ML12340A190
| ML12340A190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2012 |
| From: | McDade L G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | State of NY |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23841, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12340A190 (6) | |
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
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 December 5, 2012 ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589)
At the October 2012 evidentiary hearing, the Board admitted several exhibits, subject to a later objection by any opposing party.
1 One such exhibit was admitted as ENT000589. On November 21, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed an objection to ENT000589, stating that the proffered exhibit failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
2 New York argues that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial because it views Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C in isolation and is unreliable because it contradicts the direct testimony of Entergy witnesses at hearing.
3 In addition, New York argues that the difference in percentages between the outcomes of the new sensitivity analysis and the increase needed to make an additional SAMA cost-beneficial are "too close to be considered relevant, material, or reliable."
4 New York 1 See, e.g., Tr. at 2519.
2 The State of New York's Objection to ENT000589 (Nov. 21, 2012).
3 Id. at 3. 4 Id. also cites a lack of good cause for the late-filing of ENT000589, which New York alleges has prejudiced its case.
5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) opposes New York's objection, arguing that Entergy does not have to offer a combined analysis for Contentions NYS-16B and NYS-12C; 6 that the proffered sensitivity analysis is relevant to the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B; 7 and that New York's argument regarding the closeness of a margin "lacks a basis in law or
fact."8 Entergy also argues that the revised sensitivity analysis is fully consistent with the testimony offered by Entergy experts at hearing.
9 We overrule New York's objection for two reasons. First, each of New York's arguments constitutes a merit-based assessment and factual determination - matters that the Board is tasked with assessing in our initial decision. Exhibit ENT000589 presents another perspective on the issues before us and meets the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). As we have repeatedly stated, we will give each admitted exhibit the appropriate weight in the context of testimony and issues before us.
10 Our evaluation of ENT000589 will be no different. Given the robust record that has been developed on Contention NYS-16B, the Board is well-positioned to evaluate the merits of each party's arguments and make a final determination. Second, New York's argument that it has been prejudiced by the late filing of ENT000589 is without merit. We have allowed each party (including New York) to present late-5 Id. at 7-8. 6 Entergy's Answer to the State of New York's Objection to the Licensing Board's Admission of Entergy Hearing Exhibit ENT000589 (Nov. 30, 2012) at 3-6.
7 Id. at 2-3. 8 Id. at 6. 9 Id. at 7-9. 10 Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicant's Motions in Limine) (Mar. 6, 2012) at 20 (unpublished). filed exhibits in order to ensure a complete record. New York has benefited from this approach on several occasions and cannot justifiably claim prejudice in this case. ENT000589 was furnished to New York promptly after it was created, was generated in response to evidence presented by New York, and New York was given an ample opportunity to review and respond to this recently generated analysis. For those reasons, New York's objection to the admission of Exhibit ENT000589 is overruled. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
___________________________
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland December 5, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
) 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 (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) 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
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk James Maltese, Law Clerk Carter Thurman, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov james.maltese@nrc.gov carter.thurman@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.
Karl Farrar, Esq. 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
OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
William C. Dennis, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
wdennis@entergy.com
William B. Glew, Jr.
Organization: Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 wglew@entergy.com
Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place, 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) 2 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
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, 6th Floor
White Plains, NY 10601 mjr1@westchestergov.com Clint Carpenter, Esq.
Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Matthew Leland, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP 600 13th 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
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
Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel
625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us 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 (Overruling New York's Objection to Exhibit ENT000589) 3 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. 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 Janice A. Dean, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
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.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
55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2012