ML15121A887
| ML15121A887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/2015 |
| From: | Lusignan B State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15121A885 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 27654 | |
| Download: ML15121A887 (18) | |
Text
STATE OF NEW YORK REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROPRIETARY DESIGNATIONS DATED MAY 1, 2015 PUBLIC AND REDACTED VERSION
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. May 1, 2015
x STATE OF NEW YORK REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROPRIETARY DESIGNATIONS Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Table of Contents BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 4 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5 I. ENTERGY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE WITHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE IN THEIR ENTIRETY................................................................ 5
- 1. BTP 5-3 Memo .................................................................................................................. 6
- 2. Calculation Notes ............................................................................................................... 8 II. THE STATE IS NOT CHALLENGING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, MERELY ITS MISUSE BY ENTERGY IN THIS CASE ......................................................................... 11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 11
Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (the Boards) April 24, 2015 order, 1 the State of New York respectfully submits this Reply in support of its Motion to Withdraw the Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group and Westinghouse Documents (NYS Motion), filed on April 9, 2015, and in response to Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations (Entergys Answer), filed April 20, 2015. In disregard of the Protective Order, 2 Entergys Answer incorrectly seeks to invert and shift the burden on the State. Moreover, Entergys Answer does not satisfy Entergys burden of establishing that each document in its entirety should be afforded confidential treatment.
The Board granted the States Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designations, filed April 22, 2015, over the objections of Entergy 3 and NRC Staff, 4 and gave the State until May 1, 2015 to submit its reply. The NYS Motion sought to strike the proprietary designation of five specific documents (collectively, the documents): (1) a memorandum entitled BTP 5-3 Industry Issue: Executive Review (the BTP 5-3 Memo) created by the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG); and (2) four calculation notes (the calculation notes) prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). As set 1
See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), Order (Granting New Yorks Motion for Leave to File Reply) (April 24, 2015) (unpublished).
2 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), Protective Order (September 4, 2009)
(unpublished).
3 In Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Entergys April 20, 2015 Answer (Entergys Answer Opposing Reply), Entergy states that it expressly reserves its right to file a motion to strike and/or a response to any New York reply, as appropriate. Entergys Answer Opposing Reply, at 1-2 n. 3.
However, neither NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. §§ 2.323 and 2.390) nor the relevant Board Orders (the Boards July 2010 Scheduling Order and September 2009 Protective Order) provide Entergy the right to file a sur-reply or other response to a reply, nor does there appear to be any legal basis for the submittal of such a paper.
4 During consultations, NRC Staff indicated that they opposed the States Motion for Leave to File a Reply, even though they took no position on the underlying Motion. Staff did not submit any written opposition to the States Motion for Leave to File a Reply.
1
forth more fully below, the Board should grant the NYS Motion because Entergy has failed to establish that the five documents are proprietary in their entirety, and has declined multiple opportunities to redact or otherwise partially disclose the documents.
BACKGROUND The State has fully briefed the history of events culminating in the NYS Motion. See NYS Motion, at 1-6. However, Entergys Answer contains several distortions of fact that the State would like to clarify.
First, Entergy claims that New York does not explicitly ask that Westinghouse issue redacted versions of the documents and therefore is seeking public disclosure of all five documents in their entirety. Entergys Answer, at 1 n. 2. However, the State has repeatedly offered Entergy opportunities to partially disclose or offer redacted versions of the documents.
This dispute initially arose because Entergy refused to allow the State to refer to the results of cumulative usage factors adjusted for environmental effects (CUFen) calculations - that is, the bare output numbers - for various reactor components. See NYS Motion, at 5. 5 Thereafter, in the States initial Objection to Continued Confidential Treatment of Certain Documents (NYS Objection), dated March 9, 2015, the State NYS Objection, Attachment 1 to NYS Motion. During subsequent verbal consultations, counsel for Entergy suggested that disclosure might be facilitated if the State narrowed its request to particular portions of the documents. Accordingly, on March 19, 2015, the State, in an attempt to resolve the objection without the need for litigation, sent an e-mail to Entergy that identified specific portions of the calculation notes that 5
The dispute subsequently expanded to include the BTP 5-3 Memo.
2
the State believed were both particularly relevant and non-proprietary. See March 9-30, 2015 E-mail Thread between L. Kwong and R. Kuyler (E-mail Thread), Attachment 7 to NYS Motion, at 2-3. Nonetheless, Entergy maintained, in a March 26, 2015 e-mail, that E-Mail Thread, at 2. In short, despite the States ongoing willingness to consider specific designations of proprietary information in the documents, Entergy and its vendors have maintained that all five documents are categorically exempt from public disclosure. Considering that a party seeking non-disclosure always retains the burden to establish that information is proprietary, see Protective Order, ¶D, Entergys suggestion that the State has somehow behaved unreasonably in failing to make an explicit motion for redaction of the documents is entirely off base.
Second, Entergy proudly trumpets its supposed compliance with the Protective Order, and criticizes the States suggestion that Entergy should have submitted more detailed statements in defense of the proprietary designation during the consultation period. See Entergys Answer, at 7 (claiming that New York could not identify any authority requiring Entergy to show that the documents at issue are proprietary during informal consultation, and that the State casually dismisses Entergys good faith representation as conclusory). However, in this context, it is significant to highlight what Entergy did not say during consultations. Entergy utterly ignored the States request, in its initial Objection, for the specific bases of its proprietary claims and the harm that would result if the documents were disclosed. See NYS Objection, Attachment 1 to NYS Motion. With respect to the four calculation notes, Entergy simply stated that they were proprietary in full because E-mail Thread, Attachment 7 3
to NYS Motion, at 2. 6 With respect to the BTP 5-3 Memo, Entergy claimed generally that it Id. at 2. In short, despite being asked point blank by the State to provide a specific justification for the continued confidential treatment of the documents, Entergy offered no justifications that the State could evaluate or respond to. Indeed, Entergy failed even to allege that disclosure of the documents would result in competitive harm to Westinghouse or PWROG. Entergys position that it did all that was required under the Protective Order misses the point: Entergy did not offer any specific defense of the proprietary designations until after the State moved to strike them.
LEGAL STANDARDS The applicable legal standards are established by the Boards September 4, 2009 Protective Order and 10 C.F.R § 2.390, and have previously been fully briefed. See NYS Motion, at 1-2, 7-10. However, Entergys Answer appears to suggest that the NYS Motion should be denied because the State has failed to establish that the documents, in their entirety, are not proprietary. See Entergys Answer, at 4-7. 7 This subverts the applicable legal standards, 6
The State rebutted this categorical claim in its Motion, citing several Westinghouse calculation notes that had been publically released. See NYS Motion, at 13 n. 3. In response, Entergy modified its position by claiming that no calculation notes had been publically disclosed except for the three cited by the State. See Entergys Answer, at 14; Gray Declaration, ¶5, Attachment 3 to Entergys Answer.
7 Entergy objects to this characterization in their Answer Opposing New York States Motion for Leave to File a Reply. See Entergys Answer Opposing Reply, at 6. However, Entergys Answer is replete with insinuations that the State has not done enough to establish that the documents are non-proprietary, including (1) noting that the State did not request the creation of redacted version of the documents in its Motion, and thus must be seeking the release of the entire documents, Entergys Answer, at 1 n. 2; (2) claiming that there should be a presumption that maintaining the proprietary designation of the documents will not impact public participation at the Track 2 hearing, id. at 2; (3) claiming that New York has not alleged any problems related to access to the proprietary information[,]
id. at 4 (emphasis added); (4) noting that New York argues that its Motion should be granted because Entergy and Westinghouse have failed to show that the documents at issue are proprietary but claiming that New York does not identify any authority requiring Entergy and Westinghouse to have done so during informal consultation[,] id.
at 7; (5) arguing that the Court should defer to the opinions expressed in the Gresham Affidavit and Gray Declaration, because Westinghouse personnel are more qualified than New York to determine what should be 4
which place the burden of establishing the need for nondisclosure on the party seeking to prevent public disclosure of information. Indeed, 10 C.F.R § 2.390(a) establishes a presumption that documents should be made available for public inspection and copying, while section 2.390(b) establishes procedures that must be followed by anyone submitting a document to the NRC who seeks to have the document, or a portion of it, withheld from public disclosure because it contains trade secrets, privileged, or confidential commercial or financial information. The Protective Order makes clear that the initial holder 8 of allegedly proprietary information - in this case, Entergy -
shall have the burden of showing that the applicable information in the proprietary document is a trade secret and/or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential so that the Board can determine, as applicable, whether, on balance, protection of the document from public disclosure is warranted under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390.
Protective Order, ¶D. Accordingly, it is Entergys burden to justify the withholding of any purportedly proprietary information in the documents from public disclosure. This is a burden that Entergy has not met for the documents in their entirety.
ARGUMENT I. ENTERGY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE WITHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE IN THEIR ENTIRETY Entergys position that all five documents are proprietary in their entirety is not supported by the affidavits and declaration from PWROG and Westinghouse officials, and is belied by the content of the documents. Critically, Entergy has failed to establish that disclosure of the considered proprietary, id., at 13, and (6) claiming that CUFen output values cannot be disclosed because they are derived from analysis and calculations - which New York seeks to make public[,] id. at 14.
8 The initial holder refers to any Participant in this proceeding who holds proprietary documents. Protective Order, at 2. Accordingly, the initial holder of the subject documents is Entergy, and it has the burden to establish that the documents are propriety - Westinghouse and PWROG are not participants in this proceeding.
5
documents, even in redacted form, would result in competitive harm to Westinghouse or PWROG.
- 1. BTP 5-3 Memo Entergy has failed to establish that any part of the BTP 5-3 memo - let alone the document in its entirety - is proprietary. The generalized claim by W. Anthony Nowinowski, a PWROG manager, that disclosure of the BTP 5-3 Memo would harm PWROGs competitive position by providing insight into PWROGs deliberative process regarding is simply not supportable. See Nowinowski Affid., ¶3, to Entergys Answer.
As an initial matter, there is no deliberative process privilege for industry documents submitted to the NRC. Rather, 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(b)(3) exempts trade secrets or confidential or privileged commercial or financial information from disclosure and embodies FOIA exemption 4, see Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-08, 61 N.R.C. 129, 163 (March 16, 2005), while the deliberative process privilege falls under FOIA exemption 5, see, e.g., NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975). Accordingly, Entergys claim that the deliberative nature of the BTP 5-3 Memo entitles it to non-disclosure is entirely inapposite.
Additionally, each page of the BTP 5-3 Memo is manifestly non-proprietary.
See, e.g., BTP 5-3 Memo, Attachment 2 to NYS Motion, at 1, 3 6
Moreover, much of the information set forth in the BTP 5-3 Memo has been disclosed in publically available documents, including in public presentations made by PWROG and other industry groups to the NRC, undermining the claim that disclosure of the BTP 5-3 Memo would result in competitive harm. For example, the BTP 5-3 Memo describes
, see BTP 5-3 Memo, at 1, both of which are publically available in full, see Letter from Pedro Salas, Regulatory Affairs Director, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Potential Non-Conservatism in NRC Branch Technical Position 5-3 (Jan. 30, 2015) (ML14038A265); Troyer, et al., An Assessment of Branch Technical Position 5-3 to Determine Unirradiated RTNDT for SA-508 CL. 2 Forgings, Presented at the Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (July 20-24, 2014) (publically available at http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
proceeding.aspx?articleid=1937910). 9 As another example, the BTP 5-3 Memo discusses BTP 5-3 Memo, at 4, while a slideshow describing the results of the material flaw orientation analyses is available online and was presented at a public meeting. See PWROG, Slides, Material Orientation Toughness Assessment (MOTA) for the Purpose of Mitigating Branch Technical Position (BTP) 5-3 Uncertainties (Feb. 19, 2015) (ML15061A095). In short, Entergy 9
Both documents were also submitted to the Board in this proceeding, as attachments 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Lisa Kwong, on February 13, 2015. As of the date of this Reply, no ADAMS number is available for that Declaration and attachments.
7
cannot claim that the release of general descriptions of PWROGs preliminary discussions and review of the BTP 5-3 issue would harm PWROGs competitive interests by allowing competitors of PWROG to duplicate this information, Nowinowski Affidavit ¶(3)(iii) (April 20, 2015), Attachment 1 to Entergys Answer, when the same information has been publically released in more detailed and developed form.
Other information, while perhaps not yet publically disclosed, is nonetheless clearly not proprietary. For example, the BTP 5-3 Memo reports that BTP 5-3 Memo, at 2.
is not proprietary business information.
Ultimately, if Entergy wishes to withhold the BTP 5-3 Memo in its entirety, it has the burden to establish that it is propriety in its entirety. The conclusory claims of commercial value and competitive harm in the Nowinowski Affidavit are insufficient to establish that the BTP 5-3 Memo - which concerns an important issue that has relevance to Indian Point - should be withheld from public review.
- 2. Calculation Notes Entergy has likewise failed to establish that the calculation notes are proprietary in their entirety. Notably, the affidavit and declaration submitted by Entergy in support of the proprietary designation of the calculation notes are completely silent on why significant portions of the notes - such as cover pages, tables of contents, lists of acronyms, definitions, and references, general descriptions of the bases for the CUFen calculations grounded in publically available NUREG or ASME code volumes, and the final CUFen output values calculated for reactor components - should be considered proprietary. Contrary to the conclusory claims set forth in the Gray Declaration, disclosure of this general information will not offer insights into the specific functioning of the WESTEMSTM software code or any other sensitive 8
methodologies employed by Westinghouse to calculate the CUFen values. Gray Declaration,
¶7(a)-(d).
In particular, Entergy has failed to establish any justification for withholding the CUFen output values for reactor vessel components. Disclosure of these output numbers would offer no insights into any methodologies used to formulate them. See, e.g., CN-PAFM-13-32, at 7-9 (summary tables of CUFen values for reactor components). Furthermore, the CUFen values are particularly relevant to this proceeding, since crack initiation is assumed to have started in a structural component when the fatigue usage factor at the point of the component reaches the value of 1, the design limit on fatigue. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 (2010), X.M1-1. Under Entergys Fatigue Monitoring Program, components with CUFen values of more than 1.0 require corrective action. See LRA Commitment 49, Attachment 1 to Letter from Fred Dacimo to USNRC Document Control Desk, NL-13-052 (May 7, 2013), at 9 (ML13142A202); LRA Commitment 33, Attachment 2 to NL-13-052, at 15. Refusing to publically release the CUFen values while claiming that they do not exceed 1.0 is akin to a police officer refusing to release the results of a breathalyzer test or speed gun, but assuring a judge or jury that the results exceeded the legal limit. Even accepting that Entergys representations that no CUFen values exceeds 1.0, the public has an interest in knowing how close the values are to 1.0, and how many times the results had to be re-calculated before they came out to less than 1.0. Indeed, at least one NRC inspector was sufficiently concerned with the CUFen results for the IP2 pressurizer nozzle to note, in a public inspection report, that it is 0.999 at 60 years. USNRC Region 1 Inspection Report No. 05000247/2013010, at 7, enclosure to Letter from USNRC Region 1 to John Ventosa, Entergy Site Vice President (Sept.
9
II. THE STATE IS NOT CHALLENGING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, MERELY ITS MISUSE BY ENTERGY IN THIS CASE Entergy claims that the NYS Motion challenges the Boards Protective Order. See Entergys Answer, at 4, 15. This is a strawman that Entergy vigorously knocks down to avoid grappling with the actual issues raised in the Motion - namely, Entergys misuse of the Protective Order to shield broad swaths of manifestly non-proprietary information from public disclosure and review. By selectively quoting from portions of the NYS Motion, Entergy misrepresents the States position. See Entergys Answer, at 4 (claiming that the State contests proper application of the Protective Order - the need for and contents of which it endorsed nearly six years ago - inexplicably claiming that it is contrary to NRCs regulations); id., at 15 (claiming that the State argues that the Protective Order serves as a general cloak of secrecy that is contrary to the NRCs regulations). In fact, the State said that [s]hielding such information as is contained in the documents from public view under the Protective Orders general cloak of secrecy is contrary to the NRCs regulations in favor of public disclosure of such information. NYS Motion, at 13. As should be clear from the full quote, the State objects to the continued misuse of the Protective Order to shield broad swaths of non-proprietary information from public disclosure and review, not the need for a Protective Order to protect truly proprietary information.
CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, Entergy has failed to meet its burden to establish that the documents are proprietary in their entirety. In light of the fact that Entergy has refused to offer redacted versions of the documents or identify specific sections that are allegedly proprietary, the Board should grant the States Motion and strike the proprietary designations for all five documents.
11
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Brian Lusignan Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 776-2399 Brian.Lusignan@ag.ny.gov Dated: May 1, 2015 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. May 1, 2015
x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 1, 2015, copies of the public, redacted version of the State of New Yorks Reply to Entergy and NRC Staffs Responses to New York States Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group and Westinghouse Documents were served electronically via the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kathleen Schroeder, Law Clerk Richard E. Wardwell, Administrative Judge Alana Wase, Law Clerk Michael F. Kennedy, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Kathleen.Schroeder@nrc.gov Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Alana.Wase@nrc.gov Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 16 G4 Mailstop 3 F23 One White Flint North Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ocaamail@nrc.gov 1
Office of the Secretary William B. Glew, Jr., Esq.
Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Mailstop 3 F23 White Plains, NY 10601 Two White Flint North wglew@emtergy.com 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Mark Churchill, Esq.
hearingdocket@nrc.gov Matthew M. Leland, Esq.
brian.newell@nrc.gov McDermott Will & Emery LLC 600 13th Street, NW Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Washington, DC 20005-3096 David E. Roth, Esq. mchurchill@mwe.com Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq. Emre N. Ilter, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel McDermott Will & Emery LLC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 North Capitol Street, NW Mailstop 15 D21 Washington, DC 20001 One White Flint North eilter@nwe.com 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Richard A. Meserve, Esq.
sherwin.turk@nrc.gov Covington & Burling LLP david.roth@nrc.gov 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20004-2401 brian.harris@nrc.gov rmeserve@cov.com anita.ghosh@nrc.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Goodwin Procter, LLP Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Exchange Place Raphael Kuyler, Esq. 53 State Street Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Boston, MA 02109 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com Robert D. Snook, Esq.
pbessette@morganlewis.com Assistant Attorney General rkuyler@morganlewis.com Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut Martin J. ONeill, Esq. 55 Elm Street Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP P.O. Box 120 Suite 4000 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 1000 Louisiana Street robert.snook@ct.gov Houston, TX 77002 martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 2
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. Richard Webster, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney Public Justice, P.C.
Office of the Westchester County Attorney Suite 200 Michaelian Office Building 1825 K Street, NW 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20006 White Plains, NY 10601 rwebster@publicjustice.net MJR1@westchestergov.com Andrew B. Reid, Esq.
Theresa Knickerbocker, Mayor Springer & Steinberg, P.C.
Kevin Hay, Village Administrator 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Village of Buchanan Denver, CO 80202 Municipal Building areid@springersteinberg.com 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Peter A. Gross Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Executive Director theresak@villageofbuchanan.com Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Avenue Daniel Riesel, Esq. Beacon, NY 12508 Thomas F. Wood, Esq. peter@clearwater.org Victoria S. Treanor, Esq.
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Deborah Brancato, Esq.
460 Park Avenue Riverkeeper, Inc.
New York, NY 10022 20 Secor Road driesel@sprlaw.com Ossining, NY 10562 vtreanor@sprlaw.com dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Director Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Signed (electronically) by Lisa S. Kwong Assistant Attorney General State of New York (518) 776-2422 Lisa.Kwong@ag.ny.gov Dated at Albany, New York this 1st day of May 2015 3