ML13163A233: 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)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
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 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.  
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)      June 12, 2013 ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)
Before the Board are various motions relating to Contentions NYS-16B, CW-EC-3A, NYS-5, and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) issues. Each motion is addressed in turn.
On May 17, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention NYS-16B.1 The NRC Staff and Entergy opposed New Yorks motion.2 Additionally, Entergy sought to reply to New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and requested that, if New Yorks motion is granted, NL-13-075 be admitted in its entirety.3 Entergys requests were opposed by New York.4 1
See State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013).
2 See NRC Staffs Opposition to State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 23, 2013); Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013).
3 See Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013) at 5 n.21, Attach. 1.


(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)  
Good cause having been shown,5 the Board GRANTS New Yorks motion and admits exhibit NYS000476. Additionally, if Entergy submits NL-13-075 in its entirety as ENT000608 it will be admitted upon receipt. New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and Entergys reply to New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for contention NYS-16B are accepted and incorporated into the record.
On May 17, 2013, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Clearwater) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention CW-EC-3A.6 Entergy and the NRC Staff opposed the motion.7 The Board DENIES Clearwaters motion. In applying the standard of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), the Board finds that the submitted Statement of Interest by the United States of America is not relevant to the reasonableness of the NRC Staffs environmental justice review of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3.
4 See State of New Yorks Answer to Entergys Request for Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In Response to New Yorks Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (June 6, 2013).
5 State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013) at 5-8.
6 See Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 17, 2013).
7 See Entergys Answer Opposing Hudson River Sloop Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 28, 2013);
NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 28, 2013).


Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01
On June 10, 2013, New York filed a motion for leave to submit four additional exhibits labeled as NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480.8 Good cause having been shown,9 the Board GRANTS New Yorks motion and exhibits NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480 are admitted.
 
On July 30, 2012, Entergy filed a motion for a declaratory order that it has already obtained the required New York State coastal management program consistency review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for renewal of the operating licenses.10 In its motion, Entergy sought to have this Board enter a declaratory order that the NRC may renew the IP2 and IP3 licenses without requiring a further consistency certification or the States concurrence therewith because renewal will not cause coastal effects that are substantially different than those that New York has previously reviewed.11 New York, Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), and the NRC Staff opposed Entergys motion.12 Additionally, New York cross-moved for a declaratory order under 8
June 12, 2013 ORDER (Granting New York's Motions, Denying Clearwater's Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions) Before the Board are various motions relating to Contentions NYS-16B, CW-EC-3A, NYS-5, and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) issues. Each motion is addressed in turn. On May 17, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention NYS-16B.
See State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently Disclosed Entergy Documents as Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-5 (June 10, 2013).
1  The NRC Staff and Entergy opposed New York's motion.
9 Id. at 1-3.
2  Additionally, Entergy sought to reply to New York's supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and requested that, if New York's motion is granted, NL-13-075 be admitted in its entirety.3  Entergy's requests were opposed by New York.
10 See Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012). Entergy later filed a motion to supplement its July 30, 2012 motion for declaratory order. See Entergys Motion for Leave to Supplement its Motion For Declaratory Order That it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (May 20, 2013).
4 1 See State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013).
2 See NRC Staff's Opposition to State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 23, 2013); Entergy's Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013).
 
3 See Entergy's Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013) at 5 n.21, Attach. 1. Good cause having been shown, 5 the Board GRANTS New York's motion and admits exhibit NYS000476. Additionally, if Entergy submits NL-13-075 in its entirety as ENT000608 it will be admitted upon receipt. New York's supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and Entergy's reply to New York's supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for contention NYS-16B are accepted and incorporated into the record. On May 17, 2013, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Clearwater) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention CW-EC-3A.
6  Entergy and the NRC Staff opposed the motion.7 The Board DENIES Clearwater's motion. In applying the standard of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), the Board finds that the submitted Statement of Interest by the United States of America is not relevant to the reasonableness of the NRC Staff's environmental justice review of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3.
4 See State of New York's Answer to Entergy's Request for Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In Response to New York's Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-
 
16B (June 6, 2013).
 
5 State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013) at
 
5-8.
6 See Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 17, 2013).
 
7 See Entergy's Answer Opposing Hudson River Sloop Clearwater's Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 28, 2013); NRC Staff's Answer in Opposition to "Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice)" (May 28, 2013).
On June 10, 2013, New York filed a motion for leave to submit four additional exhibits labeled as NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480.
8 Good cause having been shown, 9 the Board GRANTS New York's motion and exhibits NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480 are admitted. On July 30, 2012, Entergy filed a motion for a declaratory order that it has already obtained the required New York State coastal management program consistency review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for renewal of the operating licenses.
10 In its motion, Entergy sought to have this Board enter a "declaratory order that the NRC may renew the IP2 and IP3 licenses without requiring a further consistency certification or the State's concurrence therewith because renewal will not cause coastal effects that are 'substantially different' than those that New York has previously reviewed."
11 New York, Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), and the NRC Staff opposed Entergy's motion.
12 Additionally, New York cross-moved for a declaratory order under 8 See State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently Disclosed Entergy Documents as Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-5 (June 10, 2013).
9 Id. at 1-3. 10 See Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012). Entergy later filed a motion to supplement its July 30, 2012 motion for declaratory order. See Entergy's Motion for Leave to Supplement its Motion For Declaratory Order That it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (May  
 
20, 2013).
11 Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012) at 25.
11 Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012) at 25.
12 See State of New York Response to Entergy's Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013); Riverkeeper Answer in Opposition to "Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses" (Apr. 5, 2013); NRC Staff's Answer to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum for Declaratory Order that it Has   Section 5(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 554(e), for a declaration that Entergy's license renewal application is subject to federal consistency review under 15 C.F.R. Section 930.51, Subpart D.
12 See State of New York Response to Entergys Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013); Riverkeeper Answer in Opposition to Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (Apr. 5, 2013);
13  The NRC Staff opposed 14 and Riverkeeper supported 15 New York's cross-motion. Given that no consultation has occurred between the NRC Staff, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e), we conclude that Entergy's and New York's motions are premature. Accordingly, Entergy's and New York's motions are DENIED without prejudice.
NRC Staff's Answer to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum for Declaratory Order that it Has
16 If these motions are refiled after said consultation, the moving party should state whether compliance with the CZMA is within the scope of any admitted contention and, if so, which contention and how it is within the scope thereof. Further, if compliance with the CZMA is not viewed by a party as within the scope of an admitted contention, they should address whether, and if so how, the Board has the authority to consider the issue. Additionally, the parties should address the following hypothetical: New York State Department of State concludes that a consistency review is needed and, upon completion of Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point 2 and 3 For Renewal of the Operating Licenses (Apr. 15, 2013). The NRC Staff argued, among other things, that there is inadequate support for issuance of a declaratory order given that there has been no consultation between the NRC, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e). See id. at 11. 13 See State of New York Response to Entergy's Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-
 
Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013).


14 See NRC Staff's Answer to State of New York's Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order on Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).
Section 5(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 554(e), for a declaration that Entergys license renewal application is subject to federal consistency review under 15 C.F.R.
Section 930.51, Subpart D.13 The NRC Staff opposed14 and Riverkeeper supported15 New Yorks cross-motion.
Given that no consultation has occurred between the NRC Staff, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e), we conclude that Entergys and New Yorks motions are premature. Accordingly, Entergys and New Yorks motions are DENIED without prejudice.16 If these motions are refiled after said consultation, the moving party should state whether compliance with the CZMA is within the scope of any admitted contention and, if so, which contention and how it is within the scope thereof. Further, if compliance with the CZMA is not viewed by a party as within the scope of an admitted contention, they should address whether, and if so how, the Board has the authority to consider the issue.
Additionally, the parties should address the following hypothetical: New York State Department of State concludes that a consistency review is needed and, upon completion of Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point 2 and 3 For Renewal of the Operating Licenses (Apr. 15, 2013). The NRC Staff argued, among other things, that there is inadequate support for issuance of a declaratory order given that there has been no consultation between the NRC, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e). See id. at 11.
13 See State of New York Response to Entergys Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013).
14 See NRC Staffs Answer to State of New Yorks Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order on Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).
15 See Riverkeeper Answer in Support of State of New York Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).
15 See Riverkeeper Answer in Support of State of New York Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).
16 As these cross-motions were denied as premature, this does not constitute a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Board's denial of Entergy's and New York's motions does not trigger the time for the filing of new contentions. See Licensing Board Order (Granting State of New York Motion for Extension of Time to File New Contentions) (Aug. 31, 2012) at 2-3 (unpublished). that review, enters a ruling adverse to Entergy. The New York State Department of State ruling is upheld by the United States Secretary of Commerce. Would the NRC be precluded from issuing a renewed license for IP2 and IP3, and how, if at all, a prior ruling by this Board that a consistency review was not needed would impact this situation. Finally, the parties have 10 days after the publication of the forthcoming FSEIS to inform the Board whether 30 days 17 will be sufficient time to file motions for new and amended contentions.
16 As these cross-motions were denied as premature, this does not constitute a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Boards denial of Entergys and New Yorks motions does not trigger the time for the filing of new contentions. See Licensing Board Order (Granting State of New York Motion for Extension of Time to File New Contentions) (Aug. 31, 2012) at 2-3 (unpublished).
18      It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY  AND LICENSING BOARD
 
___________________________
 
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland June 12, 2013


17 Tr. at 3289.
that review, enters a ruling adverse to Entergy. The New York State Department of State ruling is upheld by the United States Secretary of Commerce. Would the NRC be precluded from issuing a renewed license for IP2 and IP3, and how, if at all, a prior ruling by this Board that a consistency review was not needed would impact this situation.
Finally, the parties have 10 days after the publication of the forthcoming FSEIS to inform the Board whether 30 days17 will be sufficient time to file motions for new and amended contentions.18 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                        /RA/
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland June 12, 2013 17 Tr. at 3289.
18 The Board recognizes that the issuance of the FSEIS related to Contention RK-EC-8 will occur during the summer vacation season, which could affect the ability to file new or amended contentions within 30 days.
18 The Board recognizes that the issuance of the FSEIS related to Contention RK-EC-8 will occur during the summer vacation season, which could affect the ability to file new or amended contentions within 30 days.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of  )
  )
  )  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 (Granting New York's Motions, Denying Clearwater's Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions) 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
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 Administrative Judge lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell
Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy
Administrative Judge michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk James Maltese, Law Clerk Carter Thurman, Law Clerk shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov james.maltese@nrc.gov carter.thurman@nrc.gov
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq. John Tibbetts, 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; john.tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
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
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New York's Motions, Denying Clearwater's Motion,  and Denying CZMA Motions) 2  Elise N. Zoli, Esq.


Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place, 53 State Street Boston, MA  02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com  
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                  )
                                                  )
                                                  )      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 (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions) 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              John Tibbetts, Paralegal Mail Stop O-16C1                                        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                              Office of the General Counsel hearingdocket@nrc.gov                                  Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                      sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                edward.williamson@nrc.gov Mail Stop T-3F23                                        beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001                              david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge                                    OGC Mail Center lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov                                OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell                                    William C. Dennis, Esq.
Administrative Judge                                    Assistant General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov                                Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue Michael F. Kennedy                                      White Plains, NY 10601 Administrative Judge                                    wdennis@entergy.com michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.
Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk                              Organization: Entergy James Maltese, Law Clerk                                440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 Carter Thurman, Law Clerk                              wglew@entergy.com shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov james.maltese@nrc.gov carter.thurman@nrc.gov


Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)
Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Elise N. Zoli, Esq.                            Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP                            Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Exchange Place, 53 State Street                Ramona Cearley, Secretary Boston, MA 02109                                Riverkeeper, Inc.
ezoli@goodwinprocter.com                        20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Thomas F. Wood, Esq.                           rcearley@riverkeeper.org Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.
Adam Stolorow, Esq.  
Adam Stolorow, Esq.
 
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal                         Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal  
Peng Deng, Paralegal                           Assistant County Attorney Counsel for Town of Cortlandt                   Office of Robert F. Meehan, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.                     Westchester County Attorney 460 Park Avenue                                 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022                             White Plains, NY 10601 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com        mjr1@westchestergov.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com pdeng@sprlaw.com                               Clint Carpenter, Esq.
 
Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Peng Deng, Paralegal Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.                        Matthew Leland, Esq.
460 Park Avenue  
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.                         McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Martin J. ONeill, Esq.                         600 13th Street, NW Raphael Kuyler, Esq.                           Washington, DC 20005 Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.                         ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Lena Michelle Long, Esq.                       mleland@mwe.com Laura Swett, Esq.
 
Lance Escher, Esq.                              Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
New York, NY 10022  
Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary                   Covington & Burling LLP Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary             1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary                 Washington, DC 20004 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP                   mswinehart@cov.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004                           Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
 
ksutton@morganlewis.com                         New York State Department martin.oneill@morganlewis.com                   of Environmental Conservation rkuyler@morganlewis.com;                       Office of General Counsel jrund@morganlewis.com                           625 Broadway llong@morganlewis.com;                         14th Floor lswett@morganlewis.com                         Albany, NY 12233-1500 lescher@morganlewis.com                         efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 2
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 Doris Calhoun, 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 dcalhoun@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, 6th Floor
 
White Plains, NY  10601
 
mjr1@westchestergov.com
 
Clint Carpenter, Esq. Bobby Burchfield, Esq.
Matthew Leland, Esq.
McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP
 
600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC  20005 ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com mleland@mwe.com Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
 
Covington & Burling LLP
 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004 mswinehart@cov.com  
 
Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel
 
625 Broadway
 
14 th Floor Albany, NY  12233-1500 efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us
 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New York's Motions, Denying Clearwater's Motion,  and Denying CZMA Motions) 3 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
 
Richard Webster, Esq.
 
Public Justice, P.C.
For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 rwebster@publicjustice.net
 
Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection
 
59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY  11373 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov 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.
 
Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General    of the State of New York
 
120 Broadway, 26th 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 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 12 th day of June, 2013}}
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)
Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director        Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Steven C. Filler                                Assistant Attorney General Karla Raimundi                                  Office of the Attorney General Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.            State of Connecticut 724 Wolcott Ave.                                55 Elm Street Beacon, NY 12508                                P.O. Box 120 mannajo@clearwater.org;                        Hartford, CT 06141-0120 stephenfiller@gmail.com                        robert.snook@po.state.ct.us karla@clearwater.org Richard Webster, Esq.                          Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Public Justice, P.C.                            Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.
For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.        Assistant Attorney General 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200                    Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20006                            of the State of New York rwebster@publicjustice.net                      120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov Michael J. Delaney, Esq.                        kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection      Sean Murray, Mayor 59-17 Junction Boulevard                        Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Flushing, NY 11373                              Village of Buchanan mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov                            Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue John J. Sipos, Esq.                            Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Charles Donaldson, Esq.                        smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Assistant Attorneys General                    administrator@villageofbuchanan.com 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
[Original signed by Brian Newell ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of June, 2013 3}}

Latest revision as of 03:55, 6 February 2020

Order (Granting New York'S Motions, Denying Clearwater'S Motion and Denying Czma Motions)
ML13163A233
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/12/2013
From: Lawrence Mcdade
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Clearwater Environmental, State of NY
SECY RAS
References
RAS 24672, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML13163A233 (8)
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) June 12, 2013 ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)

Before the Board are various motions relating to Contentions NYS-16B, CW-EC-3A, NYS-5, and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) issues. Each motion is addressed in turn.

On May 17, 2013, the State of New York (New York) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention NYS-16B.1 The NRC Staff and Entergy opposed New Yorks motion.2 Additionally, Entergy sought to reply to New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and requested that, if New Yorks motion is granted, NL-13-075 be admitted in its entirety.3 Entergys requests were opposed by New York.4 1

See State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013).

2 See NRC Staffs Opposition to State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 23, 2013); Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013).

3 See Entergys Answer Opposing State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 28, 2013) at 5 n.21, Attach. 1.

Good cause having been shown,5 the Board GRANTS New Yorks motion and admits exhibit NYS000476. Additionally, if Entergy submits NL-13-075 in its entirety as ENT000608 it will be admitted upon receipt. New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and Entergys reply to New Yorks supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for contention NYS-16B are accepted and incorporated into the record.

On May 17, 2013, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Clearwater) filed a motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on Contention CW-EC-3A.6 Entergy and the NRC Staff opposed the motion.7 The Board DENIES Clearwaters motion. In applying the standard of 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), the Board finds that the submitted Statement of Interest by the United States of America is not relevant to the reasonableness of the NRC Staffs environmental justice review of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3.

4 See State of New Yorks Answer to Entergys Request for Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In Response to New Yorks Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (June 6, 2013).

5 State of New York Motion Seeking Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention NYS-16B (May 17, 2013) at 5-8.

6 See Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 17, 2013).

7 See Entergys Answer Opposing Hudson River Sloop Clearwaters Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 28, 2013);

NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File One Additional Exhibit Related to Contention EC-3A (Environmental Justice) (May 28, 2013).

On June 10, 2013, New York filed a motion for leave to submit four additional exhibits labeled as NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480.8 Good cause having been shown,9 the Board GRANTS New Yorks motion and exhibits NYS000477, NYS000478, NYS000479, and NYS000480 are admitted.

On July 30, 2012, Entergy filed a motion for a declaratory order that it has already obtained the required New York State coastal management program consistency review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for renewal of the operating licenses.10 In its motion, Entergy sought to have this Board enter a declaratory order that the NRC may renew the IP2 and IP3 licenses without requiring a further consistency certification or the States concurrence therewith because renewal will not cause coastal effects that are substantially different than those that New York has previously reviewed.11 New York, Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), and the NRC Staff opposed Entergys motion.12 Additionally, New York cross-moved for a declaratory order under 8

See State of New York Motion for Leave to Submit Recently Disclosed Entergy Documents as Additional Exhibits Concerning Contention NYS-5 (June 10, 2013).

9 Id. at 1-3.

10 See Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012). Entergy later filed a motion to supplement its July 30, 2012 motion for declaratory order. See Entergys Motion for Leave to Supplement its Motion For Declaratory Order That it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (May 20, 2013).

11 Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (July 30, 2012) at 25.

12 See State of New York Response to Entergys Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013); Riverkeeper Answer in Opposition to Motion and Memorandum by Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order that it Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses (Apr. 5, 2013);

NRC Staff's Answer to Applicant's Motion and Memorandum for Declaratory Order that it Has

Section 5(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 554(e), for a declaration that Entergys license renewal application is subject to federal consistency review under 15 C.F.R.

Section 930.51, Subpart D.13 The NRC Staff opposed14 and Riverkeeper supported15 New Yorks cross-motion.

Given that no consultation has occurred between the NRC Staff, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e), we conclude that Entergys and New Yorks motions are premature. Accordingly, Entergys and New Yorks motions are DENIED without prejudice.16 If these motions are refiled after said consultation, the moving party should state whether compliance with the CZMA is within the scope of any admitted contention and, if so, which contention and how it is within the scope thereof. Further, if compliance with the CZMA is not viewed by a party as within the scope of an admitted contention, they should address whether, and if so how, the Board has the authority to consider the issue.

Additionally, the parties should address the following hypothetical: New York State Department of State concludes that a consistency review is needed and, upon completion of Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of Indian Point 2 and 3 For Renewal of the Operating Licenses (Apr. 15, 2013). The NRC Staff argued, among other things, that there is inadequate support for issuance of a declaratory order given that there has been no consultation between the NRC, the New York State Department of State, and Entergy pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.51(e). See id. at 11.

13 See State of New York Response to Entergys Request to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues and Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order (Apr. 5, 2013).

14 See NRC Staffs Answer to State of New Yorks Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order on Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).

15 See Riverkeeper Answer in Support of State of New York Cross-Motion for Declaratory Order Concerning Coastal Zone Management Act Issues (Apr. 15, 2013).

16 As these cross-motions were denied as premature, this does not constitute a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Boards denial of Entergys and New Yorks motions does not trigger the time for the filing of new contentions. See Licensing Board Order (Granting State of New York Motion for Extension of Time to File New Contentions) (Aug. 31, 2012) at 2-3 (unpublished).

that review, enters a ruling adverse to Entergy. The New York State Department of State ruling is upheld by the United States Secretary of Commerce. Would the NRC be precluded from issuing a renewed license for IP2 and IP3, and how, if at all, a prior ruling by this Board that a consistency review was not needed would impact this situation.

Finally, the parties have 10 days after the publication of the forthcoming FSEIS to inform the Board whether 30 days17 will be sufficient time to file motions for new and amended contentions.18 It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland June 12, 2013 17 Tr. at 3289.

18 The Board recognizes that the issuance of the FSEIS related to Contention RK-EC-8 will occur during the summer vacation season, which could affect the ability to file new or amended contentions within 30 days.

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

)

) 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 (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions) 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 John Tibbetts, Paralegal Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of the General Counsel hearingdocket@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel edward.williamson@nrc.gov Mail Stop T-3F23 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge OGC Mail Center lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell William C. Dennis, Esq.

Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue Michael F. Kennedy White Plains, NY 10601 Administrative Judge wdennis@entergy.com michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.

Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk Organization: Entergy James Maltese, Law Clerk 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 Carter Thurman, Law Clerk wglew@entergy.com shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov james.maltese@nrc.gov carter.thurman@nrc.gov

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Exchange Place, 53 State Street Ramona Cearley, Secretary Boston, MA 02109 Riverkeeper, Inc.

ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 phillip@riverkeeper.org; dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Thomas F. Wood, Esq. rcearley@riverkeeper.org Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq.

Adam Stolorow, Esq.

Jwala Gandhi, Paralegal Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Peng Deng, Paralegal Assistant County Attorney Counsel for Town of Cortlandt Office of Robert F. Meehan, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. Westchester County Attorney 460 Park Avenue 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 White Plains, NY 10601 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com mjr1@westchestergov.com astolorow@sprlaw.com; jgandhi@sprlaw.com pdeng@sprlaw.com Clint Carpenter, Esq.

Bobby Burchfield, Esq.

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Matthew Leland, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emergy LLP Martin J. ONeill, Esq. 600 13th Street, NW Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Washington, DC 20005 Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. ccarpenter@mwe.com; bburchfield@mwe.com Lena Michelle Long, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Laura Swett, Esq.

Lance Escher, Esq. Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Covington & Burling LLP Antoinette Walker, Legal Secretary 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary Washington, DC 20004 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP mswinehart@cov.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.

ksutton@morganlewis.com New York State Department martin.oneill@morganlewis.com of Environmental Conservation rkuyler@morganlewis.com; Office of General Counsel jrund@morganlewis.com 625 Broadway llong@morganlewis.com; 14th Floor lswett@morganlewis.com Albany, NY 12233-1500 lescher@morganlewis.com efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us mfreeze@morganlewis.com awalker@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ORDER (Granting New Yorks Motions, Denying Clearwaters Motion, and Denying CZMA Motions)

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Steven C. Filler Assistant Attorney General Karla Raimundi Office of the Attorney General Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. State of Connecticut 724 Wolcott Ave. 55 Elm Street Beacon, NY 12508 P.O. Box 120 mannajo@clearwater.org; Hartford, CT 06141-0120 stephenfiller@gmail.com robert.snook@po.state.ct.us karla@clearwater.org Richard Webster, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Public Justice, P.C. Kathryn Liberatore, Esq.

For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Assistant Attorney General 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20006 of the State of New York rwebster@publicjustice.net 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov Michael J. Delaney, Esq. kathryn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Protection Sean Murray, Mayor 59-17 Junction Boulevard Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Flushing, NY 11373 Village of Buchanan mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue John J. Sipos, Esq. Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Charles Donaldson, Esq. smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Assistant Attorneys General administrator@villageofbuchanan.com 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

[Original signed by Brian Newell ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of June, 2013 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13163A233&oldid=2456572"