Text

Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-15-24
	ML15313A442
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/09/2015
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook; NRC/SECY
To:	;
	SECY RAS
References
	50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, CLI-15-24, RAS 28488
	Download: ML15313A442 (13)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki William C. Ostendorff Jeff Baran In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

CLI-15-24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The State of New York seeks review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards recent order denying New Yorks motion to withdraw a proprietary designation from certain documents produced by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. in this license renewal proceeding.1 As discussed below, we find that New York has not met the standards for interlocutory review and we therefore deny review at this time.

1 Order (Denying New York Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation) (July 20, 2015)

(unpublished) (July 20 Order); see State of New York Petition Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.341 for Commission Interlocutory Review of the July 20, 2015 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order Denying New York Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation (Aug. 14, 2015)

(Petition) (non-public).

I. BACKGROUND New York has been a party to this license renewal proceeding since its inception.2 In August 2009, the parties negotiated a Protective Order that they jointly submitted to the Board for approval.3 The Board issued the Protective Order shortly thereafter; that Protective Order governs the disclosure and use in this proceeding of documents that Entergy (or any other participant) claims contain proprietary trade secrets and/or proprietary commercial or financial information.4 As part of its mandatory disclosures, Entergy identified and disclosed the existence of the five documents here at issue, which it designated as proprietary information.5 Following requests for disclosure, Entergy produced the documents, unredacted, to New York under the Protective Order. Four of these documents are Calculation Notes concerning environmentally-assisted fatigue prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse).6 The fifth document is an internal memorandum prepared by the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners 2 See generally LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43 (2008) (ruling on standing and contention admissibility).

3 See Joint Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (Aug. 14, 2009).

4 Protective Order (Sept. 4, 2009) (unpublished).

5 See Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations (Apr. 20, 2015), at 3 n.11 (listing disclosure updates).

6 New York has identified the Calculation Notes as evidentiary exhibits for the upcoming hearing on Track 2 contentions. See Pre-filed Ex. NYS000366, Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Accumulator Nozzle Environmental Fatigue Evaluation, CN-PAFM-09-77 (2010) (ADAMS accession no.

ML11356A371) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex. NYS000510, Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 EAF Screening Evaluations, CN-PAFM-12-35 (2012) (ML15160A339) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex.

NYS000511, Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) and Unit 3 (IP3) Refined EAF Analyses and EAF Screening Evaluations, CN-PAFM-13-32 (2013) (ML15160A340) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex.

NYS000512, Indian Point Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Transfer Function Database Development and Environmental Fatigue Evaluations, CN-PAFM-13-40 (2013) (ML15160A341)

(non-public).

Group (PWROG) addressing technical and regulatory issues related to the resolution of NRC Staff Branch Technical Position 5-3.7 Earlier this year, New York filed a motion seeking to remove the proprietary designation of those documents, which would allow their public disclosure.8 Westinghouse sought leave to appear specially before the Board to contest New Yorks motion.9 New York opposed Westinghouses motion, arguing among other things that Westinghouse had not cited authority allowing such participation.10 The Board held a telephonic oral argument on the motion and permitted Westinghouses representative to participate therein on behalf of Westinghouse and the PWROG.11 Following oral argument, in response to Westinghouses request, the Board 7 New York has also identified the PWROG Memorandum as a hearing exhibit. Pre-filed Ex.

NYS000519, BTP 5-9 Industry Issue Executive Review (Oct. 28, 2014) (ML15160A342) (non-public) (PWROG Memorandum); see also Declaration of W. Anthony Nowinowski (May 29, 2015) (Attachment 2 to Joint Brief of Entergy and Westinghouse Regarding Proprietary Documents (June 4, 2015, refiled June 17, 2015), ¶ 4 (non-public) (Joint Brief); NUREG-0800, Rev. 2, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, Branch Technical Position 5-3, Fracture Toughness Requirements (Mar.

2007) (ML070850035).

8 State of New York Motion to Withdraw the Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group and Westinghouse Documents (Apr. 9, 2015). Entergy opposed New Yorks motion; the Staff took no position. Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations (Apr. 20, 2015); NRC Staffs Answer to State of New York Motion to Withdraw the Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group and Westinghouse Documents (Apr. 20, 2015, corrected Apr. 21, 2015).

9 Motion of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC to Appear Specially in Connection with State of New York Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations of Westinghouse and PWROG Proprietary Documents (May 5, 2015) (Westinghouse Motion).

10 State of New York Answer Opposing Motion of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC to Appear Specially in Connection with the States Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designations of Westinghouse and PWROG Documents (May 6, 2015).

11 See Transcript of May 14, 2015, Teleconference at 4639-716 (non-public) (Tr.).

allowed Westinghouse to brief the issue of the proprietary designations jointly with Entergy.12 In July, the Board denied New Yorks motion. The Board found that the four Calculation Notes contained confidential commercial information, which is entitled to protection under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4).13 Specifically, the Board found that the Calculation Notes had been maintained in confidence by Westinghouse and that their release likely would lead to substantial competitive harm to Westinghouse.14 Regarding the PWROG Memorandum, the Board held that the case for competitive harm from disclosure was marginal at best but that further briefing on the question would not be a useful expenditure of resources because, in the Boards view, the memorandum itself lacked probative value and would not be received in evidence.15 The Board observed that New Yorks experts could, however, provide their views on the document to the Board; the probative evidence would be [New Yorks] experts opinion supported by their qualifications and reasoning.16 New Yorks petition for review followed. The Staff and Entergy oppose interlocutory review.17 12 See Tr. at 4709-10; Joint Brief.

13 July 20 Order at 6; see 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4).

14 July 20 Order at 7.

15 Id. at 6. The Board likewise concluded that release of the memorandum would not benefit the public. Id.

16 Id.

17 NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to State of New Yorks Petition for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order (Denying New York Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation) (Sept. 8, 2015) (Staff Answer); Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Petition for Interlocutory Review of July 20, 2015 Licensing Board Order (Sept. 8, 2015);

II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review As a rule, we disfavor Interlocutory review and grant requests for such review only under extraordinary circumstances.18 We are particularly disinclined to interfere with respect to case management decisions.19 Without more, the possibility that a Board may have made an incorrect legal ruling does not warrant interlocutory review. Such rulings can be reviewed, if necessary, on appeal from a partial initial decision or other final appealable order.20 Our regulations provide for interlocutory review where the requesting party shows that the Boards ruling:

see also State of New York Combined Reply in Support of Petition for Interlocutory Review (Sept. 18, 2015).

Westinghouse seeks leave to file an amicus curiae brief opposing the petition for review.

Amicus Curiae Brief of Westinghouse Electric Company Opposing New York Petition for Interlocutory Review (Sept. 8, 2015) (Westinghouse Amicus Brief); Westinghouse Electric Company Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief (Sept. 8, 2015). Our rules contemplate amicus briefs only after we grant a petition for review, and do not provide for amicus briefs supporting or opposing petitions for review. 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d) (permitting the filing of amicus briefs if a matter is taken up by the Commission under § 2.341 or sua sponte); see also Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), CLI-03-9, 58 NRC 39, 44 n.21 (2003). Nonetheless, as a matter of discretion, we have considered Westinghouses filing here.

18 CLI-09-6, 69 NRC 128, 133 (2009) (declining interlocutory review of a Board decision that denied reconsideration of a contention admissibility determination in this case); Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-01-1, 53 NRC 1, 5 (2001).

19 Indeed, we have declined interlocutory review on case management matters throughout this proceeding. See, e.g., CLI-12-18, 76 NRC 371, 374 (2012) (declining to take interlocutory review of Boards decision to allow cross-examination); CLI-08-7, 67 NRC 187, 192 (2008)

(declining to take interlocutory review of Boards decision to cancel oral argument). Further,

[P]rocedural rulings involving discovery . . . rarely meet the standard for interlocutory review.

Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 314, 324 (1998) (citing, inter alia, Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-630, 13 NRC 84, 86 (1981).

20 Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-6, 74 NRC 203, 209-10 (2011); see also Private Fuel Storage, CLI-01-1, 53 NRC at 5; Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-11, 40 NRC 55, 61 (1994).

(i) Threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated through a petition for review of the presiding officers final decision; or (ii) Affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.21 Applying these standards to New Yorks petition, we find that immediate review is not warranted.

B. New York Has Not Shown that Interlocutory Review is Warranted New York argues that the Boards order irreparably and adversely affects its ability to put forward its case in the upcoming evidentiary hearing and identifies three specific issues that it claims warrant interlocutory review.22 First, New York argues that the Board reached beyond the scope of [New Yorks motion] to issue a sua sponte ruling on the admissibility of the PWROG Memorandum.23 With respect to this issue, New York claims that the Board issued a preemptive, sua sponte ruling that the PWROG Memorandum is inadmissible hearsay with no probative value.24 New York argues that this ruling effectively prevents New York from using the PWROG Memorandum as evidence in the upcoming hearing.25 Second, New York argues that the Board improperly shift[ed] the burden to [New York] to show that the documents were not proprietary and otherwise failed to address certain of its arguments.26 Among these, New York argues that the Board neglected to address its argument that, even if the documents are proprietary, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need to protect a companys 21 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(f)(2).

22 Petition at 1.

23 Id. at 1, 17-20.

24 Id. at 17 (citing July 20 Order at 6).

25 Petition at 20.

26 Id. at 1, 20-25.

competitive position.27 Third, New York argues that the Board erred in allowing Westinghouse to participate in the proceeding without explaining the nature or extent of its rights or obligations.28 New York claims that the Boards ruling leaves Westinghouses role in the proceeding unclear, which in turn both threatens New York with immediate and serious irreparable impact and affects the basic structure of the proceeding.29 As discussed below, these arguments do not demonstrate the need for interlocutory review.

First, we find that the Boards statements concerning the probative value of the PWROG Memorandum have not caused New York irreparable injury.30 Whether the Board erred in its treatment of the PWROG Memorandum is a matter that can be addressed following an initial decision.31 In the meantime, the Boards ruling does not impair New Yorks ability to present its case. Notwithstanding its views on the memorandum, the Board provided a path forward for New York to address the same or similar information through its experts.32 New York has the five unredacted documents in its possession and is not constrained from using any or all of them in support of its case. And New York will have the opportunity at the end of this proceeding to raise an objection to the weight ultimately accorded by the Board to the PWROG 27 Id. at 23-24.

28 Petition at 1, 14-17.

29 Id. at 16-17.

30 See Hydro Resources, CLI-98-8, 47 at 324.

31 Cf. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-393, 5 NRC 767, 768 (1977) ([D]uring the course of lengthy proceedings licensing boards must make numerous interlocutory rulings, many of which deal with the reception of evidence and the procedural framework under which it will be admitted. It simply is not our role to monitor these matters on a day-to-day basis; were we to do so, we would have little time for anything else.) (quoting Toledo Edison Co. et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98, 99 (1976)).

32 July 20 Order at 6.

Memorandum. At that time, New York may also renew its claim that the Board shifted to [New York] the burden to show that the PWROG Memo was admissible evidence.33 In sum, the Boards decision to withhold the documents from public disclosure at this time does not prevent New York from fully litigating its claims in this proceeding.

Nor does New Yorks claim that the Boards order imposes a significant administrative burden34 on the state present a prejudicial procedural error warranting immediate review. Filing non-public versions and redacted, public versions of certain documents is part of the ordinary administrative burden involved in participating in litigation and does not merit interlocutory review.35 As the Staff points out, New York must file non-public versions of other documents and therefore a portion of the evidentiary hearing will be held in camera in any event.36 Further, we decline to provide immediate review of the Boards actions with respect to Westinghouses participation. New York has not demonstrated that Westinghouses participation in the case has posed serious irreparable impact or affected the basic structure of this proceeding. In particular, the adjudicatory record does not bear out New Yorks claim that it must prepare for the upcoming hearing without knowing whether or how Westinghouse will participate. The record to date reflects that Westinghouses participation has been limited to the protection of its interests with respect to the proprietary designation of the five identified 33 Petition at 21.

34 Id. at 24.

35 See, e.g., Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-11-10, 74 NRC 251, 256 (2011) (expansion of issues for litigation from the boards denial of motion for summary disposition had neither a pervasive and unusual effect on the litigation nor a serious and irreparable impact to the moving party); CLI-09-6, 69 NRC at 133-36 (expense is not irreparable harm), 136-38 (increased litigation burden did not have a pervasive effect on the basic structure of the proceeding).

36 See Staff Answer at 9.

documents, and New York has taken the opportunities available to respond to Westinghouses arguments and develop the adjudicatory record.37 New York has therefore not demonstrated that interlocutory review is warranted.

Finally, New Yorks concerns regarding release of information to the public do not warrant interlocutory review. As discussed above, the Boards decision does not affect New Yorks ability to pursue its caseNew York retains full access to all five documents and has offered all five as evidentiary exhibits for the upcoming hearing.38 Our rules of practice, supplemented in this proceeding by the Protective Order, provide mechanisms to accommodate litigation where non-public information may be discussed. In particular, the rules expressly provide for in camera hearing sessions where information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is offered into evidence.39 New York will have the opportunity to renew its objections to the proprietary designations at the conclusion of the Boards proceeding. If at that time we determine that information withheld under the Protective Order should have been publicly disclosed, we will direct that such information and the transcript of the related in camera session will be made publicly available.40 37 See Westinghouse Amicus Brief at 6-10; Westinghouse Motion at 1-3 (unnumbered). New York has filed a second motion for disclosure of additional documents authored by Westinghouse. State of New York Motion for Public Disclosure of Various Westinghouse Documents (Oct. 19, 2015) (non-public). The record reflects that Westinghouse has sought to participate in activities before the Board associated with this motionas it has done so farfor the limited purpose of addressing Westinghouses proprietary designations for the documents at issue in that motion. See Order (Granting Westinghouse Electric Companys Motion for Leave to Appear Specially Regarding Additional Proprietary Documents) (Nov. 3, 2015) (unpublished).

As the case goes forward, we expect that New York (like any other party) will have the opportunity, as provided by our rules, to fully respond to Westinghouses arguments.

38 See supra notes 6 & 7.

39 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(b)(6) (In camera sessions of hearings may be held when the information sought to be withheld is produced or offered in evidence.); Protective Order ¶ L.

40 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(b)(6); see Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-1, 61 NRC 160 (2005) (ruling on the disclosure and redaction of various

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny New Yorks petition for interlocutory review of the Boards July 20, 2015 Order, without prejudice to its ability to renew its appeal following a partial or final initial decision in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.41 For the Commission NRC SEAL

/RA/ .

Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2015.

kinds of information in the adjudicatory record and in several Board and Commission decisions issued over the course of the proceeding).

41 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR

) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Mail Stop O-7H4M David E. Roth, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

ocaamail@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anita Ghosh, Esq.

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Christina England, Esq.

Mail Stop O-16C1 Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Joseph Lindell, Esq.

hearingdocket@nrc.gov John Tibbetts, Paralegal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop O-15D21 Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Administrative Judge david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; christina.england@nrc.gov; Richard E. Wardwell catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; Administrative Judge joseph.lindell@nrc.gov; richard.wardwell@nrc.gov john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy OGC Mail Center Administrative Judge OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.

Alana Wase, Law Clerk Organization: Entergy alana.wase@nrc.gov 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 wglew@entergy.com Julie Reynolds-Engel, Law Clerk Julie.Reynolds-Engel@nrc.gov

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Assistant County Attorney Exchange Place, 53 State Street Office of Robert F. Meehan, Boston, MA 02109 Westchester County Attorney ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Daniel Riesel, Esq. mjr1@westchestergov.com Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.

Adam Stolorow, Esq. Bobby Burchfield, Esq.

Natoya Duncan, Paralegal Matthew Leland, Esq.

Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Emre Ilter, Esq.

Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. McDermott, Will and Emery LLP 460 Park Avenue 500 North Capitol Street NW New York, NY 10022 Washington, DC 20001 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com bburchfield@mwe.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com mleland@mwe.com eilter@mwe.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Raphael Kuyler, Esq. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Brooke McGlinn, Esq. Washington, DC 20004 Grant Eskelsen, Esq. mswinehart@cov.com Ryan Lighty, Esq.

Lesa G. Williams-Richardson, Legal Secretary Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary Steven C. Filler Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Peter A. Gross Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 724 Wolcott Ave.

Washington, DC 20004 Beacon, NY 12508 ksutton@morganlewis.com mannajo@clearwater.org; martin.oneill@morganlewis.com stephenfiller@gmail.com; rkuyler@morganlewis.com; peter@clearwater.org lescher@morganlewis.com bmcglinn@morganlewis.com Andrew Reid, Esq.

sraimo@morganlewis.com Organization: Hudson River Sloop geskelsen@morganlewis.com Clearwater, Inc.

rlighty@morganlewis.com Springer & Steinberg, P.C.

lrichardson@morganlewis.com 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 dcalhoun@morganlewis.com Denver, CO 80202 mfreeze@morganlewis.com lawyerreid@gmail.com Deborah Brancato, Esq. Richard Webster, Esq.

Ramona Cearley, Secretary Public Justice, P.C.

Riverkeeper, Inc. For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

20 Secor Road 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Ossining, NY 10562 Washington, D.C. 20006 dbrancato@riverkeeper.org rwebster@publicjustice.net rcearley@riverkeeper.org 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 Michael J. Delaney, Esq. John J. Sipos, Esq.

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs Lisa S. Kwong, Esq.

NYC Department of Environmental Protection Brian Lusignan, Esq.

59-17 Junction Boulevard Mihir Desai, Esq.

Flushing, NY 11373 Assistant Attorneys General mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Teresa Manzi, Legal Assistant Siobahn Blank, Legal Assistant Office of the Attorney General Robert D. Snook, Esq. of the State of New York Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, State Street Office of the Attorney General Albany, New York 12224 State of Connecticut john.sipos@ag.ny.gov 55 Elm Street lisa.kwong@ag.ny.gov P.O. Box 120 brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov Hartford, CT 06141-0120 mihir.desai@ag.ny.gov robert.snook@po.state.ct.us teresa.manzi@ag.ny.gov siobahn.blank@ag.ny.gov David A. Repka, Esq.

Victoria Hsia, Esq. Kathryn M. DeLuca, Esq.

Carlos L. Sisco, Paralegal Laura Heslin, Esq.

Winston & Strawn Assistant Attorneys General 1701 K Street NW Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20006 of the State of New York drepka@winston.com 120 Broadway, 26th Floor vhsia@winston.com New York, New York 10271 CSisco@winston.com kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov laura.heslin@ag.ny.gov Sean Murray, Mayor Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 smurray@villageofbuchanan.com administrator@villageofbuchanan.com

[Original signed by Brian Newell ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of November, 2015 3