ML12215A160: 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 14: Line 14:
| page count = 7
| page count = 7
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#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.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR
ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 August 2, 2012 ORDER (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Applicant) has moved to file surrebuttal testimony concerning New York State Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (NYS-12C).
1  In support of this motion, Applicant argues that New York State (New York) presented, in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12C, "new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its] direct testimony[,]" to which Applicant "has not had a fair opportunity to respond."
2  Specifically, Applicant contends that New York argues for the first time in its revised statement
of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12-C that "in the 1980s, the NRC commissioned a 'site-specific case study' to estimate the costs associated with a severe accident at Indian Point, and that the NRC Staff failed to disclose that study in connection with this proceeding."
3  Applicant further asserts 1 See Applicants' Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 12, 2012) at 1.
2 Id. 3 Id. at 2.
2  that, according to New York, "the NRC's 'site-specific analysis' is described in Chapter 5 of draft NUREG/CR-5148 (PNL-6350), 'Property-Related Costs of Radiological Accidents' (Feb. 1990)," and that this draft NUREG -- though never made final or published -- was released to Purdue University in 1992 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
4    Applicant states that "[a]lthough this FOIA request appears in the NRC's ADAMS Public Legacy Library, [Applicant] could find no other record copy of this [draft NUREG] on the NRC's website or on the Internet in general."
5  In fact, according to the Applic ant, this draft NUREG does not even appear on the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service database, which houses over two million government records, including NUREG Reports.
6  Nevertheless, according to Applicant, New York located this draft NUREG and disclosed it on May 31, 2012, one month before New York filed its rebuttal testimony.
7  New York then relied on this document for the first time in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony, according to Applicant, to argue that "'a site-specific analysis was not only required under NEPA and NRC's regulations, but eminently possible and had been completed in conjunction with NUREG/CR-5148.'"
8    Applicant argues that New York's new assertions are "directly relevant and material to the parties' positions[,]" and therefore Applicant should be granted the opportunity to file surrebuttal testimony, on or before August 13, 2012, to respond.
9  Applicant represents that the NRC Staff (Staff) does not oppose this motion.
10  Moreover, according to Applicant, the Staff would like the option to file 4 Id. at 2-3. 5 Id. at 3. 6 See id. 7 See id. 8 Id. at 4. 9 Id. at 4-5. 10 Id. at 7.
3  its own surrebuttal testimony in response to New York's revised Statement of Position and rebuttal testimony regarding NYS-12C.
11  New York opposes this motion.
12  First, New York argues that it properly submitted the exhibits and rebuttal testimony in question in "direct response to arguments in [Applicant's] and the . . . Staff's Statements of Position and Pre-filed Testimony on NYS-12C."
13  Specifically, New York argues that it did not "present[] 'new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its] direct testimony[.]"
14  Instead, New York contends that its "[revised Statement of Position] and Rebuttal Testimony[, which highlight draft NUREG/CR-5148,]  responds directly to Entergy and [the] Staff's arguments that using NUREG-1150, and thus Sample Problem A, is reasonable under NEPA."
15    New York also notes that an alternative to Applicant's requested relief exists: the issues raised in the instant motion "could be addressed by the parties' witnesses at the evidentiary hearing."
16  Based on these arguments, New York requests that Applicant's motion be denied. If, however, the Board does grant the instant motion, New York argues that "fairness dictates that [it] should be afforded [an opportunity] to file its own sur-rebuttal testimony to any additional testimony proffered by [Applicant] and [the] Staff."
17  New York notes, however, that allowing the submittal of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C may require the Board to extend pre-hearing deadlines, such as the August 29, 2012, deadline for proposed questions.
18 11 Id. 12 See State of New York's Answer in Opposition to Entergy's Motion for Leave to File Sur-rebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 23, 2012) at 7.
13 Id. at 2. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 2-3. 16 Id. at 1. 17 Id. at 6. 18 See id.
4  The Board agrees with New York that the issues raised in this motion can be handled at the evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the Board finds that the submission of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C will have the prejudicial effect of delaying the evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2012, at least as it relates to NYS-12C. Therefore, we DENY Applicant's motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony on NYS-12C. That being so, we encourage the parties to address the issues raised in New York's rebuttal testimony  in their proposed questions for the Board to ask at the evidentiary hearing, which are due no later than Wednesday, August 29, 2012.
19          FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY    AND LICENSING BOARD
___________________________  Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman  ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland August 2, 2012 19 See Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).
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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 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
Administrative Judge lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell
Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov
Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge michael.kennedy@nrc.gov
Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk
james.maltese@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Mary B. Spencer, Esq.
Anita Ghosh, Esq.
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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 2  William C. Dennis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY  10601 wdennis@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 Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004 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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 3  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
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 Buchanan, NY  10511-1298 SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com
              [Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]                              Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland 
this 2 nd day of August 2012}}

Revision as of 23:27, 1 August 2018

Order (Denying Applicants Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)
ML12215A160
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/02/2012
From: McDade L G
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Entergy Nuclear Operations
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23173, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12215A160 (7)
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

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 August 2, 2012 ORDER (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C)

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Applicant) has moved to file surrebuttal testimony concerning New York State Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (NYS-12C).

1 In support of this motion, Applicant argues that New York State (New York) presented, in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12C, "new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its] direct testimony[,]" to which Applicant "has not had a fair opportunity to respond."

2 Specifically, Applicant contends that New York argues for the first time in its revised statement

of position and rebuttal testimony on NYS-12-C that "in the 1980s, the NRC commissioned a 'site-specific case study' to estimate the costs associated with a severe accident at Indian Point, and that the NRC Staff failed to disclose that study in connection with this proceeding."

3 Applicant further asserts 1 See Applicants' Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 12, 2012) at 1.

2 Id. 3 Id. at 2.

2 that, according to New York, "the NRC's 'site-specific analysis' is described in Chapter 5 of draft NUREG/CR-5148 (PNL-6350), 'Property-Related Costs of Radiological Accidents' (Feb. 1990)," and that this draft NUREG -- though never made final or published -- was released to Purdue University in 1992 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

4 Applicant states that "[a]lthough this FOIA request appears in the NRC's ADAMS Public Legacy Library, [Applicant] could find no other record copy of this [draft NUREG] on the NRC's website or on the Internet in general."

5 In fact, according to the Applic ant, this draft NUREG does not even appear on the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service database, which houses over two million government records, including NUREG Reports.

6 Nevertheless, according to Applicant, New York located this draft NUREG and disclosed it on May 31, 2012, one month before New York filed its rebuttal testimony.

7 New York then relied on this document for the first time in its revised statement of position and rebuttal testimony, according to Applicant, to argue that "'a site-specific analysis was not only required under NEPA and NRC's regulations, but eminently possible and had been completed in conjunction with NUREG/CR-5148.'"

8 Applicant argues that New York's new assertions are "directly relevant and material to the parties' positions[,]" and therefore Applicant should be granted the opportunity to file surrebuttal testimony, on or before August 13, 2012, to respond.

9 Applicant represents that the NRC Staff (Staff) does not oppose this motion.

10 Moreover, according to Applicant, the Staff would like the option to file 4 Id. at 2-3. 5 Id. at 3. 6 See id. 7 See id. 8 Id. at 4. 9 Id. at 4-5. 10 Id. at 7.

3 its own surrebuttal testimony in response to New York's revised Statement of Position and rebuttal testimony regarding NYS-12C.

11 New York opposes this motion.

12 First, New York argues that it properly submitted the exhibits and rebuttal testimony in question in "direct response to arguments in [Applicant's] and the . . . Staff's Statements of Position and Pre-filed Testimony on NYS-12C."

13 Specifically, New York argues that it did not "present[] 'new arguments and evidence that expand the scope of the arguments set forth in [its] direct testimony[.]"

14 Instead, New York contends that its "[revised Statement of Position] and Rebuttal Testimony[, which highlight draft NUREG/CR-5148,] responds directly to Entergy and [the] Staff's arguments that using NUREG-1150, and thus Sample Problem A, is reasonable under NEPA."

15 New York also notes that an alternative to Applicant's requested relief exists: the issues raised in the instant motion "could be addressed by the parties' witnesses at the evidentiary hearing."

16 Based on these arguments, New York requests that Applicant's motion be denied. If, however, the Board does grant the instant motion, New York argues that "fairness dictates that [it] should be afforded [an opportunity] to file its own sur-rebuttal testimony to any additional testimony proffered by [Applicant] and [the] Staff."

17 New York notes, however, that allowing the submittal of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C may require the Board to extend pre-hearing deadlines, such as the August 29, 2012, deadline for proposed questions.

18 11 Id. 12 See State of New York's Answer in Opposition to Entergy's Motion for Leave to File Sur-rebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (July 23, 2012) at 7.

13 Id. at 2. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 2-3. 16 Id. at 1. 17 Id. at 6. 18 See id.

4 The Board agrees with New York that the issues raised in this motion can be handled at the evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the Board finds that the submission of two additional rounds of testimony on NYS-12C will have the prejudicial effect of delaying the evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2012, at least as it relates to NYS-12C. Therefore, we DENY Applicant's motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony on NYS-12C. That being so, we encourage the parties to address the issues raised in New York's rebuttal testimony in their proposed questions for the Board to ask at the evidentiary hearing, which are due no later than Wednesday, August 29, 2012.

19 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________ Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland August 2, 2012 19 See Licensing Board Order (Memorializing Items Discussed During the July 9, 2012, Status Conference) (July 12, 2012) at 2 (unpublished).

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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 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

Administrative Judge lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell

Administrative Judge richard.wardwell@nrc.gov

Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge michael.kennedy@nrc.gov

Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov Shelbie Lewman, Law Clerk shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov James Maltese, Law Clerk

james.maltese@nrc.gov Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq.

Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

Anita Ghosh, Esq.

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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 2 William C. Dennis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue

White Plains, NY 10601 wdennis@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 Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 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 (Denying Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony on NYS-12C) 3 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

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 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint] Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland

this 2 nd day of August 2012

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12215A160&oldid=933457"