ML20150B006

Forwards Supplemental Certified Index of Emergency Planning Rule Documentation,Including 870514 Hearing Transcript

ML20150B006
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/11/1988
From:	Urban P NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Julian E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8807110208
Download: ML20150B006 (67)

Text

4

, . . . . . .... . - ... . -- - - . .. - .-. -. .---- --- . . = . .

Cn FTzhM se q M FEB 11 P6 :21 Onu s. . ;, , , . ,

! 00cdcr e,5 :.ryyief 3

NOTE TO: Emile Julian, Docketing CY J !!

FROM: 4/ J Pamela Urban, OGC y-DATE: February 11, 1988

SUBJECT:

Supplemental Certified Index -

Emergency Planning Rule As we discussed yesterday, I am submitting to you today a May 14, 1987 transcript of a hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation.

Please add this document to the record and list it on the Supplemental Certified Index as soon as possible. We intend to file the Supplemental Index by the end of this week.

Thank you.

8807110208 880211 W52 6980 PDR

[h

___-7 ...e 9 g9 7- g** " ' ' ******8 ****..=*8N=***=-- --=9=-me==-e ,m 4e em e a we =-e**-e-e =~a** * * - -*-

, m,. , - . . . . - - .

p...

- - - ,- ~ .~ - --

j n =

l t 1 t 4

t ,

i ,

i SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

• LICENSING ISSUES T ..

TIIURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987 *

.- U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND Pusuc WoRxs, SuscoMMrrrEE ON NUCLEAR REcUI.AT'ON, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, lion. John Breaux (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Breaux, Moynihan, and Simpson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF IION. JOIIN H. HREAUX, U.S. SENATOR n

1 FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Senator BREAux. The subcommittee will please come to order.

This afternoon the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation meets -

to receive testimony on allegations of improper external influences on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s adjudicatory procedures in the Shoreham licensing process. In a nutshell, the subcommittee 1 is meeting to addrew concerns that have been raised by the resi- ,

dents of Long Island that whht the Long Island Lighting Company, '

LILCO, has not been able to achieve through formal NRC proceed-

• ings, that is, the granting of an operational liunse for the Shore-ham nuclear plant, it has attempted to achieve through improper political influence and contacts. These concerns and allegations, if i true, are serious matters, rightly within the jurisdictional purview j of this subcommittee. Just last week this subcommittee launched an investigation into d number of other allegations concerning the l

Commission's coziness with the regulated industry. We simply

' cannot afford to have a nuclear industry in this country if the cost involves inadequate regulation of an industry that prospers at the expense of rules and regulations designed to protect public health and safety and the environment.

On tb other hand, I think that we all recognize that legitimate-ly held differing points of view are of value to our governmental ,

system. Furthermore, I would hope that we all recognize that even ,

- within the formal procedures governing the NRC licensing process, 3 '

that there exists room for certain types of communications that do not run afoul of adopted rules and regulations designed to protect .

the integrity of the process Because of what I perceive to be a great deal of uncertainty and confusion about the confines or sco Commission's adjudicatory process,pe of regulations we have asked the governing NRC's Gen-the e

W

~

i

i 4

3 i 2 Senator MOYNIHAN. And that's perfectly understandable, taking eral Counsel's office to outline for the subcommittee its ex parte the advice of counsel, and there the matter lies, at rest. But what i

i rules. And while we have asked the NRC and other witnesses to we want to know is not what Mr. Nofziger thought he was doing, provide us with extensive documentation related to this issue, the but what the management of the Long Island Lighting Company Chair recognizes that this request was formulated quite recently , thought he was doing. Did they think that for three-quarters of a j and will excuse those witnesses who have not had an adequate op- million dollars they were going to buy this town? Others have done

portunity to search all their files and gather the requested data. that, to their grief. We will learn, sir.

l We will, however, expect the witnesses to submit this data to the Thank you very much for allowing me to be here.

subcommittee unless, subsequent to the hearing, a decision is made Senator BREAux. Thank you very much, Senator. I would note

{. to modify our original request. '

F for the record that our colleague, senator Simpson, is on his way j With that I would recognize our colleague and good friend, Pat and will be with us shortly.

Moynihan, the Senator from New York, for any comments that he We'd like to call up our first witness l' rom the Nuclear Regula-j might have. ,, tory Commission, Mr. William Parler, who is General Counsel. Mr.

~

j -

s - Parler, we are pleased to have you here. You have heard our open-4 Ol'ENING STATEMENT OF IION. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, U.S. ing comments and we'd like to receive your testimony. Thank you.

l SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator MOYNIIIAN Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I first thank STATEMENT OF MLLIAM C. PARLER, GENERAL COUNSEL, you for honoring my request that these hearings be held today. It NUCLEAR REGULA'IURY COMMISSION may not have been the easiest thing for you to arrange, and I'm Mr. PARI.rR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very more than conscious of that fact. You and I were involved much of pleased to appear before the subcommittee this afternoon.

e last weele and the week before with this whole question of assuring It is my understanding that I am supposed to outline the general -

J the integrity of the licensing procedure under the NRC, and I background information about the Commission's ex parte rule and

] would like to take this opportunity to congratulate pnd compliment to answer questions about that rule to the best of my knowledge g you on the strong, fair, and effective way in which you've dealt and ability, and I will try to do so.

i with the matters concerning Commissioner Roberts. It certainly Mr. Chairman, it may be helpful at the outset to identify for the

] raises my hopes that we can improve this whole regulatory process, record the relevant regulations and statutory provisions which are

[ or environment, if that's the better phrase, in the course of the involved. I think it would be useful to do so because the bottom 100th Congress, i

line here, although it's very important, is quite simple, and that is j Our focus today is not on the particular merits of a particular that with the formal trial. type proceedings that this agency is re-j nuclear plant, but rather on the procedures by which the owners of sponsible for conducting, there can be no private communications, this plant chose to operate here in Washington. I came upon the with off-the-record information received. Those communications are subject some time ago, and I know that my offices have always prohibited. If they are received, the rule says that they should be been open to the representatives of the industry and of the particu. identified, made public, and served on the parties to the proceed-lar utility and the counties and the towns, and only late in this ings. So no matter where the discussion goes, that fundamental process did we learn that the utility involved was expending enor- prmeiple is what is involved here.

mous amounts of money, for reasons that were not clear. A specific The regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 10 j that we'll be dealing with today is that Mr. Lyn Nofziger, who was section 2.780, which deals with ex parte communications at the 1

one of the political directors of President Reagan and who, after Commission and at its Appeal Board level. And 10 CFR section leaving the White Ilouse, and perfectly within his rights, estal>. 2.719, entitled Separation of Functions, deals with ex parte commu-lished a consulting firm and was rather promptly engaged by nications at the presiding board level, the Licensing Board, the LIILO which, in the course of a not very long period, paid Mr. Nof. board that originally is charged with developing the facts, develop-ziger almost three-quarters of a million dollars in fees. ing the record, and making the initial decision.

My question is, what did they think they were getting for that < There is a statutory provision for ex parte communications threequarters of a million dollars? Did they think they were

• a

' which was included in the Administrative Procedure Act in 1976.

buying a license? If they didn't think they were buying a license, This is 5 USC, section 557(d). For the first time, that provision pro-what did they think they were buying? The availability of informa- ,-

vided a statutory basis prohibiting ex parte contacts, and the stat-j tion from this committee, our ofTices, was total, and there was no 1 ute is of general applicability.

a charge. I might note that as early as 1962, the prnm"_c,r to the Nucle.

] Mr. Nofziger is not going to be before us today. I believe he is the ar Regulatory Commission, the Atomic Energy Commission, had an j

subject of an independent counsel, and we have no quarrel with ex parte prohiliition included in its rules.

Mr. Nofziger. I wish him well in the troubles he now has and we There are related provisions in the APA: 5 USC, section 551(14) don't wish to compound them. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that defines ex parte communications, and 5 USC Section 554(d) and 5 he has said that on advice of counsel thr.t he can't appear. USC Section 556 (d) and (e) also include relevant provisions.

Senator BREAUx. That's correct.

i i

I -

i

• 5 4

ofHeers, are not to request or entertain from any party-including The final part of the background is that on March 26th,1986, the the NRC regulatory staff-any private evidence, explanation, anal-NRC proposed a revision to its ex parte and separation of functions , ysis, or advice regarding any substantive matter at issue in formal, rules which were applicable to formal adjudicatory proceedings. contested licensing or enforcement hearings. Under this rule, com -

This proposal was published at 51 FR, page 10393. munications requested by the Commission concerning certain gen-Mr. Chairman, if the subcommittee wishes I will be glad to pro. eral health and safety problems and responsibilities and the status vide for the record the pertinent regulations as well as the perti- , of proceedings are not considered ex parte.

nent excerpts from the APA. A similar prohibition against ex parte communications, specifi-Senator BRF. Aux. I think we have that, don't we? Yes, we have 1 . d:y applicable to licensmg boards who preside over contested that information. -,. t formal hearings, is found in 10 CFR section 2.719(b). The prohibi.

Mr. PARLER. Mr. Chairman, a very important consideration in tions of these rules apply when a formal proceeding has been no .

understanding the Commission's ex parte rule is an understanding ticed for hearing, or with regard to a matter on which a formal of the types of proceedings which require formal, on-the-record 3 hearing has been requested.

hearings. Almost from the inception of the Commission's licensing .~

Section 2.780 provides that written ex parte communications are and regulation of commercial nuclear plants-reactors-the to be placed in the public document room and served upon parties Atomic Energy Act of 1954 has been consistently interpreted to re- to the proceedings.

quire a formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearing prior to the issu- With respect to ex parte oral communications, the rule states ance of a license authorizing the construction of a nuclear power that adjudicators to whom such an oral communication is attempt-reactor. The same type of formal hearing is held if one is requested i ed are to decline to listen and, if unsuccessful in stopping the com-prior to the issuance of a license to operate the reacter. munication, must make a written summary of the communication The Atomic Energy Act also makes the Administrative Proce- that is placed in the NRC public document room and served upon f all the parties to the proceedings. NRC employees who violate the dure Act applicable to its decision-making procuses. The APA pro-  ;

vides minimum procedural requirements to make sure that the j provisions of section 2.780 or 2.719(b) could, under the NRC's code proceedings are conducted fairly and to make certain that when a  : of conduct regulations, be subject to disciplinary action. Parties

' outside the agency who engage in ex parte communications can, statute such as the Atomic Energy Act requires formal, on-the-record hearings, the decisions are made on the basis of the eviden- under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, have tiary record. their claim or interest in the proceedings dismissed, denied, disre-The Commission's regulatory staff, which is under the Executive garded, or otherwise ndversely affected.

4 Director for Operations, is a party to these formal proceedings, As I have earlier stated in the references I have provided, the typically along with the applicant and also typically along with in- Commission's regulations contain a separation of functions provi-terested parties who intervene in the proceedings. sion m section 2.719. This provision is modeled upon the snparation of functions provision in section 554(d) of the Administrative Proce-The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is a statutory board which presides at the hearing and, as 1*ve already noted, receives dure Act. The rule precludec any Commission employee who is en-the evidence, presides over the making of the evidentiary record, gaged in the performarce of an investigntive or prosecuting func-and makes the initial decision. tion in the case, or in a factually-related case, from advising in the Under the Commission's procedures there is a right of adminis- initial or final decision in that proceedir.g 2xcept at witness or trative appeal to an Appeal Board, which is an independent board counsel.

of three individuals, as is the Licensing Board. None of these rule restrictions restrict communicstions between comprised, A party mayusually, petit ion the Commission to review a proceeding, or outsiders, interested persons, includmg licensees, applicants and in-the Commission itself may undertake, en its own motion, to review tervenors, and NRC regulatory staff personnel, such m the Execu-a proceeding. tive Director for Operations and those staff members serving under After the administrative process has been completed and a final him who do not perform :-djudicatory functions. However, the regu-administrative decision is rendered, that decision is subject to judi- , latory staff under the direction of the Executive Director for Oper-cial review in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals ations, cannot be used as a channel or conduit for such communica-under the Administrative Orders Review Act of 1950. tions to the adjudicatory decisionmakers or to fheir adjudicatory During this entire formal administrative process, procedures advisors.

must be followed to assure that there are no unauthorized,"off the- . I have naentioned that on March 16th,1986 the Commission pub-record" communications between any interested person with the -.

lished a notice proposing changes to its ex parte and separation of decision-makers or their advisors. And that is the objective: to functions rules. Under the proposed rules, a separation of functions assure that there are no such communications or, if such communi- provision would control NRC staff communications with adjudica-cations are identified, that they are made public and are served on tory officials, while an ex parte provision would cover communica-the parties. That is the objective of the ex parte rule and the sepa- tions with persons outside the agency. This is the approach taken m the A&ninistrative Procedure Act, and it avoids the confusion in ration of functions rule that I referred to earlier. the present NRC rules, where both separation of functions prohibi-The Commission's current rule governing ex parte communica-tions provides that Commission adjudicators, other than presiding

i -.'

6 q tions and ex parte prohibitions are intermixed in section 2.719 and ' mean that there were noue; I'm just speaking to the best of myJ 2.708 intermixed m 2719 and 2780. knowledge.

Further, the proposed rule would revise the resent rule in a . ,

number of ways in order to promote clarity an,d e$iminate unneces- "

{"j"g*"Ero to the Chairman of the Commission on -

sary restrictions on commumcations. Most importantly. m that December 4th, as Mr. Parler has noted, and asked for the kind of regard, the proposed rule would allow private Commission commu- record which Mr. Parler indicates is being compiled in response to nication with NRC staff members-that is, staff members under '

li to ask if I the Executive Director for Operations-who have not been involved the request which you and Senator impeo ,

in a proceeding as investigators or as litigators It also would con. --- y t tnis letter in the record at t ,s pom i

form the Commission's ex parte rule regarding communications be.

- Senator BREAux. W;thout object,on. i tween adjudicators and persons outside the agency more closely to [The letter refei red to follows:]

the provisions of the 1976 amendment to the Admmistrative Proce-dure Act. .

The comment period oa the proposed rule ended on June 26th, 1986. Commission action on the final rule is likely in the summer of 1987.

The objective of both of these rules I've referred to-the ex parte . .

rule and the separation of functions rule-is to preserve the integ-rity of a formal adjudicatory decisionmaking process by banning pnvate . nmunications that would expose ad}udicatory decision- 8 makers or their adjudica'ory advisors to off-the-record facts which I are relevant to the merits of the proceeding o~ to bias viewpoints which are relevant to the merits of the proceeding.

In simplest terms, there should be no private communications which are relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding, and  ;

there should be public disclosure of any such prohibited communi-cations.

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Parler.

I will recognize Senator Moynihan first for his questions.

Senator MOYNiHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, s counsellor. I think we have a clear understanding of the rules.

They roughly equate to the rules which control the access to a jury or a judge in a normal judicial proceeding. A layman should under-stand them at about those terms, wouldn t you agree?

Mr. PARLER. I certainly would agree with that. Access to the judge or access to the judge's law clerks supports that, yes, sir.

• Senator MoYNIHAN. My question to you, cir, is simply that to the degree that you have been able to inquire, can you tell us that there have been no improper approaches to the 14RC by Mr. Nof-ziger or Department of Energy officials or other individuals or or-ganizations with respect to this licensing of Shoreham?

Mr. PARLER. Senator Moynihan, I can assure you that there have been no communications of any kind with me. I am not aware of ,

any improper communications. You are aware of our response of -

December 12, 1986 to your inquiry of December 4th. I am not aware that anything associated with that response has been changed. .* ,

The Commission is looking into the request dated May 8th that -

was received from Chairman Breaux and Senator Simpson. As the Chairman noted in his opening remarks, we certainly will provide -

the results of that search to the committee. That search has not yet been completed, so my answer to your question is that to the best of my knowledge, certainly with regard to the individual that you mentioned, I'm not aware of any improper contacts. That doesn't

9 8 -

2 Senator MOYNIIIAN. I would simply say that it seems to me that ,

3 my original request would have covered all of the matters that

" " ";!,; 7 '"' you're now covering. We received some documents; not many. . $

You're doing a complete search right now in response to the sub-committee's re. quest?

EnM SMedends i l

Mr. PARMR. I have asked all of the Commissioners, all of the ad .  ;

~ ~ * " " ~ judicatory officials and their advisors, to conduct a complete search

~

oecember 4, 19es } and to report to me as soon as possible but no later than May 18th.

Senator MOYNIHAN. No later than May 18th, which is next

- - week? Well, that seems to me very handsome of you, sir, and very i

"**' C"*** " ***h' orderly. And certainly this Senator has complete confidence in the As you a.

• know, I have requested hearings in the integrity of the counsel's office at NRC, and we will await your leuclear Regula. Son Subcommittee to investigate allegations . , , report. 1 Mr. PARMR. We thank you very much, and we will continue to thr.t Mr. Lyn Noi. 'r, retained by the Long Island Lighting '

Company, attempted u % fluence the licensing proceeding for strive to maintain that confidence.

the Shoreham nuclear pu. Senator MOYNIHAN. Thank you, sir.  !

I In that regard, I request tas.. .  % ees, Senator BREAUx. I take it, Mr. Parler, that ex parte contacts are members of their immediate staff, other unc ocu and  !

not improper or illegal if they are reported under the normal pro- i amployees who advisc the commissioners in the exerch of i cedures for reporting ex parte contacts that are made part of the their quasi-judicial functions, members of .~.. 1- Mey and record, or whatever has to be done?

Ltcensing Boards and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. PARLER. Of course that, Mr. Chairman, is a cure for pro Boards and members of their staffs provide me and the Subcommittee with the following information immediately ed ex parte communications, to make them publicserve and to hibit them on the parties.

All records of direct or indirect contacts by Mr. Senator BREAUx. Do you have any idea how many ex parte con-wofziger or his associates, including written communic.ations, j; tacts have been made on the Shoreham case, for instance? 3 notes of conversations, telephone logs and other such Mr. PARMR. I also had a search started there with regard to the '

• • **'* ** contacts, such as from local officials and interested persons in the l*

All records of direct or indirect contacts since 19e0 by vicinity, school districts and folks like that.

prssent or former White House staff or employees of the ,

Senator BREAUx. How about Members of Congress? Don't we nor-Executive Office of the President, including Mr. Edward '

mally fall into that category of making ex parte contacts? Not in- '

Rollins, or present or former members of the Department of tentionally, I'm certain, but the normal contacting regarding the Energy, regarding the Shoreham plant, including written status of licensing procedures or whatever? ,

communications, notes of conversations, telephone logs and Mr. PARMR. Well, of Course, communications regarding the other such materials.

status of proceedings are not, prohibited by the ex parte rule. They In all cases, please note which, if any of these do not fall into that category.

contacts, have not been placed into the public record.  ! Senator BREAUx. Suppose I wrote you a letter and said, give me the status of it and I wish you would hurry up and make a deci-I appreciate your proset cooperation. } sion?

Mr. PARMR. Wdl, if you had just stopped with "give me the status of it," the answer would have been easy. That would not be Respectfully, ,

prohibited by the ex parte rule. When you get into the area of hur-

, A rying up and making a decision, that's one that's close. My under-l L_O .M . standing of the rule--and certainly the legislative history of the 1976 amendment to the APA suggests this-is that in case of -

Daniel Patrick ynihan

- doubt, call the communication an ex parte communication, put it in the public record, and serve it on the parties. And I believe that for a communication such as that, that's what I would do.

1. t '-

nonorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Senator BREAUx. Any members of your staff or the General Regulatory Commission i Counsel's office ever publish any a legal memorandum which w whington, D.c. 20555 would outhne what you would consider to be ex parte type commu-nications which you would make available to, say, the companies and others, in order to give them guidance as to what they can and cannot do?

, ,f 10 II

• pu

'n Mr. PARMR. We have not published a document as such. Ilowev. '

Mr. PARMR. May I be excused? -

Senator BRuux. You're excused.

,. '4.

er, in the statement of considerations, certainly, for the proposed ' Q Mr. PARMR. Thank you. ,'i, rule, makewe have it as approached clear as we canthe w tbroblem a different way, are not prohibited by trying ex parte com- to . [A letter, with attachment, from Chairmar. Zech, NRC, to Senator 5,,

munications. Perhaps we could improve it, but we haven't tried to Simpson follows:] p' identify in a document how the gray areas should be handled. That .[

really seems to me to involve getting the facts and exercising judg- r, ment, and in case of doubt, putting the thing in the public record cnd serving it on the parties.

p Senator BREAUX. In your opinion, would the Director of FEMA be a decision-maker within the list of prohibited contacts?

p p

Mr. PARMR. Not in my judgment. FEMA is not an ayudicator es  : ,

far as the NRC licensing process is concerned. . .  ;:

Senator BREAUX. Are contacts with FEMA that you would maae <-

note of ever sent over as potential ex parte contacts?

Mr. PARER. Not that I know of. But, of course, contacts with FEMA that would be ex parte under our rules if they were made to ~

our adjudicatory officials could not be communicated to our adjudi-  ; p catory officials or to their advisors, through some channel. t

.c Senator BREAUX. If someone wrote FEMA a letter saying, I think that the Shoreham evacuation plan that's being considered is terri-h ble and unworkable and I really would like you to do whatever you { [-

t can to turn it down, is that, in your legal opinion, not an ex parte 4 E,

contact?

Mr. PARER. That's not an ex parte communication under the

[,

fc NRC's rule. FEMA plays a ve im rtant role with regard to off. M tite emergency planning, but is not the adudicator or the .p final decision-maker. The NRC is. i Senator BREAUX. But isn't it true that FEMA plays a mapr role t ~[...:

in giving advice and recommendations and counsel to NRG on an  ;

integral part of the process, that is, coming up with an accurate  :

evacuation plan k Mr. PARER. They certainly dc 1-Senator BREAUx [ continuing]. Without which you can't get a li-  !'

cense, of course? L Mr. PARMR. What's that?

Senator BREAUX. And without that plan, you can't get a license.

In your opinion,~do you think FEMA, if it is not in the regs, should  !

be meluded as a decision-maker in the process?

Mr. PARMR. I don't think they should be included as an adjudica- .

l tory decision-maker in the process. Perhaps further attention or *

,R additional attention should be given to private communications to 5)

FEMA in view of the special role that FEMA plays in our offsite '- '"

emergencyylanning review and decision-making. .

Senator BREAUX. My last question is this. There is no exemption 1 for either Members of Congrees, the Secretary of Energy, or any- L+

body in the President's cabinet from allowing them to make con- ~. i.* h tacts with any of the NRC decision-makers, is there? ,

Mr. PARMR. No, sir, there is no exemption for anyone. A private

• communication which is prohibited is prohibited regardless of its -

source or regardless of the channel that is followed to get the com- ,  ;-

munication to the adjudicators or te Dieir advisors. l Senator BREAUx. Okay. Mr. Parler, thank you very much. We ap. -

preciate your testimony.

l 4

t 12 13. ' .h

,.[ .g Lessito STATES 2 a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• • • ""******"" The Commission's Office of the Secretary also performed a search of docket files -- which are public -- covering the g *. . . . j[ period from September 1983 to May 1987. The Secretary's ovunua. June 10, 1987 search produced documentation of one conversation that was treated as an oral ex parte communication. Also, there have been numerous written ex parte communications consisting The Hon. cable Alan K. Sfspson - a primarily of correspondence from opponents of the plant.

Subcommittee on Muclear Regulation including Governor Cuomo, various New York State and Suffolk Cammittee on Environment and Pubite Works County officials, members of Congress, and concerned ,

Uatted States Senate cittrens. In accordance with the Commission's ex garte rules.

Washingtoi D. C. 20S10 , . these previously had been placed in the NRC PubTTc Docusert .,'

Room or had been served on the parties to the Shoreham ~

Daar Senator Simpson: proceeding, or both. There also appears to be four documents-that perhaps should have been served and placed in the PDR.

I am-responding to your May 8,1987 letter requesting but apparently were not. All the documents described in this testimony at the May '.4, 1987 hearing on external influence on paragraph are enclosed.

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission *5 adjudicatory procedures in Sincerely,.

ths Shoreham proceeding. Subsequent to the recef pt of your letter, it was agreed that the Commission could respond by t letter. Our General Counsel, Mr. William C. Parler, testified '/

before your Come.

• tee on the nature of the Commission's ex-- hv. S, perte restriction. ando W. Ze . J r./y . ,

?

The ComalS$ ton responded on December 12, 1986 to a sistlar

Enclosures:

request from Senator Daniel P. Moynthan. Senator Moy9than had -

As Stated \

requested all records of contacts, since 1980, with NRC adjudicatory employees by "Mr. [Lynl Nofziger or his associates...by present or former White House staff or erployees of the Executive Office of the President, including Mr. Edward Rollins, or present or former members of the Dspartment of Energy," concerning Shoreham. Based on review of Shoreham docket files, files of the then-current Commission Appeal Board, and Licensing Board, and files of the Office of the General Counsel. I forwarded four documents to Senator Moynthan. A copy of our response to Senator Maynthan. with attachments, is enclosed with this response.

We have not included voluminous pleadings and other documents relating to the Palladino recusal issues referenced in the Moynthan response. Those documents will be forwarded separately if the Committee desires.

Each Commission office, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Chairmen of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel again have searched their files for any records of ex Larte contacts during the Shoreham operating 11cer e proceedTng. Other than the records described below, no sucn documents v .

were found, and Commission adjudicatory officials and adytsors can recall only one pertinent oral communication.

Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum describing that communication from Lando W. Zech, Jr. to Samuel J. Chilk, ,-

May 22, 1987.

m- -

4 0 I4 15 . +

Ex Parte Correspondence 2 '3 INDEX - EX PARTE CORRESPOHDENCE 2/28/33 - 6/08/87 .

, 3/06/87 Memo To: Docketirs and Service Branch, To: William Pa;1er, GC, from from Kathaleen Kerr, NRC; re Long 6/8/87 Memo James Cutchin, Legal Assistant to Island Lighting Company OL-3, Cosmicsioner Roberts: re Request for w/attch (1 pj Information on Ex Parte contacts in Shorehan proceeding 3/5/87 Memo To: Boards and Parties Public

~

- Service Company of new 5/22/87 Memo To: Samuel Chilk, Secy., fron Hampshire /Long Island Lighting Lando tech, Chairmans to Conversation Company; to Commer.ts on Proposed with Rep. Bochbrueckner Rule on "Licensing of Nuclear Power

• Plants Where State and/or Local To: william Parler, GC, from Bradley W.

Government Decline to Cooperate in 5/15/87 Memo Jones, Legal Assistants te Request for Offsite Emergency Planning" which Documents /Information re Eh Parte Rule Reference t'

• Seabrook and Shoreham Plants w/ae..h (124 pp)

To: William Parler, OGC, from j

5/15/87 Note Stephen Sohinki, OCMg te Shoreham Ex 1/28/87 Letter To: William Catacosinos, LILCO, i a

Parte Contacts in Shoreham from Joseph Colby, Office of the Supervisor, Oyster Bay, N.Y. re To: William Parler, GC, from Emergency Evacuation Plan for 5/15/87 Memo B. Paul Cotter, Admin. Judges re Request Shoreham for Documents /Information re Ex Parte 3

Rule 1/14/87 Meno To: Docketing and Service Branch, I from Kathaleen Kerr, NRCs re Long 5/15/87 Letter To: Rep. Robert T. Mrarek, from Island Lighting Company OL-33 Chairman Zechs re April 16, 1987 letter w/attch (1 p) i

! 5/13/87 Memo To: willian Parler, GC, from 1/8/87 Letter To: trEC from Edwin A. Valentine, James Asselstines re Request for Roslyn Water District Board of .

/ Commissioneras to LILCO Documents /Information re Ex Parte Rule Decontaminati' Site 5/12/87 Memo To: Rosenthal, ASLAP, from Parler, CC:

re: Request for Documents /Information re 12/23/86 Memo Docketing and Services Branch from EI PARTE Rule Kathaleen Kerr: re Long Island Lighting l

Company OL-3 w/ attach (8pp) 5/12/87 Memo To: william Parler, GC, from Alan S. Rosenthal, ASLAPs re Request for 12/12/86 Letter To: Sen. Moynihan from Lando Zech, Documents /Information re Ex Parte Rule Chairman re December 4, 1986 letter on "

NRC employee contacts 5/5/87 Letter To: John Goudek, from Kenneth Carr, Commissioners to Shoreham and Seabrook 12/5/86 Memo To: Chairman tech, et al., from issues w/attch (3 pp) Michael Blume, OGC, re Senator Moynihan's Request for Records of 5/4/87 Memo To: Docketing and Service Branch from Executive Branch Contacts with the Kathaleen Kerr, NRCs re Long Island NRC on Shoreham w/ attach. (1 pace)

Lighting Company OL-3, w/attch (3 pp)

- 12/4/86 Memo To: Chief, Docketing and Services 3/30/87 Memo To: Docketing and Service Branch, from Branch from Kathaleen Kerrs te Long Kathaleen Kerr, HRCs te Long Island Island Lighting Company OL-3 Lighting Company OL-3, w/attch (1 p) w/attch (13 pp) 1

?

,-e-16 .

7 Ex Parte Correspondence 3 Ex Parte Correspondence 4 11/21/86 Letter To: Rep. Edward J. Markay from Lando techa re responce to questions and 10/17/86 Letter To: John B. Frye, Chairman,' ASLB, documents cited in October 28, 1986 from Albert G. Prodell, President, letter on emergency planning exercise Shoreham-Wading River Board of issues w/attch (100 pp) Educations re Submission of Written

. Testimony on Shorehan Evacuation 11/18/86 Letter To: John Fry, Administrative , .

Plan Judge, ASLB from William Parler, CC: re LILCO Emergency Planning 10/17/86 Letter To: Willian Parler, CC, f rom Contentions John Frye, Chairman, ASLB re Limited Appearance Statement by Lou 11/17/86 Memo To: Chief, Docketing and Services

- ~

Crasso w/attch (4 pp)

Branch from Kathaleen Kerts te Long Island Lighting Company OL-3 10/14/86 Letter To: MRC, fron North Shore Beach w/attch (5 pp) Ass'n Inc.; re Rocky Point Civic Association Resolution w/attch 11/6/86 Memo To: William Clements, Docketing (4 pp) and Services Branch from Kathaleen Kerrs ze Long Island Lighting 10/9/86 Letter To: Samuel Chilk, Secretary, from Company OL-3 w/attch (2 pp) James J. Gerardis Superintendent af Schools, South County Central School 10/31/86 Letter To: Morton Margulies, Chairman, Districts re LILCO Emergency Planning ASLBP, from Louis Ferrara, Submission w/attch (1 p)

Superintendent of Schools, Plainview-Old Bethpage Central 10/7/86 Letter To: Rep. Tony Bulloch, from School District, Plainview, M.Y., ge Morton Margulies, Chairman, ASLB3 re Designation as Relocation Center Shoreham/EP Exercise

! 20/31/86 Letter To: Rep. Edward Markey from 10/7/86 Memo To: Sharon R. Connelly, Director, S. Paul cotter, Chief Administrative CIA, from Morton Margulies, Judges re 10/28/86 letter re Shoreham Chuirman, ASLBs re Stanchfield Statement w/attch 10/30/86 Letter To: All Interested Parties from Jacqueline P. Farrell, Chief Deputy 10/7/86 Memo To: William Clements from Clerk, County of Suffolks re Sense of Kathaleen Kerry re Long Island Lighting the Legislators w/attch (1 p) Company OL-5 w/attch (12 pp) 10/20/86 Letter To: Fabian G. Palomino, Special 10/1/86 Memo To: William Clements from Counsel to cov. of State of Kathaleen Kerrs re Long Island Lighting taev York, f rom Samuel Chilk, Company OL-5 w/attch (12 pp)

Secretary; re receipt of 10/14/86 9/26/86 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLO, from To: Senator Alfonse D'Anato from Sen. Alfonse D'Amatos te follow-up to 10/17/86 Letter B. Paul Cotter, Chief Administrative Law Sept. 23, 1986 limited appearance Judges re response to letter of statement .

October 14, 1986 10/14/86 9/22/86 Memo To: William Clements from

-' Allene comiez: re Shoreham Proceeding OL-3, w/attch (2 pp) 9/19/86 Memo To: William Clements f rom Patricia Davis, Legal Assistants re Shoreham Proceeding w/attch (2 pp)

' ' ~' ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' " ' "' '" '

19 _

18 .

Ex Parte Correspondence 6 Ex Parte Correspondence 5 6/27/86 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, Letter To: Jean Christie, North Shore from Thomas Carol, Counsel, Nassau 9/17/86 Coalition for Safe Energy, from County Board of Supervisors re Morton Margulies, Chairmans te Lon9 Affidavits of service and certified Island Lighting Co., Shoreham OL-5 copies of Resolutions w/attch (5 pp) w/attch (3 pp) ' '

6/26/86 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, 9/10/86 Letter To: Carol Berman fron from Mario Cuomo, Covernor; ze Morton Margulies, Chairman,.re Lon9 Emergency Evacuation Plan Island Lighting Co., Shoreham OL-5 w/attch (6 pp) -

6/23/86 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Frank Jones, Chief Deputy 9/3/86 Memo To: William Clements from County Executive, Suffolk Countys Patricia Davis, Legal Assistants te re Cohalan Statement on Shoreham Shorehan Proceeding.w/attch (6 pp) 6/19/86 Letter To: NRC fron Kathaleen Caglias, To: ' Donald P. Irwinz Hunton & District Clerk, Consewogue School 9/2/86 Letter Williams fron Morton Margulies, District; re Rasolution t/attch (2 pp)

Chairman, ASLB; te Long Island Lightin9 Company OL-5 6/18/86 Letter To: HRC from Ronald E. Wohl, President, Roslyn Public Schools:

Letter To: , Rep. Eckart from re re Red Cross use of facilities 8/22/86 Frederick Bernthal, Acting Chairman letter of July 30, 1986 w/attch (2 pp) 6/16/86 Letter To: Hunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Richard Kessel, N.Y. State Letter To: Carol Berman from Conscier Protection Boards to MBB 8/22/86 Morton Kargulies, Chairmans re Long Technical Associates report on Island Lighting Company OL-5 Emergency Planning w/attch (37 pp) .

To: Sen. Alfonse D'Amato from 6/16/86 Letter To: Sen. Alfonse D'Amato from 8/22/86 Letter Frederick Bernthal, Acting Chairmant to Martin Malsch, Acting CC re letter of letter of July 25, 1986 w/attch (6 pp) June 4, 1986 on FEMA assessment w/attch (1g pp)

To: Thouas Carol, Counsel, Nassau 8/21/86 Letter County Board of Supervisors, from Morton 6/10/86 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino from Margulies, Chairmans re Lcag Island Ralph Marino, Chairman, Nassau Lighting Company OL-5 County Republican Delegation; re Public Statement of Nassau County To: Morton Margulies, Chairman, Republican Legislative Delegation 8/14/86 Letter from Thomas Carol, Counsel, Nassau re Shoreham w/attch (lp)

County Board of Supervisors: re '

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - OL 6/10/86 Resolution 3 w/attch (1 page) .

Rocky Point School Board Shoreham .

Resolution Letter To: Lando Zech, Chairman, frop Shoreham 7/29/86 Repa. Mrazek and Downey re: 6/2/86 Memo To: Board and Parties, Shoreham Emergency Planning OL-3, Limerick, Seabrook s te Ex Parte filing from Washington Legal Letter To: Lando Zech, Chairman, from Foundation 7/25/86 Sen. Alfonse D' Amator te ERC Decision CLI-86-13, July 24, 1986

.x i

20 21 Ex Parte Correspondence 7 Ex Parte Correspondence 8 6/1/86 Letter To: NRC fron B. J. Klauss re 8/5/85 Note Copy of letter sen't by Gov. Cuomo Suspension of Shoreham Nuclear to Secretary Herrington te Shoreham Power Station Restart 7/30/85 Letter To: Richard M. Eessel, Executive 5/15/86 Letter To: Chairman Palladino fron Director, NY Consumer Protection Board, Gov. Mario Cuomos te Operation of from Thomas Hurley, Regional Shoreham Administrator, NPCs re Response to Mailgrams of 7/11 and 7/15/85 on low 5/7/86 Letter To: NRC from Town Clerk of Town of power testing program at Shoreham Riverheads re Resolution adopted by w/attch (2 pp)

Riverhead Town Board w/attch (1 p) - ,.

, 7/12/85 Letter To Morton Margulies, Chairman, 5/2/86 Letter To NRC from Edward T. O'Brien. ASLB, from Albert Prodell, County Attorney, County of Nassaus President, Board of Education, re Use of Nassau Veterans Memorial Shoreham-Wading River Central Coliseum at Uniondale School Districts te Shoreham Emergency Planning 2/11/86 Letter To: Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan from Nunzio Palladino, Chairmans te Feb. 4 6/28/85 Letter' To: Morton Margulies, Chairman, and Feb. 5, 1986 "Declaration and ASLB, from Dr. Bern Seidernan, Remonstrance" Superintendent of Schools, Lynbrook Public Schools; re use by Red Cross 2/4/86 Letter To: Chairman from as relocation center Sen. Daniel Moynihans re Emesgency Plan Exercise at Shoreham ~ 6/27/85 Letter To: Docketing & Service Branch from Joyce McDow re letter from 1/23/86 Letter To: Herzel Plaine, CC and Anthonf and Mary Della Vechia, George Watson, CC, FEMA from w/attch (1 p)

Peter Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, County of Suffolks re Response to 6/27/85 Letter To: James Laurenson, Chairman, Jan. 22, 1986 letter on Emergency ASLB, from Roger & Barbara Olin; re

~

t Evacuation Plan Exercise w/attch (4 pp) Shoreham 54 licensing l 11/13/85 Letter To: Chairman and Members of the 6/11/85 Letter To: Herbert Brown, Kirkpatrick &

) Commission from Gov. Mario Cuonos re Lockhart, from Martin Bradley Ashare, I N.Y. State opposition to Emergency Suffolk County Attorneys re termination 1 ExeLcise at Shoreham of services 1

1 11/7/85 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, 6/11/85 Letter To: Chairman Palladino from

( grom Peter Cohalan, Suffolk County Sen. Moynihans re Shoreham Low Power Executives re County Opposition to Vote

- Shoreham Emergency Exercise Plan

) 6/10/85 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from 1

9/23/85 Letter To: David C. Lyons, M.D. from Lando Edward Murphy, Acting Superintendent, .

l Zech, Chairmans te licensing issues Educational Servicess re use by Red

' surrounding Shoreham Cross as a relocation center 8/6/85 Letter To: NRC from Darrell Lund, 6/5/85 Order Shoreham Order denying suffolk Superintendent of Schools, East County and State of New York 1 Williston Union Free School Districts te request i use of schools by Red Cross w/attch ,

j (1 p) i.

I e

22 23 9 Ex Parte Cerrespondence 10 Ex Parte Correspondence To: ASLB from Robert Ricken, 5/13/85 Letter To: Frank Rasbury, from 5/31/85 Letter Jerome Oberman, Lido Beach Superintendent of Schools, Mineola Union Superintendents re LILCO evacuation plan Free School Districts re Red Cross usage designation of facilities To: Martin Margulies. ASLB, from 5/13/85 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from 5/29/d5 Letter John Franco, Westbury Free School George Kane, Superintendent, Plainridge a-Superintendents re location center Public Schools designation 9/29/85 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from Catherine renton, Superintendent, ,

5/10/83 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from William VanNess, Superintendent, Valley Eicksville Public Schools re Red Cross Streams re cooperation with Red Cross usage of facilities To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from 5/9/85 Letter To Morton Margulies, ASLB, from 5/29/85 Letter Dr. Richard Caliendo, Superintendent, John Bierwirth, Superintendent of Schools, Freeport Public Schoolag to Red Elmont Public Schools 3 re Red Cross Cross usage of facilities usage of facilities To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from 5/8/85 Letter To: Mortin Margulies, ASLB, from 9/23/85 Letter Thomas Lee, Superintendent, Valley Ulyssis Bfas, Superintendent, Roosevelt Stream Union Free School District Union Free School Districts re use of Thirteen re Red Cross usage of facilities ar evacuation center

[

facilities 5/8/85 Letter To: ASLB f rom Vincent Shozzi, Morton Margulies, ASLB, from Mayor, Glen Coves re use of Nassau 9/20/85 Letter To County Veteran's Memorial Coliseum Jo9hua Segal, Superintendent, Roslyn in emergency plan Public Schools; re Red Cross usage of facilities 4/16/85 Response NRC Staff Response to Suffolk To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from County, Bernard M. Bordenick, 9/17/85 Letter George Marr, Superintendent, Island Park Counsel for NRC Staff Schvols re Red Crocs usage of facili? -

4/3/85 Letter To: Frank Rasbury, Director, American Red Cross, from Howard To: .,_ con Margulies, ASLB, from Koenig, Superintendent, East Meadow 9/17/85 Letter C. Mc Lean, Superintendent of Schools. Union Free School District: re March 11, 1985 letter Oyster Bays re use by Red Cross of facilities 4/1/85 Letter To: Korton Margulies, ASLB, from To: USNRC from Hannah Emmanoff, Lawrence Johnson, Jr., Superintendent, 9/17/85 Letter County Supervisor, City of Long North Baltimore Union Free School Districts re use by Red Cross of Beach re use of Nassau Coliseum as facilities reception center To: Morton Margulies, ASLB from 4/1/85 Letter To: Shoreham Service List from 9/15/85 Letter

' George Czar, Pastors re designation as , ,

Herbert Brown, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart:

Re April 1, 1965 Suffolk County and congregate care center New York State Motion w/attch (4 pp) 2 i

s, h

j

. . o. . ,

24 '* Q:

'b ,_;fi r.3 Ex Parte Correspondence 11 B -

[f* '

V.

3/21/85 Letter To: William Clements, from .-

valarie Lane, ASLB re Service of letter -

I'T from Barbara Gruber to *

Judge Lawrence Brenner w/attch (1 p) /'

3/11/85 Letter To: Frank Rasbury, Director, American Red Cross, from -

Fred Brockmann, Superintendent, '

Farmingdale Public Schools re use ,,

by Red Cross of facilities 'v.

3/11/85 Letter To: Frank Rasbury, Director, American Red Cross, from Herbert Pluschau, Superintendent, Massapequa Public Schools; re ust by Red Cross of facilities -

3/5/85 Letter To: Morton Margulics, ASLB, from j June Irvin, Superintendent, North Norrick, Union Free School Districts re

^ '

, use by Red Cross of facilities q 2/26/85 Letter To: Morton Margulies, ASLB, from Alvin Baron, Superintendent, Lawrence Public Schoolag te use by Red Cross of facilities ,1 2/15/85 Letter To: Morton F.argulies, ASLB, from <

Howard Koenig, Superintendent, East Meadow Union Free School Districts re use by R2d Cross of facilities 2/12/85 Letter To: Nancy Romaine, fron ^ '* ! '

Herzel Plaine, GC re letter of '

December 26, 1984 on hearing w/attch (1 p) 2/1/85 Letter To: Chairman and Commissioners s from Gov. Mario Cuonos re opportunity to present oral argument 1/4/85 Letter To: Rep. William Carney from Herzel Plaine, CC re letter of i. ,

December 3, 1984 or. Shoreham w/attch i (4 pp) ,

1/2/85 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, .

from William Rogers, Clerk, Suffolk 1 County legislature 're Motion , ,

approved w/attch (1 p) t -

g .

a.

e 4, y

?

a 1

I

.e e

e f 25 >

7 [ 1; a  ; ,,

t #4

.r l 7:

Ex Parte Correspcodence 12 e;

)  !

i  ; i r' I, To: NRC from Michael D' Andre, I ',,

f 12/20/84 Letter

+

legislator, 7th L.D., Suffolk Countys re .,

vote on motion w/attch (1 p) -

1

/.

12/19/84 Lett'r To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, ' ' ')'

j from Richard Kessel, Director, NY

• l , State Consumer Protection Boards te -

status of fuel loading at Shoreham ,

I 1 12/17/84 Letter To Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, s

.* f rom William Rogwrs, Clerk of

• e Suffolk Countyg te motion passed

! w/attch (2 pp) 12/13/C4 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Paul Marenberg, Assembleyman2 Suffolk County testimony l 12/13/84 Letter To: Rep. Robert Hrarek from ^

'; Herzel Plaines te letter of 12/3/84 12/7/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, -

from Rep. Norman Lents re licensing of Shoreham 12/7/84 Letter To: Commissioners from j Robert La Bua, Legislator, Suffolk [

} County legislatures re anoreham ,,

licensing procedure -

t 12/4/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, i from Gregory Blass, Legislators te

LILCO application for low power * <

license ,

l ,

4 1 12/3/84 Letter To: Commissioners from "Al Wayne Prospect, Legislators re .

l ,

y hearing on Shoreham licensing ,

4 l 12/3/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Rep. William Carney re .

Shoreham Licensing w/attch (2 pp) -

( 9 12/1/84 Letter To Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, i from Rep. Thomas Downeys to 1a opposition to low power license for.

1 I Shoreham s.

) .

j 11/1/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, '

, from John Behan, Assemblymaar te +

+

8 licensing of Shoreham _f ,

} _ - . /;

P 4 +

I

+N

, 2 3

' ) g'

• e

)

s

. 27 14 Ex Parte Correspondence 13 Ez Parte Correspondence yo. The Concissioners, iron 10/1/84 Letter To: George Hochbrueckner, g/14/84 Letter ames Fitzgeralds ge Rep; Markey request

. Assemblyman, from Nunzio Palladino, for documents - Emergency Planning and Chairpans re letter of May 22, 1984 Shoreham w/attch (2 Ppl w/attch (38 pp) go. Pilea from John Austin, CLI-84-20 6/13/84 Not 9/21/84 Memo 'e hnical Assistant to Commissioner To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, 4 isselstines to 6/12/34 conursation 9/11/84 Letter from John Behan, Assemblyman, N.Y.: with Clarke A. Davis re Shoreham licensing Letter  : Nu P ladino Cp

.- 6/11/84 9/10/84 Letter To Hunzio Palladino, Chairman, Su11olk Countys te statement on from J. Michael McCarry, IIIs re Shorcham 5/16/84 Shoreham Order '

To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, 0/0/04 N'* ~ Reguest for Recusal and Motion of

8/23/84 Letter from Cregory J. Blass, Legislator ""d"" Disqualification of Chairman Palladino re Shoreham construction concerns ~

l 8/23/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Burton Cowan, Chairman, AIF 5/23/84 Letter from Prank Jones, Deputy County lawyers committees to SECY-84-290 Executive #

ge licensing delay To: Chairman Palladino, from concerns *

's 8/22/84 Letter Munzio Palladino, Chairman, Joseph Carpenters Citizen letter Letter To:

• 5/22/84 from Geor9e sockbrueckner, te May 17, 1984 8/6/84 Memo Memorandum and Order of 8/6/85 re Assemblymang Palladino removal from proceedin9 hearing 7/24/84 Letter To: Fabian Palomino, Special To Nunzio Palladino, Ch r Counsel to NY Covernor, from 5/10/84 Letter from Rep. Edward MarkeYi C. Jean Shoemaker, Secretary to the from vote on Shorehan

-( Appeal Boards Response to July 10 1984 inquiry w/attch (1 p) Edward Markey, from dziohkliadino, Chairman re 5/3/84 Re 5/9/84 W" .

7/13/84 Letter To Rep. Edward Markey from letter l Nunzio Palladino, Chairmany te unanswered matters raised in previous To: The Cossatssion f rom

,' correspondence 5/4/84 Letter tephen B. Latham, SPecial Counsel to the Town of Southhamptons te filing To Munzio Palladino, Chairman s 6/27/84 Letter from Lawrence Canpher, Attorney for U1111am Clements, Docketing,

Memo To.

Suffolk Countys re nffidavit 5/4/84 from valarie Lane, ASLBr ce w/attch (22 pp) Shoreham letter from W11hemina D.

• Martino w/attch (1 P) 6/21/84 Letter To: William Dircks, EDO, from victor C111nsky, Commissioner s re o s a

~ ~ ,, Letteg Pe re legal criterion for ECCS pumps w/attch (1 p) 5/1/84 ch raa problems in releasing transcript t

- ~ m l

I 7_

I S. Iisa 100-215 28 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWERPLANT E ,mee Ceres yndence LICENSING ISSUES 4/30/84 Letter To: Rep. Mrazek from Hunzio Palladino, Chairmans Recusal from Shoreham proceeding w/attch (5 FP) f 4/30/84 Letter To: Pete valley, OPEN, INC., from '

l

1. Edwin J. Reis, Asst. Chief Hearing .

Counsels re April 13, 1984 letter i

s l 4/27/84 Letter To: Commission from Frank Jones, HEAMNG 1

(

4 Suffolk County Executives re 7 BEFORE THE Disestablish Licensing Board SUBCOMMITTEE ON 4/27/84 Letter To: Marshall Miller, Chairman, ASLB, from rabien Palomino, Counsel NUCLEAR REGULATION to Cow. Cuomo, re Confer.nce eencellation

j

! 4/27/84 Letter To: Nunzio Pallastino, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON from Rep. Robert Mrazeks re Impartial Adjudication j

To: Victor cilinsky, commissioner, ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 4/25/84 Letter from George Bently, Architects re seatus of Shmeh. , UNITED STATES SENATE 1

4/24/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, ONE IIUNDREDTII CONGRESS from Rep. Markeys ce Responses of 3/28/84 and 4/12/84 FIRST SESSION 4/23/84 Letter To: Rep. Markey from Nunzio Palladino, Chairmans re

,f l

Response to recusal request 4/11/84 Letter To: Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, from Peter Cohalan, Suffolk County Printed for the une of the Committee on Environment and Public Works Executives re Object to personal i

intervention in Shoreham 4/11/84 Note To: Docketing & Service Branch frcm James Laurenson, ALJ re Shoreham OL-3 service on 4/2/84 LaBua letter 4/9/84 Memo To: Samuel Chilk, Secretary, from

' e Victor Cilinsky; re Memorandun by CC on licensed reactor operator examinations w/attch (2 pp)

' 4/9/84 Memo Tom Samuel Chilk, Secretary, from '

Dunzio Palladino, Chairman, re licensed ,-

reactor operator exams w/attch (3 pp) ,

}

'i U.s. GOVERNMENT raINTING OFFICE E2R2 WASHINGTON : 1987 Fe, este by the Sia r. 2 of Decoments,W Sales Ofnce US. Gene,ement Pneting Ofrece. W _

_; , DC 20402 i

s-3 o

E; p

t' i

r.

iI CONTENTS T y

t.

' OPENING STATEMENTS  ;

! Breaux, lion. John B., US. Senator from the State of Imisiana 1 .

Moynihan, Ilma. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New York _ 2 i 1

Simpson, lion. Alan K., US. Senator from the State of Wyoming _ 32 4 - WITNESSES

1 4 Barbash, Maurice, chairman, Citizens to Replace Lilco, Img Island, NY 71 ,i Written statement 117 i

Blass. Gregory J., presiding ofHeer Suffolk County legislature Iong Island i, NY, accompanied by Tony Bullock, Suffolk County legislature, and t a

member, Subik County Ingislature Energy and Environmenit Committee; i COMMI'I' TEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS and flerbert II. Brown, Esq , Kirkpatrick &bkhart, Washington, DC- 51 ';

QUENTIN N. BURDI Nwth Dakota. Gaunnes Catacosinos, William J., chairman of the board and chief executive ofEcer, 'o l j,

' DANIEL PATRICK MOYN A

• long Island Lighting Co., accompanied by Anthony Earley, general counsel, CEDRCE J. MTMIEW M ' * . Y ek ROllERT T. SIAFM)RD. Vermont }

long Island Lighting Co 39 e a

MAX BAlfCtJS. ntana JOllN IL ClfAFEE. Rhode Island Parler, William C., general counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 l A K SIMIMN, Wyosning y

FRAMK R. LAtTTENBER Watson, George W., associate general counsel for program law, Federal Emer- <.

JOllN B. BREAUX, Im. C.- " J'siey STEVE SYMMS. Idaho gency Management Agency 31 BARBARA A. MIKU1SK Maryland DAVE DURENBERCER. Mine JOIIN W. WARNER, Virginia )

ffARRY REID. NM ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Iw)B CRAIIAM. Florida RY NIER. South Dakota Bm C ,

"M M** I ween Senators Moynih-n and Si 35

"*"D M A** Moynihan, lion. Daniel Patrick, if %nator from the State of New

• York, to lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commis-

• sion 8 Zech, lion.14ndo W., Jr., Chairman, NRC to Senator Simpson 12  !

Scacmeierrrza on Noctram Recusation Responses to a letter from the subcommittee dated May 11, im from: l JOIIN 2' B AUX- [*". iana. Gamnen Ene Department of 79 DANIEL PATRICK

"" n,11 11., Kirkpatrick, Inckhart, liill, Christopher & Phillips O I fifdRY REI E SY MS I ho Rollms Edward, Rum o, Watts & Rollins 109 i JOllN W. WARNER, Virginia 112 Speck, Samuel tus Blass, Gregory J., presiding ofEcer, County of Su%Ik Isgislature 115 g 413 p e

5 g e i b

i L- - __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

e -

,8 [ c4

} 29 *

- . , tr

,t

< - e. .

Ex Parte Correspondence 16 4 12/7/82 Letter To: James Laurenson, Chairman, -

ASLB, from Nicholas Poulos, '.

William Floyd Union Free School .

} Districts re Evacuation Plans I

11/23/83 Memo To: Commissioners from

.~ Nunzio Palladinos re telephone call 7 from Rep. Stratton '

11/16/83 Resolution *

• Sound Beach Pre-School Co-op reso3*ation

• 11/15/83 Letter To: James Laurencon, Chairman, ASLB, fron Virginia Kuzioski, District Clerk, Rocky Point Public Schoolss re Resolution passed October 31, 1983 l- 1 l

11/10/83 Letter To James Laurenson, Chairman, l

ASLB, from Charles Ebetino, '

Superintendent, Port Jefferson Public Schools to Evacuation Plans at Shoreham j 10/27/83 Letter To Gov. Cuomo, from William Dircks, EDO: re FEMA review of LILCO Emergency Plan ,

10/4/83 Letter To: Chairman Palladino from '

Gov. Cuonos re Emergency Plan at Shoreham 9/9/83 Letter To Lucinda Suartz, Pacific Legal Foundation, from Barbara Tompkins, Sec.

to Appeal Boards re 9/1/83 letter 9/6/83 Letter To: Rep. Thomas Downey from Martin Malsch, Acting, G.C. re Shoreham '6 '

Emergency Planning j 4/6/83 Letter To Commission from Fred 2 unco,

- g Mayor, Village of Sag Narbors re , ,

9 termination of shoreham proceeding .

I 4/4/83 Letter Tom Commission from Mal Novel, Supervisor, Shelter Islands re i termination of Shoreham proceeding

.t; f ~>

} -

t

!75-282 2 i

[ - _ _ _ _ __:

- - - - - - - - ~ ~~

3

• .m

. 30 31 ru rarte correspondence 17 M ator BREAUX. Ipt'8 WeIcome up the FEMA representative IEmrg Watson, who ts Associate G MbbM Mr. Wat n ' ent Agency.

3/15/83 Letter To: nunzio ralladino, chairman, from sep. william carneys ce receive your tQ1 mony, pleased to have you here and are pleased to Shoreham project w/attcta t2 pp)

To: LILeo from norman tuuberts re ATEMENT OF GEORGE W w 3/13/83 Letter ,

SSOCIATE CENERAL evacuation planning

C011NSEL FOR PROGRAM LAW, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MAN.

!  ; ACEMENT AGENCY 2/2e/s3 Letter To1 Palladtno from avril Opinantes Mr. WATSON. Thank

, ,p,nto,or shoreh*"

Watson you, Mr. Chairman. I am George W.

Emerge,ncy Management Agency, commonly pleasure to appear before you today in response to your requ the Director of FEMA for any information we would have on ex parte contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with re-spe.ct to the Shoreham proceedings. I know of no such contact.

1 EMA's participation in the two Shoreham proceedin gency Planning Proceeding Olc3 and the Emergenc. gs, the Emer.

of General Counsel.ercise Proceeding Ole 5, are under my jurisdi Because these matters are in litigation they are, of course, su ject to NRC regulatory procedures, meluding the rule gov parte contacts which appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal ulations, section 2.780. The substance of the rule is that any

• tact with a Commissioner or employee of the Commission who ac in a judicial capacity must be on the mcord or be immediatel y made a part of the record. This rule, like the lawyer's ethical canon against ex parte contacts, is designed to prevent unilateral ,

or secret attempts to influence the outcome of a matter in litiga- q tion. The rules against ex parte communications with members the NRC and members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar!

are strictly observed by FEMA. Based on a conscientious inquir the current FEMA leadership and staff, I can state on behalf of Di rector Becton that no ex parte contacts with members of the Com--

mission, their immediate staff, or NRCjudges have been made.

Because FEMA's usual role in NRC proceedings is to furnish wit nesses supported by FEMA counsel on offsite preparedness issues with their counterparts at NRC in the regula litigation.

lations. Such contacts would not violate the NRC ex parte r C

There are, of course, matters of mutual interest and concern be-tween FEMA and NRC not related to specific issues under litig tion which do require discussions between the respective staffs in-

, cluding senior level contacts between the Executive Director for Operations of NRC and the FEMA Associate Director for State a Local late thePrograms and NRC ex parte Support. Again, such contacts would not vio-regulotions. ",

the Commission will consult on matters of mu al matters such as resource requirements pl participation in the licensing process On no occasion has there s

32 3'l

' n r d the Chair.

been contact or discussio,ns hor ha A m hearing to focus on those various allegations of improper ex parte t

man of the NRC on spect Coh e unanimous consent to Safety and Licensmg Board 8, or on any other matter speci

{ c cases or litigation issues pend. ence that Pat and I shared, whic ut in the record the correspond.

lated to Shoreham o{ other s adjudicatory forums. is public record anyway, but it ing before the Commission o might be helpful because it is a vexing thing. (See p. 35.) Now As there have been no ex Parte contacts, no logs, notes, or o her Lyn Nofziger falls into our eye or our ambit of attention with information exist. regard to other (F ings, and I think it's just important to know that

• I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. -

as we examined inis several months ago, we didn't find the things Senator Bauux. Thank you .ny much. Mr. Watson, or your that would have excited, perhaps, the various parties or proponents statement. We will take qu nons now from Senator Moym,han 't I or opponents. But after an extensive staffinvestigation of the alle-irman, I thank Mr. Watson I gations of improper ex parte contacts, we found no evidence of Senator MovNuiAN. Nf- ,

that. We found no evidence of that impro r activity, and now the have any questions. I think it,s a veryac clear stntement ofi e s, no logs, notes, or other that there have been no ex p independent counsel-and even ir there ad been some found, it

. but you haven't found them, an g was. not activity that constituted criminal activity.

'" fo.rmation, none. There may

m not here to speak in behalf of Lyn Nofziger; that's separately

%ve certainly looked-nator Banux. Thank you, Sen tor going on. I think what created the interest of everyone is that he 8"""tor Simpson has jo,med us; he may have some opening com- g t paid a bale of money. But let me tell you, everyone has been

"' a minute,1*ll let him get prepared paid,a bale of money in this one. I've never seen more lobbyists on made no ex parte con- one usue m my whole experience, and they ve all hired up an ex-Mr. at3on clearly stated that FEM cu has FEMA had traordinary array of expensive people. I think I've visited with all tacts by others-to aq ody at the NRC. How manydiv duals or Members of Congess or what of themhave at you-various times, and eventually the old ratepayer will pay regarding the Shoreham operation with regard to the errergency for that if they ever get the thing either on-stream or off. stream, so evacuation p an that is being considered. i any7 I understand it all. I really promise you I do. I'm not being a smart-aleck, but to me, it's an extraordinary sum to pay a lobbyist, Mr. WA N welt I wouldn't have any i ea how embers many of these and contacts mig [ be m'ade. We do get letters from of Con- heremaybe and getwe withcan it. all go into that line of work when we get out of gress Senators, m. embers of the public from t me to time, express- But finally, if we're talking about ex parte issues, the greatest ing one view or another. I don't have any notton as to how many offenders of that in this capital city are the Members of Congress.

there might be. t they come in from time to time In going over my check of the NRC files, there have been at least a i Assistan Counsel is like Senator Bauc%. dozen contacts from various Members of Congress over the past the Genera) Counse , hen s, that is, that your regs -on "as the opin t cover FEMA couple of years. We are violating the rules of the Commission. We with regare. to any proposais which you have,', Ch are scmetimes are violaimg the ex parte contact situation, if we're really looking a publicly arrived-at prow on 1 an evacuatic plan, for instance, at it in its most extraordinary correct form. I think it's helpful to where yo . take pubhc com ent? remember that that rule covers that, and if we are thinking as cor-Mr. WATSON. Yes, ce nly agree that the NRC ex parte rules rectly as we should be, then that, too, should be a consideration.

would not cover such contach- But I think that it is important to rtmember that it's hig money.

Senator Bauux. Olt It's difficult to find whether it's behind-thescenes influence ped-Ibes FEMA have any rules of its own with regard to t ;3,9 ;s dling or in .*ront-of-the-scenes influence peddling, but after spend-Mr, WATSON. No, we have no ex parte rules. Our ro.e in ing $0 million, as I read in this Neusday article, appropriately en- ,

to the NRC and furntsh witnesses, o that we serve as an ad titled, "The Meter Is Itunning," maybe someday we11 resolve it. I

• • have no ex parte ru ering our role. did practice law; I wish I had practiced with much more vigor.

Senator BRuux. Thank you. .

[ Senator Simpson's statement and the correspondence referred to fo]jow:)

Senator S mpson, any questions for the FEMA representative,.

i g

• ON, U.S. SENATOR OrrNmo SrateurNT oc IloN. A UI,gstNG STATEMENT OF IION. Al ,

g.OMING AN wrouma K. SIMP 90N. U.S. SENaron Fnou rue Start or FROM Tile STATE (

irman, I have a statement that I wi]{ Mr.my frer Chairman.

thou I should hke to take just a few brief moments here at the outset to '

8"".aW of backgrounghts on today's hearing-and to provide a couple of comments by way forSIMPsoN. Mr. Cha. '

submit the record and just take a minute for a Comment or two-Mr. Chairman, I ot doing a splen- rriena trom new york. senator uoymhan wrote a ietter to me in did job with yourirmansh cha. phank u of this you very much. T ou re.ttee and subcommi guention Company. it's aLynabout Nofziger,whethe had sought a to well-known lobbyist improperly influence the Nuclear retained hting Regu b to serve as ranking member Senator Moymhan and 1 C"*"i""i*" i" it' deliberations on the Shoreham licenne application through what

1. chairman, and I have are technically referred to as "ex parte" contacts-or, in a more pejorative refer-da w th this issue in my 1 t m nths ngness to conduct a coce, 'behind-the scenes influen& peddling!" In view of these allegations. the Sena-offered to assist in any tor asked for a hearing to focus on this innue.

_; <n' 34 Short y after that. I responded to the Senator's request-as hearing to the then<hairman hg g of ,

DP this subcommittee-indicating my complete willingness to conduct a focus on the allegations of improper ex parte contracts. In addition. I directed the 4

!T t investigate the subcommitte staff, in cooperation with Senator Moynihan s sta l . At o thisd allegations to determine whether any such improper contacts took p ace.

p

'nt. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the f,yf recorSenator

• 4ersah Moynihan's initial ber 24.

Today's hearing is the culmination of the subcommittee's New York. At this activities over the past jfg#** -[

sia months on the matter originally raised by the Senator from pdnt. I think it would be helpful-particularly assue cimely and who may not fully understand the gist o f today's hearing-toto those who have not followed this November 24, Igg "review the bidding",if you will.on a number of important issues.

First, with the mutual agreement of all parties, we have the decided not to call Mr.

Netziger before us today to testify. To the untrained ff investiga-eye, that may suggest that he has refused our request to testify or that he has something to hide. Quite to contrary, two pointa need to be emphasized First, after an extensive stad absolutely no Dear avi-Alan

• tion of the allegations of i aproper ex parte contacts, we foun dence that Mr. Nofziger engegni in anyiwrongdoing l with regard .It hastobeenhisreported lobbying onbehalf i the press that of Ulca Lyn In sh ranted calling Mr. Norriger before this subcommitee. Nofziger was hired by the Long Island Lighti"9

, Justice was asked to appoint an independent counsel to investigate possible crim l naIt was Company iR subsequently de-1983 and subsequentl 1 bbied Edward

, wnmgdoing by Mr. Nofzig*r in hL. representation of U ca t ntacts b7 Rollins at the White House 8 of a

, termined that not only was there noidevidence d nt coun- of any improper em parlicense full-Power e coMr. f r Nofziger, the Shoreham but nuclear that even if there h

tuted criminal activity. Nevertheleve, in view of the fact that an n epen el i g Mr. Nofziger. facility the

• t met has now been appointed on a wholly separate matter invo v nement n is f ve decided i wedtech matter-and, in view or the fact, that the scope of the abroad enough toati If these.alle encompass s te true, Mr. theyNofriger's cast repres

]

by mutual agreement that it would simply be unfair to ca i l l when Mr. doubt on the integrity of the nuclear lice "9 and in effect, ask him to waive his fifth amendment t process, rights-part cu ar and it is surely yNofriger members of the Subcommitte our res appeared to be willing ,toastestify he been referred to the Justice Department.Theittsemnd of this major rule point that I thinkRegulation 1, to deteraine is worth remembermg-in an the effortfacts.

to pu this "ex parte" issue in its proper context-is that the worst v o a orsh Commission in-are the Members of Congress. Every single letter received by t"pro"'or "anti"-is an ex parte I therefore ask that th DD**

volving contested cases such as Shoreham-whether ding to my rough

, contact and is prohibited by the Commission's rules. And t ts accor from vari- schedule hearings on this matter as soon as ii helprut to poSSible, check of the NRC's files, there have been at least a dozen such con acous Members of cangress over the peu that cases such remember just what this rule covers and who it applies towe appear-and as we t correctly should be-in cur etTorta to e gest' 3

as Shoreham are decided "on the record."And fmally, what I think we really come down to%heregI today-and

• 3\V

( what I %suspecUlco a the bulk of the testimony will focus on-is the fact that We can all be

• h gement, but Nofziger a truckload of money for the work that he did-3700.000. stunned about that and vigorous in our d amidst all of the hype and hysteria. I think it is worth pausing tobeing reShoreham debate--

that huge sums of money have been spent by both sides in the i both pro and anti-in an effort to get this plant licensed or to keep it fromliwnsnl. Indeed. Newsday esti i i l opponent. Suf-the two sides in the Shoreham battle-818 million by the pr nc "dpa is all

• Honorable A1an K SAmPSon folk County. So we kid ourselves if we think that the "political lobbying United S W eS Senate i is-being conducted by one side, through only ti"well<onnected" f om both sides d former Reagan amn yashington, DC 20S10 tration officials. Indeed. I have sat in my office with representa ves rin this debate-people who are here to "lobb both sules. So as we get who have contributed to the 370 million price-tag-an i experience that the battle is being waged to thef death on d for the Ameri-b that fact.

everytaly whipped up here tadsy,it might also be useful or us-ancan publi,c that will listen to and read about thi

[The correspondence between Senators Moynihan and Simpson  !

praiously referred to foHows:] 1 I

(

. 1

,__ ___ __ _-__- --____ __----- - - - - - . . . . . . ~.

8 36 37.

. a n=="*a

%g Honorable Daniel P. Moynthan t Page two

%-J-/

T" gg ht,

• • • • "****,, If you should decide that you wish to proceed with a hearing, Prt, I would only respectfully ask l

December 24, Og that we be sensitive to two very real concerns.

- First, the Shoreham satter is still pendin before the Commission for a final decision on LIL O's application for an operating license, with a number I

• of contested issues still to be resolved. In the j The Honorable Daniel P* Moynihan interest of complete fairness to all of the parties United States Senate20M0

.* who are participating in this proceeding. I would suggest that we steer clear of those issues that are Washington. .

• l still being ' contested", in order to insure that

}

Dear Fat:

these issues may be impartially resolved by the ,

Commission based'upon the evidence presented in the I ust wanted you to days know jtstatefore I tried to reach Christmas 1

Shoreham adjudicatory proceeding.

I you sewers 1 times in tbt gest for a in order to talk with you about e yyofgiger s lobbying potivities on Second, with the Department of Justice now l bearing on any -- but 700 considering whether to recommend an Independent behalf g , gong Island tightin Counsel to investigate Mr. !!ofriger's lobbying

, and I are opparently clattering d wn different activities since he left the White House, I think we j tracks.

need to be especially sensitive to the fact that a separate criminal investigation of Mr. Noftiger is i

The particular essential at,,I wanted to 1 ways been now under consideration -- and that the scope of this ge with you in that 3t you in having

• investigation may well include some of the very re y Willi"I ad er Mr Norziger engaged n issues that you raised in your November 24 letter to me, j hearing to e ns'g gities on behalf g ,

,e any impr j

, whether he sought to Shoreum influenceplant the -- The pending criminal investigation does not, in spec,1f NRC s ccensing proceeding for y improperly my view, preclude us from co7 ducting a hearing, but either directly or indirectly _,ith NRC decision ma era in an it does require us to be especially sensitive to the commun ,g,g constitutional rights of those under investigation 4

m off-the-recorde or es parte, fashion, e and to conduct a hearing that is fair and equitable that if such for those who vill be es11ed to testify.

tainly agree w M W *this would indeed raise contacg took place, Accordingly, if at all possible. I would e legitimate questions about. the independence of the, recommend that we might wait to schedule the hearing NRC's liC*{ singisprocess required to -a beprocess conductedthat, under t* until after the Deparlsent of Justice and the special NRC's regu ations,and free of any = ehind-the-scenes, three-judge panel have reached a final decision on

- "on-the-rec rom The concerns that the appointment of an Independent Counsel, and then, if Mr. Norziger's representation of LILCO is beyond

+

efforts f1 ence the outcom ' e er to me 8F' you expressed in yo8f uiry within the the scope of the Counsel's mandate, proceed with a legitima e and proper areas d i just wanted (*Ju to hearing at your pleasure. And you'll be in charge then anywayt Subcommittee as jurisdiction, andilling to preseng you the know tha

,3g go have 87 11"*

y to chair that hear ng If, for whatever reason, it is your judgement

~

opportun please know s yo rs in setting it up. .

that an earlier hearing is essential -- prior to hat. wp e nos w ng suss wiu yn W we GS _

e 4

EU6l VM l

~ 39

Senator BREAUx. Thank you very much Senator.

Mr. Watson, I think we have no other questions for you at this Honorable Daniel F- Winihan i We appreciate your testimony and your being here very F*E' *"'**

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, sir.

and at the same Senator BREAUx. I'd like to welcome up at this time the Chair-might best approach suehra hearing,rg, those who are the man of the Board and Chief Executive Officer for the Ixmg Island time, insure that je eriminal invest 1E*t1*" "

t LiWig hen & Mb Qwsn

• • hyand u

rairly protected. ~'

Doctor, we are pleased to have you here and we look forwanl to If you desire such an early hearing, there are a your testimony.

> in my view, rairly i number or approaches th*t r "e subcommitteecri and th' STATEMENT OF WILLIMI J. CATACOSINOS, CIIAIItMAN OF TIIE

, balance th interest been accused al *-

IlOAllD AND CIIIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICElt, LONG ISLAND LIGIIT-li rights .no I would be most eager ING CO., ACCOMI'ANIED IlY ANTIIONY EAltLEY, GENEllAL l

"y,l'd$

,, "t[* se e with you at your convenicac*- l g gg y nos wining l

You do know, Pat, that I am alwa Mr. CxrACoSINOS. Thank yoc, Mr. Chairman.

to work with you and your s a and to make every Mr. Ch urman, with your permission I d like to m, troduce the conce.rns that you have r* ,,t, you have always ' gentleman alongside of me.

errort to accommodate to work with. You gave se Senator BREAUx. AbsolJtely.

de en I ca been extra anspe absolutttention-and consideration u and Mr. CATACOSINos. This is Mr. Anthony Earley, who is the Gener-freshman senator and you works e always been al Counsel of the Long Island Lighting Company.

trained me up= on many issues an , Senator UREAux. Okay.

1 very deep.ly appreciati- Mr. CATAcOSINos. My name is William J. Catacosinos. I am I, in urn a, 1 ways tried diligently -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Long Island Lighting whether in nd try to 9r ty or the minority accommodate yo - I, tyq"u st. Company, a position I have held since January 30,1984. I am ntinue to pleased to have an opportunity to discuss with you the problems

[*gNin you will rind that so-

' I which LILCO confronts in its efforts to license the Shoreham elec-enjoy working with you as we each assu'ne our new tricity plant, and the role Norziger.Bragg Communications played roles. in advising the company in its dealings with Government and the You are ur s[ecialpersonandIenjoyyou allow our personal public.

, ,11 ,,,,7 na g g ,

'l'N1aNe*andsenatorialrelat 1 g disintegrate into one where s r s making decision which predates my tenure as Chief Executive Officer, it is essential to get a sense of the problems LIILO faced in 1983, the tue contsets- year R MM Ge &m of NoWeaagg Communicadons. He com-sending our love to You and 1.1x ana yf m d ue rm pMe %F W in 3, $5sh for the holiday se** "-

e"ry g As part of its obligation to provide a continuous and reliable source of electricity on Long Ishnd, LILCO constructed the Shore-With best personal regsrds' ham plant. The project commenced in 1968 with the cooperation of Most sincerely, local, State and Federal Governments. More than 75 local and State permits were required to construct the plant. Local and State governments granted every one of them.

1. I* g~ 33,p,on It was not until 1983, when the construction of the plant was vir-

,1ted states senate tuall stan m,gcompleted, support ofthat Suffolk County emcgency suddenly plannir.; reversedIritsanlong-for Shoreham. at-tempt to prevent Shoreham from opereting, county officials refused AKS/Jck -

to participate in the emergency plan, a plan county personnel had developed in cooperation with LILCO. As you know, an adequate emergency plan is a Federal requirement of all nuclear plaMs.

Furthermore, the county officials decided that the Federal require-ments concerning nucler.r plant were inadequate. The county maintained that Shoreham required a 20-mi!e emergency planning zone, in contrast to the 10-mile zone that is required of every noch ar plant in the country.

- _ _ _ _ _ 2 __

. t .:.

41 40

[n"e e ann ke Sh fut power because" * * *

• of the dispute over eral In 1983 New York State, uiider a new Governor, also reversed its *'l long-standing support for Shoreham md announced that it would regulations State save thb which r[$t f and local government ]

Mn m a n of the not override the wishes of the local government. The , previous ad- i j

ministration had i ndicated a willingness to cooperate m the emer- which is the only issue preventing e f .1 peration of S creham'""

s the Nuclear Regulato Co gency Ian even without county participation. .

after lengthy investiga on an eljn sraties licensmg thatboard it didconcluded not find By i e time the State and the county reversed the.ir posit. ions, "anything unique about th Lilf0 had invested billions of dollars constructing the Shoreham , access routes, or jurisdictional bounda .d rea m w c horeham power plant, an investment made with the cooperation and encour- i is located; to the contrar'y the rec rd ait "

• • '8 agement of these same local and State governments. Lilf0 itic.wasto conclude that it would be im ible to " "" "

placed in a position of having to !icense the plant in optwo effectiveand powerful offsitewell-funded emergency pla or the S governments. lia " Meanwhi e. the

.. New York State and Suffolk County g vernments have rovided nance cost n the plant were accumulatmg at the rate of more every local and State a a h sWng wn nu-i i

than a million dollars each day. State and county officials took the position that LILCO shareowners should bear the cost of the plant, e clear plants b simpf we see that formula being a b

• even though government opposition prevented the plant's oper-a I ed *#"##han.And ng m Ian ori i quen o atbn energy y' L1140 improved on an emergency imp ementeh nally its own plandeveloped,by using But the strategy goes be d t Suffolk County, and the compa " - 8n e pa d rnment workers, which ,s i per- izes national security. This at tams m re than 16 percent of its em loyees to substitute for its electricity from nucle nts, and these plants save missib e under the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Com.mssion.ition of State and hundreds of millions of barre 8 f ,i e ch year. The Shoreham Because of the uncertainty created by the o ant alone will save seven to '

local governments to the Shoreham plant, t e financial markets ew York State %:rns an inordina\e lhe barrels of oil each**year.

closed to the company. As a result, LILCO experienced a cash 'I**~

shortfall despite annual sales of nearly $2 billion.

tricity-approximately 25 t of *

• United The business of a utility is to provide electricity and as to its States to produce electricit 'h country's dependence on oil t nd,I kno.w that mereasmg this customers. But the problems the company faced when ocal and The refusal of local and State te " '**#" I' State governments reversed their positions and started using the nments to coopera,e t in emer-gency plans undermines the f- I* I - f utilities a,nd de.

Shoreham plant for political purposes were beyond the expertise of prives the stockholders of th the compan . The company sought assistance to deal with the pmb- 1 ine men , invest-ments made in good faith Ca c nclusa n, he ao lems of pol tics, the press, communications strategies, advertismg, tions of these governments would fo and developing support for its werplant. Nofziger.Bragg had an tility to go bankrupt be-

, cause power plants cost billions of do$1 """ "

t excellent re utation in this fiel , and the company sought their as- bankruptcy of a mcjor utilit Id 8e W8Iy impain t e econmy sistance an retained the firm in late 1983.

When I became Chairman of the company in 1984, I reviewed the of an entire region' consultants the company had retained and the performance of These are some of the robl ' -

LILCO about, as well as k e h mpany a mast o develop-each. I d'ecided to continue LILCO's relationship with Nofziger- ments in Federal and State Bragg because in my o inion their expertise in the commumcations mm en-field directly addr the problems which the company confront- siderable time learning abou ..* numer us issues rela @tuig to that the reason the company was on the Shoreham, a necessa7' theerequisite ed. Please rememixt verge of bankru tcy was not because LIILO had trouble m the com ny. In that efTor rm reviewed before documents theyand couldmetadvisewith the LI staff regularly The firm made itself re,adily available to electric and gas usiness. Those businesses were boommg as Long i  !

Island was enjoying a prosperous economy. The reason the compa- n " **

n was going bankrupt was that LIILO was caught in the middle advise LILCO polibeal crises. as the com$a[ava ab I t We valued

. Nofziger-Bragg offered advice on deal'ng with the press, advertis-o an intergovernmental squabble with Federal regulations assum- mg, and support for the Shoreh ing that local and State governments would cooperate in emergen- **#*

cy plans for nuclear plants, and local and State governments refus- . to frame issues for communicaY 'I "

customers about the Shoreham piknItLII rel "

in to cooperate, substituting their own judgment about the feast-I*IE *

Bragg Communications for th

• bi ity of emergency planning. ate method of communicatinE iYeperal. State and local offi-e t of the mo The actions of Bu%Ik County and New York State tiave enor- cials.

mous consequences for national energy pohcy. By withdrawing -

from the emergency plan, these governments have held the Shore- * "" " I public Thefear about firm nuclear hthe comfi***

advised 'It ham plant hostage even though the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- the publie which leads to ven more fear untifPealing the fearto the rear grows out of of sion deemed that the plant was ready for commercial operation nearly two years ago when it granted Shoreham an operating li. (

i i

~

. 42 og,Pite the fact that the positions of the gy 8 State pol g enmen proportion with reality. The firm advised the company on{e cways ntrary" tototranslate local and national national ene PPos ng S energy gv policy int to local public officials, always mindful of the difficulty in getting the e o i u n local public officials to support a plant, publicly, ' Members of Conual b s,,is m fe rinterests the,r opposition.

of energy Ipuio icy and na '

Nofziger.Bragg Commumcations assisted the company to set up a securit to ca asid State governments from holdi with the Secretary of Energy so that I could talk with him clear pfants maeti horeham's national implications. The firm also arranged a ^

about Thank Senatoryou' BRF.AU If and the Administrater of FEMA to discuss ' Th very much, Mr. Catacosinos'

~

meeting between m horeham emergency plan and an exercise of Y the review of the ) Senator M "*

that plan to assess its effectiveness. Another meeting was arranged Senator Mhn'h""'.Nn'k NiHA you, Mr. Chairm-n.

of Treasury, at the time that the company was Dr. Catacosin nl 88 we*L respect to a relat-with the Secreta ed matter. A sen'ior on the verge of eclaring bankruptcy, where we discussed the fi- . rt e I rm of aunton & Williams nancial health of the utilit,y industry and national energy policy.  ! came before us and* d. u si g the LILCO matter, spoke of the On the same s pic, a meeting was arranged with the Vice Chair- i "contagion" that he sa'id had spread through Long Island. I asked man of the Federal Reserve Board. On another occasion, a meeting him what kind of con he 8 poke of it as ifit were a was arranged with Mr. Peter Cohalan, the Suffolk County Execu- contagious disease. I d, '88," h '"'g*"[a exactly what we think of it tive, where we discussed Shoreham's role in national energy policy.

as, a contagious disease whi[1 *** " " attractive way to de-In all those meetings,I was present. scribe the viewpoints Er me ele ted offic. e and citizens of our At the time I joined LILCO, the firm of Nofziger.Bragg Commu- State, but then he's not from S ate. IIe's made $14 million so far, as I gather-no I'm emy, $13,292,000-t0 call us "disease-nications was receiving $20,000 per month for the services bearing theyrendered.

creatures." Since LIl40 was on the ve 1

a reduction in fees from all our consultants, and Nofziger.Bragg There's a certain tone he

• said that "the problems the

' company faced when State a: i nmen 8 mvemd their -

i agreed to reduce their retainer ped.

to $10,000 per month. The fee wassubsequently restored to its o Positions and started using the Shoreham plant for litical pur -

Poses were beyond the ex fee was reduced to $5,000 as the workload dcalculation, these are great mean, sums they started o money. using $rt'Yhoreham But e they areplantd or the compan political pur- ." ow d By an

}

must be seen in the poses? What political purposes 9 standa fees for this type of work, and the LCO is paying for fi- Mr. CATACos Nos. Senator whe I became Chairman of the com-context of the enormous sums of money pany I spent a fair amount of time ively evaluating the Shor-l

'. nance charges on the Shoreham plant, which are in excess eham situation ofand $1million the need for a tie p day.ant. And spoken, I spent a lot of time deali g with State and local ofIicials If as the youwork and I have of Nof moved the Shoreham plant even one day closer to commercial oper. in the Shoreham issue. It beca

{ lean to me as a novice to j ation, the company would more than recoup the money it has paidto theI'mfirm. n a utilitThe LILCObusi- share

~

} the utility business, because executive-my i nesses were involved with com te "*cs-that there

! Nofziger-Bragg, and I wish we did not need such servicea. was no denly erupted Thesefees logic or rational thinki in 1983 when Mr must Cohalalso be behi seen e pp sition thatin 8uppet fw comp sud-

', money that Suffolk County and New York State are paying to con, inergency planning for the Shoreham Iant. And therefore I con-sultants to support their position. Suffolk County alone has spent 'guded c that the rationale for those act, 88 m re political than approximately $20 million of the taxpayers' money to fund their rational or logical, and I maintain that i i ~

opposition to Shoreham. Given the importance of this issue to na,of Long Island, 8'nator and to the fi-MoYNaHAN. And Mr Cohal lected County Ex.

tional energy policy, to the econo would have been remiss had I tiv t

nancial health of LILCO, I believe ""yr.e of Suffolk County? I beIieve he was R p biican, was he not not retained someone of Mr. Nofziger's stature and competence.

g, CATACosINos. That's r MoYNiHAN. And the new correct, sir'ly-elected Govern r in 1 In many respects the protlems resulting from the actions of Suf- ,,,g}a ve been Mr. Cuomo, who~ is a & crat. Do you think his folk County and New York State are more acute now than ever briore. Long Island has enjoyed a prosperous economy over the

pos r-t- {ATAOoswas Nos. taken for not No, I do political believe purposes?

that the Gov -

8 posh ggo, was done for political reasons. I spoke with th past few years as its high technology, financial services, electronic, gn tor MovNiHAN. Then why aerospace did you cite him? and defense i electricity on Long Island has increased has a 400-megawatt State ernments reversed their positions and started N b cent over the past four years. This year LI Shorel a " C8 pu ." '

,^

shortage in its required electricity reserves. LILCO has gone to ex- Mr C TAC SIN s. I believe t t the county' t- ** *

' traordinary lengths to prevent brownouts or blackouts this versNfo ""*"8-summer, but the company cannot assure its customers of a continu- Senator ovNIHAN. And the State?

ous supply of electricity.

WE LJM W-F

.a 44 45 Mr. CATACOSINOs. And later, the issue witlu'n the State became a Senator MoYNIIIAN. And I would be hap political issue. morrow, as I would have done yesterday. by hytodidmeet you with pay you to-three-Senator MOYNmAN. Any matter in S g ernment is to some quarters of a million dollars to get a meeting with the Secretary of extent a political matter. Treasury? I could arrange that meeting by picking up the phone.

Now, to continue. Did Governor Cuomo reverse the State's posi. Mr. CATACOSINos. It was more than just those meetings. Senator, tion for political pur s? as we've outlined in our presentation. It was a lot more advice on Mr. CATACOSINOs. o. As I sa'd i earlier

• Senator, I did not believe different kinds of issues that Nofziger.Bragg Communications that that was the case. Senator MOYNIHAN. But you know, the kind of advice-what Senator MoYNillAN. Then

• mean by saying that ,

hurts me-we've had Mr. Nofziger up here. We have nothing

'"I'he State government reve I ror p li i al pur- against Mr. Nofziger in this hearing, and as I said earlier-and you poses"? were here, I believe-we wish him well in his present difficulties, Mr. CATACOSINOS. I believe that-when we wrote that. we encom- and they have nothing to do with this. But he talked with us with passed what has occurred since that time. .

a kind of candor that we've known and admired him for. IIe's a l Senator MOYNHIAN. And what as occurrM nce that time? political man and has every right to be. So we know what his poli-Mr. CATAWSINOS. I helleve th " tht time that this issue tics are. Ile was saying that there's a good chance that there will has become a political issue i the ta e of New York and in the be two or three major utilities in this country that would file for County of Suffolk, and is becoming a p tical issue in the County i bankruptcy in the next months, thus creating a litically-expb-sive pa issue for the Administration in the middle of the election cam-ao ,10YNIHAN. Doctor I d n' have to t you th the  !

"political is not banned in ep Nofziger's advice was to scare the hell out of the Republican un honorable matter. But to, say t it was reversed for political Admimstration, and into giving a license. You don't have to know purposes obviously adds a pejorative quai ty to that statement. much about that kind of statement, and I don't blame him for well, all right. But Mr hala i r - 1' tion for politi-cal purpe; the State o ew j9, t fo itical purposes, thinking up that perfectl within kind of the range of tactic andtothat his rights go inkind an sayof ap[

to a roach Secre- to it. It's l the Governor did not, being somehow disassociated from the State tary of :ne , "Good God, man, give them the license or we'll lose ~

of ew' l Nassau and uffolk Counties." But is it good judgment on your ou tu ned to Nofziger-B whic advi you o ,a f pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for that kind of

, tra,or mary phenomenon o pu eb av ticians appeahng to the r of the public . wh,,ich leads to even Mr. CATAcOSINos. Well, as I pointed out earlier, Senator Moyni-more fear until the fear grt,ws out of propogi -you paid money han, the advice was much broader than just that, and it was in i for that kind of advice? areas that went beyond introducing Mr. CATACOSINOS. We paid money for a lot of advice from the Senator MOYNIllAN. Give us some advice.

firm of Nofziger-Bragg that goes beyon g Mr. CATACOSINoS. Well, for example, the company has a Senator MoYNIHAN. I admire your Can or, s r. "Nofziger.Bragg perception problem, and it has had that problem for a numbublic r of assisted the company to set up a meetmg wi ye3rs. Theggg question was, how can we frame the issu.es in a manner T t Energy " y, g g, g ,

it's a perceptirn. And I spent a fair amount of time with Mr. Nof-Mr. CATAWSINOs.

Senator MoYNIHAN. Yes'$isted the company to set up a meeting ziger trying to develop a program that would allow us to get the with the Secretary of Treasury. Ass 1'std th company in arrangmg message to the public in such a manner that we would become be-a meetmg with the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. lievable, and that's very important to us.

And so on. I see later on here you eng ged Mr. Clark Clifford, who Senator MoYNIIIAN. Fair enough. Fair enough. But let's be "assisted you m getting a meetmg with th Speaker of the IIouse candid here, of Representatives. ~, the parties to abecause we'reanjust level of civility trding to openness bring that the expect I would behavior of of all

Do you find anything unseem g pg i.Il do some- you as a respected scientist.

thing that shows my distmguns Chairman that I am not a You have an image problem, you say? <

lawyer, because I ask a question to which I don't know the answer. Mr. CATACOSINos. That was one of our problems, Senator.

f;'

Did you pay anybody to assis yo to arrange meetings with me? -

Senator MOYNIHAN. Is it a problem here in Washington?

, M r. CATACOSINOS. No, sir. Mr. CATACOSINOS. No. That problem is on Ieng Island.

Senator MoYNulAN. Was the word around that you didn't have Senator MOYNIIIAN. And Mr. Nofziger is a well.known authority to pay people to meet with me? on Long Island?

Mr. CATACOSINOS. You were kind enough to accept my visit to Mr. CATACOSINOS. Ile's a well-known authority on communica-

,; your office. lion problems, and that's what we were dealing with.

Senator MoYNIHAN. I was happy to meet with you. Senator MoYNIHAN. I'm not going to guestion your judgment, [,

Mr. CATACOSINOS. Yes, you were. much less your word, but what Lyn Nofziger advised you on was l

L

~

47 46 to Mn "k'r 8 call to the Speak -

e its editorial policy, or thmuarters of a million dollars {yms didn't have to pay me -

not on how to persuade Newsday to che nty 14gislature to m- y r -

Mr. Cohalan to reverse his or the th 3,'J,CA A%s NOs. IHAN.I wouldn't I m sure try, you S w la Id' '

wasSuffolk

~ r's specialty scariY e hell out of the

• 8"N ye waald verse theirs. Mr. NotThat did Mr. Clark Cli ord provide you in not t7 Secretary of Encyl.

y,* CATACostNOs. I would not, the way of counse 8""

• wmig Mr. Island Long CATACOstNOs.

in terms of theI need Visited Mr. Clifford for energy, the facttothatreview the and situation 't think youon 3,n kr MmMIHAN. But you knowM*t$i nk perhaps we havelant inte that's met see it, ane I all those sat you

- t. But it p, ast looks awful. I a * ""Y *n8e an memy a finished nuclear plant that's a quality fant were not licensed it og eendi year now, requirements, that in,my view if that pand I was concerned. And ,jg(company. I am on this comm$ tee

""'" . fee! very strongly that ym have to have State -

would affect our national energy policy,istration's policy on energy and local cooperation in an e li on I e acuation pan, but, oh' 1 reviewed with him the previous Adminand how- that <.

! linksge,with the #*' '*"' current Administrationa

• C0""8el

• as E Inialim, and the po cy g Senator MOYNIHAN. It's just so painful. And he suddenly hadcentegd, energy. long an y, **" t 8vo8d it as ith havt which a contagious that man last wed"8 poke d******'

'Tw PIi C8 inspiration; he said, let's go meet Tip O'Neill, he'll have some rat- " i b it. Alas, term, the word politicaprp ses/' has typically hasa j thoughts? f lik tha mar history, Mr. CATACOstNOs. He didn't have a sudden inspiration. f We had a

."Mr.. this mnan. I don't want to long discussion. hadn't happened. This Ntorment J#pardized Dr.theCatacosim company;g Senahr MOYNIHAN. What did you think you were getting in the a8 a d it a ust painful. -

f this meeti with the Speaker?

TACostNOs. I wanted to understand what the po cy o li ftg,(stk M. W. airman. -

Mr. y have to say that. Doctor. I 1 eave with this upon you-government was concerning nuclear plants,that whethe- lour energy policy wo aid continue er would not continue. I had a company i I had to serve g ,,

I wish{m had come

,Msmos. to me Well, I am and askdto come to ya 4 % g going was on 11 e verge of bankruptcy. I had a commun ty dI d that was unning out of energy. I had very few alternatives, an dhis issue IN^ *with ou. be wegcome to do that.

OII, you'll Mr. CA Senator MOYNIHAN. Yes, sir, but you had a senior Senator who is needed i 3,,g[ACOsINos. Fine. The p b'E r company re-perfectly able to open any door in this city for you, perfectly tained the will-

"".E t me ask ya, Docto 'ntract with them?

f ger firm, did you ha c ang to do it, and you didn t ask him-you didn't ask me. Mr. CA ^ 85 8. We had a letter o Emement with them, yes, Mr. CATACOsINOs. Senator, I came to visit with you, and you were .

sir I had kind enough to meet with me. We hadiated, a nice and discussion, and '

Senator Bauux. Did the letter ot nt outline those areas i a sense of your view concerning LIILO, which I apprec that ymi were employing Mr. Not sthe services that he was you have been helpful to us. When we i t the had problems on taxtofinanc-d and perform?

I I mg legislation, you were kind enough to assist843D,T^cOstNos illing us andgto ass g

It as not sratepayers on Long Isla IN it was done

! we came to you for help and you provided it.nator MOYNIHAN. '**You But wesurely used their boilefplate did, and IEnguage was perfectly for the dg. w scriptim 3,yggor BaEAux. Did the t I for various contacts

. Mr. CATA@slNos. And we thank you for that. Senator MOYNIHAN. public ogy;Cials? Did Youy re talktng "t 8" ofthe some major contract i the tax bill. .-

Mr.' CAT N , sir.

Mr. CATAOoslN7s. Yes, sir. Senatorf"Eaux. When you renewed the n t dM ya use the

{ Senator MOYNIHAN. Had you noin sense, tax measures sir, that someone who ,is i

j perfectly prepared to help you, us I was, openly, feel at unease--a ,,,,7,Yh*nd bliclife 2 contract e not .i spell out what you wa ted them to do in that and so forth, would be offended and hurt and ,- Mr. CA

• 8 8 We didn't renew it. We just allowed it to con-i genuine unease. I haven't spent a fl of third neasy,to a century in pu tinue in i existing form.

geog, not to know when to feel uneasyl Reserve and when not to ee ufind you engaging a political cons firm what d yer contract Pell out for the Nofziger vhies they were not to do?

I around to the Secretary of Treasury his suggestsand the FederaBoard Mr.CA Senato[^BRuux. You've and the t specifically' got a whole Secretary betiery of lawyers of Energy, that I *

~'

! you around to the Speaker-didn't youl know don'tWe do thatt that repre- 8*8N of the ex parte regulations, and your firm -

i i Cresume that you've got a problem with your case? Peop eutiless they have someproblems. We're with theyour Norrigerrepre

!

• I tak* 81. prepared .

k.ind of agreement -

j sent Iong Island. A call to Mr. Hodel, a call to Mr.

i

48 49 firm. Why did you not at that time spell out to the Norziger firm Mr. E am. As I , I was nM personally w nn at the time. I think the pa y did review with him, iththe t init,ial meet-that they were specifically prohibitei by your contract parte of employ-ment from engaging in ex

( ings, the fact tha b pany did not intend

1. requirem ts ' * '*" # **

the regulations covered and prohibited?Mr. CATAcOsINOS.That I Senator wasBa a given, from K"e88 at our point 8 a key pointofin'the view. #8eAnd at see.

ou I one actually sat with the people that M M rak that's something within the company that l we know. Senator in BasAux.

at which wanted t Well,.M that's hem, andaoutli ia do, but also covered givenf,rfor them yourwhat compan you.

were employing a pubhc relations firm that was to be myo v ( certain *# i -es that they could not do i plly,that an there were commumcations on behalf of your firm to educate the public. did ng , t Eat LIISO Mr. CATA00stNos. Yes, sir. ialty them to go any further th n what the law allowed.

Senator BamAux. You were not employing a firm with ouldsit Mr. L fC we did not intend them to go beyond of background or expertise in nuclear regulatory matters. d for

- what the I all w,g"_"',

not have been appropriate and proper for your attorneys that an you Sensk mEAux. I understand t and the / y, g'

• ^* Dr. Catacosinos said, the discussions with the j (ou new to include by law m thatSay, were prohibited? contract specifically I'd like to do this, t hib- the thi 5 a range d issues, c

other, but you can specifically not do these things that are pro A firm inci Mded man hadadvice nothingand to doconsulti)it{ = tacts with public o ci,g,f. Qg

! i ern had, as Dr. Catacosm.os said, to do with com-ited by the ex parte rulings?Mr. CATAcOSINos. Well, why don't I turn to my General Counsel munacations to the public.

and ask him to respond to that,if I may? ga r BasAux. I realize that r C*pany did not intend theni to do anything that was ill 7"but I also L Senator BREAux. Was that done?Mr. EARIEY. Mr. Chairman,gpeny, ourminvestigations hiring someorm to indicate relad ,thethat in reel nuclear that the com-tvlatory ind 1

discusciens with Mr. Nofriger, when the company ht first started to P "" ' e cornpany, I thin f d. on an this question obligation to letofyourtheem Sh,%

I emplo. tiis services we madei itl dclear d in thethat it was our ziger intention know-whg %t%g"*P athere oyees be no improper know-in this case,let Nof- ex part were looking for. So we did lay it out. It was not nc u e ti as nd something that they ere 8experts were, at what as far theasrules the w f written contract, but from what we can tell from our inves ga. regulations of this indust Cerned. I think what I "#

to determine is whether I tions-neither Dr. Catacosinos nor myself were withzager thefirm companyat aware, through ythe time---but fact specifically made r counsel's office of the our investiga activities -

7 that were prohibited bv *

• usmies andfrom regulah Ii i

at meetings when the representation started. Senator BREAUx. Can you tell who Mr. EAarEY. Mr. Cliai n 8n, as I said, I think the mpany djd LILOO met with make Mr. Nofziger aw d ose mies and the Com *'"*"'

ziger and discussed that?Mr. EARIEY. I believe the representative of $3M LIlf0 thatwashe not a violate Mr. hose rules through the initiafd Freilicher, who is one of the company's vice presidents. that representatives of the Senator BREAux. So from your statement it's clear that the . Senator BaEAux. Bug gg,8 no etter sent to him? There' Llif0 company made it very clear and certain to the Nofriger mg an the contract or l firm that you were employing them for a certain type of communi-firm that says, here's w "'"I'Iemployment with the Nofziger you cannot do, and by & way,

!' a me cations assistance, etc., but that they t? were specifically law?

Mr. EAarEr. No* .

told byLIILO that they were not Senator BasAux. hthere is nothing in writing" prohibited under the cover of ex parte proceedings and contacmesMr.

comments on them' ask yaEARIEY.

about two thi Es,just Absolutely, for your Mr vinces us that throughout the relationship i we usedfirm's

. services In the statement o forthemany witnessesthings, on the but *ing made it to engage in any improper ex parte contacts. And as far as our n- this panel, represe[t.f De E *n. rganization called "Citizens to Replace LILOO,"-and I as you this now because m w n t be here when vestigatson can tell, there were none. they testify _pog to what they sa is a at se event relative to

{ Senator BasAux. Irt me just ask you this out of curiosity. t Are when Suffolk County attempted, in [uly 1986 takeover of LILOO.

other emplohees of Lilf0 made aware of the illegalityorneial]agn of Th, ex par e

}

i

contacts wit NRC officials? w not"en finalized %[.hO,g;$Qaaury D 4.rt.,nt to surrolk county In 4 e letter, Mr. EAR 12Y. Yes, sir. m

, etz ca,e borrowing.11,

.c

,,,,,,,Qw_r % Pl an's legality end the tax-free

} Senator BarAux. And how are they made aware?Mr.

ff or outside ,7,,$p# EARIEY. Generally, g hi for officials that have

• *"d g;., f; , ,, ray y,t Metz then sent7 ter out *" Unifax which " *

"'d9 bi  !

1 with public of1'icials, myself or other lawyers on my sta ice counsel will periodically review the ex parte requirements and reg- My question is, was th' -

"gtak dziger met with the se or, after you, a'id Mr. l ulations with those people. Senator BREAux. But you did not do that with Nofziger's firm?

_ __ r -

___w - _ _

a i

, , . . , , ,s m, w-

'F '

50 51 Mr CAT ^ cosmo 8 I ***

• th the Secretary of Twasm in 1984, questions, thinks. I am so disposed to agree with whatever Mr. Bullock -

so th:is event took placeeat Ieht 2 yearsi aner %g w.th the Secretary dscussin Mr. Buuocx. Thank you, Senator.

uL Do you p Senator BREAux. Mr. Blass.

9,,p'the county's P I))c*retaryot  !

hr. ng about the @,

CATAcostNN- tax. freey discussions with -' our financ,al i

STATEMENT OF GREGORY J. BLASS, PRESIDING OFFICER SU inf ative. I outlined for g FOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE, LONG ISLAND, NY, ACCOMPA T.reasury were reall{ieved was going to occw

• thin the next 30 to t

h)uation days-thatwhat w h I bankruptcy be ngrve of the company; that I had done cash, bu we w stin short about f-NIED BY TONY HULLOCK. SUFFOLK COUNTY LE AND MEMHER, SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE ENERGY AND [

everything I .C0"gtof om needs, and g we robably wou,ld not t

$100 million in And I felt it was imp in

}- KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, WASHINGTON, .,

have a choice , ggg, ;or bankrup ere were other utili .

tant that he be aware my the record, take this opportunitMr. Bl. ass. Thank you, Mr.

similar stra t i O,ofand it because I had a eep result concern not only of our bankruptcy f what might occur lock who is a member of our to introduce legislator Tony Bul-company d ion at that time t a you j-over Senator BREAUL W88 might remember about Su@lk County's proposal to ta i

counsel to the legislature on Shoreham-r F L1140? ings, Mr. Herbert Brown of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Kirk-Mr. CATACOSmos. That proposal, a tMt time, had not occurred, patrick to issues&inIAckhart.

liti Inasmuch as some of our presentation relates Mr. Chairma ' lt occurred later* our testimony. gation, he will probably be responding or adding to Senator uarAux. OK. l' This same person says:

13.19ss =hich **" Ytor,a I would also like to add for the record, sir, that we have receivedp!

utiXYs * """ g driu on Febn he would not d' the subcommittee's request for written documentation with reg

%, was no loc 8I 8[h pu$gtici-par.en. to ex parte communications. We reedved that letter on May 12 6 by(IT.M A.M^

dr erar'**",7[ rector, Frank

.tsting th.t beca ,,,,,g , urance Nic could andsubcommittee the we are already that in the process of complying with it. We assure,

{*, protected. Ile "a" l***'d t"rorn hh, ,,b. an expeditious manner.information as requested will be supplied in r NOIIIKer met I.

u know if this occurred after you and wi teF Tha occu the opportunity to appear today on behalf of ato- BREAUE gCfhe

' nal DireN 1A Director prior to cerning i is external influences on the NRC's Shoreham proceedings.J portant subject, and we commend the subcommittee

{k .

the ring of the FEMAg3gos. No, I had met with the FEMA lDirector t at eas b' 7; took place. has seen repeated lapses in the NRC's obDuring 5 year a gear and a half before that discuss with him, f Y a remember, any i

[.

have witnessed the NRC "harmonizing"jectivity. For example, we

• nator BREAUL D d Ythat you were haying with the FEMA Regional Director, out of existence a funda-(I'5tr'1 e rone?

CATACOS,3 s. We did not discuss Mr. Petrone. tions so that LIlf0 need not confront adverse{fe rules al to give burdens LIILO on the another chance, and putting greater procedur-count  ! ,*

tor BREAUx. 6 than on Lilf0. On one occasion, the nator, do you have I have no ques- NRC's bias against Suffol{ County and New York State was Senator MoYN!"*"~ g4 estions?k you, Mr. Cha. irma d )L~

treme that we hadouttoourwin a U.S. District Court order to r tions. I would also say 1 have no doubts this w s very badly a -'ised' sir, but we B EO On to 'yth the NRC from snuffing constitutional rights

"#"'nator c e BREAUL Docto thank you very nusch for your answers- toward Suffolk County since 1982, here are pened recently. y, ou. r, Cregory Blas8, Mr CATBREAUL seEator ^cosiN08@*$ike to welCOS* "** Cribbing-literally Copying-portions of mmg LIILO's b ,

?ho is presiding Officer o{ ghe sum g{kwigCounty identify for Ifgislature, a,nd be

• • ccompanied by one of his colleagues, whom this after secretly getting an advance Copy of LIl .

he record-Mr, Blass, we are pleased to have you here.

Senator MoVNinAN. Mr Chairman, may 13'ust gunock to make to be facts about the position of Suffolk County these a personalis contra .

l h I welcome M an extraordinarly confront to the sworn aflidavit of the County Executive. When remark to, say he s an old and g ',*

with having effectively called el ted County officials ce se SY" liars-and indirectly, also embracing the Governor of New York- -

hea gi s s , ator. Since I almost t

e s i g.

52 That concludes my statement gentlemen State within that label-the Executive Director simply stood on his [An attachment to Mr. Blass' statement fell *M

• so<alled "belief." -

Three, the Executive Director of the NRC staff refuses, without justification, to meet in public with the Suhlk County Iagislature -

concerning what the county finds to be the staft's blatant favorit- -

ism towani LILOO.

Four, at this moment-at this very moment, gentlemen-the NRC is absolutely prejudicing the rights of Suhlk County. LIILO '

has asked the Commissioners to review its request for a license to .,

operate Shoreham at 25 percent power. While the question of whether-of whether-the staff should be permitted to review a LILCO's request is awaiting a ruling by ,the Commissioners, the ,

F ' staff and its'contractdrs'are in large nushberil already doing the review. What greater show of the Commissioners' bias against Suf- l

. folk Cbunty is there than having its own staff do exactly what Lilf0 wants while the issue of whether the staff should do it is pending before the Commissioners?

The question for the county, once again,is what to do. Are we to be forced to secure our rights by having to go to court? Can we not expect the NRC to follow even the most fundamental standard of due process? ~

Suffolk County's experiences leave for us no conclusion but that

} the Commission has given up objectivity fo:- LILOO's cause. In short, we can infer only that either overtly or by a wink-and-nod. l the Commission has signalled its staff 'to run interference for LIILO.

The county has found it impossible to explain charitably the con-tradictions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commis-sioners claim impartiality,'but they act as LIILO's partisan. The staff professes safety first, but helping LILOO is what it shows. I Even the words of the President of the United States are made into but an echo at the Commission. In October 1984, the President pledged that his Administration does not favor the licensing of Shoreham over State and county ob' . ions. Yet, the Secretary of Energy openly repudiates these wo by working with LIILO for the licensing of the Shoreham plant, and the Commission itself pro-poses to change its regulations in defiance of the President's words.

Is this the product of NRC or Administration cynicism? Or the product of someone-perhaps even many people-trying to wire the system to license Shoreham? Suhlk County does not have the '

answer, but we know that something is awry at the Commission.

As this subcommittee examines the facts it will observe a dispari- -

)

~

ty between how LIILO approaches the Shoreham case and how the county does. We have used our resources to try to make the NRC j follow its own rules and apply the law. Our efforts have been over- .

whelmingly before administrative tribunals and courts. LILCO, on l the other hand, has devoted large resources to trying to get around the law and to change the rules.

Suhlk County has read that the NRC Commissioners have de- k l cided to retain a special counsel to investigate the conduct of the J Commission and staff in several matters. The county believes very strongly that the conduct of the Commission and staff concerning the licensing of Shoreham is a matter that should be added to the 1

' special counsel's mandate.

s ~

'n

, , 55 .

'N

~2-ED S y 1 10W on Atomic Energy Act, and MAC regulations.'

t i The Shoreham proceeding .

is an on-the-record adjudication. . DOE's off-the-record initiatives 3

with 'the NRC to alt'er the established legal framswork and to

- )

• sway the direction and context'of M8C decisionneming are as g )

I" the matt *I 1 Doct** "** $ -322-OL obstruction of the lawful regulatory processes.

tug COMF W )

M power station, Moreover, the documento described in the Times article reveal

1. hor.h.m g 1)

.- -, . oog.s approach to influence actions of the Federal hrgency gThTE MOTIU* d*Tyggt Management Agency. Forexample,inaMarch0[1995 letter'from ggrTOLE WDEyEWD I y OCEEDI M DOE Secretary Merrington to FEM 4 Director Cluffrida, DOE urges

1. EWERCT I TEMA to conduct an exercise of LIIIO's offsite emergency to described g the attached

~ n s w article, plan.

The conduct of such an exercise is a contested issue in g the Departaent og g % 41sc10** *  ; the Shoreham proceedings. Secretary herrington does not even dated "*** g,q, concet,gn,g the

,,gcome og upC pr reveal that.the New York State Supreme Court on February 20,

,,docu-Energy *o influ**C' Among other thi"98' g

1995 declared LIIro's plan to be 11 bgel. Thus, DOE is urging

, ,,g, l***

TEMA to join with LILCO to attempt to achieve en unlawfot objective t

,. . Shoreham

... 88C

. ,,c . w or. . ,t p e, 8

M ats reve*

_ yp ygnA t , a,,*adept z: TEMA, as the NRC's evaluator of offsite emergency preparedness,.

interpre na Z*9880i"9which.a plays a significant role in the adjudicatory process as a pur-j 1

,resu pt *,d role g,g=;o ooE . ritei" ,re portedly impartial participant. The apparent efforts of DOE oehind- ee-sc.nes to infin.nce rt. . on- ae-record r. ,r.sentation.

• Forc** usc anA FL""gg ** *.n or utilitT emer ise of ich]e g tocal C g ,,gworgty and opinions undercut the integrity of the Shoreham adjudicatory esusptiO* *

, r #1 ****'* proceedings. At this point, it is therefore not clear if the will *C "f****, p yac to g pog to

• LOW. and NRC and FEMA have been acting _for themselves or, at times, as

• och appE0*CM * ,a proceedi"9 .

****** of the P - 1 the surrogates of DOE and DOE's undisclosed agenda for the catcome j take *CTI#"* ,,1c , erfect th-g . P,, cess end. earti=='

, aajedicatory ' *** $har h*-

erac 81 98-edure Act.

lf are E* F9 ing W ,1* Accordingly, to bring fully to public light the extent of are unlawful unSer * 'overn DOE's involvement at the NRC and the influence of DOE on the content and direction of. the NRC's Shoreham proceedings, and to

• 1, a t

4 #

0

.f

o

)

f:

. - lj i

H

- - - = - ' _ _ bLI

i s -

57 56 (Freen the New York Tasa. Me 27. IMI REconis SHow U.S. RxE m thscUTE AT SHOREHAM (By Matthew L. Wald!

be td e" t*

establish the fdation on which *** ion m19ht ed from Dog =a activit1***

with each other and counterparts at other departm the Shoreham nuclear power plant, according to department documents e cleanse any t* gas which h** **** h htary of F'nergy John S. IIerringa .

reby move th' 8RC im8'ediately ' ment was doing nothing about the dispute over emergency planning at suffolk County and We* T0** I .

to cC***"*a en in3ependent inn ggo , ,g gog*s activities. Federal solution on the licensing prnblem over governments.

pog.s lobbying,

-This g,,estigation Sh'*10 p .tmed at disclosing forBut wm the newly released documenta indicate that the department ha

,gg , .etions w g a ght affect . to help Shoreham's builder. the Long Island Lighting Company overco for.ing. 1"il"*"*i"'*

, the ning. e7usal of SufTolk County and New York, State y plan- to part

• • • • • "e, oirection, or oute

• or already h* "U*eted th' North Shore oflong Island. 55 miles east of New York Cit

• p unC's sh reh*a P'

NO COMMENT FROM EHERGT 8P**gg ity submittede Philip D. Kief, deputy that the department wou d have no immediate comment on the situati .

Martin Brad 1*Y Mh*** tment of L*w tee of the llouse Energy and Commerce Committee, closely earlier this month on the department's activities. ecretary suffo'lk C *"*Y * *M,iding it. Lee Denni* ljico has developed an cr..omog vetoran* employees of the utility in the roles usukily filled by plan using meter readers, linem nauppauge Y, , atyogg nighway 11788 cy personnel. and lilco would like to test the plan. y police, fire and othen emergen-y have been active in supporting la,ico's request, and Federal authority to the utility a plan.

f --

,t g. arown Lawronce Coe Lanphef and tha Federal Emergency Management Agency, ing cr.a.rq plans, grading emergenc7d ri Earls J Letsch* gy tory Commission on the state of preparmness.lls, and advising the Nuclear Regula--

giggrATRICK g 3DC w suite 300 1900 M W e Washington,"D.C. 20036 In a March 8 letter to the Director of the Emergency Management Agenc GiufTrida, the Eraergy Secretary. Mr. IIerrington, wrote . .

""I'he Depart Attorney

• for suffolk County will continue to support the testing of the Shoreham plan as soon as possibl .

{

. REED POm TEST soON j

An interr I Energy Department memorandum dated Ma dgSgM .

sFabian " pgomino W - clear gap at this time is the need for a test of the Lilco plan " y 4.1984, said. "The

.f specist Couns,1 to the Ex*C*t **

covernor moom 229 test it, the document said. "there is a highsusprobability basis for licensing Shoreham." 11cient  :

L e *di r Stst* C*

, 5 Albany. hgtalfvbrk 12224 "We encourage FEMA to develop and test the plan " the memo said. i b

Atto'n,y for Ma @ ,,,

og y,w York the problem of Lilco's legal authority to put the plan into effe .

p covernor of the St* t' and including oflicials of the Emergency Management ,

advisor r Regula-tory Commission and the Depadment of Energy-which ng was studyi plants "held I"

,gg 3, 1985 hostage" by local objections to emergency plannmg. i new plants had to have emergency plans beforeall they - . .

ope l t

3 e cHAIMNCE sY Jt/DGE 1

I have the legal authority to exercise the plana justice ofnotNew YorkI; {l could not assume police powers and governm, because employees of a private utility I I

blowing public emergency to take shelter or flee sirens, an area, or dwiding when to declare an emergency an v se the I

p $.

tion of the county and state.The documents indicated that s- the depart f

l )

} ['

i #

a L f'

- ,s a b 58 N An Fw Department summary of Shoreham's status that appeared to have been written in late 1kember or January speculated that the state or county"might gNIff0attempt STAT $ OF AMia!CA IfUCLEAR a to enjoin the conduct of TORY ComIS510ff would be violating some state law " '

Another department memo, undated but evidently written after May of last year. C0feelssggg$.*

listed "short term" tasks for the agency, including "Imbby NRC and ITMA to amend, interpret, issue opinions,or adopt presumptions regarding their regulations and rules which are favorable to DOE's policies." '

• ino. Chefruso a f g g, g CWrtaswr res mz mtiss r 8 E ASteistfne

e The subcommittee chairman. Reprementative Edward g FjckM.Bernthat M p py,q anJ.that Marbey, a Massachusetta the depart- Iech. Jr.

Democrat, complained in a letter sent yesterday to Mr. IIerriria ment's activities were "at odds with President Reagan's and your own pronounce- gy .

00Lhdiwis U.i ments on i.hm moue.

• Ja the matter or 1

&kanos "It reines a serious concern as to whether the task force is out of control." he said.Mr. lierrington, tofs 13tAfl0 tiefTing Company

% Mtestifying .5 befor 13---five days after his letter to the head of the Emergency Management Agency-. "What, if anything is D.O' E, doing Dock with r,. E was asked by Representative Markey? I3h'Mham Nuclear Power Stat 88n) spect to Shoreham's emergency plans '

Mr.18errington replied. "1 don't think we are doing anything."

Mr. Markey, pressing the new Secretary for details, asked him to submit docu-f ments dencribing the department's involvement in Shoreham's emergency plans if gE any were dincovered later.The department's response was to allow the committee staff access to ita files. The documenta it released were taken from the department's tack force on nuclear con- g8 a Motfon dated Aprf t 3, ggg$ I struction prow County and the State or New York reW ested the Comm,gsgg ,

"I 'I

""9Y- In support of their actfon

• . 1985 new IM Tian artfcle descrfbtng 000

• CC rdfag to no ..

Mreal DOC's effort to foproperty .

and %. and to *

• force

• the mRC to ifcense Shoreham T 5 tate and County assert that .

these actfrf tfes are "repugnac . ,

eading of this tfon is that the

• mniawful Ms same unspecggg,,,

f.!" Parte contacts, esow,,,

• *I '

Wr 2.5 parte conavnfCatfons between DOC and the Comag8580n are awary or man, ,,,,,i . and w i-It fs so ORDERED. '

gga RK rpe the CoNMissfon '

v

>+

nfa V

Q .

?

S M\ (D -

5MRilL . CMILK Secretary of a

'% Casustssion ,E

• e :. .

Dated at Washington. D.C.

thf s (%' day of June 1985.

. ,, . c .3 - r#

3 it-. a f

6-

,- , ,s 6 '

p

." gy  : /d qQ Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Blass, for being hue , ;43 with us. *M Senator Moynihan, any questions? - 3  : ;i@y Senator MOYNIHAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to demon- ..G strate that I'm not a lawyer by asking a question, the answer to  ?:O which I don't have.  %

Mr. Blass, are you a Democrat or a Republican? , , . [f #C Mr. BLAss. I'm a Republican, sir. ~

Senator MOYNIHAN. A Republican. I know that Mr. Bullock is a ,

,-l -

Democrat, so this is a bipartisan matter that comes before this ,

.,g ;

committee. 0. b@

Again, the previous remarks by Dr. Catacosinos were about the

• county and the State having reversed their_ position for political ';

reasons. I wonder if I could ask you, sir, and Mr. Bullock-what do T;* y you suppose was intended by that remark, followed by a quick ex- - V emption of the Governor from anything that the State might have -

done, which is a curious dissociation? '

Mr. BLAss. If there's any Contagion, Senator, it's- .A Senator MoYNIHAN. Well, wait. First of all, do the citizens of Suf- i'

~ ,

folk County suffer from some con disease? '

Mr. BLAss. Abso!utely not, sir. utely not. The fact is that ~ >,

the citizens of Suffolk County, and with increasing awareness the citizens of Nassau County, are concerned about safety, public -

health and safety, ia the event of a radiological accident. .

Senator MoYNi,i4N. Would you think that an attorney who has collected some $13 million in fees was prudent in describing a con-cern for safety as a "contagious disease 7 >- M. i Mr. BLAss. This, Senator, is the kind of outrageous comment that g we've heard from the Long Island Lighting Company for quite - ,

some time, usually at the expense of the ratepayers as it is aired or

• summarized in statements of counsel. But the revernal of position is something else that I think deserves to be explained on the i

W

.\

record. '

4 I Suffolk County and the State of New York did not neverse any position at all. What happened clearly was that as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in IM9, which was long after the Shore-Ao ham plant had started to be built, the County of Suhlk was al- '

^a lowed to participate in emergency response planning as the regula- .t tions of the NRC, which were changed afterThree Mile Island, pro- _L vided. And we did participate, and we participated extensively. ,- A Many hours of hearings, which I sat through as a member of the  %

Isgislature, hearing witnesses and teethnony on all sides of the - -- g issue; reams of &,ca..w..tary evidence; days and days of hearings  ; d'D again, and we concluded quite openly and publicly-and properly, I might add-that Long Island does not lend itself to an evacuation b

' - y[pi W

in the event of an emergency at a nuclear plant, no matter how

.t remote certain proponents of the nuclear plant might argue an ac- t.

f, ;'/g cident might be. We did not reverse anythmg.

Senator MOYNIHAN. If I could ask Mr. Bullock to expand on that.  % f..J 9gy Do I take it to be the judgment, and the bipartisan judgment of the t s .

County legislature that when, in the aftermath of Three Mile ,

Island and the new regulations which were prompted by hearings .- ~c N!

held by this subcommittee of which I was then a member, and I am "

today, that in the aftermath the county found itself required to ,

r #

1

e

, N.' ,

61

} .

..rO'i $

conduct evacuation drills, whereupon you came upon a set of facts which persuaded you that the conditions, the realities, wem such Nh

' - that it wouldn't work? . r -

f s .3 Mr. Buuocx. Well it would seem Senator, that an who lives -

.d on Long Island might think that getting home for y is an . -;M

! emergency, with the condition of our road systems there. Without a - ~

~

d doubt, the Three Mile Island incident brought serious attention to .

,N7 i the nuclear ind at large and concern over safety and evacu- '

ation. But as Mr. said, the county never reversed its position -

nQ

1. with regard to the plant. We had strong ' tion th t the x

! county to the James nt, which LI attem to build @

prior to Shoreham. been long. standing W

' tion and a

• 3

, svalization that emergency planning on Iong Isla as a very, very .

difficult thing to accomplish.

i .

o-

, Furthermore. I truly feel that the attempts to characterise the '

'G

{ attention to safety and evacuation planning as a political ploy-a political football, if you will-is both unfair and unflattering to i

l those elected officials at the town and county level who are very '

l concerned and representing widespread concern among their con- W j stituents. ,,

1 Senator MOYNIHAN. In that same connection, how does it feel as -

l elected ofHeials of a J .,,s.i. tic part of our country-it's been there -

a long time, and I understand you were mostly settled from New i England in that past of Iong Island. We have a border with Rhode -

+

i Island; very few know it, that there's a border between Suf. .

folk County and Island. -

p 4

How do you feel about a public utility entirely confined to the ,?

two counties of Nassau and Suffolk coming down to Washington . -

. and engaging a former White House operative for three<nuarters of  ?+

1 a million dollars to arrange meetings with the Secretary of Treas- +

ury and the Administrator of the Federal E.w.g..;y C , ..- ..t _ .

, M r. Blass? .

i 4

r. Buss. It is definitely, Senator, a red flag. a red flag symbol-imed by the numerous meetings-of which we have ev1.cathat M,

? -

j took place between long Island

• ting Company ofHeials and 'V-

., NRC o(Ticials, White House cincials, A offL" '- , d 1 Senator MOYNWAN. White House officials?

Mr. Buss. Absolutely. .

Senator MOYNIHAN. White House officials? '

] M r. B u sa We are aware of these meetings having taken place, and we know that uent to these meetings actions occurred '

[

W .s which showed rema y extraordina A Island Lighti Company in the p favoritism '

- - issue. toward And as thea ' -

s l<

resu t of that, we th nk that the matter merits much more serious .jk investigation, and we're hopeful that the subcommittee will pursue .' d<.

that. We believe that the Iong Island Lighting Company's favored , , J j -(

, status by the regulatory process prcbably would not have resulted .

had it not been for the anterference on the part of Mr. Nofziger.

- '. T::; r.

and we think that the information has to be obtained because we . ,. T

. don't have it. We can't get it, but we do have the tip of the iceberg ,

with all of these meetinas occurring, and chronologically and in se- . .

quence, all these favoredacts taking place.

{ . ,

Senator MOYNIHAN. Could you-Mr. Brt,wn-I see you're Consult- '

j ing with your attorney. 3 1' 4

: r 75-282 3 ,

1

- 62 6'l Mr. Buss. It's certainly not our intention to, limit it to Nofziger. brook in New Ilampshire speak of this being a country of heroes

• It's on the company as a whole; a number of individuals we think but there are cowards; and obviously cowards are not among his fa-tre involved in what we've seen as favored status for a utility that

~

vorite people, and he withdrew the statement when asked to name one.

can't meet the regulations as they exist and cannot provide for evacuation planning, as our courts have ruled that they cannot. But this was a gradual process in the county

• one event afte Senator MOYN HAN. If I Could ask ou, Mr. Bullock, if you were other caused you to learn more and began to think differentIy.

the elected official of your county an came to this city lookmg for Isn't that right?

someone to arrange for a meeting with a member of the Federal , Mr. HuuoCx. And 'indeed* sir

• the ubli - "

Reserve Board, woul,d you have hesitated to have come to my office ,.

poll conducted by Penn & Showen for th eas er nd of n

! Island, which has been more opposed to the plant, tha tha or Senator D'Amato e office? -

Mr. BuuoCK. Not at all, sir. 1 Senator MOYNillAN. Wouldn't it have been a normal thm.g? the were western 70 percent of end of Sufrolk the public that felt and Nassau Cou tYlio the lant Id Mr. BouoCx. It would be the first thing I would think of. . .

That fi

• P' Senator MOYNulAN. I mean, do you thmk you have to buy your perhaps posed and16 16 percent percent inwerefavor.opposed'The fig ve res reversed them-way into the offices of the Federal Beserve Board member? Selves in a few short years.

Mr. BouoCK. I wouldn't think that would be necessag. Senator MoYNIllAN. Well, it certa' I d #** # "'

Senator MOYNIllAN. I would hope that the reputation of the Fed' fidence-it is just ve inful to "" **7 eral Government is better than that. I don,'t mean to impune the this utility has beha ed Some of$ , an m u e the motives of others, but access to public ofTicials in this city is open presider.t. Dr. Catacosinos f " " " # "" .this, and democratic and is most readily arranged by representatives but there's a pattern of tEhn -

1 inc from the Congress when the matter is in the Executive Branch. r- 8 8. ,ompetenc,e ag, is,and thengmd a wn misjudg-me Mr. Blass, you would not have felt it mappropriate to ask any ment.

You willI think your Ei ve th i ima e. M.ttee those names and dates that s comnu l

you Member of Congress, either from the Ilouse or the Senate, to ar- have?

range meetings for you, would you? Mr. Buss. Yes, sir

• we will^

l Mr. Buss. No, sir. We think it would be most appropriate. Senator Mo utA - hank yw very much, Mr. Chairman, and I Senator MoYNIIIAN. And on political advice about the local thank these t they'll probabl dttractyve ywng legislatons each other Ifor can't doubt that image of a company, would you have come to Washington? running agamst my seat one of Mr. Buss. No, sir. these days-Senator MoYNillAN. Is there nobody on Iong Island? g, B n e mu , enator.

Mr. Buss, We know enough about the image of the compan on that is clear is that too much money has been Iong Island not to seek advice, and pay three. quarters of a mi hon

, I thinkgne hi y I wyers and PR firms and eve body.

dollars for it, in Washington. The LIlf0 test.imony that was received earlier said that hufTolk Senator MoYNittAN. bo you used the words red Hag.'. You gunty alone has spent approximately $20 million of the taxpayers' wouldn't have done that if you weren't involved with things you ,

ney o und their opposition to Shoreham. Could you comment ough,t not to have been involved with. Is that what you're trymg to on w at that money was used for and where it came from7 E r.B Ass. Certamly, sir. The money was used for not only the

,,br. Buss. Yes, sir. retainmg of counsel and, technical experts Ar the various proceed-Senator MoYNillAN. Mr. Bullock. mgs that have occurred m relation to the Shoreham licensmg over Mr. Huuocx. Well, I think the retaining of the Nofziger firm m. many years, but also on the economic front, one of which was a IW'l indicates to a certain degree that, unlike Dr. Catacosmos prudency hearing conducted by the State Public Service Commis-characterization of the need to retain that firm, it was not so much sion. That went on for quite some time and resulted in a ruling because local government or State government had reversed their that was unprecedented, nationwide, declari ig and finding that the positions. It was because the public had begun to lose confidence in - -

Long Island Lightmg Company imprudently incurred $1.35 billion the long Island Lighting Company, and that loss of confidence was m costs at the Shoreham plant as the result of mismanagement' reflected. I think, in the elected officials who represent the compa- Therefore, that amount of money shall not be placed in the rate ny. This loss of confidence is the result of a long litany of meidents , . base and charged to the ratepayers. We view that as paying back which I will not go into at this time, but problems with the plant, .

the escalation of costs, the time delays, the concern for the evacu- our mvestment sigmficantly, but that was also part of the expense' ation drill, and so forth. It really is I think, a totall unfair charac- paying several law firms, not just one; and also proceeding with the terization to say that the loss of confidence in t e leng Island various consultants we've had on the acquisition of the long Island Lighting Company was the result of a few elected officials. It s the Lightmg Company through a tender offer. In other words, the pubhc utility study and analysis that we've done, it was included in result of their own mismanagement,in my opin;non.

Senator MoYNIIIAN. And just to inake tlye pomt, because we had that, too. Our cooperation in joining with the State in anal' in someone last week from Connecticut who is part owner of the Sea- the feasibility of a public utility in place of the Long Island Light

64 65 ing Company-monies were expended for that, as well, all in that Senator Banux. Were there any meetings between you or your figure over a period starting in about 1979 or 1980, up antil now. lawyers or county officials with any officials in Washington?

Senator BREAUx. The money for these expenditures would just Mr. Brown. W ith ublic come out of your general revenues, tax base from Suffolk County? Senator BREAUx. ' ell, other than the witnesses. I think you Mr. Buss. I'm sorry I didn't answer that part of your question. were talking about the witnesses that you all had met with and Yes, sir, it came from op.erating expenses. prepared and worked with for their testimony.

Senator Banux. Did Suffolk county ever find itself employing My question is, did you all set up any meetings with people re-Eny people to work on this issue, other than lawyers and techm- ceivmg testimony or talk to any of the people receiving testimony?

Mr. Enown. Well, the members of the committees before whom cians? ,

Mr. Buss. No, sir. We have not hired any lobby.ists. We have a -

we would appear, yes.

lobbyist in Washington that represents the county, but his work m Senator Banux. Are we talking about congressional committees regard to the Shoreham issue has been quite limited Counsel has or NRC committees?

M r. Enown. Congressional committees. 'I'here were other-I provided, in response to inquiry by the committee, a list of actions . . <

that they've taken that relate to meeting with Members of Con- listed-the counties have not had an opportunity to reply to your gress and members of FEMA, members of the NRC. All these were letter yet. I d,id, as perhaps you know, submit a letter this morning by no means ex parte, they were quite the opposite. to the committee, and it mentioned the meetings at which I was Senator BREAUx. Did any of your lawyers or anybody on the present. And there were some that did not mvolve Congress, yes.

county government discuss with your attorneys the proscriptions Senator BREAux. And who would they have involved?

and prohibitions under the ex parte rules and regulations? Mr. Baown. Well, there were-I would have to refer to t,he l Mr. Buss. Yes, sir, we had discussions like that. ,-tter. There were a couple of meetings with FEMA offienals, with

! Senator BREAUx. From your attorneys with the county offic,als, i county officials, agniti; virtually every meetmg, h d 't dot Company county officials who were makmg the,I was, tion known.t,here to ac-ir posi s r. e e had expert advice and have benefitted One was with the Secretary of Energy. The County Executive read

. r. I m the newspaper in the spring of 1984, in a front-page New York na r I REAUx. Did the counties ever ask their attorneys to set Times story, that the Secretary of Energy--or the , Department of Ener -had been meetmg m the, White Ilouse with LIILO and u.p me.eti,ngs with officials in Washington to discuss the Shoreham with 'EMA officials, and that this planning that was gomg on ir Juss. We haven't asked them to do i for us. We've talked {here was for the purpose of figuring out ways to get Shoreham on to them about it. We've consulted with th m, b t we ve not ings we ve h d with th m ere n Wa ingto with the lawyers .

H'e e M M & e a h b M M w h W IIodel and demanded a meeting-he requested a meeting with Sec-themselves. retary IIodel. The meeting was granted, and we came to Washing-ton. We met at the Secretary's office. There were, I'd say, a half a Senator BREAUx, Did your Iawyers engage in meetings,with any  % g, officials in Washington regarding the Shoreham hcensi .

Mr. Buss. Iet me ask Mr. Brown to answer that ir y. Senator BREAUx. Did you ask the Secretary to take any action or to do anything?

Senator BREAux. Sure. Mr. Brown. .

Mr. Bnown. The point was to tell the Secretary not to do what Mr. Baown. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. That might require correc- he was doing, and to make plain to him-I was not the one who tion' We met with a number of-there have probably been three ma[e plain to him, as the Secretary summarized those words afterrela four hearings on the Shoreham case over the last five years, an their private meeting, that Suffolk County would not adopt or %-

before several of those there were meetings-courtesy calls pa,' piement a plan because the county had concluded that safe evacu-those who had testified with the chairman of the committee, an ation was not possible. I had sat in the anteroom with the two perhaps others on the committees, and I might well have set up a Deputy County Executives and three assistants to Secretary IIodel.

couple of those. I don't recall off the top of my head, but it certam- We told them precisely the same thing and ly wouldn't surprise me if I was the one to do it. If I hadn t been They were puzzled, incidentally, by some ofave themand the facts, some facts.

thero the one to do it, it would nave been someone m the county call % , -

the Congressman from his district and havmg it done. was an enormous release of documents by Congressman Markey a couple of years ago. And I found it curious, and chuckled some-Senator BnEAux. That would be meetmgs between some of the what, to see that immediately after the meeting one of Secretary lawyers with whom? . . Ilodel's assistants instructed his superior to find out if we had told Mr. BaowN. These would have been meetings with the pecple the truth with one of the facts. And a note came back to a Mr.

testifying for the county, and the analogy would have been Mr. Gelde saying that indeed, it was. And the fact was this. We pointed Jass and Mr. Bullock meeting yesterday with you and Senator out that it was a fantasy for Mr. IIodel and others to speak about

.loynihan, with me there present. an accident occurring on Iong Island where there are three roads l

l N_ ____

b and just a few people trying to evacuate; that in fact, everyone- We were so appalled at one point that on-I believe it's April I virtually everyone. a very large number, in fact,1.2 million people 1985-we were so appalled at a New York Times article that re' or more would seek to evacuate; that's what our studies showed. vealed documents that had been released by a Congressional com-And to lend credibility to that we said, that's precisely what hap. mittee showing that the Department of Energy had memoranda pned at Three Mile Island where the evidence was that Governor which stated the following. Among other things these documents, Thornburg advised 2,500 people to evacuate, a id 144,000 people which were just released by the New York Times, revealed DOE's evacuated.

efforts to "lobby NRC and FEMA to amend, interpret, issue opin-They didn't believe that. The note went to the subordinate of Mr. ions, or adopt presumptions regarding their regulations and rules Gelde saying, "Check this out." We have the note that came back, which accept,are

-andfavorable to DOE *s policies then in parentheses it says,to"change force NRC and"utility rule?" FEMA to which Mr. Markey made public, saying something along the lines, "Believe it or not, these guys are right; 144,000 did." ,

e,xercise of emergency plan without local cooperation or presump-Senator BRuUx. I didn't understand one way or the other. Did tion that local authority will act in a real emergency "

you say that the Secretary had indicated that the evacuation or - - We wrote that such approt4hes of the DOE to lobby and force emergency plan was not workable? the NRC are repugnant to an adjudicatory case, which indeed is a Mr. brown. No, he raflected what the County Executive had said courtroom. We filed a document styled "Suffolk County and New to him. They met privately for 10 minutes, perhaps. The Secretary York State Motiots for Commencement of Independent Investiga-walked out, cordially summarized the meeting in the presence of tion of Department of Energy Influence on Shoreham Proceed-the County Executive to the five of us who had remained in the mgs." We took the only documents we had. We took the history of anteroom, to say accurately what had been said by the County Ex- our experience in the NRC, which in fact is more slanted than any-ecutive. We all shook hands and departed. thing I have seen or other counsel, who are experienced with what Senator BRnUx. Did he indicate that ne would take any action I speak of. We laid it before the Commission, and on the 5th of based on that information?

June a simple order came out stating, "We deny the motion." This is the NRC. "Our reading of this motion is that the ' unlawful' con-Mr. BROWN. No.

Senator BREAUx Did you ask him to do anything, or just drop by duct of which movants complain involves some unspecified ex parte to tell him about it? contact. However, movants have provided no evidence of improper Mr. brown. I didn't speak to him, nor did the Deputy County ex parte communications between DOE and the Commission, and Executives, I do not know if anything else was said to him. The we are aware of none ourselves."

only thing I know was said to him is what he reflected had been Now, none of us is so naive or unsophisticated as to walk away said to him, from a statement coming out of DOE saying, "We intend to lobb Senator BRatAUx. Mr. Blass and Mr. Bullock. Do either of you ,

NRC and to force the NRC and FEMA to accept a rule change know if the county requested the Secretary to take any action and to accept the NRC's misconstri ction of that as though we are l allegmg some kmd of ex parte conduct. Or more importantly, none I based on the information that was presented?

Mr. Bl. ASS. All that we are aware of is that we asked that those of us in this room is so naive as to think that this doesn't consti-meetings that we had read about in the Times stop, and we also , tute the biggest "red flag" of the sort that Mr. Blass referred to clarified-or the County Executive at the time-clarified the coun- carh,er. What more does it take, I ask?

ty's position on evacuation planning and the difficulties we had Well, it must take a lot more for the NRC to look at its own proc- l, esses.

with it. Senator BREAUx. Were there any other contacts with any other '

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, if I might add something that's rele-vant. . Government officials other than the Secretary of Energy, made by The problem of an inexplicable bias at the NRC in the Shoreham you or by the attorneys? '

proceedings goes back a number of years. The record demonstrates Mr. Baown. We met at meetings at which LILCO was present a great deal of hostility and adversity in this proceeding agamst and the NRC was present, where FEMA was present. These were Suffolk County and agamst New York State. .- major meetings.

1*ve been on all sides of regulatory proceedings, in the Govern- l I m searching my mind. The meetings we had at which other t ment, outside the Government, representing oil companies in Cali- parties were not present involved the one I referred to with DOE; I J fornia, louisiana, other places; the polluters, in those mstances. y i. - beheve two or three meetings with FEMA. One meeting was a pri- 2 l've been on the environmental side for States; I think every side ,

vate meetmg with FEMA; immediately afterwards LILCO met there is. I have never experienced an agency that has demonstrat- ,

with the same FEMA officials. They apparently preferred to have ed in a proceeding such hostility, such slantedness, and such parts- , the meetings separately, and that was the protocol.

sanship as is being done institutionally by the NRC in this proceed-I The second meeting was a meeting with all the parties at l LILCO s headquarters.

ing. I do not make blanket accusations against the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission hert. I take a rifle with a scope, and I say, there's The third meeting was at LILCO's headquarters with FEMA, and a fourth meetmg was a private meeting we held in 1983 or 1984 [

something wrong.

a

t 68 69 with three FEMA officials dealing with the utility plan which the law is adhered to and that the safety of our residents is se-LIIf0 had then submitted. cured, and the monies expended by the Long Island Lighting Com-That's the extent of those meetings.

Mr. Buss. I should add, sir, that during the situation involving pany to get the plant open at all costs. They have engaged public the possibility of the formulation of a public utility for Suffolk relations firms, advertising campaigns in the tens of millions of County, after that strange sequence of events with the Secretary of dollars. These sorts of mampulativ Treasury's office and the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary- Senator MOYNIHAN. Manipulative is a very gentle word. Decep.

I forget his exact title--we requested and, after much difliculty, ob- tive might be a better word.

tained a meeting with him, members of our legislature and mem- M . Luss. Yes, sir. I think there's a big difference between the .

bers of our financial advisory staff, to discuss what the tax prob- - county spending money on attorneys and ialists in the field of rate reductions and so forth, and the Long Lighting Compa-lems would be with our public utility discussions, but these are not related to the licensing proceedings or with any adjudicatory prob- ny's retaining of Lyn Nofziger and advertising firms and major lem. .

media blitzes which they are presently involved in, in both radio Senator BRF. aux. Senator Moynihan, any questions? . and television and print media, in the millions of dollars, which Senator MoVN HAN. Just one remark. I think it should be clear, will serve no public mformation purpose whatsoever.

as I take it from Mr. Blass, that the county has a person liere in Senator MoYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just have to tell you that I Washington on a full-time basis, or whatever, who represents the find it bafHing. I mean, we do remember that this is a public utility county with respect to legislative matters and executive matters, that was given a monopoly. Some standards of behavior are expect-which is a very routine arrangement that cities have and States ed. Everywhere we looh we find efforts to manipulate; we would have. IIe's involved with Shoreham, too. expect open advocacy, yes, but manipulction no, and deception, cer-Mr. Br. Ass. IIe's been involved as our lobbyist. We have had very tami; not.

little-- -

hnk you, gentlemen, very much.

Senator MOYNIHAN. But you have not engaged any firm? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Buss. No, sir.

Senator BREAUx. Just looking at this whole issue I've about de-cided that we're all in the wrong business, except, Mr. Brown, Senator MOYNIHAN. It was routine. Ile was there before and he'll be there afterwards. maybe you. le are really Mr. B1. Ass. Nor does he specifically deal with the Shoreham issue I m looking at that Newsday article-the paying for both sides of the issue. The taxpayers in frolk County, ;

for us. the utility users in that area-Mr. Brown, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Senator MOYNIHAN. Right.

And just for comment, in that question of Shoreham's tactics in your firm is listed as having been paid $9,511.349. You're not doing as well as the firm for LILCO; they were paid $13,292,469 for pro-this matter, you must have heard of the Citizens for Shoreham viding leg I counsel on this issue. They paid the Impel Corporation Electricity.

Mr. Buss. Oh, yes, sir. of Atlanta, nuclear consultants, $16 million. The fees are absolute-Senator MOYNWAN Which has cost some $2.2 million. Were you ly astronomical, and I must say that's true oc both sides of the given to understand at this point that this was a spontaneous citi- issue.

zens' organization?

I don't think Congress realized we were creating a jobs progra,m like we did when we started this. And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Buss. They advertise themselves to be. I recall newspaper both sides are doing the same thing. I don't think the system really ads urging people to join, and they had citizens' names. They con- calls for that, but that's what has happened, and that s the unfor-veyed-or attempted to convey-a grass roots movement, which tunate thing..

was entirely contrary to the grass roots reaction to the %reham Mr. Buss. Sir, I think the rystem is working the way it should

, issue on Long Island. as far as the county side is concerned because it is the taxpayers' I Senator MoVNIHAN. And the reality is that this citizens' group was paid for by Shoreham?

money, and the people of Suffolk County by overwhelming nuar-Mr. Buss. I understand it's $1 million or $2 millior a year goes gins-not only ss they have expressed it in the electoral process for 1 from IAng Island Lighting Company to the organization. the county government races, but also in public opinion polls and ,

Senator MOYNIHAN. From the Long Island Lighting Company. elsewhere-overwhelmingly support the expenditure of what is I'm sorry; that was my mistake. . . necessary Senator BRF. AUX. I'm not arguing with that. It's a good point. But Mr. Buss. Yes, sir. .

Senator MOYNIHAN. Is that appropriate behavior for a public the problem is, they're saying that Long Islanders are paying $70 ,

miUnoa in this fight, supporting both sides. That's the unfortunate utility which is granted a public monopoly? thing, and it's unfortunate for the citizens in the aren.

6 Mr. Bullock? Mr. Buss. Sir, I would respectfully ak the subcommittee to con-Mr. But.nocx. I would have to say it's outrageous behavior for a

~

sider the impact on the economy of Ieng Island if tho,Shoreham i public utility, and it really signals the may'or distinction between nuclear plant goes on line, because then we have no choice and the the monies that have been expended by SufTolk County to see that whole $5 billion becomes our expense.

I i

s 70 7I Senator IIREAUx. But the ironic thing is that some of those same STATEM ENT OF M AUltICE IIAltilASII, CIIAIR'4AN, CITIZENS TO pople are paying to support the other side of the issue. I!EPLACE LII,CO, LONG iSLANI) NY Mr. BLAss. The minority, sir. Mr. BARBASH. Thank you, Senator. I guess we're the people that Mr. IlRowN. Mr. Chairman, you make a very good point. Ud like are paying all that money.

to add something to that. I want to thank you for the invitation to testify, and thank espe-The Shoreham case is probably the largest administrative legal cially Senator Moynihan, to whose office we went without hiring a battle that is going on. There is truly no reason for this battle to lobbyist to get some look-see into the situation which we have have gone beyond the 24th day of February,1983. On that day, we rcund abysmal and appalling.

filed a motion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the

• We have got 10,000 members, sir. We're registered all over the motion said that Suffolk County, after the most exhaustive analy- State of New York, God knows how many registrations, to do our ses that have been done and a litany that we did before you last business, which was to propose to replace the Long Island Lighting week of studies and analyses and hearings, has concluded that it Comp:my with a public power authority. We're not anti-nuclear, would not be possible to evacuate the public safety in the event of sir. Some of our members may be; I certainly am not. We're not an accident. little old ladies and we're not "not on my block people. We're just We then said the following .n the mot;on: "Federal law ree.uires regular, normal citizens who come to this for a variety of con-that there be either a State < - local imFl ementable plan cr utility cerns-economic, which was my starting point; safety, which I plan." Actually, there was r..

• even a question of a utility plan think most people are concerned with, and environmental. LIPA, then as I recall; there had to be State or local involvement, in any by the way, Long Island Power Authority, was enacted into State event, was what the law made clear in our judgment We filal a law July 2 of last year, and activated on January 15th. It is cur-motion to terminate the case and send it to court. We told the rently proceeding with its final study to determine whether there

, NRC, why should we waste everyhdy's money quibbling? Put it in are sufficient ratepayer savings to go ahead and acquire the kng the court and we'll have an answer in a few months. Island Lighting Company.

LIILO objected to that. The NRC staff objected, and the Commis- We are especially appreciative of this insitation because we have sion ruled 3 to 2 not to terminate the proceeding. IIad the proceed- spent $86,000 to date---run up a legal bill of $86,000-defending our ing been terminated as the county-this county alone, at that right of free speech against a LIILO attack the minute we opened point-asked, the matter would have been long gone. our mouths and made our perfectly legal proposal. Thankfully,

, Senator BREAUX. On the other side, we could probably say that if that suit has been adjudicated in our favor. And, as Senator Simp-you hadn't sued it would probably been all over a long time ago, son would say to us, $86,000 is a bale of money.

but that's your right to sue, and that's their right to proceal under Looking at me, you know I'm not a young guy. rm an old, con-the procedures. And the whole thing is a mess. -

servative businessman; been in business on bng Island for many, Mr. brown. The whole thing is a mess because of the fact, if one many years as a residential developer. The testimony I gave cites hails it down, it literally becomes one of the company not being the number of things I've done besides that in the public area.

willing to accept the will of the people; 80 percent of the people are .

I originally got interested around 1983, although a lot of my against it. Local and State government is against it. The United friends had previous interests, including my brother-in-law, but he States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is upholding the couldn't get me involved in it. I got interested because I looked at county. The U.S. District Court is upholding the county. The New the escalating costs of Shoreham and decided that a lot of my York State Court of Appeals is upholding the county. What more fellow businessmen, the people wl.o make machine tools and do can someone do than resort to court and win the case time and printing, were going to leave Long Island; they couldn't afford it.

time again? As the result of my interest and the interest of Suffolk County, I Senator BREAUX. Well, there are always legal disputes, and we're was appointed to a businessman's committee to help the accounting going to keep paying lawyers. That's what we've got now. firm of Touche Ross study what alternatives there could be regard-Um not saying that you've done anything wrong. IIeck, rd be ing the financial impacts of Shoreham, and we did a $250,000 proud to earn a $9 million fee, but it just seems like the situation is study-more money, by the way.

an incredible mish-mash. And I think the hearings have brought ,

As a result of that I got a little more involved in the safety issue that out. ,

because you can't just look at Shoreham as an isolated economic Thank you very much. You all have been very helpful. I think thing. Once you start looking at Shoreham you look at all the prob-you have answered all the questions. lems, and I started to read the NRC's own assessment of what Senator BREAUx. rd like to welcome up 1%r. Maurice Barbash, would happen on Long Island in case of a meltdown: 40,000 deaths, Chairman of the Cit zens to Replace LILCO. 75,000 injuries, etc., etc., and so on, and I read LILCO's own testi-Mr. Barbash, the committee welcomes you very much. We are mony in the Jamesport heering which, incredibly, said that besides i

looking forward to your testimony, all the other catastrophic events that would happen in case of a meltdown on kng Island, our water supply-the Magafee Aqu:.

~

72 73 fer-would be contaminated for decades and decades, perhaps as ble. On my hospi,tal board if some board member pulled a deal like much as a century. that, he'd be off in the mornmg. ,

Well. we first found out that Mr. Nofziger might have someth, mg Well, it doesn't take much to frighten the businessman, all of whose landholdings and apartment holdings are around long to do w,thi this kmd of a mess when Newsday published a thing on Island, when he's confronted with that. And lookin into the insur- July 24th,1984, that he was gett,mg $20,000 a month. And m that ance situation-and as a prudent businessman, I id-I saw there same article, by the way, there s a sentence where the reporter was nothing available for me. And based on the damage assess _ s id that LILCD said that they have no written memora,nda from ment of the NRC's own study, your Price-Anderson Act wouldn't Mr. Nofziger. Well, what the hell was he doing all that time, with cover anything. You know, we were being asked to assume a risk all these thmgs that Dr. Catacos,mos said he w without any compensation, without any insurance whatsoever, and

~

D*"dibasn t one shred, no memoranda ir files? I findmt atthe,as

'"C, that's kind of a "no win" bet. I mean, Nick the Greek wouldn't And yo$ asked, sir, Mr. Chairman, about his expertise on Long take a bet filye that. It was a crazy bet. Island. They didn't need him on Iong Island. The had Winter-Well, that a why we think this proceeding to license a nuclear -

Wagner Associates who were running that phony i ont for them, plant shou *d be abso!utely beyond reproach. And ,I can tell you Citizens

• Front, and paid them millions of dollars, along with con-very honestly, from our own personal expenence, it sure as hell tributions from other nuclear utilities and other utilities. I mean, sin t beyond reproach. . we were snowed and snowed under.They paid plenty, and they had Why are we worried about Shoreham .m particular? Previous t(s- ' a lot of local, good PR advice, which may still be going on.

timony alluded to the $1.4 bilhon Public Service Commission penal- One of the problems we have is that we have a County Executive -

ty agam, st the Long Island Lightmg Company for mismanaging' who was elected on a one-issue platforn IIe was against Shore-Shoreham. Read it. Read the PSC testimony, then read the letters ham; he believed from the Chernobyl engineers on what went wrong in the construc- know it, but Lyn Idou couldn't fziger and Bill evacuate long Catacosinos metIsland. WeCo-with Peter didn't tion of Chernobyl. If you mixed the letters up, you wouldn't know -

halan twice in secret. We never knew a darned thing about it; Feb-which was Shoreham and which was Chernobyl. Sure, there might I rua , March. At the same time, by the way, it is admitted tLat he a little different technology involved; there's no graphite in i M r. ofziger was in the White flouse, speaking to people there.

Shoreham, but the comments about drunkenness on the job, about i Now, Mr. Cohalan suddenly switched. I mean, he ruined his po-engineering drawings being done after the pipes went in-you get a litical career. IIe can no longer win renomination for that office.

little worried about that. And you wonder, where was the NRC all Nobody could ever find out why he switched. The ostensible rea-this time? Ilow did that happen under the noses of the NRC? Is sons are various. Mr. Catacosinos said something about energy suf-this another Zimmer plant, where it took some whistle-blowers to ficiency, which is a lot of malarkey on the local level, believe me.

point out that there were inherent deficiencies in the construction l One of the ostensible reasons was that LIILO had unethically of Zimmer? Ilow can we be guaranteed that the NRC looked at this withheld a couple of years of taxes from SufTolk County, and Mr.

thing? Cohdan said,

• Well, I needed the money." And so he was actual-The county, by the way-nobody inentioned it-asked for permis- 4 ly-if you believe that "coerced" into switching his position be-sion to have a real in-depth look at the construction of Shoreham -

cause he had to collect the taxes.

and have repeatedly been denied that privilege. And incidentally, if  ! I pay a lot of real estate taxes, sir. And when I make a mistake you don't know it. Zimmer-which is now being converted to a gas , and I don't pay them for one year, I wind up paying 17 percent in electrical generating operation-is the subject, or was the last time . interest. You give me that legal tax lien that SufTolk County had I read about it, of a $1 billion lawsuit by the sponsors of that plant I on the Shoreham property and I'll peddle it and I'll borrow money in Ohio against General Electric Company, claiming that the GE  ;

for a helluva lot less than 17 percent and make money on it. That MARK-2 containment is defective, and not only that, but that GE i was a spurious, phony reason.

knew that fact and hid the fact from the company. And it doesn't  ; We think it is a serious matter. We were disenfranchised, sir. We make un feel any more comfortable, sir, to know tnat we have a GE I. think this committee should hold everybody up who was present at ,

tnose meetings-Catacosinos Nofziger, Cohalan, and the guy in

~

MARK-2 containment.  !"

Back in the 1970's the senior NRC advisor-I think his name was whose home that was held, Walter Conlon, and find out what hap-Steven llannauer-said, "IIey, you know, we ought not let GE sell I Pened there. I think maybe it's not ex parte anything, but it's a this product any more" and he was overruled by one Joseph IIen- legitimate function. Since you guys set the regulatory rules, you drie who appeared before you last week as a former NRC Commis- l.

.- should know how this game is bemg played. You should know ev-sioner and said, "Well, the rule should be changed," but never told erything about it, not just about who saw who down here. We think you, sir, that he is a paid consultant for the long Island Lighting we were disenfran-hised, and we'd like a real hard look at t,ha,t. ,

Company. I think it's a helluva breach of ethics. You've already heard testimon i Yes. sir, Mr. IIendrie is a paid consultant-just for a few thou.

that the very thmg that Frank Iy about etrone the was firedFEMA drill.

for now It s irome seems to I sand dollars, sir-for the Long Island Lighting Company, and I be the present position of FEMA if I hear it correctly, and I att don't.think he told that to this committee. And I find that incredi. ed last week s hearmgs, that they re not qualified to make udg- a j,end J

74 75 ment anymore because of the lack of local participation. They can't A fellow I met a couple of years ago is a very advocate nuclear say yes or not that LILCO's plan is going to work. That's what proponent. IIe's a bureau chief for Time magazine. In a very fine Frank Petrone said, "I can't make a judgment." lie was fired. And book that he wrote he makes a statement that I think is very perti-you know who Mr. Nofziger was meeting with all this time. nent today, which you ought to be looking at, and it's the only Nobody said it, but actually, we're not the only ones that have thing I want to read from this: "The most important thing that been lied to in Suffolk County. Congressmen have been lied to. Mr. Government can do is be honest, both with itself and with the Markey was lied to. John IIerrington said, in a response to a ques- American public. It can begin this task by recognizing that it can tion on what,he was domg about ,Shoreham, said, "Well, I don't no longer play a dual note with regard to nuclear powec. It can't know that we re doing anyth,mg. Simultaneously you discover tons .. function as a booster or act as a sort of nuclear Chambar of Com-of documents about, gosh, dammit, we ve got to do somethmg about '

mere if it also is going to function as a regulator and guarantor of Shoreham; we ve got to force the NRC; we,ve got to lobby the,NRC. safety. One role conflicts with the other. There is caly one way in b the Congress used to that kind of dissembhng? Are you gomg to which the Government can resolve its cor:flict. It has to make the tcke that kind of thmg without lookmg into it further? ,

choice, and there's no question what that choice should be. The The matter of the Treasury Department. I looked at that very carefully, and I talked to the financial adv, sors. They could have Government must abandon the role. of cheerleader and leave the i

task of selling nuclear power to the indus+ry. It must choose to reg-changed, and they were chanpng, the Suffolk County proposal to ulate; more importantly, it must regulate well, placing the, safety of meet sll of Mr. Metz* allegM objections. the public before the economic haalth and welfare of the mdustry.

Mr. Blass didn't tell you that he had to go to Vice President it must show the public that it is concerned about safety, and it Bush to get a meeting with Metz, but LIIM had the meeting before. And it might not have been Nofziger and it might not have must do so by actions and not words."

been Catacosinos, but there's a sentence in there tha*. Metz did i You know, I'm a member of the National Association of Ilome Builders. Would that they had the genius to write an act for us on have input fram LIILO. Well, how was it so easy for LILCO to get Metz to set out a letter like this before even consulting with the building as has been written for this industry, sir. You know, we county's experts to see what the thing was all about? Was it final have a national housing policy. Would that I could get away with form, which it wasn't yet? Ilow was LIILO able to do that and get doing anything I damn well please in my neighbor's back yard a U.S. official to intervene on their behalf, and then run and hide without going to the local town and saying, "Is this consistent with until he was forced to meet with these people, who are our people, your master plan? Does this conflict? Is it going to increase traf-the public's people? We think that this is an ites.: that really bears fic?" By God, we turn through hoops trying to get permits to build, a lot of scrutiey, and we'd like to see Mr. Metz brought before this but we build. We go out and we go to the neighbors and we say.

or an appropriate committee to find out what kind of hanky-panky "lley, this is a good plan," and we sell it to them, and a lot of stuff was gomg on. gets built in the United States.

, And then there's all this nonsense about two NRC boards decid- I don't buy that nonsense by the nuclear industry that if we give ing that if the local people say no, then there's no way of doing people too much input regarding their own safety we're not going this, and then NRC issues another ruhng. They sent a bunch of to have a nuclee industry. I think you'll have a better one because guyn up there to listen to us. We sat there three days to testify; a the public will have a lot more confidence in it. And I would be-week later, they removed the judges from the case and they put seech you, sir, to get to the bottom of this mess and maybe, after them someplace else. And they said, Well, the new judges can that, take a look at how you can improve the regulatory process read your testimony" Well, I den t know how many people take Thank the time to read all the testimony, but there's nothing like eyeball Senator Inr.Au.x. Thank you, Mr. Barbash.

contact in my book. "

It goes on and on. You've heard about the letter from President nator [OY. A . Mr. Barbash, You have been an extraordi-Reagan gu.iranteemg that there would be no Federal overriding on nary advocate in t*u.s matter for the very longest time. I know your safety on time evacuation issues. There's another letter in your file - views and deeply share your judgment that Peter Steller s assess-that I just put there; it's almost a paraphrase by Secretary IIodel. ment is becoming so clear. If you wish to destroy the nuclear indus-At the same time the letter was written, they were turning try in this country, destroy confidence in its integrity. I mean, you handsprings. I mean, it's just total, outright lying to the people of a tell me there's not a single memorandum from the Nofziger firm county. And I submit to you, gentlemen, that in the long run this . .

m is counterproductive to the national interests, to the national Mr. BARBAMt. On the date when that was disclosed, sir, the arti-energy puhey, md to the nuclear industry itself. I think we've all cle that's in your testimony, sir, in Newsday, they said in response seen time and time again that big executives, no matter how high an office they Lold, when they stonewall the American people long to a question that they did not get a single document from Nof-enough and they do things that are perhaps a little extra-legal, ziger.

sooner or later the roof comes down on them and we start all over Senator MOYNIHAN. Mr. IIendrie did not disclose his affiliation, again. I would not like to see that happen. and he should have done so. I'm serry about that.

76 77 i At the end there you have some thoughts about what we should I do. I hope you will find time to put them in writing and rcnd them _

~~~ C """ ~ . ~ -

to us. . *.~. ~

. -_~.~-

~" .

Mr. BARSASH. We figured first things first, sir, but we'd be very "iEC E.~

~

happy to work on that with you. We understand that some of these =."" .::" " " " ~ ~ * ' " " gg proposals might be reacted to by the nuclear industry. They say, -a --

"See, you're trying to kill the indus;ry." That's not our intent. We " * " * * * "

jet say that any realist who knows the Am rican system knows that this can't go on forever, and sooner or Inter we're going to . <- May 11, 1987 have to have some reforms, sir.

Senator MoYNIHAN. Mr. Barbash, thank you very much, sir.

Senator BREAUx. Thank you very much, Mr. Barbash. I appreci.

ate your being with us. I used some of your materials in asking

• wme of the questions, and we appreciate your bringing it to our 1he Honorable John s. norrington ritention, sa retary Mr. BARBASH. I certainly appreciate your invitation, sir. I Senator BREAux. Thank you.

With that. this hearing will be concluded, and the subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] o r = . sec weary:

[ Responses to the subcommittee's May 11 letter follow-]

on n,y 14, ige' the subammittee on Nucteer Regulation of the Qummittee on Ehwirorment arw! Pub 1 tic 963rks will con &act an oversight hnering on external influences on the Nucteer Regulatory Ctameission's osc) adjudicatory proce.kres in the Shorehun promeding.

Specifically, the hearing will focus on allegations that persons outside the asC any have improperly contacted r%== mission decisionumkers with regard to metters being contested in the Qumnission's adjudicatory proceeding on the application of the long Island Lighting Osgneny to remive an operating Ilcense for the Shoreham Nuclear Ptuser Plant.

I To assist the Sabacummittee in performing its oversight responsibilities in this ares, we regnest that you provide the Skabcopsmittee with written answers to the following gaastions prior to the hearing:

1. Have you or any representative of the oeportment of Ehergy ever snede or attempted to make an es perte m =mication, as defined by 10 C.r.R 2.790, in asC's Shoreham promeding?'

2. Has any person roguested that you or any representative of the Department of Ehergy make or attaugt to make an es parte consnunication in 8sC's Shoreham promeding?

3. Has any representative of any party involve] in the Shoreham

. adjudicatory proceeding, including but not limited to nr.

rranklyn C. 8eotziger, ever contacted you regarding any leeues marrouriding the licensing of the Shoreham Bauclear Power Plant?

For smarposes of this question, do not limit your response to .

,, es parte communications. Please fully explain and provide a detailed - ry of any such a ntacts, including a drecription  ;

of any actions taken by you as a remalt of such contacts.

s

. 78 79 the Manorable John S. Norrington -

M 11, 1987 ^

Department of Energy

'" wahangeon. oc 20ses In anklitian, please provide all docissents, -armis, notes, May 13, 1987 was, recordings, tapes, logs, calenders and diaries containing Information relevant to the above gmestions. This respasst includse both agency and persons! records.

• • . Dear Mr. Chairmans Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Herrington sincerely yours, of May 11, 1987 requesting documents and written responses to certain questions regarding the Subcomunittee's scheduled May 14, 1987 oversight hearing to be directed to Nuclear Regulatory Comunission

/ proceedings concerning the Shoreham Wuclear Power Plant.

)

g Elan E. seman aanking ity W l subcasesittee on maclear Secretary Herrington is out of the country on ,

m ittee en neclear mogulation business, and will not have returned by the May 14, )

angulation 1987 date specified in your letter. I will, of course, bring this matter to his attention promptly on his return.

In the meantime, I have requested the Department's Of fice of Congressional Af fairs to transmit to the .

Subcomunittee all additional docusients on the subjects' raised in your letter that we have been able to locate by the May 14, 1987 hearing date. As you may recall, the Department did provide documents to Senator Moynihan last January. The Subcomunittee's current request may embrace materials that were not within the scope of the Department's previous response.

I hope this information will be helpful to you and to the Subcomunittee.

Yours truly,

_i ^

Joseph F. Salgado Under Secretary Honorable John B. Breaux Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Comunittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate washington, D. C. 20510 t

L-

. ~_ . ~.

e

. N 81 INDEX OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO .

SENAYORS BREAUX AND SIMPSON -

' * - i

• it G LC, -

1. ~ Letter to Louis Ciuffrida*, Director, Federal Emergency * (I c., ,1., _

elanagement Agency from Secretary merrington dated March 8, M ""T 1985 with incoming letter dated Febauary 8,1985 ,

"GV 2.

Letter to New York Governor Mario Cuomo from Secretary Merrington dated April 1, 1995 with incoming letter dated March 29, 1985

. fearch 8.1985 3.

Letter to Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive from I Secretary merrington dated May 29, 1985. s 4

Telecommunication message to Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive from Secretary Merrington dated May 31, . fqonerable Louis 0. Stuffrida '

1985. **

Director. Federal Emergency Itanagement Agency '.

5. Mailgram to Secretary terrington from Peter F. Cohalan, 500 C street. Su h shington. DC 20472 Suffolk County Executive dated May 31, 1985. ,

6.

~ Seer Jeff:

Letter to Louis Boward, Fresiding Officer, Suffolk County Legislature from Secretary Merrington dated June 5,1985 Thws for your dad note. i i

with incoming dated May 10, 1985. i I share your interest in resolving the jssues surroundlag nuCleer peuer '

7. Letter to New York Governor Mario Cuomo from Secretary generally and the Shoreham helear poser Plant la particular. To succeed l

Berrington dated July 17, 1985 with incoming letter to in this effort, our agencies should costlaue to mort together in a spirit of cooperation and shared objectives. negarding th testing of the 5;.oreham President meagan dated May 21, 1985. ,

i Emergency plan it is my understandtag that r me progress has been made although me have yet to schedule en actual test. This setter is of vital

8. Letter to Secretary Merrington frcus New York Covernor Mario taportance if me are to aveld stetter problems on other nuclear plants

'I Cuomo dated August 2, 1985. nearing completion. The Department of Enary utit continue to support the  !

testing of the Shoreham plan as soon as possthie. =

Betas new to the Separtment of Energy, and facing an estremely heavy schedule of Congressional hearings. I as met gotag to he able te devote the amount of i

personal ttee to this issue that I would Ifte. I would appreciate it very '

( much therefore if,you could meet with my Deputy Secretary. Denny Soggs, in j l

my stead. It is very important that me promptly reselse this metter and )

Denny has my is11 confidence in morting with you en it. a Yours truly.

I

t. ~

. ~

JNe 5. Ierrringtem i

J 4

l l t l

I

\ <

1 9

)

e 82 -

83 y _.

.36 --

TEDDtAL BfERGENCY M,ANACDfENT AGENCY g tus sacarran,o,:=rea, d.g p1 WASHINGTON

-o- . c

~

4.t/

• February 8, 1985 "'"'5 RECTOR

• Honorable John S. Herrington' .

Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 ceer sover.or c n . ,

In response to your letter of March 28. IM5. on the shoreham

Dear Mr. SeCr 3ry:

. Nuclear Plant. I harjr reviewed the Department's activities on this f asw aM policy bellm cur as stated actians in his letterareW consistut with the Pr'stdesfs e a Congratulations on your confirmation as '"*"'" '"' *'" *** * October '" II. IMd.

5***' 5"F and do not

" Ct-Secretary of Energy. As you know, the The Derartet has stapN advocated thet a test occur u

' Department of Energy and the Federal Emergency ",[iNU{"N# ,*l l'**',' not ettempted to force .ny Management Agency (FEMA) have been working , , , , , , , *"8,,"*:

together recently on issues related to the entwatson pla for the shore

• dI,.', E.7 # """

i j

Shoreham Nuclear Generatirig Station located in t h!,'C,'' '"' '""*""#

• 3"" "' *"# "5 5"ad'"'* ad ias Suffolk County, New York.

1,

) Yours truly.

Civen the importance of the Shoreham issue, both in its own right and as a general nuclear ~- ,i policy issue, and given FDIA's key role in S, ( %  %

offsite preparedness, I believe it is impor- #"" * * """'*'*b" t

tant for us to discuss the issues surrounding -

nuclear power generally; and FDIA's perspec- s"e N '. C I.,[" "

i - tive on the Shoreham Generating Plant, Albuy b York U224 particularly. - ,

i .

l 1 look forward to hearing from you so that we i may arrange a meeting. -

4 s

Sincerely,

/

i . _ .

s..

-G

- s. e ..a 9 ,

4 l 1.ouis D. Ciu ida h =

1 I

_-_-_m

O 84 06 3

= 2= '

~

I trust that you will promptly reconsider your Departamet's t 8"**"'*h support of LI1CO's objectionable emergency plan in light of the Emscursvc Cmaseets ruling of the new York state supreme Court and the policy statement

, Ama=, see. of President meagan. ' I would appreciate receiv$eg your writtes w armurance that the Department of Energy will terminate its support

., of LILCO's ef folte emergency plan.

Sincerely, March 28, 1905

.=

Dear Mr. Secretarys In se article which appeared today in the New Erk Times, The monorable Joha 3. 5errington you were quoted as having recently written the Director of the secretary Federal Emergency Management Agency that. 'The Department of Ener Department of Energy will continue to support the testing of the shoreham lemergency) gy 1000 Independence Avenee, southwest plan as soon as poselble.9 I am writing to object to such federal Forrestal Seilding advocacy for two reasons. First, on February 20, 1905, thle plan weehington, D.C. 20$85 .

was ruled unlawful by the new York state supreme Court.' Therefore, DOE *e support of this plan amounto to advocating the achievement of an unlawful objective.

second,yourDehrtment'ssupportofL11Co'spleaisin direct contradiction of the policy statement of Freefdent Reagan i

in October 1964 concerning the emergency preparedness isono at shoreham. The Freeldent stated, .

... this Adnialstration does not favor the imposition of Federal Covervreent . -

authority over the objections of state

• l and local governmente in mattere regarding i

the adequacy of an emergency evacuation

• l plan for a nuclear power plant such me

, shoreham.

l The emergency preparednese situation concerning the l

shoreham plant to the result of scrupulous and deliberate decletone j o* the County of soffolk and New York state not to adopt or implement

)

en offeite emergency plan for shoreham. These -r. g . _ J.a1 decisione

• were reached through the exercise of police powere which are vested ,

I inherently in the state government and the local goveraments to which the state has delegated those powers. The efforts of your Department to promote LILCO's emergency plan over the constitutiona!!y sound objections of the state and local governmente is an affront to the movereignty of.New York. of New York state and an injury to the people e o.

. e, I

I i

k e

__ __-e e,r-*---ee w-:-e- e -w s- --sr --4e- -ee- --

---

F ---r' Tz< w----? t- ------r,--r =ve =i e- sr cg- e -- e w- u .--,w y ee=--,we

s' 86

. 87

.t.

THE 5ECatTanY of fNERGY -

@t was.wame N 'Therefore. I am Cosettted to a process of consultation and Cooperation with you and local offlctals in order to achieve a satisfactory resolutten of current disputes and get Shoreham en line. I as willtag to meet with you or other reasonsible parties at your convenience so that we may, in a sotrtt of 29, 1995 compromise, resolve the few issues that remain and develop a plan that will satisfy you and your constituents.

7 Tours truly, The Honorable poter F. Cohalen -

John 5. Merrington Suffolk County Enocutive '

M. Lee Denntson Su11 ding Vetersas Meserial Highway hauppauge, new fort 11787

Dear peter:

r On May 19. I eistted your community in order to personally inspect the '

Shoreham nuclear power plant and speak directly with the plant mar. agers and ,

operators. During an estended tour of what was clearly a well-designed and '

maintained facility. I observed many new safety features and modifications t that have been incorporated at Shoreham under Nuclear Regulatory Commssten '

ridance. I came eney from my visit constaced that Shoreham is one of the e finest nuclear generettag stations in this country. And as you are muere. it j ,

is certainly among those that have received the closest scruttny by the tutC and ether pub 1tc ard quest-public bodies. including new York State's own Marburger Commission. f I

1 perticularly noted a new 55 stillon structure housing three

• state-of-the-art diesel generators, there solely to provide triple redundancy for emergency power. In addition. in conversations with the control room [

t supervisor and other workers it became clear to me that the uttitty has spared no effort to butid a safe plant and staff it with dedicated. espertenced [

operators.

b Yet this factitty, representing a 54 billion investment in the economic future of Long Island, sits idle,wntle foreign ell is burned to provide {

g. electricity for your community. Even with an uninterrupted supply of e11

• Long Island and tedeed all hew Tert 5 tate public 5ervice Commission warned e*

browmouts er even selective blackouts during peak pertedt this summer.

I believe it is cructel to the cittrens of Long Island that the Shoreham g plant play the role in their economic and energy futures that it was designed ..

to play. And witti a potential for 100 percent roolaceernt for foretyn 011 -)

7.

Shore %es is also important to the energy future of this nation and to this

• ation's national security. As Secretary of Energy. I cannot ignore that {

$.portanc e.

1-

.t t'c t.

L

4 88 89 m,m

== y . ma LGes* SteTICE.1tmTre aIO0ttToe=e va. 22*e1 e, a meesame- _. 3Iaa ,

W. e e= ..

ame . e. a. .

n

. emees asema enaeasumes* mast -- ** ****as oss sew O === 0 ee ea semensamewe es onneev **"8""********

(

8*G94625351 SS/3I/09 ICS Ir**T!! Ctp omSt getsceenesuenCAvnOss antsaAGG es. w .

e.-.mm e. - ****** smess

$16360$000 mE*9 TDrf SuFFOL4 es? I29 05 31 0903a IST ,

l

. -_ ee . s e. e.e es **-- ~ ~ - '

E 88"8'"* 8"8 aus - see WWeen eum sem as-o. ens - ame === g.

Om 0

Ow ,,,,,, _ <.

t p (

arame 0e es. Oe Oe O e- O mae.

D es===e D es==

0ia% N S Mt uI =C 44 SitetVant OF l>E etPT OF thfeGT ow% en een e

. Se o e=um ewesens pe 3089 Im0tPEh0thC1 att SouTMetST d Jess S. atestsCTOW mas =g=GIDe OL 205e1

%., %.e .

SECatTaeT OF EBtECT .

R.T 3I. 1983 e == ungeDaABLE FITt2 ^****"""***8"o n oF,. CORALap

-FT0u C cum . - 6 E. Lrt DD8NIS05 EXECUTIVE OFTICI SUII.375G *

• TrTinApS steenaIAL mICuuai - f 1 gf pLL0eless MtssaGF e 4 9 ,5,E =T 10 pagSI0tmi staGael amurfasCE. sEu Toer e I Dant TO Lt f 90u ass 0* T>at as C0ueTV (IttuTI*t, I past ISSute as MAR FETrs. ,

• tattut t og nept s .hlCm OletCTS SUFFOLn Cou=TV CFFIClaLS 10 aSsuet tot Cou=Tv'S stSPohSIFILITIE S mITF etSPECT TO E*teGimCT stSP0mSt PLa== Ins I Om BraALF OF Tut FarsIDort AND TEE BEFASTMENT OF DERCT. Feb TML S=06than hvCLe ae P0ste Staf f um.

I WISE TO CtMBCRATRATE TOW Su TOUR SECISION TO SUFF0pf a TEST

• CF TEE EMERCENCY RESPopst F1As FOR TmE SuotznAN FACILITT. I SELitti T>t C0utTt's Sie0=G FIGat mal meet Swostman Saffe. I sno. I 8

esca, s te0hEL T 90u SELItof in DETthMIhaTION ST local 50vishetti am0 =0*

TOUR ACTION TESTERDat REFtE1ENTS SOUND JtEIOWNT AS WELL AS ' T=at Tat (Du=1 T was ma0E vaIO DECISI0es TO # Cut F0eesso, I t> PLOT 90u

~ A STBonG CtpetITMDrf TO TER SAFETT ANS ECouGM1C NEALTE OF ALL Td GIwt US a StocmG CO**aITTagest 908 Tat tITeacm0!=aev eFScustiS et I C1712 ENS TE TEE WORTMEAST. ODWEESC1&L CPERaTIou 0F TWE PLApf a:LL estte TO ctWELOFt an actuu & a=0 I*LEat=TasLE EvaCueTIOm Plas GRILL grpuCE DErtNptBCE em IMP 0eTO SIL aND WIll CDERATE Ottault of cue U4IGut 6t0Gearav.

ELECTRICTTT AT 3. cure COBTS TEAR ALTImmaTITE FUELS In TBE Ptits S CO*sta= '

DECADES Antas. Suf f ota Cflue T T tstCUTI*t Ge3 91 E ST 8 I APF1AUD TOUR DIF0eTaNT CBNTRIBUTICS 70 aMtalCA'S DERCT FVTURI Afe aaTBon4L SECUBITT.

mE*CQar TOURS TRULT. 4 as eue. . enes.me mense ~

. ._ e- __== e- _.-- _e.

l e-.esy. h 8 h eat h 4.u .

DOUCLAS ELMITS = = = ==========

S-I -

111-6219 ~- 8

_ __ ,,,,,, ~ ~

==. *,.em ommaies. -

e. ,

O M e*

e==mmune Wer ,, e..

en D en O

. - - e-he I.me.g. A. W e m em. am i ee.e e ameser sehen. ^ __We9 epung ---- _ e.eN em eERS

= .pp l *.

e

, 90 91

m. . . o . .e o. ~.e ,

,g twe satas1mae os e=e*Gv

• • W'** o 8 ***

mimry (N e

-. == .

rw re =

e.u..se.ma.e.=e.=

o we se e=tm emow camasat temmem us g.y g

' a e sv**t wee euat

,- envece c,oes e#3 - e . zo . .

,,.e< e. .

e. come wnm e. e.<e es m m

<e,,,,,e eav. co.va._ es e -> e.....

p sac orme s

<n s 8 tarvae _s ese{Tes _ eteese _ so soci _a ote tac June 5.1985 eenne eeuwmes,tou (E G == e newaeus surecto causert (sGastatuet some muttsee

& % C ' c-ecuse etsints eos tw o, most cer(s owv Deer Mr. Geo ord: {

tsLce/sseostman tactass=G, as sue = re l.' ?g arvooss aersease se nave ca 1,cheit of te, President ead the cepertarat of taer,,, n .ish to thema s **c='s om e

~

• you for yews s ppert of the opentag of the Shoreham f attitty. 3 8

Tov have been e supporter le the etfort to opee Shoreham for seay years; acueenvo C r-*=.* Q sves acvenne ere e , e nae r,t, secar L yee had the tevrage to perstst to yeve ces tettons 6e the fece of strong m,,,,,, e e ne

• • • • • "*"*1 *s G' t L

• e . pae.'s ws e */ s r> ev e og,pos t t loa. ens coco sewer thes'se'..,t e (grovect amas tsr f*=  ; e- '*

Coocertiet operett'en of the Shorehee pleat will e64 in reduc tag sur e depeadracy no imported oli end, in the decades sheed. will generate ansv es eve

• es g,,se.e ,e e w ee.sa ., sos e se es sne essaa emorsww elettencity for Leag Islead at le=er tests them alternate feels.

Teve support hos toetrhted to America's energy fetere and nationel set ur i t y. I epplevd year foresight sad year steadiostaess en this isswe.

i Tours troly. '

. l

t. U .

ohn S. Herrington senacrable Louis les =ord Presidtag Of ficer, Sof felt (evaty Legislature legislettet Setidtag veterens Memorts' Sotidtag 4-Newgspavge, eew York 11788 ls e

l I

• ~

i.

9 *W

g. .e ,

,,y

>141.,

y . at y3 - . -

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK . t;'9

. .y .,.

pt k 3

Tf , .

+.s '

P couesTv LEcesLATunc

-no .

1 ,

Nay it, 2005 ,

• l

(.

Nr. sorm s. Herrington '

thif ted states secretary of Energy rarrestar adkring l

wasNngton, D.C. 20583 stef: S ffour Comty -shoreham sh.cseer racialty - s.itco Deer Secrutcry'Herrington:

J how reviewed your recent comments concerning the falhare of the nuclear power

• industry suf Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adegactely develop m@part for -

the safe, worsable, cruf relatively inexpensive use of nuclear power h tNs country.

More occificoffy, I am interested in your statement that you fepe to conduct a cabinet level review of the nuclear power industry in generet and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant en Long Isnand in porticular. As you probabtv smow, I have been the sole public figure h Saffolk County consistently mapporting the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Power plant for the post twerry-six months. I view 6 the opening of this pt:ent as criticot to the power needs of the twaidents of this county and es essentist to the protection of thas county's economic base and future .t ~

prosperity. '

he fact, I am currently the sole sponsor of e local pecce of legestation which woukf

• euthortie the county of Saffolk to participate h a test rise of e vsable evacuatic1 plan to be developed by FUfA in conparaction with the Ss/ folk County Planning 3 .-r a

Department This legislation is blended to test the feasibility of an evoctaation '

plan and to obtain empirica.1 data whfch wdII either confirm or refute the two 1 conflicting gestions on the issue of implementation of an ordeety evacuation paars J, in S,ffolk Counry. ,

De tig'et of recent fiscal devotopments within this county which entail the imminent doriger of a 40% to 50% rest property ear hervose for o!! residents wittu this #

county,I believe that the time has come for att responsible pubbe officials hvotved in the Shoreham issue to foce up to the fearicial crisis enor thrvetens the long-term economic vioDility of this county. "~

a It is my hope auf expectation that your cobenet levet study wiZI get underwoy 1 very gadckly sur wfit inchade pcrticipatiare by elected officials from this catents

'[*

c

• 7

• ' .1E-

• . ,t .a;

• j r -

~

x' 2 s.

/

1

( t

.s.

l

fg-(n % .. --Qlb v

~,*

^

~

L- ' "  :

' m- ; ' ..-

e , -

e

- b;

• e g a

, se _,

8 l

4 i

L g y

a e

a e . g i

s e,E E k t 3 r a I 55 s

w

{-6Ig, 32 6

• Es s Ib ag a.i

"T ta r 5 3a gil ; [d

,3, a 5 a -o l' -

t1s 2:11 8 kEI hD h

u!n ".

I't'11 ib 34 g1 8 qli'lsj i

i s

i 11=Ltai.

A av S

5 R g

M k T O'

_, _ _ _w_ . _ .

~~* * ^

~

q a

'm r i _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ -

m) e a

95 N

4

f 6.

en- -

1,

~ L The same article suggests that such review may ,

Searso'"S*'D*"

. result in a direction from you ta the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take actions which will result in the opening Execuvivt Cua= eta of the shoreham facility. I trust .that will not happen. "

assawv.aas* f  % such direction would be' inappropriate as it would impeir the

,,,, ;, e a-integrity of the adjudicating (Lammission's functions as an independent body. -

May 21, 1985 Res pec.t f.ully, P -

r l Dear Mr. President CL'd4) J'.

u, This 's l'n r egard 'to the Shoreham Nuclear Power I Plant la Suf folk County, New York, a matter of great The Preside importance to public safety and to preserving the lines of The White Bo se sovereignity between the Federal Government and the State.

week (May'16, 1985) j indicates. A recent in a *article in Nucle'omice i that cabinet . level review" your Administra- i tion may be requested to initiate action regarding emergency .;

response planning for Shoreham,. the purpose being to promote i operation of the Plant over the objections of the State of l New York and the County of Sif folk. Sew York State would 4 consider any arch action an af f ront to its sovereignity and a reversal of your previous personal assurance. si j

on October 11, 1984, you wrote the following to Congressman William Carneys )

On a matter of particular concern to you and the I people of Eastern Long Island. I wish to repeat .

Secretary Bodel's assurance to you that this Admini-stration does not favor the imp sition of rederal '

Coverreent authority over the objectices of state and local governments in setters regarding the f f

adequacy of an emergency evacuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shoreham. Your concern for the saf ety of the people of Long Island *s  ::

paramount and shared by the Secretary and me.

t The independent decisions of Suffolk County and New '

York State against adopting or implementing an emergency ple.- I for Shoreham were made to protect the safety and welf are of  ; '

r the pblic and followed extensive analysis and deliberations.

The lawfulness and rationality of these decisions have been -

upheld by the New York State Supreme Court and the United states District Court. - .

Pf 9

?-

I i

l i

P.

'0 96 Fl

. , m John S. Berrington -2 .

August 2, 1985 M .' ~+ n. -

~

• ^r directing any County personnel to nyiew, test or implement 5"E*'***** the LILCO plan or a radiological emergency response plan for *

, , Exccunwt Cnas*ern t'ae Shoreham nuclear plant without securing a resolution adopted by the County legislature...". That decision and Assaaveraa+ injunction was affirmed by the highest court of New York me cwe=* ,

e== State, the New York State Court of Appeals, on July 9,1985, approximately a week and one-half before your letter was Written. . If Mr. Cohalan were to seek to assist LILCO in an j , August 2, 1985 exercise, as. asserted in your letter, at a minimum he would be

, subjecting himself and those acting in concert with hfa to punishment for contempt bf that injunction.

' *, . i ,

Ne in New York State do not share your view as to

Dear Secretary Ewrington:

Shoreham's importance to the State or the Nation. LIICO's This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of owra representatives testified before the Marburger Commission July 17, 1985, in response to my letter to President Neagan that the power to be generated by Shoreham would not be needed of May 21,1985, expressing my concerns to him about both for ten years. Others said that this period would be 13 or more years. Moreover, there are adequate alternative sources of the i

preserving the lines of sovereignty between Federal (ad state power Shoreham would generate which present no threat to the

] government with respect.to emergency planning for the bealth and welfare of the residents of Long Island and New i Shoreham nucleat plant, and preserving the integrity of the York State, and which will be available long before that J 1*relear Regulatory Commission as an independent adjudicative power is needed. In addition, the New York State Energy gy, Office has advised me that the reduction in the use of I as pleased that you agree that the integrity of imported oil that would result assuming Shorehas went on-line the NRC should be preserved. Bowever, I believe that the and operated continually (except for refue?ing) could be achieved by converting LII40's E. F. Barrett and Port best way to do that is for you to refuse to meet with nuclear Jefferson powar plants from oil to coal. Indeed, that Office industry representatives who publicly suggest that such informed me that LIICO sought such coal conversions and meeting may result in directions from you to the NRC to take thereafter abandoned those efforts.

actions which will result in the opening o* the Shoreham facility and, for you to publicly disavow any motion that Contrary to your assertions, the treatment by New you or anyone in your agency would seek to suggest to the NRC how it should interpret its regulations or decide cases.

i York State and local authorities of other nuclear power

plants as compared to Shoreham is not disparate with respect to emergency planning. Nuclear power plants are not Your letter state 1

• fungibles with respect to emergency planning, and differences "The Coanty Executive, Mr. Cenalan, has agreed in treatment are not necessarily disparities. Because of the to assume the comunand and control functions ,:onfiguration of Long Island, the limited East-West roadway for a test of the Shoreham pir.n which will network, its climatology, the f act that only safe evacuation assure that the emergency plan is properly may be to the westward, the density of population involved, and other factors, Shoreham is a unigme case. The structured.* independent decisions by the Suffolk County Legislature Thet may have been Mr. Cobalan's intention when h* (which is vested with power to make such determination) and issued Executive Order 1*1985 on May 30,1985. However, on New York State against adopting or implementing an emergency June 10, 1985, Mr. Justice Doyle of the New York State plan for Shoreham were not disparate, but rather the result supreme Court ruled that Councy Executive Cohalan did not of sound and deliberative action necessary to protect the have.the power to assist LII40 in such exercise (that power safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Suffolk County and was vested in the County Legislature which opposed th* New York State. Their lawfulness have been upheld by the New Tork State Supreme Court and the United States District openin of Lhoreham) . Justice Doyle's order also null? fled Court. I reiterate that New York State would consider Erecut we "Order 1-1385 and, among other things, enjoined Mr. . . efforts by your agency to promote the operation of that plant Cobalan and all persons ' acting in concert with,him from over those objections to be an affront,to the sovereignty of assigning or expending any funds or rptces ...or

,} New York State, and a reversal of the policy established by I

I

a 99-98

• • =======a==

4

-31 August 2, 1985 h[%= """ E L"""".* ","

,J4hn S. sorrington

=, _ - _"* ~::: . "*~

~

{

" * = = = = = = = = = e n,m - "**""'**"'

tour Admialstration nat to impose the Federal Government's ,

euthority *over the objections of ste's and local qtvecaments N 8" * "'

la matters regarding the adequacy of an emergency evacuation plan for a nuc; ear power plant such as' Shoreham" (letter from Fresident Reagart to Cortressman W1117am Carney, October 11, #  % May 11, 1987 1994).

Beepectfully, t . 424.20 .

Mr. Louis Ciuffrida 1800 K Street, N.W.

Suite 605 Nashington, D.C. 22206 Bonorable John S. Berrington Secretary of Energy Wasuington, D. C. 20585

Dear Mr. Cluffrida:

On May 14, 1987 the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Envircrament and Public Works will conduct an oversight hearing on external influences on the Nuclear Regulatory themission's (NBC) adjudicatory procedures in the Shoreham proceeding.

Specifically, the hearing will focus on allegations that persons outside the NRC may have improperly Contacted th-tasion decisicrummkers with regard to matters being contested in the Crr.saission's adjudicatory 4

proceeding on the application of the tong Island Lighting Chapany to

, receive an operating 11anse for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.

To assist the Subcommittee in performing its oversight I responsibilities in this area, we request that you provide the i

Subcosenittee with written anasers to the following questions prior to the hearing

1. Have you, or to the best of your knowledge has any representative of the Federal' hnergency Managenent Agency, ande or atteneted to make an ex partie connunication, as defined by 10 C.F.R 2.780, in NRC's Shoreham proceedirg?

I 2. Did any person request that you, or to the best of your

-l knowledge request that any representative of the Federal

! Dnergency Management Agency, make or attengt to make an ex j parte connunication in NRC's Shoreham proceeding?

3. Did any representative of any party involved in the Shoreham i

adjudicatory proceeding, including but not limited to Mr.

! Franklyn C. Nofriger, ever contact you regardirq any issues j , . surrounding the licensing of the Shorehan Nuclear Power Plant?

For purposes of this question, do not limit your response to ex parte connunications. Please fully explain and provide a detailed sumnary of any such contacts, incita$ing a description of any actions taken by you as a remalt of such contacts.

o a

h

y . - .

100 101..

Mr. touls Ciuffrida May 11, 1987 Pago h Q,a,g y w.a In aosition, plasse provide all documents, =enngands, notes, mM%A 'r '

records, recording 8, tapes, logs, alendars and diaries antaining 'fM, .9. Y Atw inforination relevant to the above questions. This recpasst includes both agency and personal records.

s May 27. 1987 M you for your moperation.

"C***II N"' senator Alan z. simpson Ranking Minority Member i . .. senate Committee on Environment and public works g .

washington, D.C. 20510-6175 l

t

,8""= m n x. w e ,.on _ c Dear senator simpsons Ra Airq Minority Member Stabcomesittee on Nuclear Subcomunittee on Nuclear This letter concerns the Committee's letter to me dated 11 May Regulation Reguletion 1987, regarding its review of NRC licensing procedures at the LILCO facility on tong Island, New York.

As 1 informed the Committee staf f. your letter was not delivered to me until 21 May 1987, which made it impossible for me to respond prior to your hearing date of 14 May 1987.

On 1 September 1985 I resigned as the Director of FEMA in order to return to the private sector. At this time I have little if any personal recollection about FEMA's role in the LILCO 11 censing procedures. principally because FEMA procedures called for the management of these activities by an Agency Associate

• Director and the FEMA Regional Director involved.

All records about FEMA activities on the licensing process for all nuclear power plants, including LIIro. are available through

..* the N ency itself, including records of my participation.

Accordingly, while 1 do want to be cooperative, I have no reasonably available means to respond adequately to the

, questions in your letter.

'I' I do wish to assist the Committee as best I can and will attempt j to adjust my schedule to permit participation in future hearings a you may hold.

Sincerei .

is O. lufft da

• ces senator John Breaux 1

e

=

L

A

. 102 103 C

= ==.-. == = m ,.,,- Herbert H. Brown

_===== __ _.y_-.=-. May 11, 1987

[= =.~ b"%'"".~.-=. gg

"' """a="***'* som=me en- -

aan muuc wous In additicra, please provide all documents, manurande, notes, scs"**"* records, recordings, tapos, logs, calendars and diaries antaining information relevant to the above questions.

May 11, 1987 t 4 Thank you for your cooperation.

9 Sincerely yours, m

Herbert H. Brown ,

Kirkpatrick, tockhart, vill, O>ristopher & Phillips ~ ~

-r g

1900 M Street, N.W. n w Nashington, D.C. 20036 Breaux '

Alan K.'Simpson i irman- Ranking Minority Member Subcossalttee on Nuclear S h ittee on Nuclear Regulation Regulation Deer Mr. Brown:

On May 14, 1987 the Subcomunittee on Nuclear Raoulation of the Cburnittee cri Ehvironment and Public Works will anduct an oversight hearing on external influences co the Nuclear Regulatory fh-ission's (NIC) adjudicatory procedures in the Shorehae proceeding. I Specifically, the hearing will focus on allegations that persons outside the NIC may have improperly contacted Casumission decisionsakers {

with regard to matters being contested in the Omanission's adjudicatory l proceeding on the asp 11 cation of the Long Island Lighting Cbspany to receive an operating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Pcwer Plant.

To assist the Subcxiemittee in performing its oversight responsibilities in t'ils area, we request that you provide the Subconnaittee with written answers to the following questions prior to the hearing:

1. Please describe the nature and extent of your or your firia's }

interest or involvement in all issues related to the licensing of the Shoreham nuclear power plant. l

2. Have you or any menber of your firm ever made or attempted to make an ex parte musuunication, as defined by 10 C.F.R 2.780, h in NIC's Shoreham proceeding?

• 3. Have you or any mmber of your firm ever antacted the Department of Energy, the Federal Dnergency Management Agency . ,

or the O ngress regarding any issues surrouru!Ing the licensing of the Shoreham MJclear Rn,er Plant? For purposes of this question, do not limit your response to ex parte connunications. Picase fully explain and provide a detailed ,

mammary of any such contacts, including a description of any actions spught by you or any member of your firm as a result -

of su m contacts, f

i 104 105 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART KIRKPATRICK (a LOCKHART soumo T.muuxm 188 M ETREIT. N W MMMWMT WA9e(HON, DC. asumi m" s May 14, 1987

,,,, g_ Page 2 nam min man === me === m meu man.=s u ocia ,,, g. I macwen as= === nm..w. s g w m m m anow" * * *

• Answer to Question 3: The firm received your letter on May 11

• • " and has not had sufficient time to do a review of the files. The May 14, 1987 .

following is therefore a chronological summary provided to the s , best of the recollection of attorneys in this firm.

. Attorneys in this firm do not recall any contacts with DOE I in 1982 concerning the NRC's Shoreham licensing proceedings, and The Honorable John Dreaux, Chairman i only one such contact with FEMA. The FEMA contact was a meeting The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Ranking Minority Member at LILCO headquarters attended by the Deputy Suffolk County Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation { Executive accc:spanied by an attorney of this firm. The Deputy Committee on Environment and Public Works  ; County Executive stated that the County was working on prepara-tion of a draft emergency plan.

United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

! In Spring 1983, the Deputy County Executive, accompanied by

Dear Seritor Breaux and Senator Simpson:

attorneys in this firm, met twice with FEMA personnel, once at FEMA headquarters in Washington and once at LILCO's headquarters This is in reply to your letter of May II, 1987, requenting on Long island. At both meetings, the County told FEMA that-information as to this firm's representation of our client, LILCO's offsite emergency plan was unworkable. Also, the Deputy Suf f olk County, concerning the NRC's Shoreham licensing pro-  ;

County Executive, accompanied by attorneys in this firm, met ceedings. We have discussed your letter with our client and are  ! either in 1983 or early 1984 with FEMA personnel at Suf folk replying pursuant to the client's authorization and direction. County's office. The County again told FEMA that LILCO's plan is I unworkable.

In authorizing this reply, Suf folk County wishes to make clear that it is not waiving any privilege associated with the From May through October or November 1983, attorneys in this attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, the County has .

firm assisted in the presentation of Suffolk County's position instructed this firm to avoid disclosure of matters subject to  ; before the State Commission established by Governor Cuomo to the workproduct and attorney-client privileges. examine the Shoreham issue. A FEMA representative was a member of this Commission, and he was accompanied by counsel from FEMA Answer to Question 1: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.was retained in . headquarters. Attorneys of this fira discussed Shoreham-related February 1982 as legal counsel to represent Suf folk County in matters with these FEMA personnel.

matters related to the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Our activitids on behalf of the County have principally In May 1984, the Suffolk County Executive and two Deputy been before Federal and State Courts and the NRC, including the County Executives, accompanied by the undersigned, attended a initiation and the defense of lawsuits concerning the actions of } meeting at DOE Secretary Hodel's office. The meeting was held at Suffolk County, LILCO, or the NRC. It has also involved repre- the County Executive's request for the purpose of objecting to l

senting the County before NRC Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards, i secret meetings that had been held by DOE with LILCO, FEMA, and and the Commission on a large number of technical nuclear safety the White House Office of Science e.nd Technology Policy. The issues, security issues, and emergency preparedness issues. The County stated that it would not adopt or implement an emergency firm has also assisted in representation of the County's plan for Shoreham because it concluded that safe evacuation was interests before State agencies and the Congress. . . not possible.

l Answer to Question 2: No member of this firm has made or  ;, In Spring 1984, the undersigned wrote letters to Samuel attempted to make an ex parte, communication, as defined by 10 i Speck, former Associate Director of FEMA, attempting to arrange a C.F.R. Section 2.780,7 n the NRC's Shoreham proceeding. . meeting of County officials with Mr. Speck. Mr. Speck refused to meet because the County insisted that a transcript or re_ cording of the meeting be made.

~

106 107 KIRKPATRICK 6cLOCKHART ll" 'I"" e'**** "lll"J.*""*" "".",.".'

" *.T"" . .

May 14, 1987 a Page 3 " *a"-,

,TT",",e. aussesvve m me w -

ocmmmene p .:

May 11, 1987 Attorneys in this firm are in' frequent contact with counsel for FEMA, principally to discuss matters related to pending litigation, such as document production, deposition schedults, -

• and witness availability. Such contacts are routine and also occur regularly with LILCO counsel and NRC Staf f counsel. In January 1987, attorneys in this firm deposed a DOE emplo;ee, who served as an "evaluator" at the February 13, 1986 LILCO emergency , tts, aru! Rollins planning exercise, in connection with the ongoing NRC litigation concerning the exercise. The deposition was also attended by ite 250 counsel for DOE. Also, attorneys in this firm met socially about mahington, D.C. 20005 four times with the former Director of FEMA and twice with the former Regional Director when they were in of fice. References were at times made to Shoreham. No substantive discussions took place. Omar Mr. Rollins:

The undersigned and representatives of New York State and On May 14, 1987 the Subc e mittee on Nuclear Regulation of the the Town of Southampton met with FEMA officials at a public meeting on February 12, 1986, in Suffolk County. The County, Ccumittee on Ehvirorunent and Public Works will conduct an oversight State, and Town objected to the exercise of LILCO's emergency hearing on external influences on the skiclear Regulatory Commission's plan scheduled for the next day. (NIC) adjudiatory procedures in the Shoreham proceeding.

Since being retained in 1982, attorneys of this firm have on Specifically, t.he hearing will focus on allegations that persons numerous occasions been contacted by, or have contacted, outside the NIC may have lyoperly Contacted Ccenission decistcruuskers Congressional staff personnel. The subjects have generally been with regard to matters being contested in the (%= mission's adjudicatory factual or legal issues related to Shoreham, inquiries related to proceeding on the a@lication of tha tong Islaru! Lighting &=pery to news reports about Shoreham or LILCO, or new developments that l receive an operatirq license for the Shorehme Nuclear Power Plant.

affect the status of Shorehun. Attorneys of the firm have met occasionally with members of Congress, principally prior to To assist the Subrm-f ttee in performing its oversight Congressional Committee hearings concerning the Shoreham plant. .:. responsibilities in this area, we request that you provide the In general, such meetings have involved courtesy calls by Suffolk l 4hr==1ttee with written answers to the following questions prior to County officials scheduled to testify and explanation of the  : the hearing:

' County's position concerning Shoreham. I

1. Have you made or attempted to make an ex parte crasmusication, Sincerely,  !

as defined by 10 C.F.R 2.780, in 85C's Shorehen promeding?

- /.,' -

2. Did any person request that you make or ettengt to make an ex Herbert H. Brown parte connuJnication in 15C's Shoreham proceeding?

3. Did any representative of any party involved in the Shoreham

. - adjudicatory proceeding, including but not limited to Mr.

Franklyn C. Nofsiger, ever contact you regarding any issues surrounding the licensing of the Shorehus Nuclear Power Plant?

For purposes of this question, do not limit your response to

- a ex parte cxzununications. Please fully explain and provide a detailed stammary of any auda contacts, including a description of any actions taken by you as a result of such con % cts.

. .. .. . = . . . .

. 6-108

. 109 .

Par. Eduard Rollins 3:3g0 Waggy.+ Rhghes, Asc.

"'Y 11' N w.......... e.c.....,.... .

Page Sao In additian, please provide all doctanmts, maar>ramla, notes, records, recordings, tapes, logs, calendars and diaries containing May 20, 1987 information relevant to the above questions.

1 1 Senator John Breaux Thank you for your cooperation.

Senator Alan K. Simpson Siru3erely yours, . United States Senate Committee on Environment and g

• Public Works

/ / Washington, D.C. 20510-6175

_ _ ,N

Dear Senators:

Breaux Alan K. Simpson Ranking Minority Mmd3er In response to your letter of May 11. 1987 regarding the irman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation oversight hearing on Subcommittee on Nuclear Subcommittee on Nuclear external influences on the Shoreham proceeding, the answer to Regulation Regulation your questions are as follows.

1. During my tenure at the White House, January 21, 1981 through October 17, 1983 and February 1985 through October 1985 I never made or attempted to make an ex parte communication regarding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.

2. To the best of my knowledge no person ever requested that I make or attempt to make an ex parte communication in

• regards to this issue.

3. In early 1985 Franklyn Noftiger talked to me regarding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. During that conversation he explained that the Department of Energy supported the opening of the Shoreham plant and asked if I could assist in obtaining local and county of ficials help in this regard. The only action I took was to ask my Deputy, Mr.

Mitch Daniels, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, to look 1 into the matter. Mr. Daniels reported back to me that the I issue was controversial with the local officials and he l recommended that the White House not interfere. No further  !

action was taken.

In reference to your request for documents, memoranda, notes, records, etc., my communication with Mr. Nofziger and Mr.

Daniels on this topic was verbal.

I hope that this information will be of help to the committee.

. Sincerely, ward J. Ro lins 1

m_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

.s 110 111 y -- Mr. Sanamel Speck *

74. = =E**"" =.**,,,",,,',, = = =="'*"*, _

= ~

• May 11, 1987 Page 1%o 55.5:9. -- Eii. E""== - illlitti ,$tatts ,$tilatt

'"."*"l'""".",,"."". ." comm oi- aae rme woine In ackSition, please provide all documents, memoranda, notes, mammism ecameene records, recordings, tapes, logs, calendars and diaries containing information relevant to the above questions. This request includes May 11, 1987 g

• 1 agency an personal reco @ .

thank you for your cxioperation.

Sincerely yours, ,

Mr. Samael Soeck ,  %

65175 Casin Hill Road

• New Concord, Ohio 43762 _- ,

J Breaux Alan K. Simpaan irman Rankirq Minority Muuber Subconnittee on Nuclear Subcxannittee on Nuclear

Dear W . Speck:

Regulation Regulation on May 14, 1987 the Subcannittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Comittee on Ehvircrament and Public Works will conduct en oversight hearing on external influences on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NBC) adjudicatory procedures in the Shorehma proceeding.

SpecifIcelly, the hearing will focus on allegations that persons outside the lac may have improperly contacted Comunission decisierunakers with regard to matters being contested in the Comunission's adjudicatory proceeding on the application of the Lcng Island Lighting Company to recel,ve an cperating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.

To assist the Skabconnaittee in performing its oversight responsibilities in this area, we request that you provide the Subconnittee with written answers to the following questions prior to the hearing!

1. Have you, or to the best of your knowledge has any representative of the Federal amergency Management Agency, made or attenpted to make an ex parte connunication, as defined by 10 C.F.R 2.780, in NRC's Shoreham proceeding?

2. Did any person request that you, or to the best of your knowledge rar]uest that any representative of the Federal Dnergency Tw-r t Agency, make or atterg>t to make an ex parte cxmnunication in NRC's Shoreham proceeding?

3. Did any representative of any party involved in the Shorehme . ,

adjudicatory proceeding, including but not limited to Mr.

Franklyn C. Hofziger, ever contact yoa regarding any issues .,

surrounding the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant?

For purposes of this question, do not limit your response to . . '

ex parte conmunications. Please fully explain and provide a detailed sumnary of any such cootacts, incluSing a description of any actions taken by you as a result of ex:h con *Jacts.

e 112 113 2

I also comunicated with representatives of Suf folk County either C]

in person or by phone on a number of occasions. The principal point of contact was John Gallagher. the Chief Deputy County M Executive. On one occasion I held a joint press conference MUSKINGUM COLL.EGE - - - . ~ . * - .

• I""*I"9 *** $"## " ""*# # "# " " " *"*

May 29. 1987 Meeting and phone communications also took place between me and i

• representatives of L11co. These contacts included William

]

Catactncos. President of L11co and Ira Frellicher, a VICe President )

5enator John Breaux

. " of L11co. j' Senator Alan K. Simpson United States Senate There were also contacts with legal firms representing the various parties involved in the emergency planning issue. Specifically. '

Committee on Environment and these were representatives of Kirkpatrick and Lockhart (for i Pubilc Works t"ashington. DC 20510-6175 opponents of Shoreham) and Hutton and Williams (for L11co). King i Mallory and Edward Milne were the principal persons with whom there were discussions with Hutton and Williams.

Dear Senator Breaux and Senator Stepson:

At various times there were comunications with the White House This responds to your letter of May ll,1987. and follows up on my letter of concerning Shoreham. These involved inquiries into the status of

• May 21. My answers to your three questions are as follows. Shoreham so that they could respond to comun1Ca:lons they received

1. No from the parties involved and members of Congress. At one point the Uf fice of Science and Technology under Dr. Jay Keyworth was

2. No taking an active interest in what FEMA was doing regarding Shoreham (asking to be briefed and. urging FEMA to do whatever it Could to .

3. Over the course of 1984 through August of 1986. I had discussions with all of the parties involved in the Shoreham 2ffstte energy The Department of Energy also took an active interest in the planning issue. Shoreham presented a unique tituten for FEMA. Shoreham issue, urging FEMA'to adve with all deliberate speed on it was the first time that the principal local and the state the issue.

governments both withdrew from participation in of fstte emergency planning at a commercial nuclear reactor. It also represented the When I came to FEMA in December 1933. I quickly concluded that first time FEMA was called upon to evaluate a utility company there was a need to improve communication and cooperation with the  ;

offsite emergency plan under specific Congressional language Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thus. the NRC director of providing for such an alternative approach. A great deal of operations and I began to get together over an informal lunch on a discussion took place to try to understand the positions of the relatively regular basis. The two people involved were W1111am various parties and under what conditions and what time frame they Dircks and his successor. Victor Stello. Shoreham sometimes came might participate in or assent to the development and exercise of up at these lunches, but it was not the primary purpose or focus of an of fsite emergency plan. There was also a great deal of them. I also had lunch on one occasion with the NRC chairman, discussion about what could and should be done if a utility plan Lan<lo Zech, and breakfast (at a FRERP esercise) with Commissioner was to be used as the basis for offsite emergency planning. There Asselstine (and a number of esercise participants),

was also discussion concerning what Congressional actions might be encouraged to assist FEMA in dealing with the 50 called "hostage

• There were mar.y contacts with individual members of Congress over issue on a more generic basis.

• hostage" meaning where local $borehan and also several hearings. The former involved briefing and/or state governments refuse to participate in offsite emergency the members, themselves, and members of their personal and planning and exercising. e comittee staffs. At least one Congressman Representative Markey, requested and was given FEMA flies pertaining to Shoreham. If More specifical*y, I met with representatives of the state of New . there was any place from which I received any "pressure" concerning York on a number of occasions. At least four of these involved Dr. Shoreham. It was from members of Congress. Congressman Markey used David Amelrod. New York State Secretary of Health. % one Occasion i his position as chair of FEMA's House oversight committee regarding i there was a brief discussion with the Governor, ,

nuclear issues to pressure FEMA to not move ahead with a Shoreham i

t d

r-- --w i

114 COUNTY OF SUFFOL.K exercise while Congressman Boland, who chaired FEMA's budget subcommittee wrote language into the agency's budget report CouMTV LEmoLATURE urging FEMA to move ahead with such exercises.

e. aeon, a suas Finally, with respect ta Franklyn C. Nofzige. . I was asked in late ' ~

1984 by the former director of FEMA. Louis Gluffrida, to phone Mr.

Mofziger to brief him on now FEMA saw the situation regarding 5 of. site planning at Shoreham. After that. Mr. Nofziger and I had ney 14,1937 several phone conversations concerning what was happening regarding

• Shoreham. We also both attended a breakfast at which -

representatives of L11co were present where the Shoreham issue was discussed, especially with reference to getting the county. If not ,

the state, to part1C1pate in an exercise. The Honorable John Breaux, Chairman The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Eanking Minority Member The,e communications with Nofziger were essentially e7 changes of Subcammittee on Nuclear Degulation Committee on Environment and Public works

270rmation on who was thinking and doing what regarding the United states senate offsite emergency planning. He conveyed his perspective on where washington, D.C. 20510 m k ate. Suffolk County, and L11co were on the issue and I Dear senator Breaux and senator simpsons These are my best recollections. I left my calendar at FEMA when I resigned. Thank you for your letter of May 11, 1987, invitiny me to testify on behalf of Suf folk County at the Subcommittee e May la All official correspondence, memoranda, and other records were also left. My hearing on enternal influences affecting the NRC's Shoreham office did not keep telephone logs. licensing proceedinos. I will present the county's testimony at the heering.

Finally. with all due respect let me say that trying to follow the will of Congress on nuclear power was the most frustrating expertence I have had in The County did not receive your May 11 letter until the many years of government service (I was in the Ohio legislature for thirteen evening of May 12. Accordingly we have not had the opportunity years and chaired the Senate Energy. Environment. Natural Resources Consittee). to respond or search our files to obtain the documents you have requested. The County, of course, will cooperate with the Why? Because Congress has failed to develop a clear, precise policy and Committee's request and provide a response and documentation in mandate for administrators on how to handle the hostage issue. The result is accordance with your letter.

that any administrator is subject to constant whipsawing by members of Congress. Whether you decide .that nuclear power is too risky to pursue or that "**

• the risk of forfetting the nuclear option is too great. I implore you to have (

the Integrity and perserverance to develop a clear policy that an assinistrator } *}

can follow without having his integrity and intelligence constantly impugned. Gregory . Blass It is clearly appropriate that you should investigate whether anyone was trying Presiding Officer to bring inappropriate influence to bear on decision making on Shoreham4 It is infinitely more important (and more difficult) to come forward with a forthright policy on nuclear power whatever you decide that policy should be. If Congress had done its policy making job more effectively in the first place, you probably would not have to hold the kind of hearings y9u are now holding.

51mcerely. ,

% o (J. *M '

el W. Spect a m .c . - . . . . --

Assistant to the

• resident and Associate Professor of Political Science , k paj

o e

117 Stateneet of Maur ace Barbash, Chairman, Citiress to Replace LILCO -

I as the Chaarnaa of Citizens to Replace LILCO tsRL). a act for prof tt organization of approatmately 10,000 members, registered la Nee Yor k State. We are a coalittom of Long Island businessmen, homeowners and g other rate payers. Most of es are seither anti-seclear nor "not on my block" seslots. Our members' conceras regarding the Shoreben acelear ITATENENT OF NAGRICE BARSASN ,

CNAIRMAN

= spessored the state legislation ubich established the Long Island Power y . a m em e the phlic acquisttion of CITIZENS TO REPLACE LILCO

,g,g,, the Long Isised Lighting Company (LILCO).

SENATE CONNITTEE ON ENY1ROINtENTAL AND PUBLIC Wott$

susCONNITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION '

HAT 14,1989 8 e o m speech had hea challenged W LI W 1a federal court, and me have facurred legal fees of $06.000 in the time comeweing, but successts! defense agatast that attack.

To identify arself. 1 en a consoreattee Long Island businessaan and have been a residential buildtag developer for over 36 years. My public actien ties imelade 16 years as a Director, past Presiding Chairman and present Planning Chairnas of a large Diocesaa hospital, founding trustee and current Tice Presdient of the Long Island Philharmonic, as well as Chatraan of the Citisees Ceamittee for a Fire Island National Seashore. In the latter capacity from 1962 to 1944. I worked with many of your predecessors here in the halls of Congress.

Ny interest la this issee originally steamed from conceres over the occacaic ef fects of Shorehan's rising costs. In 1983, them Suffolk Comat y Esecuties Peter Cobalas appolated me to assist la an ocomente

• I 4

. . e

a e 118 119 Stateneet et nautice Barbash. Chairmas. Cittaeas to Replace LILCO Statenest of Maurice Barbash. Chairmaa. Citisees to Replace LitCO etuer of Shorehaa. which was done by the accounting fire of Touche toes. Esc. This experience broadened my concera to all of Shorehan's construction are identical in saar details. We ask, where was the ptC raatticetions. safety as well as economic. These growing conceras and all the time this mess wee getag osa? Bow do we kaos that this is not

• those of other Long Islanders led to the founding of CAL in mid 1905, another timmer, a moannestal utC gooft Inc14+ata117 the Zimmer g

epossors are noe suing General Electrie (GE) for a billion dellare. {.

As a result of our experiesce since that time. *e tell you quite clateing that,11 amer's GE Berk II eestainment destga ses defective, and P

that CE knew and concealed that f act. Shoreham is a GE Nark II model, fraatly that we fear that the nuclear regulatory process has been compromised and contesiaated by private and political interest. The unque-io.e.1st. grit, .! m. pr.e.e.. mes.r. . c.saita te. b, t,.

" " - - -"""" ' " " " ' ' " " ' ' " ' " " ' " " * " * ' ' ' ' ' ' "' F risks that the public is asked to assume. Regarding Shorehaa. the day, but what has actually happened? j Ruclear Regulatory Commission's aNRC) own stady of the potential health

• I and property damage ef fects et that plaat are staggersag. (Copy of Conf ronted with dif ficulties la obtaining an operating license from the ,

report attached herewit%). LILCO's own eitaese before as pac hearing stC. LILCO hired White Nouse insider Lys Wof siger la povember 1983 et {

I staitted potentist catastrophic damage. lacluding t%e radiesetive $20,000 per meath. The public was unaware of LILCO's payments to costanimettom of Loes Island's ester supply for decades or more. True, potsiger until the Long Island newspaper Newsday broke the story on g a meltdova is only.a remote possibility SUT. there is no seastagful July 24,1985. At that potat, LILCO said that it paid motsiger for his counsel and advice. Recording to Newsday (11/19/86). LILCO Chairman tasur ance available to compensate us for these potential catastrophie i

losses. Therefore. ao matter what the "muclear experts' say about the William Catecaciaos denied that potsiger 414 any lobbytag for LILCO. (

l That statenest preved to be untrue. Events have forced emboequent safety of nuclear plaats, the insurance experte are act be *.ag it.

f l This sakes us suspietous and uneasy

• admissions by Catacimos f adicating that sofeiger lobbied strenuously a

' f for LI140. and that he set with a large number of White souse personnel ,V Shorehaa. in particular makes as suspietosa and uneasy. In 1985 the +

s New York State Public Service Comm,issica (PSC) disallowed 1.4 billion Let's st ar t et the beginning. Newsday reported 0 124135). that dollars of $horehan's costs. due to masaanaged construction. If you pofsiger met twic, la the early spring of 1935 with thea geffolk County read the PSC report it can cause yoe great alarm. Aad. if you compare Executive poter Cobalaa, in the presence of LILCO Chairman Catacacimos, a the report with a letter f ree a Chernobyl engtmeer printed la a Elev t at approximately the same time Nof sager consulted with people in the newspaper a month before that accident, you can have alghtmares. The White Bosse, (Newsday 11/19/86). Cobalan had been elected on a strong plaat s ear be somewhat differest. but the stories of stoppy

• anti-Shoreham plat f orm. but tacredibly. after the meetings with [

i 2

i 1

f e

i f  %

e-t t.

L

_ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -- J

120 121

4 s ~Stateseat

. .... . , . s .

+o of Maerice herbash,rw .Chaireas Citizens to Replace LILCO Stateneet of Maurice serbash, Chairasa. Catizens to Replace L1140 1 "

?

proceedingsf hof eiger, switched his stance in such a manner' as te help LILCO. Did ,

when Suf folk County.

Another strange event happened to July of 1986, Notsiger say things to Cabalaa that caused the change? 014 he convey attempted a takeover of LILCO. The county's plan was not even pressere or offers from the White Mouse? There are published remots finalised when a high U.S. Tressary Departaeat of ficer, J. Roger Wests, thet blackmail was 1 evolved . Nessrs. Notsiger, Cobalaa. Catacacimos s 4

I wrote to Suf folk County Executive Cohalaa. In the letter, heats east and Walter Coelen, in whose home the meetings were held, should be r 9 sertoes dompt s on the plan's legality and the tas-free states of the compelled to disclose, under oath, what happened at those meetings.

This mech is owed to'the eeters of Suf folk Coasty, who in a sense, were f

of geestionable legality. Stranger yet. Heatt seat a copy of hit I disenf ranchised by Cobalan's reversal. (Mr. Cohalaa, incidentally, letter out on Heatten, a financial wire sereice. la f act, vall street l renned has political career by his action, and lef t politics).

got the mees even before Cohalas got the let t er, thus chilling

, prospects for the commty ef fort, Then Nesta stadenly got too busy to Next, consider LILCO's energency evacuation drill of February 13, 1906, meet with the commty's representatives, until be was forced to do se by l ohich was moottered by the Federal Emergency Nasage eet Agency (FEMA). repeated demands. Actually, Wests had been'in touch with LILCO ame FEMA Regional Director, Frank petrone, would not delete a sentence troe made up his aind without evea seeing the final coasty plea or conselting the county's emperts, In otber words, a private company has report, stating that because there was no local governmental pasticipation la the drill, FEMA could act give

• reasonable esserance" socceeded la enlisting the help of a federal agency while the public's For this, he eat fired from his elected representatives had to fight for a hearing. une ' engineered that the public could be protected.

job. (Ironically, FEMA is aos embracias a positica steilar to Mr. this f avorable treateemt for LILCO?

Petrome's). It now torna out that Nofsiger had met wit > FEMA of ficials ..

as well as Departneat of Energy (DOE) chiefs Donald Nodel and John ** Nore suspicious behavtor. Two seperate 5tc boards decided that LILCO Norrington, on behalf of LILCO. Was petrome*e firing influenced by did not have the legal authority to taplement its evacuation plea Notsiger and/or White Nouse contact with FEMAf Further, la Narch 1985, enthout local participation. The s.RC promptly isseed a reling which sidestepped and ef fectively sellified those decisions. ne if that Congressaam Narber released DOE documents proposing that the DOE "lobby

• the NRC to change its rules so as to help LILCO get a quick weren't enough. it then shif ted two judges of f one of the boards Shorehen license. <This af ter DOE Chief Norrington told Mr. Markey that immediately af ter those judges had heard three days of testinomy from

• FEMA was doing nothing about shorehen. Did Notsiger's meetings with Long Islanders. Just as TEMA had done by firing Frank Petrone, the NRC DOE chiefs prompt this blatantly improper plan to influence the NRC's mas taking no chances with honest dissenstee within its reeks. Is this a f air esy to conduct a licensing proceeding? Now has LILCO been able proceedtagst Nr 5

4 e'

i I

u_

o a

• i e 122 123 Statement of Nautice Barbash, Chairmaa, Citisees to Beplace LI140 Statement of Neurice Barbash,' Chairaea. Citizens to Replace LILCO to obtata such f avorable treatneatP play a dual role with regard to nuclear power. It cannot function as a booster, or act as a sort of nuclear chamber of commerce, if it to also going to functin u a neelam sad guaraam of public safety. Cae The list of examples of federal agencies acting on '.ILCO's behalf goes om and on. pres 14 eat Reagan. la his Octobu 1984 letter to then role conflicts with the othu. mm is only me sey la which the g 4 Repsesentative Carney, pledged that h4e edaisistration 414 mot favor , gomanent can moln this caflict. It must make e choice aM them the federal goveraneat's overraltag of local authority regarding a la u qmOm as to what that cWee meet k m gomment mt Shoreham evacuation plan. abandon the role of cheerleader and leave the taen of selling nuclear A recent DOE letter to Long Isleador e

• Not only that',- it evea supporte pmr to the ladustry itself. It must choose' to regulate. More s ;- , , 17aores thet pledge : completely.

LILCO*e position agatast a public takeover, a matter completely up to important, it must regulate well. placing the safety of the public the voters of pee York and not to any federal agency. sow 414 L1140 befon the maoaic health as4 weMan of th Mutry. It mt h

, gaaa so adch control over so masy agencies of the fedwat government? the public that it to emenue abat ufety, and it mt 40 so by he actions, not its words."

Is the payeest of $750,000 to white Boose imaider Hof siger part of the answer?

r Our committee has emloped some ideas to implement what we feet are Stonewalling the Americea public, as the NRC has been dotag, is never needed CLaages sad we ell! be happy to discuss these with you. ytret, successful in the long rua. Aad although lobbying to a recogelsed and hmm, we urge you to coeduct an aggrees.se lavestigation, taking respected profesotoa. tafluence peddling should beve ao role la the mra testimony fm sad subyweaing the muda of Mr. Wofelgu. Mr.

J auclear plaat licenstag process. yer everyone's benefit, including the atacacim. ad au fMust penM mtsetM h R. MW "I*'01*' I*"* I ** * " * " * * * "'I " 8"*

industry's, this coaaittee should conduct a thorough investigation of */

A this matter.

e waag a this puceu, ad W to mmt M. naak ru.

As a result, you any uncover the need for a new app cach towards regulatica of the nuclear ladestry. ,

O one of nuclear power's otrongest advocates is Time negasise Bureau Chief peter Stolog, who la right on target la his book "Decline and I

rail". In the concluetag chapter he states: "The most important thing i the governwer t cea do is be homent -- both with itself and the American public. It can begin this task by recogolaies that it can no no. der

• 29 6 -

, 7-4.

-