ML20205N403
| ML20205N403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Chuck Norton, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N380 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-902, LBP-88-24, OL-5, NUDOCS 8811040136 | |
| Download: ML20205N403 (19) | |
Text
C 4
00CKEIE0 OctoberP31, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA T8 IS!-2 R2 08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission '
)
In the Matter of )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL"'d5
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
GOVERNMENTS' RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUEST TO RESUME IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR A STAY OF ALAB-902 I. Introduction On October 7, 1988, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-902,1/
ruling that the Licensing Board in LBP-88-242/ had exceeded its jurisdiction when it attempted to dismiss the Governments (Sutf'olk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton) from all Shoreham proceedings. The Appeal Board thus reversed LBP-88-24 in part and vacated the Licensing Board's authorization to the Staff to issue a full power operating license for i Shoreham. ALAB-902, slid 222, at 4, 20.
1/
Unit 1)Lena Island Lichtina
, ALAB-902, 28 NRCCo. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, slip op. (Oct. 7, 1988), review Detition Dendina.
2/ Lano Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ,
Unit 1), LBP-88-24, 28 NRC __, slip op. (Sept. 23, 1988).
8811040136 001031 PDR ADOCK 0500gg.]2 0 ,
9 Prior to ALAB-902's issuance, LILCO and the Governments had submitted immediate effectiveness comments to'the Commission, as authorized by 10 CFR 5 2.764 (f) (2) (ii) . Once ALAB-902 vacated the license authorization, however, the Commission (and most particularly its office of General Counsel) ceased to continue the effectiveness review. This was consistent with Section 2.764, since an effectiveness review is. generally undertaken only wh'n e the prerequisites of-licensing exist; after October 7, 1988, these prerequisites no longer existed in the Shore' ham proceeding.
l l
<0n October 21, 1988, LILCO made an unusual "request."3/
)
LILCO alleged that it was being irreparably injured by the fact that the Commission had ceased its immediate effectiveness review for Shoreham in the af termath of ALAB-902. In support of this !
t irreparable injury argument, LILCO asserted that even if it is j i
successful in obtaining revershi of ALAB-902, it would nonetheless incur continued economic costs for Shoreham, since !
the llRC than would still have to conduct a 30-d,ay effectiveness review. LILCO's Request t;.erefore necessarily assumed (but did not discuss) that, but for the 30-day effectiveness review, LILCo would be authorized to operate Shoreham at full power immediately after the hoped-for reversal of ALAB-902. Accordingly, LILCO asked the Commission to rest me its immediate effectiveness review. In the alternative, if deemed necessary, the Commission 2/ LILCO's Request to Resume Immediate Effectiveness Review or, in the Alternative, for a Stay of ALAB-902 (Oct. 21, 1988) j ("LILCO's Request") .
1 i
, 9
- - - -._.__ , - - . , . m.,-._.,_--._.-.____,__._.y .. . . _ , .___,_-..._.ge - . . , _-,....-~_,.v.rm,r,,
was requested to stay ALAB-902 in order to facilitate resumption of the immediate effectiveness review.
The Governments demonstrate below that LILCO's Request must be denied. First, it was proper for the Commission to cease the immediate effectiveness review. Section 2.764(f) contemplates such a review only when there is a license authorization. There is none now in this case. Should the NRC resume its review absent reversal of ALAB-902, it could be concluded that the Commission is favoring LILCO over the Governments' and the public's best interest. Thus, resumption of the Commission's immpdiate effectiveness review now would convey the impresr, ion that the Commission has prejudged the issues raised in ALAB-902, anc has decided that LILCO will succeed in obtaining reversal of ALAB-902. The NRC has not yet even decided whether to review A LA B-902 , however.
Second, LILCO's Request is a challenge to,the regulations.
Section 2.764 (f) reflects the Commission's policy judgment, as enunciated in its regulation, that a 30-day hiatus for conducting ,
an effectiveness review -- after the last adjudication has occurred -- is a necessary part of the licensing process. It is likely that virtually every licensee could urge harm from this 30-day process, since carrying costs typically cannot be amortized until the NRC authorizes licensing. The'NRC, in l
O adopting Section 2.764(f), clearly weighed such factors, however; it resolved that the potential safety-related benefits of a 30-day hiatus outweigh the speculative "costs" to a licensee.
LILCO thus challenges the regulation. It sought no examption, however, and the Request must be denied.
Third, whether in the context of a resumption of the Commission's immediate effectiveness review or a stay motion, LILCO's allegations of "irreparable injury" are clsarly insufficient. LILCO's injury is speculative in the extreme. It requires at least the following to occur: ALAB-902 must be reversed; the Commission's 30-day effectiveness review must delay LILCO's commencement of full power operation of Shorehamt it must be assumed that an effectiveness review would reveal no reason for the Commission to stay Shoreham's license; the pending settlement between LILCO, New York State, and the Long Island 1
Power Authority would have to terminate or expire prior to consummation; and LILCO's carrying costs could not be recovered by LILCO through New York State rate procedings. Such speculative economic injury allegations do not satisfy the definition of "irreparable injury."
This point bears emphasis. LILCO cannot possibly demonstrate that the Commission's 30-day effectiveness review, if undertaken at a later date, would delay Shoreham's operation.
The Staff, for example, must conduct an operational ~ readiness inspection prior to operation. That inspection cannot be
-4 -
l
conducted until a license is authorized, however. Given the necessity for this Staff inspection, and other factors discussed herein, it is highly unlikely that the Commission's effectiveness review would delay Shoreham's operation.
Fourth, the remaining stay factors are not satisfied in this case. ALAB-902 was correctly decided, reflecting a careful adjudication of issues of Licensing Board authority. LILCo certainly makes no "strong showing" that ALAB-902, a unanimous Appeal Board decision, is likely to be reversed. Further, LILCo makes -- and can make -- no showing that it is in the "public interest" to make special rules for LILCo, i.e. , all other l 1
licensees have their immediate effectiveness reviews at the conclusion of adjudication but L1LCO gets to dictate an earlier time for Shoreham. This particularly is the case since the citizens on Long Island who are most affected by Shoreham overwhelmingly desire that it never operate. Also, the Commission should not grant LILCo a special favor when there clearly is no need for Shoreham's power.
In addition, the NRC must bear in mind that LBP-88-24, the Licensing Board decision which gave rise to the potential l
issuance of a full power license for Shoreham, is being vigorously appealed and appears of dubious validity. The
., - . . . - - - - - - - - ~
Governments have demonstrated in a pending Appeal Board briefd/
that LBP-88-24 is flawed in several fundamental respects.
Moreover, the Appeal Board has noted that portions of LBP-88-24 do not comply with Nku requirements for reasoned decisionmaking.
Thus, with respect to the Licensing Board's lack of discussion concerning the dismissal of the Governments from the exercise proceeding, the Appeal Board stated: "[t]his failure to provide reasons for such a significant aspect of the Board's decision would be cause alone to reverse . . . .
ALAB-902, slio gut at 13 (citations omitted). It is clearly not in the public interest to proceed with an effectiveness review, or to issue a stay of ALAB-902, when the underlying Licensing Board decision is so likely to be reversed.
II. Discussion A. It Would Be Improper to Resume the Immediate Effectiveness Review The purpose of the NRC's immediate effectiveness review procedure (10 CFR 5 2.764(f)(2)) is for the Commission, once all prerequisites to licensing have been completed, to have an opportunity (taking about 30 days) to review the bases for the licensing action and to determine whether to stay the action or to allow it to become effective. Indeed, the procedure arose out of the post-TMI era and reflects the policy judgment that even 1/ Governments' Brief in Support of Appeal of September 23, 1988 Concluding Initial Decision (Oct. 27, 1988). A copy of this brief has been served on the other parties previously. A copy is attached to the Commission's copies of this filing.
t
after the adjudicatory Boards and the Staff have completed their work and have determined that a license should be issued, it remains necessary for the Commission to review the proposed licensing action. Egg 44 Fed. Reg. 65049, 65050 (1979).
In its Request, LILCO seeks to violate the basic premises underlying Section 2.764(f) and, in the process, even seeks to have the Commission prejudge adjudicatory matters. The Shoreham adjudication is n21 completet there is no authorization to operate Shoreham above 5% power. Egg ALAB-902. Under such circumccances, the commission generally does not conduct effectiveness reviews. Egg 10 CFR 5 2. 764 ( f) (2) . Indeed, if the commission were to resume its immediate effectiveness review for Shoreham at this time, that would suggest that the Commission has prejudged pendirg issues, i.e., that ALAB-902 will likely be reversed.
Such prejudgment, of course, would be entirely improper, particularly since it would send a "signal" to other adjudicatory Boards in the Shoreham docket. Thus, contrary to LILCO's assertion (LILCO's Request at 4), there is good reason for the Commission net to resume its effectiveness review at this time.
Further, there is no good reason why the Commission should now resume the Shoreham effectiveness review. Section 2.764 (f) contemplates that the Commissioners' resources can best be utilized in an effectiveness review once all prerequisites for
licensing are completed. Only then can it be reasonably assumed that the Commission has a full understanding of the bases for licensing. In this case, those prerequisites do not exist. As noted, there is no license authorization for Shbreham at this time. Indeed, there still exist unresolved Licensing Board findings that LILCC's Plan is fundamentally flawedE/ and that the only litigated "exercise" of LILCO's Plan failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F.1.5/ Indeed, the Governments have recently filed 103 pages of contentions related to the 1988 exercise which demonstrate that LILCO's Plan still is fundamentally flawed.2/ Finally, there are contested issues presently before three Appeal Boards.1/ '
l t
In any event, the Governments would have to be provided a new opportunity to provide effectiveness comments if the ;
i prerequisites for Shoreham's licensing are ever satisfied. Thus, even if the Commission were to resume its effectiveness review now, there would have to be time built into the. schedule after l 5/ Lona Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 2
Unit 1), LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988), aceeal eendina.
n/ Lono Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-32, (1988), review eetition 26 NRC 479 (1987) , a f f'd, ALAB-900, 28 NRC __
eend[ng.
I 2/ Emergency Planning Contentions Relating to the June 7-9, 1988 Shoreham Exercise (Oct. 24, 1988). ;
1/ Issues relating to the adequacy of LILCO's reception centers are pending before one OL-3 Appeal Board, issues related to '
LBP-88-24 are pending before a second OL-3 Appeal Board, and issues the before related OL-5toAppeal LILCo's 1986 exercise performance are pending Board.
4
- - - - - . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . - . __ _ _ -_ ._ - _ _ _ _ -._ __ _ l
4 4
t licensing prerequisites exist for the Governments to comment-further on issues related to shoreham's licensing.
B. LILCO's Request Is an Improper ChalJm ae to the Reculations
- LILCO has requested the Commission to proceed with its immediate effectiveness review of LBP-88-24, citing alleged delay costs as its sole basis. This argument must be rejected as an improper chr.llenge to the regulations. Such costs have already been taken into consideration and found acceptable by the Commission in its adoption of 10 CFR $ 2.764 (f) . LILCO's attempt to premise its request on such costs is thus an improper challenge to the regulations. E.g., Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-456, 7 NRC 63, 65 (1978). And LILCO has not sought an exemption from the regulations.
In response to the TMI accident, the NRC adopted 10 CFR Pt. 2, Appendix B (1980 ed.) ("Appendix B").
44 Fed. Reg. 65049 (1979). Appendix B, an interim procedure, was structured to increase supervision over licensing decisions by providing for the special review of those decisions by both the Appeal Board and the commission. This two-tiered review procedure resulted in a review period of approximately 80 days between the time a i
. I l
Licensing Board completed its work and the time a license actually could issue. 46 Fed. Reg. 20215 (1981).2/
In 1981, it seemed likely that a number of plants would reach completion before the issuance of their operating licenses.
As a result, on May 28, 1981, Appendix B was replaced by 10 CFR 5 2.764 (f) expressly to "reduce the length of time between a Licensing Board decision . .
. and the Commission's decision on whether to permit the Licensing Board's decision to become effective." 46 Fed. Reg. 28627 (1981). This action was the final choice b 6. ween two options proposed by the Commission earlier in 1981. 46 Fed. Reg. 20215 (1981). The first of these, "Option A,"
which was eventually chosen, provided for delayed effectiveness of Licensing Board decisions pending review by the Commission, a process designed to take 30 days from the time the Licensing Board completed its work. "Option B," on the other l t
hand, would have granted immediate effectiveness to the Licensing Board decision, allowing a license to issue within 10 days thereafter. 46 Fed. Reg. 20215, 20216, 28627 (1981). Comments on the proposed options revealed that "intervenor" commenters preferred retention of the Appendix B procedures, while "nuclear industry" commenters preferred the immediate effectiveness provisions of Option B. 46 Fed. Reg. 28627 (1981).
I 2/ During this time period, a large proportion of the llRC Staff was reassigned from the review of construction and operating license applications to investigating TMI-related problems. This !
also contributed to licensing delays following the TMI accident.
46 Fed. Reg. 20215 (1981).
10
. 1
- l l
The provisions of 10 CFR 5 2.764 (f) were, therefore, a deliberate compromise between conflicting positions. Indeed, the decision to adopt option A was, in the words of the Commission,
- "based upon a balancing of two competing factors
- (1) the benefit of direct commission consideration of nuclear power reactor operating licenses; and (2) the costs associated with costoonina coeration of comoleted clants." 46 Fed. Reg. 28628 (1981) (emphasis added).
The foregoing is significant in the context of the shoreham case. In essence, the commission has already balanced the costs associated with the delay between an effective favorable Licensing Board decision and the operation of a plant following the Commission's immediate effectiveness review. The Commission has determined that such costs must be accepted. It thus is improper, absent application for an exemption, for LILCO to seek '
to challenge the policy embodied in Section 2.764. '
C.
LILCO Will Suf fer No Irrecarable Iniurv LILCO alleges that absent immediate resumption of the Commission's effectiveness review, it will suffer irreparable injury due to the fact that it will need to pay Shoreham carrying costs of $1 million per day during the 30-day effectiveness ,
review period. !
In fact, however, LILCo's claim of injury amounts to nothing more than speculation heaped upon speculation. As 1
[
o l
such, LILCO has provided no basis for a finding of "irreparable injury."
For LILCO to suffer the "injury" it claims, the following must occur: .
- 1. LILCO must persuade the NRC to accept review of ALAB-9 02.
- 2. The NRC must reverse ALAB-902. (It must be assumed as of now that the Appeal Board's unanimous decision will not be reversed.)12/
Certainly, LILCO has not made a "strong showing" that it will prevail. Egg 10 CFR 5 2. 788 (e) (1) ) .
- 3. Even assuming ALAB-902 is reversed (at some '
unspecified time in the future), there must have been no action favorable to the Governments on their pending appeal of LBP-88-24. (Egg discussion in Section II.D below, which demonstrates that LBP-88-24 will likely be reversed. Egg also the Government's Lpp-note 4 above.)w,88-24 Appeal Board brief,
- 4. Assuming ALAB-902 is reversed (at some unspecified time in the future), LILCO must be ready and authorized to operate Shoreham above 5% power, with the NRC's Section 2.764(f) review being the only obstacle to I such operation. That showing cannot be made since
- a. The NRC Staff must conduct'an Operational Readiness Inspection prior to licensing.
Such an inspection is conducted prior to license issuance and takes about two weeks.
It cannot be conducted far ahead of time, or the "readiness" aspect will not be 19/ The Governments have set forth why ALAB-902 is correct.
Egg Government's Opposition to LILCO's ?stition for Review of ALAB-902 31, 1988), a copy of which is being served at the same time as (Oct.
this Response.
11/ There similarly must have been no action favorable to the Governments before an OL-3on their LBP-88-13 Appeal Board. reception center appeal pending l
I l
l l
. I
O 9
accomplished. During such an inspection, the effectiveness review would be occurring.
- b. FEMA hLs not yet conducted a FEMA-REP 10 test of LILCo's notification system. Since 57 of LILCo's 89 sirens failed during the 1988 exercise, this is a criticai licensing requirement. Likewise, LILCo's public information brochure has not been approved or distributed. In fact, FEMA found LILCo's last attempt to prepara a brochure to be :
unsatisfactory.
- c. The Governments have filed 103 pages of contentions on the 1988 exercise, demonstrating multiple flaws therein. Egg ;
note 7 above. These contentions must be resolved before LILCo ever could operate Shoreham above 5% power. ;
- d. There presently is in effect a settlement ,
agreement that bars LILCO from operating Shoreham even if the NRC were to so authorize. Thus, for LILCo to suffer "injury", it must be assumed that the j
settlement agreement will terminate. LILCO can make no such showing. Indeed, LILCO recently urged its shareholders to approve the agreement at an upcoming November 4, 1988 shareholders meeting.
5.
LILCO must be unsuccessful before the New York State Public Service Commission in including the
$1 million/ day carrying costs incurred during the effectiveness review in LILCo's rates. No one can predict now that LILCO would be ' unsuccessful. l
) l The above makes one thing very clear: LILCo's "injury" is i I
- speculative at best and remote in time in any event. Such remote, speculative injury provides no basis for a stay, much less any other relief.
Indeed, where, as here, the sole alleged injury is "economic," the criteria for a stay are clearly not satisfied. Florida Power & Llaht Co., LBP-81-30 14 NRU 357 ~
l (1981) (request for stay denied where alleged irreparable injury was remote and speculative); Toledo Edison Co._ (Davis Besse
Nuclear Pcwer Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-085, 5 NRC 621, 628 (1971) (monetary expenditures made in the absence of a stay do not constitute irreparable injuries) (aucting Virainia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. F.P.C., 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir.
1958)). ERA also Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic loss is not irreparable harm) .
D.
Additional Reasons the Keauest Must Be Denied The relief sought by LILCo is not in the public interest.
First, the basis for LILCO's license authorization is an unprecedented action by the Licensing Board -- wholesale dismissal of the Governments from the proceeding. It is not in the public interest to let such action serve as the basis for a license, particularly when unexplained and unjustified by a Licensing Board. Egg ALAB-902.
The Governments' LBP-88-24 brief (note 4 above) demonstrates that LBP-88-24 is wrong on multiple counts, including the Board's substantive rulings on matters such as the realism contentions, school evacuation, and emergency broadcast system issues. In short, there are serious issues of public safety which have been wrongly decided. The public interest demands full appellate review before further effectiveness review is undertaken by the Commission.
Second, it is not in the public interest to grant LILCO relief when doing so would constitute (or at a minimum appear to constitute) an act of favoritism. 7.ILCO already has recently 14 -
a
engaged in forum shopping once before, having moved Judge Cotter for ouster of the Frye Licensing Board. Judge Frye appropriately noted LILCO's not-so-subtle attempt at forum shopping: "(LIIro's October 3 Motion to Chief Judge Cotter to reconstitute the OL-5 Board) seems little more than a blatant attempt at forum shopping." ASLB Memorandum and order (Oct. 12, 1988) at 4, n.4.
The Commission is being used in another not-so-subtle attempt by LILCO to get around the rules. This must not be permitted.
Third, the electric power from Shoreham is not needed in the short term (between now and next summer) or even next summer, when Long Island is likely to experience peak demand. In the short term, it is clear that there is adequate power from LILCo's existing sources. Next summer, with the capacity additions planned for Long Island, adequate reserve margins will be maintained.
l 1
_ _ ~ . - . -
._ . , . _ . _ _ . -. - _. _ - - . ____ , , . - . _ - g-.-_ - - - - -
e III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, LILCO's Request must be denied.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Sb 5 )
H~erbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller Cecilia L. Norton KIRKPATRICK & I4CKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County 2 4 4.4. EL A dvdst; Fabian G. Paffmino 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 State of New York bhab J'b. ClWO f$ &(
Stephen B. Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P. O. Box 398 ,
33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton October 31, 1988 1
e dI Ii i
[ Ms ir. t October 31, 1988 Ta NW -2 R2:08 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLF'~ 'EGULATORY COMMISSION -
hp e, o;Ki. . . "c'.
he Commission E "'4
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Extrcise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-902 and GOVERNMENTS' RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUEST TO RESUME IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY OF ALAB-902 have been served on the following this 31st day of October 1908 by U.S. mail, first class.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Comm. Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Comm. Kenneth M. Carr Comm. James Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Wasnington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 20555 Comm. Thomas M. Roberts Christine N. Kohl, Chairman i 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 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washingt.on, D.C. 20555 I
i
4 Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- 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 James P. Gleason, Chairman William C. Parler, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 j Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline William R.'Cumming, Esq.
l
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel j Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency !
1 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 General Counsel ,
i Long Island Lighting Company i 175 East Old Country Road l Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Suffolk County Legislature Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 ;
i Office Building 707 East Main Street
- Veterans Memorial Highway Richmond, Virginia 23212 j Hauppauge, New York J1788 f Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea t Shoreha.1 Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street ;
- North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 ,
- Wading River, New York 11792 l Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Gection !
Executive Director Office af the Secretary
{
- Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555
- Smithtown, New York 11787
! Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Hon. Patrick G. Halpin 4
New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building l Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 4
i l l
I f
! l i
i I
!__.__-____._ n .
4 i
i 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 t David A. Brownlee, Esq. (
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1500 Oliver Building Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 I
Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Mr. Stuart Diamond New York State Energy Office Business / Financial ,
Agency Building 2 NEW YORK TIMES l 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 f Albany, New York 12210 New York, New York 10278 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Panel Docket Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ;
l l
@%M/ &
Lawrence Coe LanpKer ,
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- By Federal Express I