ML12215A160: 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)
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)          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.


ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
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
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
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.


Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
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.


ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 August 2, 2012 ORDER (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)
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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Applicant) has moved to file surrebuttal testimony concerning New York State Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (NYS-12C).
Therefore, we DENY Applicants motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony on 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."
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
2 Specifically, Applicant contends that New York argues for the first time in its revised statement
                                                                /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).


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."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                   )
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.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                     )               Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
2  that, according to New York, "the NRC's '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.
                                                    )               and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating,                 )
4    Applicant states that "[a]lthough this FOIA request appears in the NRC's ADAMS Public Legacy Library, [Applicant] could find no other record copy of this [draft NUREG] on the NRC's website or on the Internet in general."
Units 2 and 3)                             )
5  In fact, according to the Applic ant, this draft NUREG does not even appear on the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service database, which houses over two million government records, including NUREG Reports.
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.
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.
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.
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 NRC's regulations, but eminently possible and had been completed in conjunction with NUREG/CR-5148.'"
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
8    Applicant argues that New York's 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.
Mail Stop T-3F23                                        Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
9  Applicant represents that the NRC Staff (Staff) does not oppose this motion.
Washington, DC 20555-0001                              David E. Roth, Esq.
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 York's 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 [Applicant's] and the . . . Staff's 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] Staff's arguments that using NUREG-1150, and thus Sample Problem A, is reasonable under NEPA."
15    New York also notes that an alternative to Applicant's 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 Applicant's 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 York's Answer in Opposition to Entergy's 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 Applicant's motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony on NYS-12C. That being so, we encourage the parties to address the issues raised in New York's 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
___________________________  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 Applicant's 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 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 Hearing Docket 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 anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk
 
james.maltese@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.  
 
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.  
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                              Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
 
Administrative Judge                                    Anita Ghosh, Esq.
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
Karl Farrar, Esq.
Brian Newell, Paralegal 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 brian.newell@nrc.gov
 
OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 2  William C. Dennis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue
 
White Plains, NY  10601 wdennis@entergy.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street  Boston, MA  02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 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, 6 th Floor White Plains, NY  10601 MJR1@westchestergov.com Clint Carpenter, Esq. Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Matthew Leland, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP
 
600 13 th 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 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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 3  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 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 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120
 
Hartford, CT  06141-0120
 
robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
 
Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General    of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26 th 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
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]                               Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland 
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


this 2 nd day of August 2012}}
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}}

Revision as of 01:17, 12 November 2019

Order (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)
ML12215A160
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
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)
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) 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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12215A160&oldid=2096871"