ML20205D674
| ML20205D674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1988 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7328 ALAB-902, LBP-88-24, OL-3, NUDOCS 8810270172 | |
| Download: ML20205D674 (14) | |
Text
\\2-[ 'f ~ / LILCO, Octo bf 21, 1988 T*gTM7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5 i 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11 gG f\\ aplT&@3,,,f d ,f? !Y h 0 - U Before the Commission, VN .A fcl1griQf In the Matter of ) N fV ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL 3 ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1 ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-902 Long Island Lighting Company petitions the Commission, I pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.786, to review and reverse the Decision of the Appeal Board, ALAB-902, 28 NRC slip op. (October 7, 1988), on the ground that the decision is incorrect on important grounds of law and policy. I. Backaround On September 23, the Licensing Bohrd in the general ( "O L-3 " ) omorgency planning docket issued its 150-page Concluding Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, LBP-88-24, 28 NRC (September 23, 1988).1 In addition to deciding all remaining emergency planning issues in LILCO's favor, it dismissed Intervonors Suffolk County, New York Stato and the Town of Southampton from all remaining aspects of the Shoreham omorgency planning proceed-ing as a sanction for a years'-long course of willful, daliberato and porvasivo misconduct.2 l 1 Since its appointment in K1y 1983 "to presido over the procco: lim go i all emroency plannim issues at Shorehr," 48 Fcd. Reg. 22235 (1983) (c:T asis supplied), this Boarti has rendoral a lcrgthy series of decisions h spannirn all cmrgency planning issues. 'Iho "0L-3" Dmni has presido3 over all encryency plannlIn issues at Shoreham except the 1986 excIx:ico. Sc9 LIILO's Petition to Review AIM 1-901 and Policw-On Oniors (Octctor 5,1988) at 9 noto 12. 2 'Iho portion of IEP-88-24 which sots cut the basis for igosition of the senction of dismismi in over 40 pages lorg. Id. at 88-130. It roccunts the repeatcd refusals of Intervenors to cceply with aiscovery or*rs relatim 0010270172 001021 PDR ADOCK 0b000322 0 PDH
g ' s This decision, together with the deficiency-free June 7-9, 1988 Shoreham emergency planning exercise and FEMA's finding that the Shoreham emergency plan now provides revonable assurance of protection of the public health and safety, completed the founda-tion for issuance of a full power operating license, which was authorized by the Licensing Board subject only to Staff resolu-tion of matters not before it. LBP-88-24 at 149. The Appeal Board, however, issued a curious series of 4 orders, starting just three days before LBP-88-24, which laid the gcoundwork for ALAB-902 to stymie completion of this proceeding. I Those orders (ALAB-901 and two follow-on orders) suddenly revived the defunct "oL-5" docket, in which the technically moot 1986 exercise had been tried; assigned the 1988 exercise to it (wrest-to the "realism" prr M ng, khich had been underway since June 1986 pursuant to CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577. It also treats the record of a special evidentiary 1 j hearing conducted in the sunner of 1988, concerning Intervenors' failure for several years to produce the ccr:prehersive, 700-plus page Suffolk County I Energency Operations Plan, khich had been in existence arri use in basically current fom in the County since the early 1980s. It also took account of
- j various earlier actions by Intervenors in derogation of this proceeding, j
'Ihese included Suffolk County's enactnent, just weeks before the 1986 j emergemf planning exercise, of a crirtiml ordimnce mking participation in that exercise punishable by up to a year in jail aM a $1000 fine (the ordinance was held unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court. LBP-88-24 at 109 n.32; LIILO v. Ctunty of Suffolk, 628 F.Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y.1986). 'Ihey also included Intervenom' defiance in 1982 of Licensing Board discovery I orders (resulting in dismissal of their contentions) in the "onsite" portion f of this proceeding. IBP-88-24 at 109-09; Icm Island Lichtim Co. (Shortham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), IEP-82-115,16 NRC 1923 (1982) a f f 'd AIAB-788, 20 NRC 1102, 1178 (1984). Irdeed, the OIr3 Board expressly relied on Intervenors' apparent failure to take to heart the lesson of the 1982 i sanctica, in deciding that lesser sanctions than dismissal kould not ) adequately address their coMuct or deter it in the future. IBP-88-24 at 115. 'Ihe Appeal Board asserts that it has taken the Licensity Board's sanctions deterrtimtions as correct for purposes of its present decision. AIAB-902 at 7. Howver, its characterization of the basis for the Licensiry Board's decision as sirply "default (on) certain ote3 Licensirrt Board discxwery ordem" (id. at 2) significantly urderstates the record basis for the OL-3 Bcard's conclusions. l 'Ihe dismissal sanction in IBP-88-24 was dissented frcn vy one rc:ter of the OIr3 Licensing Board, Jtrige Shon, but he disagreed onl/ 'sith the severity j of the sanction. 1 l j l
i ing it from the OL-3 docket); and granted Intervenors, ex carte, i a separate, accelerated appeal of their dismissal.3 II. Su==arv of The Decision of Which Review is Sought ALAB-902 invents the "jurisdictional" proposition that licensing boards in multi-board proceedings lack authority to l l impose sanctions which extend to matters before other licensing l boards in the same proceeding. Thus, while at least purporting i not to disagree with the OL-3 Board's dismissal of Intervenors l from the OL-3 proceeding, it finds that the OL-3 Board had no I "jurisdiction" to exclude Intervenors from any 1988 exercise i j proceedings in the freshly revived OL-5 docket. It thus reverses i Intervenors' dismissal to that extent, and vacates the OL-3 Board's authorization to issue a full power license. ALAB-902 rests not on authority but on two spurious argu-ments. The first -- based on the notion that a party to a pro-ceeding has a "right to be judged independently and fairly by each board before which it appears" -- is that the imposition by any Board of sanctions extending beyond those matters directly before it is an improper "arrogation by one Board of authority l l legitimately vested in another." M. at 9, 11. The Appeal Board j concedes that this theory would require any party moving for ( dismissal in a multi-board proceeding to obtain the concurrence l of each and every board in the proceeding; but it contends that l any associated "burden" would be "illusory" (M. at 8-9), and that it does not undermine the effectiveness of dismissal as the t ultimate sanction provided by the Commission's Statement or i f Policy on Conduct of Licensino Proceedinas, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, j 454 (1981). ALAB-902 at 8-9. l Second, ALAB-902 asserts that the OL-3 Licensing Doard j erred, given the gravity of the sanction, in allegedly not giving i 3 LIIID and the NRC Staff both opposed Intervenors' Septcrber 13 request l for assignnent of the 1988 exert:ise to the OL-5 docket. How ver, since the 5 l Appeal Board ted Intezvenors' request for separate and accelerated appeal l of their di. ssal within half a day of its filing on Septe:ter 27, neither LIIID nor the Staff had any cyportunity to respcod. i i
..i any serious consideration to the relationship of its action to the proceeding pending before the OL-5 Board. The OL-3 Board knew three days before its decision (when, by happenstance, ALAB-901 was issued) that proceedings before the OL-5 Board would soon be underway with regard to the 1988 exercise. ALAB-902 at 12. The Appeal Board concedes that it is unable to find any law it regards as being dispositivo on the issue of the limits of sanctions authority. ALAB-902 at 15-17. Ultimately, the Appeal Board appears concerned less with jurisdiction than with the result of dismissal as a sanction under the circumstances. It is "so harsh" a penalty, "particu-larly where, as here, the sanction directly leads to termination of the proceeding and authorization of an operating license," that "the OL-3 Board's majority opinion... does not reflect adequate attention to all of the significant implications of its decision." ALAB-902 at 19-20. By reopening the prospect of litigation on the 1988 exer-cise, ALAB-902 threatens to prolong this proceeding two more years. It also undermines the ability of the Comnission to enforce standards of conduct on parties to its proceedings. For these reasons, and because it is inconsistent with NRC policy, practice and procedent, LILCO seeks review of it. III. Errors in AIAB-902 of Which Review is Sought 1. The Anneal Board!s "Jurisdictional" Linitation on the Reach of Sanctions in Multi-Board Proceedinas is Baseless. The Appeal Board's purported "jurisdictional" limitation of the reach of sanctions imposed by any licensing board to the scope of issues before it is not supported by authority and does not withstand analysis. The authority and duty of Licensing Boards to enforce orfar and standards of conduct in a proceeding, including the imposi-tion of sanctions, do not vary with the scope of substantive issues but are set by other, fixed standards: the Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 59 2.707 (Default), 2.718(e) (Power of Presid-
ing Officer), and the Commission's Statement of Policy on Con-duct of Licensiner Proceedincts, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981). The Policy Statement specifically contemplates dismissal from proco-edings in severe cases. M. at 454. There is no restrictici there or elsewhere on the reach of sanctions, e.g., to a given sub-docket or sub-proceeding. Nor should there bet what is at issue is not the merits of any given substantive issue but the fitness of a particular party to participate in the NRC's process for resolution of that er m issue in a proceeding. The considerations outlined in the Policy Statement for determining the suitability of sanctions are consistent, in fact, only with a holistic concept of a proceeding that cannot be subdivided for administrative convenience or docket management. They are: The relative imoortance of the (Intervonor's) unmet obligation; its notential harm to other parties or the orderly conduct of the proce-eding; whether its occurrence is an isolated incident or a part of a cattern of behavior; the importance of the safety or environmental concerns raised by the party; and all of the circumstances. M. (Emphasis supplied.) There is no way a Licensing Board can inplement these guidelines without looking at the totality of a proceeding, rather than confining itself to the sub-proceeding over which it has subject-matter jurisdiction.4 Appeal Board precedent, until ALAB-902, was also consistent with this unitary proceedings notion. In the Shoreham case itself, the Appeal Board, confirming the denial in 1983 of an untimely intervention on emergency planning issues, stated: 4 The Appeal Dmd's suggestion, AIAB-902 at 12 n.12, that the 1981 Poliev Statenent my not apply to miti-boad pmceedirrJs because thern my have bocn few such proceedings at the time it was issued, breaks down upon examimtion. Virtually all contested cases since the mid-1970s have had separate phases. There is no hint in the Policy Statenent that the Ccrnission inteMed the reach of a sanction irposed by a Doad in any given phve of a proceedirg to be limited to that specific phase.
e , j 4 4 In October 1977 the Licensing Board authori-zed discovery on an emergency planning con-tantion of two intervenors. (citation omitted.) Needless to say, the fact that a seoarate licensina board was recently i established to consider the emercency elann-inc issue does not succest the institution of i a new Droceedina. That action was taken for i , administrative reasons oniv, i.e.. becausa of the other demands on the time of the members of the Licensina Board that had been oreviously assioned to hear all issues in controversv. See, in this connection. 10 CFR I Part 2 Aeoendix A. E I(c)(1). ALAB-74 3, 18 NRC 387, 397 n.38 (1983). I i In short, nothing in commission authority or practice limits 4 l the authority of Boards in multi-board proceedings; to impose sanctions proportionate to the behavior giving rise to them. i 2. The Aeneal Board's Invention of a Systen of Concurrent I Vetoes Over Sanctions in Multi-board Proceedinas is not { Succorted by Authority, is not Tailored to Preserve Parties' Due Process Richts, and Would not Produce Consistent and Eauitable Results., i The Appeal Board's so-called "jurisdictional" limitation on the effect of sanctions effectively guts the effectiveness of the commission's authorization of dismissal as a sanction in the Policy Statement. The Appeal Board attempts to evade this fact j j j by inventing an unworkable system of concurrent approvals [ ] (really, vetoes) by each successive licensing board. This novel j proposal is not supported by logic or by commission authority. l l It is not attuned to protecting the rights of parties or the { achievement of consistent, fair or timely results. It would result instead in a "crazy quilt" of conflicting decisions by different licensing boards on the very same sets of facts. It q should be rejected. ALAB-902's stated concern for "a party's right to be judged l independently and fairly by each board before which it appears," id. at 11, applies aptly to substantive issues within the scope l l i
of a licensing application. However, as applied to the richt of a carty to carticipat;.g in Commission proceedings the proposition breaks down, for the reasons outlined in Argument 1 above. Sanctions relate to the conduct of the party itself; and analysis of the consequences of conduct cannot be as readily pigeonholed as that of substantive issues. The question of what behavior is sufficient to warrant sanctions in Commission proceedings is an 's peculiarly subject to demeanor evidence. The tribunal which has ;een faced with the evidence of sanctionable behavior is clearly the best one to judge the propriety of a sanction.5 That determination is of course subject to review, but the path for that should be the normal review on the record of factual determinations by the Appeal Board and the commission, with substantial deference to the trier of fact.6 The Appeal Board's proposal to subject any sanction which crosses administrative lines of convenience in a multi-board proceeding to successive merits reviews oy each licensing board, before the final result (if one is ever reached) ultimately goes to the Appeal Board or the Commission, merely delays review of any sanctions decision with no guarantee of enhancing its quality and considerable possibility of creating inter-Board confusion or disagreement. 5 Nothing illustrates better khy the bcard irposirg the sanction sh:nld initially determine its reach than the Shoreham case. Without its ability to survey Intervenors' behavior in tko cognate sub-dockets as kull as in its own docket (r:eg note 2 supra), the OIe3 Licensing Bcard could not have put their six-year pattern of corduct into the perspective conte @ lated by the B2]isy Statemnt. Further, the experience and expertise of the OIc3 Board span five and one-half years and the acrplete spectrum of emergency plannirg issues; aM the areas in khich the behavior it fourd to be sanctiemble were all either within its specific sub-docket or mtters of public record within the relato:t emergency planniry area generally. Thus the Appeal Itard's criticism of the mjority cpinion in IEP-88-24 for failure to evidence "any serious consideration to the relationship of its actions to the precocdirg perdiry before the OIe5 Doard," AIAB-902 at 12, is not kell taken. 6 See Natiomi Hockey Iraque v. Metrerolitan Hockey Club Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (Irr curiam) ; Weisbetrt v. Webster, 749 F.2d 864, 872 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
. t A few examples illustrate the inadequacy of the Appeal Board's proposal: 1. If ALAB-901 had boon issued (and the "oL-5" docket reconstituted) on September 24 (itat, after LBP-38-24) rather than on September 20, would the OL-3 Board have had "jurisdiction" to dismiss Intervenors from the entire emor-I gency planning proceeding, since on the day of issuance of LBP-88-24 there would have been no other board with compet-ing jurisdiction? (Under the logic of ALAB-902, the answer is apparently "yes." Query: does this make sense?) 2. If the "oL-3" Board's d6:ormination in LBP-88-24 to dismiss Intervonors had listed all pending dockets, includ-I ing the OL-6 docket for 25% power operation, should the validity of that dismissal, or its effectiveness, depend on the composition of the licensing board in the OL-6 docket? (The OL-3 and OL-6 Boards are in fact identical; but suppose i they were not?) 3. In a hypothetical proceeding with only one Board, which has before it only a subset of the issues required for issuance of a license (o.a., safety but not emergency plann-ing), would its dismissal of a party be offective to prevent i the party from re-entering later in the emergency planning phase? (The outcome here can't be predicted from ALAB-902, i but common sense says that a dismissal from an entire proce-I eding, if justified, should not be limited by the sequencing of issues.) ) 4. Whatever the result in excaple 3, would the effect of the initial licensing board's disuissal of a party from the entire proceeding be affected if, subsequently, a different licensing board were appointed to hear emergency planning issues? (Logic says no; ALAB-902 suggests yes, at least if 1 the initial Board dismissed the party from the entire proco-eding, not just from the matters then before it.) 5. Suppose one Board in a multi-board proceeding dismisses a party from the sub-proceeding before it, but a second Board refuses, on the basis of the same evidence as was considered by the first Board, a request to dismiss the same party from the different sub-proceeding before it. What influence does the second Board's refusal have on review of the first Board's dismissal? (It should have none; would it?) The Appeal Board's concurrent-veto proposal is unsupported and unworkable. The Commission should reject it.
3. The Criticism in ALAB-902 of the Licensina Board's Consider-ation of the Consecuences of Innosina Dismissal as a Sanc-tion, and of Intervenors' Governmental Role. Imoronerly Colors an Issue Outside the Scoco of the "Limited Jurisdic-tional" Issue Before it. The Appeal Board, echoing Intervonors, has characterized the question in ALAB-902 as the "narrow juri:dictional issue" of the authority of a licensing board in a multi-board proceeding to issue sanctions affecting matters before another Board.
- However, the Appeal Board discusses the criteria it would impose for issuance of a sanction of dismissal. In the course of doing so, it criticizes (incorrectly) the Licensing Board's degree of consideration of one factors that the sanction leads directly to termination of a proceeding and issuance of a license.
ALAB-902 at 12-14, 19-20. This discussion impugns the substance of the Licensing Board's sanction determination and prejudices review of it, even though for purposes of ALAB-902, that determination was assumed to be correct (id, at 7). Further, it merely states the obvious: in any operating license proceeding, dismissal of all active intervonors will tend to terminate the proceeding as long as the tiRC Staff has satisfactorily concluded its technical analysis.7 7 'Ihe Appeal Board disclaims, in view of its jurisdictioml ratiomle, hmwirn given any consideration to the fact that Intervenors are goverTrental entities. AIAB-902 at 6 note 5. Intervenors' status as govemnents is irrelevant not merely because of the Appeal Doard's ratiomlet it is irrelevant, pericd. Govermental entities are pemitted special latitMe in the tems uMer khich they enter proceedirgs,10 CFR l 2.715(c). Nt once they are in a proceedity, they rust take it as they find it ard adhere to the same rules as nornovemnental prties appearity beforu a Licensity Doard. 2111 States Utilities Co. (River Dend Station, Units 1 ard 2), AIAB-444, 6 tac 760, j 768 (1977). Sm also, Irm Islard Linhtim Cormny (Shoreham Nuclear ItNer i Station, Unit 1), IEP-83-30,17 tac 1132,1140 (1983)(late-filed contention); Hcuston Linhtim ard trwr Cortvinv (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), IEP-83-26,17 tac 945, 947 (1983)(revision of tire limits). Irdeed, the special ccnity afforded govermental prticipants by the Ccmission argues, if r anythirg, for the irposition of hinher expected stardards of corduct frcn them thin frcn other prties whose participation can be cyposed at the cutset. l
IV. Why the Commission Should Take Review of ALAB-902 The commission should tako review of this appeal for three reasons. First, the Appeal Board has stitched a fabric of law concerning sanctions out of whole cloth, and that fabr'.c is flawed for ceasons stated in Part II above. Second, the effects of the Appeal Board's incorrect decision are important. They may well dotormino the fate of Shoreham and the ability of the com-mission to disciplino its own proceedings. If the Appeal Board is uphold by the Commission, then liti-gation of the 1988 exorciso appears inevitable. If the litiga-tion of the 1986 exercise by the OL-5 Board is any guide, this could delay Shorehan's licensability by up to two years. This delay would be intolerable, considering that construction and low power testing of the plant have been complete for three years; that all emergency plan-related issues have been successfully concluded; and that FEMA has found that the 1988 exercise was free of deficiencies and that emergency preparedness at Shoreham affords reasonable assurance of protection of the public.8 Third, the issues here presented affect the powers of any licensing board in a multi-board proceedings. Further, to the extent that the Appeal Board strays beyond the "narrow jurisdic-tional" argument that it used to justify ALAB ')02, the decision constrains any Liconsing Board -- whethar it is the sole Board in a proceeding or or.e of several -- in the event it contemplates l 1ssuance of a sanction. It is an extremely important decision to the future of sanctions litigation, before singic or multiple boards. 8 Such further delay sirply cannot be recomiled with the Ccmission's policy, expresscd in its relicy Statemnt on corduct of Licensim Proemilms, of crpusiziry expedition and timely ccepletion in the corduct of cperating licenso proceedirns (crublity them to be finished, ideally, before the end of construction). 13 b'RC 452, 452-53, 458 (1981). i
_=_._-_ -_ =. e ' s CONCLUSION i Along with ALAB-900 and ALAB-901, resolution of ALAB-902 determines whether the Commission has the ability to bring the c interminable shoreham litigation to a conclusion. The Commission [ i should take it for expeditious review and reverse it. r Respectfully submitted, i I d l i w W. Taylor Reveley, III i Donald P. Irwin 1 James N. Christman l l t l Counsel for Long Island Lighting f Company 1 Hunton & Williams t ] 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 l j Richmond, Virginia 23212 f I DATED: October 21, 1988 1 I l 1 L i i ] I f l l L b I ]
O !.!LCO, October 21,1988 Q, ,CER TIFICATE OF SERVICE p ;,.. In the Matter of [ p,16Y.. \\.. i OWh, n r." '" D R LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No 50-322-OL 4 Nd' /6 .,6 ? ]p I hereby certify that copies of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB 302 were served this date upon the following by telecopy as in-dicated by an asterisk, by Federal Expreis as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Alan S. Rosenthal "
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safe;y 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 Flint North Dr. W. Reed Johnson "
11555 Rockville Pike Atomic Safety and Licensing Rockville, MD 20852 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissionce Kenneth M. Carr
- 115 Falcon Drive, Colthurst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisrion Charlottesville, VA 22901 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike floward A. Wilber "
Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Commissioner Kenneth C. Rr gers
- U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulat]ry Commission East-West Towers, Fif th Floor One White Flint North 4350 East-West liighway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20S14 Rockville, MD 20852 James P. Gleason, Chairman William C. Parler, Esq. "
Atomic Safety and Licensing General Counsel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 513 Gilmoure Drive 11555 Rockville Piks Silver Spring, MD 20901 Rockville, MD 20852 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Christine N. Kohl, Chairman ** Atomic Safety and Licensing l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l Appeal Bonrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers East-West Towers. Fitth Floor 4350 East-West Hwy. 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
6 s Mr. Frederick J. Shon Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Ato.nic Safety and Licensing Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Board Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber East-West Towers Room 229 4350 East-West Hwy. State Capitol Bether,da, MD 20814 Albany, New York 12224 John H. Frye, !!!, Chairman Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Atomic Salety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board 120 Broadwaf U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 East-West Towers New Yotk New York 10271 4350 East-West Hwy. Bethesda, MD 20814 George W. Watson, Esq.
- William R. Cumming, Esq.
Dr. Oscar II. Paris Federal Emergency Management Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Board 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20472 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Mr. Philip McIntire Bethesda, MD 20814 Federal Emergency Management Agency Secretary of the Commission 26 Federal Plaza Attention Docketing and Service New York, New York 10278 Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, DC 20555 New York Stato Energy Office Agency Dullding 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Empire State Plaza Appeal Board Panel Albany, New York 12223 U.S. Nuc! car Regult tory Commission Washington, DC 20555 f.tephen B. Latham, Esq. " Twomey, Latham & Shca Adjudicatory File 33 West Second Street Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 298 Board Panel Docket Riverhead, New York 11901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of Edwin J. Reis. Esq.
- Public Service Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Rockefeller Plaza One White Flint North Albany, New York 12223 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Lawrence Ctse Lanpher, Esq.
- Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Karla J. Letsche Esq.
195 East Main Street Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Smithtown, New York 11787 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5491
4 . i .i 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. I Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County. Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 ( esc Donald P. Irwin liunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 L Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 21,1988 i t f l i t i l l e i l t l >}}