ML20080R345
| ML20080R345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1983 |
| From: | Glass S Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8310170500 | |
| Download: ML20080R345 (8) | |
Text
.
October 12, 1983 IMITED 3DUE OF Alst1CA MJCLEAR RB3U1AIUIN GBHiSSIGt Before the Atmic Safety and 1.icensire. Board In the N tter of )
) locket No. 50-322-G.,-3 100 IS1AND LIGHTit0 00tfANY )
) (Bnergency Plaming Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )
FDR RESPGEE 10 SJFRIJC
- COLNIY MyrIGt 10 CDfEL DISODVERY Suffolk County on September 19, 1983 filed a motion to empel discovery. Speci-fically, the County sought the production of three docunents or series of docu-ments 1/. As to these three documents, En las agreed to produce and has prt>
vided to the County the memrands frm Fmnk Petrone, Regioral Director to Louis O. Giuffrida and Jeffrry Bmgg. Discussions with the County have indi-cated that they will also seek to cmpel the production of five additional docu-ments 2/. In order to save the Board time we have decided to address all seven of these docunents at this time.
Two of the documents specifically requested herein involve drafts of letters that were sent by the Federal Daergency Nmganent Agency to the Nucler Regulatory Carnission in response to specific requests by the NRC. Copies of these letters were previously provided to all parties. It is evident to all
- parties clut m%'s policy and position is clearly enunciated in those letters as acimowledged by Suffolk County "these documents set forth FDR's position t
...". The dmfts contain the thoughts and opinions of staff. The other five
! doctsoents contain opinions of staff as well as proposed policy alternatives for the consideration of senior staff. (see Giuffrida affickvit).
The Federal Bsergency thmgenent Agency (LWR) by its Director, Imis O.
Giuffrida, asserts that the doctznents sought are subject to the provisions of executive privilege.
An agency has the right to seek its om counsel and to freely discuss its policy relative to a response to another agency without kving those discussions emnined before a hering conoucted by that other agency.
If it is not the intent of this hearing Bmrd to review each and every policy deliberation of En as well as staff opinions then it is obvious tnt this line of discovery will not lead to admissible evidence.
1/ Ali drafts of a mesmrande for Edward L. Jordan of the N.R.C. frtso Richard D. Krimm, Assistant Associ:ste Director Office of Mtural and Technological
! hamrds, FDM dir.ed June 23, 19 81 on the subject of R2n support for Etc Licensing of Shore %m Nucluir Station; all drafts of a letter to William J..
l Dircks of the NRC from Jeffrev S. Bragg, Executive Deputy Director, FCR dated l
Augtst 29, 1963 and the mmrandtsn fran Frank Petrone to Jeffrey Emgg and Imis l 0. Giuffridu.
/ DESIGNATED ORIGINA.TJ okoo$h Certt<1M r> 4 h j j) '
1 PDR
- I j(
he privilege appinst disclosure of intragovemmenal doctsnents containing advisory opinion acommestions, nd deliberations is part of 4. broader executive privilege recognized by courts. De purpose of the privilege is to ensure that the decision makers in Epverment are provided with candid and forte advice.
U.S. v. Capitol Serv. Inc.
89 F.R.D. 578, 582-583 Rere is a public policy involved in this claim of privilege for this advisory opinion the policy of open, frank discussion between subortiimte and chief concerning administrative action.
Maiser Altsnirm & Ch4snical Corp v. U.S.
157 FS 946 he purpose of the privilege for predecisional deliberations is to insure that a decision sker will receive the unbspeded advice of his assocfstes. The theory is that if advice is revealed, associates any be reluctant to be candid ami frank. It follows that doctanents shielded by executive privilege reunin privileged even after the decision to which they pertain may have been effected, since disclosure at any time could inhibit the free flow of advice, including amlysis, reports and expression of opinion within the egency.
Federal Open thrht Canunittee v. Herrill 443 U.S. 340, 359-360 Be issue is a greater one than just diether Suffolk County shall have access to these seven doctraents. The question raises for the employees of this agency l
l Wiether they can freely express their opinions, provide advice and participate in deliberations without fear that these expressions of opinion will become ; art of the public dcrain. It is of eqtal or even greater concern to those individuals in responsible decision making positions that they will receive the full broad range of possible alterrative thought available to them. If every time a subordiste expressed an opinion, wrote a manomndtsa, drafted a letter he knew that these doctsnents would be subject to public scrutiny he my determine not en take such actions. The chilling effect of such a position is smtenable.
The deleteriouc impact of such a chilling effect us recognized by Consnissioners Ahern and Roberts in the matter of Indian Point.
We understand the concern of the judges on thia Board that all relevant ruterial be before the panel.
2/ Dose sections of a briefing 15per on Shoreham prepared by the staff of Region II for Frank P. Pet.rone, Regional Director detailing his staffs identification of issues and recccmendations; l'Isnorandum ict Richard W. Krinso i frte Gm Johnson, Ewcutive Officer in the Office of &tural and Technological Mazards dated June 7,1983 concerning the response of FDn to the NRC request of .
June 1,1983; Dmf t letter. never nailed, prepared for sigmture of latis 0.
Giuffrida by the staff of the office of Natumi & Technological rhards in antici ntion i
of a re[uest. by NRC for a iTR review of the L114) Transition Phn; Portions of Status Report on Shorehrn Nuclmr Power Plant delingNew withYork opinions State of staff; analysis of a hypothetical question concerni LIlR)Isar m Nuc Power and Suffolk County response to an accident at the Shor Station.
( __ _
' ~ - ~ . - - - . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _
. ~
3 We agree, of course, that the deposition discovery mies are to be accordeu a brtud and libeml treacnent. The deposition-discovery process serves to advance the stage at which disclosure can be campelled and thereby serves to reduce the possibility of surprise. But in resprd to these two documents there is no surprise, as the agency has clarly stated its position in the two letters that were formrded to the NRC and which have been provided to all the parties to this proceeding while the additional five doctanents contain the opinions and counsel of staff to senior policy nakers.
Discovery. like all patters of procedure, has vitimate and necessary boundaries.
As rule 26(b) provides, limitations crane into existence den the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encrunches upon the recognized demains of privilege.
The cases tint do argue for compelling disclosure of intra-governmental monomem rests on an examination of dether the production of rSe contested doctz::ent would be injurious to the consultative functions of government that the Therefore, only memoranda or parts of privilege of nondisclosure protects.
menoranda consisting of ccupiled factual naterial. contained in deliberative neoranch and septable from its context would generally be available for discovery by priwte parties.
The dsand for these docunents seeks to lay bare the discussion and methods of rassenind of public officials. Nothing is alleged by the County to suggest any need for production of the doctnents to establish facts.
It cannot be "all ccanunications to the had of deprenant are to be prnduced and made public whenever a suitor in a Court of justice thinks that his case requires such production." Beatson v. Skene 5 H. & NM.Exch. Rep., at 8514 lbore's Fedeml Practice 1175. Wliing v. Canet' Qarriers, D.C. 3 F.R.D 442; United Wiling v. Ricinond Schrew Anchor Co. , D.C. , 4 F.R.D. 765, 269; States v. Kohler Co. , D.C. , 9 F.R.D 289, 291; Pacific-Adantic S.S. Co. v.
L'nited States; 4 Cir. ,175 F.2d 82, 97. Cf. Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir. ,163 F.2d 133; Leen v. President of the Executive Councile et al, 1926 Irish Report 4 56, 462 et seq.
It is necessary therefore to consider the circunstances around the denand for this docunent in order to determine 4 ether or not its production is injurious to the consultative functions of goverwnent that the privilege of non-disclosure protects.
I
--m--v,.--_---,-,
I 4_
Ihe Govemnent's present motion is hotly contested, but implicit in the l clairents' position is the realization trut production saast be restricted to p mterials "not privileged". All parties wdze, too, that privilege for this 1 pur;nse exists or not according to couman acceptations in the l it would be in the nortaal trial context.
l All that needs to be decided, is that, as docunents integal to an appropriate exercise of the executive's decinforal and policyamaking functions, they are l trame fmn the disclosure the claimants seek.
1
" Executive privilege is a phrase of release frtsn requirunenta cannon to private citizens or crpnizations" 3/ - an exenption essential to discharge of highly important executive responsThilities. Wile it is agreed that the privilege extends to all military and diplomatic secrets, its recognition is not confitwd of claims to data qtalifying as such. Watever its boune ries as to other obtains not involving state cecrets, it is well established that tim privi with respects to intm-govemnental doctsoents reflecting advisory opinions, reconsnentations and deliberations caprising ynre of a process by ditch govermental decisions and policies are focaulated.
It is evident that the Agency, to function adeqtately, must depend heavily upon candid erhanges of ideas, not only among its own staff but also particularly because of the institutional ruture of its decisions, with other agencias dm interests are involved.
3/ - Faiser Aluninun & Chemical Corp. v. United States,157 F. Supp. 939, 9% ,
341 Ct. CL 38(1958).
18 "Govemnent, operating as it does through a hiemrchy of agents, must have the benefit of their full, free advices." U.S. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 25 F.R.D. 485, 489 (D. N.J .1960) .
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena 40 F.R.D. 318 l
l .
1 i
De judiciary, the courts declare, is not authorized "to probe the mental pro-cesses" of an executive or administative officer. Wis salutary rule fore-closes investigation into the methods by which a decision is ranched, - 4j the atters considered, 5 thecontributirng influences, 6 or the role played by the wrk of others-7 results demanded by exigencies of the most impezative cN acter. No judge could tolerate an inquisition into the elements compristry, his decision 8 - indeed, "[sJuch an examimtion of a judge wuld be destructive l
of judicial responsibility" 9 - and by the same token "the integrityg of the }
administrative process inust be equally respected". i We agree with the goverreents contention that it us not the function of the court to probe the mental processi.a of the Secretary in reaching his conclusions. -
Faiser Almimm & Onenci Corp v. U.S.
157 IS 946 Horgan v. U.S.
304 U.S.1,18 "Just as a judge cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny, campara 14ayerweather v.
Ritch,195 U.S. 276, 306-307, 25 S. cc. 58, 49 L. Ed 193, so the integrity of the adninistmeive process must be eqtally respected. See Oticage Bd.ItQ.will Ry.
Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585, 593, 275, Ct. 326, 327, 51 L. Ed 636.
bear repeatity tMt althought the adninistative process hus had a differurit developerient and pursues somewhat different ways frtan those of courts, they are to be deemed collaberative instrisnentalities of justice and the appropriate independence of each should be respectedU.S. by the other
- v. !&1pn 307 U.S.183, 313 U.S. 409 he County clearly states in its motion tMt they seek "contary views if any exist". The County is seeking that Wtich executive privilege is specifimlly designed to protect, the advisory opinion and thought processes of the staff.
De cerebrations and mental processes of goverment officials, leading to adoittedly proper exercises of power, can never be a factor in a judicial proceeding and, therefore, need not be disclosed." 10 he starting point is the Director's affidavit describing the geneml clameters of the docments in dispute and expresaing his view as to the harm consequent upon their exposure ene Court can and should weigh, in the gmvest manner possible, his considered judgment as to the impact of the production sought upon
- he public interest.11 4 - United States v.11 organ, 313 U.S. 409. 422. Faiser Altsnintra & Chenical Corp. v. United States, supra note 12,157 F.Supp. at % 6-%7.
25 S.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed.
5 - See Fayerweather v. P. itch,195 U.S. 276, 306-307, 193 (19A); DeCaubra v. Rogers, supra note 23,189 U.S. at 122, 23 S.Ct.
519.
6 - Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Ihhcock , 204 U.S. 585, 593, 27 Ct. 326.
"* ~ O
~ w - ,--wp-S ,__ _
<~-~---------.,,...,,,_~_
7 - United States v. Nrpn, supra note 23, 313 U.S. at 422, 61 S.Ct. 999; Kaiser Aluninun & chemical Corp. v. United States, supa note 12.
8 - See United States v. Wrgan, supra note 23, 313 U.S. at 422.
9 - United States v. Morgan, supra note 23, 313 U.S. at 422, 61 S.Ct. at 1004 10 - Rosee v. Board of Trade, 36 F.R.D. 6% ,689 (N.D.111.1965). See also Ibtten
- v. United States, supra note 13. 4 11 - Capitol vending Co. v. Baker, 35 I'.R.D. 510 (D.D.C.19%); Kaiser Aluairant &
Chenical Corp. v. United States, supia note 12,157 F.Supp. at %4: Pellen
- v. Ford Instrument Co. , 26 F.Supp. 583, 585 (E.D.N.Y.1939)
'De claimnts have had access to all of the Goverrament's casamications with i outsiders, as well as to nerly all intza-goverrsnent materials relating to the actw1 draft of the Ary, anne review.
Mut are retained are inern-goverrstent teemoranda and interdepartamental comunications camposed wholly of opinions, recasnenettions and deliberations relating to legal and other deterrnirntions. There is an obvious distinction, in terns of necessity for inspection, between doctanents of this charmeter and those which contain facts.12 h basic fallacy in the clainant's approach results from the fact that they endeavor to exploit what they consider to be weaknessess in the Goverrssent's case without naking any real' esse of their own. At best, the only position they can sustain is that, notwithstandig the strong showing nede by the Goverrmwnt,
' there remins a speculative possibility that something to dich they nay legiti-untely be entitled is withheld. It is not, however, incunbent upon the govern-ment to negate all the possible use: production of the retained docunents niight serve; the requirement is that the claimnts ske a showing of necessity l
sufficient to outweigh the adverse effects the production would engender.13 Disclosures would only resuit in an invasion of important interests, causing dire public consequences without any apparent discovery benefit to the claimants.
The clainnnts argue strenously that the documents in questions should be submit-ted to the Court with a view to its detenninistion through in camera inspection as to whether their n-muction should be compelled. The Government, with equal vigor, contends that such a procedure w; raid in the circunstances be unnecessary l
and improper, and urges that the privilege be sustained without further ado.
12 -O'Keefe y, Boeicg Co. 38 f.R.D. 329, 336 13 - ;iee United Sr.tre.s v. Reynolds, mtpm note 7, 345 U.S. at 10-11, 73 S.cc '
523; Kaiser Almirnu & Cner.ical Corp. v. United Seates, supra note 12,157 F.Supp. .*t 9+* / .
~m,w,--r-+ - . , , _ _
7-As Reynolds holds, a court acy not properly require an in osmen inspection as a matter of course before accepting a claim of executive privilege. And neither Reyrulds nor succeeding decisions can be read to support a contention time such an examination is to follow autanatically in cases dure no military or diplo-matic secrets are involved. On the contary, they make it clasr that an in camem examination should be afforded only eere a suitable occasion therefer sufficiently appears.14
)
In camem inspection in executive privilege cases is appropriate where it appears with reasonable chrity that the party seeking production is entitled to access to some of the materials demanded. Daunination in this of situation enables the separation of eat should be disclosed from Wat d be revealed.
Again, it may be that the klance betwen competing needs for confidentiality and disclosure cannot be nade without analysis of the disputed data.15 Here the inspection enables the weighing to be done in the priwcy of the judge's chambers. In each situation, however, a need actual or potential, for production adequately appers, and the examination affords the means for fulfilling that need.
In camera inspections of doctsnenta claimed under this privilege sindd be a last resort U.S. v. Reynolds 345 U.S. 8-11 U.S. v. Nixon 418 U.S. 714-15 We recognize, that klanced againac this, is the Board's own duty to fulfill its own obligation. We have therefore provided these doctsnents in a sealed envelope to the Beard, it will be their detarmirution if the facts call for in camera inspection.
' That no such occasion is presented in this esse is amply denonstated, without plovtng old ground, by brief reference to previous discussion. The claisanta have not shown that they are or could be entitled to the documents the Government still retains. 'Ihe Goverinent, on the other hand, has ade a substintial showing that everything that is withheld falls well within the scope and protection of the privilege, and it autisfactorily appears that the balance on disclosure or secrecy is decidedly in its favor. It is clear, too, that the claimsnt's projected investigstion into the Goverrsnant's decisional and deliberative processes is legally impermissible.
14 - Kaiser Alunirun & Chemical Corp. v. United States, supra note 12; Willed Lake Door Co. v. United States , supra note 15. See also Capitol VerxfLv Co. v. Baker, supm note 36.
15 - See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. City of Burlington, 351 F.2d 762, 767-771 (D.C.Cir1965)
.-w-- ,. my- - _ . , ,-.y.--y.- . _ -,- , . , - , . , , , . , , . , - , _ - _ - . . .
. .g.
As the sterial the County is seeking is not relevant, subject to privilege and in that the County has not tade the re i for the production of these additiornl doctznents the County'quisite show s motion s,hould be denied. ngs 1
Respectfully submitted
)
Steert M. Glass Regioral Cbesel l
l t
i ;
l i
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic _ Safety And Licensing Board In the Matter of A5FIDAVIT OF LOUIS 0. CIUFFRIDA
- Director, Federal Long Island Lighting Company Emergency Management
- Agency (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
?
'l LOUIS O. GIUFFRIDA, hereby declares:
j
- 1. I am the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency of the executive branch of the Federal government. I make this declaration in support of the Agency's Response to Suffolk County's Motion to Compel Discovery.
- 2. Executive Order 12148 charges the Director, FEMA, with establishing policy for and coordinating all civil emergency On planning and assistance functions for Executive agencies.
December 7, 1979, the President, directed that FEMA assume lead responsibility for all offsite nuclear emergency planning and response.
Notwithstanding the procedures which may be set forth f in 44 CPR 350 for requesting and reaching a FEMA administrative' findings and determinations approval of Stato and local plans, on the current status of emergency preparodness around particular sites may be requested by the NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee and provided by FEMA for use as needed in the NRC licensing process.
These findings and determinations may be based upon plans currently .
available to FEMA or furnished to FEMA by the NRC.
.- - * - - -- ,,.*w-m wy .u- ,,.-.m-, . y -, . - y -----g+----w, g ,,-m.y. .ey. p.- -n
l 9
- 3. Pursuant to a request from the NRC dated June 1, 1983 FEMA arranged for a review of the LILCO Transition plan and transmitted the results of that review to the NRC by letter dated June 23, 1983.
- 4. Suffolk County seeks the production of the following .
1 documents: ,
a) All drafts of a memorandum for Edward L. Jordan of the N.R.C. from Richard W. Krism, Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Techno-logical Hazards, FEMA dated June 23, 1983 on the subject of FEMA support for NRC Licensing of Shoreham Nuclear Station.
b) All drafts of a letter to William J. Dircks of the N.R.C. from Jcffrey S. Bragg, Executive Deputy Director, FEMA dated August 29, 1983.
c) Those sections of a Brinfing Paper on Shoreham prepared by the staff of Region II for Frank P.
Petrone, Regional Director detailing his staffs identification of issues and recommendations.
d) Memorandum for Richard W. Krimm from Gary Johnson, Executive Officer in the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards dated June 7, 1983 concerning the response of FEMA to the NRC request of June 1,1983.
e) Draft letter, never mailed, prepared for signature of Louis O. Giuffrida by the staff of the office of Natural and Technological Hazards in anticipation .
' of a request by NRC for a FEMA review of the LILCO i
lI l
Transition Plan.
I- - - . .= _ . = __= _
f) Portions of Status Report on Shoreham Nuclear Power Plent dealing with opinions of Staff.
g) Analysis of a hypothetical question concerning LILCO, New York State and Suffolk County response to an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power 1 Station.
- 5. I have personally examined the above documents and have concluded that their production would be contrary to the public interest.
These documents are being withheld from dic-covery at my direction as they consist of intra departmental mc.oranda m and communications containing opinions, recommendations and deliberations pertaining to decisions that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was required to make in response to requests from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As the executive in charge of the overall operations of the agency, I assert that these documents are subject to the protection of executive privilege. The production of these documents will have a chilling ef fect on the ability of this agency to receive in written format the comments, concerns and opinions of our staff.
Louis O. Ciuffrida, Director Federal Emergency Management Agency DATED: Washington, D.C.
October ,1983
,--,,----.--,-y--.--- ,,,,t
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-3 (Emergency Planning)
(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " FEMA RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION 1
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by two asterisks by hand
- or telecopier, this 12th day of October, 1983
! James A. Laurenson, Chairman ** Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atnnic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline**
Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon** W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.**
l
' Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washingtor., D.C. 20555 Cherif Sedkey, Esq.
l Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
l New York State Department of & Hutchison Public Service 1500 Oliver Building T
Three Empire State Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 l
Albany, NY 12223 i
I l '
a-_ _ -.- _,.____,._,.._,_..._f. . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ___._ ._ _ __ ._ _ _ _ __ _ _.
2- ,
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
John F. Shea, III, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W. ;
8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.**
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
4 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
- Docketing and Service Section* Washington, D.C. 20008 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Spence Perry, Esq. Agency Associate General Counsel 26 Federal Plaza Federal Emergency Management Agency Room 1349 Room 840 New York, NY 10278 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Lucinda low Swartz, Esq.
Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W.
Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20036 b
David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff
F 3-COURTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Mr. Jeff Smith General Coansel Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 250 Old County Road North Country Road '
Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K Hicksville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg. New York State Energy Office Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Ken Robinson, Esq.
N.Y. State Dept. of Law Ms. Nora Bredes l
2 World Trade Center Shoreham Opponents Coalition Room 4615 195 East Main Street New York, NY 10047 Smithtown, NY 11787 Leon Friedman, Esq.
! Costigan, Hyman & Hyman
! 1301 Franklin Avenue Garden City, NY 11530 l
l 1 -
-.- - .- _