ML11355A204: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD | {{#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. December 21, 2011 | |||
--------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------x JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 24 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.338(h), the State of New York, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. | ||
--------------- | (Entergy) hereby jointly move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for approval of the December 21, 2011 Settlement Agreement between the State and Entergy (Attachment A hereto), and for dismissal of New York State Contention 24 (NYS-24) from this proceeding. | ||
-----------x In re: | A proposed Consent Order (Attachment B hereto) is provided. Entergy has authorized the State to file for both parties. | ||
This motion and the settlement agreement are based on information Entergy has provided to the State, and Entergys commitment to deliver to the State copies of reports containing the results of certain future ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, Section XI, Division I, Subsection IWL or other inspections at Indian Point Units 2 and 3, as identified more specifically below. | |||
The information that Entergy has supplied the State includes, but is not limited to: | |||
* the results of concrete sample compression tests for concrete used in the construction of the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, and | |||
* the results of visual inspections of the condition of the external surfaces of the Indian Point Unit 2 reactor containment in 2000, 2006, and 2010, and the Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containment in 2001, 2005, and 2009. | |||
The inspection reports that Entergy has committed to provide the State involve the visual inspections that Entergy currently conducts at Indian Point pursuant to the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWL, as required and modified by 10 C.F.R. 50.55a to ascertain the condition of the external concrete surfaces of reactor containments, and/or the results of inspections or tests that might replace, augment, or update these visual inspections. | |||
Based on the information that Entergy has supplied concerning the concrete in the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, the State's examination and review of that information, and Entergys commitment to provide the State copies of the documented results of the specified future visual inspections of the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, the State no longer challenges the present structural integrity of the Indian Point reactor containments or the adequacy of the measures that Entergy currently proposes to employ to ensure the continued structural integrity of Indian Point reactor containments as part of this license renewal proceeding. | |||
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the State and Entergy have made sincere efforts to contact the other parties and resolve the issues addressed in this motion. The State has consulted with the State of Connecticut, the County of Westchester, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Town of Cortlandt, the Village of Buchanan, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., and Riverkeeper, Inc., all of whom save the Town of Cortlandt have authorized the State to represent that they do not oppose the settlement. The Town of Cortlandt has indicated to the State that the Town takes no position on this Joint 2 | |||
Motion. Entergy has consulted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, which has authorized Entergy to represent that the NRC Staff does not oppose the settlement. | |||
Dismissal of NYS-24 is in the public interest because Entergy has provided information and taken action to address the States concerns, and because the Commission encourages settlement of contested issues in licensing proceedings. Furthermore, granting this motion and approving the settlement is in the public interest because it would avoid unnecessary litigation. | |||
Dated: December 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted, State of New York By: Signed (electronically) by i CHARLIE DONALDSON JANICE A. DEAN Assistant Attorneys General Office of the NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Dated: December 21, 2011 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. | |||
By: Signed (electronically) by PAUL M. BESSETTE MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ATTORNEY AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ENTERGY Dated: December 21, 2011 3}} | |||
( | |||
By: | |||
Dated: December 21, 2011 | |||
ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, | |||
By: | |||
Signed (electronically) by | |||
PAUL M. BESSETTE MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC | |||
ATTORNEY AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ENTERGY | |||
Latest revision as of 11:35, 12 November 2019
| ML11355A204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/2011 |
| From: | Bessette P, Jeremy Dean, Donaldson C Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11355A201 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 21595, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11355A204 (3) | |
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. December 21, 2011
x JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 24 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.338(h), the State of New York, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Entergy) hereby jointly move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for approval of the December 21, 2011 Settlement Agreement between the State and Entergy (Attachment A hereto), and for dismissal of New York State Contention 24 (NYS-24) from this proceeding.
A proposed Consent Order (Attachment B hereto) is provided. Entergy has authorized the State to file for both parties.
This motion and the settlement agreement are based on information Entergy has provided to the State, and Entergys commitment to deliver to the State copies of reports containing the results of certain future ASME Boiler and Pressure Code,Section XI, Division I, Subsection IWL or other inspections at Indian Point Units 2 and 3, as identified more specifically below.
The information that Entergy has supplied the State includes, but is not limited to:
- the results of concrete sample compression tests for concrete used in the construction of the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, and
- the results of visual inspections of the condition of the external surfaces of the Indian Point Unit 2 reactor containment in 2000, 2006, and 2010, and the Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containment in 2001, 2005, and 2009.
The inspection reports that Entergy has committed to provide the State involve the visual inspections that Entergy currently conducts at Indian Point pursuant to the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWL, as required and modified by 10 C.F.R. 50.55a to ascertain the condition of the external concrete surfaces of reactor containments, and/or the results of inspections or tests that might replace, augment, or update these visual inspections.
Based on the information that Entergy has supplied concerning the concrete in the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, the State's examination and review of that information, and Entergys commitment to provide the State copies of the documented results of the specified future visual inspections of the Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 reactor containments, the State no longer challenges the present structural integrity of the Indian Point reactor containments or the adequacy of the measures that Entergy currently proposes to employ to ensure the continued structural integrity of Indian Point reactor containments as part of this license renewal proceeding.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the State and Entergy have made sincere efforts to contact the other parties and resolve the issues addressed in this motion. The State has consulted with the State of Connecticut, the County of Westchester, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Town of Cortlandt, the Village of Buchanan, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., and Riverkeeper, Inc., all of whom save the Town of Cortlandt have authorized the State to represent that they do not oppose the settlement. The Town of Cortlandt has indicated to the State that the Town takes no position on this Joint 2
Motion. Entergy has consulted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, which has authorized Entergy to represent that the NRC Staff does not oppose the settlement.
Dismissal of NYS-24 is in the public interest because Entergy has provided information and taken action to address the States concerns, and because the Commission encourages settlement of contested issues in licensing proceedings. Furthermore, granting this motion and approving the settlement is in the public interest because it would avoid unnecessary litigation.
Dated: December 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted, State of New York By: Signed (electronically) by i CHARLIE DONALDSON JANICE A. DEAN Assistant Attorneys General Office of the NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Dated: December 21, 2011 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
By: Signed (electronically) by PAUL M. BESSETTE MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ATTORNEY AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ENTERGY Dated: December 21, 2011 3