ML15069A677

Entergy'S Consolidated Answer Opposing Intervenors' Motions to Amend Contention NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5

ML15069A677
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/10/2015
From:	Bessette P Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 27355
Download: ML15069A677 (38)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) March 10, 2015 ENTERGYS CONSOLIDATED ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS MOTIONS TO AMEND CONTENTIONS NYS-25 AND NYS-38/RK-TC-5 William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Ave. Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Phone: (914) 272-3360 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3242 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................4 A. Procedural History ....................................................................................................4

1. Procedural History of NYS-25 ......................................................................4

2. Procedural History of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 .....................................................6 B. Technical Background ..............................................................................................7

1. Development of the NRC-Approved Generic Aging Management Program for Reactor Vessel Internals for Pressurized Water Reactors .........................................................................................................7

2. Background on the Indian Point Plant-Specific Aging Management Program .........................................................................................................9 C. Intervenors Proposed Amended Contentions ........................................................10

1. New York States Proposed Amendments to NYS-25 ...............................10

2. Intervenors Proposed Amendments to NYS-38/RK-TC-5 ........................11 III. LEGAL STANDARDS.......................................................................................................13 A. Timeliness Requirements for New or Amended Contentions.................................13 B. Substantive Contention Admissibility Requirements .............................................14 IV. CHALLENGES TO THE FATIGUE CALCULATIONS FOR NON-REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS COMPONENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SSER 2 AND THEREFORE UNTIMELY ...................................................................................16 V. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE SUBSTANTIVELY INADMISSIBLE ..........18 A. Intervenors and Their Experts Disregard, Rather than Dispute, the Extensive Technical Analyses Underpinning the Reactor Vessel Internals Program Approved in SSER 2 ..............................................................................................18

1. Synergistic Effects ...................................................................................19

2. Preventive Actions ......................................................................................21

3. Shock Loads ................................................................................................22

4. Specific Components ..................................................................................23 B. The Demand for Repair or Replacement of Reactor Vessel Internals and Maintaining Safety Margins Are Unsupported and Are Challenges to the License Renewal Rule .............................................................................................27 C. The Challenges to Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Calculations Are Inadmissible ............................................................................................................30

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

1. Intervenors Challenge to the Schedule for Completing the IP3 Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Calculations Is Inadmissible................30

2. Intervenors Remaining Claims Are Not New and Lack Support ...............31 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................33

-ii-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) March 10, 2015 ENTERGYS CONSOLIDATED ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS MOTIONS TO AMEND CONTENTIONS NYS-25 AND NYS-38/RK-TC-5 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(1) and in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) Scheduling Order of July 1, 20101 (Scheduling Order) and Order of August 8, 2012,2 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submits this consolidated Answer opposing both the State of New Yorks (NYS or the State) Motion for Leave to Supplement Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 (NYS-25 Motion),3 and NYS and Riverkeeper (Intervenors) Motion for Leave to Supplement Previously-Admitted Joint 1

Licensing Board Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010) (unpublished) (Scheduling Order).

2 See Licensing Board Order (Concerning Recent Changes to 10 C.F.R. Part 2) (Aug. 8, 2012) (unpublished)

(2012 Part 2 Order) (recognizing that the changes to the Rules of Practice promulgated in 2012 govern all obligations and disputes that arise after Sept. 4, 2012, absent a subsequent order from the Board).

3 Along with the NYS-25 Motion, the State also filed the: (1) New York State February 2015 Supplement to Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 (Feb. 13, 2015) (NYS-25 Supplement), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A91; (2) Declaration of Lisa S. Kwong (Feb. 13, 2015) (Kwong Declaration),

attaching three documents, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A495; and (3) Declaration of Richard T. Lahey, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2015) (2015 Lahey Declaration), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A492 (collectively, Amended Contention NYS-25). The State filed both public (redacted) and non-public (proprietary) versions of the Kwong and Lahey Declarations. On February 17, 2015, the State filed corrected proprietary versions of these declarations with the markings specified in the Licensing Board Protective Order (Sept. 4, 2009) (unpublished) (Protective Order).

Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion,)4 (collectively with the NYS-25 Motion, Motions). Both Motions were filed on February 13, 2015. Both proposed Amended Contentions proffered in the Motions largely address Entergys aging management program (AMP) for reactor vessel internals (RVIs).

The Board provided Intervenors with an opportunity to file new contentions or amend their existing Track 2 safety contentions5 following the publication of the second supplement to the safety evaluation report for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) license renewal (SSER 2).6 This opportunity is reasonable, as the existing contentions are now all more than three years old and there have been substantial developments since they were last amended.7 Yet, despite the availability of considerable new information developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Materials Reliability Program (MRP), Westinghouse, Entergy, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)directly relevant to the issues raised in the proposed Amended Contentionsthe Intervenors have passed up this opportunity by simply repackaging and restating their prior claims without adequately addressing the new information the NRC Staff evaluated and documented in SSER 2. Thus, the proposed 4

Along with the NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion, Intervenors filed a partially-overlapping set of documents: (1) New York State and Riverkeeper February 2015 Supplement to Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Feb. 13, 2015) (NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A498; (2)

Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld (Feb. 12, 2015) (Hopenfeld Declaration), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15044A502; and (3) a separate copy of the 2015 Lahey Declaration (collectively, Amended Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 and, collectively with Amended Contention NYS-25, the Amended Contentions).

Intervenors filed both public (redacted) and non-public (proprietary) versions of the Hopenfeld and Lahey Declarations. On February 17, 2015, the Intervenors also filed corrected proprietary versions of these declarations, with the markings specified in the Protective Order.

5 See Licensing Board Revised Scheduling Order at 2 (Dec. 9, 2014) (unpublished) (Revised Scheduling Order).The Track 2 safety contentions are NYS-25 concerning reactor vessel internals, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B concerning metal fatigue, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 concerning certain safety commitments, collectively referred to as Contentions.

6 NUREG-1930, Supp. 2, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Nov. 2014) (SSER 2), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14310A803.

7 Accordingly, Entergy and the NRC Staff did not object to this opportunity.

2

Amended Contentions fail to address, much less dispute, the most current technical documentation related to these contentions.

In addition, Intervenors make various claims that attack Commission rules, contrary to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.335 and 2.309(f)(1)(iii). The Amended Contentions also are based on unsupported speculation, contrary to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi). Finally, Amended Contention NYS-25 makes untimely claims regarding fatigue analyses of non-RVI components that were not even considered in SSER 2, contrary to the Scheduling Order and 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c). Accordingly, the Motions should be denied in their entireties.8 Moreover, the Intervenors have not addressedwith only very limited exceptions addressed specifically belowthe technical basis for the RVI AMP as developed by the EPRI MRP, Westinghouse, Entergy, and reviewed by the NRC Staff. As a result, the Board should clarify that any new arguments and bases not already pled in NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 are outside the scope of the contentions. Specifically, consistent with binding Commission precedent, the Board should make clear that Intervenors testimony on these contentions cannot raise new arguments or challenges to the technical bases for the RVI AMP that they failed to address in the Amended Contentions.9 8

Entergy recognizes that the currently-admitted Track 2 safety contentions would remain in place. Under the Revised Scheduling Order, it may file dispositive motions for the Track 2 safety contentions within 20 days of the Boards ruling on the pending Motions.

9 See, e.g., NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 310, n.50 (Mar. 8, 2012) (an admitted contention is defined by its bases); S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-5, 71 NRC 90, 100-01 (2010) (excluding testimony that strayed beyond the scope of the bases as pled and admitted, because those bases defined the scope of the . . . contention.); Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010) (explaining that the reach of a contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases) (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of N. H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988)); Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 732 (2006) (New bases for a contention cannot be introduced in a reply brief, or any other time after the date the original contentions are due, unless the petitioner meets the late-filing criteria . . . .).

3

II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History

1. Procedural History of NYS-25 NYS first proffered Contention NYS-25 in 2007, as part of its initial Petition to Intervene.10 The Contention alleged that: Entergys License Renewal Application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) and the associated internals.11 The Board admitted NYS-25 in 2008.12 Two years later, in 2010, NYS filed a motion to submit additional bases for NYS-25.13 The amended NYS-25 focused on Entergys 2010 amendment of its license renewal application14 (LRA) to include a detailed AMP for RVIs. The amended contention alleged, among other things, that Entergys RVI AMP did not consider synergistic aging effects or potential shock loads, did not provide sufficient details on baseline and periodic inspections, did not provide sufficient details on corrective actions, including repair or replacement, disavow[ed] preventive actions, and relied on vague future commitments.15 On July 6, 2011, the Board admitted the 10 New York State, Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene at 223 (Nov. 30, 2007), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML073400187.

11 Id.

12 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 131 (2008).

13 See State of New Yorks Motion for Leave to File Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 in Response to Entergys July 14, 2010 Proposed Aging Management Program for Reactor Pressure Vessels and Internal Components (Sept. 15, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML103050402.

14 Entergy, License Renewal Application, Indian Point Energy Center (Apr. 23, 2007) (LRA), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML071210517.

15 See State of New Yorks Motion for Leave to File Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 in Response to Entergys July 14, 2010 Proposed Aging Management Program for Reactor Pressure Vessels and Internal Components at 2 (Sept. 15, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML103050402; Declaration of Richard T. Lahey, Jr., ¶¶ 13-15 (Sept. 15, 2010) (attached to motion).

4

amended NYS-25.16 Subsequently, the Board placed NYS-25 on the schedule for the second set of hearings in this proceeding (i.e., Track 2).17 Since NYS last sought to amend NYS-25 in 2010, the NRC Staff issued its safety evaluation for MRP-227, Revision 0.18 As discussed further below, over more than a decade, a team of EPRI experts developed the technical basis for the standardized AMP for pressurized water reactor (PWR) RVIs documented in MRP-227, Revision 0. EPRI then issued its NRC-approved RVI aging management guidance, MRP-227-A, in December 2011.19 Entergy submitted a revised RVI AMP and inspection plan based on MRP-227-A on February 17, 2012.20 Following Entergys submission of significant additional technical information in response to NRC requests for additional information (RAI), the NRC Staff approved Entergys revised RVI AMP and Inspection Plan as documented in SSER 2 issued on November 6, 2014.21 16 Licensing Board Order (Ruling on Pending Motions for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions) at 27 (July 6, 2011) (unpublished).

17 See Licensing Board Order (Granting NRC Staffs Unopposed Time Extension Motion and Directing Filing of Status Updates) at 2 (Feb. 16, 2012) (unpublished).

18 See Letter from R. Nelson, Deputy Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, NRC, to N. Wilmshurst, Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, EPRI, Final Safety Evaluation of EPRI Report, Materials Reliability

[Program] Report 1016596 (MRP-227), Revision 0, Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Internals Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines (TAC No. ME0680) (June 22, 2011) (SE for MRP-227, Revision 0), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML111600498.

19 EPRI, Materials Reliability Program: Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines (MRP-227-A) (Dec. 2011) (MRP-227-A), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML120170453. The NRC updated its SE for MRP-227, Revision 0 with a safety evaluation for MRP-227-A, which is published within the MRP-227-A document. See MRP-227-A at first thirty-nine pages following iii (Dec. 16, 2011) (SE for MRP-227-A).

20 NL-12-037, Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Renewal Application - Revised Reactor Vessel Internals Program and Inspection Plan Compliant with MRP-227-A (Feb.

17, 2012) (NL-12-037), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A312.

21 See SSER 2 at A-11.

5

2. Procedural History of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 On September 30, 2011, following the NRC Staffs August 2011 publication of SSER 1, NYS and Riverkeeper moved to admit new contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5,22 which alleged that Entergy:

is not in compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a)(3) and (c)(1)(iii) and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2133(b) and (d) and 2232(a) because Entergy does not demonstrate that it has a program that will manage the affects [sic] of aging of several critical components or systems and thus NRC does not have a record and a rational basis upon which it can determine whether to grant a renewed license to Entergy as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.23 Intervenors, in essence, claimed Entergy was seeking to evade adjudicatory review of its AMPsincluding its RVI AMPby allegedly vague commitments to develop full AMPs at a later date, rather than present[ing] AMPs for review in this proceeding.24 Specifically, Intervenors focused on Entergys commitments related to RVIs, metal fatigue, and potential primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in steam generator components.25 On November 20, 2011, the Board admitted NYS-38/RK-TC-5, finding that the Intervenors raised a genuine dispute over the adequacy of Entergys recent commitments.26 The Board ultimately moved the hearing on this contention to Track 2 as well.27 As noted in the summary of the 22 See State of New York and Riverkeepers Joint Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Entergys Failure to Demonstrate That It Has All Programs That Are Required to Effectively Manage the Effects of Aging of Critical Components or Systems (Sept. 30, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A195; State of New York and Riverkeepers New Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Original Proposed NYS-38/RK-TC-5), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A196.

23 Original Proposed NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 1 (emphasis added).

24 See id. at 1, 3.

25 See id. at 1-3.

26 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) at 11 (Nov. 10, 2011)

(unpublished).

27 See Licensing Board Order (Evidentiary Hearing Administrative Matters) (Sept. 14, 2012) (unpublished). The Board also held testimony in abeyance for RVI-related matters in NYS-38/RK-TC-5, but the parties submitted prefiled testimony on the remaining issues raised in the contention. See Licensing Board Order (Denying NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration and State of New York/Riverkeepers Cross-Motion to NRC Staffs Motion for Reconsideration) (Apr. 23, 2012) (unpublished).

6

procedural history of NYS-25, above, in the three and one-half years since the Intervenors proffered NYS-38/RK-TC-5, the industry, Entergy, and the NRC Staff have significantly developed the record on Entergys AMPs addressed in NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5. But this is the first time the Intervenors have sought to amend this contention, and have only done so with respect to the RVI AMPnot with respect to the metal fatigue or steam generator-related commitments addressed in NYS-38/RK-TC-5. Accordingly, those aspects of the contention remain unchanged.

B. Technical Background

1. Development of the NRC-Approved Aging Management Program for Reactor Vessel Internals for Pressurized Water Reactors Based on considerable safety research and operating experience, the EPRI MRP developed the guidance that appears in MRP-227-A, which provides a comprehensive, risk-prioritized inspection program for managing the effects of aging for RVI components in a PWR.

The development of MRP-227-A proceeded in four steps: (1) development of screening criteria for the applicable aging mechanisms; (2) screening of RVI components based on susceptibility to degradation; (3) functionality analysis and failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses (FMECA), which resulted in the binning of components into different risk severity and inspection categories; and (4) development of the inspection and evaluation guidelines and flaw evaluation methodology.28 MRP-227-A is supported by numerous underlying EPRI MRP technical studies, covering topics from aging degradation mechanisms, categorization of components, aging management strategies, acceptance criteria, and other topics.29 Based on this process and on the supporting MRP reports, MRP-227-A provides comprehensive aging 28 See SE for MRP-227-A at 4; see also id. at 1-1.

29 See id. at 8-1 to 8-2 (References).

7

management guidelines, detailing inspections to detect the effects of aging, methods to evaluate such aging effects, and considerations for repair or replacement of degraded components.30 To monitor the potential effects of aging on PWR RVIs caused by known age-related degradation mechanisms, including the potential combined effects of such mechanisms,31 MRP-227-A divides RVI components into four groups with different aging management activities specified for each group (Primary, Expansion, Existing Programs, and No Additional Measures) depending on: (1) the relative susceptibility to and tolerance of applicable aging effects, and (2) the existence of other programs that manage the effects of aging on those components.32 MRP-227-A also contains specific, conservative examination acceptance criteria in Section 5 that can be used to determine when a particular examination result must be entered into the plant corrective action program.33 Section 6 of MRP-227-A describes the corrective action program options and a methodology to develop engineering acceptance criteria.34 As previously noted, the NRC Staff issued its Safety Evaluation for MRP-227, Revision 0, in June 2011.35 The NRC Staff identified seven Topical Report Conditions and eight Applicant/Licensee Action Items (A/LAI) that must be addressed by applicants and licensees on 30 See id. at 1-1 to -2, 8-1 to 8-2 (References); see also Materials Reliability Program: Inspection Standard for PWR Internals (MRP-228) at 2-1 to 2-19 (July 2009); Materials Reliability Program: PWR Internals Material Aging Degradation Mechanism Screening and Threshold Values (MRP-175) (2005) (NYS000319); Materials Reliability Program: Screening, Categorization and Ranking of Reactor Internals of Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering PWR Designs (MRP-191) (2006) (NYS000321) (MRP-191); Materials Reliability Program: Functionality Analysis for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering Representative PWR Internals (MRP-230) (2008); Materials Reliability Program: Aging Management Strategies for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering PWR Internals (MRP-232) (2008); Materials Reliability Program: Fracture Toughness Evaluation of Highly Irradiated PWR Stainless Steel Internal Components (MRP-210) (2007) (all referenced in MRP-227-A). Entergy disclosed all of these documents to Intervenors through the mandatory disclosure process on or before November 7, 2011, so they have been available for Intervenor review for over three years.

31 See MRP-227-A at 3-12 to 3-14.

32 See id. at 3-15 to 3-16.

33 See id. at 5-1 to 5-23.

34 See id. at 6-1 to 6-11. The corrective action program considers several potential disposition paths, including more detailed examination, engineering evaluation, repair or replacement. See id. at 6-2 to 6-3; NL-12-037, Attach. 1 at 8 (referencing Section 6 of MRP-227-A).

35 See SE for MRP-227-A.

8

a plant-specific basis.36 In the Safety Evaluation for MRP-227, Revision 0, the Staff requested that EPRI publish an accepted version of MRP-227 (i.e., a version addressing the Topical Report Conditions, A/LAIs, RAIs, and RAI responses in a single document), to be designated MRP-227-A.37 EPRI did so on December 2011.38 In the Safety Evaluation for MRP-227-A, the Staff concluded that:

Any applicant may reference MRP-227 as modified by this [Safety Evaluation] and approved by the NRC, in a LRA or other licensing action to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) for demonstrating that the effects of aging on the RVI components, within the scope of MRP-227, will be adequately managed.39

2. Background on the Indian Point Plant-Specific Aging Management Program Consistent with its commitment in the original LRA to participate in, evaluate, and implement industry programs regarding the aging management of RVIs and submit an inspection plan for NRC review and approval,40 Entergy submitted its RVI Inspection Plan on September 28, 2011, two years prior to entering the period of extended operation (PEO) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 (IP2).41 Due to this timing, the Inspection Plan was based on the original MRP-227, but also addressed the NRC Staffs action items and conditions in the Safety Evaluation for MRP-227, Revision 0.42 36 Id. at 24-30.

37 Id. at 1.

38 See MRP-227-A at second page following cover.

39 SE for MRP-227-A at 35.

40 NL-07-039, Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Renewal Application, Attachment at 12 (Apr. 23, 2007), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML071210512.

41 See NL-11-107, Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Renewal Application - Completion of Commitment # 30 Regarding the Reactor Vessel Internals Inspection Plan (Sept. 28, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11280A121.

42 See id.

9

Following EPRIs issuance of MRP-227-A, Entergy revised its RVI AMP and Inspection Plan to conform to the new, NRC Staff-approved guidance.43 The NRC Staff issued follow-up RAIs on several topics, and Entergy provided significant additional technical information in its responses.44 The NRC Staff documented its review and approval of the Indian Point RVI AMP and Inspection Plan in SSER 2 on November 6, 2014, making Indian Point the first PWR with an NRC-approved RVI program.45 The NRC Staff concluded that Entergy demonstrated that the effects of aging on RVI components will be adequately managed, as required under 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21(a)(3).46 The Staff also concluded that Entergys RVI Inspection Plan implements the elements of the RVI AMP in an acceptable manner.47 In short, the Staff found that Entergys program is consistent with the RVI inspection and evaluation guidelines in MRP-227-A, and that Entergy adequately addressed all of the A/LAIs and Topical Report Conditions.48 C. Intervenors Proposed Amended Contentions

1. New York States Proposed Amendments to NYS-25 On February 13, 2015, the State filed its proposed Amended Contention NYS-25. The States principal claims, which are largely unchanged from those made in 2010, are as follows:

(1) The Indian Point RVI AMP remains inadequate under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii) because it does not address or manage the combined synergistic aging effects of embrittlement, fatigue, and other aging mechanisms on RVI components.49 Further, 43 See NL-12-037.

44 See SSER 2 at 3-13 to 3-59; SSER 2 at Appx B (showing chronology of correspondence between Entergy and NRC Staff).

45 Id. at 6-1.

46 Id. at 3-26.

47 Id. at 3-59.

48 See id.

49 NYS-25 Supplement at 2 ¶ 3.8; see also id. 2 ¶ 3.9 & 6-7 ¶ 7.14. The Intervenors have not identified the correct regulation. The overall RVI AMP is intended to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3), governing AMPs in general, not Section 54.21(c)(1)(iii), which addresses the option to resolve time-limited aging analyses through an AMP.

10

Entergy has purportedly reaffirmed that it will not take preventative actions, and that the RVI AMP fails to address the possibility that a shock load will cause highly fatigued and degraded RVI components to fail entirely prior to the appearance of cracks or other detectable signs of wear.50 The State also asserts that the regulatory and scientific communities51 and the federal government are beginning to recognize the validity of Dr.

Laheys concerns regarding the RVI AMP.52 (2) It is important to maintain safety margins during the period of extended operation.53 In support of this claim, the State raises the possibility of calculational or modeling mistakes,54 and concludes that the solution is repair or replacement of the RVIs, in lieu of an AMP.55 (3) Certain aging management activities are inadequate, including the failure to submit acceptance criteria for the baffle-former bolt inspections.56 (4) The Westinghouse environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF) calculations prepared for Indian Point allegedly: (a) do not adequately account for all combined factors affecting component life and functionality; (b) often conclude that there are environmentally-corrected cumulative usage factors (CUFens) close to the limit of 1.0, without an error analysis; and (c) will not be completed for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (IP3) until later this year.57

2. Intervenors Proposed Amendments to NYS-38/RK-TC-5 The proposed amendments to NYS-38/RK-TC-5, also filed on February 13, 2015, largely overlap the proposed amendments to NYS-25. Specifically, the supplemental bases for NYS-50 Id. at 2 ¶ 3.8.

51 NYS-25 Motion at 9.

52 NYS-25 Supplement at 7 ¶ 7.16.

53 Id. at 7 ¶ 7.15.

54 Id.

55 NYS-25 Motion at 10; see also 2015 Lahey Declaration at 16 ¶ 23.

56 NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.12; see also id. at 3 ¶ 3.10(b), 5 ¶ 7.13.

57 Id. at 4-5 ¶ 7.11; see also id. at 3 ¶¶ 3.10(a), (c).

11

38/RK-TC-5 raise similar claims about the need to address synergistic aging effects,58 the alleged lack of preventive actions,59 and the need to address potential shock loads on highly fatigued and embrittled RVI components.60 Second, the proposed amended NYS-38/RK-TC-5 argues that Entergy should dispense with the RVI AMP in favor of pre-emptive part replacement.61 Third, the filings on NYS-38/RK-TC-5 raise similar concerns regarding the baffle-former bolts and other specific RVI components.62 Finally, the supplemental bases for NYS-38/RK-TC-5 raise essentially the same concerns regarding the Westinghouse EAF analyses,63 although these claims are supported by the Hopenfeld Declaration in addition to Dr. Laheys Declaration.

As previously noted, given these similarities, Entergy is filing this consolidated Answer.

Throughout this Answer, Entergy identifies where each particular claim is raised in both contentions, or in only one.

As explained in the following sections, none of these claims raise any new admissible issue with respect to the already-admitted contentions. In fact, few, if any, of these claims are new.

Intervenors have largely disregarded the substantial technical basis for the RVI AMP contained in MRP-227-A, its supporting technical reports spanning over a decade, and the plant-specific technical analyses submitted by Entergy for Indian Point and reviewed by the Staff in SSER 2 despite the availability of this substantial information through the mandatory disclosure process.64 58 See NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1 ¶ 5.1.

59 See id. at 3 ¶ 12.1.

60 See id. at 2 ¶ 5.3. The claim that the regulatory and scientific community supports Dr. Laheys claims regarding the RVI AMP does not appear to be specifically raised in NYS-38/RK-TC-5.

61 See id.

62 See, e.g., id. at 3 ¶ 12.1.

63 See, e.g., id. at 3-4 ¶ 12.2.

64 The Intervenors have routinely requested and received copies of documents disclosed by Entergy related to the Contentions.

12

As a result, the claims in the Amended Contentions are: (a) out of date; (b) untimely; (c) represent impermissible challenges to the license renewal rule; (d) fail to challenge the technical bases for the RVI AMP; (e) rely upon mischaracterizations of key supporting documents; and (f) misconstrue the purpose of EAF evaluations and the associated ASME Code requirements.

Therefore, the proposed Amended Contentions are inadmissible, and the Motions should be denied.

In addition, given the clear similarities between the Amended Contentions, if the Board admits any portion of the proposed amendments to NYS-38/RK-TC-5, then the Board should separate the RVI-related claims in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 from the remainder of that contention and consolidate those claims with NYS-25. As now proposed, both contentions raise overlapping challenges to the RVI AMP, with no discernible distinction between the two contentions.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS Although variously styled as motion[s]to supplement65 and request[s] to add additional bases,66 the Intervenors Motions are correctly viewed as motions to amend the contentions.67 A. Timeliness Requirements for New or Amended Contentions In general, petitioners must act promptly to move for leave to file new or amended contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1).68 Pursuant to the Boards July 1, 2010 Scheduling 65 NYS-25 Motion at 1; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 1.

66 NYS-25 Motion at 7 n.4; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 6 n.3.

67 Neither the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, nor the Scheduling Order, provide for a motion to supplement or add bases to a contention outside the strict admissibility requirements for new or amended contentions in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309. Accord Unopposed Motion by State of New York and Riverkeeper for a Four Day Extension of the February 9, 2015 Filing Deadline at 1 (Feb. 5, 2015) (seeking additional time to file new or amended contentions), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15036A251.

68 In August 2012, the Commission amended the timeliness requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, effective September 4, 2012. Amendments to the Adjudicatory Process Rules and Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562 (Aug.

3, 2012). The Commission stated that the updated regulations will be effective and govern all obligations and disputes that arise after [September 4, 2012]. Id.; see also 2012 Part 2 Order at 1 (imposing the same requirements in this proceeding, absent a subsequent order). The Motions were filed February 13, 2015, well after September 4, 2012, so the 2012 amendments to Part 2 apply here.

13

Order, a motion for a new or amended contention shall be deemed timely if it is filed within thirty (30) days of the date when the new and material information on which it is based first becomes available.69 On December 9, 2014, the Board set February 9, 2015, as [t]he deadline for the submission of new or amended contentions arising from the publication of [SSER 2].70 The Revised Scheduling Order did not alter or extend any deadlines for proposed new or amended contentions addressing issues that did not arise from the publication of SSER 2.

B. Substantive Contention Admissibility Requirements A proposed contention also must satisfy, without exception, each of the criteria set out in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i) through (vi).71 Failure to meet each of the criteria is grounds for dismissal of a proposed new or amended contention.72 Of particular relevance here is the longstanding principle that a contention that challenges an NRC rule is outside the scope of adjudicatory proceedings under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii) and, therefore, inadmissible. This is because, absent a waiver, no rule or regulation of the Commission . . . is subject to attack . . . in any adjudicatory proceeding.73 This includes contentions that advocate stricter requirements than agency rules impose, or that otherwise seek to litigate a generic determination established by a Commission rulemaking.74 With respect to factual information or expert opinion proffered in support of a contention, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v), the Board is not to accept uncritically the 69 Scheduling Order at 6.

70 Revised Scheduling Order at 2.

71 S.C. Elec. & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 & 3), LBP-10-06, 71 NRC 350, 358-59 (2006); see 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c)(4), (f)(1).

72 See Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2221 (Jan. 14, 2004); see also Private Fuel Storage (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999).

73 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a).

74 See, e.g., Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, and Unistar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), et al., CLI-14-08, 80 NRC __, slip op. at 9 (Aug. 26, 2014); Private Fuel Storage LLC (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-04-4, 59 NRC 31, 38-39 (2004).

14

assertion that a document or other factual information or an expert opinion supplies the basis for a contention.75 [A]n expert opinion that merely states a conclusion (e.g., the application is deficient, inadequate, or wrong) without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion as it is alleged to provide a basis for the contention.76 A petitioners imprecise reading of a document cannot be the basis for a litigable contention.77 Any supporting material provided by a petitioner, including those portions thereof not relied upon, is subject to Board scrutiny, both for what it does and does not show.78 Moreover, vague references to documents do not sufficethe petitioner must identify specific portions of the documents on which it relies.79 To raise a sufficiently-supported genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), a petitioner must read the pertinent portions of the license application

. . . state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view; i.e., explain why it disagrees with the applicant.80 If a petitioner believes the license application fails to adequately address a 75 Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142, 181 (1998), affd CLI- 98-13, 48 NRC 26, 37 (1998).

76 USEC, Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006) (quoting Private Fuel Storage LLC, LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 181) (emphasis added).

77 See Ga. Inst. of Tech. (Ga. Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Ga.), LBP-95-6, 41 NRC 281, 300 (1995), affd, CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 124 (1995).

78 See Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 90 (1996), revd in part on other grounds, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235 (1996).

79 Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 240-41 (1989) (further stating that the mere incorporation of massive documents by reference is unacceptable).

80 Final Rule, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings - Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001).

15

relevant issue, then the petitioner is to explain why the application is deficient.81 Generalized assertions are insufficient.82 IV. CHALLENGES TO THE FATIGUE CALCULATIONS FOR NON-REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS COMPONENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SSER 2 AND THEREFORE UNTIMELY Intervenors propose to amend NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 with a claim that Entergy never conducted an error analysis to quantify the accuracy of the CUFen values, some of which were very close to the threshold value of 1.0.83 In the context of NYS-25, the State cites Dr.

Laheys declaration84 which, in turn, cites three Westinghouse reports as the source of this information.85 Entergy disclosed these reports to the State between 2010 and 2013.86 For both proposed amended contentions, Intervenors rely on a blanket claim of timeliness because all filings related to Entergys Amended and Revised RVI Plan, and the NRC Staffs associated review in SSER 2, were held in abeyance pending the release of SSER 2.87 However, the calculations referenced by Dr. Lahey are neither part of Entergys RVI AMP, nor were they reviewed by the NRC Staff as part of SSER 2. In fact, none of the fatigue calculations Dr. Lahey 81 Final Rule, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings - Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170; see also Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, & 3),

CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 156 (1991). This is because the Commission reserve[s] [its] hearing process for genuine, material controversies between knowledgeable litigants. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-8, 75 NRC 393, 416 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

82 U.S. Dept of Energy (High Level Waste Repository), CLI-09-14, 69 NRC 580, 588 (2009).

83 NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.11; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 4.

84 See NYS-25 Motion at 10 (citing 2015 Lahey Declaration at 15 ¶¶ 21-22). The Motion and Supplement for NYS-38/RK-TC-5 do not specify whether the Intervenors are relying on Dr. Laheys Declaration or Dr.

Hopenfelds Declaration on this issue.

85 2015 Lahey Declaration at 15 ¶¶ 21-22 (citing Westinghouse reports CN-PAFM-13-40, CN-PAFM-13-32, and CN-PAFM-09-77).

86 Entergys Twenty-Second Update to Disclosures Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR, Encl. 3 at 1 (Dec.

1, 2010) (ENT000198) (disclosing CN-PAFM-09-77); Entergys Fifty-seventh Update to Disclosures to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), Docket Nos.

50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Encl. 3 at 1 (Nov. 3, 2013) (disclosing CN-PAFM-13-32); Entergys Fifty-eighth Update to Disclosures to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Encl. 3 at 2 (Dec. 4, 2013) (disclosing CN-PAFM-13-40).

87 NYS-25 Motion at 5; see also NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 5-6.

16

criticizes as extremely close to the threshold pertain to RVIs. Specifically, Dr. Lahey identifies concerns with analyses for the pressurizer spray nozzle, regenerative heat exchanger, reactor vessel control rod housing, control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) upper joint canopy, and RHR/accumulator nozzles.88 None of these components are RVIs, nor are they addressed in SSER 2.89 Additionally, the States claim that the release of SSER 2 revealed that NRC would accept Entergys [calculations] . . . without conducting an error analysis is plainly incorrect.90 SSER 2 contains conclusions regarding Entergys RVI AMP, but does not evaluate or approve any CUFen calculations, much less consider the alleged absence of an error analysis in such calculations.91 As noted above, the Scheduling Order requires new or amended contentions to be filed within 30 days of the date when new and material information first becomes available.92 Thus, to the extent the Intervenors seek to amend NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 based on this previously-available information unrelated to the RVI AMP or SSER 2, the Motions are late and should be denied.93 88 2015 Lahey Declaration at 15 ¶¶ 21-22.

89 See LRA at 4.3.1 (showing the pressurizer spray nozzle, regenerative heat exchanger, reactor vessel control rod housing, CRDM upper joint canopy, and RHR/accumulator nozzles are not RVIs). Intervenors make a similar error when they attempt to include control rods in their list of RVI components at issue here. NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 7; NYS-25 Supplement at 1. As Entergy has previously explained, control rods are not RVI components.

90 NYS-25 Motion at 7.

91 See generally SSER 2.

92 Scheduling Order at 6.

93 In any event, NYS has already made similar claims in the context of its testimony on the metal fatigue and safety commitments contentions (NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5, respectively), and provides no reason for the Board to expand the scope of NYS-25 beyond questions involving RVIs to overlap these other contentions.

17

V. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE SUBSTANTIVELY INADMISSIBLE A. Intervenors and Their Experts Disregard, Rather than Dispute, the Extensive Technical Analyses Underpinning the Reactor Vessel Internals Program Approved in SSER 2 As previously noted, the Indian Point RVI AMP is based on MRP-227-A, which is supported by numerous underlying EPRI MRP technical studies.94 The NRC Staff has endorsed MRP-227-A as a topical report and concluded that it provides for the development of an AMP for PWR RVI components . . . which will adequately manage their aging effects such that there is reasonable assurance that they will perform their intended functions in accordance with the CLB

[current licensing basis] during the [PEO].95 This endorsement as a topical report, and in the Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, is entitled to special weight before the Board in this adjudicatory proceeding.96 The crux of the proposed Amended Contentions is the claim that the Indian Point RVI AMP is merely an inspection-based program97 which does not consider synergistic aging effects on RVIs, includes no preventive actions, and does not account for shock loads.98 Relatedly, Intervenors criticize a few specific aspects of the RVI AMP, such as Entergys alleged failure to submit acceptance criteria for the baffle-former bolt inspections.99 As a threshold matter, 94 See supra note 30 (listing the technical studies underlying MRP-227-A).

95 SE for MRP-227-A at 35. The NRC has also endorsed the generic program in the GALL Report and interim Staff guidance. LR-ISG-2011-04, Interim Staff Guidance, Updated Aging Management Criteria for Reactor Vessel Internal Components for Pressurized Water Reactors (June 3, 2013), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12270A436; see also RIS-2011-07, Regulatory Issue Summary, License Renewal Submittal Information for Pressurized Water Reactor Internals Aging Management (July 21, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML111990086.

96 See Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 315; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), CLI-15-6, 81 NRC __ (slip op. at 19, 21 n.85, 22) (Mar. 9, 2015).

97 NYS-25 Motion at 10; see also NYS-25 Supplement at 2 ¶ 3.8; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 9; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶ 5.3.

98 See, e.g., NYS-25 Supplement at 2 ¶ 3.8; NYS-25 Motion at 10; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 9; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶¶ 5.2, 5.3.

99 NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.12; see also id. at 3 ¶ 3.10(b), 6 ¶ 7.13; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 6; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 4 ¶ 12.3; NYS-25 Motion at 10.

18

Intervenors do not even mention, much less dispute, the relevant technical information contained in MRP-227-A and its numerous supporting reports. Similar to Dr. Gundersens declaration supporting the recently-rejected contention CW-SC-4, the Intervenors provide no specific information about any unique characteristics of the facility that could tend to show that the Indian Point RVI AMP is deficient.100 As explained in the following sections, the Indian Point RVI AMP addresses the pertinent aging effects on RVIs, including combinations of effects, provides appropriate preventive actions, and accounts for all appropriate loads, contrary to the Intervenors claims. Ultimately, Intervenors imprecise reading of reference documents cannot serve to generate an issue suitable for litigation.101 For example, many of the documents mentioned by Dr. Lahey involve discussions of secondnot firstlicense renewal, and are therefore irrelevant to the RVI AMP and fall outside the scope of this proceeding.102 As previously noted, given that Intervenors in most cases do not acknowledge or dispute the relevant technical information supporting the RVI AMP, the Board should clarify that evidence and arguments on issues not raised in the existing bases for NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 are outside the scope of the contentions.103

1. Synergistic Effects Intervenors claim that the Indian Point RVI AMP continues to ignore the potentially synergistic effects of irradiation-induced embrittlement and other aging mechanisms on reactor 100 See Licensing Board Order (Dismissing Contentions NYS-39/RK-EC-9/CW-EC-10 and CW-SC-4) at 4 (Nov. 10, 2014) (unpublished).

101 See Ga. Tech, LBP-95-6, 41 NRC at 300.

102 In particular, the documents associated with the U.S. Department of Energys Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program and the NRCs Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment address questions of reactor operation beyond 60 years, not beyond 40 years, as Dr. Lahey incorrectly states. See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 7 ¶ 11. In addition, Intervenors have failed to attach any of the technical documents cited in Dr. Laheys Declaration, contrary to the Scheduling Order. See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 27-29 (listing twenty-eight reference documents, none of which are attached). Accordingly, the claim that the federal government is beginning to recognize the validity of Dr. Laheys concerns regarding the RVI AMP is wholly unsupported.

103 See supra note 9.

19

vessel internals.104 In doing so, the Intervenors disregard MRP-227-A and its supporting reports, which directly address this issue. The effect of disregarding, rather than disputing the technical analyses underlying Entergys program, is the failure to raise a genuine dispute.105 As described in MRP-227-A, during its technical review, the NRC requested additional information on how the program accounts for synergistic effects of multiple aging mechanisms.106 EPRI responded by explaining that:

potential susceptibility to the effects from multiple degradation mechanisms was considered by: (1) identifying such combinations during the initial screening based on known interactions (e.g., irradiation-induced stress relaxation of bolt pre-load combined with either wear or fatigue); (2) FMECA expert elicitation of combined effects that resulted in greater consequences; and (3) recommending examinations capable of detecting relevant conditions caused by more than one degradation mechanism or effect.107 Thus, as EPRI explained in 2010 and as the NRC Staff approved in 2011, the RVI AMP specifies inspections that address the underlying aging mechanisms and, more importantly, the resulting aging effectssuch as cracking, loss of material, loss of fracture toughness, dimensional changes, and loss of preloadregardless of the particular underlying aging mechanism or combination of mechanisms.108 The Intervenors and their experts do not explain or justify their present claims to the contrary. They simply assert that the RVI AMP fails to consider synergistic effects.109 This is 104 NYS-25 Motion at 9; see also NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 8.

105 See, e.g., Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (a petitioner must read the pertinent portions of the license application, state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view).

106 MRP-227-A, Attachment, Request for Additional Information (RAI) # 4 at 4 (Aug. 30, 2010).

107 MRP-227-A, Attachment, RAI Set 4 Final Responses at 20 (Oct. 29, 2010).

108 See SE for MRP-227-A at 4 (noting that EPRI considered potential degradation mechanisms, including various forms of cracking, individual or synergistic effects of thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement, and loss of preload due to either individual or synergistic contributions from thermal and irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation . . .) (emphasis added).

109 See, e.g., NYS-25 Supplement at 1 ¶ 3.7; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1 ¶ 5.1; 2015 Lahey Declaration at 13 ¶ 19; Hopenfeld Declaration at 3 ¶ 13.

20

insufficient to raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

2. Preventive Actions In general, the RVI AMP is a condition monitoring program focused on inspections for the effects of aging.110 But, contrary to the Intervenors allegation, Entergy has not reaffirmed that it will not take preventative actions to address the effects of aging on RVIs.111 In fact, Entergy explicitly credits the Water Chemistry ControlPrimary and Secondary Program (Water Chemistry Program) for preventive actions.112 As noted in SSER 2:

Under Preventive Actions, LR-ISG-2011-14 states that MRP-227-A relies on PWR water-chemistry control to prevent or mitigate aging effects that can be induced by corrosive aging mechanisms (e.g., loss of material induced by general, pitting corrosion, crevice corrosion, or stress corrosion cracking or any of its forms [SCC, PWSCC, or IASCC]), and that reactor coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained in accordance with the Water Chemistry Program as described in GALL AMP XI.M2, Water Chemistry.113 The RVI AMP includes other actions to prevent specific aging effects. For example, Entergy will replace the IP2 split pins during the 2016 refueling outage.114 To address one of the plant-specific action items in the Safety Evaluation for MRP-227-A, Entergy will also use the Fatigue Monitoring Program (FMP) to manage the effects of fatigue on specified RVI components.115 The FMP, in turn, includes preventive actions by tracking plant transients and cycles, thereby assuring that fatigue usage from actual plant transients does not exceed ASME 110 See NL-12-037, Attach. 1 at 5; SSER 2 at 3-15.

111 NYS-25 Supplement at 2 ¶ 3.8; see also NYS-25 Motion at 7; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Motion at 5-6; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 4 ¶ 12.4.

112 See NL-12-037, Attach. 1 at 5; SSER 2 at 3-15 to 3-16.

113 SSER 2 at 3-66.

114 See id. at A-15.

115 See id. at 3-51.

21

Code design limits.116 Thus, Intervenors fail to accurately describe the RVI AMP or the entirety of Entergys LRA. As a petitioners imprecise reading of a document cannot be the basis for a litigable contention, Intervenors claims are unsupported and fail to raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact under 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).117

3. Shock Loads Intervenors claim that Entergy fails to consider the possibility that a shock load (e.g., due to a loss-of-coolant accident, or LOCA) may cause the sudden failure of RVI components.118 But again, the Indian Point RVI AMP addresses this issue through its reliance on MRP-227-A.

The Intervenors disregard of the record fails to raise a genuine dispute.

Specifically, the conditions addressed in MRP-227-A include significant transients and design basis accidents, and are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the RVIs will continue to perform their intended functions, consistent with the CLBincluding the consideration of accident loadsthrough the end of the PEO.119 This process of considering design loads was documented in MRP-191, one of the supporting reports for MRP-227-A. As the NRC Staff explained, in MRP-191 the MRP explicitly considered whether the aging effects considered in the FMECA process would result in more severe consequences if a design basis accident occurred.120 The Intervenors do not mention, much less challenge, the substance of the technical analyses in MRP-191, other supporting reports, or the Staffs evaluation of design basis loads on 116 See NUREG-1801, Rev. 2, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report at XI M1-2 (Dec. 2010) (NUREG-1801), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML103490041.

117 See Ga. Tech., LBP-95-6, 41 NRC at 300.

118 2015 Lahey Declaration at 20; see also NYS-25 Supplement at 2 ¶ 3.8, 6 ¶ 7.13; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶ 5.3, 5 ¶ 12.4.

119 See MRP-191 at 6-6 (defining component failure as degradation that causes the component to lose its ability to perform its intended design function either during normal operation or under accident conditions).

120 SE for MRP-227-A at 12.

22

RVIs. Instead, they merely state, without support, that MRP-227-A fails to address such issues.121 The States conclusory assertions on this subject are unsupported and fail to show that a genuine dispute exists, contrary to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

4. Specific Components Beyond the generalized concerns discussed in the foregoing sections, the Intervenors proffer a few specific criticisms regarding the consideration of certain components in Entergys RVI AMP: (a) the examination acceptance criteria for the baffle-former bolts;122 (b) the inspection requirements for clevis insert bolts;123 and (c) the potential combined aging effects on the cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS) lower support column caps (LSCCs).124 None of these criticisms, however, raises a genuine dispute.

a. Baffle-Former Bolts The Intervenors assert that Entergy has merely committed to develop acceptance criteria for baffle former bolts sometime prior to 2019 for IP2 and 2021 for IP3.125 Both Dr. Lahey and Dr. Hopenfeld raise this issue in the declarations.126 But neither the Intervenors nor their experts identify a requirement that this specific information be provided in the RVI AMP. [A]n expert opinion that merely states a conclusion (e.g., the application is deficient, inadequate, or wrong) without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is inadequate 121 See, e.g., 2015 Lahey Declaration at 13 ¶ 19.

122 See NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.12; see also NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1, ¶ e, 4 ¶ 12.3.

123 See NYS-25 Supplement at 6 ¶ 7.13; see also NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 4-5, ¶ 12.4.

124 See NYS-25 Supplement at 6 ¶ 7.14. This particular issue does not appear to have been raised in Amended Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5.

125 NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.12; see also NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1, ¶ e, 4 ¶ 12.3. Entergy has scheduled its baffle-former bolt inspections for March 2016 at IP2 and March 2019 for IP3.

126 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 19 ¶ 27; Hopenfeld Declaration at 8 ¶ 25.

23

because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion as it is alleged to provide a basis for the contention.127 As explained in SSER 2, the ultrasonic testing (UT) examination acceptance criteria for the baffle-former bolts will be developed as part of the technical justification (TJ) for the inspections. The TJ must be developed by six months prior to the first inspections at each unit.128 As the Staff stated in SSER 2, this is acceptable because, as Entergy explained: (1) the Staffs Safety Evaluation for MRP-227-A does not specify that TJs must be submitted to the Staff for review and approval; (2) UT examinations of baffle-former bolts have been performed since the 1990s, so there is reasonable assurance that these examinations can be effectively implemented at Indian Point; and (3) finalizing the TJ closer to the date of inspections will allow the latest UT technology to be used and lessons learned to be incorporated.129 The Intervenors fail to dispute Entergys evaluation of this issue. Accordingly, they have failed to raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact under contrary to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

b. Clevis Insert Bolts The Intervenors next take exception to the fact that Entergy proposes to manage the aging degradation of clevis insert bolts with visual (VT-3) inspections rather than pre-emptive replacement.130 To support this claim, Dr. Lahey cites the detection of damaged clevis insert bolts at a Westinghouse-designed reactor in 2010, as discussed in the operating experience 127 USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 472 (emphasis added) (quoting Private Fuel Storage, LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 181).

128 See SSER 2 at 3-20 (citing NL-12-089, Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal Application, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 (June 14, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12184A037).

129 See id.

130 2015 Lahey Declaration at 19-20 ¶ 28; NYS-25 Supplement at 6 ¶ 7.13; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 4-5, ¶ 12.4.

24

summary in MRP-227-A.131 Neither the Intervenors nor Dr. Lahey raise a genuine dispute with the information Entergy provided to address this operating experience.

SSER 2 explains that Entergy demonstrated the plant-specific adequacy of MRP-227-A inspection requirements for clevis insert bolts. These requirements are based on: (a) inherent design redundancy and the overall ability of the lower radial support system to perform its intended function, even under seismic and LOCA conditions; and (b) the fact that the adverse operating experience Dr. Lahey cites involved bolts that were more susceptible to cracking than those used at Indian Point.132 Dr. Lahey fails to challenge the basis for Entergys disposition of this operating experience.

Instead of raising a challenge to this information Entergy provided in support of the RVI AMP, Dr. Lahey incorrectly asserts that (1) Entergy analyze[d] the effect of clevis bolt failures on various other components, and (2) that the Indian Point analysis assumes that all other components will be functioning according to their design specifications.133 Nothing in the record supports these interpretations of the information in the SSER 2. Moreover, Dr. Lahey simply disregards the record when he asserts that Entergy failed to consider the possibility of clevis bolt failure under LOCA conditions.134 Thus, Intervenors claims are unsupported and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

131 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 19 ¶ 28 (citing MRP-227-A, Appendix A, at A-2).

132 See SSER 2 at 3-24.

133 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 20 ¶ 28.

134 See SSER 2 at 3-24 (summarizing Entergys consideration of LOCA conditions).

25

c. Lower Support Column Caps Finally, Dr. Lahey speculates that Entergy assumed that only a limited number of the lower support column caps (LSCCs) contain flaws of significant size,135 and that the LSCCs undergo a range of [unspecified] aging degradation mechanisms that Entergy has allegedly failed to consider.136 Dr. Lahey also criticizes the NRC-approved linkage between inspections of the core barrel girth weld (a Primary component under MRP-227-A, as explained in Section II.B.1, above) and lower support column caps (an Expansion component) because, he speculates, these components are very different and they may be exposed to different degradation mechanisms and shock loads.137 As a threshold matter, Entergy did not assume that only a limited number of the LSCCs contain flaws of significant size. Entergy reached this conclusion based on original component inspections using dye penetrant and radiography.138 These inspections concluded that all columns met applicable standards and were considered defect-free, with zero surface-breaking flaws.139 Dr. Lahey does not address this information provided in Entergys RAI response and referenced in SSER 2. Given the Intervenors failure to read and explain their disagreement with the pertinent Entergy documents, they have failed to show a genuine dispute.140 As to Dr. Laheys remaining assertions regarding unspecified additional aging mechanisms which allegedly could affect the LSCCs, Entergy presented a detailed plant-specific technical evaluation of the susceptibility of LSCCs to thermal embrittlement, irradiation embrittlement 135 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 21 ¶ 29.

136 See id.

137 2015 Lahey Declaration at 13 ¶ 18 (emphasis added).

138 See NL-13-122, Attach. 1 at 2.

139 See id.

140 See Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358.

26

(IE), and irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC) in support of its RVI AMP.141 Dr. Lahey presents only unsupported speculation when he challenges this information. He only speculates that other aging mechanisms may be present,142 and that the core barrel girth weld may be exposed to different aging mechanisms and shock loads than the LSCCs.143 The only document Dr. Lahey cites in support of his speculation is NUREG/CR-7184,144 which the State did not attach.145 In any event, Entergy does not dispute that LSCCs are susceptible to IE and IASCC, as stated in NUREG/CR-7184. Nothing in NUREG/CR-7184 supports Dr. Laheys criticisms of the treatment of the LSCCs in the RVI AMP.

[T]he mere posing of questions does not provide sufficient support to admit a contention.146 Intervenors claims regarding the LSCCs are unsupported and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

B. The Demand for Repair or Replacement of Reactor Vessel Internals and Maintaining Safety Margins Are Unsupported and Are Challenges to the License Renewal Rule The proposed Amended Contention NYS-25 broadly demands that, instead of using the MRP-227-A program and the other established aging management methods endorsed in the GALL Report,147 Entergy should repair or replace the RVIs.148 Intervenors make a similar request in 141 See SSER 2 at 3-40 to -47.

142 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 21 ¶ 29.

143 See id. at 13 ¶ 18.

144 NUREG/CR-7184, Crack Growth Rate and Fracture Toughness Tests on Irradiated Cast Stainless Steels (Dec.

2014), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML14356A136.

145 Scheduling Order at 17 ¶ M.1.

146 See PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 &2), LBP-07-4, 65 NRC 281, 324 (2007).

147 NUREG-1801.

148 NYS-25 Motion at 10-11 (generally demanding repair or replacement of aging parts prior to the end of a plants design life as a means to restore safety margins and guard against accidents or unexpected non-conservatism in flawed safety evaluations); see also 2015 Lahey Declaration at 16 ¶ 23 (in many cases it appears that the easiest and most cost-effective way to resolve [age-related safety issues] is to simply repair or replace degraded components). Dr. Lahey claims this approach is what NYS has been proposing for some time. Id. But, he 27

NYS-38/RK-TC-5.149 The State also requests that Entergy be required to maintain unspecified additional safety margins.150 The State rests both of these demands on a conclusion that, due to potential calculational or modeling mistakes,151 it is important to maintain safety margins when a reactor operates in a period of extended operation.152 Such demands are unsupported and are also collateral attacks on the license renewal rule and, therefore, outside the scope of this proceeding.

First, such broad generalizations do not, in any way, support the rejection of an NRC-approved AMP based on decades of research and operating experience. For example, MRP-227-A explains that its underlying technical evaluations and assumptions are a conservative representation of U.S. PWR operating plants.153 The NRC Staff has conducted independent reviews to confirm these conservatisms.154 Here, the State and its expert merely offer a generalized desire for additional safety margins without identifying any particular inadequacy in the Indian Point LRA. But, such generalized grievances lack support and are insufficient to raise a genuine dispute.155 Second, the license renewal rule requires the applicant to show that there is reasonable assurance that the effects of aging will be adequately managednot that aging effects are does not identify where this broad demand for repair or replacement of unspecified RVIs has been made previously.

149 NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶ 5.3. Amended Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5, however, does not appear to articulate any technical basis for this demand.

150 NYS-25 Motion at 10.

151 NYS-25 Supplement at 7 ¶ 7.15 (referring to the potential that certain fracture toughness calculations under NRC Branch Technical Position (BTP) 5-3 for reactor pressure vessels (not RVIs) may be nonconservative);

see also 2015 Lahey Declaration at 23-24 ¶ 33.

152 NYS-25 Supplement at 7 ¶ 7.15; 2015 Lahey Declaration at 23-24 ¶ 33.

153 MRP-227-A at viii.

154 See, e.g., SSER 2 at 3-38 (noting the Staff conducted an independent review confirming the conservatism of the applicants life prediction for the split pins).

155 See Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334-35 (1999).

28

precluded.156 Contentions that advocate stricter requirements than agency rules impose, or otherwise seek to litigate generic determinations inherent in the rule, impermissibly challenge regulations and are outside the scope of adjudicatory proceedings.157 For example, at the outset of this proceeding, the Board held that the States far-reaching demand for comprehensive baseline inspections of plant components was outside the scope of this proceeding because it was a challenge to the license renewal rule.158 Accordingly, the claim that the effects of aging should generally be precluded through repair or replacement of RVIs, rather than managed through an AMP, effectively seeks to replace the governing regulatory standard under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3) to adequately manage aging effects with a standard requiring the preclusion of aging effects. Such claims are outside the scope of this proceeding under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

Finally, the technical basis for the States replacement demand cites material property calculations for certain reactor pressure vesselnot RVImaterials.159 Amended Contention NYS-25 does not identify any specific alleged calculational or modeling mistakes associated with the RVI AMP. It therefore fails to raise a genuine dispute with the RVI AMP or any other aspect of the LRA.160 In sum, the demand that the NRC-approved AMP be replaced by a program that maintains safety margin through repair or replacement of RVIs is an improper challenge to the license 156 See Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 315.

157 See, e.g., Calvert Cliffs, CLI-14-08, 80 NRC __, slip op. at 9; Private Fuel Storage, CLI-04-4, 59 NRC at 38-39.

158 See Indian Point, LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 126 (rejecting proposed contention NYS-23); see also Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 315 (rejecting a similar contention).

159 NYS-25 Supplement at 7 ¶ 7.15 (referring to the potential that certain fracture toughness calculations for reactor pressure vessels may be nonconservative); see also Kwong Declaration, Attach. 1-3.

160 To raise a genuine material dispute, a petitioner must read the pertinent portions of the license application . . .

state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view, and explain why it disagrees with the applicant. See Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358.

29

renewal rule, barred under 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.335 and 2.309(f)(1)(iii). Furthermore, the State fails to support its demand or raise a genuine dispute, contrary to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

C. The Challenges to Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Calculations Are Inadmissible In addition to its claims regarding the RVI AMP itself, the Intervenors also raise a series of challenges to the EAF analyses prepared by Westinghouse for Entergy to meet Entergys commitments under the FMP.161 The States claims in this area are nothing newthe parties have filed testimony on all of these issues in the context of contentions NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and, on the non-RVI-related topics, NYS-38/RK-TC-5. As explained below, the Board should reject this effort to recycle old claims and expand the scope of NYS-25.

1. Intervenors Challenge to the Schedule for Completing the IP3 Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Calculations Is Inadmissible During the NRC Staffs review of the RVI AMP, Entergy agreed, in Commitment 49, to recalculate each of the limiting CUFs provided in Section 4.3 of the LRA for the reactor vessel internals in IP3 prior to December 12, 2015.162 The IP3 license expires December 12, 2015, thus, these calculations will be completed prior to the PEOand also, in this case, prior to the NRCs approval of the renewed license.163 In the Amended Contentions, Intervenors criticize this approach,164 but they do not explain how this Commitment renders the LRA deficient under any regulatory requirement.165 161 See NYS-25 Motion at 7, 10; NYS-35/RK-TC-5 Motion at 6, 9; NYS-25 Supplement at 3 ¶ 3.10(c), 4-5 ¶ 7.11; NYS-35/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶ 5.2, 3-4 ¶ 12.2.

162 See SSER 2 at A-15.

163 In any event, the Commission has clearly held that the completion of CUFen calculations is not a prerequisite for obtaining a renewed license. See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, et al. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-17, 72 NRC 1, 18-20, 34 (2010).

164 See NYS-25 Supplement at 5 ¶ 7.11; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1 ¶ e.

165 Cf. Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 334-35 (to be a material, a dispute must make a difference in the outcome of the proceeding).

30

In the NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement, the Intervenors speculate that Entergy may not complete them [the IP3 CUFen calculations] prior to the end of IP3s initial license term.166 Contentions cannot be admitted based on an assumption or speculation that the applicant or licensee will not meet its obligations.167 As such, this claim is unsupported and inadmissible.

2. Intervenors Remaining Claims Are Not New and Lack Support The Amended Contentions also claim that the Westinghouse EAF calculations for RVI components do not account for the effects of neutron embrittlement and other degradation mechanisms, and that Westinghouse concluded that there are CUFens close to the limit of 1.0, without an error analysis.168 Dr. Hopenfeld and Dr. Lahey both address these issues,169 and, in addition, Dr. Hopenfeld claims that the Westinghouse calculations do not properly account for variations in dissolved oxygen and potential surface discontinuities that can allegedly develop over time as components age.170 With the exception of the issue described in the next paragraph, these issues have been extensively briefed in the prefiled testimony associated with the metal fatigue contention (NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B) and, therefore, present nothing new.171 The Intervenors cite no authority for the proposition that they must be afforded the opportunity to litigate the same issue under multiple contentions. Therefore, the Intervenors attempts to introduce these issues into NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 should be rejected.

166 NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 1 ¶ e.

167 See, e.g., Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-03-2, 57 NRC 19, 29 (2003).

168 See NYS-25 Supplement at 4-5 ¶ 7.11; NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Supplement at 2 ¶ 5.2, 4 ¶ 12.2; 169 See 2015 Lahey Declaration at 14-16; Hopenfeld Declaration at 3-4.

170 See Hopenfeld Declaration at 5 ¶ 17-18.

171 See Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson F. Azevedo, Alan B. Cox, Jack R. Strosnider, Robert E. Nickell, and Mark A. Gray Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (Mar. 29, 2012) (ENT000183).

31

The only arguably new issue is Dr. Hopenfelds concern regarding potential surface discontinuities that could impact fatigue evaluations. These claims are unsupported, as none of the documents Dr. Hopenfeld relies upon are clearly cited or attached.172 He also provides no support for his apparent assumption that any Indian Point RVI components have undergone a change in geometry and surface structure due to erosion corrosion, stress corrosion, swelling, pitting, and cavitation, or that the CUF calculations fail to conservatively account for potential surface defects.173 Indeed, these claims appear similar to Dr. Hopenfelds allegations in the flow-accelerated corrosion contention (RK-TC-2), where the Board rejected Dr. Hopenfelds gut feeling that there was a potential undetected, non-linear wear mechanism at work in the Indian Point plant.174 172 See id. (citing S. McKelvey & A. Fatemi (undated) and P. Fluck (1951)). In fact, Riverkeeper only disclosed these documents under the mandatory disclosure process to the other parties to the proceeding on March 2, 2015, more than two weeks after the Motions were filed.

173 Id.

174 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-13-13, 78 NRC 246, 301 (2013).

32

VI. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons, the Motions should be denied in their entireties.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Raphael P. Kuyler William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Ave. Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Phone: (914) 272-3360 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3242 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 10th day of March 2015 33

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) March 10, 2015 ANSWER CERTIFICATION Counsel for Entergy certifies that he has made a sincere effort to make himself available to listen and respond to the moving parties, and to resolve the factual and legal issues raised in the motion, and that his efforts to resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.

Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) by Paul M. Bessette Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

34

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) March 10, 2015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that, on this date, copies of Entergys Consolidated Answer Opposing Intervenors Motions to Amend Contentions NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.

Signed (electronically) by Raphael P. Kuyler Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5146 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

DB1/ 82465453