ML12215A160

Order (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)

ML12215A160
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	08/02/2012
From:	Lawrence Mcdade Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Entergy Nuclear Operations
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23173, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12215A160 (7)

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) August 2, 2012 ORDER (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Applicant) has moved to file surrebuttal testimony concerning New York State Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (NYS-12C).1 In support of this motion, Applicant argues that New York State (New York) presented, in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12C, new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its] direct testimony[,] to which Applicant has not had a fair opportunity to respond.2 Specifically, Applicant contends that New York argues for the first time in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12-C that in the 1980s, the NRC commissioned a site-specific case study to estimate the costs associated with a severe accident at Indian Point, and that the NRC Staff failed to disclose that study in connection with this proceeding.3 Applicant further asserts 1

See Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 12, 2012) at 1.

2 Id.

3 Id. at 2.

2 that, according to New York, the NRCs site-specific analysis is described in Chapter 5 of draft NUREG/CR-5148 (PNL-6350), Property-Related Costs of Radiological Accidents (Feb. 1990), and that this draft NUREG -- though never made final or published -- was released to Purdue University in 1992 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.4 Applicant states that [a]lthough this FOIA request appears in the NRCs ADAMS Public Legacy Library, [Applicant] could find no other record copy of this [draft NUREG] on the NRCs website or on the Internet in general.5 In fact, according to the Applicant, this draft NUREG does not even appear on the U.S. Department of Commerces National Technical Information Service database, which houses over two million government records, including NUREG Reports.6 Nevertheless, according to Applicant, New York located this draft NUREG and disclosed it on May 31, 2012, one month before New York filed its rebuttal testimony.7 New York then relied on this document for the first time in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony, according to Applicant, to argue that a site-specific analysis was not only required under NEPA and NRCs regulations, but eminently possible and had been completed in conjunction with NUREG/CR-5148.8 Applicant argues that New Yorks new assertions are directly relevant and material to the parties positions[,] and therefore Applicant should be granted the opportunity to file surrebuttal testimony, on or before August 13, 2012, to respond.9 Applicant represents that the NRC Staff (Staff) does not oppose this motion.10 Moreover, according to Applicant, the Staff would like the option to file 4

Id. at 2-3.

5 Id. at 3.

6 See id.

7 See id.

8 Id. at 4.

9 Id. at 4-5.

10 Id. at 7.

3 its own surrebuttal testimony in response to New Yorks revised Statement of Position and rebuttal testimony regarding NYS-12C.11 New York opposes this motion.12 First, New York argues that it properly submitted the exhibits and rebuttal testimony in question in direct response to arguments in [Applicants] and the . . . Staffs Statements of Position and Pre-filed Testimony on NYS-12C.13 Specifically, New York argues that it did not present[] new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its]

direct testimony[.]14 Instead, New York contends that its [revised Statement of Position] and Rebuttal Testimony[, which highlight draft NUREG/CR-5148,] responds directly to Entergy and [the] Staffs arguments that using NUREG-1150, and thus Sample Problem A, is reasonable under NEPA.15 New York also notes that an alternative to Applicants requested relief exists: the issues raised in the instant motion could be addressed by the parties witnesses at the evidentiary hearing.16 Based on these arguments, New York requests that Applicants motion be denied.

If, however, the Board does grant the instant motion, New York argues that fairness dictates that [it] should be afforded [an opportunity] to file its own sur-rebuttal testimony to any additional testimony proffered by [Applicant] and [the] Staff.17 New York notes, however, that allowing the submittal of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C may require the Board to extend pre-hearing deadlines, such as the August 29, 2012, deadline for proposed questions.18 11 Id.

12 See State of New Yorks Answer in Opposition to Entergys Motion for Leave to File Sur-rebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 23, 2012) at 7.

13 Id. at 2.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 2-3.

16 Id. at 1.

17 Id. at 6.

18 See id.

4 The Board agrees with New York that the issues raised in this motion can be handled at the evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the Board finds that the submission of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C will have the prejudicial effect of delaying the evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2012, at least as it relates to NYS-12C.

Therefore, we DENY Applicants motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony on NYS-12C.

That being so, we encourage the parties to address the issues raised in New Yorks rebuttal testimony in their proposed questions for the Board to ask at the evidentiary hearing, which are due no later than Wednesday, August 29, 2012.19 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland August 2, 2012 19 See Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).

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

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) 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 (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq.

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

Administrative Judge Anita Ghosh, Esq.

lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael F. Kennedy sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk brian.newell@nrc.gov anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk OGC Mail Center shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk james.maltese@nrc.gov

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)

William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Adam Stolorow, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal wdennis@entergy.com Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP 460 Park Avenue Exchange Place New York, NY 10022 53 State Street driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com Boston, MA 02109 astolorow@sprlaw.com ;jgandhi@sprlaw.com ezoli@goodwinprocter.com pdeng@sprlaw.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Ramona Cearley, Secretary Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Riverkeeper, Inc.

Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 20 Secor Road Lena Michelle Long, Esq. Ossining, NY 10562 Laura Swett, Esq. phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Lance Escher, Esq. rcearley@riverkeeper.org Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Assistant County Attorney Washington, DC 20004 Office of Robert F. Meehan, ksutton@morganlewis.com Westchester County Attorney martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor rkuyler@morganlewis.com White Plains, NY 10601 jrund@morganlewis.com MJR1@westchestergov.com llong@morganlewis.com;lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com Clint Carpenter, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Bobby Burchfield, Esq. Steven C. Filler Matthew Leland, Esq. Karla Raimundi McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

600 13th Street, NW 724 Wolcott Ave.

Washington, DC 20005 Beacon, NY 12508 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com mleland@mwe.com karla@clearwater.org Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) mswinehart@cov.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs John Louis Parker, Esq. NYC Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel, Region 3 59-17 Junction Boulevard New York State Department Flushing, NY 11373 of Environmental Conservation mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us John J. Sipos, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Charles Donaldson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut of the State of New York 55 Elm Street Elyse Houle, Legal Support P.O. Box 120 The Capitol Hartford, CT 06141-0120 State Street robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Albany, New York 12224 John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov; charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq. Sean Murray, Mayor Assistant Attorney General Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Kathryn Liberatore, Esq. Village of Buchanan Office of the Attorney General Municipal Building of the State of New York 236 Tate Avenue 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 New York, New York 10271 SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com janice.dean@ag.ny.gov; Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of August 2012 3