ML15131A560

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
State of New York Reply to NRC Staff'S Response to Commission Order CLI-15-3 Requesting Further Briefing on Contention NYS-35/36 Concerning the Site-Specific Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis
ML15131A560
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/11/2015
From: Deluca K, Sipos J
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To: Jeff Baran, Stephen Burns, Ostendorff W, Kristine Svinicki
NRC/Chairman, NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, LBP-13-13, RAS 27797
Download: ML15131A560 (26)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE COMMISSIONERS KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, AND JEFF BARAN AND CHAIRMAN STEPHEN G. BURNS ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF LBP-13-13 PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.341

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, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. May 11, 2015

x STATE OF NEW YORK REPLY TO NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER CLI-15-3 REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING ON CONTENTION NYS-35/36 CONCERNING THE SITE-SPECIFIC INDIAN POINT SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, & ABBREVIATIONS ................................................ v I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 II. REPLY TO NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS .............................................. 3

1) The Indian Point SAMA analysis concludes that risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, cost-beneficial SAMAs, and that [g]iven the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction . . . further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted.

Does the Staff have a process in place to follow up with the licensee to determine which potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternatives ultimately were found by the licensee to be cost-beneficial, if any, and which alternatives, if any, the licensee implemented? If not, explain why follow-up by the Staff is unwarranted.......................................................................................................................3

2) The SAMA analysis concludes that any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 C.F.R. Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agencys oversight of a facilitys current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements.

Under what circumstances, if any, would the Staff judge a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative to warrant further NRC consideration outside of the license renewal review, either via a backfit analysis under 10 C.F.R. § 50.109 or as part of another process? For example, is there any level of reduction in risk metric valuese.g., core damage frequency or large early release frequencythat is or ought to be considered to determine whether a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative warrants additional NRC consideration under Part 50? .............................................................................................8

3) The Staff states that it does not require license renewal applicants to finalize their SAMA calculations by including engineering project costs in their analyses.

What level of uncertainty does the Staff consider acceptable for the implementation cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis, and why? ..............................10

4) The Staff states that even if the NRC had authority to require implementation of mitigation alternatives for license renewal, there is no reason to require such SAMAs for environmental protection purposes because the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for reactor license renewal has already found the probability-weighted consequences of . . . severe accidents to be SMALL for all plants, and Indian Point Units 2 and 3 fall within these generic determinations.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Given that the SMALL probability-weighted impacts finding applies generically to all plants, why does the Staff expect a SAMA analysis to be a comprehensive, systematic effort to identify and evaluate [] potential plant enhancements to mitigate severe accidents? .................................................................15 III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 17 ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court Decisions Balt. Gas & Elect. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983) .............................................................................................................13 Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commn, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) ...........................................................................................6 Citizens for Safe Power, Inc. v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ...........................................................................................5 Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989)...................................................................................5, 6, 7, 17 Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................10 New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................15 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) ...................................................................................................4, 5, 13 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Reg. Commn, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................13 ShieldAlloy Metallurgical Corp. v. NRC, 624 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Decisions Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-17, 56 N.R.C. 1 (2002).............................................................................................................14 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3),

LBP-10-13, 71 N.R.C. 673 (June 30, 2010) ........................................................................9 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3),

LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. 11 (July 14, 2011) .......................................................4, 7, 8, 10, 14 Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne Enrichment Center),

CLI-98-3, 47 N.R.C. 77 (1998)..........................................................................................14 iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Progress Energy Florida, Inc., (Combined License Application, Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 31605, 2010 WL 87737 (2010) ..........................................................4 Federal Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 4332 ..............................................................................................................................5 Federal Administrative Agency Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 C.F.R.

§ 50.109..............................................................................................................................10

§ 50.109(a)(3) ....................................................................................................................10 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 ......................................................................16

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) ....................................................................................................6, 8, 16

§ 51.71(d) .............................................................................................................................5

§ 51.101(a) ...........................................................................................................................8

§ 51.103(a)(4) ..................................................................................................................5, 9 Protection of Environment 40 C.F.R.

§ 1500.1(b) .........................................................................................................................10

§ 1500.1(c) .........................................................................................................................13

§ 1500.2(f)............................................................................................................................5

§ 1502.14..............................................................................................................................9

§ 1502.14(f)..........................................................................................................................5

§ 1502.16(h) .........................................................................................................................5

§ 1502.22(b)(4) ..................................................................................................................15

§ 1502.24............................................................................................................................10

§ 1508.25(b)(3) ....................................................................................................................5 Federal Register Notices 45 Fed. Reg. 40.101, Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consideration Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 -

Statement of Interim Policy (June 13, 1980) .....................................................................13 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, Statement of Considerations Accompanying Adoption of the GEIS (June 5, 1996).........12 66 Fed. Reg. 10,834, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Rulemaking, PRM-51-7 (Feb. 20, 2001) .................................................................................................16 iv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, & ABBREVIATIONS AEA Atomic Energy Act APA Administrative Procedure Act Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement FSEIS Ex. NYS00133A-J, Ex. NRC000004 1 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement NUREG-1437, Volumes 1-3: Supplement 38: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 - Final Report (Dec. 2010)

LBP-11-17 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. 11 (July 14, 2011)

LBP-13-13 Partial Initial Decision, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3), LBP 13, 78 N.R.C. 246 (Nov. 27, 2013) (ML13331B465)

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Staff Response NRC Staffs Response to the Commissions Memorandum and Order of February 18, 2015 (CLI-15-3), Regarding Contention NYS-35/36 (Mar. 30, 2015) (ML15089A576)

State PFR Answer State of New Yorks Answer to Entergy and Staff Petitions for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decisions LBP-08-13 and LBP-13-13 With Respect to Contention NYS-8 and for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 and LBP-11-17 With Respect to Contention NYS-35/36 at 39-47 (Mar. 25, 2014) (ML14085A001) 1 NRC000004 is a one-page exhibit that [i]ncorporates New York Exhibit NYS000133A-J.

v

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Commissions Memorandum and Order, CLI-15-3, the State of New York provides this reply to NRC Staffs response 1 to the Commissions questions regarding NRC Staffs and Entergys petitions for review of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (NYS-35/36) concerning the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis for Indian Point. The State incorporates by reference its previous submissions on NYS-35/36. 2 The federal government approved the Indian Point site for nuclear power reactors in 1956before the Atomic Safety Commission had promulgated regulations for the siting of such 1

NRC Staffs Response to the Commissions Memorandum and Order of February 18, 2015 (CLI-15-3),

Regarding Contention NYS-35/36 (Mar. 30, 2015) (ML15089A576) (NRC Staff Response).

2 The State incorporates its previous presentations on NYS-35/36 by reference, including: State of New Yorks Motion for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (NYS-35/36 Motion for Leave), with Contentions NYS-35 and NYS-36 attached (Mar. 11, 2010) (ML100780366); State of New Yorks Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Answers to the States New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis (Apr. 12, 2010)

(ML101160415); Tr. (ASLB conference) at 830-99 (Apr. 19, 2010) (ML101160416); The State of New York and the State of Connecticuts Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Boards Decision Admitting Contentions 35 and 36 (LBP-10-13) (Jul 26, 2010) (ML102110086); State of New Yorks Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (Jan. 14, 2011) (ML110270252); State of New Yorks Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis (Feb. 23, 2011) (ML110660425); The State of New York and the State of Connecticuts Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergys Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 (Aug. 11, 2011)

(ML11228A030); The State of New York and the State of Connecticuts Combined Motion for Leave to File a Brief Reply to NRC Staffs Answer to Applicants Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 (Aug. 16, 2011) (ML11265A109); The State of New York and the State of Connecticuts Combined Reply to NRC Staffs Answer in Support of Entergys Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 (Aug. 16, 2011)

(ML11265A109); The State of New York and the State of Connecticuts Combined Motion to Strike Entergys Unauthorized Reply in Support of NRCs Answer to Entergys Petition for Review (Aug. 17, 2011); The State of New Yorks Request for Oral Argument on the Merits of Entergys Petition for Review Should the Commission Accept Interlocutory Review (Aug. 11, 2011) (ML11228A030); Tr.

(ALSB conference) at 4486-4559 (Jun. 10, 2013) (ML13170A126); State of New Yorks Answer to Entergys Motion for Clarification Regarding the Timing of Adjudicatory Submissions Related to Entergy Letter NL-13-075 (Jul. 5, 2013) (ML13186A215); State of New Yorks Answer to Entergy and Staff Petitions for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decisions LBP-08-13 and LBP-13-13 With Respect to Contention NYS-8 and for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 and LBP-11-17 With Respect to Contention NYS-35/36 at 39-47 (Mar. 25, 2014) (ML14085A001) (State PFR Answer).

1

facilities. Federal authorization of the Indian Point site took place before the Price Anderson Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the promulgation of NEPA regulations, the Third Circuits 1989 Limerick ruling, and NRCs 1996 rule requiring site-specific review of severe accidents at most reactors that seek permission to operate beyond the 40-year term in their initial operating licenses. The 50-mile radius around the Indian Point site has the highest surrounding population of any reactor site in the United States, hyper-dense real estate development, drinking water reservoirs, iconic landmarks, and unique and critical infrastructure.

Entergy projects that more than 19 million people will live within 50 miles of the site when the proposed 20-year operating licenses expire. No other reactor site in the Nation comes close to having this suite of characteristics.

Entergys initial 2007 severe accident analysis contained various errors including the direction that an airborne radiation plume would travel from Indian Point. When Entergy corrected the wind direction error, its 2009 SAMA Reanalysis identified more than 20 cost-effective mitigation measures for the two remaining reactors at the site. That is, even with the probabilistic discounting of the likelihood of a severe accident, Entergys own 2009 analysis showed that 20 mitigation measures provided more benefit than they cost. In response to this information, NRC Staff told Entergy and the State of New York that the mitigation measures did not need to be examined any further in the license renewal proceeding. After considering the parties argument on this point, the three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted summary disposition in favor of the State of New York and against NRC Staff. The Boards ruling was correct and should be upheld.

In response to the Commissioners four questions in CLI-15-6, NRC Staff continues to suggest that severe accident analysis be delayed, repeated, and diverted to outside the licensing 2

proceeding. Staffs responses are contrary to Staffs obligations in this proceeding to protect the States citizens and environment.

II. REPLY TO NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

1) The Indian Point SAMA analysis concludes that risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, cost-beneficial SAMAs, and that [g]iven the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction . . . further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted. 3 Does the Staff have a process in place to follow up with the licensee to determine which potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternatives ultimately were found by the licensee to be cost-beneficial, if any, and which alternatives, if any, the licensee implemented? If not, explain why follow-up by the Staff is unwarranted.

NRC Staff has not identified a process in place to follow up with the licensee as Commission Question 1 requests. Instead, Staff sidesteps the Commissioners question and instead identifies steps Staff itself might potentially take outside of the NEPA process in narrow circumstances. First, Staff states that, if a cost-beneficial SAMA candidate is relate[d] to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation, then further evaluation and implementation of that SAMA would be addressed, as appropriate, as a condition of any renewed license. 4 Second, Staff states that if the Staff determines that one or more of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs may warrant implementation outside of the license renewal process, the Staff would follow the requirements for backfitting. 5 Staff does not provide any additional details about timeline or processes. Nor does Staff explain what it means by may warrant implementation outside of the license renewal process. As discussed in Commission Question 2 below, although NRC Staff discusses its backfitting process, it does not 3

See Ex. NYS00133I, Final Report, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 3, regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Dec. 2010), App. G at G-49 (FSEIS).

4 NRC Staff Response at 5.

5 Id.

3

explain when it will undertake a backfit analysis to evaluate cost-beneficial SAMA candidates.

Even if NRC Staff had a robust follow-up process in place to determine which SAMA candidates Entergy ultimately determined were cost-beneficial and whether any of those were implemented, such a process would not satisfy its NEPA obligations. As an initial matter, as the federal regulatory agency, NRC Staff must comply with NEPAnot the applicant or any other party. 6 Since Staff deemed the SAMA analysis in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) sufficient, any follow-up to determine whether an applicant performed additional analyses or implemented any SAMA candidates would occur after the FSEIS was finalized. 7 Thus, such follow-up could not satisfy NEPA requirements. As the Board correctly held, NRC Staffs decision to allow Entergy to complete its SAMA review outside of the license renewal process, by deferring the evaluation of SAMAs found to be potentially cost-beneficial until after relicensing, does not provide an adequate record for the agency to make its decision on the impacts of relicensing IP2 and IP3. 8 NRC Staffs response to Commission Question 1 also seeks to minimize NEPAs requirement that the FSEIS itselfnot some vague, ill-defined, post-FSEIS follow-upinclude a detailed discussion of possible mitigation measures and the extent to which adverse environmental effects can be avoided. 9 The governing CEQ regulations reiterate the duty to discuss mitigation, requiring that federal agencies use all practicable means . . . to . . . avoid or 6

See, e.g., Progress Energy Florida, Inc., (Combined License Application, Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 31605, 2010 WL 87737, *5 (2010) (Commission recognizes that the ultimate burden with respect to NEPA lies with the NRC Staff).

7 As the host state, New York has a keen interest in fully participating in the process by which the federal agency reviews whether or not to renew the operating licenses for an additional 20 years.

8 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C.

11, 15 (July 14, 2011) (LBP-11-17).

9 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351-52 (1989).

4

minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment. 10 NRCs own regulations state that the FSEIS must discuss alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 11 The omission of a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures would undermine the action-forcing function of NEPA. Without such a discussion, neither the agency nor other interested groups and individuals can properly evaluate the severity of the adverse effects. 12 The SAMA requirement is rooted in Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989), which held that NEPA requires NRC to examine the environmental impacts of significant accidents at nuclear power plants and measures to mitigate those impacts on a site-specific basis. The severe accident impacts and mitigation discussed in Limerick were not limited to managing the effects of aging; instead it is clear that the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) does not preclude or limit consideration of severe accidents under NEPA, and NRC must comply with NEPA to the fullest extent possible. 13 Although NRCs predecessor agency had continually asserted, prior to NEPA, that it had no statutory authority to concern itself with the adverse environmental effects of its actions, since the early 1970s its hands are no longer tied because [i]t is not only permitted, but compelled, to take environmental values into account. 14 10 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(f); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), 1508.25(b)(3).

11 10 C.F.R. § 51.71(d); see also 10 C.F.R. § 51.103(a)(4) (NRC regulations requiring that the agency

[take] all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted).

12 Robertson, 490 U.S. at 351-52.

13 Limerick, 869 F.2d at 729-30 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332). The Third Circuit held that it is unreasonable to suppose that [environmental] risks are automatically acceptable, and may be imposed upon the public by virtue of the AEA, merely because operation of a facility will conform to the Commissions basic health and safety standards. Id. at 730 (quoting Citizens for Safe Power, Inc. v.

NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).

14 Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commn, 449 F.2d 1109, 1112 (D.C.

Cir. 1971).

5

Perhaps the greatest importance of NEPA is to require the Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies to consider environmental issues just as they consider other matters within their mandates. 15 In 1996, following the Third Circuits 1989 decision and mandate in Limerick, NRC promulgated regulations outlining the procedure for evaluating the risk of severe accidents on a site-specific basis in a SAMA analysis. 16 However, even though Limerick dealt with mitigation measures that could be implemented during construction, NRC decided to allow operating reactors to defer their SAMA analysis until license renewal. 17 Because Indian Point Units 2 and 3 received permission to operate in 1973 and 1975, the license renewal SAMA analysis is the first and only time NRC Staff is analyzing severe accident mitigation under NEPA at the Indian Point site and surrounding 50-mile radius, including the New York City metropolitan area.

There is nothing in NRC regulations limiting the SAMA analysis to aging management related candidates. Thus, NRC Staffs decision to only consider license conditions for SAMA candidates relate[d] to adequately managing the effects of aging does not comport with Limerick, the SAMA regulations, or NEPA.

As the Board correctly held, we disagree with the Staff as a matter of law that its citation to the aging management limitations of Part 54 constitutes the requisite rational basis for refusing to require implementation of SAMAs whose benefits, at this juncture and on this record, clearly 15 Id.

16 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

17 Id. (if the [S]taff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives 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.).

6

outweigh their costs. 18 In fact, [t]he principal mitigation design alternative that could have been considered [in Limerick] appears to have been a filtered-vented containment, a secondary structure that acts as a giant filter connected to an emergency vent in the primary containment vessel. 19 This mitigation measure would have been implemented during plant construction and, therefore, is not relate[d] to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation (NRC Staff Response at 5). Thus, the Board correctly determined that,

[o]ther than the Staffs misplaced citation to Part 54s limitations, we are left with no explanation at all for why it has decided not to require implementation of these cost-beneficial SAMAs by setting conditions for the license renewal, by directing a backfit, or through some other procedure. 20 Also, as discussed more fully in the States earlier submissions, Staffs position is also inconsistent with the Commissions firm rejection of a 2001 petition from NEI to eliminate the SAMA analysis from license renewal proceedings. 21 18 LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 26. Additionally, as the State explained in response to the petitions for review, the Commission has rejected NRCs argument that the SAMA analysis need not be completed for any SAMA candidate not within Part 54s aging management provisions. State PFR Answer at 53-60.

19 Limerick, 869 F.2d 731, n.11.

20 LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 26.

21 NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Rulemaking, PRM 51-7, 66 Fed. Reg. 10834 (Feb. 20, 2001). See, e.g. State of New Yorks Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (Jan. 14, 2011) (ML110270252) at 14-15; State of New Yorks Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis (Feb. 23, 2011) (ML110660425) at 3, 8, 17; State PFR Answer at 53-55.

7

2) The SAMA analysis concludes that any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 C.F.R. Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agencys oversight of a facilitys current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements. 22 Under what circumstances, if any, would the Staff judge a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative to warrant further NRC consideration outside of the license renewal review, either via a backfit analysis under 10 C.F.R. § 50.109 or as part of another process? For example, is there any level of reduction in risk metric values e.g., core damage frequency or large early release frequencythat is or ought to be considered to determine whether a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative warrants additional NRC consideration under Part 50?

As an initial matter, Staff confines its response to Commission Question 2 to the Part 50 backfit process and does not discuss or identify another process.

NRC Staffs response makes clear Staffs position that any backfit process to analyze cost-beneficial SAMA candidates would occur outside of license renewal proceeding and would not implicate or delay the issuance of renewed 20 year operating licenses at Indian Point Units 2 and 3. 23 As discussed in response to Commission Question 1, a process that occurs outside of license renewal and the NEPA process does not satisfy NRC Staffs obligations to evaluate severe accident mitigation measures under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The SAMA analysis must be completed as part of the license renewal process. 24 As the Board correctly held, the FSEIS must demonstrate that the NRC Staff has received sufficient information to take a hard look at SAMAs as required by 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), has in fact taken that hard look, and has adequately explained its conclusions that may, but need not, include requiring the implementation of cost-effective SAMAs. 25 As 22 See Ex. NYS00133C, FSEIS, Vol. 1, Main Report at 5-11.

23 NRC Staff Response at 6-7.

24 See 10 C.F.R. §51.101(a).

25 LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 27.

8

the State has previously noted, a properly completed SAMA cost benefit analysis could suffice and support consideration (and potential implementation) of cost beneficial mitigation measures. 26 NRC Staffs response to Commission Question 2 overlooks the fact that the backfit process is only one source of Staffs authority to implement plant changes. Completion of the SAMA analysis, within license renewal, may not necessarily require a backfit analysis. 27 Once Staff has a final list of cost-beneficial SAMA candidates, Staff must determineprior to its publication of the FSEISwhether any of the SAMAs warrant implementation. Staffs record of decision must [s]tate whether the Commission has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted. 28 Staff should also [s]ummarize any license conditions and monitoring programs adopted in connection with mitigation measures. 29 Staff cannot complete the SAMA analysis, with the required rational basis for its decision, in a backfit process outside of license renewal.

Although NRC Staffs response to Commission Question 2 provides a description of the backfit process and relevant regulatory guidance on performing a backfit analysis, Staff does not provide any specific indication of how Staff would judge a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative to warrant further NRC consideration outside of the license renewal review or how the fundamentals of a backfit analysis are different from a completed SAMA 26 State PFR Answer at 60-64.

27 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-10-13, 71 N.R.C. 673, 697 (June 30, 2010) (NRC Staff must review SAMAs under Part 51 and has the option, if necessary, to institute a backfit prior to license renewal under Part 50 as a result of its SAMA review).

28 10 C.F.R. § 51.103(a)(4).

29 Id; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.

9

review. As the State explained in its answer, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.109 the Commission shall require the backfitting of a facility upon its determination that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection. 30 A properly completed SAMA analysis would provide a rigorous and reliable assessment of whether the § 50.109(a)(3) criteria have been satisfied. 31 Thus, the SAMA analysis may render a backfit analysis unnecessary.

3) The Staff states that it does not require license renewal applicants to finalize their SAMA calculations by including engineering project costs in their analyses. 32 What level of uncertainty does the Staff consider acceptable for the implementation cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis, and why?

Noting that it does not seek certainty, Staff generally claims that it seeks to assure that an applicants SAMA cost estimates . . . are reasonable. 33 Staff admits that it has not established any particular level of uncertainty that must be avoided. 34 In responding to Commission Question 3, NRC Staff attempts to reduce the term reasonable to a meaningless and standardless phrase. But NEPAs rule of reason does not relax the APAs rationality standard or NEPAs requirement for scientific integrity and accuracy. 35 Evaluating severe 30 State PFR Answer at 60-61.

31 Id. at 60-64.

32 See Ex. NYS00133I, FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at 47-48.

33 NRC Staff Response at 11.

34 Id.

35 See Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA requires that agencies rely on high quality data and accurate scientific analysis); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)

(same), § 1502.24 (Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements); LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 22-23 (citing 10

accident mitigation based on an incomplete analysis does not comport with NEPAs requirements.

The remainder of NRC Staffs response to Commission Question 3 summarizes the guidance available for SAMA analysesnone of which addresses levels of uncertainty that are acceptable in an applicants calculation of implantation costs. 36 The Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supp. 1 (Ex. ENT000136), NEI 05-01, Rev. A (Ex. NYS000287), and The Environmental Standard Review Plan for License Renewal NUREG-1555, Supp. 1 (Oct. 1999) (Ex.

ENT00019A-B) provide general information about the stages of a SAMA analysis, but they do not speak to calculating uncertainty in cost estimates.

Staff states that NUREG/BR-0058 (ENT000013 ) indicates that an applicant should provide best estimates of SAMA costs and benefits and recognizes that uncertainty may exist in those estimates. 37 Staff informs the Commission that the guidance states that common sense needs to be applied in determining the level of effort to be given to the consideration and discussion of uncertainty. 38 Essentially, NUREG/BR-0058 is acknowledging that best estimates of costs should be used, but even those best estimates will have some level of uncertainty; NUREG/BR-0058 is not providing an excuse for not completing cost estimates. In fact, incomplete cost estimates cannot be best estimates. If cost estimates are incomplete, Staff does not have the information to apply common sense and determine what level of uncertainty is ShieldAlloy Metallurgical Corp. v. NRC, 624 F.3d 489, 492-93 (D.C. Cir. 2010)) (NRC would be acting arbitrarily and capriciously if it did not look at relevant data and sufficiently explain a rational nexus between the facts found in its review and the choice it makes as a result of that review.).

36 See NRC Staff Response at 12-17.

37 NRC Staff Response at 16.

38 Id. (quoting Ex. ENT000013, NUREG/BR-0058 at 23-24).

11

present. Thus, the discussion of NUREG/BR-0058 is irrelevant to the Commission Question 3, which seeks to understand what level of uncertainty is tolerated by the Staff.

Likewise, the guidance in NUREG/BR-0184 (the Handbook) is inapplicable to incomplete cost estimates like the estimates NRC Staff discussed in the FSEIS. Instead, the Handbook provides guidance on how to calculate uncertainty once complete cost estimates are calculated. According to the Handbook, an [u]ncertainty/sensitivity analysis for the cost measures is generally simpler than that for exposures because such analyses require no more than the straightforward variation of interest rates, labor hours, contingency factors, etc. 39 However, even if an uncertainty analysis for costs is straightforward, such an uncertainty analysis cannot be undertaken if the cost estimates themselves are incomplete.

Instead of addressing the question of what level of uncertainty is acceptable, NRC Staff tries to bolster its claim that the SAMA analysis is meaningless, even asserting that the SAMA analysis is not intended to determine whether an identified SAMA is actually cost-beneficial or whether its implementation is warranted. 40 Statements like this are in direct conflict with NEPA and the SAMA regulations, along with NEI guidance that the SAMA analysis be completed to the point where economic viability of the proposed modification can be adequately gauged 41 and the Commissions intent that the SAMA process be used to make decisions about whether a SAMA provides sufficient benefits to warrant implementation. 42 39 Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. ENT00010A, NUREG/BR-0184 at 5.8).

40 Id. at 14.

41 Ex. NYS000287, NEI 05-01(Rev. A) Nuclear Energy Institute, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Guidance Document at 28 (Nov. 2005).

42 See, e.g., Statement of Considerations Accompanying Adoption of the GEIS, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,481 (June 5, 1996); NRC Reg. Guide 4.2, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Supplement 1 (Sept. 2000) at 4.2-S-50 (noting that one of the ER obligations is to list plant modifications . . . (if any) that have or will be 12

As discussed in response to Commission Question 1 above, the SAMA analysis is rooted in Limerick and was the result of a Commission decision that severe accident mitigation had not been considered in the operating license decision for nuclear power plants and should be.

Contrary to Staffs implication, the Commission stated as early as 1980 that it is also the intent of the Commission that the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. 43 In short, the SAMA analysis would lack a purpose except for the generation of paperworkunless Staff determines whether a SAMA candidate is actually cost-beneficial and considers whether to require implementation of that SAMA candidate. 44 If the SAMA analysis is not completed and is not to be used as a guide for making decisions, it lacks a function and fails to satisfy the twin aims of NEPA: (1) to ensure that environmental values are fully considered in the agencys decision-making process; and (2) to inform the public of what the agency has considered. 45 implemented to reduce the severe accident dose consequence risk); NUREG-1555, Supplement 1(Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants (Oct. 1999)) at 5.1.1-8 to 5.1.1-9 (noting that the Staff review of the SAMA analysis should conclude with a finding as to whether further mitigation measures are warranted or whether no further mitigation measures are warranted);

Ex. NYS000287, NEI 05-01 (Rev. A) Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Guidance Document (Nov. 2005) at 28 (noting the SAMA cost analysis should be completed to the point where economic viability of the proposed modification can be adequately gauged).

43 See 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101, 40, 103 (Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - Statement of Interim Policy) (June 13, 1980).

44 See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(c) (Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPAs purpose is not to generate paperworkeven excellent paperworkbut to foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.).

45 See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983); see also San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Reg. Commn, 449 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2006). The first purpose ensures that an agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349. The second purpose guarantees that the relevant information [concerning environmental impacts] will be 13

NRC Staff has argued that that additional engineering cost-benefit analysis would not be meaningful and is unnecessary. 46 However, as the Commission stated in Catawba/McGuire, the purpose of SAMA review is to ensure that the agency does not act upon incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct. 47 Hence, the Board correctly rejected Staffs argument that completion of the SAMA cost estimates would be meaningless and unnecessary. 48 made available to the larger audience, including the public, that may also play a role in the decisionmaking process and the implementation of the decision. Id.

46 See LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 19, 26.

47 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-02-17, 56 N.R.C. 1, 10 (2002) (quoting Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne Enrichment Center),

CLI-98-3, 47 N.R.C. 77, 88 (1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

48 LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. at 26 (Although further review might well result in fewer identified cost-beneficial SAMAs, we cannot accept the NRC Staff's notion that fewer identified cost-beneficial SAMAs equals no gain in information. On the contrary, given that Entergys SAMA review conducted to date has resulted in the elimination of certain SAMAs and the identification of other SAMAs with favorable cost-to-benefit ratios, it is equally plausible that further SAMA review would provide the agency and the public with a more accurate sense of the costs and benefits of relicensing IP2 and IP3. Accordingly, we find that the NRC Staff has prematurely concluded its review before receiving all the requisite information from Entergy, and that until the NRC Staff receives and analyzes that information, it necessarily cannot take the requisite hard look at Entergy's LRA that is required under NEPA.).

14

4) The Staff states that even if the NRC had authority to require implementation of mitigation alternatives for license renewal, there is no reason to require such SAMAs for environmental protection purposes because the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for reactor license renewal has already found the probability-weighted consequences of . . . severe accidents to be SMALL for all plants, and Indian Point Units 2 and 3 fall within these generic determinations. 49 Given that the SMALL probability-weighted impacts finding applies generically to all plants, why does the Staff expect a SAMA analysis to be a comprehensive, systematic effort to identify and evaluate [] potential plant enhancements to mitigate severe accidents? 50 NRC Staff cannot dispense with NEPAs requirement to evaluate mitigation measures by classifying the impacts of a severe accident as small. As an initial matter, nowhere does Staff contend that severe accident impacts are insignificant. And nowhere does NRC Staff assert that a severe accident will not occur at Indian Point. In fact, if a severe accident were to come to pass, the impacts of such an event would be severe and destabilizing especially at Indian Point, which operates in the most densely-populated and densely-developed area of any U.S. nuclear power plant. NRCs characterization of severe accident impacts as small is based on the low probability that such accidents will occur. Under NEPA, an agency must look at both the probabilities of potentially harmful events and the consequences if those events come to pass. 51 Thus, an agency cannot dispense with an analysis based on probability alone. 52 By explicitly requiring a site-specific SAMA analysis, even the GEIS recognizes that NEPA requires a 49 See Staff Petition at 51 n.187.

50 See Ex. NYS000220, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supp. 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supp. 1 (Oct. 1999), at 5.1.1-7 to 5.1.1-8.

51 New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, 478 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added).

52 See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4) (that impacts include[] impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.); New York, 681 F.3d at 482 ([o]nly if the harm in question is so remote and speculative as to reduce the effective probability of its occurrence to zero may the agency dispense with the consequences portion of the

[NEPA] analysis.).

15

discussion of potential ways to mitigate potential severe accident impacts, despite the low probability of such accidents. 53 The SAMA analysis is a probabilistic risk assessment, which means that the low probability of a severe accident actually occurring is taken into account in the cost-benefit calculations. 54 Consequently, SAMA candidates found to be cost-effective are cost-effective despite the low probably of a severe accident occurring. Put another way, NRCs reason for labeling severe accident impacts as smallthe probability is incorporated into the SAMA analysis because the severe accident costs used are discounted by the probability that a severe accident would occur. The small label in no way excuses Staff from its NEPA obligations.

If the Commission believed that the small label dispensed with NEPAs requirement to evaluate mitigation measures, it would not have expressly included the requirement to perform a SAMA analysis in its regulations. Additionally, the Commission would have embraced, not firmly rejected, a 2001 petition from NEI to eliminate the SAMA analysis from license renewal proceedings. 55 Instead, the Commission reinforced the importance of the SAMA analysis in denying that petition: 56 In the case of license renewal, it is the Commissions responsibility under NEPA to consider all environmental impacts stemming from its decision to allow the continued operation of the entire plant for an additional 20 years. The fact that the NRC has determined that it is not necessary to consider a specific matter in conducting its safety review under Part 54 does not excuse it from considering the impact in meeting its NEPA obligations.

53 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L); Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1.

54 State of New Yorks Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Contention NYS-12/12A/12B/12C (NYS-12C) ¶ 12 (Mar. 22, 2013) (ML13081A757).

55 NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Rulemaking, PRM 51-7, 66 Fed. Reg. 10834 (Feb. 20, 2001).

56 Id. at 10,836.

16

Furthermore, in Limerick, the Third Circuit rejected NRCs attempt to exclude examination of the environmental impacts and mitigation of severe accidents at nuclear reactors through a generic policy statement, especially in light of differences in plant design and location. 57 In the words of Commissioner McGaffigan, Perhaps one day we will have nuclear reactor designs so safe that severe accidents will be remote and speculative and their consequences nihil, but that is not the case we have today in renewing the licenses of the current generation of reactors. 58 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in the States opposition to Entergy and Staffs petitions for review and other filings on NYS-35/36 incorporated by reference, the Commission should affirm the Boards decisions on contention admissibility and summary disposition, resolving NYS-35/36 in favor of the State.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Kathryn M. DeLuca Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York of the State of New York The Capitol 120 Broadway Albany, New York 12224 New York, New York 10271 (518) 402-2251 (212) 416-8482 John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov Kathryn.DeLuca@ag.ny.gov Dated: May 11, 2015 57 Limerick, 869 F.2d at 738-39.

58 VR-SECY-00-0210, Commission Voting Record, Notation Vote Response Sheet (Commissioner McGaffigans Comments on SECY-00-0210 (Oct. 31, 2000) (ML010520240).

17

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 11, 2015

x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 11, 2015, copies of the State of New Yorks Reply to NRC Staffs Response to Commission Order CLI-15-3 Requesting Further Briefing on Contention NYS-35/36 Concerning the Site-Specific Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis were served electronically via the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Richard E. Wardwell, Administrative Judge Michael F. Kennedy, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Kathleen Schroeder, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alana Wase, Law Clerk Mailstop 3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Two White Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Mailstop 3 F23 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Two White Flint North Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov 11545 Rockville Pike Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Kathleen.Schroeder@nrc.gov Alana.Wase@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Mailstop 3 F23 Adjudication Two White Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Mailstop 16 G4 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 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 Kathryn M. DeLuca Assistant Attorney General State of New York (212) 416-8482 Kathryn.DeLuca@ag.ny.gov Dated at New York, New York this 11th day of May 2015 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15131A560&oldid=2448659"