ML12190A002
| ML12190A002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/2012 |
| From: | Brancato D, Dean J A, Greene M J, Musegaas P, Sipos J J Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12190A001 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 22934, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NYS-39/RK-EC-9/CW-EC-10 | |
| Download: ML12190A002 (16) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re:
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
x
STATE OF NEW YORK, RIVERKEEPER, INC., AND HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER'S JOINT CONTENTION NY S-39/RK-EC-9/CW-EC-10 CONCERNING THE ON-SITE STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE AT INDIAN POINT
Filed on July 8, 2012 State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 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. July 8, 2012
x PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The State of New York, Hudson Riverkeeper, Inc., and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. respectfully submit a new joint contention ba sed on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's recent decision in the matter of State of New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , No. 11-1045 (June 8, 2012), which invalidated the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision Update and Temporary Storage Rule.
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 2CONTENTION NYS-39/RK-EC-9/CW-EC-10 THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR INDIAN POINT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 102 (c) AND (e) OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLI CY ACT AND 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.20(b)(2), 51.71(d), 51.90, 51.91(c), 51.92, 51.95(c)(1
), 51.95(c)(2), AND 51.101(a), BECAUSE IT FAILS TO INCLUDE OR INCORPORATE A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ON-SITE STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXTENDED OPERATING PERIOD, INCLUDING THE IMPACTS IN THE EVENT THAT NO PERMANENT REPOSITORY IS EVER ESTABLISHED, AND FAILS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO MITIGATE THOSE IMPACTS; BECAUSE THERE IS NO VALID ANALYSIS OF THESE ISSUES, NRC MAY NOT REACH A FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER TO RENEW INDIAN POINT'S OPERATING LICENSES UNTIL SUCH A VALID ANALYSIS HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND REGULATIONS.
NRC Staff's environmental review of the appl ications to operate two power reactors at Indian Point for an additional twenty year s does not now include an analysis of the environmental impacts caused by the storage of nuclear waste at Indian Point following the end of the requested operating licenses nor an analysis of alternatives to prop osed storage of spent fuel at Indian Point for an indefinite period of time in spent fu el pools. The absence of such a review and analysis violates the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and related regulations. Neither the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Point NUREG-1437 Supplement 38 ("FSEIS") nor the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal NUREG-1437 ("GEIS") has examined these impacts or alternatives because State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 3NRC's Temporary Storage Rule barred such a review based on its findings that on-site storage of nuclear waste would have no significant impact for 60 years post-operation and that a permanent repository would be available when necessary. Because the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled that the Temporary Storage Rule, along with the Waste Confidence Update on which the rule wa s based, are invalid, su ch analysis is now required in this proceeding.
BASES 1. NEPA requires NRC to consider all the impacts of relicensing a nuclear reactor, including the impacts of storing nu clear waste at a reactor site for so long as waste remains at the site, and alternatives to such storage. 2. Until June 8, 2012, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) provided that NRC believed that there was reasonable assurance that a mi ned geologic disposal site for spent fuel would be available when necessary and that storage of spent fuel at power reactor sites for 60 years after cessation of operation would have not have significant environmental impacts.
See 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) ("Temporary Storage Rule"). That regulation was based on NRC's "Waste Confidence Findings." 75 Fed. Reg. 81037 (Dec. 23, 2010) ("Wa ste Confidence Decisi on Update" or "WCD Update"). The regulation provided fu rther that (10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b)): as provided in §§ 51.30(b), 51.53, 51.
61, 51.80(b), 51.95 and 51.97(a), and within the scope of the generic determination in paragraph (a) of this section, no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) for the period following the term of the reactor operating license . . . is required in any environmental report, environmental impact statement, environmental assessment or other analysis State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 4prepared in connection with the issuance or amendment of an operating license for a nuclear reactor.
10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b)(emphasis added). 3. Based on the predecessor to 10 C.F.R. § 51.23, neither the potential environment impacts of continued storage of spent fuel at pow er reactor sites after cessation of operation nor the alternatives to that stor age are addressed in the 1996 GEIS (NUREG-1437), 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, which embodies the findi ngs in that GEIS, or the FSEIS for Indian Point (NUREG-1437 Supplement 38). Such alternativ es would include alternatives to Entergy's storage plan including, without limitation, transferring all spent fuel from pools to dry casks. 4. On June 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that NRC's Waste Confidence Decision Update and Temporary Storage Rule were invalid under NEPA. The Court ruled, first, that the WCD Update violated NEPA because it failed to analyze the environmental impacts of the finding that a permanent repository will be available when necessary, including the impacts of failing to establish a repository when one is
needed. The Court also ruled that the environmenta l analysis underlying NRC's finding in the Temporary Storage Rule that the continued storag e of spent fuel at power reactor sites for 60 years post-operation would have no adverse environmental impacts did not meet the requirements of NEPA because (1) the analysis of the environmental impacts of leaks from spent fuel pools was deficient; and (2) the consequences of spent pool fuel fires were not examined. The Court has not yet issued the mandate.
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 5 5. As a result of the Court's ruling, NRC may no longer rely on the Temporary Storage Rule and Waste Confidence Decision to meet its obligation under NEPA to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the on-site storage of spent fuel at Indian Point following the end of extended operating licenses. 6. Because NRC has not conducted a valid NEPA analysis of the environmental impacts of the on-site storage of spent fuel at Indian Point followi ng the end of extended operating licenses - including the impacts in the event that a permanent repository is never established - NRC may not reach a final decision on whether to renew Indian Point's operating licenses until such a valid analysis has been completed and complies with applicable federal law and regulations. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE A. Procedural History
- 7. On October 9, 2008, the Commission issu ed a draft rule revising the waste confidence findings. With respect to Waste Confidence Finding Two, the Commission proposed "remov[ing] its expectation that a repository will be available by 2025" and acknowledged that its previous finding that sufficien t disposal capacity would be avai lable within 30 years after any reactor's licensed life "is not supportable."
See 73 Fed. Reg. 59551, 59558, and 59561 (Oct. 9, 2008)("Waste Confidence Decision Update"). The Commission pr oposed revising Waste Confidence Finding Four to state that waste coul d be safely stored on-site for 60 years beyond the licensed operating life of a facility. 73 Fed. Reg. at 59551.
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
- 68. The Commission also proposed amending 10 C.F.R. § 51.23 to reflect these revised policies, stating in an open-ended fashion and without a date certain (i.e., without even the 60-year reference from its proposed Finding Four revision) that "spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or re newed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either on-si te or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations until a disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available." 73 Fed. Reg. 59547 (Oct. 9, 2008)("Temporary Storage Rule"). 9. The NRC's pronouncements in the October 9, 2008 Federal Register meant that the NRC expects that spent fuel will remain at power reactor sites or Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations ("ISFSIs")
for decades longer than antici pated, if not indefinitely. 10. By the Temporary Storage Rule, the Commission refused to undertake any analysis of post-license impacts of waste storage either generically or site-by-site. 11. The State of New York submitted proposed Contention NYS-34 on February 27, 2009, arguing that the December 2008 draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Point ("DSEIS") was insufficient in lig ht of NRC's October 9, 2008 Federal Register statements which, the State argued, constituted new and significant information as that term is defined under NEPA and regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality and the NRC. State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 27, 2009) ML090690303.
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 712. The State also argued that NRC's October 9, 2008 statements also reflected other new and significant information concerning the Commission's acknowledgment that demonstrate any high level waste disposal facility that was to have been available by 2025 will not have capacity sufficient to receive more than the amount of wastes which will be generated by existing plants during their in itial 40-year operating license terms. 73 Fed. Reg. 59556-57. 13. The State argued that the NRC Staff's failure to examine such new and significant information violated NEPA and regulations promulgated by the Counsel on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") and the NRC. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii); 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.72(a)(2), 51.92, 51.95(a). 14. Entergy and NRC Staff opposed the State's proposed contention on grounds that, inter alia, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23 barred consideration of the environmental impacts of the post-operation of on-site storage of nuclear waste. 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 (Mar. 25, 2009) ML090840116. 15. On June 16, 2009, the Board rejected the State's proposed Contention NYS-34 on grounds that the State's contention was premat ure, and, alternatively, that the contention would be barred by 10 C.F.R. § 51.23. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Indian Point Units 2 and 3), Order (Ruling on New York State's New and Amended Contentions), slip op. at 13-16 (June 16, 2009). The Board stated: Both of the publications that New York cites as new and significant information are proposed revisions. At this point, the Commission has not made a final determination vis--vis the waste confidence rule. Therefore, it is premature to State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 8 use these publications as the bases for a new contention, as the regulations now in force, specifically 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b), do not permit "discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel storage" at nuclear reactor sites.
ASLB June 16, 2009 slip op. at 16. 16. In September 2009, the NRC Commissioners made additional public statements about the waste confidence proce ss. The three then-sitting Comm issioners recognized that the administrative record does not provide "reasonable assurance" that a permanent disposal facility
for high level radioactive waste will exist by a particular date. This rec ognition was reflected in the voting notations of the three Commissioners who deferred any final action on a proposed revision to § 51.23 pending further input from the public on the proposal and further development of a waste disposal policy by the Executive and Legislative authorities.
See Notation Vote, September 2009 Response Sheets of Chairman Jaczko, Commissioner Klein, and Commissioner Svinicki (publicly released on September 25 and 28, 2009). 17. On October 26, 2009, Clearwater submitted proposed new contentions concerning waste confidence. Hudson River Sloop Clearwa ter, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information (Oct. 26, 2009) (corrected version filed Nov. 6, 2009)
ML093200503. Clearwater sought leave to file two new contentions, a safety contention under the Atomic Entergy Act and an environmental contention under NEPA. 18. On November 19, 2009, the State of New York submitted an Answer in support of Clearwater's submission. The State's Answer noted that much had changed during the Indian Point license renewal proceeding. Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 9 Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste Generated at Indian Point (Nov. 19, 2009)
ML1008200028. The State's Answer underscored the fu rther evolution of th e factual record on this issue since the State's presented its "premature" Contention NYS-34. 19. Riverkeeper, the State of Connecticut, and the Town of Cortlandt also submitted answers supporting Clearwater
's proposed contentions. 20. On February 12, 2010, the ASLB issued a decision certifying a question to the NRC Commissioners concerning the continued viability of the Temporary Storage Rule.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Indian Point Units 2 and 3), Memorandum and Order (Certification to the Commission of a Question Relating to the Con tinued Viability of 10 C.F.R.
§ 51.23(b) Arising From Clearwa ter's Motion for Leave to Admit New Contentions) (Feb. 12, 2010). Specifically, the Board ask[ed] the Commission to advise the Bo ard whether we should: (1) defer ruling on Clearwater's Motion until the Commission undertakes an evaluation of the impact, if any, that these recent developments will have on the viability of the Commission's Waste Confidence Rule; (2) rule on Clearwater's pending motion consistent with the current language of Section 51.23; (3) admit Clearwater's new contentions notwithstanding Section 51.23; or (4) take some other action to be specified by the Commission.
ASLB February 12, 2010 slip op. at 2. 21. On July 8, 2010, in response to the Board's certified question, the Commissioners issued CLI-10-19 that directed the ASLB to reject the Clearwater contentions. Entergy Nuclear State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 10 Operations, Inc., (Indian Point Units 2 and 3), 72 N.R.C. 98, CLI-10-19, Memorandum and Order (July 8, 2010).
1 The Commissioners stated:
We are continuing our deliberations on the waste confidence update, and in any event will not conclude action on the Indian Point license renewal application until the rulemaking is resolved.
72 N.R.C. at 100, CLI-10-19, slip op. at 3. This Commissioner ruling in th is proceeding controls here, because the rulemaking "is [not] resolved." 22. NRC issued the final Waste Confidence Decision Update and Temporary Storage Rule on December 23, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 80132-37 (Dec. 23, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 80137-76 (Dec. 23, 2010). When the Commission adopted the WCD Update and TSR, it declared that: The Commission reaffirms the three rema ining findings. Each finding and the reasons for revising or reaffirming the fi nding are discussed below. In keeping with revised Findings 2 and 4, the Commissi on is concurrently publishing in this issue of the Federal Register conforming amendments to 10 CFR 51.23(a), which provides a generic determination of the environmental impacts of storage of spent fuel at, or away from, reactor sites after the expiration of reactor operating licenses, and expresses reasonable assurance that sufficient geologic disposal capacity will be available when necessary.
75 Fed. Reg. 81037, 81038 (Dec. 23, 2010). B. Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 23. On February 15, 2011, a coalition of states led by New York and a coalition of environmental organizations including Riverkeeper challenged the Temporary Storage Rule and the Waste Confidence Decision Update respectivel y, in the United States Court of Appeals for
1 NRC Commissioner Apostolaki s did not participate in the ruling on this matter.
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 11the District of Columbia Circuit. The Prairie Island Indian Community, a federally-recognized Indian tribe, also filed a challe nge. Those legal challenges were c onsolidated and heard together. 24. On June 8, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Waste Confiden ce Decision Update and the Temporary Storage Rule.
New York v. NRC , slip op., No. 11-1045 (June 8, 2012). The Court held that the WCD Update "constitutes a major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant environmental impact" and that "in concluding that permanent storage will be available 'when necessary,' the Commission did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent storage-a possibility that cannot be ignored."
Id. The Court also held that the environmental analysis that led to the finding of no significant impact in the Temporary Storage Rule was deficient because, in "determining that spent fuel can safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant's license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences."
New York v. NRC , slip op. at 3. 25. The Court also held that "we grant the petitions fo r review, vacate the WCD Update and TSR, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
New York v.
NRC , slip op. at 21. 26. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has vacated the WCD Update and the TSR, there is currently no bar in place to the requirement pursuant to NEPA that the NRC analyze the potential environmental impacts of the on-site storage of spent fuel at Indian Point follo wing the end of the requested extended operating licenses. Because the D.C. Circuit decision finds that such impacts could be significant, that State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 12those impacts have not been adequately analyzed by NRC, that the process for analysis of those impacts constitutes a major federal action, and because the FSEIS in this proceeding contains no such analysis, the FSEIS is legally deficient under NEPA. C. NRC's Reliance on the Temporary Storage Rule and Waste Confidence Decision in this Relicensing
- 27. The FSEIS for Indian Point relies on the now-vacated § 51.23 in multiple places. In the Executive Summary, Staff states that "the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal st age need not discuss - any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) ['Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no significant environmental impact'] and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b)." FSEIS at xvi.
- 28. The FSEIS also relies on § 51.23 in finding that neither the Applicant's ER (FSEIS at 1-5) nor the Staff's SEIS (FSEIS at 9-1) needs to discuss "any as pect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic dete rmination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b)."
- 29. The Staff reiterated this in response to the State's comment that the SEIS does not analyze offsite land use impacts of continued opera tions and the additional storage of spent fuel on real estate values in the su rrounding areas (FSEIS, Appendix A, at A-22) and in response to a comment indicating that the GEIS does not adequately evaluate the long term impacts and safety of the generation and long-term storage of radioactive waste (FSEIS at Appendix A, A-138)
("Accordingly, no discussion of the environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 13 storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installation is required for an environmental impact statement associated with license renewal.")(emphasis omitted).
- 30. Staff also raised § 51.23 in response to comments indicating that storage of spent fuel in dry casks, while safer than spent fuel pool storage, will not reduce the amount of spent fuel in the pools (id. at A-147) and questioning the adequacy of decommissioning process regarding spent fuel (id. at A-160) . 31. Staff also relied on the now-vacated Waste Confidence Decision in concluding that there are "no offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term be yond those discussed in the GEIS." FSEIS at 6-4.
- 32. During the May 8, 2012 site visit to the Indian Point facilities by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Entergy representatives made the following statements about Entergy's plans for spent nuclear fuel at Indian Point: (A) All of the spent fuel generated during since the start of comm ercial operation of Indian Point Unit 3 remains in the Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pool (as of the date of the site visit);
(B) Entergy has no current plans to construct an additional dry cask storage area (in addition to the existing dry cask storage area); and (C) At the end of operation under any 20-y ear extension of the current operating licenses, Entergy estimates that the existing dry cask storage area would be filled to capacity and that the Indian Point Un it 2 spent fuel pool and the Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pool would be filled to capacity as well.
- 33. All of the above-lis ted references to 10 C.F.R.
§ 51.23 or the Waste Confidence Findings have now been invalidated as a result of the D.C. Circuit's invalidation of both the Waste Confidence Decision and the Temporary St orage Rule, and as a result NRC must now State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 14 evaluate, before a decision on Indian Point's operating licenses can be made: the environmental effects of on-site storage of waste after the pe riod of extended operation; offsite land use impacts of continued operations and the additional storage of spent fuel on real estate values in the surrounding areas; the impacts and sa fety of the generation and long-term storage of radioactive waste; the impacts of spent fuel storage in pools ve rsus in dry casks; the im plications of on-site storage of waste for decommissioning; alternatives to mitigate any of these adverse consequences, among other issues.
- 34. In a recent legal filing submitted to the Commission in another proceeding, NRC Staff has acknowledged that although "[t]he Commi ssion has not yet indicated how it intends to respond to the D.C. Circuit's ruling, no final d ecision to grant a - renewed operating license should be made - until the N RC has appropriately dispositioned the issues remanded by the court -"
NRC Staff's Answer to Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded Waste Confidence Proceedings, at p. 4 (June 25, 2012) (filed in Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, et al
., Docket No. 52-016-COL).
2 35. This contention alleges that a final decision on whether to issue a renewed operating licenses for the Indian Point facilities cannot be made until the NRC has completed a legally-sufficient analysis of the environmen tal impacts associated with the long-term and
2 In the same filing, Staff also noted that "With respect to license renewal proceedings, Indian Point is perhaps the closest to a final decision by the Board." NRC Staff's Answer to Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded Waste Confidence Proceedings, at p. 4, n.3 (June 25, 2012) (filed in Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, et al
., Docket No. 52-016-COL).
State of New York, Riverkeeper, & Clearwater Contention NYS-39/RK-9/CW-10 NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 15indefinite storage of spent fuel at the Indian Point site and considers alternatives to mitigate those impacts. CONCLUSION The issues raised in the proposed join t Contention NYS-39/RK-EC-9/CW-EC-10 are material to the findings the NRC must make to take action upon th e applicant's request. For all the reasons stated in this C ontention and the accompanying Motion for Leave, the State of New York, Riverkeeper, and Clearwater request that this joint contention be admitted.
Respectfully submitted,
Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by Janice A. Dean John J. Sipos Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12227 (518) 402-2251 Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road Ossining, New York 10562 (914) 478-4501 Signed (electronically) by Manna Jo Greene Environmental Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Ave..
Beacon, NY 12508 (845) 265-8080 ext 7113
July 8, 2012