town of Cortlandt's Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene and (2) Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Opposing Town of Cortlandt's Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene on February 8, 2008.
- 4.
Neither an attorney nor a representative of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
("Entergy") contacted me, via email or telephone, between February 8, 2008 and February 15, 2008, the date on which Entergy filed its Motion to Strike Cortlandt's Reply.
- 5.
I was available throughout the week of February 11, 2008.
- 6.
Entergy left Mr. Wood a message at 1:15pm on February 15, 2008. Mr. Wood was unavailable because he is on vacation.
- 7.
In Entergy's message to Mr. Wood, Entergy stated that it was obligated to tell Mr.
Wood that it was filing a motion to strike. A copy of the message Entergy left for Mr. Wood is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A".
- 8.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Dated:'-New York, New York February 25, 2008 Daniel Riesel Sive, Paget & Riesel P.C.
Attorneys for Petitioner 460 Park Avenue, Floor 10 New York, New York 10022 (212) 421-2150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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
)
February 25, 2008
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 25, 2008 a true copy of the foregoing TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
MOTION TO STRIKE TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REPLY TO ENTERGY AND NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE, were served by electronic mail and by first class mail upon all parties, upon the following parties and participants:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: LGM1 @nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: REW@nrc.gov Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane E.
Ridgway, CO 81432 E-mail: KDL2@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary
- Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15-D-21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: set@nrc.gov E-mail: lbs3@nrc.gov E-mail: bnrnl@nrc.gov Zachary S. Kahn, Esq.
Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-2 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: ZXKl@nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 -Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004.
E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Vice President - Energy New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCDEC) 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Senior Attorney for Special Projects New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the General Counsel 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Kimberly A. Sexton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Kimberly. sexton@nrc.gov Christopher C. Chandler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Christopher.chandler@nrc. gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney Office of Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: jdp3@westchestergov.com Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor James Seirmarco, M.S.
Village of Buchanan Municipal Building Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net
Richard L. Brodsky,,Esq.
5 West Main Street Elmsford, NY 10523 E-mail: brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us richardbrodsky@msn.com Susan Shapiro, Esq.
21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley, NY 10977 E-mail: mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com John LeKay FUSE USA.
351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, NY 10566 E-mail: fuse-usa@yahoo.com Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
112 Little Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 E-mail: Mannajo@clearwater.org Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran. corn Victor Tafur, Esq.
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org vtafur@riverkeeper.org Janice Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 2 6th Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice.dean@oag.state.ny.us John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistants Attorney General New York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: john.sipos@oag.state.ny.us Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (AREA) 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 New York, NY 10016 E-mail: ajkremer@rmfpc.com kremer@area-alliance.org Robert Snook, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: Robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Ms. Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876 E-mail: nancyburtonct@aol.com Sarah Wagner, Esq.
Legislative Office Building, Room 422 Albany, NY 12248 E-mail: sarahwagneresq@gmail.com John Louis Parker, Esq.
Regional Attorney Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Comers Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us 3
By:
Thomas F. Wood Town Attorney Town of Cortlandt And Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Byy; Daniel Riesel 460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 421-2150 Facsimile: (212) 421-1891 Email: driesel@sprlaw.com
- Original and 2 copies
.4