ML13161A455
| ML13161A455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/2013 |
| From: | Jeremy Dean, Sipos J State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 24665, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML13161A455 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 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. June 10, 2013
x STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT RECENTLY DISCLOSED ENTERGY DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS CONCERNING CONTENTION NYS-5 Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224
Intervenor the State of New York respectfully requests leave from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to submit four documents that Entergy recently disclosed as exhibits in support of the States position and Dr. Duquettes testimony on Contention NYS-5.
On May 30, 2013, Entergy disclosed and produced a series of documents including:
CR-IP2-2012-05324, Condition Report Regarding Visual Inspection of 4 ft of Service Water Return Line (document dated Sept. 11, 2012) (Proposed Exh. NYS000477);
Underground Piping and Tanks General Visual Inspection, 8-in HP Fire Protection Line (dated May 23, 2013) (Proposed Exh. NYS000478);
Underground Piping and Tanks General Visual Inspection, 8-in City Water Line 1502 (dated May 23, 2013) (Proposed Exh. NYS000479);
Underground Piping and Tanks General Visual Inspection, 8-in City Water Line 1502 (dated Apr. 12, 2013) (Proposed Exh. NYS000480);
The documents include the following statements:
(NYS000478, NYS000479);
Rocks were in contact with the wrap (NYS000478, NYS000479);
some rocks were found in the backfill. (NYS000480); and Coating degradation (including cracking, delamination, localized separation from pipeOD) was evident along the entire length of exposed piping, with surface corrosion at the areas of coating separation. (NYS000477; see also NYS000480 (similar statement)).
The proposed exhibits also contain color photographs of the excavated pipes and adjacent backfill. Those photographs reveal rocks in the backfill.
Good cause exists to admit these documents. The documents are relevant to NYS-5, the documents were previously unavailable to the State, and the State has promptly moved for their admission following their production. The documents support Dr. Duquettes testimony that rocks are present in backfill at Indian Point and contribute to cracked coating and corrosion, warranting the application of cathodic protection. Duquette Rebuttal Testimony, NYSR20399 at 1
4-5, 8:11-12; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 3437:7-22 (Duquette). Specifically, neither Staff nor Entergys witnesses acknowledged the risk that rocks in backfill are posing to coated buried pipes at Indian Point. In fact, Staffs witness testified that since [2009] all of [Entergys]
inspections have revealed no damage to coatings and no deleterious materials in the backfill.
Tr. 3687:11-13 (Holston); see also Staff Pre-filed Testimony, NRCR20016 at A18 (Holston)
(Recent excavated direct visual examinations of buried pipe have demonstrated that the coatings are in acceptable condition and the backfill in the vicinity of the pipe has not damaged the coatings.). The Proposed Exhibits undercut that testimony and demonstrate that this statement is not correct. These Proposed Exhibits are also relevant because, as Judge Wardwell noted during the hearing, if you continue to see poor backfill and the integrity of the coatings questionable on a regular basis, a more serious look at cathodic protection would be looked at, because that is really the only enhanced protection that you would provide at this time to which Staffs expert Mr. Holston replied, Yes, sir. Tr. 3871:7-13 (J. Wardwell/Holston).
These documents demonstrate that Entergy is continu[ing] to see poor backfill quality at Indian Point.
With the exception of one document, these documents were all generated after the December 2012 evidentiary hearing. One document, Proposed Exhibit NYS000477, was generated well before the hearing (on or about September 11, 2012) but only disclosed and produced on May 30, 2013, more than five months after the hearing on Contention NYS-5.
Entergy has not explained why this document was not disclosed earlier. After receiving the documents from Entergy, the State has promptly moved to seek their admission.
Parties may proffer newly created, relevant documents identified as new exhibits. See Teleconference Tr. at 1220, 1245-46 (Sept. 24, 2012); accord Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
2
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Order Denying Clearwaters Motion to Supplement the Record, at 3 (Dec. 5, 2012) (10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a) is the applicable standard for the admission of new exhibits).
The State respectfully seeks admission of these recently-disclosed documents as exhibits in support of its position on Contention NYS-5. The four documents, which the State has marked and proposes to submit as Exhibits NYS000477 to NYS000480, accompany this motion.
The State has consulted with Entergy, NRC Staff, Riverkeeper, and Clearwater pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). Riverkeeper and Clearwater do not oppose this motion, while Entergy and NRC Staff oppose.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by Janice A. Dean John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York for the State of New York 120 Broadway The Capitol New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12224 (212) 416-8459 (518) 402-2251 June 10, 2013 3
Cross Reference of Entergy Document Disclosures and Proposed NYS Exhibits Entergy Log Document Title or Number & NYS Exhibit Number Inspection Date (Proposed (May 30, 2013) Number) 9512 Condition Report CR-IP-2012-05324 NYS000477 (Service Water return line),
Inspection Date: 8/22/2012 9518 Visual Inspection 8 HP Fire NYS000478 Protection Line (Fire Protection line),
Inspection Date: 10/10/2012 9517 Visual Inspection 8 City Water Line NYS000479 1502, Inspection Date: 10/10/2012 9514 Visual Inspection 8 City Water Line NYS000480 1502, Inspection Date: 12/13/2012 4
10 C.F.R. § 2.323 Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and the Boards July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order (at 8-9),
I certify that I have made a sincere effort to contact counsel for NRC Staff, Entergy, Clearwater, and Riverkeeper in this proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this motion, and to resolve those issues. My efforts have not been successful with respect to NRC Staff and Entergy. Clearwater and Riverkeeper do not oppose this motion.
Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol New York, New York 10271 (518) 402-2251 June 10, 2013 5