ML16356A634

Entergy Response to Aslb Order Re Pending Litigation

ML16356A634
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/21/2016
From:	Bessette P, Glew W, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Services, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 51520
Download: ML16356A634 (13)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and ) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) December 21, 2016 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.'S RESPONSE TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER REQUESTING UPDATED INFORMATION ON PENDING LITIGATION AND OTHER MATTERS I. INTRODUCTION On December 8, 2016, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") issued an Order directing the parties to provide updated information on pending or anticipated matters that could impact the relicensing of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 ("IP2" and "IP3", collectively "Indian Point").

1 The Board specifically requested information regarding the status of the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") consistency certification associat ed with renewal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, as well as "other permits, approvals or licenses (e.g., water permits) that could potentially affect relicensing."

2 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") hereby provides the following information in response to the Board's Order. As an initial matter, there are no admitted or proposed contentions pending before the Board related to the CZMA certification or any other pending water permit. There are also no admitted or pending environmental contentions pending before the Board at this time. Accordingly, the resolution of the CZMA consistenc y certification and any other wate r permits are not expected to

1 ASLB Order (Requesting Updated Information on Pending Litigation and Other Matters) (unpublished) (Dec. 8, 2016) (ML16343A066) ("Order").

2 Id. at 3.

2impact the resolution of any matters currently pending before the Board.

3 Entergy further notes that, consistent with Entergy's December 1, 2016 Notification to the ASLB, 4 there are several proceedings related to Indian Point and the CZMA consistency certification pending before differe nt tribunals with different potential outcomes and, as such, Entergy is unable to answer some of the Board's questions with absolute precision. Nevertheless, Entergy below describes the current status of those proceedings and responds to the Board's questions. II. CZMA CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION As noted in the Board's Order, on Novemb er 21, 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals issued a decision sustaining the New York State Department of State's ("NYSDOS")

conclusion that Entergy's license renewal application for Indian Point is not grandfathered from consistency review under New York's Coastal Management Program ("NYCMP") and therefore must undergo such review under the NYCMP, which is New York's federally-approved program under the CZMA (the "Gra ndfathering Decision").

5 Separate from the lawsuit and appeals that led to the Grandfathering Decision, NYSDOS exercised its review of Indian Point and issued an objection (the "Objection"), dated Novemb er 6, 2015, under the NYCMP and the CZMA.

6 The Board requested updated information rega rding how the Grandfathering Decision could impact the relicensing of IP2 and IP3 and the instant proceeding, specifically regarding the

3 Entergy cannot speculate as to whether any of the current parties to this proceeding, or any new parties, may file new contentions related to the matters discussed in the Board's Order. But to the extent any new contentions are filed, they would have to meet the contention admissibility standards defined in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, including timeliness.

4 Letter from K. Sutton and P. Bessette to the ASLB, Coastal Zone Management Act Status Following the November 21, 2016 New York State Court of Appeals Decision (Dec. 1, 2016) (ML16336A726) ("Nov. 21, 2016 Update").

5 Order at 1 (citing Letter from John J. Sipos, New York, to ASLB, Re: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3 Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/50-286-LR; ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Nov. 21, 2016)). That decision addressed only NYSDOS's authority to conduct a CZMA review and not whether NYSDOS lawfully exercised such a review. See id., Attach. 1 at 9 n.7 (noting the determination "is not before us").

6 Letter from C. Perales, NYSDOS, to F. Dacimo, Entergy, F-2012-1028, Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination (Nov. 6, 2015) ("Objection").

3following: (1) the circumstances under which the Commission may issue renewed licenses for IP2 and IP3 without a favorable ruling by the S ecretary of Commerce on Entergy's appeal of NYSDOS's Objection; (2) an estimate as to when a decision by the Secretary of Commerce would be forthcoming; (3) the actions Entergy would need to take to comply with the NYCMP if the Secretary of Commerce issues a decision unfavorable to Entergy; and (4) an estimate as to how long such actions would take to implement.

7 A. Potential Commission Action Upon an Assumed Adverse Ruling by the Secretary of Commerce Entergy notes, as a threshold matter, that an appeal to the Se cretary of Commerce is not an exclusive remedy for a challeng e to a state agency's objection under the CZMA. Entergy has pending several legal challenges to NYSDOS's objection that could be resolved in Entergy's favor separate from a ruling by the Secretary of Commerce on Entergy's appeal of that objection.

First, on November 10, 2015, Entergy submitted a letter to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") division of the Department of Commerce ("DOC") requesting that NOAA: (1) declare the Novemb er 6, 2015 Objection of NYSDOS to Entergy's CZMA consistency certification as invalid becau se no consistency certification was pending when the purported objection was issued; 8 or (2) alternatively, grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and consolidated r ecord with respect to the objection. On November 25, 2015, NOAA deferred action on Entergy's request and extended the time for Enter gy to appeal NYSDOS's

7 Order at 2.

8 On November 5, 2014, Entergy notified NYSDOS and the NRC that Entergy was voluntarily withdrawing its consistency certification, with the intention to re-file it once NRC had issued FSEIS Supplement 2 that is to include updated aquatic impacts data.

See Letter from J. Sipos to the ASLB, Attach. 1 (Nov. 6, 2014) (ML14310A346). NYSDOS disputed that Entergy had the ability to withdraw the certification, taking the position that the original certification remained pending.

See Letter from L. Baldwin to F. Dacimo, Purported Withdrawal of December 17, 2012 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification (Nov. 21, 2016) (ML14336A134).

4determination until 60 days after the Grandfathering Decision.

9 On December 19, 2016, NYSDOS and Entergy filed a joint status report with NOAA requesting th at NOAA refrain for sixty days (from December 19) from issuing a ruling on the threshold question whether the Objection is procedurally invalid, and extend the deadline for the notice of appeal and consolidated record for ninety days (from December 19).

10 Entergy cannot predict with certainty how NOAA will respond to Entergy's requests, but prior to any decision on Entergy' s appeal of NYSDOS's Objection, NOAA could rule as a threshold matter that the objection was i nvalid given Entergy's Novemb er 5, 2014 withdrawal of the consistency certification. If so, Entergy plans to submit a new consistency certification following NRC Staff's issuance of the pending FSEIS Supplement referencing, among other things, the updated aquatic data.

11 If NYSDOS concurs with the new certification, then Entergy will have satisfied the CZMA requirement. If NYSDOS again objects to the certifica tion, then Entergy would pursue an appeal of that objection to the DOC.

Second, and as discussed further in Section III below, on January 14, 2016, Entergy filed an action against the New York State Secretary of State in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, asserting that the NYSDOS Objection is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act because it is based on nuclear safety concerns that are within the exclusive province of the

NRC.12 This matter also remains pending before the c ourt. Should Entergy prevail in that case, Entergy will also have then satisfied the CZMA requirement.

9 See Letter from Lois Schiffer, General Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, to Sanford I. Weisburst, Esq. and Linda Baldwin, Esq., Response to Letter-Requests under the Coastal Zone Management Act in the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc. at 2 (Nov. 25, 2015) (Attachment 2 to Nov. 21, 2016 Update).

10 See Letter from Linda Baldwin, Esq. and Sanford I. Weisburst, Esq., to Lois Schiffer, General Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Commerce (Dec. 19, 2016)

. 11 See generally NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 5, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 - Draft Report for Comment (Dec. 2015) (ML15351A422); NRC Staff's Corrected 58th Status Report in Response to the ASLBP's Order of February 16, 2012 at 3 (Dec. 8, 2016) (ML16343A939) ("December 2016 NRC Staff Status Report").

12 See infra note 20.

5 Third , Entergy has to the option to file by Ja nuary 30, 2017, an Article 78 challenge to the NYSDOS Objection in New York State Court. Th at action would challenge the objection on the grounds that it is arbitrary and cap ricious and/or contrary to New York law, including the NYCMP. Other state courts have held that applicants may challenge in state court the validity of a CZMA objection.

13 Should Entergy prevail in that case, Ente rgy will also have then satisfied the CZMA requirement.

Fourth , the Board has left open the possibility that the parties c ould seek declaratory orders regarding Entergy's claim that New York had prev iously conducted a review of Indian Point's consistency such that no further review is required under the CZMA.

14 Thus "previous review" remains a viable path to satisfying the requirements for issuance of the renewed IP2 and IP3 operating licenses.

• * * *

• If Entergy has not already prevailed in any of the above paths by the time any filings are due on an appeal of the Objection to the DOC, then Entergy would proceed with that appeal. With regard to that appeal, Entergy is confident that the Secretary of Commerce will overturn NYSDOS's objection.

15 But, should the Secretary of Commerce affirm NYSDOS's Objection, Entergy could seek review of that decision in Fe deral District Court and then in the Federal Court of Appeals, if necessary. If Entergy does not prevail on any of the paths described above (after exhausting any

13 See, e.g., In re Stoeco Dev., Ltd., 621 A.2d 29 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993) (holding applicant has right to state-court review of state agency's consistency objection).

14 Licensing Board Order (Granting New York's Motions, Denying Clearwater's Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions) at 4 (June 12, 2013) (unpublished) (ML13163A233).

15 The Secretary of Commerce can overturn the NYSDOS Objection if it finds that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).

6available appeals), the Commission could not issue renewed licenses to IP2 and IP3.

16 B. Estimated Date for the Secretary of Commerce Decision The estimated date for a decision by the Secretary of Commerce on an appeal by Entergy of NYSDOS's Objection would depend on when the appeal is filed. As noted above, NOAA could first rule that Entergy's November 2014 withdraw al of the certificati on was valid, resulting in Entergy resubmitting a new CZMA consistency certification following NRC's issuance of the pending FSEIS supplement in final form. If NYSD OS objects to the new certification, then Energy would appeal that decision to the DOC and pursue any other review paths available, which may include the ones described above that are available in conn ection with the current NYSDOS Objection. NRC Staff has not provided a new date for issuance of the FSEIS supplement.

17 But, assuming for purposes of this response that the second FSEIS Supplement is issued in mid-2017-and allowing time for submission of the new cer tification, NYSDOS's review of and decision on that certification (assumed for present purposes to be an objection), preparation of the consolidated record necessary to support the appeal to DOC, and DOC's review of that appeal-a decision by the Secretary of Commerce may be expected sometime in 2019. Alternatively, if NOAA does not rule on the threshold withdrawal issue or concludes that the withdrawal was invalid, a decision by the Secretary of Commerce on the pending appeal may be expected sometime in 2018, again allowing for prepar ation of the consolidated record necessary to support the appeal and DOC's review of that appeal.

Appeals (to Federal District and Circuit courts, as necessary) of an adverse Secretary of Commerce decision under e ither path would likely defer a final decision on NYSDOS

's objection by an additional two to three years.

16 Id. Entergy could continue to operate Indian Point through a final Commission decision on Entergy's license renewal application pursuant to timely renewal.

See 10 C.F.R. § 2.109.

17 See December 2016 NRC Staff Status Report at 3.

7C. Entergy Actions to Comply with New York State's CMP In the cases of the three New York upstate nuc lear plants (Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and Fitzpatrick), NYSDOS did not issue an objection under the CZMA and instead relied on its sister agency, NYSDEC, to address aquatic impact issues through the SPDES permitting program, in which measures short of shutdown could be imposed on the plants.

18 SPDES permit conditions, for example, include monitoring requirements, effluent temperature limitations, and fish diversion systems. Indian Point, like the upstate facilities, has a current, valid SPDES permit, and has undertaken numerous measures consistent with that permit to address aquatic impacts. Indian Point is also involved in a proceeding before NYSDEC, the purpose of which is to determine whether additional measures (such as installation of cooling towers, additional screens or seasonal outages) are necessary to address aquatic impacts. (The status of the NYSDEC proceeding and potential impacts on the proceeding before the Board are discussed further in Section IV below.) But in contrast to the upstate precedent, NYSDOS's objection to the Indian Point consistency certification takes the position that a shutdown of both IP2 and IP3 is the only available means to address aquatic issues at Indian Point.

19 Also in contrast to the upstate precedent, NYSDOS has relied, in its Objection to Indian Point's relicensing, on nuclear safety concerns arising from, inter alia , the storage of spent nuclear fuel at Indian Point.

20 Therefore, NYSDOS has not identified any actions

18 See Consistency Decisions, NYSDOS Office of Planning and Development, http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/consistencydecisions.html (File Nos. F-2002-0707, F-2004-0194, and F-2007-1155).

19 See Objection at 38 (stating NYSDOS "is unable to find continued operation of the Indian Point facility consistent with" the New York Coastal Management Program, but not proposing remedial actions).

20 This is due, at least in part, to NYSDOS's position that Indian Point poses a nuclear safety risk. E.g., Objection at 2 ("In the event of an earthquake, the reactor core could sustain damage[.] Such an event would potentially expose millions of people to harmful levels of radiation.");

id. at 18 ("The NRC has described spent fuel pools at Indian Point as 'leak tight.' However, plumes of radioactive releases have been detected at the Indian Point facility.") (internal footnote omitted); id. at 30 ("[L]eaks or other radiological releases have the potential to affect drinking water supplies serving 9 million people in New York City and other regional municipalities."). Entergy has challenged this basis for objection as federally preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 8Entergy could take to comply with New York's CMP, short of permanent shutdown if a favorable decision from DOC is not received. D. Estimate of Time to Take Actions to Comply with New York State's CMP As explained above, NYSDOS has not identified any actions Entergy could take to comply with New York's CMP. Entergy, therefore, is unable to provide the requested estimate. III. PREEMPTION CHALLENGE TO CONSISTENCY OBJECTION In January 2016, Entergy filed a cas e in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the New York Secretary of State that challenges the NYSDOS consistency objection on the grounds that it wa s based on nuclear safety concerns and preempted by the AEA's exclusive grant of authority over nuclear safety to the NRC (the "Preemption Lawsuit").

21 The Board requested updated information on the status of that proceeding and an assessment of the impact of a favorable or unfavor able ruling given the New York C ourt of Appeals' Grandfathering Decision referenced above. Initial briefing on the Preemption Lawsuit is complete. Following Entergy's initial complaint filed on January 14, 2016, the New York Secretary of State moved to dismiss the action on March 25, 2016, Entergy filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 3, 2016, and the

New York Secretary of Stat e filed a reply on May 9, 2016.

22 Entergy filed a short sur-reply on May 11, 2016.23 On November 21, 2016, Entergy notified the co urt of the New York Court of Appeals' Grandfathering Decision. No further court action or filings are scheduled at this time, but a

("AEA").

See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. Perales, No. 16-CV-51, ECF No. 1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2016) ("Preemption Complaint").

21 See generally Preemption Complaint.

22 Mot. to Dismiss of New York Secretary of State, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. Perales, No. 16-CV-51, ECF Nos. 16, 16-1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25 2016); Entergy Mem. of Law in Opp. to State Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. Perales, No. 16-CV-51, ECF No. 19 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2016); Reply Mem. in Further Support of the State Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss the Compl., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. Perales, No. 16-CV-51, ECF No. 22 (N.D.N.Y. May 9, 2016).

23 Entergy Surreply In Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. Perales, No. 16-CV-51, ECF No. 27 (N.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016).

9decision is expected sometime in 2017.

Entergy believes that a favorable ruling on Entergy's Preemption Lawsuit would satisfy the CZMA for purposes of license renewal. If th ere is an unfavorable ruling, then Entergy would continue to pursue the proceedings discussed above before the Department of Commerce (the request for a ruling that NYSDOS's Objection is procedurally invali d and a potential appeal of the Objection), New York state court (the Article 78 action), and the NRC (the previous-review issue). IV. OTHER WATER PERMITS Section 1.5 of the FSEIS for licen se renewal of IP2 and IP3 states that only two state-level issues, consistency with State wate r quality standards and consistenc y with State CMP, have yet to be resolved for purposes of license renewal.

24 The status of the CMP proceeding is addressed above. This section addresses the status of the remaining state water quality permit issue.

On April 6, 2009, Entergy applied to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") for a Clean Water Act ("CWA") § 401 water quality certification

("WQC") in support of its license renewal a pplication. On April 2, 2010, the NYSDEC Chief Permit Administrator informed Entergy that NYSDEC was denying Entergy's application (the "Notice of Denial"). The Notice of Denial enumerated four pur ported grounds for that decision:

(1) that operation of Indian Poin t's cooling water intake structur es in "once through" mode is inconsistent with the "best usages" of the Hudson River, and relatedly Entergy's failure to employ the "best technology available" under New York's analog to CWA § 316(b); (2) non-compliance with thermal discharge standards; (3) radiologi cal leaks to groundwater

and (4) the taking of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon.

25 24 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 - Final Report at 1-8 (Dec. 2010) (ML103350405).

25 See Letter from W. Adriance, NYSDEC, to Dara Gray, Entergy, Joint Application for CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification Notice of Denial (April 2, 2010) (ML13095A485).

10 In response to the Notice of Denial, Entergy invoked its right under NYSDEC regulations to an adjudicatory hearing before fi nal denial of the application.

26 That administrative proceeding has been ongoing before a panel of NYSDEC admini strative law judges sinc e 2010. As explained further below, a recommended decision on the WQC application will be made by the ALJs, and then a final decision will be made by the NYS DEC Commissioner or, if he is recused, by his delegate. Whatever NYSDEC's decisi on, litigation is likely to follow.

Resolution of all four grounds set forth in the No tice of Denial is at a dvanced stages in the adjudicatory proceeding. Specifically:

1. Entergy and NYSDEC Staff have settled between themselves the thermal discharge issue, which will be addressed through a modification to Indian Point's CWA § 402 state pollution discharge elimination system ("SPDES") permit, which itself is the subject of a pending adjudicatory hearing before the NYSDEC ALJs (consolidated with the WQC proceeding).

Riverkeeper, as an intervenor in the NYSDEC adjudicatory proceeding, has raised challenges to the thermal resolution; the NYS DEC ALJs did not advance those challenges to adjudication, and Riverkeeper has appealed that determination to the NYSDEC Assistant Commissioner.

2. Based on discussions with NYSDE C Staff counsel, Entergy expects that it will receive a state Endangered Species Act permit for Indian Point after a final National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") biological monitoring plan for Indian Point is completed (Indian Point already has a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement from NMFS). NMFS is expected to issue the final biological monitoring plan in the near future.

3. The radiological discharge issue was the subj ect of evidentiary hearings in 2011, is fully briefed, and has been awaiting a reco mmended decision by the NYSDEC ALJs since October 2012. As to this issue, Entergy has raised and preserved arguments of AEA preemption and NRC exclusive jurisdiction.

4. The 316(b) issues were the subject of multiple evidentiary hearings from 2012 through 2015, is fully briefed, and has been awaiting a recommended decision by the NYSDEC ALJs since July 2016. As with the radiological discharge issue, Entergy has raised and preserved arguments of AEA preemption and NRC exclusive jurisdiction with respect to this issue. At this point it is not certain when the NYSDEC adjudicatory proceeding will end; Entergy's best estimate is that a final decision by the NYSDEC Commissioner (or his delegate)

26 See 6 NYCRR § 621(a).

11could come sometime in 2018. The result of the proceeding could be issuance of a WQC; issuance of a WQC with conditions to address the grounds given in the 2010 Notice of Denial (e.g., a WQC conditioned on compliance with the modified terms in Entergy's renewed SPDES permit); or again a denial of the WQC application.

If the end result of the adjudicatory proceeding is a decision by the Commissioner (or his delegate) to deny the WQC application, then Enter gy has the option of litiga ting the denial in both state and federal courts. A st ate court action would be brought pursuant to Article 78 and would challenge, e.g., the grounds for any conclusion by NYSDEC that license renewal is not consistent with state water quality standard s, or any conclusion that inconsistencies cannot be addressed through conditions on Indian Point's operations in the WQC. Any federal court action likely would raise, e.g., claims that denial of the WQC was based on radiological safety concerns preempted by the AEA, or was based on Entergy's failure to comply with state operational mandates preempted by the AEA. It is possible that if a WQC application is granted then intervenors in the NYSDEC proceeding would bring their own Article 78 challenge to the WQC's issuance. The exact contours of litigation around the WQC, if any, obviously will depend on the nature and basis for NYSDEC's final decision, when it comes. En tergy expects litigation, if any, to last two to four years including appeals. Finally, because more than seven years have passed since Entergy applied to NYSDEC for a WQC and the agency has yet to reach a final determination, Entergy has asked NRC Staff to determine that New York waived its CWA § 401 rights due to failure to rule on Entergy's application within one year.

27 That request remains under review by NRC Staff.

27 See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1); see also NL-11-073, Letter from F. Dacimo, Entergy, to B. Holian, NRC, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water quality Certification Waiver (June 21, 2011).

12 Respectfully submitted, Executed in accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Entergy Services, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Phone: (914) 272-3360 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 Phone: (202) 739-5796 E-mail: kathryn.sutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com

Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Dated at Washington, DC this 21st day of December 2016 DB1/ 90077688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and ) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) December 21, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I ce rtify that, on this date, copies of "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s Response to th e Licensing Board's Order Requesting Updated Information on Pending Litigation and Other Matters" were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRC's E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.

Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Ryan K. Lighty, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: (202) 739-5274 E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com