ML110340983: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
As set forth therein, such cross-motions and responses are due to be filed today, February 3, 2011. 1 "State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36" (Jan. 14,2011) ("New York's Motion"). | As set forth therein, such cross-motions and responses are due to be filed today, February 3, 2011. 1 "State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36" (Jan. 14,2011) ("New York's Motion"). | ||
2 "Order (Establishing Deadline for Filing Responses and Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition of NYS-35/36)" (Jan. 21, 2011). A further Order was issued by the Board on February 1, 2011, permitting Entergy and the Staff to each file a consolidated cross-motion and response to New York's motion of up to 40 pages. | 2 "Order (Establishing Deadline for Filing Responses and Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition of NYS-35/36)" (Jan. 21, 2011). A further Order was issued by the Board on February 1, 2011, permitting Entergy and the Staff to each file a consolidated cross-motion and response to New York's motion of up to 40 pages. | ||
-2 2. Counsel for the Staff has been preparing to file its cross motion and response to New York's motion in accordance with the schedule established by the Board, and, by the evening of February 2, 2011, had prepared a draft of that document, totalling in excess of 35 pages. On the evening of February 2,2011, however, as the undersigned Staff Counsel was working with that document on his desktop computer, the document inexplicably became corrupted, losing all of its formatting and many of the Staff's recent revisions to the document. | -2 2. Counsel for the Staff has been preparing to file its cross motion and response to New York's motion in accordance with the schedule established by the Board, and, by the evening of February 2, 2011, had prepared a draft of that document, totalling in excess of 35 pages. On the evening of February 2,2011, however, as the undersigned Staff Counsel was working with that document on his desktop computer, the document inexplicably became corrupted, losing all of its formatting and many of the Staff's recent revisions to the document. | ||
: 3. Staff Counsel has attempted, without success, to retrieve an uncorrupted version of the draft document; further, he has sought assistance in that attempt from his secretary, his office Information Technology coordinator, and the NRC's Customer Support Center, all without success. It has therefore become apparent to Staff Counsel that the document will have to be re-created from an earlier draft, and that substantial changes will then be required to prepare the document for filing. Staff Counsel estimates that one or two additional days will be required to re-create and finalize the Staff's cross-motion and response to New York's motion, such that it would be ready for filing on or before Monday, February 7, 2011. 4. The Board's "Scheduling Order" of July 1, 2010, requires that U[u]nless modified by the Board ... , a motion for extension of time shall be submitted in writing at least three (3) business days before the due date for the pleading or other submission for which an extension is sought." Id. at 7. The Staff recognizes that the instant motion fails to comply with that requirement; the Staff submits, however, that the computer malfunction described above constitutes an unanticipated emergency that was entirely beyond the Staff's control. Accordingly, while Staff regrets its late filing of this motion for extension of time, the instant motion should be granted for good cause shown. 5. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Staff Counsel has contacted Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy, both of whom have stated that they do not object to the Staff's request for an extension of time, until Monday, February 7, 2011, to file its cross motion | : 3. Staff Counsel has attempted, without success, to retrieve an uncorrupted version of the draft document; further, he has sought assistance in that attempt from his secretary, his office Information Technology coordinator, and the NRC's Customer Support Center, all without success. It has therefore become apparent to Staff Counsel that the document will have to be re-created from an earlier draft, and that substantial changes will then be required to prepare the document for filing. Staff Counsel estimates that one or two additional days will be required to re-create and finalize the Staff's cross-motion and response to New York's motion, such that it would be ready for filing on or before Monday, February 7, 2011. 4. The Board's "Scheduling Order" of July 1, 2010, requires that U[u]nless modified by the Board ... , a motion for extension of time shall be submitted in writing at least three (3) business days before the due date for the pleading or other submission for which an extension is sought." Id. at 7. The Staff recognizes that the instant motion fails to comply with that requirement; the Staff submits, however, that the computer malfunction described above constitutes an unanticipated emergency that was entirely beyond the Staff's control. Accordingly, while Staff regrets its late filing of this motion for extension of time, the instant motion should be granted for good cause shown. 5. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Staff Counsel has contacted Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy, both of whom have stated that they do not object to the Staff's request for an extension of time, until Monday, February 7, 2011, to file its cross motion | ||
-and response to New York's motion. This morning, Staff Counsel also left voice-mail messages for the Board Chairman McDade, Administrative Judge Wardwell, and the Board's Law Clerk, to inform them of this motion. 6. Counsel for the Staff submits that an extension of time of two business days, until February 7, 2011, will not result in hardship for any other party and will not cause delay in the proceeding. | -and response to New York's motion. This morning, Staff Counsel also left voice-mail messages for the Board Chairman McDade, Administrative Judge Wardwell, and the Board's Law Clerk, to inform them of this motion. 6. Counsel for the Staff submits that an extension of time of two business days, until February 7, 2011, will not result in hardship for any other party and will not cause delay in the proceeding. |
Revision as of 17:38, 30 April 2019
ML110340983 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Indian Point |
Issue date: | 02/03/2011 |
From: | Turk S E NRC/OGC |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
SECY RAS | |
References | |
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-442 | |
Download: ML110340983 (6) | |
Text
February 3, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247 -LRl286-LR ) (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) Units 2 and 3) ) NRC STAFF'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TO FILE ITS CROSS-MOTION AND RESPONSE TO NEW YORK MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION NYS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the NRC Staff ("Staff')
hereby requests an extension of time of two business days, until February 7, 2011, to file its cross-motion and response to New York State's motion for summary disposition of Contention NYS 35/36, filed by the State of New York ("New York") on January 14, 2011.1 In support of this request, the Staff states as follows: 1. By Order dated January 21, 2011,2 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board")
granted an unopposed motion filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy"), to establish a date for filing Entergy's and the Staff's cross-motions and responses to New York's motion for summary disposition.
As set forth therein, such cross-motions and responses are due to be filed today, February 3, 2011. 1 "State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36" (Jan. 14,2011) ("New York's Motion").
2 "Order (Establishing Deadline for Filing Responses and Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition of NYS-35/36)" (Jan. 21, 2011). A further Order was issued by the Board on February 1, 2011, permitting Entergy and the Staff to each file a consolidated cross-motion and response to New York's motion of up to 40 pages.
-2 2. Counsel for the Staff has been preparing to file its cross motion and response to New York's motion in accordance with the schedule established by the Board, and, by the evening of February 2, 2011, had prepared a draft of that document, totalling in excess of 35 pages. On the evening of February 2,2011, however, as the undersigned Staff Counsel was working with that document on his desktop computer, the document inexplicably became corrupted, losing all of its formatting and many of the Staff's recent revisions to the document.
- 3. Staff Counsel has attempted, without success, to retrieve an uncorrupted version of the draft document; further, he has sought assistance in that attempt from his secretary, his office Information Technology coordinator, and the NRC's Customer Support Center, all without success. It has therefore become apparent to Staff Counsel that the document will have to be re-created from an earlier draft, and that substantial changes will then be required to prepare the document for filing. Staff Counsel estimates that one or two additional days will be required to re-create and finalize the Staff's cross-motion and response to New York's motion, such that it would be ready for filing on or before Monday, February 7, 2011. 4. The Board's "Scheduling Order" of July 1, 2010, requires that U[u]nless modified by the Board ... , a motion for extension of time shall be submitted in writing at least three (3) business days before the due date for the pleading or other submission for which an extension is sought." Id. at 7. The Staff recognizes that the instant motion fails to comply with that requirement; the Staff submits, however, that the computer malfunction described above constitutes an unanticipated emergency that was entirely beyond the Staff's control. Accordingly, while Staff regrets its late filing of this motion for extension of time, the instant motion should be granted for good cause shown. 5. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Staff Counsel has contacted Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy, both of whom have stated that they do not object to the Staff's request for an extension of time, until Monday, February 7, 2011, to file its cross motion
-and response to New York's motion. This morning, Staff Counsel also left voice-mail messages for the Board Chairman McDade, Administrative Judge Wardwell, and the Board's Law Clerk, to inform them of this motion. 6. Counsel for the Staff submits that an extension of time of two business days, until February 7, 2011, will not result in hardship for any other party and will not cause delay in the proceeding.
WHEREFORE, the Staff respectfully requests that it be afforded an extension of time, until February 7,2011, in which to file its cross-motion and response to New York's motion for summary disposition of Contention NYS 35/36. Respectfully submitted,
.. ,r:/1. .. Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3 rd day of February 2011 UNITED STATES OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING I n the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR ) (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) Units 2 and 3) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC STAFF'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS CROSS-MOTION AND RESPONSE TO NEW YORK STATE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION NYS 35/36," dated February 3, 2011, have been served upon the following through deposit in the NRC's internal mail system, with copies by electronic mail, as indicated by an asterisk, or by deposit in the U.S. Postal Service, as indicated by double asterisk, with copies by electronic mail this 3 rd day of February, 2011: Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T -3 F23 . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard. Wardwell@nrc.gov Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane E. Ridgway, CO 81432 E-mail: Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAILresource@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: 0-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov Josh Kirstein, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T -3 F23 U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-Mail: Josh. Kirstein@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (Via Internal Mail Only) Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.* Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Jonathan Rund, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.o.neill@morganlewis.com Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.* Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: martin.o.neill@morqanlewis.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.* Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com William C. Dennis, Esq.* Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Melissa-Jean Rotini, Assistant County Office of Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 E-Mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com John J. Sipos, Charlie Donaldson, Assistants Attorney New York State Department of Environmental Protection The Albany, NY E-mail:
Mylan L. Denerstein, Janice A. Dean, Executive Deputy Attorney Social Justice Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York th 120 Broadway, 25 Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Mylan.Denerstein@ag.ny.gov Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.* Senior Attorney for Special Projects New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the General Counsel 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor* James Seirmarco, M.S. Village of Buchanan Municipal Building Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net E-mail: smurray@vitlageofbuchanan.com Robert Snook, Esq.* Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CN 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@ct.gov Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
- Deborah Brancato, Esq. Riverkeeper, Inc. 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Michael J. Delaney, Esq.* Vice President
-Energy Department New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCDEC) 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com Manna Jo Stephen Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, 724 Wolcott Beacon, NY E-mail:
E-mail:
Daniel Riesel, Thomas F. Wood, Ms. Jessica Steinberg, Sive, Paget &Riesel, 460 Park New York, NY E-mail:
Ross H. Gould, 270 Route Rhinebeck, NY T: 917-658-7144 E-mail: rgouldesq@gmail.com John Louis Parker, Esq.* Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff