ML20207J504
| ML20207J504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Latham S, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-128 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8607290146 | |
| Download: ML20207J504 (23) | |
Text
m
, ~ . .
(' -
hF - ,,
DOCK TED
(
US c July 24 1986 28 kf dp UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cyp?
,r,_ , , . ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dar Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board'
)
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (EP Exercise) *
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) ) /
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OBJECTIONS TO PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER On July 11, 1986, the ASLB issued its prehearing conference order reciting rulings made at the July 8, 1986, prehearing conference. Egg Memorandum and Order (Prehearing Conference, July 8, 1986), dated July 11, 1986, served July 14, 1986, (hereafter, " Order"). Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.751a(d), Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton
(" Governments") hereby object to certain of the ASLB's rulings.
The Governments request the ASLB to revise its rulings in consideration of the objections or, in the alternative, to certify the matters to the Commission, as permitted by 10 CFR SS 2.751a(d) and 2.718(i).
l l
6 e60724 ggj72]jgK05000322 o
- 1. Nassau Coliseum. At the July 8 prehearing conference, the Governments sought to discuss a matter of critical importance to the exercise litigation: the impact and significance of the 1986, resolution Nassau County Board of Supervisors' June 16, which bars LILCO's use of the Coliseum as part of its emergency plan. The Governments emphasized that the Nassau County action, which occurred after the Commission's issuance of CLI-86-ll, created a new void in the record which eliminated the bases for proceeding with the exercise litigation. Egg Tr . 16',09 /
0-9 3, 16,097-98. The Governments also urged that if the ASLB was not it should prepared to address the Nassau County issue on JuIy 8, set a briefing schedule and other matters (such as the filing of contentions) should be held in abeyance until the Nassau Coliseum Tr. 16,148-52.
issue had been fully considered.
The ASLB denied the Governments' requests. Relying upon its reading of CLI-86-11, the ASLB stated that the Coliseum issue was The "beyond the scope of the subject hearing." Order at 3.
ASLB's ruling was expressly "without prejudice to Intervenors' Id.
right to submit contentions on this subject."
The ASLB erred in refusing to address as a threshold matter There the impact and significance of the Nassau County action.
l l
is nothing in CLI-86-ll which barred this Board from considering
! The Nassau County real events and real changes in circumstances.
Board of Supervisors' action is real; it hacoened and it
\
- - - , - - . _ _y _,, , , , _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ . _ - , - , _.v,_,..~ , ,.t. . -
_._g. --
.. - _ . _- . . - . =___. - __ _-. ___ -
It reveals, establishes a new reality which cannot be ionored.
even in advance of any hearing, a'most fundamental flaw in LILCO's plan: the plan cannot be implemented because LILCO lacks the ability to monitor, decontaminate, and relocate the thousands of persons who would be required to evacuate in a Shoreham emergency. The Governments urge the ASLB to face this new reality squarely and to rule forthwith that there is no basis to proceed with further exercise litigation in view of the void in LILCO's plan. Briefly, the reasons are as follows.l* J The February 13 exercise was fundamentally premised on the i
existence of a relocation center where evacuees would be directed to go for radiological monitoring and decontamination of themselves and their vehicles, where hundreds of buses and vans carrying persons out of the EPZ would report, discharge passen-gers, and be decontaminated, where evacuees would be registered, reunited with family members, and provided with assistance in seeking health care, housing, food and other services, and from l
which evacuees would be provided directions, or transportation to It was assumed during
' " congregate care centers" for sheltering.
the exercise that the Nassau Coliseum was available to LILCO to t
! 1 In view of the ASLB's prehearing conference rulings on the Coliseum and the Long Island Power Authority issues, the Governments have asked the Commission and to reconsider Town of Southampton CLI-86-11.
Ege Suffolk County, State of New York, 1986. The Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-86-ll, July 21, filing of that reconsideration motion does not obviate Indeed, this if Board's obligation to rule on the instant objections.
the Board grants the Governments' objections, it will obviate the I
need for the NRC to address the Governments' motion.
be such a relocation center.2 All exercise activities relating to evacuation -- that is, everything that took place from approx-imately 10 a.m. until the exercise ended at 4:30 p.m.3 -- were premised on that basic assumption.4 Indeed, during the exercise the LILCO " players" in simulated EBS radio announcements
" advised" approximately 100,000 " evacuees" to report to the Nassau Coliseum for monitoring and decontamination because they had potentially been exposed to radiation during their supposed evacuation efforts. j On June 16, 1986, however, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors enacted a resolution which rendered irrelevant all of the foregoing exercise premises. Thus, in pertinent part, the resolution specifies:
RESOLVED, that the purported designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum by the Long Island Lighting Company as a Nuclear l
l the February 13 l 2 The ASLB appeared unaware on July 8 that exercise involved the Nassau Coliseum (ggg Tr. 16,090); this may have contributed to the ASLB's erroneous rulings.
I j
3 The exercise began at about 5:15 a.m. Although the decision to recommend evacuation was not made until approximately l 10:00 a.m., beginning shortly after 8:00 the "including players" began various .
l preparing for an evacuation recommendation, The first EBS message l activities involving the Nassau Coliseum. 10:24 a.m.
l recommending evacuation was simulated at 4 For example, during the exercise all evacuation bus routes including those suppcftdtj~ carrying school children were assumed ultimately to terminate at the %despu Coliseum; evacuees in private vehicles were supposedly routed out of the EPZ on routes intended to take them to the Coliseum; and 'the cniy site for radiological monitoring and decontamination of evacuees was the Coliseum.
Disaster Evacuation Center be and the same is hereby declared a nullity, contrary to law and void; and be it further RESOLVED, that no Nassau. County facilities, including the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coli-
~
seum, are or.will be available for the use by the Long Island Lighting Company, or by the Facility Management Corporation of New York, Inc., as part of the Long_ Island Lighting Company emergency plan, unless prior approval
' by resolution is first obtained from .the Nassau County Board of Supervisors; . . .
4 Clearly, the Board of Supervisors' resolution, which was signed into law by Henry W. Dwyer, the acting Nassau County Executive, renders the February 13 exercise meaningless. o Even assuming arouendo that the exercise could have demonstrated that the LILCO Plan could be implemented -- an assumption with which the Governments strongly disagree -- such a i " demonstration" makes no difference given the recent events.
l Thus, whether LILCO could recommend or implement an evacuation premised on the existence and availability of the Nassau Coliseum is academic. The fact is, that facility is not available to be a part of LILCO's Plan. There is no point in litigating exercise
" events" or "results" that are centered around a non-existent facility, i
1 Moreover, the absence of any relocation center requires not j just a decision that exercise litigation should not proceed, but further requires the ASLB to acknowledge the existence of this
! " fundamental flaw" in LILCO's Plan: there can be no reasonable i
i f
. , _ . _ . _ . . , , . _ _ _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ . . , ~ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ - - _ . . . . . . _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . - -
assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken when there is no place for radiological monitoring, decontamination, or relocation of hundreds of thousands of evacuees. Further, the nonexistence of LILCO's previously assumed relocation center in effect renders void the entire protective action of evacuation as proposed in the LILCO Plan.
Without such an end point for evacuees, all prior evacuation time estimates, transportation and routing plans, the assumed necessary number of evacuation vehicles and related / fogistics, and public information and education materials embo' died in the LILCO Plan are invalid. In addition, of course, there is now no provision at all in the LILCO Plan to protect the health of potentially exposed individuals by monitoring and decontaminating them. Thus, the ASLB must not only reconsider its Order and terminate post-exercise litigation, it should also rule that LILCO's Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR S 50.47.
At this time, the Governments, in accordance with the ASLB's directive in the Order, are preparing contentions about the February 13 exercise. These contentions necessarily must cover l
all aspects of the exercise, including the multiple aspects the Nassau County action has dealing with the Coliseum. However, made it abundantly clear that the filing of such contentions is essentially meaningless since the necessary ultimate ruling -- a fundamental flaw exists in LILCO's Plan and LILCO does not comply with Section 50.47 -- is already established. We urge the ASLB
I, The Board should promptly to end this waste of resources.
terminate the exercise litigation or, in the alternative, stay the schedule which it previously announced and call for expedited briefing on this matter.
~
- 2. Lono Island Power Authority. On July 3, 1986, New York State enacted legislation which creates a municipal power .
authority (the Long Island Power Authority or "LIPA") to take over LILCO. LIPA is specifically barred from operaging Shoreham.
The Governments so2ght to discuss this subject on July 8 (or set o a briefit.g schedule for its consideration) since the prospective '
takeover renders LILCO no longer a bona fide applicant for a Shoreham license. E.a., Tr. 16,102-04, 16,148-52, 16,154-55.
The ASLB denied the Governments' request. The Board stated:
As a forum with limited jurisdiction, this is a matter not for our consideration and about which we can take no action. We therefore denied its placement on the agenda. Likewise, we denied a motion to suspend this proceeding awaiting the placing of the matter before the Commission. Our mandate is to conduct an expedited proceeding. (Order at 3).
The ASLB's assertions abrut 'li s .ted jurisdiction" and the
/
" mandate . .
. to conduct an expedited proceeding" obscure the real issue. There has been a severe change in circumstances since CLI-86-ll was issued. There is no mandate in CLI-86-ll or
a ,
in the NRC rules that an ASLB be blind to changes in circumstances or to " proceed with this proceeding" (Tr. 16,156) when the bases for the proceeding have disappeared.5 The Governments now urge once again that the ASLB address this critical matter.
Our reasons can be briefly stated.
l
- The July 3 enactment by New York State of the LIPA legislation is an exceedingly important development /for the Shoreham licensing proceeding. The proposed takeover will eliminate the license applicant in this proceeding and Shoreham will not operate. The legislation is being implemented by the Governor of New York, who has issued an invitation to LILCO to get started with the negotiation process. LILCO's spokesperson was reported in the July 12 Newsday as stating: "LILCO is ready to sit down with the Governor at any time." The LIPA legislation is not, therefore, as LILCO has suggested,6 a matter of no current importance. Rather, the legislation evidences the intent l
l and determination of New York State that LILCO will be reolaced.7 5 The ASLB provided no reasons for its refusal to consider the LIPA issue aside frcm the purported direction of the NRC in CLI-86-11. But, as counsel pointed out on July 8 (Tr. 16,154), theto Commission, of course, did not have the " crystal ball talent" know what legislation would be enacted subsequent to its ruling.
Thus, reliance on CLI-86-11 provides no basis for failing to even i
hear the Governments' substantive arguments or even to set a I briefing schedule.
6 Egg Letter from Donald P. Irwin, LILCO counsel, to ASLB, July 7, 1986.
7 In the legislation's statement of policy, Section 1020-a, the State enunciates numerous reasons why it determined a
LIPA, by It further underscores that Shoreham will not operate:
statute, is barred from operating Shoreham.
In view of the prospective takeover of LILCO, the ASLB must rule that LILCO is no longer a bona fide applicar.c for a Shoreham license. Certainly, the ASLB would never accept and process an application from an entity which was about to go out of existence, particularly if its successor were barred as a matter of law from constructing or operating a nuclear plant. That, I
however, is the situation which is now presented: shortly LILCO will not own Shoreham; and LILCO's successor -- LIPA -- will not operate Shoreham. In these circumstances, there is no legitimate reason for the ASLB to continue with the post-exercise litigation to examine the LILCO Plan or exercise for fundamental flaws or any other defects. That would be a waste of time and resources.
The NRC cannot on June 6 have intended for such pointless and wasteful litigation to proceed and the ASLB should not so assume.
l Thus, the ASLB should reconsider its prior ruling in light of this significant new development and discontinue further proceedings.8 takeover of LILCO to be beneficial: lack of confidence that LILCO can supply service area needs; LILCO's excessive costs have deterred economic development; LILCO's imprudence related to Shoreham; rate increases caused by Shoreham which impact Long l
Island's economy; and uncertainty over the costs and efficiency of Shoreham even if it were permited to operate. The State determined that "a situation threatening the economy, health, and safety exists in the service area" and that these " matters of State concern best can be dealt with by replacing such investor owned utility with a pubicly owned power authority."
8 LILCO suggested to the ASLB in its July 7 letter (footnote 1
l
- 3. Burden of Goina Forward. The Shoreham exercise litigation presents unprecedented circumstances. LILCO has been denied an operating license (LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410, 431-32 (1985)) and that denial has been upheld on appeal (ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651 (1985)). Although LILCO's review petition is pending before the NRC, there is no stay in effect.
2 In the circumstances presented in this case, the Governments sought to raise a threshold issue of importance: wh'ich /
party or parties have the burden of establishing that the exercise '
litigation should go forward. The Governments do not quarrel with the general proposition that when an intervenor chooses to contest a utility's application for a license, the intervenor has the burden of presenting contentions with adequate specificity.
in such a case, That makes sense because the license applicant, has presented a viable license application which may form the basis for issuance of a license. Egg 10 CFR S 2.101(a)(2)
(application not docketed until its completeness and acceptability for docketing is ascertained). Thus, in the normal case and as a general proposition, once an applicant has met its l 6, suora) that the New York State LIPA legislation was a reason i
to soeed un the post-exercise litigation. Presumably, LILCO feels that if the litigation can be completed prior to the takeover being effected and if the NRC can be persuaded to license Shoreham (the Governments submit that any such licensing would be unlawful due to LILCO's noncompliance with regulatory l
requirements), then the takeover of LILCO might be more difficult l
' (i.e., more expensive) for the State to effect. It is most unsuitable for LILCO to urge the NRC to manipulate the licensing process to help LILCO fend off the State's legitimate activities The ASLB must, of course, reject any such l under State law.
manipulation.
l l l
[
- l l
initial burden of filing an acceptable and complete application, the burden then shifts to the intervenor to allege why there are defects in the applicant's compliance with the regulations.
The general rules do not fit this case. LILCO has n21 satisfied its initial burden. Its emergency plan has been found to be illegal and incapable of implementation. It has been denied an operating license. There has been no showing by LILCO that the exercise provides any basis for the ASLB t,d reach a l
different result than that previously reached, i.e., denial of In these circumstances, the Governments submit that the license.
there is no basis for imposing an obligation on the Governments to come forward with contentions.
The ASLB never came to grips with the procedural posture and They are unique, and require attentive facts of this case.
examination. The recitation of inapplicable generalities that dance around the issue is insufficient. Thus, on the " burden" issue, the ASLB's entire ruling is as follows:
Intervenors sought to place on the agenda their claim that the current posture of this licensing proceeding places on LILCO the burden of going forward in'this litigation.
The Board denied the request on the grounds that the Commission in ordering the emergency planning exercise issue for hearing rendered the argument in Item 4. moot. Item 4. was raised before the Commission prior to the issuance of its Order of June 6 instituting the proceeding. Inherently, the Commission's decision calls upon Intervenors to assume the burden of going forward for it discusses
pleading and practice standards that Intervenors are to meet in establishing the Futhermore, this is issues for litigation.
but an ongoing operating license application proceeding where intervenors always have the burden of going forward Theandmatter establishing the sought for issues for litigation.
placement on the agenda had already been decided. (Order at 4).
In fact, the ASLB can point to nothing in CLI-86-ll which decides the " burden" issue or addresses the legal authority issue. And, asserting argument cited by the Governments on that thattheNRC'sruling" inherently"dealswiththeibsuealsodoes j not suffice. Finally, to describe Shoreham as "an ongoing license application proceeding where intervenors always have the burden of going forward and establishing issues for litigation" simply ignores the facts.
The result sought by the Governments in the Shoreham proceeding -- the denial of the operating license -- has already been achieved. The Governments are not in the situation of being f
i confronted with the need to initiate further litigation before the NRC.9 Rather, if LILCO believes the results of the exercise or the FEMA report thereon would provide a basis for changing the ASLB decision which denied a license to LILCO, LILCO has the 1
l 9 It is not clear procedurally under pre-Shoreham NRC case law how the Governments could go about requesting additional litigation in the licensing proceeding, particularly since the Eeg South Governments have prevailed in this proceeldng. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. (Virgil C.
A), ALAB-694, 16 NRC 958 (1982) and cases cited therein.
burden of identifying the bases for that belief, specifying the and satisfying precise issues which it would seek to litigate, the appropriate procedural requirements.
After all, The foregoing is no onerous burden on LILCO.
LILCO already has asserted, albeit in gross generalities, that the exercise provides a basis for a " reasonable assurance" finding. Sag, e,q,, LILCO Letter to Harold Denton, SNRC-1269, June 20, 1986 ("LILCO'sresponsetotheFEMAassessfent . . . (is enclosed]. LILCO believes these actions, when complete, will that enable the NRC to conclude, with reasonable assurance, appropriate measures can be taken . . . in the event of a radiological emergency."); LILCO's Motion to Implement Board Order of June 11, 1986, June 18, 1986, (exercise hearing is
" final required step before issuance of a full power license
. . . . ").
It is important for LILCO to explain its bases for the foregoing assertions. This supposedly is to be a focussed proceeding -- centered on what supposedly is really important.
The Governments submit that the exercise is irrelevant given LILCO's lack of legal authority. If LILCO disagrees, it should be required to explain exactly its theory for licensing so that contentions then can focus at the threshold on those matters.
l U- .--
Only thereafter, if and when LILCO convinces the ASLB that the exercise may provide a basis for licensing, should the Governments be required to submit contentions.
The ASLB never provided any reasoned explanation why the foregoing procedure proposed by the Governments was incorrect.
It is consistent with normal NRC practice whereby the applicant must first submit an application that is complete enough to be docketed. The ASLB should therefore reverse its July 8 ruling and rule that LILCO has the threshold burden of demonstating that the exercise results can provide a basis for a different result.
If, and only if, LILCO succeeds on its initial burden should the Governments be required to submit contentions.
- 4. Bases of Litication. At the prehearing conference, the Governments sought ASLB rulings regarding, in essence, what constituted the " record" upon which the exercise litigation was to be based. The Governments, in particular, sought guidance regarding whether all, part, or none of the FEMA Post Exercise Assessment would be considered by the ASLB in its licensing consideration.
4 9
4 The ASLB ruled that it was premature to define the bases of Order at 3-4. The Board apparently felt that litigation.
providing such rulings would constitute an advance ruling on evidentiary matters which should not be considered at this stage of the proceeding. Tr. 16,110.
The Board erred in its ruling. The Board has required the Governments to submit contentions by August 1. If the Governments are to comply with this requirement, Jitj'is essential that they know as precisely as possible what the focus of the litigation is to be. It was for this reason that the Governments requested the Board to address the matter.
its i
Although the Board did not address the matter directly, Thus, the rulings on other matters appear to provide guidance.
Board ruled that the FEMA Post Exercise Assessment is "the key Order at pacing document for the filing of contentions . . . .
- 6. The Governments construe this ruling, therefore, to mean that contentions properly may and should focus on the FEMA report and the conclusions therein. While it would have been preferable on July 8 for the ASLB to have provided such direction expressly, i
and the Governments hereby object to the Board's refusal to do so, the Governments will proceed based upon the foregoing understanding.
15 -
- 5. Need for Documents. At the prehearing conference, the Governments urged that certain critical exercise-related documents were needed -- chiefly LILCO Emergency Operations Facility (" EOF") documents and FEMA documents (especially FEMA The logs) -- before complete contentions could be prepared.
Governments explained that these documents were needed in advance of submitting contentions so that the Governments could understand what was supposed to have occurred and what in fact did occur on February 13. Thus, the Governments urgbd that the .i contention filing schedule be timed to commence upon receipt of a those documents. Egg Tr. 16,132-34.
The ASLB refused the request, ruling that the FEMA report was the key pacing document. Order at 6-7. The Board ruled that the other documents could await regular discovery (which is not Tr. 16,166-scheduled to start until sometime after August 26).
67.
Subsequent to July 8, the Governments received the LILCO EOF documents and thus that portion of the dispute no longer exists.
received the promised However, the Governments still have not FEMA documents despite the assurance of FEMA's counsel on July 8 that they would be provided as soon as possible -- and certainly Egg Tr. 16,157. This puts the no later than July 25.
Governments at a great disadvantage since critical data which underlie and presumably explain the FEMA Report -- the pacing
This means, as the Board Item -- have not been made available.
was informed on July 8, that the Governments' contentions will necessarily be more general and less focussed than otherwise would be the case if the relevant data were provided.
Tr. 16,167.
Further, the Governments object strenuously to the Board's ruling that the documents requested from FEMA constitute matters fordiscoverywhichwillnotbeentertaineduntilcpntentionsare admitted. Such a ruling ignores the facts and realities of thiso proceeding. This is not a normal proceeding where the detailed documentation underlying an application -- e.q,, the FSAR -- is available for everyone to review. Rather, in this post-exercise litigation, the documents upon which contentions are to be based are being withheld from the parties which are required to come i.e., the forward at the outset and file contentions --
is available, it Governments. While the Post-Exercise Assessment is very general. It is for this reason that the underlying data which support / explain that Assessment are critical to the filing of contentions. Thus, this is not an improper discovery request t
! made prior to the submission of contentions but rather is an instance of the intervenors being provided with sufficient data l
at the outset so that they can be in a position to prepare l
detailed and focussed contentions.
- 17
I In light of the foregoing, the Governments urge this Board to revise its contention filing schedule immediately. That schedule should be revised so that contentions should be filed Such two weeks after the Governments receive the FEMA documents.
a schedule is consistent with that proposed by the Governments at the July 8 conference. Tr. 16,168-69.
The Governments also object that their rights to proceed i
effectively in this litigation are being penalized because of FEMA's inability to comply with reasonable requests for critical s data. We understand that FEMA's counsel lacks underlying It was resources at FEMA to produce these materials promptly.
for this reason that counsel offered to assist FEMA in copying materials. We also understand that there has been a 4 reorganization at FEMA Region II which may impact the proceeding at a later date.
However, those matters which affect FEMA should ability to I
not be utilized to adversely affect the Governments' proceed.
Since February 1986, the Governments have been diligently 4
l j
requesting that FEMA provide the Governments with the relevant documents. And, since February, FEMA repeatedly has promised
! However, now over 5 l
that those documents would be provided.
I months after the exercise, the documents still have not been l
provided, and the Governments are being unfairly penalized in The Board, in ruling that f
their efforts to prepare contentions.
l l
_ _ ..----.. _ _ ._____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , . - . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , __
the Governments must file contentions even without the FEMA documents, is, in essence, penalizing the Governments for FEMA's That is entirely inability to live up to its own promises.
improper.
Finally, the Governments note that this Board on July 8 did not dispute the assertion of Suffolk County counsel that the FEMA documents which have been withheld are essential for the*
preparation of focussed contentions. Indeed, whenJ specifically asked, the Board did not rule that these documents were unnecessary but rather merely stated that it considered the FEMA In fact, Assessment Report as the pacing item. Tr. 16,166-67.
the Governments' counsel made a compelling showing on July 8 of why the documents in question are essential for the preparation Tr. 16,131-34, 16,137-39. There is no of contentions.
Accordingly, persuasive data in the record to dispute that fact.
the Governments urge again that this Board reverse its earlier ruling and revise the contention filing schedule to provide that contentions be filed two weeks after receipt of FEMA's documents.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 n&
Herbert H. Brown
' j Lawrence C. Lanpher l Karla J. Letsche 1
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County
- ! k twoNfby Fabian G. Palomino Richard J. Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the'/ Governor of New York State Executive Chamber Two World Trade Cenher New York, New York 10047 Attorneys for Governor Mario M.
Cuomo and the State of New York
- S. P Y
~
Steph'en B. Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton July 24, 1986
July 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 57-322-OL-3
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1 ) ) ,
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OBJECTIONS TO PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER have been served on the following this 24th day of July 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Stuart Diamond Atomic Safety and Licensing Business / Financial Board Panel NEW YORK TIMES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 229 W. 43rd Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10036
- Jerry R. Kline Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Service Comm.
Board Panel The Governor Nelson A.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- Frederick J. Shon Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Board Panel Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, D.C. 20555 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278
~
E l
Mr. William Rogers Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Clerk General Counsel Suffolk County Legislature Long Island Lighting Company Suffolk County Legislature 175 East Old Country Road Office Building Hicksville, New York 11801 Vaterans Memorial Highway Hnuppauge, New York 11788 Sp nce Perry,,Esq. **W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Hunton & Williams Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 1535 Agency 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20471 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. L. F. Britt Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Long Island Lighting Company New York State Enfrgy Office Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Agency Building 2 North Country Road Empire State Plqza Wading River, New York 11792 Albany, New York 12223 Ms. Nora Bredes Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Executive Director Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham opponents Coalition 33 West Second Street 195 East Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Smithtown, New York 11787 Mary Gundrum, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Ncw York State Department Office of the Secretary of Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 1717 H Street, N.W.
Now York, New York 10047 Washington, D.C. 20555 MHB Technical Associates Hon. Peter Cohalan 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suffolk County Executive Suite K H. Lee Dennison Building San Jose, California 95125 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Dr. Monroe Schneider Suffolk County Attorney North Shore Committee Bldg. 158 North County Complex P.O. Box 231 Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788
Atomic Safety and Licensing Fcbian G. Palomino, Esq. Appeal Board Sp cial Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Ex cutive Chamber, Rm. 229 Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 William C. Parler, Esq.
David A. Brownlee, Esq. General Counael Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 10th Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Comm. James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1136 ,
Room 1113 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W. D.C. '20555 20555 Washington, Washington, D.C.
o Comm. Thomas M. Roberts Comm. Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1103 Room 1156 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
20555 Washington, D .;C . 20555 Washington, D.C.
%ernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
8th Floor, Room 8704 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bnthesda, Maryland 20814 W
Lawrence Coe Lanpher' KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: July 24, 1986 i By Hand By Federal Express l
I
- . _ _ . - _ . - , ,. .- ._- -. ._ - _ _ _