ML20149F174

Discusses Concerns Re NRC 880114 Secret Meeting W/Util in Which NRC Refuses to Prepare Written Summary Describing Discussion of Meeting.Preparation of Complete Record of Meeting Requested

ML20149F174
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/22/1988
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
To:	Reis E NRC
Shared Package
ML20149F167	List: ML20149F162 ML20149F174 ML20149F196
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8802120053
Download: ML20149F174 (6)

Text

. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

g; 4 Attachm';nt 2 A*- ..

i

!s:

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART ScUTH LCBBY 9TH RooR Excn o ca rLact

.3: O STA'1 smtT M M STMET. N T.

O- TA$HlNoroN, O C. ;XS5391 MstoN w4 m3

[V on :: w

• 4 toucutt v.tsu MAMI ft HOI nurHCht och "Sm2 e P.4u:

• tax c:a ct oc '.t ,w],

, tuccr:tA Jm"W m sstacw.74 iuz: u 7 LNallENCE CoE LANPMER *'" "

anuary 22e 1938 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regula 6ry Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 15th Floor Rockville, Maryland 20952

Dear Ed:

This letter concerns our conversation cf January 20, in which you informed me that the Staff refuses o prepare a written (j summary h. scribing what was discussed during .e Staff's private meeting with LILCO representatives on Januar, '4. I requested that such a document be prepared in my lette: to you dated January 15.

The Staff has provided no reason for refusing to prepare such a record of the meeting. Ycu simply say that the Staff is not required to do so. That begs the' Issue: the Staff met secretly with four high-level LILCO represent::ives; the Staff consciously decided not to invito the Governments to attend; and, ,

after the fact, the Staff refuses even to sur arize for the record what in fact trar. spired at the meeting. Tne inference is inevitable: the Staff is trying to hide some .ing from the Covernments.

The Governments reiterate that in the c1::umstances of this caro, the secret meeting of four Staff lawyers (who are pivotal players in a strategy nat has over the S_hore am proceeding seen the Staff in a cozy relacionship supportiva o: LILCO's ends) with four senior LILCO representatives (who were inere to promote that co:y relationship) was highly inappropriate. *

ou summed up LILCO's presentation at last week's meeting as follows

"We (LILCO) want your continued support, Staff." Obviously, LILCO's purpose was to lobby you and your colleagues n th alleged facts and hyperbolic arguments. There is no justif;:ation for your

- p refusing to tell the Jovernments what was sai by LILCO and by v the Staff during your secret .eeting. The Gc ernments are directly affected, and yo r resistance to rev sling what trans-8002120053 PDR ADOCK 8005000322 PDR '

Q

a v.

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

January 22, 1988 pag 2 pired is proof-positive of the Staf!'s single-minded loyalty to LILCO.

The Staff has abdicated ar" cretense of independence in this proceeding. The calculated da from what you doubtless knew - ce .o exclude the Governments combined with your acknowlec v!LCO lobbying session,

-at t t the Staff remains committed to the operation ' -"c' m, has serious ramifications on the Staff's role in the t'.:t the Shoreham litigation.

Finally, apart from your acknosledgement that the January 14 meeting was a session in which LILCO lobbied for Staff support, the following other matters also came to light in our telephone calls.

1. The January 14 meeting came about at the request of one of LILCO's attorneys, Oon Irwin. You told me that Don asserted ,

that LILCO had a rignt as a citizen of the United States to make its views known to its government and that LILCO thus sought a meeting with NRC persennel to do so. LILCO's purported "request" involves an obvious subterfuge -- LILCO was .ot seeking to speak to-the "government" as a "citizen"; LILCO, party in the highly contested Shoreham preceeding, wanted to lc- / the Staff on critical issues in 11: gation and the Staff. Oeing in support of LILCO, was willing to accommodate LILCO. X teover, Don's silly assertion cuts two ways. Indeed, the Goverr ents and their millions of citizens have a "right" to be represented at a meeting that so deeply affects their interests.

Your assertion to me that it is proper f:r Staff attorneys to meet with attorneys for other parties is o explanation at all. First, this was not Just an "attorney" eeting. LILCO's representatives included LILCO's Executive 'J.:e President (Tcny Earley) and a chief LILCO spokesperson on pu:' c rela: 10ns (:ra Frielicher).

Second, it is clear that the Staff did as merely a routine meeting of lawyers. That :t treat the meeting might have been the case if only you and George Johnson had been present for the Staff, or if the suh]ect had been different. But you also included higher level Staff attorneys, Bill . las tead and .'oe Scinto, who have had no day-to-day role on Snareham and ". ave never even entered apoearances. They are, rispec tvely, the Head and Deputy F sd of positions on the Staff.

the NRC's Hearing Divisicr -- managerial There was no need for their presence ;f this was yust a benign "lawyers" meeting, or if :~s intended purpose had been an inn: cent discussion of pr:ct gl or logistical matters, f

9 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

January 22, 1988 Page 3

2. You told me: (a) that before January 14 you had considered inviting the Governments to the meeting; (b) that you knew the Governments would have wanted to be at the meeting if they had known of it; but (c) that you decided it would be "better" to have a meeting with LILCO alone, with the Governments "invited" to a separate meeting enly after the secret LILCO meeting had occurred. Why would :: have been "better" for the Governments? It would not have, and you knew that. It wculd have been better only for L:*CO, so that the meeting could be held without others knowing the facts.

3. You told me that L:LCO made a "big pitch" regarding its 25% power motion and the need for the electricity from Shoreham.

Why did the Staff even listen to the "big pitch" about economic matters, when you knew that those matters are outside NRC's expertise and ]urisdiction? The Gleason Board's 25% power order of January 7 made clear that the alleged power shortages on Long Island are beyond the NRC's ]urisdiction. And yet, one week later, the Staff was willing to sit through LILCO's "big pitch" on just such a matter.

4. You stated that L LCO also made a :1g pitch" for a new exercise. It is improper even to suggest tr : a new exercise be discussed prior to receipt of Rev. 9 of LIL; 's Plan and prior to issuance of the Trye Licensing Board's secer Exercise decision.

It is also absurd to discuss such an exercis absent resolution of the many outstanding issues in the shorehar proceeding.

5. You stated that you believe that the Staff has decided to forward Rev. 9 of the LILCO Plan to TEMA f:: review when Rev. 9 :s received. How could the Staff rea:r a decision to take such action in the absence of even ".aving rere ved such a plan, much less having reviewed it on a preliminar; cas:s? :: clearly is premature -- and/or an act of favsr;tism - ward L:LCO -- to be making any kinds of decisions relating to an +xercise.

You stated that the Staff was willing :: provide Suffolk County and the other Governments an opportuni:; for a meeting similar to that which was provided to L:LCO. We are etnsidering this "offer" and w '1. let you knew of cur vie,s in the future.

.4.y.,;:0,-_ ,- , ._ _ . . > - - _ . - . , .- . . _ . _ .

r,- .

,1 e

I' f ,N' k 2b;f do ",

KRkTATRK:K & UDCKHART ,

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

January 22, 1988 Page 4 i

In the meantime, however, I reiterate the request that the Staff '

prepare a complete record of the secret January 14 meeting.

~

Sincerely, -

p .c

[ Lawrene Coe Lanpher cc: Fabian G. Palomino. Esq.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

. W 111am R. Cumming, Esq. .

onald P. Irwin, Esq.

5 b

4 I

.y t

i i

?

Y

! l I

I i

k r

t

-- , .--, m -m , _ - ---,------.r4-w .., - - - - - . .---w --r .

• Attachment 3 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE COUNTY OP SUFFOL.IC

/

Legislator Fred W. Thiele, Jr.

Suffolk County 16th District P.O. Box 599 Sag Harbor, New York 11963 January 13, 1988 Mr. Joseph Burton W G L I 120 Peconic Avenue Babylon, NY 11702

Dear Mr. Burton:

I am the newly elected County legislator from the 16th District in Suffolk County covering East Hampton, Southamron, Shelter Island, and part of Brookhaven. I as contacting you to a:k you to reconsider your station's decision to participate as a secondary emergency broadcaster for LILCO's Shoreham evacuation plan.

As you know, the State, County, and local governments of Suffolk have as a stated policy that it is impossible to safely evacuate Long Island in the case of a nuclear accident at Shoreham. IJnder the police powers reserved to the state and its political subdivisions, it is the exclusive purview of government to provide for the protec tion of the public health, safety and welfare, not private corporations. Nevertheless, LILCO has continued its efforts to attempt to subvert the legitimate exercise of the police power by government. Suffolk County is engaged l in both administrative and judicial actions to insure that the public l is protected from LILCO's ill conceived attempts to ocen Shoreham without I an adequate emergency plan approved by state and local government.

LILCO is presently engaged in an attempt to convince the Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission should license Shoreham without such an approved avacuation plan. Your radio stations's agreement to participate in a plan that can not possibly work serves to underinire the police power authority of government and indirectly assist LILC0's effort to license Shoreham and threate.1 the public safety. In short, pur station, perhaps unwittingly, is assisting LILC0 in its battle to open Shoreham in the face of the opposition of state, county, and local governments as well as the overwelaing opposition of the residents of Suffolk County.

l l -

l '

I N1teve it is the goal of your station to provide public service.

I urge you to reconsider your station's decision to participate in LILC0's plan. The best service you can provide to the comunity is to join in a united front that will insure that LILCO's reckless actions will not endanger the future welfare of our citizens.

Sincerely,

'ba b k- 4 Fred W. Thiele Jr.

Suffolk County Legislator 16th District FT/meb l

?

l

.