ML19309G106

Response to ASLB 800305 Order Granting Late Intervention Status to Shoreham Opponents Coalition,Subj to Submittal of Affidavits Re Standing.Urges Prehearing Conference to Determine Issues.Affidavits & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19309G106
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/03/1980
From:	Latham S SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005020367
Download: ML19309G106 (35)

Text

~

c - -- ;yv; w -

-g._ , ..

m f}FQ i

1. ,. - .y ,

,; 3 + . ., . ) _h_ ,,'p .

_ 8005020367 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 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

RESPONSE OF THE SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION (SOC) TO BOARD ORDER DATED MARCH 5, 1980 By Order dated March 5, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above captioned matter (Board) granted Late Intervenor status to SOC subject to the sub-mission of certain affidavits regarding SOC's standing (see Board Order at p. 4). SOC's request for Late Intervenor status was submitted in the alternative to its request that the Board renotice the Shoreham proceeding to permit full intervention by SOC and other interested parties. SOC's petition further requested a suspension of the Shoreham '

i Construction Permit (see SOC Petition dated January 24, 1980 at pp. 1-2).

The Board declined to take jurisdiction of l the request for suspension of the Shoreham Construction Permit and on the basis of its grant of Late Intervenor status to SOC, the Board did not reach the question of whether or not the Shoreham proceeding should be renoticed (Board Order at p.2) .

In its review of the twenty contentions submitted by SOC, the Board determined that five contentions were l

j

1

• . o adequately particularized and admissible for litigation either as stated by SOC or as restated by the Board. SOC was granted leave to further particularize all or part of eight additional contentions and the balance of its con-tentions were dismissed (see Board Order at p. 24).

The Board's Order included a certification to the Commission on the question of Ilydrogen Generation (SOC contention twelve, Part III) and further invited the parties to address the merits of whether or not Shoreham be included among plants of similar design for which containment inerting will be required (see Board Order at p. 25).

In a memorandum dated March 25, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel has deferred consideration of the question certified by the Board to the Commission pending the Commission's ruling on the identical question in the TMI-l restart proceeding.

SOC's responses to these and other matters raised by the Board's Order are contained below.

II. STANDING Attachment A to this filing consists of Af fidavits by members of nineteen organizations which comprise the Shoreham Opponents Coalition. Since the filing of SOC's Petition for Late Intervention and Alternative Relief, a twentieth organization has declined to continue as a member of the Coalition.

spfe

y

~3-At page 4 of its March 5th Order, the Board directed SOC to

" Submit an affidavit from at least one member of an organization which has authorized SOC to represent it, which affidavit shall describe the location of the member's residence, work or recreational activity in relation to the Shoreham Reactor, shall confirm that the member has authorized SOC to represent his or her interest in this proceeding, and shall identify the organi-zation to which the member belongs and confirm that SOC is authorized to represent the organization."

As part of Attachment A, SOC has submitted the affidavit of Michael J. Madigan, President of Long Island Friends of Clearwater, to satisfy this particular directive of the Board. It is SOC's understanding that upon the submission of the attached affidavits, the Board's concerns regarding SOC's standing in this proceeding have been satisfied.

Copies of the attached affidavits have been served on all parties in the proceeding.

III. SUBMISSION OF " JOINT MOTION OF SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION (SOC)

AND NRC STAFF WITH REGARD TO PAR-TICULARIZATION OF SOC CONTENTIONS" Attachment B to this submission contains a Joint Motion made by NRC Staff and SOC on the subject of Par-ticularization. The attached copy of this Motion has been executed by SOC and a duplicate, executed copy has been forwarded today to NRC Staff which will, in turn, transmit a fully executed copy to the Board. Applicant was invited to join in this Motion and participate in further discussions between NRC Staff and SOC but has declined to do so.

?

I

1

_4_ .

As noted on the Motion, however, Applicant does not object to the request for extensions of time.

As indicated by the Motion, a meecing was held in Riverhead, New York, on March 20, 1980 between Staff and SOC to begin the process of further particularization as well as to discuss the status of this proceeding and related matters. The meeting was attended by Staf f Counsel Richard lloefling and Bernard Bordenick; Jerry Wilson, NRC Shoreham Project Manager; Stephen Latham; and Gregory Minor of MHB Technical Associates. At that meeting and in subsequent conversations, two questions regarding the Board's Order emerged:

1. Does the thirty day time limitation contained in the Board's Order (at p.4, 25) apply to the question of further particularization as well as to the need to cure the defects in standing cited by the Board?

2. If the thirty day time lim tation does apply to particularization, is that ictermination con-sistent with the requirements imposed on other parties and is that time period adequate to permit particularization?

Staff and SOC agreed to submit the attached motion to obtain clarification of the applicability of the thirty day time limitation to particularization and to move to extend that period for sixty days if the Board determines that the thirty day limit did apply to particularization.

TF' It is SOC's position that the thirty day time limit should not and does not apply to the subject of particulari-zation. While the Board's language is ambiguous on this matter, a number of factors lead to the conclusion that the thirty day period only applies to SOC's need to cure defects on the standing issue:

1. If the thirty day limit did apply to particularization, the Board would in effect, be holding SOC to a more stringent time schedule than that which is being applied to other parties in this proceeding. For example, Suffolk County has submitted a number of contentions, many of which are still in the process of particulariza-tion (see e.g. , Second Stipulation between Applicants, Suffolk County and Staff dated November 5, 1979). The aforementioned parties have held a series of informal discovery sessions in an attempt to particularize, combine or other-wise dispose of numerous contentions raised by Suffolk County. SOC expects that the same pro-cedures and timetables will be uniformly applied to all parties in this proceeding;

2. In its Order ruling on SOC's Petition, the Board stated that SOC would have to " accept schedules currently in place, including those relative to discovery" (Board Order at p. 24).

We note that in the Board's Order dated March 8, 1978, Chairman Bowers defined a discovery period and period for final particularization which ex-tends to seventy days af ter the issuance of the final Safety Evaluation Report (SER; Board Order dated March 8, 1978 at Page 5) . These factors confirm our belief that an attempt to restrict SOC to a thirty day period to complete par-ticularization would effectively place a double and more stringent standard on SOC when compared to other parties to this proceeding;

3. At Page 4 of its March 5th order, the Board specifically applies the thirty day limitation to the defects in standing. The thirty day time limit is reiterated at Page 25 of the Board Order, but without specific reference to the need for further particularization.

y In a- Order dated January 27, 1978 (p.19) the Board admitted ten contentions submitted by Suffolk County sub-ject to further particularization after discovery. Many of these contentions are still the subject of discovery and have not yet been particularized. SOC hereby requests that the Board admit for purposes of discovery and further particularization the following contentions: 2 (vii) ;

6 (a) (i) : 7 (a) (ii) ; 8, 10, 12 (second part); and 19.

Notwithstanding the above, SOC has joined with Staff in the attached M;hion as further indication of its good f aith ef forts to move exp-m .tiously and cooperatively with particularization and disocvery. SOC and Staff have scheduled a meeting in San Jose on April 16th and 17th with the hope that further agreement can be reached with regard to particularization of additional contentions.

Representatives of the Applicant and General Electric have been invited to attend the two day meeting, but as of this date, they have declined to do so. It should be noted at this point that by joining in the attached N7 tion, soc does not concede that the thirty day limit applies to particularization but rather requests clarification of the Board's March 5th order in this regard. Saould the Board determine that the thirty day limit did, in fact, apply to particularization, SOC asks that the Joint Mction for a sixty day extension to particularize be granted.

l l

7

- -y-SOC further notes that by joining in the Motion with Staf f, SOC does not concede or represent that its additional contentions can be fully particularized within the sixty daf period stated in the Motion. As evidenced by the procedures employed by Staf f, Suffolk County and the Applicant, discovery may be necessary in ordt r to adequately particularize certain contentions. Furthermore, documents which are necessary for particularization (i.e., Applicant's responses to Lessons Learned Task Force, Bulletins and Orders, etc.) may not be issued in time to meet an arbitrary sixty day limit thereby necessitating further requests for extensions of time. On the basis of the foregoing, we see no reason why SOC should not be af forded the same timetable for particularization and discovery as is being afforded other parties in this proceeding.

In an effort to expedite particularization and dis-covery, SOC made an oral request of Applicant's counsel, Anthony F. Earley, Jr. on March 17, 1980, to permit a physical inspection of the Shoreham Plant by one of SOC's experts, Gregory Minor.. The request was submitted three days prior to the March 20th meeting between Staff and SOC.

It is useful to note that prior to March 17th, upon learning of the upcoming meetings between Staff and SOC, Applicant's attorney, W. Taylor Reveley, III, inquired as to whether or not LILCO could attend the March 20th meeting. SOC l

1

)

I

V proposed an af ternoon meeting with LILCO representatives and Staff at the Shoreham Plar.t, combined with an inspec-tion of the plant, but the of fer was declined by Applicant.

The refusal by Board Chairperson Bowers to entertain a conference call on the af ternoon of the 19th to rule SOC's request for an inspection of the Shoreham Plant was most disturbing. Ms. Bower's invitation to SOC to " submit the request in writing" effectively precluded any inspec-tion on the following day, thereby forcing SOC to bring its experts back to Long Island at a future date, llad the Chairperson accepted the conference call and permitted SOC's representatives to inspect the Shoreham plant, such a ruling would have greatly assisted SOC to comply with whatever timetable for particularization and discovery that the Board may have in mind. SOC wi.li reiterate its request for an inspection of the Shoreham Plant at an appropriate time and we trust that SOC and its experts will be given the same opportunity for discovery and in-spection at the Shoreham Plant as has been af forded the other parties to this proceeding.

i

{

1

V IV. SOC'S REQUEST TO RENOTICE THE SHOREHAM PROCEEDING As mentioned at page 1 above, the Board has failed to rule on SOC.'s request for a new Order and Notice of Hearing in this proceeding (Board Order at page 2) . The Board apparently believes that by granting late intervenor status to SOC, it need not reach the broader question of renoticing. We disagree.

As explained by SOC at Pages 7-10 of its January 24, 1980 Petition and in the introduction to the section on

. contentions contained in that Petition (SOC Petition, Page 31, et. seq. ) , SOC believes that the accident at Three Mile Island together with unrelated regulatory, design and safety developments roughly contemporaneous with that accident ha fe so undermined and discredited the NRC's prior review of safety and environmental issues that a new pro-ceeding is warranted in the Shoreham case. SOC believes that only through a new Order and Notice of Hearing can qualified and interested parties be afforded an opportunity to examine the full range of safety and environmental issues affecting the Shorehar. Plant which have been called into question by developr.ients cited in the aforementioned sections of SOC's Petition. At present, the Board has granted SOC only a limited right of participation in that SOC is restricted to issues narrowly construed as relatir.g l i

to the accident at Three Mile Island. At page 12 of the l

- l l

1 t

r

-lb- .

Order dated March 5, 1980, the Board specifically notes that SOC may cross examine on issues placed in controversy by other parties, but dhat it may not of fer direct evidence on those issues. SOC specifically demands the right to present a direct case on all matters raised by the con-tentions submitted in its January 24, 1980 Petition and SOC believec that the facts and circumstances cited in its Petition justify a new Order and Notice of Hearing.

SOC hereby requests the Board to specifically at the earliest possible time on the question of renoticing the Shoreham case to permit full participation by SOC or other interested and qualified parties in the Shoreham licensing proceedings.

e l

l t

l l

v f

V. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN SOC CONTENTIONS In its March 5, 1980 Order ruling on the Petition of SOC, the Board dismissed a number of contentions outright:

" Contentions which duplicate those of existing parties or otherwise replow old ground, or which relate to matters that properly could have been raised at the onnct of dais proceeding, will be denied."* (Board Order at p. 12)

SOC is unaware of any basis by which the Board may exclude the contention of a party simply because the same general issue has be.en raised by another party to the pro-cceding. The Corsnission's rules of practice specif ically acknowledge that more than one party may place the same matter at issue by provicling for consolidation of parties or issues in construction or operating licensing proceedings:

"On motion or on its or his own initiative, the Commission or the Presiding Officer may order any parties in a proceeding...who have substantially the same interest that may be affected by these proceedings and who raise substantia!19 the same questions, to consolidate their pre > ;tation of evidence, cross examination, briefs, roposed findings of fact, and conclusions or law and arguments." (10 CFR Part 2. 715a)

By denying certain SOC contentions at this juncture, the Board has precluded SOC from developing a direct case and submitting direct evidence on matters which directly af fect it in this proceeding. SOC believes that this ex-

• The Board deemed the following contentions to fall within this category: 1, 2 (except VII) , 5, 6 (except A (i) ) , 7 (except A (ii) ) , 12 (First Part) , 13, 14, 16 (except the part referring to NUREG-0630), 18 and 20.

L

V clusion raises significant due process considerations and is contrary to the Board's stated interest in developing a sound record in this proceeding (see Board Order at pp.

9-10).

Ironically, SOC may and intends to engage in discovery on contentions submitted by other parties (10 CFR Part

2. 740 (b) ) . It would therefore appear that there is little to be gained in the way of the timing of these proceedings by precluding SOC from offering a direct case on matters which it is permitted to discover.

It is important to note that even SOC's right of discovery and cross examination might be restricted by the Board's failure to permit SOC to litigate cach of the contentions raised in its Petition. To the extent other parties are engaged in informal discovery and stipulations dismissing certain contentions, SOC's right of discovery and cross examination on these issues at the hearings themselves may be similarly restricted.*

The Board agrees with SOC that SOC cannot be expected to rely on other parties to protect its interests in this proceeding (see Board Order at p. 11). Consequently, SOC believes that the Board must grant it permission to inde-pendently develop a direct case on all contentions it has submitted to the Board regardless of whether or not they touch on subject matters currently placed at issue by other parties.

In dismissing certain of SOC's contentions, the Board appears to have assumed that certain of thosa contentions are duplicative of those offered by other parties, par-ticularly Suffolk County. As indicated above, the Board has a mechanism to avoid repetitive or daplicative argument or evidence at the proceeding (10 CFR Part 2.715a); see also 2. 714 (e) ) .

• SOC understands that Sffolk County, Staf f and Applicant have already entered into two stipulations which have resulted in the dropping of certain contentions by the (continued on next' page)

To the extent the Board has dismissed certain of SOC's contentions because those contentions allegedly " duplicate" those submitted by another party, SOC believes that the Board's action is premature and improper. The time to dis-miss or consolidate contentions or other matters on the basis of duplication would appear to be at the final pre-hearing conference and after parties have been given an opportunity for discovery and final particularization of contentions.

Similarly, SOC objects to the Board's dismissal of certain contentions simply because they could have been raised "long ago." In this regard, it appears that the Board has adopted a " business as usual" attitude by re-stricting public scrutiny of critical safety questions, even though the Commission has been unable to resolve such issues for many years.** For example, the Board has refused SOC an opportunity to litigate " generic issues" (SOC contention #7) because this contention " attempts to plow old ground." (Board's Order at p.15). It is precisely this attitude which has been so highly criticized by the Komeny Commission and others.

County. SOC understands that a third stipulation is currently under review by those parties and SOC deems any further dropping of contentions by Suffolk County as prejudicial to its right in this proceeding.

• • For example, a letter prepared by NRC Shoreham Project Manager Jerry Wilson dated November 30, 1979 identifies 16 NRC "open items" and another 7 LILCO "open items."

At pages 20 and 21 of the Overview to the " Report of The Prceident's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," the Commission concluded:

"However, the evidence indicates that labeling of a problem as ' generic' may provide a convenient way of postponing decision on a difficult question...

"We, therefore, conclude that there is no well-thought-out, integrated system for the assurance of nuclear safety within the current NRC."

(Kemeny Commission Overview at pp. 20, 21)

We believe the Board and the Commission need to restore public confidence in the resolution of outstanding safety questions such as those which apply to the Shoreham Plant. The Board can contribute to public confidence in this case by granting SOC an opportunity to litigate each of the contentions submitted in its Petition dated January 24, 1980.

VI. NEED FOR A NEW OR SUPPLEMENTAL FEIS Of particular concern to SOC is the Board's denial of SOC's request for a new or Supplemental FEIS (Board Order at pp. 20-24). The Board has dismissed this contention without prejudice subject to the Commission's determination of the need to consider the consequences of a Class 9 accident l

in the Shoreham proceeding (Board Order at p. 23). Staff was requested by the Board to inform the Board and parties of its position on the Class 9 question as promptly as

, 5 possible, but as of this date, no filing on this question has been received.

The need to prepare a supplemental FEIS involves con-siderations which extend beyond the Commission's NEPA regulations as contained in 10 CPR Part 51. It is well-settled that an FEIS may be so defective as to require redrafting, recirculation and reissuance (see e.g.,

Brooks v. Volpn, 350 F.Supp. 269 (W . D . Wash, 1972);

N RDC v. Morton, 458 F2d 827 (D.C. Cir: 1972); Allied General Nuclear Services, ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671 (1975)).

On March 20, 1980, Gus Speth, chairman of CEO, sub-mitted a letter and report to NRC Chairman Aherne that was highly critical of the NRC's NEPA review. SOC believes that a supplemental EIS must be prepared in this case and intends to submit further briefs on this question af ter the issuance of S ta f f 's position on the Class 9 question.

VII. REQUEST FOR A PREHEARING CONFERENCE 10 CFR Part 2. 751 (a ) permits the Board to convene a prehearing conference for various reasons such as to identify key issues in the proceeding and to consider ma tters raised in petitions to intervene. In view of SOC's request for reconsideration of contentions that have been dismissed by the Board, and its request that a sup-plemental FEIS be prepared, SOC hereby requests the Board

Y to convene a prehearing conference pursuant to 10CFR Part 2.751(a) as soon as practicable for the consideration of the above issues and any other matters which the Board i deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

)

,/ k d

~

by l TWOMEY, LATHAM & SCHMITT Attorneys for SOC j P.O. Box 398

Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 1

i Dated: April 3, 1980 i

i l

l i

l L

I'

c.-

'o ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

__________________________-_______-)

In the Matter of )

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

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISil h (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) DF Ti!E SHOREllAf1 OPPONENT'S lj ------------------_----------------) COALITION (SOC) i l'

SUSAN BLAKE , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I reake this af fidavit in response to the Board's Order in the abcVe captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing h the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is

. authorizeil to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am [thd}$ti b trdMd>f Peacesmith House b M4 , , which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's 3 0ev d o f Direr b /S , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

Sub (bQ Clu)c n Blake L Q 1

Sworn to before me i this $lk day of fyldt/tek

, 1980. l l

1 l

N Not@y Public # l l

l l

twtITH cosGrovE INOTARY PU?UO. W) of New YC'E

'wowty a o LATHAM tJo, OlCO N 013 ! '0

. /

avinahrwe av Law Term Empi:os N.crU M 19-e=, a DOh 393 93 wu t St Sf CDhD GT. ,'

avg are.s at4 et v. tegot

s ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

l

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY )

! ) APFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

[ Unit 1) OF Tile SHOREHAM OPPONENT'S

/-!-----------------------------------))

COALITION (SOC) h o

MARCIA SLATKIN , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

F

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order 4

in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing i

the member organizations of SOC to submit proof ttf.t SOC is l authorized to represent our organization's interest in the i

Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am p/T S/ df o of Safe & Scand Community Energy Projects , dich organization is a member of SOC.

I By a vote of our organization's S[rets s ('nunn//R., , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

f^

/ [

[/ f(/ t (1 91

~Marcia Slatkin ft"lffh/L Sworn to before me th's 4 day of

, 1980.

NotarplPublic STEPHgi B. LTTH!M NOTARY pc;ttc, Utn cf Not York

'*""^""""^" Ax 52 6 773,3, Soffelk tcunty i

'" * * " " a*"  !

P. E WOR 393 ,

3,'.m E>pWS D C M' 93 *ts? SECOMO 99.

n eve #*et ath et V, styct

G

~

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 lot 4G ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

) APPIDAVIT TO ESTABLISit (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SHOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

LORNA SALZMAN , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

,j

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order l in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing l

l the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License h arings.

2. I am

-O k A of Friends of the Earth, Inc.

,tt alc2 WaA

, , which organization is a member of SOC.

, By a vote of our organization's [) ort *fOd & flv , we jagreedtobecomeamemberofSOCandwe further authorized SOC to I

file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our fbehalf,whichPetitionwasfiledwiththeNRConJanuary24, 1980.-

i d M

[i \M 4y #hmag i Lorna Salzman i

I Sworn to before me j th s D day of

, 1980.

la l 1 Notary Jublic i

STEN!E*! D. IATIPM NOTARY PUBOO, Stite cf Ww York TWZMEV a.eo LATH AM l NO. 52 4377200, Cdfrik Cfur' P. El DOE 398 Term Enim Lbch 30.19 n w:ev s,sco o ev.

w ve aan, n v. iioni 11 c

H

C

~

1 f

l

. l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )  ;

) APPIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH  ;

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SilOREHAM OPPONENT'S I

---

) COALITION (SOC) l l

BRt.DFORD CHAMBERS , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

i 1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order llintheabovecaptionedproceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing l i

the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is I 1

authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

li 2. I am A ** A of Peconic Affinity Group i:

, which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's  %" T' we

}agreedtobecomeamemberofSOCandwe further authorized SOC to Il ll file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our I

i behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

h S

h

-  % k M C >> _- b -

}; Bradford Chambers Sworn to before me

,j this 44* day of pal-p , 1980.

r f U Notaty Public W, &

i I i

l c.amm ceW

,,ynen,t.2> 24g iwomety awo LATHAme, tea. W'

.,,o...... I 1.m.a+= S"f' -

en. n son m.m 81 m.BT 3.COese 97, l

' 4 J, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

_________________________________)

In the Matter of )

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

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY t

Unit 1) ) OF TIIE SiiOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

I, 1 MICilAEL J. MADIGAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

d 1

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing lthe member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is 0l l

authorized to represent our organization's interest in the i

Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am President of Long Island Friends of the Clearwater, which organization is a member of SOC. By a vote of our organ-

,ization's members, we agreed to become a member of SOC and we I

!further author,ized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with i the NRC on January 24, 1980.

3. In addition to being President of Long Island Friends of 4lI

'the Clearwater, I reside on Thompson Street, Shoreham, New York, ll which is within two miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. I have li i jauthorized SOC to represent my personal interest in this proceed-l 1 I

ing in addition to representing the interests of Long Island blFriendsoftheClearwater.

lq

s M^

! M' c Idl~ JjV adigan

' ' " " ~ " "

Sworn to before me his M

,, i'*

, day of ()mAc ,1980.

33 WEZT BECONO ST.

p3etyg (O'SFO\'f uahich aucwo stev5NHE Ath PL V. 19901 Notary Public ""t O w..M, g . . '. , . ,gg -

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

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

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SHOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC) j NORA BREDES , being duly sworn, deposes and says: .

i l

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order q in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing n

4 the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is hl interest in the g authorized to represent our organization's f Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am at CO 'duhN#h of Townspeople for a N Tomorrow , which organization is a member of SOC.

l By a vote of our organization's e "'/'c' ah. f> , we l

agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to g

file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our '

li h behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980. I h I h ,

}

1 }/& Jhaat-Nora Bredes ,

1 Sworn to before me l

!j this 3l3f day of /h&Odk  !'

L , 1980. i l

l l

b 02 r)nn r ~~ \

Notg y Public d i

nemn NQ ys l NCTi-  :,; g wDety ano I.ATH Ase 1 *3 -

. ; ,, , ;g, IV

.,,o.~.Y..,..

i a et .o=

n . . . , ao .

wavt.ME AR 94 Y. IlWS

Y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

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

) APFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY U nit 1) ) OF TIIE SIIOREllAM OPPONENT'S f ----------------------------------) COALITION (SOC) l

! KATl!LEEN MARDER , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

l 1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned preceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directdig the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is

!authorizedtorepresentourorganization's interest in the i

Shoreham Operating License hearings.

i

2. I am MM@ klhff f mericans to End Nuclear

. Development (AMEND) , which organization is a member of SOC.

l By a vote of our organization's p@6@ , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to jfileaPetitionforLateInterventionandotherpleadingsonour h

behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

h' i -

KStlilec5 Marder 'i '

]O l'

Sworn to before me this f day of f?u2/ Lod l

, 1980.

[

f

.; Nota #y Public 0 l

ttinetTH CCSCROVE NO1 ARY Pun'O, Sv e of New Yod

! 1woutv ano LATHAM tu. 01 CO .. * ' ! #:!o'k (< .-

a,vouway. avLaw -

Turm Evu. . I.Wesh M 19

. .. i p

J, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY )

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF TIIE SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

TINKA TOPPING , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am Gn k cmI- of Stop Shoreham

, which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's G A-e e u k % {g cJ , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with t.he NRC on January 24, 1980.

Tinx pping W6 Sworn to before me l

this day of 1980.

/

I 8' sd4A Notar}#Public

- STETHPi D. IIT"".!

l'OTARY FC!R D. :t itn ci '; . Yr:*<

.w w n A, ur aw- lb. 52-4377.M, ' ." A c r.*j ATTOm*ette AT Law [6$) bV' IC$ 1 MIe N, g b 6L el Som 393 33 wtat 34CO*e9 ST.

• tWG #Mf t % 84 Y. 49908

T e .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

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

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY p ) OF THE SHOREHAM OPPONENT'S

.l -----------------------------------)

Unit 1) COALITION (SOC) h l!

] RICIIARD JOHNSON , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

[ 1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

l

2. I am a Director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk , which organization is a member of SOC.

I

By a vote of our organization's Board of Directors , we i

agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with,the NRC on January 24, 1980.

Y  ! / ,

e.

/ 2/ *

/,-  ;

[ift . .JW Richard Johnson

, Sworn to before me

} this Sl* day of /YWLel-

l , 1980.

lI h L Notary Public f!!7At!TH CO!CmvE

. NOTARY T') J, ' YM TWOM3Y asse LATMAM No. G100.r/i M 3 !, y avignenva av saw Term Esph es N, argle 30,19, R Ek som See  ;

at #437 etCO.s0 av.

Howiesetap, n v. SteetI i

I

^

7 V ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

, ) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY )

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLIS!!

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF THE SHOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

MATTilEW C!lACilERE , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is

I p authorized to represent our organization's interest in the d

1 Shoreham Operating License hearings.

l 2. I am J mem W of Seawanhaka Safe Energy i:

Group , which organization is a member of SOC.

q By a vote of our organization's )ne ,n N , Ag , we h agreed to become a member of SOC and we f _ ther authorized SOC to l file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our I

behalf, which Petition was filed with the NI1C on January 24, 1980.

1, l cd Mattnew cnacnere

/ ck +

llSworntobeforeme o

O this#' day of /Lp/

j , 1980.

I WJ NotaryWPublic l

ll EUZAEETH C05GROvt h NOTARY PUttic, ta*2 of New Ya'k Tw!MIT ameLATHAae1 No 01Ch 2 D L II A O c' atto sv. av saw Teim Enri.o Nach 30.19h P. n Dom See u v., . dj l

... . . . coo, P u

C

~

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY )

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISit (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

) OF Tile SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S b,, ----------------------------------)

Unit 1) COALITION (SOC) q ALFRED KIRBY , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1

. 1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

i

2. I am h ww of Suffolk for Safe Energy

[

, which organization is a member of SOC.

fByavoteofourorganization's M [7 M. p , we i

OagreedtobecomeamemberofSOCandwe further authorized SOC to i

l file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our I

p' behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

o

, . l k Alfredfrby Sworn to before me this ab day of /Nws/L

, 1980.

it JA N {eccAo&

lNotapyPublic d n ter.t! TH C' ""'

NOTALY PCT E Twowtv a o Laywa e : No.01C04700lJIv"Ag' a,9 o.~,,e av s.. , Term D P i 8* M*M N' *

e. o son 3.s ,'

i n wter secoue er,

.'vt hME a(\ 84 v. 91 00

m -

y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ,

) APFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham. Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SHOREHAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

FRED ADLER , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am dhd of North Fork Opponents of lNuclearExposure (NONE) , which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's b ( u,1 , we U

agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our l

behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

1

!! * ' ,, /,7 f 9

'f p*d ( cfLA~ Lg il Frtd Adler 4

l Sworn to before me this J r day of f) W L

, 1980.

H I

L (h l Notaty Public I n,..t-m em cacv2 l

.. .,m. - l t wcMt.Y awo LATHAM tw "' '

.,,o.,,,,,,,,,.. i.rm W ".* * *'h 3

r. n som see 43 #88f S.CO*eO OT.

M*fERMEAR 96 Y. 199g9 1

s , .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY )

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISil (Shoreham. Nuclear Power Station ) HEPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Ti!E S!!OREllAM OPPONEsT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

RICilARD PARTINGTON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am C.hairrnan of Friends of the Earth, Suffolk Chapter , which organization is a member of SOC.

, we By a vote of our organization's generM r71emix>rsh9 I agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

i a 1-a uf Ut lwr; (x j ,

Richard partingto}i Sworn to before me thiscQM day of /)wtek

, 1980.

1 0 db{cdLLDd daw =o Notarf Public O i uc .rmt Oy,C ROVE

!l' NOTART IC'll E O' 'I "' '

w2uty ano LATHAM gg cicc.:/, . 013 LU#a l' h /

g g;g ga,th 30.19 01 atwr s ve av s aw ,

P. E1 80% 39e 13 ws EIT SECOpeO ST.  !

• • Wi e**E a ct, ma y, gigot

7 6 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

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

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) PEPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

TOM ZAWYRUCllA , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am Executive Director of Marine Environmental Council of Long Island Inc. , which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's Bard of Directors / Officers , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

6 j

s -rm ).cu yu, /k j

Tom Zayyrucpa Sworn to before me

, this J$ day of i M , 1980.

' Notarg/Public I

STUH f' O. L'i"/'I evtucy ... uru,d ll0TA!W FL'3CO. 'Jt:t3 ct N w V:rk w o.,,,, , . ,, t . ,, Es. 52 4/DC1 &ltA 0:'xty

,. a .o.  ! )<mEp.si.2:.hOJ.liff(/

2. ..v .. co . i

......=v. ..

1 b l

F ' I, ATOMIC SAFETV AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY )

) AFFIDhVIT TO ESTABLISII (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

) UP Tile SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S l Unit 1)

---

) COALITION (SOC)

GEORGE WILDE , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings, t

ji 2. I am of Friends of Long Island d Execut ive IJIrector

, which organization is a member of SOC.

[

By a vote of our organization's , we officers agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to t

g file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our c

n behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980, f

c I

! Sworn to before me

this 26th. day of March 1 , 1980.

q l i

/ ,a c c M - x U? Notary Public

(

PAtL 0. SIT!!

1:0TARY FUBLIC w:way A . tam ^" STATE OF NEW YORK A,TDNowtT. At L AW SUFFOLK COUNTY a n .o. - 8 ?-4023700

....,..co... tyr mEs 3-53-80 avsmH4 An 94 Y. 19 00 1

ATOMIC SAFETY AND I,ICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGliTING COMPANY . ) .

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH l

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF TIIE SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC) i

KAREN LESHIN , being duly sworn, deposes and says

I! 1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order il in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is i

authorized to represent our organization's interest in the l

i Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am [+ of Iludson River Sloop .

Clearwater, Inc. , which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's M , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

1 AM b' #

'Kade'n Le' shin l 1

/

Sworntobeforeme((g(

this cp day of Q l , 1980.

p I g mentene arewma l esemsYa.,,C/

Notary P blic ,

/

)

//

p [r .-

pyM.

1WOME Y AMG LATHAM, ATTus] NETS af Law 33 mt&T 9tCOMO ST.

1. 4TS N.et e4 M V. ligge l

o

f, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY )

) APPIDAVIT TO ESTABLISH (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF Tile SilOREllAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

KAIGN LUTZ , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organi.zations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is authorized to represent'our organization's interest in the Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am Managing Director of Group for America' South I

I Fork , which organization is a member of SOC.

By agreement of our organization's Executive Board , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our l behalf,whichPetitionwasfiledwiththeNRConJanuary24, 1980.

Nu wx

Karen Lutz Sworn to before me this M day of Marchg , 1980.

I I

~

Notary Pdblic STErHEM B.L, M '

NOTARY FUBUC, State cf New York

,w wey..uvu. No. 52-4G77203, m feik Cecnty avio. .ve av t.. Term bp'rcs f.*an,h 30,19M P. R 804 393 33 #E=? Of COseO ST.

l d8vt#hEa4 84 Y. 19909 l \

l l

? V I

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

i

" ___________________________________)

In'the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIG!! TING COMPANY )

) APFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISil p (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY Unit 1) ) OF T18E SIIOREIIAM OPPONENT'S

---

) COALITION (SOC)

MARY SWETT ,

being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I make this affidavit in responne to the Board's Order al in the above captioned proceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing hthememberorganizationsofSCCtosubmitproofthatSOCis il

. authorized to represent our organization's interest in the 1

Shoreham Operating License hearings.

2. I am b-stMb of Suffolk Coalition Against Nuclear Power ,

which organization is a member of SOC.

By a vote of our organization's BY 6n b , we agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

~MRry]S 0' " --

Sworn to before me this 21 A day of (ha/ toil

, 1980.

5 Notary Public tv. t $rr STENiE!! D. LATWM NOTARY PUDLIC, Sute c f tkw Ycik

' 6 064E v aseo LATHAM gg7JOgg, {gj(pl'4 pgy P. (1 wok 395 ,

Term E>pires I,5:ch 30,19$

3a wet? ht CONEJ S t.

• ' wa s***E atN M v. laget

q

.i

• e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

___________________________________)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY )

) AFFIDAVIT TO ESTABLISII (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ) REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

, Unit 1) ) Ol' Tile S!!OREllAM OPPONENT' S

} __________________________--------) COALITION (SOC)

It i

i Jr' KLUEWER , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

l'

l. I make this affidavit in response to the Board's Order i jntheabovecaptionedproceeding, dated March 5, 1980, directing the member organizations of SOC to submit proof that SOC is e

authorized to represent our organization's interest in the

" Shoreham Operating License hearings.

[ 2. I am the Representative of South Shore Safe Energy h

ijGroup , which organization is a member of SOC.

j consensus b By a e of our organization's membership , we h

! agreed to become a member of SOC and we further authorized SOC to h

,j file a Petition for Late Intervention and other pleadings on our j behalf, which Petition was filed with the NRC on January 24, 1980.

0/hhlElLYlL-Je f f Wluewer Sworn to before me this dg'~ day of 7 Q , 1980.

i p -

P Notar Q ublic I

h STETHUI D. LAT"Mt f

!;0 tally FL'3L*C, Ot P cf IPw Y:rk W O M E V Awu LAT HA6e

• SM A'32 :U N t'G'Y P. El 804 396 Inm EoiciM 4138f u mest atCONO BT.

f{

<..w s me.s an n v. itsui <

il L

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

JOINT MOTION OF SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION (SOC) AND NRC STAFF WITH REGARD TO PARTICULARIZATION OF SOC CONTENTIONS In its " Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham opponents Coriition" dated March 5, 1980, (Order) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted the Shoreham Opponents coalition (SOC) leave to further particularize certain of its contentions.

The Board further directed that:

Petitioner shall file its response to this Order as soon as possible and in no case no later than 30 days from this Order. (Order, page 25. )

It is SOC's position that the Board's 30 day time limitation applies to defects in standing but not to the Board's request for further particularization. SOC will claborate on its position regarding particularization in its filing which will accompany the submission of affidavits on the standing question. In view of SOC's perceived ambiguity in this language, SOC moves the Board to clarify the Order in this regard.

6 i

Should the Board rule that the 30 day limitation does apply to contention particularization, SOC and the NRC Staff would jointly move the Board to extend that time.

At a meeting held between representatives of SOC and the NRC Staff on March 20, 1980, discussions were commenced regarding the particularization of the SOC contentions.

Efforts at particularization will extend beyond the 30 day period set down by the Board in its Order. To this end, a meeting has been scheduled for the week of April 14, 1980 between NRC Staf f and SOC.

If the 30 day period set down by the Board does apply to contention particularization and in light of the activities discussed above and in the hope that a stipulation with regard to particularization of contentions can be reached, SOC and the NRC Staff jointly move the Board to extend for a period of 60 days from April 4, 1980, the time within which SOC must particularize certain of its c antentions.* Should the Board be disposed to granting such an extension, the Staf f would undertake to inform the Board from time to time as to the status of these ef forts.

Respectfully submitted, NRC STAFF SIIOREllAM OPPONENTS COALITION

~

1 Richard K. Iloofling StephenVB. Latham Dated: April 2L 1980

• The Applicant has indicated that it has no objections to this time extension.

6 l l

1 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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF THE SHOREHAM OPPONENT'S COALITION (SOC) TO BOARD DATED MARCH 5, 1980", dated April 3, 1980 in the abovecaptioned proceeding, have been served on the follow-ing, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commision's internal mail system, this 3rd day of April, 1980:

• Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission No. 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, N.Y. 10016

• Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, N.Y. 11801 Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

• Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, V.A. 23212 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.

Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Deputy Commissioner General Counsel and Counsel Long Island Lighting Company New York State Energy Office 250 Old County Road Agency Building 2 Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Empire State Plaza Albany, N.Y. 12223 Edward J. Walsh, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company Irving Like, Esq.

250 Old County Road Reilly, Like and Schneider Mineola, N.Y. 11501 200 West Main Street Babylon, N.Y. 11702

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. J. P. Novarro, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 618, North Country Road Wading River, N.Y. 11792

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Energy Research Group, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 400-1 Totten Pond Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Waltham, Mass. 02154

• Docketing and Service Section Hon. Peter Cohalan Office of the Secretary Suffolk County Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Executive / Legislative Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Veteran's Memorial Highway llauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Patricia Dempsey, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suffolk County Attorney l Washington, D.C. 20555 County Executive / Legislative Bldg. ,

Veteran's Memorial liighway l llauppauge, N.Y. 11788 David 11. Gilmartin, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney County Executive / Legislative Bldg.

Veteran 's Memorial liighway

!!a uppa uge , N.Y. 11788 S

Stdphen B. Latham l Counsel for Shoreham Opponent's l Coalition l l

I l

l l

l l