ML12340A190: 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 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of  
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of                                       Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                      ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)        December 5, 2012 ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
At the October 2012 evidentiary hearing, the Board admitted several exhibits, subject to a later objection by any opposing party.1 One such exhibit was admitted as ENT000589. On November 21, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed an objection to ENT000589, stating that the proffered exhibit failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).2 New York argues that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial because it views Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C in isolation and is unreliable because it contradicts the direct testimony of Entergy witnesses at hearing.3 In addition, New York argues that the difference in percentages between the outcomes of the new sensitivity analysis and the increase needed to make an additional SAMA cost-beneficial are too close to be considered relevant, material, or reliable.4 New York 1
See, e.g., Tr. at 2519.
2 The State of New Yorks Objection to ENT000589 (Nov. 21, 2012).
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id.


ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
also cites a lack of good cause for the late-filing of ENT000589, which New York alleges has prejudiced its case.5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) opposes New Yorks objection, arguing that Entergy does not have to offer a combined analysis for Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C;6 that the proffered sensitivity analysis is relevant to the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B;7 and that New Yorks argument regarding the closeness of a margin lacks a basis in law or fact.8 Entergy also argues that the revised sensitivity analysis is fully consistent with the testimony offered by Entergy experts at hearing.9 We overrule New Yorks objection for two reasons. First, each of New Yorks arguments constitutes a merit-based assessment and factual determination - matters that the Board is tasked with assessing in our initial decision. Exhibit ENT000589 presents another perspective on the issues before us and meets the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). As we have repeatedly stated, we will give each admitted exhibit the appropriate weight in the context of testimony and issues before us.10 Our evaluation of ENT000589 will be no different.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)  
Given the robust record that has been developed on Contention NYS-16B, the Board is well-positioned to evaluate the merits of each partys arguments and make a final determination.
Second, New Yorks argument that it has been prejudiced by the late filing of ENT000589 is without merit. We have allowed each party (including New York) to present late-5 Id. at 7-8.
6 Entergys Answer to the State of New Yorks Objection to the Licensing Boards Admission of Entergy Hearing Exhibit ENT000589 (Nov. 30, 2012) at 3-6.
7 Id. at 2-3.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id. at 7-9.
10 Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine)
(Mar. 6, 2012) at 20 (unpublished).


Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
filed exhibits in order to ensure a complete record. New York has benefited from this approach on several occasions and cannot justifiably claim prejudice in this case. ENT000589 was furnished to New York promptly after it was created, was generated in response to evidence presented by New York, and New York was given an ample opportunity to review and respond to this recently generated analysis. For those reasons, New Yorks objection to the admission of Exhibit ENT000589 is overruled.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                      /RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland December 5, 2012


ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 December 5, 2012 ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                  )
At the October 2012 evidentiary hearing, the Board admitted several exhibits, subject to a later objection by any opposing party.
                                                  )
1  One such exhibit was admitted as ENT000589. On November 21, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed an objection to ENT000589, stating that the proffered exhibit failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
                                                  )      Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
2  New York argues that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial because it views Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C in isolation and is unreliable because it contradicts the direct testimony of Entergy witnesses at hearing.
                                                  )      and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating,                 )
3  In addition, New York argues that the difference in percentages between the outcomes of the new sensitivity analysis and the increase needed to make an additional SAMA cost-beneficial are "too close to be considered relevant, material, or reliable."
Units 2 and 3)                            )
4  New York 1  See, e.g., Tr. at 2519.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
2  The State of New York's Objection to ENT000589 (Nov. 21, 2012).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
3  Id. at 3. 4  Id. also cites a lack of good cause for the late-filing of ENT000589, which New York alleges has prejudiced its case.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication            Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
5  Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) opposes New York's objection, arguing that Entergy does not have to offer a combined analysis for Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C; 6 that the proffered sensitivity analysis is relevant to the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B; 7 and that New York's argument regarding the closeness of a margin "lacks a basis in law or
Mail Stop O-7H4M                                      David E. Roth, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001                              Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
ocaamail@nrc.gov                                      Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    Anita Ghosh, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Commission              Karl Farrar, Esq.
Mail Stop O-16C1                                      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                              Office of the General Counsel hearingdocket@nrc.gov                                  Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                edward.williamson@nrc.gov Mail Stop T-3F23                                      beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001                              david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge                                  OGC Mail Center lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov                                OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell                                    William C. Dennis, Esq.
Administrative Judge                                  Assistant General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov                              Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue Michael F. Kennedy                                    White Plains, NY 10601 Administrative Judge                                  wdennis@entergy.com michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk                              Organization: Entergy Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk                              440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 James Maltese, Law Clerk                              wglew@entergy.com Carter Thurman, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov                                Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov                                Goodwin Proctor, LLP james.maltese@nrc.gov                                  Exchange Place, 53 State Street carter.thurman@nrc.gov                                Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com


fact."8  Entergy also argues that the revised sensitivity analysis is fully consistent with the testimony offered by Entergy experts at hearing.
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
9  We overrule New York's objection for two reasons. First, each of New York's arguments constitutes a merit-based assessment and factual determination - matters that the Board is tasked with assessing in our initial decision. Exhibit ENT000589 presents another perspective on the issues before us and meets the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). As we have repeatedly stated, we will give each admitted exhibit the appropriate weight in the context of testimony and issues before us.
Thomas F. Wood, Esq.                                 Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
10  Our evaluation of ENT000589 will be no different. Given the robust record that has been developed on Contention NYS-16B, the Board is well-positioned to evaluate the merits of each party's arguments and make a final determination. Second, New York's argument that it has been prejudiced by the late filing of ENT000589 is without merit. We have allowed each party (including New York) to present late-5  Id. at 7-8. 6  Entergy's Answer to the State of New York's Objection to the Licensing Board's Admission of Entergy Hearing Exhibit ENT000589 (Nov. 30, 2012) at 3-6.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.                                 Assistant County Attorney Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.                         Office of Robert F. Meehan, Adam Stolorow, Esq.                                 Westchester County Attorney Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal                             148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Peng Deng, Paralegal                                 White Plains, NY 10601 Counsel for Town of Cortlandt                       mjr1@westchestergov.com Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
7  Id. at 2-3. 8  Id. at 6. 9  Id. at 7-9. 10  Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicant's Motions in Limine) (Mar. 6, 2012) at 20 (unpublished). filed exhibits in order to ensure a complete record. New York has benefited from this approach on several occasions and cannot justifiably claim prejudice in this case. ENT000589 was furnished to New York promptly after it was created, was generated in response to evidence presented by New York, and New York was given an ample opportunity to review and respond to this recently generated analysis. For those reasons, New York's objection to the admission of Exhibit ENT000589 is overruled. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY    AND LICENSING BOARD
460 Park Avenue                                     Clint Carpenter, Esq.
___________________________
New York, NY 10022                                   Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com             Matthew Leland, Esq.
 
astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com             McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP pdeng@sprlaw.com                                     600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.                             ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Paul M. Bessette, Esq.                               mleland@mwe.com Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
Rockville, Maryland December 5, 2012
Raphael Kuyler, Esq.                                 Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
 
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.                               Covington & Burling LLP Lena Michelle Long, Esq.                             1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Laura Swett, Esq.                                   Washington, DC 20004 Lance Escher, Esq.                                   mswinehart@cov.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary                   John Louis Parker, Esq.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of  )
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP                         Office of General Counsel, Region 3 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                         New York State Department Washington, DC 20004                                   of Environmental Conservation ksutton@morganlewis.com                             21 South Putt Corners Road martin.oneill@morganlewis.com                       New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 rkuyler@morganlewis.com;                             jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com;                               Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
  )
lswett@morganlewis.com                               New York State Department lescher@morganlewis.com                                of Environmental Conservation mfreeze@morganlewis.com                              Office of General Counsel awalker@morganlewis.com                              625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 Phillip Musegaas, Esq.                              efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us Deborah Brancato, Esq.
  )  Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
Ramona Cearley, Secretary                            Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Riverkeeper, Inc.                                    Steven C. Filler 20 Secor Road                                        Karla Raimundi Ossining, NY 10562                                  Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
  ) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating,  )  Units 2 and 3)  )
phillip@riverkeeper.org;                            724 Wolcott Ave.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
dbrancato@riverkeeper.org                            Beacon, NY 12508 rcearley@riverkeeper.org                            mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org 2
 
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-7H4M Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
ocaamail@nrc.gov
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair
 
Administrative Judge lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov
 
Richard E. Wardwell
 
Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy
 
Administrative Judge michael.kennedy@nrc.gov
 
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk James Maltese, Law Clerk Carter Thurman, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov james.maltese@nrc.gov carter.thurman@nrc.gov
 
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
 
Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
 
Anita Ghosh, Esq.
 
Karl Farrar, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel
 
Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
sherwin.turk@nrc.gov
; edward.williamson@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov
; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov
; karl.farrar@nrc.gov
 
OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
 
William C. Dennis, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY  10601
 
wdennis@entergy.com
 
William B. Glew, Jr.
Organization:  Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY  10601 wglew@entergy.com
 
Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
 
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place, 53 State Street  Boston, MA  02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR    ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) 2  Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Daniel Riesel, Esq.  
 
Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.  
 
Adam Stolorow, Esq.  
 
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal  
 
Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.  
 
460 Park Avenue  
 
New York, NY 10022  
 
driesel@sprlaw.com
; vtreanor@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com pdeng@sprlaw.com
 
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Raphael Kuyler, Esq.  
 
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Lena Michelle Long, Esq.  
 
Laura Swett, Esq.
Lance Escher, Esq. Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary  
 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP  
 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com martin.oneill@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com
; jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com
; lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com
 
Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Deborah Brancato, Esq. Ramona Cearley, Secretary Riverkeeper, Inc.
 
20 Secor Road
 
Ossining, NY  10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org
; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org rcearley@riverkeeper.org
 
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. Assistant County Attorney
 
Office of Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney
 
148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor
 
White Plains, NY  10601 mjr1@westchestergov.com Clint Carpenter, Esq.
Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
 
Matthew Leland, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP 600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC  20005 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mleland@mwe.com Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
 
Covington & Burling LLP
 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004
 
mswinehart@cov.com John Louis Parker, Esq.
Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department
 
of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY  12561-1620 jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us
 
Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel  
 
625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Steven C. Filler Karla Raimundi  
 
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave.
Beacon, NY 12508 mannajo@clearwater.org
; stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR    ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) 3  Richard Webster, Esq.
Public Justice, P.C.
For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
 
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 rwebster@publicjustice.net Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection
 
59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY  11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov
 
John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charles Donaldson, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
 
Elyse Houle, Legal Support The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York  12224 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov
 
Robert  D. Snook, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut Janice A. Dean, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
 
Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
 
120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York  10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov
 
Sean Murray, Mayor Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Village of Buchanan Municipal Building
 
236 Tate Avenue
 
Buchanan, NY  10511-1298 smurray@villageofbuchanan.com administrator@villageofbuchanan.com
 
55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120
 
Hartford, CT  06141-0120 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us


Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
Richard Webster, Esq.                                Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Public Justice, P.C.                                Assistant Attorney General For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.              Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200                        Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20006                                of the State of New York rwebster@publicjustice.net                          120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 Michael J. Delaney, Esq.                            janice.dean@ag.ny.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs                  kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard                            Sean Murray, Mayor Flushing, NY 11373                                  Kevin Hay, Village Administrator mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov                                Village of Buchanan Municipal Building John J. Sipos, Esq.                                  236 Tate Avenue Charles Donaldson, Esq.                              Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Assistant Attorneys General                          smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Office of the Attorney General                      administrator@villageofbuchanan.com of the State of New York Elyse Houle, Legal Support The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York 12224 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov 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 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission  
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2012 3}}
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2012}}

Latest revision as of 10:25, 6 February 2020

Order (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
ML12340A190
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/05/2012
From: Lawrence Mcdade
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
State of NY
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23841, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12340A190 (6)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) December 5, 2012 ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)

At the October 2012 evidentiary hearing, the Board admitted several exhibits, subject to a later objection by any opposing party.1 One such exhibit was admitted as ENT000589. On November 21, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed an objection to ENT000589, stating that the proffered exhibit failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).2 New York argues that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial because it views Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C in isolation and is unreliable because it contradicts the direct testimony of Entergy witnesses at hearing.3 In addition, New York argues that the difference in percentages between the outcomes of the new sensitivity analysis and the increase needed to make an additional SAMA cost-beneficial are too close to be considered relevant, material, or reliable.4 New York 1

See, e.g., Tr. at 2519.

2 The State of New Yorks Objection to ENT000589 (Nov. 21, 2012).

3 Id. at 3.

4 Id.

also cites a lack of good cause for the late-filing of ENT000589, which New York alleges has prejudiced its case.5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) opposes New Yorks objection, arguing that Entergy does not have to offer a combined analysis for Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C;6 that the proffered sensitivity analysis is relevant to the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B;7 and that New Yorks argument regarding the closeness of a margin lacks a basis in law or fact.8 Entergy also argues that the revised sensitivity analysis is fully consistent with the testimony offered by Entergy experts at hearing.9 We overrule New Yorks objection for two reasons. First, each of New Yorks arguments constitutes a merit-based assessment and factual determination - matters that the Board is tasked with assessing in our initial decision. Exhibit ENT000589 presents another perspective on the issues before us and meets the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). As we have repeatedly stated, we will give each admitted exhibit the appropriate weight in the context of testimony and issues before us.10 Our evaluation of ENT000589 will be no different.

Given the robust record that has been developed on Contention NYS-16B, the Board is well-positioned to evaluate the merits of each partys arguments and make a final determination.

Second, New Yorks argument that it has been prejudiced by the late filing of ENT000589 is without merit. We have allowed each party (including New York) to present late-5 Id. at 7-8.

6 Entergys Answer to the State of New Yorks Objection to the Licensing Boards Admission of Entergy Hearing Exhibit ENT000589 (Nov. 30, 2012) at 3-6.

7 Id. at 2-3.

8 Id. at 6.

9 Id. at 7-9.

10 Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motions in Limine)

(Mar. 6, 2012) at 20 (unpublished).

filed exhibits in order to ensure a complete record. New York has benefited from this approach on several occasions and cannot justifiably claim prejudice in this case. ENT000589 was furnished to New York promptly after it was created, was generated in response to evidence presented by New York, and New York was given an ample opportunity to review and respond to this recently generated analysis. For those reasons, New Yorks objection to the admission of Exhibit ENT000589 is overruled.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland December 5, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR

) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Mail Stop O-7H4M David E. Roth, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

ocaamail@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anita Ghosh, Esq.

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Karl Farrar, Esq.

Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of the General Counsel hearingdocket@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel edward.williamson@nrc.gov Mail Stop T-3F23 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge OGC Mail Center lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell William C. Dennis, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue Michael F. Kennedy White Plains, NY 10601 Administrative Judge wdennis@entergy.com michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.

Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Organization: Entergy Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 James Maltese, Law Clerk wglew@entergy.com Carter Thurman, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.

shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov Goodwin Proctor, LLP james.maltese@nrc.gov Exchange Place, 53 State Street carter.thurman@nrc.gov Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)

Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Daniel Riesel, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Adam Stolorow, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Peng Deng, Paralegal White Plains, NY 10601 Counsel for Town of Cortlandt mjr1@westchestergov.com Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

460 Park Avenue Clint Carpenter, Esq.

New York, NY 10022 Bobby Burchfield, Esq.

driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com Matthew Leland, Esq.

astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP pdeng@sprlaw.com 600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Paul M. Bessette, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Martin J. ONeill, Esq.

Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Lena Michelle Long, Esq. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Laura Swett, Esq. Washington, DC 20004 Lance Escher, Esq. mswinehart@cov.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary John Louis Parker, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of General Counsel, Region 3 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW New York State Department Washington, DC 20004 of Environmental Conservation ksutton@morganlewis.com 21 South Putt Corners Road martin.oneill@morganlewis.com New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 rkuyler@morganlewis.com; jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com; Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.

lswett@morganlewis.com New York State Department lescher@morganlewis.com of Environmental Conservation mfreeze@morganlewis.com Office of General Counsel awalker@morganlewis.com 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 Phillip Musegaas, Esq. efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Ramona Cearley, Secretary Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Riverkeeper, Inc. Steven C. Filler 20 Secor Road Karla Raimundi Ossining, NY 10562 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

phillip@riverkeeper.org; 724 Wolcott Ave.

dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Beacon, NY 12508 rcearley@riverkeeper.org mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New Yorks Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)

Richard Webster, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Public Justice, P.C. Assistant Attorney General For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20006 of the State of New York rwebster@publicjustice.net 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 Michael J. Delaney, Esq. janice.dean@ag.ny.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Sean Murray, Mayor Flushing, NY 11373 Kevin Hay, Village Administrator mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Village of Buchanan Municipal Building John J. Sipos, Esq. 236 Tate Avenue Charles Donaldson, Esq. Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Assistant Attorneys General smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Office of the Attorney General administrator@villageofbuchanan.com of the State of New York Elyse Houle, Legal Support The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York 12224 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov 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 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us

[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2012 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12340A190&oldid=2459236"