ML20099D063

Applicant Brief Opposing 841101 Appeal & Request for Stay Filed by Concerned Citizens of Louisa County Re Application for Permission to Install Neutron Absorbing Racks. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20099D063
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Schwarzschild HUNTON & WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#484-207 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8411200178
Download: ML20099D063 (12)

Text

ygvgg y  :

q.. , , q, , -

, gq 7

' ' ~ ,J

'^

,n

$ h. 2;g;%,

', ; b l '

p:

n i;g:#; &

c lwAl'

@y ^

p

m. yb j ~; ' ' \ ^;% m t y ,' ,

y,

i iWt L>n -

y.

gf.,i&a p m^'L' :y ,~ > 43 -  ;,; - ,

3. n w w,

,irQu, v' 4 .

c  ;. . .. nu- - , .

<F

• 9 2 7y 9:'y , t 81 .. , l h. , f _f .,

pW _ ' , lg :' , '

• j, , .:iNovemberl15',J1984; ,i M , ,{

gy .' ,

j^ "

' lR

w ;3,

;;. ,

Q .~m

.; , a.

^

,- -[ fR , , q ^ DOC. Tl,0; "

', d, ,

?

w~ w

., ~

, ?UNITEDUSTATES{OF[ANERICAL 1'

/ +

'. 0 . NUCLEAR REGULATORY! COMMISSION 5 L . . . ,

'f

j f80Jfjylp %, g ,

,~

- , Yy 1 >

.7

_ ;BEFORE THEi _ , . . . . l' - +.  % , ,,

'~ _. ATOMIC' SAFETY'AND LICENSING; APPEAL BOARD ." e.e 4

a r G.ot yg g. . . .gy

,e .

', 'y' x '

GWIQNGiffanc

,a> m .

pgcq

. .

.c ,..

'p

• 1.In' thel Matter .of . - ,

+E T ' )~ s .J1 . - y a

. ): Docket No,s

. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC'AND POWER  ?

~

COMPANYl ) 50-338/339-OLA-2 '

~

) , , ., 'f. ,

L(North Anna Power..[StationF ~ , .

')

~ 1 '

Units 1 andl2).7 ,

' -)4 a

,s . , .

( /

• 1 i e . . .

~

' APPLICANT'S BRIEF~IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL-(

s

' T 1OFLCONCERNED CITIZENS!OF!LOUISAcCOUNTYIANDiANSWERf ,;

OPPOSING' REQUEST FOR' STAY"' x

. o x' '

t. ~ * , , j I.- ~ j

< p .!- 'j

, - Introduction; [

.W .  : -

~

f Concerned .CitizensCof.Louisa LCounty (CCLC)'filedt with the

~

. :J t Appeal; Board on November l~, 71984 Jits ' Notice of' AppealTand  ;

a

.i

-Request _for Stay..- The'-Applicant, Virginia Electric-and'Powerl

+

Company. (Vepco) , opposes, for the reasons set -out' below, :both the :

Appeal and the Request. ..We shall'. deal with CCLC's" filings (in  ;

that order in this Brief.

II. -

i.

s The Appeal :1 i

A.- The Facts' -t Proceeding OLA-2-involves:Vepco's. application.for permission  !

-i to install neutron-absorbing racks'at its North Anna Power- ,

Station in Louisa County,. Virginia. CCLC's three contentions, ,j .

however, and, with one exception, CCLC's : statements of basis. for i r

its contentions, deal exclusively with Vepco's proposal to ship y j

Espent fuel from its1Surry Power Station to North-Anna.for storage I

hNh0Mg 0,

~

C

& 3

. . QSo s

(. -

y~

im .

ithere. ' Th'e' Licensing Board 1 rejected .each of CCLC's three Con-i tentions.-Contention 1 alleges that-theJproposed' license amend- q ment in.0LA-2 constitutes a major federal 1 action significantly-

'affecting the' human environment.. But the' bases for'this' Con-tention, which purports to deal with Vepco's proposed new racks,.

are'that'the transportation of spent-fuel byLtruck creates a-risk; j of accident, risks of sabotage and the possibility of' human error in sealing shipping casks. See Third Draft of Contentions,.

accompanying Mr._Dougherty's' July _30, 1984 letter to the Licens-ing Board, at 6. Contention 2 alleges that the Staff.has'not.

adequately considered the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage facility at Surry (not at North Anna). The basis for this Contention deals only with-alternatives for storing-Surry~

fuel; it does not mention North Anna fuel. Id. at 7. Contention 3 alleges.that the Staff's Environmental Assessment is inadequate because it does not evaluate the risks of shipping accidents, the consequences of shipping accidents and the alternative of con-structing a dry cask storage facility at the Surry Station (not at North' Anna). Contention 3 thus deals exclusively with the storage of Surry fuel; it does not mention North Anna fuel. Id.

at 8.

The only respect in which these three Contentions deal with the proposed racks, which after all are the only subject of the I

Vepco's application for a license amendment authorizing storage of Surry fuel at North Anna is the subject of a separate iproceeding, OLA-1.

g 7 m _

- ,~ ~

.x~. -

,o

~' '

'~

$ 3_- -[

g>

y , , _

,.  ;~ ,

Eproceeding, is;iniconnection with Contentionil Q As partio~ffthe' ' *

~

1 lbasis'for that Contention',.CCLC-ssates:- [k

' ~

I[T]h'e' environmentallimpact'siof ithe proposed : . m (licensei1 amendment 1 cannot' be1 evaluated ' apart -

froazthe environmental _ impacts of-the'

.z . -

' Surry-to-North Annalspent ' fuel transshipment:l proposal which is.being addressed'ini(OLA-1].-

z 1The modification'of-the North Anna _ spent 4fueli

pool is? designed to'~ accommodate the1500Lfuel assembles that VEPCO #

intends'to removeTfrom- ~

the Surry: spent fuel pool.: Actions that are

,related in this way cannot'be " segmented" forJ

purposes of the1 environmental: review required-by NEPA.-- Therefore,Jin. evaluating the .

significance-of the two: proposed-actions,,the.

. ef fects : of -. the 1 spent ifuel - pool : modification :

!must'be summed-with the1 effects-ofEthe" spent-fuel? transshipment proposal. lAs discussed n below, thefeffects of the transshipment"areL Lthemselves "significant."-

Id. atL6.

In'short,,one can examine CCLC's Contentions in OLA-2.from:

beginning to end and find only-onei: factual allegation, dealing with the proposed racks, namely that.the new racks "are designed! .

to accommodate the 500 fuel assemblies that VEPCO intend 3 to-remove from the Surry spent fuel pool."

For the reasons set.out below, the Licensing' Board correctly.-

rejected all three Contentions and dismissed the OLA-2' proceed--

ing.

B. Argument 1.- Contention 1 Contention 1 fails for three reasons.

First, CCLC has not stated an adequate factual basis for " summing" the environmental effects of the 0LA-1 and OLA-2 proposals. It has merely alleged that the proposed new racks

.will accommodate fuel assemblies from the Surry spent fuel pool. l l

+-- -- ,

ynn 33 . . , 4 j,_

a.Q pr qw % n@( - '

yy 3 ' ~ '

,. 1 (

m4 g WRMS 'x M c C %- %4, s, -

• s

, ^'

• ~ '

4: .. ; s' QR, q:gl} & gf\g. ,

,p

-~,

9% - -. r , -

n, % .

34.;;_

• e 37 + -

4, ;D ypQ t

__9 _ ;, ;f 4

i .m n. -

..:It hasi:not^ alleged n -.

(that theiracks(will not:-accommodate North' Annal

~

b felknorjNasfitiallegedithhtlbut:?forhh'aNhipmentsyfrom: Surry,

~

,s. .~ n . ,l1 "

~

- IVepco fwould L notlin'sta115the inew; racks'. - In Sfact, t[he: North Anna .

O

~ <

~

• iracks1 wills ccommodate$Surryifue1Mjsst(asjthey Will;: accommodate;'

3 a

'y i_ g ey .e.. _

7 .. .. ,. 2 .  ;

.. E _ factualj. allegation (with 1NorthiAnna ffuel,iand so?CCLC's ' sole y .

. .s _

h- ,' .. K

• 1

~_

frespect:to'the racksiikonel.with7which VepcoItakes)no" issue.1 ?But? '

.. r

. l... .

+

'N

"- "this is:hardlyianjadequatelbasis for;contendingLthat= thel . ..

Jrerackingproposal?lacksyidependent<utilityiandyhatthe: 4

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

,. environmental <effectsLof the racks.and the" shipping must;be-

~

1 ' - '

1 summed.2- -

. . . .t .

. ,_ r Second,Dthe: Licensing: Board correctly' held?thatn"there can'be;nosumminginasmuchlasLCCLC~:hasno[ filed 1a? contention 7 objecting on the merits, eitheritechnical,or environmentali to the spent fuel. modification." . Memorandum and' Order?at?81 <None

~

g ,

of CCLC's three. Contentions addresses the merits of?t he racks.in and of themselves.- That is to say, CCLC has neither; (a) raised' safety questions with respect to the racks nor (b)LcNallenged the Staf f's conclusion that the racks .(aside from transportation-related concerns) present negligible environmental effects,'see:

Environmental Assessment By The Offices of Nuclear Reactor:

Regulation:and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Related to Increasing the Spent Fuel Storage Capacity.and the Storage of, Surry Spent Fuel at the North Anna Power Station, Units.No. 1 p, ,

I P

2 E North Anna will lose full core reserve '(FCR)Jin 1989 if no i.- Surry fuel is stored there. The new racks:would extend the. loss of FCR ~at North ' Anna 'to.1998.~ifino Surry fuel is stored there.

Vepco Spent Fuel' Storage, A Summary of(Information'in-Support.of ~

Increasing the. Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at North Anna Power

. Station Units ILand:2c' August 1982 (Spent Fuel- Storage) , at 4.1 9

r.

5 [

W w c5 C w -

r * ,

+ wmn m. -. .

m gj7 ~ .. m , , ,

, W ,f ' '

T , .

^

, x & , ,

R

,. ~ '

by' q. ' f p

~

%'~ '

i fdhd lNo.J 2NEnvironmental Assessment) , iabf29.3 (Thus', [:ifiCCLC iwere w < > ,

e t, ) succo'ss fu lfiN l resfstinh1lVepco ' s i OLA-li! proposal .

[ 'and[trans shiomenti s were}notpermitted,no! transportation-related'Tenvironmental1 . ,

' ~

effectswould(e'xist.: EAdd if that weEeitrue' JCCLC hav'ingS E .

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

tassigned?no[significant? environmental effects to the: racks - ,,

(there ;would. bei no basis toisupport an[OLAi2: proceedingb '.If,7 on!

J i theLother{ hand,iCCLCfwere to?losefinithe OLA-l' proceeding, that-T Lwould'necessarily;mean,$1nilightlof Consolidated' Contention 11Jin-L OLA-1, . that the L transportation-related ' ef facts "had 'b'een ! found ?

~. .. .

> negligible by thetLicensing_ Board. .Since"CCLC hasicited no?

~

significant ef facts associated- with; the(racks 'themselves,;:- CCLC' ,

would'be lift.with'only' negligible.': transportation-related' effects' to be " summed" with the negligible ~ effects' associated with.the' 3

-installation of the: proposed racks. .In'either' case,'CCLC's

, opposition ,to. the racks - would necessarily .be.' futile,- because it-would have ident'ified~no safety or environmental shortcoming,_ _

associated with the racks alone,.to fall back on[in OLA-2..

Third, although the Board declined to accept.the~

argument, we believe that Contention-1-is inadequate to implicate the racks because the OLA-2 proposal has " independent utility."

We are mindful of the Appeal Board's admonition that Licensing ,

Boards, in ruling on contentions,-are to avoid. deciding the merits.of-those= contentions, Houston Lighting and PoweriCo. t (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating . Station, Unit.1) , ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 547-49 (1980) , and' we would not lightly urge the Appeal. ,

Board to depart from that practice. In this particular case,

'however,-the Appeal Board should do just that, because the 4-J r 1 ! .,

4

? v

. 7'

-~.: i 4 2 . {. y' a-~

iy :

~

.  ; , ._g_.

., -m ~

3:

+

^

2 1 - - .

~

~

" independent'!utilit,y" Lof J2.erackingDis!

,. ~

sol crystal clearfthat- iti-

-.can be-:saidsto:existlas's matter 1of lhE..

, , ' O~f .

cIn Duke PowercCo.'(AmendmentytolMaterials' License-

. - +

SNM-1773-Transportation;of' Spent Fuel:from Oconee: Nuclear Station-

~

MS '

, .for Storage at :McGuire Nuclear! Station) , PALAB-651,-.[14 ; NRC ' 3'07 ' '

'(1981) , J the Appeal Board stated theitest. for l determining whether::

lan; agency's=environmentalireview hasEtoicoverfonly'a particular:

.proposalior somellarger plan of which the? proposal is butLa part.

The review may be limited..toi the proposalialone'if-the proposal-'

hasl"independentLutilit'y"land if, authorizing the proposal?wouldi

~

-not; foreclose the-agency's: freedom to deny other parts offa' larger plan. :14 NRC -. at 313.

' Duke, of-course,qdid not involve a reracking-proposal'.

Yet the - Appeal Board .went out of its way to -state that when' the

,ex haust ion o f spent fuel storage capacity approaches, a plant:

operatorrwill have limited alternatives and that one of'those L alternatives is " expansion of the spent fuel ~ pool's storage capability by reracking." Id. at 314.- Without regard-tolthe facts in Duke the Appeal Board said:

[W]here available, each of these alternatives

[ including reracking] had manifest indepen-dent utility. Whether'or not it provides a long-term' benefit, it most-assuredly offers a significant near-term one.

Id. at 315.

-The Board went-on to say that an application for a license amendment.for a'particular spent fuel storage alternative need not be invariably granted; the alternative must, among other

' things, undergo and survive an environmental analysis:

w ***we+6e=rfw,

&V

_--7--

Yo ,

The' significance:of the' independent utility-

-1

. of:a_particular proposal is simply that", foro 1NEPA purposes, the environmentaloanalysis may d

sbe confined to tha't proposal.

f l

- Id. a- 1 iIn-short, the:-Appeal' Board.has recognizedein'the' case law -[

- what11s'apparentfas a. matter of common sense, namely that'rerack-ing;necessarily has " independent; utility." Thattbeing so,nthe environmental effects ~of reracking are not to be' summed.with'

those of an independent proposal. We can think of no useful' . ,

purpose to be served byfremanding Contention 1 so that'the

~

Licensing Board _can-determine on the merits whether the views-stated by the Appeal Board in Duke are-correct.

l2 . - ' Contention 2 With respect to Contention 2, the Licensing Board simply held that it is " directed solely to theftransshipment of Surry spent fuel assemblies or to an alternative thereto" and thus lacks,an adequate basis. ' Memorandum and Order at 9. That I

is undeniably true. As we indicated at the outset of our argument, one can search Contention 2 high and low without discovering any reference whatever to the use of dry cask storage as an alternative for the storage of North Anna fuel.3 i

3 In Contentions 2 and 3, CCLC did not make the argument about " segmentation" for NEPA purposes that it made in connection

- with Contention 1. If that argument were deemed applicable with respect to Contentions 2 and 3, then the 'second and-third

, - arguments made by Vepco with respect to contention 1 should also l

be treated as applying to Contentions 2 and 3.

i i

e

+ ,

g g.ge; y; m = 3:- ,ge e.

My ' '

K,,f.s . wJ ,

' -0 -

, - + .

-c .x .

q 3, _

9' - + ,

,,, i. :

-:o~:f.+. '

C d 4 ~:

4Moreover,11ffContentioni1isdenied,~thenContention:2'

~

^ -fquite aside'from itsLlack'of desist-Jausti.'alsoffa'i1Efor:legalf -

creasons.: 4ThisLis?beca'use.ofthe:princihle,wellestablishedin.

1 4

. NRC1 practice,'tliatI abkenti an..unresolve'd conflictl.concerning alternative;uses of.!available: resources,?alternativesinsedinot'be.-

^

T

• ' analyzed'in~ instances;where the' environmental effacts of.a

+

m' .

proposed actioniare! insignificant._ ; Portland' General Electric Co.

4 N , 1(Trojani Nuclear Plant) , ALAB-531,J 9 f NRC 263 ~, f 266 -(1979)'. :The'

~

Staff,cof, course,.has determinedLin'its Environment'ab Assessment"<

'that the effects.of the_rerackingwould indeed be negligible.

CCLC.has neither contended.nor.. suggested _in'its statement of _

' basis for Contention-. 2 that: the : installation of- the: new racks.

involves any unresolved conflict over:the use of'available; resources.

3. Contention 3 It'

~

This Contention also lacks any basis whatever.

deals solely with. the risk of shipping ' accidents,: the consequences of those accidents, and an alternative.for dispos'ing.

of Surry fuel. For the reasons set forth i'n. connection with.

Contention 2, it is inadequate.

III.

Request for Stay CCLC seeks a-stay under-10'CFR S 2.788 of the e'ffectiveness of the Licensing' Board's decision. Section 2.788 sets out.four factors for the Appeal Board to consider in-deciding whether'to b grant a stay. Each of them is addressed below. The burden of persuasion as to all four factors is on CCLC. Alabama Power Co.  ;

. b

yup, n, r

g g'

= . c .

ffW gmx <

D

. ~

&'_~,-l p >4.-

< k'~"

+,  :- Q : =

, m >

,g e

.-w . ,

4 42 ,

]5 ',s . . , , 3( ' '

+

^

J'N . -N~  :. .' < . . , _

~

' l 7(Joseph ML! Farley Nuclear" Plant,1 Units ils andi2) 6 CLI-81-27',J:141 i W, s>T~ . ' '

W

1. NRC 795,9797l?(1981). SCCLC hasl failed'toScarryithat burden.1 -

~

3 ' '

, 1 s

.- . .. -  ? i _ -

. t , ,

- - ;Indeed,7asfwill-be shown,4CCLC -

c hasiaddressed1onlyLtwo -

of:'the/four.  :-

.y a_ , ,

a. ,( ,

e

.,' $ factors' sofineETunder D S ; 2 fi88 Land hasiignoredithe : most ;importanth .

. w _

w" c 1. , . IrreparabletIniury. . . -

m J

[Section"2.788 (e) (2); requires a movantl to/show whetherf ~

~

• lit willibelirreparablylinjured'unlessia stay isLgranted.T iThisy 1 a4 m I

~

has .-beenicalled the r" crucial" : factorO without) it, L the chances of:

obt'ainingla' stay are. slight; :Public' Service Co.#of' Indiana-4

. (Marble Hill' Nuclear Generating Station, Units $1 'and/ 2) ,, ALAB k437, 6~NRC 630,.632 (1977).- :Despite .this requirement,.: CCLC has not addressed the' factor. In fact, CCLC will' not be! irreparably 1 harmedbythe. den [a1ofa~ stay,'evenifit. prevail' son'this.

appeal. - As we have pointed.out, if CCLC' succeeds in-defeating the proposal .in OLA-1, there will be no transshipment environmental:

effects to " sum" with the concededly negligible effects of the racks standing alone. If CCLC. fails'in OLA-1, then-it-will have no basis in any event for opposing installation' of- the racks.: '

'Above all, even if the stay were denied, the license-amendment issued, 'and the new racks installed, and even if CCLC:were .to succeed .in this appeal and thereaf ter defeat the raracking ,

. proposal, CCLC still would not be injured. 'In that event, the

. North Anna ~reracking license amendment would be vacated. The i

i license would-then continue'to limit the allowable number of I-assemblie's to the present 966 and the center-to-center spacing to 4 i

(. - .the present 14 inches. See Spent Fuel' Storage, at.7. CCLC would have: lost nothing.-

i

4

! 5- ,

7.

it- .~  ?  ?

' f

-2. The Other Three Factors-

'As.we have noted,.the-showing;of irreparable injury to CCLC is thei" crucial" factor. If.there'is not' irreparable' injury to-CCLC, then :"an awfully compelling showing must be made on _ the .

other three factors." Florida-Power &' Light Co., (St. Lucie NuclearLPower Plant,-Unit No. 2), ALAB-415,s5 NRC 1435, 1437-(1977).

.CCLC'has not made a'" compelling" showing;on the remain-ing;three factors. It has.not addressed the public interest at all.- With respect to'the likelihood that it will prevail on appeal, its showing is not'the " strong" one' required in(

S 2.788 (e) (1) . It has shown no more than the possibility of error by the Licensing Board.

Only the final factor - harm to ' the "other parties" --

favors CCLC's request. Vepco's present plan.is to install the racks in April or May of 1985. Thus, if the Appeal Board should hold for CCLC on the meritslof this appeal, it'is possible that the remanded OLA-2 proceeding could be resolved by the Licensing Board in Vepco's favor, perhaps on a motion for summary disposition, prior to that date. In that event, a stay of the  ;

effectiveness of,the Board's order now under review would not have harmed Vepco. But we repeat, this is the only factor that tends to support CCLC's request. And it is far outweighed by CCLC's utter failure to make any showing whatever that it will be irreparably harmed by the denial of its request or that denial is required by the public interest.

3 i-

^

• T 'y : -

f " ) m.11.- ,. ' f:Nss r

• ' pf' f-y l- }s w;g '

s  ::.3 . _ . .. n -

- 3 R a; .

ihQ , all .' (;

^

L'l * " p , . c l' - + 'h M  ?* -8

,- m. -

, g,- . ,

..; p

,s ,

'p'

}m ;l- l J Respectfully / substitted,,:

' t -; '?

i , '"," s t, #

y ,

y,- - '

; ,i N u- .

, , VIRGINIA ELECTRICeAND. POWER: COMPANY" - -

i m.

q , ,

W3 ' , +

, t a 4 7.. c .

t i b, : ~ t-

~

', , 7 ~', +

4 .m

Bys j/s/ Patricia M. Schwarzschild g 4

-1

Patricia M.-.Schwarzschild: - N '.

gn .

n W -lOf Counseli i

~

.c ,

4 ,

r. . . . -

(Michael W.;Maupin .

Patricia.MbSchwarzschildi 4 '

iMarcia'R. Gelman HUNTON'F WILLIAMS:  ; ,

ye ,

~'~P.fO. Box 11535 . _ .

. . -4 . ,

iRichmond,:. Virginia 123212. <

Dateds- LNovember'15,21984

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

1 I.hereby? certify that I have:this da'y: served Applicant's 4

- Brief Lin Opposition. to . Appeal of L Concerned Citizens of Louisa ,

-County-and' Answer Opposing' Request.For-Stay.upon eachLof the; 1

persons named.'below by depositing.a copy in the United States . a mail, properly stamped ~and addressed to him at'the address set-T out with his names f

Eecretary

'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington,~D.C. 20555 i A ttention: Chief Docketing and Service Section Alan S. Rosenthal

• Atomic Safety'and Licensing Appeal Board.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionL -l Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Gary J. Edles- :l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board  ;

.i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington,' D.C. '20555 -l t

Dr. Reginald L..Gotchy .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board  ;

U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 d

O

y '

- ~4 I;y b' .

-a- < _

~Sheldon J. Wolfe,. Chairman Atomic Safety and" Licensing Board:' Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission:

6 l Washington,JD.C. 20555

~~

LDr. Jerry;Kline Atomic7 Safety and: Licensing-Board

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A..Fergusonf School of Engineering' Howard University. <

2300:Sth Street Washington, D.C. 20059 Henry J. McGurren, Esq. .

U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C. 20555 James B. Dougherty, Esq.

3045 Porter Street,.NW-Washington, D.C. 20008 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board _ Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555 By: /s/ Patricia M. Schwarzschild Patricia M. Schwarzschild, Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company Dated: November 15, 1984 l

l t

(

,,- , , - ~ - - ,y -

, ,%,.-w-u

-,7 - w ------, - - p