ML20215L088

Contention Ex 40 -- Calculation of Change in Total Population Dose as Result of Mobilization Delays.* Description & Results of Util Calculations & CA Daverio & Eb Liebermen Affidavits Encl.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215L088
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/04/1987
From:	Zeugin L HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3366 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705120098
Download: ML20215L088 (17)

Text

p -

F LILCO, May 4.1987 00L KE TEf' USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'87 HAY -8 A9 '44 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f0CkiEt >.' YR k BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

CONTENTION EX 40 - CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION DOSE AS A RESULT OF MOBILIZATION DELAYS Pursuant to the Board's request, Tr. 2017-18 and 2022-28, LILCO has performed calculations to determine the change in total population dose resulting from the delay In the mobilization of Traffic Guides experienced during the February 13 Exercise. A description and the results of these calculations are attached, along with affidavits by

, Charles A. Daverio and Edward B. Lieberman. Basically, the calculations demonstrate that for the delays experienced during the Exercise, there is no significant change in total population dose.

! Respectfully submitted, i

Leb B. Zeug [/ \3 7

Hunton & Williams

- 707 East Main Street

-' P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212

DATED

May 4,1987 s

8705120098 870504 PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q PDR-

c

' Calculation of Effect of Delay in the Mobilization of Traffic Guides on Total Man-Rem Received by EPZ Population Summary A calculation to determine the change in dose received by the EPZ population as a result of the 50-minute delay in the mobilization of certain Traffic Guides during the February 13 Exercise has revealed that the delay had no effect on total population dose.

This result is primarily due 'to two factors. First, the one-way flow treatment along a portion of Rocky Point Road and North Country Road was located on the very edge of or outside the plume, both before and af ter the wind shif t that occurred during the Ex-ercise. Thus, any delay in exiting the area serviced by the one-way. flow would have had almost no effect on total population dose. Second, a sensitivity study using the .

DYNEV model revealed that delays in the implementation of the one-way flow treat-ment for periods up to two hours af ter a recommendation to evacuate would not influ-ence evacuation times since the links downstream of the one-way section control the movement of traffic over that time frame. As a result, total population dose is insensi-tive to the types of mobilization delays experienced by the Traffic Guides during the Exercise.'

Discussion The calculation of total man-rem received by the EPZ population is made by as-

!sessing two factors: 1) population as a function of time, distance and direction from the Shoreham plant, and 2) dose rate from the plume, also as a function of time, dis-

] ' tance and direction from the Shoreham plant. This calculational approach is displayed in chart form in Attachment 1 to OPIP 3.10.2, Total Population Dose. As can be seen i-p from that chart, the dose to the EPZ population is evaluated on a zone-by-zone basis.

For each zone, the average population and dose rate (rem /hr) are multiplied on an i

a

• 7 - - +-yw wym myr-77-p--rm-+w- *y9 y w-e b, --e- - e w- %'w g- e -g--* , + y--.wtme t -. m wp-- m- a- y m --w--,-

o

. hourly basis to produce dose values. A total man-rem dose for the EPZ is calculated by summing the hourly dose values to determine a total dose for each zone and then by summing those zone doses to produce a total EPZ dose.

In order to achieve a higher level of accuracy for these calculations, the OPIP 3.10.2 method was modified by dividing Zones F and K into five subzones each and by performing calculations at one-half hour intervals instead of one-hour intervals. The five subzones for Zones F and K are shown in Appendix A, Figures 14.1 and 19.1, respectively.

Dose Rate Determination The scenario for the February 13, 1986 Exercise included detailed maps and charts that provide radiation information on whole body and child thyroid dose rates as .

a function of distance and time throughout the duration of the release and over the en-tire field of the plume (Section 6.5 of the Scenario).

In order to use Tables 6.5.2 and 6.5.3 A-F of the Scenario, each zone and subzone was assigned a ristance from the plant and an isopleth. (An isopleth is a line of con-stant radiation concentration within a plume and is based on the dispersion characteris-tics of a release, given meteorology conditions and the point of plume origin.) Each isopleth is identified by a letter designation. For the downwind direction during the Ex-ercise, the following assignments were made:

r-w .

g Zone Distance Isopleths A- 1 mile C B 3 miles G

'C 2 miles I F1 2 miles E F2 4 miles G F3 6 miles I F4 7 miles I

- F5 6 miles outside isopleths G 5 miles G K1 8 miles H K2 7 miles I K3 10 miles I K4 8 miles H K5 8 miles I Q 10 miles I

, The Section 6.5 tables were then used to obtain the dose rates for each zone and subzone at half-hour intervals. - For calculational purposes, time zero was assigned to .

10,:45 with intervals running at each half hour (IA,11:15,11:45,12:15, . . .). The value for each half-hour segment was selected at the midpoint of the time interval. Thus, for the interval of 10:45 to 11:15,- the whole body and child thyroid dose rates for 11:00 were used; similarly, for the 11:15 to 11:45 interval, the values for 11:30 were selected.

Closed window, 4-foot measurements were used as the whole body dose rate.

-Dose rate values that were not included in the Section 6.5 tables were assumed to be at background levels and accordingly, were set at zero. Dose rates of less than one mR/hr were set at one mR/hr.

Population Distribution 4

To determine the population distribution within the EPZ as a function of time,.

Appendix A to the LILCO Transition Plan was used. Appendix E to Appendix A contains the results of computer simulations of evacuation traffic as a function of time and distance from the Shoreham plant. The Appendix E results provide details about evacuating vehicles as they proceed through the 2, 5 and 10-mile boundaries. The 4

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

. reported values are cumulative (h, the 10-mile values include vehicles within the 2 and 5-mile areas) and account for traffic as it exits the EPZ in a westerly direction.

For example, if a vehicle begins its evacuation trip 7 miles to the east of the plant, it is-added to the total for the 5-mile zone if its passes within that zone as it travels in a westerly direction out of the EPZ. The data from Appendix A were converted into a percentage of population remaining inside each boundary for use in these calculations.

Case 12 of Appendix A is a simulation of a full 10-mile, controlled evacuation under normal weather conditions. In order to use this case to calculate the population in each zone as a function of time, the zones were assigned to the 2, 5 and 10-mile boundaries as follows:

Zones A-E 2 mile .

F-J 5 mile K-S 10 mile The initial population in each zone was then multiplied by the population percentage remaining within that 2, 5 or 10-mile boundary at given time intervals. As with the dose rate calculation, half-hour intervals were selected, centering on the same times as the dose rato determination.

Total Man-Rem Calculation The dose rate and population data were entered on a LOTUS Spreadsheet. Dose values were calculated as the product of the population times the dose rate divided by

2. -It was necessary to divide the result by two since dose rates from Section 6.5 of the Scenario are reported in rem per hour instead of rem per half hour. Zones outside of the plume were not included on the spreadsheet since the dose rates in these areas were zero.

_ .m . - _, _ . - _

7 The summation of the individual zone doses showed that given a controlled evac-uation and the Exercise release, the total thyroid dose was approximately 16,000 man-rem and the whole body dose was approximately 600 man-rem (Attachment 1).

a Calculation of-Dose Resulting from Delay in Implementation of One-Way Flow -

In order to calculate the change in population dose resulting from delays in im- ,

plementing the one-way flow treatment, it was necessary to perform dose calculations for the individual roadway links affected by the delays in the mobilization of Traffic Guides. Two DYNEV sensitivity runs were made for a normal weather, full ten-mile evacuation (Case 12). The first implemented one-way flow at one hour af ter the EBS

~

evacuation recommendation - a " controlled" evacuation; the second assumed imple-e mentation of the one-way flow at one hour and fif ty minutes. By analyzing the detailed .

computer output of the DYNEV model, it was possible to determine the total number of '

vehicles associated with each link as a function of time. This included those vehicles still at home, those awaiting access onto the link and those on the link itself. By as-suming 3 passengers per vehicle (see Appendix A, page III-35) and knowing the dose rate

! in the given area, it was possible to determine the change in dose received by the 4

evacuating population.

The potentially affected roadway links and associated zone, distance and isopleth are as follows:

Link Zone Distance Isopleth

- (2,102)N -- F5 6 miles outside plume

-(2,102)S F3,F4 G miles I (102,1)N F5 7 miles outside plume

-(102,1)S F4 7 miles I (1,35) KS 8 miles I (1,103) K5 8 miles I (103,79) Q 9 miles I 4

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

r

, Links (2,102) and (102,1), which include the entire one-way flow treatment, were divided into north and south components. This was done to account for evacuees who would have entered these links from the south and whose evacuation travel would po-tentially have put them within the plume for some period of time, and for those from north of the links who were outside the plume. An analysis of the results obtained from the two sensitivity runs shows that the only significant variation in traffic flow relative to time of implementation of the one-way flow was on link (2,102) (Attachment 3). A dose calculation was done for this link similar to the one for the entire population (At-tachment 2). The results show that had Traffic Guides not been delayed in imple-menting the one-way flow treatment the doses to the persons using link (2,102) would have been 1.67 man-rem whole body and 62.6 man-rem thyroid. The doses resulting from a 50-minute delay were reduced to 1.58 man-rem whole body and 59.5 man-rem thyroid.

As can be seen from Attachment 3, the delay in impleir.entation of the one-way flow did not cause additional back up in the vicinity of link (2,102) during the second hour when the Traffic Guides were not present. A slight reduction in population with-in the area serviced by link (2,102) occurred more than two hours af ter the start of evacuation. This reduction was due to the following factors:

Delay in implementing one way flow on links (2,102) and (102.1) reduced the number of vehicles entering the downstream links (1,103) and (1,35) over the period of the delay (50 minutes).

This reduced inflow permitted traffic on links (1,103) and (1,35) to operate at densities below the Level of Service F for a longer period of time than was the case had the guides been on time.

Since capacity is reduced whenever density is at Level of Service F, the effect of lower density acts to in-crease capacity on links (1,103) and (1,35) relative to the case when the guides are on time.

r i- ,

4-

• This increase in capacity allows the traffic on these downstream links to flush a little faster during the first two hours following an order to evacuate.

The net effect is to improve slightly the subsequent throughput on the feeder links (2,102) and (102,1).

Had the delay in implementing the one-way flow treatment exceeded I hour and 50 minutes following the order to evacuate, the population in the area serviced by the feeder links would have been serviced at slower flow rates af ter the initial two hours.

These slower flow rates are due to the associated lower capacities of the feeder links (one lane versus two lanes). These slower flow rates would also extend the evacuation time. Additional sensitivity studies conducted with DYNEV confirmed this fact. Spe-cifically, a long term loss of capacity on the feeder links would outweigh any short term benefit of slightly increased capacity on the downstream links. Thus, the longer .

implementation of the one-way flow treatment is delayed past one hour and 50 minutes, the longer the evacuation time.

Thus, in the period from 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> af ter the order of evacuation when the plume reached the vicinity of the one-way flow, there were somewhat fewer evacuees remaining in their service areas when the guides are 50 minutes late, than in the case where the guides were on time, and the total dose received was slightly less than in a " controlled evacuation." When implementation of the one-way flow was de-layed by 50 minutes the dose saving was 0.08 man-rem whole body and 3.2 man-rem thyroid. This is obviously an insignificant amount compared to the 600 man-rem whole body and 16,000 man-rem thyroid received by the entire evacuating population.

4!! CR gg riS we 8 ** ** 5a ** == == == == == --

lsi7g[8 3 3

= se 5 ~-

ss ,8 a M- t' y -

g g,d T'= 'd Id hj $b Ed " . {E$ j".Djo3 So ,A j G3 m3 oC So ao og "I *g C ga o ,3 c9f

- $$ o E

.c ff' - h , .

u 4

e a

gg g gg oo ao ao ao ao ao ao oo oc oo a od Rg E.4 d3 Egg_ dipg 8. g! j gi SW:g

• E gg es gg c@ g s(,; g == == == == == == == co == ==

ow a j

go o ,o' -

my o u!

E aagggsiigaaxy

== oc ce gg oo ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao g, R$

13i ieUU d me d d 3.8~

g o o. oo ao ao ao ao ao ao oo o gge,ao o a' ggEd $g oo 3c O J '}s d 6 E 8 9d O

. .g ge R F e

E e E 'I *$

a gg

- , g' k s l [ {

E o . . .

d. m .^

Q o.

4 - T.

h oo om oo ao ce be on oc co ao oc co ao oo ao 8 I ,.

goo ao ao ao o o' s o ao ao ao'co ao ao ao ao ao e_g nl I '! ~.% -*} I E

~ ~ *.,E'..l .$.

. l 'l .j j n  !

oc co ao ao ao oo oc oo ao ao ao oc oc co ao ao I

i =o ao no co ao oc oc oc ec-oc oc ce oc cc oo

• W

• e

..? A  : y -

F j G 5

• h&

EE W 0 R $ ,  ! # R e f

s I G. 4- 7 s g' E

{ $ i 0 $

• Et4 - I  % Ic 'h 3 E

E hE 4

E

{

c. R E

Io!s!sisis!nas!sisis!s!s!s!n!s!s!

s o o e c e o -o a s e .

we EE _ _ _

O I -

m

f5 55. Q $5. gS3 '.[ **ffgl8 'k E SE I.e~R :d~ le , li s g ;is~< s.

E~

. se e se,- is. .~cES.

- .s- a 18. ** $.$p .l.

n ~ .a _ .

.5 .. _ . _ . .

g;..............................

.g it .

s_ . ...

g

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , y p. .,

p. ,. ,. p. .p. g.

litt. is .. li,.:. 25.

. 1 I.,E.ie " Et ....E,ji.s*gi,il.

s: . . ..

i

.g ei BE

" " Es EE !! f t " [f Ef c5 ji 18 ti 28. gi E dd;<:=g) eddi!d s se p e~ si '

.litt

,r w 4 a 53. lI. 8'<= 54E.. 8 1.e:i " i.;. ~5. a .s, :i j!,. !!,.ji,.i.i a

u... . . e c : c

s s a c e s as

'I " "'" J4 -884~8 ]lE (I g4 jd** (hd8  !?diE[Q jf h .: sa[<

1[2+p~ g

~

=. :: : a c  :

Ei

• • e g . es :s4 I:; es c

.E. .. . .e .:sI. :E. 3 =6 . .Es .s'.. :ga. ., ce. g

. .g.a :l

g

= = s. I a_ 4 r_. 8 e. =t s : I n.a

[  !*l[.:[.[.ji**52.Il27

.i.,,"- *2 e_'s '.d E 5t 'sEi jE!

• ~ '

. . . ~.2 . , ,-

• • - e-  :: e- -

.EE:s.s ..c es :s *.:. .s :g :sg = er

,a .= ., s. . .*

. E t6 :4,s.l.8 :.:6 s, e E.E.

-l . . . , - , , - ~ g s

is sc

• E f . % - $ e [ S. = ,

f( *7.c ((FrCf '8$5 s$4wP3

= - - P grE8 f:W 4. $ $. 6.[3 **S-di .: ( y *

• I .$.

1" $ ' 8. ,'; -0.  :! ;E 2i 3 3 i 4 .*

-; .* 5*

f3

.g t 1 E . 5

= " t. ; ;- n e, d

Ee a

.= i; :;

=.

i. E; q =

. . e

,ed ! E i ! E 9 E 3E7Ii5

, . . . .F .

g .II .'I 'I- II: el: af  : si  : si e s! . si : et . si og  : , ,1,3 . 1h, b

a 4

t

+

.4 ' 00 00

=g ^

Y g k m

, s 4 a Ed e

- kk 5

< Es ,, 52 N d *;. i j

o sid '! ! <s'$

3 a

4 00 00 00 00 00 00 ggDO ggCO ,

N Ng 5

DO DO DO DO I i -

gg.O 00 ggCO 00 8 21

~~

.9 ~~

g si$ 6 ii$ $

r -

6 '

u 00 .O 90 00 m

g gg.... gg....

4 8 sg g g

.O 00 00 00 I .

I ggCO .. ggCO 00 d d jil i fit i i

O I! !. 5 E!.! 5 t 3 3 EI 3

t," c5 3

5n" p3 g

li.

d i.s J I I

.li" ..lI

.g

, li" l. o (t- ... . . _ _ . . . . _

I I II" in d' II"

..I. - -R. . ..it3 . j' .-

it

~

it .

is 1:

I ;d I ;d .

ii" ite-

g li" it**

g if' 8 di' ' _

e oc gp ..

l 5.

l' ..'.w-'

li"r it...

11 p.

• e ...w3.. . .. .

sd E ma Et I i

.. e, .. eg C.

g IC F g di li

!i" ji li" ji

g e- :g e-ggE E g!E

.. y, I I e A e d. **

IE" il li" ji ed

• g  :

Sg c

,cp 2 gg,. s s-

+ .

e Il I! .:

" I! IE 8i s.,t i, *!E E<

B-a na a a

Attachment 3 VEHICLES REMAINING IN AREAS SERVICED BV INDICATED LINKS LINK (2,102) LINK (102.1) LINK (1,103) LINK (1,35) LINK (103,79)

ON ON ON ON TIME

• ON TIME DELAVED TIME OELAVED TIME DELAVED TIME DELAYED TIME DELAVED 0.00 2516i 2516 878 878 437 437 0 0 0 0 0:30 2306 2306 790 790 393 393 120 120 60 60 1:00 2188 2188 484 484 240 240 120 120 120 120 1:30 2188 2188 484 484 180 180 120 120 120 120 2:00 2052 2044 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 2:30 1680 1700 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 3:00 1302 1210 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 3:30 696 670 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 4:00 212 206 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 4:30 198 198 324 324 180 180 120 120 120 120 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

• Time 0:00 equals 20 minutes after order to evacuate.

On Time Traffic Guides presumed to arrive at time 0:40 Delayed Traffic Guides presumed to arrive at time 1:30.

LILCO, May 1, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN

1. My name is Edward B. Lieberman. My professional quali-fications have been admitted into evidence as part of LILCO Exer-cise Exhibit 1, entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses on Exercise Contentions."

2. I have reviewed the attached document entitled, "Calcu-lation of Ef fect of Delay in the Mobiliza tion of Traf fic Guides on Total Man-Rem Received by EPZ Population." The portions of that document which involve the calculation of traffic movement and evacuation times were prepared at my direction and under my supervision. They are true and correct to the best of my knowl-edge and belief.

</rc wm Edward B. Lieberman Subscribed and sworn before me this . MTI day of W/' ,

1987. g My commission expires: 4U4Nd6 /9I9/

/

hm$ No. 52-4742519 yg Ntu:2ry f) G Pub 1ic mf QuellAedin Sunset County Comunission Egime Memh 341 ( /

E LILCO, May 1, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES A DAVERIO

1. My name is Charles A. Daverio. My professional qualifi-cations have been admitted into evidence as part of LILCO Exer-cise Exhibit 1, entitled " Professional Qualifications of LILCO -

Witnesses on Exercise Contentions."

2. I have reviewed the attached document entitled, "Calcu-lation of Ef fect of Delay in the Mobilization of Traf fic Guides on Total Man-Rem Received by EPZ Population." The portions of that document which involve the calculation of total population doses were prepared at my direction and under my supervision.

They are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

A .

A^ f Charles A. Daverio Subscribed and sworn before me this / day of M ,

1987.

L /

My commission expires:

/

I# # ' /f /ff f .

,, e l,,' ' "' ' R,2. ,...

c.,,lt..:::Jc:L. N

%% Q)$&

ry Publfc

<_ . ,.. .. . .- m . . .. i u e'

. LILCO, May 4i1987' 4

00LMEiff USNHC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'87 ftAY -8 A9:44 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY In the Matter of [0CbNNNf f

!iR A NCH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of CONTENTION EX 40 - CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION DOSE AS A RESULT OF MOBILIZATION DELAYS were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by one aster-isk (*), or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.

John H. Frye, !!!, Chairman .* Atomic Safety and Licensing i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.* .

Bethesda, MD 20814 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Oscar H. Paris

• 7735 Old Georgetown Road

- Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mallroom)

Board Bethesda, MD 20814

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

., East-West Towers Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

• 4350 East-West Hwy. Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart

, Mr. Frederick J. Shon

• South Lobby - 9th Floor 4

Atomic Safety and Licensing. 1800 M Street, N.W.

Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. Palomino. Esq.

• 4350 East-West Hwy. . Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Secretary of the Commission Room 229 Attention Docketing and Service State Capitol I

Section Albany, New York 12224

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Mary Gundrum, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Atomic Safety and Licensing Third Floor, Room 3-116 Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

. _ . ~ . _ -

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

f ,

i Spence W. Perry, Esq.

• Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq. ** Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 .

New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza -

Albany, New York 12223

/

Ie6B. Zep 6 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 4,1987

- .-,s , n---- -, , , _.e - - , , ----.n-- -,-- ,,n - - - ,