ML19269E442
| ML19269E442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1979 |
| From: | Matias T, Schwartz S NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 80008, NUDOCS 7906290054 | |
| Download: ML19269E442 (65) | |
Text
OSCATi H. P.ViG %- ' L , "
JMD/jmc '% ~-p ATCMIC SAFETY & UCENSING 00AGD Pls::CCase No. 80008 '
138
- v. o. 4. w w m n - s u v.a c uc, .. m ..
y/ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1
, NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMEUT '
2 AND l
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION '
l 3 SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT 5 IN THE MATTER of the -
MN1 i' 6
7 Application of the NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION and the LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 8
pursuant to Article VIII of the Public Service Law for a certificate of environmental compatibility 9 and public need to construct two 1250-megawatt nuclear generating units in the Town of New Haven, j 10 Oswego County, or at an alternate site in the Town of Stuyvesant, Columbia County 11 12 MINUTES OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE 13 held at the Offices of the Commission, Agency 14 Building #3, The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller 15 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, on Thursday, 16 i March 22, 1979, commencing at 10 o' clock a.m. :
i I
BEFORE:
[
THOMAS R. MATIAS, I
Presiding Examiner Public Service Commission g SIDNEY A. SCHWARTZ, De artment o
- nmental u h (3) Conse:Vation i
<<ecords Facilities Branc 015 Phil ?IN 252 f l .
PanscNT REPCRTING Samvict. INc. i I
139 1
APPEARANCES: .
~
2 For the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF: ,
, 3 ROBERT GREY, Staff Counsel 4 MICHAEL FLYNN, Staff Counsel CRAIG INDYKE, Legal Assistant 5 Agency Building #3 The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller 6 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 7
For NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION:
P HUBER, MAGILL, LAWRENCE & FARRELL g 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 10 By: RODERICK SCHUTT, ESQ.
NORMAN W. SPINDEL, ESQ.
11 OLES H. PHINIZY, ESQ., of Counsel 12 For LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY:
g EDWARD J. WALSH, JR., ESO., of Counsel 250 Old Country Road g Mineola, New York 11501 15 r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. ,
16 DAVID A. ENGEL, Senior Attorney for Energy i
g 50 Wolf Road j Albany, New York 12233 For OFFICE.0F PARKS & RECREATION:
I PATRICK J. HIGGINS, Assistant Director, 0
Environmental Management Bureau Agenci Building #1 The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12238 23 2137 253 I
PARsoNT REPORTING SERVfCE. INC.
A
140 1
APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)
2 For DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & MARKETS: -
3 RICHARD P. FEIRSTEIN, ESQ., of Counsel 4
New York State Office Campus Building #8 5
Albany, New York 6
For RENSSELAER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
THOMAS E. BREWER, Director, Division of 7
Environmental Health County Office Building 8
Troy, New York 12180 9
For TOWN OF KINDERHOOK:
10 THOMAS G. GRIFFEN, Town Attorney 542 Warren Street 11 Hudson, New York -
12 For TOWN OF COEYMANS:
13 RALPH F. SCHIMMEL, P.E., Councilman usse Avenue 14 Ravena, New York 12143 For COLUMBIA COUNTY, TOWN OF STUYVESANT and CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.: ,
i 16 MILLER, MMNIX, LEMERY & KAFIN, P.C.
17 11 Chester Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 18 By: ROBERT J. KAFIN, ESQ., of Counsel ANNE CURTIN, Representative, Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
20 P. O. Box 88 Stuyvesant, New York 21 22 23 2l37 254 I l
\.
PansoNT REPomTING SE4VICE INC-
141 1
~
APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.)
2
, For STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE:
3
~
PAUL S. SHEMIN, Assistant Attorney General 4 JOHN F. SHEA, Assistant Attorney General ED SAWCHUK, Environmental Engineer, 5 Environmental Protection Bureau Two World Trade Center 6 New York, N:w York 10047 7 For CITIZENS TO PRESERVE THE HUDSON VALLEY and GREENE COUNTY, ET AL:
8 LORETTA SIMON, Environmental Planner g Greene County Planning Department
, Box 517 10 Cairo, New York 12413 gg For COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: .
12 REILLY & LIKE 200 West Main Street 13 Babylon, New York 11702 By: RICHARD C. HAND, ESO., Assistant to 14 Irving Like, Special Counsel for County of Suffolk 15 16 17 18
,, 2137 255 2a 21 22 23 i
l 1 -
I PARsoNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC. k
1 142 1
PROCEEDINGS
- 2 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, can we come to -
3 order, please?
4 I think you all know that we are meeting 5
here in the prehesring conference in Case 80008 and let me just state the caption for you. This is the application of the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and the Long Island Lighting Company pursuan:
to Article VIII of the Public Service Law for a 10 certificate of environmental compatibility and public 11 '
need to construct two 1250-megawatt nuclear generating -
12 units.in the Town of New Haven, Oswego County, or at an 13 alternate site in the Town of Stuyvesant, Columbia 14 County.
15 We had a prehearing conference on 16 Tuesday in Oswego. This one today is for the convenience 17 of people living in Stuyvesant.
18 I am Thomas R. Matias. I am Administrative 19 Law Judge with the Department of Public Service. I will 20 be the Presiding Examiner in this proceeding.
~
21 # -
To my left is Dr. Sidney Schwartz.
22 Dr. Schwartz is the Associate Examiner.
He is from the 23 Department of Environmental Conservation.
2137 256 ;
PARsoNT REMRTING $ERVICE. INC.
2 143 1
I will start out by taking appearances, and I will take the statutory appearances first, and ,
3 then I will go to those of you who filed notices of 4
intention to appear.
For the statutory, the Applicants, New 6
York State Electric & Gas. Mr. Schutt?
7 MR. SCHUTT: Huber, Magill, Lawrence &
8 Farrell on behalf of New York State Electric & Gas 8
Corporation; Roderick Schutt, Norman W. Spindel and 10 Coles H. Phinizy, of Counsel.
11 MR. WALSH: The co-Applicant, Long Island ,
12 Lighting Company by Edward J. Walsh, Jr., 250 Old Country 13 Road, Mineola, New York 11501, 14 JUDGE MATIAS: You are Mr. Walsh?
15 MR. WALSH: Yes, I am.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
17 l For the Staff of the Public Service i 18 Commission?
19 MR. GREY: Your Honor, I am Robert Grey, 20 Staff Counsel. With me this morning is Michael Flynn, 21 Staff Counsel, and Craig Indyke, Legal Assistant.
22 JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Mr. Grey.
23 The Department of Environmental ,
2137 257 PARgCNT REPORTINo SERvect. INc.
l
3 144 Conservation?
- MR. ENGEL: For the Department of '
Environmental Conservation, my name is David A. Engel.
4 JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Mr. Engel.
5 The Department of Commerce?
6 All right, no response.
7 Department of Health? No response again.
8 Department of State? Again, no response.
8 Parks & Recreation?
10 (No response.)
11 JUDGE MATIAS: State Geologists? -
12 (No response.)
13 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Ag & Markets?
14 MR. FEIRSTEIN: Yes, Richard P. Feirstein c 15 of Counsel.
16 JUDGE MATIAS : The Hudson River Valley 17 Commission? Nobody here from that group?
18 (No response.)
19 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Let me go into 20 the appearances for those of you who filed notices of 21 intention to appear.
~
22 Now, they were due on February 20, 23 although we have been taking them being filed quite a 2137 258 .
PansoNT ReponTING Samvict, INC.
4 145 1
~
bit after that date.
2
, The Rensselaer County Department of 3
Health?
4 MR. BREWER: Thomas E. Brewer.
5 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Thank you, 6
Mr. Brewer.
7 Town of Kinderhook?
8 MR. GRIF'. EN : Thomas G. Griffen, Town 9
Attorney.
10 '-
JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Mr. Griffen.
Mr. Haber, H-a-b-e-r? -
12 (No response.)
13 JUDGE MATIAS: I have him identified as l I4 supervisor, and unfortunately I do not know the town.
It is in Castleton. Is that the Town of Castleton' 16 MS. CURTIN: Schedack, your Honor. -
JUDGE MATIAS- The Town of Schodack? He is not here?
II MS. CURTIN: No, your Honor, he could not 20 be here this morning, but he asked me to state that that 21 was not an indication of less interest. He just could not be here.
23
. JUDGE MATIAS: Would you state your name, 2137 259 .
l !
I Pamanut Rrmosteun Mrmvser luc I
5 146 1
please?
2 ,
, MS. CURTIN: I am Anne Curtin.
3 JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Miss Curtin.
4 All right. Town of Coeymans?
5 MR. SCHIMMEL: Ralph Schimmel, Councilman, 6
Town of Coeymans.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: Thank you, Mr. Schimmel.
8 The Columbia County Fruit Growers?
9 (No response.)
10 JUDGE MATIAS: Vivian Rosenberg? All right, no response again.
12 Neil Ra ch, Ithaca? That is R-a-u-c-h.
13 (No response.)
14 JUDGE MATIAS: Robert J. Kafin? .
15 MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, I appear for 16 Columbia County, for the Town of Stuyvesant and for the 17 Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc. I do not appeaf 18 for myself and did not file --
19 JUDGE MATIAS: Are you Mr. Kafin?
20 MR. KAFIN: That is right.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: Do you appear also for 22 Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc.?
- 3 MR. KAFIN: No, I do not.
2137 260 .
I
5 147 1 .
JUDGE MATIAS: Because I have you down as making an appearance for them.
3 MR. KAFIN: No.
JUDGE MATIAS: Are they represented today, Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc.?
MR. KAFIN: I am not sure. It may be tha:
7 we will coordinate our presentation here, but today I am 8
not appearing for them.
8 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Thank you, O
Mr. Kafin.
II ~
Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, 12 Miss Curtin?
IO MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, as I --
14 JUDGE MATIAS: Oh, I am sorry. ,
15 MR. KAFIN: I am going to appear for the 16 County, Town of Stuyvesant and the Concerned Citi:: ens ,
17 for Safe Energy.
18 I JUDGE MATIAS: I recognize now that you
~
19 represent Miss Curtin's interests, too. All right, 20 thank you.
21 The Columbia County Farm Bureau?
22 (No response. )
l 23 JUDGE MATIAS:
The Attorney General?
2137 261 ..
I . i
7 148 1
MR. SAWCHUK: I am an engineer with the 2
State Attorney General's Office. Paul Shemin should be -
3 here. He is an Assistant Attorney General.
JUDGE MATIAS: I have a Mr. John F. Shea.
MR. SAWCHUK: He is also another attorney 6
working on the case. Paul Shemin and John Shea will be working on this case.
JUDGE MATIAS: But neither are here today, O
I gather?
10 MR. SAWCHUK: Paul Shemin is expected.
11 JUDGE MATIAS: All righ;. .
12 Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley, 13 Incorporated?
14 MS. SIMON: Your Honor, I am appearing' -
15 for Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley. I am just 16 stating that they wish to participate fully in the l 17 hearings, but they were unable to have a representative I8 here today and asked me to tell you that.
19 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Would you state 20 your name?
21 MS. SIMON: Yes. My name is Loretta 22 Simon.
I am here on behalf of Greene County, et al.
23 JUDGE MATIAS: All right.
A 2137 262 i
PARscNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC. i
3 149 MS. SIMON: Would you like me to state -
further? -
JUDGE MATIAS: Well, I gather you are 4
representing someone other than the Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley.
6 MS. SIMON: Yes.
JUDGE MATIAS: Why don't you go ahead?
8 MS. SIMON: Thank you. I am here on 8
behalf of Greene County, et al. Greene County intends 10 to file e lete petition for intervention.
11 JUDGE ATIAS: I was going to say, I had .'
12 not heard from you before in that capacity.
13 MS. SIMON: Yes, your Honor. We have not 14 participated to this point, but we intend to do so and 15 file a petition for late intervention.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Would you do 17 so then?
18 MS. SIMON: Yes.
19 JUDGE MATIAS: Are there any other 20 appearances?
21 MR. HAND: Yes, Richard C. Hand for the 22 County of Suffolk. I am associated with Irving Like, 23 who is Special Counsel for the County, and we have filed .
2137 263 -
PARSONT REPonTING service. INC.
> 150 4
a notice of intent to appear.
JUDGE MATIAS: I had received a letter 3
from Mr. Like and I had received it just before I went 4
to New Haven, so I had not responded to that, but I 5
assume that you knew about the prehearing conferences, 6
and you talked about application for funds, and I assume 7
that you knew what was in that prehearing conference 8
notice with respect to making a presentation today.
9 MR. HAND: Yes, I requested a copy of tha 10 from Staff Counsel. You do have our letter?
JUDGE MATIAS: -
I rece:Lved your letter, 12 but you did not receive one from me because when I 13 received it, it was too late for me to respond. I was 14 on my way out the door, but I did receive it. All right, ,
15 thank you, sir.
0 MR. HIGGINS: Your Honor, I am Patrick I7 Higgins on behalf of the Office of Parks & Recreation.
18
, JUDGE MATIAS: Oh, all right. I called 0
out Parks & Recreation.
"O MR. HIGGING: Yes, we came in a couple 21 minutes late.
22 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, thank you.
I 23 Any other appearances?
2137 264 -
I ... . ...enre s.. vie, i~c I
10 151 I ~
. All right, I gather not.
2 Now, there are a number of thingn we wish '
3 to take up today and the main item of business is the 4
questica of funding. I think you all know that the 5
Applicants under the Article VIII, which would be the 6
effective article for this application -- Article VIII 7
calls for a $25,000 fund to be used for municipal 8
parties only to help defray expenses incurred in the 9
prosecution of the case, and the no' Je of prehearing 10 conference that was served on all or you indicated that 11 we would expect a full presentation to be made today, -
12 and the presentation that we will be looking for -- and 13 I will read them again -- will be, number one, the 14 identity of experts or consultants under consideration; 15 a brief curriculum vitae for each expert or consultant, 16 including the area of expertise relevant to this 17 proceeding; number three, the extent of participation 18 anticipated for each expert consultant during the course 19 of this proceeding; four, an indication of how the 20 pa.-ticipation of each expert or consultant will assist 21 the Siting Board in resolving the issues extant in this 22 proceeding;-and, lastly, an estimate of the total cost M to be anticipated for each expert or consultant considered.
l 1
2137 265 1-
. . . .. ~ , _ . ., ~ . e m , m , _.
I
11 152 1
Now, before I turn to the villages, towns 2
and counties that would be the beneficiaries of the ,
3 funding, I will say that in New Haven we had -- three 4
applications? -- we had four applications in New Haven, 5
and I believe that the demand for the funds now exceeds 6
$100,000, so with what we will receive today, the demana 7
for the funds would go well, well in excess of the 8
$25,000, so I will just take you ss you would like to be 9 neard.
10 Who is representing villages, towns or 11 counties wishing to make an application for funds? ,
12 And, please, could you address the items that were set 13 forth in the notice of prehearing conference that I just 14 read?
15 Mr. Kafin?
16 MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, if I am not out of i
17 turn, I would like to make such an application for l l
18 Columbia County and the Town of Stuyvesant. We have 19 prepared a written statement under Rule 70.25 that 20 contains the items.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, fine.
22 MR.KAFIN:
I do not know that it is 23 necessary to burden the record with an oral presentation, 2137 266 .
PaRscNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
L2 153 1
. if you wish. However, I only have six copies because ~
2 in part it contains one voluminous exhibit, and if that -
3 presents a problem, I will make an oral presentation.
4 Otherwise, I would like to hand up a copy of our 5
statement and I will distribute it to the Applicants and 6
to anybody else who wants one within reason.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. We will need 8
two.
9 (Pause.)
10 JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Kafin, you have given 11 us a document that is a very lengthy one, and it looks -
12 like it has been prepared in some 'stail, which is fine..
13 Now, obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I have 14 not had an opportunity to read it.
15 Does this document set forth information 16 on all of the areas that were set forth in the notice of, 17 !
prehearing conference? I 18 MR. KAFIN: If it would be helpful, your 19 Honor, let me just orient you to the nature of the 20 submission.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. l 22 l MR. KAFIN: The submission is an application 23
, for the entire $25,000 fund. It is supported by three 2137 267 .
PantoNT RapomTING Samvict. INC.
+ -
r .
~ * ' ~ - - - - - - ~
- = l--
--L-- -
.._._1_ _n.ui - - - - -
j
[ .
t
.l 154 13 l1
'i I exhibits. The first exhibit is a curriculum vitae of .
2 the firm of consultants we propose to hire. e d .
3 Exhibit B is an outline of the scope of !*
- d 4
services which the consultants would render if we were p ,
~
7 5
able to hire them. That scope of services is broken down
! 6 into modules, each with a price tag, so that we show that ;
+
7 work can be done even if the application is not granted 7
8 in whole, and the final exhibit is a proposed contra.ct, ,
l j
! 8 a form of contract, which these municipalities would be f-7 10 prepared to enter into with the consultant and which the ' '
-k 11 consultant advises it would be prepared to enter into a
, ~ '
should the application be submitted and should we he !
12 c
13 able to proceed in making the presentation, so I think ,
14 that the submission covers each of the points in your ,
- 1l 15 Honor's notice of prehearing conference. ;
JUDGE MATIAS: All right, fine. Thank you, l 16 17 Mr. Kafin. !
'l -
i
~
18 Do you have any questions?
DR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mr. Kafin, you might, !
19
( .
20 if you wish, tell us how this particular potential
{
a t
21 contractor was selected. What was the basis for n
22 selecting this particular contractor? ;: .
f a
23 MR. KAFIN: The County has assigned its !
~i 2137 268 I
)
N
'# PanscNT RtronTINo Samvict. INc.
i E
y ,l
1.4 155
, Planning Department, the County of Columbia has assigned 2
its Planning Department, to coordinate the participation -
3 in this case, and the Director of the Planning Department conducted a survey of firms that would be available to do this kind of work, and I think that the 6
persuasive item here was that this firm recently did 7
similar work in Case 80006 for Greene County and for the 8
towns and village of Athens and catskill.
8 The work that was prepared here is 10 similar to the work that was done for those municipalities 11 in an Article VIII case. In addition, that 2.rticle VIII -
12 involved a site that was right across the river, in a 13 sense, from this, and it was felt that this consultant 14 in the course of the work in 80006 had gathered some 15 background in the region that would be useful here
(. 16 without duplicating work that was done there.
17 DR. SCHWARTZ: I see. One of the questions 18 is does the County anticipate sharing any of the costs 19 for the experts?
20 MR. KAFIN: I am not sure what you mean, 21 Dr. Schwartz. However, we are in a posture where the 22 County is committed to provide funding for participation 23
, of Counsel.
t 2137 269 PansoNT ReponTINo Samvice, INC.
15 156 I
The County has also donated some services -
2 in kind in the nature of the facilities and personnel -
3 of its Planning Department and it might very well be tha :
4 as we move a'~,ng, we will find that through the Coastal 5
Zone Management Program or some other program, the 6
County will have funding available to assist in this 7
presentation and make it fuller and aid the record in
( 8 that regard.
9 JUDGE MATIAS: What Dr. Schwartz means is 10 that you have indicated that you are applying for the 11 entire $25,000, Mr. Kdfin, and in the event that you .'
12 receive something less than that, even zero, or if you 13 should receive $25,000 and the fees were to exceed that, 14 is the County prepared to meet the balance of payments 15 that would be due to this consulting firm?
16 In other words, if an award is made, say, 17 of $5000, would that in effect be wasted if the County 18 were not prepared to go forward and pick up the balance 19 of the obligation that would be incurred?
20 MR. KAFIN: The County is not prepared to 21 commit funds beyond that which is requested for the
. 22 services of this consultant, although we do not foreclose 21 the possibility that it may. Keeping that in mind, the r .
i 2137 270 .
PansONT REPonT.No Stavect. INc.
16 157 submission that has been made is broken down into ".
, modules, and you will see that the scope of services 3
is broken down in such a way that any one of the four 4
areas could proceed independent of the others, so that 5
when we see what kind of funding is available and from 6
what sources, we will be able to pick and choose from 7
among the services being offered, depending on our means 8
and the availability of funding, so that recognizing 8
that there would be competition for these funds, we do 10 not make an all-or-nothing submission, although we would 11 like it all.
12 JUDGE MATIAS: I s there a cost breakdown 13 for the four areas, Mr. Kafin?
14 MR. KAFIN: Pardon me?
15 JUDGE MATIAS: Is there a cost breakdown 16 for each of the four years?
17 MR. KAFIN: Yes, the submission contains l I8 pricing for each of the modules.
19 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Thank you, 20 Mr. Kafin. Obviously we will have to sit down and spend some time with this off the record.
22 Who else is going to make an application 23 today? '
2137 271 ,
1 i PansoNT RrpomTING SEnvict. INC. i'
17 158 i I
MR. GRIFFEN: Town Attorney, Town of 2
Kinderhook. '
3 JUDGE MATIAS: Would you state your name P
4 again for the reporter?
5 MR. GRIFFEN: Yes, Tom Griffen, Thomas G.
6 Griffen.
7 Your Honor, while the Town of Kinderhook 8
are not late intervenors, they are recent intervenors, 9
and we have had an opportunity to review the proposal 10 by Hart Associates that Mr. Kafin has presented 11 generally todaf. -
12 What we have in mind presently is to lend 13 any funds to which we may be entitled -- or to contribute l
14 any funds to which we may be entitled to the hiring of .
15 Hart Associates to pursue the items that are mentioned 16 in that report.
17 The Town is also willing to contribute 18 some Counsel fees. I would say probably to -- and we j 19 have not consulted Mr. Kafin except very briefly --
20 probably in the nature of a contribution toward Counsel !
21 fees of Mr. Kafin to handle this case. Beyond that, I
- l 22 do not think I can -- l 1
23 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, I gather, Mr. Griffen, 2137 272 !-
i l
PARSONT REPORTING Samvect. INc. '
18 159
. what you are saying is that the Town of Kinderhook is 2
joining Columbia County in the request for $25,000?
3 MR. GRIFFEN: That is true.
JUDGE MATIAS: This, I gather, is a joint 5
thing. I do not know whether Mr. Kafin sees it that way or not.
MR. GRIFFEN: I do not think I have seen 8
it that way until now, but I believe at this point --
JUDGE MATIAS: Or in the alternative, 10 perhaps you are just supporting the town of Columbia 11 Cot'7ty in its request. -
12 MR. GRIFFEN: Yes. In practical terms, 13 7.hopt that does not make much difference. What I am 14 saying is any funds to which we might be entitled, we 15 would contribute to a fund to hire Hart Associates, and 16 the Town is willing to also contrit te some monies for 17 hiring Counsel.
18 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Anyone else?
19 MR. HAND: Yes, Judge. For the County of' 20 Suffolk, we, too, have prepared an application.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: Your name is what again, 22 sir?
23 MR. HAND: Richard Hand. This document is '
2137 273 e e
19 160 1
entitled " Application of the County of Suffolk for -
2 Intervenor Municipal Funding Pursuant to PSC Section -
3 142(6)". I have copies we can submit.
4 JUDGE MATIAS: .We will need two, 5
Mr. Hand, if you could just try to be as equitable as 6
possible.
MR. HAND: Judge, I do not think I need 8
to comment on everything that is in this document, but .
9 I would like to comment on why we are here.
10 As Judge Matias knows, we represented the!
County -- .
MS. CURTIN: We cannot hear him. ,
i MR. RAND: The County is an intervenor in I4 the Long Island proceedings on application by'LILCO and I
NYSEG to construct plants at Jamesport. Recently the 16 Siting Board remanded that case for further hearings on .
I 17 the basis of a reduced forecast statewide and local and '
I0 also on the basis of the LILCO-NYSEG application to 10 construct plants Upstate.
20 In the remand order they required 21 consideration of issues of a nature which involved not l i
. 22 only the Jamesport plant but the plants Upstate as well.
23 I can refer you, Judge, to the order directing remand, 2137 274 I .
PassoNT REPomisNo Samvict, luc.
20 161 1
and in that there are four issues which they set forth 2
which are to be considered at the remanded hearings which' 3
begin April 7th, and preliminarily I would like to state 4
our position, and that is that although this application 5
was filed before the December 31 date, litigation of it, G
presentation of evidence of testimony is going to take 7
place after December 31, and we think that the Board has 8
sufficient discretion to require a greater contribution 9
than $25,000 from the Applicants.
10 First of all, you have two Applicants.
Secondly, you have issues that ire related not only to '
12 Upstate plants but Downstate plants, and we have cited 13 appropriate legal provisions which give the Board power 14 to acquire a greater fee than $25,000. ,
15 We filed an Article 78 proceeding here in Albany County seeking to compel the Siting Board to provide the County with funding to litigate the remanded; hearings in Case 80003. That case will be heard tomorrow.
In that we argue that the order of remand 20 requires relitigation of virtually all the major issues that were previously litigated in the Jamesport case, 2 '
and it requires new litigation of issues related to the NYSEG application.
2137 275 i I -
I . . . . _ . . . . - . . , _ . . . . . , _ , I
21 162 Also, in the subsequent order of the Board 2
. in Case 80003, they indicated that any testimony or '
relevant evidence that is adduced up here is to be 4
incorporated in the record down in the Jamesport 5
proceedings. We feel that because there is overlap of 6
issues, direct overlap of issuts, that testimony that is 7
developed in the Jamesport application can be incorporated 8
in this case, and I would like you to review our 8
application with that in mind.
10 You will see that a large portion of the 11 expert testimony which we expect to produce will also -
12 aid the Board in its consideration of the issues up here; 13 including statewide forecasts, need, alternatives, oil 14 substitution, comparative economics.
15 I think that covers what I have to say.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, thank you, 17 l Mr. Hand. l 18 l DR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Hand, have you i 19 l
reviewed this application from Columbia County, the 20 Fred C. Hart Associates document? Have you seen it?
21 MR. HAND: No, Judge, I have not seen it.i
~
22 i This is the first I have heard of it.
23 DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, is there a copy 2137 276 !
PansoNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
22 163 available for Suffolk County? I would appreciate if you 2
would review this and see if it is not possible that 3
Suffolk County would support this application rather than 4
come in with a new application since the funds are at 5
present,.pending the litigation of your appeal, limited 6
to $25,000, so I would like you to review a copy of this 7
with the possibility of either supporting it or not 8
supporting it, but I think you should have it.
O MR. HAND: Judge, I would like to make 10 clear that we want money from this case to litigate the 11 related issues down on Long Island. That case is to 12 start imminently. Right now we are without money.
13 There is an application made to the County 14 Legislature for money. We do not know what the outcome 15 will be. We e.lso do not know what the outcome will be of
(
16 our Article 78 proceeding, and in view of the Board's 17 order directing remand, we believe that we have a very 18 strong equitable argument for some portion of the monies 19 for litigation of the issues in the Jamesport case.
20 DR. SCHWARTZ : Well, it would be 21 inappropriate for us to comment on the other pending 22 case, but I would like you to review this document with 23 the possibility of supporting it.
t'
\
~
2137 277
..__.._____...____...__..._ l
23 164 1 .
MR. HAND: All right.
2 -
JUDGE MATIAS: I will say this, Mr. Hand:
3 I do not have the new Article VIII before me, but as I 4
recall, it states that its. provisions apply to 5
applications filed on or after January 1, 1979 and I 6
think since this application was filed on November 22, 7
1978 then that disposes of the questien of which 8
Article VIII is applicable.
9 I MR. HAND: I do not think it does.
10 would like to give you a feel for the practical impact 11 of that consLruction.
JUDGE MATIAS: Oh, I know all about that, 13 sir. I have followed 80003. I know exactly what you are
" saying. I know what was in the order of remand. I know ,
I what the Siting Board said. I know what they said about incorporating this record and I recognize that you have I questions to raise there, but I think those questions I have to be raised with the Siting Board, not with us
' altering the clear provisions of Article VIII.
20 MR. HAND: I was going to direct my
' comments to the fact that the new Article VIII provides *I money not only for municipal intervenors, but private f I
3 intervenors. By not treating the application in the wayl 2137 278 ,
1 l
PansoNT REPonflNo SERvtct, INC.
24 165
. 1 we suggest, private intervenors will have no money to 2 -
litigate the case.
3 I think the clear intent is to make funds 4
available to private intervenors because they clearly 5
do not have the wherewithal to litigate the complex 6
issues that are going to be involved in the case.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: But if the Legislature 8
intended, though, that the provisions apply to periods 9
before January 1, 1979 they would have so stated.
10 MR. HAND: Well,PSC 142(6) empcwers the Board to decide upon such terms and conditions as the 12 Board may deem appropriate. We argue that such terms 13 and conditions may include the requirement that LILCO 14 and NfSEG pay any fees necessary to establish the -
15 intervenors' fund in the amount set by the Board.
16 I can also direct your attention to 17 PSC Section 140: "The Chairman shall provide such legal, 18 technologic, scientific, engineering and other services 19 as may be required in the proceedings under this article."
Under Section 18A of the Public Service 21 Law: "The Chairman may in turn charge each utility with 22 the cost of paying for such intervention."
e3 I think there ia sufficient discretion 2137 279 .
l . . . . _ . . . _ , . . , _ . . . _ . , _ l
25 166 1
. vested in the Board in the interest of fairness to make
- 2 such funds available so the parties litigating these -
3 proceedings can be properly represented.
4 DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, that is the Board's 5
discretion.
6 Mr. Feirstein, do you have the new 7
statute?
8 MR. FEIRSTEIN : Yes, I do.
9 DR. SCHWARTZ: I would like to read it into 10 the record since the matter came up.
11 (Pause.)
12 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, Mr. Hand, I do 13 not know that any further argument on this point is 14 necessary. I have just leafed through this submission that you have made and it is a 20-page document with an Appendix A attached, and I gather as I leaf through it 17 that you have followed the categories set forth in the 18 notice of prehearing conference, the identity of the 19 experts and the curriculum vitae, et cetera, et cetera, 20 so we will find everything then within the 20 pages.
21 MR. HAND: Everything.
~
JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Dr. Schwartz 23 and I will study this also, and we will come to grips .
2137 280 l PansONT REPomTING SEmytCE. INC.
26 167 1
with the question you have raised about basic provisions 2
of Article VIII. .
3 MR. HAND: I would urge you to make a 4
resolution as promptly as possible in view of the fact --
5 JUDGE MATIAS: We have to do that because-6 as we told people in New Haven, we are going to be moving I
7 this case along quite quickly, and we are going to be 8
doing a lot of things very quickly, as will the parties, 9
so you will be hearing from us ir a matter of days.
10 Mr. Walsh?
11 MR. WALSH: If it please, Judge Matias, -
12 Dr. Schwartz, the day before yesterday the Attorneys for 13 the Town of Riverhead, Paul, Weiss, Gsrrison, contacted 14 my office and indicated to me that they would like me 15 to..make_a_ statement in connection with their participation 16 in this proceeding.
17 The gist of what was communicated to me 18 was that as a result of the remand order and the various 19 assertions that are made about the consolidation of the 20 two proceedings, that is, the Jamesport 80003 and_this 21 case, 80008, that Riverhead believes they may have an .
l 22 interest in this proceeding, and they were thinking of I
'3 participating, and in connection with that participation,
- 2137 281 l.
PansoNT REPomTING Simvice. INc.
27 168 I they asked me to state that they also would like to make 2
an application for an award of funding in this proceeding. ,
3 They have not, as is obvious, submitted 4 anything, but they requested an opportunity to do so, 5
and I make that statementi.in their bbhalf. I do not 6 represent them.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: I cannot regard that as an 8 application. They should have been here or they should 9 have contacted me and given me the kind of presentation 10 we asked for because you --
11 MR. WALSH: Let me point out to you that .
12 this argument about the consolidation of the two 13 proceedings or that this is an alcernative to,Jamesport 14 has just recently become an issue, and they were unaware 15 of that fact, and they now see that the County of 16 Suffolk believes that they should be participating here, .
i 17 and they think being a municipality more intimately 18 concerned with the Jacasport project, that they should 19 also participate.
20 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, IJhope the Long 21 Island parties understand also that the recommended i l
22 decision in 80003 is due in October, now, and we will l l
23 just barely be getting underway, so there will not be .
2137 282 l.
Parson 7 REPORTING SERVICE. INC. I
28 169 1
any evidenciary overlap between the two proceedings at 2
all. -
3 MR. WALSH: Well, I will advise the Town 4
but they asked me to make tne statement so that you 5
would be aware of the fact that they are interested in 6
this proceeding.
7 If the cases are treated as consolidated 8
cases, if this is considered as an alternat to the 9
Jamesport, then they believe they should participate 10 and believe they are entitled to funding.
DR. SCHWARTZ: Of course, Mr. Walsh, are -
12 they looking for funding to pay for their legal representatives or for expert consultant witnesses?
MR. WALSH: I believe it is for expert 15
_ consultants. I think they have been through that aspect 16 of the funding.
l7 JUDGE MATIAS: But for experts in use in 18 the proceedings that will be heard under Judge Levy and I8 Dr. Schwartz down on Long Island?
0 MR. WALSH: Oh, I think it would be for 21 experts used here, which would be unlike the County's 22 suggestion. I do not know if the County made it clear 23 that they are going to participate here or participate in -
2137 283 .
PARSONT REPom7aNo Samvict. INC.
29 170
+
1 Long Island.
2 ,
JUDGE MATIAS: Well, that representation 3
is not sufficiently definite for me to give it too much 4
serious --
5 MR. WALSH: Well, I vil l. pass the 6
information along to them, and they will have to be 7
advised as to -- they will have to make their own 8
decision.
9 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Thank you, 10 Mr. Walsh.
11 .
MR. HAND: Judge, if I did not make it 12 clear to Mr. Walsh, perhaps I will make it clear to you.
13 We want the money to participate down there.
14 JUDGE MATIAS: You made it clear. -
15 MR. HAND: We will be guided by what i
occurs down there as far as our participation up here.
17 JUDGE MATIAS: I understand.
18 MR. HAND: And I think there is overlap. .
19 I I think the testimony that is developed down there will l be of direct use and benefit to development of this 21 record.
~
22 JUDGE MATIAS: No, I understood exactly i 23
- what you are saying. .
2137 284 '
I f
P4RSONT REPCMTING SERVICE lNC. !
30 171 1 .
MR. HAND: Thank you.
2 '
JUDGE ITTIAS:
Are there any other 3
applications for municipal funding?
4 MS. SIMON: Your Honor, in relation to 5
Greene County's intention to submit a petition for late 6
intervention, Greene County would also request you 7
reserve decision on $2,500 of the municipal fund which 8
the County would like to apply for for an aesthetic study 9
of visual impacts on the region from this proposed 10 .
pro]ect.
" ~
The County will submit a request for money 12 to go to Consultant Harvey K. Flad, who has already 13 submitted testimony in Case 80006 on a regional level 14 for both Greene County and the Columbia County Historical -
15 I' Society, for Catskill Center for Conservation, Friends 16 of Olani, Friends of Clermont and other intervenors, and.
I7 we see this money as simply extending information that !
18 has already been gathered in Case 80006.
19 We feel that it is an important issue 20 that should be addressed, and we would like to submit asl 21 soon as possible to you the curriculum vitae and more 22 specific information.
23 JUDGE MATIAS: Dr. Schwart: and I will 2137 285 .
k PaRsoNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
31 172
. I probably begin deliberations this afternoon, and this 2 '
has got to be done quickly. I anticipate by the end of 3
the week, early next week, that we will pretty much have 4
this thing in hand, so if you can get something to us 5
this afternoon or tomorrow --
6 MS. SIMON: Tomorrow.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: It sounds like I am giving 8
you very, very short notice, but in actuality I am not 9
because this notica has been out for several weeks. .
10 MS. SIMON: We realize that, your Honor, 11
-but through developments in case 80006 we have come to -
12 realize the importance of the visual impacts on the 13 region and felt that we would like to see them addressed, 14 l and we will try very hard to meet your deaGAine. ,
15 JUDGE MATIAS: See, I have already sent i i
16 out a letter to all parties urging them to begin informal I7 discovery and we are trying to motivate all parties to 18 move into the substance of this proceeding as quickly as' 19 they can.
O
. As a matter of fact, it should be under 21 !
way right now, and so we are going to move very quickly j 22 on this funding because we realize that for the parties i
23
- to prepare and to submit testimony and to be ready to go{
2'37 286 -
I PansoNT REPomTING SEmytcr. INC.
\
32 173
. 1 forward with cross-examination, they have to know what funding will be:available to them. They have to go out 3
and retain the experts and consultants. They have to 4
work with them, educate them on the background of the ,
5 proceeding, get into the detail.
6 There is a lot of work to be done, and it 7
has to begin immediately, so we are not going to be able 8
to say, "Well, we will wait a month or six weeks." We 9
cannot.
10 MS. SIMON: No, we do not see it as that, your Honor. We can get it in quickly.
JUDGE MATIAS: If you can ge', something 13 to us just as quickly as you can -- I will say this: If 14 you can get it to us before a ruling is issued, we would .
15 be happy to consider it.
16 MS. SIMON: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE MATIAS: But if you do not, we are 18
. just going to have to move forward.
Are there any other requests for funds?
0
, Yes?
21 MR. SHIMEL: Your Honor, from the Town of!
22 l' Coeymans.
23 ~
Today we are unprepared to comply with the 2137 287 l
l PaRsoNT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
33 174 1
request for the resume, but I would like to impress upon 2 2
. the Court on February 16 we made notice to this 3
. proceeding that we would be interested in being involved 4
in that process, and we must plead some amount of 5
ignorance. Since we received a letter in February, much 6
of the work that we put together has been on a part-time 7
basis, such as local office holders like myself, so we 8
are not even aware of what professional expertise or 9
consultants are available to us.
10 I would hope that by our failure today we have not foreclosed our options.
12 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, you may have if we 13 rule on something and you do not have anything to us in 14 time to be considered.
15 Now, I realize you are on the other side 16 of the river, but I do not know whether the effort of 17 Columbia County, which appears to be a very professional 18 effort, whether that would be helpful to you or not.
19 Maybe you could join in supporting that effort.
a0 I recognize, again, that you have not 21 read it, and I recognize the problems the towns and 22 villages have when they get into something involving thei 1
23
- use of experts, that it is something you're not familiar 9_ 1 3 7 ?_ R_ R_
PARsoNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
34 175 with, but as I just men'_ioned a few moments ago, we are -
2 going to have to move forward on a decision in the next ,
3 several days, and if there is anything you have, if you 4
can provide us with the detail before we act, we would be 1
0 very happy to consider it.
0 MR. SHIMEL: What time frame would that 7
be, your Honor?
O JUDGE MATIAS: I cannot say how long it is 8
going to take Dr. Schwartz and I to put sorothing out, 10 make a decision before that and get something out, but -
11 we are going to start immediately, and the process will .
12 be ongoing, and if we receive something before, we will 13 be happy to consider it on the merits, but I urge you 14 again, if you want to be considered, you must come to us 15 almost this afternoon or tomorrow, 16 MR. SHIMEL: I see. As we indicated,on 17 February 16, we are indeed concerned with the impact that 18 may be coming on our community, and we have indicated 19
$3000 and that really was a guesstimate at that time 20 because we had total ignorance of the process.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: I understand. I understand.
~
U MR. SHIMEL: I will meet with our Town 23 Counsel this evening or tomorrow and tell him of the .
2137 289 f
P AR$CNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
35 176 dilemma we are facing, that some action must be 2
forthcoming. -
3 JUDGE MATIAS: If you do not understand 4
the urgency that.I am trying to impress, when the 5
Legislature enacted a new Article VIII, it was effective 6
the first of this year. Along with that, the Legislature-7 indicated its wishes that these Article VIII proceedings 8
be concluded within the period up to two years, and while 3
the new Article VIII is not binding on this particular 10 application, the time periods that are set forth by the 11 Legislature are something we feel we have to follow, and -
12 there is a great deil of work to be done by the parties 13 who are participating, and you have to begin moving I4 immediately in order to have this case completed within .
15 the time frame that the Legislature has set forth, so we 16 intend to do everything in our power to meet those time constraints.
MR. SHIMEL: Well, I appreciate the II indulgence.
O
. JULGE MATIAS: All right. Are there any 21 other applications to'be heard today? I gather not.
22 MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, before you leave 23
- this subject of the funds for municipal parties C 2137 296unsel-!
PAmsoNT REPcRTING StevicE. INC.
36 177
~
I for Suffolk County raised the issue as to whether we are-2 under the old law or the new law and what the amount of '
3 the municipal fund is.
4 There is another issue here which I would 5
like to bring to your attention. Even under the old law, 6
the statute called for an application for a facility, 7
provided a $25,000 fund for each application. I do not 8
know why it was done the way it was done, but although 9
the caption of this case in this proceeding points out ,
10 that this is an application for two facilities, it was 11 only opened under one docket number. ~
12 The similar application that went into 13 the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the same '
I4 facilities drew two docket numbers, and it is our 15 position that what we are dealing with here are two 16 facilities, that whether they call it one application or I7 what, it is two applications, and that the fund ought to I
18 be $50,000 here and not $25,000, even under the old 10 statute, and I was not going to raise that this morning 20 until Counsel for Suffolk County raised the question of 21 the amount of funding and until I saw how things came 22 out on the application, but I think since the matter of 23 the amount of the fund has been raised, I feel compelled
- 2137 291 .
P AR$oNT RepomTINo Samvice. INC.
37 178
- 1 to say that right from the caption of the case we are 2 ,
dealing with two facilities; that under Article VIII, 3
whether it is the new or the old, there should be a 4
doubling of the fund available for municipal funding, 5
and I hope that your Honors in ruling upon the requests 6
will recognize that that is what we are dealing with, 7
and any attempts by the Applicants here -- I am not sure 8
they made such an attempt because the NRC understood it 9
to be two facilities and put two numbers or. it, but any 10 attempt by the Applicants here to treat this as one when 11 it is really two we must strenuously resist, and if there ~
12 is not a fund for each, then we have to ask the
.3 Applicants to identify which they are applying for and 14 which they are not and ask that the. application for the ,
15 one that they are not be dismissed.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, it could be argued 17 that the tunding relates to the site, and there is a (8
primary site and an alternate site as required by the 19 statute, and it does not depend upon the number of
_ facilities but the number of sites, but I am not even 21 going to go into that with you, Mr. Kafin.
~
on
" l i
The application is filed. The Chairman 23 '
of the Public Service Commission docketed the proceeding.
2137 292 I . . . .. ~ , e . _ ,. _ . . . m c . . ~ c . I
38 179
. 1 A S25,000 fund was set up and this is what Dr. Schwartz 2 '
and I are dealing with, $25,000.
3 If anyone feels that it should be other-4 wise, again, I would suggest that it is the Siting 5
Board that would have to deal with it.
G We have $25,000. We do not have $50,000, 7
and we cannot create $50,000. If the Chairman or the 8
Siting Board wish to address that matter, you can raise 9
it with them.
10 MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, I would ask you to
~
certify that question to the Siting Board and establish 12 a briefing schedule for the parties to submit their 13 comments on that question.
14 JUDGE MATIAS: When we issue our ruling ,
15 with respect to this matter, if anyone feels that they 16 want to get into it further, then they can do it.
i 17 MR. KAFIN: That was my original 18 intention. I vant to be sure, however, I did not let 19 time prejudice me when the amount of the funding issue ,
20
, was raised, but I understand your ruling and that we have 21 preserved that point to take whatever action is 22 appropriate at the timt nat you rule on the applications 23 '
and we need not proceed now to the Siting Board on that 91X7 707 i
I PansoNT REPo4 TING SEmytCE. INC. I
39 180 1 .
~
question.
2 JUDGE MATIAS: No, I would not think so, 3
but you will be hearing from us very, very quickly, so 4
it is going to be just a matter of days and we will have 5
something out.
6 MR. KAFIN: Thank you, your Honor.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: But if you wish to pursue 8
that, just bear in mind we are going to go forward with 9
the proceeding, and we are going to be setting dates 10 for filing testimony, and if you delay the funding 11 process, then that is going to be a matter you will have -
12 to deal with one way or another down the road.
13 All right. There were a number of other 14 matters that we wanted to get into in the prehearing 15 conference.
10 Mr. Walsh, in Oswego in the prehearing 17 conference on Tuesday, a motion for dismissal was filed, 18 and I know that you have probably not had an oppdrtunity I8 tostudy this in detail, but have you had it long enough 20 to know how mue'. time you will require to respond to us 21 in: writing with. respect to this motio".? And other a2
~
Counsel, too; other Counsel may respond to the motion.
23
- MR. WALSH: If your Honor please --
2137 294 .
PARSONT REPORTING SEnvict. INC.
10 181
, JUDGE MATIAS: And I would hope that the 2
Staff, for example, does respond and other parties, too. -
3 We had thought in terms of about two weeks, Mr. Walsh.
4 Mk. WALSH: That is perfectly all right 5
with me.-
0 DR. SCHWARTZ: Did you want to make some 7
other comments at this time?
8 MR. WALSH: No, no. No, I do not.
O DR. SCHWARTZ: But you did get it 10 yesterday, I believe?
11 MR. WALSH: Yes, I got it yesterday, and .
12 I have looked at it in the interim, and I think two weeks 13 is adequate time for me to reply.
14 JUDGE MATIAS: Other Counsel? Mr. Grey?
15 MR. GREY: Two weeks, your Honor, will be 16 sufficient for the Public Service Commission Staff. I j l'7 also want to note that Helen Daly, the authoress of that 18 motion, asked me to pass along some copies to anyone here 19 who has not had a chance to get one.
20 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Then answers 21 to that motion will be mailed on Thursday, April 5. Is 22 that agreeable to all Counsel?
23 MR. WALSH: april 5. .
2137 295 PamsoNT REPonTING Samvict. INC.
41 182
. MR. SCHUTT: Your Honor, that date is 2
fine with me. Will we have a service list by that time? -
3 We have a lot of parties here where the Applicants have not received any notification of their intent to 5
participate, and we have virtually no addresses to go 6
with what is now a rather long list of appearances, I
where we can mail this to, JUDGE MATIAS: I do not know whether I O
can get a list together in time to give it to you or not 10 because I will want to have the transcript available to 11 me. -
I2 MR. SCHUTT: We will endeavor to serve 13 all those people we have addresses for, and with some 14 of them we do have addresses, but I just do not have 15 addresses for all of them.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Schutt, let me say this I7 to you and all Counsel: Why don't you use the list you 18 have and --
19 MR. SCHUTT: I just note that since M notices of intent are not required to be filed with the 21 Applicants under the rules, we just do not have them.
22 JUDGE MATIAS: That is right, that is 23 right. Why don't you use the list you have? In two weeks'.
2137 296 l.
I PansoNT REPORT:No Samvicz. INc. l
42 183 1
- ~
time you will receive the transcript.
?
, MR. SCHUTT: Right. '
3 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. So take the 4
list from the transcript, and basically Dr. Schwartz and 5
I will be doing the same, building from that list, and 6
then at a later time, perhaps when we are ready to go to 7
the public statement hearings, then maybe we will be in 8
a position to cross check our lists and develop one so-9 called official list.
10 MR. SCHUTT: With that understanding, yes, 11 we will serve the people that appear in the transcript. -
12 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Use the people 13 who have appeared at the prehearing conferences. This 14 is 7. procedural matter, anyway, and it is of concern 15 l
to them and probably of little interest to anyone else. :
16 MR. SCHUTT: Yes, right.
17 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. In the order 18 of the. prehearing conference, we spoke in terms of 19 consolidating some of the nonmunicipal parties. Is ,
20 there anything we can discuss in that connection today?
21 Are there any of you who can combine your interests or 22 is this premature at this point?
23 (No response.)
- 2137 297 .
PamsONT REPORTING tlERVICE lNC,
43 184 1
JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Kafin, I know that you 2
, are working with some nonmunicipal parties. Is there '
3 any possibility of combining that interest with any 4
others? I am not trying to give you more work or give 5
you more clients, but what I am trying to do is to 6
expedite the proceeding, and I will say to the concerned 7
citizens groups, the consumer groups, that if you pool 8
your resources and join your interests, you can make a 9
much more effective presentation when it comes to the 10 evidenciary phase of the proceeding than you could by acting independently; and the vehicle of consolidation, -
12 I think, is a good one from the standpoint of your own 13 interests, and it certainly makes it easier for us to 14 consider the record when we have fewer parties, but parties making a more detailed and expert approach, as 16 .
It were. , ,
17 MR. KAFIN: If your Honor please, the 18 County of Columbia and the Town of Stuyvesant and one of 19 the nonmunicipal intervenors, Concerned Citizens for 20 Safe Energy, have joined t.ogether and will be making a combined presentation, and I will be representing them 62 in this proceeding.
^3 It is our expectation that to the extent -
2137 298 .
PARscNT REPcRTING SERVICE. INC.
44 185 other municipalities within Columbia County seek to 2
, participate, that we will work cooperatively with them. '
3 We may not in every instance be represented throttgh the 4
same face at this table, but we are going to try as hard 5
as possible where our interests coincide to make a 6
single presentation rather than separate ones.
7 On the nonmunicipal side, there are a 8
variety of .nonmunicipal parties that have an interest.
9 I think that only the Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents to 10 this point has filed the necessary papers to become a ;
11 party. ~
12 We are also going to try to cooperate as 13 closely as possible with them where our interests 14 coincide with respect to the Columbia County site or ,
15 Hudson River Valley issues.
16 JUDGE MATIAS: They are not here today, l l
17 Mr. Kafin, but do you know whether they are going to 18 present evidence, the Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents?
19 MR. KAFIN: It is my understanding that 20 there are certain Hudson River Valley issues on which 21 they would like to be heard. There also is an
~
22 organization which has been involved in rate-making, 23 and they have some concern, as I think their notice of 2137 299
45 186 in tervention points out -- perhaps it does not point out ,
, Pat it points out in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
3 side of this some interest in the cost issues, the need-4 for-power issues.
5 They also have concern with the nucl6ar 6
technology as a source of the heat for these kinds of 7
facilities; but we are going to try as best as we can to 8
coordinate our presentation so we do not have duplication, 8
and that we can conserve the resources that these l
10 organizations and municipalities have, which are meager 11 in comparison to what is really required to do a good -
12 job in this proceeding, so we can proceed efficiently and 13 effectively.
14 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Let me approach 15 it this way: Are there any nonmunicipal parties, 16 nonstatutory parties, the so-called concerned citizens 17 or consumer groups that are represented here today that 18 intend to call witnesses in the evidenciary phase of the 19 proceeding?
20 I see no hands being raised. All right, 21 then perhaps the question is entirely academic.
22 Yes, Ma'am?
23 MS. SIMON:
Tour Honor, I said that I had
- 2137 300 i Pr oNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC. -
46 187 1
~
made a statement for Citizens to Preserve the Hudson 2
l
, Valley. In other proceedings, CPEV has joined with other '
3 private intervenors and though we have not discussed this i
4 with our Executive Board, I presume that wherever 5
possible we would be doing this at this proceeding also.
6 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Anyone else 7
on this question? I gather not.
- 8 Other matters that were designated in the 9
order and subject to discussion at today's session were 10 the promulgation of rules of discovery. Let me just say 11 l that the Staff has distributed and distributed on Tuesday -
12 in Oswego rules that it proposes, discovery rules that .
13 it proposes, and I do not know whether you have had an 14 opportunity to read it.
~
15 Mr. Grey, has it been distributed this 16 morning to the parties here?
17 MR. GREY: Your Honor, I have extra 18 copies. They have been served on all parties, all 19 persons who have expressed an interest in the case.
20 Is there anyone who has not yet received 21 a copy?
Zt (Pause.)
23 JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Grey, did we discuss a
- 2137 301 l I-
....~,...,~.....c..,~c. l
47 188
. 1
' ate for responses when we were in Oswego?
2 '
, MR. SPINDEL: Yes, April 10, your Honor.
3 MR. GREY: April 10, your Honor.
4 JUDGE MATIAS: Was that set as a definite 5 date?
6 MR. SPINDEL: I think so.
7 MR. GREY: I believe it was.
8 JUDGE M.iTIAS: All right. We discussed 9 dates in Oswego, and now I cannot recall all of them.
10 I should have better notes, perhaps.
11 All right. Those of you who are here -
12 today are just now seeing these rules.
13 Mr. Kafin, did you hu"e something you wish 14 to say?
15 MR. KAFIN: Yes, your Honor. I think the 16 comment I am about to make relates to all the necessary 17 procedural issues we are going to take up, and perhaps a 18 clarification from you will satisfy my problem.
There is a separate proceeding for the 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which relates to these 21 facilities. It was my understanding that we would 22 proceed in a joint case with the Atomic Licensing &
23 Safety Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If '
2137 302 -
. _ _ _ . . _____..._-__...__..._ l
48 189 1
~
that is still the plan for this proceeding, then I have 2
to say that I think we are probably wasting a lot of '
3 time and effort in trying to establish some of these 4
procedural rules because the NRC, particularly the NRC 5
Staff, has their own peculiar way of doing things, and 6
as someone who participated in case 20006, which was a 7
joint proceeding, I think we learned that the magnificen :
f 8 effort made by the Examiners on the State's side of the 9
case early on all went to naught because when we got to 10 the joint proceeding, we had to have separate rules for 11 everything that was going on to accommodate the -
12 eccentricities of the Federal agency here, so I think my 13 first inquiry is are we going to a joint proceeding?
14 If we are, then I'think we ought to 15 discuss a little more fully whether it is appropriate 16 today or possible today to develop a timatable and rules I7 of discovery in the absence of the Licensing Board from 18 the Federal agency and the Staff of the Federal agency I8 that has a substantial obligation in preparing the E
record.
21 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, I can say several
- 22 things. Number one, let me say that if we are on a joint 23
. record, that does not mean the cases are joined. The .
2137 303 .
PAnsCNT ReponTINo Samvics. INc.
i 49 190 I cases are still ser,arate.
. 80008 will be a separate -
2 proceeding. -
3 We are discussing right now vith NRC 4
means of holding joint hearings. In other words, their 5
dockets and our case number would be heard on the same 6
record.
7 I will say this, that under Federal Rules, 8
many of you, if not most of you -- I will not say "most";
9 I will say "many" -- many of you could not become parties 10 in the NRC case. They have very stringent rules on who 11 '
may be parties. .
12 We are, I think, a little more lenient 13 with respect to accepting various interests as parties to l
14 the proceedings, so rules of discovery are something thah 15 we can begin to discuss regardless of what is done with 16 the NRC because many of you will be participating with 17 Dr. Schwartz and myself on our side of the record, if 18 you want to put it that way, and not on theirs.
19 We have not yet signed an agreement with 20 NRC. There have been a number of discussions held by the 21 two staffs as well as Dr. Schwartz and myself of the 22 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. We expect that we will 23 conclude an agreement and that there will be joint .
2137 304 .
PARsoNT REPCRTING SERVICE. lNC. l I
50-191 1
. hearings in this case.
2 If there are to be joint hearings, we -
3 expect that the two scaffs, that is, the PSC Staff and 4
the NRC Staff, will be making a submission to us. There 5
will be a Joint Protocol for procedures to be followed in the case. When that is submitted, if it is submitted 7
it will be distributed to all parties for comment.
8 Now, it will involve procedures other than 9
discovery. Discovery, I gather, will go forward on a l l
10 !
separate basis. If we do not conclude an agreement with:
11 NRC, I believe that our Staff will still wish to file .
12 with us a suggested procedure to be pursued in this case 13 and, again, you will all have an opportunity to comment 14 on that before it is adopted by Dr. Schwart: and myself.
15 Mr. Flynn, do you have anything to add to I0 l that? I do not know whether I have covered everything or not.
MR. FLYNN: As I said at the prehearing I8 conference in Oswego, the discovery rules were primarily 20 based on other rules of discovery adopted in other 21 Article VIII cases; however, they were written also with
. 22 the view of being consistent with the NRC rules of 23 practice. .
I 2137 305 i.
....~,...,~....c..>~c.
I
51 192 1
The NRC Staff has seen this draft.
I 2
, think it would be premature for me to comment now on 3
their view of them, but as Mr. Indyke's cover letter 4
indicates,there will be a nu mber of modifications 5
necessary to the rules if they are to be adppted and 6
used in the joint hearing.
7 That cover letter also says that we 8
believe from our discussions with NRC that those 9
modifications will be minor, so if we nave a joint 10 hearing, the staffs, not only of NRC and PSC, but also 11 DEC, will try to get together and propose what minor -
12 amendments we think are necessary.
13 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. So you have 14 received the Staff proposed rules of discovery, and when .
15 we were in Oswego this was distributed, and it was 16 agreed then -- Id this date will be binding upon you --
that any comments anybody wishes to make on these rules 18 should be mailed to Dr. Schwart: and myself on or before I8 April 10, 1979.
20 In this connection I want to point out to 21 you that you received a letter dated March 1, those of
^
U you who are parties, either statutory or those
- 3 nonstatutory who filed notices of intention received a '
2137 306 .
PAmsoNT REPomTING Semvict. INc.
52 193 1
letter dated March 1, from mysel-l urging you to move very 2
quickly to the areas of informal discovery, and I gather '
3 that none of you, with the exception of the Staff and 4
DEC, have utilized informal discovery procedures up to 5
this point.
6 Mr. Schutt, is my understanding correct?
7 MR. SCHUTT: Yes, that is correct.
8 JUDGE MATIAS: I urge you all to begin 9
thinking in terms of what it is you are going to require, 10 from the Applicants in this case, and move into discovery l 11 as quickly as you can and use the informal discovery -
12 procedures to. the fullest possible extent.
13 Now, Mr. Schutt, in Oswego you gave us 14 some new telephone numbers and new names. Maybe if you ,
15 would repeat what you said up there so that the parties 16 who were not in attendance at that prehearing conference 17 will know now what they have to do in order to obtain 18 information from you.
IO MR. SCHUTT: OK. On informal discovery, O
written material should be sent to M. J. Ray, R-a-y, at the Company's offices in Binghamton. That is Vestal Parkway, Binghamton, New York.
23
- Any telephone calls with respect to any 2137 307 -
PamsoNT REPORTING service. INC.
53 194 1
informal discovery should be directed to the telephone 2
. number area code (607) 729-2551, extention 467, and that 3
is the extension of a Mr. Thomas Hadwin.
4 Needless to say, myself and the young 5
lawyers working with me in this case are also available 6
at my address in New York City, and our telephone 7
number is on our correspondence.
8 We would also urge you to, indeed, start 9
your discovery and not await the adoption of the formal 10 rules. We are ready to respond now and will do so 11 -
without the adoption of formal rules of discovery.
- 12 MR. KAFIN: Your Honor, lest there be some implication that we are sleeping on our rights, here, I 14 hasten to note that it is my understanding that the -
15 application here cost $50 million to prepare. It is at '
16 least 12 feet of paper and I think it is an outrage for ,
anyone to expect a participant in this case at this time 18 to have read that document, and I thiak that my clients 19 are interested and think that the public policy is 20 served by an expeditious moving along of this proceeding; 21 but the Applicant took years to prepare its application,l 1
22 '
and we are not going to get pushed into a situation where 23 I
- in two weeks we have to understand the thing, a..d I think l
2137 308 !
PAR $cNT REPORTING $ERVICE. INC.
l 54 195 1
, that while I appreciate the offer to have informal 2
discovery and your Honor's interest in having us pursue -
3 it, I do not want the implication to be on the record 4
here that by not pursuing it we are sleeping on rights.
5 This is a complicated matter, and if it 6
was not, it would not take 12 feet of paper to present 7
it and $50 million and two or three years to prepare the 8
application, and we cannot be expected in two weeks or 9
three weeks to do what it took the Applicant with its superior resources several years to do.
11 JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Kafin, are you familiar .
With the time constraints set forth in the new Article VIII? That is all I can say to you.
MR. KAFIN: I am familiar with the I
provisions of Article VIII. I am also familiar with thei 16 provision of Article VIII r. hat permits a waiter for good; 17 cause shown of those time limits.
I8 JUDGE MATIAS: Well,that will have to be II done by the Siting Board.
20 MR. KAFIN: I think that the Legislature 21 was mindful of the complexity of these cases when it 22 provided that escape valve in the timetable.
23 JUDGE MATIAS: Well, that would have to ,
t 2137 309 I
~...~,..,=.,~.......,~c.
l
55 196 be done by the Siting Board, Mr. Kafin.
- 2
. We indicated also that we would discuss -
3 anticipated dates and location of public statement 4
hearings. We have some tentative dates for you. We have tentatively concluded that -- let me start out by 8
saying that as you know the statute sets forth a time 7
framework in which we have to begin hearings, and with 8
that requirement in mind, we have tentatively concluded 8
that we will meet beginning on May 22 in the City of 10 Oswego for a public statement hearing, and that in all II '
likelihood that will be held jointly with the NRC Staff -
12 and Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
13 We have also tentatively concluded that we 14 will meet over in Columbia County -- and we do not know 15 where as yet -- either on Tuesday, June 5, or Tuesday, f
16 June 12, again for public statement hearings.
17 When those dates :are final and a place 18 has been selected, notice will issue. Notice will be 19 published and you will all have ample notice of where 20 and when hearings will be held.
21 MR. GRIFFEN: Your Honor?
22 JUCGE MATIAS: Yes, sir.
23 MR. GRIFFEN: If I may, I know your e f
2137 310 .
PARSON 7 REPORTING SERVIC2. INC.
56 197 1
, constraints but I want to say it for the record: I want 2
to join in Mr. Xafin's concern. Since we became ,
3 intervenors in this case, we have not even had the 4
opportunity to.have a Town Board meeting and, as you 5
know, that is how municipalities work, through 6
resolution.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: Anything on the hearing 8
dates? All right, I gather not now.
9 The Commission's rules, Section 70.20, 10 address the question of filing notices of intention by i
11 parties to offer testimony on alternate sites. That has! ,
12 to be filed with us, I believe, 60 days after the first 13 hearing and not more than 90 days after the first 14 hearing.
~
This was a subject for discu1sion in 16 Oswego, and after some brief discussion it was concluded that those notices of intention should be filed with 18 Dr. Schwartz and myself on or before July 10, 1979.
I8 This is simply a notice of intention to file testimony
- 0 on alternate sites, but since we will be going to the 21 public statement hearings in May and June, then under the Commission's rules, the July 10 date appears to be 23 an appropriate one. ,
2137 311 !
i pansour namentina scavice. i~c. j
57 198
. Any request with respect to that 2
requirement? ,
3 (No response.)
4 JUDGE MATIAS: All right, I gather not.
5 Now, we also indicated that we would be discussing today 6
procedures to be employed as to the identification of 7
issues which will be the subject of evidenciary hearings-.
8 Mr. Grey, I gather that this is something 8
that we cannot really approach yet. It will be a subjech 10 that will be covered in the Protocol that is going to be 11 covered by the Staff; is that correct? .
12 MR. GREY: That is correct, your Honor.
13 The schedule that we propose will contain procedures if 14 there is a joint hearing, will contain a discussion of 15 the proceduros for carrying out issue identification.
I6 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. And even if 17 there is not to be a joint hearing, you will still be 18 filing --
19 MR. GREY: A proposed schedule.
M JUDGE MATIAS: -- a proposed schedule.
21 MR. GREY: And also proposed procedures.
. 22 JUDGE MATIAS: And all parties will have ,
l 23 an opportunity to respond to that after it is received. ,
I
-?1
. .X 7, ,7 1, m9 PamsoNT REpomTING SERVICE. INC. !
58 199 1
Is there anything else? .
2 (Pause.) ,
3 There is not anything else that we wanted 4
to raise with you today. Is there anything you wanted to 5
raise with us that we have not already discussed?
6 MR. KAFIN: Yes, your Honor. I would like to make a request to the Staff of the Public Service 8
Commission that as a municipal intervenor, we be provided 9
with a copy of the transcript of this proceeding without' 10 cost to us.
MR. HAND: Your Honor, I make the same ,
12 request on behalf of the County.
MR. SHIMEL: Your Honor, the Town of - ,
I Coeymans makes a similar request.
I MR. FLYNN: I better speak up soon.
16 Your Honor. 70.25 of the commission's !
17 Rules does speak to the issue of providing services, 18 such as reproduction and mailing, for municipalities.
19 I If I could have a minute, I will attempt to find it.
20 JUDGE MATIAS: That is 70.25?
21 MR. FLYNN: Yes, sir, I am looking.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think my ,
I 2137 m I PassoNT REPORTING SEnvicE. INC.
59 200 reference was wrong. It is in Section 142(6)A. This *
, is the section that talks about the municipal fund. -
3 That section states in part, "The 4
Commission shall provide transcripts, reproduce and 5
serve documents and publish required notices for 6
municipal parties."
7 We have a statutory obligation to do that 8
and we will get together with the parties who wish to 8
avail themselves of those services and try to work out 10 how we can best comply. We will note that there are 11 through Commission expense transcripts provided in public -
12 libraries, but if that is shown not to be convenient, we I3 will do what we can.
14 JUDGE MATIAS: I do not know what has been 15 done in the past, Mr. Flynn, with respect to this. The 16 transcript will be put in the library in Hudson and a 17 i library in Oswego, and that is at our expense, and over '
18 and above that --
19 MR. FLYNN: Well, perhaps the best thing 20 to do, your Honor, is to talk with the parties who desire 21 things and see if we can work something out.
. 22 JUDGE MATIAS : All right. You can do that 23 off the record then. +
2137 314 .
PansoNT Repont No Stavect. INC.
60 201 1
All right. Is there anything else to ,
2 take up this morning?
3 MR. SHEMIN: Mi' name is Paul Shemin from 4
the Attorney General's office. I just wanted to note 5
that we have put in the mail certain initial questions 6
to the Applicant regarding the nuclear waste and 7
. decontamination and decommissioning aspects of this 8
proceeding, and I have copies of the questions that I 9
would like to make available to anyone who wants them.
10 JUDGE MATIAS: Do you have the address 11 that was given by Mr. Schurt?
MR. SHEMIN Yes, it was sent to Mr. Ray 13 and it is probably in the mail at this time, and they probably have not received it, but just to help things
~
along, I have some extra copies for you.
JUDGE MATIAS: Good, I am glad to hear that.
MR. GRIFFEN: May we have a copy of the application, your Honor, Town of Kinderhook?
O JUDGE MATIAS: The application? I hope
- 21 you do not think I have it in my pocket, sir.
22
. MR. GRIFFEN: No, I understand. I do not 23 mean this morning. Imean, may we have a copy?
2137 315 ,
PansoNT RseemTING Samyscs. INC.
61 202 1
JUDCE MATIAS: Would you talk to the Staff afterwards? I do not know what is being done to make 3
that available. That application has been served on 4
many, many town supervisors and if you look in the 5
statute you will see who is required to be served with 6
copies of the application, and it could be that that 7
would be readily available to you through one of the 8
municipalities.
9 Is there anything else?
10 MR. FLYNN: I do not know if the Applicant 11 has a copy of the application here, but I think in the ,
I first part.of.that application there is a service list, 13 so soon after the hearing we can determine through our copies upstairs who got what.
JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Is there ~
16 anything else to be raised this morning? .
l MR. SCHUTT: Your Honor, I would just like 18 to very briefly repeat my concerns of yesterday that IU when documents are served on or sent to the Examiner and 20 the Board and the Public Service Commission, the
- 21 Applicants are entitled to service, and I want to make 22
. that point because in some proceedings there has been 23 some rather loose service on the part of some parties, 2137 316 PARsoNT REPCRTING SERVICE. INC.
62 203 1
, and the Applicant has not been receiving notice of 2
things it should receive notice of, and then I would -
3 again point out the problem of when the Public Service 4
Commission undertakes service for municipalities or 5
parties, I trust that that service will also be timely 6
so that we receive it in a timely manner.
7 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. I urge all 8
parties to be sure that when you serve documents, that 9
you serve them on all active parties in the proceeding, 10 and remember that when responses are being scheduled, 11 parties cannot respond to other parties until they -
12 receive the documents obviously.
13 '
Anything else to take up?
14
('o N response.)
JUDGE MATIAS : All right. Then we will stand in recess until firm dates to be announced of the public statement hearings, bt. look for one in May and 18 for one in June.
I8 We will stand in recess.
20 (Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing in
= 21 the above-entitled matter was adjourned to a date to be
. 22 set.)
23 2137 377 PaRsoNT REPORTINa SEnvicE. INC.