ML20215B181: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:^
{{#Wiki_filter:p LILCO, December 9 1986
p                                                         LILCO, December 90 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                           M M TED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                             "D
^
                                                                              '86 DEC 11 p; g7 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M M TED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "D
CCCn'-       ,
'86 DEC 11 p; g7 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board CCCn'-
2
.: g,
w:
w:
                                                                                  .: g ,
In the Matter of
In the Matter of                           )
)
                                                )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY               ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
                                                ) (EP Exercise)
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,             )
) (EP Exercise)
Unit 1)                                   )
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL On November 3, LILCO propounded its "First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" on New York State. New York State refused to answer any of those interrogatories or requests, claiming instead that they were irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome.M New York State's response contained only the barest notice of the bases for these claims. Specifically, with respect to the relevance objection, the response contained an unadorned recitation of a portion of the Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order and the unelaborated but sweeping claim "that matters involving other exercises at other nuclear power plants are irrelevant to this proceeding." NYS Response at 2-3 (emphasis in original). With regard to the " overly broad and unduly burdensome" objections, New York State made no effort at all to explain either objection. See NYS Response at 2.
LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL On November 3, LILCO propounded its "First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" on New York State. New York State refused to answer any of those interrogatories or requests, claiming instead that they were irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome.M New York State's response contained only the barest notice of the bases for these claims. Specifically, with respect to the relevance objection, the response contained an unadorned recitation of a portion of the Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order and the unelaborated but sweeping claim "that matters involving other exercises at other nuclear power plants are irrelevant to this proceeding." NYS Response at 2-3 (emphasis in original). With regard to the " overly broad and unduly burdensome" objections, New York State made no effort at all to explain either objection. See NYS Response at 2.
On November 24, LILCO moved to compel New York State to respond to LILCO's interrogatories. Out of necessity, that motion attempted to divine and then respond to each of New York State's objections.
On November 24, LILCO moved to compel New York State to respond to LILCO's interrogatories. Out of necessity, that motion attempted to divine and then respond to each of New York State's objections.
l l
l 1/
l 1/     State of New York's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and               l Requests for Production of Documents, pp. 2-3 (November 19,1986) (hereinaf ter "NYS           l Response").                                                                                   ,
State of New York's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, pp. 2-3 (November 19,1986) (hereinaf ter "NYS Response").
l 8612120063 e61209 PDR     ADOCK 05000322                                                           l G                    PDR                                                  j $()3 L.                                     .                                    -                    1
8612120063 e61209 PDR ADOCK 05000322 j $()3 G
 
PDR L.
On December 4, an Opposition filed in the name of New York State responded to LILCO's motion to compel.2/ That Opposition advances three arguments that LILCO believes could not have been reasonably inferred from New York State's prior
1 On December 4, an Opposition filed in the name of New York State responded to LILCO's motion to compel.2/ That Opposition advances three arguments that LILCO believes could not have been reasonably inferred from New York State's prior
  " Response" and that are of sufficient import to warrant a reply. First, the Opposition goes well beyond New York State's earlier reliance on the language of this Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order, to argue essentially that every exercise is unique and therefore that no meaningful comparisons can be drawn among exercises.
" Response" and that are of sufficient import to warrant a reply. First, the Opposition goes well beyond New York State's earlier reliance on the language of this Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order, to argue essentially that every exercise is unique and therefore that no meaningful comparisons can be drawn among exercises.
As a result, New York State would have this Board decide in Contentions EX 15 and 16 whether the February 13 exercise constituted a full participation exercise for purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E without the aid of any objective factors. Instead, New York State would apparently have the Board conduct a free-form examination of the proper scope of " full participation" exercise. Second, New York State suggests that even if LILCO were to demonstrate that the Shoreham exercise was equal to or greater than other FEMA exercises, LILCO would still not have answered the question of the proper scope of a "Shoreham-specific exercise." NYS Opposition at 6. Thus, New York State is arguing that what is good enough for other plants is not good enough for Shoreham. This argument finds no support either in the NRC regulations or case law.
As a result, New York State would have this Board decide in Contentions EX 15 and 16 whether the February 13 exercise constituted a full participation exercise for purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E without the aid of any objective factors. Instead, New York State would apparently have the Board conduct a free-form examination of the proper scope of " full participation" exercise. Second, New York State suggests that even if LILCO were to demonstrate that the Shoreham exercise was equal to or greater than other FEMA exercises, LILCO would still not have answered the question of the proper scope of a "Shoreham-specific exercise." NYS Opposition at 6. Thus, New York State is arguing that what is good enough for other plants is not good enough for Shoreham. This argument finds no support either in the NRC regulations or case law.
Finally, New York State argues that LILCO's requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome because of LILCO's definition of "New York State" and "New York State personnel."   NYS Opposition at 10. New York State's attempt to rationalize its objections is inconsistent with earlier New York State discovery responses where no such objection was voiced to the identical definition and with definitions contained in interrogatories posed by a fellow Intervenor (M Sufiolk County) to LILCO, FEMA and     ,
Finally, New York State argues that LILCO's requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome because of LILCO's definition of "New York State" and "New York State personnel."
the NRC staff.
NYS Opposition at 10.
2/     State of New York's Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel, December 4,1986 (hereinaf ter "NYS Oppostion").
New York State's attempt to rationalize its objections is inconsistent with earlier New York State discovery responses where no such objection was voiced to the identical definition and with definitions contained in interrogatories posed by a fellow Intervenor (M Sufiolk County) to LILCO, FEMA and the NRC staff.
                                    .                                    n
2/
State of New York's Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel, December 4,1986 (hereinaf ter "NYS Oppostion").
n


argu m    Fairness ate dict 3-
Fairness dict argu 3-m ate "Respo ents, wb'ab s that LIL CO were ns " to Lli.. O' not begiv e
                "Respo ents, wb'ab     s that LIL e        were         CO gr                        not        begiv c
grant enan for hado this es
ant    nso " to,sLli..o O'foreshado enan this m tion      m tio           wed ompel.
,s opportu ity to m tio m tio o
ad n       n to co           or evopportun    ityr to
o c
\                                 to co        mpel.           e espond
w ompel.
\
ad n to ed n
\                                      nsider the Ac        n hintedat          to c
n or n
ea h of atta hed rcordingly, c
co
in NewLIL Yothese
\\
\                                                            eply in     COrequ          rk
ev to mpel.
\
e r
\
Ac n hinted espond co
ruling o ests this   ard toBo State's Os k
\\
\ Hu                                            Respe  c    tfully          n LILC         'onmoti to 707nton & W
nsider the to atta hed rcordingly, LIL in New Yo ea h of
\                                                              submitted,
\\
\ P.O.BoEast Richm   Mainet    eStrilliams Dot al P #
at c
x 1535 ond,V                                                     -
\\
9AT D E:       irginia 232                    Lee B.d .
c these COr eply in equ rk
Dece                                      Zeugin in 12 mber 9,19 86
\\
\
ruling o ests this Bo State's
\
\\
\
n LILC ' moti ard Os to Respe tfully k
\
c on to
\
\\
\
Hu nto &
\
submitted, 707 n
\\
W
\\ P.O. EastMain Strilliams Bo Richm et Dot al #
x 1535 e
ond,V Le B.d.
P irginia 232 9AT e
E:
Zeugin in D
De 12 ce mber 9,19 86
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\


7 Fairness dictates that LILCO be given an opportunity to respond to each of these rguments, which were not foreshadowed or even hinted at in New York State's esponse" to LILCO's motion to ecmpel. Accordingly, LILCO requests this Board to Pant this motion and to consider the attached reply in ruling on LILCO's motion to                             __
7 Fairness dictates that LILCO be given an opportunity to respond to each of these rguments, which were not foreshadowed or even hinted at in New York State's esponse" to LILCO's motion to ecmpel. Accordingly, LILCO requests this Board to Pant this motion and to consider the attached reply in ruling on LILCO's motion to
@mpel.
@mpel.
Respectfully submitted, Dohald P. [pkin[]
Respectfully submitted, Dohald P. [pkin[]
Lee B. Zeugtn iunton & Williams
Lee B. Zeugtn iunton & Williams
$7 East Main Street                                                                                                 -
$7 East Main Street LO. Box 1535 ichmond, Virginia 23212 ATED: December 9,1986 M
LO. Box 1535                                                                                                               -
]"
ichmond, Virginia 23212 ATED: December 9,1986 M
                                                        ]"                             ., _ . _ _ . . _


LILCO, December 90 1986 s
LILCO, December 9 1986 0
cetm slet CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
s cetm slet CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
                                                                                '86 OEC 11 P1 :47 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY                     h u-         e-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)           00thGm i -   m:L Docket No. 50-322-OL-5                           M ANU I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL and LILCO'S REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL were served this date upon the following by telecopied as indicated by an asterisk (*), federal ex-press as indicated by a two asterisks (**), or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
'86 OEC 11 P1 :47 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY h u-e-
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 00thGm i -
m:L Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 M ANU I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL and LILCO'S REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL were served this date upon the following by telecopied as indicated by an asterisk (*), federal ex-press as indicated by a two asterisks (**), or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
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.
* 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.
* Bethesda, MD 20814                                   Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
* Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing                         7735 Old Georgetown Road Board                                               (to mailroom)
* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mailroom)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.                                 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
* Bethesda, MD 20814                                   Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
* Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
* Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Atomic Safety and Licensing                         Eighth Floor Board                                               1900 M Street, N.W.
* 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.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Hwy.
* Bethesda, MD 20814                                   Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, 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.
* Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555                               Mary Gundrum, 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.
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
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


4~
4~ 1 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
1 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
* Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, 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.
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. J,ay Dunkleberger                 Counsel to the Goverr.or 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.
Mr. J,ay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Goverr.or 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.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
TWOmey, Latham & Shea                 Suffolk County Attorney 35 West Second Street                 H. Lee Dennison P911 ding P.O. Box 298                           Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901             Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire                   Dr. Monroe Schneider         ,
Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
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.
TWOmey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 35 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison P911 ding 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 Leb B. Zeug     ()
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Leb B. Zeug
()
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 9,1986
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 9,1986
_                          _}}
_}}

Latest revision as of 23:17, 3 December 2024

Motion to File Reply to State of Ny 861204 Opposition to Util 861124 Motion to Compel.Util Should Be Given Opportunity to Respond to State Arguments Re Full Participation Exercise.W/O Stated Encl.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20215B181
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 12/09/1986
From: Zeugin L
HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1851 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612120063
Download: ML20215B181 (5)
v • d • e


Text

p LILCO, December 9 1986

^

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M M TED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "D

'86 DEC 11 p; g7 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board CCCn'-

2

.: g,

w:

In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL On November 3, LILCO propounded its "First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" on New York State. New York State refused to answer any of those interrogatories or requests, claiming instead that they were irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome.M New York State's response contained only the barest notice of the bases for these claims. Specifically, with respect to the relevance objection, the response contained an unadorned recitation of a portion of the Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order and the unelaborated but sweeping claim "that matters involving other exercises at other nuclear power plants are irrelevant to this proceeding." NYS Response at 2-3 (emphasis in original). With regard to the " overly broad and unduly burdensome" objections, New York State made no effort at all to explain either objection. See NYS Response at 2.

On November 24, LILCO moved to compel New York State to respond to LILCO's interrogatories. Out of necessity, that motion attempted to divine and then respond to each of New York State's objections.

l 1/

State of New York's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, pp. 2-3 (November 19,1986) (hereinaf ter "NYS Response").

8612120063 e61209 PDR ADOCK 05000322 j $()3 G

PDR L.

1 On December 4, an Opposition filed in the name of New York State responded to LILCO's motion to compel.2/ That Opposition advances three arguments that LILCO believes could not have been reasonably inferred from New York State's prior

" Response" and that are of sufficient import to warrant a reply. First, the Opposition goes well beyond New York State's earlier reliance on the language of this Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order, to argue essentially that every exercise is unique and therefore that no meaningful comparisons can be drawn among exercises.

As a result, New York State would have this Board decide in Contentions EX 15 and 16 whether the February 13 exercise constituted a full participation exercise for purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E without the aid of any objective factors. Instead, New York State would apparently have the Board conduct a free-form examination of the proper scope of " full participation" exercise. Second, New York State suggests that even if LILCO were to demonstrate that the Shoreham exercise was equal to or greater than other FEMA exercises, LILCO would still not have answered the question of the proper scope of a "Shoreham-specific exercise." NYS Opposition at 6. Thus, New York State is arguing that what is good enough for other plants is not good enough for Shoreham. This argument finds no support either in the NRC regulations or case law.

Finally, New York State argues that LILCO's requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome because of LILCO's definition of "New York State" and "New York State personnel."

NYS Opposition at 10.

New York State's attempt to rationalize its objections is inconsistent with earlier New York State discovery responses where no such objection was voiced to the identical definition and with definitions contained in interrogatories posed by a fellow Intervenor (M Sufiolk County) to LILCO, FEMA and the NRC staff.

2/

State of New York's Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel, December 4,1986 (hereinaf ter "NYS Oppostion").

n

Fairness dict argu 3-m ate "Respo ents, wb'ab s that LIL CO were ns " to Lli.. O' not begiv e

grant enan for hado this es

,s opportu ity to m tio m tio o

o c

w ompel.

ad n to ed n

n or n

co

\\

ev to mpel.

e r

Ac n hinted espond co

\\

nsider the to atta hed rcordingly, LIL in New Yo ea h of

\\

at c

\\

c these COr eply in equ rk

\\

ruling o ests this Bo State's

\\

n LILC ' moti ard Os to Respe tfully k

c on to

\\

Hu nto &

submitted, 707 n

\\

W

\\ P.O. EastMain Strilliams Bo Richm et Dot al #

x 1535 e

ond,V Le B.d.

P irginia 232 9AT e

E:

Zeugin in D

De 12 ce mber 9,19 86

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

7 Fairness dictates that LILCO be given an opportunity to respond to each of these rguments, which were not foreshadowed or even hinted at in New York State's esponse" to LILCO's motion to ecmpel. Accordingly, LILCO requests this Board to Pant this motion and to consider the attached reply in ruling on LILCO's motion to

@mpel.

Respectfully submitted, Dohald P. [pkin[]

Lee B. Zeugtn iunton & Williams

$7 East Main Street LO. Box 1535 ichmond, Virginia 23212 ATED: December 9,1986 M

]"

LILCO, December 9 1986 0

s cetm slet CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'86 OEC 11 P1 :47 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY h u-e-

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 00thGm i -

m:L Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 M ANU I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL and LILCO'S REPLY TO NEW YORK STATE'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL were served this date upon the following by telecopied as indicated by an asterisk (*), federal ex-press as indicated by a two asterisks (**), or by first-class mail, 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 mailroom)

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

4~ 1 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. J,ay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Goverr.or 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 35 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison P911 ding 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 Leb B. Zeug

()

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 9,1986

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215B181&oldid=3980137"