ML20207C557
| ML20207C557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1986 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-2006 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612300173 | |
| Download: ML20207C557 (17) | |
Text
.
anon LILCO, December 23,1986,,
00 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA u (j 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~85 DEC 29 P2 :47 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
,m In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION REGARDING PENDING DISCOVERY MATTERS AND ORDER OF PROCEEDING UNDER THE DECEMBER 11 ORDER The days immediately before Christmas are not ideal for bringing on matters for resolution before any tribunal. However, four matters which have arisen since this Board's December 11 Memorandum and Order require this Board's attention within the immediate future in order to avoid fatal disruption of the schedule set out in that Mem-orandum and Order, prejudice to the fair and expeditious conduct of this proceeding generally, and prejudice to LILCO's ability to prepare its case timely and effectively.
These matters are:
I 1.
Two unbriefed and undiscussed aspects of the schedule of milestones toward hearing set out in the December 11 Memorandum and Order: (1) the virtual elimination
)
of the possibility of summary disposition by LILCO, resulting from the Board's having lef t only 12 days between the end of discovery (January 21) and the deadline for LILCO to file its direct testimony (February 2); and (2) the requirement that LILCO, but only LILCO, file all of its testimony on February 2, while the other parties are permitted a rolling filing schedule keyed only to the end of presentation of LILCO's case.
hh 5
2 G
Dso7
__-=-_
t 2.
Intervenors' frustration of the remainder of the discovery schedule, by (a)
Ignoring the January 21 deposition cutoff deadline, (b) refusing to engage in meaningful interparty discovery planning discussions, while (c) naming at the eleventh hour sub-stantial numbers (ten so far since December 3) of new intended witnesses who have i
never testified before in this proceeding, and whose proposed testimony LILCO has not yet been able to elicit.I 3.
Intervenors' attempt, contrary to the Rules of Practice, to avoid admitting to or contesting the accuracy of a timeline for the exercise properly posed to them on December i by LILCO, by means of another spurious " notice" dated December 15, to the effect that they would not be making a timely filing.2/
4.
FEMA's pending motion, filed December 17, 1986 to modify the treatment proposed for Contentions EX 15,16 and 19 by " bifurcating" the proceeding to take Con-tentlans EX 15 and 16 first and permitting resolution of Contention EX 19 at any time.
LILCO moves, for reasons outlined more fully below, that the Board take the fol-lowing actions with respect to each of the above issues:
1.
Testimony Filing Schedule and Method of Proceeding Set Forth in the December 11 Order: Provide that testimony will be due on February 2 on allissues that are not then the subject of pending summary disposition motions; require that such 1/
In a December 22 letter received this morning, Intervenors announce the addi-tion of two further, as yet unnamed witnesses, and that they do not intend to meet the Board's December 24 cutoff.
2/
Intervenors have filed a piece of paper dated December 22 and received today, which tardily and generally asserts their inability to respond to LILCO's request for ad-mission. LILCO will be considering whether to seek this Board's help in compelling In-tervenors' answers.
.- 6
)
1
' filings be simultaneous by all parties, as has been the practice in this proceeding for five years; require that testimony be filed, for issues which as of February 2 are the subject of pending summary disposition motions, within ten days af ter resolution of any such motion; proceed to hearing first on the issues filed on February 2, taking up re-maining issues in turn.
2.
Intervenors' Flouting of January 21 Deposition Discovery Cutoff: Ration the remaining time available to each party to take further depositions; order the Inter-venors to cease refusing to take or defend simultaneous depositions; permit LILCO to designate additional witnesses as necessary to respond to the testimony of new witness-es recently designated by Intervenors, within as short a period af ter December 24 as is reasonably possible af ter obtaining, by deposition or otherwise, substantial summaries of these new witnesses' intended testimony.
3.
Intervenors' Refusing to Admit or Deny the Accuracy of the Exercise Timeline: Order Intervenors to admit or deny within 10 days.
4.
FEMA's Motion With Respect to Contentions EX 15,16 and 19: Permit each of these contentions to be the subject of summary disposition and litigation on exactly the same terms as any other contention. There is no need to await the end of the pro-ceeding before permitting the parties to brief Contention EX 19; and Contentions EX 15 and 16 should become the subject of testimony by all parties on February 2 unless sum-mary disposition motions are then pending on them. The Board should not " bifurcate" i
the proceeding to set up a special segment devoted to Contentions EX 15 and 16 since they are not, contrary to FEMA's sngestion, " outcome-determinative." It is not at all clear that they will be decided on summary disposition, and even if they were that would not obviate exploration, required by CLI-86-11, of the value of the exercise in
l 4_
fact or examination of the proficiency of the LERO organization within the constraints placed on the exercise by forces and organizations beyond LILCO's control. Thus, placing the other contentions in abeyance pending resolution of Contentions EX 15 and 16 will merely delay their readiness for hearing. The Board accordingly should modify its December 11 Order to the extent necessary to clarify that it did not intend to com-pel awaiting the end of the proceeding before deciding Contention EX 19; and should deny FEMA's motion with respect to " bifurcation" of the proceeding on Contentions EX 15 and 16.
Each one of these issues requires this Board's action now in order to avoid loss of its control over the remainder of the discovery phase of the proceeding, the d_e facto destruction of its proposed schedule, and significant and unfair prejudice to LILCO.
None of these issues is foreign to any of the parties; none requires significant research to analyze. LILCO requests that the Board convene a conference of counsel as soon as practicable, preferably at the beginning of next week, to resolve these issues and pre-vent the otherwise irretrievable loss of time.
I.
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION AND TESTIMONY FILING SCHEDULES On December 4, pursuant to telephone notice conveyed by counsel for the NRC Staff, the Board held a conference of counsel to discuss then-pending motions for re-consideration relating to the admissibility of Contentions EX 15 and 16 and various other contentions in this proceeding. At the end of that conference the Board also took up the likely remaining prehearing schedule, inquiring of counsel their estimates for re-maining discovery. Following a recess the Board tentatively announced a discovery cutoff of January 15, 1987, on the basis of counsel's statements on the record. The
Board also went beyond the scope of its on-the-record discussion with counsel, men-tioning certain projected milestone dates leading to hearing commencing February 17 and indicating that it would issue a written order within the coming week.
On December 11, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order, received the next day, which ruled on the pending motions for reconsideration. It also set a schedule for the remainder of pretrial discovery and a series of milestone dates leading to hearing.
That schedule differed from its previous week's tentative announcement of a prehearing schedule in three important respects. First, while leaving February 2 as the deadline for filing direct testimony, it extended the discovery cutoff from January 15 to January 21. Second, it made the February 2 filing deadline applicable only to LILCO.
Third, the order stated that while LILCO 's testimony would all be due at one time, on February 2, that of other parties would be due on a rolling schedule, fif teen days prior to presentation. The parties had not had notice of or an opportunity to express their view on any of these issues prior to the Board's ruling. Since they are highly prejudicial to both the progress of this proceeding generally and to LILCO's ability to present its case on an even footing with the other parties, LILCO seeks modification of their im-piementation.
LILCO requests that the Board modify its December 11 Order as to these mat-ters. The Board's first proposal, by putting the cutoff for discovery only 12 days away from the filing date for direct testimony, virtually eliminates any meaningful possibility of summary disposition by LILCO, unless testimony filing is stayed pending resolution of any pending motions.El If this were to happen, it would strip LILCO without ils 3/
This is because the time permitted to respond to a motion for summary disposi-tion, unless altered by the Board, is 20 days; and the party to which a summary (footnote continued)
- acquiescence of a procedural avenue which is permitted under the Commission's regula-tions,10 CFR S 2.749, and which has been consistently factored by LILCO into its scheduling pleadings and arguments in this phase of the emergency planning proceed-ing.Y It would also eliminate the most straightforward possibility for narrowing and focusing of issues in this proceeding.EI (footnote continued) disposition motion is directed will also be given 10 days to reply to any response sup-porting the motion.10 CFR S 2.74S(a). The Board must thereaf ter rule on the motion.
Assuming two weeks for decision time by the Board, the average time for resolution, from filing to decision, is between about 35 and 45 days plus service time, assuming that the motion is fully responded to in the first instance. g.10 CFR S 2.749(c). Summary disposition motions cannot be filed effectively until the party proposing to file them knows what the recipient of the motion would be likely to answer. This cannot be real-istically done before discovery is substantially complete. As the Board knows, there is still a motion by LILCO pending to compel the Intervenors to supplement certain inter-rogatory answers. The Board has just granted, as of December 12, LILCO's motion to compel discovery from the State of New York. Deposition discovery will not be com-pleted until at least the third week of January on various contentions. Thus effective summary disposition motions could not have been filed before now, and many will not be susaeptible of filing for several weeks yet.
4/
In the initial emergency planning proceeding, the parties forwent summary dis-position on any substantial scale in an effort to get to hearing as quickly as possible.
The result was 86 days of evidentiary hearings between December 1983 and August 1984. Though the current proceeding concerns only one day's events, the Board has ad-mitted longer contentions and will have permitted more discovery than took place in the entire earlier proceeding. Thus there is both more possibility for hyperextended proceedings without summary disposition and a significant possibility, which should not I
be inadvertently ignored, of focusing and trimming its scope and extent by use of sum-t mary process. This is all the more so here since the subject of the hearing is an in-l tensely observed one-day exercise, as to which the essential facts should not be in dis-pute.
g/
The alternatives - requiring filing of testimony on February 2 and either proceeding to hearing notwithstanding the pendency of summary disposition motions or holding hearings' actual commencement in abeyance until their resolution - would not be useful. Proceeding to hearing would moot the motions. Requiring the filing of testi-mony but holding hearings in suspension on issues which are the subject of motions is equally wasteful; rulings on motions of ten eliminate issues entirely, or at least focuses or recasts them, thus enablying the parties to file more responsive testimony af ter the motions' resolution than before.
L
u The Board's second proposal - that LDLCO file its direct testimony first prej-udices LILCO seriously, is inconsistent with the practice in this proceeding of simulta-neous filings of testimony by all parties, risks not joining issues promptly, and virtually guarantees the need for a distinct rebuttal phase to the proceeding.
The proposal with respect to the order of proceeding would prejudice LILCO be-cause LILCO would be filing its direct case, which in fact responds to Intervenors' alle-gations, " blind" save for whatever meaningful discovery the Board compels the other parties to disgorge between now and January 21. The other parties, by contrast, will have had two advantages: complete discovery of LILCO's documents and witnesses, and the opportunity to comment on LILCO's testimony in their direct filings. This virtually guarantees a distinct rebuttal phase later, adding yet another stage to this proceed-ing.SI The proposal is inconsistent with the trial of all other issues in all other phases of this proceeding. There, all parties have always filed testimony simultaneously, on as many issues as were ready for hearing at any given time. Then all parties have been heard in turn on each issue (or issue cluster, as appropriate) before turning to the next issue or cluster. On rare occasions, more than one party's witnesses have testified si-multaneously, in order to facilitate the Board's ability to hear and contrast their ex-ports' views. Indeed, counsel for Intervenors recently referred in the companion re-mand proceeding to the " consistent practice in these proceedings under which the parties have simultaneously filed their testimony on emergency planning matters."Il f/
In previous phases of this proceeding, direct testimony has been filed simulta-neously by all parties, and rebuttal testimony has been permitted only upon a showing of good cause, generally before cross-examination even occurs.
I/
Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Reply Brief on LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record, Docket 50-3322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning),
December 8,1986, at 11 note 7.
' The proposal risks not joining issues promptly by apparently saving all other par-ties' testimony until af ter LILCO has presented its entire direct case on all issues. If past is prologue, LILCO witnesses could end up being on the stand literally for months consecutively, thus prolonging hearings needlessly, and leaving a stale record by the time other parties' testimony is heard.
The Board can avoid the prejudicial side-effects latent in the proposals for order of proceeding in its December 11 Memorandum and Order by the following means:
1.
Order all parties to file their entire direct cases simultaneously, on February 2, as to all contentions or subcontentions on which there is not a summary dis-position motion pending as of that date.
2.
Defer the testimony filing date as to any contention or subcontention for which a summary disposition motion is pending as of February 2, until 10 days af ter the Board decides the pertinent summary disposition motion or motions.
3.
Proceed to hearing on February 17 on issues for which direct testimony was filed on February 2.
4.
Hear all parties on each issue or issue cluster before advancing to the next one.
LILCO moves that the Board modify its December 11 Memorandum and Order in this regard.
II. FRUSTRATION OF REMAINING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE Virtually since the December 4 conference of counsel and intensifying since the December 11 Memorandum and Order, Intervenors have been taking a variety of steps whose effect, if not intent, has been to tear at the structure and schedule set in place
c m,-s y ; 7 i y
y; V
4 x'
_9_
(
.I I
.s
.c e
T by the Board for the remainder of discovery. Intervenors have simply ref used to engage ;
i, in meaningful discussions concerning discovery with the other parties, most noticeabiy LILCO. Rather, they have ignored repeated telephone calls and lettm from LILCO
+
(see letters from Kathy E.B. McCleskey dated December 10 and,19, filed separately y
t.
with the Board this date) and have rather communicatedsclely by self-serving letters
- ~
of December 18 and 22 - not even motions - to the Board. These htters fait to dis-E close the texture of discovery to date and blithely " notify" the Board that Intervenora,
j have no apparent intention of making the special efforts necessary to complete discov-ery by the January 21 cutoff ordered by the Board.EI i
Intervenors have also jammed discovery by large-scale last-minute witness,desig-nation (13 since Thanksgiving). Of these, Intervenors have designated a total of ten new witnesses since December 3, of whom five (perhaps seven) have never served as witnesses in this proceeding previously.EI Of these, LILCO has thus far been unable to obtain, by deposition or otherwise, any substantial summary of their intended i
g/
This cutoff date itself is six days later than that initially announced by the Board at the December 4 conference.
9/
These intended witnesses are:
Frank Petrone (designated December 3), Lee j
Colwell (designated December 4; resume received December 8); Ford Rowan (designated December 4); Margaret Loftus (designated December 4); Martin Mayer (designated December 11); David Harris (designated December 11); Susan Saegert (not yet' officially designated; only referenced in letter dated December 22); and Harold Zook (not yet of-ficially designated; reference in letter dated December 22). Of these witnesses, only Messrs. Harris and Mayer and Ms. Saegert have testified in this proceeding before. Of i
the new witnesses, Intervenors have enabled LILCO to depose only one (Frank Petrone) thus far. In addition, two additional as yet unnamed witnesses will apparently be desig-nated after the December 24 cutoff, according to a.Dacember 22 letter from 1
Christopher M. McMurray, received today. Intervenors had previously designated three witnesses on November 26: Charles Perrow, Stephen Cole, and Gary Simon. This brings to 13 the total of witnesses designated by Intervenors in the last month.
4 -
I 1
I i
__.__.c_.,,
=
m l testimony. LILCO cannot yet know, and will not be in a position to know by the December 24 witness designation deadline set in the Board's December 11 Order, whether it will be necessary to designate additional witnesses of its own to counter In-tervenors' new witnesses' testimony.
In addition, according to their December 22 letter, Intervenors propose to depose eight FEMA employees and contractors ordered to be made available by this Board's December 17 Order. LILCO understands that only four of these persons are presently proposed by FEMA to be witnesses. Intervenors propose to depose these persons indi-vidually, rather than in the panels in which they do their work as RAC members and will testify. This wastefully arrogates six of the approximately sixteen remaining days of depositions between now and the close of discovery merely to those persons. This format is inconsistent with previous usage in this proceeding, where the Licensing Board permitted FEMA to present its witnceses for deposition, notwithstanding Interve-nors' objection, in panels rather than individually.E Intervenors' proposals come at the same time as they have failed thus far to make their own newly designated witnesses reasonably available for deposition, or to M/
The Board's sensible rationale was based on the f act that the FEMA and contrac-tor experts formulated their testimony collectively and would testify collectively, and that the RAC committee members who were not proposed as witnesses inherently de-veloped their report together. Indeed, in the previous stages of this hearing FEMA was not even compelled to produce RAC members who were not proposed to be witnesses.
The Board's rationale was that in the absence of questions of the veracity of the FEMA witnesses and experts (as here, there were no such questions), give the collective na-ture of these experts' work product the discovery process would be more efficiently pursued if undertaken in the same manner as the initial work product, i.e., collectively.
In these depositions FEMA was also shielded from having to disclose the individual RAC members' individual views, to the extent that they may have differed on individual mat-ters from the RAC's consensus, in order to protect the deliberative privilege associated with the RAC's process.
u
_tt_
)
participate in simultaneous depositions of witnesses, or to exert themselves in any fashion to obey the Board's December 11 Order.
Intervenors'. arrogant contumacy - refusing to deal with the other parties and
+\\
seeking to alter the Board's orders by " notices" rather than motions - should not be tol-erated. The Board should promptly take the following steps: It should ration the avail-able remaining time for' depositions among the parties; it should order the parties to participate in siinultaneous depositions where necessary; it should permit LILCO to des-Ignate additional witnesses as soon as reasonably practicable af ter obtaining notice of Intervenors' new witnesses' intended testimony. Finally, it should permit Intervenors to take the depositions of the FEMA witnesses and non-witnesses contractors cnly in the efficient manner previously permitted - collectively - rather than squandering a third of the remaining discovery time on those despositions.
III. REFUSAL TO ADMIT OR DENY ACCURACY OF TIMELINE On December 1, LILCO served on the Board and all parties a request directed at Intervenors to admit or deny the accuracy of an attached document containing a timeline for each event and communication which, according to exercise-day records (all of which have been available to Intervenors fa sacral months), occurred during the February 13,1986 exercise. The purpose of M
- aline was, and remains, to sim-plify discussion of the exercise and reduce the number of avoidable disputes to a mini-mum. What turned out to be feckless discussions took place with Intervenors' counsel between December 1 and 15; these are adequately summarized on pages 2 and 3 of the December 19,1986 letter from Kathy E.B. McCleskey to Intervenors' counsel filed sepa-rately with the Board today. They need not be repeated here.
m
' Despite these discussions, which centered on the possibility, proposed by Interve-nors, of a stipulation regarding the time!ine, nothing concrete has ever emerged or even been proposed by them. Instead, a unilateral" notice" was filed on December 15 by Intervenors, inadequately recounting the status of discussions, and merely informing the Board and parties that Intervenors would not be responding timely to LILCO's request for admissions.
The regulation on admissions,10 CFR S 2.742, is potentially ambiguous as to whether an order is required from a licensing board before responses are required, al-though the parties to this proceeding on whom Intervenors have' served requests for ad-mission have always responded without requiring the Board's intervention.N Intervenors' December 15 " Notice" does not set up any principled basis for refus-al to respond to the request for admission of the accuracy of LILCO's timeline. Nor has such a basis been asserted in the other discussions which have occurred. Intervenors have had the timeline now for three weeks, and the documents underlying it for several months. There is no reason for them not to answer LILCO's request for admission of its accuracy.
M/
The relevant provision,10 CFR S 2.742(b), reads in pertinent part:
Each requested admission shall be deemed made unless, within a time designated by the presiding officer or the Commission, and not less than ten (10) days af ter service of the request or such further time as may be allowed on mo-tion, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party either (1) a sworn statement denying spe-cifically the relevant matters of which an admission is re-quested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he can neither truthfully admit nor deny them, or (2) written objec-tions on the ground that some or all of the matters involved are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part.
em,
. s.
- Accordingly, LILCO moves that the Board require Intervenors, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.742(b), to admit or deny the accuracy of the contents of the timeline filed on them on December 1 within 10 days.N IV. TREATMENT OF CONTENTIONS EX 15.16 AND 19 The December 3 Memorandum and Order makes no special suggestions about the manner of treatment of Contention EX 15 and 16. However, it suggests that Conten-tion EX 19 be reserved for post-hearing argument (id. at 14). FEMA has since suggested in a December 17 motion that the Board consider Contentions EX 15 and 16 to be po-tentially " outcome-determinative" of this proceeding, and that it " bifurcate" the pro-ceeding so as to treat them first. FEMA also suggests that there is no reason not to permit resolution of Contention EX 19 before the end of the proceeding.
FEMA's motion should be granted as to Contention EX 19 and denied as to Con-tentions EX 15 and 16. Though two of these contentions are subjects for live proof (Contentions EX 15 and 16) while the third (Contention EX 19) is admitted for argument only on the basis of an existing record, there is no reason to treat these contentions any differently from any others.
FEMA is not correct that Contentions EX 15 and 16 are "cutcome-doterminative of this proceeding." First, it is unlikely that either of them will be completely resolved on summary disposition. While the fact or extent of inclusion or exclusion of various exercise elements may be readily determinable, the significance of that inclusion or 12/
LILCO has received today a response of December 22 which claims Intervenors' inability to answer the requests for admission. LILCO will consider in the immediate future a request to compelIntervenors to respond substantively.
Tw-e
t exclusion is a matter for expert opinion. Second, and fundamental, even if the conten-tions were to be summarily decided, that would not end the inquiry set out for this Board by the Commission in CLI-86-11, namely, that of determining the value of the exercise. A conclusion that it was not a full participation exercise - though LILCO be-lieves that would be an incorrect conclusion - would not end inquiry on the value of the exercise and the readiness of LERO demonstrated by it. In short, FEMA cannot es-cape the need to prepare its entire case depending on the outcome of Contentions EX 15 and 16.
Thus litigation of the rest of the contentions is inevitable in any event in order to implement the Commission's mandate in CLI-86-11.
And a " bifurcation" which merely put preparation of those issues off indefinitely would merely guarantee a delay at the time when it was inescapably necessary to begin that preparation.
LILCO does not object in theory to Contentions EX 15 and 16 being considered at the outset of the proceeding, assuming discovery and any summary disposition on them have been completed. However, it is at the least premature to consider putting off preparation of the other aspects of the case until these contentions have been litigated, much less litigated and decided separately.
Similarly, there is no reason why Contention EX 19 needs to be deferred until the very end of the proceeding. LILCO has always understood the Board's admission of this contention "for argument only" as meaning that the Board saw it as involving a purely legal issue. LILCO knows of no relevant considerations that are likely to change be-tween now and the end of this proceeding with respect to Contention EX 19. Thus, there is no point in not making it eligible for resolution now if the parties are so in-clined.
4
- .w
,, q-s CONCLUSION LILCO is hesitant to involve the Board in what, in most circumstances, could be lef t to parties to resolve. However, the obviously unintended prejudicial effects of two aspects of the Board's December 11 Order (item 1) plus the events of the past few days
- Intervenors' by now clear refusal to exert themselves in the fashion necessary to meet the Board's discovery schedule without severe and unfair prejudice to other par-ties (items 2 and 3) and FEMA's motion respecting Contentions EX 15,16 and 19 - have made it necessary, in LILCO's view.
LILCO requests that the Board promptly order the relief sought above, and that in order to lessen the otherwise unavoidable turnaround time for responses by other parties it either schedule a conference call of counsel or, preferably, convene a confer-ence of counsel not later than the beginning of next week, to resolve these matters.
Respectfully submitted, Donald P. Irwin Lee B. Zeugin Jessine A. Monaghan Kathy E.B. McCleskey i
i Hunton & Williams i
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 23,1986 i
w
--='--=r-s
-v~,
,-sm+s*--w,,msws'
--~-ven~---o~~-
m-c-
'--*,~~ew----r----~ * - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - ~
--~=--~~w---w'-~e===-~
-~~-'en
-*-="e--*~
k LILCO, December 23,1986 Uctme SNkt l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
'86 DEC 29 P2 :47 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY CffEt it
.+-
+
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 00CXElm, g vr1 N '*
4 Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION REGARDING PENDING DIS-COVERY MATTERS AND ORDER OF PROCEEDING UNDER THE DECEMBER 11 ORDER were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by an aster-isk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage pre-paid.
John H. Frye,III, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
?
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mailroom)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers l
4350 East-West Hwy.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
l Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Atomic Safety and Licensing South Lobby - 9th Floor Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Hwy.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
j Special Counsel to the Governor l
Secretary of the Commission Executive Chamber l
Attention Docketing and Service Room 229 Section State Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General l
Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555
r t
u j
l,
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 fY0 Donald P. Irwin l'
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 l
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 23,1986 l
l
.