ML20196F705
| ML20196F705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7586 OL-6, NUDOCS 8812140071 | |
| Download: ML20196F705 (11) | |
Text
.
2 Silf; tctwriEO Decembardis 1988
- E8 KC -1 P3 58 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gt r2AR REGUIATORY COMMISSION Before the CommissiqD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Long Island Lighting Co. ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-6
) (25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power station, )
Unit 1) )
)
COMMENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON CONCERNING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF NOVEMBER 21. 1988 LICENSING BOARD ORDER Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.764 (f) (2) (ii), the Governments (Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton) submit the following comments to urge the Commission to stay the effectiveness of the "Memorandum and Order (Granting In Part And Denying In Part LILCO's Request For Immediate Authorization to Operate At 25% Power)," issued November 21, 1988 by two members of the OL-6 Licensing Board (the
' Order").1/ Over the dissent of Judge Shon, the Board majority held that LILCO's request for authorization to operate Shoreham at 25% power "lies before us unopposed, and there are no matters 1/ Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.788, on November 23, 1988, the Governments filed with the Appeal Board a motion to stay the Order pending appellate review of the merits of the Order. Under Section 2.764(g), the Commission's effectiveness review is "entirely without prejudice" to the Appeal Board's consideration of the Governments' stay motion.
8812140071 001201 00 PDR ADOCK 05000320 0 PDR
i i
i remaining in controversy related to 25% power . . . , " and authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation "to make appropriate findings on matters specified in Sectica. 09.57(a) as they relate to LILCO's motion and to issue a license for the requested operation." Order at 3, 9.
The Order must be stayed for several reasons. First, the Board's previous approval of LILCO's Plan has been reversed in part. Thus, as discussed below, in ALAB-905,2/ the Appeal Board revised the Licensing Board's previous approval of LILCO's i reception center plan and directed further Licensing Board proceedings. Thus, even aside from the pending exercise
- contentions and adverse findings on the 1986 exercise (also discussed below), LILCO's Plan cannot be considered adequate or ,
approved. Accordingly, the Order uust be stayed in view of the fact that one of its premises -- that LILCO's Plan is adequate --
1 l is in fact not true, i Second, the Order is premised primarily on the Board's declaration that LILCO's 25% power application had become j i
"uncontested" by virtue of the sarlier, partially reversed, i decision in LBP-88-24 which purported to throw all three Governments out of the entire shoreham proceeding.1/ In t
2/ Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreha m Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, ALAB-905, 28 NRC __ (Nov. 29, 1988).
2/ In ALAB-902, the Appeal Boardt reversed LBP-88-24 insofar i as it purported to dismiss the Governments from proceedings pending before the OL-5 Board; held that the Licensing Board's failure to state any basis for the attempt to djamiss the Governments from any other proceedings a19ne justified reversal !
(continued...)
l
\
i addition, however, the Board majority'also purported to dismiss the Governments from the OL-6 proceeding, based on the unsupported and unexplained conclusory assertion that the Governments' conduct in the OL-3 eroceedina "would have been so ,
' contumacious and prejudicial . . . ac to warrant dismiasal from (the 25% power) proceeding as well.'" order at 4 (ellipses and parenthetical in original). i The comments filed by the Governments on october 3, 1988, which urged the Commishion to stay the effectiveness of LBP !
24, are equally applicable to the November 21 order. For the ,
Commission's convenience, a copy of these earlier commentu is attached hereto. !
The following additional comments further demonstrate why a consideration of the public interest factore identified in Section 2.764(f)(2) requires that the Commission stay the effectiveness of the order.
- 1. The Substantive Issues Raised by the order Are Grave, and the OL-6 Board Majority Decision yas clearly Erroneous The November 21 order raises substantial issues of the utmost gravity. The Licensing Board exceeded its jurisdiction, violated the Governments' due process rights, purported to apply 1/ ( . . . continued) of such portions of LBP-88-24; and vacated the full power license authorization contained in LBP-88-24, since there remained matters in controversy in the OL-5 proceeding. Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-902, 28 NRC (oct. 7, 1988).
) i 4 .
k
} Section 50.57(c) to an unprecedented request for a license to operate a plant at 25% of rated power by ignoring the existence of significant controversy over material issues, and threatened the public's health and safety by authorizing operation above 5%
power in the absence of a fully approved and implomentable ,
offsite emergency plan.
First, the OL-6 Board had no jurisdiction over LILCO's 25%
power application. The icsuance of LBP-88-24 and the filing of the Governments' notices of appeal on September 27, 1988 divested the Board of jurisdiction, and transferred it to the Appeal Board. Lena Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-901, 28 NRC (Sept. 20, 1988), slip op. at 3-4; Georaia Power Co. (Vogtle F ec. Gen. Plent, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23. 27 (1987); Metroeolitan Edison Co. (Three !!ile Island Nuclear Station, Unit Po. 1), ALAB-699, 16 NRC 1324, 1327 (1982).
Ettand, the order's reliance upon LBP-88-24's dismissal of the Governments from the OL-3 proceeding is without basis, arbitrary, and capricious for the reasons set forth in *.he Governments' October 27 Brief In Support of Appeal of Septembe-23, 1988 Concluding Initial Decision filed with the Appeal Board.
Third, the OL-6 Board majority stated no basis for its decision to dismiss all three Governments from the OL-6 proceading. Indeed, es Judge Shon recognized in his dissent, the Governments' behavior throughout the OL-6 proceeding provided no basis for imposing any sanctions at all in that proceeding, and n
1 thair behavior in the OL-3 proceeding fails to justify dismissal from other aspects of the case. Egg Nov. 21 order, Shon dissent at 1. The Board majority's dismissal decision is clear error and a violation of the Governments' due process rights. Egg .'. LAB-902, 28 NRC , slip op. at 13-14; Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAB-4 2 2 , 6 NRC 3, 41 (1977), aff'd, CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, aff'd sub nom. New Encland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.
1978); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries. Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 591 (9th Cir. 1983) (sanction must be specifically related to the particular claim at issue).d/
Fourth, the Licensing Board gave the Governments no notice or hearing prior to its imposition of the OL-6 dismissal sanction. Indeed, the Board majority even refused to consider the Governments' written response to LILCO's October 21 request that the Board dismiss the Governments from the OL-6 proceeding, holding that it was "an unauthorized filing." order at 2. This was another clear violation of the Governments' fundamental right to due process. Eg3 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Static 7, Unit No. 1), LBP-80-17, 11 NRC 8983, 897 (1980);
B?Advay_Egoress. Inc. v. Picer. 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980).
Fifth, the statements made by the Board majority -- Judges Gleason and Kline -- in LBP-88-24, manifested their inability to 1/ As was true in LBP-88-24, in the November 21 order the Board majority threw the T6wn of Southampton out of all Shoreham proceedings, but did not even charge the Town with any misconduct. This aurther underscores the fact that the November 21 order must be reversed.
5-
\
be fair or impartial in ruling on LILCo's request. In light of the invective, and the sweeping, false accusations about the
(
Governments' motivations and purposes contained in LBP-88-24, any reasonable person would necessarily question the impartiality of Judges Gleason and Kline in ruling on any matters involving the Governments. The Governments are entitled to a fair hearing conducted by a fair and impartial tribunal. Egg Fitraerald v.
Hampton, 467 F.2d 755, 764 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Amon Treat & Co. v.
f SEQ, 306 .*.2d 260, 263-64 (D.C. Cir. 1962) AAA A11g, Public f Service Elec. & Gas. Co. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),
i ALAB-759, 19 NRC 13, 20-22 (1984) Houston Liahtina & Power Co. [
f (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-82-9, 15 NRC 1363, 1365-67 (1982). ,
Sixth, the Board majority acknowledged that there are matters in controversy which are relevant and material to ?%%
power operation. Nonetheless, in violation of Section 50.57(c),
the OL-6 Board's own prior orders, and ALAB-902,M the Board majority authorized issuance of a 25% power license without: (a) addressing the fact that controlling OL-5 Board decisions hold that LILCo's Plan and its ability to implement it are fundamentally flawedt or (b) granting the Governments their right to be heard on their concededly relevant contentions V 28 NRC , slip op. at 12-13 (error for Board majority to fail to give serious consideration to the implications of its actions on proceedings before the OL-5 Board).
\
n arising out of LILCO's performance during the 1988 Shoreham exercise.f/
Seventh, the Soard majority similarly denied the Governments their conceded right to challenge the technical bases of LILCo's 25% power request. The Board majority refused to allow the Governments to submit any contentions concerning such bases, even though the Staff's technical analysis of LILCO's proposal had found, contrary to LILCO's assertions, that certain key LILCO assumptions "are an area of remaining uncertainty," and that while the probability of exceeding the upper bound EPA PAG dose of five rem whole body is reduced at 25% power, "Significant reduction does not generally occur within the 10-mile EPZ."2/
Eiahth, ALAB-9 05, issued November 29, 1988, vacated the OL-3 Board's earlier finding that the reception center portion of LILCO's plan is adequate and meets regulatory requirements, and established the need for additional Licensing Board proceedings before the required adequacy finding can be made. Egg ALAB-905, 28 NRC __, slip op, at 4, 6, 12-13, 41, 42, n. 75. Accordingly, !
I in light of ALAB-905, the Board majority's assertion that "there 1/ LILCo has argued frequently that the fact that FEMA found no ,
deficiencies in the 1988 exercise should justify ignoring the Governments' right to litigate the results of the 1988 exercise.
That clearly is wrong, since the Governments do have the right to challenge FEMA's conclusions. Egg ALAB-902, slip op, at 12, n.
13; gas alag, UDion of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert danigd, 469 U.S. 1132 (1985).
2/ NRC Staff's Technical Review of a Request from Long Island i Lighting Company for Authorization to operate the Shoraham ,
Nuclear Power Station at a Power Level Up to Twenty-Fivo Percent '
of Full Rated Power (October 6, 1988), Enclosure 2 at 46.
I
n n
are no contentions relevant to (LILCO's 25% power) request before this Board" (Nov. 21 order at 8), and the related conclusion that the Board was "required" by Caction 50.57(c) to authorize issuance of a 25% power license (id. at 7), are wrong.
- 2. Correct Resolution of the Issues as to Which the OL-6 Board Erred Would be Irreparably Preiudiced by Oeeration Pendina Review The Governments' appeal of the substantial legal errors in the November 21 Order would be rendered moot if the Order were made effective and 25% power operation were commenced pursuant to the license authorization contained in the order. Absent a stay of the offectiveness of the Order, further substantial contamination of the shoreham plant would cecur, and no subsequent decision -- even one reversing the Order on its merits
-- could restore the status quo. It is not in the public's interest to substantially increase the amount of contamination in the Shoreham plant prior to a full review of the merits of the OL-6 Board's November 21 Order, or of LBP-88-24, upon which the order is based in part.
Furthe rmore , if the order were made effective and 25% power operation commenced, accidents with severe offsite consequences throughout the 10 mile EPZ could occur. Controlling Licensing Board decisions hold, however, that LILCo's proposed offsite emergency plan and its ability to implement it are fundamentally flawed. Similarly, ALAB-905 hsids that LILCo's reception center scheme is defective. The public would be irreparably injured if 1
Shoreham were to operate on the basir of a defective plan. Ohio
.v..NRC, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1907).
In addition, the public is entitled to have the results of ,
the 1988 Shoreham exercise scrutinized and challenged, as the Governments have begun to do by submitting in the OL-5 proceeding extensive contentions concerning the results of that exercise.
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 3437 (D.C. Cir.
1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 (1985). The pendency of such contentions clearly triggers the USS hearing rights. ALAB-902, 28 NRC __, slip op. at 12, n. 13. It is not in the public's interest to create the risk of a severe accident from which there is no assurance that the public would or could be adequately protected.A/ This particularly is the case since Shoreham's
) power is not needed now or in the longer tern.2/ ,
Finally, it is not in the public's interest to have their elected Governments arbitrarily and without explanation thrown out of a proceeding, with no notice or opportunity to respond to charges against them, by judges who have previously shown f l themselves to be biased and incapable of fair or impartial
___ 1 4
A/ The Board majority's implication that the NRC Staff could protect the public's interest by means of the Director of HRR's ,
~
review (Order at 7) cannot be taken seriously in the context of t I this case. The NRC Staff has fully supported LILCO, and opposed the Governments, in every recent controversyl indeed, the NRC l Staff urged the OL-6 Board to authorize 25% power operation, and before the OL-5 Board, urged the rejection of all the i Governments' 1988 exerciwe contentions.
2/ An affidavit of Eugene J. Gleason, the Director of Planning 2 for the New York State Energy office, which was filed November [
23, 1988 with the Appeal Board, demonstrates that the 25% power [
license is not needed in order to meet Long Island energy needs.
1 l
l
1 decisionmaking where the Governments are involved. If the commission were to make effective the November 21 order, it would convey to the public a message that the Commission condones the gross violations of the Governments' due process rights which are embodied in that Order, and no subscquent decision "on the merits
- could change that message.
- 3. The Public Interest Mandates a Stay of the Effectiveness of the November 21 Order consideration of the facts stated above compels the conclusion that the public interest mandates a stay of the effectiveness of the November 21 Order. It is clearly in the public's interest to correct due process violations and to address serious emergency planning safety issues and 25% power technical issues, before there is further contamination of the Shoreham plant, operation at a significantly greater risk to the public, or mooting of the Governments' appeals.
CONCLUSION Tor the foregoing reasons, the Commission should stay the effectiveness of the November 21 Order.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 F.-
6' l S.. ,
6
_9 hv .
ff,/ -
Lawr'ence Karla Coe @he@her J. Letsc KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
. . I dhtasa /
'Febian G. Palomino '
Richard J. Zahnleuter 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 Statc. of New York YM St'ephep B. iatham
, k*/
Twomef, Latham & Shea P. O. Box 398 33 West.Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of SouthAmpton l
1 -
g- _
J.
J October 3, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Defore the Commission
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (Emergency Planning)
)
Unit 1) )
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON COMMENTS CONCERNING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.764(f;(2)(ii), Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments")
submit the following comments and urge the Commission to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's September 23, 1988 Concluding Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, LBP-88-24 (the "Decision"). In the Decision, a two-member majority of the Board threw the Governments out of all Shoreham proceedings and authotized the NRC Staff, after making necessary findings on remaining issues, to grant LILCO a full power operating license for Shoreham.1/
The Governments recognize that the Commission's immediate effectiveness review is not intended to supplant normal appellate 1/ Judge Shon dissented, in a separate opinion, from the majority's decision to throw out the Governments.
Q Wl/A&YNU gg,w- -
./
(
o review or to prejudice the appellate process.2/ It is intended to provide the Commission an opportunity of its own to determine whether the circumstances requite a stay. ,
The decision of the Board-majority requires a stay, if for no other reason than to allow the NRC's appellate processes to address the implications ofi (1) a split decision tha* m ' .shes the Governments for coaduct that is la , a t the Doard-majority.itself acknowledges; (2) an ad ham h decision that ascribes false motives to the Governments; (3) a conclusory decision that ignores the safety conse-quences of the Board-majority's action; and (4) a Board-majority that followed an agenda of its own, rather than the safety agenda established by law.
If the enormity of these factors does not provoke the Commission to stay the Decision and pernit full appellate review, then Section 2.764(f) is without purpose.
2/
On September 27, 1988, the Governments noticed their appeal of LBP-88-24.
F ]
1 e
The Commission's criterion for determining whether to stay immediate effectiveness is "the public interest." 10 CFR S 2.764(f)(2)(i). It is in the public interest to stay the Decision for the following reasons:
- The Board-majority authorized issuance of a license only because it threw the Governments out of all Shoreham proceedings -- even those before other boards -- and then found there to be no party in the proceeding to contest issuance of the license. In fact, the Governments continue to contest issuance of a license and are prepared to litigate serious safety issues.2/
The Board-majority threw out the Governments on charges of their having engaged for years in a pattern of bad faith and willful obstructionism.
The charges are false and contrary,to the evidence; they merit the Commission's scrutiny.A/
2/ Other Shoreham Boards also have issues pending before them:
the 50-322-OL-5 Licensing Board chaired by Judge Frye has commenced the contention process on the 1988 Shoreham Exercise; the 50-322-OL-3 Appeal Board chaired by Judge Kohl is considering the Governments' appeal of LBP-88-13, the decision approving LILCO's relocation centers the 50-322-OL-5 Appeal Board chaired by Judge Kohl is considering LILCO's appeal from LBP-88-2, the decision finding LILCO's plan fundamentally flawed; and the Commission is considering issues related to LILCO's proposals for protecting contaminated individuals.
A/ The Board-majority threw the Town of Southampton out of all Shoreham proceedings, but did not even charge the Town with any (footnote continued)
(.
'. . ft.
l The Governments have participated in the Shoreham proceedings for years. They have painstakingly j contributed to protecting public safety, at times even confronting the hostility of the Ccamission itself. Indeed, in May 1984 the Cortaission's hostile conduct required the Governments to obtain from the U.S. District Court an injunction prohibiting the NRC from further depriving'the Governments of their constitutional rights.
The Governments have also won significant victories for public safety before the appeal, boards and licensing boards, including decisions that LILCO's 1986 exercise was unsatisfactory in scope and that its emergency plan and response capabilities were fundamentally flawed. The Governments would continue to litigate for public safety in the pending proceedings, if not for the Board-majority's decision.
The situation presented by this case will never be paralleled. It is (1) the first time all affected (footnote continued from previous page) misconduct. Indeed, the Town was never even alleged to have withheld any discovery, the issue on which the OL-3 Board focused its sanctions ruling. Further, the Board-majority cited the State's failure to produce a particular document as evidence of misconduct, even though the request for that document was not directed to the State.
4
(_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t l
State and local governments have found it not possible to evacuate the public safely in the event of a nuclear accident; (2) the first time a utility emergency plan is being promoted to push aside the lawful decisions of State and local governments; (3) the first time the NRC is applying its new emergency planning rule; and (4) the first time elected governments have been thrown out of NRC proceedings.
The results of LILCO's June 1988 exercise are pending before the OL-5 Licensing Board. But for the Board-majority's ouster of the Governments, the Governments would show that LILCO's performance was as inadequate in June 1988 as it was in 1986.
Surely, in these circumstances it is "in the public interest" for the Commission to stay the immediate effectiveness of the Board-majosity's decision and to allow the NRC's appellate process to proceed. To assist the Commission in its immediate
-S-
r * '
~~
i
=
b effectiveness review, the Governments hereby requent the oppor-tunity to make a 30-minute presentation at a meeting of the Commission.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Y . , - -
Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County J_A /\
Fabian ~G.' Palomino Richard J. Zahnleuter (4 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
. g Step n B. Latham A DQ di.
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 t%)
33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton October 3, 1988 0 .
's
, y.KLIED
.
- i' December 1, 198&
'88 M.C -1 FJ 68 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
,., ,y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,4 - i, . ( 6..viti.
Eg t.i.t u Before the Commission
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGiiTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-6
) (25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) '
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of COMMENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE .
STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON CONCERNING IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF NOVEMBER 21, 1988 LICENSING BOARD ORDER have been served on the following this 1st day of December 1988 by U.S. mail, first class, unless otherwise indicated.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Comm. Kenneth C. Rogers
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'J . S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Pashington, D.C. 20555 Comm. Kenneth M. Carr* Comm. James R. Curtiss*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 205'5 6 Comm. Thomas M. Roberts
- Chfistine N. Kohl, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Frye, III, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
I .
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 Dr Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. 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 Dr . Os'sa r H. Paris Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*
Washir.qtr n, D.C.
e 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel William C. Parler, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Docketing and Service Section*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard A. Wilber Alan S. Rosenthal Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. 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 l Wading River, New York 11792 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 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 l t 1
1 t
t .
y .
's 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 Special Counsel to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 Anthony F. Earley, Jr.. Esq. David A. Brownlee, Esq.
General Counsel Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Long Island Lighting Company 1500 Oliver Building 175 East Old Country Road Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Mr. Stuart Diamond New York State Energy Office Business / Financial Agency Building 2 NEW YORK TIMES Empire State Plaza 229 W. 43rd Street Albany, New York 12223 New York, New York 10036 Joel Blau, Esq. Mr. Philip McIntire Director, Utility Intervention Federal Emergency Management N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Agency Suite 1020 26 Federal Plaza Albany, New York 12210 New York, New York 10278 Ms. Nora Bredes Adjudicatory File Executive Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shoreham Opponents Coalition Panel Docket 195 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 W
/di Karla)J. Letschp'V '
hheA _
, /
KIRKPATRICK & EOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- By Hand
- By Federal Express
-