ML101730181
| ML101730181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/2010 |
| From: | Bessette P, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-364 | |
| Download: ML101730181 (7) | |
Text
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 TEL: 202.739.3000 FAX: 202.739.3001 eFax: 877.432.9652 www.morganlewis.com Morgan Lewis COUNSELORS AT LAW DOCKETED USNRC Kathryn M. Sutton Partner 202.739.5738 ksutton@morganlewis.com June 17, 2010 (8:30a.m.)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Paul M. Bessette Partner 202.739.5796 pbessette@morganlewis.com June 16, 2010 Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket:
RE:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Entergy's Comments on the Draft Scheduling Order for the IPEC License Renewal Proceedine
Dear Administrative Judges:
On June 2, 2010, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") issued a Draft Scheduling Order for review and comment by the parties in the above-captioned proceeding.
In accordance with that Order, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") is providing the following comments on the schedule and procedures proposed by the Board to govern the remainder of this proceeding.
As an initial matter, Entergy has reviewed the Draft Scheduling Order and, subject to the suggestions offered below, believes it is comprehensive and fair to all involved parties and interested governmental entities. Given the scope of the proceeding and the extensive time the parties have had to date to prepare for the hearing, the timeframes set forth in the proposed schedule are both reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore, the schedule is generally consistent 7ýýkLA-1ý cD L(
Ilýc3,
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop June 16, 2010 Page 2 of 3 with scheduling orders that have been issued in other contested proceedings. See, e.g., Tenn.
Valley Auth. (Watts Bar Unit 2), Licensing Board Scheduling Order, Docket Nos. 50-391 -OL (unpublished) (May 26, 2010). With that introduction, Entergy offers the following suggested changes to the Draft Scheduling Order.
Insofar as the parties are required to immediately update mandatory disclosures with newly acquired or developed information until the Board has issued its initial decision in this proceeding, Entergy proposes that such updated disclosures be limited to new information that is both relevant and material to admitted contentions (i.e., new information that clearly could affect the outcome of the proceeding with respect to the subject contention).
- Entergy proposes that "pleadings filed in this proceeding" be added to the list of documents listed in section M.2 that need not be attached to a motion or pleading. Instead, the parties should clearly identify the document (including its date and filing party) and cite to the specific page or section that is relevant.
It appears that section M may apply only to "attachments" filed with a motion or pleading, but not necessarily to exhibits filed with written testimony, which is discussed generally in section K. Entergy suggests that the Scheduling Order be clarified to indicate whether sections M. 1 and M.2 also apply to exhibits. To the extent that was the Board's intent, or that the Board otherwise believes such direction is warranted, Entergy suggests adding provisions similar to sections M. l and M.2 to section K.
Section K.3 of the Draft Scheduling Order provides that the interested governmental entities may submit written statements of position, written testimony with supporting affidavits, and exhibits no later than sixty (60) days after the submission of the same types of materials by Entergy and/or the NRC Staff. Given that the interested governmental entities are likely to support the Intervenors' positions on the contentions on which they are participating, Entergy proposes that they make their submittals at the same time as the Intervenors. This would allow Entergy (and possibly the Staff) the opportunity to also respond to those submittals.
Section K.3 of the Draft Scheduling Order also provides that the Intervenors may file optional revised statements of position and rebuttal testimony with supporting affidavits and exhibits sixty (60) days after Entergy and the NRC Staff make their filings under Section K.2. Entergy proposes that the time allotted for submittal of these optional filings be reduced (e.g., to 30 days). The parties' submittals under sections K.1 and K.2 of the Scheduling Order should serve to focus and thoroughly address the contested issues and avoid the need for lengthy or extensive rebuttal testimony. Relatedly, insofar as the Intervenors' submittals under K.3 contain entirely new information, Entergy requests that it be given an appropriate
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop June 16, 2010 Page 3 of 3 opportunity to respond to that new information, whether in the form of a motion in limine or motion to strike, or in a narrowly-focused responsive pleading authorized by the Board.
- Entergy proposes that the parties and interested governmental entities have the option of serving exhibits and attachments on the other parties and interested governmental entities in an electronic format on CD or DVD by next day express mail or expedited delivery in lieu of service by e-mail with paper copies served by another approved method. This option would allow for significant savings in terms of costs and resources, and would avoid issues associated with e-mail file size limitations and with shipping large packages to the numerous parties and interested governmental entities. Unless the Board directs otherwise, hard copies of exhibits and attachments would still be sent to the Board members and the Office of the Secretary.
- Entergy seeks confirmation that section G.4, Motion for Extension of Time, would apply to the filing of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and responses thereto.
Depending on the length of the evidentiary hearing and the complexity of the record, a modest extension of the deadlines set forth in section N may be warranted.
Entergy appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Scheduling Order and, subject to the clarifications and modifications suggested above, respectfully requests that the Board promptly issue the Final Scheduling Order. To the extent the Board considers material changes to the schedule or sequence of matters proposed in the Draft Scheduling Order at the request of the other Parties, however, Entergy requests an opportunity to provide further comments on such changes.
Respectfully submitted, Kathryn*4v. Sutton, Escj.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
cc:
Service List
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
)
)
)
June 16, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the letter entitled "Entergy's Comments on the Draft Scheduling Order for the IPEC License Renewal Proceeding," dated June 16, 2010, were served this 16th day of June, 2010 upon the persons listed below, by first class mail and e-mail as shown below.
Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: lgml @nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: rew@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: ocaamailgnrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane E.
Ridgway, CO 81432 (E-mail: kdl2gnrc.gov)
Office of the Secretary*
Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail: hearingdocketgnrc. gov)
Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Josh.Kirstein(2nrc. gov)
I -
11 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: set@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: bnm 1 gnrc.gov)
(E-mail: david.rothgnrc.gov)
(E-mail: brian.harrisgnrc.gov)
(E-mail: andrea.jones@.nrc. gov)
Manna Jo Greene
- Environmental Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 (E-mail: mannaio@clearwater.org)
Greg Spicer, Esq.
Office of the Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 (E-mail: gss1 @westchestergov.com)
Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: drieselgsprlaw.com)
(E-mail: i steinbergd2sprlaw.com)
John Louis Parker, Esq.
Regional Attorney Office of General Counsel, Region 3 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 21 S. Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 (E-mail: j lparker@(gw.dec. state.ny.us)
Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy New York City Economic Development Corp.
110 William Street New York, NY 10038 (E-mail: mdelaney(anycedc.com)
Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 Tarrytown, NY 10591 (E-mail: sfillergnylawline.com)
Ross Gould, Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
10 Park Avenue, #5L New York, NY 10016 (E-mail: rgouldesqgzgmail.com) 2
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 (E-mail: phil1ip(riverkeeper.org)
(E-mail: dbrancato(2riverkeeper.org)
Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Robert. Snookgpo. state.ct. us)
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
Attorney General of the State of New York John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson Esq.
Assistants Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: j ohn.sipos@oag. state.ny.us)
Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Senior Attorney for Special Projects Office of the General Counsel New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12207 (E-mail: i lmattheggw.dec. state.ny. us)
Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor James Siermarco, M.S.
Liaison to Indian Point Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net)
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.
Executive Deputy Attorney General, Social Justice Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 2 5th Floor New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Mylan.Denerstein@oag.state.ny.us)
Janice A. Dean Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Janice.Deangoag. state.ny.us) 3
- Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.
Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
DB 1/64970752.1 4