ML20155G884
| ML20155G884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1988 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7224 ALAB-900, OL-5, NUDOCS 8810180074 | |
| Download: ML20155G884 (13) | |
Text
s
}hY LILCO, October 5,1988 T '
00C Heil:0 uwC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '88 OCT -6 All 49 m, ;
Before the Commission . .;u -
t In the Matter of
)
)
LONG !$ LAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 !
) (EP Exercise) !
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (
Unit 1) !
LILCO'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-900
[
LILCO petitions the Commission to review and reverse the Appeal Board's l September 20, 1988 decision, ALAB-900, on the ground that it is incorrect on important grounds of law and Commission policy.
ALAB 900 upholds a 1.leensing Board's determination that the February 13, 1986 {
FEMA-graded exercise of LILCO's offsite response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power t Station did not constitute a "full participation" exercise as defined by the NRC's emergency i
planning regulations. The Appeal Board finds that 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 l
requires initial "f ull participation" exercises to be more comprehensive in scope than subse- l quent ones, af ter having given inadequate attention to the regulatory history of Appendix E [
and having erroneously concluded that the Commission intended to create such a distinction i
between the regulatory requirements for initial and subsequent exercises.
- Relying on this fundamental misconstruction of Appendix 51 IV.F.1 ALAB 900 de-termines, in direct contrast to joint NRC-FEMA practice spanning over seven years and
]
l involving literally hundreds of exercises, that an initial exercise must test 3)) the major ele-ments of an emergency plan in order to constitute "full participation." And yet ALAB-900
]
l makes little effort to reconcile this conclusion with the fact that the Commission has in l
! the past issued operating licenses to other nuclear plants whose initial exercises, having
7
, x been designed and conducted pursuant to the very NRC-FEMA guidance and practice that the decision disregards, presumptively did not meet these retroactively imposed regulatory requirements. As a consequence, ALAB-900 has the practical effect of subjecting LILCO (as well as all other current and future applicants for full power licenses) to a higher regu-latary standard than that to which previous applicants have been held, as well as calling into question the validity of previously issued operating !! censes. This manifestly unf air re-sult demonstrates that the Appeal Board has f ailed to resolve properly the ambiguities in Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 and has not given the deference which is due expert agency guidance and practice in the design and conduct of emergency preparedness exercises, in light of the clear need for a dispositive resolution of these issues, the Commission should exercise its discretion under 10 C.F.R. S 2.786 to review ALAB-900.
I. Summary of the Decision to be_ Reviewed ALAB 900 decides LILCO's appeal of LBP-87-32,26 NRC 479 (1987), one of two dect-sions related to the 1986 Shoreham exercise.I In LDP-87-32, the Licensing Board conclud-ed that the scope of the Shoreham exercise was not sufficient to constitute a "full partici-pation" exercise within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E 1 IV.F.1. In the time that it took for the supposedly expedited litigation of the exercise to pass through the first level of appellate review, the 1986 exercise's presumptive two-year effectiveness perled for licensing purposes expired. As a consequence, the Appeal Board has ruled that LlLCO's appeal from LBP-57-32 is technically moot. Nevertheless, the Appeal Board notes that
"(w]here an issue is of ' demonstrable recurring importance,' an opinion thr.t is essentially advisory in nature is warranted," and finds that LILCO's appeal "pretents just such a cir-cumstance." ALAB-900,28 NRC , slip op, at 8 (1988). LILCO does not dispute that the issues presented by ALAB-900 should have been decided; it disagrees only with tr.e Appeal Board's result and reasoning.
J/ LILCO's appeal of the other decision, LBP-88-2,27 NRC 85 (1988), dealing with tre adeq ry of emergency worker performance during the 1986 exercise, is still pending be-fore the Appeal Board, having been fully briefed and argued.
~
i r
!! is uncontroverted that FEMA made esery attempt to ensure that its preparation for and evaluation of the 1986 Shoreham exercise was consistent with the parameters and process established for other full-scale radiological emergency preparedness exercises eval-usted by FEMA Region !!. For instance, in designing the 1986 exercise and in determining the obMWs that it observed and evaluated, FEMA relled on its standard Guidance Memo-
- ondum PR-1, entitled "Folicy on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and 44 C.F.R. 350 Periodic Requirements"("GM PR-1") S#
l The objectives for the 1986 exercise, which were set by FEMA and approved by the NRC Staff, included 29 of the 35 standard FEMA objectives and seven additional objectives
, not included within the 35 standard objectives. Those objectives not included in the exer-
! cise were excluded at the direction of FEMA and the NRCt LILCO had expressed its will-l
! ingness during exercise scenario preparation to demonstrate any and all of the standard cb-l jectives. Indisputably, the 1986 Shoreham exercise was, as the Licensing Board i
! acknowledged,"as comprehensive as any conducted in FEMA Region !! up to that time." 26 NRC at 501-02 (1987). Nr tertheless, the Licensing Board found that the 1986 exercise "did not corr. ply with the rt.quirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E,5 IV.F.1." @ at 506.
LBP-87-32 was the first NRC decision containing a substantive interpretation of the complex provisions of 1 IV.F. d. at 481. In pertinent part,1 TV.F.1 provides that 2/ GM PR-1 spect!!es that for the biennial offsite exercL<e required by NRC regulations, the "scenario should be varied from exerciselo exercle such that the major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six-year period." GM PR-1 at 2 (emphasis in original). The six year period over which all of the major ot8ervable ele-ments should be tested begins, according to GM PR-1, with the initlat lleensing exercLse_ for an operating plant or a "near term operating ileense" plant ("NTOL"). M. GM PR >1 incorpo-rates by reference the 35 standard FEMA exercise objectives which are contained in an August 5,1983 Memorandum from Dave McLoughlin (FEMA Deputy Associate Director) to the FEMA Regional Directors and Acting Regional Directors. These 35 objectives corre-spond generally to the observable elements of emergency plans in NUREG-0654 and, ac-cording to FEMA, encompass all the major observable elements of offsite emergency plans.
M. The August 5,1983 McLoughlin Memorandum was cited favorably by the Commision in its 1984 revision of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E as providing uniformity in the evaluation of emergency preparedness during exercises. Sig 49 Fed. R_eg. 27.734 (1984).
i
~
s A full partici?ation (footnote 4) exercise which tests as much of the 1 conses. State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public partic-Ipation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued af ter July 13,1982.
Footnote 4, which applies throughout 1 IV.F to both initial and subsequent exercises, de-fines "full participation" to include "testing the major observable portions of the onsite and of fsite eme*2ency plans . . . ." The provisions of 1 IV.F are at best ambiguous and perhaps even internally inconsistent. For instance, the clause ". . . which tests as much of the . . .
plans as is reasonably achievable . . ." does not appear in 1 IV.F.3 (pertaining to biennial ex-orcises) even though, as the Appeal Board itself potretc out, it is "unlikely that the Commis-slon meant to require public parthipation for post-license exercises . . ." ALAB-900, slip op, at 32 n.20 E Similarly, it is by a means precisely clear what footnote 4 means by "major observable portions" of emergency plae.
ALAB-900 concurs in the bottom-line result of LBP-87-32, and, in so doing, accepts the Licensing Board's determination that Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 draws a distinction between initial, pre-license exercises and subsequent, biennial exercises. M. at 22. In most other respects, however, ALAB-900 rejects the Licensing Board's analysis of the regulation. For instance, the Licensing Board seized uyn the statement in 1 IV.F.1 that an exercise must test as much of the plan "as is reasonably achievable without mandatory pubP.. participa-tion" as its only guiding principle in the determination of whather an exercise is "full par-ticipation." Applying this "reasonably achievable" test to the Shoreham exercise, the L1-censing Board found it insufficient in four respects.M ALAB 900, on the other hand, agrees with LILCO that the Licensing Board's analysis of the regulation "does not fully comport 3/ The Appeal Board attributes this omission to "careless draf ting," W., tacitly conceding the provision's ambiguity.
4/ Specifically, LBP-87-32 f aulted the 1986 exercise for its f ailure to test (1) the trans-mission of an emergency riessage to an EBS radio station (2) participation of more than one school district in the exercise scenario, (3) implementation of ingestion pathway activi-ties in Connecticut and New York, and (4) coordination and communication between LERO and special f acilities. 26 NR,q tt 501.
~.
s with basic principles of statutory construction," M. at 15, since it reduces footnote 4 to mere surplusage.
In contrast to the Licensing Board, ALAB-900 finds that the "principal ambiguity"in Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 is what footnote 4 means by "major observable portions" of the plan.
M. at 18. In resolving this ambiguity, the Appeal Board takes note of the fact that in its Statement of Consideration for the 1984 amendments to Appendix E, the Commission "spe-cifically referred to the FEMA Objectives in connection with the evaluation of the major elements of the exercise." M. at 21. In !!ght of the "dearth of other guidance," the Appeal Board concludes (as LILCO had argued) that FEMA objectives can provide an "appropriate measure for determining whether an exercise meets the regulation's ' major observable por-tions of the plans' criterion for full participation." Lt. t 21-22.
ALAB-900 rejects, however, LILCO's position that the major elements of an emer-gency plan can be tested in the aggregate over a six year period. M. at 22. Joint NRC-FEMA guidance memoranda, as well as over seven years of NRC-FEMA practice, support LILCO's view. But the Appeal Board, relying on the distinction that it perceives Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 as drawing between initial and subsequent exercises, finds that those guidance documents "conflict with the language and structure of the regulation and thus may not be i
relled upon." Ld. Having so interpreted the regulation, the Appeal Board concludes that the 1986 exercise was insufficient due to its failure to test three of the four plan elements cited by the Licensing Board. M. at 26-43.N II. Errors in ALAB-900 ALAB-900 is incorrect in two principal respects. First, it fundamentally errs when i it finds that Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 creates a "distinction between the initial exercise re-quired before licensing and the periodic post-license exercises required for an operating plant." M. at 22. ALAB-900 accepts the Licensing Board's determination that this 5/ As for the fourth element, the Appeal Board finds that "LERO's f ailure to contact Ithe EBS radio station] in and of itself does not show a lack of compliance with the re-quirements of a full participation exercise." M. at 30-31.
- n. I
i r
distinction is clear "on the face" of 1 IV.F.1, 2. But in so doing, the Appeal Board never comes to grips with the fact that (1) Appendi? E, when originally promulgated, plainly did not create a different standard between initial and subsequent exercises, and that (2) on the subsequent occasions that Appendix E has been amended, the Commission has never indi-cated that it was changing the provision with the intent of creating such a distinction.E in LBP-87-32, the Licensing Board found that "(1)t is clear that the July 1984 i amendment (to Appendix E) did make substantive changes in the required scope of initial and biennial exercises." 26 NRC at 488 (1987). In contrast, ALAB-900 takes an agnostic ap-proach to the matter, neither expressly accepting nor rejecting the Licensing Board's incor-rect view regarding this "clear" purpose of the 1984 amendm?nt.I Instead, what the Ap- I peal Board asserts is that the "primary concern here is what the rules currently require for an initial, pre-license exercise -- Irrespective of whether those requirements are more or less extensive than those once required before licensing. . . ." ALAB-900, slip op, at 23 n.17.
But saying that the "primary concern" is what Appendix E 1 IV,F.1 requires merely states ;
the issue. The point the Appeal Board misses is that only by carefully co.isidering the regu- f l
latory history of this provision, which is at best ambiguous and possibly inconsistent on its j f ace, is it possible to determine what Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 requires.E In falling to give s/ As LILCO pointed out, between the regulation's initial promulgation in 1980 and its subsequent amendment in 1984, its provisions for both initial and subsequent "full participa- !
tion" exercises were basically identical to those now applying specifically to initial exer-c!ses. 45 Fed. Reg. 55,412-13 (August 19, 1980). The regulatory history of Appendix E is described in the Appeal Brief of Long Island Lighting Company on Contentions EX 15 and 16 (January 19,1988) ("Appeal Brief") at 33-36. !
i 2/ The Appeal Board does concede elsewhere, however, that, as LILCO stressed, "the l
- 'rimary focus of the 1984 rulemaking was not the content or scope of emergency exercises. !
Rather, the main purpose of the amendment was to change the frequency of participation ,
by state and local governments in emergency preparedness exercises for operating plants l from once a year to once every two years." ALAB-900, slip op at 18 n.11, Moreover, as l LILCO pointed out, even if the 1984 rulemaking is considered to have relaxed the substan- -
tive requirements (as well as the required frequency) for post-1984 exercises at operating plants, it does not follow that the definition of a "full participation" exercise itself changed, much less that the requirements applicable to initial exercises were somehow increased. See Appeal Brief at 35. ,
- g/ ALAB-900 is unpersuasive in its one attempt to reconelle its position with the regu- l latory history of Appendix E. LILCO had noted that,in 1981,in the preamble to a proposed i I
l (footnote continued) l
~ -
r adequate consideration to the regulatory history which argues against its interpretation of Appendix E, the Appeal Board errs.
Second, ALAB-900 is wrong when it finds that "full participation" - as defined in footnote 4 of Appendix E - means that a_Il the "major observable portions" of the onsite and offsite emergency plans must be tested in the pre-license exercise. Id. at 26. This inter-pretation of "full participation" simply cannot be reconclied with the ann-istent NRC and FESTA regulatory guidance that indicates that the major element .. an emergency plan may be tested within a six-year period, beginning with the initial qualifying exercise. See footnote 2, supra. Nor can it be reconclied with NRC and FESTA practice. For instance, the FE31A witnesses testified that they had never mace any distinction between full partic-imtion exercises sufficient for initial licensing purposes and subsequent full participation e.. ,ises. Tr. 7622 (Keller, Baldwin), 8513-14 (Baldwin, Keller, Kowieski). Similarly, the NRC Staff witnesses testified that in their view the 1986 Shoreham exercise was a "full participation exercise." NRC EX Exh. I at 7, Tr. 8851-53 (Weiss, Schwartz). As LILCO ar-gued, such testimony, concerning joint NRC-FE31A practice in a highly technical area where the complexities of 1 IV.F.1 are given meaning by that practice, should have been accorded great deference. See Appeal Brief at 39-43. The Appeal Board errs by not doing so.El (footnote continued) rule change, the Commission had stated, inter alia, that "there should be no special signifi-cance attached to the actual state of implementation or preparedness at the time just prior to license issuance. . . ." 46 Fed. Reg. 61.135 (December 15, 1981). The Appeal Board claims that "[t]his citation does not help LILCO's case," since the purpose of the statement was to "justify" the Commission's decision to exclude exercise results from litigation, a rule change subsequently struck down in the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") case.
ALAB-900, s!!p op, at 23 n.17. The Appeal Board's objection is beside the point. The only issue the UCS case went to was the opportunity to litigate qualifying exercises, not their content. As LILCO explained, since the Court of Appeals in UCS in no way questioned the predictive nature of the Commission's emergency preparedness findings, the quoted lan-guage remains a usefulindicator of the Commission's view of initial versus subsequent exer-cises for a given plant. See Appeal Brief at 34 n.35, 2/ LILCO argued in addition that Contentions EX 15 and EX 16 (pertaining to the scope of the 1986 exercise) should not have been admitted for litigation since, as written, they (footnote continued)
- - - - - - . - - - - - _ = _ - _ - - -_- - -.
l s
In response to these considerations the Appeal Board concludes that NUREG-0654 and FEMA PR-1 are "at odds with the unequivocal command of section IV.F.1." ALAB-900, slip op. at 23. As for FEMA practice, ALAB-900 rejects it out of hand as "not dispositive." l 1
Ld. at 24-25. But in so doing the Appeal Board fails to explain how it can be the case, if !
prior "full participation" exercises for NTOLs hava not complied with the regulatory re-quirements of Appendix E (having been designed and conducted in conformity with that NRC-FESTA guidance and practice), that the Commission has nonetheless issued operating licenses based on the results of those (presumptively insufficient) exercises. The Appeal Board hints at the incongruity that its decision suggests but does not fully engage the issue.
For instance, ALAB-900 concedes that in the past, several nuclear f acilities have been issued operating licenses despite the fact that ingestion pathway activities were not tested in the facilities' pre-license qualifying exercises. The Appeal Board says only that this "may well be true, but so too is the fact that no party invoked its right to litigate the matter in those cases." Ld. at 39 n.22. The Appeal Board's point is not well taken, however, as it cannot be seriously argued that the regulatory standards to which an applicant for an operating license is held vary depending on whether or not that application is contested.
Indeed, if the matter is as serious and clear as the Appeal Board now professes, it is surprising that the Appeal Board did not exercise its own sua sponte review powers in any of these several cases. The far better explanation, and the only one that is reconcilable with both NRC-FE51A guidance and practice and the Commission's past practice in licens-4 ing plants, is that ALAB-900 is wrongly decided.
1 (footnote continued) contained no allegation that FE51A's methodology or procedures for the design of the 1986 exercise were any different f rom those it customarily uses at other exercises. In a separate error of law, the Appeal Board's failure to accord proper deference to FE51A's expert views on what is appropriate exercise design leads it to conclude that the Licensing Board "did not err in admitting contentions EX-15 and EX-16." ALAB-900, slip op. at 13. See Appeal Brief at 22-26.
~
)
s III. Reasons Why the Commission Should Exercise Review Review of ALAB-900 is appropriate for three reasons. First, as shown above, the dispute over what Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 requires centers in large measure on whether the provision establishes separate standards for initial and sutsequent exercises. Only the Comtnission can speak authoritatively as to whether, in f act, it intended to create such separate standards when it first promulgated Appendix E or when it subsequently amended the provision, as in 1984. The Appeal Board's resolution of this issue, to the extent it dis-claims the need to address regulatory history and reconcile that history with its interpreta-tion of the provision, should not be allowed to stand unreviewed. Similarly, Commission at-tention is needed in order to explain how, if ALAB-900 is correct, the decision can be squared with past Commission practice. The short of the matter is that if ALAB-900 is correctly decided, then over the past several years the Commission has issued operating 11-censes to plants that have not fully complied with NRC regulations. The Appeal Board makes no real effort to confront thi, fundamentalincongruity. The Commission should ad-dress it.
Second, if ALAB-900 is allowed to become established law it will work an undesirable change in the intended functioning of the NRC-FENIA emergency planning relationship.
Under ALAB-900, FE516's expert views as to what is necessary in order to evaluate offsite emergency preparedness will be entitled to no particular deference, licensi1g boards, through Dost hoc substitution of their own opinions for those of expert regulators, will be the arbiters of first instance as to whether a given exercise was sufficient in scope to con-stitute "full participation."El The potential for delay and unf airness this presents has al-ready been borne out in the case of the 1986 exercise, where LILCO did all that was asked of it by FE51A, only to be told virtually two years later that its efforts had been doomed as inadequate from the start.
M/ ALAB-900 establishes that FE51A objectives can provide an "appropriate measure" for determining whether an exercise meets the requirements for full participation, but be-yond that the decision of fers little in the way of guidance as to how an applicant (or FESI A) can reasonably be sure before the f act that an initial, qualif ying exercise satisfies the regu-latory standards,
~
n t
Third, Commission review is justified because, without dispositive guidance from the Commission, the issues addressed in ALAB-900 will almost certainly be revisited in subse-quent exercise proceedings.E That the Licensing Board and Appeal Board followed almost entirely different paths in reaching essentially the same conclusion suggests that the advis-ory decision rendered in ALAB-900 will not quell the dispute over what Appendix E 1 IV.F.1 requires. By taking review now, the Commission will enable future litigants to avoid wast-ing time and resources debating the provision's meaning.
IV. Conclusion ALAB-900 is significant in its implications for the NRC-FEMA relationship as it per-tains to the design, conduct and evaluation of emergency preparedness exercises. It also misinterprets NRC regulations to impose a higher regulatory standard on LILCO than that to which previous applicants for operating licenses have been held. LILCO respectfully urges the Commission to promptly review and reverse ALAB-900.
Respectfully submitted.
,J i (n.' [/.. X i _
Donald P. Irwin Lee B. Zeugin David S. Harlow Counsel f or Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 5,1988 11/ The likelihood of renewed exercise litigation in the Shoreham case is currently in doubt, in light of the Licensing Board's recent decision dismissing Intervenors from the en-tire proceeding for their "sustained and willful strategy of disobedience and disrespect for the Commission's adjudicatory processes". LDP-88-24,28 NRC , s!!p op, at 129 (1988).
Litigation of the recently conducted exercise for the Seabrook f acility is pending.
~
LILCO, October 5,1988
, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NME;cp l
'w e In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY '
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) .g U ~6 All 49 Docket No 50-322-OL i0lh , i { p. , "
I hereby certify that copies of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-901 AND FOLLOW-ON ORDERS, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT and LILCO'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-900 were served this date upon the following Federal Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first- ;
class mail, postage prepaid.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Alan S. Rosenthal
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing One White Flint North Appeal Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 East-West Towers, Fif th Floor 4350 East-West Highway Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
One White Flmt North Dr. W Rai Johnson
- 11555 Rockville Pike Atomic SOlety and Licensing Rockville, MD 20852 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'F Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr
- 115 Falcon Drive. Colthurs'.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlottesville, VA 2290 t One White Flint North 11535 Rockville Pike James P. Gleason. Chairman
- Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 513 Gilmoure Drive One White Flint North St.lver Spring, MD 20901 l 11555 Rockville Pike l Rockville, MD 20852 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Atomic Safety and Licensing William C. Parler, Esq.
- Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers One White Flint North 4350 East-West Hwy.
11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- j Christine N. Kohl, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers East-West Towers, Fitth Floor 4350 East-West Hwy.
4350 East-West Highway Beinesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
-..._..----.-..-.-n -- - - - _ , _ ,
4 l
i John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Board Special Counsel to the Governor ti.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber East-West Towers Room 229 4350 East-West Hwy. State Capitol Bethesda, MD 20814 Albany, New York 12224 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board 120 Broadway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 East-West Towers New York, New York 10271 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 George W. Watson, Esq.
- William R. Cumming, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Federal Emergency Management Attention Docketing and Service Agency Section 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20472 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mr. Philip McIntire Rockville, MD 20852 Federal Emergency Management Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza
, Appeal Board Panel New York New York 10278 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
%shington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay Dankleberger New York State Energy Offico Adjudicatory File Agency Building 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing E'npire S:atn Plaza Board Panel Docket Albany, New Ye *k 12223 U.S. Nuclear kegulatery Commission W.6.shington, DC 20555 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Twomey. Latham & Shea Edwin J. Reis Esq.
- 33 West Second Street
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 298 ,
One White Filnt North Riverhead, New York 11901 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- Public Service, Staff Counsel Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Three Rockefeller Plaza Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Albany, New York 12223 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W. Ms. Nora Bredes Washington, DC 20036-5891 Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787
o
(*
- i Evan A. Davis, Esq. Dr. Monroe Schneider Counsel to the Governor North Shore Committee Executive Chamber P.O. Box 231 State Capitol Wading River, NY 11792 Albany, New York 12224 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
.J Y Dofiald P. Itwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 5,1988 c
e l
i
)
Q.