ML19347C054

Forwards Petition for Rehearing in Case 80003 Re Application for Certificate of Environ Compatibility & Public Need. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19347C054
Person / Time
Site:	05000516, 05000517
Issue date:	10/08/1980
From:	Futter J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Madison S NEW YORK, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8010160522
Download: ML19347C054 (17)

Text

'

ro - ca.

ry O

t

, t 1

w

. /MC

. . oGA14.wbCHsti i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY j '

EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 250 CL3 CCUNTRY ACAC

• MINECLA. NEW YORK 11 SCI ECWARO 4. 5AR ACTT (see) aas.aeco HgmetRT w.LtiMAN oc=caa6counsE6 JAMCS J. STC A ER. ::

ECWARD J. WAL3 H. JR. RCSERT C. AfCH ARDS Gamsma6afvo**cv ARTHUR Q. FUNN FRANCIS M. WALSH ROY C. MCN ACC ornana6 c64ams avvo==cy CA LVIN C. R A FU S C. JR.

AtCHARO A. FRECOMAN JCFFREY L. FUTTER WILLIAM R. MUM 5URG M AICA J. CRlNGM E Re g g g *n g3 3g

• e FRANCIS J. McQCNCyOpe TIMOTH Y M. CONOVAN A8CH ARQ A. VISCCNT)

MATHE TY5RELL ,acSlN af?cRasCTS Hon. Samuel R. Madison

• • ^*"""' ~*C*"'**

Secretary, Jamesport Siting Scard '2 00 S Ev E NT E C Deine S T. a*.w. 3 CO 3 e public c,,.ervice Cc= mission

. cve v= mO-Agency n.u _

_d .* ,3.~3 ' ' " * * ' ' ' " ' " " " ' " ' * ' ' ' " ' * * "

Empire State Pla:a Albany, NY 12223 Re: Case 30003 - Jamesport

Dear Mr. Madisen:

Enclosed please find twenty-five (25) copies cf the Applicants' P'e ition for Rehearing in Case 80003 A certificate of service certifying that service cf the Petition for Rehearing was cade en all parties in the proceeding is attached to each Petition.

Sincerely yours, Jeffrey L. Futter ,N' m i s .s' ' i c.

v v

.- /

. \

.nclosures y

y - . .... , . - - M,N, e

-= b4 ' ) ;"C

-- ,~~**

. -

~ '

/ . ,

ih- -

l l

1 h$

5itt/

8 01016 0 a~~ -oe

3 NEW YORK STATE SOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT regarding an application for a certificate

of environmental ccmpatibility and public need i

In the Matter of. *

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY and )

NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS ) Case 80003 CORPORATION )

PETITION FOR REHEARING 4

4 Edward M. Barrett Edward J. Walsh, Jr.

J Jeffrey L. Futter Long Island Lighting Ccmpany .

250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Sex 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Roderick Schutt Euber Magill Lawrence

& Farrell 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 Dated: Octcber 8, 1980 9

b

f NEW YORK STATE 30ARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT 4 regarding an application for a certificate of environmental ccmcatibility and cublic need In the Matter of -)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and )

NEW YCRK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS ) . Case 80003 CORPORATION )

PETITION FOR REHEARING Preliminary Statement This petition is filed by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG)

(together the " Applicants"), pursuant to $$ 22 and 148 of the Public Service Law and 9 70.23 of the regulations implementing Article VIII of that law.

t For reasons stated belcw, the Applicants request the ..,.  ;

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment in Case 80003 to reconsider three aspects of its '

September 8, 1980 " Opinion and Order Granting Certificate of

Environmental Compatibility and Public Need" for a coal-fired power plant at Jamesport (hereinafter cited as "SB Order"). The three aspects needing reconsideration involve

First, the setting of unrealistic deadlines for the Applicants to make certain submissions to the Siting Board; Second, a lack of coordination between (a) further Siting Board review and (b) initial EPA review of i certain matters relevant to both Article VIII and the l Clean Air Act; and i

. Third, the adoptien of unduly ccmplex pcst-certification procedures. ,

1

..i

- - _ - _ - - - - _ . -..-.- =

3 1

i l

! In short, it is important that the filing deadlines be l 1

f extended, the Siting Board and EPA reviews be coordinated, 1

i and the post-certification procedures be simplified.

! I. i 1

1 1

NEED FOR REALISTIC FILING DEADLINES I j A. Six Initial Filing Recuirements l The SB Order sets six initial filing deadlines. Most

of them are strikingly short, given the amount of data i

j , gathering, analysis, decision-making and document preparation 1

{ that the SB Order wan'ts completed by their expiration.

1

] Specifics follow:

a 1

i Filing Material to Cite to 1

Deadlines 1/ be Filed SB Order 1

j -

1. Dec. 8, 1980 Applicants' " written acceptance Page 74 j

I and agreement to abide by the (item 3.h) '

terms and conditions upon which  !

1 this certificate of enviren- .

1 mental conpatibility and public '

need is issued"

)

1 2. Dec. 8, 1980 Applicants' " schedule for the Page 74 j performance and submittal of all (ites 3.g) i studies, programs and research -

i required by this Cpinion and 1

Order" J 3 Mar. 9, 1981 Applicants' so-called "FGD pack- Pages 59-60,

{ age," that is: " detailed infor- 71, 73

mation demonstrating how they (item 3.d)

will meet requirements that they

employ the best available control '

I technology for sulfur dioxide, NO and other particulates,"

fodusing on "a detailed descrip-

?

j.

i l .

1/ The Siting Board called for filings to be made "within" i a certain number of days or months after "the issuance of j this Opinion and Order." Thus, the deadlines below are

'

calculated fr'om the September 8, 1980 " issuance" date of the 4 SB Order, i

I g

n. . . - - , ,- - , - - - - - , , , . . , , , . , , . - . ,n-- - . . - . ., , ,., . - - - - - - , , - - . , . , - - - - - . ,

tion of the FGD scrubber system that will be employed, the type of coal proposed to be used as a fuel (including a ecmparative coal cost evaluation under different available scrubber / fuel type alternatives), a detailed description of the proposed. coal delivery system [ including an economic and environmental comparisen of offshore and enshore systems], and a description of the methods, facilitle=, and locationsforthedispfsalofthe resultant solid waste"_/

4 Mar. 9, 1981 Applicants' " initial ccmpliance Pages 69

, filing," including (a) an (item 3) &

elaborately detailed construction App. 3 at management program; (b) a "censtruc- 1-3 tien schedule, with internal milestone dates for plant components which require more than One year cf con-struction time;" (c) "[t]he Applicrnts' latest available detailed estimate of construction costs, with an i explanation and justificaticn cf any differences frc= the last -

estimate presented by the Applicants l

cn the record;" and (d) "[a] statement of the licensing packages the Appli- '

cants intend to file, a d*Suription l of each package and its specific objectives, the approximate date each package will be submitted, .

and the approximate date of the l

I

_2/ Much of the information in this FGD package is relevant to a Jamesport coal station's compliance with the Clean Air l l

Act Amendments of 1977, more specifically, to the station's compliance with the Act's provisions en PSD (prevention of significant deterioration). New York State presently lacks authority to issue PSD permits. Thus, any such permit for l Jamesport would have to come frc= EPA under its own PSD regulations. See 40 CFR 55 52.21, 52.1689 Accordingly, most of the Siting Ecard's FGD package would have to be repeated in a PSD submission. Furtheracre, under EPA's regulations, an additicnal year of air quality data, beycnd that already collected for Jamesport, would probably have to be gathered before a PSD application could be filed. Until these data were in hand, all details of Jamesport's air pollution control measures probably could not be finalized.

As with the Siting Board's FGD package, a PSD application to EPA might also occasion hearings.

3

construction activity which is the subject matter of that licensing package."

. 5 Mar. 9, 1981 Applicants' " subsequent licensing Pages 73 or "as soon packages" (item 3.a) 3 as possible" App. A at 2 ther.eafter (item A)

6. "[A:s soon as Applicants' " application for and Pages 70, practicable, proposed for= cf a discharge 74 (item in no event permit for the certified coal 3.f) later than" fac'ility" ,

Mar. 8, 1982

3. Prerecuisites to Ccmpliance The six filing requirements sketched above, especially the " detailed information" demanded for the FGD package, much of which concerns matters tha,t must also be covered during the federal PSD process, involve a great a= cunt of data gathering, analysis, decision-making and document

, preparation. It follows that there exist several prerequisites to ccmpliance with the S3 Order's deadlines:

First, there must be reasonable assurance that a Jamesport coal. project can go forward uninterrupted by the necessity '

to divert substantial resources to the forced conversion -

of existing LILCO power plants from oil to coal; -

Second, even assuming uninterrupted. availability of the i resources needed for a Jamesport coal station, there 1 must be sufficient time to actually gather the data, i conduct the analyses, make all the necessary decisions <

and prepare documents laying the Applicants' findings l and conclusions out for Siting Board review; and  !

l Third, to avoid inefficiency and inconsistency, the l l

Siting Board review must be coordinated with the fede"='

PSD review. l None of these prerequisites can be met en the schedule adopted by the SB Order.

t 4

l l

l

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

1. Potential Diversion of Resources to Ccal Conversions With respect to the potential for diverting rescurces to feder~ ally-mandated coal conversions, three of LILCO's existing oil-fired plants are presently subject to preliminary federal conversion orders. These include four 375 MW units at LILCO's Northport plant; two 175 MW units at its E. F.

Barrett plant; and two 175 MW units at its ?crt Jefferson 2

facility.3/ If LILCO were ordered to convert all of these units to coal, tne total cost could exceed $3 billion. The lion's share of this potential cost is attributable to the conversion of Northport, which the Ccmpany estimates could be as high as $2.5 billien. Even absent the financial problems which LILCO presently faces, constructic'n Of its share of a new coal plant at Jamespert ;epled in the same i

time frame with a federally-ordered conversicn of Northport '

would create extremely difficult financial circumstances for the Company. Until there is reasonable assurance that LILCO will not be forced to convert Nortrport, the Company is '

reluctant to cetmit significant resources to a new coal project. /

The coal conversicn situation on Lone Island 3/ The fcur Northport and two Barrett units have been issued Proposed Prohibition Orders by the Department of Energy's Econcaic Regulatory Administration under the ?cwerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978. The two Port Jefferson units are subject to a non-final prchibition order under the Ene"gy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 3/ A. the Siting Board made clear, means must be developed in southeastern New York State to generate electricity using fuels other than foreign oil. Conversion of existing LILCO (continued on next page) 5

4 should become clearer by the end of.1981. However, even if the conversion of Northport is federally-compelled, NYSEG's -

] need for additional capacity in the late 1980's may necessitate that the Jamesport project go forward on some mutually agreeable financial basis.

2. Unrealistic Deadlines 4

As to schedule, even if the Applicants i'mmediately i

committed significant resources to a Jamesport coal project i

by the retention of an architect engineer, the purchase of

equipment and the employment of necessary consultants, it is

utterly unrealistic to suppose that " detailed information"

. could be available by March 9, 1981 for Siting Board review 1

I and approval on the range of matters described in filings three and rour on pages 2 3 above. At least another year's

work would be required.

3 Necessity for Federal PSD Review Similarly, federal PSD review of a Jamesport coal t

project could not conceivably begin by March 9, 1981. Pre-application PSD monitoring requirements, among other factors,

• ensure that the Applicants could not assemble a Jamesport 4/ (footnote continued from previous page) i power plants from oil to coal, like building a new coal unit at Jamesport, would help provide the necessary means. So also would building the proposed Jamesport nuclear units for which the Applicants now have federal construction permits. 1 While the political and regulatory obstacles to new nuclear projects in New York State do seem impenetrable at present, i

the Applicants reiterate their conclusion that nuclear

, generation at Jamesport would be (1) more economic than any

other alternative, including new coal generation, and (2) more compatible with the environment. In the Applicants' judgment, the weight of the evidence in Case 80003 overwhelmingly supports both of these ccnclusions. But if the only choice

now realistically available is between continued reliance on

! . foreign oil or the return of coal to Long Island, then the l latter clearly is the more desirable alternative, l l

6 .

O

,~ ,-- .m.-- .--.,:.-. ,p , _ - . - - .

l

\ . . .

PSD application until well over a year has passed. The PSD review will track much the same ground as the reviews contemplated by the Siting Ecard for the FGD package and initial compliance filings. Both the PSD and FGD package / initial compliance filing reviews may involve hearings. Accordingly, it makes good sense to conduct both reviews in tandem to the maximum extent feasible. To push ene,along well before the other simply invites redundant, inconsistent administrative

. proceedings.

C. Extension of Filing Deadlines Under the foregoing circumstances, the Applicants urge that the Siting Scard reconsider the deadlines set in its September 8, 1080 Cpinion and Order. These deadlines are too short to take adequately into account coal conversien uncertainties, the amount of time actually required to do 7

I I the work called for oy the SB Order, and the need to cocrdinate -

i 1

l the Article VIII and PSD reviews of a Jamesport coal station.  :

i

)

Accordingly, the Applicants request that each of the six I

deadlines identified on pages 2 t above be extended by one l year. While a one year's extension of each deadline may I l

prove to be inadequate, such additional time is the minimum necessary to take into account the various prerequisites for )

compliance described above.

II.

NEED FOR CCORDINATED SITING E0ARD/ EPA REVIEWS As incicated already,5/ the matters covered in the SB 5/ See pages 2-3 and 6-7 ind note 2 above.

7 ,

i

. . e 1

i i,

j Order's "FGD package" have much in com=cn with matters that i

must be considered during EPA's PSD review of a Jamesport

! . coal station, pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Also as indicated, 1

the EPA review cannot possibly begin by the time that the SB i ~

Order contemplates submission of the "FGD package" and.the

l possible beginning of " evidentiary hearings" on it.

i If the Siting Sea d's "FGD package" review is not ,

meshed with EPA's PSD review, the stage will be set for redundant administrative proceedings, hearings included, J .

with a resulting waste of time, money and expertise. The stage w* a'so be set for confusing, even inconsistent, I interplay between the two agencies. In light of Case 80003's i

, tortured histcry, it is crucial that duplicative, potentially 1 .

I contradictory proceedings be avoided in the future. Accordingly, f the Siting Scard should gake every reasonable effort to 1

j coordinate its review with EPA's, seeking:

1. To have a single filing by the Applicants deal with matters common to both Article VIII and the '

l Clean Air Act;

• l j 2. To have that filing submitted simultanecusly to

ehe Siting Board and EPA; j 3 To' coordinate subsequent state and federal staff l

i review of common issues; and 1

4. To ensure that, if any additional hearings are  !

, required to deal with these issues, then only a single set of hearings will be held to satisfy l both state and federal needs. I i ,

The Applicants request that the Siting Board take all necessary steps to ensure an efficient, informed coordination of its i 1

I I

. 8 i

l I

l

I 3

"FGD package" review with EPA's PSD review.67 -

III.

NEED POR SIMPLIFIED POST-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES

] -

Ccmplex post-certification procedures are created by the SB Order and defined largely in its Appendices. The

*ntricacy of these procedures generates so great a risk of l post-certification paralysis that they must be reconsidered.

] As the Applicants in this case and in the Sterling Article t

j , VIII case have urged for several years, there is no statutory a

basis for such complex procedures. Neither Article VIII in its initial or amended texts, nor the voluminous regulations j adopted to implement it, mention " initial ccmpliance filings" or " subsequent licensing packages," much less post-certification i

" evidentiary hearings" on any such filings. It is not -

i credible that, had the 1sgislators intended such a post-certification process, they would have wholly failed to '

i mention it. Nor would reascnable people, when adopting

] regulations as detailed as those in 16 NYCER 70 et sec.,

I have failed to mention something as demanding as the procedures

+

create.d by the S3 Order if the statute being implemented

] called for them.

Past experience suggests, however, that the Siting i

6/ Unlike the situation under the Clean Air Act, the Siting j Board not EPA implements the Clean Water Act in cases such

as Jamesport. Interestingly, the SB Order provides the Applicants until March 1982 to make their Clean Water Act showing for a Jamesport coal plant. For unknown reasons, i

the SB Order calls for the submission of the "FGD package"

one year earlier. But as noted, the "FGD package" and the Applicants' Clean Air Act showing for Jamesport have much in common. And as compared to'the Water Act filing, the Air .

, Act demonstration has much further to go before it can be produced in meaningful detail. .

d i.

Board will vigorously resist any reading of Article VIII -

i that narrows the Scard's authority. Thus, putting to one i

j i side whether or not the Siting Board may lawfully adopt the precedures in question, it remains the case that the Board i

is not legally ccatelled to adopt them. .}eadmostgenerously j in favor of post-certification procedures, Ar'ticle VIII simply gives the Board discretion to shape "such terms, 4

conditions, limitations or acdifications of the construction

)

or operation of the facility as the'bcard may deem appropriate."

PSL 5 146(2); see id. $ 141(1).

Accordingly, even if the

] Board declines to reconsider its pcst-certification procedures

i on the ground that they go beycnd the bounds sec by Article j VIII, the Scard shculd nonetheless rethink the way in which j it has exercised its discretion to shape such precadures.

1

! The post-certification process created by the 53 Order i

j could, in fact, paralyce progress toward a Jamesper: Ocal station. The process involves the folicwing sequence of i -

events: --

1. 30 days advance notice by Applicants of their intent to make a post-certification filing;

R. 45 days thereafter for any interested person to 4

request a copy of the documents in question;

3 Actual filing of the documents no scener than 30

days after the notice of intent to file and no j later than 120 days before any activity cavered by the filing is to begin;

4. 30 days after the filing for any interested persen to serve written ecmments en the filing; since some people may have received the filing (generally volumincus) only 15 days before this deadline occurs, extensions of time to comment are foreseeable; i

. 10

, - - , .c - m -

. . o 5 Presumably the same period of time (up to 30 days after the filing) for any interested person to request evidentiary hearings en the issues raised by it;

6. An unspecified period thereafter for the Siting Board or PSC to decide whether to hold hearings or to act on the papers alone;

7. "[A]s soon as practicable after the cc= ment period and, if oossible, not later than sixty (60) days after the documents are filed" for them to be

" approved, modified, conditioned or disapproved" by the Siting Board or PSC;i/ if hearings are granted, it is not likely that a Siting Scard or PSC decision would prove to be "possible" within 60 days; Article VIII hearings on Lcng Island move at a glacial pace, requiring time for discovery, written testimony by the Applicants, its cral examination, written testimony by others, its oral examination, written rebuttal, its cral examination and briefs, with frequent pauses along the way; S. And then, requests for reconsideration, judicial '

review and stays of Siting Scard er PSC rulings on whether to hold hearings and on the merits of the Applicants' filings. ,

This sequence of events could be repeated over and 1 over, with each filing. It very likely would be repeated 1 over and over en Long Island if a Jamesport coal plant were to be opposed by even marginally competent lawyers. The ,

effect of the drill would be to halt progress en the project and to further gut Article VIII as a viable means of making decisions about anything.

It is crucial that the Siting Board prune its post-l l

certificate procedures until they do, in fact, credibly I l

permit a review of the Applicants' post-certification I

filings that is reasonably prompt and, of even greater l 1/ SB Order, App. A at 5 (emphasis added).

~

11

1 I

I t

1 .

l importanc'e, that is conducted pursuant to a fixed, predictable l

l schedule._8,/ To that end, and at a minimum,.the potential

. for evidentiary hearings must be removed. The remaining i

procedures for notice of filings, supply of documents to interested people and opportunity for written comments would still provide ample means for public involvement in the Siting Board or PSC review. While disruptive itself, such l involvement could arguably co-exist with the scheduling i

demands of a major construction project, so long as the

, involvement itself took place on a fixed, predictable schedule.

I An open-ended potential for repeated hearings cculd not. It l 1s questionable, indeed, whether prudent people could embark on such a project so long as that potential remained, t 1

! In summary, it is obvious that the Siting Scard and the PSC are determined to have cc= plex post-certification procedures in Article VIII cases. It is apparent that the ,

Siting Board and the PSC will insist on procedures sufficiently detailed to ensure constant agency involvement uith certified '

facilities. While recognizing these facts of. life, the Applicants urge recognition of another reality as well:

that the post-certification procedures can become so complex that they paraly e projects. They have reached that level of intricacy in the SB Order. Thus, Applicants request, at 8/ Both the PSC Staff and NYSEG have struggled in their  ;

l respective efforts to make the Somerset Station's post- '

certification process work. It is crucial that " lessons learned" at Somerset be taken into account in shaping workable post-certification procedures for Jamesport.

12

M 1

a minimum, that the procedures be simplified by removal of the potential for evidentiary hearings.

IV.

4 . CONCLUSION 1

i For the reasons set out above, the Applicants ask that I

[ the Siting Scard (1) extend each of the deadlines in its 1

j September 8, 1980 Cpinion and Order by cne year; (2) take 1 .

j all necessary steps to coordinate further preceedings in i

j Case 80003 with the review that EPA must perform under the j

l Clean Air Act; and (3) simplify the Case 80003 post-certification I

procedures, eliminating at a minimum the potential for 4

i evidentiary hearings. Reconsideration and relief on all 1,

i three scores is vital to a viable certificate.

4 Respectfully submitted,

~

i LCNG ISLAND LIGRTING CCMPANY and

) NEW YORK STam: 77 CTRIC & GAS

CORPORATION ,

' ~

.m-

{

?

~

'( S ll s- $( ti,t_ /

Edward Edward J.M.halsh, EfrrettJr. V

// i l

Jeffrey L. Futter Long Island Lighting Company

'i 250 Old Country Road l Mineola, New ?crk 11501 1 ma'aphone: (516) 228-2038 l l

W. Taylor Reveley, III '

Runton & Williams l 707 East Main Stree* '

, P. O. Box 1535 l

Richmond, Virginia 23212  !

Roderick Schutt Huber Magill Lawrence

& Farrell 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 Dated: October 8, 1980 13

J t

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

I hereby cer ify that copies of APPLICANTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING wer= served on the following persons by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on October 8, 1980 and that twenty-five (25) copies of said Petition were delivered to l the Commission's offices ir New York City on that date.

Honorable Charles A. Zielinski Irving Like', Esq.

Chairman Reilly and Like Public Service Commission 200 West Main Street Empire State Pla:a Babylon, New York 11702 Albany, NY 12223 t

Dr. Harris Fischer I IMnorable Robert F. Flacke Environmental Physicist )

Commissioner Suffolk County Department of l

New York .ctate Depart =ent of Environmental Control Enviror ental Ccnservation 1324 Motor Parkway 50 Wolf Road Hauppauge, New York 11787 Albany, NY 12233

Jonathan Sinnreich, Esq.

Honorable Geldie Watkins Sinnreich & Pines, Attorneys

Deputy Cc=missioner 1380 Rcancke Avenue l Department cf Health Riverhead, NY Empire State Pla a 11901 -

Albany, NY .12223 Eutzel i Eass 4

Honorable William E. Sey= cur 45 Rockefeller Plaza New Ycrk, New York 10020 Deputy Ccnmissioner d

Department of Ccmmerce Ms. Shirley Bachrach 99 Washington Avenue The League of Wcmen Veters Albany, NY 12245 of Suffolk County Dayton Road Honorable William E. Johnke Southcid, New York 11971 330 Greenwich Street Hempstead, NY 11550 Dr. Caryl Granttham 1

73A Scund Avenue Joel Blau, Esq. Riverhead, New York i

Staff Counsel 11901

Public Service Ccmmission Langden 'Iarsh, General Ccunsel of the State of New York New-York State Department of j Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Environmental Conservation i 4

50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Gloria M. Sallien, Esq.

New York State Department Att: Carl Dworkin, Esq.

of Commerce 99 Washington Avenue Ms. Jean Tiedke

.l Albany, New York 12245 Tcwn of Scuthold, Suffolk Ccunty Box 1103 l Southold, New York 11971 I

I L

- - 1 I

l W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. Allen D. MacNeill Hunton & Williams Ecology Action of T:mpkins I 707 East Main Street County i P.O. Box 1535 140 West State Street Richmond, Virsinia 23212 Ithaca, NY 14850 i

Howard Blau, P.C. Ms. Dooley Kiefer 217 Newbridge Road League of Women Voters of Hicksville, New Ycrk 11753 Tempkins County j 629 Highland Road l Mr. William C. Hees Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 2 Grey Birch Ccurt

! Dix Hills, New York 11706 L. T. Everett, Senior Vice President I

) Joseph C. Gramer, Esq. New York State Electric & Gas 1 Attorney for Local 25 Corporation International 3rotherhcod of P.O. Box 287

Elect:ical Workers, AFL-CIO Ithaca, NY 14850 425 Brtachollow Road Melville, New York 11746 Ms. Adelaid Flatau

League of Wcmen Voters of nederick Schutt, Esq. Suffolk County i Huber, Magill, Lawrence 30 Dart =cuth Road

& Farrell Shoreham, NY 11786 j 99 Park Avenue i New York, N.Y. 10016 Paul J. Merges, Energy Systems a

Specialist

Themas A. Twemey, Jr., Esq. Cffice of Environmental Analysis i Hubbard & Twomey New York State Department of

}

J P.O. Box 660 Environmental Conservation Riverhead, New York 11901 50 Wolf Road

(

Albany, NY 12233 Edward W. Horne, Esq. l Town Attorney Dr. Charles Raebeck Town of East Ha=pton Box 2000 159 Pantigo Road Riverhead, NY 11901 East Hampton, NY 11937 l Ms. Lorna Sal: man, Chairwoman  ;

1 Mrs. Audrey Raebeck Friends of the Earth - NY  !

Sox 463 72 Jane Street Amagansett, N.Y. 11930 New York, NY 10014

Mr. Jonathan Newkirk Rosemary S. Pooler 1

i Executive Assistant to Cctmissioner Executive Director l Department of Agriculture State Consumer Protection Scard 1 and Markets 99 Washington Avenue 1 Building 8, State Office Campus Albany, NY 12210  !

Albany , ' Jew York 12235 Attenticn: Alfred Levine, Esq.

Mr. A. E. Kintigh j Vice President, Generation  !

New York State Electric & l Gas Corporation i 4500 Vestal Parkway East 31nghamton, N.Y. 13902 h & 4.J M .

Je rrreyi L . Futter

)

I y 1-----

,_.y,. c - - , _ - . , - , , - -- 1,--..- y -

---y-