ML20213F536

Response in Support of FEMA Motion for Reconsideration of Portion of ASLB 861003 Prehearing Conference Order Permitting Challenges to Scope of FEMA 860213 Graded Exercise.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20213F536
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/10/1986
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1463 OL-5, NUDOCS 8611140265
Download: ML20213F536 (15)

Text

/L/f3 LILCO, November 10,1986 l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED  ;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USilEC '

'86 hov 12 All 36 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board CFFR t -

00CM l

• In the Matter of )

) ,

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF FEMA'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ASPECT OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER PERMITTING CHALLENGES TO THE SCOPE OF THE FEBRUARY 13,1986 FEMA GRADED EXERCISE LILCO responds here in support of the request by the Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency (FEMA) for reconsideration of that portion of the Board's October 3, 1986 Prehearing Conference Order which admits contentions challenging the scope of the February 13,1986 exercise evaluated by FEMA.

Intervenors' Contentions EX 15 and 16 challenge the scope of the February 13, 1986 FEMA graded exercise, rather than the quality of performance of LILCO or any other participant in it. Contention EX 15 c'leges that the exclusion of various elements er functions of LILCO's Shoreham Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan from otmervation of the February 13, 1986 FEMA graded exercise renders the exercise insuf-ficient in scope to demonstrate that the LILCO plan could or would be implemented consistent with NRC regulations. Contention EX 16 argues that the extent of partici-pation by various elements was insufficient to demonstrate LILCO's ability to perform certain functions consistently with regulatory requirements.II Various aspects of other 1/ Contentions EX 15 and 16 deal with cognate topics, e.g., prompt notification (15A/16C,D,E; 15B/168); hospital evacuation (15D/16H, J); schools (15E,F,G/16F,G);

(footnote continued) 8611140265 861110 PDR ADOCK 05000322 h_S0$

e contentionsE treat the same themes as Contentions EX 15 and 16, and (to the extent admitted) were consolidated with them by the Board's October 3 Order. The same argu .

ments that apply to Contentions EX 15 and 16 apply to these other contentions, and LILCO intends for them to be included within the following discussion of Contentions EX 15 and 16.

Intervenors contend that this exercise configuration reveals a fundamental flaw in the Shoreham emergency plan. They also argue that an exercise so structured can-not qualify as the " full scale" exercise required as a prerequisite to licensing by the Commission's regulations,10 CFR 5 50.47.

The Board accepted these contentions with minor exceptions, reasoning that the adequacy of the exercise itself as designed to be evaluated by FEMA posed potentially material questions of fact, and that Intervenors were therefore entitled, under the UCS case, to litigate that issue. October 3 Order at 4-9, construing Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984). In admitting these issues, the Board rejected the argument that any aomissible contention concerning the exercise design (as contrasted with performance by exercise participants) must at least allege that the exercise departed, in objectives, scenario or other significant ways, from standard (footnote continued) evacuation of the water portion of the EPZ (15H/16B); ingestion pathway EPZ (15I/16A); special facilities (15K/16I,J); congregate care facilities (15L/16N). The dif-ference between them is that Contention EX 15 argues that elements were excluded .

and that that exclusion was fatal to the exercise; Contention EX 16 (and related mate-rial from Contention EX 18) argues that the extent of demonstration of various ele-ments in the exercise was insufficient to establish the adequacy of emergency response.

2/ These contentions are 17,18, 26 and 30 (dealing with schools) and 37 (dealing with ingestion pathway).

l

e

• FEMA practice in offsite exercises designed and evaluated regularly by FEMA for the NRC at the more than 100 commercial nuclear power plants in operation. Id. at 7.

The Licensing Board should reconsider and reverse that portion of its October 3 Order admitting Contentions EX 15 and 16 and so much of other contentions as chal-lenge the scope of the February 13, 1986 FEMA graded exercise (as distinguished from the performance of LILCO and other emergency response personnel in the exercise),

for the following basic reasons:

1. The Board's construction of the UCS case erroneously neglects both the lat-itude conceded by the Court of Appeals to the Commission to design the manner in which it would permit litigation over exercise results, and the fact that the Commis-s!on has exercised that latitude in structuring such litigation in CLI-86-11, by limiting the admissibility of contentions to those that allege a demonstration of fundamental flaws in an emergency plan based on exercise performance.

2. The Board's open-ended admission of contentions challenging the scope of the exercise, without requiring any showing that FEMA has departed from its normal f practice, incorrectly falls to accord the deference due FEMA in the exercise of func-tions within the area of its expertise, disregards the presumption of regularity properly .

grnnted FEMA in the performance of its duties, and disregards FEMA's function under the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding.

3. ~ Admission of contentions challenging the scope of the exercise is irrecon-cilable with the expert description of FEMA's implementation of its duties with respect tc the licensing of nuclear power plants set forth in the motion for reconsideration filed by FEMA and in the attached affidavit of Robert S. Wilkerson.

a

'O

. 4. Admission of contentions challenging FEMA's performance of its duties in structuring the scope of the exercise raises generic policy questions concerning the im-piementation of the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding which are appropriate for a rulemaking proceeding or lateragency agreement, but are r.ot appropriate for res-olution in an individual licensing proceeding.

1. The Board's conclusion is not required by the UCS case and is contrary to -

the Commissica's interpretation of that case in CLI-86-11.

The Licensing Board correctly noted that in the UCS case the Court of Appeals, recognizing that the Atomic Energy Act requires that issues of material fact cannot t,e, excluded from litigation in nuclear licensing proceedings, held that the issue of readi-ness measured by offsite emergency preparedness exercises raised such issues. Accord-ingly, the Court held that the subject of the exercise could not be totally foreclosed by the Commission from the opportunity for litigation. October 3 Order, citing 735 F.2d at 1444-45.

Ilowever, the Court of Appeals then went to pains to recognize "the Commis-sion's wide discretion to structure its licensing hearings in the interests of spu f-4 ficiency." Id. at 1448. Noting that the Commission had argued that an " exercise is only -

relevant to its licensing decision tc the extent that it indicates that emergency plans are fundamentally flawed," the Court stated unequivocally that: "Today, we in no way restrict the Commission's authority to adopt this as a substantive licensing standard."

Ij. at 1448 (emphasis supplied).

The Commission, in promulgating a revision to its regulations pursuant to the UCS remand, specifically limited the ambit of litigation of exercises to exercise results.

The Commission stated:

l

e The basic effect of the court's decision and of the rule change which follows is that the results of prelicensing emergency preparedness exercises may be subject to litigation before the I.icensing Board. The revision does not change the general predictive nature of the Commission's findings on emergency planning and preparedness issues.

50 Fed. Reg.19,323 (May 8,1385) (emphasis supplied).

Similarly, in shaping this very litigation, the Commission has done in CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577 (June 6,1986), exactly what the Court of Appeals and its revised rule per-mitted. It restricted the scope of admissible contentions to those which, in addition to meeting normal tests of admissibility, also passed the additional threshold test of alleg-ing that the exercise itself demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the emergency plan being exercised:

Under our regulations and practice, Staff review of exercise results is consistent with the predictive nature of emergency planning, and is restricted to determining if the exercise re-vealed any deficiencies which preclude a finding of reason-able assurance that protective measures can and will be taken, i.e., fundamental flaws in the plan.

i 23 NRC 577,581 (emphasis supplied).

There is no way that an inquiry into the adequacy of exercise design, which is the soie topic of Contentions EX 15 and 16, can be matched to the Commission's limita-tion in the UCS remand rule and in CLI-86-11 of the scope of litigation to exercise results. Nor can it be made to square with the frame of reference for the discussion:

whether the exercise itself reveals fundamental flaws in the plan. Had the Commission contemplated case-by-case irquiry into exercise design, it surely would have been un-likely to couch its discusslor in the frame of reference of " exercise results" or whether an " exercise reveals" problems with an emergency plan.

i

However, the Commission did so limit its discussion. And such a limitation is ap-propriate in view of the context of the FEMA-NRC relationship under the Memorandum

of Understanding,50 Fed. Reg.15,485 (April 18,1985). Under the relationship, which is also described at length in the FEMA Motion for Reconsideration and in argument 2 below, FEMA takes the lead in designing offsite exercises by approving exercise scenar-los and objectives, in scheduling exercises, providing evaluators for exercises, and issuing formal written evaluations of them. In the six years since Appendix E to Part 50 of the Commission's regulations,10 CFR Part 50, has been in effect, FEMA has or-chestrated and evaluated literally hundreds of offsite emergency preparedness exer-cises.in cooperation with the NRC for the approximately 100 operating nuclear power plants in this country.

Contentions EX 15 and 16 take aim at this process, not at the results of the ex-ercise or the quality of performance of the actual participants. If admitted, they would l

permit case-by-case inquiry into the generic interagency policy and practice repre-sented by the FEMA-NRC modus vivendi. The Commission's discussion of the issue in CLI-86-11 does not contemplate this type of inquiry; nor is it sensible that it should, since it would permit scattered, uncoordinated inquiry into a working relationship which reflects the regulatory policies and requirements of two agencies and is set in motion by a formal Memorandum of Understanding.EI '

3/ In this sense, fully understood and illuminated by the discussion in the FEMA Mo-tion for Reconsideration and attached affidavit, Contentions EX 15 and 16 represent a distinct challenge to an ongoing regulatory structure if not to a specific regulation.

They are thus inconsistent with the policy imbedded in the Commission's prohibition

, against challenges to regulations in specific licensing cases, embodied in 10 CFR l S 2.758, which absolutely prohibits attack on any rule or regulation of the Commission, subject only to a waiver on the " sole ground" that "special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the rule -

or regulation (or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted." 10 CFR S 2.758(b).

-.---ewy, -wvv me -vr,-- -,-er-,- ye -, s- - ,,m,- e-,--ee,e r --, = , - -t ,,ww , - --- , - + ~ - - -- -

w-- -

g---- - g, e re*-e,v o v-- =

m In short, the Court of Appeals permitted the Commission to define the scope of issues which it wished to have considered in post-exercise litigation. The Commission has done so in CLI-86-11, by restricting them to issues focused on the exercise results, not exercise design. Contentions EX 15 and 16, which have nothing to do with exercise results per se and intrude instead into an established, generic interagency procedure, are not within the scope of issues permitted by CLI-86-11. They should never have been admitted by the Licensing Board and, on reconsideration, should be rejected.

2. Admission of Contentions EX 15 and 16, without any showing or allegation

.that FEMA has departed from normal practice, incorrectly falls to accord FEMA due deference within the area of its expertise, disregards the presumption of regularity in the performance of its duties, and disregards FEMA's functioning under the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding.

Ever since 1980, the NRC and FEMA have cooperated on radiological emergency preparedness for nuclear power plant.s pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding, most recently amended in 1985. 50 Fed. Reg.15,485 (April 18,1985). Under the Memo-randum of Understanding, FEMA takes the lead with respect to the offsite aspects of emergency preparedness exercises, as with other aspects of offsite preparedness. 50 Fed. Reg. at 15,487 (col. 3). FEMA's role includes responsibility for the offsite aspects of scenarios and objectives for joint (offsite-onsite) exercises. Under this agreement, FEMA and the NRC have for six years orchestrated annual (since 1985, biennial) exer-cises for all of the operating nuclear plants and all operating license applicants. Given 4

that there are on the order of 100 operating nuclear power plants in the nation, this ex-perience represents several hundred cooperativo exercises.

l l

. . . . - .-.. .. _ . - . . - . - . .. . . - - _ - . -,,-_ - A

~.

, l I

In all of these exercises FEMA has functioned as an agency acting within its l t

i scope of lawful authority and professional expertise. In all of them the exercise of that

! authority and expertise has been pursuant to a comprehensive compact with the NRC.

FEMA's functioning in the design and execution of the offsite aspects of the Shoreham exercise originated, as with other exercises, with a request from the NRC pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding. As such, its methodology and proce-dures for design of the exercise - the issues raised by Contentions EX 15 and 16 - are entitled to a presumption of validity. There is no assertion by FEMA, nor any allegation l by Intervenors, that FEMA's methodology or procedures for design and execution of the Shoceham exercise are any different than those it customarily uses for other exer-cises. In the absence of a suggestion that FEMA constructed the Shoreham exercise 1

4/ Indeed, the only substantial departure of the Shoreham exercise from the scope 4

of other exercises known to LILCO involves the excision of direct physical manifesta-

tions of public notification aspects of the plan - broadcasting of EBS messages, sound- )

ing of sirens, distribution of public information brochure. That departure is readily 1 explained. Public notification elements, including this physical manifestation, had orig-inally been intended to be included in the exercise. However, late in December.1985 l the Suffolk County Legislature enacted a local criminal ordinance which would have l made it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1000 fine and a year in jail for any indi- ]

vidual to participate in an emergency planning exercise which involved " simulation" of <

Suffolk County personnel or functions. Signed by the Suffolk County Executive in early l January 1986 as Local Law 2-86, the effectiveness of this measure forced immediate reconfiguration of the exercise with respect to physical manifestation of prompt notifi-cation functions because of the potential for an assertion (well founded or not) that 1 they involved a criminally proscribed hciding-out of governmental authority. The local l law was ultimately enjoined on February 10 by a federal district court as an unconstitu- l i tional infringement of the federal government's prerogatives in the radiological health '

and safety area. LILCO v. Suffolk Coun_ty, 628 F.Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y.1986). However, l the intervening two days were insufficient to permit reinstatement of these aspects of )

the exercise. Even so, the exercise as actually conducted involved testing of the profi-ciency of LERO personnel right up to the point of mechanical activation of sirens or radio messages, so the only element " missing" was that purely physical notification.

For Suffolk County now to claim that the modification of these aspects, which would otherwise have been fully included in the exercise, constitutes a " fundamental flaw" in (footnote continued) 4

~ , . , . . , . . , - - , , . , , , . . , . , , . ~ , _ , - - , , , , - - , - , , . , , , , .

L.

l l

in some fashion different from that used for other exercises, admission of Contentions l.

EX 15 and 16 simply disregards the legitimacy of FEMA's role under the Memorandum of Understanding and subjects its work product to capricious case-by-case hindsight.

No inquiry of the type represented by these contentions has ever been conducted in any other licensing proceeding of which LILCO is aware.EI Permitting this novel type of inquiry would, as indicated by FEMA's Motion for Reconsideration and the attached affidavit of Mr. Wilkerson, signal an open season for willy-nilly investigations, in the context of specific licensing cases, of a standard meth-

, od of proceeding for FEMA and the NRC. Whether or not such an inquiry would literal-ly constitute an attack on Commission regulations proscribed by 10 CFR S 2.758, it I

would certainly be contrary to its policy.E/ Permitting this type of inquiry, as is made clear by the FEMA Motion for Reconsideration, has programmatic and generic l

l l

(footnote continued) l LILCO's offsite emergency response plan, when those aspects were deleted only under l

the threat of criminal prosecution by Suffolk County, is the height of hypocrisy.

Suffolk County, and the other intervenors in league with it, should be barred by the well-established equitable doctrine of unclean hands from benefiting in this litigation from their own unconstitutional conduct.

, 1/ If Suffolk County and the other intervenors had been willing to do what govern-I ments normally do - protect their citizens rather than attempt to thwart the compensating actions of other entities to fill their default - they could and no doubt would have participated in the shaping of the exercise scenario and objectives, and their af ter-the-fact criticisms could have been attended to at a time when they could have been constructively dealt with.

l g/ Without agreeing that any particular allegation of a departure by FEMA from its n normal practice in developing exercise scenarios and objectives would be sufficient to i frame a contention challenging FEM A's exercise design, it is possible that some types of i allegations of this nature might meet the test of inconsistency with a rule's purpose set

! out for waiver requests by 5 2.758(b). Without any such allegation, however, permitting l inquiry into exercise design in specific cases merely destroys nny benefit to the FEMA-j NRC program.

l 1

I i

ramifications which should not lightly be presumed to have been contemplated by the Commission or by FEMA. It ignores the applied expertise of an independent federal agency acting within the scope of its expertise. It is not called for and not implied by s

the Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and FEMA. It has never been under-taken before in any other licensing case. It is the type of inquiry which should be au-thorized only by the Commission itself, not by a Licensing Board applying existing Com-mission rules and policy. The Licensing Board should not have admitted the contentions in the first instance in light of these considerations, which were brought into focus only by FEMA's Motion for Reconsideration. It should, on reconsideration, reject Conten-tions EX 15 and 16.

3. Admission of Contentions EX 15 and 16 would be fatally in conflict with the expert opinion of the authorized representative of the expert asrency, FEMA.

Admission of Contentions EX 15 and 16 would be, as shown immediately below, in conflict with the basic structure under which FEMA has organized the business of offsite radiological preparedness evaluation. It would also be in conflict with the spe-cific expert opinions proffered in the affidavit of Robert S. Wilkarson, who is responsi-ble for the branch within FEMA which conducts offsite preparedness evaluations for nuclear power plants. It also would be in conflict with the explanation of FEMA policy outlined in the Motion for Reconsideration. Those documents stand on their own and are worthy of serious attention by this Board.

Three observations from Mr. Wilkerson's affidavit are worth special attention, however. First, Mr. Wilkerson avers unequivocally that the kind of intrusion repre-sented by Contentions EX 15 and 10 "would fundamentally change the ongoing exercise planning and exercise process for off site safety considerations at commercial nuclear

power generating sites throughout the country." (Para. 2). Second and vitally impor-tant, in Mr. Wilkerson's expert judgment the only valid indicator of preparedness is "the designed event, the exercise and its results"; and inquiries into exercise design, scenario development or scope do not illuminate the process of evaluation of preparedness.

(Para. 3). And finally, the NRC has concurred and consistently coopeIrated in a process which involves opportunity for adversarial scrutiny of exercise performance but not of exercise design. (Para. 4).

Had the Licensing Board had before it the description of the structure and fune-i tioning of FEMA's program contained in the Motion for Reconsideration and Mr.

Wilkerson's affidavit at the time it wrote the October 3 Order, it would have excluded Contentions EX 15 and 16. Now having access to that information, it should reconsider that aspect of the Order and exclude those contentions.

4. Contentions EX 15 and 16 involve generic policy decisions which should be

' made only by the Commission in a generic decision, not in a specific case application by a Licensing Board.

LILCO believes, fo" the reasons outlined above, that Contentions EX 15 and 16, which permit challenges to FEMA's design of the Shoreham exercise without any asser-4 tion that FEMA departed from its customary practices in that design process, are im-f proper under the Commission's implementation of the UCS decision in the remanded rulemaking and in this specific docket. LILCO also believes that such Inquiry is irrec-

, oncilable with the entire framework of the FEMA-NRC radiological preparedness eval-uation compact. Both of these reasons commend reconsideration and exclusion of Con-

{ tentions EX 15 and 16. This is also the opinion of the cognizant FEMA executive, Mr.

Wilkerson.

4 1

l

• l s It is clear, in any event, that admission of these contentions implicitly involves a major policy decision respecting the scope of exercise litigation. In Mr. Wilkerson's ex-pert judgment, it would drastically affect such reviews nationwide.

It is LILCO's view that these considerations powerfully commend this Board's re-consideration of these contentions and rejection of them at this point. Falling that, the Board should immediately certify the issue to the Commission for interlocutory review.

If the Board reaches any decision on the merits of the issue, other than exclusion of Contentions EX 15 and 16, it should immediately refer that ruling and stay its effeet pending Commission review. ,

Such certification or referral would be appropriate under the pertinent regula-tion,10 CFR S 2.730(f), which permits interlocutory review "to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense." The inclusion or exclusion of Conten-tions EX 15 and 16 will substantially affect the scope, cost and pace of this proceeding, beginning with discovery and proceeding through issues to be resolved either summarily or at hearing. They involve basic concepts underlying the NRC-FEMA emergency pre-x paredness program - a matter involving strong public policy elements. They are ex-Naqtly the type of issue for which expedited interlocutory Commission review is appro-priate.

LILCO also requests that any referral of any ruling (other than exclusion of the contentions) should be accomplished by a stay on discovery of materials within the scope of those contentions, in order to prevent the possibility of irreparable harm to parties from discovery of materials within the scope only of Contentions EX 15 and 16.

Such a stay is necessary because, under S 7.730(g), absent a stay the pendency of an in-terlocutory appeal does not affect the effectiveness of the action below.

LILCO requests, finally, that in order to prevent the matter from significantly affecting the progress of this proceeding, the certification or referral should be expe-dited.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, LILCO respectfully urges the Licensing Board to reconsider and now to exclude Contentions EX 15 and 16 and all other derivative con-tentions whose intention is to question the design of the' February 13 exercise, as con-trasted with its results. In the event the Board takes any action other than such exclu-sion, LILCO requests that the Board certify, or as appropriate refer, the issue and any ruling by it to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.730(f) for interlocutory review; that it stay discovery under Contentions EX 15 and 16 pending such review pursuant to S 2.730(g); and that it request that such review be expedited.

Respectfully submitted, a

naldPfIrwin' James N. Christman Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 10,1986

i l

LILCO, November 10,1986

%' ' .T E F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 0FFILE = .

1 '

Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 00CKEl g g !,* 4 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF FEMA'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ASPECT OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER PERMITTING CHALLENGES TO THE SCOPE OF THE FEBRUARY 13,1986 FEMA GRADED EXERCISE were served this date upon the follow-ing by Federal Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage pre-paid.

John H. Frye, III, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  :

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

• Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mallroom)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

• Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Mr. Frederick J. Shon

• Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Atomic Safety and Licensing Eighth Floor Board 1900 M Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Hwy. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

• Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Governor Secretary of the Commission Executive Chamber Attention Docketing and Service Room 229 Section State Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and L10ensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission New Ycrk, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555

Spence W. Perry, Esq.

• Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 _ Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

• Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 N2 y athy .BNcCIe5$y" ~ ~ '

Hunton & Williams a 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 10,1986 l

l

- _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - -l