|
---|
Category:Legal-Intervention Petition
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 the State of New York'S and State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Decision Admitting the State of New York'S Contentions 35 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] Category:Responses and Contentions
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 the State of New York'S and State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Decision Admitting the State of New York'S Contentions 35 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] |
Text
DOCKETED USNRC October 7, 2008 (12:46pm)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY October 7, 2008 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF UNITED STATES OF.AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear.Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Station Units 2. and 3) ) and&50-286-LR RIVERKEEPER, INC.'S REPLYTO ENTERGY AND.NRC STAFF OPPOSITIONS TO NEWAND AMENDED CONTENTIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HIGH-DENSITY POOL STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.3 09(h)(2), Riverkeeper, Inc. ("Riverkeeper") hereby replies to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy's") and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ("NRC") Staff s responses to Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel (September 5, 2008) ("Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions").'
The NRC Staff contends that Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions constitute an impermissible challenge to the NRC's decision rejecting rulemaking petitions by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California. NRC Staff Response at 10 and 15, citing The Attorney Generalof Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, The Attorney General of California;Denial of Petitionsfor Rulemaking, 73 Fed. Reg.
Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel (September 20, 2008) ("Entergy's Answer"); NRC Staffs Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'s New and Amended Contentions Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel (September 30, 2008) ("NRC Staff s Answer").
II1S-cs
46,204 (August 8, 2008) ("Rulemaking'Petitiony Decision"). 'TheStaffs assertion is incorrect. Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions do not challenge the Rulemaking Petition Decisionper se. Instead, they challenge the NRC's conclusion, announced for the first time in the Rulemaking Petition Decision, that it is not necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for continued spent fuel storage at Indian Point (or any other individual nuclear power plant), based on site-specific mitigative measures imposed through an amendment to the Indian Point operating license. As stated in Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions, the:NRC's reliance on those plant-,specific mitigative measures to avoid preparation of an EIS is inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA.
Both Entergy and the NRC Staff attempt to minimize the significance of the NRC's reliance on mitigation measures taken at Indian Point to reduce the environmental impacts of a spent fuel pool accident to an acceptable level. Entergy Answer at 17, NRC Staff Answer at 12. The Rulemaking Petition Decision speaks for itself, however. As made clear by the language quoted by the NRC at page 4-5 of its Answer, the NRC has made a major change to its analysis.of the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage at nuclear power plants. While the NRC previously found that the impacts of spent fuel storage were insignificant without the need for any mitigation measures, it now relies on specific mitigation measures employed. at each individual nuclear power plant for its conclusion that the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage are insignificant:
Given the physical robustness of SFPs [spent fuel pools], the physical security measures, andSFP mitigation measures, and based upon NRC site evaluations of every SFP in the United States, the NRC has determined that the risk of an SFP zirconium fir, whether caused by an accident or a terrorist attack, is very low.
73 Fed. Reg. at 46,208 (emphasis added).
2
Moreover, neither Entergy nor the NRC Staff effectively ;disputes Rive'rkeeper's legal assertion that the NRC's reliance on the Indian Point site-specific mitigative measures has the effect of removing the issue.of spent fuel storage impacts at Indian Point from "Category 1" of Table B-1 of Appendix B.to -10 C.F.R. Part 51.'.See Riverkeeper's New and Amended Contentions at 11-13, citing footnote 2 of Table B-I (An issue may be classified as Category 1 only where "[m]itigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely notlto be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.") While the NRC Staff asserts that the mitigative measures are generic because they were imposed on all nuclear plants in the United States (NRC Staff Answer at 11), the Staff fatally undermines its own argument by conceding in a footnote that the mitigative measures are "by necessity, plant-specific."
NRC Staff Answer at 11 n.14.
Nevertheless, as the Staff points out, the Rulemaking Petition Decision affirms the inclusion of spent fuel storage impacts in Category 1 of Table B-1 of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 51. NRC Staff Answer at 4-5, citing 73 Fed. Reg. at 46,208. Yet the Staff is unable to explain why, if the NRC relies on site-specific mitigation measures at Indian Point to reduce the impacts of spent fuel storage to an assertedly low level, it should not be precluded by footnote 2 of Table B-1 from continuing to classify those impacts as Category 1 impacts. Riverkeeper respectfully submits that only the Commission can address this conundrum, and therefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB")
should refer the issue to the Commission for resolution.2 2 The NRC Staff argues that Riverkeeper should have brought its concerns 3
The NRC Staff also criticizes Riverlkeper for not '611owing through on a statement to the ASLB that if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' rulemaking petition were denied, Riverkeeper would file a waiver petition. NRC Staff Answer at 5. Atthe time it made that statement, Riverkeeper reasonablypresumed that the NRC would-either grant or deny the rulemaking petition, based'on the record presented to it by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California. Riverkeeper did not anticipate, nor could it have anticipated, that the Commission would deny the rulemaking petition based on the imposition of plant-specific mitigation measures - including measures taken at Indian Point -- that were never previously identified by the Commission in the course of the proceeding for consideration of the rulemaking petitions. The remedy chosen by Riverkeeper addresses those unforeseen: and 3
unforeseeable circumstances.
Finally, both Entergy and the Staff argue that the Rulemaking Petition Decision does not constitute a NEPA decision in this license reniewal proceeding that is subject to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Entergy Answer at 9, NRC Staff Answer at 13. Riverkeeper respectfully submits that the legal status of the Rulemaking Petition Decision is straight to the Commission. NRC Staff s Response at 2. In making this argument, the Staff overlooks the fact that the Commission has delegated authority to the ASLB to preside over the Indian Point license renewal proceeding. See 72 Fed. Reg. 60,394 (October 24, 2007). Therefore, Riverkeeper was required to submit its New and Amended Contentions to the ASLB in the first instance, and to request referral of the issues to the Commission.
s Similarly, Riverkeeper respectfully submits that when the ASLB announced that if the rulemaking petitions were denied, "the current rule will remain in force, and any attack on the validity of that rule will be impermissible in this proceeding as a matter of law" (see Entergy Answer at 4 and NRC Staff Answer at 10-11, quoting LBP-08-13, slip op. at 181), the ASLB could not have anticipated that the Commission would rely on previously-undisclosed plant-specific mitigation measures, including mitigation measures taken at Indian Point.
4
somewhat ambiguous. Because the Decision refers to-plant-specific mitigation measures taken at each individual plant - including Indian Point - Riverkeeper reasonably concluded that the Rulemaking Petition Decision does constitute a NEPA decision in.this case. If, in fact, theRulemaking Petition Decision does not constitute any kind of NEPA decision that is subject to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), then Riverkeeper seeks a ruling from the ASLB to that effect, in order to protect Riverkeeper from being penalized for failing to raise its concerns at the earliest possible juncture. Riverkeeper respectfully submits that given the strict timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f),.Riverkeeper had no choice but to submit its New and Amended Contentions as soon as it became aware of a potentially applicable NEPA document containing information that could affect either current or future NEPA based contentions in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Hudson River Program Director Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)
Fax 9.14-478-4527 phillip(iriverkeeper.org www.riverkeeper.org October 7, 2008 5
CERTIFICATEOF: SERVICE I certify that on October 7, 2008 copies ofthe foregoing Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Oppositions to New and Amended Contentions Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel were served on the following by e-mail and first-classmail:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20555 By e-mail: Robert.Snookkpo.state.ct.us Also by e-mail: Lawrence.McDadegnrc.gov 4-Richard E. Wardwell MichaelJ. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York.City Econ. Development Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street' Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 1003.8 Also by e-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelanev'dnycedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Heather Ellsworth Bums-DeMelo Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Remy Chevalier Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.
Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
35 1 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 martin.oneilla2morganlewis.com Also by e-mail: fuse usa~yvahoo.com pbessette(~morganlewis.com ksutton(2amorganiewis.com 4-Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Office of the New York Attorney General David E. Roth, Esq.
for the State of New York Jessica Bielecki, Esq.
The Capitol Marcia J. Simon, Esq.
Albany, New York 12224 Office of General Counsel Also by e-mail: John.Sipos(aoag.state.nv.us U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: Sherwin.Turkdnrc.gov lbs3@nrc.gov
Beth'.Mizqnognrb., ov David.Roth(2nrc. gov Jessica.Bielecking~nrc. gov Marcia. Sirnon~anrc. gov Office of the Secretary William;C..Dennis, ,Esq.
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy"Nuclear Operations, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains; NY 10601 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(,inrc.gov Also by e-mail: wdennisgentergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. HudsonRiver Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 112:Little Market Street Tanrytown, NY 10591 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: Sfiller(anylawline.com Also by e-mail: Mannajo(dclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary1Matthews, Esq.
Assistant County:Attorney, Litigation Bureau. Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor 625 Broadway, 14'h floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 Also by e-mail: idp3@&westchestergov.com Also by e-mail:
i*lmatthewsna)gw.dec.state.ny.us Zachary S. Kahn, Esq.,. Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 460 Park Avenue Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kalm@(nrc.gov New York, NY 10022 Also by e-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Nancy Burton 190 Cedar Lane East 147 Cross Highway Ridgeway, CO 81432 Redding Ridge-; CT 06878 Also by e-mail: Kaye.Lathropr~nrc.gov Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCT(Qaol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Assistant Attorney General 53 State Street Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Also by e-mail: ezoli(goodwinprocter.com New York, NY 10271 Also by e-mail: Janice.deankoag.state.nv.us 2
Richard U. BrodskyiEsq. JohiL.-Parker,'Esq.
Assemblyman Regional Attorney, Region 3 Suite 205 New York State Department; of 5 West Main Street Environmental Conservation Elmsford, NY 10523. 21 South Putt Corners brodskradassemblv.state.ny.us NewwPaltz, NY 12561 richardbrodskvrmsn.com -Also by e-mail: ýilparker@a)vgw.dec.state.ny.us Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
Executive Deputy Attorney General Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 120 Broadway, 25th Floor - 1726,M,.Street NW, Suite:600 New York, NY 10271 Washington, DC 20036 Also by e-mail: -dcurranaharmoncurran.com mylan.denerstein~oag. state.ny.us Sarah L. Wagner, Esq.
Room 422 Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12248 sarahwagneresQ@gmail.com Phillip Musegaas October 7, 2008 3