ML12100A245
| ML12100A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/2012 |
| From: | Bessette P, Dennis W, Glew W, Kuyler R, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22234, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12100A245 (14) | |
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) )
) April 9, 2012 ENTERGYS OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF NEW YORKS AND RIVERKEEPERS RESPONSE AND CROSS-MOTION TO NRC STAFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARDS MARCH 16, 2012 ORDER In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) and (e), and paragraph G.5 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Boards) July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order,1 as modified by the Boards October 7, 2011 Order (Denying New Yorks Motion for an Extension of Time) (Order Denying NYS Extension), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) files this timely2 opposition to New York States (NYS or the State) and Riverkeeper, Inc.s (Riverkeeper)
April 2, 2012 Response and Cross-Motion to the NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Boards March 16, 2012 Order (Cross-Motion). In the Cross-Motion, NYS and Riverkeeper (collectively, the Intervenors) seek to defer the schedule for further filings on contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (the metal fatigue contention) and defer the schedule for all filings on issues raised in contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (the commitments contention).
The Cross-Motion should be denied with respect to NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B because: (1) it is untimely (and its lateness prejudices Entergy and NRC Staff); (2) the principal issues raised in NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B are entirely separate from those raised in the currently-deferred NYS-25 1
Licensing Board Scheduling Order at 7 (July 1, 2010) (unpublished) (Scheduling Order).
2 This opposition is timely because the parties have agreed that the Cross-Motion should be handled as a motion for the postponement of filing deadlines, with a presumptive 10-day response window. See Order Denying NYS Extension at 4.
(the embrittlement contention); (3) retaining NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B on the current hearing schedule could help narrow the issues to be heard on NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5; and (4) the Intervenors convenience-of-the-witness assertions include unexplained inconsistencies that could lead to further delays of the hearing in this proceeding. The Cross-Motion should also be denied with respect to NYS-38/RK-TC-5 because the remaining issues in that contention are now ripe for litigation.
I. BACKGROUND The Commission has established a goal of issuing a Commission decision on a pending license renewal application (LRA) within two and one-half years after the date of LRA submittal.3 This license renewal proceeding is approaching its fifth year, has not reached the hearing phase with respect to any contention, and accordingly has fallen short of the Commissions aforementioned goal.
The NRC Staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the LRA for IPEC in August 2009.4 Approximately a year later, the NRC staff issued a new set of requests for additional information pertaining to recently-identified industry operating experience on various topics, including the Structures Monitoring Program, steam generator divider plates, and environmentally-assisted fatigue (EAF), ultimately leading to the issuance of a Supplemental SER on August 30, 2011.5 On September 30, 2011, the Intervenors submitted a new contention, designated NYS-38/RK-TC-5, asserting that Entergy is not in compliance with various regulations and statutory provisions because it allegedly relies on certain commitments to define 3
See Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3), CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 123, 126 (1998); see also Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 566-67 (2005).
4 NUREG-1930, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Nov. 2009) (SER) (NYS00326A-F).
5 See NUREG-1930, Supp. 1, Supplement to Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Aug. 2011) (SSER) (NYS000160).
the aging management programs (AMPs) required under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, and did not present the full AMPs for review by the Board and the parties.6 The Board admitted NYS-38/RK-TC-5 on November 10, 2011,7 but ordered that the evidentiary submittals be held in abeyance pending the resolution of a disclosure dispute between the Intervenors and the NRC Staff.8 The Intervenors and the NRC Staff were unable to resolve this disclosure dispute, and on January 30, 2012, the Intervenors filed a motion to compel.9 Separately, on January 27, 2012, the NRC Staff informed the Board of a potential delay regarding NYS-25 due to the Staffs ongoing review of reactor vessel internals inspection issues and the potential issuance of a second supplement to the SER addressing this topic.10 Thereafter, on February 3, 2012, the Board directed all parties to inform the Board of any matter that, to their knowledge, has the potential to further delay this proceeding.11 In responding to the Order Requesting Information, neither NYS nor Riverkeeper informed the Board of potential delays to NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.12 On February 16, 2012, the Board ordered that NYS-25 be held in abeyance.13 No party objected to the Boards decision. Although they had the opportunity to do 6
State of New York and Riverkeepers New Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 at 1 (Sept. 30, 2011), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A196.
7 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) (Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished)
(Order Admitting NYS-38/RK-TC-5).
8 See Licensing Board Order at 1-2 (Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished).
9 State of New York and Riverkeeper Motion to Compel Compliance with Disclosure Obligations by NRC Staff (Jan. 30, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12030A272.
10 See Letter from S. Turk & B. Harris, NRC, to Administrative Judges (Jan. 27, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12027A115.
11 Licensing Board Order (Requesting Information from the NRC Staff and All Participants) (Feb. 3, 2012) (unpublished)
(Order Requesting Information).
12 See State of New York Response to Boards Request for Information (Feb. 9, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12040A356; Riverkeeper, Inc.s Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Request for Information (Feb. 9, 2012), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12040A354.
13 See Licensing Board Order (Granting NRC Staffs Unopposed Time Extension Motion and Directing Filing of Status Updates) at 1-2 (Feb. 16, 2012) (unpublished).
so, the Intervenors did not object to the deferral of NYS-25 and did not assert that the litigation of NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B could not proceed separately from NYS-25.
On March 16, 2012, the Board ruled on the Intervenors January 30, 2012 motion to compel certain NYS-38/RK-TC-5 disclosures.14 In doing so, the Board set a briefing schedule for NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that would align that contention with all of the other first-round contention evidentiary hearings.15 The NRC Staff timely sought reconsideration and modification of the briefing schedule, to defer the filing of evidentiary submissions on NYS-38/RK-TC-5 insofar as it involves issues concerning Entergys AMP for reactor vessel internals, until litigation resumes on related Contention NYS-25.16 No party objected to the NRC Staffs narrowly-tailored request for reconsideration/clarification, and, once again, no party asserted that there was any need to defer NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
On April 2, 2012, the Intervenors filed the instant Cross-Motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board may extend filing deadlines, but it should do so only when warranted by unavoidable and extreme circumstances.17 Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e),
motions for reconsideration may be filed upon leave of the presiding officer upon a showing of 14 See Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part State of New York and Riverkeepers Motion to Compel)
(Mar. 16, 2012) (unpublished) (Ruling on the Motion to Compel).
15 See id. at 12.
16 NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Boards Order of March 16, 2012, at 4 (Mar. 22, 2012) (Staffs Motion), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12082A272.
17 See Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87210), CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1, 3 n.2 (1999) (quoting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 21 (1998)) (We caution all parties in this case, however, to pay heed to the guidance in our policy statement that ordinarily only unavoidable and extreme circumstances provide sufficient cause to extend filing deadlines.); see also 10 C.F.R. § 2.334(b) (in evaluating whether there is a showing of good cause to modify the hearing schedule, the presiding officer should consider factors such as whether the requesting party has exercised due diligence to adhere to the schedule, whether the requested change is the result of unavoidable circumstances, and whether the other parties have agreed to the change and the overall effect of the change on the schedule of the case). The Commission recently affirmed the unavoidable and extreme circumstances test. See Tenn. Valley Auth. (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2), CLI-10-26, 72 NRC 474, 476 & nn.10-11 (2010).
compelling circumstances, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have reasonably been anticipated, that renders the decision invalid.18 III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DELAY THE HEARING ON NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B A. The Request to Delay NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B Is Untimely The request to delay NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B is untimely, and its untimeliness is prejudicial to Entergy. Therefore, the Cross-Motion should be denied.
The Cross-Motion, although it cites no regulatory basis authorizing its filing, is subject to the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a): A motion must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.19 There is no exception for cross-motions, nor does that term even appear in 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
The Intervenors do not explain what occurrence or circumstance has taken place to provide a trigger for filing the Cross-Motion. Intervenors simply assert that, [f]ollowing the submission of the Staffs motion, the State identified further potential adjustments to the schedule that could provide for an orderly presentation of testimony on contentions NYS-25, NYS-26/RK-TC-1, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 as well as conserve resources.20 This appears to be the only potential occurrence or circumstance that could have been the trigger for the Cross-Motion.21 In other words, what triggered the Cross-Motion was the States recognition that it wished to delay hearings on additional contentions.
18 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e); Final Rule, Changes to the Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2207 (Jan. 14, 2004); see also La. Energy Servs., L.P. (Natl Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619, 622 (2004) (setting a high standard for reconsideration, which is only appropriate where a party brings decisive new information to the attention of the decisionmaker or demonstrates a fundamental [ ] misunderstanding of a key point.).
19 Motions for reconsideration under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e) are subject a similar timeliness requirement: A motion must be filed within ten (10) days of the action for which reconsideration is requested. Thus, if the April 2, 2012 Cross-Motion is considered a motion for reconsideration of the Boards March 16 Ruling on the Motion to Compel, it is untimely and should be rejected on that basis.
20 Cross-Motion at 3 (emphasis added).
21 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a).
As a factual basis for their Cross-Motion, the Intervenors point to Dr. Laheys assertion that the issues in NYS-25 and NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B overlap.22 Assuming that this assertion is valid, the deadline for filing the Cross-Motion was ten days after the Boards February 16 deferral of NYS-25, a deadline that passed five weeks before Intervenors filed the Cross-Motion.
This five-week delay is also prejudicial to Entergy, because in the intervening time, Entergy (and the NRC Staff) prepared and filed their respective pre-filed testimony, statements of position, and exhibits on NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.23 If the Board grants the Cross-Motion, the Intervenors will have many additional months to develop their rebuttal testimony, with respect to which Entergy and the NRC Staff would have no established opportunity to file a written response.24 B. NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-25 Address Separate Reactor Systems and Components As explained in Entergys Statement of Position for NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, this contention asserts that Entergys EAF analyses prepared by Westinghouse in support of Entergys fatigue management program (FMP) at IPEC are inadequate.25 The purpose of the FMP is to manage the time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) that address metal fatigue of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.26 Thus, under the applicable NRC Staff guidance in NUREG-1801,27 NUREG/CR-6260,28 and the resolution of Generic Safety Issue (GSI-190),29 22 See Cross-Motion at 4.
23 See, e.g., Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) (Mar. 29, 2012)
(Entergy Statement of Position) (ENT000182) (presently not available on ADAMS).
24 In this respect, the situation is quite different from NYS-25, because following Entergys and the NRC Staffs submittals on that contention, the Intervenors will have the opportunity to file rebuttal testimony. See Scheduling Order at 14-15.
Also, the delay in NYS-25 was caused by generic industry and regulatory developments (the NRC Staffs approval of MRP-227-A), while the proposed delay for NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B rests primarily on the convenience of the Intervenors.
25 See Entergy Statement of Position at 13 (citing Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of NYS- 26/26A/Riverkeeper TC-1/1A (Metal Fatigue of Reactor Components) and Motion for Leave to File New Contention NYS-26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B)) at 8 (Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished) (Order Admitting NYS- 26B/RK-TC-1B)).
26 See NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report, Rev. 1 at X M-1 (Sept. 2005) (NYS00146C).
27 See id. (Metal Fatigue of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary).
EAF evaluations are conducted on the key components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.30 The reactor vessel internals, which are the primary focus of NYS-2531are not part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the effects of aging on those components are managed through an entirely different program.32 Entergy acknowledges that NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B includes claims that Entergy should have prepared fatigue evaluations for certain structures and fittings within the reactor pressure vessel,33 and that potential embrittlement effects are not accounted for in EAF evaluations,34 and thus could be understood to overlap with certain limited issues raised in NYS-25. However, Entergy and the NRC Staff have already submitted testimony responding to these claims, and Intervenors have not explained why they cannot address these issues in the hearing on NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and perhaps resolve them in advance of a later hearing on NYS-25. In any event, there are certainly no unavoidable or extreme circumstances that would justify a delay of the NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B hearing for many months.
28 See NUREG/CR-6260, Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components at iii (Feb. 1995) (NYS000355) (explaining that the safety concern for EAF is on reactor coolant pressure boundary components).
29 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) at A42 (Mar. 29, 2012) (Entergy Testimony)
(ENT000183) (citing Closeout of Generic Safety Issue 190, Fatigue Evaluation of Metal Components for 60-Year Plant Life Attach. 2, at 1 (Dec. 26, 1999) (ENT000190)).
30 See id. at A146-47. Entergys compliance with Staff guidance documents that have been implicitly approved by the Commission constitutes reasonable assurance that the targeted aging effects will be adequately managed. See, e.g.,
AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-23, 68 NRC 461, 468 (2008); see also Vt.
Yankee, LLC (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-17, 72 NRC 1, 36 (2010) (a commitment to implement an AMP that the NRC finds is consistent with the GALL Report constitutes one acceptable method for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1)(iii).); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC __, slip op. at 16 n.78 (Mar. 8, 2012).
31 State of New York Initial Statement of Position on Contention NYS-25, at 10 (Dec. 22, 2011) (NYS000293).
32 See Entergy Testimony at A147.
33 Order Admitting NYS- 26B/RK-TC-1B at 8.
34 See Report of Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr. in Support of Contentions NYS-25 and NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B at 25 (Dec. 20, 2011)
(NYS000296).
C. Moving Forward on NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B Could Resolve Issues and Simplify the Hearings on Other Contentions As noted directly above, the Intervenors identify no reason why they cannot make a full factual presentation on NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B during the first round of hearings. To the extent Dr. Lahey asserts that certain limited issues in that contention overlap with NYS-25 (or NYS-38/RK-TC-5), then the hearing on the metal fatigue contention could, in the Intervenors words, substantially narrow the concerns in these other contentions.35 D. The Intervenors Claims Regarding Witness Convenience Involve Inconsistencies that Could Lead to Further Delays Intervenors claim that because Dr. Lahey is the States principal witness for NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5, it would be most resource-efficient for the State, and most resource efficient for Dr. Laheys schedule, to handle simultaneously future filings and the evidentiary hearing on those matters on which Dr. Lahey is a witness.36 Entergy does not dispute that it may be more convenient for Dr. Lahey if the hearings proceed in this manner. But granting Intervenors request would create the same problem for Riverkeepers witness, Dr. Hopenfeld, as it would purportedly solve for Dr. Lahey. For example, Dr. Hopenfeld is not involved in NYS-25, nor is he involved in the aspects of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that the Staff proposed to be deferred.37 But if the Board were to grant the Intervenors request and defer all of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 and NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, then Dr.
Hopenfeld would have the same problem as Dr. Lahey, because the flow-accelerated corrosion contention (RK-TC-2) would be on track for the first round of hearings, while Dr. Hopenfelds 35 Cross-Motion at 5.
36 Id. at 5.
37 Dr. Hopenfelds September 30, 2011 Declaration, submitted in support of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 does not mention reactor vessel internals or raise any other issues related to NYS-25. See generally Decl. of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld (Sept. 30, 2011),
available at ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A194.
other contentions would be deferred.38 Dr. Hopenfelds testimony also includes claims that flow-accelerated corrosion and metal fatigue are overlapping issues, so if the Board were to grant the Cross-Motion due to purported overlapping issues between NYS-25 and NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, that decision could potentially have adverse cascading schedule effects on other contentions with similar assertions.
IV. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DELAY THE HEARING ON NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Entergy did not oppose the Staffs Motion because it was a narrow request, limited to the issues in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that overlap the issues in the already-deferred NYS-25 contention.
NYS-38/RK-TC-5 has four bases, which are that:
Entergy (1) has deferred defining the methods used for determining the most limiting locations for metal fatigue calculations and the selection of those locations; (2) has not specified the criteria it will use and assumptions upon which it will rely for modifying the WESTEMS computer model for environmentally adjusted cumulative usage factors (CUFen) calculations; (3) has not adequately defined how it will manage primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) because it will not begin inspections until after entering the period of extended operations and Entergy has substituted a document, which will not be released until 2013, for its prior water chemistry program to manage PWSCC of the nickel alloy or nickel-alloy clad steam generator divider plates exposed to reactor coolant; and (4) does not adequately describe the contents of its AMP for reactor vessel internals, based on a revised version of the Materials Reliability Program 227 (MRP-227) guidance document.39 Except for basis (4), which was the subject of the Staffs Motion, there are no other overlapping issues in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 and NYS-25. Although bases (1) through (3) are ripe for adjudication at this time, given that Dr. Lahey appears to have availability issues in the near 38 Notably, assuming the hearing is held in the vicinity of the plant, Dr. Hopenfeld would be travelling a greater distance (from Rockville, Maryland) than Dr. Lahey (from Troy, New York). See Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Joram (Joe) Hopenfeld (Dec. 22, 2011) (RIV000004); Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Richard T. Lahey, Jr. (Dec. 22, 2011) (NYS000295).
39 Order Admitting NYS-38/RK-TC-5, at 10 n.47. These bases define the scope of this contention and no testimony may be entertained on NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that strays beyond these four bases. See S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-5, 71 NRC 90, 101-02 (2010) (upholding a board ruling excluding testimony at hearing that strayed beyond the bases as pled and admitted); Seabrook, CLI-12-05, slip op. at 11 n.50 (rejecting the Seabrook license renewal boards statement that boards admit[ ] contentions . . . and not their supporting bases because an admitted contention is defined by its bases).
term,40 Entergy is amenable to consulting with the Intervenors regarding a modest extension of time for the Intervenors to make their evidentiary presentations on NYS-38/RK-TC-5. There are, however, no unavoidable or extreme circumstances justifying a delay in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 for an unspecified number of months.
V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny the Intervenors Cross-Motion because it is untimely and is not supported by a showing of unavoidable or extreme circumstances.
Further, contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B raises issues that are separate from those raised in NYS-25. To the extent there are certain limited overlapping issues, it would be more efficient to continue with NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B on the current schedule. The Cross-Motion also raises witness convenience issues that, if the Cross-Motion is granted, could potentially lead to further delays in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
William C. Dennis, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Phone: (914) 272-3202 Washington, D.C. 20004 Fax: (914) 272-3205 Phone: (202) 739-3000 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com 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 9th day of April 2012 40 See Cross-Motion at 2.
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) )
) April 9, 2012 ANSWER CERTIFICATION Counsel for Entergy certifies that he has made a sincere effort to make himself available to listen and respond to the moving party, 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)
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
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) )
) April 9, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on April 9, 2012, copies of Entergys Opposition to the State of New Yorks and Riverkeepers Response and Cross-Motion to NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Boards March 16, 2012 Order were served electronically with the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov) (E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-7H4M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov)
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Brian G. Harris, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Mary B. Spencer, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Anita Ghosh, Esq. (E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com)
Brian Newell, Paralegal Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Anita.Ghosh@nrc.gov)
(E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov)
Manna Jo Greene Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Karla Raimundi Victoria Shiah, Esq.
Stephen Filler Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 460 Park Avenue 724 Wolcott Ave. New York, NY 10022 Beacon, NY 12508 (E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org) (E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: karla@clearwater.org)
(E-mail: stephenfiller@gmail.com)
John J. Sipos, Esq. Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson Esq. Vice President -Energy Department Assistant Attorneys General New York City Economic Development Office of the Attorney General Corporation (NYCDEC) of the State of New York 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 The Capitol mdelaney@nycedc.com Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov)
(E-mail: Charlie.Donaldson@ag.ny.gov)
Sean Murray, Mayor Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Deborah Brancato, Esq. Village of Buchanan Riverkeeper, Inc. Municipal Building 20 Secor Road 236 Tate Avenue Ossining, NY 10562 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org) (E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com)
(E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org) (E-mail:
Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com)
Robert D. Snook, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut of the State of New York 55 Elm Street 120 Broadway, 26th Floor P.O. Box 120 New York, New York 10271 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)
(E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us)
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (20) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
DB1/ 69503081