ML14353A346
| ML14353A346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/19/2014 |
| From: | Raimo S Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Entergy Services |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LA, ASLBP 15-934-01-LA- BD01, RAS 27029 | |
| Download: ML14353A346 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT
)
Docket No. 50-271-LA YANKEE, LLC and
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
December 19, 2014
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
__________________________________________)
ENTERGYS ANSWER OPPOSING THE STATE OF VERMONTS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ADDRESSING NEW INFORMATION AND ARGUMENT RAISED AT ORAL ARGUMENT In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) submit this timely Answer opposing the Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument filed by the State of Vermont (State) on December 12, 2014.1 As discussed below, the States filing is procedurally deficient and offers irrelevant and immaterial evidence and arguments. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 1, 2014, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) held an oral argument regarding whether the States Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, 1
State of Vermonts Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument (Dec. 12, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A152 (Motion).
and Hearing Request should be granted.2 In advance of the oral argument (and after the parties had filed their written pleadings), the Board issued an order identifying six topics that the parties should be prepared to address in their presentations, including [r]egulatory responsibility for evaluating interfaces with State and local governments, and for reviewing whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. 3 In accordance with the Boards Order and in response to Board questions during the oral argument, Entergy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) Staff both indicated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has lead responsibility for assessing state and local emergency response plans and to determine whether those plans are adequate and capable of being implemented.4 As a logical continuation of this topic and discussion, the Staff discussed FEMAs role in this particular proceeding, including FEMAs review of Entergys license amendment request and conclusion that the proposed staffing reductions would not significantly impact the State of Vermonts emergency response plan.5 At the oral argument, the Staff indicated that FEMAs August 19, 2014 letter to the NRC had not been made publicly available by the NRC, consistent with the Staffs standard practice of designating emergency planning-related documents as non-public.6 2
Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request (served Sept. 24, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14267A523 (Petition).
3 Licensing Board Notice and Order (Scheduling and Providing Instructions for Oral Argument) at 2 (Nov. 12, 2014) (unpublished) (Order).
4 See Official Transcript of Proceedings, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) at 54:11-18, 70:3-25 (Dec. 1, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14337A666 (Tr.).
5 Id. at 71:1-21; see also Letter from V. Quinn, FEMA, to J. Anderson, NRC, Vermont Yankee Pre-Exemption Emergency Plan - Request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Approval to Eliminate Certain Emergency Response Organizations (Aug. 19, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14233A593.
6 Tr. at 96:12-23.
2
On December 8, 2014, the NRC Staff responded to a Board inquiry regarding the status of the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) at permanently shutdown facilities in 1991 and notified the Board that it had made FEMAs August 19, 2014 letter to the NRC publicly available.7 On December 12, 2014, the State filed its motion, purporting to provide additional information to complete the evidentiary record with respect to the Staffs new arguments raised at oral argument and in the Staffs December 8, 2014 filing and requesting leave to submit supplemental briefing addressing the new information and arguments raised by the Staff at the oral argument.8 II.
DISCUSSION A.
The States Motion Should Be Rejected as Procedurally Defective Although the States filing is styled as a request, it is, in actuality, a motion for leave to submit additional information and briefing, and should be rejected as such by the Board.
Requests for Commission or licensing board action or permission are treated as motions under the NRCs rules of practice.9 As an initial matter, the States motion is untimely. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, [a]ll motions must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.10 The States filing arises from Staff statements made during the 7
NRC Staff Answer to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question Asked During December 1, 2014 Contention Admissibility Oral Argument (Dec. 8, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14342A336.
8 Motion at 1-2.
9 See, e.g., FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-06-2, 63 NRC 9, 18 n.36 (2006)
(denying petitioners Request for Clarification as an untimely motion for clarification under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)); Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
CLI-02-23, 56 NRC 230, 237 (2002) (treating petitioners request to suspend proceeding as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.730 (predecessor to § 2.323)).
10 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)(2).
3
December 1, 2014, oral argument.11 Consequently, the States motion should have been filed on or before December 11, 2014. The States December 12 filing is inexcusably late and should be rejected as untimely.
Further, under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), a motion must be rejected if it does not include a certification by the attorney or representative of the moving party that the movant has made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion, and that the movants efforts to resolve the issue(s) have been unsuccessful.12 The State failed to contact Entergy to resolve the issues raised in its motion prior to its filing and failed to include the required certification with its filing. Accordingly, the States motion must be rejected for this additional reason.13 B.
The States Motion Should Be Rejected Because It Offers Irrelevant and Immaterial Evidence and Arguments In addition to being procedurally defective, the States motion should be rejected, because it offers evidence and makes arguments that are irrelevant and immaterial to this proceeding. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(e) and 2.321(c), in conducting proceedings, the Board has the duty and authority to [r]estrict irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative, or cumulative evidence and/or arguments.14 Here, the State proffers an email exchange between the States Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Planning Section Chief and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) Emergency Preparedness Manager 11 Motion at 1 (The State hereby submits additional information to complete the evidentiary record with respect to the Staffs new arguments raised at oral argument and in the Staffs December 8, 2014 filing.). Although the State attempts to characterize the Staffs December 8 filing as raising new arguments as well, that is an unreasonable characterization of the Staffs filing.
12 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) (emphasis added).
13 Id.
14 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e); see also id. § 2.321(c) (licensing boards have the duties of, and may exercise the powers granted to, a presiding officer under § 2.319).
4
to complete the evidentiary record.15 In addition, the State offers supplemental briefing regarding the August 19, 2014, FEMA concurrence letter to the NRC, requesting that the Board give no weight to the letter itself or to Staff representations regarding the letter when considering the admissibility of the States contention.16 The State offers its additional evidence and briefing to demonstrate that the correspondence between Entergy and the State (provided at Exhibit A to the States motion) does not discuss the retirement of ERDS.17 That fact should hardly come as a surprise. As Entergy and the Staff have repeatedly emphasized throughout this proceeding, the license amendment request (LAR) at issue here and discussed in the correspondence requests approval to revise the VYNPS Emergency Plan to reflect on-shift and emergency response organization staffing reductions following plant shut down and defueling.18 It does not request NRC permission to retire ERDS. The regulations and relevant guidance are clear that Entergy can discontinue data transmission via ERDS once VYNPS has permanently ceased operations, without prior NRC approval; there is no need for Entergy to seek a license amendment to retire ERDS.19 15 See Motion at 1; id., Exh. A, Email from E. Bornemann, State Division of Emergency Response and Homeland Security Planning Section Chief, to M. McKenney, VYNPS Emergency Preparedness Manager, Post shut down ERO changes (July 1, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A151.
16 Motion, Exh. B, State of Vermonts Proposed Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question Asked During December 1, 2014 Contention Admissibility Oral Argument at 2 (Dec. 12, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A150 (Proposed Reply).
17 See id. at 3-4 (correspondence did not once mention the elimination of ERDS; Entergy corresponded without any mention of the elimination of ERDS).
18 Letter from C. Wamser, Entergy, to NRC, Proposed Changes to Vermont Yankee Emergency Plan (March 24, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14085A257 (License Amendment Request or LAR).
19 See, e.g., Entergys Answer Opposing the State of Vermonts Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request at 6-7, 14-15 (Oct. 20, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14293A701 (Entergy Answer); NRC Staffs Answer to Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request at 10-13 (Oct. 20, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14293A114 (Staff Answer); Tr. at 37:4-9, 42:12-45:3, 56:14-57:1, 76:11-18, 77:3-78:21, 79:14-80:13, 81:17-82:21.
5
The State nonetheless continues to mischaracterize the LAR as being a request for NRC approval to retire the ERDS in an attempt to expand the scope of this proceeding to include the issue of ERDS continued operation.20 The fact that the words Emergency Response Data System or ERDS appear a few times in Attachment 4 to the LAR does not somehow transform the LAR into a request to retire the system; no reasonable reading of Entergys LAR submission could lead to that conclusion. As discussed at length in Entergys and the Staffs written pleadings and at oral argument, the issue of ERDS continued operation is outside the scope of the LAR and of this proceeding.21 Accordingly, the States proffered evidence and supplemental briefing are irrelevant and immaterial to this proceeding, and the motion should be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION The States motion must be rejected, because it is untimely and fails to include the required 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) certification. The motion should also be denied pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(e) and 2.321(c) on the grounds that it offers only irrelevant and immaterial evidence and arguments. For the reasons discussed in Entergys Answer and at oral argument, Entergy reiterates its position that the States Petition should be dismissed as untimely and for failure to propose an admissible contention.
20 See, e.g., Proposed Reply at 4 (discontinuance of the ERDS relay is an aspect of the LAR), 5 (Entergy seeks discontinuance of its ERDS relay as proposed in the LAR).
21 See, e.g., Entergy Answer at 14-15; Staff Answer at 10-12; Tr. at 45:6-19, 55:7-12, 56:14-57:1, 63:24-64:14, 68:1-6, 85:12-21.
6
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Signed (electronically) by Susan H. Raimo Susan H. Raimo Entergy Services, Inc.
101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 530-7330 Fax: (202) 530-7350 Email: sraimo@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 19th day of December, 2014 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT
)
Docket No. 50-271-LA YANKEE, LLC and
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
December 19, 2014
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
__________________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of Entergys Answer Opposing the State of Vermonts Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.
Signed (electronically) by Susan H. Raimo Susan H. Raimo Entergy Services, Inc.
101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 530-7330 Fax: (202) 530-7350 Email: sraimo@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT
)
Docket No. 50-271-LA YANKEE, LLC and
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
December 19, 2014
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
__________________________________________)
ENTERGYS ANSWER OPPOSING THE STATE OF VERMONTS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ADDRESSING NEW INFORMATION AND ARGUMENT RAISED AT ORAL ARGUMENT In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) submit this timely Answer opposing the Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument filed by the State of Vermont (State) on December 12, 2014.1 As discussed below, the States filing is procedurally deficient and offers irrelevant and immaterial evidence and arguments. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 1, 2014, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) held an oral argument regarding whether the States Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, 1
State of Vermonts Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument (Dec. 12, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A152 (Motion).
and Hearing Request should be granted.2 In advance of the oral argument (and after the parties had filed their written pleadings), the Board issued an order identifying six topics that the parties should be prepared to address in their presentations, including [r]egulatory responsibility for evaluating interfaces with State and local governments, and for reviewing whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. 3 In accordance with the Boards Order and in response to Board questions during the oral argument, Entergy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) Staff both indicated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has lead responsibility for assessing state and local emergency response plans and to determine whether those plans are adequate and capable of being implemented.4 As a logical continuation of this topic and discussion, the Staff discussed FEMAs role in this particular proceeding, including FEMAs review of Entergys license amendment request and conclusion that the proposed staffing reductions would not significantly impact the State of Vermonts emergency response plan.5 At the oral argument, the Staff indicated that FEMAs August 19, 2014 letter to the NRC had not been made publicly available by the NRC, consistent with the Staffs standard practice of designating emergency planning-related documents as non-public.6 2
Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request (served Sept. 24, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14267A523 (Petition).
3 Licensing Board Notice and Order (Scheduling and Providing Instructions for Oral Argument) at 2 (Nov. 12, 2014) (unpublished) (Order).
4 See Official Transcript of Proceedings, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) at 54:11-18, 70:3-25 (Dec. 1, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14337A666 (Tr.).
5 Id. at 71:1-21; see also Letter from V. Quinn, FEMA, to J. Anderson, NRC, Vermont Yankee Pre-Exemption Emergency Plan - Request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Approval to Eliminate Certain Emergency Response Organizations (Aug. 19, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14233A593.
6 Tr. at 96:12-23.
2
On December 8, 2014, the NRC Staff responded to a Board inquiry regarding the status of the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) at permanently shutdown facilities in 1991 and notified the Board that it had made FEMAs August 19, 2014 letter to the NRC publicly available.7 On December 12, 2014, the State filed its motion, purporting to provide additional information to complete the evidentiary record with respect to the Staffs new arguments raised at oral argument and in the Staffs December 8, 2014 filing and requesting leave to submit supplemental briefing addressing the new information and arguments raised by the Staff at the oral argument.8 II.
DISCUSSION A.
The States Motion Should Be Rejected as Procedurally Defective Although the States filing is styled as a request, it is, in actuality, a motion for leave to submit additional information and briefing, and should be rejected as such by the Board.
Requests for Commission or licensing board action or permission are treated as motions under the NRCs rules of practice.9 As an initial matter, the States motion is untimely. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, [a]ll motions must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.10 The States filing arises from Staff statements made during the 7
NRC Staff Answer to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question Asked During December 1, 2014 Contention Admissibility Oral Argument (Dec. 8, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14342A336.
8 Motion at 1-2.
9 See, e.g., FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-06-2, 63 NRC 9, 18 n.36 (2006)
(denying petitioners Request for Clarification as an untimely motion for clarification under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)); Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
CLI-02-23, 56 NRC 230, 237 (2002) (treating petitioners request to suspend proceeding as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.730 (predecessor to § 2.323)).
10 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)(2).
3
December 1, 2014, oral argument.11 Consequently, the States motion should have been filed on or before December 11, 2014. The States December 12 filing is inexcusably late and should be rejected as untimely.
Further, under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), a motion must be rejected if it does not include a certification by the attorney or representative of the moving party that the movant has made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion, and that the movants efforts to resolve the issue(s) have been unsuccessful.12 The State failed to contact Entergy to resolve the issues raised in its motion prior to its filing and failed to include the required certification with its filing. Accordingly, the States motion must be rejected for this additional reason.13 B.
The States Motion Should Be Rejected Because It Offers Irrelevant and Immaterial Evidence and Arguments In addition to being procedurally defective, the States motion should be rejected, because it offers evidence and makes arguments that are irrelevant and immaterial to this proceeding. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(e) and 2.321(c), in conducting proceedings, the Board has the duty and authority to [r]estrict irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative, or cumulative evidence and/or arguments.14 Here, the State proffers an email exchange between the States Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Planning Section Chief and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) Emergency Preparedness Manager 11 Motion at 1 (The State hereby submits additional information to complete the evidentiary record with respect to the Staffs new arguments raised at oral argument and in the Staffs December 8, 2014 filing.). Although the State attempts to characterize the Staffs December 8 filing as raising new arguments as well, that is an unreasonable characterization of the Staffs filing.
12 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) (emphasis added).
13 Id.
14 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e); see also id. § 2.321(c) (licensing boards have the duties of, and may exercise the powers granted to, a presiding officer under § 2.319).
4
to complete the evidentiary record.15 In addition, the State offers supplemental briefing regarding the August 19, 2014, FEMA concurrence letter to the NRC, requesting that the Board give no weight to the letter itself or to Staff representations regarding the letter when considering the admissibility of the States contention.16 The State offers its additional evidence and briefing to demonstrate that the correspondence between Entergy and the State (provided at Exhibit A to the States motion) does not discuss the retirement of ERDS.17 That fact should hardly come as a surprise. As Entergy and the Staff have repeatedly emphasized throughout this proceeding, the license amendment request (LAR) at issue here and discussed in the correspondence requests approval to revise the VYNPS Emergency Plan to reflect on-shift and emergency response organization staffing reductions following plant shut down and defueling.18 It does not request NRC permission to retire ERDS. The regulations and relevant guidance are clear that Entergy can discontinue data transmission via ERDS once VYNPS has permanently ceased operations, without prior NRC approval; there is no need for Entergy to seek a license amendment to retire ERDS.19 15 See Motion at 1; id., Exh. A, Email from E. Bornemann, State Division of Emergency Response and Homeland Security Planning Section Chief, to M. McKenney, VYNPS Emergency Preparedness Manager, Post shut down ERO changes (July 1, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A151.
16 Motion, Exh. B, State of Vermonts Proposed Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Question Asked During December 1, 2014 Contention Admissibility Oral Argument at 2 (Dec. 12, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14346A150 (Proposed Reply).
17 See id. at 3-4 (correspondence did not once mention the elimination of ERDS; Entergy corresponded without any mention of the elimination of ERDS).
18 Letter from C. Wamser, Entergy, to NRC, Proposed Changes to Vermont Yankee Emergency Plan (March 24, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14085A257 (License Amendment Request or LAR).
19 See, e.g., Entergys Answer Opposing the State of Vermonts Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request at 6-7, 14-15 (Oct. 20, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14293A701 (Entergy Answer); NRC Staffs Answer to Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate, Petition to Intervene, and Hearing Request at 10-13 (Oct. 20, 2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14293A114 (Staff Answer); Tr. at 37:4-9, 42:12-45:3, 56:14-57:1, 76:11-18, 77:3-78:21, 79:14-80:13, 81:17-82:21.
5
The State nonetheless continues to mischaracterize the LAR as being a request for NRC approval to retire the ERDS in an attempt to expand the scope of this proceeding to include the issue of ERDS continued operation.20 The fact that the words Emergency Response Data System or ERDS appear a few times in Attachment 4 to the LAR does not somehow transform the LAR into a request to retire the system; no reasonable reading of Entergys LAR submission could lead to that conclusion. As discussed at length in Entergys and the Staffs written pleadings and at oral argument, the issue of ERDS continued operation is outside the scope of the LAR and of this proceeding.21 Accordingly, the States proffered evidence and supplemental briefing are irrelevant and immaterial to this proceeding, and the motion should be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION The States motion must be rejected, because it is untimely and fails to include the required 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) certification. The motion should also be denied pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(e) and 2.321(c) on the grounds that it offers only irrelevant and immaterial evidence and arguments. For the reasons discussed in Entergys Answer and at oral argument, Entergy reiterates its position that the States Petition should be dismissed as untimely and for failure to propose an admissible contention.
20 See, e.g., Proposed Reply at 4 (discontinuance of the ERDS relay is an aspect of the LAR), 5 (Entergy seeks discontinuance of its ERDS relay as proposed in the LAR).
21 See, e.g., Entergy Answer at 14-15; Staff Answer at 10-12; Tr. at 45:6-19, 55:7-12, 56:14-57:1, 63:24-64:14, 68:1-6, 85:12-21.
6
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Signed (electronically) by Susan H. Raimo Susan H. Raimo Entergy Services, Inc.
101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 530-7330 Fax: (202) 530-7350 Email: sraimo@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 19th day of December, 2014 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT
)
Docket No. 50-271-LA YANKEE, LLC and
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
)
December 19, 2014
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
)
__________________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of Entergys Answer Opposing the State of Vermonts Submission of Additional Information and Request to File Supplemental Briefing Addressing New Information and Argument Raised at Oral Argument were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.
Signed (electronically) by Susan H. Raimo Susan H. Raimo Entergy Services, Inc.
101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 530-7330 Fax: (202) 530-7350 Email: sraimo@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.