ML12265A061: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of  
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of                                       Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                        ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)        September 21, 2012 ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)
INTRODUCTION On August 8, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking to invoke what it claims to be its statutorily-granted cross-examination rights under Section 274(l) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).1 New York claims that the expansive cross-examination rights conferred upon it as a host state by Section 274(l) of the AEA, 42 U.S.C § 2021(l) (Section 2021(l)) take precedence over the restrictive cross-examination rights allowed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3).2 More specifically, New York argues that the 2004 modifications to the NRCs Administrative Procedure Act compliant regulations, which it contends generally restrict the use of cross-examination by most parties, do not purport to 1
See State of New York Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights Under Atomic Energy Act § 274(l) (Aug. 8, 2012) [hereinafter New York Motion].
2 See id. at 14-15, 19.


ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
2 address the rights preserved to the States in [Section 2021(l)].3 Thus, New York argues that 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3) do not apply to it as a host state and do not restrict its right to interrogate witnesses.4 New York further argues that the language of Section 2021(l), and its legislative history, make it clear that a State in which the federal government has been asked to authorize the operation of a nuclear reactor has an absolute right to conduct cross-examination of witnesses in NRC licensing proceedings regarding the reactor.5 According to New York, this right to interrogate witnesses at Commission licensing proceedings was conferred to the states by the United States Congress [i]n exchange for [states] not having the right to regulate certain aspects of nuclear safety of nuclear power plants within their borders6 and guarantees every state that a nuclear facility will not operate within its borders until and unless the State has been given the opportunity to ensure that all relevant questions are asked and answered.7 Moreover, New York contends this cross-examination rightspecifically granted by the AEA to states that house nuclear reactorsis not, and cannot be, delegated to federal authorities and cannot be circumscribed by federal regulations that grant to federal authorities the determination of whether cross-examination by a State is warranted.8 In addition, according to New York, this right has not been subsequently diminished either by Congress or NRC regulations.9 3
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)  
Id. at 14.
 
4 Id. at 15.
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
5 Id. at 1.
6 Id. at 7.
7 Id. at 10.
8 Id. at 10-11.
9 Id. at 5.


ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 September 21, 2012 ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New York's Motion for Cross Examination)
3 New York emphasizes that in this proceeding its rights to cross-examination are particularly important not only because of the profound actual and potential impact of Indian Point on the residents of New York State but because of the full and active role that New York has played in this proceeding.10 New York contends that [w]ithout in any way diminishing the role the Board plays in conducting cross-examination of witnesses, it is vital to the sovereign interests . . . of New York that the State be allowed the opportunity to ensure that the record is fully developed and the facts are fully disclosed regarding the vital issues at stake in the proceeding.11 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff (Staff) oppose this motion.12 Entergy argues that [n]othing in the relevant statutes, regulations, and case law supportslet alone requires[New Yorks] unprecedented and unfair request for cross examination.13 Entergy further argues that Section 2021(l) does not provide an absolute right
INTRODUCTION  On August 8, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking to invoke what it claims to be its statutorily-granted cross-examination rights under Section 274(l) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
[to cross examination], as New York insists, but only a reasonable opportunity, . . . to cross-examine that is equivalent to that set forth in [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)].14 According to Entergy, to find otherwise would mean that New York, not the Board, is the arbiter of whether its own request [for cross examination] is reasonable.15 It would also mean that states that 10 Id. at 10.
1  New York claims that the expansive cross-examination rights conferred upon it as a host state by Section 274(l) of the AEA, 42 U.S.C § 2021(l) (Section
11 Id.
12 See Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Cross-Examine (Aug. 20, 2012)
[hereinafter Entergys Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer to State of New Yorks Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights under Atomic Entergy Act § 274(l)
(Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter Staffs Answer].
13 Entergys Answer at 2.
14 Id. at 3.
15 Id. at 5.


2021(l)) take precedence over the restrictive cross-examination rights allowed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3).
4 house nuclear facilities, like New York, can cross-examine witnesses indefinitely (and even badger those witnesses) with impunity.16 Moreover, Entergy states that New York did not show that cross-examination is necessary under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)], the regulation, according to Entergy, that governs cross examination in this proceeding.17 At most, Entergy asserts, New York speculates it is possible that its cross-examination would be allowed under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)].18 This speculation, according to Entergy, does not establish a necessity for New Yorks requested cross-examination.19 Finally, Entergy argues that New Yorks motion should be denied as untimely.20 Entergy asserts that [u]nder 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), [a] motion must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.21 Entergy states that there was no occurrence in the ten days between July 29th and August 8th (the date New York filed its motion seeking cross examination) that triggered the timely filing of this motion.22 Thus, Entergy contends that this motion is untimely.23 16 Id. at 8.
2 More specifically, New York argues that the 2004 modifications to the NRC's Administrative Procedure Act compliant regulations, which it contends generally restrict the use of cross-examination by most parties, do "not purport to 1 See State of New York Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights Under Atomic Energy Act § 274(l) (Aug. 8, 2012) [hereinafter New York Motion].
17 Id. at 12.
2 See id. at 14-15, 19.  
18 Id.
19 See id.
20 Id. at 13.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id. Entergy does acknowledge that the July 12, 2012 Order directs the parties to file motions for cross-examination by August 29, 2012. Id. But Entergy asserts that the July 12, 2012 Order was a clarification of the July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order, and the Scheduling Order, according to Entergy, only sets a deadline for cross-examination motions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id. at 13 & n.12. Thus, according to Entergy, New Yorks present motion for cross examination was not timely filed under the Scheduling Order or the July 12, 2012 Order because it seeks cross examination under Section 2021(l), not 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id. at 13.


2  address the rights preserved to the States in [Section 2021(l)]."
5 The Staff argues that in this proceeding New York is not just the State housing Indian Point, but it is also a party to this proceeding.24 Thus, the Staff argues that New Yorks cross-examination rights are governed by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), the same regulation that governs the cross-examination rights of all of the parties to this proceeding.25 In support of this argument, the Staff asserts that if Section 2021(l) had provided a separate cross-examination right to States when they are parties to the proceeding, it is reasonable to expect that the NRC would have codified those additional rights in its regulationsparticularly upon adopting clarifying revisions of these regulations in 2004.26 The Commission, however, did not codify such additional rights, and therefore, according to the Staff, New York, having elected to become a party to the proceeding, cannot take advantage of the opportunities afforded to non-parties by [Section 2021(l)].27 BOARD DECISION Whether participating in this proceeding as a host state, an admitted party intevenor, or both, New York must observe the procedural requirements imposed by regulation on all participants to this proceeding,28 and the Board must follow all applicable Commission Regulations. Accordingly, in this proceeding, New Yorks opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is bound by the same 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations that govern all parties to this proceeding. However, that opportunity, as it will be applied in this proceeding, will comply with the Commissions Regulations and provide New York with the reasonable opportunity to interrogate witness which it argues it is guaranteed by Section 2021(l). Thus, it is not necessary 24 See Staffs Answer at 4.
3  Thus, New York argues that 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3) do not apply to it as a host state and do not restrict its right to interrogate witnesses.
25 Id. at 4-5.
4  New York further argues that the language of Section 2021(l), and its legislative history, make it clear "that a State in which the federal government has been asked to authorize the operation of a nuclear reactor has an absolute right to conduct cross-examination of witnesses in NRC licensing proceedings regarding the reactor."
26 Id. at 8.
5 According to New York, this right to interrogate witnesses at Commission licensing proceedings was conferred to the states by the United States Congress "[i]n exchange for [states] not having the right to regulate certain aspects of nuclear safety of nuclear power plants within their borders" 6 and guarantees every state "that a nuclear facility will not operate within its borders until and unless the State has been given the opportunity to ensure that all relevant questions are asked and answered."
27 Id. at 9.
7  Moreover, New York contends this cross-examination right-specifically granted by the AEA  to states that house nuclear reactors-"is not, and cannot be, delegated to federal authorities and cannot be circumscribed by federal regulations that grant to federal authorities the determination of whether cross-examination by a State is warranted."
28 See Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768 (1977).
8  In addition, according to New York, this right "has not been subsequently diminished either by Congress or NRC regulations."
9 3 Id. at 14. 4 Id. at 15. 5 Id. at 1. 6 Id. at 7. 7 Id. at 10. 8 Id. at 10-11.
9 Id. at 5.
3  New York emphasizes that in this proceeding its rights to cross-examination are "particularly important not only because of the profound actual and potential impact of Indian Point on the residents of New York State but because of the full and active role that New York has played in this proceeding."
10  New York contends that "[w]ithout in any way diminishing the role the Board plays in conducting cross-examination of witnesses, it is vital to the sovereign interests . . . of New York that the State be allowed the opportunity to ensure that the record is fully developed and the facts are fully disclosed regarding the vital issues at stake in the proceeding."
11  Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff (Staff) oppose this motion.12  Entergy argues that "[n]othing in the relevant statutes, regulations, and case law supports-let alone requires-[New York's] unprecedented and unfair" request for cross examination.
13  Entergy further argues that Section 2021(l) "does not provide an 'absolute right [to cross examination],' as New York insists, but only a 'reasonable opportunity,' . . . to cross-examine that is 'equivalent' to that set forth in [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)]."
14  According to Entergy, to find otherwise would mean that New York, not the Board, is the "arbiter of whether its own request [for cross examination] is reasonable."
15 It would also mean that states that 10 Id. at 10. 11 Id. 12 See Entergy's Answer Opposing New York State's Motion to Cross-Examine (Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter Entergy's Answer]; NRC Staff's Answer to State of New York's "Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights under Atomic Entergy Act § 274(l)" (Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter Staff's Answer].
13 Entergy's Answer at 2.
14 Id. at 3. 15 Id. at 5.
4  house nuclear facilities, like New York, "can cross-examine witnesses indefinitely (and even badger those witnesses) with impunity."
16  Moreover, Entergy states that New York did not show that "cross-examination is necessary under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)]," the regulation, according to Entergy, that governs cross examination in this proceeding.
17  At most, Entergy asserts, "New York speculates it is 'possible' that it's 'cross-examination would be allowed' under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)]."
18  This speculation, according to Entergy, does not establish a necessity for New York's requested cross-examination.
19  Finally, Entergy argues that New York's motion should be denied as untimely.
20  Entergy asserts that "[u]nder 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), '[a] motion must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.'"
21  Entergy states that there was no occurrence in the ten days between July 29th and August 8th (the date New York filed its motion seeking cross examination) that triggered the timely filing of this motion.
22  Thus, Entergy contends that this motion is untimely.
23 16 Id. at 8. 17 Id. at 12. 18 Id. 19 See id. 20 Id. at 13. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. Entergy does acknowledge that the July 12, 2012 Order directs the parties to file motions for cross-examination by August 29, 2012. Id. But Entergy asserts that the July 12, 2012 Order was a clarification of the July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order, and the Scheduling Order, according to Entergy, only sets a deadline for cross-examination motions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id.
at 13 & n.12. Thus, according to Entergy, New York's present motion for cross examination was not timely filed under the Scheduling Order or the July 12, 2012 Order because it seeks cross examination under Section 2021(l), not 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id. at 13.
5  The Staff argues that in this proceeding New York is not just the State housing Indian Point, but it is also a party to this proceeding.
24 Thus, the Staff argues that New York's cross-examination rights are governed by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), the same regulation that governs the cross-examination rights of all of the parties to this proceeding.
25 In support of this argument, the Staff asserts that if Section 2021(l) had "provided a separate cross-examination right to States when they are parties to the proceeding, it is reasonable to expect that the NRC would have codified those additional rights in its regulations-particularly upon adopting clarifying revisions of these regulations in 2004."
26 The Commission, however, did not codify such additional rights, and therefore, according to the Staff, "New York, having elected to become a party to the proceeding, cannot take advantage of the opportunities afforded to non-parties by [Section 2021(l)]."
27     BOARD DECISION Whether participating in this proceeding as a host state, an admitted party intevenor, or both, New York must observe the procedural requirements imposed by regulation on all participants to this proceeding, 28 and the Board must follow all applicable Commission Regulations. Accordingly, in this proceeding, New York's opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is bound by the same 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations that govern all parties to this proceeding. However, that opportunity, as it will be applied in this proceeding, will comply with the Commission's Regulations and provide New York with the reasonable opportunity to interrogate witness which it argues it is guaranteed by Section 2021(l). Thus, it is not necessary 24 See Staff's Answer at 4.
25 Id. at 4-5. 26 Id. at 8. 27 Id. at 9. 28 See Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768 (1977).  


6 for the board, in this Order, to address whether and if so to what extent, in some theoretical sense, the right to cross-examination granted to host states by the AEA may be different from those provided to parties under 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
6 for the board, in this Order, to address whether and if so to what extent, in some theoretical sense, the right to cross-examination granted to host states by the AEA may be different from those provided to parties under 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c) representatives of states and other interested governmental bodies shall be afforded the right to interrogate witnesses when, and to the extent that, admitted intervenor parties are permitted to interrogate witnesses. Commission regulations do not recognize a greater right of governmental entities to cross-examine witnesses than that of intevenor parties. Likewise, governmental entities' cross-examination rights are in no way diminished when they are admitted as a party to the proceeding. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(1), "[i]n any oral hearing under [Subpart 2], a party may file a motion with the presiding officer to permit cross-examination by the parties on particular admitted contentions or issues. The motion mu st be accompanied by a cross-examination plan . . . ."  And pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), "[t]he presiding officer shall allow cross-examination by the parties only if the presiding officer determines that cross-examination by the parties is necessary to ensure the development of an adequate record for decision."  In this case, New York did file a motion for cross-examination before the August 29, 2012, deadline for cross-examination motions.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c) representatives of states and other interested governmental bodies shall be afforded the right to interrogate witnesses when, and to the extent that, admitted intervenor parties are permitted to interrogate witnesses. Commission regulations do not recognize a greater right of governmental entities to cross-examine witnesses than that of intevenor parties. Likewise, governmental entities cross-examination rights are in no way diminished when they are admitted as a party to the proceeding.
29 It also filed proposed examination questions on August 29, 2012, 30 which, in the Board's judgment, constituted a reasonable cross-examination plan. Thus, the Board finds that New York complied with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b).
Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(1), [i]n any oral hearing under [Subpart 2], a party may file a motion with the presiding officer to permit cross-examination by the parties on particular admitted contentions or issues. The motion must be accompanied by a cross-examination plan
Moreover, the pre-filed testimony and exhibits in this proceeding are voluminous and technical. Thus, the Board has determined that granting New York's request for cross- examination is necessary to ensure development of an adequate record for this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board grants New York's request for cross-examination under 10 C.F.R. § 29 See New York Motion at 20; Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).
. . . . And pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), [t]he presiding officer shall allow cross-examination by the parties only if the presiding officer determines that cross-examination by the parties is necessary to ensure the development of an adequate record for decision.
30 The State of New York's Proposed Examination Questions to Entergy and NRC Staff Witnesses on Contentions NYS 5, 6/7, 8, 12C, 16B, 17B, and 37 (Aug 29, 2012).
In this case, New York did file a motion for cross-examination before the August 29, 2012, deadline for cross-examination motions.29 It also filed proposed examination questions on August 29, 2012,30 which, in the Boards judgment, constituted a reasonable cross-examination plan. Thus, the Board finds that New York complied with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b).
7  2.1204(b)(3). During the evidentiary hearing New York may examine witnesses after the Board's examination, so long as New York's questions are relevant, reasonable, and non-repetitive.
Moreover, the pre-filed testimony and exhibits in this proceeding are voluminous and technical. Thus, the Board has determined that granting New Yorks request for cross-examination is necessary to ensure development of an adequate record for this proceeding.
It is so ORDERED.  
Accordingly, the Board grants New Yorks request for cross-examination under 10 C.F.R. § 29 See New York Motion at 20; Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).
30 The State of New Yorks Proposed Examination Questions to Entergy and NRC Staff Witnesses on Contentions NYS 5, 6/7, 8, 12C, 16B, 17B, and 37 (Aug 29, 2012).


FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY   AND LICENSING BOARD
7 2.1204(b)(3). During the evidentiary hearing New York may examine witnesses after the Boards examination, so long as New Yorks questions are relevant, reasonable, and non-repetitive.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                  /RA/
___________________________
___________________________
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 21, 2012 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,  )
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 21, 2012
Units 2 and 3)  )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New York's Motion for Cross Examination) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
 
Mail Stop O-7H4M Washington, DC  20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission
 
Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001 Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC  20555-0001


Lawrence G. McDade, Chair
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                  )
 
                                                    )
Administrative Judge lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                     )                Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
 
                                                    )                and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating,                  )
Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov
Units 2 and 3)                            )
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge michael.kennedy@nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication            Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M                                      Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001                              Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov                                       Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                      Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk
Mail Stop T-3F23                                        Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001                              David E. Roth, Esq.
james.maltese@nrc.gov Carter Thurman, Law Clerk
 
carter.thurman@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.  
 
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.  
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                              Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
 
Administrative Judge                                    Anita Ghosh, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq.  
lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov                                Karl Farrar, Esq.
 
Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell                                    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge                                    Office of the General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov                                Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael F. Kennedy                                      sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                    beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov                                david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk                              brian.newell@nrc.gov anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk                              OGC Mail Center shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov                                  OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk james.maltese@nrc.gov Carter Thurman, Law Clerk carter.thurman@nrc.gov
Karl Farrar, Esq.
Brian Newell, Paralegal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel  
 
Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001  
 
sherwin.turk@nrc.gov
; edward.williamson@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov
; brian.harris.@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov
; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov
; karl.farrar@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov
 
OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New York's Motion for Cross Examination) 2  William C. Dennis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue
 
White Plains, NY  10601
 
wdennis@entergy.com William B. Glew, Jr. Organization:  Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY  10601
 
wglew@entergy.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place
 
53 State Street  Boston, MA  02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Daniel Riesel, Esq.
 
Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
 
Adam Stolorow, Esq.
 
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal
 
Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
 
460 Park Avenue
 
New York, NY  10022
 
driesel@sprlaw.com
; vtreanor@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com
;jgandhi@sprlaw.com pdeng@sprlaw.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Raphael Kuyler, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Lena Michelle Long, Esq.
 
Laura Swett, Esq.
Lance Escher, Esq. Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary
 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004
 
ksutton@morganlewis.com martin.oneill@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com jrund@morganlewis.com llong@morganlewis.com
;lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Ramona Cearley, Secretary Riverkeeper, Inc.
20 Secor Road
 
Ossining, NY  10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org
; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org rcearley@riverkeeper.org
 
Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
 
Office of Robert F. Meehan,  Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor White Plains, NY  10601 MJR1@westchestergov.com Clint Carpenter, Esq. Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Matthew Leland, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP
 
600 13 th Street, NW Washington, DC  20005 ccarpenter@mwe.com
; bburchfield@mwe.com mleland@mwe.com
 
Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Steven C. Filler Karla Raimundi Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave.
 
Beacon, NY  12508
 
mannajo@clearwater.org
; stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New York's Motion for Cross Examination) 3  Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
Covington & Burling LLP
 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004
 
mswinehart@cov.com John Louis Parker, Esq.
Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department 
 
of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY  12561-1620 jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us
 
Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection
 
59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY  11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov
 
Richard Webster, Esq.
 
Public Justice, P.C. (for Hudson River Sloop)
 
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 rwebster@publicjustice.net
 
John J. Sipos, Esq. Charles Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
 
Elyse Houle, Legal Support The Capitol State Street Albany, New York  12224
 
John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov
; charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov
 
Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT  06141-0120
 
robert.snook@po.state.ct.us Janice A. Dean, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Liberatore, Esq. Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
 
120 Broadway, 26 th Floor New York, New York  10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov
; kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov
 
Sean Murray, Mayor Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Village of Buchanan Municipal Building


236 Tate Avenue  
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)
William C. Dennis, Esq.                        Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel                      Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.                Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
440 Hamilton Avenue                             Adam Stolorow, Esq.
White Plains, NY 10601                          Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal wdennis@entergy.com                            Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt William B. Glew, Jr.                            Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Organization: Entergy                          460 Park Avenue 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601    New York, NY 10022 wglew@entergy.com                              driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com ;jgandhi@sprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.                            pdeng@sprlaw.com Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.                        Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.                          Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Martin J. ONeill, Esq.                        Ramona Cearley, Secretary Raphael Kuyler, Esq.                            Riverkeeper, Inc.
Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.                          20 Secor Road Lena Michelle Long, Esq.                        Ossining, NY 10562 Laura Swett, Esq.                              phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Lance Escher, Esq.                              rcearley@riverkeeper.org Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP                    Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                    Assistant County Attorney Washington, DC 20004                            Office of Robert F. Meehan, ksutton@morganlewis.com                        Westchester County Attorney martin.oneill@morganlewis.com                  148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor rkuyler@morganlewis.com                        White Plains, NY 10601 jrund@morganlewis.com                          MJR1@westchestergov.com llong@morganlewis.com;lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com Clint Carpenter, Esq.                          Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Bobby Burchfield, Esq.                          Steven C. Filler Matthew Leland, Esq.                            Karla Raimundi McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP                  Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
600 13th Street, NW                            724 Wolcott Ave.
Washington, DC 20005                            Beacon, NY 12508 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com        mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com mleland@mwe.com                                karla@clearwater.org 2


Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Dated at Rockville, Maryland   [Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)
this 21 st day of September 2012   Office of the Secretary of the Commission}}
Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.                      Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Covington & Burling LLP                        Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                    NYC Department of Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20004                            59-17 Junction Boulevard mswinehart@cov.com                              Flushing, NY 11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov John Louis Parker, Esq.
Office of General Counsel, Region 3            Richard Webster, Esq.
New York State Department                      Public Justice, P.C. (for Hudson River Sloop) of Environmental Conservation                1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 21 South Putt Corners Road                      Washington, D.C. 20006 New Paltz, NY 12561-1620                        rwebster@publicjustice.net jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us John J. Sipos, Esq.
Charles Donaldson, Esq.                        Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General                    Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General                  Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York                    State of Connecticut Elyse Houle, Legal Support                      55 Elm Street The Capitol                                    P.O. Box 120 State Street                                    Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Albany, New York 12224                          robert.snook@po.state.ct.us John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov; charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General                      Sean Murray, Mayor Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.                        Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Office of the Attorney General                  Village of Buchanan of the State of New York                    Municipal Building 120 Broadway, 26th Floor                        236 Tate Avenue New York, New York 10271                        Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov;                          SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov                    Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Dated at Rockville, Maryland                 [Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
this 21st day of September 2012             Office of the Secretary of the Commission 3}}

Revision as of 22:15, 11 November 2019

Licensing Board Order Granting, in Part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination
ML12265A061
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/21/2012
From: Lawrence Mcdade
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23489, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12265A061 (10)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) September 21, 2012 ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)

INTRODUCTION On August 8, 2012, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking to invoke what it claims to be its statutorily-granted cross-examination rights under Section 274(l) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).1 New York claims that the expansive cross-examination rights conferred upon it as a host state by Section 274(l) of the AEA, 42 U.S.C § 2021(l) (Section 2021(l)) take precedence over the restrictive cross-examination rights allowed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3).2 More specifically, New York argues that the 2004 modifications to the NRCs Administrative Procedure Act compliant regulations, which it contends generally restrict the use of cross-examination by most parties, do not purport to 1

See State of New York Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights Under Atomic Energy Act § 274(l) (Aug. 8, 2012) [hereinafter New York Motion].

2 See id. at 14-15, 19.

2 address the rights preserved to the States in [Section 2021(l)].3 Thus, New York argues that 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.135(c) and 2.1204(b)(3) do not apply to it as a host state and do not restrict its right to interrogate witnesses.4 New York further argues that the language of Section 2021(l), and its legislative history, make it clear that a State in which the federal government has been asked to authorize the operation of a nuclear reactor has an absolute right to conduct cross-examination of witnesses in NRC licensing proceedings regarding the reactor.5 According to New York, this right to interrogate witnesses at Commission licensing proceedings was conferred to the states by the United States Congress [i]n exchange for [states] not having the right to regulate certain aspects of nuclear safety of nuclear power plants within their borders6 and guarantees every state that a nuclear facility will not operate within its borders until and unless the State has been given the opportunity to ensure that all relevant questions are asked and answered.7 Moreover, New York contends this cross-examination rightspecifically granted by the AEA to states that house nuclear reactorsis not, and cannot be, delegated to federal authorities and cannot be circumscribed by federal regulations that grant to federal authorities the determination of whether cross-examination by a State is warranted.8 In addition, according to New York, this right has not been subsequently diminished either by Congress or NRC regulations.9 3

Id. at 14.

4 Id. at 15.

5 Id. at 1.

6 Id. at 7.

7 Id. at 10.

8 Id. at 10-11.

9 Id. at 5.

3 New York emphasizes that in this proceeding its rights to cross-examination are particularly important not only because of the profound actual and potential impact of Indian Point on the residents of New York State but because of the full and active role that New York has played in this proceeding.10 New York contends that [w]ithout in any way diminishing the role the Board plays in conducting cross-examination of witnesses, it is vital to the sovereign interests . . . of New York that the State be allowed the opportunity to ensure that the record is fully developed and the facts are fully disclosed regarding the vital issues at stake in the proceeding.11 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and the NRC Staff (Staff) oppose this motion.12 Entergy argues that [n]othing in the relevant statutes, regulations, and case law supportslet alone requires[New Yorks] unprecedented and unfair request for cross examination.13 Entergy further argues that Section 2021(l) does not provide an absolute right

[to cross examination], as New York insists, but only a reasonable opportunity, . . . to cross-examine that is equivalent to that set forth in [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)].14 According to Entergy, to find otherwise would mean that New York, not the Board, is the arbiter of whether its own request [for cross examination] is reasonable.15 It would also mean that states that 10 Id. at 10.

11 Id.

12 See Entergys Answer Opposing New York States Motion to Cross-Examine (Aug. 20, 2012)

[hereinafter Entergys Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer to State of New Yorks Motion to Implement Statutorily-Granted Cross-Examination Rights under Atomic Entergy Act § 274(l)

(Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter Staffs Answer].

13 Entergys Answer at 2.

14 Id. at 3.

15 Id. at 5.

4 house nuclear facilities, like New York, can cross-examine witnesses indefinitely (and even badger those witnesses) with impunity.16 Moreover, Entergy states that New York did not show that cross-examination is necessary under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)], the regulation, according to Entergy, that governs cross examination in this proceeding.17 At most, Entergy asserts, New York speculates it is possible that its cross-examination would be allowed under [10 C.F.R. § 2.2104(b)(3)].18 This speculation, according to Entergy, does not establish a necessity for New Yorks requested cross-examination.19 Finally, Entergy argues that New Yorks motion should be denied as untimely.20 Entergy asserts that [u]nder 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), [a] motion must be made no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises.21 Entergy states that there was no occurrence in the ten days between July 29th and August 8th (the date New York filed its motion seeking cross examination) that triggered the timely filing of this motion.22 Thus, Entergy contends that this motion is untimely.23 16 Id. at 8.

17 Id. at 12.

18 Id.

19 See id.

20 Id. at 13.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. Entergy does acknowledge that the July 12, 2012 Order directs the parties to file motions for cross-examination by August 29, 2012. Id. But Entergy asserts that the July 12, 2012 Order was a clarification of the July 1, 2010 Scheduling Order, and the Scheduling Order, according to Entergy, only sets a deadline for cross-examination motions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id. at 13 & n.12. Thus, according to Entergy, New Yorks present motion for cross examination was not timely filed under the Scheduling Order or the July 12, 2012 Order because it seeks cross examination under Section 2021(l), not 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b). Id. at 13.

5 The Staff argues that in this proceeding New York is not just the State housing Indian Point, but it is also a party to this proceeding.24 Thus, the Staff argues that New Yorks cross-examination rights are governed by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), the same regulation that governs the cross-examination rights of all of the parties to this proceeding.25 In support of this argument, the Staff asserts that if Section 2021(l) had provided a separate cross-examination right to States when they are parties to the proceeding, it is reasonable to expect that the NRC would have codified those additional rights in its regulationsparticularly upon adopting clarifying revisions of these regulations in 2004.26 The Commission, however, did not codify such additional rights, and therefore, according to the Staff, New York, having elected to become a party to the proceeding, cannot take advantage of the opportunities afforded to non-parties by [Section 2021(l)].27 BOARD DECISION Whether participating in this proceeding as a host state, an admitted party intevenor, or both, New York must observe the procedural requirements imposed by regulation on all participants to this proceeding,28 and the Board must follow all applicable Commission Regulations. Accordingly, in this proceeding, New Yorks opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is bound by the same 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations that govern all parties to this proceeding. However, that opportunity, as it will be applied in this proceeding, will comply with the Commissions Regulations and provide New York with the reasonable opportunity to interrogate witness which it argues it is guaranteed by Section 2021(l). Thus, it is not necessary 24 See Staffs Answer at 4.

25 Id. at 4-5.

26 Id. at 8.

27 Id. at 9.

28 See Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768 (1977).

6 for the board, in this Order, to address whether and if so to what extent, in some theoretical sense, the right to cross-examination granted to host states by the AEA may be different from those provided to parties under 10 C.F.R. Part 2.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c) representatives of states and other interested governmental bodies shall be afforded the right to interrogate witnesses when, and to the extent that, admitted intervenor parties are permitted to interrogate witnesses. Commission regulations do not recognize a greater right of governmental entities to cross-examine witnesses than that of intevenor parties. Likewise, governmental entities cross-examination rights are in no way diminished when they are admitted as a party to the proceeding.

Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(1), [i]n any oral hearing under [Subpart 2], a party may file a motion with the presiding officer to permit cross-examination by the parties on particular admitted contentions or issues. The motion must be accompanied by a cross-examination plan

. . . . And pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b)(3), [t]he presiding officer shall allow cross-examination by the parties only if the presiding officer determines that cross-examination by the parties is necessary to ensure the development of an adequate record for decision.

In this case, New York did file a motion for cross-examination before the August 29, 2012, deadline for cross-examination motions.29 It also filed proposed examination questions on August 29, 2012,30 which, in the Boards judgment, constituted a reasonable cross-examination plan. Thus, the Board finds that New York complied with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b).

Moreover, the pre-filed testimony and exhibits in this proceeding are voluminous and technical. Thus, the Board has determined that granting New Yorks request for cross-examination is necessary to ensure development of an adequate record for this proceeding.

Accordingly, the Board grants New Yorks request for cross-examination under 10 C.F.R. § 29 See New York Motion at 20; Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).

30 The State of New Yorks Proposed Examination Questions to Entergy and NRC Staff Witnesses on Contentions NYS 5, 6/7, 8, 12C, 16B, 17B, and 37 (Aug 29, 2012).

7 2.1204(b)(3). During the evidentiary hearing New York may examine witnesses after the Boards examination, so long as New Yorks questions are relevant, reasonable, and non-repetitive.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

___________________________

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 21, 2012

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 ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq.

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

Administrative Judge Anita Ghosh, Esq.

lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael F. Kennedy sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; karl.farrar@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk brian.newell@nrc.gov anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk OGC Mail Center shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk james.maltese@nrc.gov Carter Thurman, Law Clerk carter.thurman@nrc.gov

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)

William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Adam Stolorow, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal wdennis@entergy.com Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt William B. Glew, Jr. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Organization: Entergy 460 Park Avenue 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 New York, NY 10022 wglew@entergy.com driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com astolorow@sprlaw.com ;jgandhi@sprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. pdeng@sprlaw.com Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Ramona Cearley, Secretary Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Riverkeeper, Inc.

Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. 20 Secor Road Lena Michelle Long, Esq. Ossining, NY 10562 Laura Swett, Esq. phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Lance Escher, Esq. rcearley@riverkeeper.org Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Assistant County Attorney Washington, DC 20004 Office of Robert F. Meehan, ksutton@morganlewis.com Westchester County Attorney martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor rkuyler@morganlewis.com White Plains, NY 10601 jrund@morganlewis.com MJR1@westchestergov.com llong@morganlewis.com;lswett@morganlewis.com lescher@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com Clint Carpenter, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Bobby Burchfield, Esq. Steven C. Filler Matthew Leland, Esq. Karla Raimundi McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

600 13th Street, NW 724 Wolcott Ave.

Washington, DC 20005 Beacon, NY 12508 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mannajo@clearwater.org; stephenfiller@gmail.com mleland@mwe.com karla@clearwater.org 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Order Granting, in part, New Yorks Motion for Cross Examination)

Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq. Michael J. Delaney, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW NYC Department of Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20004 59-17 Junction Boulevard mswinehart@cov.com Flushing, NY 11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov John Louis Parker, Esq.

Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Richard Webster, Esq.

New York State Department Public Justice, P.C. (for Hudson River Sloop) of Environmental Conservation 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 21 South Putt Corners Road Washington, D.C. 20006 New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 rwebster@publicjustice.net jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us John J. Sipos, Esq.

Charles Donaldson, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Assistant Attorneys General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York State of Connecticut Elyse Houle, Legal Support 55 Elm Street The Capitol P.O. Box 120 State Street Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Albany, New York 12224 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov; charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov elyse.houle@ag.ny.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Sean Murray, Mayor Kathryn Liberatore, Esq. Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Office of the Attorney General Village of Buchanan of the State of New York Municipal Building 120 Broadway, 26th Floor 236 Tate Avenue New York, New York 10271 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov; SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com Dated at Rockville, Maryland [Original signed by Nancy Greathead]

this 21st day of September 2012 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12265A061&oldid=2094242"