ML080720255

Joint Motion to Adopt Procedures for Contention Admissibility Hearing

ML080720255
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/28/2008
From:	Sipos J State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:	NRC/SECY/RAS
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS-E9
Download: ML080720255 (9)

Text

DOCKETED USNRC EXCE February 28, 2008 (3:00pm)

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ANDREW M. CUOMO DIVISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU February 28, 2008 Office of the Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White'Flint North, 16'" Floor 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Re: Indian Point Nuclear Power Station: Application to Renew Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an Additional 20-Year Period (ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOI)

Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed please find petitioners' Joint Motion to Adopt Procedures for Contention Admissibility Hearing in the above-referenced matter, along with a Certificate of Service.

Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted, John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 518-402-2251 j ohn.sippos@oag.state.ny.us cc: service list The Capitol, Albany, NY I224 0 (518) 474-809( 0 Fax (51 ) 47-2534 (Not for Service of Papers) http:/www:oag.State.nV.LIS T~7~ ,D6 A-7-g~z S~b~(-O32 q'-ý 15 k- Y- L-) D.-

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION x

In re:

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOI Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

---

X JOINT MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR CONTENTION ADMISSIBILITY HEARING Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(g) petitioners New York State, Riverkeeper, Inc.

("Riverkeeper"), Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the State of Connecticut

("Connecticut"), Westchester County, the Town of Cortlandt, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. ("Clearwater"), and Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point

("CRORIP") respectfully request the Board adopt the following procedures for the hearings scheduled for the week of March 10, 2008 regarding the admission of parties and contentions in the above-entitled case. The purpose of this proposal is to provide structure for the petitioners/parties to-better prepare for the hearings. This proposal does not seek to specify the time allotted to any particular party or issue or to in anyway limit the discretion of the Board to determine the content of the hearing or pose questions.

In light of the number of petitioners/parties, issues, and contentions involved, the undersigned respectfully submit that it would be helpful for the Board and the participants if a I Joint Motion Regarding Oral Argument Procedures

process were established for the division of the time allotted to the petitioners/parties in advance of the hearing. To that end the undersigned propose the following:

1. No oral presentation would be required on the admission of any petitioner on the basis of standing, unless, of course, the Board indicated otherwise.

2. Each petitioner would separately present its argument for admission of its contentions, grouping similar contentions it presented as it deems appropriate and advising the Board and other participants of its proposed grouping of contentions for oral presentations in writing no later than March 6, 2008. Oral responses to the initial presentation of each petitioner would follow a petitioner's presentation on each contention or each group of contentions. A reply by the proponent would follow the opponents' response.

Movants respectively suggest that such a petitioner-by-petitioner process will promote a more orderly and deliberate presentation of arguments by the various petitioners. Likewise, the suggested process may promote an orderly presentation by Staff, which does not oppose specific contentions proposed by certain petitioners. Movants further suggest that such process is consistent with the organization that Staff and Entergy employed in their answers and that the State of New York and other petitioners followed in their replies. The suggested process also may provide a means to ameliorate the effects of any scheduling conflicts.

3. Regardless of how the hearing is organized, in order to assure that the petitioners have sufficient time to respond to the oral presentations of the oppositions, an equal amount of time should be assigned to those who are the proponents and those who are the opponents as to each group of contentions and each contention which is not part of a group. The Board would decide how much time should be devoted to each grouping and each contention not part of a group.

2 Joint Motion Regarding Oral Argument Procedures

The Staff, which does not oppose some contentions but does oppose others, would be aligned with the other proponents or opponents as the case may be and would share in the time allotted to that side of the contention with which the Staff supports.

4. As with all motions, proponents of contentions would go first and last. Proponents could decide how to divide the time between opening and reply and the order of their presentations. Opponents similarly could decide the order in which they would speak within the time allotted for opposition.

5. The Board would decide at the oral argument if additional argument time is justified on any matter beyond the time assigned by the Board in advance.

Respectfully submitted, February 28, 2008 John J. Sipos Joan~teary Matthews, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Senior Attorney for Special Projects Office of the Attorney General New York State Department for the State of New York of Environmental Conservation The Capitol 625 Broadway, 1 4t' floor Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12233-5500 (518) 402-2251 (518) 402-9190 john.sipos@oag.state.ny.us j lmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny. us

'IeL-LU4 Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.

Riverkeeper, Inc. Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, &

828 South Broadway Eisenberg, LLP Tarrytown, NY 10591 Suite 600 (914) 478-4501 x 224 1726 M Street NW phillip@riverkeeper.org Washington, DC 20036 (202) 328-3500 dcurran@harmoncurran.com 3 Joint Motion Regarding Oral Argument Procedures

Robert D. Snook Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Assistant County Attorney Office of the Attorney General Office of the Westchester County Attorney State of Connecticut Michaelian Office Building 55 Elm Street 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor P.O. Box 120 White Plains, NY 10601 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (914) 995-5102 (860) 808-5107 jUp331 w cschstergov.com robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Daniel Riesel, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Director Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Stephen C. Filler, Esq.

Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

460 Park Avenue 112 Little Market St.

New York, NY 10022 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 (212) 421-2150 (845) 454-7673 driesel@sprlaw.com Mannajo@clearwater.org 14.14.

Nancy Burton Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point (CRORIP) 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876 (203) 938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com 4 Joint Motion Regarding Oral Argument Procedures

CERTIFICATION On behalf of the movants, Assistant Attorney General John Sipos, certifies pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) that the movants have made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and to resolve the issues raised in the motion. Specifically, I contacted attorneys or representatives for the petitioners who remain in this proceeding as well as counsel for Entergy and NRC Staff to obtain their agreement to this motion and proposed hearing process.

Representatives of Connecticut, Westchester, Cortlandt, Riverkeeper, Clearwater, and CRORIP agreed to the motion and asked to join as movants.

Counsel for the Staff stated that the Staff prefers the approach stated in Mr. Turk's letter to the Licensing Board of February 27, 2008, in which contentions would be presented in groups according to the issues raised, but that the Staff would be amenable to whichever approach the Board deems to be most appropriate and useful for its deliberations.

Counsel for Entergy took no position on the request, but noted that Entergy's position is set forth in its February 19, 2008 letter to the Licensing Board.

Counsel for Westchester Citizens Action Network ("WestCAN") does not oppose the motion and notes the unavailability of WestCAN counsel during the week of March 10, 2008.

John J. Sipos February 28, 2008 5 Joint Motion Regarding Oral Argument Procedures

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

---

x In re:

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOI Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

---

--------------------------------- x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 Teresa Fountain hereby declares:

I am over 18 years old and am an employee in the New York State Office of the Attorney General.

On February 28, 2008, 1served copies of a Joint Motion to Adopt Procedures for Contention Admissibility Hearing upon the following persons at the following addresses by depositing true copies thereof, properly enclosed in a sealed, postpaid wrapper, in the Office of the Attorney General's Mail Room for delivery to the Capitol Station Post Office in the City of Albany, New York, a depository Linder the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kaye D. Lathrop Administrative Judge . Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Ntuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioni Mailstop 3 F23 190 Cedar Lane E.

Two .White Flint North Ridgway, CO 81432 11545 Rockville Pike kdl2@nrc.gov Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Igml @qnrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E. Wardwell Mailstop 3 F23 Administrative Judge Two White Flint North Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 11545 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear ReOul* atory Commission Rockville. MD 20852-2738 Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 rew@nrc.gov

• 4 Zachary S. Kahn, Esq. Elise N. Zoli, Esq.

Law Clerk Goodwxin Procter, LLP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Exchange Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 53 State Street Maiistop 3 F23 Boston, MA 02109 Two White Flint North ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 William C. Dennis, Esq.

zxkl@nrc.gov Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 440 Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission White Plains, NY 10601 Mailstop 16 G4 wdennis@entergy.com One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Assistant Attorney General ocaamail@nrc.gov Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut Office of the Secretary 55 Elm Street Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Mailstop 3 F23 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Assistant County Attorney hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the Westchester County Attorney Michaelian Office Building Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor David E. Roth, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Lloyd B. Subin, Esq. jdp3@westchestergov.com Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor Mailstop 15 D21 James Seirmarco, M.S.

One White Flint North Village of Buchanan 11555 Rockville Pike Municipal Building PRockville, MD 20852-2738 236 Tate Avenue set@nrc.gov Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 der@)nrc.gov vob@bestweb.net lbs3@nrc.gov bml b @mnrc.gov Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq. 460 Park Avenue Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq. New York, NY 10022 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP driesel@sprlaw.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW jsteinberg Do~sprlaw.com Washington, DC 20004 ksnttoni@morgan lewis.conm pbessette@mo rganlewis.corn martin°.o 'neil l@morganlewis'.com mlemoncell i@morganlewis.corn cadamsrnsDi)morganlewis.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Richard L. Brodsky, Esq.

Vice President - Energy Department Assemblyman New York City Economic Development Corporation Suite 205 (NYCEDC) 5 West Main Street 110 William Street Elmsford, NY 10523 New York, NY 10038 brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us mdelaney@nycedc.com richardbrodsky@rnsn.com Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman John LeKay New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance FUSE USA (AREA) 3*51 Dyckman. Street 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 Peekskill, NY 10566 New York, NY 10016 fuseusa@yahoo.corn kremrer@area-alliance.org ajkremer@rlnfpc.corn Diane Curran, Esq.

Harmon, Curran, Speilberg Manna Jo Greene, Director & Eisenberg, LLP Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Suite 600 112 Little Market St. 1726 M Street, NW Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Washington, DC 20036 M/lannajo@clearwater.org dcnrran@harnioncurran.corn Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Weschester Citizen's Awareness Network Victor Tafur, Esq.

21 Perlman Drive Riverkeeper, Inc.

Spring Valley, NY 10977 828 South Broadway mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com Tarrytown, NY 10591 phillip@riverkeeper.org Nancy Burton vtafuir@riverkeeper.org 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com In addition, copies of the documents were sent to the e-mail addresses listed above.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing istrue and correct.

ExecLited on:

this 28th day of February 2008 Albany, New York I2 t, :

Teresa Fountain