ML12136A572: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| page count = 6 | | page count = 6 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD | |||
------------------ | |||
--------------- | |||
--------------- | |||
-----------x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR | |||
License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |||
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. May 15, 2012 | |||
--------------- | |||
--------------- | |||
--------------- | |||
--------------x | |||
UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING INTERVE NOR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY, INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL STATEMENTS AND AFFILIATED SUBSEQUENT DEADLINES | |||
Office of the Attorney General | |||
State of New York | |||
The Capitol | |||
Albany, New York 12224 Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street | |||
P.O. Box 120 | |||
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 Riverkeeper, Inc. | |||
20 Secor Road | |||
Ossining, New York 10562 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue | |||
Beacon, New York 12508 | |||
Sive Paget & Riesel P.C. | |||
Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt | |||
460 Park Avenue | |||
New York, New York 10022 | |||
Petitioner-Intervenors the State of New York, Hudson Riverkeeper, Inc., and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, and Intere sted Governmental Entities the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cortlandt respectfully submit this unopposed joint motion for a modest extension of the current deadline for submission of responsive testimony and statements of position to June 29, 2012 and for the modification of subsequent dead lines necessitated by th is alteration. This motion is not intended to impact the current sc hedule for an evidentiary hearing to start on October 15, 2012 and is not opposed by the Applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., or Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This motion is the result of discussions among the participants over recent days. APPROPRIATE CAUSE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION The Movants respectfully submit that a ppropriate cause suppo rts this request. The State proposes this request because two of its experts have indicated a lack of availability during the current br iefing schedule, David Schlissel due to a trip out of the country between May 1 and May 15 followed by other professional obligations and commitments until after June 1, and Stephen Sheppard due to a medical procedure taking place May 14, 2012 which will involve a multiple-week recovery. Furthermore, the State is contending with the large volume of exhibits presented by Entergy and Sta ff on nine Track One contentions for which the State is the lead petitioner. | |||
Petitioner-Intervenor Riverkeeper proposes this request for multiple reasons. First, the voluminous nature of Entergy and NRC Staff's initial hearing submissions has in and of itself required a substantial amount of time, and continues to do so. | |||
Riverkeeper is proceeding as expeditiously as possible in light of limited resources, but requires additional time in order to prepare responses to Entergy and NRC's submissi ons. Second, certain of Riverkeeper's experts (Mr. Arnold Gundersen and Ms. Gillian Stewart) have had various scheduling conflicts over the course of the last several weeks, and continue to face time restrictions in the coming weeks (Mr. Gunderson will be out of the country for a period of 3 weeks and Ms. Stewart of Queens College has been away from campus on a research sabba tical at a remote loca tion for the Spring 2012 semester and has been extremely difficult to reach). These challe nges have prevented Riverkeeper from completing responsive filings in the time allotted, and necessitate additional time. | |||
Petitioner-Intervenor Clearwater proposes this request because one of Clearwater's potential expert witnesses for rebuttal testimony on Contention CW-EC-3A has recently become unavailable due to medical reas ons, necessitating the search for a replacement expert. That search is currently ongoing but would not be completed, with sufficient time for that expert to review Entergy and Staff's pleadings and prepar e any rebuttal, if necessary, by the current May 30 deadline. Clearwater believes the extension of time will provide sufficient time to obtain a replacement expert and prep are rebuttal testimony, if any. Interested Governmental Entity the State of Connecticut proposes this request because the sudden and unexpected changes in deadlines in th ree federal district cour t civil rights cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Conn ecticut (which have filing deadlines in late May 2012), combined with a new federal court case on a very aggressive schedule, have placed untenable burdens on the limited resources of the sole Connecticut Assistant Attorney General handling this proceeding. Connecticut submits that an additional four weeks would materially aid in providing a Statement of Position that will be of use to the ASLB in this matter. Interested Governmental Entity the Town of Cortlandt proposes this request because Cortlandt intends to submit statements of position in this proceeding and requires additional time to review the voluminous materials submitted to date. The existing deadline poses a challenge to Cortlandt's attorneys, whose time is constrained over the next month by other work and deadlines, including those related to participation in the ongoi ng proceedings before the New York State Department of Environmental Cons ervation concerning Entergy's application for certification for the Indian Poin t facilities pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This unopposed motion is the result of discussions among the parties. During the consultation for this motion, which took place over multiple days, parties closely examined the current schedule for the remainder of the year and made efforts to avoid impacting the start of the evidentiary hearing scheduled to start on October 15. The Movants do not believe this motion will have an impact on that schedule. | |||
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Petitioner-Intervenors the State of New York, Hudson Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, and Interested Governmental Entities the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cortlandt respectfully request that the Board modify the schedule for Intervenor rebuttal testimony and Interested Governmental Entity statements of position according to the above. | |||
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 402-2251 Signed (electronically) by Deborah Brancato, Esq. | |||
Phillip Musegaas, Esq. | |||
Riverkeeper, Inc. | |||
20 Secor Road Ossining, New York 10562 (914) 478-4501 Signed (electronically) by Mannajo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 (845) 265-8080 Signed (electronically) by Robert Snook, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 (860) 808-5107 Signed (electronically) by Vicki Shiah, Esq. | |||
Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt Sive Paget & Riesel P.C. | |||
460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 421-2150 Dated: May 15, 2012 | |||
CERTIFICATION 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and the Boar d's July 1, 2010 scheduling order, I certify that I have 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 I certify that my efforts have been successful to the extent that this motion is unopposed. | |||
Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General}} | |||
Revision as of 03:21, 2 August 2018
| ML12136A572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/2012 |
| From: | Brancato D, Greene M, Musegaas P, Shiah V, Sipos J J, Snook R Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Riverkeeper, State of CT, Office of the Attorney General, State of NY, Office of the Attorney General, Town of Cortlandt, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12136A571 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 22456, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12136A572 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR
License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. May 15, 2012
x
UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING INTERVE NOR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY, INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL STATEMENTS AND AFFILIATED SUBSEQUENT DEADLINES
Office of the Attorney General
State of New York
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224 Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road
Ossining, New York 10562 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue
Beacon, New York 12508
Sive Paget & Riesel P.C.
Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt
460 Park Avenue
Petitioner-Intervenors the State of New York, Hudson Riverkeeper, Inc., and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, and Intere sted Governmental Entities the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cortlandt respectfully submit this unopposed joint motion for a modest extension of the current deadline for submission of responsive testimony and statements of position to June 29, 2012 and for the modification of subsequent dead lines necessitated by th is alteration. This motion is not intended to impact the current sc hedule for an evidentiary hearing to start on October 15, 2012 and is not opposed by the Applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., or Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This motion is the result of discussions among the participants over recent days. APPROPRIATE CAUSE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION The Movants respectfully submit that a ppropriate cause suppo rts this request. The State proposes this request because two of its experts have indicated a lack of availability during the current br iefing schedule, David Schlissel due to a trip out of the country between May 1 and May 15 followed by other professional obligations and commitments until after June 1, and Stephen Sheppard due to a medical procedure taking place May 14, 2012 which will involve a multiple-week recovery. Furthermore, the State is contending with the large volume of exhibits presented by Entergy and Sta ff on nine Track One contentions for which the State is the lead petitioner.
Petitioner-Intervenor Riverkeeper proposes this request for multiple reasons. First, the voluminous nature of Entergy and NRC Staff's initial hearing submissions has in and of itself required a substantial amount of time, and continues to do so.
Riverkeeper is proceeding as expeditiously as possible in light of limited resources, but requires additional time in order to prepare responses to Entergy and NRC's submissi ons. Second, certain of Riverkeeper's experts (Mr. Arnold Gundersen and Ms. Gillian Stewart) have had various scheduling conflicts over the course of the last several weeks, and continue to face time restrictions in the coming weeks (Mr. Gunderson will be out of the country for a period of 3 weeks and Ms. Stewart of Queens College has been away from campus on a research sabba tical at a remote loca tion for the Spring 2012 semester and has been extremely difficult to reach). These challe nges have prevented Riverkeeper from completing responsive filings in the time allotted, and necessitate additional time.
Petitioner-Intervenor Clearwater proposes this request because one of Clearwater's potential expert witnesses for rebuttal testimony on Contention CW-EC-3A has recently become unavailable due to medical reas ons, necessitating the search for a replacement expert. That search is currently ongoing but would not be completed, with sufficient time for that expert to review Entergy and Staff's pleadings and prepar e any rebuttal, if necessary, by the current May 30 deadline. Clearwater believes the extension of time will provide sufficient time to obtain a replacement expert and prep are rebuttal testimony, if any. Interested Governmental Entity the State of Connecticut proposes this request because the sudden and unexpected changes in deadlines in th ree federal district cour t civil rights cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Conn ecticut (which have filing deadlines in late May 2012), combined with a new federal court case on a very aggressive schedule, have placed untenable burdens on the limited resources of the sole Connecticut Assistant Attorney General handling this proceeding. Connecticut submits that an additional four weeks would materially aid in providing a Statement of Position that will be of use to the ASLB in this matter. Interested Governmental Entity the Town of Cortlandt proposes this request because Cortlandt intends to submit statements of position in this proceeding and requires additional time to review the voluminous materials submitted to date. The existing deadline poses a challenge to Cortlandt's attorneys, whose time is constrained over the next month by other work and deadlines, including those related to participation in the ongoi ng proceedings before the New York State Department of Environmental Cons ervation concerning Entergy's application for certification for the Indian Poin t facilities pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This unopposed motion is the result of discussions among the parties. During the consultation for this motion, which took place over multiple days, parties closely examined the current schedule for the remainder of the year and made efforts to avoid impacting the start of the evidentiary hearing scheduled to start on October 15. The Movants do not believe this motion will have an impact on that schedule.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Petitioner-Intervenors the State of New York, Hudson Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, and Interested Governmental Entities the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cortlandt respectfully request that the Board modify the schedule for Intervenor rebuttal testimony and Interested Governmental Entity statements of position according to the above.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 402-2251 Signed (electronically) by Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road Ossining, New York 10562 (914) 478-4501 Signed (electronically) by Mannajo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 (845) 265-8080 Signed (electronically) by Robert Snook, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 (860) 808-5107 Signed (electronically) by Vicki Shiah, Esq.
Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt Sive Paget & Riesel P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 421-2150 Dated: May 15, 2012
CERTIFICATION 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and the Boar d's July 1, 2010 scheduling order, I certify that I have 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 I certify that my efforts have been successful to the extent that this motion is unopposed.
Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General