ML110740289

2011/03/09-Motion of the State of New York for a Four Day Extension of Time to File Replies to NRC Staff and Entergy'S March 7, 2011 Answers

ML110740289
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/09/2011
From:	Sipos J J State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-486
Download: ML110740289 (8)

Text

A1q-5£ý-- "YL2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-----------------------------------------------------------

x In re: License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.------------------------------------------------------

x Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 DPR-26, DPR-64 March 9, 2011 MOTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR A FOUR DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLIES TO NRC STAFF AND ENTERGY'S MARCH 7,2011 ANSWERS DOCKETED March 9, 2011 (4:57 p.m.)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Office of the Attorney General State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 7LA7Z~~z~

C~ciy2 6 I~S~-o3ýS-02 The State of New York respectfully requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board extend the time for the State -by four days -to file replies to NRC Staff and Entergy's recently-filed answers to proposed contentions NYS 12-C and 37. If accepted, the State's request would extend the filing date from Monday, March 14 to Friday, March 18, 2011. NRC Staff does not oppose this request; neither do Clearwater or Riverkeeper.

Entergy opposes the request.REGULATORY BACKGROUND NRC regulations permit a party to file a reply to an answer to a proposed contention:

Except in a proceeding under 10 CFR 52.103, the requestor/petitioner may file a reply to any answer. The reply must be filed within 7 days after service of that answer.10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2).

This Board's July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order provides that: Unless modified by the Board, or otherwise specified in this Order, a motion for extension of time shall be submitted in writing at least three (3) business days before the due date for the pleading or other submission for which an extension is sought. In addition to all other requirements, a motion for extension of time must (i) demonstrate appropriate cause that supports permitting the extension; and (ii)indicate whether the request is opposed or supported by the other participants in the proceeding; and, if opposed, succinctly describe the grounds stated for such opposition.

Scheduling Order ¶ G.4. This motion is timely as it is being filed three business days before the current March 14, 2011 due date.APPROPRIATE CAUSE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST On the evening of Monday, March 7, 2010 NRC Staff and Entergy filed via electronic mail separate answers to the State's proposed contentions NYS 12-C and 37, which concern,-1I-respectively, clean up costs for a severe reactor accident and energy alternatives.'

Collectively, Staff and Entergy's pleadings (exclusive of attachments) total approximately 100 pages, or 50 pages for each of the two contentions.

The State seeks additional time (four additional days) to review Staff and Entergy's four answering pleadings and to file replies thereto. To avoid duplication and streamline its filings, the State hopes to file a single reply to each set of answers.The State respectfully submits that appropriate cause supports the request: 1. Expert and Consultant Availability.

One of the State's experts (Mr. Chanin /NYS 12-C)has limited availability to review the Staff and Entergy answers during several days between Tuesday, March 8 and Tuesday, March 15). Another expert (Mr. Bradford /NYS 37) has had an unexpected scheduling conflict during the week of March 7. Also, Mr. Roisman is away from his office to travel to/from, attend, and present at the NRC Regulatory Information Conference on March:8, 9, and 10.2. Length & Content of Answers. The four answers to NYS 12-C and 37 collectively total 100 pages, and each answering party has presented a host of somewhat differing arguments concerning the proposed contentions.

By way of additional example, Entergy's answers include 124 footnotes on NYS 12-C and 110 footnotes on NYS 37, many of which cite to judicial and administrative rulings.3. Preparation of Single Reply to Each Set of Answers. To avoid duplication and streamline its filings, the State hopes to file a single reply to each set of answers, i.e., a single reply NRC Staff and Entergy previously requested and received a seven day extension for submittal of the answers.The State did not oppose that request. See NRC Staffs Unopposed Request For An Extension Of Time For The Staffs And Entergy's Answers To FSEIS Contentions (February 23, 2011) ML 110540735; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), ASLB Order (Granting Time Extension), (February 25, 2011) MLI 10560161.

By operation of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2), this scheduling change necessarily moved the date of the State's reply from March 7 to March 14, 2011.

for NYS 12-C and a single reply for NYS 37. The State hopes that such combined filings will simplify the replies and may reduce their overall length when compared to the total pages if there were two separate reply filings for each answer. The State respectfully suggests that such combined replies may assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its review of the parties' respective positions concerning the State's contentions.

Given the length of the answers and the schedules of certain experts, the State submits that it has demonstrated appropriate cause for the modest four day extension.

In addition, the four additional days requested will assist the State's ability to hone its presentation and submit concise replies.NRC Staff does not oppose the requested extension, and this motion is timely pursuant to the Scheduling Order, ¶ G.4. Entergy's position is that the reasons set forth in this motion do not constitute "appropriate cause" for exeiending the filing date.CONCLUSION In light of the above, the State of New York respectfully submits that appropriate cause exists to justify the proposed extension and requests that the Board grant this unopposed motion to extend the filing date for the State's replies to NRC Staff and Entergy's answers to NYC 12-C and 37 and that the date be extended four days until March 18, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, Joh; Siposn Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12227 (518) 402-2251 Dated: March 9, 2011 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) Certification I certify that I have made a sincere effort to contact the other parties inthis proceeding, to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this motion, and to resolve those issues, and I certify that NRC Staff, Riverkeeper, and Clearwater do not oppose the request. I certify that my efforts have been unsuccessful with respect to Entergy.3AMJ. Sipo A .UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-----------------------------------------------------------

X In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR I License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.-------.----------------------------

X ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 DPR-26, DPR-64 March 9, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 9, 2011, copies of the State of New York's Motion for a four day extension of time to file replies to NRC Staff and Entergy's March 7, 2011 answers, were served upon the following persons via U.S. Mail and e-mail at the following addresses:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Kaye D. Lathrop Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

190 Cedar Lane E.Ridgway, CO 81432 Kaye.Lathrop@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Josh Kirstein, Esq. Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov I

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop.

16 G4 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ocaamail@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 hearingdocket@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.David E. Roth, Esq.Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.Brian G. Harris, Esq.Office of the: General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 15 D21 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov andrea.j ones@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov brian.harris@nrc.gov Emily L. Monteith Megan A. Wright Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 emily.monteith@nrc.gov megan.wright@nrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.Paul M. Bessette, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@xmorganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Suite 4000 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 martin.o' neill@morganlewis.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com William C. Dennis, Esq.Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 wdennis@entergy.com 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@ct.gov Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.Assistant County Attorney Office of the Westchester County Attorney Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 MJR I @westchestergov.com 2

Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor James Seirmarco, M.S.Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 vob@bestweb.net Daniel Riesel, Esq.Thomas F. Wood, Esq.Jessica Steinberg, Esq.Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 driesel@sprlaw.com j steinberg@sprlaw.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.Director Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 (718) 595-3982 mdelaney@dep.nyc.

gov Manna Jo Greene, Director Stephen Filler, Esq., Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 Mannajo@clearwater.org stephenfiller@gmail.com Ross H. Gould Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.270 Route 308 Rhinebeck, NY 12572 rgouldesq@gmail.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq.Deborah Brancato, Esq.Riverkeeper, Inc.20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General State of New York (518) 402-2251 Dated at Albany, New York this 9th day of March 2011 3