ML12135A693
| ML12135A693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2012 |
| From: | Mizuno B NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22440, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR | |
| Download: ML12135A693 (18) | |
Text
May 14, 2012 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-LR/ 50-286-LR
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ENTERGY AND STAFF WITNESS TESTIMONY AS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER NRC REGULATIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board)
Order (Memorializing Items Discussed at April 16, 2012 Pre-Hearing Conference) (April 18, 2012), at 1, the Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby answers the State of New York Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and Staff Witness Testimony as Impermissible Under NRC Regulations (April 30, 2012) (Motion). In its Motion, the State of New York (NYS or New York) argues that testimony submitted by the Staff on New Yorks Contentions 17, 17A and 17B (consolidated) (NYS-17) and Contentions 9, 33, and 37 (consolidated) (NYS-37) include a discussion of law, constitute a collateral attack on the Boards decision to admit the contentions, and are argumentative, repetitious, and irrelevant.
As discussed below, New Yorks motion misreads the regulation in 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a),
misapprehends the Staffs testimony and the Boards decision on admissibility, and ignores the Boards ability to parse the evidence before it and assign each piece of evidence the appropriate weight each item of testimony deserves. For these reasons, New Yorks Motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND New York filed its direct testimony on NYS-17 and NYS-37 on December 14, 2011. In accordance with the Boards scheduling orders in this proceeding, the Staff filed its combined direct and rebuttal testimony on March 30, 2012.
On April 27, 2012, New York initiated a three-way telephone conference with Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or Applicant) and the Staff regarding its proposed motion to strike. During this consultation, New York asserted that the Applicants and Staffs testimony addressed the ultimate legal issues in this proceeding, challenged the Boards prior ruling on admissibility, and re-framed the issue regarding alternatives; however, while New York identified a considerable amount of Applicant testimony, it identified hardly any Staff testimony that it believed to be objectionable. Rather, in response to the Staffs request that New York identify the specific portions of the Staffs testimony that New York believed should be stricken, New York identified no questions and answers in the Staffs testimony on Contention NYS-17, and only three questions and answers in the Staffs testimony on NYS-37 (NRC Q10, 11 and 13) that it viewed as inappropriate.1 Moreover, even as to those three questions and answers, New York asserted only that the testimony reframed the alternatives issue such that, in New Yorks opinion, the testimony went beyond the discussion of the no action alternative.2 Further, during these consultations, New York did not identify any Staff testimony on either NYS-17 or NYS-37 that it believed should be stricken on the grounds that the testimony went to the 1
E-mail messages from J. Sipos (New York) to P. Bessette (Entergy) and S. Turk (NRC) on April 26, 2012; from, S. Turk to J. Sipos on April 26, 2012; from J. Sipos to P. Bessette on April 26, 2012, and from J. Sipos to B. Mizuno (NRC), J. Rund (Entergy), P. Bessette, and S. Turk on April 27, 2012.
(Attachment 1).
2 Id., email message from J. Sipos to B. Mizuno, J. Rund, P. Bessette, and S. Turk on April 27, 2012.
ultimate legal issue, challenged the Boards prior admissibility ruling, or was repetitious.
DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Governing Motions in Limine.
In an evidentiary hearing, [o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is practicable. 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a) (emphasis added).
It is well established that strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions,3 and Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards are accustomed to weighing evidence and determining its relevance to the issues presented.4 As this Board observed when it denied various motions in limine that Entergy had filed regarding the Intervenors testimony, the Board is well-equipped to give all evidence its appropriate weight at evidentiary hearing in the context of evaluating the specific issue before us.5 Similarly, the Board in Oyster Creek declined to strike material that it viewed as lacking in relevance, stating that it would accord it no weight in making [its]
determination;6 rather, rejecting the opposing parties characterization of the written testimony, the Board stated that it would consider such statements in the context in which they are offered 3
10 C.F.R. § 2.319(d).
4 Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (South Texas Project Units 3 and 4), Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine) (July 14, 2011) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML11195A093) at 3.
5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine) (March 6, 2012) at 20.
6 Amergen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification) (Aug. 9, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210832) at 2.
and accord them whatever weight they merit.7 II. New York Has Not Satisfied Its Consultation Requirement The regulation in 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) provides that a motion must be accompanied by a certification from the movants counsel or representative that a sincere effort has been made to contact the other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issues and that those efforts have been unsuccessful.
As discussed above, New York made only minimal efforts to consult with the Staff regarding its objections to the Staffs testimony, and identified only three questions and answers that it believed were objectionable. In contrast, New Yorks motion seeks to strike numerous areas of the Staffs testimony on various grounds that New York failed to identify during consultations. New Yorks minimal efforts to consult with the Staff prevented the Staff from advising New York of its views regarding these matters, thus preventing any meaningful consultations from occurring. New Yorks failure to satisfy the consultation requirements warrants that its motion to strike the Staffs testimony be denied.
Indeed, this Board has emphasized the importance that the parties fulfill their consultation responsibilities prior to filing a motion seeking a ruling by the Board. For example, in its July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order, the Board reminded the parties that consultation should not be initiated at the last minute, but should be initiated sufficiently in advance of the filing to allow for resolution of the issue as a practical matter.8 And in fact, the Board has previously denied a 7
Id. at 7.
8 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010) at 8 n.23; see also Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Order (Scheduling Oral Argument on the Admissibility of Contentions)
(Feb. 29, 2008) at 6 n.6
motion for failing to certify that consultation had occurred prior to filing of the motion.9 III. The Motion Misapprehends the Nature of the Staffs Testimony and Ignores the Boards Inherent Ability to Parse the Testimony.
New York seeks to strike portions of the Staffs written testimony on contentions NYS-17 and NYS-37 that quote, summarize, or discuss federal environmental law or NRC regulations.10 In Point I of its Motion, New York asserts that the Staff is improperly offering conclusions of law with respect to a key question on NYS-17B: the adequacy of the environmental review with respect to offsite land use and impacts to property values.11 New York misapprehends the nature of the testimony and ignores the Boards inherent ability to parse the testimony and afford the appropriate weight to each portion of the testimony.
The testimony that New York challenges was provided as background information by the Staff, and is explanatory in nature. It explains the regulatory framework that the Staff utilized in assessing the adequacy of the license renewal application and/or the environmental impacts of the requested license renewal, and why the Staff reached its conclusions. The subject portions of testimony were also provided for the convenience of the reader so that he or she would not have to look up the language of the regulation being discussed.
The Commissions Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards are well-equipped to read the applicable regulations and law for themselves and to agree or disagree with what New York claims is a legal conclusion on the part of the witness. Indeed, as this Board has previously observed, boards routinely determine exactly how much weight they will afford any particular 9
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Order (Denying Riverkeepers Filing to Preserve Right to Amend Contention TC-2) (May 28, 2009) at 1.
10 Motion at 9-10.
11 Id. at 10.
piece of testimony.12 Because the witnesses discussion of the regulatory and legal framework that governed their review and their quotations of the pertinent regulations and the law will be helpful and appropriate to understand the witnesses views on these matters and will, as a practical matter, assist the Board in addressing the issues, those portions of the witnesses testimony should be accorded their appropriate weight and should not be stricken.
IV. The Motion to Strike Misreads the Regulation in 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
New Yorks Motion misreads the governing regulation. That regulation, in 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), provides: Only relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Despite its claim that the Staffs testimony is repetitious, New York fails to show that the Staffs testimony is unduly repetitious.
New Yorks motion does not discuss any of the Staff testimony in its motion. Instead, it merely lists the questions and answers that it seeks to strike in the summary chart attached to its motion. New York does not identify the material that is being repeated; it does not show what is repetitive about the Staffs questions and answers; and it does not identify how or where the testimony repeats itself.13 Accordingly, New York has not established that the testimony is unduly repetitious.
Nor do the cases New York cites regarding repetitive material support a motion to strike the Staffs testimony in the case. Only one of those cases involved a motion to strike - and the boards decision in that case supports denial of a motion to strike here. That case was Curators of the University of Missouri (Byproduct License No. 24-00513-32; Special Nuclear Materials 12 Indian Point, Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine)
(March 6, 2012) at 20.
13 Motion at 12-14.
License No. SNM-247), LBP-91-31, 1991 WL 199900, at *67 (July 19, 1991) (unpublished), an informal Subpart L proceeding, where evidence was submitted in written form just as it has been in this case. The Curators of Missouri board observed that in Subpart L proceedings, repetition of evidence is not particularly harmful and denied the motion to strike.14 As that board recognized, mere repetition, by itself, is not particularly harmful in Subpart L proceedings such as this where the evidence is submitted in written form and repetitious portions of the testimony can simply be disregarded by the Board. In fact, in this case, where the Staffs testimony recites applicable portions of the regulations, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) or other Staff documents, the testimony makes the witnesses narration easier to follow and spares the reader the trouble of looking up the references to language in other documents, thus assisting the reader in understanding the witnesses testimony.
Finally, New York did not identify any portions of the Staffs testimony as objectionable on grounds that it was repetitive during the consultations that preceded the filing of its Motion.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is defective for want of consultation.
For the reasons set forth above, New York has failed to show that the Staffs testimony 14 The remaining decisions New York cites address case management issues and do not support the instant motion. The cited passage in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 823 n.3 (1984), consists of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards observation that the lower boards findings of fact and conclusions of law were largely repetitious of a preceding opinion by that board and worked a hardship on the writers and the readers. The discussion in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-540, 9 NRC 428, 435 (1979), consisted of the appeal boards instructions to the parties to file a joint motion rather than duplicative motions. Similarly, in Toledo Edison Co. and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-76-8, 3 NRC 199, 203 (1976), the Board granted a Department of Justice (DOJ) request for production of documents, but noted that many of the documents subject to the request may already be in evidence and, accordingly, instructed DOJ to review the documents it obtained pursuant to its request and to refrain from submitting duplicate documents into evidence. This is similar to the Boards instruction in this proceeding that the parties coordinate the introduction of exhibits so that only one copy of each document is offered into evidence. Order (Procedures for Evidentiary Filings) at 3 (Oct. 7, 2011).
on NYS-17 or NYS-37 is unduly repetitious and its Motion on that ground should be denied.
V. The Motion to Strike Misapprehends the Boards Order on Admissibility.
New York asserts that Staff testimony on NYS-17 is inadmissible as a collateral attack on the Boards decision on admissibility. Motion at 17-18. There is no merit in this assertion.
First, the Staffs testimony constitutes its case on the merits and goes directly to the issue raised by the contention: whether and how land use and land value should be addressed in the Staffs environmental review in this license renewal matter. While the Staff asserted, at the admissibility stage of this proceeding, that the issue was not material to the findings that the Commission must make, that previous assertion does not preclude the Staff from subsequently filing testimony on the merits of the contention at the hearing stage.
Second, as a legal matter, the Board could not have decided the issue on the merits in its admissibility ruling because the merits of the contention were not before it at that point. The only issue the Board had before it previously was whether NYS-17 met the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).15 Third, New York did not identify any portion of the Staffs testimony on NYS-17 as objectionable on this ground during the consultation that preceded the filing of the Motion.
Accordingly, the Motion is defective for want of consultation.
For these reasons, New Yorks assertion that Staff testimony should be stricken on the basis that it constitutes a collateral attack on the Boards ruling on admissibility should be denied.
15 Luminant Generation Co. LLC (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 09, 74 NRC __, __ (Oct. 4, 2011) (slip op. at 16-17); Southern Nuclear Operating Co.(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-08, 74 NRC __, __(Sept. 27, 2011) (slip op. at 7).
VI. The Motion to Strike Incorrectly Seeks to Strike Relevant Testimony.
In Point IV, New York seeks to strike sixteen questions and answers in the Staffs testimony regarding contention NYS-37 on alternatives on the grounds that the testimony lacks relevance to the issues at bar. Contrary to New Yorks assertion, that testimony is relevant.
Indeed in some instances the cited testimony is rebuttal to the States testimony and, as such, addresses issues that New York deemed to be relevant when it raised those issues in its direct testimony; in others it is relevant to issues raised by New York when it filed the contention in the first instance.
First, rebuttal testimony is not a proper subject for a motion to strike on the grounds of lack of relevance. Eight of the questions and answers (NRC Q47 through 54) that are challenged by New York explicitly rebut testimony submitted by New Yorks witness, Peter A.
Bradford. Rebuttal testimony that addresses issues raised by prior direct testimony submitted by another party is clearly just as relevant to the proceeding as that prior direct testimony. On that basis, the Board in the Vermont Yankee license renewal proceeding denied several motions to strike stating that the [r]ebuttal testimony by [the] witness addresses points that are similar to those raised by [the opposing partys] witness in his direct testimony.16 Because questions and answers 47-54 rebut direct testimony proffered by New York, the motion to strike that testimony should be denied.17 Second, New York also seeks to strike eight additional Staff questions and answers (NRC Q10-13, 19-20, and 31-32) for lack of relevance. This testimony constitutes the Staffs 16 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Order (Rulings on Motions to Strike and Motions in Limine) (July 16, 2008)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML081980664) at 4-5.
17 If these portions of the States testimony are stricken, the States parallel testimony should also be stricken as equally irrelevant.
direct testimony and directly addresses issues that New York has raised in Contention NYS-37.
As such, it is directly relevant to the Boards consideration of New Yorks claims in the contention.
In its Motion to Strike, New York asserts that the Staff is addressing the non-existent claim that the FSEIS fails to adequately consider alternatives to relicensing Indian Point.18 However, New Yorks argument misapprehends the structure of the FSEIS. Contrary to the assertion in NYS-37 that an analysis of no-action alternatives is missing from the FSEIS, the pertinent analysis of no-action scenario alternatives is located in FSEIS Section 8.3. The analysis of no-action scenario alternatives is in the FSEIS in FSEIS Section 8.3 (Alternative Energy Sources), as those alternatives (a) are alternatives to license renewal and (b) may ensue in the event of a no-action determination on the license renewal application. As the Staff explained when it promulgated the regulations governing its environmental review, the environmental review will include a characterization of alternative energy sources as being the alternatives to license renewal and not merely the consequences of the no-action alternative.19 Thus, the entirety of the no-action analysis is not, as New York would like it to be, in FSEIS Section 8.2 (No-Action Alternative). This does not render the testimony irrelevant.
Finally, of the sixteen questions and answers that New York seeks to strike from the Staffs testimony, only three of them (NRC Q10, 11, and 13) were identified during the consultation among the parties that preceded the Motion. Accordingly, the Motion is defective for want of consultation with respect to the remaining thirteen Staff questions and answers on 18 Motion at 18 (emphasis added).
19 Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating License, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,471 (June 5, 1996).
NYS-37, which New York now claims should be stricken from the Staffs testimony on NYS-37 (NRC Q12, 19, 20, 31, 32, and 47-54).
New York has not established that the testimony it seeks to strike is irrelevant and its consultation on the motion was defective. Accordingly, the Motion cannot be supported on the grounds of lack of relevance and should, therefore, be denied.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff opposes New Yorks Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and Staff Witness Testimony as Impermissible under NRC Regulations to the extent that it seeks to strike testimony of the Staff of the NRC. The Staff, therefore, recommends that the motion be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Dated at Rockville, Maryland Beth N. Mizuno this 14th day of May 2012 Counsel for the Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-3122 E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov CERTIFICATION I certify that I have made a sincere effort to make myself available to listen and respond to the moving party, and to resolve the factual and legal issues raised in the motion, and that my efforts to resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Dated at Rockville, Maryland Beth N. Mizuno this 14th day of May 2012 Counsel for the Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-3122 E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov
ATTACHMENT 1 Turk, Sherwin From: John J. Sipos [John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 20126:22 PM To: Mizuno, Beth; 'Jonathan M. Rund'; 'Paul M. Bessette'; Turk, Sherwin Cc: Susan Taylor; Janice Dean
Subject:
additional information regarding MIL consultation Beth, Sherwin, Paul & Jon:
Following up on our conversation this morning, I am sending along a table that preliminarily identifies questions and answers in Entergy and NRC's pre-filed witness testimony on Contention NYS-37 that the State believes go beyond the discussion of no action alternative.
NRC 10 NRC Qll NRC Q13 As I mentioned, I will be out of the office for several days starting this evening. Should you have any questions, please telephone AAG Susan Taylor (518-474-2432).
John Sipos Assistant Attorney General tel. 518 - 402 - 2251 1
ATTACHMENT 1 Turk, Sherwin From: John J. Sipos [John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 20122:53 PM To: 'Paul M, Bessette' Cc: Janice Dean; Susan Taylor; Jonathan M. Rund; Mizuno, Beth; Turk, Sherwin
Subject:
RE: Request for Consultation It looks as if we are all available during the first part of tomorrow (Friday) morning, and we would propose a 9: 15 AM call, which would allow for discussion and provide time for Paul to get to his 10 AM commitment.
We will attempt to provide a list before the call or alternatively will identify the Q/As during the call.
John
ATTACHMENT 1 Turk, Sherwin From: Turk, Sherwin Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:07 PM To: 'John J. Sipos' Cc: Susan Taylor; Janice Dean; Mizuno, Beth; Paul M. Bessette; 'Jonathan Rund'
Subject:
RE: Request for Consultation John - 8eth Mizuno is lead on those contentions for the Staff, and has to be out of the office for a good part of the afternoon today - so Friday is probably better for us than today. In preparation for our call. could you be.
more specific as to which pages of the Staff's and Applicant's testimony you want to discuss?
Thanks-Sherwin From: John J. Sipos [mailto:John.Sipos@ag.ny.govl Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:00 PM To: Paul M. Bessette; Turk, Sherwin Cc: Susan Taylor; Janice Dean
Subject:
Request for Consultation
Dear Paul & Sherwin:
The State of New York would like to schedule a telephone conference with you or your colleagues to discuss the State's concerns about certain pre-filed testimony presented by Entergy and NRC on Contentions NYS-17 and NYS-37. From the State's perspective, the testimony presents, among other things, the witnesses' opinion on the legal sufficiency of a witness's own work in connection with the NEPA review 9r on the ultimate legal issue that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will rule on. In addition, the proffered testimony also includes an attack on the ASLB's earlier admissibility rulings. The State believes that witness testimony on such issues is not appropriate and we are exploring the possibility of presenting a motion in limine on this lssue.
We are generally free today (Thursday) or tomorrow (Friday) to discuss. I'll circulate the call in number and code shortly.
John John Sipos Assistant Attorney General tel. 518 - 402 - 2251 1
ATTACHMENT 1 Turk, Sherwin From: John J. Sipos [John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 26,2012 12:00 PM To: Paul M. Bessette; Turk, Sherwin Cc: Susan Taylor; Janice Dean
Subject:
Request for Consultation
Dear Paul & Sherwin:
The State of New York would like to schedule a telephone conference with you or your colleagues to discuss the State's concerns about certain pre-filed testimony presented by Entergy and NRC on Contentions NYS-17 and NYS-37. From the State's perspective, the testimony presents, among other things, the witnesses' opinion on the legal sufficiency of a witness's own work in connection with the NEPA review or on the ultimate legal issue that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will rule on. In addition, the proffered testimony also includes an attack on the ASLB's earlier admissibility rulings. The State believes that witness testimony on such issues is not appropriate and we are exploring the possibility of presenting a motion in limine on this Issue.
We are generally free today (Thursday) or tomorrow (Friday) to discuss. I'll circulate the call in number and code shortly.
John John Sipos Assistant Attorney General tel. 518 - 402 - 2251
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
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ENTERGY AND STAFF WITNESS TESTIMONY AS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER NRC REGULATIONS, dated May 14, 2012, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by Electronic Information Exchange this 14th day of May, 2012.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudication Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov E-mail: OCAAMAIL@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 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov E-mail: Hearingdocket@nrc.gov Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Josh Kirstein, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Anne Siarnacki, Esq.
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-Mail: Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov E-Mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.* John J. Sipos, Esq.*
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Jonathan Rund, Esq. Assistants Attorney General Raphael Kuyler, Esq. New York State Department of Law Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Environmental Protection Bureau 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20004 Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Charlie.Donaldson@ag.ny.gov E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@moganlewis.com Janice A. Dean, Esq.*
Assistant Attorney General, Martin J. ONeill, Esq.* Office of the Attorney General Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP of the State of New York 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 120 Broadway, 25th Floor Houston, TX 77002 New York, NY 10271 E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.* John Louis Parker, Esq.*
Goodwin Procter, LLP Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Exchange Place New York State Department of 53 State Street Environmental Conservation Boston, MA 02109 21 South Putt Corners Road E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us William C. Dennis, Esq.*
Assistant General Counsel Phillip Musegaas, Esq.*
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Deborah Brancato, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue Riverkeeper, Inc.
White Plains, NY 10601 20 Secor Road E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Manna Jo Greene*
Karla Raimundi, Esq.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Robert Snook, Esq.*
724 Wolcott Avenue Office of the Attorney General Beacon, NY 12508 State of Connecticut E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org 55 Elm Street E-mail: karla@clearwater.org P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@ct.gov
Sean Murray, Mayor Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Assistant County Attorney Village of Buchanan Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
Municipal Building Westchester County Attorney Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor E-mail: vob@bestweb.net White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com E-Mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Daniel Riesel, Esq.*
Michael J. Delaney, Esq.* Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs Victoria Shiah, Esq.
New York City Department of Environmental Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Protection 460 Park Avenue 59-17 Junction Boulevard New York, NY 10022 Flushing, NY 11373 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com
/Signed (electronically) by/
Beth N. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-3122 E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov