ML20094H465
| ML20094H465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8408140003 | |
| Download: ML20094H465 (39) | |
Text
$Wh~ .
TED CORREspoy9 NC LILCO, Auggst 10,.1984 l
~
~.. .
E' I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 54 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal BoardAG6p",4//. ,
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S MEMORANDUM ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF THE LATEST FEMA DISCOVERY DISPUTE l' The Appeal Board's August 2, 1984 Order requested parties to
- address the question of whether the criteria for granting directed certification had been met by Suffolk County.in-its Memorandum to Show Cause, dated August 1, 1984.1_/ For.the reasons detailed
, ~below, LILCO believes that Suffolk County has failed to demon-strate any of the compelling-reasons necessary for the Appeal Board to exercise its discretion and review what is,.at this point, merely a dispute about the sufficiency of the record.
1/ Since the_ Appeal Board's. Order. raises only the narrow question of whether Suffolk County has shown cause for review
- of the Licensing Board's interlocutory discovery order, this-memorandum will not address the merits of Suffolk County's
. Notice of Appeal and Brief in Support, dated July 26, 1984.
Should the Appeal Board decide that a review of the Licensing
' Board's order is appropriate,'LILCO requests that all parties be.given the opportunity to respond to the merits of Suffolk County's appeal.
pgg3 g h
cc
' ~
- 1. Background'and Applicable Legal Standards-Suffolk County's pending. appeal brings before the Appeal Board,.for the.second time,. issues relating to Suffolk County's
. discovery of the internal deliberations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Regional Assistance Committee (RAC).
In-the'first appeal, FEMA sought to protect documents relating to the preliminary, internal observations of individual RAC members 4
on the Shoreham-radiological emergency response plan. On June 13, 1984, the Appeal Board issued an order which upheld FEMA's claim of executive privilege with regard to these documents and denied Suffolk County access.to them based on a finding that Suffolk County had failed to demonstrate a compelling need for them, par-
. ticularly'given discovery avenues still open to suffolk County.
- - Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-773, NRC (June 13, 1984). Fully a week after the
- deposition of the.last FEMA witness and only one day prior to the
, . resumption.of hearings,.Suffolk County filed a-motion with the
- Licensing Board seeking the production of all FEMA documents and
'the issuance of subpoenas'to the remaining RAC members . On July 10, the Licensing Board, in an oral ruling, denied Suffolk Coun-ty's request on the grounds that Suffolk County had failed to make the requisite showings of need. pursuant to ALAB-773. Hearing Transcript at 12,127-30.2/ The Licensing Board found that Suffolk.
2/ For the Board's convenience the relevant pages of this hearing transcript have been included as Attachment 1 to this response.
_ _ . _ _ . . . . .._. _ _ ._ - . _.__r _ ._ __ _ __. _ _ . .-
County had been provided with some notes prepared by FEMA witness-es Keller and Baldwin prior to their depositions which reflected "the number of comments which disagreed at least initially with the final RAC findings for each NUREG 0654 element of the LILCO plan," id. at 12,128, and that Suffolk County had failed to establish that che FEMA witnesses were unable to explain or defend the FEMA findings, id. at 12,129. Following the Licensing Board's ruling, Suffolk County cross-examined the FEMA witnesses before the Licensing Board from July 10 to 13. Suffolk County now seeks review of the Licensing Board's July 10 interlocutory ruling.
As the Appeal Board has noted, and Suffolk County has agreed, Memorandum to Show Cause at 2, the Commission's Rules of Practice generally prohibit interlocutory appeals. Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-116, 6 AEC 258 (1973).
Accordingly, the Appeal Board has exercised sparingly its discre-tionary authority to conduct interlocutory reviews of licensing board rulings. See, e.g., Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-572, 10 NRC 693, 695 n.5 (1979). In determining whether to grant interlocutory review, the Appeal Board has typically applied a standard first articu-lated in Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977):
Almost without exception in recent times, we have undertaken discretionary interlocutory review only where the ruling below either (1) threatened the' party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be
.- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ r,- . _ - _ -
. ~.
- 5. ,
P alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.
See, e.g., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook' Station,
. . Units 1 and 2), ALAB-737, 18 NRC 168, 171 (1983);-Houston Lighting
& Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAB-635, 13 NRC 309, 310 (1981); Puget Sound, supra, 10 NRC at
~
694.3/- When the Marble Hill standard has been applied to discov-ery disputes, the Appeal Board has only rarely found that such disputes warrant review. See, e.g., Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-634, 13 NRC 96, 99 (1981); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-
- 608, 12 NRC 168, 170 (1980); Puget Sound, supra, 10 NRC at 696.
'As in thoce earlier discovery disputes
, Su'ffolk County has failed to demonstrate that its appeal meets the Marble Hill standard.
- s3/ Suffolk County's Memorandum to Show Cause suggests that
, the Commission's Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing f~
Proceedings establishes a separate, and perhaps different, test for granting interlocutory review.
See Memorandum to Show Cause at 2-3. In Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741, 18 NRC 371 (1983), the Appeal Board' examined the effect of the Commission's Statement of Policy on the Marble Hill standard. -The Board concluded:
.'As we read it, the Policy Statement does not,
- . either explicitly or by necessary implica-
! tion, call for a marked relaxation of the Marble Hill standard. Rather, in terms, it simply exhorts the licensing boards to put before us legal or policy questions-that, in their judgment, are "significant" and require prompt appellate resolution.
Id. at 375.
a e
-.w - - - - * *+-m-- +m m-- <w--+ ++ --+w-- --wg- -*-----r w-w m-, w w -
- 2. Deficiencies in Suffolk County's Attempt to Show Cause At the outset, it must be noted that Suffolk County's" Memo-randum to Show Cause proceeds from a single, erroneous premise, namely, that Suffolk County is legally entitled to have access to all FEMA documents related to the RAC review including the notes of individual RAC members as well as the right to subpoena all RAC members. See Memorandum to Show Cause at 4-5. Suffolk County's presumption blithely ignores the Appeal Board's earlier ruling that FEMA had properly invoked a claim of executive privilege with regard to the documents in question, and that parties seeking
-release of.these documents would have the burden of showing an overriding need for their release. ALAB-773, slip op. at 10-11.
In addition, this underlying presumption also ignores the Licens-ing~ Board's July 10 ruling, which specifically found that Suffolk County had failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the docu-ments since Suffolk' County had neither established that there'were "significant differences of opinion among members of the RACfon important issues effecting the adequacy 'of LILCO's plan," nor- that
'the FEMA witnesses were unable to defend and explain adequately the FEMA findings. Hearing-Transcript at 12,128-29. Thus, Suffolk County has attempted in its Memorandum to-Show Cause to
~
characterize this pending appeal as something it is not. The question presented in this proceeding is'whether Suffolk_ County has factually demonstrated a compelling need for the. FEMA docu-ments. The Licensing Board concluded that it-has not. Such a
-factual dispute does not. warrant interlocutory review.
While advanced under numerous rubrics, Suffolk County pres-ents essentially-three basic grounds for the granting of directed certification:
(1) the public interest would be served by such review since significant legal and policy questions are presented by Suffolk County's motion, see Memorandum to Show Cause at 3, 5-6, 8; (2) Suffolk County has a substantial and compel-ling need for the documents and requested sub-poenas and failure to provide this information would result in immediate and serious irrepa-rable impact to Suffolk County's case, see Memorandum to Show Cause at 3, 7-8; and (3) the failure to provide this information to Suffolk County will affect the basic structure of the proceeding below, see Memorandum to Show Cause at 6-7.
First, in asserting that the public interest would be served by the granting of review, Suffolk County argues that its pending appeal raises "significant legal issues of first impression."
Memorandum to Show Cause at 6. As was discussed above, Suffolk County implicitly assumes that the public is entitled unquali-fiedly to "know about, or inquire into, the workings or conclu-( sions of the RAC." See id. Suffolk County asserts, without exam-ples, that resolution of this issue may affect the rights of l
L parties in other cases. Id. at 8. The facts of this proceeding l
do not support Suffolk County's assertions. The question of the l public's right to inquire into the internal workings of federal l
l agencies was already addressed in great detail by the Appeal Board i
in ALAB-773. That decision recognized that FEMA could, upon proper demonstration, invoke the doctrine of executive privilege l
-. _ _- a _ __ _ .
~
[.
- I in NRC proceedings. ALAB-773, slip op. at 10. Accordingly, the Appeal Board recognized that the public did not have an unbridled right to inquire into the internal, preliminary deliberations of federal agencies, but rather that such inquiry was permitted only after the party seeking discovery had demonstrated a need that outweighed the agency's need to protect frank communications among its staff members during the agency's deliberative process. See id. at 10-11, 21-22. Thus, contrary to Suffolk County's asser-tion, the pending appeal does not raise issues of first impression about the scope and interpretation of FEMA's claim of executive privilege that are potentially of generic importance in other NRC proceedings: those were clearly raised and decided in ALAB-773.
Instead, the pending appeal raises questions only about whether Suffolk County has made the requisite showings pursuant to the I strict tests of ALAB-773 with respect to the sufficiency of the record on an issue which has already been tried. The Licensing Board has found that Suffolk" County has not, and further interloc-utory review by the Appeal Board would merely entangle it in a routine. discovery dispute.4/
4/ Suffolk County's-suggestion on page 6 of its Memorandum to Show Cause that denial of its appeal would be inconsistent with the Appeal' Board's prior decision to grant review of FEMA's appeal .
from the ASLB's May 18 Order resta solely on Suffolk County's idiosyncratic views of equity and fairness. Suffolk County's sug-gestion has no legal support. Indeed, as is demonstrated above, the'two appeals raise significantly different legal issues and' decisions.which granted review in the first case but denied it in
-the second would be entirely consistent.
L'--
- , . . , . . ,.e n. ., .,n -,, .,.n .- , . - - -,+-,,---m- ,, ., ,,.-,n,--,.f,,,.,-,...,
---.,y -,,---,-,-,--,-*
i Second, Suffolk County asserts it has a substantial and com-pelling need for the FEMA documents since it alleges that the doc-uments sought " underlie and form the basis for the RAC findings."
Memorandum to Show Cause at 3. Suffolk County argues it will suf-fer "immediate and serious irreparable impact" if it is not pro-vided these documents. Id. at 7-8. Simply stated, this assertion of irreparable impact is based solely on speculation that a later review of the Licensing Board's initial decision may result in a reversal of that Board's July 10 ruling. See Memorandum to Show Cause at 8. Such speculation about future appeals was expressly precluded from use as a basis for granting interlocutory review in the first part of the Marble Hill standard. That portion clearly requires a showing of ". . . irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal."
Marble Hill, supra, 10 NRC at 1192 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, the Appeal Board has uniformly held that assertions of future delay and additional expenses do not warrant interlocutory review.
See, e.g., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-737, 18 NRC 168, 176 (1983); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105, 1114 (1982); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-641, 13 NRC 550, 552 (1981). Thus, Suffolk County's Memorandum has failed to demonstrate an "immediate and serious irreparable impact."
l N DW a
In fact, if any party were to suffer prejudice or serious impact from a future reversal of the Licensing Board's Jul,y 10 ruling, it would be LILCO and not Suffolk County. Such reversal would undoubtedly involve a remand of the proceeding to the Licensing Board and an attendant delay in the time at which LILCO would be permitted to bring the Shoreham plant on-line. Despite this possible outcome, LILCO does not believe that interlocutory review of Suffolk County's pending appeal is appropriate.
Finally, Suffolk County argues that the Licensing Board's July 10 ruling will affect "the basic structure of the proceedings below in a pervasive and unusual manner." Memorandum to Show Cause at 6-7. Suffolk County bases this argument on its assertion that FEMA's testimony is based largely on the RAC review. process and that failure to permit inquiries into that process would pre-vent the development of a true and complete record. Id. at 7. As the Appeal Board recognized in ALAB-773, the-significant FEMA findings are the ultimate determinations of the RAC; the predeci-sional opinions of individual RAC members are not demonstrably of central importance in judging the adequacy of the LILCO emergency response plan. ALAB-773, slip op. at 20. Yet it is the disclo-sure of those predecisional-opinions that Suffolk County now argues will have an effect on the basic structure of the proceed-Ling. There is simply no basis for this argument. As the Appeal Board also recognized in ALAB-773, it is the applicant that bears the ultimate burden of proof. ALAB-773, slip op. at 20-21. If the FEMA witnesses are found to have failed to explain the bases
for their testimony, then their testimony will be entitled to lit-tle weight and any presumptive effect it may have had will,have been diluted or removed. But the net result is that the basic structure of the proceeding will not have been affected. Suffolk County has already been given ample opportunity to disprove the credibility of the FEMA witnesses. It has questioned them for one week from July 10 to July 13 and will be permitted to question them for another from August 14 to August 17. Thus, Suffolk County has not been deprived of its right to develop a complete record, and accordingly, the basic structure of the proceedings will not be affected by a decision to deny this request for inter-locutory review.
Thus, Suffolk County has failed to meet the review standards of Marble Hill.
- 3. Timeliness of Suffolk County's Appeal In the Appeal Board's Order of July 27, 1984, Suffolk County was also required to address the issue of whether its appeal should be dismissed because it was not filed within ten days of the entry of the Licensing Board's ruling. Suffolk County prof-fered a showing of good cause for its belated filing in its Memo-randum to Show Cause. Memorandum to Show Cause at 9-10. While it is. unclear from the Appeal Board's August 2 Order whether other parties were requested to comment on this showing, LILCO offers the following brief observations on this issue.
As the Appeal Board noted in its July 27 Order, the two pro-visions of the Commission's Rules of Practice which authorize appeals from Licensing Board actions each provide a ten-day period for filing an appeal. See 10 CFR SS 2.714a, 2.762(a). These pro-visions relate, respectively, to appeals from rulings on petitions for intervention and from a licensing board's initial decision.
Discovery disputes, such as the pending appeal, are, by nature, more time sensitive than either of these two rulings. Accord-ingly, imposition of a ten-day filing deadline for an interlocu-tory appeal from a discovery decision would be entirely appropri-ate.
In any case, Suffolk County's delay in filing this appeal gives a hollow ring to many of its claims about the immediate irreparable injury it is allegedy suffering or'about the impor-tance of its appeal. See Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-635, 13 NRC 309, 310 (1981). Indeed, Suffolk County's claims are further undermined when one considers that the Licensing Board also found
-that Suffolk County's initial request to it for further. access to the FEMA documents was " inexcusably late" having been filed a. full week after the completion of the last' FEMA deposition and one business day prior to the start of oral testimony by the FEMA wit-
-nesses. Hearing Transcript at 12,129.
- 4. Conclusion For the above reasons, LILCO believes that Suffolk CoEnty has
~
failed to demonstrate good cause for the granting of directed cer-tification of the Licensing Board's July 10 interlocutory order.
Accordingly, Suffolk County's request should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
' \DonalgfjP.47Irwin Lee BV Zeugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 10, 1984 I
l l
12090 Suet 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATTACHMENT 1
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3 --------------------------------x 4 In the Matter of: :
5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,: (Emergency Planning)
Unit 1) :
7 :
g 8
9 10 Court of Claims State of New York .
11 State Office Building Room 3B46 12 Veterans Memorial Highway Eauppauge, New York 11787 "
13 Tuesday, July 10, 1984 14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened 16 at 10: a.m., pursuant to notice.
17 BEFORE:
18 JAMES A. LAURENSON, ESO., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 20
, DR. JERRY KLINE, Member 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D. C. 20555 23 DR. FREDERICK SHON, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 25
_ _ _ _ L -. _
3/5 12,110 l
1 First, the county needs-to review the l l
2 contentions and prefiled testimony to determine whether 3 and how they should be revised. Secondly, it is 4 senseless to cross-examine the FEMA witnesses concerning 5 their opinions on revision 3 of the LILCO plan. Third, 6 the county needs.more discovery from FEMA and, therefore, 7
cross-examination of the FEMA witnesses can not go 8 forward today.
8 First, we agree with LILCO that the four
~
10 examples selected by Suffolk County to demonstrate the
~
11 substantial impact of rev 4 on the issues in this proce'eding 12 miss the mark of establishing that it would be unproductive 13 to go forward at.this time. Insofar as rev 4 may have an 14 impact on the FEMA testimony on the 33 contentions 15
. scheduled for this week, the_ county may inquire in the 16 areas which have been revised as to the effect, if~any, 17 upon the FEMA findings or conclusion.
18 Until it is established that FEMA is withdrawing 19 or substantially modifying its findings as relevant to the
- 33 contentions scheduled for this week, we shall go forward.
21 As in the past, we express no opinion at this juncture 22 concerning the county's suggestion that testimony or contentions may need to be revised.
- The county's motion for stay is denied.
Secondly, we come to the county's motion to
,e
3/6 12,111 1 compel the production of documents by FEMA, to postpone 2 the cross-examination of the FEMA witnesses, and to issue 3 subpoenas for memebers of the RAC. We received LILCO's 4 reply to this motion yesterday. At this time we will 5 again offer New York and the NRC Staff or FEMA an
- 6 opportunity to present their arguments concerning this 7 motion.
8 Mr. Zahnleuter? .
8 , MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Again, the state has not
~
10 received the responsive pleading from LILCO, and without
~
11 belaboring the point, I will assume that my request fo'r 12 - a recess to read the pleading has been denied.
13 . Judge Laurenson, Judge Shon, and Judge Kline, 14 the State,of New York hereby moves that you stay the 15 presentation of the FEMA testimony unti'_ the courts decide 16 whether LILCO lacks the legal authority to implement 17 the LILCO plan.
'18 As ycu know, the state's position is that 19 LILCO's plan unlawfully obstructs and usurps the state's governmental powers and functions set forth in.
21 specific New York State laws.
22 Also, the state's' complaint seeking such 8 ~
a declaratory judgment has been remanded to the New York
- State courts and is currently pending in the Supreme 25 Court of Suffolk County.
3/7 12,112 1 Under Federal regulations, FEMA is only 2 empowered to conduct reviews and make findings based on 3 legitimate, legal emergency response plans. FEMA is 4 not empowered to conduct reviews and make findings when 5 the underlying plan is illegal and defective.
.6 The RAC review and-the FEMA testimony recognizes 7 that there are serious concerns and inadequacies 8 pertaining to LERO's legal authority to implement the 9 LILCO plan. All of attachment two of the RAC review is 10 devoted to this theme. And indeed, the theme pervades 11 the entire RAC review.
12 Accordingly, the RAC review and the FEMA 13 testimony are based on an emergency response plan which 14 is defective and inadequate because the LILCO plan has not 15 been proved to be a legal plan.
16 Until the lawsuit currently pending in the 17 New York State courts is resolved, the state submits that
.18 the RAC review and the FEMA testimony is premature without 19 a sound basis and should not be entertained by this 20 Board at this time.
21 Consequently, the state respectfully urges 22 that the presentation of the FEMA testimony be stayed.
23 END 3 2 24 26
- n
- 4_1-Wel 12,113
\
l 1 JUDGE LAURENSON: Why was this Motion not filed 2 before? i 3 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Part of the consideration was 4 that the -- LILCO's Motion to have New York State declaratory 5 judgment heard in Federal District Court was not . resolved 6 until recently, and it has now been remanded to the State 7 Court.
8 So, it is currently pending in the State Court.
9 JUDGE LAURENSON: The matter has been in the 10 State and Federal courts for several months now, as I recall, 11 and yet New York took no action until today on an oral Motion 12 to request a stay. 'S .
s 13 I don't understand why you believe this is a i- 14 - timely Motion at this time.
15 MR.'ZAHNLEUTER: 'I think that we initially raised
! n 16 the legal argument back in the courtroom in Riverhead, and '
i .
17 at'that time I think the Board dispensed with all Motions of 18 - hearing legal contentions until the end of the court proceeding 19 So, at this time I am more in the neture of making
[ 20 a renewal of the State's Motion to stay the proceedings, and 21 it is -- it directly pertains to the FEMA testimony because l
l 22 of the FEMA's testimony and the RAC review's comments of the l-I 23 inadequacies of the Plan based on the concerns about the
- i. 24 legal' authority of LILCO to implement the Plan.
26 JUDGE LAURENSON: We will hear from both LILCO
\
1
., - . . . . v., , . _ . . _ . _ . , . - _ . , , - . _ . _ . , .f_,_ __. . . , , . - . , . _ '["
' ~
f,4-2-Wzl~ ~12,114 1 and tha County on the Stato'o Motion.
2 .Mr. Irwin?
3 MR. ZANNLEUTER: Excuse me. In addition, the j
4 State does support the County's Motion for the reasons stated '
5- by the County, which are different than the State's Motion.
6 MR. IRWIN: I think I can respond very briefly.
7 I don't think any material fact has changed since January 8 of this year, when this Board said they were going to proceed 9 with hearings on emergency planning issues, unless or until 10 somebudy brought in a dispositive judgment from either Federal 11 or State court clarifying issues relative to legal authority.
12 The circumstances haven't changed at all. The 13 State filed and Suffolk Couty filed a lawsuit in New York 14 State court. It was transferred to Federal District Court, 15 and remanded approximately three weeks ago to State court.
16 It is right back where it was four months ago.
17 Nothing nas happened that would change that in the meantime.
18 As for the effect of uncertainty as to legal issues in the 19 RAC Review, the RAC Review is a very carefully articulated 20 document that is full of all sort of contingent outcomes as 21 denoted by a complex asterisk system, dealing with those 22 issues.
23 I just don't see anything that has changed at 24 all in the past several months that would warrant raising this Mi Motion now.
t 4
- -.-- _ , , , m-.- _ . _ , , , . _ , . _ _ _ . _ , . .. , , . , . - , . _ . _ - . , - . , _ - , , , - _ , , - _ , , , , , _ . , _ , , _ , . _ . , . _
' 12,115 3-Wal 1 JUDGE LAURENSON: Does the County wish to be 2 heard on this.
3 MR. MILLER: Yes, Judge Laurenson. I will be 4 brief also. The County fully supports New York State's Motion 1 5 to stay. As the Board is well aware, it has always been the 6 County's position that LILCO lacks the legal authority to 7
implement its offsite emergency response plan. We have a stated that position to this Board before. We have asked 9 this Board to terminate these proceedings for that reason. .
10 In addition, Judge Laurenson, if there is ,a 11 difference between now and a few months ago when the Motions 12 by the County and New York State were first made, it was 13 revealed during the week of June 29th, during the deposition 14 of the FEMA witnesses.
15 During those. depositions, the FEMA witnesses 16 made very clear that they made assumptions during the course 17 of the RAC Review that LILCO has the legal authority to 18 carry out and implement its plan, . and that if those assumptiono 19 proved to be unfounded, FEMA would not be able to find the 20
( LILCO Plan to be an adequate plan.
l l 21 Judge Laurenson, in light of the importance of M the legal authority issues to the RAC Review, to FEMA's 23 findings, and to the issues before this Board, the County l
l 24 fully supports New York State's position that these hearings l 26 be stayed until the issues of LILCO's legal authority are l
. ' 4-4-Wel 12,116 i
. I resolved.
2 JUDGE LAURENSON: Does FEMA or the Staff'have 3 a position on both of these Motions?
4 MR. GLASS: I just want to make one note for the 5 record. The RAC Review, which is attached to the FEMA 6-testimony, was very carefully drawn, in one way, to assist 7 this particular Board. The legal concerns were set out as 8
a separate attachment, so that if that issue did become a 9
major part of this hearing, or if there was a change in the 10 status, or a definition of the status of the legal concerns, .
11 that'the Board would be able to utilize that document to 12 assist it in its findings. That is the only comment I_have 13 to make at this time.
14 JUDGE LAURENSON: That goes to the State's Motion, 15 but what about the County's Motion to compel production of 16 documents by FEMA, to postpone the cross examination, and 17 to issue subpoenaes for the RAC?
, 18 MR. GLASS: I did not realize we were going to get 19 to that one this quickly. We seem to be dealing with a number I
20 of Motions at the same time.
21 I will state again, for the record, my objection 22 to the fact that we have to comply on such short notice.
23 Basically, the County is asking for three things.
I 24 They .are asking for additional time to depose Mr. Kowieski.
i l
26 They are asking to acquire the thirty documents that were held t
! .. 4-5-Wal 12,117 1 to be privileged, and they were asking to depose the RAC 2 members, all of which would result, according to suffolk 3 County, or would require, according to Suffolk County, the 4 postponement of the testimony of FEMA's witnesses.
. 5 I must admit having read the Suffolk County's 6 Motion, I am quite concerned about' the number of mis-7 characterizations that are contained therein, and that is the 8 reason that I am hesitant to argue at this point, because I 9 think it is necessary for a full record to indicate line
~
to and page citation to overcome it.
11 But considering where we are today, I will' proceed, 12 They raise three points. Referring back to the Appeal Board's 13 decision. They raise the issue of whether there were 14 significant differences of opinion of the RAC members on 15 important issues affecting the adequacy of the LILCO Plan.
16 Whether the members would be unable to defend or explain l
17 the underlying basis of FEMA's determination, or number three, is whether they relied in an inordinate degree, on the views 19 of the others.
20 None of these three tests are met.
21 It is very obvious by a reading of the transcripts, 22 and my own attendance there, and I think the other members 23 also in attendance, chat they did not establish a compelling 24 need. The witnesses consistently, even though deposed 25 separately, stated clearly for the record that there was no
, .-4-60Wal 12,118
-1 ' disagreement by the individual RAC members with the final
.2 RAC Report.
3 Not only did they reach consensus at that 4
particular January 20th meeting, which is referenced in the 5 various Motions, but in addition, in discussions that took 8 place after the fact, all three witnesses that were asked 7
on this particular area, stated for the record that all the 8
RAC members were happy with the findings.
9 There was nobody beaten down into subjugation 10 to admit or accept a conclusion that they were not satisfied 11 with. FEMA witnesses produced information as to what they 12 relied on. They fully discuss the basis of the RAC meeting.
13 The testimony itself and the RAC attachment contains not only 14 the ratings, but the reasons therefor.
15 The RAC Report does not provido a naked review 16 of adequacy or inadequacy, but comments do give the basis for 17- the rating. The instant Motion of Suffolk County states that 18 FEMA's witnesses provided information, including the number 19 of comments received from RAC members on each NUREG 0654 20 element, prior to the meeting, with all RAC members in 2'1 attendance. The notes that were provided by Mr. Keller and 22 Mr. Baldwin also reveal the number of comments which were 23 disagreed, at least initially, with the final RAC findings 24 for each NUREG element to the LILCO Plan.
26 Neither Mr. Keller nor Mr. Baldwin's notes
. - _ . , .__.t. m:
. 4-7-Wal 12,119 1 reveal, however, the identities of the dissenting RAC i
2 members, and that seems to be what the Suffolk County attorneyn 3 are inquiring.
4 The statement that the reasons for the dissenting 5 views were not given, and I disagree with the characterization 6 of dissenting views, they were preliminary comments, is a 7 mischaracterization of the strongest type.
4 8 I understand by the filings provided by Long 9 Island Lighting Company, that you did receive copies of the
~
10 two sets of notes that were provided by Mr. Keller and Mr.
11 Baldwin.
12 Those notes were gone into in great detail by 13 Mr. Miller at the deposition. He inquired into the underlying 14 basis and the reasoning and what the notations meant.
15 In addition, FEMA provided and identified for 16 the record the preliminary comments of Mr. Keller and Mr.
17 Baldwin. The reason we did this is we understood the chilling 18 effect, but we felt that since these individuals were witnesses 19 appearing before this Board, that we would provide that 20 information.
21 We were under no obligation to create those 22 notes. They were created by the individuals, and I had not 23 seen them prior to the depositions, to assist those individuala l
24 in answering the questions that may be posed by the County, l
Mr. Keller. utilized his, and
( . 25 and they utilized those notes.
1 l'
Ji 4-8-Wnl; 12,120 1 we provided them to Suffolk County's attorney; Mr. Baldwin utilized his, and we provided them to Suffolk County.
2 3 Suffolk County complains that they did not get 4 Mr. Kowieski's notes. It was not necessary for Mr. Kowieski 5 to ' utilize those notes at the hearing, since we provided him 6 Mr. Keller's and Mr. Baldwin's notes, and he was able to answer 7 -the questions from them.
8 I repeatedly gave Suffolk County the opportunity 9 to inquire. I indicated to him that they had not laid any .
10 groundwork or any basis for the production. He did not, 11 sursue it. He did not inquire. He asked questions, and those 12 questions were answered by utilization of these other notes.
13 The County claims that they attempted to ascertain 14 the reasons for and the substance of the RAC members dissenting 15 opinions. They were given that information. The only thing 16 that we refused, and the witnesses were directed not to provide ,
17 were the identities of the individual RAC members who held 18 those preliminary reviews. It is a bold assertion that is 19 _ important for the County to determine which RAC members 20 dissented from the various RAC findings.
1 21 This issue has been discussed before the Appeal 22 Board. It is clear from the record there was no dissent from 23 the final RAC Report. There is no reason given why it is 24 necessary to know which member disagreed at any time with t 26 the findings in the final RAC Report, and it is a misstatement i
E.__._____.---__
'4-9-Wa1 12,121 1 of fact, because they didn't dissent from the final RAC 2 Report.
3 The individual ratings submitted a number of weeks 4 before may not have been the same as contained in the RAC 5 Report, but they did not have the benefits of the RAC
, 6 meeting when those comments were s'bmitted.
u 7 In addition, Mr. Miller was able to ascertain 8 from the witnesses, and he repeatedly did from all four 9 witnesses, the process that took place and was able to
~
10 ascertain how the final decisions were arrived at, how 11 consensus was reached.
12 They also indicate -- there is a statement 13 on page 13 of Suffolk County's Motion, that my opportunities 14 to question Mr. Kowieski and Mr. Keller and Mr. Baldwin went 15 to their involvement in the RAC. Not true. No -- there 16 was no such limitation. The information provided in the 17 notes indicated the number the cadequate and the number of 18 inadequate ratings submitted for each element in the 19 individual RAC comments, and the reasons for. those comments 20 were either provided in the RAC Report and differences between 21 the collegial RAC ratings and the individual RAC comments were 22 contained in the material pr6vided by Mr. Keller and Mr.
23 Baldwin.
24 We also have the question of the time period 26 that Suffolk County indicates that they were cut off in their 1
l
~j
4-10-W21 12,122 1 ability to conduct their cross cxamination.
2 When. we originally determined how the depositions 3 would take place, it was a negotiated process. FEMA agreed 4 to allow Suffolk County to depose the individuals as 5 individuals, and not as a panel, and in exchange it wac 6 agreed that the depositions would take place in New York 7 for two business working days.
8 Later on it was determined that we would prefer 9 to have Mr. Baldwin go first, and Suffolk County indicated 10 they would appreciate having some additional time, because 11 they felt they needed more time with Mr. Kowieski. The' 12 original agreement, as I remember it, was that we had 13 agreed until six o' clock. There was no attempt to try to 14 cut off, but there has to be some sort of reasonable agreement, 15 especially when you had mutual consent on the original 16 agreement. -
17 On the first day of depositions, there had been 18 no agreement as to an extension of tire, and FEMA voluntarily 19 kept the witness there an additional hour. A review of the 20 transcript will indicate that no more than ten or fif teen 21 pages were taken up by any other parties in their cross 22 examination, during the deposition of Mr. Kowieski. The
%I original agreement dealt with two business days, and included 24 time for all tha other parties. So, there certainly was no 25 inordinate amount taken at that time.
_.r._. _ _ _ _ . _ .__...--
'4-11sWal 12,123 4
1 In addition, what raises some questions as to 2 whether Suffolk County was under the impression that there 3 was additional time needed or agreed to, was'the fact that 4 none of the other parties were aware of any additional time, 5 nor was the court reporter, who had to reschedule his flight, e aware of such changes.
7 In addition, we went, instead of six o' clock, 8 we went until seven twenty-two, and it is only because the 9 Suffolk County elected to spend so much time with Mr. Baldwin, 10 which was supposed to be a short deposition, that we did not 11 start until a little bit before four o' clock. In either case, 12 the County had almost three and a half hours to depose-NW.
13 Kowieski.
14' We tried to again rearrange Mr Mowiecki's time, 15 and we offered the County an additional ten to fifteen 16 minutes, and they indicated they could not complete it in that 17 time, and they refused that offer.
18 There has been no showing in the filing by j 19 Suffolk County that; a, there is need to have additional time 20 by Mr. Kowieski; that, b, that they have a need for the 21 thirty documents, or a right or need to depose the RAC i
r 22 members. This Board has addressed before the issue of 23 the identification by FEMA of who its witnesses shall be, i i
l 24 and who shall be deposed.
l.
l 26 If it would assist _the Board, at least on l
l n -
A-12-W21- 12,124 1 Mr. Kowieski's deposition transcript, I can give you line and i
2- page, for where Mr. Kowieski discussed the basis of his a testimony, discussed the personal notes and the reason we 4 withheld them, and the fact that no foundation was laid for 5 Mr. Kowieski's notes. That it was not pursued. That the 6 process was explained. That there'was no disagreement by 7 the members of the RAC and that they reached consensus, that 8 -- about the assumptions utilized by the RAC. About the 9 format of the final RAC Report. His involvement. His 10 comments. The RAC meeting. The fact that Mr. Kowieski state's 11 on page 86, lines 3 through 7, that I can recall the '
12 substance, the substance of the discussion when it was inquire <l 13 if he could provide information as to the RAC meetings, the 14 changes that took place to reflect the RAC concerns, and the 15 handling of the differences in ratings.
16 For all the above reasons, I respectfully submit 17 that the Motion of Suffolk County should be denied.
18 JUDGE LAURENSON: All right. We will take a 19 brief recess and consider both of these Motions, and we will 20 be back with our decision.
21 MR. McMURRAY: Excuse me, Judge Laurenson, the 22 County has been accused of mischaracterizing the record, and 23 I think the County ought to have an opportunity to respond 24 to the comments made by Mr. Glass.
26 MR. BORDENICK : Judge Laurenson, I would also t -- ._ .__ _ . , - _ _ _,_.____._,_ __-._._ --.___.__,._ _ r, - - . _ _ _ - - __.___ ~.-
~ ~
.4-13-Wal 12,125 1 lika an opportunity to maka c brief statement. !
i t
2 JUDGE LAURENSON: Let me ask Mr. Bordenick first. I 3 Is your position different from FEMA's on this matter?
4 MR. BORDENICK: No. Fully supportive. If you 1
5 want to take that as the comment or the statement, that is 6 fine.
7 (Laughter) 8 JUDGE LAURENSON: I was just trying to find the 9 appropriate place for this, because we have treated FEMA and 10 - the NRC Staff as sort of one, and we might get some complaints 11 that we are doubling up if we allow both of you to argue on 12 a particular side of a question if your views are' the same.
13 MR. BORDENICK: They are the same, and actually 14 I would only be elaborating on several points that Mr. Glass 15 made. I don't have anything significantly different to add.
16 JUDGE LAURENSON: Let me ask if there .s i any 17 objection to the Staff stating its position?
18 MR. McMURRAY: There is no objection.
19 JUDGE LAURENSON: Please proceed.
I 20 MR. BORDENICK: Actually, I also first wanted 21 to briefly address Mr. Zahnleuter's Motion, just in summary, i
22 and state that if it is in the nature of a Motion for L 23 Reconsideration of the Board's previous ruling, then it is, 24 of course, substantially late. And in any event, I agree l
l 2 with Mr. Irwin's comment that there is nothing essentially l
t
.m- +s- 9 .- .--e , , ~ - .
~,-,-n .,.- - ~ , , <-.e-w,e
. ,m---- ,--v,. , ,w4_5,,, ,w . , - , , , - -e-- - g- .a,,, - -
4-14-Wal' 12,126 1 ~ different between the situation that obtains at present and 2 the situation as it obtains at the time that the Board first 3 denied the County and State's Motions.
4 It seems strange to me that the State has sat 5 in here for five or six, or whatever number of months it is, 6 and then has renewed this type of Motion at this late stage.
7 On the question of the County's Motion to compel 8 production of documents by FEMA and postpone the cross g examination of FEMA's witnesses and for issuance of to subpoenaes to the members of the RAC, I simply wanted to -
11 indicate first of all that the Staff has set out its legal 12 position in this matter.
13 This Board does have the guidance set fort by 14 the Appeal Board in ALAB 773. What we are now involved with, 15 or what the Board is faced with, is essentially a factual 16 situation.
17 We fully support the analysis and the argument 18 that Mr. Glass has just given the Board. We find it HP somewhat strange that the County chose to only attach selective 20 portions of the transcript to their Motion. I think if the 21 Board hasn't read the transcripts in toto, it should.
n On the time situation, there is no question that 23 the time was tight, vis-a-vis the County completing the 24 depositions of the four FEMA witnesses, and that was due 26 to circumstances beyond their control, as well as anyone else'a End 4 control.
Sue fois.
12,127
- 5-1-Suet 1 However, there were certain agreements reached 2 between the County and FEMA. The County used its time as 3 it sees fit. It agreed to two days. If it decided to spend 4 substantially all of Friday with Mr. Baldwin and leave very 5 little time for Mr. Kowieski, that's their choice, and that 6 is a decision they will have to live with.
7 In summary, the Staff fully agrees with FEMA 8 that the County's motion should be denied in all respects.
9 JUDGE LAURENSON: We will get to Mr. McMurray's 10 request in just a moment.
11 (The Board is conferring.) -
12 We have considered the County's request to re-13 spond, but we decided that we will not allow a respo se 14 here. So, at this time we will consider the positions of 15 the parties and we will be back with a ruling on these two 16 motions.
17 (Short recess.)
18 JUDGE LAURENSON: The thrust of the County's 19 motion is that the County believes that it has established 20 the necessary facts to be entitled to an Order that FEMA s
21 should be required to turn over the thirty predecisional 22 documents which the Appeal Board held were privileged and 23 not discoverable.
24 The County reviews the history of this dispute 26 and then cites and attaches portions of the depositions of l
w
12,128 95-2-Suet 1 the four FEMA witnesses taken June.27th and June 29th.
1 3 During those depositions, FEMA voluntarily produced some 3 notes prepared by witnesses Keller and Baldwin prior to 4 their depositions. These notes reflect the number of com-5 ments which disagreed at least initially with the final 6 RAC findings for each NUREG 0654 element of the LILCO plan.
7 However, the County complains that these notes 8 do not identify the dissenting RAC members or the reasons 9 for their dissenting views. The County believes that it is 10 important for it to determine which RAC me'mbers dissented 11 from various RAC findings. This is a complete about 1face 12 from the County's position before the Appeal Board where at
.~
13 Page 17 of the Appeal Board decision, ALAB 773, it is 14 stated, " Counsel for the County disavows any particular 15 interest in the names of individuals putting forth specific 16 views. She seeks only the basis of the RAC conclusions."
17 Moreover, the County does not attempt to explain 18 why it has now become important to have this information.
19 While the County speaks in terms of its right to probe the 20 j basis of the RAC review, the County has failed to show that 21 it has established the compelling need for these documents 22 which the Appeal Board found absent last month.
23 We agree with LILCO that the County has failed 24 to meet any of the preconditions to further discovery set 26 by the Appeal Board. At this time, Suffolk County has not l
k , s
12,129
- 5-3-Suet 1 established "significant differences of opinion among i i
2 members of the RAC on important issues effecting the 8 adequacy of LILCO's plan."
4 Moreover, the County has not established that 5 these FEMA witnesses are unable to defend and explain 8 adequately the FEMA findings or that the witnesses view 7 were inordinately derivative of other views. Unless the l 8 County makes such a showing, the executive privilege pre- I l
9 '
cludes probing the individual views of individual RAC
~
10 members.
11 While we prefer to dispose of this motion'on 12 the merits so that all parties will understand the test
~
13 we will apply to.the cross-examination of the FEMA witnesses, 14 we also deny this motion for the reason cited by LILCO to that it is inexcusably late. Although these depositions 18 were taken a week earlier and presumably the County knew 17 it would have to file the instant motion, it waited a full 18 week after completion of the last deposition before filing 19 this motion. That left only one business day to consider l 20 this request before the hearing was to resume.
I s
21 We find that under these circumstances the un-22 timeliness of the motion would be a sufficient cause to deny M it.
l 24 In conclusion, all three requests of the County l
as are denied at this time. We will carefully monitor the r
g
, . . , - > l 12,130
- 5-4-Suet 1 FEMA testimony during the course of this hearing to deter-I 2 \
mine whether a different result should obtain. j i
{
S MR. MCMURRAY: Judge Laurenson, I think in )
4 light of the fact that the Board has focused on a quote !
5 taken from the Appeal Board decision, and the County's view 6
at this time that that quote was taken out of context, I 7
think it would be appropriate for the County to be given an 8
opportunity to respond both to Mr. Glass' statements, LILCO's 8
response to the County's motion, and to the Board's ruling 10 and ask for reconsideration.
11 JUDGE LAURENSON: Well, let's move on first of 12 all, and then we will take up your motion for reconsidera-13 tion.
14 New York presented an oral motion here to stay 15 the cross-examination of the FEMA witnesses. That motion 16 is untimely and could be denied for that reason alone. How-17 ever, we further note that New York cites no legal authority 18 or precedent to support its assertion that the mere pendency 4
19 of legal issues in the State courts precludes going forward
- with FEMA testimony. We know of no such precedent.
21 Good case management requires that we deny the 22 New York motion and proceed with the testimony.
23 Now, getting back to the County's motion for reconsideration, I think the point of our comment about the l
8 statement made by your counsel, your co-counsel, before the 1
. = , , . , . --., _,-w-- , . - _ _ _ , ,_.,--.-..--_.r,, p. ..- , - , , .= . ,7-, , , . yn,c----+g. + - - , , , y.,, -- -,w - , ,- 'N-
, .. . I 12,131
- 5-5-Suet 1 Appeal Board was that it was different than the position 2 you are taking here, and that in any event the County has a given no reasons to explain why it now believes that it was i 4 important to receive the individual views of the RAC members. l 5 And that's the basis on which we ruled, not on the basis of 6 any quote from your counsel at the Appeal Board hearing.
7 MR. MC MURRAY: Well, the point I wish to make, 8 Judge Laurenson, is that the position of the County before 9 the Appeal Board is perfectly consistent with its position 10 now. What Ms. Letsche was saying in that quote that you 11 lifted from the Appeal Board opinion was based on a request 12 for FEMA documents. What Ms. Letsche was saying at that
~
13 time was that we were not asking for the identification of 14 the individual RAC members at that time, because we didn't 15 know whether there was unanimity or lack of unanimity; and, 16 therefore, it was not considered important at that time to 17 determine what their individual opinions were, if in fact 18 there was unanimity. .
19 But, as everybody recognized, the Appeal Board 20 and all parties present, was that if there was a significant 21 lack of unanimity then the identities of the individual RAC 22 members and their individudl opinions would, of course, be 23 relevant. And that is why we are now asking for the 24 identity of the individual FEMA members and their opinions, 25 because as it turns out at the depositions it was revealed
12,132 I
95-6-Suet- that before the January 20th meeting there was substantial 2- lack of_ unanimity. And then out of this meeting came some a
sort of consensus. And we were not able to determine how 4
this consensus was arrived at.
5 That's the thrust of the County's motion.
6 JUDGE LAURENSON: The thrust of our decision was 7
that you have not established significant differences of a
opinion among members of the RAC on important issues affectir.c
, the adequacy of LILCO's plan. And so there is nothing in 10 that argument that you made that affects our decision here.'
We were barred from doing'so, II MR. MC MURRAY:
12 Judge Laurenson. That's our entire point.
13 If you look at the Baldwin and the Keller notes, I'
. it shows that people went into that RAC meeting with sub-15 stantial differences of opinion. If you look at LILCO's 16 motion, I think they attached the relevant notes, and it 17 shows that for many, many of the issues there was a lack of 18 unanimity. And then apparently out of this all came some I'
sort of consensus. And we were barred from finding out
" how this lack of unanimity somehow became a consensus, 21 whether people were -- whether they took a vote, or whether 22 or not expert opinions were overridden by certain members of the RAC Committee, those types of questions.
4 We were not able to find that out. So we don't as know whether or not in the end there was a substantial
~
12,133 95-7-Suet 1 disagreement.
' The County's motion for re-2 JUDGE LAURENSON:
a consideration is denied.
4 We' turn next to the LILCO motion to admit LILCO's 6 supplemental testimony on Contention 24.R, the letter of 6 agreement with Connecticut. On June 20, 1984 LILCO filed a 7 motion to admit supplemental testimony on Contention 24.R, a along with the supplemental testimony of Dr. Cordaro and s William F. Renz. And a letter dated May 22, 1984 from Mr.
10 Renz to Frank Mancuso, Director of the Connecticut Office of 4
11 Civil Preparedness, and the response from Mr. Mancuso to 12 Mr. Renz, dated June li.h.
13 New York and Suffolk County oppose the motion 14 to admit the supplemental testimony and attachments, whereas 18 the NRC Staff supports LILCO's motion.
16 In LILCO's prefiled written direct testimony in 1
17 chief on Contention 24.R, which was filed March 2, 1984, 18 LILCO attached and relied upon a letter dated December 15, i
is 1983 from Frank Mancuso, Director of the Office of Civil c 30 Preparedness for Connecticut, to Donald A. Devito, Director l
21 of the Office of Disaster Preparedness for New York, to 22 establish that Connecticut had agreed to assume responsibili Q
, 23 for implementing protective actions for the portion of the se Shoreham fifty mile ingestion exposure pathway within l t SS Connecticut.
1
E
> l l
I LILCO, August 10, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MEMORANDUM ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF THE LATEST FEMA DISCOVERY DISPUTE were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand (one asterisk),
or by Federal Express (two asterisks).
Allen S. Rosenthal, Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Gary J. Edles*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.*
Appeal Board Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Howard A. Wilber* East-West Tower, North Tower Atomic Safety and Licensing 4350 East-West Highway Appeal Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.**
Washington, D.C. 20555 Special Counsel to the Governor James A. Laurenson, Executive Chamber Chairman
- Room 229 Atomic Safety and Licensing State Capitol Board Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
4350 East-West Hwy. Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Christopher & Phillips Dr. Jerry R. Kline* 8th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing 1900 M Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MHB Technical Associates East-West Tower, Rm. 427 1723 Hamilton Avenue 4350 East-West Hwy. Suite K Bethesda, MD 20814 San Jose, California 95125
f
- Mr. Jay Dunkelberger Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office John F. Shea, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Twomey, Latham & Shea Empire State Plaza 33 West Second Street Albany, New York 12223 P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Executive Chamber Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
State Capitol 9 East 40th Street Albany, New York 12224 New York, New York 10016 Secretary of the Commission James B. Dougherty, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3045 Porter Street Commission Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Public Service Appeal Board Panel Commission, Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Rockefeller Plaza Commission Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 Spence W. Perry, Esq.**
Atomic Safety and Licensing Associate General Counsel Board Panel Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20472 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Ms. Nora Bredes Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq. Executive Coordinator Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Shoreham Opponents' Coalition U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 195 East Main Street Commission Smithtown, New York 11787 7735 Old Georgetown Road (to mailroom) Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Stewart M. Glass, Esq.** Veterans Memorial Highway Regional Counsel Hauppauge, New York 11788 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, Nos York 10278 E
% Lee gf/ZgGgin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
, DATED: August 10, 1984
, n.