ML20236L827
| ML20236L827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1987 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsche K, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4795 OL-6, NUDOCS 8711110077 | |
| Download: ML20236L827 (22) | |
Text
.j
, '/k
^
/
re:
/
\\
- i. p
.)
4 I
t.
'/
00CKETED USHRC
=s Novembhr 8
0FFICE OF SECRETARV UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CK[ilNG A SEHVICf.
BRANC5i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board l
)
In the Matter of
)
f
)
LONG ISLAND LIGNTING COMPANY
)
09cket No. 50-322-OL-6
)
. )
25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclaar Power Station,'# g)
[ 0,(d j
Unit 1)
', ' l
~
f
)
"/ J J
l VIEWS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK,-AND THE TOWN OF-SOUTHAMPTON IN RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S OCTOBER 6, 1987 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING LILCO'S REQUEST TO OPERATE AT 25% POWER-ll "
. i.
i i i In a Memorandum to the Parties dated October 6, 1987 (here-after, the " Memorandum"), thh~Boardsoughttheviewsof.thepar-ties on several matters relating to LILCO's Motion for Authori-zation to Increase Power.to 25% ("25% Power Motion"), and LILCO's j
.A i
4 Motion for Designation of' Licensing lScard 'and Setting Expedited i j
Schedule to Rule on LILCO's 25% Power Request
(" Appointment 1
Motion").1 This is the response of Suffplk County, the Stat 7 cf
]
s 1
New York, and the Town of Southampton.(the "Governraents") to the 1
The Appointment Motion was filed with the Commission but referred to this Board by Commission Order dated August 13, 1987.
8711110077 871106 PDR ADOCK 05000322 o
07 Q
PDR V
r Memorandum.
As provided by the Board, the Governments will, if necessary, file a reply to the responses of the other parties by November 16, 1987.
In the Memorandum, the Board identified several matters to be addressed.
We discuss each one below.
In response to the Board's direction (Memorandum at 1) that matters already decided
]
or otherwise pending before it should not be reargued in this j
response, where appropriate we merely refer the Board to pertinent filings or rulings.
1.
Has LILCO complied with the Commission's decision in CLI-87-04 allowing it to refile its request for a 25% power license under 10 CFR S 50.57(c) by filing a motion wholly directed to the regulatory requirements j
of 10 CFR S 50.47(c)?
i l
The short answer to this question is that LILCO has failed to comply with the Commission's directive in CLI-87-04, for the reasons outlined by the Board itself in the Memorandum, the rea-sons previously identified by the Governments in their Opposition to the Appointment Motion,2 and the reasons discussed below.
As a consequence of LILCO's failure to comply with the Commission's directive, and its failure even to address, much less to demon-strate satisfaction of, the requirements of Section 50.57(c), its i
25% Power Motion should be summarily denied.
I 2
geg Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of j
Southampton Response in Opposition to LILCO Motion for Designation of Licensing Board and Setting Expedited Schedule to Rule on LILCO's 25% Power Request, filed July 27, 1987 with the Commission and also served on this Board (hereafter, I
" Governments' Appointment Motion Opposition").
j 1
! j
1 4
1 1
LILCO's request for authorization to operate at 25% power l
appears to present precisely '.1e situation contemplated by Section 50.57(c): there is a pending operating license proceeding under Section 50.57, in which hearings have been, are being, and will be held; and, LILCO's 25% Power Motion obviously seeks "an operating license authorizing
. operations short of full power operation."
Thus, in filing its 25% Power Motion, LILCO should have addressed, and demonstrated it had satisfied, the j
standards set forth in Section 50.57(c) for a license to oper_ ate short of full power, even without the Commission's explicit
\\
directive to that effect.
As the Board noted, howcVer, in its " refiled" 25% Power Motion, LILCO made no change in its original request, which dealt only with Section 50.47(c); LILCO "merely stated it was being submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c)."
Memorandum at 3.
LILCO " ignored and did not address" the requirements of Section 50.57(c).
Id.,
4-5.
Thus, it did not address, as required by the pertinent regulation Section 50.57(c), the extent to which the outstanding existing contentions are relevant to the activity for which it seeks authorization.
It also failed to address the issues identified in Section 50.57(a) as to which findings in the form of an initial decision must be made before the presiding officer can take action on a motion for authorization to operate short of full power.
And, as the Board noted, LILCO's failures to comply with the very section under which it is purportedly-r___
e 1
proc'eding -- and under which it must proceed -- are particularly e
egregious in light of the rulings against LILCO which have l
already been made on existing contentions, and'the fact that there have as yet been no rulings at all on the outstanding exercise-related contentions.
Sgg Memorandum at 5-6.
i As a result of LILCO's failure to comply with the Commis-J sion's directive, and its failure to address, much less to demon-l strate satisfaction of, the requirements of Section 50.57(c),
I LILCO's 25% Power Motion is deficient on its face and should be i
summarily denied.
2.
a.
Is satisfying the requirements of Section 50.57(c) and obtaining approval for operations short of full power a prerequisite to a demonstration, under 1
Section 50.47(c), that deficiencies in a plan are not significant for the plant in question?
b.
Is LILCO with its 25% Power Motion bypassing an essential step in not proceeding initially to satisfy Section 50.57(c)?
i These two questions posed by the Board at page 7 of the Memorandum are related, and so we address them together.
The j
short answer to both questions is yes.
4 A review of the two regulations in question reveals that in a situation involving a request for authorization to operate at 4
power levels above 5% but short of full power, made while a full power licensing proceeding is pending, the provisions of Section 50.57(c) must logically and as a legal matter be addressed at..the I i
i
)
l l
outset.
As noted above and in the Board's Memorandum, Section 1
50.57(c) is the regulatory provision which "specifically concerns applications authorizing operations short of full power opera-tion."
Memorandum, at 4.
The Board is also correct in observing that Section 50.47(c), on the other hand, "on its face has nothing to do with applying for a license and authorizing operations at less than full power."
14.3 Thus, the plain terms of the regulations themselves indicate that in the circumstances l
present in this casce the primary operative regulation to be satisfied as a threshold matter is Section 50.57(c).
LILCO cites no authority that stands for the proposition that where there is an express regulatory provision, like Section 50.57(c), which addresses authorization of a particular activity (e a.,
operation l
l at less than full power), an applicant can avoid satisfying the j
explicit conditions established for that activity by purporting to proceed under some other regulatory provision which was i
established for an entirely different purpose.4 1
l 3
Obviously, Section 50.47(c)(1) deals with another subject l
entirely, namely provision for plant operations, even when emergency planning deficiencies have been found, if such defici-encies are demonstrated to be relatively insignificant and in the i
process of being remedied, and can be adequately compensated for I
in the interim.
4 It bears reiterating, however, that in this proceeding, it clearly is inappropriate for LILCO to have ignored Section 50.57(c), since the NRC itself ruled in CLI-87-04 that Section 50.47(c) was the applicable regulation under which any LILCO 25%
power request would need to be filed.
N2 1
l i
)
j 3.
a.
If the parties are to address unresolved i
contentions before a license for operation at less than full power may be granted under Section 50.57(c), can the contentions be resolved short of hearing them in the full power emergency planning proceeding?
b.
What is the effect on the 25% Power Motion of l
the Board's September 17, 1987 Memorandum and Order j
I denying LILCO's March 1987 summary disposition motion on the legal authority contentions, and ruling that LILCO's claim that its plan complies with NRC requirements is contrary to the record?
These two questions, posed by the Board at_pages 7 and 6 of the Memorandum respectively, are related, and so we discuss t, hem together.
The short answer to the first question is no.
The Board's September 17 ruling provides additional support for the q
negative answer to the first question.
l L
We begin by analyzing the regulatory provisions themselves.
4 As the Board noted, Section 50.57(c) provides that:
l Action on.
a motion (for operations short of full power] by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the 4
parties to the proceedings, including the right of any party to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Section 50.57 further requires that if, as here, such a motion is 1
opposed, the presiding officer must make findings on the matters l
1 specified in paragraph (a) of Section 50.57, as to which there is controversy, "in the form of an initial decision with' respect to i
i _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
i the contested activity sought to be authorized."
The matte'rs in paragraph (a) as to which there is controversy here. include l
l whether:
The facility will operate in conformity with the.
. provisions of the [ Atomic Energy]
Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; and q
l There is reasonable assurance (i) that the i
activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the i
health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compli-ance with the regulations in this chapter;.and The issuance of the license will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public.
Sag 10 CFR SS 50.57(c), 50.57(a)(2), (3), and (6).
Moreover, it is important to note that, under the express terms of Section 50.57(c), the findings which the presiding officer must make under the above-quoted subsections of paragraph (a) must be made
"(p]rior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes."
Thus, according to the plain words of Section 50.57(c), before this Board can properly take "any" action'on LILCO's 25% Power Motion (which the Governments assuredly op-pose), the Board must first issue an initial decision.which sets forth findings as to the matters quoted above from paragraph (a) of 50.57 which are relevant to operation of Shoreham at 25%
power.
As we discuss further below, it is clear that all of the - _ - _ _ - _ _ -
1'.
Governments' existing contentions are fully relevant to operation of Shoreham at 25% power and thus must be resolved prior to taking any action on LILCO's motion.
Finally, Section 50.47 provides that except for fuel loading l
1 and operations up to 5% of rated power, "no coeratino license for i
a nuclear oower reactor will be issued unless.
" the offsite emergency plans meet the requirements in subsection (b), the NRC has reviewed FEMA findings and determinations as to the adequacy I
of offsite plans and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented, and the NRC has made a finding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures.
can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Egg Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),
j ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 143 (1986).
Egg also Part 50, Appendix E.
In this case, the outstanding and existing contentions all allege that LILCO fails to comply with Section 50.47 and/or Part 50, Appendix E.
The regulatory requirements which are the subject of those contentions apply equally to operation at any cower level above 5%.
The NRC's regulations include no provision for the issuance of operating licenses above 5% power in the absence of full compliance with Section 50.47 and Appendix E.
Accordingly, unless LILCO first obtains an exemption from the emergency planning regulations, the findings of regulatory compliance which are a prerequisite to license issuance under.... _.
i I
i Se_ tion 50.57(c) cannot be made until the outstanding contentions have been resolved, and all in LILCO's favor.
Seg also the discussion ot LILCO's need for an exemption in order to have its 25% power request heard which is contained in the Governments' l
Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Expedited Commission Consideration (April 27, 1987) (hereafter, the " Governments' l
)
April 27 Response).
This means that the Board is correct in assuming that i n, this case the parties must address the unresolved contentions, and the Board must issue an initial decisior. resolving them, before authorization of operation at 25% power may be granted a
under Section 50.57(c) (aga Memorandum at 7), unless LILCO were to obtain an exemption from compliance with Section 50.47 and
)
Part 50, Appendix E.
It means, further, that in this case the j
outstanding contentions cannot be resolved, short of resolving them in the full power emergency planning proceeding, again unless LILCO were to obtain an exemption from Section 50.47 and Appendix E.
The Board's September 17 rulings that "only after further j
hearing can it be determined whether the fatal flaws the Licensing Board found are remediable and not a bar to the issuance of a full power license" (Memorandum at 6), and that "LILCO's claim that its plan complies with NRC requirements was found to be contrary to the record" (14.) provide additional )
f.
' support for the need to resolve the outstanding contentions in the full power proceeding.
There is absolutely no basis in the NRC's regulations, nor does LILCO cite any (other than its erroneous citation of Section 50.47(c)) for the setting of
{
i different standards of compliance with emergency planning i
regulations for operation at power levels short of full power but above 5%.
Accordingly, the outstanding contentions, the emergency planning regulatory requirements upon which they are based, and the state of LILCO's compliance with those 4
requirements are the same, whether LILCO seeks authorization to operate at 6%, 25%, or 100% power.
I 4.
What effect does the answer to Question 3 have on LILCO's request that its 25% Power Motion be handled on I
pn excedited basis?
l The answer to Question 3, as well as the answers to Questions 1 and 2, require that LILCO's request for expedited handling of its 25% Power Motion be denied..First, LILCO has not even complied with the Commission's explicit directive in refiling its motion.
Thus, there hardly is a " case" to be made for expedition when the applicant has not even followed the rules.
or an express directive from the Commission.
Second, LILCO's motion is defective on its face, in failing i
even to address the requirements and standards set forth in the operative and controlling regulation, Section 50.57(c).
- Third, because the same emergency planning requirements apply to operation at 25% power and full power, the regulatory compliance findings necessary in an initial decision with respect to 25%
power operation under Section 50.57(c) are the same as those required for full power operation, in the absence of an exemption from compliance with Section 50.47 and Appendix E.
Thus, there can be no justification for separate or expedited handling of the 25% Power Motion.
Finally, we will not repeat here the discus-I sions on the subject of LILCO's request for expedited treatment which were contained in the Government April 27 Response, and the-Governments' Opposition to the Appointment Motion, but refer the Board to those filings.
1 s
1 5.
If an applicant were issued a license under Section 50.47(c) to conduct operations at less than full power, could the less than full power operation be considered as part of an adequate interim compensating action, in.
j view of what the Commission has stated interim compensating actions are?
The short answer to this question, posed at page'4 of the.
Memorandum, is no.
There are several reasons which support this.
conclusion.
1 First, as a preliminary matter and with due respect to the Board, we note that this question appears to proceed from an incorrect premise, albeit one which is consistent with LILCO's
'25% Power Motion.
As we already explained, Section 50.47(c) is not the operative or governing regulatory provision for the issuance of licenses to operate above 5% but short of full power; Section 50.57(c) is.
Thus, the suggestion that by addressing the e
- _ =. _ _ _ -.
1 standards in Section 50.47(c)(1) one could obtain a license to operate short of full power -- which appears to be the underlying premise of this Board question -- is contrary to the regulations.
i i
second, the Board's discussion of the Commi'ssion's state--
ments concerning-what interim compensating actions are under
]
Section 50.47(c)(1) is correct.
The regulation and the Commission's discussions of it, clearly indicate that " interim compensating actions" are to involve provisions or actions under the applicable offsite emeroency olans, not provisions of the
{
reactor's technical specifications or its operating procedures.
{
Thus, it is clear from Section 50.47(c)(1) itself that the interim actions are to compensate for failures'in compliance with the requirements of Section 50.47(b); all of those requirements involve protecting the public by means of offsite protective actions, not activities involving methods of plant operation.
)
Similarly, the regulation refers to " deficiencies in the olans,"
which an applicant can attempt to demonstrate are not significant I
or are compensated for, not matters involving the power levels at which the reactor is intended to operate.
As the Board observed, the Commission itself has interpreted Section 50.47(c)(1) as involving determinations of "whether features of one olan can compensate for deficiencies in another olan.
Memorandum i
at 4, citina 45 Fed. Reg. 55,403 (emphasis added).5
]
1 5
Accord, 47 Fed. Reg. 30234 (1982) (the types of deficiencies I
to which Section 50.47(c)(1) is addressed are those "that only reflect the actual state of orecaredagag.which'may be easily remedied.
(emphasis added)).
i 1 _ - _ _ - ____-_-_-__-__-_-_ - -_-____ __-_____ __- __- _ _
- :]
This conclusion is also consistent with the NRC's overall regulatory scheme, and with the generic assumptions and judgments made by the Commission in enacting its regulations.
Those assumptions and judgments, as reflected in the regulations, contemplate only one set of standards and criteria for emergency I
preparedness for plant operation at any power level above 5%.
There is no provision in any regulation -- and certainly none in Section 50.47(c) -- which permits a limitation on the power level q
of operation to justify non-compliance with the requirements.of Section 50.47, once 5% power is exceeded.
LILCO's suggestion that operation at 25% power should be allowed, despite the lack J
j of compliance with the NRC's emergency planning requirements, a
l constitutes a direct challenge to the regulations and the generic i
judgments embodied therein.
Egg the Governments' April 27 Response, and the Governments' Opposition to the Appointment Motion.
Accordingly, unless and until LILCO applies for, meets the regulatory requirements for, and receives from the Commission an exemption from compliance with Section 50.47, its suggestion l
1 that operating at 25% power can justify its lack of compliance l
1 with Section 50.47 must be rejected.
)
s e
l 1 j 1
'I l
6.
Is LILCO's claim that a LILCO PRA demonstrates that the probability of prompt offsite injury following a Shoreham accident at 25% power is "vanishingly small,"
an acceptable approach to overcome emergency planning deficiencies or to bypass the regulations on offsite emeraency olanninc?
The short answer to this question,-posed at pages 7-8 of the i
Memorandum, is no, for the reasons discussed by the Board in the
-q Memorandum as well as others discussed below.
l First, as the Board correctly observed in.its Memorandum,(at page 8), "The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on the assumption that a serious accident might occur.
." and "a possible deficiency in an emergency plan cannot be.
properly disregarded because of the low probability that action pursuant to the plan will ever be necessary," citina Philadelphia Electric Comoany-(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 713 (1985).
The Commission's statements in i
2 Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating-Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 526, 533, rev'd'in eart on other arounds, GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (1986), are even more explicit:
The underlying assumption of the NRC's cmtr-gency planning regulations in 10 CFR 50.47 s
that, despite application of stringent safety measures, a serious nuclear accident may occur.
This presumes that offsite individuals may.become contaminated with radioactive material or exposed to dangerous levels of radiation or perhaps both. i
LILCO's suggestion that this Board can simply disregard deficiencies in its emergency planning because LILCO believes its PRA can demonstrate that at Shoreham the probability of a serious accident is small, or that the risk or consequences of an acci-dent are greatly reduced, is an impermissible challenge to the regulations.
It is a blatant attack on the NRC's generic findings upon which the emergency planning regulations are based.
In the absence of an exemption request, this LILCO approach must be summarily rejected.6
]
Furthermore, as the Staff has noted, LILCO's PRA argument in its 25% Power Motion boils down to a request to have the Shorehan i
EPZ reduced to one mile.
Eg.g NRC Staff Response to LILCO Motion
/
for Designation of Licensing Board and Setting Expedited Schedule to Rule on LILCO's 25% Power Request (filed with Commission),
(
July 29, 1987, at 8.
Clearlyt such a request is totally improper I
in the absence of an exemption application.7 And, as the Staff
')
6 Section 2.758(a) of the regulations is clear that no regu-lation shall be subject to attack "by way of
. argument, or 1
other means in any adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing."
The NRC has repeatedly held that such impermissible challenges under 2.758(a) are involved where a litigant directly,
{
or even by necessary implication, takes issue with the. generic i
findings underlying a Commission regulation.
- Egg, e,o.,
Lono
)
Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
4 ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 147 (1986); Southern California Edison Comoany (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),
LBP-82-39, 15 NRC 1163 (1982).
i 7
Indeed, two other utilities which have sought EPZ reductions j
-- Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and Public Service Company of New Hampshire -- have proceeded by way of exemption or waiver i
requests.
Both were summarily denied.
Egg Letter, dated j
February 14, 1986, from Harold A.
Denton to J.A.
Tierman, Vice (footnote continued)
- i 1
i
(
4 also noted, LILCO's attempt to use PRA analyses to support its 25% Power Motion directly violates prior rulings in this case, j
made at LILCO's urging, which precluded the Governments from relying upon PRA analyses to support safety-related conclusions.
]
i Egg id., citina ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 146-48 (1986) (in which the Appeal Board held that generic accident analyses "were conducted to remove the need for cite specific calculations.
").
Egg also Tr. 2844, 2856-58 in 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power), aff'd, Lonc Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85,1, 21 NRC 275 (1985).
7.
Revisitation of LILCO's request for the appointment of a new licensing board in light of various matters and the necessity that the subject matter be sufficiently discrete that the assianment can be made.
l The Board asked the parties to revisit LILCO's request that
/
a new licensing board be appointed.
Egg Memorandum at 9.
The Board premised this request, however, upon its observation that i
"[i]n order to have ancther licensing Board hearing the appli-l 1
cation for a 25% power license, it is necessary that the subject i
matter be sufficiently discrete so that the assignment can be l
1 made."
Id.
It then requested that the parties' discussion take l
1 into consideration three matters:
l i
l (footnote continued from previous page)
President-Nuclear Energy, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., (Docket Nos:
50-317, 50-318); Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-87-12, 25 NRC 324 (1987).
l 1 4
1
'l a.
the requirement of Section 50.47(c) that due regard must be given to the rights of the parties to be heard to the i
extent that their contentions are relevant to the activity to be l
i authorized; b.
the Licensing Board's determination that it is f
incorrect for Applicant to claim that there are only minor deficiencies in its plan.
Fatal flaws were found in the plan, l
and although these matters were remanded for further consider-I ation they are yet to be resolved; and c.
Applicants' claim that it has met the conditions required to satisfy Section 50.47(c) for the issuance of an operating license, by demonstrating in its request that the l
l implementation of its utility' plan by (1) a well' organized and well trained response organization and (2) by local governments l
on a "best efforts" basis, coupled with (3) a 25% power limita-tion, will in toto more than constitute interim compensating measures.
The answer to this Board request has two parts.
First, for a]l the reasons discussed above in response to the other Board 4
i questions, taking into account the matters identified by the Board requires the rejection of the 25% Power Motion, thus making moot LILCO's request for a new licensing board.
Second, even if the 25% Power Motion is not summarily dismissed (which we believe -
I l
l would be a clearly erroneous result), for the reasons already i
discussed LILCO has failed to state any_. legitimate basis for establishing a new licensing board to deal with the Motion, be-
)
cause its substance cannot be addressed prior to the resolution j
of the outstanding existing contentions, remands, and other emergency planning matters pending in the full power proceeding
)
before this Board.
We will not repeat here the discussions on j
that subject which appear in the Governments' Appointment Motion Opposition, at 9-15, and the other sections of this Response...
Should LILCO make any new arguments on this matter in its response to the Board's Memorandum, we will address them in a Reply.
Respectfully submitted, Martin-Bradley Ashare-Suffolk County Attorney Building.158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
{ 4 0.4 7
(
Herbert H.
Brown,"
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART l
1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County.
, 1
.I l
I' T
.)
l',
f~
C ((,
tn s o
Fabian G.
Palomino
/
Richard J.
Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State'of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York
/
i f :/
J
- l./f.t. OL/L l
^
., :L c i /f c-4 /
, g3.
'Stephy B. Latham Twomey, Latham &.Shea j
P.O.
Box 398
^
33 West Second Street Riverhead, New. York 11901 l
Attorney for the Town of l
Southampton l
i i m
f l
1 i
00CKETED l
USNRC l
i November 6, N8%V -9 P4:11 0FFICE OF SECREltiRY i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CMETING A SERVICE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH -
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board.
)-
In the Matter of
)
{
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-6
)
(25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
J Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of VIEWS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON IN RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S OCTOBER 6, 1987 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING LIILCO'S REQUEST TO OPERATE AT 25% POWER have been served on the following this 6th day of November, 1987 by U.S. mail, first-class, except-as otherwise noted.
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 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 i
500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 1
i I
i
't e
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Richard J.
Zahleuter, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Special Counsel to the Governor P.O.
Bcx 1535 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia' 23212 Albany,.New York 12224 Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,
Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long' Island Lighting ~ Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country. Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801'-
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature-Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 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 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande 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 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.*
ew York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Office of General' Counsel Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223
p 4
David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Mr'.
Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York-10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771
--,f
'Y
) (
-Karla J. LetscheM KIRKPATRICK & LdCKHART 1800'M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.. 20036-5891 By Hand By Federal Express i
l L.C-._________m___
.