ML081160472
| ML081160472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/2008 |
| From: | Wagner S Public Health & Sustainable Energy (PHASE), Rockland County Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Atlantic Chapter, State of NY, State Assembly, Westchester Citizens Awarenesss Network (WestCAN) |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECYRAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS E-28 | |
| Download: ML081160472 (44) | |
Text
THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY RICHARD L.' BRODSKY CHAIRMAN Assemblyman 9211 District DOCKETED Committee on USNRC Corporations, Authorities Westchester County and Commissions March 18, 2008 (5:00pm)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY March I2, 2008 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee Sixteenth Floor One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Re: Indian Point License Renewal, Docket No. 50-247/286-LR To Whom It May Concern:
In response the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike and Supplement submitted March 3, 2008 and March 6, 2008 respectively, please find Petitioners Westchester Citizen's Awareness Network (WestCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association, Inc. (RCCA),
Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter (Sierra Club),
and New York State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky enclosure. This reply is not made in place of or in reference to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order issued March 7, 2008.
Sincerely, Sarah L. Wagner cc: service list O ALBANY OFFICE: Room 422, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5753 0 DISTRICT OFFICE: 5 West Main Street, Suite 205, Elmsford, New York 10523, (914) 345-0432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
S) 50-247 and 59-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC )
) ASLB No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO0 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
REPLY TO NRC ANSWER TO ENTERGY'SMOTION TO STRIKE THE REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS WESTCHESTER CITIZEN'S AWARENESS NETWORK (WESTCAN), ROCKLAND COUNTY CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, INC. (RCCA), PUBLIC HEALTH AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (PHASE), SIERRA CLUB - ATLANTIC CHAPTER (SIERRA CLUB), AND NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN RICHARD L. BRODSKY PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Petitioners submit this reply in response to the Motion to Strike submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. served on February 22, 2008. Petitioners oppose the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike the motion in all respects.
The Reply Brief filed by the Petitioners Westchester Citizen's Awareness Network (WestCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association, Inc. (RCCA),
I
Public Health And Sustainable Energy (PHASE), Sierra Club- Atlantic Chapter (Sierra Club), and New York State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky (hereinafter "Petitioners") in response to the answer filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(hereinafter "Entergy" or "Applicant") and the NRC Staff is both consistent with the Agency's rules and case law. The NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike is inconsistent with the agency rules and case law.
BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 23, 2007, and supplemented on May 3, 2007 and June 21, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (hereinafter "Entergy" or "Applicant") filed an application to renew its operating license for an additional twenty year period for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1 and 2. On December 10, 2007, Petitioners Westchester Citizen's Awareness Network (WestCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association, Inc. (RCCA), Public Health And Sustainable Energy (Phase), Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter (Sierra Club), and New York State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky (hereinafter "Petitioners")'electronically by email served a Petition for Leave to Intervene with Contentions and a Request for a Hearing. On January 22, 2008, the NRC Staff served its Answer multiple times by email and mailed a copy of the Answer to Petitioners. The NRC Staff Answer did 2
not reference any exhibits. Entergy served an Answer to the Petition electronically by email on January 22, 2008, without the referenced exhibits. Entergy mailed its exhibits, without a table of contents, which arrived six days later. On February 15, 2008, Petitioners mailed a copy of the Reply Brief by courier service with hardcopies to some parties and CD-ROMs to the remaining parties. Petitioners' Reply Brief contained the brief, a table of contents and exhibits.
On February 22, 2008, Entergy electronically served a Motion to Strike Petitioners Reply Brief.' The NRC Staff, without prior notice, served an Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike on March 3, 2008, supplemented on March 6, 2008.
ARGUMENT The NRC Staff joins Entergy's motion to strike that alleged that Petitioners' Reply Brief was not properly served and raised new arguments. Petitioners Reply Brief respond to the legal, or logical, or factual arguments raised in Entergy's Answer and thus are appropriate. Petitioners' Reply Brief responded to arguments made by Entergy or the NRC Staff and elaborated upon statements made in its' Petition to Intervene.
Petitioners served a reply to Entergy's motion to strike on March 3, 2008 prior to receipt of the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike.
3
Petitioners' Reply Brief and exhibits were properly and timely served by deposit in a courier box. Neither the NRC Staff nor Entergy has proven otherwise.
The NRC Staff Answer of March 3, 2008, and supplemented March 6, 2008, is inappropriate and procedurally defective. No effort was made to resolve any alleged issues before involving the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter "ASLB"). Petitioners' Reply Brief is within the bounds; Petitioners expanded upon contentions in their Petition in response to arguments raised by Entergy and the NRC Staff. The NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Dismiss dated March 3, 2008, and supplemented March 6, 2008, is an attempt to circumvent NRC regulations. Based on foregoing, the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike should be denied.
I. The NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike should be denied.
Pursuant to NRC regulations the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike dated March 3, 2008, and supplemented March 6, 2008, should be denied in its entirety. The NRC Staff's Answer in support of Entergy's motion to strike, which recommends that the ASLB strike Petitioners' Reply Brief, is inappropriate.
The regulations do not provide for this kind of "sur-opposition."
4
Section § 2.309(h)(1) of 10 C.F.R. allows "NRC staff... [to] file an answer to a request for a hearing, a petition to intervene and/or proffered contentions within twenty-five (25) days after service of the request for hearing, petition and/or contentions." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1). 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) then authorizes petitioners to file a reply within seven days. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2). The regulations do not contemplate "sur-opposition" to respond to a Petitioners Reply Brief or Answer a Motion to Strike where the NRC Staff is not addressed. In fact, the regulations do not contemplate any additional pleadings after Petitioners' replies are filed and served. Notably, the NRC Staff does not cite any regulatory provision authorizing its communication to the Board. Therefore, the regulations do not provide the NRC Staff the right to file additional pleadings in response to a motion to strike, even if based on new information. The NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's motion to strike is nothing more than an attempt to submit an answer to Petitioners' Reply Brief in violation of 10 C.F.R. 2.390(h)(3).
Moreover, the NRC Staff did not properly serve its Answer of March 3, 2008. Petitioners expect that the Board will uniformly apply the NRC rules fairly towards all parties. The NRC Staff argue that Petitioners' Reply Brief should be struck because the Reply Brief was not transmitted by email to sherwin.turk Donrc.gov, beth .miizun o(]nrc. gov, Kimberly.sextoncJ~nrc.gov, and Christopher.chandler(rc. gov. (See NRC Staff Supplement to NRC Staff 5
Answer, dated March 6, 2008, p.2) as stated in Petitioners Certificate of Service.
On February 27, 2008, and revised on March 7, 2008, Petitioners submitted revised certificates of service to reflect the proper parties' addresses that service was made.
Because a certificate of service is to be included with service of documents, it was impossible for Petitioners to foresee the email difficulties of sending Petitioners Reply Brief that Petitioners encountered on the date of service. Accordingly, Petitioners submitted a revised certificate of service on February 27, 2008, supplemented on March 7, 2008.
The NRC Staff Answer of March 3, 2008 must be denied because it was not served on all parties. 2 TheCertificate of Service submitted with the NRC Staff Answer on March 3, 2008 neglected to send the Answer to Sarah L. Wagner, co-counsel for Petitioners. 3 Because the NRC Staff's Answer of March 3, 2008 was not served on active parties who have properly served notice of appearances, the pleading should be struck or denied in its entirety.
If the ASLB strikes Petitioners' Reply Brief because the certificate of service is inaccurate, as suggested by the NRC Staff in its Supplement to its 2 Memorandum and Order (Administrative Matters and Directing Parties Attention to Requirements for Proper Service), dated October 29, 2007, at 2; Order (Denying Extension of Time to File Requests for Hearing), dated November 27, 2007, at 2-3.
3 The NRC Staff's Certificate of Service for its March 3, 2008 Answer excludes service upon Janice Dean, Esq. of the Attorney General's Office in New York.
6
Answer March 3, 2008, then the NRC Staff's Answer and request for a strike should be denied in its entirety for failure to service all parties and omitted parties from their certificate of service.
Finally, the NRC Staff Answer of March 3, 2008 should be denied in its entirety because the NRC Staff failed to abide by the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(b). The NRC Staff cannot move to strike without complying with 10 C.F.R. 2.323(b) and should not be permitted to sneak by NRC regulations in supporting a motion to strike. Under 10 C.F.R. 2.323(b) a moving party must certify that it made a sincere effort to contact the respondent and resolve, if possible the issue(s) before involving the Atomic and Safety Board. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Vermont Yankee NuclearPower Station), 62 NRC 828, 837 (2005). Absent from either NRC Staff's Answers March 3, 2008 and March 7, 2008, is a certification that the NRC Staff made a sincere effort to resolve any alleged issues. Since no effort was made to resolve the alleged issues raised by the NRC Staff prior to submission of its March 3, 2008 Answer, its Answer must be struck or denied in its entirety pursuant to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 62 NRC 828, 837 (2005).'
4 The ASLB Order of March 7, 2008 states that the NRC Staff sent a letter raising questions about Petitioners Reply Brief. Petitioners did not receive an electronic or paper copy of such letter. On March 5, 2008, Sherwin Turk, Esq., counsel for the NRC Staff, emailed Sarah Wagner to ask about the emails sent February 16, 2008 at 12:00 a.m. and 12:53 a.m.
7
II. Petitioners' Reply Brief was timely served on February 15, 2008.
Section 2.305(c) of the Code of the Federal Register, provides that service must be made electronically to the E-Filing system, and governing rules for service are stipulated as those in effect at the time notice is published in the Federal Register of the applicants' LRA, in addition to ASLB further requirements. Upon an order from the Commission or presiding officer permitting alternative filing methods under § 2.302(g)(4), service may be made by personal delivery, courier, expedited delivery service, or by first-class, express, certified or registered mail.
10 C.F.R. § 2.305(c). If a participant cannot serve electronically, the Commission or presiding officer shall require service by the most expeditious means permitted.
10 C.F.R. § 2.305(c).
Significantly, Section 2.305(c) does not require that the NRC Staff be served electronically. Section 2.305(g) merely requires that service upon the NRC staff shall be by the same or equivalent method as service upon the Office of the Secretary and the presiding officer, e.g., electronically, personal delivery or courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service. Here, service of Petitioners' 8
Reply Brief was sent by courier to the Office of the Secretary of the NRC, and to the NRC Staff.
Service is complete upon deposit with a courier service and does not require postmark, or courier proof, of the service date, only proof of service acceptance date. 10 C.F.R. §2.302(d)(3). Section 2.302(d)(1) & (3) states that "filing is considered complete: by electronic transmission when the filer performs the last act that it must perform to transmit a document, in its entirety, electronically;
... [b]y courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service." Section 2.302 further states that "the post mark does not establish filing date, but in fact, the filing date is established by when the document was placed in possession of U.S mail or the courier..." (See Exhibit A, attached receipts). There is no requirement that documents be served electronically. Because electronic service to the NRC Staff was not possible, Petitioners' Reply Brief was sent by courier service. (For further details please see discussion below).
As the movant, the NRC Staff has the burden of establishing that Petitioners' service of its Reply Brief was untimely, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.325. No proof has been offered to demonstrate that Petitioners' Reply Brief was served other than on February 15, 2008. Petitioners' receipts show that the Reply Brief was sent on 9
Friday, February 15, 2008 and therefore the Reply Brief with exhibits was timely.
(Exhibit A).
Petitioners were made aware of electronic delivery problems to the NRC earlier on the 15'h day of February 2008. Petitioners exchanged email correspondence and engaged in telephone conversations with NRC Hearing Docket staff regarding the NRC's inability to receive documents over 10 megabits. (See Exhibit B, Email correspondence with NRC Hearing Docket and Sherwin Turk, Esq. on February 15, 2008).5 As provided in Exhibit B, Rebecca Gitter, of the NRC Hearing Docket Department, and Sherwin Turk, Esq. both acknowledged that the NRC was not able to receive documents that exceed 10 megabits. Ms. Gitter instructed Petitioners to make our best efforts in filing, which we did. Based on these conversations, to ensure proper service, Petitioners timely deposited the Reply Brief in a courier service deposit box on Friday, February 15, 2008.
In addition to timely mailing the Reply Brief, Petitioners expedited service by emailing a copy of the Reply Brief to several parties as soon as practicable.
Petitioners emailed a copy of the Reply Brief at approximately 12:50 a.m. on Saturday, February 16, 2008. Petitioners were not able to electronically submit 5 See email from Sherwin Turk did not receive petitioners papers electronically served 2.11.08.
10
their Reply Brief due to email difficulties before midnight on February 15, 2008, but did email their Reply Brief shortly thereafter. In addition to Petitioners timely service by mail, Petitioners submit that 50 minutes is not unreasonable. Due to the unanticipated email delivery problems, Petitioners have submitted a revised Certificate of Service and a Second revised Certificate of Service. (See Exhibit C).
In compliance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of February 1, 2008, Petitioners included a table of contents describing the attachments to the Reply Brief. Moreover, Petitioners went beyond the Board's order and sent a CD-6 ROM to each party that contained hyperlinks in the Reply Brief to the exhibits.
Although not all of the hyperlinks worked, Petitioners' table of contents contained the file name anda description of each exhibit.
Finally, Petitioners have filed an errata to Petitioners' Reply Brief on February 27, 2008. In the errata Petitioners submitted a new Certificate of Service and revised on March 7, 2008, supplemented on March 7, 2008. A revised Certificate of Service was filed because the February 15, 2008 Certificate of Service was rendered incorrect due to Petitioners inability to electronically submit the document on the 15th of February 2008. However, Petitioners' service of its Reply 6 February 1, 2 008 ASLB Order authorized service by CD-ROM if files are too large for email or paper service on all parties.
11
Brief was timely completed upon deposit in the courier service's box on February 15, 2008.
Therefore, should the Board not strike the NRC Staff's Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike, the NRC Staff pleading should be denied because Petitioners' Reply Brief was timely served and the second revised to certificate of service was provided.
III. Petitioners Reply Brief responded to the legal, logical, and factual arguments made in the Answers of Entergy and/or the NRC Staff and therefore are appropriate.
A reply brief "may respond to and focus on any legal, logical, or factual arguments presented in the answers," Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim 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). "The strict contention admissibility requirements for a sufficient factual basis do not shift the ultimate burden of proof from the applicant to the petitioner." In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, and Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (PilgrimNuclear Power Station), 64 NRC 257 (2006).
12
Petitioners seeking to intervene in a license renewal proceeding must establish only that it is entitled to cognizable relief; petitioners are not required to withstand a summary disposition motion or to prove its contention at the admissibility stage.
In the Matter of PrivateFuel Storage, L.L. C. (IndependentSpent Fuel Storage Installation), 47 NRC 142, 179 (1988); In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L. C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 50-271 -LR, LBP-07-15 (2007). A petitioner is simply required to provide sufficient information to show that a more comprehensive inquiry is warranted. Id.
A reply may respond to any legal, logical, or factual arguments presented in an answer. See Mass v. US, ML ML071560312 at p. 136 (2006). While a petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) in its initial contention submission may not use its reply brief to rectify those inadequacies or to raise new arguments, a petitioner may use the reply brief to flesh out contentions that have already met the pleading requirements. Id.
The Answers submitted by the NRC Staff and Entergy argued several of Petitioners' contentions were not particular, or lacked specificity, or was vague, or lacked factual or expert support, or failed to raise a genuine issue in dispute, or did not provide a concise statement. In 26 of the 50 contentions, either Entergy or the NRC Staff Answers' argued that Petitioners' contentions were not particular, or 13
lacked specificity, or was vague, or lacked factual or expert support, or failed to raise a genuine issue in dispute, or did not provide a concise statement. Petitioners contentions filed on December 10, 2007 refuted arguments and reinforced Petitioners' contentions.
NRC regulations explicitly provide the option for Petitioners to adopt other petitioner's contentions. LouisianaEnergy Services, LP (Nat'lEnrichment Facility), CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619, 626 (2004). This clearly is not a new argument. Petitioners have indicated their willingness to adopt certain contentions of other Petitioners following submission of several Petitions to Intervene. (See Entergy Motion to Strike, Contentions 19 and 48, pp. 17-18). Both the NRC Staff and Entergy have been given the opportunity to rebut these claims in their Answers to the petitions submitted. Hence, any claim prejudice or unfair surprise is unwarranted. Notably, neither the NRC Staff nor Entergy claim prejudice or unfair
.surprise of these alleged new arguments. Therefore, Petitioners adoption of another's contention is a not new argument, as claimed for contentions 19 and 48.
Petitioners' statement its intention to seek a waiver under the NRC regulations is also not a new argument. (See Entergy's Motion at pp. 16-18, concerning contentions 16, 42, 47, and 48). Petitioners are merely recognizing NRC procedure, in response to arguments by the NRC Staff or Entergy, that specific contentions are inadmissible because they are outside the scope or issues are 14
category one environmental issues. Under the language of 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(b), as noted by the NRC staff in their reply to CRORIP's waiver motion, only parties are permitted to seek waivers. 7 Petitioners are not a party until at least one of Petitioners' contentions is admitted. Once Petitioners become a party, Petitioners will make a motion as required by the NRC regulations. Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 12. Thus, a statement in contentions 16, 42, 47, and 48, that Petitioners will seek a waiver is not a new argument.
Petitioners' submission of Exhibit 0 with the Reply Brief was in response to Entergy's questioning of our expert's. Since Exhibit 0 was our expert witness' Curriculum Vitae, it should not be struck.
Contention 13 responds to both Entergy's and the NRC Staff s assertion that contention 13 is vague, lacks expert support, lacks factual support, does not raise a genuine issue in dispute and fails to specify portions of disagreement contained in the LRA. In response, Petitioner cites to places where the Applicant failed to include information in its LRA ,and thus, is not a new argument. (cf. Entergy's Motion 2/22/08 p. 16).
7 NRC Staff's Answer To The Petition For Waiver Of Commission Regulations Filed By Connecticut dated 1/22/08,.p. 1, FN 1: "10 C.F.R. § 2.335(b) permits a petition for waiver of NRC regulations to be filed by a 'party.' While CRORIP has petitioned to intervene, it has not, as yet, been admitted as a party."
15
Similarly, Contention 14 responds to arguments raised by the NRC Staff s Answer that argued that Petitioners contention lacked specificity and basis. In the Petition, Petitioners argued that "[t]he Applicant failed to include any Interim Staff Guidance in its submittal..." (WestCAN et. al. Petition p. 11 3)(emphasis added).
Since both ISG-2006-02 and ISG-2006-03 are examples of ISG's not included in Entergy's LRA reference to another ISG is not a new argument.
Petitioners' argument that Entergy's non-working sirens is not a new argument under contention 18. Contention 18 relates to Entergy's wholly inadequate emergency and evacuation plans. (Petition at pp. 142, 148). In its Answer, Entergy and the NRC Staff argue that emergency planning is outside the scope of license renewal. Entergy's failure to install a functional siren system, resulting in a recent fine, is clear evidence of Entergy's inadequate management and planning
'for emergencies and evacuation. This is not a new argument despite Entergy and the NRC Staff s arguments, (Entergy Answer at p. 62; NRC Staff Answer at p. 80-
- 81) because the non-working sirens demonstrates why emergency planning is within the scope of license renewal proceedings, specifically aging management and planning, Under Contentions 22-25 and 36, Entergy and the NRC Staff argue that Petitioners' reference to an expert declaration is a new argument. However, Entergy stated in their Answer that Contentions 22-25 did not meet any of the 16
criteria under 10 C.F.R. 2.309(f)(1). (Entergy Answer at p. 84). The NRC Staff states that Contentions 22-25 fail to satisfy § 2.309(f)(1)(ii), (iv), (v), & (vi).
(NRC Staff Answer p. 69). The two supplemental expert declarations respond to Entergy's and the NRC Staff's answers and amplify the arguments in the Petition, the Reply Brief, and the expert's original declarations regarding GDC's and Flow-accelerated Corrosion. Finally there is no requirement that an exhibit be explained in the Reply Brief as alleged by Entergy. (Entergy Motion at p. 17). Thus, Petitioners do not raise new arguments under contention 22-5 and 36.
Entergy erroneously concludes that Petitioners make a new argument in Contention 41 by referencing the expert testimony of Gordon Thompson- a Petition exhibit discussing spent fuel storage. Petitioners' reference to expert testimony- already mentioned in the Petition- is not a new argument, because Contention 41 of the Petition discusses the age related degradation of the spent fuel pools. (See e.g., Petition at pp. 270-280). In response to the NRC Staff's Answer alleging that Petitioners contention was unsupported, (NRC Staff Answer p. 98)
Petitioners referenced the expert's testimony on spent fuel pools and this is not a new argument.
The references to the ASLB decision in Diablo Canyon, mentioned in the Reply Brief under contentions 41 and 42 are also not new arguments. Both contentions 41 and 42 of the Petition discuss storage of spent fuel and nuclear waste.
17
Reference to Diablo Canyon in the Reply Brief relates to Petitioners' claim that Indian Point is not equipped for storing spent fuel and nuclear waste and failed to mention this in its aging management analysis and program in the LRA. (Petition at p. 268-280; Reply Brief at pp. 106, 109). Moreover, Diablo Canyon is referenced in response to the NRC Staff argument that contention 41 is unsupported (NRC Staff Answer p. 98) and Entergy's argument that Contention 41 lacks factual and expert support (Entergy Answer at 128). As such, citing Diablo Canyon is not a new argument.
Petitioners' Reply Brief focuses on issues raised in the Answers submitted by Entergy and the NRC Staff and cites to additional material to amplify its Reply Brief. Furthermore, the Reply Brief does not prejudice or unfairly surprise Entergy. Therefore, since the Reply Brief does not raise new arguments, and Entergy does not claim prejudice or unfair surprise, the motion to strike should be denied.
IV. Petitioners' Reply Brief exhibits should be accepted because they are compliant with the ASLB Order and not ambiguous and therefore should not be struck.
The NRC Staff has not notified Petitioners that any exhibits were not provided, or not clearly described, or that they were ambiguous. On February 20 and 22 of 2008, Entergy's counsel raised questions about Petitioners' Reply Brief exhibits G, 18
-Cf.
I, N, S, T, U, V, W, X, DD, EE on February 20, 2008. (See Exhibit C, Email from Attorney Kuyler to Attorney Wagner Feb. 20, 2008 and Entergy's Motion to Strike dated February 22, 2008). In response to Entergy's inquiry and motion to strike, Petitioners' full response is explained in detail below. 8 (See Exhibit C, Email from Attorney Wagner to Attorney Kuyler).
Exhibits G, I, U, V, W, Z, AA, BB, and CC were all submitted as exhibits with Petitioners Petition. Exhibit G attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit J, appendix C attached to the Petition. Exhibit I of the Petition was never omitted. Exhibit G attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit I attached to the Petition. Exhibit U attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit J attached to the Petition. Exhibit V attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit K attached to the Petition. Exhibit W attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit M attached to the Petition. Exhibit Z attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit N attached to the Petition. Exhibit AA attached to the Reply Brief is -the same exhibit as Exhibit P attached to the Petition. Exhibit BB attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit R attached to the Petition. Exhibit CC attached to the Reply Brief is the same exhibit as Exhibit W attached to the Petition.
8 Although Petitioners emailed a full response to Entergy's counsel on February 22, 2008, Entergy's motion to strike omitted to include Petitioners' response, only referring to it in a footnote. (See Entergy's Motion to Strike, February 22, 2008, p. 2).
19
Similarly, Exhibits S and T attached to Petitioners Reply Brief were also attached to Petitioners Petition. Exhibits S and. T reference the same document.
As noted in the Table of Contents for the Reply Brief, Exhibit S and T are both references to Petitioners Contention 36 as originally stated in the Petition.
None of these exhibits submitted with Petitioners Reply Brief were raised in the ASLB order of February 1, 2008, except Exhibit K. The ASLB decision regarding Exhibit K was made one week after Entergy's submission of its motion to strike.
The exhibits struck by the ASLB Order of February 29, 2008 were attached to the Petition- not the Reply Brief- as Exhibits Z, AA, BB, CC. Upon comparison these are not the same exhibits attached to the Reply Brief.
In response to other concerns, Petitioners responds as follows. Exhibits E, N, and EE all refer to the same document- The Office of the Inspector General's Report on License Renewal of September 2007. Exhibits E, N, EE attached to Petitioners Reply Brief refer to the exact same document. Exhibit E has the same title as Exhibits N and EE because it is the same document. The table of contents points out that Exhibit EE of the Reply Brief is the same as Exhibit N of the Reply Brief.
Similarly, the table of contents states the Exhibit DD is contained under Exhibit N because sections of Exhibit N support the statements proceeding reference to Exhibit DD.
20
Petitioners intentionally omitted Exhibit X and thus, it does not appear on the table of contents nor was it sent to any party.
The table of contents, and particularly, Petitioners revised table of contents attached to the errata, identify and describe the exhibits, despite Entergy's exhibit questions.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the NRC Staff's Answer to Entergy's motion to strike, should be denied in entirety.
Dated: March 12, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Sarah L. Wagner Co-counsel for Petitioners WestCAN et. al.
21
EXHIBIT A
!seridiar Account Number Preprl rntFormai No, "FV F, Sonder Payment . Origin FROM 0 : wlflItoVolk Lur1Io$ mrarked otien'irl S~ree~AddrAX Reoceiver 3rd Party, /4~j C~y Nirf q*.*40g Billing Rofo rnce (wil alpoar onl ilvoiCg)
Sent~~i IyNeDt Vol Pkgs ai.Af I 3(LS zcag Ono I TO PWýTN pnýý.PLESE TiySpecial St.rieit A1dress Instructions -WISE E'T'io
~ SntrdeyDelivery
~ot N avallable, for ;'II.A~rvi 0h
- ,Qte-.
-
Lab Pack Service D.L-
. ....... Shipmen t Valuation Shimant Value W1eI'jriayin De sand$ees 7 ffwe D-L.Si'gnAtur~e Date Tp EI .A K-) f7 - . I I
SENDER'S COPY i" 1 1 I0 W
Sendter Aer-ount Number
-
petint Format No, FROM' (06rmpanyý Pri'aymen,
-'8Sendai wilt bo b~ild IUnlass Origin Inr~
cf henrwi Stre Riecelver 3rd Painy,
'y FlPaidIin
-. j.F' 13flling Fleference
-' -'ao 1will appear on involve)..
Sent~~~~~~~~~~
~P~p~~urd).
[M(~mI4r it Intructions
[a)r*yDlivery .
Not avrriletre Hod city i.L 4ti\ Stt.
, nsriiocti~ori-.
Lab Plack SG~er ft allrr nOnetOs l$ (qir...
Shiornenf Valua*tion n
SlJiimen Value Pnymornt Detal)s 10red4 Card)
~ender~jJgnarui~~
Sender'f Vinerut;e- -, Iý 100:1a Date / tTh~i 1 1r);.u ~
- - Wa~ir'I N~rb~,r
~couo~ Nt~nr~er P~~prinI Fortr'ar No.
FROM~ (Cq
-J ~ !'~r~yTypo
_
OAAb" 0 AMM,.q AM ýMo 0 I Sr;.. rg A ~ Siin. ~ ~
ZICArir)~In ~ fe~ew
'L wI 'o'r r vIe "Advtmt lmro luz0an 1-.
1!EAA ICOm I,~ I AUA,,
z Lab Se Pa(k vre~ uto w 1ipencvauat~nA I01$ IAwIY 0" VLUAt0,0 0.
N tOTtS5 VAYO4.
.5Z N~v~twe Ir
,
mrre Y7SiiL!ýneoture Dat P~r~-f-w 1200 sout P~r'tne oiotnsn.
I wayblil r
ztrA~O~Nmb!PeprtFomtNo, 3-= S76912 tov~ a~
~~~~~~ rI ir Ada--i Pa I\:'2V~ 1 .
l p~lto'~
+~aW Ar!0 0 ,
B(IIIO ai FROMO Pr0b Z'
Site0'4 PEWIn 10-.3da St.
(NaflO~eDt OP OPER
-o Z'1P.$
' '.Mb~r V Peprin! ýwmet ýNo Vqnll ,i Numbei zm 0~a!Fmoojy (Cn 14917?
3,VPan Sr L ZZip CODE (Ranul-cdl Bilin Rviq or
-U nr PLEASE PRINT'Nr,,.
.(Li A) A pcil .Lrn
-F-, -,4T
~~Oellyry IAt t
e' ZI _OE
__Cie)'S~
L-.
Shlp~crtT~iieii mntvlab
_ _ __ _
U
_
ARRACAT
~',dhl-uso www, A .. MM~
IjppM~l YuTALA r n; corn vmu,,jlnio 6lqnurm:Nw n
~DHigotr 771_____________________
S~~_~g'Ph;e De00 Ifi)Fi C) sfl
- L Gtio i
r.iamR ý.4EII D
EXHIBIT B
. Forwarded message -
From:. Sherwvin Turk <Sherwin.Turk2nrc.goV>
Date:. Feb 15, 2008 ;:37 PM
.
Subject:
RE: WestCAN et al. Answer served 2.11.08 To: "Pahisadesart a, aol.com" <Palisadesart~cDaol .c6m>, Richard Brodsky ritchardbrodský,(aimsn.com>, Sarah Wagner <sarahiva-meresq(ia-dmail.com>
Cc: "pbessetter(?imnorczanlewis. con" <pbessetteaniorganlewis.com>.
I.martin.o'neillL.mor-anlewis .com" <martin.o'neill(c)morganlewis.com>,
- L;sutton,).morLanle*..is.com" -<klsutton(rn-ortanlewis.com>.-
MS.. Wagner -
This afternoon, we receiived the paper copy of your February 11 filing. For future reference, I've been informed that the NRC'Staffs server tan accept incoming messages up to 10 megabytes. Your transmittal of Feb. 11. at 12 megal)ytes, exceeded that limit, probably because it contained many scanned pages.
Pleasekeep this limit in mind whenmaking E-mail transmissions to the NTRC in the future.
- A. .. rec ive M r ." . - " .,.. .
Also, . received Mr. O'Neill's response to your E-mail message of yesterday afternoon, regarding yow
- initerest in an extension of time for filing Your replyjto Entergy's (and the Staffs) 1/22/08-responses to your petition to intervene. Based on his responses, it appears that the documents listed in your E-mail were either cited in. your petition or are publicly available; als0. yu've already been granted a one-week*
extenSion of time to file your replies. and you don't provide any reason to support an extension of time. to feply to the staff s response of 1/22/08. 1 would therefore oppose an extension of time for the filinte of your replies.
Sincerely, Sherwin Turk From: Palisadesart(a.ladcorn [nmailtt:Palisadesart.aO1.com].
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1232 PM.
To. Shemrin Turk; Sherwin Turk- Christopher Chandler; Beth Mizuno; Bo Pham; Brian Newell- Daxvid Roth; Kimberly Sexton; Lloyd Subin; pbessette(&,iorganekwis.com; NancvBurtonCT3aol.con:
cwa~nia.hari~nocc.rran corn; rndelanev*'anvcedciieim: Wdeni s(e)ter v.eor;iannaioaclcar'Water or*;Hearing ...
Docket; Kaye Lathrop; kre.me:rareaaliance.or, ailkcemei- rmfpc.cni: Lawi-ence McDade fuise usa*.Ovahoo.coin:.
ilmattbe~i*_w.dec.state r,.uN,"philliT)ýimDn keeier+/-:oT_; vob*tbestweb.net; martin.0neill(tamdreanlew.k s..eom; idD3aiWestehestei-L.o.coirn; Richard Wardwell; drieselr-iisprlaw.corn JFohn.Siposa-oae.state.nv.us;.
ISteinbergisrlawa,."oni k, cittona)moraanlewis.comi vtafur*a!riverkeeper.or ; Zachary.Kahn; .
ezoliwcoodwinprocter coian nice.dean*)oac.state.nv.us; Palisadesartra)aol.com OCAAMAIL Resource,;
richai-dbi-odskva'-rmsn.corn; ulHch(&uilrichwitte.com; sarahwana-nerescq(DrMail.com
Subject:
'Fwd: WestCAN :t al. Answer senved 2.11.08 .
-Forwarded message------
From: Sarah Wagner <sarahwa-neresq~ciomail.com>
"...Date: Feb 11, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject:
PetitionersWestCAN et. al. Reply to ASLB Order dated 2.1.08 t: Christopher.Cýhandierainrc izov, Beth.MizunoaiR~nrc.gov, Bo.Pham(nnrc.uov, "Briani.N.ewe lh2i*nrc . ,David..Roth,,xnrc. zov Kimber v-Seexton(@nrc. tov,: lbs3 (.nrc. gov.
Sherwin.Turk(ci'nrc.. ,o_. pbessetteta3morganewis.com,. NancyBurtonCT(a.aol.com, Scurrnýaha-moncturran.com, mdelanevo.rnycedlcom., wdennis(3,entergv.com,
'manfnaio(,clearwater. ora, Iearina.Docket(iZnrc.,ov, KDL2 ,nrc.a-ov kremeriarea-alifance.org, aih'emer(@)rrnfpc.com, LGM 1(QTnrc.gov, fuse usaa-yahqoo.om, jlm~atthe~gw~dec..qtai~e nv. us, phillipi)riverkeeper.or , vob(wbestweb.ne .
martin.oneill (i*moirnanleWiscorn, idp3M,.westch esteigov.com, REW(*.nrc.gaov,
.drneseh(~sbrIlaw~com, John.Sipos(a'oag.state.nV.us, jsteinbeqr(E)sprlaw.com, ksuti~n(.morganlewis.crn, vtafur62Driverkeeper.org, Zacharv.Kahnh(cnrc.gov,.
ezol.oodW in' *octer.com, janmce.deanro.0au.statejnv.us. OCAAMAILti-,nic. .ov
.:-Cc: Richard Brodsky <richaýdbrodskvy(1msn.com>, "Palisadesart(?Fi.aol.corn"
- <Pa isdesart**)a.com rch Witte ýUchurichWitte.m> " "
" inti Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR IND iAN SPOINT 3, LLC, and .::
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. Docket Nos.:
.50-247-LR & 50-286-LR ININPOINT NU(CLEAR GENERATING U NTS 2&3 ASLBP No.
Regarding the Renewal of Facility Operating Licenses 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 No: DPR-26 and*No. I)PR-64 for an Additional 20-year Period.
Dear Administrative Judges and Parties:
Attached piease find the-reply papers of Petitioners Westchester Citizen's Awareness Network
..WetCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association (RCCA), Promoting Public Health and Suistainable Energ- (PHASE), Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter, and Richard Brodsky in response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order dated February 1, 2008. Hard copies to follow,.
Please contact me if you are unable to open. any of the attachnrients.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sarah L. Wagner
,Co-counsel for Petitioners WestCAN et, al.
- ,Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 1
" ,vvindo, Ws Livei FWd" TEST! TEST !TEST for Rebecca From: Palisadesart@ao[.com..
-.Sent: Mon 3/03/081 :08 PM To: lenasw@hotmall.com Attachments: Re TEST! TESTFTEST for Rebecca (0.0 KS) Security scan upon download T V
- ion . d baku
- ha fd From: Palisadesart@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:07:57 -0500 Subject, Re. TEST!. TEST E To: He'aring~Docketonrc.gov
. y wewi atempt t sent our reply tight, and will al e u hd co iesadCD Roms. Thank you Susan Shapiro The years* hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://mrusic.aol co~m
/gcrammys?NCIpD=aolcmp00300000002565)
-- :I M
Page 1 of 2 Gmail Calendar Documents Photos Reader Web more *sarahwagneresq@gmail.com J Settin*s He ilut-..
s_. U..
.Sear[ch Mail Search th9 We. Show Createsearch a filter optt 1ý-
- . ft.,-Iý*
l " B.ETA, Compose Maill CNN.com Recently Published/Updated - Plane scrapes wino durino landiiig.i Gef*
.n.-
Starred *.* i< Back to Inbox Archive portSpai Delete More actions...
Chats Q 21< ~ ~ Nwer 4of 342-01der, i Sent Mail Drafts.l .. ..: Fwd: i reached Rebecca Inbox All Mail "Palisadesart@aol.com" s dt&ic' 1:09 pm (44 minutes ago) 14- Reply Trash Contacts It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
'utk Contact (http://money..aoI.comltax?NCID=aol rfO003Q0000000001)
Search add or invite Forwarded message.-
- Sara wagner From: Paiisadesart@a0o.com 2 Setstatusihere Y, To: sarahwagneresq@gmaif.com Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008.15:23:31 EST SRich Paladino : ..
Subject:
.. reached Rebecca.
10,Emma Furmanr I reach Rebecca and sent her a test 400 page document which we was able to Debra Bush , receive and open. She said that there are no judges today at the ASBL and Kent Sopris therefore we cannot ask for any kind of changes for service. She said theclerk ksutton said we need to make a good faith effort toprovide email service tonight, and suggested in our cover letter state that we are doing this but due to prior Palisadesa rt@aol1., difificdtlies with the NRC server we are also serving hard copies and CD Rom Richard Brodsky copiesby overnight service to be recieved on the first buisness day after the Sherwin Turk national holiday.
Ulrich Witte . "
I guess I will have to be the one who does the final transmittal, but you will need to put it into adobe pdf format and then send it to me,.
.. ... .. .. ...
Please shoot me the latest draft so I can start putting together the Staff version.
! : . 'Edfit lbtels Thanks Susan
".Give Gmail to: " The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http:Hmusic.aol.com/grammvs?NCID=aolcmpOO300000002565)
- .~ ~~ini~fl50 left preview invite. Reoly 4 Forward Invite Palisadesartiaaol.com to Gmail
.. .. . ...
.. ....... . .. ...,.....
....... ... ....
. ........ .::....... .. . .. ..... ... ..... . .... . .. .. ........ . .......... . . .. ... ......
.. .. . .. .. . . . ... . . . .
-aBackdR t..inbx Archive Report Spainm Delete i:.:ý More actions...
Get e ml n o. D a te ma Newer.4t o342 Olde Get new mail notifications. Download the Gmail Notifier.
" I nn R"lfi
Page 1 of 2 "Gmail* Calendar Documents Photos Groups Web more, sarahwagneresq@gmail.com I Settings I
. il. S . .
-e F77 r .ýthe - Show search pptl
.. . ..... .... . ,Search the We . Create a filter Compose Mail
- .. - . . .
~
ThA < Back to Inbox Archive ReportSam, . I ete More actions
, ...
starred .......... .. A
_____Newer 20onf369 Older-ChatsQ j ~~_
Se Mail *nt Different versions of WestCAN's 2/15/08 Reply [g New windov
.)).:: . : Inbox Print all All.Mail.
a
- :* . .* ?Sherwin Turk show detais Mar 5 (2 days ago) L+.Rep yý] rI Ca l Spai (27) ........... 5 ( dysag1 Collapse all
- :.,Trash
. . .. . . -. . * ".. .
- Forw ard all Conrtacts 4
Dear Ms. Wagner:
.:
S .Spon I!* I a*m writing with regard to the Reply filed by Petitioners WestCAN, etal., dated February 15,.2008, which you transmitted. 2500 business c to me-and the NRC Hearing Docket byE-mail at 12:00 AM on 1000 4x6Flyers Saturday, 2/16/08. Apparently, WestCAN, et al. sent a second www.allprocolor.
E-mail of that Reply to other persons on the service list (including the Applicant, the NRC Hearing Docket, and the OGC mailroom,
- Emma Furman but not'Staff Counsel) at 12-53AM on 12/16/08. Get Free Review
~'Rich Paladino Medtronic Recal Bessette, Paul....... www.MedtronJcF Kent Sopris lenasw .
Until now, W Was not aware that the E-mail version that you sent Includes mappin Palisadesart(&aoI. . . organizer, virus I Richard Brodsky . me at 12:00 AM on 2/16/08 differed from the version sent by E-mail at..12:53 AM. However, in attempting to insert WestCAN, et pack.google.con j iii She.rwin Turk SluttonKathryn al.'s errata of 2/27/08 into WestCAN's Reply of 2/15/08, _ noticed that the E-mailed version of the Reply that you .sent to me Ulrich Witte contains substantive differences from 12:53 AM and signed LCD Cornputee F versions of that document. For example, see the discussion of Flat Panel Motio Contentions 22m25, commencing on page 70 of each document. www.ergodirect.,
More about...
Old Versions >
Edit labbl~ Versions Softwa In the. Staff's March 3, 2008 Answer to the Applicant's motion to Letter Samples strike WestCAN's Reply, I stated that WestCAN had sent its Letter Example Reply to the Staff byE-mail at 12:00 AM on 2/16/08. See id. at Give Gmail to: 2.. Apparently, my statement may not be correct, if the version
- Aboul you sent to me at 12:00AM differs from the later-transmitted document.
SedL vt 50 left p preview invite A
4 Am I correct that the two E-mailed versions are not identical?
Further, does the version delivered by DHL differ in any way from the version E-mailed at 12:53 AM on 2/16/08? I would appreciate your prompt reply.
T Thank you.
Sincerely,
Page 2 of 2 Compose.Mail Starred ' Sherwin Turk
'
Ch-ats P Counsel for NRC Staff Sent Mail Drafts (!) .
All Mail vAbaf Fo :rd , Invite
-1 . Sheriiwin i . G 6t 8pain (ýZ)
- Trash icontacts. :i 0A.e Sarah Wagner show details Mar 5 (2 days ago) Reply,
Dear Mr. Turk:
The Reply Brief which you received in the mail and in adobe is the ISearch, add, or invite Petitioners WestCAN's Reply Brief The email transmittal letter said to discard the potentially corrupt word file.. The abode file is exactly the same as theprinted version mailed on thel5th of ySetý!status hnere>w February.
- Emma Furman I 4 Rich Paladino Sincerely, Bessette, Pauli: Sarah L. Wagner Show quoted text -
keint Sopris -
Ienasw -
Sarah L. Wagner . .. :
Palisa desart~caol... .Legal Counsel for Assemblyman
..Richard Brodsky t. Richard L. Brodsky-
- -Sherwin Turk L.OB. Room 422 Sutton, Kathryn, Albany, NKY. 12248 Ulrich Witte 518-455-5753' Edit labels
.
Give G iail to:
................. .. I
'.[i :'...........
- '* .......
- ........
e -.l'"i
.............
5 .: -;:
............
....
Sed- invite 50 if Use the search box or search options to find messages 2pr eview invite quickly!
You are currently using 388 MB (5%) of your 6495 MB.
Gmail view: standard with chat I standard without chat I basic HTML Learn more
@2007 Google Terms - Gmail Blog - Google Home
-
EXHIBIT C.
- f. I.
UNITED-STATESOFAMERICA..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION...
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-.247/286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR
- i:..,.,.: / ..)..-
i.~i :" : *:.*i . .: i INC.). )
- . OPERATIONS, (Indian Point Nuclear Generating)
Units 2 and 3):, :).
SECOND REVISED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
- Ihereby certify that copies of the foregoing Reply of WestCAN et al. dated February 15 2008,0 have been served upon the Office of the. S6cretary, S. Nuclear Regulatory, Sixteenth: Floor, iNorh,. 11555 Roville Pike Ro kill6, Maryland 20852,.and a courtesy apeýr Copy
.One Flint has been sent to Staff ad Entergy's attorey's. I further certify thatCD opies of the foregoing Reply.6fWeStCAN et al. dated Febrary. 15, 2008, h.eavbeen served ;upon the following addresses provided below, thisý 15th day of February, 2008 by DHL courier service....
A.dditionally, I hhereby certify thatcopies- of the-foregoing Reply Brife0of westCAN et al. dated.
February .15,2008,have been electronically served only upon the email provided baddesses bei6h, on thel16th day of.February, 2008.'
.:Lawrence G..McDade, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing:Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop*- T-3 F23 Mail Stop:'O-16G41G ........
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.*20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Email: OCAAMAIL(-nrc.6ov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Office of the Secretary.
AtomicSafety and Licensing Board Panel Attn: Rulemaking andAdjudications Staff.--
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Ma.il Stop,: O-16G4 U. S..Nuclear Regulatory Commission U:.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington', D.C. 20555-000 1:4...-.
Email: HEARINGDOCKET~anrc.qov:
Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Zachary S. Kahn, Law clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
190 Cedar Lane E. Maill Stop - T-3 F23- '::
.Ridgeway-,, CO 81432 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C., 20555-0001 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 1
- f. .,
William C. Dennis, Esq. Manna Jo Greene -
Assistant General Counsel .Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations,: Inc." 112 Little Market Street 440 Hamilton Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 White Plains, NY 10601 Email: wdennis(denterpqy.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq:q.. Justin.D. Pruyne, Esq.
PaulM. Bessette, Esq. AssistantCounty Attorney Martin J. O'Neill, Esq,. Westchester County Attorney's Office
...Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,'LLP, 148:Martine Avenue, 6 h Floor'
,111 Pennsylvania AVenue, NW White Plains, NY 10601 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: ksuttonamornqanlewis;.com E-mail: pbessette(OmoroqanlewiS.com Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor E-mail: martin.oneill(morqanlewis~com JamesSeirmarcoM.S.
Village of Buchanan.
Michael J. Delaney; Esq.,... Municipal Building SVice.Prsident - Energy Deparment Buchanan, NY 10511-1298:
N~ewYork-City Economic Development Corporation (NYCDEC)..
1 i b William Street - John J .Sipos ,Esq.
New York, NY 10038 Charlie Donaldson, Esq....:. " "...
AsSistants Attorney General.:"
New York..State Department of Law John LeKay Environmental Protection Bureau FUSE USA The Capitol 351 Dyckman Street Albany, NY 12224 Peekskill, NY 10566 Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman- -.Joan Leary Matthews-, Esq..
...New. York Affordable Reliable Electricity, Senior Attorney for. Special Projectsp:. -
Alliance (AREA) New York State Department of:
347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508. .En~vironmental Conservation-
..NewYork, NY 10016 O:,:'ffice :of the Gen*eral counsel.:
625 .Bradway, 1 4 h:Floor
- Albany, NY"12233-1500.
IDiane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600::
Washington, D.C. 20036
-E-mail: dcurran(charmoncurtran*com Robert Snook, Esq. Victor Tafur, Esq.,
Office of the Attorney General Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
State of Connecticut Rijverkeeper,l Inc..:
55 Elm Street 828 South Broadway P.O. Box 120 Tarrytown, NY 10591.
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Daniel Riesel, Esq..
Thomas F. Wood, Esq..
Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D...
Sive,.Paget&.Riese!, P.C.
460.Park Avenue.
New York, NY 10022
'Elise N. Zoli,':E .
Goodwin Procter, LLP S.Exchange. Place Ms. Nancy Burtop 53 State Street 147*Cross Highway . . Boston,.MA:02109
- .ReddingRidge, CT 06876 Janice A. Dean:. Sherwin Turk, -Esq..
.........-Assistant Attorney General Office of the-General Couns .*el
.,Office of the Attorney Genera.".al U. ."S.N.uclear Regliatory Commiission U
. 120 Broadway, 2 6th Floor Mail Stop 0-15-D-21 S
- New York, NY 10271 Washingtoh, :D.C. 20555 '
EMAIL: 46.46v kdn0_6rcqov.
eshnnrcrc..q*v
... .elj( 9o V. --. ..-
..ns rrcdQov.
'rxd(anrc.qov
.atbi @nrc.,ov.
albnhic.gov
. aslbpi; hiw. adiudication(nrc.iov sburdick(a)mbinganlewis.com imathewsa~m6rganle\Ais.'Comý.-
Vza bielski~cD-otq'anle;Wls'.Com':
An'nette.white(,Mordanliewis. corn Dated: March 6, 2008
-,Sarah L. Wagner, Esq.
-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR ASLBP No. 07-853-03-LR-BDO1 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating) )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Reply to the NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike against Petitioners dated March 7, 2008, have been served upon the following by electronic mail where an email address is provided and first class mail as shown below, this 7th day of March, 2008:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-16G4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Email: OCAAMAILL(nrc.gov E-mail: LGM1 @nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-16G4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: REW~anrc.gov Email: HEARINGDOCKETO.nrc.oov Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Zachary S. Kahn, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane E. Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Ridgeway, CO 81432 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: KDL20@nrc.gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Email: ZXK1( nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 William C. Dennis, Esq. Manna Jo Greene Assistant General Counsel Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 112 Little Market Street 440 Hamilton Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 White Plains, NY 10601 Email: Mannaioaclearwater.org Email: wdennisaentergy.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Martin J. O'Neill, Esq. Office of the Westchester County Attorney Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor
- 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW White Plains, NY 10601 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: idp3awestchestergov.com 23
E-mail: ksuttonamorganlewis.com E-mail: pbessetteamorganlewis.com Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor E-mail: martin.o'neillImor-qanlewis.com James Seirmarco, M.S.
Village of Buchanan Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Municipal Building .
Vice President - Energy Department Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 New York City Economic Development E-mail: vob(abestweb.net Corporation (NYCDEC) 110 William Street John J. Sipos, Esq.
New York, NY 10038 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
E-mail: mdelaneyvnycedc.com Assistants Attorney General New York State Department of Law John LeKay Environmental Protection Bureau FUSE USA The Capitol 351 Dyckman Street Albany, NY 12224 Peekskill, NY 10566 E-mail: iohn.sipos(oaq.state~ny.us E-mail: fuse usa(cyahoo.com Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
New-York Affordable Reliable Electricity Senior Attorney for Special Projects Alliance (AREA) New York State Department of 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 Environmental Conservation New York, NY 10016 Office of the General Counsel E-mail: aikremert-rmfp.com 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor kremertaarea-alliance.org Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: ilmatthe(Daw.dec.state.nv. us Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 24
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 E-mail: dcurranaharmoncurran.com Robert Snook, Esq. Victor Tafur, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
State of Connecticut Riverkeeper, Inc.
55 Elm Street 828 South Broadway P.O. Box 120 Tarrytown, NY 10591 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: phillip(criverkeeper.org E-mail: robert.snook(po.state.ct.us vtafur(driverkeeper.orq Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel(asprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
jsteinberg(qspriaw.com Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place Ms. Nancy Burton 53 State Street 147 Cross Highway Boston, MA 02109 Redding Ridge, CT 06876 E-mail: ezolitcloodwinprocter.com E-mail: nancyburtonctcaol.com Janice A. Dean Counsel for NRC Staff Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General 25
Office of the General Counsel 120 Broadway, 2 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10271 E-mail: kimberly.sextoh(nnrc.gov E-mail: ianice.dean(ooag.state.ny.us Sherwin.turkanrc.gov christopher.chandleranrc.,qov Office of the Secretary* Marcia Carpentier, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Sixteenth Floor Mail Stop: T-3 E2B One Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20555-0001 Rockville, Maryland 20852 E-mail: Marcia.Canoentier(onrc. Qov Mylan L. Denerstein Executive Deputy Attorney General Office of the N.Y. Attorney General 120 Broadway, 2 5 th floor New York, New York 10271 Sarah L. Wagner, Esq.
- Original and two copies 26
Table of Contents Exhibit A Courier Receipts Exhibit B Email Correspondents Exhibit C Second Revised Certificate of Service