ML11210B419
| ML11210B419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/2011 |
| From: | State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD-01, RAS E-556 | |
| Download: ML11210B419 (7) | |
Text
/2+/-?
C--- -,-5-S (,.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD x
In re:
License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
x Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 DPR-26, DPR-64 July 26, 2011 STATE OF NEW YORK'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD ADMISSIBILITY RULINGS ON CONTENTIONS NYS-17B AND NYS-37 Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224
-tFk PL4-7-,ý27-21 Sec-Y b S 0-3
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the State of New York urges the Board to deny Entergy's motion for "clarification," which is nothing more than an unsupported motion for reconsideration and, in any event, premature.
DISCUSSION With regard to Contention 17B, although styled a motion for "clarification," Entergy is really seeking reconsideration of the Board's ruling, which is sufficiently clear and requires no clarification. The Board ruled that " [b]ecause the Commission has specifically barred consideration of the environmental impacts of long-term storage of spent fuel in adjudicatory proceedings, this aspect of NYS-17B is inadmissible." Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Pending Motions for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions) (July 6, 2011) (unpublished) (Order) at 18. Immediately thereafter the Board also ruled that "the negative effect on property values predicted by Dr. Sheppard that would result from the longer-term presence of spent fuel anticipated by the updated Waste Confidence Rule is not an environmental impact barred by the Waste Confidence Rule." Id. at 18. There is nothing contradictory, apparently or otherwise, in these statements. Entergy simply disapproves of the Board's ruling. The Board should reject Entergy's attempt to characterize its request for reconsideration as a motion for clarification.
A motion to reconsider may be made only with leave of the Board or the Commission and "upon a showing of compelling circumstances, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have reasonably been anticipated, that renders the decision invalid." 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e). Accord Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy 1
Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) CLI-10-28 (November 5, 2010) at 1 &
n.2. Entergy has not satisfied, nor could it, the standard for reconsideration.
With regard to its efforts at "clarification" of the ruling on both Contentions 17B and 37, Entergy's motion is not only unnecessary but premature. In addition to seeking clarification of the ruling on 17B, Entergy seeks "clarification" of a footnote in the Board's Order related to certain concerns regarding non-fossil fuel alternatives that the Board found untimely. Order at 35 & n. 156. Entergy will not know until New York files its direct testimony regarding Contentions 17B and 37 whether New York has misunderstood the Board's ruling and strayed into subjects that Entergy believes are precluded. As Entergy itself stated in opposing an intervenor's interlocutory request for clarification in another proceeding, "[c]ertainly, the Board should not be forced to offer speculative advice on these matters in advance of the development of the record." Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ASLBP No.
06-848-02-LR, Entergy's Opposition to Pilgrim Watch's Interlocutory Motion Seeking Further Clarification (October 4, 2010) at 10, ML102850137. When New York files its direct testimony regarding Contentions 17B and 37, Entergy may file an in limine motion to preclude any portions of New York's testimony that Entergy believes are not within the scope of the Board's Order.
Until such time, Entergy has no need for "clarification." The State seeks no further guidance and plans to file its direct testimony in full compliance with the Board's unambiguous rulings.
2
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing the State of New York urges the Board to deny the motion for "clarification."
Respectfully submitted, N40J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 402-2251 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov Susan L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 474-2432 susan.taylor@ag.ny.gov July 26, 2011 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD X
In re:
License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
x Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 DPR-26, DPR-64 July 26, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 26, 2011, copies of the State of New York's Response to Applicant's Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-I 7B and NYS-37, were served upon the following persons via U.S. Mail and e-mail at the following addresses:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Richard. Wardwell@nrc.gov Kaye D. Lathrop Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 190 Cedar Lane E.
Ridgway, CO 81432 Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Josh Kirstein, Esq., Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov I
Q Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 16 G4 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ocaamail@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 hearingdocket@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq.
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 15 D21 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov andrea.jones@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov brian.harrisanrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Suite 4000 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com William C. Dennis, Esq.
AssistantGeneral Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 wdennis@entergy.com 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 robert.snook@ct.gov Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney Office of the Westchester County Attorney Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 MJR I @westchestergov.com Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor James Seirmarco, M.S.
Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 vob@bestweb.net 2
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Victoria Shiah, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 driesel@sprlaw.com vshiah@sprlaw.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Director Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 (718) 595-3982 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Manna Jo Greene, Director Stephen Filler, Esq., Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 Mannajo@clearwater.org stephenfiller@gmail.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org s/
[.
TyIo Susan L. Taylor Dated at Albany, New York this 26th day of July 2011