ML20066G933
| ML20066G933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1991 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#191-11404, CON-#191-11412 LBP-91-1, OLA, NUDOCS 9102200100 | |
| Download: ML20066G933 (18) | |
Text
.
LILCO, Febhhkry7, 1991 4
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 91' FEB -3 P 4 MS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER 8' APPEAL FROM LBP-91-1 I.
Introduction On January-23, 1991, Petitioners Shoreham-Wading,1ver Central School-District-(SWRCSD) and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. - (SE ) -filed an ~ appeal from the Licensing 2
Board's orderfconcerning six of Petitioners' petitions to inter-
- .vene and requests for: hearing on threelseparate NRC licensing actions involving Shoreham,.Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham 1
- Nuclear Power Stati'on, Unit 1), LBP-91-1, 33-NRC __ ~(Jan.
8,
.19 91) -.
Pursuant to 10-C.F.R. S 2.717a(a), LILCO opposes Peti-tieners!: appeal..
II. Backaround On October 17, 1990, in response to six pending petitions for intervention and requests for hearing filed by Petitioners, 9102200100 910207 h'
PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
i 2
the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order in which it found that neither the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
SS 4321 et sea. (NEPA) nor the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
SS 2011 et sea., " require the NRC to consider ' resumed operation'
[of Shoreham) as an alternative" to the plant's decommissioning.
Lona' Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-90-08, 32 NRC 201, 203 (1990).
In making this determina-tion, the Commission recognized that the " federal action" in-volved in the Shoreham situation was n2L the decision by LILCO, a
private entity, to abandon the Shoreham facility.
Rather, the Commission noted that the " precise Federal actions at iccue here" consisted of (1) an " order requiring NRC approval prior.to return of. fuel to the reactor vessel," (2) an " amendment approving changes to the licensee's physical security plan," and (3) an
" amendment relating to emergency preparedness."
CLI-90-08, 32 NRC at 207.
The Commission continued that, while the NRC "must approve of a licensee's decommissioning plan..., including consider-ation of alternative ways whereby decommissioning may be accom-plished," nowhere in its regulations was "it contemplated that the NRC would need to approve of a licensee's decision that a plant should not be operated.
CLI-90-08, 32 NRC at 207 (empha-sis in. original).
The Commission then confirmed that "LILCO is
' legally entitled under the Atomic Energy Act and our regulations to make, without-any NRC epproval, an irrevocable decision not to operate Shoreham," and held that the " alternative of ' resumed
3 operation' -- or other methods of generating electricity -- are alternatives to the decision not to operate Shoreham and are beyond Commission consideration." Id2 Having made this finding on the scope and effect of NEPA in the Shoreham case, the Commission forwarded to the Licensing Board the six pending hearing requests "for further proceedings not inconsistent" with the Commission's Order.
CLI-90-08, 32 NRC at 209.
On October 18, 1990, the Chief Administrative Judge established a three-judge Licensing Board panel, chaired by Judge Margulies, to consider Petitioners' hearing requests.
55 Fed.
Reg ;43,057 (Oct. 25, 1990).
On October 29, 1990, Petitioners filed with the Commission a joint petition for reconsideration of CLI-90-08.
LILCO and the NRC Staff responded in opposition to the joint petition on November 13 and November 19, respectively.
The Commission has not yet ruled on Petitioners' request for reconsideration.
On November;8, 1990, the Licensing Board asked the parties for their views on whether the Board should go forward and rule on the six pending petitions or wait for the Commission's deci-sion on Petitioners' request for reconsideration of CLI-90-08.
The parties responded on November 16.
LILCO and the NRC Staff-argued that there was no need for the Board to wait and that it should proceed to rule on the intervention petitions, consistent with CLI-90-08.
For their part, Petitioners contended that the Board should wait until after the Commission had issued its decision on reconsideration.
4-
- On' January l8, 1991,,the Board issued-_LBP-91-1,--finding that-1 neither SWRCSD nor'SE had demonstrated standingito intervene and
2 2
denying?both" Petitioners' requests for hearing on each of the three= licensing actions.1lAt-the same time, the Board,-recognir-4 ing that Petitioners had not had the " benefit of the Commission's
'precedential decision on decommissioning in CLI-90-08-at the time
'they filed.their various petitions to intervene," noted'that the.
Epetitions " focused _on-matters that the Commission subsequently.
- determined-to be beyond the scope of consideration under NEPA'in any proceeding'on reactor decommissioning." LBP-91-1, slipJop. at 4 7. -
"(B)ecause'of these circumstances," the Board said, Peti-
.tioners "should be afforded.the. opportunity to amend 1their petitions: to ' intervene toltake.into - account" 2 CLI-90-08 and the
' deficiencies the Board identified in the petitions.
Idi The-Board therefore. offered Petitioners-the' opportunity to file
- appropriately amended petitions ~within 20 days of service of its order.- -Idr at 48~.-
On January 23, 1991,_ PetitionersifiledLtheir appeal-fromL
'LBP-91-1..
That same day, Petitionersialso asked the Licensing-L
' Board to stay'LBP-91-1, requesting that they be relieved of.their obligationsto submit' amended petitions until the; Commission:had-ruled either onotheir request for reconsideration of CLI-90-08 or
- en_their: appeal'from LBP-91-1, whichever came later.
10n February
=4, however, Petitioners filed-amended petitions-as directed by the Board,'thus-mooting.their request for a stay.
Or February 5, LILCO moved to dismiss the application for a etty as moot.
\\
i S
III. Arcument Petitioners' appeal from LBP-91-1 is defective both proce-durally and substantively.
As a threshold procedural matter, their appeal is premature under 5 2.714a.
This provision states, in relevant part, that an order wholly denvino a petition for leave to intervene and/or request for a hearing is appealable by the petitioner on the question whether the petition and/or hearing request should have been granted in whole or in part.
10 C.F.R. S 2.714a(b) (emphasis added).
Since the Board did not actually deny the petitions, but instead gave Petitioners an opportunity to amend their requests -- an opportunity which Petitioners have now availed themselves of -- they may not pursue a S 2.714a appeal at the present time.
They must wait until the Board has considered and, if such occurs, has denied their petitions as amended.
While Petitioners' appeal is obviously premature, LILCO nevertheless addresses the few substantive points they raise in their six-page supporting brief, only a brief response is warranted.
As shown below, Petitioners have wholly failed to confront the Board's determination that they have not demonstrated stand-ing to intervene.
Instead, Petitioners go off on a tangent, taking issue with the Board's finding that the "three license changes.
are not impermissible segmentation of any decision to decommission." LBP-91-1, 33 NRC __, slip op, at 47.
Petition-i l
I
' ^ ' ' - - '
.. -, ~ -
g-
~.
m 6
ers argue that,"there is no basis in CLI-90-08 for this holding,"
and claim-that "a fair reading of CLI-90-08 indicates that the
~
Commission-recognizes tae existence of-a proposal to decommission and that the three licensing actions under review are included within the ' scope' of that proposal."
Idz
-Petitioners' arguments fail in two important respects.
In
_the first place,1 Petitioners mischaracterize the Commission's.
r holding in CLI-90-08. -As a result, their argument, rather than truly-being a claim of error by the Licensing Board, really q-amounts to yet!another attempt to' induce the Commission to reconsider CLI-90-08.
Second, they offer literally nothing to contradict the-Board's-independent holding that Petitioners have o
failed to_' demonstrate standing to intervene.
A.
'The. Commission Found there Was no Impermissibly ggf.nented Decision to Decommission at Shoreham
- For a?.1 practical purposes, on appeal,-Petitioners assign only oneterror to the Board.- They assert that thereLis "no ibasis"-in'CLI-90-08 forithe Loard's finding that the decision
- to r
Ldecc2 mission Shoreham was imt'being-impermissibly segmented. 'In
'short,1 Petitioners claim'that the Board'has misinterpreted CLI-90-08.
But in truth, it-is-Petitioners who are-in error, In CLI-90-08, theJCommission specifically determined'that t
the three licensing actions'at issue-here do H2t constitute-segmentation ofLthe NRC approval-process connected with the.
decommissioning of the Shoreham plant.
After noting ~that the
" broadest'NRC action related to Shoreham decommissioning will be u
7 approval of the decision of how that decommissioning will be accomplished," the Commission stated that "it follows that NRC need be concerned at present under NEPA only with whether the three~ actions which are the subject of.the hearing requests will prejudice that action."
CLI-90-08, 32 NRC at 208 (emphasis in original),
" Clearly they do'not," the Commission continued, "because they have no prejudicial effect on hqw decommissioning will be accomplished." Idt (emphasis in original).
What Petitioners either misunderstand or refuse to accept is
'that its foll~ows that, with the " federal action" in the Shoreham case is properly defined (i.e., NRC approval of the method by which the plant will-be decommissioned), the NRC's separate consideration and disposition of the three licensing actions at
- issue here -
which plainly have no effect whatsoever on decom-
-missioning options
-Lis entirely appropriate.
Thus, the Board was correct in' concluding that under governing Commission law,
~
CLI-90-08,ithe "three license changes.
are not an impermissible segmentation of any: decision to decommission." LBP-91-1,-slip op. at 47.1/-
1/
Petitioners do-advance a second. criticism of LBP-91-1, arguing that the Board's decision to go forward in ruling on the six petitions before the. commission had issued its. decision on.
reconsideration of CLI-90-08 is " arbitrary'and capricious and
~
waste (s) the resources of both the Commission and Petitioners."
Petitioners 8 Brief in Support of Appeal of Atomic Safety and.
Licensing Board Memorandum and' Order of January 8,~1991 (Jan. 23, 1991); at 4.- Asserting:that the Board.has "relie(d) almost
. totally on CLI-9.0-08'for its findings of inadequacy" regarding
^the petitions, Petitioners.in'effect take issue with the Board's having given them a second change to submit suitable petitions.
Id2 This is an " obvious waste of resources," Petitioners argue, (continued...)
8 B.
However Petitioners Construe CLI-90-08, They Have-Failed Nonetheless to Demonstrate Standino to Intervene Petitioners apparently believe that the Board's denial of their intervention petitions turns solely on its interpretation of CLI-90-08.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the Board's rulings in LBP-91-1 on the issue of Peti-tioners' standing establish an entirely separate ground, not dependent on CLI-90-08, for its conclusion that the petitions are defective.
For example, at the outset, the Board makes quite clear that a crucial flaw in alllof the petitions is their insistent focus on issues that fall outside the scope of the proceedings.
In this regard, the Board states:
Much of.the petitions are given over to the issue that the modifications of the Shoreham license are individual actions in the propos-al to decommission Shoreham and that injury results from this inchoate decommissioning for which standing should be afforded and relief granted.
LILCO and Staff take the position that=the issue-of decommissioning and its ramifications are beyond the scope of the proceeding and therefore should not-be considered.
The Board agrees with the posi-tion of LILCO and Staff.
A reading of the hearing notices for each of the modifications fails to indicate that any decommissioning of Shoreham,.in whole or in part, is at issue in any of them.
1/
(... continued) since it allegedly sends them " barrelling ahead on the basis of a n9D-final order." Idz As previously noted, contemporaneously with their instant appeal from LBP-91-1, Petitioners sought a stay of this aspect of the Board's decision.
They then filed as l
scheduled amended petitions, thus rendering moot both their request for a stay and this particular aspect of their appeal l
from LBP-91-1.
l l
~, -
9 LBP-91-1, slip op. at 9-10 (emphasis in original).
As the Board then. notes, the " hearing noticos_are published to afford prospec-tive participants of notice of the matters at issue." Id at 10.
If the Commission " reviewed the modifications as part of any decommissioning of Shoreham," the Board continues, "it would have said so." Id2 Given the " absence of any declaration by the Commission in the notices, inferred or expressed, that decommis-sioning of shoreham is an issue in the requested hearings," the Board concludes, "we shall respect the orders and consider decommissioning outside the scope of the proceedings." 142 Nowhere in their brief on appeal do Petitioners even try to confront this key ruling from LDP-91-1.
Their failure to so do is particularly significant, given that the Board's ruling on this issue is plainly D2t based on any interpretation of CLI 08.
To the contrary, the Board's position is soundly predicated on long-established federal precedent.
Egg Bellotti v. NRC, 725 i
F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
With respect to CLI-90-08, the Board points out that the Commission had,_with that decision, merely "provided additional guidance that the scope of the proceedings did not involve decommissioning." LBP-91-1, slip op. at 10 (emphasis added).
As shown below, the Board found a myriad of other infirmi-ties in each of the six petitions.
Again, Petitioners make no effort whatsoever'to deal with the Board's findings.
This
-dereliction is tantamount to their neglecting to file a brief at all, a failure which is dispositive of their appeal.
- Ese, o.a.,
10 Mississicol Power and Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-140, 6 AEC 575 (1973).-
(1)
Confirmatory Order a.
EE 's Detition 2
With respect to the intervention petitions regarding the NRC's confirmatory order license modification, the Board ruled that SE, as an organization, had "not established that it will 2
suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes an injury in fact" from the action at issue.
The Board found tilat SE
'8 2
" organizational status is not unlike that of a petitioner whose
' interests lie in the development of economical energy resources, including-nuclear, which_have the effect of strengthening the economy and increasing the standard of living.'" LBP-91-1, slip op. at 24.
Citing Commission and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Board found tnat "such broad public interest does net estab-lish the particularized interest necessary for participation by a group in agency adjudicatory processes." Id2, citina Sierra Club
- v. Morton, 405 U.S.
727, 739 (1972); MetroDolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 332 (1983).
Yet another defect in SE 's petition was its 2
failure to " identify any injury that can be traced to the chal-l l
lenged action." LBP-91-1, slip op. at 24, citina Dellums v.
4BC,-
863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
The Board also determined that SE had failed to establish 2
representational standing.
The Board noted that SE had not 2
_q 11
" stated'that its organizational purpose provides authority to represent members in adjudicatory proceedings such as this one."
LBP-91-1, slip op. at 26.-
In order for an-organization to " rely upon injury _to the interests of its members,"'the Board said, "it must provide, with its petition, identification of at least one of the persons its seeks to reprasent, a description of the nature of injury to the_ person and demonstrate that-the person to-be' represented has in fact authorized such representation." Idx, giting Ehfladelchia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1.and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1437 (1982).
SE, the 2
LBoard said, had not provided any-of these things.
Relatedly, the Board noted that the-fact that some of SE 's members apparently 2
' live within a 50-mile radius.of Shoreham did not create'a pre-1 sumption-of standing in the confirmatory order proceeding, because "it ist not a proceeding for a construction permit, an operating license or a significant amendment which--would-involve anlobv'ious potential for offsite consequences." LBP-91-1, slip
'l op, at 27, citina -Florida Power and Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear-Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325L(1989).-
SE fails.to. challenge any of these findings, which are 2
dispositive of its standing, b.
SWRCSD's Detition Similarly, the Board found that SWRCSD had not. established either organizational or representational standing.
With respect to organizational standing, the Board determined that SWRCSD's
12
" organizational interest is that of a ratepayer and a tax recipi-ent," economic concerns that are "outside of the Commission's jurisdiction." LBP-91-1, slip op, at 28.
Such concerns "do not confer standing in NRC licensing proceedings," the Board contin-ued, and, therefore, SWRCSD "has no basis for organizational standing." 142 As to representational standing, the Board found that, while the President of the Board of Education had been identified as one whose interests SRRCSD. wished to protect, "(njo supporting statement was received stating that the person had in fact authorized such representation." LBP-91-1, slip op, at 28.
In addition,.the Board reiterated that the " fact that the individual may reside and work in close proximity to the nuclear facility does not create a presumption of standing." Id2 at 29.
Finally, as with SE, the Board determined that SWRCSD's 2
petition failed to " particularize any injury that it traces to the Confirmatory Order."
LBP-91-1, slip op. at 29.
The Board continued that "(a}lthough (r,RRCSD] claims _it wants to protect the health and-safety of employees from the radiological impacts of the Confirmatory order, it does not identify what those radiological impacts are." Id.
SWRCSD fails even to address, much less refute, any of these
_ findings documenting its lack of standing.
l
r
)
13-(2)-
Physical Security Plan
-- a.
HE 's netition 2
.SE 's petition on LILCO's Physical-Security Plan amendment, 2
i.
the' Board said,;" fundamentally is a repeat of its petition to intervene on the-Confirmatory _ Order Modification." LBP-91-1, slip op. at 30.
The: Board therefore chose not to repeat at length its reasons why SE2 had failed-to establish standing.
The. Board did note,!however, that, as to organizational-standing, SE2 had.not established "how, in a concrete way, the
{
lack of an environmental assessment on the Security Plan Amend-Lment~would injure.its. ability to disseminate information'that is essential to its-programmatic activities and is in the zone of interest protected by NEPA." LBP-91-1, slip op, at 35.
With:
respect to representational standing, the Board pointed out that SE had'not. submitted the required supporting statement, 2
nor met itsy" burden of showing that a member's particularized injury in fact-result 6 from the Security Plan Amendment." Idx To the 1
contrary, the Board said,;all that SE2 had done was to present an
" abstract argument that is: unconnected to the legal and factual issues in the proceeding. "- Idx at '36. - The true issue in the proceeding,-"whether the. security changes for aidefueled plant that has never'been in commercial operation can result in harm,"
was, the Board-continued, "never. addressed by Petitioner."'Idi-
-SE fails to address at all this dispositive finding in-its 2
brief on appeal.
t
14 b.
SWRCSD's Detition The Board found SWRCSD's petition to be " virtually identical to that of (SE ) except as to organizational purpose and does not 2
differ in any material respect." LDP-91-1, slip op, at 38.
The Board therefore-made the "same rulings on (SWRCSD's) petition am we o.'d" on SE 's.
1d1 2
SWRCSD fails utterly to address this matter.
(3)
Emeraency PreDaredness HE 's netition a.
2 Here, too, the Board noted that SEp had " repeat (ed) what is contained in its two petitions we previously reviewed." LBP-91-1, slip op. at 39.
Organizationally, SE did not show itself to 2
have " suffered an injury in fact recognized in law." Id at 42-43.
SE2 also failed to submit the required supporting statement to establish representational standing.
The Board further found that SE 's " claims of-injury are not 2
organizationally-and representationally related in any way to a plant.:.ich will be defueled and will have its spent fuel in storage before any of the (emergency preparedness license) conditions can be removed." LBP-91-1, slip _op. at-43.
Once again, the Board eLserved, SE.had merely presented an " abstract 2
argument that is unconnected with the legal and factual issues in the proceeding." Idi No'" credible showing" was made, the Board said, that "the amendment would increase the risk of radiological harm to members' health and safety." Idx at 44.
i
1 15 SE has failed to appeal the Board's ruling on these issues, 2
b.
SWRCSD's cetition Again, the Board noted that SWRCSD's petition was " virtually identical" to SE 's.
LBP-91-1, slip op. at 46.
The Board made j
2 the "same rulings as to both petitions." 14.
Again, SWRCSD has failed to appeal.
As the above makes evident, the infirmities that the Board i
identifies in th9 six petitions are fundamental and systemic.
The short of it is, the Board has determined that in all instances Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the sort of interests necessary to establish-standing.
Even in the face of opposition from Petitioners, the. Board's findings would be entitled to substantial deferench.
Sag, 22gi, Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 193 (1973) (a Board's determination as to whether a' petitioner has identified a sufficient affected interest will not be disturbed on appeal "unless it appears that that conclusion is irrational"); accord, Ducuesne' Licht Co.
(Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 244 (1973).
And'yet, Petitioners do not even mention the Bcard's
' findings on any of these critical standing issues.
It must be evident, even to Petitioners, rF't they have no plausible case on appeal.
4
)
~
i
.a 16 IV. Conclusion For the reasons given above, Petitioners' appeal from LBP-91-1 should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, N
ORG(W !
(? D t! L U M /
W.
Taylor Reveley, III
/
Donald P.
Irwin
/b6/{.
David S.
Harlow Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535.
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
February 7, 1991
4 3
LILCO, February 7,1991 si i; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 91 FG -8 p2 :.;g Before the Commission m.e In the Matter of
)
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50 322-OLA
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' APPEAL -
FROM LBP-91-1 were served this date upon the following by Federal Express,' as indicated by an asterisk, or by first class mail, postage prepaid.
Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman
- The Honomble Samuel J. Chilk Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Secretary of the Commis:; ion One White Flint North Building Office of the Secretary 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland. 20852.
Washington, D.C. 20555
- Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers" Administrative Judge
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Morton B., Margulies,' Chairman One White Flint North Building ~
Atomic _ Safety and Licensing Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~sion L
.Rockville, Maryland: 20852 East West Towers, Fourth Floor 4350 East-West Highway Commissioner James R. Curtiss*
Bethesda, MD. 20814 Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building.
' Administrative ~ Judge *
'!!555 Rockville Pike
- Jerry R. Kline Rockville, Maryland.-20852
_ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Commissioner Forrest J. Remick* -
East-West Towers, Fourth Floor Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway One White Flint North Building Bethesda, MD ' 20814 11555 Rockville Pike-
-Rockville, Maryland.20852 l'
fa.g
]
pg
,.t,
.2
- Adm nistrativ6 Judge * -
Carl R. Schenker, Jrl,; Esq.
George A; Fergusonl Counsel,- Long Island Power Authority j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -
O'Melveny & Myers
- 5307 Al Jones Drive 55513th Street, N.W.
. Columbia Beach,' Maryland-20764' Washington, D.C. 20004.
I 1 James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq
- Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq.
Dow, Lohnes &1 Albertson -
General Counsel 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Suite 500
~
Washington,~ D.C. 20037 U.S. Department of Energy i
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585 Mitzi A.. Young, Esq.* '
. Office of the General Counsel Charles M. Pratt, Esq.~.
- U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Vice President and General Counsel i
One White Flint North 22nd. Floor 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MarylandL20852 Power Authority of State of New York 7
1633 Broadway; New York, New York -10019
- Michael R. Deland. Chsirman Council on' Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President :
Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq.
Office of General Cou' sel?
n
'722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington; D.C. ~ 20503 New York Power Authority
}
1633 Broadway.
New Yotk, New York-10019 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
David 'Ac Repkai Esqc!
Winston & Strawn ~
Sanuel A.- Cherniak, Esq. -
New York State Department of Law
~
1400 L Street, N.W..
i
' Washington, D.C. _.20005 Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Notection L
120 Broadway
-- New York,-New York : 10271 istanley BL Klimberg, Esq.
J
= Executive' Director and General-
_ l Counsel.
Long Island Power Authority-Q
- 200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 W 6t d O'b YGrdceC Garden City, New York 11530-David S..Harlow '
gfn f
- Hunton-& Williams 707 East Main Street
- P.O. Box 1535 -
I Richmond,' Virginia 23212 1
1 DATED:. February 7,1991 l
l p
..