ML14091A319: 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)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 04/01/2014
| issue date = 04/01/2014
| title = Order Denying New York'S Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention
| title = Order Denying New York'S Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention
| author name = McDade L G
| author name = Mcdade L
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=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 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
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)        April 1, 2014 ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)
 
I.       Responding to Motion to Reopen the Record - New York Contention 12-C On December 7, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.1 Subsequently, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing New Yorks motion.2 The Board granted New Yorks Motion for Leave to File a Reply,3 and New York filed its reply in support of its motion on January 22, 2014.4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01  
 
April 1, 2014 ORDER (Denying New York's Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)
I. Responding to Motion to Reopen the Record - New York Contention 12-C On December 7, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.
1 Subsequently, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing New York's motion.
2 The Board granted New York's Motion for Leave to File a Reply, 3 and New York filed its reply in support of its motion on January 22, 2014.
4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny New York's Motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.
1 See State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 7, 2013) [hereinafter New York Motion to Reopen].
1 See State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 7, 2013) [hereinafter New York Motion to Reopen].
2 See Entergy's Answer Opposing State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 23, 2013); NRC Staff's Response to State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec.
2 See Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 23, 2013); NRC Staffs Response to State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec.
23, 2013) [hereinafter Entergy Answer].  
23, 2013) [hereinafter Entergy Answer].
3 See Licensing Board Order (Granting New Yorks Motion) (Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished).
4 State of New York Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 22, 2014).


3 See Licensing Board Order (Granting New York's Motion) (Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished).
To reopen the record of this closed proceeding, a movant must show that its motion is timely; that it addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly-proffered evidence been considered initially.5 The moving party has an elevated burden to lay a proper foundation for its claim6 based on relevant, material, and reliable evidence. 7 Parties seeking reconsideration of board orders must demonstrate a compelling circumstance, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have been reasonably anticipated, which renders the decision invalid.8 The compelling circumstances standard for granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration is intended to permit reconsideration only where manifest injustice would occur in the absence of reconsideration, and the claim could not have been raised earlier.9 While the Board finds that New Yorks motion addressed a significant issue, New York did not provide sufficient information to establish that a different result would have been likely had the Board considered the new information proffered by New York when assessing the reasonableness of the TIMDEC input values accepted by the Staff in the Indian Point SAMA analysis.
4 State of New York Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 22, 2014).      To reopen the record of this closed proceeding, a movant must show that its motion is timely; that it addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly-proffered evidence been considered initially.
Specifically, New York has asserted that the Board should reconsider its recent ruling in light of the fact that NRC Staff used a TIMDEC input value of 365 days in a MACCS2 analysis of a severe accident at a spent fuel pool.10 New York argued that the use of a 365-day TIMDEC is 5
5 The moving party has an "elevated burden to lay a proper foundation for its claim"6  based on "relevant, material, and reliable" evidence.
10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a).
7 Parties seeking reconsideration of board orders "must demonstrate a compelling circumstance, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have been reasonably anticipated, which renders the decision invalid."
6 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).
8 The compelling circumstances standard for granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration "is intended to permit reconsideration only where manifest injustice would occur in the absence of reconsideration, and the claim could not have been raised earlier."9   While the Board finds that New York's motion addressed a significant issue, New York did not provide sufficient information to establish that a different result would have been likely had the Board considered the new information proffered by New York when assessing the reasonableness of the TIMDEC input values accepted by the Staff in the Indian Point SAMA analysis. Specifically, New York has asserted that the Board should reconsider its recent ruling in light of the fact that NRC Staff used a TIMDEC input value of 365 days in a MACCS2 analysis of a severe accident at a spent fuel pool.
10 New York argued that the use of a 365-day TIMDEC is 5 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a).
6 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.
(Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).
7 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
7 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
8 Id. § 2.345(b).
8 Id. § 2.345(b).
9 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2207 (Jan. 14, 2004).
9 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2207 (Jan. 14, 2004).
10 See New York Motion to Reopen. contrary to the position taken by the NRC Staff and Entergy before the Board in this proceeding that the NRC Staff had consistently accepted TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the last 30 years.
10 See New York Motion to Reopen.
11  But, as the Applicant and the NRC Staff point out, these representations made before and during the hearing on NYS-12C refer to analyses of numerous failure scenarios performed for license renewal applications, and that the use of the longer duration for decontamination was utilized as a site specific value for a specific postulated spent fuel pool accident.12  We find New York's explanation insufficient to show that the NRC Staff's acceptance of TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the Indian Point SAMA was not reasonable. Thus, it is unlikely that the Board would reach a materially different result given the information provided by New York and, accordingly, this motion does not meet the requirements for a contention to be reopened.
II. Permitting New York to File New Contention On November 25, 2013, New York filed a motion seeking leave to submit a recently-issued ruling by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC Order) as an exhibit in connection with contention NYS-37.
13  The Board denied this motion as premature until the Staff determines whether to supplement the FSEIS to address this issue, and directed New York to delay the filing of any new or amended contention based on the PSC Order, or the information contained therein until further Order of this Board.
14  On December 20, 2013, the NRC Staff filed 11 Id. at 1.
12 See Entergy Answer at 14;  NRC Staff's Answer to State of New York Motion for Leave to File Reply on Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 9, 2014). 13 State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently-Issued Ruling by New York State Public Service Commission as an Additional Ex hibit Concerning Contention NYS-37 (Nov. 25, 2013).
14 Licensing Board Order (Denying New York's Motion) at 2 (Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished).
its response to the Board's Order, in which the NRC Staff provided its evaluation of the information contained in the PSC Order and stated that it will not issue an FSEIS supplement to address that information.
15 Because the NRC Staff has chosen not to issue an FSEIS supplement to address the information in the PSC Order, New York's request is ripe and the Board will permit New York to file a new or amended contention based on this information within 30 days of the issuance of this order. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY  AND LICENSING BOARD
________________________  Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
 
Rockville, Maryland April 1, 2014 15 NRC Staff's Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of November 27, 2013 (Denying New York's Motion) (Dec. 20, 2013).
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 New York's Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 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 Carter Thurman, Law Clerk carter.thurman@nrc.gov
 
Kathleen E. Oprea, Law Clerk
 
Kathleen.Oprea@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. Christina England, Esq.
contrary to the position taken by the NRC Staff and Entergy before the Board in this proceeding that the NRC Staff had consistently accepted TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the last 30 years.11 But, as the Applicant and the NRC Staff point out, these representations made before and during the hearing on NYS-12C refer to analyses of numerous failure scenarios performed for license renewal applications, and that the use of the longer duration for decontamination was utilized as a site specific value for a specific postulated spent fuel pool accident.12 We find New Yorks explanation insufficient to show that the NRC Staffs acceptance of TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the Indian Point SAMA was not reasonable. Thus, it is unlikely that the Board would reach a materially different result given the information provided by New York and, accordingly, this motion does not meet the requirements for a contention to be reopened.
Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.
II.       Permitting New York to File New Contention On November 25, 2013, New York filed a motion seeking leave to submit a recently-issued ruling by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC Order) as an exhibit in connection with contention NYS-37.13 The Board denied this motion as premature until the Staff determines whether to supplement the FSEIS to address this issue, and directed New York to delay the filing of any new or amended contention based on the PSC Order, or the information contained therein until further Order of this Board.14 On December 20, 2013, the NRC Staff filed 11 Id. at 1.
John Tibbetts, Paralegal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC  20555-0001
12 See Entergy Answer at 14; NRC Staffs Answer to State of New York Motion for Leave to File Reply on Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 9, 2014).
13 State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently-Issued Ruling by New York State Public Service Commission as an Additional Exhibit Concerning Contention NYS-37 (Nov. 25, 2013).
14 Licensing Board Order (Denying New Yorks Motion) at 2 (Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished).


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; christina.england@nrc.gov;  catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; john.tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
its response to the Boards Order, in which the NRC Staff provided its evaluation of the information contained in the PSC Order and stated that it will not issue an FSEIS supplement to address that information.15 Because the NRC Staff has chosen not to issue an FSEIS supplement to address the information in the PSC Order, New Yorks request is ripe and the Board will permit New York to file a new or amended contention based on this information within 30 days of the issuance of this order.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                          /RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland April 1, 2014 15 NRC Staffs Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order of November 27, 2013 (Denying New Yorks Motion) (Dec. 20, 2013).


William C. Dennis, Esq.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                  )
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601  
                                                  )
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 New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 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              Christina England, Esq.
Mail Stop O-16C1                                      Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001                              John Tibbetts, Paralegal hearingdocket@nrc.gov                                  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    Mail Stop O-15D21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop T-3F23                                      sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Washington, DC 20555-0001                              edward.williamson@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                              david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                  anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov                                christina.england@nrc.gov; catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; Richard E. Wardwell                                    john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov                              OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge                                  William C. Dennis, Esq.
michael.kennedy@nrc.gov                                Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Carter Thurman, Law Clerk                              440 Hamilton Avenue carter.thurman@nrc.gov                                White Plains, NY 10601 wdennis@entergy.com Kathleen E. Oprea, Law Clerk Kathleen.Oprea@nrc.gov                                William B. Glew, Jr.
Organization: Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 wglew@entergy.com


wdennis@entergy.com
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)
 
Elise N. Zoli, Esq.                             Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
William B. Glew, Jr. Organization:  Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY  10601
Goodwin Proctor, LLP                           Deborah Brancato, Esq.
 
Exchange Place, 53 State Street                 Ramona Cearley, Secretary Boston, MA 02109                               Riverkeeper, Inc.
wglew@entergy.com
ezoli@goodwinprocter.com                       20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Daniel Riesel, Esq.                             rcearley@riverkeeper.org Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New York's Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 2  Elise N. Zoli, Esq.  
 
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place, 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com  
 
Daniel Riesel, Esq.  
 
Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
Adam Stolorow, Esq.
Adam Stolorow, Esq.
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal Natoya Duncan, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal                         Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022  
Natoya Duncan, Paralegal                       Assistant County Attorney Counsel for Town of Cortlandt                   Office of Robert F. Meehan, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.                     Westchester County Attorney 460 Park Avenue                                 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022                             White Plains, NY 10601 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com        mjr1@westchestergov.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com                             Clint Carpenter, Esq.
 
driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
 
Raphael Kuyler, Esq.
Lena Michelle Long, Esq.
Laura Swett, Esq. Lance Escher, Esq.
Brooke McGlinn, Esq.
 
Susan Raimo, Esq.
Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary
 
Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com martin.oneill@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com; llong@morganlewis.com; lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com bmcglinn@morganlewis.com sraimo@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@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.
Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Matthew Leland, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP  
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.                        Matthew Leland, Esq.
 
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.                          McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Martin J. ONeill, Esq.                        600 13th Street, NW Raphael Kuyler, Esq.                            Washington, DC 20005 Lena Michelle Long, Esq.                        ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Laura Swett, Esq.                              mleland@mwe.com Lance Escher, Esq.
600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mleland@mwe.com  
Brooke McGlinn, Esq.                            Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
 
Susan Raimo, Esq.                              Covington & Burling LLP Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary                    1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary                  Washington, DC 20004 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP                    mswinehart@cov.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004                            Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.  
ksutton@morganlewis.com                        New York State Department martin.oneill@morganlewis.com                    of Environmental Conservation rkuyler@morganlewis.com;                        Office of General Counsel llong@morganlewis.com;                          625 Broadway lswett@morganlewis.com                          14th Floor lescher@morganlewis.com                        Albany, NY 12233-1500 bmcglinn@morganlewis.com                        efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us sraimo@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 2
 
Covington & Burling LLP  
 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 mswinehart@cov.com Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
New York State Department  
 
of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel 625 Broadway  
 
14 th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New York's Motion to Reopen the Record;  Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 3  Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Steven C. Filler
 
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave.
 
Beacon, NY  12508 mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com  
 
Andrew Reid, Esq. Organization:  Hudson River Sloop  Clearwater, Inc.
 
Springer & Steinberg, P.C.
1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 areid@springersteinberg.com 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.
Kathryn Deluca, Esq.
 
Elyse Houle, Legal Support Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General    of the State of New York The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York  12224 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov kathryn.deluca@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
 
Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Kathryn DeLuca, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 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.deluca@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
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)
          [Original signed by Brian Newell ]                   Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of April, 2014}}
Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director        John J. Sipos, Esq.
Steven C. Filler                                Charles Donaldson, Esq.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.            Kathryn Deluca, Esq.
724 Wolcott Ave.                                Elyse Houle, Legal Support Beacon, NY 12508                                Assistant Attorneys General mannajo@clearwater.org;                        Office of the Attorney General stephenfiller@gmail.com                          of the State of New York The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York 12224 Andrew Reid, Esq.                              john.sipos@ag.ny.gov Organization: Hudson River Sloop                charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov Clearwater, Inc.                                kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov Springer & Steinberg, P.C.                      elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202                                Robert D. Snook, Esq.
areid@springersteinberg.com                    Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Richard Webster, Esq.                          State of Connecticut Public Justice, P.C.                            55 Elm Street For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.        P.O. Box 120 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200                    Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20006                          robert.snook@po.state.ct.us rwebster@publicjustice.net Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Michael J. Delaney, Esq.                        Kathryn DeLuca, Esq.
Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs            Assistant Attorney General NYC Department of Environmental Protection      Office of the Attorney General 59-17 Junction Boulevard                          of the State of New York Flushing, NY 11373                              120 Broadway, 26th Floor mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov                            New York, New York 10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov kathryn.deluca@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
[Original signed by Brian Newell ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of April, 2014 3}}

Latest revision as of 22:14, 5 February 2020

Order Denying New York'S Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention
ML14091A319
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/01/2014
From: Lawrence Mcdade
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
State of NY
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 25755
Download: ML14091A319 (7)
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) April 1, 2014 ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)

I. Responding to Motion to Reopen the Record - New York Contention 12-C On December 7, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.1 Subsequently, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing New Yorks motion.2 The Board granted New Yorks Motion for Leave to File a Reply,3 and New York filed its reply in support of its motion on January 22, 2014.4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record and for the Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C.

1 See State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 7, 2013) [hereinafter New York Motion to Reopen].

2 See Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Dec. 23, 2013); NRC Staffs Response to State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration on Contention NYS-12C (Dec.

23, 2013) [hereinafter Entergy Answer].

3 See Licensing Board Order (Granting New Yorks Motion) (Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished).

4 State of New York Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 22, 2014).

To reopen the record of this closed proceeding, a movant must show that its motion is timely; that it addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly-proffered evidence been considered initially.5 The moving party has an elevated burden to lay a proper foundation for its claim6 based on relevant, material, and reliable evidence. 7 Parties seeking reconsideration of board orders must demonstrate a compelling circumstance, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have been reasonably anticipated, which renders the decision invalid.8 The compelling circumstances standard for granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration is intended to permit reconsideration only where manifest injustice would occur in the absence of reconsideration, and the claim could not have been raised earlier.9 While the Board finds that New Yorks motion addressed a significant issue, New York did not provide sufficient information to establish that a different result would have been likely had the Board considered the new information proffered by New York when assessing the reasonableness of the TIMDEC input values accepted by the Staff in the Indian Point SAMA analysis.

Specifically, New York has asserted that the Board should reconsider its recent ruling in light of the fact that NRC Staff used a TIMDEC input value of 365 days in a MACCS2 analysis of a severe accident at a spent fuel pool.10 New York argued that the use of a 365-day TIMDEC is 5

10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a).

6 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).

7 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).

8 Id. § 2.345(b).

9 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2207 (Jan. 14, 2004).

10 See New York Motion to Reopen.

contrary to the position taken by the NRC Staff and Entergy before the Board in this proceeding that the NRC Staff had consistently accepted TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the last 30 years.11 But, as the Applicant and the NRC Staff point out, these representations made before and during the hearing on NYS-12C refer to analyses of numerous failure scenarios performed for license renewal applications, and that the use of the longer duration for decontamination was utilized as a site specific value for a specific postulated spent fuel pool accident.12 We find New Yorks explanation insufficient to show that the NRC Staffs acceptance of TIMDEC inputs of 60 days and 120 days for the Indian Point SAMA was not reasonable. Thus, it is unlikely that the Board would reach a materially different result given the information provided by New York and, accordingly, this motion does not meet the requirements for a contention to be reopened.

II. Permitting New York to File New Contention On November 25, 2013, New York filed a motion seeking leave to submit a recently-issued ruling by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC Order) as an exhibit in connection with contention NYS-37.13 The Board denied this motion as premature until the Staff determines whether to supplement the FSEIS to address this issue, and directed New York to delay the filing of any new or amended contention based on the PSC Order, or the information contained therein until further Order of this Board.14 On December 20, 2013, the NRC Staff filed 11 Id. at 1.

12 See Entergy Answer at 14; NRC Staffs Answer to State of New York Motion for Leave to File Reply on Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C (Jan. 9, 2014).

13 State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently-Issued Ruling by New York State Public Service Commission as an Additional Exhibit Concerning Contention NYS-37 (Nov. 25, 2013).

14 Licensing Board Order (Denying New Yorks Motion) at 2 (Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished).

its response to the Boards Order, in which the NRC Staff provided its evaluation of the information contained in the PSC Order and stated that it will not issue an FSEIS supplement to address that information.15 Because the NRC Staff has chosen not to issue an FSEIS supplement to address the information in the PSC Order, New Yorks request is ripe and the Board will permit New York to file a new or amended contention based on this information within 30 days of the issuance of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland April 1, 2014 15 NRC Staffs Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order of November 27, 2013 (Denying New Yorks Motion) (Dec. 20, 2013).

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 New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 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 Christina England, Esq.

Mail Stop O-16C1 Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 John Tibbetts, Paralegal hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15D21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop T-3F23 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Washington, DC 20555-0001 edward.williamson@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov Administrative Judge anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov christina.england@nrc.gov; catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; Richard E. Wardwell john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge William C. Dennis, Esq.

michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Carter Thurman, Law Clerk 440 Hamilton Avenue carter.thurman@nrc.gov White Plains, NY 10601 wdennis@entergy.com Kathleen E. Oprea, Law Clerk Kathleen.Oprea@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.

Organization: Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 wglew@entergy.com

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Exchange Place, 53 State Street Ramona Cearley, Secretary Boston, MA 02109 Riverkeeper, Inc.

ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Daniel Riesel, Esq. rcearley@riverkeeper.org Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.

Adam Stolorow, Esq.

Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Natoya Duncan, Paralegal Assistant County Attorney Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Office of Robert F. Meehan, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Westchester County Attorney 460 Park Avenue 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 White Plains, NY 10601 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com mjr1@westchestergov.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com Clint Carpenter, Esq.

Bobby Burchfield, Esq.

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Matthew Leland, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Martin J. ONeill, Esq. 600 13th Street, NW Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Washington, DC 20005 Lena Michelle Long, Esq. ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Laura Swett, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Lance Escher, Esq.

Brooke McGlinn, Esq. Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Susan Raimo, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary Washington, DC 20004 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP mswinehart@cov.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.

ksutton@morganlewis.com New York State Department martin.oneill@morganlewis.com of Environmental Conservation rkuyler@morganlewis.com; Office of General Counsel llong@morganlewis.com; 625 Broadway lswett@morganlewis.com 14th Floor lescher@morganlewis.com Albany, NY 12233-1500 bmcglinn@morganlewis.com efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us sraimo@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director John J. Sipos, Esq.

Steven C. Filler Charles Donaldson, Esq.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Kathryn Deluca, Esq.

724 Wolcott Ave. Elyse Houle, Legal Support Beacon, NY 12508 Assistant Attorneys General mannajo@clearwater.org; Office of the Attorney General stephenfiller@gmail.com of the State of New York The Capitol, State Street Albany, New York 12224 Andrew Reid, Esq. john.sipos@ag.ny.gov Organization: Hudson River Sloop charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov Clearwater, Inc. kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov Springer & Steinberg, P.C. elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Robert D. Snook, Esq.

areid@springersteinberg.com Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Richard Webster, Esq. State of Connecticut Public Justice, P.C. 55 Elm Street For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. P.O. Box 120 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20006 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us rwebster@publicjustice.net Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Kathryn DeLuca, Esq.

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs Assistant Attorney General NYC Department of Environmental Protection Office of the Attorney General 59-17 Junction Boulevard of the State of New York Flushing, NY 11373 120 Broadway, 26th Floor mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov New York, New York 10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov kathryn.deluca@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

[Original signed by Brian Newell ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of April, 2014 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14091A319&oldid=2453231"