ML12144A422
| ML12144A422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/2012 |
| From: | Rund J Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22497, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12144A422 (13) | |
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)
)
)
May 23, 2012 ENTERGYS REPLY TO RIVERKEEPER, INC. RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ENTERGY TESTIMONY I.
INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order (Scheduling Order),1 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) files this timely Reply to Riverkeeper, Inc.s Response in Support of the New York State (NYS) Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and NRC Staff Witness Testimony (Riverkeeper Response).2 While NYSs Motion addresses Entergys testimony on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 concerning property values and energy alternatives, Riverkeeper has filed a Response thereto that inappropriately turns away from the contentions that are the subject of the NYS Motion to Strike and instead attempts to challenge Entergys testimony on Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1. Specifically, Riverkeeper has asked the Board to disregard portions of Entergys testimony on that contention related to spent fuel pool (SFP) leaks.
1 Licensing Board Scheduling Order § G.2, at 7 (July 1, 2010) (unpublished) (Scheduling Order) ([I]f any party files an answer that supports a motion, then a party opposing the motion may, within ten (10) days after service of that answer, file a reply to any new facts or arguments presented in that answer.).
2 Riverkeeper, Inc. Response in Support of State of New York Motion to Strike Portions of Energy and NRC Staff Testimony (May 14, 2012) (Riverkeeper Response), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12135A716; see also State of New York Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy and NRC Staff Witness Testimony As Impermissible Under NRC Regulations (Apr. 30, 2012) (NYS Motion to Strike), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML12121A702.
As an initial matter, Riverkeepers Response should be summarily rejected because Riverkeeper is not a party to NYS-17B or NYS-37, and as such has no right to file pleadings concerning those contentions. In addition, Riverkeepers Response exceeds the scope of a permissible answer as it raises totally new grounds for relief. Moreover, to the extent Riverkeeper seeks to exclude testimony regarding RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1, to which it is a party, the Response should be rejected as an out-of-time de facto motion in limine in violation of the Boards Scheduling Order.
Aside from these procedural flaws, Riverkeepers arguments also are meritless.
Riverkeeper introduced expert testimony broadly challenging the adequacy of the evaluation by Entergy and the NRC Staff of the environmental significance of Indian Point SFP leaks.3 In response, Entergy has properly presented qualified experts who demonstrate that the human health, groundwater quality, and aquatic ecology impacts from SFP leaks have been and will continue to be SMALL and, thus, are environmentally insignificant.4 Just because environmental significance is a concept addressed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not render such testimony legally impermissible, as Riverkeeper mistakenly claims. The Board should therefore deny Riverkeepers requested relief in its entirety.
II.
ARGUMENT A.
Riverkeeper Is Prohibited From Filing Pleadings on NYS-17B and NYS-37 Having failed to adopt NYS-17B and NYS-37, Riverkeeper is not a party to those contentions and therefore is not permitted to file a pleading responding to the NYS Motion to 3
See, e.g., Prefiled Direct Testimony of Arnold Gundersen Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks) at 4 (Dec. 21, 2011) (Gundersen Testimony) (RIV000060) (challenging the adequacy of the evaluation by Entergy and the NRC Staff of SFP leaks and groundwater contamination).
4 See, e.g., Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Donald M. Mayer, Alan B. Cox, Thomas C. Esselman, Matthew J.
Barvenik, Carl J. Paperiello, and F. Owen Hoffman Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks) at 17-21 (Mar. 29, 2012) (ENT000301) (Entergy RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 Testimony).
Strike.5 Permitting Riverkeeper to file this Response contravenes the Commissions contention adoption regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(3), an important requirement necessary to avoid unnecessary pleadings and to provide for orderly, efficient proceedings. That regulation provides a petitioner seeking intervention the option of adopting another petitioners contentions.
The petitioner requesting to adopt a contention, however, must agree that the party proposing the contention will act as the representative with respect to that contention (or otherwise reach agreement with the other petitioner about who will act as the lead petitioner on that contention).6 Early in this proceeding, several petitioners took advantage of this procedure and adopted certain admitted contentions.7 But Riverkeeper did not adopt any other petitioners proffered contentions. Accordingly, Riverkeeper is not a party to NYS-17B and NYS-37, and has no right to file pleadings concerning those contentions.
As the Commission held in the Louisiana Energy Services proceeding, to allow an intervenor the right to participate on all other parties contentions, regardless of whether the contentions were ever adopted, would defeat the purpose of the contention adoption requirement.8 Approving the presiding officers reasoning, the Commission further stated:
With contention adoption explicitly recognized as the method by which an intervenor can gain a role relative to another petitioners proffered contentions, to permit any party to the proceeding to take an active role regarding any contention without regard to whether 5
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) ([A] party may file an answer in support of or in opposition to the motion....)
(emphasis added).
6 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(3); see also Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 455 (1981) ([S]ingle, lead intervenors should be designated to present evidence, to conduct cross-examination, to submit briefs, and to propose findings of fact, conclusions of law, and argument.) (emphasis added).
7 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 202-203, 206 (2008) (authorizing Clearwaters adoption of NYS-9 and NYS-12).
8 La. Energy Servs., L.P. (Natl Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619, 627 (2004).
that party made any attempt to adopt that contention would seriously undermine the efficacy of that provision.9 Moreover, adoption is not a mere formality, but is necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of this proceeding. This is particularly true in a complex case such as this one, with three intervenors, five interested governmental entities, and over a dozen admitted contentions.
Were intervenors permitted to ignore the adoption requirement and file pleadings concerning another intervenors contentions at will, the number of filings could increase dramatically, making conduct of an orderly, efficient proceeding exceedingly difficult.
Thus, if Riverkeeper wished to participate on NYS-17B and NYS-37, the proper avenue would have been to adopt those contentions earlier in the proceeding.10 Having failed to take advantage of these procedures, the Board should disregard Riverkeepers Response.
B.
Riverkeeper Exceeds the Proper Scope of an Answer by Raising New Arguments Even if Riverkeeper somehow were authorized to file the instant pleading, the Response far exceeds the scope of a permissible answer. Answers should focus (pro or con) on the issues raised by the movant, and should not raise totally new grounds for relief.11 In this respect, the scope of an answer is similar in scope to a reply brief, which may not be used as a vehicle to introduce new arguments or claims.12 Despite its characterization as a response to the NYS Motion to Strike, Riverkeepers pleading raises an entirely different claim involving an entirely different contention. The NYS Motion to Strike addresses only Entergys testimony on NYS-17B and NYS-37. Riverkeeper, 9
Id.
10 See Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-20, 64 NRC 131, 207 (2006) (holding that notice of adoption of a contention must be filed within a reasonable time (such as 20 days) after the contention has been filed and admitted), revd in part on other grounds, CLI-07-16, 65 NRC 371 (2007).
11 U.S. Dept of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository), LBP-08-1, 67 NRC 37, 51 (2008).
12 See La. Energy Servs., L.P. (Natl Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 NRC 223, 225 (2004).
however, seeks Board relief unrelated to those contentions, asking instead that the Board exclude portions of Entergys testimony on RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1.13 Because Riverkeeper has improperly exceeded the scope of a permissible answer to the NYS Motion to Strike, the Board should disregard Riverkeepers new request for distinct relief.
The Commission has long recognized that NRC proceedings would be unending if an intervenor could disregard deadlines and belatedly raise new claims it either originally opted not to make or which simply did not occur to it at the outset.14 Having chosen not to file its own timely motion on Entergys testimony on RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1, Riverkeeper cannot bootstrap untimely arguments to its response to the NYS Motion to Strike.
C.
Riverkeepers De Facto Motion in Limine Should be Denied While nominally filed as a response pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), Riverkeepers pleading is, in effect, a de facto motion to exclude Entergys testimony on RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3.15 The Board should reject Riverkeepers request for relief with respect to Entergys testimony on RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3 because it is procedurally flawed and substantively deficient.
- 1.
Riverkeepers Request Is Procedurally Flawed As an initial matter, Riverkeepers request is untimely. Entergy filed its RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3 statement of position and testimony on March 29, 2012.16 The Boards Scheduling Order requires that motions in limine are due 30 days following the service of the relevant testimony.17 As such, any motion concerning Entergys RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3 testimony was due on April 28, 13 See Riverkeeper Response at 3-4.
14 See, e.g., Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2),
CLI-03-17, 58 NRC 419, 428-29 (2003) (quoted approvingly in LES, CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224-25).
15 See Riverkeeper Response at 3-4 (asking that the Board afford Entergys testimony on RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 no weight); see also 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) (indicating that a motion states the grounds and the relief sought).
16 Entergys Statement of Position on Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks)
(Mar. 29, 2012) (ENT000300); Entergy RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 Testimony (ENT000301).
17 See Scheduling Order at 15.
2012. Because Riverkeeper did not file the instant request until May 14, 2012, it should be denied as untimely.
In addition, the Response should be rejected because Riverkeeper made no attempt to meet the consultation requirement for motions in 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). That regulation states that [a] motion must be rejected if it does not include a certification by the attorney or representative of the moving party that the movant has made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issue(s) raised in the motion, and that the movants efforts to resolve the issue(s) have been unsuccessful.18 The Response contains no such certification, nor did Riverkeeper make any attempt to consult with Entergys counsel.19 Accordingly, Riverkeepers request for relief should be rejected because of Riverkeepers blatant disregard for the Commissions consultation requirement.20
- 2.
Riverkeeper Fails to Identify Any Valid Basis for Excluding or Affording No Weight to Entergys Expert Testimony Even if Riverkeepers Response were properly before the Board, Riverkeepers arguments fail because Entergys witnesses offer no impermissible legal argument or conclusions. As explained in Entergys Answer to the NYS Motion to Strike, Entergys expert testimony on NYS-17B and NYS-37 fully comports with the Commissions rules of evidence.21 18 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) (emphasis added).
19 The Response certifies only that Riverkeeper is unaware of any attempt by the other parties to the proceeding to contact Riverkeeper regarding New York States Motion in to Strike. Riverkeeper Response, Certification Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) at 1. While the relevance of this statement is unclear, it ignores Riverkeepers burden to initiate consultation for its request for relief concerning RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3 testimony.
20 This is not the first time Riverkeeper has disregarded this requirement. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Summarizing Pre-Hearing Conference) at 3 (Feb. 4, 2009) (unpublished) (voicing displeasure with the minimal efforts of New York and Riverkeeper to comply with the consultation requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(b)); Entergys Answer Opposing Riverkeeper, Inc. Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Pre-Filed Testimony and Statement of Position Regarding RK-TC-2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) at 3-4 (May 14, 2012), available at ML12135A714.
21 See Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy Pre-filed Testimony on Contentions NYS-17B (Property Values) and NYS-37 (Energy Alternatives) at 5-16 (May 14, 2012),
available at ML12135A715.
Likewise, Riverkeepers claim that Entergys RK-EC-1/CW-EC-3 testimony contains purely legal argument, conclusions of law, and is an unacceptable invasion of the Boards role in this proceeding is flawed and should be rejected.22 Expert testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, and the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.23 Entergys expert witness testimony satisfies both of these requirements.
Riverkeeper raises no challenge to the qualifications of any Entergy expert witness.
Instead, Riverkeeper objects to expert testimony concerning the environmental significance of SFP leaks (and related background on how NRC defines significance levels) as purported legal opinion.24 There is simply no basis for Riverkeepers apparent claim that expertise on NEPA and its implementation at the NRC is within the exclusive province of legal counsel. To the contrary, the Commission has delegated primary responsibility for NEPA implementation to NRC technical staff.25 Moreover, Riverkeeper would have the Board apply a different standard to Entergy than Riverkeeper would have applied to itself. In attempting to prove its contentions, Riverkeeper offered Mr. Gundersens testimony to appraise the adequacy of the evaluation by Entergy and the NRC Staff of spent fuel pool leaks and groundwater contamination in the Indian Point License Renewal Proceedingthe mirror image of the testimony to which Riverkeeper now 22 See Riverkeeper Response at 4.
23 Duke Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-04-21, 60 NRC 21, 27-28 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
24 Riverkeeper Response at 3.
25 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. § 51.31(a) (delegating to NRC staff determination on whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or make a finding of no significant impact).
objects.26 In direct response to Riverkeepers contention, Entergy presented qualified experts in the field who analyzed the relevant facts and appropriately weighed those facts against various regulations, NRC Staff guidance, and past NRC environmental review practices. Riverkeeper now claims that Entergys expert testimony is barred, while its own testimony is admissible. In fact, neither Riverkeepers nor Entergys testimony invades the province of the Boardthe Board may follow, ignore, and accord weight to such evidence as it deems appropriate.
Finally, assuming arguendo that Entergys expert witnesses have offered legal conclusions, a characterization Entergy does not concede, courts admit expert testimony that is largely legal or regulatory in content when it is helpful to the trier of fact, particularly in complex technical areas.27 Such testimony may be admissible even if it contains both factual and legal conclusions.28 In the context of determining environmental significance, which inevitably involves applying complicated technical standards and regulations to the facts, carefully supported expert testimony is almost indispensable to the Board in carrying out its duties.
Because the expert witnesses will be subject to questioning by the Board and the Board may accord such weight to the testimony as it sees fit, there is no risk that Entergys testimony usurps the role of the Board.
26 Gundersen Testimony at 4 (RIV000060) (emphasis added). Compare Riverkeeper Response at 3 (objecting to Entergy expert testimony concerning whether Entergy has adequately and appropriately characterized spent fuel pool leaks at Indian Point).
27 See, e.g., United States v. Offill, 666 F.3d 168, 175 (4th Cir. 2011) (allowing expert testimony on federal securities registration requirements to explain intricate regulatory landscape); United States v. Owens, 301 F.3d 521, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2002) (allowing expert testimony to the effect that financial transactions did not comply with regulations and appeared to be fraudulent); United States v. Windfelder, 790 F.2d 576, 581 (7th Cir. 1986) (observing that [e]xpert testimony by an IRS agent which expresses an opinion as to the proper tax consequences of a transaction is admissible evidence); Crom Corp. v. Crom, 677 F.2d 48, 50 (9th Cir. 1982)
(allowing expert testimony in a patent infringement action that a patent was infringed).
28 See, e.g., United States v. Buchanan, 787 F.2d 477, 483 (10th Cir. 1986) (the proper inquiry is whether the testimony would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702).
III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should disregard or reject the arguments made in Riverkeepers improperly-filed Response.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com William B. Glew, Jr., Esq.
William C. Dennis, Esq.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 272-3202 Fax: (914) 272-3205 E-mail: wglew@entergy.com E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 23rd day of May 2012
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)
)
)
May 23, 2012 ANSWER CERTIFICATION Counsel for Entergy certifies that he is unaware of any attempt by Riverkeeper to contact Entergy regarding the relief requested in Riverkeepers Response or NYSs Motion to Strike.
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@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)
)
)
May 23, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 23, 2012, a copy of the Entergys Reply to Riverkeeper, Inc. Response in Support of State of New York Motion to Strike Portions of Entergy Testimony was served electronically via the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov)
Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov)
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-7H4M Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov)
Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 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.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq.
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)
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 (E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com)
Manna Jo Greene Karla Raimundi Stephen Filler Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave.
Beacon, NY 12508 (E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org)
(E-mail: karla@clearwater.org)
(E-mail: stephenfiller@gmail.com)
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Victoria Shiah, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com)
(E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com)
Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov)
John Louis Parker, Esq.
Office of General Counsel, Region 3 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 21 S. Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 (E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
DB1/ 69820713 John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov)
(E-mail: Charlie.Donaldson@ag.ny.gov)
Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Vice President -Energy Department New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCDEC) 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 (E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com)
Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org)
(E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org)
Sean Murray, Mayor Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail:
Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com)
Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us)
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5061 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.