ML12340A190
| ML12340A190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2012 |
| From: | Lawrence Mcdade Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | State of NY |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23841, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12340A190 (6) | |
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) December 5, 2012 ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
At the October 2012 evidentiary hearing, the Board admitted several exhibits, subject to a later objection by any opposing party.1 One such exhibit was admitted as ENT000589. On November 21, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed an objection to ENT000589, stating that the proffered exhibit failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).2 New York argues that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial because it views Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C in isolation and is unreliable because it contradicts the direct testimony of Entergy witnesses at hearing.3 In addition, New York argues that the difference in percentages between the outcomes of the new sensitivity analysis and the increase needed to make an additional SAMA cost-beneficial are too close to be considered relevant, material, or reliable.4 New York 1
See, e.g., Tr. at 2519.
2 The State of New Yorks Objection to ENT000589 (Nov. 21, 2012).
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id.
also cites a lack of good cause for the late-filing of ENT000589, which New York alleges has prejudiced its case.5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) opposes New Yorks objection, arguing that Entergy does not have to offer a combined analysis for Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C;6 that the proffered sensitivity analysis is relevant to the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B;7 and that New Yorks argument regarding the closeness of a margin lacks a basis in law or fact.8 Entergy also argues that the revised sensitivity analysis is fully consistent with the testimony offered by Entergy experts at hearing.9 We overrule New Yorks objection for two reasons. First, each of New Yorks arguments constitutes a merit-based assessment and factual determination - matters that the Board is tasked with assessing in our initial decision. Exhibit ENT000589 presents another perspective on the issues before us and meets the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). As we have repeatedly stated, we will give each admitted exhibit the appropriate weight in the context of testimony and issues before us.10 Our evaluation of ENT000589 will be no different.
Given the robust record that has been developed on Contention NYS-16B, the Board is well-positioned to evaluate the merits of each partys arguments and make a final determination.
Second, New Yorks argument that it has been prejudiced by the late filing of ENT000589 is without merit. We have allowed each party (including New York) to present late-5 Id. at 7-8.
6 Entergys Answer to the State of New Yorks Objection to the Licensing Boards Admission of Entergy Hearing Exhibit ENT000589 (Nov. 30, 2012) at 3-6.
7 Id. at 2-3.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id. at 7-9.
10 Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine)
(Mar. 6, 2012) at 20 (unpublished).
filed exhibits in order to ensure a complete record. New York has benefited from this approach on several occasions and cannot justifiably claim prejudice in this case. ENT000589 was furnished to New York promptly after it was created, was generated in response to evidence presented by New York, and New York was given an ample opportunity to review and respond to this recently generated analysis. For those reasons, New Yorks objection to the admission of Exhibit ENT000589 is overruled.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland December 5, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
) 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 (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Mail Stop O-7H4M David E. Roth, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
ocaamail@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anita Ghosh, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Karl Farrar, Esq.
Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of the General Counsel hearingdocket@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel edward.williamson@nrc.gov Mail Stop T-3F23 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge OGC Mail Center lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell William C. Dennis, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue Michael F. Kennedy White Plains, NY 10601 Administrative Judge wdennis@entergy.com michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Organization: Entergy Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 James Maltese, Law Clerk wglew@entergy.com Carter Thurman, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov Goodwin Proctor, LLP james.maltese@nrc.gov Exchange Place, 53 State Street carter.thurman@nrc.gov Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Adam Stolorow, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Peng Deng, Paralegal White Plains, NY 10601 Counsel for Town of Cortlandt mjr1@westchestergov.com Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue Clint Carpenter, Esq.
New York, NY 10022 Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com Matthew Leland, Esq.
astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP pdeng@sprlaw.com 600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Paul M. Bessette, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Lena Michelle Long, Esq. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Laura Swett, Esq. Washington, DC 20004 Lance Escher, Esq. mswinehart@cov.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary John Louis Parker, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of General Counsel, Region 3 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW New York State Department Washington, DC 20004 of Environmental Conservation ksutton@morganlewis.com 21 South Putt Corners Road martin.oneill@morganlewis.com New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 rkuyler@morganlewis.com; jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com; Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
lswett@morganlewis.com New York State Department lescher@morganlewis.com of Environmental Conservation mfreeze@morganlewis.com Office of General Counsel awalker@morganlewis.com 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 Phillip Musegaas, Esq. efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Ramona Cearley, Secretary Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Riverkeeper, Inc. Steven C. Filler 20 Secor Road Karla Raimundi Ossining, NY 10562 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
phillip@riverkeeper.org; 724 Wolcott Ave.
dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Beacon, NY 12508 rcearley@riverkeeper.org mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org 2
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
Richard Webster, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Public Justice, P.C. Assistant Attorney General For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20006 of the State of New York rwebster@publicjustice.net 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 Michael J. Delaney, Esq. janice.dean@ag.ny.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Sean Murray, Mayor Flushing, NY 11373 Kevin Hay, Village Administrator mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Village of Buchanan Municipal Building John J. Sipos, Esq. 236 Tate Avenue Charles Donaldson, Esq. Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Assistant Attorneys General smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Office of the Attorney General administrator@villageofbuchanan.com of the State of New York Elyse Houle, Legal Support The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York 12224 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2012 3