ML20107J271
| ML20107J271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#484-063, CON-#484-63 OL-4, NUDOCS 8411090474 | |
| Download: ML20107J271 (11) | |
Text
06$
1
~
t LILCO, November 8,: 1984
$$[JU UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'gg
",,",Y '9 A8:21 Before_the1 Commission
~
In the Matter of
)
)
~
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S COMMENTS CONCERNING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF LOW POWER INITIAL DECISION On October 29, 1984, the Licensing Board issued its Initial-Decision authorizing issuance of "a license or licenses to autho-rize low-power testing (up to 5% of rated power) of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1."
Initial Decision at 104.
That Initial Decision followed nine days of exhaustive evidentiary hearings, six days of conferences with counsel and approximately 3,450 pages of transcript.
The Initial Decision followed and re-affirmed the Licensing Board's September 5 Order Reconsidering Summary Disposition of Phase I and Phase II Low Power Testing (September 5 Order), which awaits this Commission's action, views having been filed on September 14 by all parties.
Accordingly, the import of the Initial Decision is to authorize issuance of a license for Phases III and IV of LILCO's proposed low power testing.
8411090474 841108
{DRADOCK05000 61 g
}{ 3
n.
Et L 4 This matter-is 'now before the Commission pursuant to its May
~
0 16 Order,CLI(84-8;19NRC-ll54.(1984).
Departing from the norm Lunder its-regulations, which require no immediate effectiveness
^
review for a low power lihense, the Commission has ordered such-an immediate effectiveness review here because an exemption is'in-volved.
Accordingly, LILCO files these comments. pursuant to 10 CFR S.2.764(f)(2)(ii).1 Because the purpose of an immediate effectiveness. review is' simply to " determine whether to stay.the effectiveness of the de-cision," 10 CFR S 2.764(f)(2)(i), LILCO here addresses only con-i siderations pertinent to that decision.
They are specifically set i
forth in S 2.764 as follows:
4 1
On October 31, 1984, two days after the issuance of the
" Miller" Licensing Board's Low Power Initial Decision under review here, the Appeal Board issued its Decision on review of the "Brenner" Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision on safety is-i.
. sues generally.
Lono Island Lichtino Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL, ALAB-788 (October 31, 1984).
The Appeal Board Decision upheld the Brenner Licensing Board's decision on all issues except for three "relatively minor matters", which had not been fully resolved on the face of the i
record before it, and which it remanded to the Licensing Board, slip op. at 6:
(1) operation of Shoreham pending resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-47, ALAB-788, slip op. at 6, 55-59; (2) i certain housekeeping matters, id. at 6, 71-76; and (3) environ-l mental qualification of electrical equipment, id. at 6,98-105.
The Brenner Licensing Board subsequently issued a bench ruling on November 2 and a confirmatory written order on November 5, 1984 (copies attached), requiring all parties to submit joint, or at least coordinated, reports to it as soon as possible and in any event by November 14, concerning disposition of these three is-sues.
This paper does not address the effect, if any, of the l
l three remanded issues on issuance of a low power license.
As soon l
as the parties have made their views on these issues known to the I
Brenner Licensing Board, LILCO will seek leave to provide the Com-i mission with its views on their effect, if any, on issuance of a low power license.
n i
.-._,....m
5~
- f
-+
i 1
An operating. license decision will be stayed by the Commission, insofar as it authorizes other than~ fuel loading and low power. testing, if it determines that it is in the public interest to L
do so, based on a consideration of the gravity:
of the substantive issue, the likelihood that-l it has been resolved incorrectly below, the de-gree to which correct resolution of the issue 4
l.
would be prejudiced by operation pending're-view, and other relevant public interest fac-tors.
~
10 CFR S 2.764(f)(2)(i).
These considerations do not warrant a stay.
II. - NO STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED A.
The Gravity of the i
Substantive Issues Does Not Warrant a Stav Virtually by definition the authorization of a low power li-cense for Shoreham is not of sufficient gravity to support a stay.
The Commission's regulations expressly exclude low power licenses from immediate effectiveness review.
10 CFR S 2.764.
This exclu-sion reflects a generic judgment that such low power licenses need not be stayed.
The only reason an immediate effectiveness review was ordered here, presumably, is the involvement of an exemption request to allow low power testing to be conducted without the completed qualification of onsite diesel generators.
Yet the Licensing Board has expressly found that there is no more risk to publi-l health and safety from the proposed mode of low power testing than there would be with qualified onsite diesel generators.
- Indeed, with respect to Phases I and II, the Licensing Board has found 1-2---.
,_m
,.-%,-y--,
...,6-
\\
1 that.there is no risk of harm at all since no AC power would be needed to mitigate any accident or transient.
B.
There Is Little Likelihood-that the Appropriate Issues Were Not-Resolved Correctly Below The Commission has been involved extensively in this exemp-tion proceeding almost from its inception.- Thus, there is little likelihood that the substantive issues surrounding the.authoriza-tion for granting a low power license were not. correctly resolved by the Licensing Board.
Twice the Commission has set forth appli-cable guidance concerning the interpretation of its regulations.
The Licensing Board has merely made factual findings within the parameters of that guidance.
On May 16, 1984, the Commission issued an Order establishing that LILCO must seek an exemption with respect to Phases III and IV of low power testing when diesel generators would ordinarily be used to provide sufficient core cooling and achieve the other functions specified in GDC 17.
Lono Island Lichtina Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-8, 19 NRC 1154 (1984).2 Having determined that an exemption request would be 2
With respect to Phases I and II, the September 5 Order autho-rized a low power license because no AC power was needed to achieve the functions specified in GDC 17.
That matter has been fully briefed by the parties and awaits this Commission's immedi-ate effectiveness determination.
Phases I and II, therefore, should not be confused with Phases III and IV in this immediate effectiveness review.
i
. e necessary, the Commission then described standards for evaluating i
that exemption request.. Implicitly recognizing that common de-fense and. security was not an issue, the May 16 Order gave guid-ance as to now the remaining aspects of 10 CFR S 50.12 ought to be applied.
First, it recognized that LILCO intended to prove the absence of danger to life or property by establishing that its proposed mode of low power testing would be as safe as low power testing at a plant having qualified onsite diesel generators.
Ac-cordingly, the May 16 Order advised LILCO to address the "as safe as" standard.
Second, the Commission addressed the public inter-est requirement, combined it with its own exigent circumstances requirement and set forth explicitly the factors which ought to be considered in determining whether such exigent circumstances ex-isted as would warrant the granting of an exemption.
Finally, on July 18, 1984, the Commission gave further guid-ance with respect to security.
The Commission held that " common defense and security" was not at issue, but that Intervenors ought to be afforded the opportunity to raise additional physical secu-rity concerns which might affect health and safety if those con-cerns pertained solely to the alternate AC power sources proposed for LILCO's low power operation.
Long Island Lichtino Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Memorandum and Order, July 18, 1984 (unpublished).
Thus, the Licensing Board was not left alone to wrestle with the meaning of the Commission's regula-tions.
It had only to make factual findings pursuant to the guidance offered.
After extensive hearings, it did so.
t
, g.
The Licensing Board applied the "as safe a3" standard in ac-cordance with the Staff's interpretation and common sense and found "that the enhanced system provides a comparable level of 1
protection as a fully-qualified system would and thus meets the
'as saf0 as' standard set by the. Commission in CLI-84-8."
Initial Decision at 55.
The-Intervenors' sole factual contention with re-spect to "as safe as" was that each component of the alternate power system ought to be compared individually with the TDI die-sels and subject individually to a single failure analysis. 'Quite properly, the Licensing Board responded:
Suffolk County's arguments would have us conduct a point-by-point comparison of Shoreham's emergency power configuration with TDI diesels and without them.
"As safe as" cannot be based on such a point-by-point com-parison of the components of systems.
In comparing any roughly equivalent power systems, neither is required to be better than the other in every respect; even two " qualified" systems would not be identical in every respect.
If LILCO's original and alternate emergency power systems vere identical in every respect, there would be no need for an exemption.
The purpose of these systems is to provide protection for public health and safety, by whatever combina-tion of features they possess.
Even the Gener-al Design Criteria themselves are premised upon the idea of what a system must be able~to do, not upon whether one machine might be somewhat better than another.
Initial Decision at 25-26.
Similarly, with respect to exigent circumstances and public interest, the Licensing Board made extensive factual findings pur-suant to the guidance in CLI-84-8.
It found that the Shoreham plant has now been physically completed.
That status, combined
~ ~
,e,
_7_
pa-with dhe. extensive scrutinyLto which this plantshas'been subjected' in more-than eight years of litigation ~before seven different'li-censing boards, weighs in favor'of1 granting the. exemption.1 -Ini-tiali Decision at 59-60.
The Board also found that. financialhard--'
. ships arose from having a. physically" completed, otherwise acceptable nuclear facility' standing unused 1and nonproductive be-cause of substantial: licensing delays.
Id.Lat-60-61'. 1The Board
- further found that theilicensing proceedings'themselves haveim--
posed unusually. heavy financial and economic hardships ~upon LILCO.
[
Id. at 62-63.
f The Board.next examined the-regulations themselves and.found t'
them internally inconsistent in their application.
Initial Deci-sion at 63-66.
The Board then found that LILCO had made a good faith effort to comply with GDC 17~and that LILCO intends'to com-ply fully with the requirements of GDC 1.7 for full power op-i-
eration.
Id. at 67.
Finally, the Board found no public interest:
in mechanical adherence to the regulations and no. safety signifi-i cance given its health and safety findings that operation as-pro-posed by LILCO would be as safe as operation at low power.with qualified onsite diesel generators.
Id. at 68-70.
3 The Shoreham operating license proceeding before the NRC, in all its aspects (safety, emergency planning, low power,. diesels),
has'now' amassed 235 days of evidentiary hearings as of October 31, 1984.
Shoreham's construction permit proceeding involved 70 days of proceedings before the AEC between 1970 and 1973, plus 22 days of related proceedings before the New York Department of Environ-mental Conservation, portions of which were incorporated into the AEC' record to avoid duplication.
Lono Island Lichtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 271, 274-(1973).
i 1
F i
i e.e.,,
m-,---.,-.--,--_.-,.-._._--.,.-m._.__.,.,
_,,,,,.,.--_e
..-.s i
Given these extensive factual findings on each specific issue set forth by the Commission in CLI-84-8, the likelihood of error below is minimal.
As importantly, given that the Board's deci-sion, on its face, is consistent with the Commission's guidance, any error that may exist could only be demonstrated by an exhaus-tive review of the factual record.
Clearly that.is an inappropri-ate undertaking for an immediate effectiveness review.
Finally, security' issues were considered extensively by the Licensing Board subsequent to the Commission's Memorandum and-Order entered July 18, 1984.
See Initial Decision at 17-21.
In a 20-page order following conferences of counsel and extensive fil-ings by the parties,'the Board rejected the seven security conten-tions proffered by the Intervenors, both as a matter of law and because the proffered contentions failed to include reasonable specificity, despite the Intervenors' access to detailed security information for nearly two years.
Id. at 20.
Additionally, LILCO has voluntarily made certain low-power security enhancements, leading the Staff to indicate that its security concerns have been resolved.
Id. at 21.
Again, therefore, the Licensing Board has evaluated the record and has made findings.
Unless the Commission is to set aside those findings and reevaluate a lengthy record, l
l there is little likelihood that error will be found below during this immediate effectiveness review.
l
_.m..
}
- s
_9_
9 C.
Even If Error-Existed in the Board's Factual Determinations, Correct Resolution.Would Not Be Preiudiced by Operation Pendino Review The commencement of low power testing is not irreversible.
It can be stopped at any time if the Commission were to find that the Licensing Board made improper factual findings concerning safety or exigent circumstances.
In evaluating any prejudice from immediate effectiveness, the Commission should keep in mind that the Licensing Board found by summary disposition that there was no need for AC power for either Phases I or II of the proposed low power testing.
Thus, the capacity of LILCO's AC power sources is totally irrelevant until-Phases III and IV.
When the time neces-sary to complete Phases I and II is combined with the two to three week lag between the granting of a license and fuel load, there is a substantial time period for any appeal to progress.
Even should Phases III and IV be reached before any appeal may be decided, testing could be stopped at any time in the unlikely event that a decision adverse to LILCO warranted such action.
The Intervenors may again attempt to argue, as they have in their recent Request of Suffolk County and New York State to Pres-ent Written Briefs and Oral Arguments on the Licensing Board's Low Power Decision, that the effects of commencing low power testing are irreversible.
Yet, as the Intervenors have conceded, there will be no such harm from Phases I and II.
See Suffolk County and State of New York Views as to Why the ASLB's September 5 Order May I
t
,. ~ ^
u
'Not Serve as a Basis for-a " Phase I:and II" License.(September 14, 1984 ), Hat 11.
Second, and more.important1y',- this argument seeks to resurrect.the Intervenors' old contention that no low power li-cense-should issue in the' face of _the uncertainty surrounding a i
full power license.- This Commission has rejected'that argument.
The sole question now before.the Commission is whether the exemp-
. tion sought.by LILCO was properly approved, thus permitting the early commencement of low power testing before completion ofLli-censing proceedings concerning onsite diesel generators.
D.
Other Public Interest Factors There are no appropriate p6blic interest factors commending a-stay of the Phases III and IV license pursuant to this immediate effectiveness review.
Indeed, in addition to the unusual step of 1-subjecting a low power license to an immediate effectiveness re-view, this situation is atypical in that the Licensing Board has already considered and evaluated public interest factors in l
deciding to recommend the grant of an exemption and authorize a low power license.
Public interest and exigent circumstances are considerations evaluated by the Licensing Board pursuant to 5 50.12(a) and CLI-84-8.
Again, unless this Commission intends to duplicate the Licensing Board's factual finding process, there is no need to revisit public interest factors in this immediate ef-fectiveness review.
i
~
IV.
CONCLUSION As a result of the extensive guidance given the Licensing Board by this Commission and the extensive factual findings and opportunity for argument before the Licensing Board, there is ru) basis in the record of the low power proceeding for a stay of the 4
Initial Decision, and the Ccmmission should declare the Initial Decision immediately effective upon resolution of issues, if any, deriving from the Appeal Board's decision and required to be re-solved before fuel load.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 7-M By W. Taylor Reveley, III Donald P.
Irwin Robert M.
Rolfe Anthony F. Earrey, Jr.
Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 t
DATED:
November 8, 984 i
l
\\
g 84.11/07 05:27 P02 s
E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARC Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence Brenner, Chaiman Or. George A. Ferguson Dr. Deter A. Morris In the Matter of Occket No. 50-322-0L t.0NG !$ LAND t.!GHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, November 5, 1984 Unit 1)
ORDER CONFIRMING SCHEDULE FOR REPORTS FROM THE PARTIES ON !$$UES REMANDED BY OCTOBER 31,1984 APPEAL 80ARD DECISION 1
l On October 31,1984, the Appeal Board issued its decision (ALA8-788) on the appeals from this Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of September 21, 1983 L8P-83-57, 18 NRC 445.
The Appeal Board remanded for our further consideration issues related to three sub,1ects:
Unresolved safety issue A-47, known as
- control system interactions" (slip op. at 55-59); quality assurance implementation of " housekeeping" requirements (slip op, at 78 76); identification of any equipment which would fall under section (b)(2) of 10 C.F.R. I 50.49, which governt environmental qualification of electrical equipment (slip op, at 104-106),
n -
NNf
n---.-
-,n.,
,, -,., - - - -. -. - - - -, -.. - ~., - -. -, - -,. - -, - - -
~ ^
^^- ~
^ - ^ '
1 84.11/07 05:27 P03 2
On the record of the November 2,1984 evidentiary hearing on diesel engine issues, the Licensing Board directed the parties which had actually participated in the litigation and appeal of the three remanded issues to file a joint report, or at 1Nst coordinated reports, on th status of the three issues, any further procedural and substantive d
actions deemed necessary to be accomplished by the parties among i
themselves or before the Icard, and the effect of the threet issues on issuance of a low power license.
The report or reports were ordered to
[
be received as soon as practicable, no later than November 14,1984.
l A copy of the pertinent trgnscript pages (25,682-84) is enclosed.
IT !$ $0 ORDERED.
l FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
' Lawrence Brenner, cletroen Ch.
'M ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 8ethesda, Maryland i
November 5, 1984
(
Attachment:
Transcript Pages 25,687 84, 1
..-------,,-,-----.------.ana--.-,-,-.e---,----
..,.~~~,,-,-r--n-..----~,.------------,w---
84,11/07 05:27 PO4 O
160 01 01 25682 WR8eb I
P R 0 C E E D I N O.5 2
JUDOE 8RENN5t8 Good morning.
J de have two pre 1Lminary matters.
One involves 4
the f act that as ! told the parties from time to time in 5
other contexts, but perhaps it was mostly off the re' cord and 6
I went to put it en the record so the parties couldfac<t if i
o 7
they wished to on their own the NIIC has purchased the 8
transcript and is having it loaded onto a computer and of 9
course, as an NRC purchasei that is available to the I
10 Licensing Boards. Staff, and all other entities of the 11 Comission.
And we will be using it and I imagine the Staff 12 will be using it.
It,is a word search capability on a
~
13 computer.
l 14
! mention it because I mderstand that if any
(
i IS other party wishes to pursue that that it would be feasible 16 for that party to do ao.through individual contracts with 17 the reporting serv. ice and other appropriate entities.
Just 18 so the parties are aware of that possibili.ty and can act or 19 not act on their own, I wanted to put that on the record.
20 Turning to more substantive matters, we have 21 received, through the courtesy of Staff Counsel this week, l
.22 the Appeal Board's decision which is a review of our 2J September 1983 partial initial decision in this matter.
The 24 Appeal Boardes decision is ALAB 7884 dated October 31 l
25 The Appeal Soard romands three what ik describes
..- m...m....-
_..,e
= -
s 64.11/07 05:27 F05 160 01 02 25683 WRBeb I
as relatively minor matters.
The three matters involve, 2
one, unresolved safety issue A-47, sometimes ref erred to by 3
the shorthand acontrol system interactions," two, matter 4
relating to the quality assurance implemen tation of 5
housekeeping requirements, and three.' a matter related to e
the identification of any electrical equipmen
- ujri, 7
environmentel qualification under the subpart Diff of the,.
8 environmental qualification of electrical equipment rule, 9
which ls 10 CPR Section 50'.49.
10 de would like to schedule receiving joint or 11 simultaneous reports from the parties on the romended 12 matters, and we want the parties to discuss the status of this matters, obvious [y prior to being in a position to give
)
IJ 14 us joint or simultaneous reports.
(
i 15 We would schedule the receipt af the joint or 16 simultaneous.'eports - are scheduling the receipt of those 17 reports for November 14th.
If the parties can secelerate la that date we would sopractate it but in any event. a receipt 19 date of November 14th.
If we 'are at the hearing, we want it i
20 received at the hearing, and it we are not, we went it 21 received ir. our offices.
)
22 The three matters might call for different types 23 of responses, and we will let the parties' dost with that in 2'4 the first. instance.
To the fullest extent feasible, we went 45 whatever we receive to include the reports from the Staff i
l
~. - - - - - - - - - -
84.11/07 05:27 F06
~
l e
40 01 03 2Sd8e j
WR5e b I
which are.being required by that Aope415eard decision.
l 2
reports to us which the Appeal Board requires from the j
J Staff.
And of course that would include a status report if 4
it is not fees,1ble to give us the full report.
5 We also want. included the joint and coord'inated 6
views on the effect on issuance of a low power licerjse. of those issues in the particular context of.the status of.the 7
8 issues as the parties see it at the time they give us the 9
report.
10 As we see it, the participating parties in those 11 three remanded issues are the Sta.ff, LILCO, and Suffolk 12 County, but if any party believes - 1f any of those three i
IJ parties believes any other party is involved 1.n those 14 issues, given the part.icipation in the appeal we ask that 15 they alert that other party.
The only possible other party.
16 which is not present here, would be the Shoreham opponents j
17 Coalition.
But I have given our views on who we think the l
18 participating parties are.
19 If I could, I guess I would ask the County for 20 the courtesy of informing Counsel for Shoreham coponents f
21 Co al it ion.
I don't even know what their status is, frankly.
22 whether or not they are st.111 an existing group or whether 23 or not they still have Counsel, but there was a Counsel of record, f Mr. Daugherty, and if the* County could inform him 24 25 of our remarks this morning ! would appreciate that.
1
LILCO, Navimber 8, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY CCME7rp (Shoreham Nuclear Fower Station, Unit 1)
MMC Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S COMME bdNCO:RAB :21 ING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF LOW POWER INITIAL DECISION were served.this date upon the following by U.S. mail, first-class, postage prepaid or by hand (as indicated by one asteri' ski)iarnby u% NCH Federal Express (as indicated by two-' asterisks).
Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino*
Gary J. Edles**
United States Nuclear Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulatory Commission Appeal Board, United States 1717 H Street Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Fifth Floor (North Tower)
East West Towers Commissioner James K. Asselstine*
-4350 East-West Highway United States Nuclear Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Regulatory Commission 1717 H S*.reet, N.W.
Howard A. Wilber**
Washingtan, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, United States Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal*
Nuclear' Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Fifth Floor (North Tower)
Regulatory Commission East West Towers 1717 H Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Highway Washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Judge Marsh'all E. Miller, **
United States Nuclear Chairman, Atomic Safety Regulatory Commission and Licensing Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
United States Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.*
United States Nuclear Judge Glenn O. Bright **
Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
1717 H Street, N.W.
Board, United States Washington, DC 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson **
Appeal Board, United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory Nuclear Regulatory Commission Building 3500 Fifth Floor (North Tower)
P.O. Box X East West Towers Oak Ridge, TN 37830 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 f
I
-.,,,,_n
e 5 I
Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.**
Atomic Safety and Licensing Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**
Board, United States John F. Shea, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea Washington, DC 20555 33 West Second Street Riverhead, NY'11901 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.**
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
The Honorable Peter Cohalan Office of the Executive Suffolk County Executive Legal Director County Executive /
United States Nuclear Legislative Building Regulatory Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, DC 20555 Hauppauge, NY 11788 1
i Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**
Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Alan R. Dynner, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Empire State Plaza Christopher & Phillips Albany, NY 12223 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Mr. Martin Suubert Washington, DC 20036 c/o Congressman William Carney 1113 Longworth House Office Fabian Palomino, Esq.**
Building Special Counsel to the Governor Washington, DC 20515 Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Docketing and Service Albany, NY 12224 Branch (3)
Office of the Secretary James B. Dougherty, Esq.**
United States Nuclear 3045 Porter Street Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20008 Washington, DC 20555 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Vetetens Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 l
f W
Donald P.
Irwin Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
November 8, 1984 9
,,,, -