ML12222A411
| ML12222A411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/2012 |
| From: | Brancato D, Sipos J Riverkeeper, State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23278, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12222A411 (17) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. August 9, 2012
x STATE OF NEW YORK AND RIVERKEEPERS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO 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 CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B Office of the Attorney General Riverkeeper, Inc.
for the State of New York 20 Secor Road The Capitol Ossining, New York 10562 State Street Albany, New York 12224
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT POINT I THE BOARD HAS MADE CLEAR THAT STATEMENTS OF POSITION ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS...................................2 POINT II THE STATE AND RIVERKEEPERS ARGUMENT REGARDING LICENSEE COMMITMENTS RESPONDS TO RECENT ENTERGY STATEMENTS AND, THUS, IS A PROPER WRITTEN RESPONSE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTENTION ...............................................................2 POINT III DR. HOPENFELDS TESTIMONY RELATING TO INDIAN POINT INLET AND OUTLET REACTOR VESSEL NOZZLES IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONTENTION NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B AND THE PROCEEDING...................................4 POINT IV ENTERGYS OBJECTION TO VARIOUS EXHIBITS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF DR. HOPENFELDS TESTIMONY LACKS MERIT..........................8 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................11 i
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the State of New York State and Riverkeeper hereby submit this joint answer in opposition to Entergys July 30, 2012 Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenors Revised Statement of Position for Consolidated Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
INTRODUCTION On July 30, 2012, Counsel for Entergy filed a motion to strike portions of the State and Riverkeepers Revised Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (NYS000439) (Revised SOP) and to exclude portions of the Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B - Metal Fatigue (June 28, 2012) (RIV000114) (Hopenfeld Rebuttal), and several supporting exhibits thereto.1 Entergy contends that the State and Riverkeepers argument that commitments made by license renewal applicants are generally unenforceable and are not properly monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is outside the scope of the contention and should be stricken.
See Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenors Revised Statement of Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at 5-7 (July 30, 2012) (Entergys Mot.).
Entergy further asserts that Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony, and various supporting exhibits thereto, are outside the scope of the contention and the proceeding. See Entergys Mot. at 9-15.
This motion is without merit and should be denied.
1 NRC Staff did not file an in limine motion in response to the State and Riverkeepers June 2012 evidentiary submissions supporting Consolidated Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
1
ARGUMENT POINT I THE BOARD HAS MADE CLEAR THAT STATEMENTS OF POSITION ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS This Board has already made clear that regarding challenge[s] to Initial Statement[s] of Position, this document is not evidence, but rather consists merely of attorney arguments. Any motion to strike testimony in this document is inappropriate. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine) (Mar. 6, 2012)(Board Order) at 14; see also id. at 19 (Statements of positions are not evidence. Thus, the admissibility standards of Section 2.337(a) do not apply and statements of positions are not subject to evidentiary challenge.); id. at 24 (Finally, statements of position are a partys legal interpretation of its evidence, not its actual evidence, and we will use it inasmuch as it is supported by the evidence . . . Therefore, we will not exclude . . . portions of [a] Statement of Position.). As such, Entergys motion to strike portions of the State and Riverkeepers Revised Statement of Position should be denied.
POINT II THE STATE AND RIVERKEEPERS ARGUMENT REGARDING LICENSEE COMMITMENTS RESPONDS TO RECENT ENTERGY STATEMENTS AND, THUS, IS A PROPER WRITTEN RESPONSE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTENTION Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(2), [w]ritten responses and rebuttal testimony should be directed to the initial statements and testimony of other participants. The State and Riverkeepers discussion of licensee commitments in the Revised Statement of Position does just that. The heart of this contention is a challenge to the adequacy of Entergys plan to manage the 2
effects of metal fatigue during the requested extended license terms.2 In response to the State and Riverkeepers arguments, Entergys Statement of Position raised the issue of licensee commitments by explaining that licensee commitments are a well established and essential mechanism for ensuring that licensees implement their [aging management programs] in a timely and effective manner. Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) at 22 (Mar. 29, 2012) (ENT000182); see also id. at 22-24. Additionally, Entergy listed various commitments it has allegedly undertaken in an attempt to demonstrate that it has done considerably more than merely provide, in its LRA, a bare assertion that it will comply with GALL. Id. at 48 (internal citation and quotation omitted). The Revised Statement of Position directly responds to Entergys assertions: New York and Riverkeeper have substantial concerns over whether Entergys commitments concerning metal fatigue of the reactor coolant systems and reactor coolant pressure boundaries are enforceable in an NRC administrative enforcement proceeding or in a federal court action. Revised SOP at 30. This is a proper response to Entergys arguments.
Entergys citation to Progress Energy Fla., Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), Initial Scheduling Order, LBP-09-22, 70 N.R.C. 640, 655, slip op. at 7 (Aug. 27, 2009) for the proposition that [b]eing in the nature of rebuttal, the response . . . [is] 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 is misleading and inapposite. First, this citation is merely to a scheduling order setting out deadlines for various submissions during an ASLB proceeding; it contains no analysis of challenged rebuttal testimony. LBP-09-22, slip op 2
See 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)
3
at 7. Second, the Board in Progress Energy also stated that [t]he written response should be in the nature of a response brief that identifies the legal and factual weaknesses in an opponents position . . . . Id. at 17 (emphasis added). Here, the State and Riverkeeper are doing just that:
responding to legal weaknesses in Entergys arguments, which Entergy raised within the scope of this contention.
The State and Riverkeeper further note that Consolidated Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B questioned whether Entergys proposed aging management program and the scope of associated commitments would be sufficient for the purposes of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii).
See, e.g., Petitioners State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. New and Amended Contention Concerning Metal Fatigue, New York State 26-B/Riverkeeper TC-1B, at ¶¶ 14, 19-20, 26-27, 32-33, 36 (Sept. 9, 2010) (included in ML102670665 (public and redacted version)).
Accordingly, the Board should deny Entergys motion to strike the State and Riverkeepers Revised Statement of Position.
POINT III DR. HOPENFELDS TESTIMONY RELATING TO INDIAN POINT INLET AND OUTLET REACTOR VESSEL NOZZLES IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONTENTION NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B AND THE PROCEEDING Once again, Entergy improperly characterizes portions of Dr. Hopenfelds testimony as constituting an improper challenge to original design basis CUF calculations for the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles. Entergys Mot. at 9-14. Entergys repetitious arguments continue to be unavailing. Entergy again fails to acknowledge that Dr. Hopenfelds testimony relates to the adequacy of Entergys metal fatigue assessment pertaining to the proposed extended operating term. As such, the testimony cited in Entergys motion is neither an improper critique of the current licensing basis (CLB), nor a newly-raised issue.
4
Though Entergy complains that Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony questions the validity of CLB CUF calculations, the testimony Entergy objects to responds directly to Entergys witnesses testimony, which disputes Dr. Hopenfelds discussion of the adequacy of heat transfer analysis conducted in relation to the inlet and outlet reactor vessel nozzles. See Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson F. Azevedo, Alan B. Cox, Jack R. Stosnider, Robert E. Nickell, and Mark A. Gray Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue), March 29, 2012 (ENT000183) (Entergys Testimony) at A142-A145. As discussed above, this is the purpose of rebuttal testimony.
Furthermore, Dr. Hopenfelds responsive testimony explicitly explains how his critique of Entergys metal fatigue assessment at Indian Point did not directly dispute any CLB CUFs; rather, any discussion of the CLB CUF calculations and heat transfer analysis performed for such calculations served only to criticize Entergys assessment pertaining to the aging effects of metal fatigue during the proposed extended operating periods. See Hopenfeld Rebuttal at 23-27. Dr.
Hopenfelds testimony simply elaborates upon Dr. Hopenfelds initial position, in light of Entergys attempt to rationalize its failure to account for the effects of cladding in its assessment of metal fatigue. See id. Thus, the rebuttal testimony Entergy now objects to discussing CLB CUFs is entirely relevant and appropriate. For the same reasons explained in response to Entergys earlier motion in limine relating to Riverkeeper and Dr. Hopenfelds initial testimony, Entergys position continues to be wrong. See 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) (February 17, 2012) at 10-13 (Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergys Motion in Limine (Feb. 17, 2012); see also Declaration of Joram Hopenfeld in Support of Riverkeepers Opposition to Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-Filed Direct Testimony, Expert Report, Exhibits, and Statement of 5
Position for Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (February 17, 2012), at ¶¶ 19-21.
Indeed, the ASLB has already explicitly agreed that Riverkeepers testimony and corresponding evidentiary submission on this Contention does not challenge any of the design basis CUF calculations, and that the specific CLB analyses define current practices and are an appropriate subject for review in this license renewal proceeding. See 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 15-16, (unpublished)
ML12066A170 (ASLB March 6, 2012 Order). Although Entergy claims that 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, (Entergys Mot. at 13) this is highly disputed, as evidenced by Dr. Hopenfelds testimony. Thus, as the ASLB has already explained, The degree of the relevance between the CLB analyses and those proposed in the Applicants AMP is a merits question that can only be determined by weighing all the evidence on this topic. Resolution of this question will be best served after all the testimony has been filed and this issue is probed during the adjudicatory hearing.
See ASLB March 6, 2012 Order at 16 (emphasis added).
In sum, Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony does not alter Dr. Hopenfeld or Riverkeepers previously stated positions with respect to the inadequacy of Entergys metal fatigue assessments, and Entergys various assertions that Riverkeeper and Dr. Hopenfeld have provided contradictory positions is unfounded. Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony does not present information that somehow warrants a reconsideration of Entergys objection to his discussion of the Indian Point reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles.
In addition, Entergys assertions that Dr. Hopenfelds discussion of Entergys fatigue assessment relating to the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles is outside the scope of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, are similarly baseless. See Entergys Mot. at 13-14. Dr.
6
Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony does not raise any new issue that is purportedly outside the admitted bases of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B. Id. Indeed, Dr. Hopenfelds testimony falls comfortably within the reasonably inferred bounds of the admitted bases of the contention.
See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010). That is, Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, as admitted, includes various criticisms pertaining to Entergys failure to demonstrate an adequate program to manage metal fatigue during the proposed period of extended operation, and not only Entergys 2010 refined fatigue analysis. See, e.g. Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld in Support of Petitioners State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc.s New and Revised Contention Concerning Metal Fatigue (Sept. 9, 2010), at ¶¶ 16-21. Indeed, from the inception of the contention, Dr. Hopenfeld has criticized Entergys failure to expand the scope of components subject to additional fatigue analyses, such as the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles. See, e.g., Riverkeeper, Inc.s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in the License Renewal Proceedings for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (November 30, 2007), at 11, 14 ML073410093; see also Prefiled Written Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding Riverkeeper Contention TC-1B - Metal Fatigue (December 20, 2012) (RIV000034), at 4, 20-22; Hopenfeld Rebuttal at 27.
Thus, Entergys reference to a decision in the Seabrook proceeding (Entergy Mot. at 14 (citing CLI-12-05)) is clearly not dispositive in this case, since Dr. Hopenfelds discussion of Entergys inadequate metal fatigue analysis relating to the reactor vessel inlet and outlet nozzles at Indian Point is squarely within the scope of the admitted contention. Notably, Entergys position is entirely based upon the misconception that Dr. Hopenfelds testimony is tantamount to an inappropriate challenge to CLB CUFs (see Entergys Mot. at 14); as explained in earlier briefing as well as above, this is not the case. See Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergys Motion 7
in Limine (Feb. 17, 2012) at 10-13; see supra pp.4-6.
POINT IV ENTERGYS OBJECTION TO VARIOUS EXHIBITS PROFFERED IN SUPPORT OF DR. HOPENFELDS TESTIMONY LACKS MERIT Entergy asserts that Riverkeeper Exhibits RIV000103, RIV000104, RIV000105, and RIV000106, which Riverkeeper has designated as relevant to Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, have no apparent nexus to the issues admitted for hearing, and argue that they should be excluded from the record as irrelevant. Entergys Mot. at 14-15. Entergy similarly disputed the relevance of these exhibits in its earlier 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 (Safety Commitments), dated, July 6, 2012. For the same reasons discussed in the State and Riverkeepers Joint Answer to Entergys motion in limine related to Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5, Entergys objection is without merit and must be rejected.
In particular, at various junctures in this proceeding, Entergy has lodged sweeping criticisms about the ability of Dr. Hopenfeld to provide expert testimony in relation to the aging phenomenon of metal fatigue. In its Motion in Limine concerning Intervenors initial hearing submissions related to Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, Entergy claimed that Riverkeeper has not carried its burden of demonstrating that Dr. Hopenfeld holds any specialized knowledge in the field of metal fatigue analysis, such that he can assist the Board in understanding the evidence. 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) (January 30, 2012), at 7. Entergy also asserted that Dr. Hopenfelds curriculum vitae did not show that he had ever performed a fatigue analysis of reactor components comparable to Westinghouses analysis, or that he had any experience on fatigue issues when he was a member of the NRC Staff, and that [h]is publications and patents are similarly silent on fatigue 8
analysis-related issues. Id.
Subsequently, in Entergys initial Statement of Position relating to Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, Entergy once again took issue with Dr. Hopenfelds expertise on metal fatigue issues. Entergy again claimed that Dr. Hopenfeld held no specialized knowledge in the field of metal fatigue, and argued that, as a result, the Board should accord little or no weight to his testimony. Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (March 29, 2012) (ENT000182), at 28-29, ML12089A240. The exhibits Entergy now objects to speak to the ample expertise held by Dr. Hopenfeld pertaining to relevant metal fatigue issues, in direct response to Entergys baseless claims to the contrary. In light of Entergy vehement and repeated attempts to refute Dr. Hopenfelds credibility and expertise, information demonstrating his ability to testify to such issues is highly relevant to Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
There is simply no basis for Entergys claim that there is no apparent nexus between the exhibits identified as relevant to NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and the admitted contention. To the contrary, Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony specifically responds to Entergys allegations regarding an alleged lack of specialized knowledge in relevant issues and explains how the relevant supporting documents relate to and demonstrate his expertise in metal fatigue related issues. See Hopenfeld Rebuttal at 4-7.
So, as Dr. Hopenfeld explains, Exhibit RIV000103 (J. Hopenfeld et al., Small Sodium to Gas Leak Behavior in Relation to LMFBR Leak Detection, Intl Conference on Liquid Metal Tech. (May 1976)) relates to the effects of the leak environment on fatigue crack growth in sodium; similarly, Exhibits RIV000104 (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)) and RIV000105 9
(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)) relate to steam generator degradation issues that Dr. Hopenfeld was extensively involved in, including crack detection, and, as explained in Dr. Hopenfelds testimony, the subject of these documents, including crack formation and detection is directly related to fatigue analysis and fatigue management; lastly, RIV000106 (Associated Press, Nuke inspectors focus on unusual wear on tubes, Fox News.com (Feb. 3, 2012)), also relates to and demonstrates Dr. Hopenfelds experience, familiarity, and expertise with tube degradation issues, which, once again, relate to metal fatigue. See Hopenfeld Rebuttal at 4-7.
In sum, the exhibits which Entergy objects to were offered to, in fact, elucidate the relevant experience and expertise that Dr. Hopenfeld holds with respect to metal fatigue related issues, and squarely supports Dr. Hopenfelds rebuttal testimony on Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B. Entergys attempt to exclude these exhibits is, thus, completely unfounded, especially in light of Entergys position relating to Dr. Hopenfelds expertise on such issues.
The ASLB should, therefore, deny Entergys request to exclude Riverkeeper Exhibits RIV000103, RIV000104, RIV000105, and RIV000106. Exclusion is particularly improper since the ASLB is well suited to afford the weight it deems necessary to such exhibits.3 3
See Amergen Energy Comp, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 2007 NRC LEXIS 120, *1 (Sept. 12, 2007) (explaining how licensing board chose to refrain from actually expunging [any] irrelevant material from the record [r]ather, to the extent we conclude that material is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, we will accord it no weight); Amergen Energy Comp., LLC, (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification), August 9, 2007, at 2, ADAMS ML072210832; Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC, (South Texas Project Units 3 and 4), Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine), July 14, 2011, at 3, ADAMS ML11195A093.
10
CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, the State of New York and Riverkeeper respectfully request that the Board deny Entergys Motion to Strike and Exclude the State and Riverkeepers recent submissions in support of Combined Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Deborah Brancato Kathryn M. Liberatore Staff Attorney Assistant Attorneys General Riverkeeper, Inc.
Office of the Attorney General 20 Secor Road for the State of New York Ossining, NY 10562 The Capitol (914) 478-4501 Albany, New York 12227 (518) 402-2251 Dated: August 9, 2012 11
Certificate Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 In accordance with the Boards Scheduling Order of July 1, 2010 (at 8-9) and 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(b), the undersigned counsel hereby certify that counsel for the State of New York and Riverkeeper participated in discussions initiated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the movant), with the movant and NRC Staff, concerning 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), filed on July 30, 2012 in this matter, and has made a sincere effort to make themselves available to listen and respond to the movant and NRC Staff, and to resolve the factual and legal issues raised in the motions. The State of New York and Riverkeepers efforts to resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.
Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by Janice A. Dean Deborah Brancato Kathryn M. Liberatore Staff Attorney Assistant Attorneys General Riverkeeper, Inc.
Office of the Attorney General 20 Secor Road for the State of New York Ossining, NY 10562 The Capitol (914) 478-4501 Albany, New York 12227 (212) 416-8459 August 9, 2012
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. August 9, 2012
x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 9, 2012, copies of the State of New Yorks Answer to Entergys July 30, 2012 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) were served electronically via the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mailstop 3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North Mailstop 3 F23 11545 Rockville Pike Two White Flint North Rockville, MD 20852-2738 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov
Shelbie Lewman, Esq. Law Clerk Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Anne Siarnacki, Esq., Law Clerk Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Jonathan Rund, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raphael Kuyler, Esq.
Mailstop 3 F23 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Two White Flint North 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 11545 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20004 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ksutton@morganlewis.com Shelbie.Lewman@nrc.gov pbessette@morganlewis.com Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov jrund@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Mailstop 16 G4 Suite 4000 One White Flint North 1000 Louisiana Street 11555 Rockville Pike Houston, TX 77002 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 martin.oneill@morganlewis.com ocaamail@nrc.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Goodwin Procter, LLP Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Exchange Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 53 State Street Mailstop 3 F23 Boston, MA 02109 Two White Flint North ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 William C. Dennis, Esq.
hearingdocket@nrc.gov Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. 440 Hamilton Avenue David E. Roth, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. wdennis@entergy.com Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General Mailstop 15 D21 State of Connecticut One White Flint North 55 Elm Street 11555 Rockville Pike P.O. Box 120 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov robert.snook@ct.gov david.roth@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov brian.harris@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov 2
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Director Assistant County Attorney Karla Raimundi, Environmental Justice Office of the Westchester County Attorney Associate Michaelian Office Building Stephen Filler, Esq., Board Member 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
White Plains, NY 10601 724 Wolcott Avenue MJR1@westchestergov.com Beacon, NY 12508 Mannajo@clearwater.org Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor karla@clearwater.org James Seirmarco, M.S. stephenfiller@gmail.com Village of Buchanan Municipal Building Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
236 Tate Avenue Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Riverkeeper, Inc.
vob@bestweb.net 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 Daniel Riesel, Esq. phillip@riverkeeper.org Thomas F. Wood, Esq. dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Victoria S. Treanor, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 driesel@sprlaw.com vtreanor@sprlaw.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Director Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 (718) 595-3982 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Signed (electronically) by Kathryn M. Liberatore Assistant Attorney General State of New York (212) 416-8482 Dated at New York, New York this 9th day of August 2012 3