ML13364A346
| ML13364A346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/2013 |
| From: | Liberatore K, Sipos J State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 25440 | |
| Download: ML13364A346 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR
License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. December 30, 2013
x
UNOPPOSED MOTION BY STATE OF NEW YORK FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY ON MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND FOR RECONSIDERATIO N OF CONTENTION NYS-12C
Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol
State Street
Albany, New York 12224 1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the State of New York hereby requests an extension of time until January 8, 2014, to respond to (1) NRC Staff's Response to State of New York Motion
to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of Contention NYS-12C, filed by the NRC Staff on Monday, December 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm, and (2) Entergy's Answer Opposing State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for R econsideration of Cont ention NYS-12C, filed by Entergy on Monday, December 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm. As part of its opposition to the State's motion, NRC Staff filed an Affidavit of S. Tina Ghosh containing technical information not previously available to the State. Given the holidays and the technical nature of the information in the affidavit and responsive briefs, the State seeks additional time to review this affidavit and briefs with its experts, consult with other parties, and determine whether it is necessary to seek leave to file a rely. Counsel for Entergy, NRC Staff, Clearwater, and Riverkeeper have authorized New York State to st ate that they do not oppose the requested extension of time to file a motion for leave. Should the State decide that a motion for leave is ne cessary, it would engage in additional consultation on the substance of that motion. APPROPRIATE CAUSE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST NRC Staff and Entergy previously requested and received a si x day extension for submittal of their opposition to the State's motion.
1 As a matter of cour tesy, the State did not oppose that request. As a result of the extension, NRC Staff and Entergy filed their opposition to the State's motion on Monday, December 23, 2013. The Board's July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order states that
1 See NRC Staff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to "State of New York Motion to Reopen the Record and for R econsideration on Conten tion NYS-12C" (Dec. 12, 2013); Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Gene rating Units 2 and 3), ASLB Order (Granting NRC Staff's Motion for an Extension of Time) (Dec. 13, 2013)
(ML13347B281).
2 Although the agency's rules of practice regarding motions do not provide for reply pleadings, the Board will presume that for a reply to be timely it would have to be filed within seven (7) days of the date of service of the answer it is intended to
address. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2).
ASLB Scheduling Order, n.22 (Jul. 1, 2010) (ML101820387). Thus, any reply by the State would be due today, Monday, December 30, 2013.
The July 2010 scheduling order also provides that a motion for leave to file a reply would have been due three (3) business days before th e reply would be due and motions for extensions of time are due three (3) business days before th e due date for the pleading or other submission for which an extension is sought.
Id. at ¶¶G.3, G.4. Due to the holiday on December 25, 2013, there have been only three (3) business days between NRC Staff's filing on Monday, December 23, 2013 and the due date for a potential reply on Monday, December 30. Given holiday and the unavailability of various staff (discussed in more detail below), the State reviewed NRC Staff's papers on the evening of December 23 and on December 24 and 27. After further discussions, recognizing the need for more time, the State is submitting this request. The State respectfully submits that appropriate cause supports the request to file its motion for leave on January 8, 2014:
- 1. Expert and Consultant Availability. The State's experts (International Safety Research, Inc., Ottawa, Canada) have had limited av ailability to review the Ghosh affidavit due to the holidays and the fact that their office is located in Canada and, thus, was closed on December 25 and 26, 2013.
2 2. Content of Ghosh Affidavit. In its mo tion to reopen and for reconsideration, the State of New York requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reopen the hearing record on Contention NYS-12, consider the eviden ce presented by the State, and reconsider its
2 December 26, Boxing Day is a holiday in Canada.
3 recent ruling in light of information that NRC Staff used a TIMDEC input value of 365 days in a MACCS2 analysis of a severe accident at a spent fuel pool. During consultation on the State's motion, NRC Staff stated that its use of a 365-day TIMDEC in th e Spent Fuel Pool Consequence Study was not relevant because it came from a different study. Staff provided no further elaboration on its position, nor do any documents av ailable to the State e xplain why Staff used a 365-day TIMDEC. The Ghosh affidavit for the first time attempts to set forth an explanation why a 365-day TIMDEC value was used, and attempts to distinguish the study of spent fuel pool severe accidents from the Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ("SAMA")
Analysis.
- 3. Potential Targeted Reply Addressing the Ghosh Affidavit and Statements. The State is considering filing a reply that focuses on the Ghosh Affidavit. To that end, the State hopes to work with is experts to review the information in the Ghosh affidavit, consult with other parties, and determine whether it is necessary to file a motion for leave to file a reply. The material in the Gosh affidavit was not previous ly available to the Stat e (or the public) and was not discussed during the consultation preceding the State's motion to reopen and reconsider.
- 4. Potential Targeted Reply Addressing Entergy Arguments. Entergy argues that the information was available since mid-2013 and that the State of New York should have disclosed the information. Entergy suggests that the State ran afoul of the Commission's disclosure obligation. The disclosure issu e vis--vis the State was not discussed during consultation. Further, Entergy's argument seeks to conflate the information contained in the MACCS2 input and output files with a single line of text in the Spent Fuel Pool Consequence Study.
- 5. Attorney General Staff Availability. Gi ven the holidays, key Attorney General staff have been and will be unavailable.
AAG John Sipos, who consulted on and drafted the 4 motion to reopen and for reconsideration, is out of the office this week and will be returning on January 6, 2014. The office is closed on December 25, 2013 and January 1, 2014. Other Attorney General staff, including AAG Kathryn Liberatore, have been or will be unavailable at
various points during these two weeks. 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 motion to extend the filing date for the State's motion for leave to file a reply in support of New York's motion to reopen and reconsider until January 8, 2013.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 402-2251 Kathryn M. Liberatore Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8482 Dated: December 30, 2013 5 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and the Bo ard's July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order (at 8-9), I certify that I have made a sincere effort to cont act counsel for the parties in this 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, Entergy, Clearwater, Riverkeeper do not oppose th e State's request for an extension of time until January 8, 2014 to file a motion for leave.