ML11314A211

Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)

ML11314A211
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/10/2011
From:	Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Riverkeeper, State of NY
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21409, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11314A211 (16)

Text

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. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) November 10, 2011 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)

On August 31, 2011, the NRC Staff informed the Board and the participants in this proceeding of the issuance of Supplement 1 to its Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) regarding the License Renewal Application for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.1 On September 30, 2011, Intervenors the State of New York (New York) and Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper) (hereinafter referred to collectively as Intervenors) jointly moved for admission of a new contention, NYS-38/RK-TC-5, which they base on the SSER and proposals by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Entergy or Applicant) as discussed in the SSER, for addressing concerns raised by NRC Staff with Entergys previous AMPs [Aging Management Plans] for critical safety components and 1

Letter from Sherwin E. Turk, Counsel for the NRC Staff, to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Aug. 31, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11243A109) (referencing Letter from Brian E.

Holian, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to Joseph E. Pollock, Vice President for Operations, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Aug. 30, 2011)

(referencing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulation, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.

2 and 3, Supp. 1, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, NUREG-1930 (Supp. 1 Aug. 2011)

[hereinafter SSER])).

systems.2 Entergy and the NRC Staff oppose admission of NYS-38/RK-TC-5.3 For the reasons described below, we admit NYS-38/RK-TC-5.

I. PARTIES POSITIONS A. New Yorks and Riverkeepers New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 alleges that the Applicant is not in compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a)(3) and (c)(1)(iii) and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2133(b) and (d) and 2232(a) because Entergy does not demonstrate that it has a program that will manage the affects of aging of several critical components or systems and thus NRC does not have a record and a rational basis upon which it can determine whether to grant a renewed license to Entergy as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.4 In support of this contention, the Intervenors claim that Entergys AMPs are inadequate with regard to several safety-related systems and components because these AMPs merely commit to the future development of certain AMPs, rather than presenting existing plans for current review.5 Accordingly, Intervenors argue that it is impossible to evaluate at this time whether these AMPs meet NRC regulatory requirements or NRC Staff guidance like the Generic Aging Lessons Learned, NUREG 1801, Rev. 1 or Rev. 2 (GALL) guidance document.6 2

State of New York and Riverkeepers Joint Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Entergys Failure to Demonstrate that it has all Programs that are Required to Effectively Manage the Effects of Aging of Critical Components or Systems (Sept. 30, 2011) at 1

[hereinafter Intervenors Motion]; State of New York and Riverkeepers New Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Sept. 30, 2011) [hereinafter NYS-38/RK-TC-5].

3 Applicants Opposition to New York States and Riverkeepers Joint Motion to Admit New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Oct. 25, 2011) [hereinafter Entergys Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer to State of New York and Riverkeepers Joint Motion to File a New Contention, and New Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Oct. 25, 2011) [hereinafter NRC Staffs Answer].

Intervenors filed a Reply on November 1, 2011. State of New York and Riverkeepers Joint Reply in Support of Admission of Proposed Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Nov. 1, 2011)

[hereinafter Intervenors Reply].

4 NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 1.

5 Id.

6 Id.

As bases, the Intervenors highlight several programs that, they assert, Entergy plans to develop after its license would be renewed.7 The Intervenors maintain that a commitment to eventually develop AMPs that will comply with GALL and the regulations is inadequate and that AMPs must be presented and tested for consistency with GALL before the evidentiary hearing in this proceeding.8 The Intervenors state that failure to do so is a failure on the part of Entergy to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a).9 The Intervenors represent that the Board and the Commission must make a definitive determination on key safety issues, like AMPs, before ruling on a license renewal application, and that the current AMPs fail to give the Board a sufficient factual record from which to rule.10 The Intervenors have offered the opinions of their experts, Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr.11 and Dr. Joram Hopenfeld,12 to support their position.

To demonstrate this new contentions admissibility, New York and Riverkeeper reason that it passes the tests of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) and (2) because, as described by the SSERs summary of Entergys responses to the NRC Staffs requests for additional information (RAIs),

Entergy has dramatically altered the way it intends to structure its AMPs. More specifically, the Intervenors assert that the SSER reveals that the NRC Staff both (1) made clear that Staff had concerns about various aspects of Entergys proposal and (2) disclosed that it accepted Entergys proposal to defer completion and disclosure of various details of its aging management program for various safety-related systems . . . [and intent to] obtain a renewed license 7

Id. at 1-3.

8 Id. at 3-4.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 12-14.

11 Declaration of Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr. (Sept. 30, 2011) [hereinafter Sept. 30, 2011 Lahey Decl.].

12 Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld (Sept. 30, 2011) [hereinafter Sept. 30, 2011 Hopenfeld Decl.].

based on several promises to develop AMPs for certain safety-related systems and components rather than presenting those completed AMPs.13 According to the Intervenors, their September 30, 2011 Joint Motion for Leave to File a New Contention is timely, both under the Boards June 7, 2011 Amended Scheduling Order and Section 2.309(f)(2) because it is based on newly available, materially different, information.14 B. Entergys Answer Entergy responds that the new contention is both untimely under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and that it fails to meet the contention admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii) to (vi).15 Entergy challenges the contentions timeliness on the grounds that the Intervenors have been aware of Entergys plans to use industry programs for aging management as early as the filing of its license renewal application and that other information referenced in the contention was revealed as early as July 2010.16 Entergy also argues that the contention fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1). First, Entergy asserts it has already defined its AMPs, which have been reviewed by the NRC Staff and been found to be consistent with GALL, and purports to have committed to implement these AMPs at some point in the future.17 Second, Entergy states that the NRC Staff has reviewed Entergys most recent AMPs and reaffirmed the NRC Staffs earlier reasonable assurance determination under 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a).18 Entergy also represents that there is substantial evidence supporting the NRC Staffs determination.19 Third, Entergy 13 Intervenors Motion at 4-5.

14 Id. at 1-5.

15 Entergys Answer at 1-2.

16 Id. at 10-11.

17 Id. at 12.

18 Id. at 14.

19 Id. at 14-16.

emphasizes that the Intervenors are incorrect to state that the current AMPs eliminate the ability of the public and the Board to review the AMPs because, while implementation is a separate process from this adjudication, there are already two admitted contentions that cover AMP issues and the NRC Staff verifies the sufficiency of implementation through its reactor oversight responsibilities.20 Finally, Entergy portrays the contention as contain[ing] numerous factual errors that mischaracterize Entergys planned aging management activities.21 C. NRC Staffs Answer The NRC Staff asserts that this contention is untimely because the underlying information that prompted the claims of omission presented in Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 was available long before publication of the Staffs SSER.22 The NRC Staff also reasons that because the contention is premised on the absence of information and omission of details, the contention cannot be grounded in new information from the SSER or the RAIs referenced therein.23 The NRC Staff is of the view that the eight nontimely filing factors of 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(c)(1) weigh against admission and that the Intervenors fail to address these factors in their pleadings.24 The NRC Staff describes the contention as making two errors of law. First, the NRC Staff portrays the contentions references to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) as off-point and argues that the Intervenors fail to state a cognizable issue for litigation under the AEA.25 Second, the NRC Staff argues that the contentions core is fatally flawed because commitments 20 Id. at 16-19.

21 Id. at 19.

22 NRC Staffs Answer at 7.

23 Id. (emphasis omitted).

24 Id. at 17.

25 Id. at 17-18.

to implement AMPs consistent with the GALL Report are compliant with NRC regulations26 and that Entergys new commitments relate to AMP implementation, not AMP development.27 Finally, the NRC Staff characterizes the contention as lacking any explanation for why the Intervenors believe that Entergys AMPs do not comply with GALL.28 D. New Yorks and Riverkeepers Reply The Intervenors reply that the contention is timely because it was not until the SSER and the accompanying RAI responses that Entergy revealed significant changes to its AMPs, including the intent to rely on a promise to fix [problems] in the future, rather than to defend the current AMP[s].29 Second, the Intervenors restate that promises to develop AMPs are not sufficient to meet Part 54 requirements, given that Entergy must provide sufficient details of the new or amended AMP to allow it to be assessed by the Board.30 Discussing each of their bases in detail, the Intervenors outline how, in their view, Entergy has not demonstrated that the AMP related to each basis meets the requirements of Part 54.31 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS A. Contention Admissibility A new or amended contention may be admitted as long as the contention meets (1) the contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) and (2) either the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii) for timely new contentions or the factors in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(c)(1) for nontimely filings.

26 Id. at 18-20.

27 Id. at 20-22.

28 Id. at 23-24.

29 Intervenors Reply at 2.

30 Id. at 6.

31 Id. at 8-19.

The requirements in Section 2.309(f)(1) for contention admissibility have been summarized in previous Board Memoranda and Orders and need not be repeated here.32 For a timely new or amended safety contention to be admitted, the contentions proponent must show that:

(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.33 The Commission has stressed that a license application, not the NRC Staffs safety review of that application, is the proper subject of a safety contention.34 In order to be found timely under Section 2.309(f)(2), a new or amended contention based on the SSER and documents available well before issuance of the NRC Staffs SSER must show that the SSER is a reasonably apparent foundation for such a contention.35 B. Aging Management Programs and Time-Limited Aging Analyses Under Part 54 The NRCs primary concern in evaluating the safety of a license renewal application is the potential for the adverse aging of plant components.36 In order to grant a reactor license renewal application, the NRC must find with reasonable assurance that the activities authorized 32 See LBP-10-13, 71 NRC 673, 677 n.6 (2010); LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 60-64 (2008).

33 Id. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii). Nontimely new or amended contentions are analyzed under the balancing test of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1), of which good cause is the most important factor.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 564 (2005).

34 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 27, 72 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 13 n.56) (Sept. 30, 2010).

35 Id. at __ (slip op. at 17).

36 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 7 (2001).

by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the applicants current licensing basis (CLB).37 Therefore, a successful license renewal applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the CLB for the period of extended operation.38 This obligation entails identifying actions that have been or will be taken regarding managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified to require review under § 54.21(a)(1) and time-limited aging analyses [TLAAs] that have been identified to require review under

§ 54.21(c).39 The Commission has held that a commitment to implement an AMP that the NRC finds is consistent with the GALL Report constitutes one acceptable method for compliance with 10 37 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a). A CLB is defined as the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensees written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect.

Id. § 54.3(a).

38 Id. § 54.21(a)(3).

39 Id. § 54.29(a)(1)-(2). TLAAs consist of licensee calculations and analyses which:

(1) Involve systems, structures, and components within the scope of license renewal, as delineated in § 54.4(a);

(2) Consider the effects of aging; (3) Involve time-limited assumptions defined by the current operating term, for example, 40 years; (4) Were determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a safety determination; (5) Involve conclusions or provide the basis for conclusions related to the capability of the system, structure, and component to perform its intended functions, as delineated in § 54.4(b); and (6) Are contained or incorporated by reference in the CLB.

Id. § 54.3(a)(1)-(6). Providing a prospective AMP (or similar plan) is an option for a license renewal applicant instead of relying on existing TLAAs. See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-17, 72 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 20) (July 8, 2010).

C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii).40 But, an applicant claiming its AMP complies with the GALL Report must demonstrate such compliance before receiving its renewed license.41 III. BOARD DECISION Although the NRC Staffs first RAIs on topics later discussed in the SSER were issued in February 2011, it appeared to the Board that the NRC Staff expected the RAI process to entail a colloquy between it and Entergy that would last several months, and would culminate in issuance of the SSER in July or August 2011.42 Because of this anticipated back-and-forth and in order to prevent the submission of piecemeal pleadings, our June 7, 2011 Amended Scheduling Order delayed the deadlines for filing new or amended contentions arising from new information in the SSER and RAI Responses discussed therein.43 We view the Intervenors 40 Vermont Yankee, CLI-10-17, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 44); see also AmerGen Energy Co.,

LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) et al., CLI-08-23, 68 NRC 461, 467-68 (2008).

The Commission has described the GALL Report as identif[ying] generic aging management programs that the Staff has determined to be acceptable, based on the experiences and analyses of existing programs at operating plants during the initial license period. Oyster Creek, CLI-08-23, 68 NRC at 467. Volume 2 of the GALL Report was issued in December 2010. See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, Final Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 (Dec.

2010), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1801/r2/sr1801r2.pdf [hereinafter GALL Report]. However, the NRC Staff has represented that it will use Volume 1 of the GALL Report, rather than Volume 2, in evaluating Entergys license renewal application for Indian Point and that it is informed by GALL Rev 2, but [it is] not directly applying it to Indian Point. See Tr. at 978.

41 Vermont Yankee, CLI-10-17, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 45-46).

42 See Letter from Sherwin E. Turk, Counsel for the NRC Staff, to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (May 26, 2011) at 1.

43 After learning of the NRC Staffs intention to issue an SSER, to further promote judicial economy and pursuant to the objectives of 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)(3)-(4), we dictated that new or amended contentions arising from new information contained in the responses to RAIs referenced in the NRC Staffs May 26, 2011 letter (i.e., those submitted on March 28, 2011 or to be submitted by Entergy prior to the publication of the NRC Staffs SER Supplement) or which arise from new information contained in the SER Supplement, shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the SER Supplement is issued.

targeted criticism of Entergys recently modified commitments, as described in the SSER44 as becoming the reasonably apparent foundation for the contention when Entergy submitted its finalized versions of these commitments to the Staff. Because we announced, ahead of those final submissions and the issuance of the SSER, that Intervenors should delay filing contentions on these new commitments, this type of new information appearing in the SSER is distinguishable from the situation which involved a contention based on the history of a plants safety culture that appeared in an SER and was found untimely by the Commission in Prairie Island.45 Here, we are faced with a license applicants altered commitments that were made as the result of the latest round of RAIs and RAI Responses. Thereafter, as per our Scheduling Orders, the Intervenors timely filed their contention within thirty days of the publication of the SSER.46 Given that the Intervenors have also successfully shown that this new contention is premised upon information that is materially different from information that was previously available, i.e., the changed AMP commitments, it is timely under Section 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii).

The Intervenors have broadly contended, relying on multiple bases, that Entergys new commitments do not meet NRC regulations for having a program that will adequately manage the effects of aging during the period of extended operations.47 New Yorks submission of a Licensing Board Amended Scheduling Order (June 7, 2011) at 2 (unpublished) [hereinafter June 7, 2011 Amended Scheduling Order]. We instructed that these filings and any filings responsive thereto shall be filed pursuant to paragraphs F and G of our July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order. Id. at 2 n.5.

44 NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 1-3 (describing particular disputes Intervenors raise with these commitments); see SSER at 3-18 to 3-19, 3-21 to 3-22, 4-2 to 4-3 (describing each of these commitments).

45 See Prairie Island, CLI-10-27, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 14-16).

46 See June 7, 2011 Amended Scheduling Order at 2-3; Licensing Board Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010) at 5-6 (unpublished).

47 NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 1-4. These bases are that Entergy (1) has deferred defining the methods used for determining the most limiting locations for metal fatigue calculations and the

specific statement of the contention with adequate bases satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(i) and (ii). The new commitments made by Entergy and evaluated by the NRC Staff in the SSER relate to Entergys ability to manage the effects of aging during the period of extended operation, which is within the scope of this license renewal proceeding.48 These challenges satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

The Commission held in Vermont Yankee that a license applicant may reference the GALL Report to adequately manage the effects of aging, but stipulated that the applicants purported compliance with the GALL Report is something the NRC itself must resolve. That decision clearly renders any question of Entergys compliance with the GALL Report material to the NRCs licensing decision in this proceeding.49 Likewise, the broader legal question of how much information Entergy must provide to show it can manage the effects of aging before entering the period of extended operations, and whether Entergy has met its regulatory burden to show enough of that information, are material to the NRCs decision whether to grant Entergys license renewal application, and thus satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv).

Intervenors, relying on their experts,50 claim that there is insufficient information in Entergys recent commitments, including its inspection plan submitted on September 28, 2011, selection of those locations; (2) has not specified the criteria it will use and assumptions upon which it will rely for modifying the WESTEMS computer model for environmentally adjusted cumulative usage factors (CUFen) calculations; (3) has not adequately defined how it will manage primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) because it will not begin inspections until after entering the period of extended operations and Entergy has substituted a document, which will not be released until 2013, for its prior water chemistry program to manage PWSCC of the nickel alloy or nickel-alloy clad steam generator divider plates exposed to reactor coolant; and (4) does not adequately describe the contents of its AMP for reactor vessel internals, based on a revised version of the Materials Reliability Program 227 (MRP-227) guidance document.

See id. at 1-3.

48 See 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3), (c)(1)(iii); Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 7.

49 See Vermont Yankee, CLI-10-17, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 42-45).

50 See Intervenors Reply at 13-15; Declaration of Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr. (Nov. 1, 2011);

Intervenors Motion at 7-8; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 10; Sept. 30, 2011 Lahey Decl.; Sept. 30, 2011 Hopenfeld Decl.

to determine whether it has an adequate AMP. Whether the Intervenors and their experts are correct is an issue to be determined on the merits at an evidentiary hearing. But, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi), they have sufficiently raised a genuine dispute as to whether Entergys revised AMPs demonstrate the ability to manage aging.51 Therefore, we find NYS-38/RK-TC-5 admissible.

51 Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by Entergy and the NRC Staff, a commitment by the Applicant to modify AMPs in the future does not constitute implementation of the plan; rather, it is the future development of the plan itself. Contra Entergys Answer at 13-16; NRC Staffs Answer at 22-24.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we admit NYS-38/RK-TC-5. This Memorandum and Order is subject to interlocutory review in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(f)(2). A petition for review that meets the requirements of Section 2.341(f)(2) must be filed within fifteen (15) days of service of this Memorandum and Order.52 It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD53

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland November 10, 2011 52 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(1).

53 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by the agencys E-Filing system to: (1) Counsel for the NRC Staff; (2) Counsel for Entergy; (3) Counsel for the State of New York; (4) Counsel for Riverkeeper, Inc.; (5) Manna Jo Green, the Representative for Clearwater; (6) Counsel for the State of Connecticut; (7) Counsel for Westchester County; (8) Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt; (9) Mayor Sean Murray, the Representative for the Village of Buchanan; and (10) Michael J. Delaney, counsel for the City of New York.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR

) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Licensing Board MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5), have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq.

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.

Administrative Judge Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

E-mail: lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel E-mail: richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Kaye D. Lathrop E-mail:

Administrative Judge sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 190 Cedar Lane E. edward.williamson@nrc.gov Ridgway, CO 81432 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov E-mail: kaye.lathrop@nrc.gov brian.harris.@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov Joshua A. Kirstein, Law Clerk andrea.jones@nrc.gov E-mail: josh.kirstein@nrc.gov mary.spencer@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk karl.farrar@nrc.gov E-mail: anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)

William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Counsel for Town of Cortlandt White Plains, NY 10601 Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Email: wdennis@entergy.com 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com vshiah@sprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Exchange Place Riverkeeper, Inc.

53 State Street 20 Secor Road Boston, MA 02109 Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc White Plains, NY 10601 Lena Michelle Long E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Lesa Williams-Richardson, Legal Secretary Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Steven C. Filler 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Karla Raimundi Washington, DC 20004 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com 724 Wolcott Ave.

pbessette@morganlewis.com Beacon, NY 12508 martin.oneill@morganlewis.com E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org rkuyler@morganlewis.com stephenfiller@gmail.com jrund@morganlewis.com karla@clearwater.org llong@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com lrichardson@morganlewis.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)

Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Senior Attorney for Special Projects Assistant Attorney General New York State Department Office of the Attorney General of Environmental Conservation State of Connecticut 625 Broadway, 14th Floor 55 Elm Street Albany, New York 12233-5500 P.O. Box 120 E-mail: jmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@po.state.ct.us John Louis Parker, Esq. Sean Murray, Mayor Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Kevin Hay, Village Administrator New York State Department Village of Buchanan of Environmental Conservation Municipal Building 21 South Putt Corners Road 236 Tate Avenue New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us E-mail: SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com John J. Sipos, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Charles Donaldson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor The Capitol New York, New York 10271 State Street E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Albany, New York 12224 E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov

[Original signed by Linda D. Lewis ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 10th day of November 2011 3