ML12212A403

NRC Staff'S Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony and Rebuttal Exhibits Filed by the State of New York Concerning Consolidated Contentions NYS-12C (Samas)

ML12212A403
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/30/2012
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23074, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12212A403 (17)

Text

July 30, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR ) (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) Units 2 and 3) ) OF THE PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND REBUTTAL EXHIBITS FILED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK CONCERNING CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-12C (SAMAs) INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319, 2.323, 2.337, 2.1204, and the Atomic Safety and and Order (Granting Unopposed Extension of Time) of May 16, 2012, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission files this Motion in Limine to exclude concerning Contention NYS-12C (SAMAs): 1. Exhibits NYS000424A-NYS000424BBNUREG/CR-5148, PNL-6350, Property-Related Costs of Radiological Accidents (February 1990)Unpublished ; 2. Exhibit NYS000426, Email from Dr. J. Tawil, President, Research Enterprises, Inc., ; and 3. Certain portions of Ex. NYS0004201Pre-Filed Written Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. François J. Lemay Regarding Consolidated NYS-12-C (NYS-12/12-A/12-B/12-C), that relate to the aforementioned exhibits. 1 Dr. NYS000241, which is the same exhibit number as the original pre-filed written testimony submitted on December 21, 2011. However, the rebuttal testimony has been correctly identified as Exhibit NYS000420 testimony as Ex. NYS000420. These exhibits and portions of the Lemay Rebuttal Testimony should be excluded from the evidentiary hearing because the information is not reliable, relevant, or material to the findings that the Board must make.2 Further, New York proffer proper scope of rebuttal testimony. Moreover, New York should have proffered these materials six months earlier, in its case-in-chief; s late proffer of the materials in its rebuttal testimony unfairly deprives the Staff and other parties of a proper opportunity to address the documents.3 unsupported speculation, are altogether unreliable. Accordingly, the Tawil Report, his E-mail message, and the related portions of Dr. testimony should be excluded from evidence in the hearings on this contention. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Governing Motions in Limine As this Board has previously recognized, imaterial, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is pracin Limine) 6, 2012), at 3, citing 2 In addition, portions of of Position Consolidated Contention NYS-12-that relate to these evidentiary materials should be disregarded. 3 opportunity See Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS- (July 12, 2012), at 1; see also-Rebuttal Testimony on Consolidated Contention NYS- (July 23, 2012). initiative, strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to a written question that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative or cumulative, irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicati Id., citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(d)-(e). NRC hearings are limited to the scope of the admitted contentions. As the Board the scope of admitted contentions beyond their reasonably inferred boundsId. at 3-4, citing Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010) (emphasis added by the Board). In this regard, it is well established that if an intervenor proffers testimony or evidence outside the scope of the admitted contentions, it will be excluded. See, e.g., Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-5, 71 NRC 90, 100 (2010) testimony and exhibits that were outside the scope of the admitted contention).4 As the Commission explained: The scope of a contention is limited to issues of law and fact pled with particularity in the intervention petition, including its stated bases, unless the contention is satisfactorily amended in accordance with our rules. Otherwise, NRC adjudications quickly would lose order. Parties and licensing boards must be on notice of the issues being litigated, so that parties and boards may prepare for summary disposition or for hearing. Our procedural 4 Accord, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), LBP-05-13, 61 NRC 385, 401 (2005); Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), 2009 NRC LEXIS 13 (Feb. 23, 2009), at 6-7; . rules on contentions are designed to ensure focused and fair proceedings. Id. at 100-01 (internal footnotes omitted). Recently, the Commission emphasized: proceedings would prove unmanageableand unfair to the other partiesif an intervenor could freely change an admitted tretching the scope Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-01, 75 NRC __, ___ (Feb. 9, 2012) (slip op. at 22-23) (internal citations omitted).5 Further, for rebuttal testimony, the scope is more limited. In addition to being restricted to the matters raised in the contention, rebuttal testimony may be admitted only insofar as it is responsive to the statements of position and evidentiary submissions. Thus, the Board has but rather present only responsive arguments 6 Moreover, rebuttal testimony may only address matters which the party could not have raised earlier; fundamental fairness requires 5 In addition, an expert opinion is only admissible if the witness is competent to give an expert opinion and adequately states and explains the factual basis for the expert opinion. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 81 (2005). Id. at 80. The proponent of the testimony bears the burden of demonstrating that its witness is qualified to serve as an expert. Duke Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-04-may qualify as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to Id. at 27-28 (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). 6 Order (Memorializing Items Discussed at April 16, 2012 Pre-Hearing Conference) at 1 (Apr. 18, 2012). Accord, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), LBP-06-15, 63 NRC 591, 620 (2006prefiled rebuttal testimony that fell outside the scope of any admitted contention and/or the permissible scope of rebuttal testimony. that it may not raise matters for the first time that reasonably should have been, but were not raised in t-in-chief.7 II. the Scope of the for Rebuttal Testimony testimony recounts how he discovered Dr. he of NUREG-1150. Ex. NYS000241 at 25-27. Significantly, NUREG-1150 which served as the starting point for his recent search for documents was cited extensively by New York in its direct testimony submitted in December 2011. Thus, Dr. estimony accidents in a hyper-8 The direct testimony even provides -1150 chose the Surry site for Sample Problem A almost twenty-two years ago.9 Further, goes through four slightly varying methodologies when analyzing his proposed alternative SAMA analyses.10 7 See, e.g., Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Combined License Application for Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-09-rebuttal, the response, rebuttal testimony and rebuttal exhibits are not to advance any new affirmative claims or arguments that should have been, but were not, included in the party's previously filed initial Amergen Energy Co., LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), 2advance any new affirmative claims or arguments that reasonably should have been, but were not, included in the party's previously-filed initial written stateDominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC nature of rebuttal, the response and rebuttal testimony are not to advance any new affirmative claims or arguments that should have been, but were not, included in the party's previously-filed initial written statement Rockwell International Corp. Rocketdyne Division (Special Material License Number SNM-21), LBP-89-27, 30 NRC 265, (1989) (permitting rebuttal testimony only with respect to new or surprise material included in 8 -at p. 20 lns. 432-434. 9 Id. at p. 21 ln. 472 p. 22 ln. 480. 10 See, e.g., id. at p. 48 ln. 1002 p. 49 ln. 1021. , however, did he mention or refer to unpublished report or the DECON program.11 Although Dr. Lemay explains that he did not discover the document until he conducted a search while preparing his rebuttal testimony, he fails to explain why he could not have conducted a search of documents cited in NUREG-1150 or the documents cited therein prior to filing his direct testimony more than six months ago, or why he waited until filing his rebuttal testimony to do so. Moreover, istimony that Dr. report should have been raised as part of -in-chief and is not properly rebuttal testimony.  : -1150 we learned that in the 1980s NRC Staff contracted with Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) to conduct a case study of the economic costs associated with severe accidents at [Indian Point]. This site-specific case study is described in Chapter 5 of -5148 Property-Related Costs of Decontamination, 12 -1150.13 Indeed, Dr. advanced by either Entergy or the Staff.14 To the contrary, Dr. Lemay cites and utilizes the 11 DECON is apparently a software program developed by Dr. Tawil to estimate costs, -related costs of severe reactor accidents; and 2) to assist in. site-OAGI0001550_00123. It is important to note that estimating the cost of a severe reactor accident is distinct from estimating the risk from severe reactor accidents, which requires estimates of both the likelihood and consequences from each analyzed event. 12 Lemay Rebuttal Testimony (Ex. NYS000420) at p. 25 lns. 12-18. 13 See id. at p. 16 ln. 15 p. 25 ln. 25; compare id. at p. 25 ln. 7 p. 30 ln. 9. 14 See id., passim. Tawil Report as an affirmative point (rather than rebuttal), that should have been presented in his direct testimony. Thus, after presenting arguments disclosures and Dr. Lemay views regarding as to why the Staff decided n 1990,15 the only apparent purpose of the to provide new arguments in support of Dr. , and in no way addresses or rebuts the testimony filed by either Entergy or the Staff. unpublished report,16 and the 500+ page report itself (Exs. NYS000424A-NYS000424BB)17 should be excluded. Finally, the Staff submits that it was incumbent on New York to seek out this 20+ years old information in a timely manner, and to present this information in its direct testimony rather than waiting to fully investigate and develop its case at the last minute prior to filing its rebuttal ch for allegedly relevant documents prior to filing its rebuttal testimony, and its late disclosure and proffer of this document now, has unfairly deprived the Staff (and other parties) of an opportunity to address the document in their own direct and rebuttal testimony, filed in March 2012. The document should therefore be excluded from evidence. 15 Dr. -mail message are discussed further infra. 16 and continues through p. 30 ln. 9. 17 Similarl 14 and continuing through p. 16. III. Arguments Regarding the Disclosure Obligations Is Not Relevant to the Issues Before the Board and Should Be Disregarded. In its Revised Statement of Position, New York asserts that the Staff is somehow remiss for failing to disclose a 22-year old draft document prepared by an NRC contractor (Ex. NYS000424A-NYS000424BB) which New York fails to show was known to or in the possession of any member of the NRC Staff.18 contest the disclosures (even if it had any basis) is not relevant or material to the findings that Board must make regarding NYS-12C. New York states: e its own site specific study of the consequences of a severe accident at Indian Point violates not only NEPA, but also its disclosure obligations in this proceeding. The FSEIS did not reference this document, let alone provide an explanation why the NRC Staff chose not to use it, thus preventing decision makers and the public from considering it.19 First, the issue before the Board is whether the SAMA analysis performed for Indian Point was reasonable and not whether the Staff met its disclosure obligations under the regulations. T was not in the possession of Staff members involved in the license renewal review of SAMAs for Indian Point. However, even if the document was in the Staff possession, the Staff would not have been obliged to disclose it, inasmuch as the . As this Board disclosure obligations are different than the other parties 18 ew York informed Staff Counsel document nor were aware of the document before its disclosure by New York. 19 Revised Statement of Position at 16. obligations.20 In particular, the Board has ruled documents that the NRC Staff simply did not use in its review might be useful to other parties in this and other proceedings, but that does not bring such documents within the scope of Sections 2.336(b) and 2.1203(b).21 Second, edisclosures are correct, they do not extend to documents and information that are not within the . not easily located.22 After New York filed NYS000424A-424BB, the Staff searched for and was unable to locate the documentpersonnel who might reasonably be expected to have had possession of it. The Staff is under no obligation to produce documents that are not in its possession or control. To the contrary, as New York has candidly explained, it discovered the existence of this document upon belatedly reading a reference document that was cited in NUREG-1150 upon which New York actually relied in its case-in-chief, and by then searching decades-old microfiche LPDR.23 No showing has been made that the Staff was remiss in any manner regarding the disclosure of the document. disclosure obligations were relevant (which they are not), those arguments should be disregarded in their entirety. 20 Compel) at 4 (Mar. 16, 2012). 21 Id. at 8. 22 See Lemay Rebuttal Testimony at p. 25 ln. 20 p. 27 ln. 17. 23 See n.18, supra. IV. The Communications Between Dr. Tawil and Michael Labriola Lack A Proper Foundation. New York submitted as an exhibit NYS000426, which purports to be an E-mail string between Michael Labriola and Dr. Jack J. Tawil.24 B cite and quote from this E-mail string.25 The document and First, -mail message regarding his opinion as to why his draft report was not published by the NRC is speculative and unsupported by any facts or any qualified expert opinion. The Board and parties would be unfairly prejudiced by itness, depriving other parties from having an opportunity to examine Dr. Tawil unsupported opinion and obvious lack of personal knowledge as to why the NRC chose not to publish his report in 1990.26 Indeed, it is clear from the face of E-mail that he has no personal knowledge regarding the reasons underlying the ; rather, the E-mail provides only unreliable speculation on regarding the acceptance or rejection which, in any event, is not material to the resolution of Contention NYS-12C. Since the subject of E-mail (i.e., the reasons the NRC did not issue his draft report as a NUREG) is simply not relevant or material to 24 Ex. NYS000426, Email from Dr. J. Tawil, President, Research Enterprises, Inc., to M. Labriola, International Safety Research, Inc. (May 2, 2012). 25 See, e.g., Revised Statement of Position at 15; Lemay Rebuttal Testimony at p. 27 lns. 3-12. 26 Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-96-10, 43 NRC 231, 232-33 (1996) (striking prepared testimony where the witness lacks personal knowledge of the matter in his testimony). the findings that Board must make regarding NYS-12C, it and any related discussions in the Lemay Rebuttal Testimony should be excluded.27 V. Speculative Opinion Should Be Rejected As Unreliable. In his rebuttal claiming that it represents a site-specific case study of the economic costs associated with severe accidents at the Indian Point site. Lemay Rebuttal Testimony (Ex. NYS000420) at 25. Significantly, however, New York and Dr. Lemay seek to rely not just on the fact that Dr. Tawil had conducted a site-specific study some 22 years ago, but rather, they apparently seek to rely on the methodology, findings and conclusions of that study. See id. at 27-29, and 40-41; New ) at 14-16.28 attempt to introduce and rely upon the methodology, findings and conclusions of this lengthy and complex draft report (consisting of over 500 pages) lacks a proper sponsoring witness who could explain and defend the methodology, findings and conclusions in the report under questioning by the Board or cross-examination, and therefore lacks the necessary reliability that is required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).29 Moreover, given the length, breadth and complexity of 27 Similarly, all references to this matter in New Yodisregarded. 28 Indeed, during consultations among the parties on this motion in limine, Counsel for New York declined to accept a compromise suggestion by the undersigned Staff Counsel, to limit the use of Dr. Tonly that a site-specific study had been conducted for the Indian Point site. Absent such a limitation, the contents of the document, if admitted, would be available for use for any purpose, including the validity and merits of the report and the conclusions stated therein. 29 see not admissible in NRC proceedings if it is unreliable. See, e.g., Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 477 (1982) (exhibits were properly excluded as unreliable in the absence of a proper sponsoring witness, where the exhibits consisted of technical analyses, conclusions and opinions on various aspects of the matter of hydrogen generation and control in nuclear power reactorsmanifestly is the type of evidence that calls for sponsorship by an (footnote continued) this draft report, its admission would be highly prejudicial and could result in an unreliable record.30 erefore be rejected, and the report and the related evidence should be excluded. CONCLUSION draft report, the related E-those documents do not constitute proper rebuttal. Further, because these exhibits and related portions of testimony could have been, but were not, case-in-chief, their late filing at this time requires that they be excluded. In addition, Dspeculation as to the reasons why the NRC did not publish his draft report over 20 years ago is unreliable, and is neither relevant nor material to the issues properly before the Board. Finally, expert who can be examined on the reliability of the factual assertions and soundness of the scientific opinions found in the documentsccord, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346, 368 n.39 (1983) (finding that the applicant had failed to provide a proper sponsoring witness for its Final Safety Appeal Board further udicial decisions have also recognized the need for a sponsoring witness to support the introduction of material that contains experts' studies and opinionsForward Communications Corp. v. United States, 608 F.2d 485, 509-10 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (per curiam) ( Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) hearsay exception for business records does not allow admission of appraisal report without a witness to sponsor its admission), and Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Gardner, 417 F.2d 1086, 1096 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied sub nom. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Finch, 398 U.S. 938 (1970) (hearing examiner properly excluded unpublished scientific paper where the party offering the document did not call its author to sponsor its admission but sought instead to introduce it through testimony of the company vice-president). Id. 30 As noted supra, at n.3, the Applicant has requested leave to file surrebuttal testimony if the report is not excluded from evidence Leave to File Surrebuttal, at 7. New York has filed an answer opposing that request, but seeks leave to file its own sur-See All of this requested supplementation would have been unnecessary if New York had conducted a timely search and had identified this document prior to filing its case-in-chief in December 2011. sponsoring witness, for all purposes, would be prejudicial to the Staff and other parties and could result in an unreliable record. draft report and the evidence related to that report should therefore be excluded. Respectfully submitted, /Signed (electronically) by/ Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1533 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of July 2012 CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the undersigned attorney hereby certifies that he has made a sincere effort to contact the State of New York and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to resolve the issues raised in this Motion, and that his efforts to resolve these issues have been unsuccessful. Respectfully submitted, /Signed (electronically) by/ Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1533 E-mail: sherwin.turk@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of July 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/286-LR ) (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) Units 2 and 3) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing PORTIONS OF THE PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND REBUTTAL EXHIBITS FILED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK CONCERNING CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-12C (SAMAs)dated July 30, 2012, in the above-captioned proceeding has been filed and served by Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), with copies to be served by the EIE system on the following persons, this 30th day of July, 2012. Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resource@nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Esq. Shelbie Lewman, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: shelbie.lewman@nrc.gov E-mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq. Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Jonathan Rund, Esq. Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com John J. Sipos, Esq. Charlie Donaldson, Esq. Assistants Attorney General New York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Janice A. Dean, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Senior Attorney for Special Projects New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the General Counsel 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us William C. Dennis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.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 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us ayor James Seirmarco, M.S. Village of Buchanan Municipal Building Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com Manna Jo Greene Karla Raimundi Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, NY 12508 E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org E-mail: karla@clearwater.org Robert Snook, Esq. Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@ct.gov Daniel Riesel, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Victoria Shiah, Esq. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Deborah Brancato, Esq. Riverkeeper, Inc. 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs New York City Department of Environmental Protection 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov /Signed (electronically) by/ Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1533 E-mail: sherwin.turk@nrc.gov