ML12090A206
| ML12090A206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/2012 |
| From: | Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Hudson Sloop Clearwater, Riverkeeper |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22143, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12090A206 (14) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) March 30, 2012 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Riverkeepers and Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File New Environmental Contention Regarding NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima)
On August 11, 2011, Intervenors Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper) and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Clearwater) (collectively, the Intervenors) moved for leave to file a new contention, which alleges that the NRC Staffs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 fails to address the extraordinary environmental implications of the findings and recommendations raised in the July 2011 report by the NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima.1 For the reasons described below, we deny admission of the Intervenors proposed new contention.
1 Motion to Admit Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. New Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement to Address Safety and Environmental Implications of the NRC Fukushima Task Force Report (Aug. 11, 2011) at 1 [hereinafter Motion]; see also Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. New Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement to Address Safety and Environmental Implications of the NRC Fukushima Task Force Report (Aug. 11, 2011) at 4 [hereinafter New Contention]. Intervenors Motion was accompanied by a rulemaking petition and a request to suspend the licensing decision in this proceeding pending that rulemaking. Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Rulemaking Petition to Rescind Prohibition Against Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents and Request to Suspend Licensing Decision (Aug. 11, 2011). The Commission, however, has denied the Intervenors suspension request pending the agencys consideration of topics raised in the Intervenors rulemaking petition. See Union Elec.
I. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2011, the NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima issued a report entitled Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.2 On August 11, 2011, the Intervenors moved for leave to file a new contention.3 On September 6, 2011, Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff filed Answers opposing the new contentions admission.4 On September 13, 2011, the Intervenors filed a Reply5 and, pursuant to permission granted by the Board,6 on September 21, 2011, Entergy filed a Surreply.7 Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2) et al., CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 38-41) (Sept. 9, 2011).
2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (July 12, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807) [hereinafter Task Force Report].
3 See Motion.
4 See Applicants Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011)
[hereinafter Entergy Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Sept. 6, 2011) [hereinafter NRC Staff Answer].
5 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergys Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 13, 2011) [hereinafter Intervenors Reply]; Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings (Sept. 13, 2011).
6 See Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergys Motion to File Surreply) (Sept. 20, 2011) at 1 (unpublished).
7 Applicants Surreply to the Combined Reply of Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Sept. 21, 2011) [hereinafter Entergy Surreply].
II. PARTIES POSITIONS The Intervenors new contention calls for significant re-evaluation and revision [of the NRCs current regulatory framework] in order to expand or upgrade the design basis for reactor safety as recommended by the Task Force Report.8 Intervenors assert that the new contention is timely pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) because it arose from information in the Task Force Report, which was released in July 2011 and contains information that was not publicly available prior to its issuance.9 As to the contention itself, Intervenors argue that the FSEIS must be supplemented in light of the Task Force findings that certain accidents formerly classified as severe should be incorporated into the design basis and that the values assigned to the cost-benefit analysis for Indian Point SAMAs [severe accident mitigation alternatives], as described in Section 5.2 of the FSEIS, must be re-evaluated in light of the Task Forces conclusion that the value of SAMAs is so high that they should be elected as a matter of course.10 Intervenors represent that revising the Indian Point SAMA analysis to include future mitigation measures suggested by the Task Force Report would yield a larger number of SAMAs required to be implemented, as well as an impact to the overall cost-benefit analysis for Entergys License Renewal Application.11 Intervenors also maintain that the FSEIS should address the Task Force Reports analysis of impacts from flooding and earthquakes and the Task Forces suggested measures to mitigate environmental impacts.12 Intervenors concede that some issues raised by the Task Force Report may be appropriate for generic rather than case-specific resolution, but state that any 8
New Contention at 8.
9 Motion at 3-5. In the alternative, Intervenors claim that their Motion and contention meet the nontimely filing requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c). Id. at 5-8.
10 New Contention at 12-13 (capitalizations omitted).
11 Id. at 13.
12 Id. at 14-16.
generic resolution of these issues as they pertain to the relicensing of Indian Point must be completed before that renewal is granted.13 Entergy insists that the proposed new contention should be rejected because it is untimely, does not meet the requirements for nontimely filings, and does not satisfy the requirements for contention admissibility set out in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). Entergy argues that the Task Force Report is not a source of new information sufficient to support a timely new contention because there have been no new regulatory changes since the issuance of the NRC Staffs FSEIS in December 2010.14 According to Entergy, Intervenors lack good cause to propose the contention and the proposed contention does not meet the remaining balancing factors in the Section 2.309(c)(1) test.15 Entergy states that the proposed contention misinterprets the Task Force Reports description of the suitability of the NRCs current regulatory approach and that the contention challenges existing regulations or raises issues that are about to become the subject of rulemaking.16 Entergy maintains that the proposed contentions concerns are insufficient to trigger a new FSEIS and that the contention does not raise any specific challenges to the sufficiency of the FSEIS as issued.17 The NRC Staff also urges rejection of the proposed contention. The NRC Staff argues the proposed contention is outside the scope of this proceeding for two reasons: (1) the Commission will generically address the subject matter of the contention, and (2) the contention implicates emergency planning issues, which are not properly part of license renewal review.18 In addition, the NRC Staff argues that the proposed contention does not challenge any specific 13 Id. at 18-19.
14 Entergy Answer at 11-12.
15 Id. at 12-15.
16 Id. at 15-21.
17 Id. at 21-28.
18 NRC Staff Answer at 4-5, 8.
portions of the FSEIS and that the contentions arguments relating to severe accidents, SAMAs, and need for power fail for two reasons: (1) they are not material to the agencys licensing decision in this proceeding and (2) they do not raise genuine disputes with the FSEIS itself.19 Finally, the NRC Staff asserts that the contention lacks an adequate factual basis and was not timely raised.20 The Intervenors respond that their proposed contention challenges the adequacy of the FSEIS for Indian Point Units 2 and 3, asserting that the FSEIS does not address the significant environmental implications of the findings and recommendations raised by the NRCs Fukushima Task Force Report.21 The Intervenors further claim that their proposed contention specifically challenges the juxtaposition of the Task Force Reports findings with the NRCs determination in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B that the environmental impacts of severe accidents would be small, in addition to challenging the NRC Staffs SAMA analysis in the FSEIS, which fails to consider the conclusions of the Task Force Report.22 Entergys Surreply states that the Intervenors ignore the Commissions ruling in CLI 05 that the Task Force Report does not provide new information related to any generic or site-specific environmental analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.23 Likewise, Entergy depicts CLI-11-05 as holding that any request to undertake supplemental NEPA review at this time is premature until the full facts are gleaned from the accident at Fukushima.24 19 Id. at 14-24.
20 Id. at 24-35.
21 Intervenors Reply at 2.
22 Id. at 2-3.
23 Entergy Surreply at 3.
24 Id.
III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards
- 1. Contention Admissibility Except where a contention challenges data or conclusions in the NRCs environmental review documents that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicants documents, a timely new contention must meet the new contention requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii). Section 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii) permits new contentions to be admitted only with leave of the Board upon a showing that --
(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.25 Our July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order states that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(iii), we will deem timely filed any proffered new contention submitted within thirty (30) days of the date when the new and material information on which it is based first becomes available.26 Otherwise, if a contention is not timely filed, it must meet the multi-factor balancing test in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c). To be admissible, all contentions, timely or nontimely, must also satisfy the six criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi).27
- 2. NRCs NEPA Duties, CLI-11-05, and CLI-12-07 In its review of a nuclear power reactor license renewal application, the NRC must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that is supplemental to the Generic 25 Id. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii).
26 Licensing Board Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010) at 6 (unpublished).
27 We have outlined these six criteria in prior memoranda and orders. See LBP-10-13, 71 NRC 673, 677 n.6 (2010); LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 60-64 (2008).
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal, NUREG-1437.28 The NRCs implementation of NEPA into agency regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 51, contemplates two tiers of environmental impacts resulting from power reactor license renewal: (1) those impacts incident to all license renewals (which have been addressed generically by the GEIS and are labeled Category 1 issues) and (2) those impacts incident to the specific facility in question (which must be addressed on a site-specific basis by the supplemental EIS and are labeled Category 2 issues).29 NRC regulations define severe accidents as Category 2 issues and provide that [i]f the staff has not previously considered [SAMAs] for the applicants plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be provided.30 Where an FSEIS has been issued, the NRC Staff must prepare a supplement to the FSEIS before taking the proposed action if there are substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or new and significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.31 The Commission has defined new and significant information as present[ing] a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.32 In CLI-11-05, the Commission declared that 28 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c). The findings of the GEIS are codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B.
29 See LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 67 (citing Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 11-12 (2001)).
30 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L); see also id. Part 51, subpart A, app. B.
31 Id. § 51.92(a)(1)-(2).
32 Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although the Task Force completed its review and provided its recommendations . . . , the agency continues to evaluate the [Fukushima]
accident and its implications for U.S. facilities . . . . [W]e do not know today the full implications of the Japan events for U.S. facilities. Therefore, any generic NEPA dutyif one were appropriate at alldoes not accrue now.33 The Commission established that [i]f . . . new and significant information comes to light that requires consideration as part of the ongoing preparation of application-specific NEPA documents, the agency will assess the significance of that information, as appropriate.34 The Commission stated, however, that given the current state of information available to us, such information does not present a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned such that it would trigger at least a generic NEPA review.35 Moreover, because the Commission directed the NRC Staff to institute a longer-term review of the implications of events at Fukushima on U.S. facilities and the NRC may implement changes to its regulations and regulatory processes, the Commission regarded any requests for added safety review to have, in essence, been granted.36 In CLI-12-07, the Commission denied a petition for review of a licensing board memorandum and order that declined to admit a common contention filed in several reactor licensing proceedings that, in all important respects, is identical to the one proffered in this proceeding.37 The Commission explained that reference to the Task Force Report recommendations alone, without facts or expert opinion that explain their significance for the unique characteristics of the sites or reactors that are the subject of the petitions, does not 33 Callaway, CLI-11-05, 74 NRC at __ (slip op. at 30).
34 Id. at __-__ (slip op. at 30-31).
35 Id. at __ (slip op. at 31) (citing Hydro Res., CLI-99-22, 50 NRC at 14 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
36 Id. at __-__ (slip op. at 31-32).
37 See Luminant Generation Co. LLC (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4),
CLI-12-07, 75 NRC __ (slip op.) (Mar. 16, 2012).
provide sufficient support for the common contention.38 Accordingly, because the petitioners in those proceedings did not relate their contention[s] to any unique characteristics of the particular site[s] at issue, the Commission agreed with the licensing board that the contention was not adequately supported by alleged facts or expert opinions and did not raise issues material to the NRCs reviews of the pending license applications.39 The Commission did not say that no contention based on the Fukushima accident could be admissible: [a]s tangible Fukushima lessons emergewhether from inside or outside the NRCFukushima-related contentions in individual adjudications may become more plausible, except insofar as the NRC is taking generic steps to address them.40 B. Board Decision The Commissions ruling in CLI-12-07 controls this case. The Intervenors proposed contention raises the same issue as the common contention that was rejected by the Commissionthe alleged failure to comply with NEPA in the wake of the Task Force recommendations. Like the petitioners in those proceedings, the Intervenors have not offered any information in support of their contention that ties the recommendations of the Task Force Report to any site-specific circumstances at the Indian Point facility. Although the Intervenors demand reconsideration of any conclusions in the Indian Point FSEIS based on the assumption that compliance with NRC safety regulations is sufficient to ensure that environmental impacts of accidents are acceptable,41 they do not identify any such conclusions in the FSEIS or explain how they are flawed. Further, the supporting declaration of their expert, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, makes no mention of Indian Point. Although the Intervenors claim that their contention 38 Id. at __ (slip op. at 13).
39 Id. at __ (slip op. at 9); see also id. at __, __ (slip op. at 11, 13).
40 Id. at __ (slip op. at 11) (emphasis added).
41 New Contention at 11-12.
specifically challenge[s] the failure of the FSEIS to address the significant environmental implications of the Task Force Reports findings,42 this charge is not specific at all, but rather seeks the generic type of NEPA review that [the Commission] declared premature in CLI 5.43 Because the Intervenors have not connected the Task Force recommendations to the Indian Point facility, they have not put forward new and significant circumstances or information that are relevant to the NRCs site-specific NEPA review of Entergys License Renewal Application. As a result, the contention fails to present sufficient information to show that it has raised a genuine dispute of material fact or law with the Application.44 We note that, since the filing of the Intervenors contention, the agency has begun to take steps to implement the lessons learned from Fukushima. On October 18, 2011, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum directing the NRC Staff to implement recommendations from the Task Force Report.45 On March 12, 2012, in light of recommendations made by the Task Force Report, the NRC imposed a series of orders on all power reactor licensees to strengthen these licensees spent fuel pool instrumentation as well as their abilities to withstand beyond design basis events.46 That same day, the NRC published 42 Intevenors Reply at 2.
43 Comanche Peak, CLI-12-07, 75 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9).
44 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
45 Staff Requirements - SECY-11-0124 - Recommended Actions to be Taken Without Delay from the Near-Term Task Force Report at 1 (Oct. 18, 2011) (unanimous approval).
46 See, e.g., In the Matter of All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active Or Deferred Status: Order Modifying Licensees With Regard To Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Effective Immediately), 77 Fed. Reg. 16,082, 16,082 (Mar. 19, 2012);
Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events (Effective Immediately), 77 Fed. Reg. 16,091, 16,091 (Mar. 19, 2012).
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise its station blackout rule.47 To the extent that these actions impose (or will eventually impose) requirements on licensees, they are examples of the generic steps the NRC is taking to respond to Fukushima and which the Commission has now ruled cannot be the basis for a contention in an individual licensing proceeding.48 Consequently, they do not remove the prematurity that is fatal to the proposed contention.49 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny the Intervenors Motion to admit a new contention.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland March 30, 2012 47 Station Blackout, 77 Fed. Reg. 16,175, 16,175 (Mar. 20, 2012).
48 See Comanche Peak, CLI-12-07, 75 NRC at __ (slip op. at 11).
49 See Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Units 6 and 7), LBP-11-33, 74 NRC __, __-__
(slip op. at 9-10) (Nov. 21, 2011).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Riverkeepers and Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File New Environmental Contention Regarding NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
Administrative Judge Anita Ghosh, Esq.
E-mail: lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.
Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel E-mail: richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Kaye D. Lathrop E-mail:
Administrative Judge sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 190 Cedar Lane E. edward.williamson@nrc.gov Ridgway, CO 81432 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov E-mail: kaye.lathrop@nrc.gov brian.harris.@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov Joshua A. Kirstein, Law Clerk mary.spencer@nrc.gov E-mail: josh.kirstein@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk karl.farrar@nrc.gov E-mail: anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Riverkeepers and Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File New Environmental Contention Regarding NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima)
William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue Adam Stolorow, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601 Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal Email: wdennis@entergy.com Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com vshiah@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com jgandhi@sprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Exchange Place Ramona Cearley, Secretary 53 State Street Riverkeeper, Inc.
Boston, MA 02109 20 Secor Road E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org rcearley@riverkeeper.org Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Lena Michelle Long, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Laura Swett, Esq. E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Lance Escher, Esq.
Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary Steven C. Filler Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Karla Raimundi 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Washington, DC 20004 724 Wolcott Ave.
E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Beacon, NY 12508 pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org martin.oneill@morganlewis.com stephenfiller@gmail.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com karla@clearwater.org jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
lswett@morganlewis.com Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs lescher@morganlewis.com NYC Department of Environmental Protection mfreeze@morganlewis.com 59-17 Junction Boulevard awalker@morganlewis.com Flushing, NY 11373 E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov 2
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Riverkeepers and Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File New Environmental Contention Regarding NRCs Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima)
Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Senior Attorney for Special Projects Assistant Attorney General New York State Department Office of the Attorney General of Environmental Conservation State of Connecticut 625 Broadway, 14th Floor 55 Elm Street Albany, New York 12233-5500 P.O. Box 120 E-mail: jmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@po.state.ct.us John Louis Parker, Esq. Sean Murray, Mayor Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Kevin Hay, Village Administrator New York State Department Village of Buchanan of Environmental Conservation Municipal Building 21 South Putt Corners Road 236 Tate Avenue New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us E-mail: SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com John J. Sipos, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Charles Donaldson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor The Capitol New York, New York 10271 State Street E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Albany, New York 12224 E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of March 2012 3