ML20213F533
| ML20213F533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F468 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8611140263 | |
| Download: ML20213F533 (12) | |
Text
. . - _
10/30/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning )
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD 1
I. INTRODUCTION On October 15, 1986, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (intervenors), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.734, moved the Licensing Board in Docket No. 50-322- L-3 (Emergency Plan-ning) to reopen the record to consider new evidence relating to three
, offrite emergency planning issues. These new issues, as phrased by the intervenors, are:
- 1. The withdrawal of WALK Radio as the primary emergency broadcast system ("FBS") station, responsible for activat-ing tone alert radios and broadcasting all EBS messages l
under the LILCO Plan; l
- 2. The lack of any agreement from the American Red Cross to
! LILCO indicating either the ability or willingness to l
provide emergency services or assistance in the event of a Shoreham emergency, as assumed and required under the LILCO Plan; and 8611140263 861110 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR I
$ - , - - . , - - - - - - --- - --,,.-e-------,--.,-----------,-.---....--,--%--,--,,--m --- - - - - - - ---- , , --
- 3. The lack of congregate care center facilities for use in a Shoreham emergency under LILCO's Plan, now acknowledged by the Nassau County Chapter of the Amer-ican Red Cross, and the Red Cross' inability and refusal to agree, identify, designate, open, or operate such cen-ters in a Shoreham emergency.
(Motion at pages 1-2).
For the reasons set out below the NRC staff (Staff) believes that, while the motion to reopen the record has merit, this Licensing Ecard does not have jurisdiction at the present time to rule on the motion. The Staff suggests that, in the circumstances of this proceeding, the motion and the responses thereto should be forwarded to the Commission for its consideration in the first instance.
II. BACKGROUND A. Public Notification by Radio Station WALK In deciding Contentions 20 and 57 in LILCO's favor this Board found that radio station WALK would act as the primary emergency broadcasting l system station under the LILCO emergency plan. LB P-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 759-60, 763-64 (1985). By a letter dated September 16,1986, LILCO notified the parties and this Board that radio station WALK was no longer l
willing to fulfill such a role. Motion, Attachment A.
l B. Lack of Agreement with the American Red Cross In deciding Contention 24.P in LILCO's favor this Board found that LILCO had an agreement with the Nassau Chapter of the American Red Cross (ARC) to provide assistance at the reception center and at
congregate care centers. LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410, 416-17 (1985). In a l letter of August 21, 1986, the ARC stated such an agreement did not i exist, although it further stated that as a matter of policy it would aid in an event of radiological emergency caused by the Shoreham plant.
Motion, Attachment C.
C. Congregate Care Centers In deciding Contention 75 which involved congregate care centers, this Board relied on the ARC representations regarding the availability of congregate care centers. 22 NRC at 420, 422-23. In this connection a list of available congregate care centers was supplied to the Board. Id.
In the August 21, 1986 letter, the ARC states that a significant number of owners of those facilities stated that they would not be available in a Shoreham emergency, and that others had withdrawn the use of their facilitics for any emergency. Motion, Attachment C.
III. DISCUSSION A. The Licensing Board Presently Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Intervenors Motion to Reopen Intervenors motion to reopen the record was filed with this Licensing Board. However, the motion is devoid of any discussion which would establish that this Licensing Board has jurisdiction to consider the motion.
The motion at page 18 references this Board's prior rulings on the three issues raised in the motion to reopen. Those rulings were the sub-ject of an appeal to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. See ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135 (1986). Although Intervenors sought review of ALAB-832, the Commission by Order dated September 19, 1986,
determined not to review the Appeal Board's affirmance of this Board's disposition of the issues in question. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board to consider a motion to reopen the record on the 3 issues in question has expired. 10 C.F.R. I 2.717(a); see Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station , Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-10, NRC _ (Slip- op at 3-4, October 16, 1986); see also eg, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5),
ALAB-501, 8 NRC 381, 382 (1978).
Accordingly, the Licensing Board could dismiss the motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction. However, since the Commission does still have i jurisdiction over these matters , the Staff recommends that the motion should be referred to the Commission for its consideration in the first instance.
B. Commission Regulations Applicable to Reopening the Record In a regulation adopted this year (10 C.F.R. I 2.734), the Commission set out its standards for reopening a record in an ongoing i
proceeding. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19535 (1986). The regulation provides that:
(a) A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) The motion must be timely , except that an 4
exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presently.
(2) The motion must address a significant safety or l environmental issue.
I
(3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the new proffered evidence been considered initially. p As the Statement of Consideration accompanying the regulation recognized, the regulation codified Commission precedent on the reopening of records. 51 Fed. Reg. at 19536-37; see Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980), cited with approval in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282 n.3 (1985).
This test had received judicial approval. Oystershell Alliance v. NRC, j No. 85-1182 (D.C. Cir., September 9, 1986); Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720, 732 (3rd Cir.1985), cert, denied sub non.,
Aamodt v. NRC, U.S. (1986).
C. Evaluation of the Application to Reopen Under the Standards of 10 C.F.R. I 2.743
- 1. Withdrawal of WALK Radio The motion to reopen the record in regard to the withdrawal of the participation of radio station WALK under the Shoreham emergency plan is 1/ The regulation further provided that if the motion to reopen " relates to a matter not previously in controversy among the parties [it]
must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in I 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) . 10 C.F.R. I 2.734(d). As we have indicated i the matters in the motion to reopen relate to contentions litigated in this proceeding. Further, the balancing test for the admission of new contentions set forth in I 2.714(a)(1) appears to have been satisfied here. As we detail, the motion is timely; there does not appear to be other means to protect intervenors' interests ; based on past experience it appears that the intervenors will aid in developing a record; and there does not appear to be others parties who will represent intervenors' interests in this proceeding. The last factor in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) --delay of the proceeding--
weighs against admitting the subject contentions as a reopening of the record will undoubtedly broaden and delay the proceeding; however, a balancing of all the factors in i 2.714(a)(1) favors reopening the record.
timely. ' LIL'CO gave notice that radio station WALK would 'not participate on September 16, 1986. The motion to reopen was filed within one month, on October 15, 1986.
In addition, the withdrawal of radio station WALK is a significant safety issue and its withdrawal could cause a materially different result in the Board's rulings on this issue. The Board's findings on Contentions 20 and 57 recognized that the Shoreham emergency plan relied upon radio station WALK as the primary emergency broadcasting system station to give information to the public in the event of an emergency. 21 NRC at 759-60, 763-64. The lack of participation by the radio station is clearly significant and could lead to a different result by the Board on these contentions, as it now does not appear how the public will receive emergency messages in the event of an emergency. Absent the description of another method of sending messages to the public, a material change in the Board's findings would be required. -
- 2. Lack of Agreement With the Red Cross The motion to reopen the record in regard to the question of an agreement between LILCO end the ARC is timely. On September 18, 1986, LILCO notified the Board and the parties (in Revision 8 to its i
emergency plan) of the receipt of an ARC letter of August 21, 1986,
! -2/ Although conceding in its answer to the motion that withdrawal of radio station WALK is a significant safety issue, LILCO argues that it is premature to admit a contention on this subject. At 4. The Staff believes that although it may be premature to litigate this issue, it is not premature to reopen the record on this subject.
I 1
\
i l
~
whereiri the APC disavowed any agreement with LILCO to provide aid in the event of a radiological emergency. The motion to reopen was filed on October 15, 1986, within one month of when LILCO notified the parties of the subject letter.
The Licensing Board in its findings on Contention 24.P determined that an agreement exists between the ARC and LILCO, under which the ARC would provide aid in an emergency. The letter disavowing that such an agreement exists might be significant and might lead to a different result, if the ARC did not in the same letter seem to recognize that the ARC still has an obligation, under its policies and under its charter from Congress, to provide aid to LILCO in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. The meaning of the ARC letter, and just what aid the ARC would provide in the event of a Shoreham emergency, is far from clear.
Certainly, the Board's finding that an agreement exists appears wrong.
Because, as we later indicate, hearings are necessary on other matters raised by the letter in regard to whether the ARC can provide an adequate number of congregate care centers, this matter of the ARC's obligations in a Shoreham emergency should be consolidated with those
)
other matters. U The record in regard to whether there is an l
l
~3/
The Intervenors in the contentions annexed to the Motion to Reopen, ask for one contention to be admitted to the proceeding covering both the lack of an agreement between the ARC and LILCO and the lack of congregate care centers.
i l
agreement, and in regard to the sources of the ARC's obligations to provide aid in the event of an emergency, can then be clarified. 4I -
- 3. Lack of Congregate Care Centers As we have indicated, the August 21, 1986 ARC letter which premises the subject contention was not served until September 18, 1986.
Thus the October 15, 1986 motion to reopen premised on this letter would appear to be timely. 5,/
The Board in its findings on Contention 75 concluded on the basis of a July 24, 1984 letter from the ARC to LILCO that congregate care centers would be available. 22 NRC 416, 420, 422-23. The Board particularly stated that "it may place confidence in the Red Cross for the assessment of the adequacy of the shelters it has identified." Id. at 423.
The ARC had attached to the letter of July 24, 19f,4 a list of organizations with which it had agreements for shelters. Id. at 422.
The August 21, 1986 ARC letter to LILCO advised:
In the [ July 24, 1984] letter to you, the Chapter also appended a list of facilities normally relied upon by the Red Crocs to provide space for relocation centers in the event of a natural disaster. It is our understanding that our letter and list of facilities was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
-4/ Reopening the record on this issue may not require any further hearings , for it may be possible to determine on the basis of i documentary evidence that the ARC has the same obligations under its policies and charter as it would have under an agreement.
-5/
LILCO in its answer to the subject motion states that the attempt to raise an issue in regard to the availability of congregate care centers is untimely as a number of owners of such centers had previously indicated their unavailability. At 6-7.
However, statements by individual congregate care center owners is different from the ARC reporting that a "significant numbcr" of facilities would not be available. An issue is now created as to whether the l extent of withdrawals causes the ARC, on whose representations the
[
Board relied, to believe that it cannot implement the LILCO plan.
Commission in the Shoreham licensing proceeding. A significant number of the owners of these facilities have informed us that their facilities would not be permitted for use as relocation centers in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Others have advised us that their facilities have been withdrawn for use in any event either natural or radiological.
Thus, the ARC has stated that a "significant number" of owners of facilities which were previously identified to the Board as congregate care centers would not allow the use of their facilities in a Shoreham emergency, while others had generally withdrawn permission for use of their facilities in any emergency. A significant safety issue appears now i in regard to the predicate to the conclusions favorable to LILCO on Contention 75. Further it appears that the matters reported in the ARC letter of August 21, 1986 would likely have produced a different result on Contention 75, had they been known when the contention was decided.
i
! As these matters brought forward by the ARC letter are timely, significant and material, they supply a basis to reopen the record. b l
l IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that v'hile the subject motion to reopen the record has merit, the Licensing Board does not have
-6/ LILCO in its answer to the Motion to Reopen maintains that the matter concerning congregate care facilities does not raise a significiant issue that could lead to a materially different result because the Licensing Board had instructed the Staff "to verify that agreements for congregate care centers are up-to-date." At 6-7.
The Licensing Board found that the sheltering capacity of facilities which the ARC had or which it could find was adequate. 22 NRC at.
423. It left "the matter of review of the confirmed Red Cross agreements to Staff oversight." Id.. The August 21, 1986 letter (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
jurisdic' tion to rule upon the motion. The Staff suggests that the motion and the responses thereto be referred to the Commission for its consideration in the first instance, b Respectfully submitted, M v/$ % W/
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of October,1986 (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) from the APC goes to the basic determination of the Board that the ARC could find adequate facilities, and not to matters the Staff was to review.
7/ Intervenors' motion is accompanied by two proposed contentions. In the event Intervenors' motion to reopen is granted, the Staff believes that the proposed contentions are generally admissible under the standards of 10 C.F.R. I ?.714 and Commission precedents. The Staff, however, believes that argument on the precise wording of the contentions may be deferred until such time as the 10 C.F.R. I 2.752 prehearing conference is held.
l l
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPIISSION BEFORE TIiE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Retrulatory Commission's internal mail system or, as indicated by double asterisks, by telecopy or hand delivered or, as indicated by triple asterisks, by express mail, this 30th day of October,1986.
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman" Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.*"
Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Repilatory Commission State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, NY 12224 Dr. Jerry R. Kline" Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Administrative Judge New York State Department of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, NY 12223 W. Taylor Reveley III, Eso.*"
Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
i Mr. Frederick J. Shon** Hunton & Williams I
Administrative Judge 707 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, D.C. 20555 l Mr. Philip McIntire Joel Blau, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Director, Utility Intervention Agency NYS Consumer Protection Board 26 Federal Plaza Suite 1020 Room 1349 99 Washington Avenue New York, NY 10278 Albany, New York 12210
~ '
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**
Stephen B. Latham, Esq."* Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq Twomey, Latham & Shen Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 33 West Second Street 1900 M Street, N.W.
Riverhead, NY 11901 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Monroe Schneider Board Panel
- North Shore Committee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 231 Washington, D.C. 20555 Wading River, NY 11792 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Appeal Board Panel
- New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 Washington, DC 20555 Empire State Plaza ,
Albany, New York 12223 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Docketing and Service Section*
Agency Office of the Secretary 500 C Street, SW, Room 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20472 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony F. Earley, Jr. , Esq. Robert Abrams, Esq.
General Counsel Attorney General of the State Long Island Lighting Company of New York 175 Eest Old Country Road Attn: Peter Bienstock, Esq.
Hicksville, NY 11801 Department of Law State of New York Ms. Nora Bredes Two World Trade Center Shoreham Opponents Coalition Room 46-14 195 East Main Street New York, NY 10047 Smithtown, NY 11787 t!illiam R. Cumming, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Office of General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management II. Lee Dennison Building Agency Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW i Hauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert floffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Living P.O. Box 1355 Massapequa, NY 11758 N
' ' Bernard M. B6rdenick Counsel for NRC Staff
m i
3 CXMETE3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,NC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .g g _g g Before Administrative Judges:
vFF
~
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman CCC ; .
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SER' O NOV -61986
)
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (EmergencyPlanning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )
) (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
) November 5, 1986 Unit 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Intervenors' Motion To Reopen Record)
Introduction By motion dated October 15, 1986 Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (Intervenors), pursuant to 10 CFR 2.734, seek to reopen the evidentiary record in this proceeding for the purpose of considering alleged new evidence relating to three offsite emergency planning issues.
LILCO filed an answer dated October 27, 1986, in which f t asserts that the issues fo'r which reopening is sought have passed Appeal Board review and the Conunission has declined to review them #urther, thereby placing the motion to reopen within the jurisdiction of the Comission.
l It expects the Commission will be the body to act on the rotion, j
Applicant opposes reopening on two of the three issues.
I r
S! 1- R [
y v 'c t(v (uv, )
l .
1
t Staff, in its response of October 30, 1986, is also of the opinion that the Licensing. Board lacks jurisdiction over the motion and that it should more properly be before the Connission. Staff reconnends that
., the motion be referred to the Connission for its consideration in the first instance. It asserts that the motion is substantively meritorious.
For the reasons stated below, we find that the Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion and we therefore dismiss it.
Discussion Intervenors seek to reopen the record in this proceeding, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.734, contending that there is new evidence relating to three offsite emergency planning issues involving: (a) the withdrawal of WALK Radio as the primary emergency broadcast system station; (b) the lack of any agreement between the American Red Cross and LILCO to provide essential services as called for in the LILCO plan; and (c) the absence of congregate care facilities for use in a Shoreham emergency as provided for in the plan.
The above issues were the subject of contentions previously litigated that were decided by the Licensing Board in its initial decisions. The role and adequacy of WALK Radio as the primary emergency broadcasting system utation under the plan was contested in Contentions 20 and 57 and decided by the Licensing Board at LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 759-60, 763-64 (1985). The matter of the adequacy of the agreement between the American ced Cross and LILCO, as provided for by the LILC0 plan was litigated in Contention 24.P and decided by Licensing Board at
? I
\ 's 3
i LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410, 419-20 (1985). The issue of the availability of congregate care centers for use under the plan was the subject of Contention 75 and also decided by the Licensing Board. Id., at 420-23.
The Licensing Board's rulings on the contentions were in favor of the Applicant. Intervenors appealed from the Licensing Board's decisions in LBP-85-12 and LBP-85-31 to the Appeal Board. ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135 (1986). Although the appeals resulted in remands on several issues, i.e., plume EPZ size, role conflict, emergency planning for hospitals, and the Nassau Coliseum, none involve the subjects of the motion to reopen. Intervenors sought review of ALAB-832 and by order of the Comission dated September 19, 1986, it decided the only issues that merited its review were those pertaining to the plume EPI size and emergency planning for hospitals. The Consission declined to review any of the Appeal Board's affirmances of the Licensing Board's findings in ALAB-832.
Other issues have been remanded to the Licensing Board, arising out of Applicant's appeals. None relate to the subjects of the motion for reopening.
l The Appeal Board upheld the Licensing Board's decision holding i
inadequate as a matter of law LILCO's emergency plan for Shoreham.
ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651 (1985). The Comission reversed and remanded to the Licensing Board for further evidentiary hearings the issues raised CLI-8-13, 23 by LILCO's so-called realism and materiality arguments.
NRC (July 24, 1986).
- f
I 4
In ALAB-847, 24 NRC (September 19,1986), the Appeal Board remanded to the Licensing Board for further clarification issues involving the moriitoring of evacuees and the lack of a state emergency
._ plan and reversed it on the matter of a conflict of interest.
Intervenors seek Comission review of the remand on the lack of a state emergency plan and the reversal on the issue of a conflict of interest and those matters are currently pending before the Comission. The Licensing Board responded to the Appeal Board's remand on the monitoring of evacuees in a Clarifying Decision on Remand (Monitoring of Evacuees) on October 29, 1986.
The Licensing Board rendered its decisions in 1985 and upon appeal they have been reviewed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-818, ALAB-832 and ALAB-847. Those decisions have since been reviewed by the Comission with segments still pending before it. The Licensing Board has no continuing jurisdiction to consider the motion. See 10 CFR 2.717. The matters remanded to the Licensing Board are not related in any material way to the subjects of the motion to reopen. Therefore, there is no
N t
1 5 basis to consider the motion because of the remands to the Licensing Board. The Licensing Board is thus without jurisdiction to rule on the motion on its merits.1 The motion is one that should more properly have been brought before the Conunission. The issues involved have passed Appeal Board review. See: Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-10, 23 NRC (Slip op. at 3-4, October 16,1986). We therefore dismiss the motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction. Intervenors have the option of refiling in the appropriate forum.
1 A Licensing Board considering the emergency planning exercise, under Docket No. 50-322-OL-5, has admitted contentions that reference as bases the alleged lack of sufficient participation in the exercise by WALK Radio, congregate care centers and the American Red Cross. Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishment of Disccvery Schedule), (October 3, 1986, unpublished). That Licensing Board dces not provide an alternative forum for hearing the notion to reopen because the issues it is to hear are distinctively different from those in the contentions that underlie the motion.
I F o
s 6
1 ORDER Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, the motion to reopen is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
~~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k LB.6 L Mbrton B. Margulies// Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J0DGE
/2 K f efry R. KTirfe ' j UDMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M
mwny Dated at Bethesda,'Haryland this 5th day of November, 1986 l
l P
=
' jf s-c November 10, 1986 4
26 W3V 12 b9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ggn , ' g)fj.i Before the Commission 00CKE W 2BR M u' i
)
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 SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD have been served on the following this 10th day of November, 1986 by U.S.
mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
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 l
I
- P
/s s
\
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. Comm. Kenneth M. Carr*
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission JU.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
., Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jhr . Je r r y 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
-3 500 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
,U2S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C. 20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
'Mr. William Rogers W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway 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 l
North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. 'Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary 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 I
3 m,
Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Hon. Peter Cohalan 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 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* David A. Brownlee, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Washington, D.C. 20555 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 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
(_
- By Hand Kdfia J. Letsche
- By Federal Express KIREPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: November 10, 1986 l
l i
l
-- - , , - . - --- - - - . _ _ _