ML20196F780
| ML20196F780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1988 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7602 ALAB-902, LBP-88-24, OL, OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8812140121 | |
| Download: ML20196F780 (14) | |
Text
- * ' g 3 2,,,
"~
J LILCO, December 1,1988
~
h0CKET NUMBERPROD. rn UTIL FAC..[.:,=p]g OL - R
. rr.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d
I 'b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
y u
O@
Before the Commission Q ES &w ?.lCa j;c mt S
Q In the Matter of
)
O,.
^\\
)
rGJ7_rp w LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S NOVEMBER 9 ORDER On November 23, 1988, Intervenors filed "Governments' Motion for Reversal of Commission Order of November 9,1988" (hereinaf ter "Intervenors' Motion"), in which they assert that the Commission's November 9 order - certifying to itself Intervenors' appeals from that portion of LBP-88-24 that dismissed them from the entire Shoreham proceeding "must be reversed." Intervenors' Motion at 1. In the alternative, Interve-nors demand that they be provided an additional hearing and an opportunity to submit further briefs on the sanctions issue. Intervenors' Motion should be denied in its entire-ty, for the reasons given below.
I. The Commission's November 9 Order Does Not Identify A "New Issue" that Intervenors Have Not Previously Addresed Intervenors' Motion hinges fundamentall;
.' their argument that the Commis-sion, in its November 9 Order, has identified a "new issue, which was not subject to hearing below, and which the Governments did not address in their brief on appeal of LB P-88-24." Intervenors' Motion at. 2.
According to Intervenors, this "new issue" is found in the Commission's statement that it will decide, on appeal whether Governments' conduct was such as to warrant their dismissal from the. entire proceeding and whether,if dismissal from the entire proceeding is not warranted, what other sanctions,if any,is appropriate.
8812140121 001201 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
g sel
h.
November 9 Order at 1-2. As shown below, however, f ar from framing a "new" issue, this statement is a succinct description of the precise issue that Intervenors were to have addressed (and, indeed, did address) in their appeal brief filed on Oc'tober 27,1988.
A.
The Commission Has Identified the Same Issue that was Addressed. but not Resolved in ALAB-902 Intervenors argue that, due to the decision of the Appeal Board in ALAB-902,28 NRC (1988), vacating that portion of LBP-88-24 that dismissed Intervenors from the "OL-5" (exercise) docket, Intervenors did not address (in their October 27 appeal brief] whether the conduct at issue before the Gleason Board warranted their dismissal from the entire Shoreham proceeding, except to note that Board's lack of jurisdiction and basis for ruling on such a question.
Intervenors' Motion at 5 (footnote omitted).
Intervenors go on to assert that the November 9 Order is the "first notice that a decision maker with the authority to rule on the matter actually intends to consider imposing upon the Governments the harsh sanction of dismissal as parties from the entire Shoreham proceeding." Id.
Intervenors' argument is based on a clear mischaracterization of ALAB-902.
Even assuming (contrary to fact) that Intervenors did not address in their October 27 brief the issue of whether their conduct warranted dismissal from the entire proceed-ing, Intervenors would have no one but themselves to blame for the omission. The Ap-peal Board expressly indicated in ALAB-902 that, notwithstanding its decision in Inter-venors favor on the bifurcated "jurisdictional" issue raised by LBP-38-24, Intervenors still were to address, in their second appeal brief, the merits of the OL-S Board's deter-mination that dismissal of Intervenors "as parties to the proceeding was the only appro-priate penalty"II for their misconduct.
1/
Egg LBP-88-24, slip op, at 130.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Specifically, the Appeal Board stated that it agreed with LILCO that "for the purpose of deciding the discrete jurisdictional issue now before us on appeal, we must presume the correctness of the OL-3 Board's decision on the merits." ALAB-902, slip op at 7. Accordingly, the Appeal Board assumed arguendo that intervenors obstructed the discovery process and failed to otey certain OL-3 Board orders; that their conduct was winful, in bad faith, and prejudicial to LILCO; and that the only appropriate sanction is dismissal, which the OL-3 Board was clearly au-thorized to order at least as to that part of the proceeding pending before it.
M (footnote omitted). The Appeal Board added that "(1]t should go without saying that, because these assumptions are for argement purposes only, they reflect no view whatsc ever on our part as to the merits of the sanctions issues," and indicated that the Appea Board would "take that matter up in the second part of the Governments' ap-peal. See suora note 5." & at 7-8 n.7.
Nowhere in ALAB-902 did the Appeal Board suggest that its ruling on the "jurisdictional" issue in any way relieved Intervenors from their obligation to brief, during the second round of appeals from LBP-88-24, the sub-stantive question of whether Intervenors' dismissal from the entire proceedin2 was jus-tified. If anything, the Appeal Board's discussion of the issue presumes that Intervenors were to discuss the full scope of dismissal sanctions.
This point is underscored by footnote 5 of ALAB-902, in which the Appeal Board took note of the fact that (t)he Governments stress that they will challenge, on the merits, their dismissal from any part of the proceeding, as well as other parts. of LBP-88-24, when they brief the unexpedited portion of their appeal.
I5L at 5 n.5 (emphasis added). Indeed, in seeking bifurcation of the "jurisdictional" issue raised by LBP-88-24, Intervenors had argued that "a ruling on the bifurcated portion of the Governments' appeal would not involve the factual or legal merits of the OL-3 Board's substantive rulings in LBP-88-24." See Governments' Motion for Bifurcation of
F.
. Appeal and for Expedited Treatment of Jurisdictional Issua" (September 27,1988) at 3.
Intervenors are thus in no position now to argue that ALAB-902's narrow ruling had the effect of removing from consideration on appeal the kel substantive issue from LBP-88-24, and the very one identified by the Commission in its November 9 Order, la, whether Intervenors' willful, bad-faith misconduct warranted their dismissal from the entire Shoreham proceeding.
B.
Intervenors Have Fully Addressed the Dismissal Issue in their October 27 Brief Not only does ALAB-902 make clear that the issue of Intervenors' dismissal from tho entire Shoreham proceeding was to be the focus of the s;cond portion of Interve-nors' bifurcated appeal of LBP-88-24, but, contrary to their current claims, Intervenors addressed that issue fully in their October 27 brief. Intervenors now assert that (w]ith the exception of three sentences stating the Gleason Board's lack of jurisdiction and bs31s for dismissing the Gov-ernments from any but the OL-3 proceeding.... the discus-sion of the dismissal sanction contained in the Governments' October 27 Brief addresses the lack of basis and impropriety of dismissing the Governments from the OL-3 oroceeding.
Intervenors' Motion at 5 (emphasis in original). This M hoc mischaracterization of the October 27 brief,in which Intervenors understate the scope of their own arguments on appeal, does not withstand scrutiny.
Even a glance at Intervenors' October 27 brief is sufficient to belle their sugges-tion that they have not addressed the issue of their dismissal from the entire proceed-ing. For example, Intervenors' discussion of the "legal standards for imposing tne sanc-tion of dismissal as a party," October 27 Brief at 26-28, is not restricted solely to whether their dismissal from the OL-3 docket was justified.E in that portion of their l
2/
Moreover,in their Motion for Stay of November 21,1988 Licensing Board Order, filed with the Appeal Board on the same day as the instant Motion for Reversal, Inter-venors cite explicitly to "pages 22-38, and to the factual background at pages 3-22" of (footnote continued) l 9
--r brief, Intervenors' address NRC and federal court cases outlining standards governing dismissal of parties from proceedings as a whole. Indeed, Intervenors cite to, and reit-erate and amplify, their previous discussion of the legal standards for dismissal contained in their August 1,1988 Reply to July 26 Supplements Filed by LILCO and the NRC Staff Seeking Imposition of Sanctions. Significantly, in their August 1 Reply, In-tervenors' discussion of the legal standards for dismissal was offered in support of their position that "LILCO's plea '.o have tM Governments thrown out of this proceedine altogether is baseless." See August 1 Reply at 88 (emphasis added).W Intervenors' related argument that "there is no evidentiary record concerning any Government conduct except the production or non-production of emergency plans in 1982,1983, and 1988 discovery in the OL-3 proceeding, upon which the Commission could rely or base a decision on the issue defined in the November 9 Order,"Intervenors' Motion at 3-4, is nonsensical. Intervenors protest that, "in the proceeding before the Gleason Board," they had "no notice, or opportunity to submit evidence concerning any other alleged Government conduct." Yet in their next breath,Intervenors contend that in their October 27 brief they have already demonstrated..., to the extent that any such actions or mo-tives are cited to support the decision in LBP-88-24 to dismiss (footnote continued) their October 27 brief to support their assertion that they "have already demonstrated their likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal" from the OL-6 Licensing Board's confirmation that Intervenors are dismissed from the OL-6 subdocket. Interve-nors' Motion for Stay at 3. Accordingly, Intervenors have already argued to the Appeal Board that the arguments they make in their October 27 brief are sufficient to demon-strate why they should not be dismissed from dockets other than the OL-3 subdocket in the Shoreham proceeding.
3/
As of August 1 the only Licensing Board active in the Shoreham proceeding was the Board chaired by Judge Gleason, since the OL-5 Board chaired by Judge Frye had terminated its efforts on March 9,1988, following its decision on the 1986 exercise.
LBP-88-7, 27 NRC 289 (1988). Thus, in their August'1 pleading, Intervenors can only 3
have had in mind the potential for their dismissal f rom alj aspects of the Shoreham pro-ceeding.
F.
the Governments from the OL-3 proceeding (as well as from oroceedings pendine before other Boards), that decision is lacking in basis and constitutes reversible error.
Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Thus, by their own terms, Intervenors admit that they have already been provided an opportunity to brief this aspect of the sanctions issue that the Commission certified to itself in its November 9 Order.
Finally, Intervenors simply do not advance any reason to believe that granting the relief they demand would affect the outcome in any way except to delay it. All of the Licensing Boarc's bases for having dismissed Intervenors from the entire proceeding were already mattera of public record existing as of July 1988. Intervenors' instant mo-tion offers neither esidence, argument, nor proffer of either to suggest that the Licens-ing Board's conclusion was incorrect on the merits. Intervenors do not support the proposition that dismissal from a portion of a licensing proceeding is governed by dif-ferent legal standards than dismissal from the entire proceeding. Nor do they argue that different kinds of proof are required, nor suggest how the record available to the OL-3 Board, which had had jurisdiction over emergency planning issues since early 1983, was inadequate to support its determination to dismiss them from the totality of remaining proceedings.S Thus their argument, in the end, lacks substance.
l IL Intervenors' Motion Is An Attempt to Further l
Delay and Frarment the Shoreham NW As shown above, Intervenors have failed to demonstrate adequately why they l
have been prejudiced in any way by the Commission's decision to certify to itself Inter-l l
Venors' appeal from the sanctions ruling in LBP-88-24. Indeed, Intervenors' Motion l
l J/
LILCO summarizes certain aspects of this record in its Brief in Opposition to In-tervenors' Appeal from the Licensing Board's Concluding Initial Decision (Sanc-tions/ Realism Issues), being filed today with the Commission. As that brief shows, the official record was more than sufficient to support the determination of the OL-3 L1-censing Board - at that point the only active Board remaining in this licensing pro-ceeding - to dismiss Intervenors from the entire proceeding.
i
. would appear to be less a good-faith effort to protect due process rights, as they allege, 4
than an attempt on their part to further fragment and delay the Shoreham proceeding.
Intervenors' Motion should be denied on that basis as well, for the following reasons.
A. Intervenors' Motion is Grossly Out of Time First, the Commission would be justified in dismissing Intervenors' Motion out-right as being grossly out of time. Intervenors' Motion was filed on November 23, the day before a holiday weekend, only five business days before LILCO's brief to the Com-mission was due, and a full two weeks af ter the Commission had issued its November 9 Order. Intervenors offer no reasons, nor can they, why they chose to wait so long to seek relief from what they themselves characterize as a serious affront to their "due process rights."
Unquestionably, Intervenors had decided to request reconsideration of the Com-mission's certification decision almost immediately upon its issuance on November 9. In a letter to the Commission dated November 10, 1988. Karla J. Letsche, Esq., one of counsel for Suffolk County, stated that, in Intervenors' minds, the November 9 Order "raises several serious legal issues which the Governments will address in due course."
The letter further indicated that (t] hose issues may include the appropriateness of removing a portion of the Governments' appeal from the Appeal Board and the NRC's apparent assumption that the Governments have already been provided the opportunity to brief the issue which the NRC certified to itself in yesterday's Order.
Letter from Karla J. Letsche to Lando W. Z 2h, gLal. (November 10,1988) at i n.1 (em-phasis added). There is nothing in Intervenors' eleven page motion to suggest that the motion could not have been filed within a very few days of the Commission's November 9 Order.
In such circumstances, Intervenors' decision to wait a full two weeks before seeking reversal of the November 9 Order raises serious doubts about their motives.
Intervenors' penchant for utilizing procedural mechanisms to promote delay in the Shoreham proceeding is one aspect of their conduct that the Licensing Board has found t? De objectionable.EI The Commission should not tolerate it here. Intervenors' Motion, which can hardly be said to have been filed in "due course," should be rejected as un-timely.
B.
Intervenors Have No "Due Process Right" to a Hearing Prior to the Commission's Decision on their ADoeal Second, Intervenors' blatant assertion that they are entitled to further hearings, an opportunity to "contest charges" relating to their prior conduct, and an "opportunity to present evidence in their defense"EI should be rejected as a red herring argument that has no basis in fact or law. As explained in part I above, the issue identified in the November 9 Order is precisely the same issue that Intervenors were to have addressed and, in fact, did address in their October 27 brief.I! The Licensing Board's finding in LBP-88-24 with respect to sanctions was, in sum, that Intervenors had, through their litigation tactics in the Shoreham proceeding, engaged in a "sustained and willful 5/
Specifically, in its Concluding Initial Decision, the Licensing Board noted that
"(t]hroughout the protracted period of this proceeding, Intervenors have provided lit-tie evidence of a motivation to have this controversy... resolved on the merits and in a timely manner." LBP-88-24, slip op, at 109. The Board further found that "procedur-al mechanisms have been consistently utilized (by Intervenors] in delaying the Board and Commission in carrying out its !! censing responsibilities." Ld. at 110. Similarly, in rejecting Intervenors' request that Judges Gleason and Kline disqualify themselves from ruling on LILCO's recent request for authorization to operate Shoreham at 25% power, i
the Board stated that Intervenors' "disqualification request and its timing are rea-sonably interpretable as being simply another strategy of litigation that could have the effect of preventing or delaying a decision on LILCO's motion." Order (November 21, 1988)(unpublished) slip op, at 9.
f/
Intervenors' Motion at 6.
1/
Accordingly, Intervenors' implausible complaint that they "do not know what
' conduct' the Commission intends to examine in deciding the issue announced in the November 9 Order," Intervenors' Notice at 5, should be disregarded. On ap[eal, the Commission obviously will examine the very same Intervenor conduct that the Licens-ing Board evaluated in reaching its sanctions decision in LBP-88-24.
_9 strategy of disobedience and disrespect for the Commission's adjudicatory processes."
LBP-88-24, slip op, at 129. The Board stated that in evaluating the appropriate sanc-tion for Intervenors' misconduct, the "entire record of this proceeding was reviewed for the probative significance it imports." Ld. at 115.
In light of this, Intervenors' "due process" complaints, and the demand for fur-ther hearings, ring hollow. Indeed, just what sort of "evidence" would Intervenors wish to present in "defense" of what amounts to their own litiration stratery? They offer no clue, and none is intuitively apparent. As is noted above, all of the f actors considered by the Licensing Board in LDP-83-24 were already matters of public record, compiled in six years of very public, very documented litigation. It is hard to see how any probative information about Intervenors' conduct could be brought to light through further hear-ings, apart from the record evidence that has already been evaluated by the Licensing Board and upon which the Commission will base its own decision.
Intervenors' misplaced insistence that they are entitled to another full hearing prior to the Commission's decision on an issue that involves matters of historical record in this proceeding and that has already been fully briefed by the parties on appeal is not a good-faith effort at protecting their supposed "due process rights." It merely reveals their continuing desire to cause yet more delay in the Shoreham proceeding.
C.
The Commission Properly Certified to
]
Itself the Sanctions Issues from LBP-88-24 Finally, Intervenors' allegation that the Commission has somehow abused its dis-cretionary authority in certifying to itself the sanctions decision from LBP-88-24 is baseless. The Commission acted properly in taking jurisdiction over the sanctions is-sues on appeal, in order to provide dispositive guidance and control over the Shoreham i
proceeding precisely at a time when such guidance is profoundly needed. Intervonors' suggestion that the Commission reverse itself is simply an invitatinn to sunder the Shoreham proceeding further, and indicates that Intervenors have no wish to see this proceeding resolved within the foreseeable future.
At the time of the November 9 Order, the Commission already had before it LILCO's petitions for review of ALAB-901 and ALAB-902. Not only has the full power licensing authorization in LBP-88-24 been vacated, but these decisions have the incon-gruous effect of allowing Intervenors to continue to oppose LILCO's license app!! cation before one licensing board, notwithstanding the fact that another board has found that Intervenors' dismissal from the entire proceeding is the only appropriate penalty for their willful misconduct. The Commission's certification of the s. notions decision on appeal is an entirely proper decision, given the rh ed for this important issue to be re-solved in a focused and consistent manner.M Moreover, Intervenors' argument that the "issue defined by the Commission for certification to itself does not present questions of regulatory interpretation that only the Commission can decide, or any other matter unique to Commission decision-making," Intervenors' Motion at 9, contrasts sharply with their position on appeal, in which they term the sanctions decision as the "most sweeping ruling of its kind in the history of NRC adjudication," and an "unprecedented ruling" that represents an "unauthorized challenge to the sovereignty of the Governments" as well as an "infringe-Ont upon the Governments' lawful powers." October 27 Brief at 2,46. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.785(d), the Commission has the authority to certify to itself "major or novel questions of policy, law or procedure." The Commission's determination that it, and not F
Events occurring since the November 9 Order, including the "OL-6" Licensing Board's confirmation that Intervenors are dismissed from the 25% power subdocket,its concomitant authorization of a 25% power license, and the Appeal Board's subsequent assertion of jurisdiction over these matters despite their direct nexus with the issues certified in the November 9 Order, underscore the need for Commission intervention and direction. On November 23, LILCO has requested the Appeal Board to certify to the Commission the issue of the Licensing Board's dismissal of Intervenors from the OL-6 phase of the proceeding. LILCO has also notified the OL-5 (1988 exercise) Board and the parties that it will not act upon the Appeal Board's apparent suggestion in ALAB-902 to seek Intervenors' dismissal from that proceeding, until the Commission has acted upon the certified sanctions issue. LILCO's Motion to Dismiss Exercise Contentions 4-20 on the Basis of ALAB-903 (OL-5R docket)(November 21,1988) at 16 n.17.
8
~
the Appeal Board;is the more appropriate body to decide in the first instance Interve-nors' appeal of their "unprecedented" dismissal was correct and should not be reversed.
m. Conclusion
For the reasons given above, Intervenor.s' Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, u
4 Do5ald P. Irwin James N. Christman David S. Harlow Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 1,1988 l
l i
l
q:
~
LILCO, December 1,1988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S NOVEMBER 9 ORDER were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Christine N. Kohl, Chairman
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing One White Flint North Appeal Board 11555 Rockville Pil.e 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 Flint North Alan S. Rosenthal
- 11555 Rockville Pike Atomic Safety and Licensing Rockville, MD 20852 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr
- East-West Towers, Fif th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway One White Flint North Bethesda, MD 20814 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers
- Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 115 Falcon Drive, Colthurst 11555 Rockville Pike Charlottesville, VA 22901 Rockville, MD 20852 Thomas S. Moore, Chairman **
Commissioner James R. Curtiss
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board One White Filnt North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike East-West Towers, Fif th Floor Rockville, MD 20852 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 William C. Parler Esq.
- General Counsel Howard A. Wilber "
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 Lethesda, MD 20814 i
I
. James P. Gleason,' Chairman **
Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Docket 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, MD 20901 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline **
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reguls. tory Commission One White Flint North East-West Towers, Fourth Floor 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East-West Hwy.
Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon **
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Fourth Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.
Washington, DC 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- John H. Frye, III, Chairman **
Richard J. Zahnleuter Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber, Room 229 East-West Towers, Fourth Floor State Capitol 4350 East-West Hwy.
Albany, NY 12224 Bethesda, MD 20814 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris **
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 120 Broadway i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 East-West Towers, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10271 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 George W. Watson, Esq. **
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Dr. David L. Hetrick Federal Emergency.v anagement Professor of Nuclear and Energy Agency Engineering 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 t
The University of Arizona Washington, DC 20472 Tucson, Arizona 85721 Mr. Philip McIntire Secretary of the Commission Federal Emergency Management Attention Docketing and Service Agency Section 26 Federal Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10278 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Energy Office Appeal Board Panel Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223
.,--_y,
. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Evan A. Davis, Esq.
~
Twomey, Latham & Shea Counsel to the Governor 33 West Second Street Executive Chamber P.O. Box 298 State Capitol Riverhead, NY 11901 Albany, NY 12224 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
New York State Department of Suffolk County Attorney Public Service, Staff Counsel Building 158 North County Complex Three Rockefeller Plaza Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, NY 12223 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Ms. Nora Bredes Dr. Monroe Schneider Executive Coordinator North Shore Committee Shoreham Opponents' Coalition P.O. Box 231 195 East Main Street Wading River, NY 11792 Smithtown, NY 11787 h5 &/_
(Tav6Harlow Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 1,1988 1
i i
1 e