ML11264A132: 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)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
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)             )
                                                            )      September 21, 2011 APPLICANTS SURREPLY TO THE COMBINED REPLY OF RIVERKEEPER, INC. AND HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.
Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards September 20, 2011 Order,1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) files this surreply to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergys Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Combined Reply) and the associated Reply Memorandum filed on September 13, 2011.2 As Riverkeeper and Clearwater (jointly, Intervenors) readily acknowledge, the core premise of their proposed New Contention is that the Near-Term Report3 prepared by the NRCs Fukushima Task Force contains new and significant information within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRCs 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regulations.4 1
Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergys Motion to File Surreply) (Sept. 20, 2011) (unpublished).
2 See Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings (Sept. 13, 2011) (Reply Memorandum).
3 Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (July 12, 2011) (Near-Term Report) (transmitted to the Commission via SECY-11-0093, Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan (July 12, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11186A950 (package).
4 See Reply Memorandum at 8 (The central thrust of the contention is that the Task Force Report constitutes significant new information under NEPA and the NEPA Documents need to be supplemented accordingly.);


  ) September 21, 2011  
Intervenors, characterizing their New Contention as one based on omission, allege that the Staffs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) does not address new and significant information purportedly contained in the Near-Term Report.5 Intervenors further suggest the Commissions recent ruling in CLI-11-056 supports their position and the admission of the New Contention.7 CLI-11-05, in fact, commands precisely the opposite resultdenial of the New Contention as inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). In CLI-11-05, the Commission held that the Near-Term Report does not contain new and significant information that would trigger the need for an immediate generic NEPA review by the NRC or supplementation of any final environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared in connection with individual licensing proceedings. The Commissions Order is explicit:
To merit this additional [NEPA] review, information must be both new and significant, and it must bear on the proposed action or its impacts. As we have explained, [t]he new information must present a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.
That is not the case here, given the current state of information available to us.8 Intervenors fail to acknowledge the clear import of CLI-11-05 by arguing that the Commission and its Staff have shirked their NEPA obligations to consider whether the Near-Term Report constitutes new and significant information that must be considered in individual id. at 12 (The contentions, however, are based upon the new and significant information contained in the Task Force Report.).
5 See id. at 6, 8; see also Combined Reply at 3.
6 See Union Elec. Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, slip op. (Sept. 9, 2011).
7 See Reply Memorandum at 2 (stating that CLI-11-05 contains language that bears on the timeliness and admissibility of the contentions).
8 CLI-11-05, slip op. at 31 (quoting and citing Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999); Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373 (1989); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987)) (emphasis added).
reactor licensing decisions.9 But that argument fails for two reasons. First, as noted above, the Commission explicitly rejected the proposition that the Near-Term Report contains new and significant information that is relevant to any generic or site-specific analysis of environmental impacts under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.10 Second, the Commission stated unequivocally that any request to undertake a supplemental NEPA review in response to the events at Fukushima is premature.11 The NRC continues to evaluate the Fukushima accident and its implications for U.S. facilities. As the Commission put it, the full picture of what happened at Fukushima is still far from clear and, as such, any related NEPA duty does not accrue now.12 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Entergys September 6, 2011 Answer,13 the Near-Term Report does not contain new and significant information that necessitates supplemental NEPA review by Entergy or the NRC Staff as part of this proceeding.
CLI-11-05, an Order of the Commission that is binding on this Board, compels denial of the New Contention as inadmissible.
9 See Reply Memorandum at 4.
10 CLI-11-05, slip op. at 30-31.
11 Id. at 30.
12 Id.
13 See Applicants Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011).
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Martin J. ONeill William C. Dennis, Esq.          Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue              Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202            1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Fax: (914) 272-3205              Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com      Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 21st day of September 2011 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)    )
                                                    )      September 21, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on September 21, 2011, a copy of Applicants Surreply to the Combined Reply of Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., was served electronically with the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
Administrative Judge                                Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                          Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel            Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23                                  190 Cedar Lane E.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                  Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001                          (E-mail: Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge                                Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard E. Wardwell                            Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23                                  Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                  (E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication        Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                  Katherine Tucker, Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-7H4M                                  Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001                          Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov)                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov)


APPLICANT'S SURREPLY TO THE COMBINED REPLY OF  RIVERKEEPER, INC. AND HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.                   Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's September 20, 2011 Order, 1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") files this surreply to "Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy's Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report" ("Combined Reply") and the associated Reply Memorandum filed on September 13, 2011.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.                    Assistant County Attorney David E. Roth, Esq.                    Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
2    As Riverkeeper and Clearwat er (jointly, "Inter venors") readily ac knowledge, the core premise of their proposed New Contention is that the Near-Term Report 3 prepared by the NRC's Fukushima Task Force contains "new and significant information" within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") a nd the NRC's 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regulations.
Brian G. Harris, Esq.                   Westchester County Attorney Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.                   148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Office of the General Counsel          White Plains, NY 10601 Mail Stop: O-15D21                      (E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com)
4 1  Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergy's Motion to File Surreply) (Sept. 20, 2011) (unpublished).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov)
2  See Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings (Sept. 13, 2011) ("Reply Memorandum").
(E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov)
3  Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (July 12, 2011) ("Near-Term Report") (transmitted to the Commission via SECY-11-0093, "Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan" (July 12, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11186A950 (package).
(E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov)
4  See Reply Memorandum at 8 ("The central thrust of the contention is that the Task Force Report constitutes 'significant new information' under NEPA and the NEPA Documents need to be supplemented accordingly.");
(E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov)
Intervenors, characterizing thei r New Contention as one based on "omission," allege that the Staff's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") does not address new and significant information purportedly contained in the Near-Term Report.
(E-mail: andrea.jones@nrc.gov)
5  Intervenors further suggest the Commission's re cent ruling in CLI-11-05 6 supports their position and the admission of the New Contention.
Manna Jo Greene                        Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
7  CLI-11-05, in fact, commands precisely the opposite result-de nial of the New Contention as inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). In CLI-11-05, the Commission held that the Near-Term Report does not contain new and significant information that would trigger the need for an immediate generic NEPA review by the NRC or supplementation of any final environmental impact statements ("EISs") pr epared in connection with individual licensing proceedings. The Commission's Order is explicit: To merit this additional [NEPA] review, information must be both "new" and "significant," and it must bear on the proposed action or its impacts. As we have explained, "[t]he new information must present 'a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.'"  That is not the case here, given the current state of information available to us
Stephen C. Filler                      Daniel Riesel, Esq.
.8 Intervenors fail to acknowledge the clear import of CLI-11-05 by arguing that the Commission and its Staff have shirked their NEPA obligations to consider whether the Near-Term Report constitutes new and significant inform ation that must be co nsidered in individual
Karla Raimundi                          Victoria Shiah, Esq.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
724 Wolcott Ave.                        460 Park Avenue Beacon, NY 12508                        New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org)        (E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: karla@clearwater.org)         (E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: stephenfiller@gmail.com)
Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.              John Louis Parker, Esq.
Associate Commissioner                  Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Hearings and Mediation Services        NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of            21 S. Putt Corners Road Environmental Conservation              New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 625 Broadway, 14th Floor                (E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
Albany, NY 12233-1500 (E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
John J. Sipos, Esq.                    Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson Esq.                 Vice President -Energy Department Assistant Attorneys General            New York City Economic Development Office of the Attorney General          Corporation (NYCDEC) of the State of New York              110 William Street New York, NY 10038 The Capitol                            mdelaney@nycedc.com Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov) 2


id. at 12 ("The contentions, however, are based upon the new and significant information contained in the Task Force Report.").
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.                       Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor Deborah Brancato, Esq.                       James Siermarco, M.S.
5  See id. at 6, 8; see also Combined Reply at 3.
Riverkeeper, Inc.                           Village of Buchanan 20 Secor Road                               Municipal Building Ossining, NY 10562                           236 Tate Avenue (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org)           Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org)         (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net)
6  See Union Elec. Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, slip op. (Sept. 9, 2011).
(E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com)
7  See Reply Memorandum at 2 (stating that CLI-11-05 "contains language that bears on the timeliness and admissibility of the contentions").
Robert D. Snook, Esq.                        Janice A. Dean, Esq.
8  CLI-11-05, slip op. at 31 (quoting and citing Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999); Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373 (1989); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987)) (emphasis added).
Assistant Attorney General                  Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General               Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut                           of the State of New York 55 Elm Street                               120 Broadway, 26th Floor P.O. Box 120                                 New York, New York 10271 Hartford, CT 06141-0120                     (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)
reactor licensing decisions.
(E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us)
9  But that argument fails for two re asons. First, as noted above, the Commission explicitly rejected the proposition that the Near-Term Report contains new and significant information that is rele vant to any generic or site-specific analysis of environmental impacts under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Signed (electronically) by Martin J. ONeill Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
10  Second, the Commission stated unequivo cally that any request to undertake a supplemental NEPA review in response to the events at Fukushima is "premature."
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
11  The NRC continues to evaluate the Fukushima accident and its implications for U.S. facilities. As the Commission put it, "the full picture of what happened at Fukushima is still far from clear" and, as such, any related NEPA duty "does not accrue now."
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
12  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Entergy's September 6, 2011 Answer, 13 the Near-Term Report does not contain "new and significant" information that necessitates supplemental NEPA review by Entergy or the NRC Staff as part of this proceeding. CLI-11-05, an Order of the Commission that is bi nding on this Board, compels denial of the New Contention as inadmissible.   
DB1/ 68151683 3}}
 
9  See Reply Memorandum at 4.
10  CLI-11-05, slip op. at 30-31.
11  Id. at 30. 12  Id. 13  See Applicant's Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011).
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Martin J. O'Neill William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 440 Hamilton Avenue    Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone:  (914) 272-3202  1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Fax:  (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail:  wdennis@entergy.com  Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax:  (202) 739-3001 E-mail:  ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail:  pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail:  martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Dated in Washington, D.C. this 21st day of September 2011 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)  )
 
  ) September 21, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on September 21, 2011 , a copy of "Applicant's Surreply to the Combined Reply of Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.," was served el ectronically with the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
 
Administrative Judge
 
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
Mail Stop:  T-3 F23
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail:  Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
190 Cedar Lane E.
 
Ridgway, CO 81432 (E-mail:  Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov) Administrative Judge Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
Mail Stop:  T-3 F23
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail:  Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)
 
Office of the Secretary Attn:  Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail:  hearingdocket@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-7H4M
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 (E-mail:  ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov)
Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Katherine Tucker, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
Mail Stop:  T-3 F23
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail:  Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov)
(E-mail:  Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov)
 
2  Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
 
David E. Roth, Esq.
 
Brian G. Harris, Esq.
 
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
 
Office of the General Counsel
 
Mail Stop:  O-15D21
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 (E-mail:  Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov)
(E-mail:  Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov)
(E-mail:  david.roth@nrc.gov)
(E-mail:  brian.harris@nrc.gov)
(E-mail:  andrea.jones@nrc.gov)
 
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
 
Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
 
Westchester County Attorney
 
148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor
 
White Plains, NY 10601 (E-mail:  MJR1@westchestergov.com)
Manna Jo Greene Stephen C. Filler Karla Raimundi
 
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave.
 
Beacon, NY 12508 (E-mail:  mannajo@clearwater.org)
(E-mail:  karla@clearwater.org)
(E-mail:  stephenfiller@gmail.com)
 
Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
 
Victoria Shiah, Esq.
 
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
 
460 Park Avenue
 
New York, NY 10022 (E-mail:  driesel@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail:  vshiah@sprlaw.com)
 
Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Associate Commissioner Hearings and Medi ation Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
 
625 Broadway, 14th Floor 
 
Albany, NY  12233-1500 (E-mail:  jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
 
John Louis Parker, Esq. Office of General Counsel, Region 3 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
 
21 S. Putt Corners Road
 
New Paltz, New York  12561-1620 (E-mail:  jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
 
John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General
 
of the State of New York
 
The Capitol
 
Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov)
Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Vice President -Energy Department New York City Economic Development
 
Corporation (NYCDEC) 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 
 
mdelaney@nycedc.com
 
3  DB1/ 68151683 Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.  
 
20 Secor Road  
 
Ossining, NY 10562 (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org)
(E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org) Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor James Siermarco, M.S.
Village of Buchanan Municipal Building
 
236 Tate Avenue
 
Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net)
(E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com)
 
Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General  
 
State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street  
 
P.O. Box 120  
 
Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us)  
 
Janice A. Dean, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 
 
of the State of New York
 
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
 
New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)
Signed (electronically) by Martin J. O'Neill Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.       MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796       Fax: (202) 739-3001       E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com  
 
Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.}}

Latest revision as of 22:59, 6 February 2020

Applicant'S Surreply to the Combined Reply of Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc
ML11264A132
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/21/2011
From: Bessette P, O'Neill M, Sutton K
Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21098, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11264A132 (7)
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) )

) September 21, 2011 APPLICANTS SURREPLY TO THE COMBINED REPLY OF RIVERKEEPER, INC. AND HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.

Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards September 20, 2011 Order,1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) files this surreply to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergys Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Combined Reply) and the associated Reply Memorandum filed on September 13, 2011.2 As Riverkeeper and Clearwater (jointly, Intervenors) readily acknowledge, the core premise of their proposed New Contention is that the Near-Term Report3 prepared by the NRCs Fukushima Task Force contains new and significant information within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRCs 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regulations.4 1

Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergys Motion to File Surreply) (Sept. 20, 2011) (unpublished).

2 See Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings (Sept. 13, 2011) (Reply Memorandum).

3 Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (July 12, 2011) (Near-Term Report) (transmitted to the Commission via SECY-11-0093, Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan (July 12, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11186A950 (package).

4 See Reply Memorandum at 8 (The central thrust of the contention is that the Task Force Report constitutes significant new information under NEPA and the NEPA Documents need to be supplemented accordingly.);

Intervenors, characterizing their New Contention as one based on omission, allege that the Staffs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) does not address new and significant information purportedly contained in the Near-Term Report.5 Intervenors further suggest the Commissions recent ruling in CLI-11-056 supports their position and the admission of the New Contention.7 CLI-11-05, in fact, commands precisely the opposite resultdenial of the New Contention as inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). In CLI-11-05, the Commission held that the Near-Term Report does not contain new and significant information that would trigger the need for an immediate generic NEPA review by the NRC or supplementation of any final environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared in connection with individual licensing proceedings. The Commissions Order is explicit:

To merit this additional [NEPA] review, information must be both new and significant, and it must bear on the proposed action or its impacts. As we have explained, [t]he new information must present a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.

That is not the case here, given the current state of information available to us.8 Intervenors fail to acknowledge the clear import of CLI-11-05 by arguing that the Commission and its Staff have shirked their NEPA obligations to consider whether the Near-Term Report constitutes new and significant information that must be considered in individual id. at 12 (The contentions, however, are based upon the new and significant information contained in the Task Force Report.).

5 See id. at 6, 8; see also Combined Reply at 3.

6 See Union Elec. Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, slip op. (Sept. 9, 2011).

7 See Reply Memorandum at 2 (stating that CLI-11-05 contains language that bears on the timeliness and admissibility of the contentions).

8 CLI-11-05, slip op. at 31 (quoting and citing Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999); Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373 (1989); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987)) (emphasis added).

reactor licensing decisions.9 But that argument fails for two reasons. First, as noted above, the Commission explicitly rejected the proposition that the Near-Term Report contains new and significant information that is relevant to any generic or site-specific analysis of environmental impacts under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.10 Second, the Commission stated unequivocally that any request to undertake a supplemental NEPA review in response to the events at Fukushima is premature.11 The NRC continues to evaluate the Fukushima accident and its implications for U.S. facilities. As the Commission put it, the full picture of what happened at Fukushima is still far from clear and, as such, any related NEPA duty does not accrue now.12 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Entergys September 6, 2011 Answer,13 the Near-Term Report does not contain new and significant information that necessitates supplemental NEPA review by Entergy or the NRC Staff as part of this proceeding.

CLI-11-05, an Order of the Commission that is binding on this Board, compels denial of the New Contention as inadmissible.

9 See Reply Memorandum at 4.

10 CLI-11-05, slip op. at 30-31.

11 Id. at 30.

12 Id.

13 See Applicants Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011).

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Martin J. ONeill William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Martin J. ONeill, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 21st day of September 2011 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) )

) September 21, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on September 21, 2011, a copy of Applicants Surreply to the Combined Reply of Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., was served electronically with the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 190 Cedar Lane E.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov)

Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov)

Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Katherine Tucker, Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-7H4M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov)

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Assistant County Attorney David E. Roth, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.

Brian G. Harris, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Andrea Z. Jones, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Office of the General Counsel White Plains, NY 10601 Mail Stop: O-15D21 (E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: andrea.jones@nrc.gov)

Manna Jo Greene Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Stephen C. Filler Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Karla Raimundi Victoria Shiah, Esq.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

724 Wolcott Ave. 460 Park Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org) (E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com)

(E-mail: karla@clearwater.org) (E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com)

(E-mail: stephenfiller@gmail.com)

Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.

Associate Commissioner Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Hearings and Mediation Services NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of 21 S. Putt Corners Road Environmental Conservation New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 625 Broadway, 14th Floor (E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us)

Albany, NY 12233-1500 (E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us)

John J. Sipos, Esq. Michael J. Delaney, Esq.

Charlie Donaldson Esq. Vice President -Energy Department Assistant Attorneys General New York City Economic Development Office of the Attorney General Corporation (NYCDEC) of the State of New York 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 The Capitol mdelaney@nycedc.com Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov) 2

Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor Deborah Brancato, Esq. James Siermarco, M.S.

Riverkeeper, Inc. Village of Buchanan 20 Secor Road Municipal Building Ossining, NY 10562 236 Tate Avenue (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org) Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org) (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net)

(E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com)

Robert D. Snook, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut of the State of New York 55 Elm Street 120 Broadway, 26th Floor P.O. Box 120 New York, New York 10271 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)

(E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us)

Signed (electronically) by Martin J. ONeill Martin J. ONeill, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

DB1/ 68151683 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11264A132&oldid=2465915"