ML12229A432
| ML12229A432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2012 |
| From: | Lawrence Mcdade Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23303, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NYS-38/RK-TC-5 | |
| Download: ML12229A432 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) August 16, 2012 ORDER (Denying Entergys Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Portions of Intervenors Direct Evidence Addressing Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)
`
On November 10, 2011, the Board admitted Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (NYS-38),
which arose from the issuance of the August 2011 Supplement to the NRC Staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SSER), and challenged the adequacy of Entergys Aging Management Programs (AMPs) for several safety-related components.1 More specifically, this contention alleged that, rather than presenting existing plans for review, Entergys commitment to the future development of certain AMPs failed to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a)(3) and (c)(1)(iii), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2133(b) and (d) and 2232(a).2 1
Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) (Nov.
10, 2011) at 1-2, 12 (unpublished).
2 See id. at 2.
2 Intervenors New York and Riverkeeper filed their NYS-38 Initial Statement of Position, direct testimony, and corresponding exhibits on June 19, 2012.3 In response, Entergy filed a motion in limine to exclude portions of this Statement of Position, direct testimony, and exhibits.4 That motion is the subject of this Order.
In its motion, Entergy argues that Intervenors prefiled [NYS-38] testimony and other submittals challengefor the first timethe adequacy of [Entergys] Commitment 42[ as set forth in the SSER] concerning Entergys analysis or inspections of steam generator tube-to-tubesheet welds.5 According to Entergy, Commitment 42 is outside the four specifically admitted bases for NYS-38, which correspond directly to Entergy Commitments 30, 41, 43, and 44.6 Thus, Entergy seeks to exclude the portions of Intervenors NYS-38 direct testimony and corresponding submittals that address Commitment 42 because, according to Entergy, these portions of the testimony and corresponding submittals are irrelevant to the contention as pled and admitted.7 Intervenors New York and Riverkeeper oppose Entergys motion in limine by arguing that Entergys [motion] is factually in error because the scope of NYS-38 . . . encompasses all the proposed plans to address cracking in the steam generator that may cause cracks in safety related components where Entergy is not now providing the details of its proposed 3
See Revised Certificates of Service (June 20, 2012) (certifying that John J. Sipos served copies of the State of New York and Riverkeepers Initial Statement of Position in Support of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5, the Pre-filed Testimony of Drs. David J. Duquette and Richard Lahey, the Report of Dr. David J. Duquette, and Exhibits NYS000375 through NYS00397 on June 19, 2012).
4 See 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 (Safety Commitments) (July 6, 2012).
5 Id. at 2.
6 See id.
7 Id. at 3.
3 approaches.8 These Intervenors further argue that Entergys motion in limine essentially ignores the Boards December 6, 2011, Clarification Order, which elucidates that NYS-38 is a broad challenge to Entergys Commitmentsdelineated in the SSERand thus is not limited specific commitments. 9 We agree with New York and Riverkeeper. On November 21, 2011, Entergy moved for clarification regarding the scope of NYS-38.10 Through this motion for clarification, Entergy sought to limit the scope of NYS-38 to Applicants Commitment 41, which does not encompass the potential aging effect of primary stress corrosion cracking in steam generator divider plate assemblies.11 On December 6, 2011, we issued an Order resolving Entergys Motion for Clarification, in which we did not limit the scope of NYS-38 to Entergys Commitment 41.12 Instead we found that [t]he language of our November 10, 2011 Memorandum and Order did not limit NYS-38/RK-TC-5 solely to Commitment 41. Rather, in finding [NYS-38] admissible, we admitted the Intervenors broad contention, which relied on multiple bases including the claim that there is insufficient information in Entergys recent commitments that were addressed in the SSER.13 Entergys current motion in limine once again attempts to limit the scope of NYS-38. In denying this motion we reiterate that NYS-38 is a broad contention, the scope of which is not 8
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 (July 16, 2012) at 4.
9 See id. at 3-4.
10 See Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergys Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Admitting Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)( Dec. 6, 2011) at 1 (unpublished) (citing Applicants Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Admitting Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Nov. 21, 2011) at 1-4).
11 See id. at 2.
12 See id. at 3.
13 Id.
4 limited to Entergy Commitments 30, 41, 43, and 44. Instead it broadly encompasses the claim that there is insufficient information in Entergys Commitments as addressed in the SSER.
Accordingly, Entergys instant Motion in limine is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland August 16, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Denying Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Intervenors Direct Evidence Addressing Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
Administrative Judge Anita Ghosh, Esq.
lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.
Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael F. Kennedy sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk brian.newell@nrc.gov anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk OGC Mail Center shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk james.maltese@nrc.gov
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Intervenors Direct Evidence Addressing Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)
William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue Adam Stolorow, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601 Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal wdennis@entergy.com Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP 460 Park Avenue Exchange Place New York, NY 10022 53 State Street driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com Boston, MA 02109 astolorow@sprlaw.com ;jgandhi@sprlaw.com ezoli@goodwinprocter.com pdeng@sprlaw.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Ramona Cearley, Secretary Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 20 Secor Road Lena Michelle Long, Esq. Ossining, NY 10562 Laura Swett, Esq. phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Lance Escher, Esq. rcearley@riverkeeper.org Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Assistant County Attorney Washington, DC 20004 Office of Robert F. Meehan, ksutton@morganlewis.com Westchester County Attorney martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor rkuyler@morganlewis.com White Plains, NY 10601 jrund@morganlewis.com MJR1@westchestergov.com llong@morganlewis.com;lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com Clint Carpenter, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Bobby Burchfield, Esq. Steven C. Filler Matthew Leland, Esq. Karla Raimundi McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
600 13th Street, NW 724 Wolcott Ave.
Washington, DC 20005 Beacon, NY 12508 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com mleland@mwe.com karla@clearwater.org 2
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Intervenors Direct Evidence Addressing Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5)
Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Washington, DC 20004 Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs mswinehart@cov.com NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 John Louis Parker, Esq. mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us John J. Sipos, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Charles Donaldson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut of the State of New York 55 Elm Street Elyse Houle, Legal Support P.O. Box 120 The Capitol Hartford, CT 06141-0120 State Street robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Albany, New York 12224 John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov; charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq. Sean Murray, Mayor Assistant Attorney General Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Kathryn Liberatore, Esq. Village of Buchanan Office of the Attorney General Municipal Building of the State of New York 236 Tate Avenue 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 New York, New York 10271 SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com janice.dean@ag.ny.gov; Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of August 2012 3