ML20196D704
| ML20196D704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1988 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5608 OL-3, NUDOCS 8802180040 | |
| Download: ML20196D704 (23) | |
Text
y i.
v 9 ZT66f
(
00CMETED e
USHRC.
i5 nm 16 P4:05 February 12, 1988.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING LILCO AND THE NRC STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The State of New York hereby requests the Board to compel LILCO and the NRC Staff to respond to the State of New York's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
The State of New York submits this motion pursuant to 10 CFR Sections 2.740(f), 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and 2.744.
I.
Introduction 3
This motion seeks an Order from the Board compelling LILCO to respond to certain portions of the "State of New York's First I
Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to i
t 8802180040 880212 g
PDR ADOCK 05000322 hg7 G
Long Island Lighting Company," dated January 22, 1988.
LILCO's h
response to these interrogatories, which is captioned "LILCO's Responses and Objections to New York State's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated February 3, 1988, is the subject of this motion to compel.
In addition, this motion seeks an Order from the Board compelling the NRC Staff to respond to the "Sthte of New York's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the NRC Staff and FEMA," dated January 22, 1988.
The NRC Staff's response, which is entitled "NRC Staff Objections to State of New York's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the MRC Staff and FEMA," dated February 2, 1988, is also the subject of this motion to compel.1/
II.
Leoal Framework A discussion of the appropriate legal framework is adequately set forth on pages 3-9 of "Suffolk County's Motion for Order Compelling LILCO to Respond to Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents,"
dated January 25, 1988.
In general the rules are that discovery is proper if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 10 CFR Section 1/
FEMA has indicated that it would not be submitting a joint response with the NRC Staff.
Since the State of New York has not received FEMA's response yet, there is no way of knowing whether it may or may not be necessary to seek relief from this Board.
Consequently, there is not need at this time to address FEMA's response in this motion to compel. _
r 2.741(b)(1); and that discovery is liberally granted.
Egg Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 494 (1984).
LILCO freely admits as much on page 2 of "LILCO's Answer to Suffolk County's Motion to Compel of January 25, 1988," dated January. 30, 1988.
In this case, the specific rules are that the State of New fork and the other Governments must be allowed to have an "opportunity to confront" LILCO's school evacuation proposal and must be allowed to have discovery "on the plan's dimensions."
Egg the Board's December 30, 1987 "Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers)" at 5.
It will be evident from the following discussion of each interrogatory in dispute that LILCO and the NRC Staff unjustifiedly disregarded this legal framework.
With respect to the NRC Staff, the legal framework has two additional rules.
One of those rules, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.720(h)(2)(ii), is that the NRC Staff must answer interrogatories when the answers are "necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding" and are "not reasonably obtainable frctm any other source."
The other rule, under 10 CFR Section 2.744(c) and (d), is that the NRC Staff must produce requested documents upon a showing that the documents are:
(1) relevant; and (2) not exempt from disclosure under Section 2.790 or, if exempt, necessary to a proper decision; and (3) not reasonably obtainable from another source.
The fcilowing discussion will demonstrate that the NRC Staff's objections on these grounds are without merit.
III.
Discussion of LILCO's Responses to the State of New York's Interrocatories Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 State of New York Interrocatory No. 9 This interrogatory seeks a more detailed explanation of prior statements by LILCO.
It states:
Elaborate on the statements made on page 16 "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, and elaborate on the statements made by Mr.
Crocker in paragraph 15 of his associated affidavit, by providing, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, the following information with respect to non-LILCO school bus drivers who LILCO relies upon to drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal:
(a) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour of classroom training on Shoreham emergency planning; (b) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour spent participating in drills and exercises; (c) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour spent responding to an actual emergency at Shoreham; (d) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver as a sign-on or a year-end bonus or as a bonus of any type; (e) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for any reason not stated above.
The term "other considerations" includes, but is not limited to, reimbursement for mileage, child care, telephone installation and maintenance, meals, lodging, insurance, driver's license and registration, as well as the actual provision of services, objects or benefits such as child care, 4-
wn-P:
telephones, vehicles, utilities, leave, stock or incentives of any kind.
LILCO totally refused to answer on three grounds:'
(1) not relevant; (2) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (3) not in accord with LILCO's "consistent" policy of withholding information concerning reimbursement of LERO workers.
LILCO's refusal to answer this interrogatory is contradicted on all three counts by the prior statements identified in the-interrogatory and by other prior statements.
The pertinent statement on page 16 of "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers),"
dated October 22, 1987 (referred to hereafter as "LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion"), ist" Each non-LILCO participant would receive
$10.00 per hour for attending four hours of general training and Class 2 license training would be provided.
Bonus checks would be distributed to all participants at the end of the one-year period upon satisfac therequirementsforthatperiod._g{pnofall According to FEMA witness McIntire, compensating bus drivers for performing emergency services was a factor in resolving role conflict at Indian Point.
Tr. 2144 (McIntire).
kb/
LILCO employees would receive their regular hourly wages plus overtime pay where appropriate.
The pertinent statement by Mr. Crocker in paragraph 15 of his affidavit in support of LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion is:
O Each regular school bus driver who participates in the school bus driver program will be reimbursed for time spent in training and will receive a bonus at the end of the one-year period upon satisfaction of all of the requirements for that period.
Thus, these prior statements in LILCO's Motion reveal the amount of money reimbursed to LERO workers in some instances.
These statements also indicate that the rationale for reimbursing LERO workers with money and other considerations is to help resolve role conflict.
The deposition of Mr. Crocker revealed additional information on this subject too.
For example, Mr. Crocker stated that LERO bus drivers would receive a $500 bonus every year for performing their LERO bus driver duties satisfactorily.
Also, a document which aas written by a person on Mr. Crocker's staff and which was introduced as an exhibit at the deposition confirmed that the purpose of reimbursement was to resolve role conflict:
"A monetary incentive may increase participation of these drivers."
Egg Crocker Deposition Exhibit 5.
Another document, which did not concern reimbursement of LERO workers, but did concern so-called "proprietary" information, revealed that LILCO rents buses from Veterans Transportation Company at a rate of
$150 per bus per year.
Egg Crocker Deposition Exhibit 9.
j LILCO should not be permitted to take the position that what is germane for the purpose of advancing the viability of LILCO's l
school evacuation proposal is suddenly not germane in the context i r
n of an interrog'atory seeking a precise elaboration of prior statements.
An inquiry of this type is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because, as LILCO argues on page 16 of LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion, citing FEMA, compensating bus drivers for performing emergency services is a' factor in resolving role e
conflict.
The NRC Staff echoes LILCO's argument in the "NRC Staff Response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C. (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated November 13, 1987, at 5.
Moreover, LILCO's self-proclaimed policy of withholding information concerning reimbursement of LERO workers has not been "consistent" at all.
LILCO has openly departed from that policy on the occasions noted above.
Whatever basis LILCO has had for withholding dollar amounts and other types of compensation has been waived.
These factors should persuade the Board to compel LILCO to answer this interrogatory.
State of New York Interrocatory No. 10 Like the previous interrogatory, this interrogatory seeks a more detailed explanation of prior statements by LILCO.
- Houever, instead of being related to "non-LILCO school bus drivers who LILCO relies upon to drive buses," this interrogatory relates to "LILCO-employed LERO workers whom LILCO relies upon to drive buses."
The interrogatory states:
l l
Elaborate on the statements made on page 16 of "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, and i
olaborate on the statements made by Mr.
Crocker in paragraph 16 of his associated Affidavit,:by providing, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis ~, the following information with respect to LILCO-employed LERO workers who LILCO relies upon to drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal (a) amount of money and other-considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour of classroom training on Shoreham emergency planning; (b) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour spent participating in drills and exercises; (c) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour spent attending, or studying for, school bus driver training class for a class 2 license, and taking the class 2 driving tests (d) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour spent responding to an actual emergency at Shoreham; (e) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver as a sign-on or year-end bonun or as a bonus of any type; (f) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for any reason not stated above.
The term "other considerations," as used herein, has the same meaning as is set forth in Interrogatory No. 9.
Like LILCO's answer to the previous interrogatory, LILCO
[
again totally refused to answer on the same three grounds:
1 (1) not relevant (2) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and (3) not in accord with LILCO's "consistent" policy of withholding information concerning reimbursement of LERO workers.
t Because this interrogatory relates to LILCO-employed LERO workers, as opposed to Interrogatory No. 9's non-LILCO school bus drivers, this interrogatory seeks an elaboration of a different.
i
statement by Mr. Crocker.
The pertinent statement is in paragraph 16 of his affidavit.
It states:
LILCO employees who agree to become auxiliary school bus drivers would receive their regular hou rl:t wages for training and drills plus overt;,me pay where appropriate.
As before, LILCO's refusal to answer is incompatible with the prior statements identified in the interrogatory and with other prior statements.
LILCO did not object to this interrogatory on the ground that it was unduly burdensome to set forth a quantification of each LILCO employee's "regular hourly wages."
To the extent that it is, however, the State of Ne York is willing to accept an answer that is not quantified, provided that all of the lettered subparts of the in:errogatory are answered on a lettered subpart by subpart basis.
For the same reasons stated above concerning Interrogatory No. 9, the Board should compel LILCO to answer this interrogatory.
l State of New York Interroaatory No. 11 l
This interrogatory is similar to the previous two, but it asks a simple yes or no question about whether LILCO-employed bus drivers will receive money and other considerations in addition
c'h
..- a; 9.*
s pf 1:
j, d
,'J-A-
~
.7 l>,
Aq receiving.their regular hourly wages.
If the' answer is q
affirmative, the1[nterrogatoryaske-foCinformationconcerning
</,
-~
the increment.. The interrogatory states:
[:.
.c' wQ Elabora,te on the statements made on page 16 of
~
e
,t "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of' School Bus
~
Drivers," dated October 22, 1987, and
~
s elaborate on the statements made by Mr.
Crocker in paragraphs 15 and 16 of his associ-ated affidavit, by ariswer the following.. When ths LILCO-employed bus drivers refer' red'to in L1LCO's schools evacuation proposal p.erform their bus driving duties during their regular -
o working hours, will these bus drivers receive money and other3 considerations for, performingm,,4 their bus driver duties _ip addition to receiving their regular hourly _ wages?
If the A
answer is af firmat;ive, speci?y.etie amount of money and other considerations.
The t9rm "other considerations,~",ZG. used herein, has the same meaning as is set forth'in I n t e r r o g a t'o r y, N o.s 9,
/
/
xs s
7 a
f w
LILCO totally reft /dd to answer on the same grounds as s
s before.
_~
s
=
\\
There is no'reauor,able basis for LILCO:to refuse to answer N
/
this simple yes oi'ho question.
For the saine reasons stated
^
aboie'concerning Interrogatory No. 9, the Board should compel LILCO to aficwer this interrogatory.
4+
State of New York Interrocatp_rv No. 12 Interrogatory No. 12 seeks information concarning the discussion of the LILCO's ochool evacuation proposal at a v.~
f
+
- 10
~
- /
closed-door meeting between LILCO and the NRC Staff on January 14,-1988, or at any other time.
The interrogatory states:
-.(
-Has LILCO ever met (on or about January 14, 1988 or at any other time), or engaged in telephone conversations or discussions, with the NRC or FEMA regarding in any way LILCO's schools evacuation proposal?
If the answer is affirmative:
(a) identify the dates and locations of the meetings or the dates of the telephone conversations; (b) identify all attendees or participants; (c) specifically describe all statements that were made about LILCO's schools evacuation proposal; (d)
,s attribute all such statements to particular individuals; and (e) provide any documents that concern LILCO's schools evacuation proposal that were produced in preparation for, during, or as a result of the meetings, telephone conversations or discussions.
LILCO's entire response consists of the following:
/
LILCO states that, to the best of its knowledge, aside from the response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion filed by the NRC Staff, there have been no contacts of any kind that are responsive to Interrogatory No. 12.
/
LILCO's qualification concerning the "response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion filed by the NRC Staff" requires that g j, {'
LILCO respond to subparts (a) through (e) of Interrogatory No. 12.
LILCO does not even offer an explanation for why it refuses to elaborate, as requested by subparts (a) through (e).
a This is an important inquiry because the NRC Staff's independency and objectivity are at issue in this proceeding.
The Governments' position is that the record of this case
6..
demonstrates a pattern of NRC Staff bias.and advocacy on LILCO's behalf and in LILCO's favor.. fbut "Governments' Response to LILCO's Motion in Limine and Motions to Set Hearing Schedule and Request for Board Clarification Regarding Pending Discovery
' Matters," dated February 8, 1988, at 26-32.
The affidavit of Lawrence Coe Lanpher, attached to that motion, documents the January 14, 1988 closed-door meeting between LILCO and th'e NRC Staff.
Collaboration between LILCO and the NRC Staff concerning LILCO's school evacuation proposal further diminishes the NRC Staff's objectivity and independence, which this Board must be aware of in order to evaluate evidence or positions taken by the Staff in this proceeding.
Therein lies the relevancy of this interrogatory.
The Board should compel LILCO to answer all of the interrogatory's subparts with regard to collaboration on the "response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion filed by the NRC Staff."
If it is necessary for LILCO to claim a privilege of any kind, LILCO should follow the instructions in Paragraph R of "Definitions and Instructions for Answering Interrogatories and Document Production" attached to "Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Long Island Lighting Company," dated January 4, 1987.
In this way, the State of New York and the Board, if need be, will be able to assess the propriety of the assertion of the privilege.,
IV.
Discussion of the NRC Staff's Responses to the State of New York's Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 State of New York Interrocatory No. 1 The first interrogatory to the NRC Staff asks for information about how bus drivers are trained to reduce the effect of role conflict.
The interrogatory states:
When bus drivers for nuclear plants other than Shoreham are trained to drive buses during radiological emergencies, what, if anything, are they told, on a plant by plant basis, about caring for their families in emergencies?
The NRC Staff's entire response states:
Communication to bus drivers at nuclear facilities other than Shoreham is not relevant to, or necessary for, this Licensing Board's decision.
This curt statement oversimplifies the point of the interrogatory.
The interrogatory does not seek "communication to bus drivers" at nuclear facilities other than Shoreham, whatever that means.
The interrogatory expressly seeks instructions given to bus drivers about caring for their families in emergencies.
While the Governments do not concede the relevance, for evidentiary purposes, of other plans for other plants, nonetheless, this information is necessary for a decision in this case.
If LILCO seeks to rely upon other plans at other plants in arguing that role conflict will not be a problem at Shoreham, 1
i f:
then the details of how role conflict is addressed at other plants would also be relevant.
The NRC Staff's statement also actually contradicts the position that the NRC Staff took in support of LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion.
Egg "NRC Staff Response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C
(' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated November 13, 1987, at 6.
The NRC Staff's position at that time was that practices at nuclear power plants other then Shoreham were relevant to the LILCO Plan and Shoreham:
^
The facts and law presented by LILCO's Motion support the grant of summary disposition.
there is adequate precedent for the use of utility employees to serve as bus drivers.
The NRC Staff then cited a decision in Philadelohia Electric Co.
regarding the Limerick Generating Station.
Incidentally, LILCO cited the same decision for the same proposition in.its Summary Disposition Motion at 16.
The Board should not permit the NRC Staff to maintain that what was relevant for the purpose of supporting LILCO's school evacuation proposal is suddenly not relevant in the context of an interrogatory relating to the basis for a prior assertion.
In addition, State of New York Interrogatory No. 1 is almost identical to LILCO Interrogatory No. 27, which LILCO obviously believed was relevant to the LILCO Plan and Shoreham.
Egg
^
LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State," dated January 13, 1988, at 3.
LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 34 also seek information regarding nuclear power plants other than Shoreham.
Egg "LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State," dated January 5, 1988, at 10, 11; and "LILCO's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State," dated January-27, 1988, at 2.
The State of New York and County of Suffolk responded substantively to these interrogatories; so should the NRC Staff.
The NRC Staff's response to State of New York Interrogatory No. 1 does not allege that the requested information can be reasonably obtained elsewhere.
However, to the extent that the requested information is available in the Public Document Room, the State of New York is willing to limit its interrogatory and document request to exclude such information, provided that the NRC Staff conducts a search for and produces any information not available in the Public Document Room, such as compilations of data or comparison surveys. _
9 State of New York Interrocatory No. 2 This interrogatory states:
Do any radiological emergency response plans for nuclear plants other than Shoreham rely either fully or partially on utility employees to drive buses for school children?
If the answer is affirmative, please identify the particular nuclear plants and the relevant pages of the corresponding radiological emergency response plans.
The NRC Staff responded, "the provision of emergency plans for facilities other than Shoreham are not relevant and are not necessary for the Board's decision."
The NRC Staff also stated that plans were available in the Public Document Room.
For the same reasons stated above concerning State of New York Interrogatory No. 1 to the NRC Staff, the Board should compel the Staff to answer this interrogatory.
State of New York Interrocatorv No. 3 This interrogatory probes the occurrence of meetings, telephone conversations or discussions between the NRC Staff and LILCO.
It states:
Has the NRC or FEMA ever met (on or about January 14, 1988 or at any other time), or engaged in telephone conversations or discussions, with LILCO regarding in any LILCO's schools evacuation proposal?
If the answer is affirmative: A
i a) identify the dates and locations of the meetings or the dates of the telephone conversations or discussions; (b) identify all_
attendees or participants; (c) specifically describe all statements that were made about LILCO's schools' evacuation proposal; (d) attribute all such statements to particular individuals; and (e) provide any documents that concern LILCO's schools evacuation proposal that were. produced in preparation for, during, or as a result of the meetings, telephone conversations or discussions.
The NRC Staff responded that the interrogatory is not relevant and not necessary to a decision by the Board.
For the same reasons stated above concerning Interrogatory No. 12 to LILCO, the Board should compel the NRC Staff to answer this interrogatory.
If it is necessary for the NRC Staff to claim a privilege of any kind, the NRC Staff should follow the instructions in Paragraph R of "Definitions and Instructions for Answering Interrogatories and Document Production" attached to "Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Long Island Lighting Company," dated January 4, 1988.
In this way, the State of New York and the Board, if need be, will be able to assess the property of the assertion of the privilege.
In addition, the Board should specifically compel the NRC Staff to answer this interrogatory at least with respect to meetings, telephone conversations or discussions centering on the _.
t "response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion filed by the NRC Staff," as revealed by LILCO in its response'to State of New York Interrogatory ~No. 12 to LILCO.
State of New York Interrocatory No. 4 This interrogatory states:
Provide a copy of all documents used in preparing the answers to these interrogatories.
The NRC Staff's entire response was "not applicable."
It is difficult to tell what the NRC Staff's response means, but to the extent that the NRC Staff has in its possession, custody or control responsive documents, other than those available in the Public Document Room, the Board should order the NRC Staff to produce them for all of the reasons stated above.
State of New York Interrocatory No. 5 This interrogatory states:
List, on a numerical interrogatory by interrogatory basis and on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, all people who were asked to provide information or documents in response to (a) this pleading; (b) the pleading submitted by Suffolk County entitled, "Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the NRC Staff and FEMA," dated January 4, 1988.
l -
The NRC Staff refused to respood on two grounds:
(1) not relevant and (2) not necessary to a prcper decision.
The purpose of this interrogatory is to seek the names of individuals within the NRC who are cognizant of LILCO's school evacuation proposal.
This information will enable the State of New York to have a be':ter understanding of who is analyzing LILCO's school evacuation proposal and what information is available to him or her.
Indeed, it may be necessary for the State of New York to depose this person or persons.
LILCO apparently also recognized the legitimacy of such an inquiry, because LILCO Interrogatory No. 28 asks the State of New York and Suffolk County to provide a comparable list of personnel.
Eeg "LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and the State of New York," dated January 13, 1988, at 3.
The State of New York and County of Suffolk responded substantively to the interrogatory; so should the NRC Staff..
t-1 l
R V.
Conclusion The Board should issue an Order' compelling LILCO to respond to State of New York Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, and compelling the NRC Staff to respond to State of New York Interrogatory Nos.
1, 2,
3, 4 and 5.
Respectfully submitted, 0-YY Fabian G.
Ba[9mino Richard J.
Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo Governor, and the State of New York 00CXETES February 12, 198%NRC ~ ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 RB 16 P4 :05 Before the Atomic Saf,ety and Licensino Board OFFICE g; ggg;g y
00CKETING a SERVICf' 3 RANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of STATE OF NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING LILCO AND THE NRC STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS have been s'erved on the following this 12th day of February, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class.
James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Jerry R.
Kline 500 C Street, S.N.,
Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq.
P.O. Box 1535 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
707 East Main Street Michael S. Miller, Esq.
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart j
1800 M Street, N.W.
I South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 i
)
Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway 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 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G.
Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 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 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 014ver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036.
I
e 4
- r a
'l Douglas J. Hynes,' Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Y'
Richard J. Zeh@eut e r, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor-Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 e
1 l
l l
i i !
__,f.
-