ML12219A413
| ML12219A413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/2012 |
| From: | Burchfield B McDermott Will & Emery LLP |
| To: | Jeremy Dean, Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC, State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23228, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12219A413 (3) | |
Text
Janice Dean From:
Burchfield, Bobby [BBurchfield@mwe.com]
Sent:
Friday, July 27, 2012 4:22 PM To:
Janice Dean; 'Turk, Sherwin'; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; 'Phillip Musegaas'; 'Deborah Brancato'; 'Manna Jo Greene'; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; 'Karla Raimundi' Cc:
'Sutton, Kathryn M.'; 'Glew Jr, William'; Leland, Matthew; 'Mizuno, Beth'; 'Ghosh, Anita'; 'Wentzel, Michael'; 'Smith, Maxwell'; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) Consultation Page 1 of 3 8/6/2012 Janice Thankyouforyouremail.Youraiseseveralpoints.
First,theversionofNewYork'sCoastalManagementProgram("NYCMP")currentlyontheDepartmentof State'swebsite("the2006version")saysonitscover"Thisdocumentincorporatesalltheapprovedroutine programchangesfrom1982to2006."Thedocumentyoucirculatedyesterdaycontainsaletterofapproval fromtheDepartmentofCommercedatedMarch28,2006.Further,thespecificprovisionyouidentifiedinthe documentcirculatedyesterdayappearsinthe2006versionoftheNYCMPatsectionII9,page18.Footnote 109ofthe2006versionoftheNYCMPstatesthatthisprovisionwasaddedin2006.Inanyevent,wenotethat theprovisionspecifyingNuclearRegulatoryCommissionactivitiesrequiringaconsistencydeterminationisthe sameastheprovisionthatwasadoptedin1982.
Second,asIstatedonourcallyesterday,webelieve15C.F.R.§930.6(c)appliestoNewYork.Byitsterms,the regulationisgenerallyapplicabletostateswithCZMAplans,andwearenotawareofanyauthoritysupporting yourstatementthat15C.F.R.§930.6(c)doesnotapplytoNewYork.Aswediscussed,theregulationdeems consistencydeterminationsforstatepermitsrelatingtoaprojectsufficienttoconstituteconsistency concurrenceforfederalpermitsifthestatepermitsmustmeetthepoliciesoftheNYCMP.Thisisthecasein NewYork.Moreover,atsectionII4,pages24,theNYCMPidentifiesseveralstateagenciesthatareauthorized toconductconsistencyreviews,includingtheNewYorkDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,NewYork PowerAuthority,andtheNewYorkPublicServiceCommission.WhentheNRCapprovedthetransfersofIP2 andIP3toEntergy'saffiliates,theNewYorkPowerAuthorityandthePublicServiceCommissionapprovedthe actionsasconsistentwiththeNYCMP.
Third,asyounotedinourcallonWednesday,NuclearRegulatoryCommissionregulationsseta10daylimitto filemotions(see10C.F.R.§2.323(a)).Moreover,aswediscussedyesterday,apromptdeclaratoryorderis necessarytoresolvewhetherEntergymustobtainanotherconsistencydeterminationfromtheState.AsI statedWednesday,andreiteratedyesterday,Entergyisamenabletoareasonableextensionoftimeforparties torespondtoitsmotion,shouldamotionfordeclaratoryorderprovenecessary.
WeappreciateyourworkingdiligentlyandingoodfaithtoformulateapositiononEntergysLicenseRenewal Applicationsupplement.WeagreedtoschedulethenextconsultationonMondayatyourrequestsothatNew Yorkwouldhavetimesufficienttimetoprovideitsposition.Welookforwardtolearningitthen.
Bobby R. Burchfield McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 202-756-8003 (Direct) 202-591-2751 (Fax) 703-624-4914 (Cell) bburchfield@mwe.com From: Janice Dean [1]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:39 AM
To: Janice Dean; Burchfield, Bobby; 'Turk, Sherwin'; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; 'Phillip Musegaas'; 'Deborah Brancato'; 'Manna Jo Greene'; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; 'Karla Raimundi' Cc: 'Sutton, Kathryn M.'; 'Glew Jr, William'; Leland, Matthew; 'Mizuno, Beth'; 'Ghosh, Anita'; 'Wentzel, Michael'; 'Smith, Maxwell'; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) Consultation
The first line of my email below should read "Bobby stated Entergy's belief that this document was incorporated into the 2006 version of the CMP." Apologies for the confusion.
Janice From: Janice Dean Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:27 AM To: 'Burchfield, Bobby'; Turk, Sherwin; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; Phillip Musegaas; Deborah Brancato; Manna Jo Greene; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; Karla Raimundi Cc: Sutton, Kathryn M.; Glew Jr, William; Leland, Matthew; Mizuno, Beth; Ghosh, Anita; Wentzel, Michael; Smith, Maxwell; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) Consultation Following up on yesterday's call, I wish to clarify one statement that Bobby made - I shared the 2006 Routine Program Change document and Bobby stated Entergy's belief that this document was incorporated into the 1982 version of the CMP. There is no 2006 version of the New York CMP; there is only the original CMP and the subsequent RPCs (including the one under discussion here).
Also, Bobby raised 930.6(c); this provision, while applicable in certain states, does not apply in New York.
These factual and legal questions/misunderstandings about New York's program cause me to again question Entergy's need for expediting submission of this motion. Entergy has had five years to raise this issue, which is a novel approach (as you know, Entergy did properly observe the State's authority under the CZMA during FitzPatrick's relicensing, which is no different than the situation here), and yet has chosen a particularly busy pre-hearing period in which to raise this. Additionally, Entergy's new counsel has not been entirely respectful of longstanding relicensing deadlines (I cannot recall an instance in which a party has insisted on a consultation call on such a complex issue on a filing deadline day in our many years of working well together). I do not believe Entergy has substantiated its need for expedited treatment of this motion. The two reasons Entergy provides, a manufactured 10-day window from a letter Entergy itself decided to send (which parties have agreed to extend), and alternately a need to file a CZMA application which Entergy has not filed in the five years since submitting its application, do not provide sufficient cause for expedited treatment of this issue.
That said, I am diligently working to formulate a position on Entergy's motion and provide responses to questions Entergy raised in yesterday's call. I have been in touch with two state agencies and staff there are reviewing records on the 2000 and 2001 transfers of the Indian Point facilities as to the CZMA. As I will be regretfully out of the office this afternoon, I do not anticipate having an answer to these questions by Monday's call.
Thank you, Janice Janice A. Dean Section Chief, Toxics and Cost Recovery Section Office of the New York State Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8459 direct (212) 416-6007 fax Page 2 of 3 8/6/2012
janice.dean@ag.ny.gov From: Burchfield, Bobby [2]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:11 PM To: Janice Dean; Turk, Sherwin; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; Phillip Musegaas; Deborah Brancato; Manna Jo Greene; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; Karla Raimundi Cc: Sutton, Kathryn M.; Glew Jr, William; Leland, Matthew; Mizuno, Beth; Ghosh, Anita; Wentzel, Michael; Smith, Maxwell; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
Reconvening the 2.323(b) Consultation Again,wewanttothankeveryoneforbeingavailablethisafternoontoconferaboutthemotionfor declaratoryorderEntergyisconsidering.Ms.DeanstatedthattheStateofNewYorkneedsuntil10am EDTonMondaytoconsiderwhetheritwillconsenttooropposeEntergy'smotionforadeclaratory orderholdingthatrenewaloftheoperatinglicensesforIndianPointUnits2and3willnotcausecoastal zoneeffectssubstantiallydifferentthanthosepreviouslyreviewedbyNewYorkState.
Afterdiscussingthematterwithcolleaguesandtheclient,Entergyisamenabletothisrequest.
Accordingly,myassistantwillsendaconferencecallnoticeforafurtherconsultationonMondayat10 amEDTsothatNewYorkcanstatewhetheritagreesordisagreeswithEntergy'sposition.
Bobby R. Burchfield McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 202-756-8003 (Direct) 202-591-2751 (Fax) 703-624-4914 (Cell) bburchfield@mwe.com IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein.
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
Thank you.
Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.
Page 3 of 3 8/6/2012