ML20101T514
| ML20101T514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1985 |
| From: | Mark Miller, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-414 OL-3, NUDOCS 8502060203 | |
| Download: ML20101T514 (20) | |
Text
._
I samocoN UNITED STATES OF AFERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board En
)
FEB -5 In the Matter of
)
S/Ilgp 50- 22k bf!CS
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No.
)
(EmergencyPlanninVIf[gj
[
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE RESPONSE TO LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO NASSAU COLISEUM DISCOVERY REQUESTS On January 28, 1985, the Board agreed to reopen the record
-in this proceeding "for the limited purpose of assessing the adequacy.of LILCO's proffered evidence concerning the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation center to be used in the. event of an emergency at Shoreham."1/
The Board made clear, however, that-before ruling on LILCO's proffcred evidence, it would' consider the positions of'the other parties regarding LILCO's evidsnce..Thus, it established a schedule which requires
.the parties by Febraary 18, inter alia, to file cross-examination plans-and/or testimony or affidavits addressing LILCO's proposal, if.they believe there is a need to cross-examine LILCO's witness and/or to' submit direct testimony or other evidence on the merits of LILCO's proposal.
LILCO must respond by February 25,and then 1! emorandum and Order Granting LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record-M (hereinafter, " Order"), at 9.
8502060203 850204 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR b
c J.-
the Board will decide whether "to admit in the record any or all
.of the evidence proffered or to schedule a further oral hearing."
Order, at 9-10.
In order to comply with the Board's schedule, Suffolk County and New York State have pursued limited informal discovery, as was the practice of all parties throughout the emergency planning litigation, concerning LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau Coliseum.
Copies of the informal discovery requests to LILCO, the NRC Staff and FEMA are attached for the Board's information.
In addition, the County and State noticed the deposition of
~
LILCO's witness on the Nassau Coliseum relocation center issues, and have notified the NRC Staff and FEMA that they wish to~ depose any witness who intends to submit testimony or other evidence on their. behalf.
The County and State understand that the-Staff does not presently intend'to present'any evidence on the relocation center issues; FEMA, however,'has indicated that it will likely submit testimony or affidavits regarding LILCO's new relocation center proposal by some or all of the witnesses who previously testified on FEMA's behalf.
Neither the Staff nor FEMA has-indicated-any opposition to the discovery requests made by the County and State; indeed,
-counsel for FEMA has made clear that he intends to. respond to the discovery requests : and to make whatever witnesses FEMA decides ta)-
use.in presenting evidence tx) the Board available for. deposition.
LILCO, on the other hand, has opposed the County and State's
T discovery requests.S!
LILCO's Opposition, received late Friday afternoon, February 1, 1985, asserts that the Board should preclude any discovery on the issues raised by LILCO's reopening of the evidentiary record.
In the view of the County and State, this assertion is wholly without merit and should be rejected.
The sole reason for LILCO's seeking to reopen the eviden-tiary record was-LILCO's inabil. / to sustain its burden of proof on the relocation center contentions.
Over the objection of the County and State, the Board agreed to reopen the record.
While the County and State disagree with the Board's ruling,.the fact is that the record has been reopened.
As a result, limited discovery on the issues raised by LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau. Coliseum is necessary if-the parties are to develop and present to the Board in a meaningful manner their respective positions regarding LILCO's proffered evidence.. Indeed, with few
-if any exceptions, discovery related to evidence proffered by any.
party to;this proceeding has always been permitted by this Board, consistent with the'NRC's Rules of Practice.
There is no basis for: reversing this practice here, especially sinceithe discovery sought is limited.
Although LILCO's Opposition characterizes the discovery requests as " extensive," " extraordinarily burdensome," and
" sweep [ing] far beyond the designation of the Nassau Coliseum as IS#LILCO'd Opposition to Suffolk County Discovery Requesta
- Concerning Use of Nassau Coliseum'as a Reception Center, Motion '
for-Protective Order and Request for Expedited Board Ruling, L dated:. February 1,-' 1985 (hereinafter, " Opposition").
4
-i
- : f.
a reception. center" (Opposition, at 2, 3), a review of the
. requests themselves reveal these LILCO assertions to be overstated:and baseless mischaracterizations.
In essence, LILCO's complaint regarding the allegedly
" extensive" nature Of the County and State's discovery requests rests on three grounds.
First, LILCO claims that various of the requests involve " discussions or drafts underlying agreements or documents which speak for themselves."
Opposition, at 3.
Documents relating to discussions underlying an agreement or
' drafts of the agreement itself, however, are clearly discoverdble.
See,de.g., 10 CFR @
2.740 and 2.741; indeed, such
-documents are often more revealing than agreements or documents
- 7. j -
which habe been finalized and polished before being produced for examination.d!
-LILCO also claims that various of the~ requests involve
" issues already. litigated or outside'the scope.of contentions and other issues of dubious relevance or materiality."
Opposition, at 3.
This claim is entirely indefensible.
All the requests specifically-relate to LILCO's new designation of the Nasisau Coliseum as-a relocation center.
It was not until-after
/d! oreover, request 15, which LILCO claims involves discussions M
or drafts. underlying agreements or documents, seeks documents and correspondence "between or amongLrepresentatives of LILCO-and the NRC Staff.and/or-FEMA concerning LILCO's proposed'use:of.the i
Nassau Coliseum.'"
To the knowledge'of the County and State, no Tsuch-documents or correspondence-~have' to date been produced by
~-g'
_LILCO;.therefore, LILCO's: claim'that there can be'no need for.
production, since there are underlying agreements or documents which " speak-for.themselves," makes no sense.
i
-1 h
, ~
- q the record was closed that LILCO informed the Board and the parties of its proposal to use the Coliseum, so it is absurd to suggest:that the issues have already been litigated.
- Further, the requests are clearly within the scope of admitted conten-tions.
For example, the first request challenged by LILCO as involving an. issue already litigated or outside the scope of
~
contentions (request 4) seeks documents " relating to the ordinary
' business use of the Nassau Coliseum and its availability for use by LILCO cnr as a relocation center in the event of a radiological emergency-at Shoreham."
How LILCO can argue that such informa-tion is not within'the scope of Contention 24.N, which directly challenges the availability of facilities relied upon as relocation' centers, is'beyond comprehension.
Finally, LILCO claims that the County and State " seek documsants,' and drafts of documents, not in LILCO's possession or contral."
Opposition, atL3.
.This is simply _ untrue.
The-discovery requests make clear that only information in the
- possession or control of LILCO or persons " acting for or-on
' behalf of LILCO
....or at'their; direction" is'cought.
. Furthermore, if'a' requested document is not technically in.
"LILCO's possession," LILCOican so-indicate inLits response, and' ausubpoena or other appropriate means~can be used to obtain the tinformation.
5
_. ~
B LILCO has requested expedited Board consideration of its opposition to the requested discovery, and we endorse that proposal.. Assuming the Board corcurs and schedules either a telephone conference or hearing to resolve this dispute, the o
County and State will respond further to the arguments made by LILCO at~that time.
Therefore, we do not think it necessary to address here all the points made by LILCO's Opposition.
- However, there are several additional matters which simply must be 4
mentioned, however briefly.
In-a footnote to the Opposition, LILCO makes a serious
. allegation.which must be corrected.
Contrary to LILCO's
" understanding" that FEMA's agreement to make its personnel available for deposition was obtained before FEMA's counsel was informed of the document requests to be served upon FEMA
.(Opposition, at 1, n.2), counsel for FEMA, Mr. Glass, was told of.
the County'and State's forthcoming document requests during the same telephone call during which Mr. Glass agreed that FEMA personnel would be made available for deposition.
Indeed, the telephone call was made by counsel for the County primarily to
.-inform-FEMA's counsel of:the substance and nature of the discovery requests.
The requests to FEMA and copies of those sent to the Staff and LILCO were telecopied to Mr. Glass that same. day.A!
Further, despite LILCO's complaint that the request's
+
. / n' deed,.LILCO, the NRC: Staff and FEMA were all telecopied I
copies of-all the discovery requested by the County and State,
- irrespective of.which party'was being requested to respond to
~
such discovery.
~
m
.. a mede to FEMA and the Staff are of a " sweeping nature" that would
" extraordinarily burden" them (Opposition, at 3), neither FEMA nor the Staff has complained or indicated it would not respond to the' discovery requests.
Indeed, after asking for clarification about the requests, counsel for FEMA indicated that FEMA will produce whatever responsive documents exist.
Although LILCO asserts (Opposition, at 2) that the County is somehow estopped from seeking discovery, because it never asked b
~ for. discovery in its January 18 response to LILCO's motion to reopen,5! this assertion ignores the fact that the Board had ordered the parties to address in their January 18 filings only "the legal issue of whether the record should.be reopened."
_See Order, at 4; Tr. 15,794.
Thus, not only was there no need to request discovery as of January 18, but such would have been entirely premature.
LILCO's reliance on the procedures following-the remand by the Appeal Board'of certain health and safety issues (Opposstion,
'at 2)_to buttress its assertion that there should be no discovery lhere-is misplaced,-and its assertions relating to that matter are factually incorrect.
.Immediately?following the issuance of the Brenner' Board order requesting the views'of the parties, the County informally requested pertinent documents and data from
!5/ uffolk Countyrand State of New York Opposition Lo'LILCO's S
Motion to Reopen ~the Record, dated _ January 18, 1985-(hereinafter,
~" January.18 response").
both the Staff and LILCO, and such materials were provided by LILCO and the Staff before any substantive views were submitted by_the County.
s Finally, the County and State have the following observation ith respect to the Board's January 28 Order.
If the Board w
decides to accept LILCO's proffered evidence into the evidentiary record, the County and State submit that the other parties to this-proceeding have an absolute right to cross-examine that evidence unless it is determined that there are no genuine issues of' material facts in dispute.
See 10 CFR 2.749.
Indeed, the NRC's Rules of Practice and well established principles of due process and fundamental fairness guarantee the parties the right to cross-examine LILCO's proffered evidence.
The County and State's February 18' submissions will demonstrate that there are imany material facts in dispute, as we indicated in our January 18 s
Accordingly, consistent with'due process principles, response.-
4
.i
r-
+
it ?
_9_
we. submit that a hearing to permit cross-examination will be necessary.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Keraorial Highway Hauppauge,- New York 11788 M
Lawrence Cpe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York By:
/ A/
A4thfd [
Fabian G.
Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor of-the State of New York
. Dated:
February 4, 1985 i
ff
^
--._a.-
q KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.W.
. WASHINGTON. D C. 200M oss aosTON PLACE BOSTON. MA 02100 marNoNa m 4 sam 1.in.,no 1429 BluCK11.L AVENLT TELECOPER (202) 412-7052 utAyt pg 33:3g 0c5: !?441LZ January 31, 1985 PITTSSL1tCM. PA till!
64121 199 4900 WRITER 1 DIRECT DLAL NtJMBER (202) 452-7022
.VIA TELECOPY 1
James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy E. B. McClaskey, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim and Kathy:
Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of January 28, 1985 requiring us to submit by February 18 testimony or affidavits on the issues raised by LILCO's Motion to Reopen the Record, we request that LILCO furnish-the following information pertaining to LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation center as soon as possible, but not later than 1985.
This will provide the minimum time necessary February 5, to review the requested information prior to the deposition of Elaine D.- Robinson, which we have noticed for Thursday, February 7, 1985.
_1.
All documents relating to discussions or meetings between or among representatives of LILCO and the Hyatt Manage-ment Corporation'of_New York, Inc. concerning LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum ("Nassau Coliseum"),
including, but not limited to, the discussions referenced in Ms.
. Robinson'.s January 10, 1985 Af fidavit -(1 2) 'and any other dis-cussions, meetings, or-correspondence. relating.to the letter-
~
from William J.'Catacosinos to E. B. Sumerlin, Jr. dated September 25, 1984 (Robinson Affidavit, Attachment 1).
2.
All documents relating to the Nassau County Executive's "advi[ce] [to] the General Manager of the Coliseum _that he (relocationi center in approved the use:of the.' Coliseum as a the event of an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station"
m-KRKPATRICK & LOCKHART James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy E.
B. McCleskey, Esq.
Page Two January 31, 1985 (Robinson Affidavit, 1 3), including, but.not limited to, cor-respondence, or documents relating to discussions or meetings, between.or among representatives of LILCO and the Nassau County Executive and/or other Nassau County officials or agencies con-carning LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum.
~3.
All documents relating to discussions or meetings between or among representatives of LILCO and the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross, including, but not limited to, the dis-cussions referenced in Ms. Robinson's Affidavit (1 4) and any other correspondence, discussions, or meetings relating to the matters referred to~in the letter from Matthew C. Cordaro to Frank M. Rasbury dated October 23, 1984 (Robinson Affidavit, Attachment
- 3).-
4.
All documents relating to the ordinary business use of the Nassau Coliseum and its availability for use by LILCO or as
.a relocation center in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
5.
Copies of a calendar and description of events scheduled and/or held at the Nassau Coliseum during the past five years.
6..-A calendar and description of events scheduled for 1985, and 1986.
7.
A copy of the agreement or contract form generally used by Hyatt Management Corporation in permitting the use of the Nassau Coliseum.
8.
.All documents relating'to the physical layout of and
. facilities available in the Nassau Coliseum, including, but not limited to, information about the fx7ter, size, dimensions, and locations of lockers / dressing rooms, toilet and shower facilities, sinks, storage areas, common areas, telephones, and food prepara-tion areas.
9.
All documents relating to the Nassau County Executive's
~
"assur(ancel...-that the Nassau County Government would cooperate to the fullest in. making the Coliseum available in the event of an accident at Shoreham" (Robinson Affidavit, 1 7), including, but not' limited to, correspondence, or documents relating to discus-sions or me.etings, between or among representatives of LILCO,and the Nassau County Executive and/or other Nassau County officials or agencies concerning LILCO's proposed use of the~Nassau Coliseum, i
[
C
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy E. B. McCleskey, Esq.
Page Three
- January 31, 1985 1
10.
All correspondence of any kind relating to LILCO's pro-posed 1use of th'e Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center, including, but not limited to, all drafts of the September 25, October 1, October 23, and December 31, 1984 letters attached to the Robinson Affidavit (Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 6, respectively).
11.
All documents relating to the information in the Robinson Affidavit regarding the time required to clear the Coliseum and its parking lot should an accident at Shoreham occur while a " sport-ing or entertainment event" were in progress at the Coliseum (Robinson Affidavit, 1 7), including, but not limited to, the circumstances surrounding and assumptions underlying such informa-tion.
12.
All documents, including, but not limited to, any survey, report or study,which-relate to the parking lot capacity of the Nassau Coliseum, and access to and from the Coliseum from the EPZ, areas outside the EPZ'(for example, from west of the EPZ to the Coliseum),.and the roadways and streets surrounding and adjacent to the Coliseum.
-13.
All documents relating to LILCO's proposal to direct evacuees from the Nassau Coliseum to so-called " congregate care centers" (where evacuees would be housed), including, but not limited to, the distances and locations of such congregate care centers from the Nassau Coliseum, proposed travel routes, and
. proposed method (s) of transporting evacuees.
14.
All documents relating to the time and types and-numbers of personnel necessary to monitor and decontaminate all evacuees at one facility or at the Nassau Coliseum.
i 15.
All documents and correspondence of any kind between or among representatives of LILCO and the NRC Staff and/or FEMA concerning LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum.
L 16.
All documents relating to the health effects to EPZ evacuees or to the population of Nassau County or other arecs outside the EPZ that could result from LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau. Coliseum as a relocation center.
Please construe the term " document" as used in this request to include,-but not be limited to, all drafts or final copies of if comoranda, correspondence, comments, reports, notes, minutes, or
-summaries.- Please also construe the term " document" to include,.
L U
v o
[
~
KRKPATRICK & LOCKHART James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy E. B. McCleskey, Esq.
Page Four January 31, 1985 but not be limited to, documents in the possession or control of LERO,.LERIO, any representative (including, without limita-
- LILCO, or other tien, attorneys and their respective agents and employees) person acting for or on behalf of LILCO, LERO, or LERIO or at their direction, including, without limitation, any non-LILCO organiza-tion which may be expected to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
Counsel for New York State has authorized me to inform you that the State joins in this request.
Sincerely, 71 W A. M L Michael S. Miller cc:
Fabian Palomino, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
James S. Dougherty, Esq.
b
m P'
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STMET. N.w.
wAsHMOToN, D.C. 200M om 90 MON MCE sosrow urolios Tutarnow aan +smo mn mwo 149 SFJCITtt AVEWS TttJCorER QCD 452 7011 ngAut, pg, 33:n January 31, 1985 in ouvtRac o m MTTSOURCH. PA 11222 mnnum
.nniny neser ow.wuussa (202) 452-7022 VIA TELECOPY
~
Bernard ~M.
Bordenick, Esq.
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Bernie Pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today, this will-confirm,-with respect to the Board's Memorandum and Order of Januery 28, 1985 granting LILCO's Motion to Roopen the Record
(" Order"), that, at this time, the NRC Staff does not intend to cross-examine LILCO's witness "on the substance of the designa-tion of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation
." Order, at 9.
Nor does the Staff presently intend-center..
"to submit direct testimony or other evidence on the merits of."
LILCO's designation of the Coliseum as-a relocation center.
Id.
You have advised, however, that FEMA may submit testimony or other evidence on the issues raised by the Board's Order.1_/
As you know, the Board's Order requires the parties to sub-mit any testimony or affidavits on-the issues raised by LILCO's Motion-to Reopen the Record by February 18.
In light of the '
schedule set by the Board, we request that the NRC Staff furnish the following information pertaining to LILCO's proposed use of.
the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation center as We also soon as possible, but not later than February 5, 1985.
request that you immediately inform us if the Staff later decides either to conduct cross-examination of LILCO's witness or to sub-mit testimony or other evidence on the issues regarding LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center.
1 1/'
Following our telephone conversation, I was advised by Stewart Glas's that, at this time, FEMA does irtend-to submiti
~
direct testimony or evidence in the form of affidavits on the LILCO relocation center issues.
Apparently, such testimony or affidavits will be submitted by the same witnesses FEMA has_used on o_ther emergency planning issues, i.e., Messrs.
McIntire,;Kowieski, Keller,and Baldwin.
e
n o
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Page Two January 31, 1985 1.
All documents and correspondence of any kind between or among representatives of the NRC Staff and LILCO and/or FEMA concerning LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum.
2.
.All documents relating to the use or proposed use by any licensee, including LILCO, of a relocation center (or other facility at which all evacuees would be monitored and, if necessary, which is
~ decontaminated in the event of a radiological accident) 40 or more miles from the licensee's nuclear power plant.
3.
All documents relating to the health effects to EPZ evacuees or to the population of Nassau County or other areas outside the EPZ that could result from LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center.
Please construe the term " document" as used in this request to include, but not be limited to, all drafts or final copies of memoranda, correspondence, comments, reports, notes, minutes or summaries.. Please also construe the term " document" to include, but not be limited to, documents in the possession or control of the~NRC Staff, any representative (including, without limitation,
-attorneys and their respective agents and employees)-or other person acting for or on behalf of the NRC Staff, or at its direction or control.
Counsel for New York State has authorized me to inform you that the State joins in this request.
Sincerely, Michael S. Miller 4
-cc:- Fabian Palomino, Esq.
l James N. Christman, Esq.
t Kathy E. B. McCloskey, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
l
~ James B. Dougherty, Esq.
4 4
i-a '
k
~ _ _
s
[
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
' 1900 M STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 200M cNE aoSTON PLACE 80STON. MA 02:00 TEMPHONE 00D 49230 din t*MeoO 1428 SPX3EU. AVENUE f
TsucoreR c0D en=2 m e.,t mn 001 1744112 January 31, 1985
, cg.
rirrseemen.,csm isin imic0 WRffER10 SECT DIAL NUMBER
-(202) 452-7022 VIA TELECOPY Stewart ~M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278
Dear Stewart:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today,-this will confirm,. with respect t.o th3 Board's Memorandum and Order of-January 28, 1985 granting LILCO's Motion to Reopen the Record
(" Order"),that, at this time, although FEMA has some questions to ask of LILCO regarding LILCO'.s reliance on the Nassau County Red Cross, it is unclear whether FEMA will seek to cross-examine LILCO's witness "on the substance of the designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a-relocation center.
You indicated, however, that FEMA does intend "to Order, at.9..
submit direct testimony or other evidence on the merits of LILCO's Id.-
designation of the Coliseum.as a relocation center....
In this regard, you advised that such testimony or other evHence in the form of affidavits would be submitted on FEMA's behalf by e
the same witnesses FEMA has used on other-emergency planning
~
- issues, i.e., Messrs. McIntire, Kowieski, Keller-and Baldwin.
I advised you'that'we would want to depose these witnesses as soon as_possible.
As you know, the Boarrl's Order requires the parties to submit-any testimony or affidavitis on the issues raised by LILCO's Motion to-Reopen the Record by February 18.
In light of the schedule set'by the' Board, we request that FEMA furnish the following information pertaining to LILCO'stproposed use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as a relocation center as soon as We also request-possible,-but not later than February 5, 1985.
that you inform us promptly of the availability of the FEMA
-We~are hopeful that their deposition can be scheduled witnesses.
next week, either for the day before or after the deposition of
~
LILCO's. witness Elaine D. Robinson, which we have noticed for If
b KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Page Two January 31, 1985 Thursday, February 7.
In this regard, you have just advised me that Wednesday, February 6 appears to be available as a date for deposing FEMA's witnesses, and have promised to get back to me tomorrow to' confirm this.
Perhaps at that time we can discuss your suggestions that the depositions of Ms. Robinson and FEMA's witnesses be scheduled for the same day and held at your offices in New York City.
i 1.
All documents and correspondence of any kind between or among representatives of FEMA and the NRC Staff and/or LILCO concerning LILCO's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum.
.2.
All documents relating to the use or proposed use by any licensee, including LILCO, of a relocation center (or other
' facility at which all evacuees would be monitored and, if necessary, decontaminated in the event of a radiological accident) which is 40 or more miles from the licensee's nuclear power plant.
3.
All documents relating to the health effects to EPZ evacuees or to the population of Nassau County or other areas outside the EPZ that could result from LILCO's proposal to use the Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center.
Please construe the term " document" as used in this request to include, but not be limited to, all drafts or final copies of memoranda, correspondence, comments, reports, notes, minutes, or summaries.
Please also construe the term " document" to include, but not be limited to, documents in the possession or control of FEMA, any representative (including, without limitation,- attorneys and their respective agents and employees) or other person acting for or on behalf of FEMA, or at its direction or control.
. Counsel for New York State has authorized me to inform you that the State joins in'this request.
Sincerely, i
Michael S. Miller cc:
Fabian Palcmino, Esq.
James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy E. B.~McCleskey, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
James B. Dougherty, Esq.
r,~
--,----,.,,,v.
~,,---v.,n.
-.,,~
,-,-a-,--ww,-----n.,--,-,--,---en,,,n-,--n--, =
-~--,-n,,,.1-.s.e--.---
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)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
Certificate of bervice I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County and New York State Response to LILCO's Opposition to Nassau Coliseum Discovery Requests have been served on the following this 4th day of February 1985, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted:
- James A. Laurenson, Chairman Edward M. Barrett, Esq..
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Co.npany Washington, D.C.
20555 250 Old Country _ Road Mineola, New York 11501
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- W.
Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
- Mr. Frederick J.-Shon Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
-By Hand By Telecopier E
., i o
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham a Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O.
Box 398 P.O. Box 618 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Nora.Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Ms. Donna D. Duer Hon. Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Suffolk County Executive Board Panel H. Lee Dennison Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Veterans Memorial Highway
- ,; Washington, D.C.
20555 Hauppauge, New York 11788
-~
MHB Technical Associates James B. Dougherty 1723 Hamilton Avenue 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Suite K Washington, D.C.
20008 San. Jose, California 95125 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Suffolk County-Attorney Staff Counsel, New York State H. Lee Dennison Building Public Service Commission
~
Veterans Memorial Highway 3 Rockefeller Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and-Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
' Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
- Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Executive Chamber, Room 229 Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Spence Perry, Esq.
Stuart Diamond
. Associate General Counsel Business / Financial Federal Emergency Management Agency NEW YORK TIMES Washington, D.C.
20471 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036
i.
Joel Blau, Esq.
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
New York Public Service Commission Regional Counsel The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Federal Emergency Management Building Agency Empire State Plaza 26 Federal Plaza Albany, New York 12223 New York, New York 10278 l&
11 Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Date:
February 4, 1985
\\
i n
_, _ _ _. _ _,_ _,, _, _