ML12212A409
| ML12212A409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2012 |
| From: | Bessette P, Dennis W, Kuyler R, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23076, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12212A409 (28) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
) July 30, 2012 ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF INTERVENORS REVISED STATEMENT OF POSITION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PRE-FILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS FOR CONTENTION NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (METAL FATIGUE)
William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Fax: (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
) July 30, 2012 ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF INTERVENORS REVISED STATEMENT OF POSITION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PRE-FILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS FOR CONTENTION NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (METAL FATIGUE)
I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.1204, 2.319, 2.323, 2.337, and in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) Scheduling Order of July 1, 2010 (Scheduling Order),
and subsequent Order dated May 16, 2012,1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) hereby moves to: (1) strike portions of the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc.s Revised Statement of Position Regarding Consolidated Contention NYS-26-B/RK-TC-1B (Revised Position Statement);2 and (2) exclude portions of the Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding Contention NYS-26-B/RK-TC-1B - Metal Fatigue (Rebuttal Testimony),3 and several other supporting exhibits.4 1
Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Extension of Time) (May 16, 2012) (unpublished).
2 See NYS000439.
3 See RIV000114.
4 Attachment 1 to this Motion identifies the specific documents or portions thereof that Entergy seeks to exclude from the record. Table A thereof identifies those portions of the Revised Position Statement that should be stricken. Table B thereof identifies those portions of the Rebuttal Testimony that should be excluded from the evidentiary record, and Table C identifies other Riverkeeper exhibits that should be excluded from the evidentiary record.
The scope of Intervenors challenges to Entergys fatigue monitoring program (FMP) in Contention NYS-26-B/RK-TC-1B is limited to the specific bases pled by the Intervenors and admitted by the Board. Those bases include alleged issues with the refined environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF) analyses performed by Westinghouse on behalf of Entergy in 2010, and alleged deficiencies in the FMP, including a lack of detail regarding the schedule and scope of any required repair and replacement activities. Contrary to this defined scope, however, portions of the Revised Position Statement newly argue that commitments made by license renewal applicants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) are generally unenforceable and are not properly monitored by the NRC. Such arguments are not reasonably inferred from the bases of the admitted contention and are therefore outside the scope of NYS-26-B/RK-TC-1B and should be stricken. In addition, the Commissions recent decision in Seabrook confirms that Riverkeepers repeated challenges to the current licensing basis (CLB) fatigue analyses for the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles fall outside the scope of this contention, and by questioning the adequacy of these CLB analyses, Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony confirms that these challenges are outside the scope of the proceeding.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), the regulation governing the admissibility of evidence, provides that [o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence . . . will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is practicable. Thus, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(d), the Board may strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to a written question that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative or cumulative, and under Section 2.319(e) the Board may restrict evidence or arguments for the same reasons.
Because only relevant and material evidence is admissible, the Board may exclude or accord no weight to testimony and exhibits that are outside the admitted contentions scope or that raise issues that were not properly raised in earlier pleadings.5 Thus, the Board may strike pre-filed testimony that introduces new bases for a contention.6 Similarly, it may exclude testimony and supporting evidence that is outside the scope of this license renewal proceeding.7 Recent Commission decisions confirm that intervenors are not permitted to change the scope of a contention as admitted by the Board. For example, in Vogtle, the Commission upheld a Board ruling excluding testimony that strayed beyond the scope of the bases as pled and admitted, because those bases defined the scope of the . . . contention.8 Similarly, in Pilgrim, the Commission reiterated that longstanding precedent requires a Board to reexamine the bases to determine the scope of a contention because the reach of a 5
See, e.g., Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motion in Limine) (Mar. 6, 2012) (unpublished) (granting in part and denying in part Entergys motions to exclude testimony and exhibits)
(Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings); S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on In Limine Motions) at 3-7 (Jan. 26, 2009)
(unpublished) (granting in part motion to exclude testimony and exhibits outside the scope of the admitted contentions); AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station),
Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification) at 1-2 (Aug. 9, 2007) (Oyster Creek Ruling on Motions in Limine) (unpublished) (granting in part motion to exclude evidence on topics outside scope of contention and license renewal proceeding).
6 Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 732 (2006) (New bases for a contention cannot be introduced in a reply brief, or any other time after the date the original contentions are due, unless the petitioner meets the late-filing criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), (f)(2).); see also Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010).
7 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Licensing Board Order (Ruling on Pending Matters and Addressing Preparation of Exhibits for Hearing) at 2 (Mar. 24, 2008) (unpublished)
(granting in part motions to exclude testimony on topics outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding, because such issues do not relate to aging and/or because they are addressed as part of ongoing regulatory process); Oyster Creek Ruling on Motions in Limine at 6-7.
8 S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-5, 71 NRC 90, 100-01 (2010).
contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases.9 A key reason for this requirement is to provide notice to the opposing parties of the issues they will need to defend against.10 Because of this principle, Intervenors may not freely change the focus of an admitted contention at will to add a host of new issues and objections that could have been raised at the outset. . . . [We] do not allow distinctly new complaints to be added at will as litigation progresses.11 Although this Board previously stated that licensing boards admit contentions, not bases,12 since that decision the Commission has subsequently explained that an admitted contention is defined by its bases.13 The Commission accordingly reminded licensing boards of the need to specify each basis relied upon for admitting a contention.14 Intervenors have recently argued that the limitation of contentions to the specific bases pled and admitted would plunge NRC proceedings into the abyss of common law pleading technicalities that existed before the modernization of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).15 This proceeding, however, is governed by the Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, not the FRCP. Intervenors do notand cannotchallenge the Commissions decisions in Palisades (CLI-06-17), Vogtle (CLI-10-5), Pilgrim (CLI-10-11), and Seabrook (CLI-12-05),
9 Pilgrim, CLI-10-11, 71 NRC at 309 (emphasis added) (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of N. H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988)).
10 See id.
11 Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Ruling at 3-4, 6-7, 10, 23, 28-29.
12 Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 6-7.
13 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC __, slip op. at 11 n.50 (Mar. 8, 2012) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
14 Id.
15 State of New York and Riverkeepers Joint Answer to Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Intervenors Prefiled Direct Testimony, Expert Report, Statement of Position, and Exhibits for Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 8 (July 16, 2012) (Joint Answer to Motion in Limine on NYS-38/RK-TC-5) (not publicly available on ADAMS).
which, as explained above, compel the exclusion of testimony that strays beyond the specific bases of a contention, as pled and admitted.
III. ARGUMENT As discussed below, the portions of the Intervenors Revised Position Statement identified in Attachment 1, Table A should be stricken. In addition, the portions of Dr.
Hopenfelds Rebuttal testimony identified in Attachment 1, Table B, and the Riverkeeper exhibits identified in Attachment 1, Table C should be excluded from the evidentiary record.
A. Scope of the Admitted Contention On November 4, 2010, the Board dismissed Intervenors earlier consolidated metal fatigue contentions as moot and admitted NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.16 The new contention alleged that: Entergys License Renewal Application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to metal fatigue on key reactor components in violation of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii).17 Specifically, the Board identified the following bases for NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, which focused on challenges to the 2010 EAF analysis conducted by Westinghouse:
NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B characterizes Entergys reanalyses as inadequate under NRC regulations and the GALL Report because these reanalyses (1) inappropriately limited the number of components subject to fatigue analyses, (2) neither explain the methodology used to conduct their CUF [cumulative usage factor]
analyses nor include a detailed error analysis, (3) exclude a fatigue evaluation of important structures and fittings within the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), (4) exclude from evaluation the potential failure of highly fatigued structures and fittings under 16 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of NYS-26/26A/Riverkeeper TC-1/1A (Metal Fatigue of Reactor Components) and Motion for Leave to File New Contention NYS-26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B)) at 2 (Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished) (Metal Fatigue Admissibility Ruling).
17 Id. at 7 (citing Petitioners State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. New and Amended Contention Concerning Metal Fatigue (Sept. 9, 2010) at 1 (New and Amended Contention), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML102670665).
certain types of large thermal/pressure shock-type loads, and (5) contain lower safety margins that create more risk because the new CUFs have been reduced by more than an order of magnitude.
The Intervenors also note that Entergy has not committed to repair or replace components when the CUF approaches unity (1.0).18 Beyond the EAF reanalyses, the new contention challenged certain other specific aspects of the fatigue monitoring program, including the monitoring locations, trigger points, and proposed actions . . . for metal fatigue,19 and alleged inadequate corrective actions.20 Notably, however, Intervenors did not raise issues with the original, design basis fatigue calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles21 that were later updated to produce the CLB CUFs of record for those components,22 as reported in Entergys 2007 license renewal application (LRA) for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3; collectively, Indian Point Energy Center, or IPEC).23 Nor can such a challenge be reasonably inferred from the bases as pled and admitted, as the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles were not analyzed in 2010 by Westinghouse and are not even mentioned in the pleadings. Likewise, Intervenors did not allege that applicant commitments made to the NRC as part of an LRA are generally unenforced or unenforceablenor, again, is such a challenge reasonably inferred from the other 18 Id. at 8 (emphasis added) (citing New and Amended Contention at 9-11).
19 Id. at 14 (citing New and Amended Contention at 6-13).
20 See New and Amended Contention at 6.
21 See generally State of New Yorks and Riverkeepers Motion for Leave to File a New and Amended Contention Concerning the August 9, 2010 Entergy Reanalysis of Metal Fatigue (Sept. 9, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML102670665; New and Amended Contention; Declaration of Richard T. Lahey, Jr.
(Sept. 8, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML102670665; Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld (Sept. 9, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML102670665. For example, the New and Amended Contention presents a table of data purportedly projecting the [a]mount of exceedence of 1.0 CUF criterion for certain components based on the LRA, without any entry on the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles.
New and Amended Contention at 15.
22 See Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson F. Azevedo, Alan B. Cox, Jack R. Strosnider, Robert E. Nickell, and Mark A. Gray Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at A142 (Mar. 29, 2012)
(Entergys Metal Fatigue Testimony) (ENT000183).
23 See Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application [(LRA)] (Apr. 23, 2007) Tbls. 4.3-13 to 4.3-14, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML071210517.
bases listed above. Thus, because Intervenors failed to raise these issues when the contention was first pled or amended, neither of these issues is within the scope of NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.24 B. Any Challenge to the General Enforceability of Licensee Commitments Is Outside the Scope of the Admitted Contention Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(d) and 2.337(a), the Board should exclude from its consideration those portions of the Intervenors Revised Position Statement that challenge the general enforceability of commitments made by applicants during the license renewal application and review process. As explained in Section III.A, above, none of the bases of this contention as pled by the Intervenors and admitted by the Boardraise this claim. Indeed, Intervenors proposed contention, bases, and supporting filings, as well as the Boards Order admitting NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B are all silent on the issue of enforceability of commitments.25 Now, for the first time in their Revised Position Statement, Intervenors assert substantial concerns over whether Entergys [unspecified] commitments concerning metal fatigue . . . are enforceable in an NRC administrative enforcement proceeding or in a federal court action.26 The Board should accord no weight to those portions of the Intervenors Revised Position Statement that belatedly challenge the enforceability of commitments,27 as they are irrelevant to the contention as pled and admitted by the Board.28 24 See, e.g., Seabrook, CLI-12-05, slip op. at 11 n.50. Such claims are, however, the subject of a different admitted contention, NYS-38/RK-TC-5. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) at 10 (Nov. 10, 2011).
25 See generally New and Amended Contention; Metal Fatigue Admissibility Ruling; Declaration of Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr. (Sept. 14, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML103010518; Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld in Opposition to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contentions 26/26A & Riverkeeper Technical Contentions 1/1A (Metal Fatigue of Reactor Components) (Sept. 13, 2010),
available at ADAMS Accession No. ML103010518.
26 Revised Position Statement at 30 (NYS000439).
27 See AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification) at 2 (Aug. 9, 2007) (unpublished) (stating that portions of a position statement that raise excluded issues may be stricken).
This Board has noted that a position statement is a partys legal interpretation of its evidence, not its actual Intervenors may argue that Entergy opened the door to this issue by explaining, in the Legal Standards section of its Statement of Position, that licensee commitments are a well-established practice in the license renewal area, and that the NRC Staffs review of commitment implementation activities is outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 54.29 The fact that Entergy relied upon a heretofore unchallengedin NYS-26B/RK-TC-1Baspect of the NRCs regulatory process does not expand the bases of the admitted contention, nor does it waive Entergys objections to such challenges as outside the scope of the contention and proceeding.30 Moreover, Entergy is prejudiced by the introduction of this new material at a point in the proceeding where there is no established opportunity for a written evidentiary response in the context of this contention. These new arguments were not raised in Intervenors direct testimony or associated filings, but were instead introduced for the first time in rebuttal.
In the alternative, should the Board determine that the specified material in Intervenors Revised Position Statement should not be stricken, because the enforceability of commitments is questioned in NYS-38/RK-TC-5, Entergy respectfully requests that the portions of its testimony, evidence, and that the Board will use it inasmuch as it is supported by the evidence proffered by that party. See Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 24.
28 The Board should also exclude from the record of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, those exhibits which are, in the context of this contention, cited only in those portions of the Revised Statement of Position that raise the enforceability-of-commitments issue. Those exhibits are listed in Attachment 1, Table A.
29 Revised Position Statement at 30 (NYS000439) (citing Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at 22-24 (Mar. 29, 2012) (ENT000182) (Entergys Position Statement)).
30 See Progress Energy Fla., Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-09-22, 70 NRC 640, 655 (2009) (Being in the nature of rebuttal, the response, rebuttal testimony, and rebuttal exhibits are not to advance any new affirmative claims or arguments that should have been, but were not, included in the partys previously filed initial written statement.) (emphasis added).
exhibits, and statement of position in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that address this issue be considered as part of the record of NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.31 C. Challenges to Design Basis Fatigue Calculations Are Outside the Scope of the Admitted Contention and This Proceeding The Board also should exclude the portions of Dr. Hopenfelds Testimony that challenge the adequacy of the original design basis CUF calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles for IPEC. These critiques are outside the scope of both the admitted contention and this license renewal proceeding and, therefore, should be excluded as irrelevant under 10 C.F.R.
§§ 2.319(d) and 2.337(a).
On January 30, 2012, Entergy filed a motion in limine regarding Intervenors direct testimony, seeking, among other things, to exclude Dr. Hopenfelds technical critique of Entergys 40-year-old design basis fatigue calculations for the IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles because they were outside the scope of this contention and proceeding.32 The NRC Staff supported Entergys Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine,33 but Riverkeeper opposed it, arguing that Dr. Hopenfelds direct testimony did not challenge the IPEC design basis or CLB and was indisputably within the scope of the contention.34 The Board denied Entergys motion 31 Those materials are scheduled to be filed on or before August 20, 2012. Entergys alternative relief request, therefore, would not introduce any additional filings in this proceeding, nor would it delay the schedule for hearings on any contention.
32 See Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-Filed Direct Testimony, Expert Report, Exhibits, and Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (Jan. 30, 2012) (Entergys Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine) (not publicly available on ADAMS).
33 See NRC Staffs Response in Support of Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-filed Direct Testimony, Expert Report, Exhibits, and Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at 8 (Feb. 9, 2012) (not publicly available on ADAMS).
34 Riverkeeper, Inc. Opposition to Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-filed Testimony, Expert Report, Exhibits, and Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at 10-11 (Feb. 17, 2012) (Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine) (not publicly available on ADAMS).
on March 6, 2012, finding that Riverkeeper did not challenge any of the design basis CUF calculations.35
- 1. The Adequacy of Design Basis Fatigue Calculations Are Outside the Scope of this Proceeding In its response to Entergys Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine, Riverkeeper provided a new declaration from Dr. Hopenfeld, which stated that his testimony does not challenge the original design basis CUF calculations.36 Riverkeeper further explained that Entergy provided documentation for the design basis fatigue calculations to Riverkeeper in response to inquiries about the heat transfer coefficients that were applied to the 2010 refined EAF reanalysis,37 thereby suggesting to the Board that the information in those design basis calculations somehow fed into the Westinghouse EAF analyses performed in 2010. The Board appears to have agreed with Riverkeepers assertions, stating that the testimony in question was appropriate:
Riverkeepers testimony on reanalysis of selected components, performed by Westinghouse as part of Entergys [CLB], relates to the evaluation of similar refined fatigue calculations and are an aspect of the Applicants AMP for metal fatigue.38 Entergys Metal Fatigue Testimony, however, demonstrates that Riverkeeper and Dr.
Hopenfelds statements to the Board were incorrect.39 As Entergys witnesses explain, the 40-year-old reactor vessel inlet and outlet fatigue calculations challenged by Riverkeepeer and Dr.
35 See Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 15-16.
36 Declaration of Joram Hopenfeld in Support of Riverkeepers Opposition to Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-filed Testimony, Expert Report, Exhibits, and Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ¶ 19 (Feb. 17, 2012) (Feb. 17 Hopenfeld Declaration) (not publicly available on ADAMS).
37 Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 10 (citing Feb. 17 Hopenfeld Decl. ¶ 19); see also id. at 10-11.
38 Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 15-16 (emphasis added). As demonstrated above, however, the testimony in question does not relate to any reanalysis of fatigue, nor was it performed by Westinghouse.
39 See Entergys Position Statement at 42-44 (ENT000182) (citing Entergys Metal Fatigue Test. at A142 (ENT000183)).
Hopenfeld: (1) are part of the original design basis for IP2 and IP2; (2) are part of the CLB for IP2 and IP3; (3) cover components that were not the subject of any refined fatigue analysis during the course of this license renewal proceeding and do not relate to the evaluation of similar refined fatigue calculations that might be conducted in the future as part of the FMP; and (4) were in fact critiqued by Dr. Hopenfeld.40 In rebuttal, Dr. Hopenfeld does not dispute these facts.41 Instead, Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony contradicts Riverkeepers current and prior positions and confirms that the testimony on this topic is outside the scope of this proceeding because it challenges the adequacy of the IPEC CLB.42 For example, Dr. Hopenfeld repeatedly refers to the calculations in question as CLB CUFs.43 His admission that he questioned the validity of the CLB CUFs is directly contrary to Riverkeepers prior characterizations.44 In doing so, Dr. Hopenfeld effectively concedes that the design basis CUF calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles are part of the CLB for IP2 and IP3. He also acknowledges that the reactor vessel outlet nozzles were excluded from the refined analysis,45 again contrary to Riverkeepers prior statements.46 40 See Entergys Position Statement at 42 (ENT000182) (citing Entergys Metal Fatigue Testimony at A142 (ENT000183)).
41 See Rebuttal Testimony at 23-27 (RIV000114). The only exception may be the seemingly self-contradicting statement that my testimony does not attack the original design basis of the plant, but simply noted that Entergy did not include the cladding in the [design basis] analysis, and concluded that such parameters must be included in the fatigue analysis.). Id. at 24:8-10.
42 See Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Plan, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 8-9 (2001)
(stating that components that are part of the CLB are outside the scope of license renewal proceedings, as they are effectively addressed and maintained by ongoing agency oversight, which can reasonably be expected to [ensure compliance] during the renewal term.).
43 Rebuttal Testimony at 23:17, 18, 22, 29; 26:9, 10, 13 (RIV000114).
44 See, e.g., Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 10-11 (Dr. Hopenfelds testimony in no way challenges design basis CUFs or Indian Points current licensing basis [CLB]).
45 Rebuttal Testimony at 27:12-13 (RIV000114).
46 See Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 10 (suggesting that the fatigue calculations for these components applied to the 2010 refined EAF reanalysis.).
Dr. Hopenfeld states that critiques of the IPEC design basis reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzle CUFs are appropriate because the environmental correction factor (Fen) was applied to them and Entergy relies on the resulting CUFens in its LRA.47 Dr. Hopenfeld does not dispute, however, that the original design basis fatigue calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles are part of the CLB.48 The application of environmental correction factors to calculations that are part of the CLB does not bring the CLB into the scope this proceeding.49 As the Commission has held, an applicants reliance on information from the CLB in its LRA does not open up that adequacy of the CLB to challenges in a license renewal hearing.50 Contrary to the Commissions ruling, Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony directly challenges the design basis CUF calculations for these components. He asserts that he questioned the validity of the CLB CUFs because they were: (a) based on simplified heat transfer analyses and did not account for the stretch power uprates at IP2 and IP3 in 2004 and 2005, respectively; and (b) omitted the effects of the nozzle cladding (or, as Dr. Hopenfeld inexplicably puts it, the analyses were conducted with the cladding removed from the 47 Rebuttal Testimony at 23:17-18 (RIV000114) ([S]ince the CLB CUFs were used in the calculations of the CUFen, it was perfectly legitimate to question the validity of, and examine the technical basis for, the CLB CUF.).
48 See id. at 23:22 (I questioned the validity of the CLB CUFs).
49 See Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 9 (In establishing its license renewal process, the Commission did not believe it necessary or appropriate to throw open the full gamut of provisions in a plants [CLB] to re-analysis during the license renewal review.); Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3),
LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 73 (2008).
50 See Oyster Creek Ruling on Motions in Limine at 5-6 (striking challenges to the adequacy of ASME Code-based minimum thickness acceptance criteria as an impermissible challenge to the CLB); AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-07-17, 66 NRC 327, 342 & n.19 (2007) (holding same acceptance criteria to be part of CLB), affd CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 270-71 (2009). Riverkeeper has argued that evidence is not subject to exclusion in a license renewal proceeding merely because it touches upon the CLB. See Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 11 (citing Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Licensing Board Order (Ruling on Motions to Strike and Motions in Limine) at 10 (July 16, 2008) (unpublished)). Dr. Hopenfelds testimony, however, does much more than touch upon the CLB, it directly challenges it. See Rebuttal Testimony at 23:22-27 (RIV000114).
nozzle).51 But, as Entergys experts have explained, the heat transfer coefficient Entergy used and the effects of cladding in the ASME Code stress and fatigue analysis do not relate to the application of the Fen.52 Instead, these claims directly challenge the adequacy of the original, 40-year-old design basis fatigue analyses.53 Accordingly, because Intervenors allegations are a direct challenge to the CLB at IPEC, these claims are outside the scope of this proceeding and should be excluded as irrelevant.
- 2. The Adequacy of Design Basis Fatigue Calculations Are Outside the Scope of this Contention Entergys earlier motion in limine also argued that Dr. Hopenfelds challenges to the design basis fatigue calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles were outside the scope of NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B because the fatigue calculations for these components were not questioned in the bases for the contention, as pled or admitted.54 In response, Riverkeeper claimed that NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B is a broad criticism pertaining to Entergys failure to demonstrate an adequate program to manage metal fatigue during the proposed period of extended operation.55 Riverkeeper asserted, based on a new Declaration from Dr. Hopenfeld, that challenges to the design basis fatigue calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles were indisputably within the scope of the Consolidated Contention because Dr.
51 Rebuttal Testimony at 23:22-27 (RIV000114).
52 See Entergys Metal Fatigue Testimony at A142-145 (ENT000183). Entergys witnesses also explain that the design basis fatigue calculations were updated and approved by the NRC at the time of the IPEC uprates. The updated analyses are likewise part of the CLB. See id. at A142. Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony does not dispute or address these facts.
53 See id. at A142-145 54 See Entergys Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 10-11.
55 Riverkeeper Opposition to Metal Fatigue Motion in Limine at 4.
Hopenfelds testimony alleged deficiencies with Entergys refined fatigue analyses.56 Based apparently on these assertions, the Board denied Entergys motion.57 Riverkeepers position that NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B is a broad, open-ended challenge to Entergys FMP is no longer tenable. Instead, as the Commission confirmed in Seabrook, a decision issued after the Boards March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings, no contention can be construed to include bases that were not pled and admitted.58 For NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, a review of the five bases identified in the Metal Fatigue Admissibility Rulingand, indeed, a review of all of the filings made at the time of the New and Amended Contentionreveals no challenge to the design basis fatigue calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles.59 In addition, the record is now clear that these components were not the subject of a refined fatigue analysis and do not relate to the evaluation of similar refined fatigue calculations that might be conducted in the future as part of the FMP.60 Thus, Riverkeepers challenges to the fatigue analyses for these components are outside the scope of this contention and should be excluded as irrelevant.
D. Exhibits RIV000103 through RIV000106 Should be Excluded as Irrelevant Riverkeeper Exhibits RIV000103,61 RIV000104,62 RIV000105,63 and RIV000106,64 submitted for the first time in support of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 on June 19, 2012, have also been 56 Id. at 11 (emphasis added).
57 See Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 15-16.
58 See Seabrook, CLI-12-05, slip op. at 11 n.50 (an admitted contention is defined by its bases).
59 There are no criticisms of the adequacy of the fatigue calculations for these components in the New and Amended Contention or its superseded prior versions.
60 See Entergys Metal Fatigue Testimony at A142 (ENT000183); Rebuttal Testimony at 27:12-13 (RIV000114)
(acknowledging these facts).
61 J. Hopenfeld et al., Small Sodium to Gas Leak Behavior in Relation to LMFBR Leak Detection System Design, Intl Conference on Liquid Metal Tech. (May 1976).
designated as relevant to NYS-26B/RK-TC1B and are referenced in Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony on pages 6 to 7. As explained in Entergys Motion in Limine on NYS-38/RK-TC-5, however, these documents have no apparent nexus to the issues admitted for hearing, and instead speak to Dr. Hopenfelds purported expertise on unrelated issues.65 Therefore, these documents should be excluded from the record as irrelevant under 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(d) and 2.337(a).66 62 Memorandum from S. Collins (RES) to W. Travers (EDO), Steam Generator Action Plan Revision to Address Differing Professional Opinion on Steam Generator Tube Integrity (WITS ITEM 200100026) (May 11, 2001).
63 NUREG-1740, Voltage-Based Alternative Repair Criteria, A Report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a Differing Professional Opinion (Mar. 2001).
64 Associated Press, Nuke inspectors focus on unusual wear on tubes, Fox News.com (Feb. 3, 2012).
65 In addition, Riverkeeper disclosed three of these four documents for the first time on July 2, 2012, after the filing of the documents as exhibits in both contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5. See Riverkeeper, Inc. Mandatory Disclosure Update Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336 (July 2, 2012), Attachment 2 to this Motion.
66 Intervenors response to the Motion in Limine on NYS-38/RK-TC-5 argues that these documents speak to Dr.
Hopenfelds credibility and expertise, and are therefore relevant. See Joint Answer to Motion in Limine on NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 13-15. The Board, however, has ruled that Dr. Hopenfeld has sufficient training and experience to assist the Board. See Board March 6, 2012 Motion in Limine Rulings at 14. Thus, there is no current dispute over Dr. Hopenfelds qualifications. Moreover, Riverkeepers unprecedented theory, if adopted, would open the record to voluminous exhibits on topics that are not directly related to the issues in dispute. It should therefore be rejected.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should strike the portions of the Intervenors Revised Position Statement and supporting exhibits identified in Attachment 1. It should also exclude from the record the identified portions of Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony, as well as Exhibits RIV000103, RIV000104, RIV000105, and RIV000106.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Raphael P. Kuyler Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com William C. Dennis, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 272-3202 Fax: (914) 272-3205 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 30th day of July 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
) July 30, 2012 MOTION CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for Entergy certifies that he made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this Motion, and to resolve those issues, and he certifies that his efforts have been unsuccessful.
Signed (electronically) by Raphael P. Kuyler Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5146 Fax: (713) 739-3001 E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 1 Exclusion Chart
Entergy Attachment 1 to Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of the Statement of Position and Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions Pre-Filed Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits for Contention NYS-26B/RK TC-1B (Metal Fatigue)
Table A - Statements Addressing the Enforceability of Commitments Location of Information to Be Stricken Basis for Exclusion State of New York & Riverkeeper, Incs Position Statement (Exh. NYS000439)
Point II, pages 30-36, strike all. Challenges to the enforceability of commitments are outside the scope of the contention.
Exhibits to be excluded NYS000181, NRC Office of the Inspector Exhibits support Intervenors challenges to General, Audit of NRCs Management of the enforceability of commitments, which Licensee Commitments, OIG-A-17 (Sept. 19, are outside the scope of the contention, and 2011) should be excluded from contention NYS-NYS000396, Letter from C. Miller, Division of 26B/RK-TC-1B.67 Reactor Safety, to Sarah Hofmann, Vermont Department of Public Service (Mar. 20, 2012)
(Response to Question in State of Vermont Letter of December 23, 2011)
Table B - Statements Addressing Design Basis Calculations for Reactor Vessel Inlet and Outlet Nozzles Location of Information to Be Stricken Basis for Exclusion Dr. Hopenfelds Rebuttal Testimony (Exh. RIV000114)
Page 23, Line 4 through Page 27, Line 16, strike Challenges to the adequacy of the design all. basis CUF calculations for these components are outside the scope of the contention and proceeding.
Table C - Riverkeeper Exhibits to be Excluded Location of Information to Be Stricken Basis for Exclusion RIV000103, J. Hopenfeld, et al., Small Sodium to Exhibits are not relevant to the issues raised Gas Leak Behavior in Relation to LMFBR Leak in NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and admitted by Detection System Design, International the Board for hearing.
Conference on Liquid Metal Technology (May 1976)
RIV000104, Memorandum from S. Collins (RES) to W. Travers (EDO), Steam Generator Action 67 Entergy notes that the most recent exhibit list for NYS (NYSR13001) does not reflect that these exhibits are relevant to NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
Location of Information to Be Stricken Basis for Exclusion Plan Revision to Address Differing Professional Opinion on Steam Generator Tube Integrity (WITS ITEM 200100026) (May 11, 2001)
RIV000105, NUREG-1740, Voltage-Based Alternative Repair Criteria, A Report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a Differing Professional Opinion (March/Feb.
2001), page 5 RIV000106, Associated Press, Nuke inspectors focus on unusual wear on tubes, Fox News.com, February 3, 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 Riverkeeper, Inc. Mandatory Disclosure Update Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336 (July 2, 2012)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
) 50-247-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) ) July 2, 2012
__________________________________________ )
RIVERKEEPER, INC. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE UPDATE PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.336 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336, as modified by the Agreement of the Parties Regarding Mandatory Discovery Disclosures dated January 13, 2009 (Mandatory Disclosure Agreement), Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper) hereby makes the following mandatory disclosure update to all parties.
I. Documents In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.336(a)(2), Riverkeeper identifies the following supplemental documents, data compilations, and tangible things, e.g., books, publications, and treatises, (collectively referred to as documents) in the possession, custody, or control of Riverkeeper that are relevant to our three admitted contentions, in the list below. Riverkeeper incorporates by reference, however, pursuant to the Mandatory Disclosure Agreement, does not list documents already served on the parties in this proceeding, relevant news clippings, and drafts of documents. The following list also excludes documents for which Riverkeeper claims a privileged status, although, in accordance with the Mandatory Disclosure Agreement, Riverkeeper will not produce a privilege log for documents asserted to be protected from disclosure under attorney work- product and/or attorney-client privileges.
1
Category Description Document Location Contentio Date n Report Enercon, Conversion of Indian 01/18/2009 Riverkeeper, Inc., RK-EC-Point Units 2 & 3 to a Closed- 20 Secor, Rd., 3/CW-EC-Loop Cooling Water Ossining NY 1 Configuration, Attachment 3, GZA 10562 GeoEnvironmental, Inc.,
Subsurface Radiological Considerations Related to Construction of Closed-Loop Cooling at Indian Point Energy Center Units 2 and 3 Comments Riverkeeper Comments For Senior 11/01/2010 ADAMS RK-EC-Management Review of NRC Accession No. 3/CW-EC-Groundwater Task Force Report, ML103120555 1 Docket ID NRC-2010-0302 Report Hopenfeld, Taylor, & James, 1976 Riverkeeper, Inc., NYS-Small Sodium-to-Gas Leak 20 Secor, Rd., 26B/RK-Behavior in Relation to LMFBR Ossining NY TC-1B; Leak Detection System Design 10562 RK-TC-5 Report Steam Generator Action Plan 05/11/2001 http://pbadupws.nr NYS-Revision to Address the Differing c.gov/docs/ML011 26B/RK-Professional Opinion of Steam 3/ML011300073.p TC-1B; Generator Tube Integrity df RK-TC-5 Report NUREG-1740, Voltage-Based March http://pbadupws.nr NYS-Alternative Repair Criteria, A 2001 c.gov/docs/ML010 26B/RK-Report to the Advisory Committee 7/ML010750315.p TC-1B; on Reactor Safeguards by the df RK-TC-5 Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a Differing Professional Opinion Report NRC: Bulletin 88-11: Pressurizer 12/201988 http://www.nrc.go NYS-Surge Line Thermal Stratification v/reading-rm/doc- 26B/RK-collections/gen- TC-1B; comm/bulletins/19 RK-TC-5 88/bl88011.html Report Audit of NRCs License Renewal 09/06/2007 http://pbadupws.nr GA Program, OIG-07-A-15 c.gov/docs/ML072 4/ML072490486.p df Report Higuchi, Nakamura, & Sugie, 2010 Riverkeeper, Inc., NYS-Development of an Environmental 20 Secor, Rd., 26B/RK-Fatigue Evaluation Method for Ossining NY TC-1B; Nuclear Power Plants in JSME 10562 RK-TC-5 Code 2
Report Case Study of the Propagation of a http://www.osti.go NYS-Small Flaw Under PWR Loading v/bridge/servlets/p 26B/RK-Conditions and Comparison with url/5615261- TC-1B; the ASME Code Design Life GtIYCc/5615261.p RK-TC-5 Comparison of ASME Code df Sections III and XI, CONF-860722-12 TI86 005150 Report Applicability of the leak before June 1993 http://www- NYS-break concept, IAEA-TECDOC- pub.iaea.org/MTC 26B/RK-710 D/publications/PD TC-1B; F/te_710_web.pdf RK-TC-5 Transcript Official Transcript of Proceedings, 07/24/2008 NRC EHD RK-TC-2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, 50-271-LR; ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR, Newfane, Vermont, pages 1451-1741 Testimony In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear 05/12/2008 NRC EHD RK-TC-2 Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271 -LR, ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR, Testimony of Jeffrey S. Horowitz and James C. Fitzpatrick on NEC Contention 4 - Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Respectfully submitted, Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 914-478-4501 dbrancato@riverkeeper.org phillip@riverkeeper.org 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
) July 30, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 30, 2012, a copy of the Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of the Statement of Position and Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Pre-Filed Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) was served electronically via the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov) (E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff 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: hearingdocket@nrc.gov)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Shelby Lewman, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-7H4M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Shelbie.Lewman@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov)
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Brian G. Harris, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Mary B. Spencer, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Anita Ghosh, Esq. (E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com)
Brian Newell, Paralegal Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Anita.Ghosh@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov)
Manna Jo Greene Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Karla Raimundi Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
724 Wolcott Ave. 460 Park Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org) (E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: karla@clearwater.org) (E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: stephenfiller@gmail.com)
John Louis Parker, Esq.
Office of General Counsel, Region 3 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 21 S. Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 (E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
John J. Sipos, Esq. Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson Esq. Vice President -Energy Department Assistant Attorneys General New York City Economic Development Office of the Attorney General Corporation (NYCDEC) of the State of New York 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 The Capitol mdelaney@nycedc.com Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov)
(E-mail: Charlie.Donaldson@ag.ny.gov)
Sean Murray, Mayor Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Deborah Brancato, Esq. Village of Buchanan Riverkeeper, Inc. Municipal Building 20 Secor Road 236 Tate Avenue Ossining, NY 10562 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org) (E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com)
(E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org) (E-mail:
Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com)
Robert D. Snook, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Teresa Manzi Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street of the State of New York P.O. Box 120 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Hartford, CT 06141-0120 New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us) (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)
(E-mail: Teresa.Manzi@ag.ny.gov)
Signed (electronically) by Raphael P. Kuyler Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5146 Fax: (713) 739-3001 E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
DB1/ 70429261