ML20155G851
| ML20155G851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Mcmurray C, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7221 OL-5, NUDOCS 8810180037 | |
| Download: ML20155G851 (20) | |
Text
_ _ _ - -_____ ____ _____ _ _
]) k!
i*
Oct 4.
1988
- E8 OCT -6 A11 :40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,.g$f}1 u0
. y
.T,
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUT' U4FtON MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR FILING CONTENTIONS RELATED TO JUNE 1988 EXERCISE OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME On September 22, 1988, this Board issued an initial schedule establishing October 17, 1988 as the deadline for Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments") to file contentions on issues related to the June 1988 exercise of LILCO's emergency plan.
As explained below in greater detail, subsequent events have raised questions about the jurisdiction of this Board over the June 1988 exercise and the Governments' ability to participate in any litigation that may arise out of that exercise.
In addition, since the OL-3 3
E4'"88c7!'g, 360
Board's September 23, 1988 Concluding Initial Decisicn,1/ the resources of the Governments have been substantially diverted from the issues before this Board.
The October 17 deadline is also unreasonable because, to date, both FEMA and LILCO have l
failed to provide cortain documents necessary to prepare thorough and comprehensive contentions related to the June 1988 exorcise.
For these reasons, the Governments move this Board to postpone the deadlino for filing exerciso contentions until such time ast (1) this Board's jurisdiction and the Governments' i
status as intervenors in this proceeding are clarified;2/ (2) the level of activity on other issues has subsidad such that the Governments can reasonably be expected to focus their efforts on 1
the preparation of contentions; and (3) the Governments have been j
afforded the opportunity to obtain and review critical FEMA and LILCO documentation which has not yet been provided.
In the alternative, the Governments move that this Board grant them a two-week extension of time in which to file their contentions.
l 1
1/
Concluding Initial Decision On Emergency Planni.ng, l
LBp-88-24, 28 NRC __ (Sept. 23, 1988) ("CID").
2/
The Governments are mindful that the OL-3 Board has dismissed the Governments as parties to the Shoreham proceeding.
l As the Board is doubtless aware, and as explained further below, I
the Governments have asked the Appeal Board to determine whether the OL-3 Board has the authority to remove the Governments as participants in the OL-5 proceeding.
The Governments have taken the position that the OL-3 Board does not have such authority and this filing is made under the assumption that the Governments' position will be upheld.
The Governments have requested the 4
Appeal Board to expedite a decision on the jurisdictional issue and the Appeal Board has agreed to do so.
The Governments are hopeful that the Appeal Board will issue a decision this week.
l
) l t
BACKGROUND On September 8, 1988, FEMA : released its report on the results of LILCO's June 1988 exercise.
The next day, the NRC Staff filed a proposed exercise litigation schedule with the OL-3 Board, calling for contentions to be filed no later than October 13, 1988.1/
Because the Governments believed that the OL-3 Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the exercise issues, the Governments promptly filed a motion with the Appeal Board, requesting the appointment of a Licensing Board with jurisdiction to hear those issues.d/
Ir. addition, while not conceding the OL-3 Board's jurisdiction over the exercise issues, the Governments filed a response to the Staff's proposed schedule.E/
The Governments' Response noted, among other things, that both FEMA and LILCO had failed to provide the Governments with relevant documents concerning the June 1988 exercise.
In particular, FEMA had refused to provide any day-of-the-exercise documents (such as completed exercise evaluation critique forms).
Accordingly, the Governments proposed that if the documents withheld by FEMA and LILCO were promptly produced, the Governments would be in a 2/
NRC Staff's Motion for Schedule for Litigation of the June 1988 Exercise (Sept. 9, 1988), at 2.
A/
Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Motion for Appointment of Licensing Board with Jurisdiction to Hear Exercise Issues (Sept. 13, 1988).
5/
Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Response to NRC Staff Motion for Schedule for Litigation of the June 1988 Exercise (Sept. 19, 1988) ("Governments' Response").
position to file contentions by october 27, 1988.
Governments' Response at 8.
On September 20, 1988, the Appeal Board issued a Memorandum and order -- ALAB-901 -- ruling that the OL-3 Board has no jurisdiction over exercise issues, and remanding those issues "for appropriate action to the Licensing Board in (the OL-5 docket)." f/
Pursuant to ALAB-901, this Board issued an initial exercise litigation schedule on September 22, calling for contentions to be filed no later than noon on october 17.1/
The very next day, however, the OL-3 Licensing Board issued its CID which has, at least for the time being, dramatically altered the focus of the proceeding.
Not only did the CID resolve all of the se,$stantive issues pending before the OL-3 Board in LILCo's favor, but it also purported to dismiss the Governments as parties from the Shoreham licensing proceeding and authorized the issuance of a full power license for Shoreham.1/
Needless to say, the events of September 20-23 have led to an enormous amount of activity -- requiring a substantial diversion of the Governments' resources -- which has nothing to do with the substance of the exercise issues before this Board.
The most obvious issue raised by the CID is whether the OL-3 Board has the power to dismiss the Governments from proceeding on 5/
Memorandum and order, ALAB-901, 28 NRC __ (Sept. 20, 1988),
slip op, at lo.
2/
Memorandum and order (Sept. 22, 1988).
1/
Judge Shon, who is also a member of this Board, dissented from the CID insofar as it dismissed the Governments as parties.
4
issues that are not before the OL-3 Board.
It is the J
Governments' position that the OL-3 Board lacks such authority, particularly in light of ALAB-901.
Nevertheless, the effect of the OL-3 Board's decision is to raise a question about this Board's jurisdiction to hear the exerciso issues and the Governments' ability to proceed as parties before this Board.
In order to resolve this jurisdictional issue as'quickly as l
possible, the Governments immediately filed notices of appeal on j
September 27 and, on the same dato, filed a motion with the Appeal Board to bifurcate the appeal into two parts: the first part addressing the jurisdictional issue (for which the Governments requested expedited consideration); and the second part concerning the remaining issues raised by the CID.2/
Appended to the Governments' Bifurcation Motion was their appeal 1
brief on the jurisdictional issue.12/
In essence, the j
Gove rnmo r,t s ' Brief argues that the OL-3 Board has no authority to dismiss the Governments from matters in the OL-5 docket, over which the OL-3 Board has no jurisdiction.
The Appeal Board granted the Governments' Bifurcation f
Motion on September 27, 1988 and set an expedited briefing schedulo.ll/
In a filing dated September 28, however, LILCO i
2/
Governments' Motion for Bifurcation of Appeal and for Expedited Treatment of Jurisdictional Issue (Sept. 27, 198J) 4 j
("Bifurcation Motion").
l 12/
Governments' Brief On Bifurcated Appeal From the September j
23, 1988 Concluding Initial Decision in LBP-88-24 (Sept. 27, j
1988) ("Governments' Brief").
l 11/
Order (Sept. 27, 1988).
I 3_
v__.__._._
objected to the Appeal Board's expedited schedule and requestod an extension of cimo to brief the narrow jurisdictional issue raised by the Governments' Brief.12/
In the same filing, LILCO announced its intention to seek prompt Commission review of both ALAB-901 (ruling that the OL-3 Board did not have jurisdiction over exercise matters) and the Appeal Board's September 27 Order granting the Governments' Bifurcation Motion.ll/
Given LILCo's reluctance to come to grips promptly with the narrow jurisdictional issue raised on appeal, the Governments were required to expend additional timo to prepara and submit, on t
September 29, an opposition to LILCO's September 28 Motion.ld/
on the same day, the Appeal Board agreed with the Governments that LILCO's position was without merit, but nevertheless granted LILCo an extension of time until october 4 to brief the jurisdictional issue.ll/
As the foregoing indicates, the Governments havo been forced j
l to expond considerable energy and resources to address matters t
12/
LILCO's Motion for Enlargement of Briefing Time (Sept. 28, 1988) ("LILCO September 28 Motion").
[
12/
LILCO September 28 Motion, at 3, 4.
LILCO reiterated that l
intention in it s Comments on the Ef fectiveness of LBP-88-24 which L!LCO served on October 3.
LILCO's Comments identify October 5 as the targot date for filing its appeal with the Commission.
11/
Governments' opposition to LILCo's September 28 Motion for Enlargement of Briefing Time (Sept. 29, 1988).
11/
Memorandum and Order (Sept. 29, 1988).
The Governments j
anticipate that LILCo's position before the Appeal Board will be i
that the OL-3 Board had the authoricy to eliminate the Governments from the Shoreham proceeding in its entirety --
t including matters before this Board.
c
,._y,----,____.,,._-,_.y-_
.--v-r
related to the jurisdictional issues arising from the OL-3 Board's CID.
That commitment of energy and resources will 2.ot diminish in the foreseeable future.
Indeed, only yesterday (October 3), LILCO filed a Motion to Reconstitute the 50-322-OL-5 Licensing Board in which it asks the Chairman of the Licensing Board Pane.1 to rep) ace this Board with the members of the OL-3 Board on grounds that this Board is not as familial' with LILCO's Plan as the OL-3 Board, that the OL-3 Board is allegedly available, and that this Board may be biased against LILCO.
Not only does this filing further blur the proc. dural picture, but the Governments will be required to expend yet more time and effort to respond to this latest motion.
In addition, LILCO has announced its intention to seek Commission review of the Appeal Board's rulings on those issues by October 5,15/ and LILCO may also be expected to seek full Commission review if the Appeal Board rules in the Governments' favor on the jurisdictional issue t
raised in the Governments' bifurcated appeal.
Again, the Governments' responses to these appeals will divert their resources from the substance of the exercisc assues.
The drain on the Governments' resources resulting from the OL-3 Board's CID does not stop there.
As noted above, the CID anthorized the issuance of a full power license, resolved all of the substantive issues before the OL-3 Board, and dismissed the I
Governments from the Shoreham proceedings.
Thus, the Governments i
^
15/
Egg LILCO's Comments On The Immediate Effectiveness of LBP-83-24 (Oct.
3, 1980).
1 j
-7 i
Y have been forced to prepare immediate effectiveness comments, which were required to be filed October 3 (gga 10 CFR 5 2.764 (f) (2) (ii)), and to begin the preparation of papers seeking a stay of the issuance of a shoreham license (assuming a stay is necessary), which are due to be filed on or before October 11 (agg 10 CFR $ 2.788(a)).
The Governments must also prepare extensive appeal briefs on the CID's substantive rulings.
Those briefs are due on October 27.12/
In short, the Governments have been confronted with a substantial workload which did not exist when this Board established the October 17 contention-filing deadline.
The efforts required to meet the issues raised by the events of the last two weeks, and the diversion of the Governments' resources from analysis of the June 1988 exercise, have been extreme.
In addition, the OL-3 Board's decision to dismiss the Governments from the entire Shoreham licensing proceeding has thrown matters into disarray.
While the Governments are hopeful that the jurisdictional issue raised by the OL-3 Board's decision will ultimately be resolved in their favor, the Appeal Board has yet to rule and, even assuming a decision in the Governments' favor, it is a near certainty that LILCO will seek full Commission review of the Appeal Board's ruling, following its issuance.
12/
LILCO has also announced its intention to seek full Commissich review of ALAB-900, 28 NRC (Sept. 20, 1988), in
{
which the Appeal Board recently upheld this Board's ruling that the scope of the February 1986 exercise was inadequate.
Egg LILCO's Comments on the Immediate Effectiveness of LBP-88-24 (Oct.
3, 1988) at 27, n.24.
The Governments will have to divert resources to respond to that appeal, as well. I
______a
These facts, coupled with the need for crucial documents which FEMA and LILCO have not yet provided, argue compellingly for this Board to postpone, or at the very least to extend, the exercise contention filing deadline until such time as it is reasonable to proceed.
DISCUSSION I.
The Governments' Resources Have Been Substantially Diverted The Governments acknowledge that under ordinary circumstances, Licensing Boards do not look favorably upon motions requesting relief from filing deadlines based on workload considerations.
In this case, however, the circumstances are extraordinary.
In the past two weeks, the 'avernments have been faced with an explosion of activity which no one could have foreseen when this Board issued its September 22 scheduling Order.
Not only have the Governments been required to analyze a 150-page Licensing Board decision (the CID), which, among other things, imposed'the extraordinary sanction of dismissal from the proceedir.gs, but the Governments have further been required to deal on an expedited basis with the jurisdictional issues arising both from the CID and the Appeal Board's earlier ruling in ALAB-901 on the OL-3 Board's lack of jurisdiction over exercise issues.
Thus, since September 22, the Governments' schedu.e 1 l l
l l
t
3 concerning the new exercise jurisdictional issue has been as follows:
Sept. 22 OL-5 Board schedule issued Sept. 23 CID issued Sept. 27 Governments file:
(1) Notices of Appeal' (2) Bifurcation Motion (3) Appeal Brief'of Jurisdictional Issue Sept. 27 Appeal Board grants Bifurcation Motion Sept. 28 LILCO files Motion for extension Sept. 29 Governments' Opposition to LILCO Sept. 28 Motion The tovernments must continue to devote resources to address the jurisdictional issue, including a response to LILCO's October 3 Motion to Reconstitute (due to be filed October 14) and i
responses to LILCO's soon-to-be-filed appeals to the Commission of the Appeal Board's recent rulings.
In addition, the CID has required the Governments to commence preparation of a number of filings to protect their legal position and their status in this proceeding.
These' filings include stay papers, immediate effectiveness comments, and an extensive appeal brief from the substance of the f.
3 Board's rulings in the CID on numerous l
I issues.
Thus, as it now stands, the demand on the Governments' resources for the foreseeable future is extreme: - - -.. - -..
October 3 Immediate effectiveness comments filed October 11 Stay papers due October 14 Response to Motion to Reconstitute due October 17 Exercise contentions due October 27 Brief on appeal from CID due Unknown at this time Briefing on LILCO appeals to full Commission of ALAB-901 and ALAB-9 00, September 27 Order granting bifurcation of appeal, and Appeal Board-resolution of jurisdic-tional issue (assuming the latter is adverse to LILCO)
In light of this extraordinary workload and level of activity, it is understandable that the Governments have been required to divert their resources from review of the June 1988 exercise (to the extent that is possible, given the materials presently available to the Governments).
Accordingly, it is necessary and proper for this Board to grant a postponement of l
the contention-filing deadline until the Governments can reasonably be expected to focus their resources, and prepare I
contentions, on the issues before this Board.
i l
II.
This Board's Jurisdiction and the Governments' Participation Before This Board Are at Issue Aside from the burden under which the Governments are currently operating, judicial economy also dictates that this Board should postpone the filing of exercise contentions.
The CID has raised questions regarding this Board's jurisdiction to hear the exercise issues and the Governments' rights to participate in the litigation of those issues.
As the Appeal Board has recognized:
The OL-3 Licensing Board's decision on appeal purports to dismiss the Governments "from the proceeding."
Yet one day before that decision, the OL-5 Licensing Board, pursuant to our remand order in ALAB-901 issued an order establishing a schedule for the discrete proceeding now pending before it.
That schedule calls for the Governments' contentions to be received by the other parties and the Board by noon on October 17.
The OL-3 Licensing Board's majority opinion makes no mention of the seeming conflict between its dismissal of the Governments "from the proceeding" and the OL-5 Licensing Board's prior scheduling order.
The OL-5 Licensing Board is obliged, on the one hand, to comply with our remand order in ALAB-901 and to proceed with the matters before it as expeditiously as possible.
On the other hand, that Board's brethren on the OL-3 Board have now cast a cloud over the OL-5 Board's authority to commence that proceeding and to comply with our order.
Memorandum and Order (Sept. 29, 1988) (footnote omitted).
In short, the exercise litigation is currently in a state of procedural disarray.
An additional layer of confusion was added by LILCO's October 3 Motion to Reconstitute.
In light of these facts, it makes the most sense for this Board to postpone the exercise proceeding until matters becomo clearer.
The Governments strongly believe that this Board has jurisdiction to hear the exercise issues and that the CID is t
invalid insofar as it seeks to prevent the Governments from participating befora this Board.
Nevertheless, it would constitute an enormous waste of effort on the part of this Board 1 l
and all of the parties for the exercise litigation to proceed, only to have the Appeal Board or the Commission rule against the Governments.1S/
Much time and effort necessarily goes into the preparation of contentions, litigation regarding the admissibility of those contentions, and Board rulings on contentions, not to mention subsequent proceedings.
To require the Governments to take on that burden in the face of the overwhelming workload already before them would be onerous.
To i
require them to do so when the proceeding is in such a confused state compounds that burden.
Postponement, or at least a reasonable extension of time, is the only reasonable step for this Board to take under the circumstances.
III. FEMA and LILCO Have, to Date, Failed to Provide the Governments with Documents Necessary to Draft Contentions FEMA's and LILCO's failure to produce certain crucial documents regarding the exercise provides yet another reason why this Board should not require the Governments to file contentions by October 17.
While FEMA has provided the Governments with EI2-exerciso documents, the Governments have been denied access to FEMA documents generated on the day of the exercise such as controller logs, completed evaluator critique forms, and free play messages.
As this Board will remember, such documents were used extensively in the earlier exercise litigation and are 1H/
As previously noted, LILCO has already made clear its intention to take all adverse jurisdictional rulings by the Appeal Board to the full Commission.
l l [
i
h plainly critical to understanding the scope and results of t e These documents are particularly important because the exercise.
l of FEMA report of the June 1988 exorcise is lacking in the leve detail which was evident in the February lor 6 exercise report.
The Governments have made strenuous efforts to obtain day-been of-the-exercise and post-exercise documents, but have in response to a request For instance, thwarted at every turn.
by the Governments to obtain "controller messages" as they were counsel for the NRC stated in a June 6 issued at the exercise, letter 12/ that the Governments would receive such messages The "within a reasonable period of time a'ter they are issued."
Governments still have not received those messages.
Furthermore, the Governments have been in contact with i
and FEMA's counsel in an attempt to obtain all relevant exerc se FEMA's counsel, however, has informed post-exercise documents.
ts the Governments that FEMA will not agree to produce the documen d
voluntarily -- despite the fact that such documents were produce ite and used in the February 1986 exorcise litigation, and desp h ps the fact that FEMA counsel has informed us that many -- per a been all -- of the critical day-of-the-exerciso documents have
- bly, segregated at Argonne National Laboratory anu 1.hus, presuma Accordingly, the avvernme*ts could be easily produced by FEMA.
l weeks were forced to file a FOIA request which may take severa Even when the documents are obtained via this to be resolved.
Letter from Edwin J. Rois, Deputy Assistant General 1988.
Brown, dated June 6, 12/
Counsel, NRC, to Herbert H.
circuitous FOIA route, time will be required to review them.
In the meantime, FEMA's recalcitrance places the Governments at a severe disadvantage in the preparation of contentions.
Likewise, LILCO has not produced certain relevant documents.
While LILCO has produced many documents related to the exercise, particularly those generated by LILCO on the day of the exercise, the Governments' review of those documents to'date indicates that LILCO's production has been only partial.
For instance, while some players' logs have been provided, others have not.
Such documents were provided in the previous exercise litigation before the Governments filed contentions.
Likewise, LILCO has failed to provide any training documents.
As this Board will remember, LILCO's inadequate training was found to be a fundamental flaw in LILCO's preparedness for a Shoreham emergoncy.
Ece LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988).
Yet, LILCO has not j
provided any training documents portinent to the June 1988 exercise.
Again, the lack of such documents impedes the Governments' ability to produce comprehensive and meaningful contentions.
l In view of those circumstances, the Board should postpone the filing of contentions, or extend the filing deadlino, until FEMA and LILCO have produced the documents which they have, thus far, refused to produce.
The documents sought are obviously rolovant (documents of the same typo were used extensively in the i
carlier exorcise procooding) and are necessary for the Governments to prepare thorough and well-conceived contentions. :
,D CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Governments' Motion for a postponement of the contention-filing deadline, or an extension of that deadline, should be granted.
Given the rapid approach of the current october 17 deadline, the Governments further request expedited consideration of this Motion.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 t
w Lawrence /.
~r
~
C Lanpher
/
Christopher M. McMurray
/
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County hi.-
A n
a e
"F3 1an G. Pafomigo
/
Richard J.
ZahnIeuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York l
. n 2 / I< <
/sn-w Stephe(~B. Latham
/
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Towls of Southampton I
I i
I l
17 -
j il
)
l t
- k..
(:0( G iii' October 4."s1988
'88 0:T -6 N1 '40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,CKii Nil ! a W.i u0 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina BodrdW>
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LICHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
l l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Motion for Postponement of Deadline for Filing Contentions Related to June 1988 Exercise or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time" have been served on the following this 4th day of l
October 1988 by U.S. mail, first-class, except as otherwise noted.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
William R.
Cumming, Esq.**
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence H.
Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472
- Hand Delivered
- Via Telecopy
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Board 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 Hs. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Suffolk County Legislature Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Office Building 707 East Main Street Veterans Memorial Highway Richmond, Virginia 23212 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F.
Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.**
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G.
Halpin Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Executive for the State of New York H.
Lee Dennison Building 120 Broadway Veterans Memorial Highway Room 3-118 Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10271 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.**
Suffolk County Attorney Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Special Counsel to the Governor Veterans Memorial Highway Executive Chamber, Room 229 Hauppauge, New York 11788 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Edwin J.
- Reis, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Office of General Counsel Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223
-2
o e
David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 i
/
fd
. l ' '/
-Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 i
e i
t
-3 l
,