ML20212D132
| ML20212D132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1987 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Latham S, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2626 OL-3, NUDOCS 8703040069 | |
| Download: ML20212D132 (18) | |
Text
[
2624
~*
DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 FEB 27 P4 :01 Before the Commission
)
i In the Matter of
)
)
l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1)
)
)
i MOTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO ADMIT NEW CONTENTION i
L Pursuant to 10 C.F.R..SS 2.714 and 2.730, Suffolk County, i
the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (" Governments")
move the Commission to admit a contention, a copy of which is attached hereto, which addresses issues now made litigable as a result of Federal Emergency Management Agency Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services, dated November 13, 1986
(" FEMA Memo-randum").1/
On December 2, 1986, the NRC Office of Inspection 1/
This Motion is filed with the Commission, since it is not clear whether any Licensing Board presently has jurisdiction to hear the issues raised herein.
Cf. Lono Island Lichtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL (Nov.
5, 1986) (ASLB Memorandum and Order rejecting Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Record due to lack of Jurisdiction).
The Governments would interpose no objection to the Commission directing one of the Shoreham Liceasing Boards (presumably the OL-3 Board) to consider the Motion in the first instance.
The Governments also note that in filing this Motion. the Governments are not therefore agreeing that the FEMA guidance mentioned herein sets forth adequate requirements for assessing compliance with Section 50.47(b)(12), as required by Guard.
87J 2M MER2 a
3
- )
9 a--
and Enforcement distributed the FEMA Memorandum to all nuclear power facilities holding an operating license or a construction permit.
Emergency Planning Standard (b)(12) requires that all emer-gency response plans must ensure that " Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals." 10 C.F.R.
)
S 50.47(b)(12).
The FEMA Memorandum imposes several specific requirements which must be satisfied if an emergency plan is to meet the dictates of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12).
Because the LILCO offsite radiological emergency response plan for Shoreham
(" Plan") does not meet the requirements of the FEMA Memorandum, the Governments submit the attached contention raising those deficiencies for litigation.
For the reasons set forth below, the Governments meet the standards of Section 2.714 for late-filed contentions.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether LILCO's Plan meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47 by providing " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham.
To determine whether the needed assurance exists, the Commission must find that the LILCO Plan complies with the 16 enumerated planning standards set forth in the regulations.
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b).
Of those standards, 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12) i I
requires that the Plan must include "(a]rrangements.
for medical services for contaminated injured individuals."
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12).
4 q
Before February 12, 1985, the Commission deemed emergency plans satisfactory under Section 50.47(b)(12) if they provided a list of pre-existing local or regional medical facilities pur-3 portedly capable of treating persons exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 530 (1983).
On February 12, 1985, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Commission's interpretation of Section 50.47(b)(12), stating that:
(t]he petition for review questions whether l
it is rational to qualify, as a form of
" arrangements.
. made for medical services" for persons " exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," mere identification of whatever facilities happen to exist.
We hold that the l
Commission did not reasonably interpret the section 50.47(b)(12) phrase " arrangements i
. made for medical services" when it l
declared, generically, that a simple list of i
treatment facilities already in place con-stitutes such arrangements.
l Guard v. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, 753 F.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C.
Cir. 1985).
Thus, the Court suggested that satisfaction of Section 50.47(b)(12) would require specific plans and trained people to perform medical services.
1d1 at 1150, n.7.
In light l
of its ruling, the Court vacated the Commission's interpretation l
l of Section 50.47(b)(12) and remanded the matter to the Commission l
for further consideration.
lit at 1150.
l
_3_
l.
Pending final Commission action in response to the Guard remand, the Commission issued a statement of interim guidance.
50 Fed. Ragt 20843 (May 21,-1983).
This statement of interim
't guidance permitted, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1), the issuance of full power licenses where the applicant satisfied the i
requirements of planning standard (b)(12), as interpreted by the Commission prior to Guard, and where the applicant committed to i
l full compliance with the Commission's final response to the Guard l
remand.
i f
At the time of the Court of Appeals decision in Guard, LILCO had neither developed specific plans nor assured that adequate resources and persennel were in place to provide the required i
medical services for contaminated injured members of the public in the event of a Shoreham accident.
In fact, LILCO had done no more l
than identify a list of hospitals which, in its view, were capable i
of treating contaminated injured individuals.
Egg OPIP 4.2.2.,
Accordingly, on February 25, 1985, the County and State submitted, and sought admission of, a new contention which 3
would permit the Licensing Board to hear evidence concerning the i
adequacy of the " arrangements" for medical services relied upon by LILCO.2/
On August 21, 1985, the Board denied the Government's l
motion and stated that:
" Litigation of the question of what con-4 stitutes adequate arrangements for medical l
services for contaminated individuals, if j
2/
Egg Motion of Suffolk County and New York State to Admit New l
Contention (February 25, 1985).
l 4 i
..v n,
n,-,--,=.
___--,-_-.._.n_-_--_
.n.._
o warranted at all, must be deferred until the Commission has issued a rule or other Generic cuidance on the matter.
LILCO will, of course, have to comolv with the Commission's final rule or cuideline."
Memorandum and Order (Denying Suffolk County's and State of New York's Motion to Admit New Contention) (August 21, 1985), at 7 (emphasis added).
Under the Licensing Board's rationale, the proper time to address the adequacy of LILCO's arrangements for contaminated injured individuals is after the Commission has issued guidance on the matter.
Such guidance has now been issued in the form of the FEMA Memorandum,d/ which requires LILCO to:
(i)
Enter into written agreements with medical facilities and transportation providers.
These agreeraents must contain assurances that the medical facilities and transportation providers "have adequate technical information (e.g. treatment protocols) and treatment capabilities for handling ' contaminated injured' individuals."
(FEMA Memorandum, at 2).
(ii)
Provide lists of public, private and military hospitals which have the capability "to radiologically monitor contaminated personnel, and have facilities and trained personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons."
This listing shall include the name, 2/
The Commission's guidance concerning 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(b)(12) came in two stages.
In the first stage, the Commission issued a Statement of Policy in which the Commission reaffirmed its earlier holding that the term " contaminated injured individuals" encompasses those members of the public exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
51 Egd. Egg. 32904 (Sept. 17, 1986).
The Commission's Statement of Policy also left to "the informed judgment of the NRC Staff, subject to general guidance by the Commission, the exact parameters of the minimally necessary arrangements for medical services."
14 In the second i
stage, the FEMA Memorandum was issued in response to the Commis-sion's Statement of Policy and set forth the parameters of the arrangements required by 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12).
l -
location, type of facility and capacity, and an annotation of its special radiological capabilities.
(FEMA Memorandum, at 3).
(iii) Arrange for the transportation of victims of radio-logical accidents to medical support facilities, with provisions for the use of contamination control in transporting contaminated persons to medical facili-ties.
(FEMA Memorandum, at 3).
(iv) Provide radiological emergency response training for those who will assist in an emergency, including: (a) ensuring that each hospital shall have at least one physician and one nurse on call within about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> who can supervise the evaluation and treatment of radiologically " contaminated injured" members of the general public; and (b) ensuring that transportation providers have training in contamination conteol.
(FEMA Memorandum, at 4).
(v) Conduct periodic exercises, and also conduct periodic drills to develop and maintain key skills.
(FEMA Memorandum, at 4-5).
J In order for its Plan'to be judged adequate and in compliance with the emergency planning regulations, LILCO must meet the requirements of the FEMA Memorandum.
The Governments have been waiting since the FEMA Memorandum was issued to see whether/how LILCO would attempt to satisfy the regulatory requirements.
However, LILCO still has not even proposed, much yet published, any revisions to its plan in this regard.
Accordingly, the l
Governments hereby submit a new contention, which will permit the l
l Board to hear evidence concerning the adequacy of the arrangements made, and resources provided, by LILCO to meet the requirements of Section 50.47(b)(12).S/
A/
The Governments are aware that under the FEMA Memorandum LILCO has until August 2, 1987 to implement the provisions of that Memorandum.
Presumably before then LILCO will either issue a Plan revision or file something to demonstrate its compliance with the FEMA Memorandum.
The Governments set forth their con-tentions at this time to provide notice, just as they did in -_ -
DISCUSSION The admissibility of late-filed contentions is governed by 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1), which sets forth five factors that the Board must consider.
Those factors are:
(i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
The Governments submit that all of these factors clearly weigh in favor of admitting the proposed contention.
A.
Good Cause Exists for Not Having Filed the Proposed Contention Earlier l
Good cause exists for submitting this contention at this l
l time.
The contention at issue arises from circumstances which l
were unknowable prior to December 1986, when the specific guidance i
in the FEMA Memorandum was made public.
Until that time, the issues raised by the proposed contention could not have been t
tendered with the requisite degree of specificity because no February 1985, that they intend to seek a hearing regarding the adequacy of whatever proposals LILCO comes up with for contaminated injured individuals.
Indeed, one Licensing Board has required accelerated compliance with the FEMA Memorandum, and the Governments would urge this Board to do the same.
- Egg, Southern California Edison Comoany et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ASLBP No. 86-538-06-OL-R (December 29, 1986) - - _.
5 guidelines for compliance with Section 50.47(b)(12) had yet been established.
Indeed, the Governments attempted earlier to file a contention challenging LILCO's compliance with Section 50.47(b)(12).
The Governments' proposed contentions were rejected, however, because the Commission had yet to issue-s guidance on the requirements of that section.
Memorandum and Order (Denying Suffolk County and State of New York's Motion to Admit New Contention) (August 21, 1985) at 7 (emphasis added).
The FEMA Memorandum now provides the guidance previously referred to by the Licensing Board.
In response, the Governments have e
filed this Motion and the attached contention in as timely a manner as possible, particularly in view of the facts that the Governments are currently involved in two concurrent proceedings before Licensing Boards.
Thus, the Governments have met the " good cause" requirement of 10 CFR S 2.714.
Further, in view of the August 1987 compliance date (agg footnote 3), the question is not whether the Governments have waited too long to file contentions but, rather, whether they are still premature.
The Governments have opted to file now, however, to avoid disputes that a later filing -- after some LILCO filing closer to August 1987 -- could lead to delay.
The Governments submit that this filing is not premature, particularly given the Commission's discretion to expedite LILCO's compliance date..
Again, the Governments urge that this be done.. --._- _
B.
There Are No Other Available Means Whereby the Governments' Interests Will Be Protected There is no basis for believing that any means other than litigation of the Governments' proposed contention will adequately protect their interests in this matter.
No contention or issue presently before the Board addtesces the issues sought to be raised by the Governments contention.
Furthermore, the proposed contention raises issues which cast doubt on LILCO's ability to implement its Plan, since compliance with 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12) is mandatory.
Without the admission of the proposed contention, there are no means to protect the Governments' interests in obtaining a determination as to the adequacy of the medical facilities and training presumably relied upon by LILCO, as well as the impact of inadequate facilities, training and medical personnel upon the implementability of the LILCO Plan.
C.
The Governments Can Be Expected To Assist In Develocina A Sound Record If the proposed contention is admitted, the Governments will submit testimony by experts knowledgeable on matters raised in the proposed contention.5/
The Governments also will conduct cross examination to address the implications of inadequate medical facilities and the importance of proper training of medical and S/
At a minimum, the Governments expect to call Drs. Harris and l
Mayer of the Suffolk County Health Department to address these matters.
These witnesses have appeared previously in the Shoreham prcceedings and can be expected to offer important data regarding the adequacy of medical facilities and personnel to be relied upon by LILCO.
-9_
i l
transportation personnel on LILCO's ability to implement its Plan, as set forth in this Motion and in the proposed contention.
Without the admission of the proposed contention and the submission of evidence by the Governments on the matters raised therein, the Ccmmission would have no basis upon which to find that Section 50.47(b)(12) has been satisfied and that LILCO's Plan provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
Thus, the admission of the proposed contention would result in the development of a sound and complete record.
D.
The Governments' Interests in the Proposed Contention Will Not Be Adecuatelv Reoresented by Other Parties No other party in this proceeding has submitted a contention similar to the Governments' proposed contention.
Furthermore, none of the other contentions previously litigated before the Board encompasses the issues now sought to be raised.
- Finally, based upon prior experience, it is not reasonable to expect any other party to represent the Governments' interests.
E.
The Governments' Proposed Contention Does Not Unduly Broaden the Scope of the Issues Before the Board, and Will Not Cause Undue Delav Although admission of the proposed contention would broaden somewhat the issues presently involved in the Shoreham proceeding, the issues raised in the contention are specific and narrowly focused.
Further, the issues are the same basic ones which the Governments attempted to raise in 1985.
The Governments cannot be
_ 10 -
penalized for not raising the issues earlier when it was the NRC, not the Governments, who controlled the timetable.
In addition, the Governments have acted as expeditiously to bring these concerns before the Commission, even before the August 2 compliance date, thus seeking to avoid delay.5/
The Governments submit that factual evidence and expert opinion will prove that LILCO has done nothing more than to identify medical facilities which, in LILCO's view, are capable of treating contaminated injured individuals.
LILCO has neither obtained the requisite agreements, developed the necessary plans, nor trained medical and transportation personnel to perform the services that would be required during a Shoreham emergency.
Therefore, the Plan is deficient.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton submit that they have met the standards of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 for late-filed contentions.
I t
5/
Because the contention proposed by the Governments is narrowly focused, its admission would not unduly delay thic proceeding in any case.
It is worth noting, however, that there l
are a number of issues still before the Licensing Board for which no proceeding has commenced.
Thus, the likelihood of this contention actually causing delay is remote.
l l l
1
Accordingly, the Commission should grant the Motion of Suffolk County, New York State and the Town of Southampton to Admit New Contention.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
/jcm[
< A.-
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray David T.
Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
/b&'
N k 0>Q Fabian G. Palomino Richard J.
Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capital Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York Sb{
OQ 3
L Stephen B.
Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton l
PROPOSED CONTENTION 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(b)(12) requires that there be for medical services for contaminated injured
" arrangements.
individuals," including members of the public exposed *o high levels of radiation who are not otherwise injured.
Egg also NUREG 0654,Section II.L.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Guidance Memorandum (GM) MS-1, Medical Services, dated November 13, 1986
(" FEMA Memorandum"), provides specific guidance for implementing 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(12).
Intervenors contend that LILCO's Plan fails to comply with the specific requirements of the FEMA Memorandum, and therefore cannot be found to comply with 10 C.F.R. S50.47(b)(12) or NUREG 0654,Section II.L.
Accordingly, there is no assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a Shoreham emergency, as required by 10 C.F.R. Section 50.47(a)(1).
The specific deficiencies in the LILCO Plan are as follows:
A.
LILCO does not have written agreements with the required medical facilities and transportation providers containing assurances that those medical facilities and transportation providers have adequate technical information and treatment capabilities for handling contaminated injured individuals in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
In the absence of such agreements, the LILCO Plan does not and
cannot comply with 10 C.F.R.
Sections 50.47(a)(1),
50.47(b)(1), 50.47(b)(8) and 50.47(b)(12), NUREG 0654, Sections II A.3, C.4, and L; and FEMA Memorandum, Section A.3.
B.
While the LILCO Plan contains a bare listing of public, private and military hospitals which LILCO contends are capable of treating contaminated injured persons, OPIP 4.2.2, att.1, the list does not include any description of the special radiological capabilities of each facility.
In the absence of such information, the LILCO Plan does not and cannot comply with 10 C.F.R.
Sections 50.47(a)(1) and 50.47(b)(12); NUREG 0654,Section II.L; and FEMA Memorandum, Sections L.l'and L.3.
C.
The LILCO Plan does not provide adequate arrangements for the transportation of members of the public who are victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities, with provisions for the use of contamination control in transporting contaminated personnel to medical facilities.
As a result, the LILCO Plan does not and cannot comply with 10 C.F.R.
l Sect, ions 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(8) and 50.47(b)(12);
NUREG 0654,Section II.L; and FEMA Memorandum, Section L.4.
D.
LILCO has not trained or established a training program for the medical services and transportation personnel who will assist in an emergency, including (1) the one i
l l
1
O physician and one nurse who must be on call within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and who can supervise the evaluation and treatment of radiologically contaminated members of the public; (2) the transportation providers who must be trained in contamination control; and (3) the other personnel referenced in subparts C and D above.
As a result, the LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10 C.F.R.
Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(12), 50.47(b)(14), and 50.47(b)(15); NUREG 0654, Sections II.L. and II.O.; and FEMA Memorandum, Section 0.4.
E.
The LILCO Plan fails to provide for adequate exercises and drills involving the hospitals on which LILCO intends to rely, as referenced in subpart A, above.
As a result, the LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10 C.F.R.,
Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(12) and 50.47(b)(14); NUREG 0654,Section II.L. and II.N.; FEMA Memorandum, Section N.2; and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.
a
m 00MEIE:
D9sc February 25, 1987
'87 FEB 27 pg :gg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hhhj.
Before the Commission
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO ADMIT NEW CONTENTION WITH PROPOSED CONTENTION have been served on the following this 25th day of February, 1987 by Federal Express as indicated by one asterick, or by U.S. mail, first class.
Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman Comm. James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1113 Room 1136 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 William C.
Parler, Esq.
Comm. Frederick M.
Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10th Floor Room 1156 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
Comm. Thomas M. Roberts Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Room 1103 Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Howard A. Wilber Gary J. Edles, Esq.
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 Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Comm. Kenneth M. Carr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dr. Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.,
Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175 East Old Country Road 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 Office Building 707 East Main Street Veterans Memorial Highway Richmond, Virginia 23212 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F.
Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section l
Executive Director Office of the Secretary l
Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A.
LaGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 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 Martin Bradley Ashare, 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 Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Myron Karman, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Charles A.
Barth, Esq.
1500 Oliver Building George E. Johnson, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Mr. Stuart Diamond New York State Energy Office Business / Financial Agency Building 2 NEW YORK TIMES 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 Albany, New York 12210 New York, New York 10278 Douglas J.
Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 l
C
/
o4-+/ M.
David T.
Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 l
--