ML12286A397: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 10/12/2012
| issue date = 10/12/2012
| title = Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37
| title = Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37
| author name = Rund J M
| author name = Rund J
| author affiliation = Entergy Services, Inc, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| author affiliation = Entergy Services, Inc, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of   ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
{{#Wiki_filter: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. )  
                                                          )                         50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                           )
  )  
                                                          )
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )  
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)           )
                                                          )      October 12, 2012 ENTERGY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON CONTENTION NYS-37 I.      INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) requests leave to file supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.1 As discussed below, good cause exists for allowing Entergy to file these additional questions because, on October 9, 2012, the State of New York (New York) submitted three additional exhibits that New York recently disclosed to the parties and therefore, were not reasonably available to Entergy when it submitted proposed questions on August 29, 2012.2 Because these new documents, authored by official State bodies, express views directly contrary to positions taken by New York in this proceeding and are likely to be discussed in the course of the upcoming evidentiary hearing, these supplemental proposed questions will assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in developing a sound record. Furthermore, the submission of these supplemental questions will not result in harm to any other party, will not cause any delay in the 1
Entergys supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37 are being filed in camera as Attachment 1.
2 See Unopposed Motion by State of New York for Leave to File Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-37 at 1-2 (Oct. 9, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12283A417.


  ) October 12, 2012 ENTERGY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON CONTENTION NYS-37 I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") requests leave to file supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.
proceeding, and is otherwise in the public interest. Entergy, New York, and the NRC Staff have consulted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), and none of these parties opposes this Motion.
1  As discussed below, good cause exists for allowing Entergy to file these additional questions because, on October 9, 2012, the State of New York ("New York") submitted three additional exhibits that New York recently disclosed to the parties and therefore, were not reasonably available to Entergy when it submitted proposed questions on August 29, 2012.
II.       ARGUMENT On October 9, 2012, New York requested leave to file additional exhibits (NYS000443 to NYS000445). Because these documents were created recently and are relevant to issues likely to be discussed at the upcoming evidentiary hearing, Entergy did not oppose New York offering these documents as exhibits. Entergy further submits that, consistent with the Boards earlier acceptance of additional proposed questions from the parties that address newly-submitted exhibits,3 the Board should likewise grant Entergy leave to file supplemental proposed questions addressing New Yorks new exhibits. As demonstrated in the proposed questions that have been filed in camera as Attachment 1 to this Motion, these new exhibits include statements by official State bodies that directly contradict positions taken by New York in this proceeding and Entergys supplemental proposed questions will assist the Board in developing a sound record.
2  Because these new documents, authored by official State bodies, expre ss views directly contra ry to positions taken by New York in this proceeding and are likely to be discussed in the course of the upcoming evidentiary hearing, these supplemental proposed questions will assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") in developing a sound record. Furthermore, the submission of these supplemental questions will not result in harm to any other party, will not cause any delay in the
Because the issues addressed in New Yorks new exhibits were already likely hearing topics, Entergys submission of supplemental proposed questions will not expand the scope of the hearing, delay the hearing, or have any adverse effect on the proceeding. To the contrary, the Boards consideration of Entergys supplemental proposed questions will assist the Board in developing a sound record at the upcoming evidentiary hearing.
III.     CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should accept Entergys supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.
3 Licensing Board Order (Granting New Yorks Motion for Leave to File An Additional Exhibit and Additional Cross-Examination Questions) at 3 (Oct. 4, 2012) (unpublished).
2


1  Entergy's supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37 are being filed in camera as Attachment 1.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
2  See Unopposed Motion by State of New York for Leave to File Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-37 at 1-2 (Oct. 9, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12283A417.
William C. Dennis, Esq.       Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
2  proceeding, and is otherwise in the public intere st. Entergy, New York, and the NRC Staff have consulted pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.       Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
§ 2.323(b), and none of these parties opposes this Motion.
440 Hamilton Avenue           MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601       1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
II. ARGUMENT  On October 9, 2012, New York requested leave to file additional e xhibits (NYS000443 to NYS000445). Because these documents were created recently and are relevant to issues likely to be discussed at the upcoming evidentiary hear ing, Entergy did not oppose New York offering these documents as exhibits. Entergy further submits that, consistent with the Board's earlier acceptance of additional proposed questions from the parties that address newly-submitted exhibits, 3 the Board should likewise grant Entergy leave to file supplemental proposed questions addressing New York's new exhibits. As demonstrated in the propos ed questions that have been filed in camera as Attachment 1 to this Motion, these ne w exhibits include statements by official State bodies that directly contradict positions taken by New York in this proceeding and Entergy's supplemental proposed qu estions will assist the Board in developing a sound record. Because the issues addressed in New York's new exhibits were already likely hearing topics, Entergy's submission of supplemental proposed questions will not expand the scope of the hearing, delay the hearing, or have any adverse effect on the proceeding. To the contrary, the Board's consideration of Entergy's supplemental proposed questions will assist the Board in developing a sound record at the upcoming evidentiary hearing.
Phone: (914) 272-3202         Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com     Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com  E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should accept Entergy's supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.
 
3  Licensing Board Order (Granting New York's Motion for Leave to File An Additional Exhibit and Additional Cross-Examination Questions) at 3 (Oct. 4, 2012) (unpublished).
3        Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. William C. Dennis, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601   1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Phone: (914) 272-3202   Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com   Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com  E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 12th day of October 2012 1  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 
this 12th day of October 2012 3
  )  50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.  )
  )
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)  )
 
  ) October 12, 2012 MOTION CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for Entergy certifies that he made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this Motion, and to resolve those issues, and he cer tifies that his efforts have been successful.
 
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP      1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW      Washington, DC 20004 Phone:  (202) 739-5061 Fax:  (202) 739-3001 E-mail:  jrund@morganlewis.com
 
Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
 
DB1/ 71331963 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)  )


  ) October 12, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of the "Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37" were served on participants in the above-captioned proceeding through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRC's E-Filing System.  
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)         )
                                                        )      October 12, 2012 MOTION CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for Entergy certifies that he made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this Motion, and to resolve those issues, and he certifies that his efforts have been successful.
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1


Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.       MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP       1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com}}
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)        )
                                                      )      October 12, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of the Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37 were served on participants in the above-captioned proceeding through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System.
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com DB1/ 71331963}}

Latest revision as of 21:18, 11 November 2019

Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37
ML12286A397
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/12/2012
From: Rund J
Entergy Services, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23620, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12286A397 (5)
v • d • e


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) )

) October 12, 2012 ENTERGY UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON CONTENTION NYS-37 I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) requests leave to file supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.1 As discussed below, good cause exists for allowing Entergy to file these additional questions because, on October 9, 2012, the State of New York (New York) submitted three additional exhibits that New York recently disclosed to the parties and therefore, were not reasonably available to Entergy when it submitted proposed questions on August 29, 2012.2 Because these new documents, authored by official State bodies, express views directly contrary to positions taken by New York in this proceeding and are likely to be discussed in the course of the upcoming evidentiary hearing, these supplemental proposed questions will assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in developing a sound record. Furthermore, the submission of these supplemental questions will not result in harm to any other party, will not cause any delay in the 1

Entergys supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37 are being filed in camera as Attachment 1.

2 See Unopposed Motion by State of New York for Leave to File Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-37 at 1-2 (Oct. 9, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12283A417.

proceeding, and is otherwise in the public interest. Entergy, New York, and the NRC Staff have consulted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), and none of these parties opposes this Motion.

II. ARGUMENT On October 9, 2012, New York requested leave to file additional exhibits (NYS000443 to NYS000445). Because these documents were created recently and are relevant to issues likely to be discussed at the upcoming evidentiary hearing, Entergy did not oppose New York offering these documents as exhibits. Entergy further submits that, consistent with the Boards earlier acceptance of additional proposed questions from the parties that address newly-submitted exhibits,3 the Board should likewise grant Entergy leave to file supplemental proposed questions addressing New Yorks new exhibits. As demonstrated in the proposed questions that have been filed in camera as Attachment 1 to this Motion, these new exhibits include statements by official State bodies that directly contradict positions taken by New York in this proceeding and Entergys supplemental proposed questions will assist the Board in developing a sound record.

Because the issues addressed in New Yorks new exhibits were already likely hearing topics, Entergys submission of supplemental proposed questions will not expand the scope of the hearing, delay the hearing, or have any adverse effect on the proceeding. To the contrary, the Boards consideration of Entergys supplemental proposed questions will assist the Board in developing a sound record at the upcoming evidentiary hearing.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should accept Entergys supplemental proposed questions on Contention NYS-37.

3 Licensing Board Order (Granting New Yorks Motion for Leave to File An Additional Exhibit and Additional Cross-Examination Questions) at 3 (Oct. 4, 2012) (unpublished).

2

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

William C. Dennis, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Phone: (914) 272-3202 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 12th day of October 2012 3

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) )

) October 12, 2012 MOTION CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for Entergy certifies that he made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this Motion, and to resolve those issues, and he certifies that his efforts have been successful.

Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

1

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) )

) October 12, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of the Entergy Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Additional Questions on Contention NYS-37 were served on participants in the above-captioned proceeding through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System.

Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com DB1/ 71331963

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12286A397&oldid=2093267"