ML20214V974
| ML20214V974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1807 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612100031 | |
| Download: ML20214V974 (16) | |
Text
-
-. ((d 7 l
LILCO, December 4,1986 00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA usNEC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~86 DEC -8 NO 53 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0FFIE 0"...*
DOCKETi% A 7 c m.
2 In the Matter of
)
BN
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. S0-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
1 -
LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO RESPOND TO LILCO'S SECOND f
SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODl'CTION OF DOCUMENTS. AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND DISPOSITION In accordance with 10 CFR S 2.740(f), Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO")
i hereby moves this Board for an order compelling Suffolk County, the State of New 1
York, and the Town of Southampton ("Intervenors") to respond to "LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Suffolk County, New i
York State and Town of Southampton"(November 10, 1986).
I. INTRODUCTION On November 10. 1986, LILCO propounded its "Second Set of Interrogatories and 1
Requests for Production of Documents to Suffolk County, New York State and Town of l
Southampton". These interrogatories and requests for production, discussed more fully below, seek specific, relevant information concerning the assertions made in Interve-J
.j nors' contentions EX 16, 21, 22 A, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49, and 50. The requested infor-mation is clearly within the proper scope of discovery, since it is relevant to the sub-i ject matter raised in this proceeding or is at least reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See 10 CFR S 2.740,2.740b,2.741.
i
{
Intervenors served their response to LILCO's second set of interrogatories and requests for production in two parts, on November 26, 1986 and November 29, 1986.
f g
DO O
yS03 a
. __.See Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Response to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Suffolk County, New York State and Town of Southampton (November 26 and 29,1986). How-ever, Intervenors' " response" is in fact not an adequate response at all; Intervenors have provided few substantive answers to LILCO's questions and have instead supplied 4
LILCO with a series of meaningless and evasive generalizations. Intervenors refuse to supply information to elaborate on or explicate the bases for the assertions in their own contentions-information that is discoverable under the NRC rules and to which LILCO is entitled.
As LILCO demonstrates below, the requested information is clearly relevant to j
the subject matter of this proceeding, and Intervenors' responses of November 26 and 29 are insufficient and unsatisfactory. LILCO respectfully requests that this Board order Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton to provide a more complete and detailed response.
II. DISCUSSION A. Intervenors' Answers are Unresponsive LILCO's second set of interrogatories and requests for production consists of ninety-one questions seeking elaboration and clarification of various assertions in Inter-1 venors' contentions.
LILCO will not burden the Board here with an exhaustive interrogatory-by-interrogatory analysis of why the requested information is relevant because, except in a few instances, Intervenors have not objected to the interrogatories based on relevance. Instead, LILCO will show why the bulk of Intervenors' answers are j
evasive and totally unresponsive.
i
.r,
.,m
--,,,,---,,y
,,-n..me.-n---
.,---..-e--,,,7.,~
, --n-,-,.
r---,,--,,-
f
{
D 3_
1.
"The Contentions Speak for Themselves" One of Intervenors' standard answers is that " Contention EX __ speaks for itself."I/ This response is inappropriate. Obviously, the contentions do not speak for themselves; if they did, LILCO would not have had to ask many of the questions it did in its second set of interrogstories. LILCO was forced to inquire exactly what Intervenors are alleging because the contentions themselves are unclear.
For example, Contention EX 38.I asserts that Although LERO workers were instructed to ingest KI tablets at 9:45, LERO ENC personnel did not decide to inform the media of that fact until 1:05, and then the media was [ sic]
then requested not to print that information. Such a delay and the attempt to conceal pertinent information abJut the health-threatening effects of the accident would result in fur-ther reductions in LILCO's credibility and refusa's of the media and the public to obey LILCO's advice during a real emergency.
Exercise Contentions at 101. Clearly, this contention seems to imply that the public is supposed to be informed when emergency workers are instructed to ingest KI. Accord-ingly, Interrogatory No. 40 asks Intervenors whether they in fact contend that the gen-eral public should have been informed that LERO workers had been instructed to ingest KI. Intervenors' answer that "The Governments' contentions on this matter are as set forth in Contention EX 38, including subpart I," is unresponsive and inadequate.
l 2.
"Since Discovery is Stillin Progress, the Governments Are Not in a Position to Respond Further" i
Intervenors respond to many interrogatories by expressing an inability, until dis-covery is complete, to respond other than by referring LILCO back to the contention at issue (which in many cases simply parrots what the FEMA Report says).E This answer I
i 1/
Intervenors interpose this answer for Interrogatories 16, 40, 51, 70, 76, 77, 80, and 81.
l 2/
Intervenors interpose this response, or some form thereof, to Interrogatories 31, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51.
i l
. is disingenuous, considering the fact that informal discovery has been proceeding since FEMA's first production of documents on May 16.1986 and LILCO's first production on June 23, 1986.
Moreover, formal discovery began at the issuance of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order on October 3,1986, more than two months ago. Interve-nors have received all discoverable Exercise documents from LILCO, and every Exer-cise document in FEMA's possession except for post-exercise evaluators' critique forms and personal notes. If it is true that, after two months of formal discovery and six months of informal discovery, Intervenors are still groping for f acts to support their al-legations, it is a strong indication that their exercise contentions are meritiess or that Intervenors are attempting to frustrate LILCO's right to obtain timely information on the basis for Intervenors' contentions and to frustrate potential summary disposition of them.
Examples of Intervenors' use of this response demonstrate either Intervenors' disingenuity or the contentions' baselessness. Contention EX 38.E alleges that "insuffi-cient and inadequate maps and displays in the media briefing room contributed to the confusing and unclear information being disseminated by LERO personnel." Exercise Contentions at 100. Accordingly, Interrogatory no. 31 asked Intervenors to identify each such map or display. Intervenors responded that they were unable to answer the question because discovery was continuing. This answer is inherently incredible: Inter-venors had representatives present at all news briefings in that room throughout the exercise, and have been furnished with video tapes of the entire set of the briefings.
Contention EX 38.J alleges that at press conferences LERO personnel were (1)
" unable to respond satisfactorily or accurately to questions about evacuation": (2) "un-able to provide any information to the media... concerning traf fic conditions, condi-tions or evacuation activity on the water portion of the EPZ, or protective actions for
--,-~-w.__..
r
. the correctional facility in the EPZ"; and (3) " unable to respond to questions about manpower at bridges and tunnels on evacuation routes, or the activities of the Nassau County Police." Exercise Contentions at 101-102. Interrogatories 42-44 merely ask In-tervenors to identify specific instances which support the assertions in (1)-(3). Interve-nors' empty response to each of these interrogatories is that "at this time the Govern-ments are not in a position to respond further" other than to refer to the contentions themselves. Again, this answer is dubious, given the Intervenors' presence at press briefings and their possession of all video tapes.
If Intervenors know of specific instances that supported their allegations when they wrote these contentions, they should be required to disgorge them. If in truth they know of no such supporting facts, Intervenors should be required to state the detailed basis (if there is one) upon which they relied in making those assertions. Intervenors should not be permitted to avoid answering LILCO's relevant and proper questions, and to frustrate LILCO's ability to set up contentions for potential summary disposition, simply because the discovery period has not yet expired.
3.
"The Governments Have Not Yet Made a Final Determination Regarding This Matter" i
Intervenors profess not to have made a " final determination" regarding the an-swers to many of LILCO's interrogatories, even in cases where the interrogatories are as narrow and precisely written as possible and go to matters which are fundamental to understanding or evaluating the contentions.E n some instances, it is difficult to be-I lieve that Intervenors have made no final determinations on the existence or truth of facts that allegedly form the basis of their contentions. But even in those cases where l
3/
Intervenors respond in this manner to Interrogatories 18-20, 22. 24-28, 46-49, 56, 58, 71, and 73.
l
. it is conceivable that no " final determination" has been made, Intervenors should be re-quired to state their tentative position or the position on which they based their con-tentions.M In Contention EX 38.A, for example, Intervenors complain that the " ENC was not declared operational until 8:25, and there was apparently no contact with the media by LERO personnel at the ENC until af ter that time." Exercise Contentions at 99. In-terrogatory No.18 asks Intervenors to state the time they believe the ENC should have been declared operational. Intervenors say they have not yet made a final determina-tion on this issue, and that they can only state that information should have been pro-vided to the media earlier. If Intervenors have no idea when the ENC should have been declared operational, then it is difficult to imagine how they could make the quoted as-sertion or what significance it holds. However, if Intervenors do have an opinion as to what time the ENC should have been declared operational, they should be required to disclose that opinion.
Even more incredible is Intervenors' response to Interrogatory No. 25, which concerns Contention EX 38.C. That contention reads as follows:
The Site Area Emergency, radiation release, and dairy animal recommendation was announced by EBS broadcast at 8:41.
Despite the fact that the decision to issue that EBS message was made by the LERO Director by 8:37. LERO News Release No. 2. which included the information in that EBS message, was not approved by the Director until 9:00. As of 9:15, it had still not been distributed to the press.
4/
LILCO's interrogatories seek information which is basic to an understanding of Intervenors' position in this proceeding. LILCO is entitled to have such interrogatories answered. S_e_e_ Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility),
LBP-86-4, 23 NRC 75, 82 (1986) ("The People (intervenor] raised the issues: Kerr-McGee is entitled to know where the People stand on them now"). See also Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490,494 (1983) (" Discovery of the foundation upon which a contention is based is not only clearly within the realm of proper discovery, but aho is necessary for an appli-cant's preparation for hearing").
. Exercise Contentions at 100 (emphasis supplied). In Interrogatory No. 25 LILCO asked Intervenors whether they contend that the referenced time interval (08:37 to 09:00) was excessive. Intervenors responded that they have not yet made a final determina-tion on the issue. Thus, even though the plain wording of the contention makes it ap-parent that Intervenors are complaining about the length of this interval, they refuse to state whether they think the time period was excessive, and the basis for that answer.
Similarly, Intervenors refuse to provide definite answers to Interrogatories 26-28, and all the other interrogatories to which they have interposed this answer. Such responses are inappropriate. The Board should order Intervenors to commit to a posi-tion and answer the question, or at the very least, to supplement these answers promptly when they make a final determination on each answer. Otherwise, Interve-nors will be enabled to frustrate one of the basic purposes of discovery: fair notice to other parties in setting up issues for summary resolution.
4.
"The Governments Are Not at this Time Able to Provide a Numerical Response to this Question" In a variation on the standard answer discussed in the immediately preceding section, Intervenors responded to at least eleven interrogatories with the answer "The Governments are not at this time able to provide a numerical response to this question but can state (what the contention already states]".EI This answer was given despite the allegations in various contentions that certain sample sizes were too small or that the number of organizations or entities that participated in the Exericse was too small.
Intervenors' answers to these interrogatories make it appear as though Intervenors are still evaluating whether or not their assertions in such contentions have merit. If In-tervenors do have numerical responses to the questions they should be required to i
2/
Intervenors supplied this answer in response to Interrogatories 1-4 and 7-13.
i
.r
, disclose them. On the other hand, if it is true, as Intervenors say, that they do not yet possess numerical standards upon which their allegations were based, despite having had the vast majority of exercise documents for half a year, they should be required so to admit clearly and dispositively.
For example, Interrogatories 1-4 relate to Contention EX 16, which asserts that the scope of the Exercise was too limited because certain persons or entitles did not participate. Specifically, Contention EX 16.K says that certain bus companies did not participate; EX 16.L says that certain ambulance companies did not participate; EX 18.C(i) says that the bus companies that did participate did not do so fully enough to ensure that emergency personnel were familiar with their duties; and EX 18.C(li) says that the ambulance companies that participated did not do so fully enough to ensure that emergency personnel were famkilar with their duties. Interrogatories 1-4 merely ask Intervenors to state (and provide a basis and supporting documents regarding) how many such bus and ambulance companies needed, in their view, to participate, and to what extent,in order for the Exercise to be of adequate scope.
Intervenors' standard answer to these interrogatories was that "the Governments are not at this time able to provide a numerical response", and that LILCO should refer to the contentions themselves (which merely state that the participation of bus and ambulance companies was too limited). Surely, since Intervenors assert that an insuffi-cient number of buses and ambulances participated, they must, if their contentions were responsibly framed, have in mind a number that represents, in their view, suff t-cient participation. In that case, LILCO is entitled to know about that numerical stan-dard. If Intervenors do not know what number of buses and ambulances would have to participate in order for the Exercise to be deemed " adequate"in scope, then LILCO is entitled to know the specific basis, if there is any, for Intervenors' assertion that the number that participated was too small.
, a
- The same arguments apply to Interrogatories 7-13, which concern Contention EX 21 and to which Intervenors gave the same answer. Contention EX 21 asserts that "the i
samples which FEMA reviewed were much too small to permit valid generalizations or to support FEMA's conclusions." Exercise Contentions at 52. Interrogatories 7-13 ask Intervenors to state the number of route alert drivers, bus drivers, school bus drivers, ambulance and ambulette drivers, traffic guides, traffic impediments, and congregate care centers that needed to be observed, evaluated, or sampled in order to create a t
sample of sufficient size to yield valid or meaningful results.
)
As with Interrogatories 1-4, Intervenors answered Interrogatories 7-13 by pro-fessing their inability to give a numerical response. Ag;.in, however, Intervenors must have in mind a set of numbers against which they compared the sample sizes actually used, in order to draf t Contention EX 21. LILCO is entitled to know those numbers and j
the origin of their derivation. If it is true that Intervenors do not know of such num-bers, LILCO is at least entitled to learn the specific basis for their assertion in EX 21 that the samples actually used were too small. Intervenors' refusal to provide numeri-3 l
cal responses, if such answers exist, is baseless and improper.
B. Intervenors' Relevance Objections Are Without Merit Intervenors object to various interrogatories as irre%vant.N All but two of l
these interrogatories merely seek from Intervenors the standard against which they ap-i parently compared the performance of LERO players during the Exercise and according to which LERO performance was allegedly deficient. Such information is clearly rele-vant and discoverable. The other two interrogatories seek information to explain and elaborate on ambiguous contentions alleging deficiences in LCRO performance. That l
l Information is also relevant and discoverable, f
6/
Intervenors claim that the information sought in Interrogatories 34, 37, 39, 45, 49,51 and 75 is irrelevant.
1
I
~
. Specifically, Interrogatory No. 34 asks Intervenors to state what is in their view the maximum acceptable length of time between the ENC's receipt of a press release and the posting of that release. Intervenors responded that the information sought is not relevant, "since the allegation in subpart G of Contention EX 38 is that during the Exercise, LERO press releases were distributed much too late." Intervenors' Response at 31. Clearly, the " proper" or " acceptable" time interval is relevant to a contention that says that LERO press releases were distributed "much too late". Indeed, 'Gateness" is a relative term and can only be determined by comparing the amount of time it actu-ally took to perform some function with some standard or " ideal" time. Here, LILCO is merely asking for Intervenors' " ideal" time.
Interrogatory No. 37 asks Intervenors to state what is in their view the maximum acceptable length of time between the LERO Director's decision to recommend a pro-tective action and the time the media are informed of the recommendation. Again, In-tervenors assert that the requested information is not relevant, "since the allegations in Contention EX 38 go to what LILCO did during the February 13 exercise, and the fact that such actions demonstrate LILCO's inability to provide timely, accurately (sic], consistently (sic] and non-confusing information to the news media." Interve-nors' Response at 33. However, the requested information is clearly relevant, since Contention EX 38, especially subpart H, complains about the period between the time the Director decided to recommend a protective action and the time the media were informed of his decision. The standard against which Intervenors compare this interval is highly relevant.
The same analysis applies to Interrogatories 39, 45, and 49. In each, LILCO asked Intervenors to state what was in their view the maximum acceptable time period between two events.
The requested information is relevant because in their
4
... contentiora the Intervenors complained of LERO's inability to perform certain func-tions in a timely manner. Obviously, what Intervenors believe to be timely - that is, the time period that Intervenors use as a guidepost in assessing LERO performance - is clearly relevant to an understanding of their contentions and LILCO is entitled to know such information.
Interrogatory No. 51(b) asks Intervenors to describe how the scenario should have been written, and how LERO responses should have been altered, in order to take into account any assumption other than that protective action recommendations would be followed.. This interrogatory relates to Contention EX 22.F, which asserts that LERO players erroneously assumed that " members of the public would follow all LILCO pro-tective action recommendations." Exercise Contentions at 69. Intervenors objected to
~ Interrogatory No. 51 as seeking irrelevant information. However, the information is clearly relevant and necessary to explain how Intervenors believe LERO players should have changed their responses to allow for those people who might not follow protective action recommendations. This is especially so because it is unclear why or how any emergency response organization is supposed to plan for and respond to events that are by definition unpredictable.
Finally, Interrogatory No 75 asks Intervenors to identify any special training or equipment which they contend that bus drivers must be given to enable them to keep monitoring records. Intervenors refer LILCO to their General Response F, which is their irrelevance objection. See Intervenors' Response (part 2) at 30. Interrogatory No.
75 is clearly relevant to Contention EX 47.C. which states that The proposal to have bus drivers keep necessary monitoring records (See OPIP 4.3.1 S 5.4.9 c (Rev. 7)) is unworkable.
Such personnel have not been trained for such a function, nor have they been properly equipped to fulfill it. It is also im-practical to expect a bus driver to be able to perform such a function.
e I
s i
g-T-
.~---.e w m-m m m_,,_,
,._-,_,m,,,,,-.m
.....m..-
...__nm,. _ _. _.. -_,-mm
. Exercise Contentions at 150. Since LILCO is at a loss to understand what special training a bus driver needs in order to write down people's names, and what equipment d
he needs other than a pen and paper, the requested information will help LILCO to un-derstand and defend against the assertions in this contention.
C. Miscellaneous Other Responses Are Inadeauate
- 1. Interrogatory Nos. 76 and 77 Are Not Ambiguous Interrogatory No. 76 asks Intervenors whether they contend that bus drivers are inherently incapable of keeping monitoring records. Interrogatory No. 77 asks Interve-nors to state the basis for their assertion that it is " impractical to expect a bus driver to be able to perform such a function." Both interrogatories refer to Contention EX 47.
C (as Intervenors correctly recognize in their response to Interrogatory 76), which was quoted in the previous section. But Intervenors assert that Interrogatories 76 and 77 are " ambiguous and cannot be answered." Intervenors' Response (Part 2) at 31.
LILCO submits that these interrogatories are no more ambiguous than the con-tention to which they relate. It is difficult to understand why LILCO's proposal to have t
bus drivers keep a list of monitored evacuees is unworkable, or why it is " impractical" to expect a bus driver to be able to perform such a function. See Contention EX 47.C.
Accordingly, LILCO asked the Intervenors in Interrogatories 76 and 77 to shed some light on its assertions. The questions are perfectly clear, and the requested informaion is highly relevant to the language of Contention EX 47.C.
2.
Intervenors Should Be Required to State Specifically the Basis of Each Answer LILCO worded its interrogatories deliberately, precisely and pointedly. As a follow-up question to each substantive inquiry, LILCO asked Intervenors to state any i
specific basis for their answer. In almost all cases, however, Intervenors did not state
-~ -,. ~,
m
,v--.
..---.--.--w 7-e---
. - -. -w
.w.,.
--31
. the specific basis upon which their answer rests. Instead, they gave a worthless shot-gun answer similar to that of Interrogatory No. 2:
At this time, and to the knowledge of the Governments, the primary basis for the answer to subpart (a) are the data set out in the contention, the documents generated during the Exercise by FEMA and LILCO, the LILCO Plan, and the obser-Vations, knowledge, training, background, experience, and ex-pertise of those individuals the Governments have or intend to identify to testify regarding this contention. The results of discovery, analyses and research by those individuals may pro-vide additional bases for the referenced proposition.
Intervenors' Response at 5. This response is totally inadcquate; it tells LILCO nothing that LILCO doesn't already know. To say that the basis for a specific answer can be found somewhere in the contention itself, the mass of exercise documents, the LILCO Plan, or the undisclosed knowledge and expertise of Intervenors' unspecified prospec-tive witnesses is improper. Intervenors should be required to state specifically the basis for each answer it gives.
III. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND DISPOSITION LILCO filed its "Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" on November 10, 1986. Intervenors took the full time allowed for response and served their response in two parts by federal express on November 26,1986 and November 29,1986. U LILCO is serving this motion by telecopier on the affected par-ties. In order that further discovery, if the Board grants it, may be readily completed, LILCO requests that the Board require responses to this motion be received by the Board and other affected parties not later than the close of business on December 11, 1986, and that the Board rule on it as soon thereaf ter as its schedule permits.
t i
I/
The actual filing deadline was November 26, 1986. The November 29 portion of Intervenors' answers was untimely.
?
. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, LILCO respectfully moves that this Board enter an order on an expedited basis compelling Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton to respond more fully and adequately to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
l Respectfully submitted, J
N
~
DonEld P. Irwin#
Scott D. Matchett Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 4,1986
)
i i
L
r LILCO, December 4, IU6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2]t q. r : -
a :,i.
In the Matter of g TC ~8 A10:53 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 UFF 00ccL;a,,
ep f,
A.i I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion to Compel Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton to Respond to LILCO's Second Set of Interroga-tories and Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Expedited Response and Disposition, were served this date upon the following by telecopier, as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mall, postage prepaid.
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 Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555 I
4
e
.- 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 M
W Doiiald P. ItwW I
Scott D. Matchett Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 4,1986
-