UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

 Docket Nos. 50-247-LR 

 50-286-LR 

CLI-15-24 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

The State of New York seeks review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s recent 

order denying New York’s motion to withdraw a proprietary designation from certain documents 

produced by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. in this license renewal proceeding.1 As 

discussed below, we find that New York has not met the standards for interlocutory review and 

we therefore deny review at this time. 

 

 

1 Order (Denying New York Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation) (July 20, 2015) 

(unpublished) (July 20 Order); see State of New York Petition Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 

§ 2.341 for Commission Interlocutory Review of the July 20, 2015 Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board Order Denying New York Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designation (Aug. 14, 2015) 

(Petition) (non-public). 

In the Matter of 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) 
- 2 - 

I. BACKGROUND 

New York has been a party to this license renewal proceeding since its inception.2 In 

August 2009, the parties negotiated a Protective Order that they jointly submitted to the Board 

for approval.3 The Board issued the Protective Order shortly thereafter; that Protective Order 

governs the disclosure and use in this proceeding of documents that Entergy (or any other 

participant) claims contain proprietary trade secrets and/or proprietary commercial or financial 

information.4

As part of its mandatory disclosures, Entergy identified and disclosed the existence of 

the five documents here at issue, which it designated as proprietary information.5 Following 

requests for disclosure, Entergy produced the documents, unredacted, to New York under the 

Protective Order. Four of these documents are Calculation Notes concerning environmentallyassisted fatigue prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse).6 The fifth 

document is an internal memorandum prepared by the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners’ 

 

2 See generally LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43 (2008) (ruling on standing and contention admissibility). 

3 See Joint Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (Aug. 14, 2009). 

4 Protective Order (Sept. 4, 2009) (unpublished). 

5 See Entergy’s Answer Opposing New York State’s Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations

(Apr. 20, 2015), at 3 n.11 (listing disclosure updates). 

6 New York has identified the Calculation Notes as evidentiary exhibits for the upcoming hearing 

on “Track 2” contentions. See Pre-filed Ex. NYS000366, Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Accumulator 

Nozzle Environmental Fatigue Evaluation, CN-PAFM-09-77 (2010) (ADAMS accession no. 

ML11356A371) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex. NYS000510, Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 EAF 

Screening Evaluations, CN-PAFM-12-35 (2012) (ML15160A339) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex. 

NYS000511, Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) and Unit 3 (IP3) Refined EAF Analyses and EAF 

Screening Evaluations, CN-PAFM-13-32 (2013) (ML15160A340) (non-public); Pre-filed Ex. 

NYS000512, Indian Point Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Transfer Function Database 

Development and Environmental Fatigue Evaluations, CN-PAFM-13-40 (2013) (ML15160A341) 

(non-public).
- 3 - 

Group (PWROG) addressing technical and regulatory issues related to the resolution of NRC 

Staff Branch Technical Position 5-3.7

Earlier this year, New York filed a motion seeking to remove the proprietary designation 

of those documents, which would allow their public disclosure.8 Westinghouse sought leave to 

“appear specially” before the Board to contest New York’s motion.9 New York opposed 

Westinghouse’s motion, arguing among other things that Westinghouse had not cited 

authority allowing such participation.10

The Board held a telephonic oral argument on the motion and permitted 

Westinghouse’s representative to participate therein on behalf of Westinghouse and the 

PWROG.11 Following oral argument, in response to Westinghouse’s request, the Board 

 

7 New York has also identified the PWROG Memorandum as a hearing exhibit. Pre-filed Ex. 

NYS000519, BTP 5-9 Industry Issue Executive Review (Oct. 28, 2014) (ML15160A342) (nonpublic) (PWROG Memorandum); see also Declaration of W. Anthony Nowinowski (May 29, 

2015) (Attachment 2 to Joint Brief of Entergy and Westinghouse Regarding Proprietary 

Documents (June 4, 2015, refiled June 17, 2015), ¶ 4 (non-public) (Joint Brief); NUREG-0800, 

Rev. 2, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power 

Plants, LWR Edition, Branch Technical Position 5-3, “Fracture Toughness Requirements” (Mar. 

2007) (ML070850035). 

8 State of New York Motion to Withdraw the Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized 

Water Reactor Owners’ Group and Westinghouse Documents (Apr. 9, 2015). Entergy opposed 

New York’s motion; the Staff took no position. Entergy’s Answer Opposing New York State’s 

Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations (Apr. 20, 2015); NRC Staff’s Answer to “State of New 

York Motion to Withdraw the Proprietary Designation of Various Pressurized Water Reactor 

Owners’ Group and Westinghouse Documents” (Apr. 20, 2015, corrected Apr. 21, 2015). 

9 Motion of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC to Appear Specially in Connection with State 

of New York Motion to Strike Proprietary Designations of Westinghouse and PWROG 

Proprietary Documents (May 5, 2015) (Westinghouse Motion).

10 State of New York Answer Opposing Motion of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC to 

Appear Specially in Connection with the State’s Motion to Withdraw Proprietary Designations of 

Westinghouse and PWROG Documents (May 6, 2015).

11 See Transcript of May 14, 2015, Teleconference at 4639-716 (non-public) (Tr.). 
- 4 - 

allowed Westinghouse to brief the issue of the proprietary designations jointly with 

Entergy.12

In July, the Board denied New York’s motion. The Board found that the four 

Calculation Notes contained confidential commercial information, which is entitled to protection 

under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4).13 Specifically, the Board found that the Calculation Notes had 

been “maintained in confidence” by Westinghouse and that their release “likely would lead to 

substantial competitive harm” to Westinghouse.14

Regarding the PWROG Memorandum, the Board held that the case for “competitive 

harm” from disclosure was “marginal at best” but that further briefing on the question would not 

be a “useful expenditure of resources” because, in the Board’s view, the memorandum itself 

lacked probative value and would not be received in evidence.15 The Board observed that New 

York’s experts could, however, provide their views on the document to the Board; “the probative 

evidence would be [New York’s] experts’ opinion supported by their qualifications and 

reasoning.”16

New York’s petition for review followed. The Staff and Entergy oppose interlocutory 

review.17

 

12 See Tr. at 4709-10; Joint Brief.

13 July 20 Order at 6; see 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(4). 

14 July 20 Order at 7. 

15 Id. at 6. The Board likewise concluded that release of the memorandum would not benefit the 

public. Id.

16 Id.

17 NRC Staff’s Answer in Opposition to State of New York’s Petition for Interlocutory Review of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s Order (Denying New York Motion to Withdraw 

Proprietary Designation) (Sept. 8, 2015) (Staff Answer); Entergy’s Answer Opposing New York 

State’s Petition for Interlocutory Review of July 20, 2015 Licensing Board Order (Sept. 8, 2015); 
- 5 - 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

As a rule, we disfavor Interlocutory review and grant requests for such review only under 

“extraordinary circumstances.”18 We are particularly disinclined to interfere with respect to case 

management decisions.19 Without more, the possibility that a Board may have made an 

incorrect legal ruling does not warrant interlocutory review. Such rulings can be reviewed, if 

necessary, on appeal from a partial initial decision or other final appealable order.20 Our 

regulations provide for interlocutory review where the requesting party shows that the Board’s 

ruling: 

 

see also State of New York Combined Reply in Support of Petition for Interlocutory Review

(Sept. 18, 2015). 

Westinghouse seeks leave to file an amicus curiae brief opposing the petition for review. 

Amicus Curiae Brief of Westinghouse Electric Company Opposing New York Petition for 

Interlocutory Review (Sept. 8, 2015) (Westinghouse Amicus Brief); Westinghouse Electric 

Company Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief (Sept. 8, 2015). Our rules contemplate 

amicus briefs only after we grant a petition for review, and do not provide for amicus briefs 

supporting or opposing petitions for review. 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d) (permitting the filing of amicus

briefs “if a matter is taken up by the Commission under § 2.341 or sua sponte”); see also 

Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), CLI-03-9, 58 NRC 39, 44 n.21 

(2003). Nonetheless, as a matter of discretion, we have considered Westinghouse’s filing here. 

18 CLI-09-6, 69 NRC 128, 133 (2009) (declining interlocutory review of a Board decision that 

denied reconsideration of a contention admissibility determination in this case); Private Fuel 

Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-01-1, 53 NRC 1, 5 (2001). 

19 Indeed, we have declined interlocutory review on case management matters throughout this 

proceeding. See, e.g., CLI-12-18, 76 NRC 371, 374 (2012) (declining to take interlocutory 

review of Board’s decision to allow cross-examination); CLI-08-7, 67 NRC 187, 192 (2008) 

(declining to take interlocutory review of Board’s decision to cancel oral argument). Further, 

“[P]rocedural rulings involving discovery . . . rarely meet the standard for interlocutory review.” 

Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-98-8, 47 

NRC 314, 324 (1998) (citing, inter alia, Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-630, 13 NRC 84, 86 (1981). 

20 Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-6, 74 

NRC 203, 209-10 (2011); see also Private Fuel Storage, CLI-01-1, 53 NRC at 5; Sequoyah 

Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-11, 40 NRC 55, 61 (1994). 
- 6 - 

(i) Threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate 

and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, 

could not be alleviated through a petition for review of the 

presiding officer’s final decision; or 

(ii) Affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive 

or unusual manner.21

Applying these standards to New York’s petition, we find that immediate review is not 

warranted. 

B. New York Has Not Shown that Interlocutory Review is Warranted 

New York argues that the Board’s order irreparably and adversely affects its ability to put 

forward its case in the upcoming evidentiary hearing and identifies three specific issues that it 

claims warrant interlocutory review.22 First, New York argues that the Board “reached beyond 

the scope of [New York’s motion] to issue a sua sponte ruling on the admissibility” of the 

PWROG Memorandum.23 With respect to this issue, New York claims that the Board “issued a 

preemptive, sua sponte ruling that the PWROG Memorandum is inadmissible hearsay with ‘no 

probative value.’”24 New York argues that this ruling effectively prevents New York from using 

the PWROG Memorandum as evidence in the upcoming hearing.25 Second, New York argues 

that the Board “improperly shift[ed] the burden to [New York]” to show that the documents were 

not proprietary and otherwise failed to address certain of its arguments.26 Among these, New 

York argues that the Board neglected to address its argument that, even if the documents are 

proprietary, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need to protect a company’s 

 

21 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(f)(2). 

22 Petition at 1. 

23 Id. at 1, 17-20. 

24 Id. at 17 (citing July 20 Order at 6). 

25 Petition at 20. 

26 Id. at 1, 20-25. 
- 7 - 

competitive position.27 Third, New York argues that the Board erred in allowing Westinghouse 

to participate in the proceeding “without explaining the nature or extent of its rights or 

obligations.”28 New York claims that the Board’s ruling leaves Westinghouse’s role in the 

proceeding “unclear,” which in turn both threatens New York with immediate and serious 

irreparable impact and affects the basic structure of the proceeding.29 As discussed below, 

these arguments do not demonstrate the need for interlocutory review. 

First, we find that the Board’s statements concerning the probative value of the PWROG 

Memorandum have not caused New York irreparable injury.30 Whether the Board erred in its 

treatment of the PWROG Memorandum is a matter that can be addressed following an initial 

decision.31 In the meantime, the Board’s ruling does not impair New York’s ability to present its 

case. Notwithstanding its views on the memorandum, the Board provided a path forward for 

New York to address the same or similar information through its experts.32 New York has the 

five unredacted documents in its possession and is not constrained from using any or all of 

them in support of its case. And New York will have the opportunity at the end of this 

proceeding to raise an objection to the weight ultimately accorded by the Board to the PWROG 

 

27 Id. at 23-24. 

28 Petition at 1, 14-17. 

29 Id. at 16-17. 

30 See Hydro Resources, CLI-98-8, 47 at 324. 

31 Cf. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), 

ALAB-393, 5 NRC 767, 768 (1977) (“[D]uring the course of lengthy proceedings licensing 

boards must make numerous interlocutory rulings, many of which deal with the reception of 

evidence and the procedural framework under which it will be admitted. It simply is not our role 

to monitor these matters on a day-to-day basis; were we to do so, ‘we would have little time for 

anything else.’”) (quoting Toledo Edison Co. et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 

ALAB-314, 3 NRC 98, 99 (1976)). 

32 July 20 Order at 6. 
- 8 - 

Memorandum. At that time, New York may also renew its claim that “the Board shifted to [New 

York] the burden to show that the PWROG Memo was admissible evidence.”33 In sum, the 

Board’s decision to withhold the documents from public disclosure at this time does not prevent 

New York from fully litigating its claims in this proceeding. 

Nor does New York’s claim that the Board’s order imposes a “significant 

administrative burden”34 on the state present a prejudicial procedural error warranting 

immediate review. Filing non-public versions and redacted, public versions of certain 

documents is part of the ordinary administrative burden involved in participating in litigation 

and does not merit interlocutory review.35 As the Staff points out, New York must file non-public 

versions of other documents and therefore a portion of the evidentiary hearing will be held in 

camera in any event.36

Further, we decline to provide immediate review of the Board’s actions with respect to 

Westinghouse’s participation. New York has not demonstrated that Westinghouse’s 

participation in the case has posed serious irreparable impact or affected the basic structure of 

this proceeding. In particular, the adjudicatory record does not bear out New York’s claim that it 

must prepare for the upcoming hearing “without knowing whether or how Westinghouse will 

participate.” The record to date reflects that Westinghouse’s participation has been limited to 

the protection of its interests with respect to the proprietary designation of the five identified 

 

33 Petition at 21. 

34 Id. at 24. 

35 See, e.g., Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), 

CLI-11-10, 74 NRC 251, 256 (2011) (expansion of issues for litigation from the board’s denial of 

motion for summary disposition had neither a “pervasive and unusual effect” on the litigation nor 

a “serious and irreparable impact” to the moving party); CLI-09-6, 69 NRC at 133-36 (expense is 

not irreparable harm), 136-38 (increased litigation burden did not have a pervasive effect on the 

basic structure of the proceeding). 

36 See Staff Answer at 9. 
- 9 - 

documents, and New York has taken the opportunities available to respond to Westinghouse’s 

arguments and develop the adjudicatory record.37 New York has therefore not demonstrated 

that interlocutory review is warranted. 

Finally, New York’s concerns regarding release of information to the public do not 

warrant interlocutory review. As discussed above, the Board’s decision does not affect New 

York’s ability to pursue its case—New York retains full access to all five documents and has 

offered all five as evidentiary exhibits for the upcoming hearing.38 Our rules of practice, 

supplemented in this proceeding by the Protective Order, provide mechanisms to accommodate 

litigation where non-public information may be discussed. In particular, the rules expressly 

provide for in camera hearing sessions where information sought to be withheld from public 

disclosure is offered into evidence.39 New York will have the opportunity to renew its objections 

to the proprietary designations at the conclusion of the Board’s proceeding. If at that time we 

determine that information withheld under the Protective Order should have been publicly 

disclosed, we will direct that such information and the transcript of the related in camera session 

will be made publicly available.40

 

37 See Westinghouse Amicus Brief at 6-10; Westinghouse Motion at 1-3 (unnumbered). New 

York has filed a second motion for disclosure of additional documents authored by 

Westinghouse. State of New York Motion for Public Disclosure of Various Westinghouse 

Documents (Oct. 19, 2015) (non-public). The record reflects that Westinghouse has sought to 

participate in activities before the Board associated with this motion—as it has done so far—for 

the limited purpose of addressing Westinghouse’s proprietary designations for the documents at 

issue in that motion. See Order (Granting Westinghouse Electric Company’s Motion for Leave 

to Appear Specially Regarding Additional Proprietary Documents) (Nov. 3, 2015) (unpublished). 

As the case goes forward, we expect that New York (like any other party) will have the 

opportunity, as provided by our rules, to fully respond to Westinghouse’s arguments. 

38 See supra notes 6 & 7. 

39 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(b)(6) (“In camera sessions of hearings may be held when the information 

sought to be withheld is produced or offered in evidence.”); Protective Order ¶ L. 

40 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(b)(6); see Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation), CLI-05-1, 61 NRC 160 (2005) (ruling on the disclosure and redaction of various 
- 10 - 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny New York’s petition for interlocutory review of the 

Board’s July 20, 2015 Order, without prejudice to its ability to renew its appeal following a partial 

or final initial decision in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.41

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL 

 /RA/ . 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 9th day of November, 2015.

 

kinds of information in the adjudicatory record and in several Board and Commission decisions 

issued over the course of the proceeding). 

41 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR 

 ) and 50-286-LR 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating, ) 

 Units 2 and 3) ) 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 

have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange. 

 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Mail Stop O-7H4M 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

ocaamail@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair 

Administrative Judge 

lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov

Richard E. Wardwell 

Administrative Judge 

richard.wardwell@nrc.gov 

Michael F. Kennedy 

Administrative Judge 

michael.kennedy@nrc.gov 

Alana Wase, Law Clerk 

alana.wase@nrc.gov 

Julie Reynolds-Engel, Law Clerk 

Julie.Reynolds-Engel@nrc.gov 

Edward L. Williamson, Esq. 

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. 

David E. Roth, Esq. 

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. 

Brian Harris, Esq. 

Mary B. Spencer, Esq. 

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

Christina England, Esq. 

Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq. 

Joseph Lindell, Esq. 

John Tibbetts, Paralegal 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop O-15D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; 

edward.williamson@nrc.gov 

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov 

david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov 

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; 

christina.england@nrc.gov; 

catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; 

joseph.lindell@nrc.gov; 

john.tibbetts@nrc.gov 

OGC Mail Center 

OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov 

William B. Glew, Jr. 

Organization: Entergy 

440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 

wglew@entergy.com 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 

2

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. 

Goodwin Proctor, LLP 

Exchange Place, 53 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 

Daniel Riesel, Esq. 

Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq. 

Adam Stolorow, Esq. 

Natoya Duncan, Paralegal 

Counsel for Town of Cortlandt 

Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. 

460 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com 

astolorow@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com 

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. 

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 

Martin J. O’Neill, Esq. 

Raphael Kuyler, Esq. 

Brooke McGlinn, Esq. 

Grant Eskelsen, Esq. 

Ryan Lighty, Esq. 

Lesa G. Williams-Richardson, Legal Secretary 

Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary 

Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

ksutton@morganlewis.com 

martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 

rkuyler@morganlewis.com; 

lescher@morganlewis.com 

bmcglinn@morganlewis.com 

sraimo@morganlewis.com 

geskelsen@morganlewis.com 

rlighty@morganlewis.com 

lrichardson@morganlewis.com 

dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 

mfreeze@morganlewis.com 

Deborah Brancato, Esq. 

Ramona Cearley, Secretary 

Riverkeeper, Inc. 

20 Secor Road 

Ossining, NY 10562 

dbrancato@riverkeeper.org

rcearley@riverkeeper.org

Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. 

Assistant County Attorney 

Office of Robert F. Meehan, 

Westchester County Attorney 

148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor 

White Plains, NY 10601 

mjr1@westchestergov.com

Bobby Burchfield, Esq. 

Matthew Leland, Esq. 

Emre Ilter, Esq. 

McDermott, Will and Emery LLP 

500 North Capitol Street NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

bburchfield@mwe.com 

mleland@mwe.com 

eilter@mwe.com 

Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq. 

Covington & Burling LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

mswinehart@cov.com 

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director 

Steven C. Filler 

Peter A. Gross 

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 

724 Wolcott Ave. 

Beacon, NY 12508 

mannajo@clearwater.org; 

stephenfiller@gmail.com; 

peter@clearwater.org 

Andrew Reid, Esq. 

Organization: Hudson River Sloop 

Clearwater, Inc. 

Springer & Steinberg, P.C. 

1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 

Denver, CO 80202 

lawyerreid@gmail.com 

Richard Webster, Esq. 

Public Justice, P.C. 

For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

rwebster@publicjustice.net
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-15-24 

3

Michael J. Delaney, Esq. 

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs 

NYC Department of Environmental Protection 

59-17 Junction Boulevard 

Flushing, NY 11373 

mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov

Robert D. Snook, Esq. 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 

55 Elm Street 

P.O. Box 120 

Hartford, CT 06141-0120 

robert.snook@po.state.ct.us

David A. Repka, Esq. 

Victoria Hsia, Esq. 

Carlos L. Sisco, Paralegal 

Winston & Strawn 

1701 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

drepka@winston.com 

vhsia@winston.com 

CSisco@winston.com 

John J. Sipos, Esq. 

Lisa S. Kwong, Esq. 

Brian Lusignan, Esq. 

Mihir Desai, Esq. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Teresa Manzi, Legal Assistant 

Siobahn Blank, Legal Assistant 

Office of the Attorney General 

 of the State of New York 

The Capitol, State Street 

Albany, New York 12224 

john.sipos@ag.ny.gov 

lisa.kwong@ag.ny.gov 

brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov 

mihir.desai@ag.ny.gov

teresa.manzi@ag.ny.gov 

siobahn.blank@ag.ny.gov 

Kathryn M. DeLuca, Esq. 

Laura Heslin, Esq. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of the Attorney General 

 of the State of New York 

120 Broadway, 26th Floor 

New York, New York 10271 

kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov 

laura.heslin@ag.ny.gov 

 

Sean Murray, Mayor 

Kevin Hay, Village Administrator 

Village of Buchanan 

Municipal Building 

236 Tate Avenue 

Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 

smurray@villageofbuchanan.com

administrator@villageofbuchanan.com

 [Original signed by Brian Newell ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 9th day of November, 2015