ML20079K861

Memorandum Supporting Licensee 830106 Motion to Dismiss Contentions 2.1(a) & 2.1(d).Intervenor Failure to Make Witnesses on Contentions Available for Deposition Prejudices Licensee Case.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20079K861
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/06/1983
From:	Brandenburg B, Levin J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20079K834	List: ML20079K831 ML20079K838 ML20079K861
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301100196
Download: ML20079K861 (19)

Text

. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

James P. Gleason, Chairman

. Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) 50-247 SP NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-286 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) )

) January 6, 1983 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )

NEW YORK )

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

i MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LICENSEES' l MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTIONS 2.l(a) and 2.l(d)

ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:

Brent L. Brandenburg Charles Morgan, Jr.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED i OF NEW YORK, INC. 1899 L Street, N.W.

4 Irving Place Washington, D.C. 20036 New York, New York 10003 (202) 466-7000 (212) 460-4600 l

l l

i r;301100196 030106 PDR ADOCK 05000247 O PDR

=. .. -- .

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

i I

I. UCS/NYPIRG's Newest Failure to Meet a Board-Imposed Deadline Establishes a Pattern of Non-Compliance With Orders Intended to Assure Adequate opportunity to Prepare for the Hearings.............. 2 II. The Sanction of Dismissal of Contentions 2.l(a) j and 2.l(d) is Appropriate Under These j Circumstances........................................ 9 i

1 4

l l

1

e e After granting the Licensees' Motion for Expedited Order Compelling Continuation of Depositions of Gordon R.

Thompson and Steven C. Sholly (Dec. 28, 1982) (Motion for Expedited Order) during the December 28 conference call, Chairman Gleason stated that if Dr. Gordon Thompson and Mr.

Steven Sholly were not made available for the continuation of their deposition, "other means" were available to protect the licensees' rights and to ensure compliance with Board orders.1 Those other means are now necessary because UCS/NYPIRG did not comply with the Board's Order. Mailgram from Chairman James P. Gleason to Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

(Dec. 29, 1982). Because continuance of the deposition of Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly (the only witnesses profferred in support of Contentions 2.l(a) and 2.l(d)) was not offered under reasonable circumstances, causing the licensees to be unable to prepare adequately for the hearings, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Power Authority),

1. We agree with this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) that discovery disputes should be resolved by the parties whenever possible. However, each circumstance in which the licensees have sought relief from the Board with respect to contentions 2.l(a) and 2.1(d) has resulted directly from a complete failure of the intervenors to meet Board-ordered schedules, and, in the instance of the Thompson /Sholly deposition, the absolute refusal, on December 23, of UCS/NYPIRG to allow completion of the deposition. UCS/NYPIRG's last minute, calculated effort to

" technically" satisfy the Board's direction was advanced in bad faith.

1 I

5 -

W licensees of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, respectively, request that these contentions be dismissed.1 I. UCS/NYPIRG's Newest Failure to Meet a Board-Imposed Deadline Establishes a Pattern of Non-Compliance Uith Orders Intended to Assure Adequate Opportunity to Prepare for the Hearings This is not the first instance of UCS/NYPIRG's failure to meet Board-order:ed deadlines, but rather is simply the latest in a series of failures to comply with Board direc-tives. Although UCS/NYPIRG's inability to meet Commission Question 2 deadlines has been described in many Board and licensee documents, it is summarized here so that the Board may have the instances of noncompliance collected in one document.2

1. The licensees believe that the sanction of dismis-sal of Dr. Thompson's and Mr. Sholly's testimony is inade-quate. The intervenors bear the burden of going forward on these contentions, as was agreed during the discussions of the Scheduling Committee at the November 3-4, 1982 pre-hearing conference, and Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly are the intervenors' only witnesses. Thus, that burden will not be met without this testimony.

2. See, e.g., Mailgram from Chairman James P. Gleason to Joseph J. Levin, Jr. (Dec. 29, 1982); Letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. and Stephen M. Schinki to Judges Gleason, Shon, and Paris (Dec. 29, 1982); Licensees' Motion for Expedited Order Compelling Continuation of Depositions of Gordon R. Thompson and Steven C. Sholly (Dec. 28, 1982);

Memorandum and Order (Dec. 23, 1982); Power Authority's Memorandum in Support of Consolidated Edison's Renewed Motion to Dismiss UCS/NYPIRG Contentions 2.1(a) and 2.1(d)

(Dec. 20, 1982); Mailgram from Brent L. Brandenburg to Chairman James P. Gleason (Dec. 15, 1982); Memorandum and Order (Dec. 8, 1982); Licensees' Motion to Dismiss Certain Contentions (Dec. 1, 1982); Memorandum and Order (Nov. 24,

"Because (UCS/NYPIRG) failed to file responses to discovery requests submitted by the Power Authority and Con Edison . . . and the NRC Staff by November 19, 1982," the Board " modified" the schedule to require that UCS/NYPIRG file on November 29 a list of its Commission Question 2 witnesses, including their qualifications and the documents on which they would rely. Memorandum and Order at 1 (Nov. 24, 1982). When UCS/NYPIRG failed to meet the Board's November 29 deadline, the licensees filed their Motion to Dismiss Certain Contentions (Dec. 1, 1982). The December 3 conference call on that motion resulted in a new deadline --

UCS/NYPIRG was given until December 10 to file a list of its Commission Question 2 witnesses, including their qualifications and the documents on which they would rely.

Memorandum and Order at 5 (Dec. 8, 1982).

Contrary to this Board's order, UCS/NYPIRG did not meet the December 10 deadline for "'plac[ing) in the hands of all the parties that list of witnesses . . . by telephone, with

• confirmation of its witnesses by wire or some expedited method of service.' . . . UCS was also late in filing its list of witnesses' qualifications and the documents upon which they will rely." Memorandum and Order at 4 (Dec. 23, '

1982) (emphasis in original). In its December 23 Order, the Board found that the " failure to meet the December 10 1982).

deadline was minor in this instance because . . . the delay

. . . did not substantially prejudice the other parties,"

and therefore declined to dismiss the contentions at that time. Idl . at 5.

UCS/NYPIRG's newest failure to meet a Board-imposed deadline regarding Contentions 2.1(a) and 2.l(d) -- its failure to make Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly available within the time constraints required by the Board -- is not

" minor" because it does "substantially prejudice the other parties." In light of the Board's explicit " warn [ing to UCS/NYPIRG) that failure to meet deadlines in the future without the permission of the Board will not be tolerated,"

idl . , this latest failure warrants dismissal of the conten-tions, which UCS/NYPIRG has offered but refused to submit to adequate discovery.

Although the licensees suggested December 17, 20, or 21 l

as dates to begin the deposition of Dr. Thompson and Mr.

l Sholly, the deposition was scheduled for December 23 because Mr. Blum informed Mr. Levin that it should be held late in l the week of December 20 if the licensees wished to secure useful information, and because Dr. Thompson was unavailable on December 22. During the conversations regarding this scheduling, counsel for the Power Authority expressed reluctance about holding the deposition so close to the deadline for completion of the licensees' depositions on Commission Question 2 contentions, and repeatedly informed i

l l

Mr. Blum that the deposition could continue into the evening and a second day.1 Although the licensees wished to begin the deposition at 9:30 or 10:00 a.m., Mr. Blum refused because Dr. Thompson was not available until noon. To accommodate Mr. Blum and his witnesses, the licensees agreed to begin the deposition at noon on December 23. It was not until approximately 4:00 in the afternoon of December 23, while the deposition was in progress, that Mr. Blum informed Mr. Levin and Mr. Sohinki that Dr. Thompson was available only until 6:00 p.m. that day.2

1. Any suggestion by Mr. Blum that he was not informed of the possible length of the deposition is incorrect. Not only was he informed orally, but he was also informed in writing. See Letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to Jeffrey Blum (Dec. 21, 1982) (attachment to Licensees' Motion for Expedited Order) ("This deposition will continue until completion.").

2. Mr. Blum subsequently defended this tardy notice of Dr. Thompson's unavailability on the ground that he was informed of it only a few minutes before the deposition began and he assumed that the deposition could be completed in the few hours Dr. Thompson had allowed. It was, he claimed, only when he became aware of the inaccuracy of his assumption that he divulged this information to the licen-sees. Mr. Blum had a duty to ascertain the availability of his witness prior to the beginning of the deposition, and in fact stated to Mr. Levin as early as December 16 that he would do so. This determination was particularly important in view of the licensees' repeated reminders that the deposition might continue beyond the normal business day into the evening, and into the next. As Chairman Gleason pointed out during the December 28 conference call, the length of the deposition, so long as relevant material was being discovered, was up to the licensees, not the deponents.

Mr. Blum's offer of an additional fifteen minutes with

The length of the deposition was enlarged by UCS/

NYPIRG's failure to clarify Mr. Sholly's role in presenting testimony. During the December 3 conference call, Mr. Blum characterized Mr. Sho11y's testimony as " limited" and his role as that of "a witness who will mainly present a com-pilation of documents, and will testify not as a matter of personal experience but on an on-going study." Transcript of Proceedings at 4860, 4861 (Dec. 3, 1982). It became clear at the deposition that Mr. Sholly would not simply present documents, which was the impression of licensees' counsel as a result of the December 3 conference call, but would present a study he was conducting, as well as adopt all of Dr. Thompson's testimony. See Deposition of Gordon Thompson, Steven Sholly at 7, 14-15 (Dec. 23, 1982). At that time it was necessary to clarify certain aspects of Mr.

Sholly's background and examine in detail his qualifications in an effort to ascertain his ability to present opinions and analyses. It was also necessary to attempt to clarify

, Dr. Thompson and fir. Sholly, and further time with Mr.

I Sholly alone, was not useful to the licensees. Fifteen min-utes is of minimal value in a deposition which the licensees estimated could consume several more hours. Additionally, I because, in the words of Mr. Blum, "they are both adopting I all of the testimony that both of them are presenting," time alone with either witness would be of minimal value. Depo-sition of Gordon Thompson, Steven Sholly at 7 (Dec. 23, j 1982).

t i 1. This impression was articulated by Mr. Levin and uncontradicted by Mr. Blum. Transcript of Proceedings at 4862 (Dec. 3, 1982).

which of these witnesses was responsible for the individual sections of the testimony they were preparing. The time required to ascertain this additional information was increased by Mr. Blum's continual objections.

As a result of Mr. Blum's refusal to continue the depo-sition,1 Licensees' Motion for Expedited Order was filed.

It was granted during the December 28 conference call. See Mailgram from James P. Gleason to Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

(Dec. 29, 1982) (confirming conference call decision of December 28). Subsequent to the conference call, in the evening of December 28, Mr. Blum contacted Mr. Sohinki and Mr. Levin to propose that Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly be available to continue the deposition at 9:00 a.m. the next morning in New York City. Despite the difficulties result-ing from the short notice, the licensees agreed. Only then did it become apparent that Dr. Thompson was conditioning his presence upon the limitation of the deposition to pre-cisely three and one-half hours 2 and its conclusion at

1. He stated only that Dr. Thompson "has to leave at 6:00 o' clock (sic] to catch his plane that flies to Trenton," and refused to accept the licensees' request to continue the deposition at a later date. Deposition of Gordon Thompson, Steven Sholly at 130, 169 (Dec. 23, 1982).

2. Mr. Blum conveyed the view that Dr. Thompson would terminate the deposition at precisely 12:30 p.m. This was an unreasonable position, particularly because the licensees ascured Mr. Blum that there was little chance that the deposition could not be completed within that time. No reason was offered by Mr. Blum for Dr. Thompson's insistence on the 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. time frame. Dr. Thompson is

r precisely 12:30 p.m.

Mr. Levin and Mr. Schinki agreed to make every effort to accommodate Dr. Thompson's deadline, but stated that they could not commit themselves to a deadline that could cause the deposition to remain incomplete. Because it was Mr.

Blum's view that Dr. Thompson would not appear under these 3

circumstances, it was agreed that Mr. Blum would contact Mr.

Schinki if Dr. Thompson decided to appear. Mr. Sohinki did not hear further from Mr. Blum.1 an employee of UCS and is listed as a witness in support of i these contentions. "While a board should endeavor to con-duct the proceeding in a manner that takes account of the special circumstances faced by any participant, the fact that a party may have personal or other obligations . . .

i does not relieve that party of its hearing obligations."

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 13 N.R.C. 452, 454 (1981) (emphasis added). Moreover, although during the December 28 conference call Chairman Gleason agreed, and the licensees concurred that, because of the expedited nature of this proceeding, depositions could not be permitted to last for an unlimited amount of time, he emphasized that the time required to depose a person is under the control of the person taking the deposition, not of the deponent. His statement is supported by Commission l

pronouncements. Cf. 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(1)

(1982) (" Parties Giy obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding"); Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 13 N.R.C. 452, 454 (1981) (" Fair-ness to all involved in NRC's adjudicatory procedures requires that every participant fulfill the obligations imposed by and in accordance with applicable law and Commission regulations.").

1. Mr. Blum's " offer" to make Dr. Thompson and Mr.

Sholly available was in reality no offer at all. Mr. Blum presented the licensees with an ultimatum requiring them to complete the deposition in a precisely limited amount of time. UCS/NYPIRG was dictating not only the amount of time but the actual hours of the day during which the licensees were to be granted permission to depose Dr. Thompson and Mr.

9-II. The Sanction of Dismissal of Contentions 2.l(a) and 2.1(d) is Appropriate Under These-Circumstances L With regard to these specific contentions, UCS/NYPIRG has established a pattern of ignoring Board-imposed discovery deadlines which has prejudiced the licensees' preparation of their case.1 In selecting a sanction, boards should consider the relative importance of the unmet obligation, its potential for harm to other parties or the orderly conduct of the proceeding, whether its occur-rence is an isolated incident or a part of a pattern of behavior, the importance of the safety or environmental concerns raised by the party, and all of the circumstances. Boards should attempt to tailor sanctions to mitigate the harm caused by the failure of a party to fulfill its obligations and bring about improved future compliance.

Sholly. For example, despite the fact that Mr. Blum and his witnesses had been accommodated the week before in schedul-ing the original deposition, Mr. Blum refused even to move the continuation of the deposition forward from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. to accommodate Mr. Levin, who was traveling from Washington to New York. This would have allowed licensees' counsel to consult briefly. The necessity for Dr. Thompson to travel to Washington had been UCS/NYPIRG's reason for refusing to begin the deposition before noon on December

23. The licensees were willing to compromise and provided Mr. Blum with their opinion that the deposition could be completed within Dr. Thompson's schedule, but could not agree in advance to a deadline that could leave some important questions unasked or unanswered.

1. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has stated that "we consider the failure to comply with a board order a very serious matter indeed, injurious to the proper conduct of NRC licensing proceedings. . . . Not only does the f ailure to fulfill discovery obligations unnecessarily delay a proceeding, it is also manifestly unfair to the other parties." In re Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), 15 N.R.C. 1400, 1417 (1982).

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 13 N.R.C. 452, 454 (1981).

UCS/NYPIRG's refusal to meet its obligation to complete the deposition of Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly has harmed both the parties to the proceeding and "the orderly conduct of the proceeding" by leaving the licensees unable to adequately prepare responsive testimony and by requiring the licensees to obtain information during the hearing which they could have obtained at the deposition, thus prolonging the hearing.1 UCS/NYPIRG's refusal is clearly "part of a 1.

" Pleadings" and " contentions" no longer describe in voluminous detail everything the parties expect to prove and how they plan to go about doing so. Rather, they i provide general notice of the issues.

It is left to the parties to narrow those issues through the use of various

( discovery devices so that evidence need l be produced at the hearing only on mat-

! ters actually controverted. This is why l curtailing discovery tends to lengthen the trial -- with a corresponding increase in expense and inconvenience for all who must take part.

! In re Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), 12 N.R.C. 317, 334-35 (1980); see also Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceed-ings, 13 N.R.C. at 455 ("The purpose of discovery is to expedite hearings by the disclosure of information in the possession of the parties which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding so that issues may be narrowed, stipulated, or eliminated and so that evidence to be presented at hearing can be stipulated or otherwise limited to that which is relevant.").

l l

l

r pattern of behavior" with respect to'these contentions. See

, e <

text, supra at 1-8.1 , e i

Prejudice to the licensees has not been vitiated by(the filing of UCS/NYPIRG's testimony. I Because UCS/NYPIKp  : ,

r ( ,

:i'

1. The Board recently admonished Mr. Blum regar' ding 'I - l his inability to meet the schedules establisn'ed in this \ '

proceeding: > 1

) 1 i

JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Blum', I want to [.I express to you the view of one thi::d of. ,

J r the Board. I am concerned with'respeco.

to your inability to meet deadlines. '

I simply want to remind you that ff '

under NRC practice and procedure, an'd i based on rulings of the' Appeal Boards, certain intervenors have been given a.

good deal of license by Licensing' Boards ,

i to be less than precise in their plead ings, but this leniency is .not normc11y'  ;

extended to experi:nced attorneys.  ;

I know that you came into this pro-l, ceeding as an inexperienced attorney,in >

NRC proceedings, but-it has been going,. .

on long enough so that I don't think we- f 1

can consider you as inexperienced by ' i now. ~~

I would certainly nopethat inLthe future you would pay great attention,to- .i >

deadlines, and if you can't meet them, ,

( 'q then act in the appropriate manner for,'

an attorney . . . . .

y CHAIRMAN GLEASON: . . .  ;

I believe Judge' Paris speaks' for 'th'e ',

other member of the Board and for the .

Chairman, ,,

7 I

Transcript of Proceedings at 4887-88 (Dec. 3, 1982); see ,

also In re Offshore Power-Systems $(Manufacturing License fori 4 Floating Nuclear Power Plants), 2 N.R.C. 813, 815 (1975)

("there is a definite' requirement that each party to the '

proceeding, whether with or without counsel, perf arm their procedural duties in accordance with the Commission's Rules i of Practice . . . and do so-in a' diligent, timely fashion.").

~

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

\

• t

• j l/ 't f,g, unreasonably limited the deposition, the licensees have been

,r

')J ,

unable to explore the design parameters of the devices being proposed, the witnesses' knowledge of dominant risk I scenarios, the claimed quantitative risk reduction of the 1

/ particular designs suggested by UCS/NYPIRG for these

+

< }. /

/' '

scenarios, and the relationship between the filtered vent

-i  :

's and separate containment designs suggested by UCS/NYPIRG and the accident mitigation features already in place inside containment at the Indian Point units. The licensees are also prevented from questioning Dr. Thompson and Mr. Sholly

, any further as to the specific portions of testimony for

, which each is responsible, and about the documents upon

?} i which they intend to rely.

/ /

j Thus, UCS/NYPIRG's refusal to permit the licensees to

'/  ; continue this deposition has prejudiced the licensees by i denying them the right to information necessary to the preparation of the written testimony due on January 12.

./ ' This denial of access to the only witnesses scheduled to

,'_ testify about Contentions 2.1(a} and 2.1(d) is a denial of

<, the licensees' administrative procedural rights and due

, i

, process of law. The sanction of dismissal is c; 7d for under the aggravated circumstances presented here.

s

4. #

a O'

s

}

Respectfully submitted, La L .6mAuhnro bk 3 Lo>k bgAM . '

Frent L. BrandenburgQ $. Charles Morgan, Jr.

Paul F. Colarulli U Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED Licensee of Indian Point 1899 L Street, N.W.

Unit 2 Washington, D.C. 20036 4 Irving Place (202) 466-7000 New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4600 Stephen L. Baum General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated: January 6, 1983

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris i

)

In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos.

NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP

, )

i POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ) Jan. 6, 1983 NEW YORK )

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 6th cay of January, 1983, I caused a copy of Licensees' Motion to Dismiss Contentions 2.l(a) and 2.1(d), and memorandum in support thereof, to be hand delivered to those parties marked with an asterisk, and

{ served by first class mail, postage prepaid on all others.

I i

i i

• James P. Gleason, Chairman Charles M. Pratt, Esq.

Administrative Judge Stephen L. Baum, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority of the 513 Gilmoure Drive State of New York Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019

• Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge *Janice Moore, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Mr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Brent L. Brandenburg,-Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company Commission of New York, Inc.

Washington, D.C. 20555 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Docketing and Service Branch Of fice of the Secretary *Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissian William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 2G555 Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Joan Holt, Project Director Washington, D.C. 20006 Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research Charles A. Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Group Westchester People's Action 9 Murray Street Coalition, Inc.

New York, New York 10007 P.O. Box 488 White Plains, New York 10602

• Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.

New York University Law School Alan Latman, Esq.

423 Vanderbilt Hall 44 Sunset Drive 40 Washington Square South Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 New York, New York 10012 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Charles J. Maikish, Esq. Steve Leipzig, Esq.

Litigation Division Environmental Protection Bureau The Port Authority of New York New York State Attorney and New Jersey General's Office One World Trade Center Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 New York, New York 10047 Alfred B. Del Bello Westchester County Executive Westchester County 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.

New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248

Marc L. Parris, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Eric Thorsen, Esq. Board Panel County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County of Rockland Washington, D.C. 20555 11 New Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About Indian Washington, D.C. 20555 Point P.O. Box 125 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Member of the County Legislature Westchester County Renee Schwartz, Esq. County Office Building Paul Chessin, Esq. White Plains, New York 10601 Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.

Margaret Oppel, Esq. Zipporah S. Fleisher Botein, Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg West Branch Conservation 200 Park Avenue Association New York, New York 10166 443 Buena Vista Road New City, New York 10956 Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Member of the Council of the Mayor George V. Begany City of New York Village of Buchanan District #4 236 Tate Avenue City Hall Buchanan, New York 10511 New York, New York 10007 Judith Kessler, Coordinator Greater New York Council Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy on Energy 300 New Hemstead Road c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New City, New York 10956 New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street David H. Pikus, Esq.

New York, New York 10003 Richard F. Czaja, Esq.

Shea & Gould Geoffrey Cobb Ryan 330 Madison Avenue Conservation Committee Chairman New York, New York 10017 i Director, New York City I

Audubon Society Amanda Potterfield, Esq.

71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 Johnson & George New York, New York 10010 528 Iowa Avenue i Iowa City, Iowa 52240 i Lorna Salzman l

Mid-Atlantic Representative *Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. Atomic Safety and 208 West 13th Street Licensing Board Panel New York, New York 10011 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 General Counsel New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i

Mr. Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire State Plaza Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Craig Kaplan, Esq.

National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 Michael D. Diederich, Jr., Esq.

Fitgerald, Lynch & Diederich 24 Central Drive Stony Point, New York 10980 Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1101 Washington, D.C. 20036 Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.U.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Stewart M. Glass

, Regional Counsel Room 1349 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Staff Attorney New York Public Interest Research Group 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Jonathan L. Levine, Esq.

P. O. Box 280 New City, New York 10958 Jek Josept J.

J.

A dr.

Levin, Jr.' gg,

_ . -