ML20081L483

Petitioner Amend & Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.* Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearings & File Joint Suppl to Petitions to Intervene,Including List of Contentions Amended.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20081L483
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/21/1991
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#391-11914 91-621-01-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9107050113
Download: ML20081L483 (18)

Text

- . _. _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ______ _ _ __

. l l

~~at UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l >E l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judgest li: .

o

~m p . ' '

,Ji Morton B. Margulies, Chairman '

Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline l

) Docket No. 50-322-OLA In the Matter of )

) ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Confirmatory Order

) Modification, Security (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Plan Amendment and Emergency Unit 1) ) Preparedness Amendment)

)

PETITIONERS' AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's

("ASLB") Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1991 ("May 23 Order") in the above-captioned matter, Petitioners Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy ("SE 2 ") hereby amend their petitions to intervene and requests for hearings and file a joint supplement to their petitions to intervene, including a list of the contentions which Petitioners seek to have litigated in the hearing. Egg also, 10 C.F.R. SS 2.714(a)(3) & 2.714 (b) (1)

(1991).1#

1/ In accordance with the rights granted Petitioners by the referenced subsections of S 2.714, the School District and SE2 reserve the right to further amend their petitions and file further contentions not more than " fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference" in these matters, i.e., on or before July 7, 1991.

9107050113 910621 8

{DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR

)9

r l l While attempting to comply with the May 23 order, Petitioners object to the Order insofar as it requires the filing of contentions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 5 4321 gi spg. (1988), at this time, because requiring the filing of NEPA contentions is premature before the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0") has filed its environmental report. Egg 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 (b) (2) (iii)

(1991). The requiremenc to file NEPA contentions at this time severely prejudices the Petitioners' rights and the persons they represent, and is contrary to the public interest.

Further, the School District respectfully suggests that

the May 23 Order errs in implying that the School District's claims for standing are limited to " organizational interests . .

. of a ratepayer and tax recipient" (May 23 order at 24) and that l those interests are limited to " economic" interests (May 23 Order at 25), finding that such " economic interests do not qualify it for standing unoer NEPA or the AEA." May 23 order at 24.

In his April 5, 1991 affidavit (at 5 5), the President of the Board of Education of the School District also cited, in support of standing, his responsibility for decisions "in accordance with the School District's position on matters

! affecting both general interests and specific health, safety and 1

environmental interests of the students and employees for whom it responsible during work and school hours." It is well established that one of the " twin aims" of NEPA is to ensure "that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed

3-considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process."

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v.__ Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2252, 76 L.Ed.2d 437, 446-47 (1983). There can be no doubt but that the School District, the President of its Board of Education, and its students and employees are members of the most immediate sector of the "public" affected by decisions on Shoreham and that the continuing denial of NEPA review of the proposal to decommission Shoreham and the segmented parts of that proposal presented in this proceeding violates their rights under NEPA as enunciated in Baltimore Gas & Electric.

I Further, the May 23 Order's recognition of the School District's interest as a " tax recipient" and " ratepayer" l satisfies the " injury in fact" requirement for standing: "The L .

l fact of economic injury is what gives a person standing to seek

-judicial review . . . ." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 737, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1367, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). If the proposal to decommission the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

("Shoreham") and its segmented parts is approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission"), the School District will eventually lose over $25 million in anDual income.

In Dellums v. U.S.N.R.C., 863 F.2d 968, 973 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the l

Court found that " inability to find work (by a sinale individual) constitutes injury in fact" satisfying that element of the test for standing.

-4 -

Having satisfied injury in fact, there is then a separate inquiry into whether the Petitioner can meet the

" causation and redressability requirements of Article III." Id.

In this case, the School District contends that if the public and the decisionmakers ever had before them the true environmental costs and benefits of the proposal to decommission Shoreham as a result of NEPA review, that proposal would be withdrawn. If that proposal were withdrawn the threatened economic harm to the School District, its students and employees would be climinated automatically. Thus, there is a direct causation and sure redressability of the economic injury as well as other environmental injuries flowing from the indirect (e.g., air pollution) effects of the plan to replace Shoreham with fossil fueled generating units. Under these circumstances, the School District certainly does have standing under NEPA.

Furthermore, given the fact that the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Operation of Shoreham (NUREG-0285, October 1977) ("FEIS") identified the resulting tax revenue to the School District among the principal socioeconomic benefits of the proposal to operate Shorehar.I' 2/ The FEIS recognized among other things, that the " major economic impacts from the operation of (Shoreham) are derived from the tax revenues." In particular, the FEIS recognized (at S 5.6.3) that there was a substantial benefit from the " taxes paid to the Shoreham-Wading River School District during construction of the plant (since they) represent a substantial proportion of the total School Dir,trict budget (and that) proportion will continue will continue to increase when the plant goes into

operation. . . . " The special benefit of Shoreham to the School l (continued...)

1

k

.(FEIS at $ 5.6), it seems truly anomalous that the May 23 Order would find that interest does "not qualify it for standing under .

NEPA." May 23 Order at 24. If the FEIS found those tax revenues (and hence, the School District's ability to provide a better education for the citizens of the District) to be a principal socioeconomic benefit to be addressed in the FEIS under NEPA, how can the ASLB find that the proposed deprivation of such revenues

• is not a harm which would " qualify it for standing under NEPA?" >

It would appear that any EIS addressing the proposal to decommission Shoreham would have to address the loss of those tax revenues as a " socioeconomic cost" of the approval of the proposal, a cost directly affecting the School District.

CONTENTION 1: Petitioners contend that the NRC must .

require LILCO to prepare an environmental report and that the NRC Staff must then publish a draft environmental impact statement 2/ (... continued)

District by-way of its tax contributions was also singled out in the FEIS at S 5.6.5 " Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts."

In Chapter 8,'the FEIS addressed the "need for the station" concluding that the energy demand and LILCO's commitments to the New York Power Poo1~to maintain a minimum reserve margin justified a'new electrical generation plant the size of Shoreham

($ 8.4.1 & 8.4.3), that there would be significant cost savings

-in-providing electricity from this nuclear plant rather than from oil-fired plants.(S 8.4.2), and that other alternative electric energy. sources were not " feasible" on Long Island (S 8.2).

Finally, in the Benefit-Cost Summary (Ch.10), the FEIS recognized

" direct benefits" from Shoreham as its production of up to 5 billion Kwh/yr of electricity, its " favorable effect on system reliability, and a savings in system fuel costs," as well as iden*;1f ying the contribution to "the local property, revenue and o sales taxes

. . . and the new jobs created as "important considerations to .

the surrounding. areas." ($ 10.2).

_ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . . - . ~ . . _

("DEIS") for comment, prepare a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS"), and follow other NRC procedures for the consideration of the environmental impact of the proposal to decommission Shoreham before issuing the Confirmatory Order, Emergency Preparedness Amendment and/or the Security Plan d Anendment because all three of those actions are within the

. " scope" of the proposal to decommission Shoreham, which is a proposal for a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment requiring such environmental consideration before the issuance of any " form of approval" by the NRC of the proposal to decommission Shoreham or any of its subsidiary proposals, including the three actions within the scope of this proceeding. 42 U.S.C. $ 4332 (1988); 10 C.F.R. S 51.100(a) (1991).

The three actions which are the subject of this proceeding are within the scope of the proposal to decommission Shoreham because they are " interdependent parts of [that) larger action and depend the larger action for their justification." 40 C.F.R. S 1508.25 (a) (1) (iii) . It is also clear that the NRC Staff relied on the existence of the Confirmatory Order as a significant part of the basis for its approval of the emergency preparedness and security plan amendments. Staff Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Exemption and Amendment No. 6 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-82 at 5 1.0 (July 31, 1990);

Staff Safety Evaluation Support Amendment No. 4 to Facility operating License No. NPF-82 at 5 2.0 (June 4, 1990). Thus, it

_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ --. _ _ _ -_____ _ _ _._ _ . .-_-.__..__m_ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ .

is cicar that the security plan and emergency preparedness plan amendments also constitute actions which "(c)annot or will not proceed unless other actions ( i . .e t , the Confirmatory Order) are taken previously or simultaneously." 40 C.F.R. S 1508. 2 5 (a) (1) (ii) . These actions also constitute cumulative actions "which when viewed with other proposed actions [both within and without the current scope of this proceeding) have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement." 40 C.F.R. S l l

1508.25(a)(2). Such an EIS also "shall consider . . . the 3 l types of alternatives . . . namely the "[njo action alternatived, l

"(o)ther reasonable courses of actions", and "(m)itigation measures (not in the proposed action)." 40 C.F.R. SS 1508.25 1508. 2 5 (b) . And that EIS is also required ("shall consider") 3 types of impacts, namely (1) Direct; (2) Indirect; (3) ,

Cumulative." 40 C.F.R. S 1508.25(c). In asserting that these

! principles govern the need for an EIS embracing the proposal to decommission Shoreham (including its component parts),

Petitioners note that the NRC explicitly adopted 40 C.F.R. S l 1508.25. 10 C.F.R. S 51.14 (b) (1991) .

1 CONTENTION 2: The need for an EIS on the proposal to decommission Shoreham is established by the Commission's l

j determination in 10 C.F.R. S 51.20(b) (5) in the 1988 Edition and earlier years that a proposal to decommission a nuclear power t reactor-"should be covered by an environmental impact statement."

l l

That requirement continues to exist for the proposal to L

l

I decommission Shoreham because the removal of the categorical requirement for EISs on all proposals to decommission nuclear l

l reactors was based upon the Final Generic Environmental Impact i Statement on Decommissionina Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 (August 1988) ("GEIS") which was limited in its scope to l facilities where decommissioning is necessary because such L

facilities are either "at the end of their normal lifetimes" or I

where there is a " premature closure of a reactor due to an accident." GEIS at 8-1. Since Shoreham is not at the end of its l " normal life" and has suffered no permanently disabling accident, i

l the proposal to decommission Shoreham is outside the scope of the GEIS and, therefore, the categorical requirement continues in i

full force and effect with respect to a proposal to decommission l Shoreham. Petitioners have made this assertion to the Commission

!. repeatedly and the Commission has never denied that a proposal to l

l decommission Shoreham is outside the scope of that GEIS.

l CONTENTION 3: Petitioners contend that LILCO's environmental report should be in the format prescribed by Regulatory Guide 4.2 (Rev. 2, July 1976) as appropriately modified for the proposal at issue as a result of the future applicatiran of the Commission's scoping procedures at 10 C.F.R.

SS 51.28 & S1.29 (1991) since that format for an environmental report on a nuclear power station has been determined by the NRC Staff to be the format " acceptable to the NRC Staff for implementing (these) specific parts of the Commission's regulations." NUREG-0099, Cover Sheet (July 1976).

. . - ~ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . ,

CQHILUTION 4: An EIS is required for Commission consideration of the proposal to decommission Shoreham because the Plan submitted by the Long Island Power Authority in U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-322 by letter of December 29, 1990 which LILCO has requested the NRC Staff to consider pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 50.82 by SNRC-1781 (January 2, 1991) proposes the selection of the DECON alternative (Plan at 5 2.1) which would foreclose the consideration of alternative decommissioning methods including SAFSTOR and ENTOMB. Also, the NRC Staff has recognized that issuance of the POL allows the licensee to " chip the fuel support castings and peripheral pieces for off-site disposal . . . .

" Egg SECY-91-129

Subject:

Status and Developments at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) at 3 (May 13, 1991). The Commission approved SECY-91-129 in its Memorandum and Order in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-08 (at p. 13), __ NRC ,

___ (June 12, 1991). Since DECON is the p_nly alternative "in which the equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed . . . . from the site," it is clear that allowing LILCO to proceed with the disposal of reactor internals at this time would prejudice the consideration both of SAFSTOR which "is the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred contamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use" and of ENTOMB which is "the i

l l

alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in structurely long-lived material, such as concrete; the ENTOMB structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until radioactivity decays to a 1cvel permitting relense of the property for unrestricted use." GEIS at i 2.4.

Further, with particular reference to a boiling water reacter such as Sharcham, proceeding with DECON without a prior EIS forfe$ts the consideration of the NRC's recognition that SAFSTOR "is advantageous in that it can result in reduced occupational radiation exposure in situations where urgent land use considerations do not exist." GEIS at i 5.3.2. It also would deny the similar benefits of avoidance of radiation exposure available through the ENTOMB alternative which explicitly foresees the entombment of "the pressure vessel internals and their long-lived . . . isotopes . . . , along with other radioactive material." GEIS at i 5.3.3. The avoidance of radiation exposures available through the choice of SAFSTOR or ENTOMB are "NEPA-based considerations" and Atomic Energy Act considerations which would be addressed in the EIS and would be foreclosed by allowing LILCO's proposed actions to go forward without such an EIS. S.ge Lona Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) CLI-91-04 (at p.5), NRC ,

(April 3, 1991).

CONTENTION 5: Petitioners contend that the reduction in vital areas, vital equipment and plant security staff, as well as possible other changes made by the Security Plan Amendment

l 11 -

(" Amendment") reducing the quality and quantity of the security afforded areas, equipment, and activities at Shoreham under the Site Security Plan (" Plan") are inconsistent with odequate assurance of, and create an unreasonable risk to, the public health and safety, fail to minimize danger to life or property, do not promote the common defense and security, and are inconsistent with serving a useful purpose proportionate to the quantities of special nuclear material authorized to be utilized under the Shoreham full-power operating license, and are thus, in violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

5 2011 gi sea. (1988), in particular, 42 U.S.C. 5 2133, and the Commission's regulations and other guidance thereunder, and would particularly constitute unreasonable risks to the health and safety of Petitioners and the persons they represent arising from the Licensee's inability to meet the design basis threats to vital equipment and special nuclear material at Shoreham.

Not having access to the Security Plan as it existed prior to the Amendment, or the NRC Staff, LILCO and other parties' position = on either Plan, or the Staff Safety Evaluation Report of either Plan, or the Commission or Licensing Board (s) or Appeal Board (s) rationales for approving the Plan as it existed prior to the Amendment, or the record of those prior proceeding (s), or rolated settlement agreements, or other relevant " facts" which could be subject to expert analysis, Petitioners are at this time prevented from stating their contentions with the particularity sought by 10 C.F.R. 5

l l

l l

2. 714 (b) ( 2 ) (1991). However, Petitioners attempt to identify initially at least the following additional and cubridiary issues on the basis of existing NRC Regulations and other guidance:

(a) The Amendment does not meet the requirements l

prescribed by the Commission for the physical protection of plants and materials in 10 C.F.R. Part 73 (1991). Part 73 l l

" prescribe.g reauirements for the establishment and maintenance of a physical protection system which will have capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material at fixed sites . . . and of plants in which special nuclear material is used." 10 C.F.R.

S 73.1(a) (emphasis added). It applies to "the physical protection of production and utilization facilities licensed pursuant to Part 50 of [the Commission's regulations)." 10 C.F.R. S 73.1(b) (1) (1) (1991). Since Shoreham is a utilization I facility licensed pursuant to Part 50, the requirements of Part l 73 apply in their fullness to Shoreham regardless of its current

" mode." Further, since the proposal to decommission Shoreham has not been approved by the Commission as yet, the fact that Shoreham has not operated in the approximately two years since it received its full power operating license means, at most, that the physical security requirements for Shoreham should be the same as those for any other full power operating nuclear power plant licensee which has been in an " extended outage" of two years or more. Petitioners suggest that the NRC Staff will not l

be able to demonstrate that any such licensee in an extended outage has been allowed reductions in plant physical security l

l l

- 13 -

(including reductions in the designation of vital areas, and/or vital equipment) such as those granted in the Amendment. The fact that no other similarly situated licensee has been allowed similar reductions in the security plan would constitute strong evidence that such reductions are not consistent with the physical security requirements and other criteria of the Atomic Energy Act.

(b) Part 73 establishes the design basis threat to "be used to design safeguard systems to protect against acts of radiological sabotage and to prevent the theft of special nuclear material, including the threat of " violent external assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive actions, of several persons (who are well-trained, dedicated, operating with inside assistance, and suitably armed) as well as the " internal threat of an insider, including an employee. "

. . . 10 C.F.R. S 73.1(a) (1)- (1991) . Petitioners submit that the Plan both before and after the Amendment is inadequate to meet the design basis threat. For example, on October 16, 1989, at 8:45 a.m., an unknown individual manually activated a fire pump and a fire suppression deluge valve onto the vertical cable trays of the reactor building where the emergency core cooling system pumps are located. U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-322, Licensee Event Report 89-008-00 at p.1 (November 15, 1989). While this was recognized as " attempted sabotage / tampering," it appears that the licensee only " interviewed" seven people " determined from the security computer" to be in the reactor building at the time of the

i

~

e 14 -

incident and took fingerprints, coming to "an inconclusive" result. 14. at 3. Such a desultory performance of security responsibilities without fuller explanation indicates a lack of compliance Part 73, and a need for heightening, not lessening, security plan requirements.

(c) Petitioners also contend that the Amendment does not conform with the guidance for implementation of Part 73 made mandatory by the Commission's physical protection upgrade rule, 44 Fed. Reg. 68184 (November 28, 1979), namely the " Fixed Site Physical Protection Upgrade Rule Guidance Companion, Vols. I and II," nor with the regulatory guides published pursuant to that rule, namely Regulatory Guide 5.7, " Entry / Exit Control for Protected Areas, Vital Areas and Material Access Areas" (Rev. 1, May 1980), Regulatory Guide 5.14, "Use of Observation (Visual Surveillance) Techniques in Material Access Areas" (Rev. 1, May 1980), or Regulatory Guide 5.44, " Perimeter Intrusion Alarm Systems" (Rev. 2, May 1980).

(d) The reduction in guard force violates the settlement agreement among the parties in the operating license proceeding for Shoreham and, therefore, is invalid. U.S.N.R.C.

Docket No. 50-322, Transcript of Management Level Meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Long Island Lighting Company at 76 (July 28, 1989).

(e) Insofar as the Amendment allows for a response team of less than ten armed and trained personnel immediately available at the facility at all times, it is in I

15 -

violation of the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 73.55(h)(3) because, among other reasons, any reduction from the nominal number of such guards cannot be justified on consideration of the Lleven factors specified by the Commission in discussion item (3) of Requirements for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Power Reactors, 42 Fed. Reg. 10836 (February 24, 1977).

(f) Since Section 238(b) of the Atomic Energy Act declares "the unauthorized use of or tempering with the machinery, components, or controls of any [ utilization facility licensed under this Act) a crime punishable by fine and/or imprisonment and since Shoreham is such a licensed utilization facility, all " machinery, components, or controls" of the ntclear-related portions of Shoreham should be considered " vital equipment" and should be within a " protected area." Also see 42 U.S.C. S 2014 (cc) (2) (1988). To the extent that such Shoreham

" machinery, components, or controls," by virtue of the Amendment, are no longer classified as " vital eqeipment" or are outside of

" vital areas" and/or " protected areas," that Amendment is in violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 73 and the Atomic Energy Act.

(g) The Amendment dces not comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 73.67 (1991) and LILCO is not exempt from the requirements of that section because, according to Petitioners' expert Dr. Stephen Husolino, a significant number of the fuel elements do not have a " total external radiation dose rate in excess of 100 rems per hour at a distance of three feet from any accessible surface without intervening shielding" and

those fuel elements do not otherwise meet the exemption standards of 10 C.F.R. S 73.67 (b) (1) (1991). Dr. Musolino's expert opinion is based in part on the facts that the fuel in question has been subject to operation at only under 5% of full power for only 527 hours0.0061 days <br />0.146 hours <br />8.713624e-4 weeks <br />2.005235e-4 months <br /> which occured not later than 1987, and that the total radioactivity of that fuel in July 1989 was only approximately 176,000 curies according to LILCO. See U.S.H.R.C. Docket No. 50-322, Commissioners' Discussion of Shoreham Full Power Operating License at Slide 19 (April 17, 1989) & Management Level Meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) and Long Island Lighting Company at Slide 12 (July 28, 1989).

Respectfully submitted, June 21, 1991  %. o -)v c)d

-@.es P. McGranery, cw, Lohnes&AlberW[kf. oon uite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for Petitioners Shoreham-Wading River Central Sch>ol District and Scientists &

Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

v. ;i .

,Ig f i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

g .5 P156 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

) Docket No. 50-3 2-OLA S In the Matter of )

) ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY }

) (Confirmatory Order (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Modification, Security Plan i Unit 1) ) Amendment and Emergency

) Preparedness Amendment)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Petitioners' Supplement and Amendment to Petitions to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the fol3owing by first-class mail, postage prepaid (except as otherwise indicated below) on this 21st day of June, 1991:

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Compission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room E-407 Room E-427 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland Bethesda, Maryland (by hand) (by hand)

George A. Ferguson Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq.  ;

Administrative Judge General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1000 Independence Avenue 5307 Al Jones Drive Room 6A245 Columbia Beach, Maryland 20764 Washington, D.C. 20585 (by Federal Express (by first class mail)

Saturday delivery)

W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. Samuel A. Cherniak, Esq.

Donald P. Irwin, Esq. NYS Department of Law Hunton & Williams Bureau of Consumer Frauds Riverfront Plaza, East Tower and Protection 951 East Byrd Street 120 Broadway Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 New York, New York 10271 (by telecopy) (by first class mail)

i 1

1 Michael R. Deland, Chairman Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq.

Executive Office of the President Office of General Counsel Council on Environmental Quality New York Power Authority 722 Jackson Place, N.W. 1633 Broadway Washington, D.C. 20503 New York, New York 10019 .

(by first class mail) (by first class mail)

Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Nicholas S. Reynolds Executive Director & David A. Repha General Counsel Winston & Strawn Long Island Power Authority 1400 L Street, N.W.

200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 Washington, D.C. 20005 Garden City, New York 11530 (by first class mail) l (c, first class mail)

Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq. Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

O'Melveny & Myers Mitzi A. Young, Esq. ,

555 13th Street, N.W. Office of General Counsel '

Washington, D.C. 20004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (by hand) Room 15-E9 one White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Atomic Safety & Licensing (by hand)

Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (by first class mail)

L/ 7 h

& r .

u ~j y -

J 4'es P. McGranery, g y C%nsel for the Petitioners Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

l l

i

, - , , . _ _ - , . - _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _