ML12219A411
| ML12219A411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2012 |
| From: | Jeremy Dean State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23228, 50-247-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-286-LR | |
| Download: ML12219A411 (4) | |
Text
Janice Dean From: Janice Dean Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:47 AMTo: 'Burchfield, Bobby'; 'Turk, Sherwin'; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; 'Phillip Musegaas';
'Deborah Brancato'; 'Manna Jo Greene'; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; 'Karla Raimundi' Cc: 'Sutton, Kathryn M.'; 'Glew Jr, William'; Leland, Matthew; 'Mizuno, Beth'; 'Ghosh, Anita'; 'Wentzel, Michael'; 'Smith, Maxwell'; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) ConsultationPage 1of 4 8/6/2012I don't believe we have yet reached a point where we are talking about time to respond. As you know, Entergy's obligation under 10 C.F.R. 2.323(b) is to make "a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion" prior to filing. Even under the 10 day deadline you're citing, Entergy has until Friday to file, and I have not yet been able to obtain the answers to Entergy's questions from those agencies. Consultation is very much still ongoing here. I anticipate having further answers to Entergy's questions later this week. I did not indicate that I would have a position by 10am today, and in fact stated that I would not.
It is not yet clear to me that Entergy has a good faith basis for filing this motion, as you are still citing inapplicable provisions of law in support of your motion. 15 C.F.R. § 930.6(c) applies to states with coastal permit programs. New York does not have a coastal permit program and does not issue State coastal "permits." Entergy appears to be confusing state certifications and federal certifications under New York's program. State agencies are researching the files on the PSC and NYPA approvals Entergy asked about and that may shed the needed light on this issue.
Can you tell me who at the Department of State you consulted prior to filing Entergy's LRA amendment with the NRC? Thank you, Janice From: Burchfield, Bobby [1] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:22 PM To: Janice Dean; 'Turk, Sherwin'; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; 'Phillip Musegaas'; 'Deborah Brancato'; 'Manna Jo Greene';
Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; 'Karla Raimundi' Cc: 'Sutton, Kathryn M.'; 'Glew Jr, William'; Leland, Matthew; 'Mizuno, Beth'; 'Ghosh, Anita'; 'Wentzel, Michael'; 'Smith, Maxwell';
Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) Consultation JaniceThankyouforyouremail.Youraiseseveralpoints.First,theversionofNewYork'sCoastalManagementProgram("NYCMP")currentlyontheDepartmentofState'swebsite("the2006version")saysonitscover"Thisdocumentincorporatesalltheapprovedroutineprogramchangesfrom1982to2006."ThedocumentyoucirculatedyesterdaycontainsaletterofapprovalfromtheDepartmentofCommercedatedMarch28,2006.Further,thespecificprovisionyouidentifiedinthedocumentcirculatedyesterdayappearsinthe2006versionoftheNYCMPatsectionII 9,page18.Footnote109ofthe2006versionoftheNYCMPstatesthatthisprovisionwasaddedin2006.Inanyevent,wenotethattheprovisionspecifyingNuclearRegulatoryCommissionactivitiesrequiringaconsistencydeterminationisthesameastheprovisionthatwasadoptedin1982.Second,asIstatedonourcallyesterday,webelieve15C.F.R.§930.6(c)appliestoNewYork.Byitsterms,theregulationisgenerallyapplicabletostateswithCZMAplans,andwearenotawareofanyauthoritysupportingyourstatementthat15C.F.R.§930.6(c)doesnotapplytoNewYork.Aswediscussed,theregulationdeemsconsistencydeterminationsforstatepermitsrelatingtoaprojectsufficienttoconstituteconsistency concurrenceforfederalpermitsifthestatepermitsmustmeetthepoliciesoftheNYCMP.ThisisthecaseinNewYork.Moreover,atsectionII 4,pages2 4,theNYCMPidentifiesseveralstateagenciesthatareauthorizedtoconductconsistencyreviews,includingtheNewYorkDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,NewYorkPowerAuthority,andtheNewYorkPublicServiceCommission.WhentheNRCapprovedthetransfersofIP2andIP3toEntergy'saffiliates,theNewYorkPowerAuthorityandthePublicServiceCommissionapprovedtheactionsasconsistentwiththeNYCMP.Third,asyounotedinourcallonWednesday,NuclearRegulatoryCommissionregulationsseta10 daylimittofilemotions(see10C.F.R.§2.323(a)).Moreover,aswediscussedyesterday,apromptdeclaratoryorderisnecessarytoresolvewhetherEntergymustobtainanotherconsistencydeterminationfromtheState.AsIstatedWednesday,andreiteratedyesterday,Entergyisamenabletoareasonableextensionoftimeforpartiestorespondtoitsmotion,shouldamotionfordeclaratoryorderprovenecessary.WeappreciateyourworkingdiligentlyandingoodfaithtoformulateapositiononEntergy'sLicenseRenewalApplicationsupplement.WeagreedtoschedulethenextconsultationonMondayatyourrequestsothatNewYorkwouldhavetimesufficienttimetoprovideitsposition.Welookforwardtolearningitthen.Bobby R. Burchfield McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 202-756-8003 (Direct) 202-591-2751 (Fax) 703-624-4914 (Cell) bburchfield@mwe.comFrom: Janice Dean [2] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:39 AM To: Janice Dean; Burchfield, Bobby; 'Turk, Sherwin'; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; 'Phillip Musegaas'; 'Deborah Brancato'; 'Manna Jo Greene'; Kathryn Libe ratore; John J. Sipos; 'Karla Raimundi' Cc: 'Sutton, Kathryn M.'; 'Glew Jr, William'; Leland, Matthew; 'Mizuno, Beth'; 'Ghosh, Anita'; 'Wentzel, Michael'; 'Smith, Maxwe ll'; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) ConsultationThe first line of my email below should read "Bobby stated Entergy's belief that this document was incorporated into the 2006 version of the CMP." Apologies for the confusion. Janice From: Janice Dean Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:27 AM To: 'Burchfield, Bobby'; Turk, Sherwin; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; Phillip Musegaas; Deborah Brancato; Manna Jo Greene; Kathryn Liberatore; John J. Sipos; Karla Raimundi Cc: Sutton, Kathryn M.; Glew Jr, William; Leland, Matthew; Mizuno, Beth; Ghosh, Anita; Wentzel, Michael; Smith, Maxwel l; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
RE: Reconvening the 2.323(b) ConsultationFollowing up on yesterday's call, I wish to clarify one statement that Bobby made - I shared the 2006 Routine Program Change document and Bobby stated Entergy's belief that this document was incorporated into the 1982 version of the CMP. There is no 2006 version of the New York CMP; there is only the original CMP and the subsequent RPCs (including the one under discussion here). Also, Bobby raised 930.6(c); this provision, while applicable in certain states, does not apply in New York.
These factual and legal questions/misunderstandings about New York's program cause me to again question Entergy's need for expediting submission of this motion. Entergy has had five years to raise this Page 2of 4 8/6/2012 issue, which is a novel approach (as you know, Entergy did properly observe the State's authority under the CZMA during FitzPatrick's relicensing, which is no different than the situation here), and yet has chosen a particularly busy pre-hearing period in which to raise this. Additionally, Entergy's new counsel has not been entirely respectful of longstanding relicensing deadlines (I cannot recall an instance in which a party has insisted on a consultation call on such a complex issue on a filing deadline day in our many years of working well together). I do not believe Entergy has substantiated its need for expedited treatment of this motion. The two reasons Entergy provides, a manufactured 10-day window from a letter Entergy itself decided to send (which parties have agreed to extend), and alternately a need to file a CZMA application which Entergy has not filed in the five years since submitting its application, do not provide sufficient cause for expedited treatment of this issue. That said, I am diligently working to formulate a position on Entergy's motion and provide responses to questions Entergy raised in yesterday's call. I have been in touch with two state agencies and staff there are reviewing records on the 2000 and 2001 transfers of the Indian Point facilities as to the CZMA. As I will be regretfully out of the office this afternoon, I do not anticipate having an answer to these questions by Monday's call. Thank you,Janice Janice A. DeanSection Chief, Toxics and Cost Recovery SectionOffice of the New York State Attorney GeneralEnvironmental Protection Bureau120 Broadway, 26th FloorNew York, New York 10271(212) 416-8459 direct(212) 416-6007 faxjanice.dean@ag.ny.gov From: Burchfield, Bobby [3] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:11 PM To: Janice Dean; Turk, Sherwin; 'Bessette, Paul M.'; Phillip Musegaas; Deborah Brancato; Manna Jo Greene; Kathryn Liberatore; Jo hn J. Sipos; Karla Raimundi Cc: Sutton, Kathryn M.; Glew Jr, William; Leland, Matthew; Mizuno, Beth; Ghosh, Anita; Wentzel, Michael; Smith, Maxwel l; Threatt, Angela
Subject:
Reconvening the 2.323(b) ConsultationAgain,wewanttothankeveryoneforbeingavailablethisafternoontoconferaboutthemotionfordeclaratoryorderEntergyisconsidering.Ms.DeanstatedthattheStateofNewYorkneedsuntil10amEDTonMondaytoconsiderwhetheritwillconsenttooropposeEntergy'smotionforadeclaratoryorderholdingthatrenewaloftheoperatinglicensesforIndianPointUnits2and3willnotcausecoastalzoneeffectssubstantiallydifferentthanthosepreviouslyreviewedbyNewYorkState.
Afterdiscussingthematterwithcolleaguesandtheclient,Entergyisamenabletothisrequest.Accordingly,myassistantwillsendaconferencecallnoticeforafurtherconsultationonMondayat10amEDTsothatNewYorkcanstatewhetheritagreesordisagreeswithEntergy'sposition.
Bobby R. Burchfield McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 202-756-8003 (Direct) Page 3of 4 8/6/2012 202-591-2751 (Fax) 703-624-4914 (Cell) bburchfield@mwe.com *******************************************************************************************************************
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein.
________________________________________________________________________________
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. *******************************************************************************************************************
Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.Page 4of 4 8/6/2012