ML090861002
| ML090861002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2009 |
| From: | Greene M Hudson River Sloop Clearwater |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-236 | |
| Download: ML090861002 (41) | |
Text
PA-S T~e~-~4 DOCKETED USNRC March 20, 2009 (8:00am)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICE OF SECRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the. Matter of )
) Docket Nos Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) 50-247-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) and 50-286-LR Station Units 2 and 3) )
March 19, 2009 HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATERINC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF INDIAN POINT ON THE HUDSON WATER AS A SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
("Clearwater") hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") for leave to file the attached new contention that:
The Environmental Report submitted by Entergy and Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "DSEIS") issued by the NRC Staff on December 22, 2008 fail to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
§4332 et seq.', and NRC regulations implementing NEPA, because the ER and DSEIS do not assess the impacts of the license renewal on drinking water quality and drinking water degradation as it relates to the use of the Hudson River as a source of drinking water.
This contention is based on a decision issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") to assume lead agency status in the petition filed by United Water New York to an application to build a desalination plant that will extract water from the Hudson River to be used as a source of municipal drinking water for Rockland County.
As discussed in the attached statement of Clearwater's contention, Entergy and the NRC Stdff must assess the impacts upon the Hudson River as a source of drinking water in making their environmental assessments. National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA") requires a "hard-look" at such issues that have an environmental impact and threaten public health because of that impact. Clearwater may submit this contention as of right.
In the event that the ASLB determines that Clearwater does not have the right to submit its contention, Clearwater asks that the ASLB consider and grant this motion.
Clearwater satisfies the criteria for the filing of new a contention, because the contention is based on newly available information released by the DEC that is materially different, from any previously available document, and because the motion is timely Clearwater is submitting the motion within 30 days of learning of the issuance of the DEC letter.
In conformance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), and as discussed in Certification of consultation, Clearwater has contacted counsel for the NRC Staff and Entergy in a sincere attempt to resolve the issues raised by this motion. Counsel for Entergy stated that Entergy believed that seeking leave of the ALSB to file the attached petition was a request and not a petition requiring consultation and reserved. the right to respond to Clearwater's contentions. Counsel for agreed with the position taken by Entergy.
Respectfully submitted, Manna Jo Greene Environmental Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
112 Market St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 845 454-7673 x 113
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)
Pursuant, to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I certify that, on September 5, 2008, Clearwater contacted counsel for Eritergy and the NRC Staff in a sincere attempt to resolve the issues raised by this motion. Counsel for Entergy stated that Entergy believed that seeking leave of the ALSB to file the attached petition was a request and not a petition requiring consultation and reserved the right to respond to Clearwater's contentions. Counsel for agreed with the position taken by:Entergy,.
Manna Jo Greene March 19, 2009
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR
) and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
_) March 19, 2009 HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.'S PETITION TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. ("Clearwater") submits this contention, because it has discovered that the New York State Department of Conservation ("DEC")
has received, and has issued a letter that it will take lead agency status on, an application of United Water of New York ("UWNY") to build a desalination plant to extract water from the Hudson River for use as municipal drinking water for Rockland County. As a result of the application and this letter, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ("NRC Staff') must assess the environmental impacts of the license renewal application ("LRA") on drinking water and water quality.
This contention is timely filed as set forth in the Board's Order dated February 4, 2009.
As discussed below, Clearwater's proposed new contention meets the standard for admissibility because Entergy's environmental report ("ER") submitted with the LRA and the Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "DSEIS") fail to make a complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of license renewal upon the Hudson River as a source of drinking water and the potential for future
degradation of the Hudson River as a drinking water source. Clearwater demonstrates.
below that the "proposed new contention meets the standard admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) (1) (i) - (vi)." Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station), 62 N.R.C. 813,.819. As a result, the Board must admit the proposed contention for adjudication.
NEW INFORMATION UWNY filed an application with the DEC to build a desalination plant to extract potable water from the Hudson River to meet a portion of municipal water demand for Rockland County. UWNY proposes a Long-Term Water Supply Project ("LTWSP") to include a desalination facility in the Town of Haverstraw, Rockland County. See DEC letter dated January 26, 2009 annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. The desalination plant will produce potable water from the Hudson River. Id. The LTWSP proposal includes a raw water intake unit that would be located along the Hudson River, near the former US Gypsum dock, in Haverstraw Bay. Id. The water intake for the plant would be situated 3.5 miles southwest of Indian Point and slightly downstream (see Map of Westchester County showing proximity, of Indian Point to United Water of NY's proposed desalination plant in Rockland County, annexed hereto as Exhibit 2). From its location the desalination plant will extract contaminated water on a continuing and regular basis According to the DEC, the plan for the proposed pilot desalination plant intake would withdraw water at a rate between 170 and 300 gallons per minute. The intake would extend into the Hudson River adjacent to an existing pier and would be anchored to the river bottom.
2
Id., Significantly, at the completion of the pilot program, UWNY will build a full sized desalination plant to extract 10 million gallons per day from the Hudson River and provide 7.5 million gallons per day of useable water to Rockland County. The plant will use reverse osmosis ("RO") to filter the water.extracted from the Hudson River. See Declaration of Manna Jo Greene dated March 19, 2009 ("Greene Dec.") at ¶ 6. RO is not an effective process for removing tritium, cesium-137 and strontium-90 Id. at ¶¶ 6 and 11-13. In addition, several water authorities along the lower Hudson already extract water from the Hudson River to meet daily municipal demand, including the Poughkeepsie Water Treatment Facility that provides drinking water to 75,000 individuals within the City and Town of Poughkeepsie, the Dutchess County Water Authority,'and the Village of Wapiingers Falls; the Highland Water District in the Town of Lloyd; the Port Ewen Water District in the Town of Esopus; and the Rhinebeck Water Treatment Facility that provides water to the Town and Village of Rhinebeck. In addition, the Chelsea Pump Station at New Hamburg provides an emergency water supply station for New York City. The impacts of license renewal on the water quality of these water supplies are not assessed or even mentioned in the ER or the DSEIS.
The Hudson River is a tidal estuary, which coupled with diffusion effects, is capable of transporting potentially harmful substances upriver, as well as downriver and cross-river. The distances that radioactive isotopes or other toxic substances released from Indian Point may travel must be evaluated.
Additionally, the impacts of the hazardous waste products created by the desalination process must be assessed. The extracted radiation will be treated at a 3
wastewater treatment plant resulting in a more concentrated hazardous material that must be disposed.
It is clear that the Hudson River is currently, and during the period of the renewed license will be, used as a source of drinking water. As such, Entergy and the NRC Staff must assess the impacts upon the Hudson River as a source of drinking water in making their environmental assessments.
The need for this assessment is further mandated by the fact that strontium-90 and cesium-137 have been detected in the groundwater at Indian Point at concentrations many times the Maximum Contaminant Level ("MCL") allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in drinking water.' Entergy's own internal status reports indicate the presence of at least two groundwater plurmies containing highly contaminated water underlying the site, one of tritium and the other of strontium-90 and cesium-137.
This contamination has also been confirmed by DEC. DSEIS at p. 2-109.
Recent monitoring-well sample results show that the levels of contamination in some areas have remained well above the EPA drinking water limits for both strontium-90 and cesium-137. For example, extremely high levels of cesium-137 have been found in MW-42. In April 2006, cesium-137 was detected in MW-42 at 51,400 pCi/l, 257 times the drinking Water limit of 200 pCi/1.2 In addition, in October 2005, MW- 111 detected EPA limits for radionuclides in drinking water are as follows; Tritium, 20,000 pCi/I. Strontium-90, 8 pCi/l. Cesium-137,-200 pCi/1. Information on MCLs and health effects of radionuclides can be found on the EPA website at http://vww.epa.gov/rpdwebOO/radionuclides/index.html , last accessed March 10, 2009.
MCLs are also listed in Radionuclides in Drinking Water, A Small Entity Compliance Guide, U.S. EPA (February 2002).
2 E-mail from James Noggle, NRC to Timothy Rice, DEC with attached NRC Data from Indian Pt. Split Monitoring Well Samples (August 23, 2007), annexed hereto as Exhibit 3.
4
the presence of 211,000 pCi/1 of Tritium in groundwater on the site - - over 10 times the EPA standard for drinking water. 3 ER at 5-4. Moreover, according to the ER:
[p]reliminary results' indicate that tritium contaminated groundwater exists at the site. During the course of delineating the sources of tritium, Stontium-90, Cesium-137, and Nickel-63 have been detected in low concentrations in some onsite groundwater monitoring well samples.
ER at 5-4.
The topography of the land at Indian Point slopes from the plant toward the river.
ER p 2-18. Indeed, "surface drainage is toward the Hudson River." Id., Any contaminated water will migrate into the Hudson River. Contaminated groundwater is migrating to the Hudson. In its ER, Entergy found that:
[b]ased on the results of the preliminary hydrogeologic characterization of the site, Entergy has concluded that some contaminated groundwater has likely migrated to the Hudson River. This release pathway is now being monitored and is included in the site effluents offsite dose calculation.
ER at 5-4. Additionally, in a January 2007 internal Entergy memorandum discussing preliminary dose assessments from Sr-90 in Hudson River fish and invertebrates, the author concludes that following a conservative analysis of fish consumption based on the 24.5 pCi/kg of Sr-90 in the white perch sample from Roseton, the maximum individual annual dose would equal 44% of the annual allowable bone dose to an A adult male.4 Additionally, other reports indicate that the chemicals in ground water at Indian Point include cobalt-60 and nickel-63, as well as tritium at 30 times the EPA drinking water limit. See Luby, Abby, "New Leaks Taint Hudson," Regional Report, March 2006.
The EPA's standard established under the Safe Drinking Water Act is 20,000 pCi/1.
4 IPEC-CHM-07-002, Memorandum from S. Sandike, Sr. Chemistry Specialist to T. Bums, NEM Supervisor, re: "Dose Assessments from Sr-90 in the Hudson River for Fish and Invertebrates-January 2007 Results" (January 17, 2007), annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 5
ENTERGY'S ER AND THE NRC STAFF' DSEIS Despite the fact that a the pilot desalination plant across the river from Indian Point will extract 170 to 300 gallons of river water per minute (244,800 to 432,000 gallons per day) for potable water and a fully operational facility built shortly thereafter would extract 10-15 million gallons per day to provide 7.5 million gallons per day of useable water to Rockland County, neither the ER nor the DSEIS mention this plan nor assess the impact on the quality of this water.
In fact, both explicitly ignore the impact of the known radioactive groundwater or potential future groundwater contamination on the. quality of the Hudson River as a source of drinking water. In section 5.1 titled "New and Significant Information:
Groundwater Contamination," Entergy concludes that groundwater is not used in the vicinity of the plant and that "[t]his is expected to be true during the IP2 and IP3 license renewal term." ER at 5-4 and 5-5. Entergy further asserts that:
[b]ased on currently available information and the sampling data that have been analyzed and assessed to date, the NRC and Entergy have not found any condition that indicates that occupational or public health and safety have been, or likely will be, affected by the current onsite groundwater contamination. This assessment is based on the fact that there is no drinking water pathway associated with groundwater or the Hudson River in the region surrounding Indian Point...
Id. at 5-5 (emphasis added).
By improperly assuming that the Hudson River is not a source of drinking water, Entergy finds that there is no reason to study the impacts of the LRA on drinking water.
Entergy concludes that:
6
no NRC dose limits have been exceeded and EPA drinking water limits are not applicable since no drinking water pathway exists. Although impacts to site groundwater quality have occurred .... Entergy concludes that although the existence of radionuclides in the groundwater during the license renewal period are potentially a new issue, the impacts would be SMALL and not significant.
Id.
The NRC Staff also incorrectly concludes that "there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the contaminated ground water conditions at the IP2 and IP3 site." DSEIS at 2-108. In analyzing the impact on the Hudson River the DSEIS also incorrectly concludes that "the only noteworthy pathway resulting from contaminated ground water migration to the river is through the consumption of fish and invertebrates from the Hudson River." DSEIS at 2-107. Indeed, the DSEIS incorrectly states that the "EPA drinking water limits are not applicable since no drinking water pathway exists." As set forth above, the leaks to groundwater at Indian Point have been significant and are also likely to increase during period of the renewal license from this aging facility.
ARGUMENT I. Legal Requirements for Contentions This section summarizes the four legal requirements for a contention; a specific statement of the contention, an explanation of basis, a demonstration that it is within the scope of the proceedings, and a demonstration of materiality. In addition, this section shows that the proposed new contention is within the scope of the proceeding and meets 7
the requirements for a new contention, because it was triggered by new and significant information.
A. Specific Statement of the Contention In order to bring a contention before the Commissioners, Clearwater must "provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact raised or controverted." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.(f)(1)(i). The new contention is that The Environmental Report submitted by Entergy and Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for, License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "DSEIS") issued by the NRC Staff on December 22, 2008 fail to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
§4332 et seq., and NRC regulations implementing NE-PA, because the ER and DSEIS do not assess the impacts of the license renewal on drinking water quality and drinking water degradation as it relates to the use of the Hudson River as a source of drinking water.
B. Issues Beyond Dispute As recognized by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") in its decisions admitting the initial contention, Clearwater has ample basis for the following points, which are also included in the basis for the new contention:
i) there is a genuine dispute regarding the significance of the environmental impacts from the leaks LBP 08-13 at 192; ii) sufficient information and expert opinion exist to raise the question whether Entergy's conclusions, contained in the ER regarding the significance of the groundwater contamination, are incomplete and legally insufficient for purposes of satisfying 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Id; iii) There are serious factual differences between the positions of the Applicant and Petitioner regarding the radiological leaks. Id; and iv) Clearwater has adequately demonstrated standing. Id at 5.
8
C. Basis of the Contention At this preliminary stage, Clearwater does not have to submit admissible evidence to support their contention; rather it has to "provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention," 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii), and "a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the petitioner's position." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).
This rule ensures that "full adjudicatory hearings are triggered only by those able to offer minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions." Duke Energy Corp. (Oconoee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 N.R.C. 328, 334 (emphasis added).
The Commission has clarified that, "an intervenor need not ... prove its case at the contention stage... The factual support necessary to show a genuine dispute exists need not be in affidavit or formal evidentiary form, or by the quality necessary to withstand a summary disposition motion." In the Matter of Georgia Institute of Technology, 42 N.R.C. 111 (October 12, 1995).
All that is required for a contention to be acceptable for litigation is that it be specific and have a basis; whether or not the contention is sustainable is left to litigation on the merits in the licensing proceeding. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546, 551 n.5 (1983), citing Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980).
Thus, although the Commission has stated that it "is unwilling to open its hearing doors to petitioners who have done little in the way of research or analysis, provide no expert opinion, and rest merely on unsupported conclusions," Duke Energy Corporation (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 9
17, 56 N.R.C. 1, 8 (2002), it has indicated that where petitioners make technically meritorious contentions based upon diligent research and supported by valid information, the requirement for an adequate basis is more than satisfied.
This new contention is based upon new information discussed above. In addition, Clearwater has performed independent and diligent research to establish that the desalination plants cannot effectively and economically extract the various radionuclides that have been found in contaminated water and fish in the Hudson River. See generally Greene Dec. Treatment performed by the desalination plant cannot remove the contaminants. As set forth in greater detail in the Greene Dec., tritium bonds with oxygen to form tritiated water and is chemically similar to H2 0 and cannot be filtered from water. This is a source of public health concern and an environmental impact that must be assessed under NEPA. Based upon this new information Entergy and NRC Staff must evaluate the impact and the ASLB should not make a decision on the LRA until those reviews are completed.
The contention is based on the ER, the DSEIS, information previously submitted by parties to this LRA proceeding and found in the NRC Staff Hearing file, and the information contained above in the Background section relating to the migration of radioactive groundwater into the Hudson River. In addition, the contention is supported by investigations conducted by Entergy, including a January 2007 internal Entergy memorandum discussing preliminary dose assessments from Sr-90 in Hudson River fish and invertebrates, that concludes that following a conservative analysis of fish consumption based on the 24.5 pCi/kg of Sr-90 in the white perch sample from Roseton, 10
the maximum individual annual dose would equal 44% of the annual allowable bone dose to an adult male.
This contention is also based upon publicly available information from experts in drinking water quality, radiation and the effects of radiation on the environment and public health, See http://vww.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/index.html and (NRC Fact Sheet on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water) htt,://www.nrc.gov/reading-mi/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html.
visited on March 10, 2009. in addition, Clearwater bases this contention on the Certification of Joseph Mangano annexed to Clearwater's Petition to Intervene dated December 10, 2007 and the report, Public Health Risks of Extending Licenses of the Indian Point 2 and 3 Nuclear Reactors, (Radiation and Public Health Project, Revised December 7, 2007) (attached as Exhibit 4 to Mangano Decl. submitted as part of Clearwater's Petition to Intervene)("Public Health Risks"). This contention is also supported by exhibits attached hereto. Exposure to tritium, cesium -137 and strontium -
90 impacts the environment and public health. Strontium-90 accumulates in the body and continued exposure via drinking water may damage the health of individuals, especially the young. Indeed, the EPA warns that people who drink water in excess of standards increase their risk of getting cancer. See http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/radionuclides/basicinformation.html.
Entergy has plainly stated the levels of tritium in groundwater at IP are about 211, 000 pCi/1. This is clearly significant because it shows that contaminated water that is known to be 10 times above the acceptable EPA standards for safety has migrated or is in the process of migrating toward the Hudson River and because of the new information 11
that the Hudson River will be used as a municipal drinking water supply. As such, a complete review of the impact of leaks and planned releases on the quality of water in the Hudson River, including the health impacts of drinking that water must be performed.
D. The Scope of License Renewal Proceedings Includes the Subject Matter Raised in the Contention The new potential contention concerns the environmental and public health impacts on the water quality and drinking water quality degradation of the Hudson River in the vicinity of IP. The ASLB held that a review of environmental issues in this proceeding set forth in 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(a) and 51.95(c) constitutes a proper contention for a hearing. LBP 08-13 at 14.
Moreover, "[c]ompliance with the environmental quality standards and requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or designated permitting states) is not a substitute for, and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any, of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing adverse effects." 10 C.F.R. § 51.71(d) (fn)(3). Neither Entergy's ER nor NRC Staff's DSEIS have met this requirement.
E. The New Contention Raises A Material Dispute The regulations require petitioners to "[d]emonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the N.R.C. must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv). A showing of materiality is not 12
an onerous requirement, because all that is needed is a "minimal showing that material facts are in dispute, indicating that a further inquiry is appropriate." Georgia Institute of Technology, CLI-95-12, 42 N.R.C. 111, 118 (1995); Final Rule, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings - Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed.
Reg. 33,171 (Aug. 11, 1989).
The new contention raises a number of disputes. These disputes are material because they cut to the heart of relicensing proceedings, which are designed to ensure that the operation of the nuclear generating facility does not endanger the health, safety or the environment, and demonstrate that Indian Point cannot be operated without adversely affecting the health of the public that live in the vicinity of the plant. The new contention is also material because the NRC Staff must fully assess and adequately account for the risks associated with using the Hudson River water in the vicinity of IP 2 and IP 3 as a source of municipal drinking water. The failure to assess the impact of these risks violates NEPA's requirement that environmental decisions must contain an evaluation of those aspects of a proposed action that will affect the quality of the human environment "in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered." Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989) ("Marsh").
Both Entergy and NRC Staff state that the Hudson River is not a source of drinking water. Clearwater has presented clear evidence that the Hudson River, across the river from IP, will be a source of drinking water. Therefore a dispute exists, and as discussed above, the dispute is material.
As it is clear that the Hudson River will be used as a source of drinking water supply during the term of the license renewal, Entergy and the NRC Staff must broaden 13
their environmental assessments to determine the impact on drinking water quality and study the health impacts of drinking water containing the chemicals found in IP's groundwater contamination. Without this assessment neither Entergy :nor the NRC satisfy the requirements set forth under NRC Rules and Regulations and NEPA.
F. This Request is Timely This request is timely because the Board's oral order on January 14, 2009, memorialized in its written order dated February 4, 2009 provides intervenors in this license renewal proceeding 25 days from the date of the notice of the occurrence to file a new contention.
Additionally, Petitioners may add new contentions after filing their initial petition, so long as they act in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-05-32, 62 NRC 813 (2005). The Commission's regulations allow for a "new contention" to be filed upon a showing that:
(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii).
Here, as set forth above, Clearwater bases its new contention upon new information discovered on February 25, 2009. This information is materially different from information stating that the Hudson River is not a source of drinking water supply, 14
which was the previously available information. Finally, this motion is being filed on March 19, 2009, 22 days from the date that the new information was available.
Thus, like Vermont Yankee and in accordance with rulings in other proceedings, the ASLB should now find that the new contention meets .the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i) and (ii) because it is based upon new information that was "not previously available," and is "materially different than information previously available."
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should grant leave for Clearwater to add the proposed new contention and admit the new contention into this proceeding.
Manna Jo Greene Environmental Director Hudson Clearwater Sloop, Inc.
112 Market St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 845 454-7673 x 113 15
HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.'S PETITION TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. NYS DEC letter dated January 26, 2009.
Exhibit 2. Map of Westchester County showing proximity of Indian Point to Potential Environmental Justice Areas (PEJA) in purple, with approximate location of United Water of NY's proposed desalination plant in Rockland County.
Exhibit 3. E-mail from James Noggle, NRC to Timothy Rice, DEC with attached NRC Data from Indian Pt. Split Monitoring Well Samples (August 23, 2007).'
Exhibit 4 IPEC-CHM-07-002, Memorandum from S. Sandike, Sr. Chemistry Specialist to T.
Bums, NEM Supervisor, re: "Dose Assessments from Sr-90 in the Hudson River for Fish and Invertebrates-January 2007 Results" (January 17, 2007).
Exhibit 1. NYS DEC letter dated January 26, 2009.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, 4 th Floor 625 Broadway; Albany, New York 12233-1750 Phone: (518) 402-9167 FAX: (518) 402-9168 Website; wA w__ ,j_. v."
Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner January 26, 2009 Re: Coordination to Establish SEQR Lead.Agoncy:
Proposed Long-Term Water Supply Project by United Water New York, Inc.
Town of Haverstraw, Rockland County DEC #3-3922-0021
Dear Involved Agency:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has received a Joint Application for Permit from United Water New York Inc. (UWNY) for its proposed Long-term Water Supply Project (LTWSP), and by this letter is initiating review of that project under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). DEC has also received :a separate: Joint Application for Permit from UWNY for a proposed pilot desalination:plant (additional discussion below).
ProposedLong-Term Water Supplv Project (LTWSt')
The UWNY LTWSP is a proposal to construct a desalination facility in the Town of Haverstraw, Rockland County, intended to produce potable water from theHudson River, The LTWSP proposal includes-a raw water intake unit which would be located along the Hudson River, near the former US Gypsum dock; a desalination facility which would be located upsiope, on lands of the former Haverstraw landfill; and a-raw water transmission line between the two facilities. The application for the LTWSP was accompanied by a preliminary draft of:a proposed Environmental Impact: Statement
("pre-draft EIS"). Based upon records provided by UWNY, a copy of the prewdraftEilS was already sentito you directly from UVNY, and so that documentfis not included in-this mailing. Please advise my staff promptly if you.have not already received the-pre-draft EIS.
DEC has preliminarily classified the proposed LTWSP, as described in the Joint Application for Permit for the LTWSP and in the pre-draft E.lS, as a Type [action under SEQR. Further, based on its concerns about potential impacts.-of statewide and regional importance from the LTWSP, including effects on natural resoures of the Hudson River system, issues related to deployment of a technology which would be unique in New York State,. and the implications-ofthe proposed project for ongoing interstate water allocation discussions, DEC proposes to serve as lead agency forthe SEQR review of this proposal. Assuming that DEC is confirmed as lead agency for this proposed project, it intends to treat the pre-draft EIS as an expanded environmental assessment form pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(4). Further, DEC intends to issue a positive declaration, requiring that the environmental review include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
DEC also iintends.. to conduct fortnal scoping to expand upon the pre-draft EIS submitted by UWNY. Specific topics that DEC has identified as needing additional study anddiscussion. in the EIS'for the LTWSP include, but are not limited to, the following:
SpMore detailed discussions of alternatives to desalination, specifically including implementation of enhanced water conservation and loss, minimization measures;
- Quantification and comparison of water volumes: needed to serve existing.demands, projected build-outs under existing adopted plans and zoning, and opportunities to minimize future demands;
" Any design, management or impact mitigation implications for the proposed full-scale desalination operation .based on data developed from operation of a proposed pilot desalination plant: (further disc~ussion below);
" Suitability of the former Havdrstraw landfill site as the proposed LTWSP desalination plant site, addressing both physical and legal considerations;
" Legal and technical issues relating to use of waters classified as "SB" under 6 NYCRR 701.11 (see h!L:ipww *q.d .n fittl i]*_5984 )as the source of a potable rc gs/4 92,45 water supply; and
- Environmental and regulatory information needs of all other involved agencies.
Based on an initial. review.ofthe Joint Application ýfor Permit for the LTWSP and the accompanying pro-draft EIS, DEC staffhavepreliminarily determined that the following.pernits or approvals would.be required from DEC to enable the -proposed LTWSP to proceed:.
" Water Supply permit (Environmental Conservation Laws [ECL] Article 15, Title .15) -
Required whenever a new water district~is formed,. or additional water is taken from a new source of-supply. (DEC recognizes that the point of withdrawal for the proposed project is not now an approved source, as indicated in the note above on scoping,)
" Protection of Waters:permit (ECL Article 15, Title 5) - Required for disturbance of the bed or banks of a-protected waterbody.
" Excavation or Placement of Fill permit (ECL Article 15, Title 5) -Required for the placement of fill,.or for excavation that occurs.below the mean high water level of a navigable waterway.
a State Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System permit (SPDES; ECL Article 17) -
Required for wastewaterdischarges greater than 1000 gallons per day. The Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant has a current SPDES permit that may require modification if it.:is.ýtoreceivedischarges from the proposed LTWSP. A SPDES permit could also be required for discharges associated with dcwatering which could be required during possible construction activities.
- State Pollution Discharge Elimination System:Stormwater~permit (ECL Article 17) -
Required to control runoff fromall. LTWSP:sites.
A Water Quality Certification (WQC; U.S. Clean Water Act, Section 401; 6 NYCRR Part 608) - DEC must: review proposed activities requiiing:a federal permit under Section 404 of the V. S. CleanmWater.Act, and other federal authorities, to determine whether the proposed activity'as authorized by the federal approval would satisfy NYS water quality 2
Long-Term Water Supply Project: Lead Agency' Coordination DEC# 3-3922-00217
standards. Depending upon what permitting may be required frorm the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the LTWSP, a NYS WQC could be necessary..
The lead agency for the LTWSP must be estahlished by FEBRUARY 27, 2009. l am requesting, however, that you pleaseprovide your response sooner, if possible, In your response, please specifically indicate, whether you consent to DEC servinglas lead agency, and provide an outline ofyour agency'sjurisdiction(sy)over UWNY's proposed LTWSP. Additionally, DEC: is very interested in leaming what resources; impacts, orrissues'your agency concludes should be addressed in developing a deterniinhation of significance. DEC would also like to receive your agency's prelirninary identification of any-studies or data which you would recommend be included as part of a fully-scoped draft EIS for the proposed project.
If we do not receive any response from you by February 27. 2009, we will assume that you concur with DEC serving as: lead agency, :;
PropoiedfPilwtDesalinationPlant DEC has also received a Joint Application for Permit for a "pilot",' desalination plant, with a stated purpose of gathering data insupport of UWNY's application to develop its proposed LTWSP desalination project. UWNY has indicated to DEC that data from thepilot desalination plant is necessary for UWNY to proceed w\ith design and reviews of its proposed LTWSP, to help establish parameters for operation asmwell as design of the LTWSP, and. to provide DEC with information required for development~of draft permits for the LTWSP.
Therefore,:although DEC considers the pilot desalination plant to be a segment of the proposed LTWSP, DEC has concluded that regulatory review ofthe proposed pilot desalination plant may be segmented from review of the application for the LTWSP. The pilot desalination plant is being proposed only to gather data in. support of design, regulatory applications andth1e draft EIS for the proposed LTWSP, and the pilot desalination plant is a temporary activity which is proposed to operate for no more than twelve to eighteen months.
DEC has, therefore, classified the proposed pilot desalinationplant as a Type 1Iaction under SEQR, pursuant to. 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(18). This classification is supported by UWNY's representation that it intends to operate the pilot desalination plant forbasic data collection in partial support of its application for the LTWSP, specifically including undertaking water quality, pollution, and engineering studies. Further, consistent with 6 NYCRR 617.3(g)(I), DEC concludes that its classification of the proposed pilot desalination plant as Type II, along with.the direct incorporation into the draft EIS and public review process of the data developed through operation of that plant, will result in an environmentallreview of the entire project, as a whole, which is clearly no less protective of the environment than a single review. Further, the Type 11 classification of the proposed pilot desalination plant, and the integration of the pilot desalination plant's operational results and data into the draft EIS and SEQR public review process for the proposed LTWSP, does not commit the DEC to commence, engage in or approve the proposed LTWSP. A more detailed discussion ofthestatus of the pending joint application for DEC 3
Long-Term Water Supply Project: Lead Agency Coordination DEC# 3-3922-00217
permits for the pilot desalination piant will be set. forth in aseparate letter to be sent to UWNY, with copies to other agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed pilot desalination plant.
We look forward to your response concerning lead agency status for and potential environmental issues related to the proposed LTWSP. Please address your responses directly to Jeremy Rosenthal of my staff, at the address above. Mr. Rosenthal is the project manager for the review of the proposed LTWSP and pilot desalinaiion plant. Ifyou havequestions, please feel free to contact him at the telephone-number above, or at jx rose1u .dce.stiaaC. 1 us Sincerely,
Long-Term Water Supply Project: Lead Agency Coordination DEC# 3-3922-00217
DISTRIBUTION LIST TO: Howard T.. Phillips, Jr., Supervisor T-Haverstraw Annette Torres, Secretary, Town of Haverstraw ZBA, Planning Board, Architectural Review Board Alan C. Bauder, OGS Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, PSC Kenneth W. Caffrey, NYSDOH Daniel Miller, Rockland Co. DOH Andrew M. Conners, Rockland Co. Highway Dept.
Arlene Miller, Deputy Commissioner Rockland Co. Dept. of Planning Philip A. Marino, Supervisor, T-Stony Point Patrick Brady, Executive Director. Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewer Board Edward Devine, Director Rockland Co. Drainage Agency CC: Sameet Master, UWNY John Dillon, Esq., UWNY Robert J. Alessi, Esq.
John Feingold William M. Stein, Esq.
Richard Tomer- USACE C. Spitz-USACE Rebecca M. Newell, DOS Arlene Miller, Rockland County Dept. of Planning HonorableJaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary New York Public0Scrvicc Commission Ruth Pierpont, Director Bureau of Field Services, NYS OPRHP ECC: William Janeway, Region 3 Director, NYS DEC John Parker, Esq., Region 3, NYS DEC Lara Quintillani, Esq., Region 3, NYS DEC Margaret Duke, Regional Permit Administrator, Region 3, NYS DEC Jack Issacs, Region 3, :NYS DEC Larry Wilson, Region 3, NYS DEC Thomas Rudolph, Region 3, NYS DEC Lawrence H. Weintraub, Esq., Counsel's Office, NYS DEC, Albany Mike Holt, Division of Water, NYS DEC, Albany Jeremy Rosenthal, Environmental Permits, NYS DEC, Albany 5
Long-Term Water Supply Project: Lead Agency Coordination DEC# 3-3922-00217
Exhibit 2. Map of Westchester County showing proximity of Indian Point to Potential Environmental Justice Areas (PEJA) in purple, with approximate location of United Water of NY's proposed desalination plant in Rockland County.
Courtesy of NYS DEC Office of EnvironmentalJustice.
Exhibit 3. E-mail from James Noggle, NRC I from Indian Pt. Split Monitoring to Timothy Rice, DEC with attached NRC Data Well Samples (August 23, 2007).
"3/4 M, NO Mta Trom I;Mlan Pt EpTt Monit
!Og
.4
.1 From: James Noggle To: Rice, Timothy Date: 08/23/2007 4:10:59 PM Subject Fwd: NRC Data from Indian Pt. Split Monitoring Well Samples FYI J
OFt3SEM6cd6nmn Swrob Rosutb (OWforwalwor" f-04 -PCVQ"dK fury$& MW Blh)&M?
-j - ~1
- 1. U N 2 -R 0.1 P4i~1~.n~in 6 04180 41*010 2*14 "0"6U*..0 I.122 0-0.01*.0 I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Il _____ua O------i4........I.............
OMM*.10 0.01*0.06 403*0.12 QW.=*~
7 .9,~- ad~ 4.3*27 M13 OA 0.041*.3 04O*0.4 lMAMWilzdI .0-302M . 06*. 0z*0.1(00.01 083AJQ -o001*.i 14 42M32 oA OjD4 0800.04 0.U 0.14&0.05 O0,.@07 Obdwao U-1CatL v- IIp-.... . -"
eo m= -- 1ml 252*11 2.AOft 2.5*%&7 I
4.2*2.a 242,34 1.gilL9 0,O3*0 ,0.00.08i .O.Oii.m I 213 4CIA12 0.03*08 -4.01U0.11 04A t.
2 I
U.1 com ipw smoba Law 1*0*m31 It* 411421 2ACA *723*35 j 24.4*35 24ft221 m ow Gi3m.06 0.C1*0.11 0.0110.00 0A1*0,12
-VIWW
-- mom
,
06fl0.06.5 O.0_l_ 0A_
s
',001 0.012MI 0 0.21
.O400 1d N N.ot
. i *l.02LD .01O4 0.1*0.1
.
I080 0.58 0.030.42 0.01.0.01M 21S T*U 0 .04 0.010. 4.01*0.,10,. n,*0.03, 0.41*0.13 0.51*0.15
.. . . .. . ..--- -- ). - O- . 'o - -* - -*m .
..... S044 02140.1 8ed-i*I1 ceow .o.**1* 0.51*0.2 0.12*17 0.10*00*24.01*0.02 N* Aii* 1I. 80 4.31.1 V 2*003 o1~.4r.I$
.01A*.14 0*0.L*I 4.*01 2003.000.3 0.00*001 12*62 4..n 4.010.0 4.0 1.4210.14 14
-ii-LofltCOWSA 0d 0.5*1. .02D2=1 0,0111 0. . -0.01*0.,03 Nmt I0?4 Q' DA 0.0120.3 9.0*0.Ol4 1.52*01
-19.0+/-0.9
-I,-
Wwa. OGM4M 16 13*4.9 03*4.3 M I &" 1 3 .1 "I -
-MU
-- GLL"-
- 1 -I
. . . ,
26 0.4.t7.1 2.07.
can_
21 =mm*.0 00*.w4om 1*. 4O.16*0.0c.0ft12
-. _11 ~ __
.&129A. 02UMS I-W.3 -iA*ZA -13.,1.4 0I.*0.T 4.U9.3.3 I 0.060.04 0.03*0.0 *12 OJOS*OJ* 0.0C*40 n/t't4t'lJ33OS .U4"=
0.11*o.m0 2212 OM1 OAZO .03 mAf br PWd 0.01*0.01 0.00*0801 O~0.
I __
Fb______~
24 0.01*0.01 (0.01*0.01 0.01*0.1 P,*W Pw 2__
5_x 1'-, 17.it-_4-n ZAM.5ej*o41 ,.*
21 LLmF:r W-2 -4 30O L*6*. MW-3 1: L.0ý24.6a,
.o__n,*ir 31~ RO-" 1W10i21 0*12 - ).0.tO3? 0.+/-2f.W 0.'2a.4 M,** NINO-,"0 04 318
-7
ORISE RsAbfor Omft Waft CpL')(8817 A
-2 Af 1
s
-I-- _ -L U N 0 p, a K
,ID ;amL Df C-14 Sr-gO I Ce-137 I Co-O0 Fe-M I NI9 V244 I MW-1 70.120 1.1*1.3 I
_ .10*120
-3ftl2C 740tl30 491A+/-.7100
'32.010+/-470 222.702.0
-16 F mw- 1 02A3T0 1 -4*11 t s.0J*
A7 MWW.. I 02=071o8 21.710+/-35C -.010 4-216-a 43l - SJUL1I I fTA'm.,R~ 2AAnl.1 Mb I a,*,4 "Jl "l T.iJ( "IL I$ MW-111 0207JW 1902 3 m3 19 MW-" 026M .3102130 04*1.0 O.1+/-4.0 20 _MW-48 Af.2i 4+/-1. -200o
,0.42.8 2S.4.2.zi 041.4*, a0::.0Io 0.110.24 0.001:0.1 0.1a1+n 0.0o9+/-.20 25.5*2.1 3. . 0.042l0.111 m 8=10,, .o.15*
-,o 21k6*2.0 I-1.12.4 -iia7tLZ - I-17.*2.9 2.7,31.
29 1 Wi-3705Tr1 103MM 15.940*39 2G.A2.2 I 2.5*3.0 1 -1.1+/-39
- 63*&4 -1*18 5.6*A 0.40'OAI 0.18*0.23 0.3,o.47 o.2o+/-0.18 -*1+/-37 0.16*0.S1 2b IFMW-..50f( 03r22,68 V 24-SIA.A .1.022.7 1.14*72 5.4d:5,46 0.=4*0.13 .0.1920.41 33 uW406? I03r2286 3.1.7 -o.1.8+/-4. 1o2'.7 -,9'*7 -0.080.10 0. .33 34 3.100t1.3M0 6060021~9 a ý1%,2+/-126-72. e7.3*8,0 g" 0.3410. 0,15:0.42 0.08.+/-0.19
+/-18_V-0.200.2= 0.20+/-0.40 0.1620.30
-1.2.2 4 -0.'*2.4 124*73 +/-.2!. 54 510.-=15 -004" 3 1 MW-424L78 03,24M 1 510.250 0.37O+/-).4 33.1*5.1 I 1.72 -*72 +/-7.0 0.120.~I.015+/-.220.4120.30
-31 5,730t350 41 ,MW-4204*45"f 5L18 -0.04t M7 2.030t -1*15 1
- .090.* -0.0150.0M 4140 1+/-18 0.03+/-0.04 0.18+/-0t.091 0.05+/-0.06 2 !n-_42@ýT OW ,1480:r24 -4*16 -2W14 1191g 0.01+/-0.04 o.o00.0? _ o.o0+/-o.05 1_14 MW.-l2051' 04= o6*.20 0.01+/-0.04 ilia0 ' :13*1 0.0'1+/-0.0 0.08+/-0.09 I4.01+/-0.05 -2i21 1 0.0M01 tl I**,4 t+/-"iLfl* I' A4A*4 T n tfl83m ~flfl~ n.~VT~ ft~ -
.0002008 1 OM*MOS I 4tl4F*Orl2Q= OA40ý - -
47 MW-41*4t4' 042 490*250 8,te: 4+/-19 LO.01+/-OAS 0.0+/-0.05 0.130.00 1.0.021.06OI 0*15 0020.09.ttO3-0W.11=
-042*I
-4+/-18 I.0.03+/-O.3 I0.05.0.11 0.020.04 I -2+/-10 "o-n8+/-0-18 0.2O.nQ?
-'0.0210.11 o 1*720-o0O o.oeo.os 1e611 0.071'0.10 0.0*A.0W -~~.
t2.2 .0.6+/-2.6 0.16*0.08 *O.2+/-.0
-0.01+/-0.052 I-3+/-l-+/-14 49 MW-43029 041 , !,51t30 .O I1 0.A+/-1.0 I 0.6+/-1.7- -. Otn*___( 0.0*00, h 0.4 **
.0.24.1 3.113.2 Z '3 0.0*0.18 0.0 .07 0.04+/-0.12 0-0" sz I -w-437.s 04112F0 i I I 11+/-6 0.4m.0.48 0,.5+/-1,0 JI o.o0o 11*35 8.8*I.9 14 T 10ýt-I0 0.4+/-0.1ll1 0.0=+/-0.00 0.06+/-0.08 9tM. I 3.tS &.6t5.9 45149 :3 0.0710.07J.0.03*0.04 I -0.02+/-0.00 T *, -w I, .45:1:1 1R4-0 I 11.48 I'5Llr'J*41r*4
.302§9 1 13119 002A4
A A a 0.7120M 2.8*Z2
- 1:
O.1*2.I i I19g M-4019 00 M -- I§Dm 4&11*0653 4.06W.82 8.0+/-3.1-1.0,2.3
-
I g.4*1.9
.
12tZ M
I 1.82.S I -8*24 14.-0.4 I AtAl A .+7 ,I +/-*IA44 5
- 1 ell I v.
-Jt__
4ro 0W21/1o 84o02M 1.4+/-2Z1 2.032 1 .4*24 1.-.524.3 I31~~
-0.40*075 "t r i 00.1+/-. *&S A251 4 122*5.68 14*18 64 MW 2'-30" 244ft0.8 2.1*5.3 1.5*4.31 -2W24 14.604.4
.. 9.3+/-6.8 1 5+/-18 a S.7I4 21S4,4A.1 0.I:3,2 1 -0+/-24 4.3+/-4.3 12.0*5.8 U UW42S2 +
67, 301210
! AAM64A I1.1+/-717 '10
-1111+71 10114.70!
ilkftiýg A1 a t
MW~
-. 1 .2.0 f1 g 4,871.5 IL8*A9 S.) fl7j4~5~ A 7Wk*.Aifltt A,40AIl an.47 *i 4114. A 3.7 I Ot 70 07112" 47Wt430 J 0 I 18Otl 10.*7.7 I 9.4t9.0 1 MAYJ4-0(.2 AAW.4A.R..27 06w1Ri M
n'tai*l .~
ims 12.88T40 q~flfl.~
--3A.aAmlI 111a,.11 2AM I n 4.00 o
A
!'
71.t o
"r, f* iJl4i I
_') J*dl a[
5 lfi P1,.t Ift OJB+/-is
[ ")1,1,T1 I xt.,,.'*
S l.;n,*
5 430.*7 I.*4.AflI.nAa.4~nA I..AAAAAAAI nfli.AAA I oO *8 00' OS
..3.iA
ý I flflA.(.flRI fl&1.Afli I O
flflI+/-5t~
-
0012008 0.00'0.05 0.05+/-0.07
-
74 ,t -,5wo.1*' _
inl C,..f nsa. I nn4.nfl~ flft nfl I ii AA44~ AL I .. 7.IA I A ftI.A flO 1 .A4 fl3i41 ~t I .11 fl3.A AT 1)01/ 8,1POt57 10 2191 2.0k.?
- 2. .5 ll2 1.t.
75 !0.tZ 4.0.*8.8 -t. 0.12t.20 05A 0 7 .0t.8-41 0.21.0 0.100
!eW-mn7 O& 210,t2M _ ,!jM O1t~.1/:2.1 00t 3.13--US -1.44-.4 11.MOS. 1 .0/.06 0t.7-0 .5-1*2-.2o -Om o0 -o~~o 7 MIW..40. OO*O 220*M20 .29. 2.1 ..O.Wt.g D.0!1-r5 94J 0.8t&7? -OU 0S.2Al 0* ai.8 OOt0 73 ý MWV-C~r. 08IBAM *3 001.8-AW0 AO 259j-W.1,01. 10.60.6 4.7t2
?9 IW..3MW0 . 8r22/08 14,810tS.
9M 10 is=.2 0.G7*D.4 0.2D4 * .0O1~ .1k.400*.1 0022 40 20.50...2 to Or--lim* C8/23/0 13.2W0,540 4*1 &61.3 O.1tl.7
.27t. WS:2 I t3 Sn
.9,n1dd9*.7S~
.l
- 71 IA 0.0410.13 l.0014.05 0.903
ýafol 021.1 73 .'O2 .9.1 ~~o1 81 mw-wowy* 7*05O0 V -W08 009.4 .. 400 owr4mo 4,200t20oV 1.p.2.4 2.2,.3.9 022 -1t8.0*& 987 7 .&tg.* ).od04* __ '0 Mt 0-,O0 tS.00W1 .W .w1 82 ArN-"79S 06425106 18.70otmrO_ 0_ M2 . 3.7*Z27 12" ".2*1 7.SJdL? & 0944.1010.09 (L401 a_ NrAAW I.12(r ON,30,M0 4[ 2t 421 6. 1*1 .7.t-5 A2o0 ,600
.600
. 1.42:3.3 i.t4 72 1653 12.4t&.& SA S-.04.10 .it0..9I0.D 4tl 1 -. 701 002 .0 i .15
_A _MVr,50G MI, M~o 2.180*350 Uo.1.t. .*, -*.8x~ -1*1 54U.
.ft .4 -1.* .o0 0.2 .10 _,301
.5aO 115 00001 .0t.0 00:01 83 mw-6c 0*SAM 900i2W9 8.129607 1*3.0 . A2 -1iO -. 349 5*.2d3 3 )t.
.04to.s0 .0*_ 1 0.2W 171 .4.3:.601 W91 RMMP -120t2"J .40 87 LWJ-420'4. OWIMM 1.At
,.320ft2.. 0W8 OGO4 .011 ý.212
, 20.215J*0tM
._.3*4 1117991
-51
- 1 20 .
I 20*.3 I.
1207*Orp -11 W. _0.0220.05
)P.030.
,.iO1 *4 00*.i ~mo ".fo0
.401
,,*429W
&AN Ct.3 -W .4.8 OGf)0 .~iO0 M O0 '
(MIS" I-1370X f- _6I10_. ' 'I I .. 31 11*0a70
!L72tft fl .0o0420.0*
89 ~ nv 7'_.. 0911S05M 1*',25 -3.e0'4.1 3ti 1-0 -0.4t8.2 -47 . .o2*.02 0o2, Ot.3t.G
'Xl
..00400
-W
-.
AW0 0to0
,300 .1.7
.M .2 92 IWW.5308U I IAIM/6 570+/-*240 ~nt.~ 4 loan I .n~A. C L~B U s..* ~
0UZI OUX1 ilftto L-92142 fl I ~ ~M5 NI I IIJIC.fl 5+/- I .74.73 1 s 17.1474 t t 4.'* 1)1 -f..fA04.0 4 ")
03 MAW7ýIW o.5s+/-9 I 34.3+/-.5 0.311.9 2.8*1.7 I 22*19 ,.10.g94.1 27.7t0.5 1 9/08 1 1-1.129.51 188+/-.0 1 4S1..8+/-42 1 = 10 1 1.3042 1-.7*71I 1 -1 iJ2o 0.19+/-01910708 -- +/-3 101201 95 ,MW-553S 1fll0KM 3.t*5.8 0.10+/-0.9 Z Zj 008+/-009 *00502-=
V=1+/-20 2+/-5008+/-1 0000. 04 1210400 ROUl0.10
+ 9.450+/-020 4.3*9.6 1 43.6+/-1.9 1.822.2 l.1*2.41 -,18 1 ..4:34.2 I 3.8a*. 7+a-1 IQ02#0 fl I 0-12*0.to 1 002+/-O0081 29+/-3 10.030.131 0.03+/-08 I O-08+/-0 2 S. uwr.J;,£*
90 72 .Lj 6 1 3411*1 R 1 1.2+/-1.7 4+/-19 I -1.5A3.6 97 LW6aMWV6*
1110/m6 112840 210+/-22 11319-5 ~1 p 0.0,.13 0.oo.01 .0.052.&11 0.405.1
-.12*3.5 3.l3.1I -4+18 1.102.1 2.0.3.7
-7.1+/-4.2 jrozOf Nj mmw 1/1 300+/-220 -.7.8+/-93 A.W+/-.1 10.00+/-0.05 I-0.18+/-0.20 I 0.02t0.08 1 .6+/-38 14.02+/-.171 0.04+/-0.13I 0.00A0.111 3 0.1.5 18018 -7,*- 1 2gi.S*. j3.0+/-8.110.02*0.04 1 VD2+/-0.23 4..02t0.09 1 15134 1 0.04+/-0.19 I 0.00+/-.10 1 1aM4594 I 11i3M 710*25 2.5+/-9.5 _o.621.6 -0.1+/-11.8 16*18 -A8.4. 4.72&.8 I OrX2+/-0.0?
40.77 I .1.1* I.ia..iI +/-i~B 07+/-1 00+/-o4J..1+/-.1020.04 102E
" =& 11115006 1/30 ~~! 0.5*9.5 1281411 5OSS, 4-; MO-15+/-.10R9OOM 73 0%.02+/-017fj.8010 T-410.701 0=0+/-006 j=..4.13 407+/-0.09 103 MW.49- 6" 'I IIIs/OS 8.300*00 --VM."
' 5 104 --. 449.51 23.:1.3 1.812-1 12.92.4 1 2219 1 2.3t37 i 4.T+5.2 11i5t : 3.5Io+/-390 ;..6,4 1 '6+/-T 0.4di.5 0.6+1.91 -6+18 -15.,38 9.6+5.4 Z.-740 VB 0.od"l 1+/-e 105 1 W-50@42Z l/iS/O 1018 UW5 IVISW 1 3 -i-6 *94i.4+/-Og 1 5.820+/-470 14.7*9.51 27.111.3 1 --. 2, 71 -1 U;+/-1.
-1.35+/-2;Wi T 719 2.122 9+/-19100.1-.9 1.0+/-3I i ~4.4 407P*
l--*i.,al 14 107 MW-420" I 1111tG I 2100 -34 31I .I.-*.oc1122 I290+/-25 ~0122611 249*3 I§tl3A10i2*.14A. 0.07.'0.07 'WA:1: 02.O.14
. 025;0.18 Ij01+/-5 1.0 t. 0.200 0-08o.10 e4 I 0.0422 1-0.1020-.161
OISE Rst.b Onbm,Web. (x:l (,W7)
A C a01 E if F I G J K L A M-3 C-14 I Sr-go 010 1 CO.1337
.0+/-3.7 CO-60 1.0023 a+/-im 4I,*. No.-237 C-242 113 0,%4* 10 J3,2.
18+/-2.1 4d+/-20 M7-12 +0ý WT=-- -0.00+/-.19 0.00. -223
-114
.115 1 0.38+/-0.33 0.3+/-2.3$ 0.2+/-.2.3 8+/-t20 0.28*,024 0.W00+/-013 1-32+/-68 lie I 0.0+/-3.9 1.2* 0.0710M14 0.02+/-0.08 -29141 0.11+/-0.16 n 020+/-M 17 006-.05 --
& 1.U.o -02 aosmlon1 Jn tu'* m, 117 11117K6 1.'
10.0*9.0 201+/-21 g*op.08,&I LO+/-4OJO.0si0.12 0.03+/-0.14 0.00,0.06 MW-38 40*=2 1.5+/-0.3 .0.02tC.00 -4.06+/-0.20 119 190+/-230 9.3*9.6 I 04*1.. -0.72&.3 120, 4.ltg.4 .n 2n.0 L7
.1.8.4.3 12-A n.06+/-0.06 11n 1.3+/-1.7 -1.2.:1.7 1+/-18 6.6+/-:.4 0.02o,.07l 3+/-35 1t 122 MW-2 11i. ~0.3+/-2.sI4+/-18 0.0+/-34
$.e,,g.4 0.11t0.17 O.2,*+/-00 t r*
124 MW-*40m' S*1,",4. 1.1+/-2.3 1 -2*19 1 a-211:-1 Im0.04O.,n_1 23tu134 0.0l -0.0sa.11 0.2+/-1.8 0.3%1.7 1 13+/-20 1.6+/-47 0.24*0.24 0.08*091 14tM35 0.23ii g 125 MW-30074' 126 127 3' 0111817 2..3+/-6.7 128 MW.-31@67* 01rill0 1.0+/-2A8 121 4111010 01118107 Q00+/-21 130 7.36024.40 1.3+/-2. 5.1+/-t7.5 131 0.7:+/-6.5 11 -0.1.1,1 132 7 105620+/-550 0.421.1 -0.7/2.1 I -
134 MWx 11.000+/-671 0.W+/-.1 135 430t250 0.12,O.43 474j1v-3*
0.412.1 14 0.0410.08 I -7+/-30 *O.07*0fl2 0.02+/-0.10 40.06+/-0.16 136 MW-483*31 02109107 80*22D 137.JJJW-38@19' I0212W0 -0.0O--.21!-0.00+/-"0.10 0.13i0.16 0.4U0.48 -.0.522 3.4A3.0 o.14+/-o.18 4.03+/-.1O,*0o n.s13 12.2t1.1 6.0+/-4.4 3.0'00.67 52*4.3 148 1 2.1a+7 141 - _( .4.3 74' 8.0+/-.4 1.6601240 6.424.4 7 -40+/-160
.2.r,.:1 147 IW-0 3" -2.5+/-3.3 148 jej69 j[ 050807 290+/-170 02
.0.601.7 0511010 34018 0.O*2.9 150 MW-2CT -1.8&3-6 19,,,22 0.7+/-2.3 154 153 MW= 7147 MW-62COV4 0.1+/-1.0 1.1 m W 2.1.2.3
(
156 *w43ow 01Wfl107 270,170-,
157 J mW-83@114" 05/1"5107 300t180 0S511507 Oft"g1 I osns10 I SOWN10
! A...
0.0*1.6 463, -0.4a23 I__ - ..L1 Inn:
NOTE~ ftpodad mwtainlies am +/-a efg0 a WW pqwpegWtdewl~
Exhibit 4 IPEC-CHM-07-002, Memiranclum trom 6. banaixe, -r. t_nemistry opeciaist tu i.
Bums, NEM Supervisor, re: "Dose Assessments from Sr-90 in the Hudson River for Fish and Invertebrates-January 2007 Results", (January 17, 2007).
From: 'Sandlke, -Steven Richard' <SSandlk@entergy.com>
To: 'Burns, Thomas F' dbumsl 0 entergycom>, 'Sachatello, Ronald"
<roach90@ entergy.oom>, WAdler, Joseph JV"<adler@entsrgy.com>, 'Hoflenbeck, Peter'
.. -<phoU91 @entergyom>, .QuinnrDenntS.M-L <dquin9-@entergy;com>,.<dcqulnndlaq'inc.comr;- 'Wison-,-- . .
Daniel' c0WIlson@entergy.com>, *Hlnrichs, Gary HO <ghlnrlc@ntergy.comn, "Oonahue, Patrick J'
<PDonu~enteray=oM>, 'Gry. Dam Fe <0GrsM@entegY-.cowM Date: 0/192007 5:59.06 PM
Subject:
Assessment of Sr-90 results Inf*ihnv All... Dennis Quinn and I have evaluated the lishliny analyses results with an eye toward a conservative evaluation of dose Impact, assuming of course, the recent analytical results are valid. This assessment Is by no means final, but this doc provides an Initlal determination of worst case dose Impact, and what IPEC would have to be releasing to produce this kind of concentration In fish.
<<chm-07-02.0df>>
Steve Sandike Effluents / RMS ENN Indian Point Energy Center Buchanan, NY 10511;0308 phone: 914-738-8455 fax: 914-734-6010 email: ssandik @ entergy.cofn CONFIDENT NOTICE: This electronic me ap contains Information which may be leg confidential and/or and does not In any case represent a firm"ERGY COMMOD bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender out an ad al express written oonflrmation to that effect. Info tion Is Intended solely for the Individual or entity named
- d access by anyone else Is unauthorized. it you are no In recipient, any disclosure.
copying, distribtion, 'ra of the ts of this Information is prohlbited and ma unlawful If you h received this electronic transmissionn please reply Inmmedla to the sender that you have r 9e message In error, and delet Thank you. Have a pleasant l. .. .
CC: 4dn@nro.gov>, <dwlnslow@gzLcom>, 'Croulet, Donald K' <dcrouleOentergy.cor>,
<mbarven1nk@gza.com>
Entergy Indian Point NPP
.Jan 17, 2007 IPEC-CHM-07-002 MEMORANDUM TO: T.BURNS -NEM SUPERVISOR FROM: S. SANDIKE - Sr. CHEMISTRY SPECIALIST
SUBJECT:
DOSE SSESSMEMTS FROM Sr-90 IN,"E HUDSON oRVER OB FISH AND INVERTEBRATES -JANUARY_2007 RESULTS This report summarizes some worst-case'assessments of the Sr-90 Identified in early reports of the fall, 2008 batch of REMP samples sent to Areva. I used the 24.5 pCI/kg value Inwhite perch and the 13.9 pCi/kg value in blue crab to bound the dose assessment.
This simple evaluation does NOT account or discuss any of the finer elements of error propagation, critIca level, environmental BKGD, constants for non-random error, or other improvements we are discussing with labs. It conservatively assumes al! fish and crab Identified. In the recent lab results are consumed by humans at the RGI .109 consumption rate, and at the highest concentrations reported from this batch of samples. Furthermore, we are assuming that these Initially reported concentrations are accurate.
With these bounding conditions, we can obtain annual doses as follows:
Reg Guide 1.109 and 00CM Flshlnv mremnl:Ci human total percen usage usage dose or Cone, Ingestion factor factor expected, annual pCi/kg dose factor kg/ kW annually, It Imrem ___
Adult 25/14 7.58E-03 21 6 4.41 44.1%
Teen 25114 8.30E-03 18 3.8 -3.68 36.8 %
Chid 25114 1.70E-02 8.9 1.7 3.27 32.7%
Infant 25/14 1.85E-02 0 0 0.00 n/a The dose end usage fadtors above, obtained ftom Reg Gulde 1.109 are Identical to those used In the IPEC ODCMs (we do NOT use site specific data for these values).
This evaluation Indicates that should all edible aquatic food In this location be consumed at the rates Identified in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (at the highest reported concentrations of Sr-90), the maximum Individual annual dose would be about 4.4 mrero, or 44% of the annual bone dose (combining the fish and Invertebrate dose contribution at this concentration).
Ifwe evaluate ALL the Sr-90 released In liquid effluent from IPEC since 2000, and INCLUDE a conservative assessment of Ground Water's contribution, we can project the IPEC-induced worst case concentration In fish. From the annual effluent reports (Reg Guide 1.21) and the ODCM's Blo-Accumulation Factor for Sr-90, we can conservatively produce the following table:
Note: 2008 data 16 estimated, but should be relatively accurate.
While we should NOT discount the value originally determined by Areva, this evaluation indicates that we must perform additional Investigation In an attempt to validate and understand the 25 pCIIL recently Identified at our control location in Roseton.
Even In a very conservative model, total IPEC effluent of S'-90 would need to approach 1.9 curies In a year to produce this concentration In fish. This is over 100 times the highest annual total and higher than the last 7 years combined.
Certainly, a small amount of Strontium can build up in fish over many years. However, since the average age of Hudson Valley White Perch is 3-4 years (and a maximum of approximately 7 years 1), It Is NOT reasonable to assume that IPEC Is releasing Sr-90 several hundred times that of the combined conservative measurements without a single effluent or other REMP sami~le showing this concentration, or the accompanying gamma concentrations. Nonetheless, this scenario should be evaluated along With.other, more reasonable possibilities, such as lab error and environmental background components.
Also attached Is an independent evaluation from .D. Quinn, Itemizing dose from each species analyzed.
SS/ss cc: J. Adler P. Donahue D. Gray D. Wilson
- 1) Wong, Rusmell, NC State University. Zoology Oept, 2002; Cooper, 1939; Nonmandeau, 2007
Evaluation submitted by D' Quinn, of DAQ-inc, Jan 16, 2007 .
Evaluating2005 data from the annual effluent reMort:
Based on ODOM values and 2005 1.21, Report Data Total"Sr-90 Released 6.40E-04 CI Volume of Dilution Water 2.78E+12 flow (L)
CI Sr-90 per L of water 2.30E-16 CO- pCi conversion factor 1.00E+12 pCVl.
Total Sr-90 Released 2.30E-04 30 BFI (pCi/Kg/pCI/L)
Calculated expected SWO in Fish -6.91E-03 pC0/kg f
Dennis then evaluated the Strontium dose In ALL species from the lastbatch of sample, results from Areva:
Dose from Sr4)0 InFish assuming RG 1.109 Paramneters In*1 (MuMMW4 (MrmmnyOrgan of I Ro-1Pr VAR.Parch-- IP 067561 24.5 9.0 -21 71.SSE-O 3.0 Sone 10.0 3D%
IFstoCW Fsh- IP06-577 AD 8Ai- 219- N6 os~b~n 4. ew -- - F i'10. R--F n FS as- 057L1.
o FSot 2.1 o oa -lj R~~setan8. 15.6 115 1l6rnI0-8.8EW . Bn 10.0 61 RosonWNeaaParchaZ - IPtOO.a OMIli 24cloi V..3 21 ~ o P-3.0 S~am 10-0 4MIq Ee -
NDmNtmeetb . .6EM I04 N 00 N PN
-*T833~r~~t~*i -
Id______________Fong__ ______0________________ -Iz
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos,. 50-247-LR
) and
) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
_ _ _ _,_ __ ) March 19,2009.
DECLARATION OF MANNA JO GREENE I, Manna Jo Greene, declare as follows:
- 1. My name is Manna Jo Greene; I live at 148 Cottekill Road, Cottekill, NY, and I am a long-standing member of, and now the Environmental Director for, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. ("Clearwater") a position I have held since 2000. I served on the Board of Directors for Clearwater for a year before accepting this position.
- 2. Clearwater is one of the petitioners and has admitted contentions in the above referenced action and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. In my position as Environmental Director, I am directed with responsibility for, leading Clearwater's advocacy campaign as it relates to Indian Point. In that role, I have reviewed the environmental report
("ER") submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. with its license renewal application and the Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "DSEIS").
- 3. Neither the ER nor the DSEIS assess the Hudson River as a source of drinking water.
A,
- 4. On February 25, 2009, I learned that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") had sought lead agency status in response to receiving a permit application from United Water New York ("UWNY") seeking to build a desalination plant to extract potable water from the Hudson River and therefore-the Hudson River would become a source of drinking water.
- 5. Under my instructions, we periformed research into UWNY's plans and the details about precise proposed plant processes. In addition, Clearwater. researched the ability of desalination plants to extract cesium-137, strontium-90 and tritium from contaminated water. Our findings are set forth in this declaration and the annexed motion for leave to add a new contention based on new information.
- 6. UWNY proposes to desalinate the water using reverse osmosis ("RO"). RO does not remove a noticeable amount of tritium contamination.
- 7. Since tritium is present as water its concentration will be unchanged by any standard water purification system, which requires the chemical component to be different from pure water. At a WCF (Waste Concentration Facility), suspended solids are removed from the liquid along with a high percentage of radionuclides using a reverse osmosis process. However, because of its chemical properties, tritium is not removed during the process.
(www.bnl.gov/ewms/ser/ser_2007.asp).
- 8. Like normal hydrogen, tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, can bond with oxygen to form water. When this happens, the resulting water (called "tritiated water") is radioactive. Tritiated water (not to be confused with heavy water) is chemically identical to normal water and the tritium cannot be filtered out of the water. (NRC Fact Sheet on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-2
radiation-fs.html , visited on March 10, 2009.
- 9. Water purification systems that rely on a coagulation-flocculation process can remove uranium, thorium, plutonium and polonium while the water soluble cations of cesium, strontium and radium pass through the purification process with. almost unchanged activity concentrations.
(Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 63, (2002) 105-115). Cesium- 137 and strontium-90 are present as water soluble cations and thus cannot be removed:by filters based onparticle size.
- 10. Most RO systems are composed of a series of filters. The sediment pre-filter filters by particle size (-larger than 5 microns) and is designed .to improve the appearance of water and thus will have no effect on the removal of radioactive materials. The carbon filters, designed to filter chlorine and organic contaminants also will have no effect on radionuclides. Only the reverse osmosis (RO) filter can effectively remove soluble inorganic salts, both naturally occurring as well as those from non-natural sources, for example nuclear power plants.
- 11. Because the RO filters are semi-permeable membranes that allow water to flow through the membrane the overall salt content of the inflow is decreased. As a result the sodium chloride and calcium chloride concentrations are decreased (key in desalination plants) as well as the concentrations of uranium, radium, strontium and cesium salts (salts of interest in radionuclide contamination).
- 12. It has been found that the addition of sodium chloride to fresh water samples decreases the effectiveness of removing cesium- 137 and strontium-90 (Desalination 157 (2003) 403-407).
- 13. Given the fact that tritium, strontium-90 and cesium-137 are all beta-emitters, with half-lives of 12.26 years, 30.23 years, and 28.1 years, respectively, there is sufficient time for transport prior to significant decay. Any ingested radioisotope is a cause for concern and since tritium, strontium-90 and cesium-137 have been detected in leaks to the Hudson River from IP 3
an evaluation of their effect on the Hudson River as a drinking source must be evaluated. It is critical that NRC assures a zero margin of error in evaluating Entergy's renewal application, especially in terms of the environmental and health impacts associated with municipal drinking water supplies.
I declare under penalty of perjury that,the foregoing is true and correct.
.Executed this 19th day of March, 2009, at Poughkeepsie, NY.
Manna Jo Gree(e 4
March 19, 2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the'Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating 50-247-LR Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 19, 2009 copies of the foregoing Motion, Petition forNew Contention, Declaration of Manna Jo Greene dated March 19, 2009 were served on the following by first-"
class mail and e-mail:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane East Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ridgeway, CO 81432 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: Kaye.Lathropdnrc.gov Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Lawrence.McDadeinrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 E-mail: Richard.Wardwell(nrc.gov E-mail: mdelaney(nyced6.com John J. Sipos, Esq. Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Qffice of the New York Attorney General Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
for the State of New York Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.
The Capitol Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Albany, NY 12224 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
E-mail: John. Sipos),oag.state.ny.us Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail:
martin.oneill()morganlewis.com pbessette~morganlewis.com ksutton(morganlewis.com
i Diane Curran, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1726 M. Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: OCAAMAIL(anrc.gov E-mail: dcurran(ýharmoncurran.com Office of the Secretary William C. Dennis, Esq.
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(&nrc.gov E-mail: wdennis(entergy.com Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M.Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor 625 Broadway, 140 floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 E-mail: jdp3@(&westchestergov.com E-mail: jlmattheagw.dec.state.ny.us Zachary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.
E-mail: Zacharv.Kahn(d)nrc.gov 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel(asprlaw.com jsteinberg __,sprlaw.com Robert D. Snook, Esq. John L. Parker, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Regional Attorney, Region 3 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 New York State Department of Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Environmental Conservation E-mail: Robert.Snook(ipo.state.ct.us 21 South Putt Corners New Paltz, NY 12561 E-mail: i lparker( gw. dec. state. ny.us Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Assistant Attorney General 53 State Street Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 120 Broadway, 2 6 th Floor E-mail: ezoliigoodwinprocter.com New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice. dean~oag.state.ny.us 2
Sherwin E. Turk Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor Beth N. Mizuno James Seirmarco; M.S.
Brian G. Harris Village of Buchanan David E. Roth Municipal Building Andrea Z. Jones 236 Tate Avenue Office of General Counsel Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Mail Stop: 0-15D21 E-mail: vob(ibestweb.net U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk(anrc.gov; Beth.Mizuno~nrc. gov: brian.harris(anrc.gov;:.,
David.Roth(iynrc.gov; andrea.j ones(anrc.gov;:.,
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. .Musegaas, Philli Esq.
Executive Deputy Attorney General.... Victor M.Tafr, Esq.
120 Broadway, 2 5 th Floor Deborah Brancato, Esq.
New York, NY 10271 Riverkeeper, Inc.
E-mail: mylan.denerstein(,,oag.state.ny.us, 828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 E-Mail: phillip(driverkeeper.org vtafur(riverkeeper. org dbrancato(riverkeeper.org lit Manna Jo Greene '
March 19, 2009 3.