ML20206T164
| ML20206T164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1987 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3152 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704230125 | |
| Download: ML20206T164 (72) | |
Text
,
6 3MM LILCO, April 17,1987 DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 APR 20 P3 :09 GiFICE C = .i-Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00CKU y;i , ._ ' w;;
<.1 In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' LETTER OF APRIL 14,1986 REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S HEARING GUIDELINES l
Ms. Letsche's letter of April 14 goes well beyond the estimate of cross-examination time of LILCO's witnesses on Contention EX 50 requested by the Board.
To the extent that it does, it is plainly in the nature of a motion for reconsideration by the Board of its April 7 bench order (Tr. 2860) on the rate of questioning.M To that ex-tent, LILCO opposes it, as follows:
- 1. Ms. Letsche's letter is further notice tc the Board that Suffolk County has no intention, unless ordered, of complying with the Board's guideline of approximately four pages of prefiled testimony per hour of questioning. Her estimate at the hearing indicated that her proposed duration of questioning on Contentions EX 38 and 39 would exceed the four days indicated by the Board's guideline; that estimate is unmodified by her letter. Her estimate of at least two weeks on Contention EX 50 (Letter at 2) is be-tween two and three times that indicated by the Board's guideline. And while not giv-ing any concrete information on Contentions EX 15,16 and 21, her letter indicates that Suffolk County would intend, if permitted, to conduct cross-examination on them for 1/ A schedule, embodying the Board's guideline, was provided to the Board and par-ties by letter from Donald P. Irwin dated April 8,1987.
8704230125 870417 3 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR 90 Q
i
.- several weeks rather than the two to three days nominally suggested by the guideline on Contentions EX 15 and 16 and the one day suggested by the length of Contention EX 21.E ee S Letter at 2-3.
- 2. LILCO does not disagree with two apparent premises in Ms. Letsche's let-ter: first,- that cross-examination time limits are not the only way of regulating the progress of hearings (see paragraph 5 below); and second, that limits on cross-examination may best be imposed by the Board af ter examination of all the parties' tes-timony on a given issue, rather than "in a vacuum." In one respect, however, LILCO appears at odds with Suffolk County: LILCO believes that, by whatever means, both certainty and expedition need to be brought to this proceeding,W whereas Intervenors j appear considerably less interested in those attributes.N 2/ Ms. Letsche's letter also refers, at 2, to discovery still allegedly necessary from LILCO on these contentions. LILCO does not agree that there is any such further dis-covery due, and has so informed Suffolk County.
3/ LILCO submitted an informal tabulation of aspects of the chronology of this pro-
- ceeding to the Board and parties on the af ternoon of April 7 and referred to it in argu-ment. However, it was not bound into the transcript or formally served. Its 4 attachment as Attachment I to this paper will suffice to illustrate some of the difficul-
! ties to date.
.y In the summer of 1986 LALCO opposed, out of bitter experience, numerous of In-4 tervenors' proposed contentions on grounds of relevance and redundancy, and warned
! that the contentions, if admitted, would be used to justify a virtually endless proceed-
! ing. Intervenors insisted that each of their contentions was necessary to a proper de-4 termination of issues in this proceeding; and except for issues relating to the basic legal
- authority for the conduct of the exercise, the Board admitted substantially all the con-tentions filed. LILCO protested thereaf ter the excessive discovery being insisted on by Intervenors; again, the Board acquiesced in Intervenors' arguments and declined, except 4
on a question-by question basis, to curb discovery. The net result was that this process, rather than winnowing the issues, artificially expanded them, compelling the filing of lengthy testimony by all parties, and permitted the filing of abusively lengthy testimony by Intervenors (total of 937 pages exclusive of attachments, compared with 422 by LILCO and 160 by the federal government). Hearings on this testimony did not even start until over a year - thirteen months, to be precise -- af ter the one-day exercise being examined.
i 6
, Licensing Boards have both the responsibility and authority to regulate the con-duct of all proceedings,10 CFR 55 2.718,2.757, and to conduct them "as expeditiously as possible, consistent with developing an adequate decisional record." 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix A,1 V. In addition, there are special factors which apply specifically to this proceeding:
A. The Commission has specifically ordered this proceeding to be expe-dited. CLI-86-11,23 NRC 571 (1986).
B. Until this proceeding is completed, LILCO cannot receive a full-power license without an exemption under 10 CFR S 50.47(c).
C. Until the companion "-03" proceeding is completed, LILCO cannot receive a full power license without an exemption under 10 CFR S 50.47(c). Because of the common membership on this and the "-03" Board, it is difficult and perhaps inadvis-able to hold hearings in the two proceedings simultaneously.E j- D. Until LILCO receives an operating license for Shoreham sufficient
-to render the plant "used and useful" in commercial service, the company is potentially l
at risk of an attempt at takeover by the Long Island Power Authority, which was cre-ated by New York State legislation pushed through by Governor Cuomo last July. See
- Chapter 517,1986 Laws of New York. That Authority, whose actions are not as proce-durally constrained as those of this Board, is apparently proceeding apace and could, according to its spokesmen, be prepared to attempt a takeover of all or a portion of j
j LILCO shortly af ter completion of a consultant's report, expected within 60 days (see Newsday article, April 16, 1986, Attachment 2 hereto). If the plant has not become
{ "used and useful" in commercial service by January 3,1989, it will be irrevocably i
!/ There may also be legitimate witness-scheduling conflicts. There are not, given the resources of all the major participants, any legitimate scheduling conflicts for law-yers.
s
- deemed to have been abandoned under a companion New York State statute, the "Used and Useful" Act, also enacted in July 1986 at Governor Cuomo's urging. See Chapter 518, 1986 Laws of New York. Thus delay in completion of these proceedings increases LILCO's potential vulnerability under these statutes. LILCO has challenged the consti-tutionality of these two acts in federal district court for the northern district of New York, Long Island Lighting Company v. Mario M. Cuomo, et al.,87-CV-0039 (N.D.N.Y.),
but at present there is no restraint on the actions of the LIPA Board.
E. Counsel for Suffolk County in this proceeding, Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart, are also litigation counsel to the Long Island Power Authority. At least one partner in that firm who is also counsel of record in these proceedings, Herbert H.
Brown, Esq., has appeared and given litigation advice at at least one meeting of the LIPA Board of Trustees. In that advice, given on February 20,1987, the duration of this proceeding was one of the factors considered by Mr. Brown in recommending strategy to the LIPA Board. Mr. Brown's projection was that an initial decision in this proceed-Ing could not be finished until October or November as a " worst case"(i.e., fastest) sce-nario, and he ventured that the proceeding would take considerably longer than that.
Transcript, New York State, Long Island Power Authority, Meeting of Board of Trus-tees, February 20,1987 (Attachment 3), pp. 22-27. Mr. Brown's projection was the predicate for the ensuing observation by the LIPA Board's Chairman, William Mack, that (T]his Board will do all it can do to make sure that it comes to a decision before the Shoreham plant can have the oppor-tunity to open. . . . [W]e will endeavor to do our best to place our studies on the basis that we can and will come to a conclusion before the date that Shoreham, based on your timeframe on a worst case scenario, can open, and perhaps way before that as well.
Id. Tr. 34-35.
~
- i n
, F. LILCO has already had to request an exemption from the provisions in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, dealing with the duration between the date of an emer-gency planning exercise and the date of issuance of an operating license.5/ For Inter-venors to suggest that the Board's exercise of its powers to regulate this proceeding would deprive them of their due process rights, is f atuous.
f/ That request has been placed in abeyance pending further development of this proceeding. Letter, Walter R. Butler to Donald P. Irwin, March 6,1987. In the mean-time the Commission has proposed to extend the one year period prescribed by the cur-rent regulation to two years. 51 Fed. Reg. 43,369 (December 2,1986).
7/ Intervenors' invocation of the 1984 proceeding on LILCO's low power license (Docket 50-322-OL-4) (Letter, page 5 footnote 3) for the proposition that this Board's acting to alter the torpid pace of this proceeding would violate their due process rights is not apt. The schedule complained of in that proceeding, according to the statement of facts set out by the District Court which issued the TRO, was as follows:
On March 20, 1984, LILCO submitted to the NRC its proposal to operate the Shoreham plant at low power with-out an onsite electric power system. The NRC's Chief Ad-ministrative Law Judge created a new Licensing Board on March 30,1984, to hear and decide LILCO's request. After oral argument, the Licensing Board established on April 6, 1984, an expedited procedural schedule for the low power 11-cense hearings. The schedule provided for discovery from April 6 to April 16, 1984; issuance of an evaluation of the proposal by NRC staff on April 19, 1984; filing of plaintiffs' (i.e., Intervenors' in the NRC proceeding] testimony on April 20,1984; and the hearing on April 24, 1984. Further, the Licensing Board mandated that the hearing be concluded by May 5,1984. In response to plaintiffs' request for recon-sideration of its expedited hearing schedule, the Licensing Board, on April 20,1984, refused to alter or vacate its order.
Plaintiffs then appealed to the Commission to overturn the expedited schedule, but the Commission, on April 23, 1984, refused to alter the scheduling order. On the same day, i plaintiffs filed this action, and the Court heard argument from all parties on plaintiffs' application for temporary re-
- lief.
Plaintiffs maintain that the Licensing Board and the
, Commission have violated proccdoral due process by estab-i lishing an expedited schedule under which it is impossible for plaintiffs to prepare their case. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that seventeen days is insufficient time in which to
, (footnote continued)
i V
. 3. Suffolk County's letter, though six single-spaced pages long, tells nothing of substance about why the County thinks it needs to depart from the Board's questioning guidelines. All of its substantive arguments are contained in " preliminary cross-examination plans," filed ex parte with the Board and hidden from opportunity for re-sponse by other parties. This is improper. While actual cross-examination plans may properly be kept confidential, the matter being argued ex parte here involves not only the time of Intervenors, but also that of the Board, other parties and their witnesses.
And it involves not only the specific time at issue, but the entire downstream schedule for the proceeding. Affected parties should not be excluded from determination of the issue. LILCO requests that the Board instruct any party hitherto seeking to exceed the
, Board's cross-examination time guideline that, except for matters going specially to the personal veracity of a witness or other reasons specifically justifying confidentiality, all material submitted in support of extensions be also served on the other parties.W (footnote continued) complete discovery, retain experts, and prepare expert tes-timony with respect to a proposal that has neither been sug-gested by a license applicant nor evaluated in a licensing proceeding in the history of civilian nuclear power genera-tions. . . .
Cuomo v. U.S. NRC, No. 84-1264, slip op. at 1-3 (D.D.C. April 25, 1984). Any resem-blance between that schedule and the pace of this proceeding is remote. In any event, even af ter the restructuring of the low power proceeding necessitated by the District Court's issuance of its temporary restraining order, the entire proceeding - discovery, testimony, hearings ano issuance of an Initial Decision - was still completed in six nonths. LBP-84-45,20 NRC 1343 (October 29, 1983).
8/ The justification for providing these materials ex parte to the Board is appar-ently to avoid prejudicing the element of surprise in cross-examination. That rationale, while valid within its proper limits, is not a blanket excuse to exclude affected parties from opportunity to reply to arguments which, if accepted, would effectively add weeks to the time the Board has agreed to schedule for this proceeding. Indeed, the traditi-onal rationalla for keeping the intended subjects of cross-examination confidential --
surprise and testing the veracity and demeanor of witnesses - have only limited appli-cability, since extensive pretrial discovery (including depositions of literally all of the witnesses) and prefiled written testimony do a good preliminary job of either estab-lishing the basis or the absence of one for a given witness' views.
c . - _-
4 t
- 4. The authority of licensing boards to take remedial measures to ensure the progress of proceedings is soundly based not only in the regulations but in NRC case law, as well.N Further, it is indisputable that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Circuit, when it made the results of emergency planning exercises f available for litigation, contemplated proceeoings which were expedited in nature.
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d (D.C. Cir.1984) at 1448 note 21. In-deed, the majority dismisses Judge MacKinnon's dissenting argument that exercise liti-gation might, improperly, delay commercial operation of a completed plant for as much as two years because it " ignores the potential for time savings by use of expedited pro-cedures"in NRC proceedings. Id.
4
- 5. In short, there is no doubt about the propriety of the Licensing Board's.
having implemented a questioning guideline as a means of stimulating the progress of r this proceeding. Moreover, setting a four-page per-hour guideline or limit is not the only available means of regulating the further conduct of this proceeding. The Board could also do any or all of the following to control the contours of the proceeding and
- ensure that it proceeds at a predictable and expeditious pace
A. require submission, well in advance, of cross-examination- plans l
i (including estimated duration of questioning), and use them, along with its independent review of prefiled testimony, to set advance limits on cross-examination time, monitor the efficiency of cross-examination, or both; l
l
\
9/ See Commission Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, i
CLI-86-8,13 NRC 452 (1981), at 4571 III.H (endorsing use of cross-examination plans and other devices to limit unnecessary direct oral testimony and cross-examination); '
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 376-77 (1985) (endorsing imposition by Licensing Board of cross-examination
- plans and limits on cross-examination, including termination of cross-examination);
l Long Island Lighting Company (Shareham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 1 20 NRC 1102, 1151 (1984) (sustaining Licensing Board's curtailment of cross-L examination by Suffolk County, and holding that on review a party complaining of im-proper curtallment of cross-examination "must demonstrate actual prejudice - i.e.,
that the ruling had a substantial effect on the outcome of the proceeding.")
=
- vg-- w-rwct -
y,y-i---g----,--gw-y ---m--,.7,p-g 9.,9,.,ww-w.-p , gya gm. - - -e.m-g-cy-.g,e---n+m-->,p,-.w-~,w-x--- -g--*.- ,-+ y -g-ee-,m. -
+e--->,m_q---rry,v-e- y 9
l B. lengthen effective hearing days, by lengthening the overall hearing day, shortening the lunch and other breaks, or both; C. conduct hearings five days a week, not four; D. grant no further weeks off (see 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix A, 1 V(d)(13));
E. Impose overall time limits in advance on each party (or aligned group of parties) for Lssue clusters, based on its advance review of all parties' prefiled testimony, review of cross-examination plans, and its inde}endent sizing up of the is-sues.
There is no magic to any particular mode of control. But contrcl is, by now, a necessity, as the Board has recognized.
,. 6.' In additica, certainty as to the expected dates and duration on the stand of l
witnesses' testimony is essential. LILCO's witnesses are, by and large, senior company officials with jobs other than testifying, or consultants with matters in addition to this *
-case to attend to. Intervenors' witnesses appear to have comparable responsibilities.
All of. them can be at required places when reasonable dates certain are provided; but '
, t indefinite commitments will tend to fall in priority relative to other, more specific ,
ones. This proceeding, despite its vital importance, has (until the Board's imposition of
! cross-examination scheduling guidelines and the prospect of certainty they confer) been in danger of receiving such second priority treatment.
LILCO will have, in the immediate future, three witness scheduling difficulties
\ '
. which only certainty can cure. First, Dennis Mileti, who is a LILCO witness on Conten-
! tions EX 38 and 39 (and later issues as well)is a professor at the University of Colorado.
He is obligated to teach classes each Tuesday and Thursday, and is permitted under his t
( contract to miss only five classes per semester. He has already been forced to miss two
- f [ + sessions because of this proceeding.EI His testifying next week will force him to miss I
l l M/ Dr. Mileti's time in this proceeding to date illustrates the difficulties with the
- schedule preceding the Board's imposition of guidelines. Suffolk County initially esti-
____.___Jfootnote continued,)_ _ _ _ _ _ _
t two more sessions. He will be testifying later in the proceeding as well on training is-sues, which is expected to occur af ter his teaching responsibilities have ended in May.
But because of his teaching requirements he will simply not be available the week of April 27; and LILCO respectfully requests that the Board require that all interrogation of him on issues in Contentions EX 38 and 39 be completed next week.UI Second, another of LILCO's witnesses on Contentions EX 38 and 39, Elaine Rob-inson, will be unavilable the week of April 27, due to a commitment to testify as an ex- i pert in another proceeding beginning on April 27. That commitment was made follow-ing her being informed of the imposition of questioning guidelines and in reliance on being finished, therefore, by the close of business on April 23.M/
Third, John Weismantle, LILCO's Vice President for Engineering, has already had to serve on witness panels for three continuous weeks becaase of the manner in which questioning was done on Contention EX 40 and 41. His professional duties will simply not permit him to spend the same amount of time, or anything close to it,in connection with the questioning on Contention EX 50. LILCO will determine with Mr. Weismantle the parameters of his availability, and promptly thereaf ter will seek agreement with Intervenors as to whether questions directed to him can be voluntarily channeled within his period of availability. Falling such agreement, LIL.CO will be forced to request the Board for assistance.
(footnote continued) mated that it would be finished with traffic issues on Friday, March 20, or at the latest the following Monday morning. In fact, the County's estimate was sufficiently inaccu-rate that LILCO's witnesses on Contention EX 33 were unable even to take the stand until Wednesday, April 1. Even then counsel for Suffolk County would not agree to seg-regate Dr. Mileti's testimony for purposes of questioning. However, af ter initial voir dire was finished, Suffolk County did not ask a single question of Dr. Mileti, even though counsel for the County followed a consistent pattern of directing questions to specific witnesses.
M/ The possible need for oral redirect / rebuttal testimony is an additional reason to require completion of the entire panel next week as the guidelines would indicate, i.e.,
by April 23.
The only way to avoid continuing problems relating to witness availability is for the Board to set specific schedules and then expect the parties, barring true emergencies, to adhere to them or be defaulted out. Since the pace of these proceed-ings is an issue of strategy among the parties, the Board should not expect, regrettably, that the parties will always be able to come to agreement among themselves on the proper schedules. Thus, af ter giving them an opportunity to agree and requiring them to state their particular scheduling exigencies, the Board must be prepared to impose the schedule itself, clearly, and then stick to it.
CONCLUSION LILCO requests that the Board:
- 1. Deny the requests in Ms. Letsche's letter to the extent that they go beyond a justification for an intended time for cross-examination of Contention EX 50.
- 2. Reaffirm that questioning of LILCO's panel on Contentions EX 38 and 39 is to be completed by the close of business next week (April 23), and lengthen hearing days and take other steps as necessary to accomplish this goal.
- 3. With respect to the prospective duration of cross-examination on Conten-tion EX 50, afford LILCO access to information, pertinent to a scheduling decision though not to details of cross-examination plans, in the event the Board, on review of the Intervenors' ex parte submission, is considering any result other than denying the requested extension; and afford LILCO an opportunity to respond.
- 4. With respect to any further requests for extensions of time beyond those permitted by the Board's guideline, require the requesting parties to prepare them in a non privileged fashion except as to details of any particular matters that must remain privileged; require listing and general description of any such allegedly privileged mat-ters also in non privileged terms; and provide other parties the opportunity to respond.
, _ _ - . . _ ~ .__ ___ _ _ _ . _ _ . ._ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , - - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _
a
- 5. Impose such other steps, including but not limited to those outlined in para-graph 5 above, as the Board believes are necessary to further the progress of this pro-ceeding.
- 6. Instruct the parties now that the Board does not contemplate any extension of time for preparation af proposed initial findings of fact and conclusions of law be-yond the limits set in the. regulations (10 CFR S 2.754(a)), and that the Board contem-plates imposing page limits on proposed findings and conclusions.
Respectfully submitted, 7
Donald P. Irwin Lee B. Zeugin Kathy E.B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 17,1987 v
&?
4 Attachment 1
SUMMARY
OF DEVELOPMENT OF OL-5 PROCEEDING SINCE CONDUCT OF FEBRUARY 13,1986 EXERCIS_E Date of Exercise: February 13, 1986 Date of FEMA Post-Exercise Assessment: April 17,1986 Date of Commission Order CLI-86-11, Ordering Appointment of Licensing Board for "Immediate Initiation" of Proceedings of exercise which are to be
" expedited to the maximum extent possible consistent with fairness to the parties": June 6,1986 Date of First Prehearing Conference: July 8,1986 Date of Initial Filing of Contentions: August 1,1986 Depositions taken during Discovery: 48 (30 Noticed by Intervenors,18 by LILCO)
Individuals Deposed during Discovery: 55 By LILCO: 18 depositions of 24 people By Intervenors: 30 depositions of 31 people Pages of Documentation Provided During Discovery (Approximate)
By LILCO - 17,9001/
By FEMA - 5,700 By NRC Staff - 300 By Suffolk County - 118 By New York State - 3,300 Amount of Prefiled Testimony (Not including Testimony on Contentions 15,16 and 21):
Sponsoring Party Testimony Attachments LILCO 3482/ 476 (approx.)
Intervenors 717 514 (approx.)
FEMA 160 15 (approx.)
NRC Staff 0 0 1/ Does not include player documents, which comprise over 4000 pages of addition-al documentation.
2/ Includes Statements of Professional Qualifications.
e Results of Hearings Through April 1 (10 hearing days)
Total Transcript Pages: 2471 Total Transcript Pages of Questioning: 16553/
Average Transcript Pages of Questioning per Hearing Day: 165.5 LILCO Testimony Number of Pages of Prefiled Testimony Examined: 79 Number of Pieces of Prefiled Testimony Examined: 4 Transcript Pages of Questioning Oy Suffolk County: 1057 New York State: 54 NRC Staff: 0 FEMA: 5 Board: 231 LILCO Redirect: 17 TOTAL QUESTIONING: 1364 Transcript Pages of Questioning Per Page of Prefiled Testimony:
- Aggregate: 17.3
- Attributable to Intervenor Questioning: 14.1 Attributable to LILCO Redirect: .01 Average Pages of Prefiled Testimony Examined Per Day of Questioning: 9.6 Intervenor (Suf folk County) Testimony Number of Pages of Prefiled Testimony Examined: 161 Number of Pieces of Prefiled Testimony Examined: 4 Transcript Pages of Questioning by LILCO: 161 New York State: 38 NRC Staff: 26 FEMA: 0 Board: 45 Suffolk County Redirect: 1~
TOTAL QUESTIONING: 287 3/ Includes cross-examination and redirect examination, but not panel introduction or voir dire examination. Figures are inherently approximate.
o Transcript Pages of Questioning Per Page of Prefiled Testimony:
- Aggregate: 1.8
- Attributable to LILCO Questioning: 1.0
- Attributable to SC Redirect and NYS
" Friendly Cross": .34 Average Psges of Prefiled Testimony Examined Per Day of Questioning: 91.5 ISSUES LEFT TO BE HEARD IN OL-5 PROCEEDING Contentions EX 47/22A/49 Monitoring and Decontamination Contentions 38/39 ENC and Rumor Control Contention 50 Training Contentions 15/16 Scope of Exercise Contention 21 Basis for FEMA Findings FEMA Direct Testimony (all)
Pages of Testimony Lef t to be Heard (Not including Contentions 15/16 and 21)
LILCO: 269 Suffolk County: 556 FEMA: 160 Estimated Remaining Hearing Time Based on Current Pace:
1 1
Questioning of LILCO Witnesses: 28 days (Excluding 15/16, 21)
Questioning of Intervenor Witnesses: 6 days s (Excluding 15/16, 21) 15/16: No Basis Until Testimony Filed 21: No Basis Until Testimony Filed FEMA Testimony: If questioned at same rate as LILCO Witnesses have been to date: 17 days
Attachment 2 usemn Nemsdral om van ,
-- ,- 37 LIAuthorityHiresBankers ForLILCOTakeoverStudy h Long Island Power Authority annouased y that it will retain the investment Brm ofIaanrd Freres & Co. of Manhat.
tan to study whether electruity rates would be lowered if the authority takes over the Imag b landLightmeca. .
b authority said it will W the banking Ann 4260,000 plus outer. pocket expenses to semplete the study within 80 days. It also added a press odBoer set up a committee to awamine lavestasat banker,s br the possible takeover, and estab-lishedits headquarterela Mineola.
b moves come on the heels of LILCO's request to the federal Nuclear Regulatory rwh= hr permission to operate 81mreham at 25 percent of onpacity to meet electricity demand this samner.
Authority board members enlled that request an indication that LILCO is not serious in negotas.
tions between the state and the coneiny over what to do with the $6-billion plant. The also' indicated that they are steadtst la to their schedule for a possible takeover.
Authority Chairman Wilham Mack said that while he would like to bee negotiations between thm state and LII40 produes an agreement on Shoreham, the authority is "not sittag back and waiting?
% power authority was cuated by state law to esamine whether a takeover ofIRc0 would m
.iuniower eie.tri te.and an acquisition and gon the gg
Attachment 3
'o- .s i
r, 1
, t .
2 NEW YORK STATE l
,t 3 LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY j
4 5 - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - -x .
6 MEETING :
7 Of :
8 BOARD OF TRUSTEES :
9 - - - - - - - --- ---- - - - -- - - - - -x 10 11 Nassau County Executive Building 12- 1 West Street Mineola, New York 13 8
1 <4 February 20, 1987 L-9: 40 o' clock a.m.
15 16 17 B e f o r e:
18 19 WILLIAM MACK, 20 Chairman 21 22 23 e
24 25 L. a
i
' 2 1
w . ;
2 A P P EA R A N C E S:
3 William-Mack, Chairman 4 i' Vincent Tese ,
5 Richard Kessel 6 Nora Bredes !
i 7 Stephen Liss 8 Irving Like 9 Councilman Martin Bernstein 10 11 ALSO PRESENT:
12 For the Urban Development Corporation:
13 Joanne M. Gentile, Senior Vice President, i
Legal- '
i 14 L -
Raymond R. Savino, Senior Vice President, 15 Project Finance 16 Joseph Branca, Chief Financial Officer 17 Other staff 18 19 For Kilpatrick & Lockhart:
20 Herbert Brown, Esq.
21 22 For Citizens to Replace LILCO:
23 Maurice Barbash, Chairman 24 25 THE PRESS I
, j *
. L 4 l
_-. - _- . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . - - - _ _ _ . _ . _ - ,. ._..--,_..._,_.__.-m.- .
e B 1
3 !
2 11qCg[g11q1 3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: May I ask all of the ,
5 Members of the Board to be seated. ;
6 Good morning.
7 I would like to call to order the 8 meeting of the Trustees of the Long Island Power ,
9 Authority for our Board meeting this morning.
10 I would like to note for the record 11 that we do have a quorum. Two members of the Board, 12 Mr. Campo and Mr. Kanas, called in and could not be 13 here today and we look forward to seeing them at i >
14 our next meeting.
L.
15 The first order of business this 16 morning is approval of the minutes of our previous 17 Board meeting of February 3, 1987.
18 The minutes.are contained in your 19 booklet.
20 Are there any questions or comments 21 or additions to the minutes of February 3, 19877 22 (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, I will 24 entertain a motion for their approval.
25 MR. TESE: So move.
'l L..
y- , - . ,- r- , , . - - ,,.-, .-- - ,, .-
. i l
1 i
- u l
' ~
2l MR. LISS: Second.
I 3 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
4 (Chorus of " ayes.")
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Unanimous.
6 MR. KESSEL: That is probably the 7 easiest vote we are ever going to take. I l
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm always .
I 9 optimistic, Richard.
10 I always think that all of the votes, 11 while not easy, will be smooth.
12 How is that?
13 MS. BREDES: Good.
' 14 I
THE CHAIRMAN: As we indicatet at L .
15 the last meeting, on the day the Long Islanc Power
-16 Authority Board of Trustees was sworn there was 17 litigation instituted by LILCO where the Board 18 Members and the Board were named as defendants.
18 The first action that we naturally 20 took was to look for the best possible counsel to 21 represent us in that suit and in other legal M matters where we deem appropriate.
23 And after looking around and much 24 discussion we decided to employ the firm of '-
s 3
Kilpatrick and Lockhart, particularly in the person I
L .
, e t
l
_, 1 5
i 2 of Herb Brown, who is here today with us. '
5 3 The firm has extensive knowledge in ~
4 the utility field insofar as the legal aspects are 5 concerned and as well has been involved over the 6 last several months in other litigation with LILCO 7 and is currently representing the County of Suffolk 8 in that litigation, g
We believe that their expertise is 10 outstanding in this field.
11 We are very privileged to have them 12 on our team.
13 At this point I would like to 14 i
L. introduce Herb Brown who will address our Board on 15 a number of issues.
16 Herb, welcome aboard. It's good to 17 have you with us.
18 MR. HERB BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
19 Chairman and Board Members.
20 There is a lot of faces here that I 21 know for quite a while.
22 The Shoreham controversy, as you 23 know, has been going on for five years and there e
24 has been many difficult and very enjoyable hours i 25 with some of the people on the Board.
L_ s
. . j 1
6 L-.
2 As-I understand'it, you would like me ;
3 to give you a short presentation of the status of 4 the Shoreham litigation focusing on where it has I t
5 been and where it is now and where it is likely to E
6 be.
7 And I was told also that the Board 8 would be curious to get a sense of what this 9 sensational new rule which has been talked about in to the newspaper really is about and what impact it
. 11 might have on the licensing of the Shoreham plant.
12 Needless to say, if you want me to 13 change the direction of this talk, simply interrupt i i 1-4 me and I would be delighted to do it. If you have u .
15 any thoughts or questions or want to pursue a 16 particular motif, I am prepared to do that as well.
17 The Shoreham plant has been embroiled 18 in considerable controversy for a period far longer 19 than the period that I have been involved which has M
been since 1982.
21 Shoreham was built in a place on Long Zt Island from which the public could not be evacuated 2 23 in the event there were an accident.
e 24 i
It was built at a time when the 3
Federal Government did not consider evacuation i I L .
y -, - ..wm %-- , -- --,---,.-,-y.- - . , - . ry-p-.m,--w,.- ----.--m- - - - - - - . - - - - - ,,,-.,-- , ~...---, -, -.-~,----,
i
'! I
'~ ,
2 planning to be looked at or examined seriously at f
3 the time the plant was proposed to be constructed. i 4
Nevertheless, there were people on ,
5 Long Island as early as 1970, a group called the 6 Lloyd Harbor Study Group, for example, headed by 7 .one of the members of the Board, Irving Like, who 8 .made a serious effort to have the Nuclear g Reguitatory Commission look at the evacuation to feasibility issue.
11 LILCO refused to agree. It insisted
- 12 and urged the NRC not -- the AEC, the predecessor 13 of the NRC, not to look into that issue at the j 14 time.
- L. .
15 And the AEC ruled that the issue of 16 evacuation feasibility ought to be looked at after 17 the plant is built and the company applies for a 18 license to operate the plant.
1!0 By that time the County of Suffolk 20 intervened in the case and an issue arose in the 21 County's own mind as to whether it is possible to 22 evacuate Long Island.
23 There was a great deal of controversy 24 going on and then a dramatic event intervened. That 25 was the event that changed the shape and future of e d
- , . . , . . - . ,-+ - .- , , -. . _ . , , . . - . - . . , . . _ _ . , , - . - - . . , _ - , . , - - - . - - - - - - - - . -..-,- - ,n ;-,-.,
. Q i
t 8 i i b d 2 Shoreham. And that was the Three Mile Island l 3 accident. ;
4 During the course of the Three Mile 5 Island accident there was a chaotic response from 6 everyone involved including state and local 7 governments.
8 Perhaps the one statistic that has :
9 l always been of most interest to me is that, when l
10 Governor Thornberg made his announcement, his 11 advisory, that the universe, the population that 12 amounted to 2,500 people, will evacuate, in fact 13 144,000 evacuated.
i i l'4 There was no coordinated government 15 response. There was very much something which 16 appeared to be at parity to how government should 17 work instead of an effective response by the 18 government.
19 The aftermath of Three Mile Island 20 was to create a set of laws and regulations at the 21 NRC.
N They essentially provided the 23 following:
24 A nuclear power plant could not be 25 licensed to operate unless there was a workable i i L a
I
,-, I 9
-~
2 emergency plan of one of three kinds -- one of two i 3 kinds, a state plan or a local plan or both.
4 And after a period of time the NRC 5 interpreted, following certain Congressional 6 authorizations, the kind of emergency plan that 7 would satisfy licensing a plant to include a j i
g utility's plan as well.
9 So from that moment forward, roughly to 1980, it was possible to get a license to operate a 11 power plant as long as there was a state, local or 12 utility emergency plan that worked.
13 It turns out that the County of
, I 14 Suffolk undertook a very serious and extensive L,
15 analysis of whether evacuation, emergency 16 preparedness, was possible.
17 They spent $600,000 additionally on a 18 team of nationally-recognized experts.
19 They then, after getting a draft 20 emergency plan from these experts -- and that is a 21 significant point, a plan was actually produced --
22 the County legislature held eight days of public 23 hearings.
24 During the hearings they determined 25 -- sought to determine whether an evacuation was 3
1
l t 10 6
2! possible, whether other kinds of protection were '
i 3f possf.ble.
i 4 During those hearings LILCO testified !
5 on two occasions. Experts from all over the country i :
6 were brought in. It was an outstanding record that 7 was made.
3 The legislature then went to Three 9 Mile Island and held a day of hearings.
10 After this they spent several weeks 11 studying the matter and on February 17, 1983 they 12 determined that they would not adopt or implement 13 an emergency plan for Shoreham.
- 14 l They did it for a simple reason.
I 15 They believed that it was impossible 16 to evacuate Long Island. Their own Commissioner of 17 Police had said that in the event of an accident at 11B Shoreham with only three east / west roads, there 18 would be an immobilized evacuation and the gridlock 20 would mean that people would sit in their cars as 21 the radiation that they sought to flee passed over 22 them. They would be threatened, both their lives 23 and their health.
24 The determination, in effect, of the i
! 25 legislature was not to mislead their public into I i L .
l I
,- - -..,r..__.s _
__-,._.__._,m _. . _ - . , , . , . , .,---tm-r.,,-%._. . v.,f.v..,,,,.._,..__4.,, --m,w___.--.- - . . - - - - , . . _
i l
-- 1 jj
~
2 believing they were protected when they were, in f 3 fact, not protected. And the County resolved not to j l
4 adopt or implement an emergency plan. [
5 So with that stroke of the pen the 6 County eliminated one of the three legs upon which 7 the licensing of Shoreham was required to stand.
g There was no local emergency plan. There was none 9 for the good reason that the County exercised its 10 police power and determined it could not protect
-11 its people.
12 It did not act as an obstructionist.
13 It acted in a manner categorically opposite to that 14 l of an obstructionist. It planned and it represented L .
15 its people in accordance with its obligations to '
16 protect them.
17 The State of New York stood behind 18 the County because under this home rule law it was 19 not appropriate for the State to second guess the 70 County.
i 21 To be certain, Governor Cuomo created l 22 the Marberger Commission. For six months the 23 Marbe,rger Commission evaluated what the County did 24 to determine that the County acted reasonably and 25 there was no basis to second guess what the County a
v ._. _ _ _ . , _ , _ , . . . , _ . __m., . , _ . , . , , . .
m_ . , . _ _ _ , , . _ , _ . . . . , _ _ _ - . , _ _ _ . ...s - _,_c._,,,, , . , . , , ,
7 i i l' 12 L ,
2 had done. >
f 3 With that stroke of the pen Governor .
4 Cuomo announced that the State would not adopt or !
5 implement an emergency plan.
2 6 And thus the second leg on which the 7 licensing of a nuclear power plant under the law r had to rest had been eliminated.
9 At this point LILCO went off on its 10 own to develop its own utility plan and in the 11 process it arrogated to itself the police power '
12 function of protecting the welfare of the public by 13 sounding sirens, by directing traffic, by 1-4
- purporting to do things that only governments do.
15 The State of New York and the County 16 of Suffolk joined in a lawsuit in New York Court 17 against LILCO and the result was a ruling by the i
18 Court that LILCO's plan, so-called utility plan, 18 was illegal because it was a usu.rpation of the 20 powers reserved exclusively to the State of New 21 York and to municipalities to whom the State had j 22 delegated the police power.
, 23 With that stroke of the Court's pen 24 then there was no State plan, there was no local 25 emergency plan and there was no utility plan.
l L 4 i
-, . . _ ___ , - . _ _ , . _ _,_,_.,,__..__,....,__.-,__y_,, - _ , _ _ . , , , , , , _ . - _ . , , , , , . , _ _ _ - . _ . _ , . - . . ~ - . , .
__ 1 t 13 .
~ '
2 And to any objective observer one {
l 3 would have thought that was the end of the Shoreham !
i 4 plant, their case is over, there will be no
- 5 Shoreham plant.
6 But LILCO has had an ally frankly at ,
7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and for one 8 reason or another the Reagan Administration has 9 determined that licensing Shoreham is a national to security issue. That is a quote of a statement made 11 repeatedly by the Secretary of the Department of 12 Energy.
13 And with that the NRC has constantly 14 been on a move to devise one kind of device or 15 gimmick to try to license the plant despite the 16 fact that under the law the plant is now not
' 17 licensable. There is no State, there is no local, 18 there is no implementable utility plan.
19 We have gone through piece of 20 litigation after piece of litigation quibbling a
21 whether the case ought to be ended or not and i 22 Shoreham abandoned.
23 , To this point the litigation goes on. ;
24 Under the law today, as a legal l 25 matter we believe that the plant can't be licensed. l i
i s
i
. __ . _ - , - , . ~ . - -r . - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ' - ' + ~ ~ ' - - ' ' - " ' " ' ~ " ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " - ~~
~ . . =_ . ._ _ . . .
J 8
.1 tu
' i 2 There is no basis for a determination that the I 3 public can be protected.
4 We have every reason to believe that I 5 -the NRC shares that ocnviction.
6 But, as I said, the NRC continues to 7 be prompted by an instinct to fabricate one device 3 after another to try to license the plant.
9 And I thLnk that is precisely what we to saw ten days ago when the NRC -- or two weeks ago i 11 -- proposed a change in its rules.
12 The greatest significance of the 13 proposed change in rules is that it is tantamount l i 14 l to a bold concession by the Commission that under 15 present rules it cannot license Shoreham.
16 That is not to say under present 17 rules the Commission will not continue to strive to 18 license Shoreham, but I think it is a recognition 19 that they realize that they were stuck with issuing 20 a license under the present regulations.
21 Confronted with the present facts it 22 is most unlikely that the license would be upheld
, 23 in the court and it is our view that the Commission 24 in the process of taking such extravagant action i
25 would seriously undermine whatever credibility it 4
h l
, L 4 i 'r
- - 1 l 15 Ls 2
has left and upset people in many states where .
j 3
nuclear power is now being operated and indeed e
t 4 where plants are under construction.
I 5
We don't know what is going to happen l i
6 with the proposed regulation -- under the proposal 7 to ' propose the regulation.
8 But what is important for everyone to 9
keep in mind is that the proposal right now is --
10 it has no more standing than a press release.
11 The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission sent a memorandum to the Commissioners 13 asking the Commissioners to publish the Proposal i
14 i
L- for Public Comment and to give the public sixty 15 days during which to criticize or agree with the 16 proposal, and at that time, upon the close of 17 comments, presumably the Commission would consider 18 the comments and decide whether to adopt the rule 19 or not.
M What happened is that a fire storm 21 resulted from the leak initially of the staff's 22 proposal and subsequently the Commission's 23 acknowledgement of it.
24 The Commission decided to hold a N
meeting on the 23rd, next Monday, in order to have WM t
. -- ,__ ,___.-_,___,__7 .,_,_.,-__,m .-__.s _ . , _ . , . - . _ , _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . , _ ,_..y . _ . _ . - . _ - , - , . . . . _ _ . . - . _ ,
1 16 .
2 the staff present its view of the merits of the 3 proposal and make an argument for the issuance of a 4 Proposal for Public Comment. .
I 5 The Governor of New York immediately 6 filed a letter with the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission stating that the mere issuance of the a Proposal for Public Comment was of such severe ,
9 potential damage to the credibility of the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission and to the trust which the 11 states have to have in the Nucisar Regulatory 12 Commission if they are going to be able to 13 continue to rely on the Commission to regular i i 14 nuclear safety, that the Commission grant the L ,
15 opportunity for the Governor to make a statement on
, 16 Monday to argue that the Commission should not even 17 consider publishing what he considers to be an 18 ill-advised rule.
19 Governor Dukakis also filed a 20 request.
21 Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, 22 Senator D'Amato, Senator Moynihan, Governor Kunin 23 of Vermont, Governor Celeste of Ohio already -- I 24 believe Senator Biden of Delaware -- already have 25 expressed their view that this rule undermines i 3 L .
i p- 1 17 :
i i
~~
2 legitimate nuclear regulatory philosophy and is ,
i 3 something that should not even go forward at this I 4 point.
l 5 What is going to happen with the rule i l
6 is purely a matter of speculation. '
7 If the Commission goes forward with 8 it, it will do it in a way in which it takes a g standoffish posture. It creates the impression that 10 it is going to give serious consideration to 11 whatever the public comments are.
12 A newspaper article suggested that 13 there are already two Commissioners who don't want 1-4 to go forward with the proposal.
15 The betting would have to be that the 16 Commission as a whole has its machismo on the line 17 and it will go forward with it.
18 If it does go forward with it though, 19 it is going to have to suffer a great deal of 20 punishment because the reaction in Congress is 21 already building for legislative moves to restrain 22 the Commission and try to harness what many people 23 in Congress today think is a runaway agency that is 24 no longer motivated by public safety but instead by 25 a desire to put Shoreham on line as a precedent to
1 18 i
- i 2 make certain that there is no other situation where l 3 a state or local government can play a controlling 4 part in the licensing of a nuclear power plant. !
5 I can --
that is very much the story 6 of where Shoreham is in a brief nutshell. It's five l 7 years wrapped up in five or ten minutes.
8 I can give you some estimates of 9 various things that might happen if you would like 10 to take that direction or we can stop for some 11 questions or you can send me back to my seat. -
12 MR. KESSEL: Herb, first of all, I 13 want to thank you for coming here, coming up from i 14 Washington --
I know we are all very busy these 15 days --
and I appreciate the briefing.
16 I have a couple of timing questions.
17 I may also be able to provide a 18 little bit of information to the Board as to where 19 the State is going on this rule change.
20 But in your mind -- let's assume for 21 a second -- let's make some assumptions.
22 Let's make an assumption that you are 23 correct that the NRC will put the rule change out 24 for public comment after their public meeting on 25 Monday.
I L ,
l l
_, i 19 l
~
2 First of all, what kind of a time !
3 period would that be? Would it be a thirty / sixty t
4 day public comment period? .
5 How long would it take to implement?
6 Assuming that they would implement ,
y that rule change, how long would that take in your !
l 8 estimation? j g MR. HERB BROWN: W e l'1 , my estimation l
30 ends up being worth nothing after we get past the '
33 first part of the sentence because it is making up 12 things, you know, out of thin air.
13 Nobody knows, i !
14 It is human relationships that are 15 going to play a part, Richie, in how long it takes.
I 16 The Commission proposes to give sixty 17 days for public comment.
18 Let's play out a worst case, 19 diabolical kind of scenario.
20 They would come away from the meeting i
21 on Monday without doing anything. They'll be under 22 some pressure to issue -- if they tend to go 23 forwacd, they would probably want to issue 24 something on the following Friday. Saturday is a l 25 quiet news day and they have an historical pattern 1
' i t
1 20 2 of looking at the newspapers as a place that they !
3 want to avoid when they take a measure that might 4 be controversial. i 5 Say they went out with it on March f
6 1st. It might be that they not go out with it until i 7 March 15th, April 15th or ever. There is a serious l
8 case to be made for them not to go out with it but !
9 to send it back to their staff. {
10 My guess is that after Monday's 11 session where the Governors are there, the 12 Commission is going to realize that the supporting 13 memorandum and regulatory analysis which has been ,
I i 14 prepared by the staff as the substantive
- s
(
15 accompaniment and reason for issuing the proposed 16 rule, they are going to decide that is woefully 17 inadequate. It is a flimsy document and doesn't 18 deal with the merits of this critical issue and it 19 shows the staff, in fact, to be motivated by a 20 disingenuous purpose, just to get a gimmick to try 21 to facilitate a license for the Shoreham plant.
22 I think there is a very good chance 23 that ,the Commission is going to walk away from that 24 and decide at a minimum that they want the staff to 25 write a better piece of paper. '
i i r k J
, - - , - - - - - - - , - - - . - - - - - - - - . . , , . . - - - - . , - , . ~ - - - , , - , - - ~ --
l
._ _ i 21
'~
2 If they do that, it will take a i g
3 ; month. So it won't go out for a month.
4 MR. KESSEL: Let's do a worst case 5 scenario, i
6 MR. HERB BROWN: Worst case is that 7 they put it out at some --
a week or ten days after 8 this meeting and they say sixty days for public 9 comment which is in the draft right now.
10 Sixty days puts it into May.
11 Then they have to evaluate it'and 12 they publish something. Maybe it's June.
13 But that assumes that they would
[' 14 publish something.
L-a 15 There is a literally far more than a 16 wilderness brushfire at work at the Congressional 17 Hill right now and it is very unlikely that the 18 Commission would be under any circumstances able to 19 simply say " damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
20 They will pay such a serious price 21 that it is politically naive for us to do a worst 22 case analysis from our standpoint.
23 If you want to do a worst case 24 analysis from their standpoint, then they are never 25 going to put this out.
l
1 22 2 So the intelligent way to look at it 3 is to say that there is a range of possibility.
4 Impose on that the largest political, ;
5 tactical, analytical abilities you've got and you i
6 will say that probably they are not going to go out i 7 with the rule, they are going to send it to their 8 staff, they are going to take heat from various ;
I 9 angles including the White House which is on the I 10 spot on this particular item.
11 You just can't make up numbers.
12 MR. KESSEL: Let me ask you this and I
13 then I'll tell you where I'm coming from. And i 14 I obviously we are all aware of the problem.
L .
15 We know, and I know your office and 16 our office and Suffolk County and the Governor's 17 Office are all involved in the Shoreham licensing j 18 process and there are hearings that are beginning, 18 I think, March 10th -- maybe March 9th, March 10th, 20 that date seems to be ringing a bell. I 21 How does that, those hearings, jibe Z2 with the worst case scenario that this rule change 23 would go into effect?
24 I feel as a concerned Member of this 25 Board that we got to really look at the worst case I
L .
. c.
1
,- - 23 2 scenario and have to assume that this is the last i 3 gasp effort on the part of the NRC and LILCO to j 4 license the Shoreham plant.
j 5 And -- -
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could --
I 7 MR. KESSEL: Let me just -- i 8 So, under that notion -- okay? -- and g the rule change going into effect --
let's make in that assumption -- what is your timetable in your 11 mind as the earliest time under both of those 12 things happening, the licensing proceedings going 13 ahead and the rule being implemented, that LILCO
{
14 could get an operating license for Shoreham if the !
15 NRC would choose to do so?
16 MR. HERB BROWN: Well, Richie, the >
I 17 question is loaded. It's got thirty-three "Have you 18 beaten your wife lately?" "When is the last time 19 you stole a magazine from the drugstore?" I won't 20 go through all thirty-three.
21 But in order to get to the worst case 22 you have to be able to leap the way -- who is the 23 guy in the motorcycle? -- Evil Knivel, he used to 24 go over thirty-six buses and all of that.
25 You have to do that eleven different t
K
I 24
' - ' times without getting scratched.
2 ;
3 LILCO has so many problems right now ,
4 that for us to do a worst case and say we are going 5 to lose everything and here is the fastest speed 6 under which we are going to lose and therefore ,
7 LILCO is going to have a license is pushing us into l
8 the irrational world. We are going to fantasize. l
\
9 Let's talk qualitatively. Then we can l
10 make up some dates if you want to but they are I 11 categorically meaningless.
12 You know, if I were to tell you I 13 know someone your age who just climbed Mount t
14 Everest, how long would it take you to this? It l ;
15 took him three-and-a-half days. You never trained.
16 Because he did it in three-and-a-half it doesn't 17 mean you can do it in three-and-a-half years.
18 I THE CHAIRMAN: Richard will take a l 19 helicopter.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. KESSEL: Don't give Bill Mack an 22 opening. You can't give Bill Mack an opening.
23 The fact is that I went skiing for I
24 the first time last weekend and I can do it.
25 (Laughter.)
-W e
i i
1 25
' ~ '
2 MR. KESSEL: Vincent, you should i
4 3' ,
have seen when I wiped out those two women on the l
4 hill going down.
l i 5 THE CHAIRMAN: You know something, I !
l 6 believe it. i 7 (Laughter.) l i
8 MR. KESSEL: I couldn't stop. !
i g THE CHAIRMAN: We all realize there !
10 is a lot of speculation to the answer that we are 11 seeking, but I think if you can quantify it on the I 12 worst case scenario, maybe it might be --
13 MR. HERB BROWN: Here is your l
> 14 absolutely worst case, absolutely worst case as the L .
15 trial starts.
16 Remember, there are two -- three 17 major trials you have to have. Richie, you are 18 focusing on one.
19 The absolutely worst case, once you 20 walk through the looking glass --
so we have taken 21 a pretty big step to begin -- the trial begins 22 March 10th. The trial is over a little over three 23 months say, middle of June. It takes to August 1st 24 or Au6ust 8th to finish writing briefs under the 25 schedule they've got.
i i L . I i
t '
I i
L l
. 1; 26
~~
2 The fastest any conceivable decision !
{
3 can be --
unless it is arbitrary on its face and l
4 frivolous and will be subject to rejection under i 5 any set of circumstances -- forty-five/ sixty days.
6 So you are talking what? October 5th, 6th, 8th.
7 It can't be though. For that to g happen, remember, we are not only going to climb -
2 g Mount Everest without oxygen. We are going to swim in the English Channel with balls and chains attached 11 to us and we are going to eat alive twenty-five 12 rattlesnakes without getting bitten.
13 It is just not going to happen that 14 way.
-a
. 15 So it ought not be quoted -- it just J
16 doesn't happen that way.
I 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Richard is able to 18 do everything but eat the twenty-five rattlesnakes.
- 19 (Laughter.)
j 20 MR. KESSEL: I'm on a diet. I just gi lost sixty pounds. It's very fat.
4 22 MR. HERB BROWN: It can't happen for 23 this r,e a s o n .
- 24 The arguments of the State and 25 county are predicated upon hard law, hard facts. ;
mm W ,
l'
- - - .. __ = . _ - . _ .
_ - = _ _ _ - - . . - . .. .
, , 1 27 l L.
2 They are not matters of frivolity. !
! 3 And for the NRC to buy LILCO's !
! 4 arguments the NRC is going to have to accept
} 5 arguments which are unlikely to be sustained by a ,
a court, at least not likely to be sustained by a
! 7 court without a great deal of analysis and briefing L
g and argument.
9 So I don't think that that date has 10 such significance.
l j 11 But I'll tell you one important i
12 thing.
t
! 13 Let's say that the rule passes 14 because everyone assumes that this rule is going to
! 15 accelerate things.
i j 16 Our analysis of the rule is that the I <
j 17 rule would make it a farther off date under the '
18 worst case for LILCO to get a license.
i 19 And that's because -- after assuming ,
) 20 they are going to go forward with this, and that is i
21 I an act of political naivete of ourselves to sit l 22 here and suggest the NRC is blithely going to put >
}' I 23 this out.
3 24 This rule to be adopted is -- between i
j 29 here and there there are going to be thirty-five t
L ,
i i i
l 7- 1 28 !
I
" ~ I 2 heavyweight fights for the NRC. '
3 If they were to do it though, there 4 would have to be a trial or series of trials, l
5 factrinding trials and those would take months and 6 the briefing takes months and months for the !
F 7 decision.
g So if you make up October as the ,
g worst, worst case -- which is just not going to 10 happen -- under the new rule it would be October 33 plus.
12 MR. KESSEL: So, Herb, what you are 13 saying -- and I think this is a concern certainly F' 14 to most of the Members of the Board and certainly L. -
15 to myself -- is that under that worst case 16 scenario, I certainly agree with you based on what 17 I have seen in the litigation, I don't think the to plant is ever going to be operated, but it's a 19 concern that I think a number of us have certainly 20 for the safety of the people of Long Island -- that 21 there certainly is the timeframe available for us 22 -- and I'm not talking to Herb but to the Board I 23 Members -- for us to move obviously aggressively a
24 but to do the impact studies that we need to do in 25 a reasonable timeframe to make decisions that we r*'
L I
l
- i i
1 29 -
2 have to make relative to the potential takeover of 3 the company. ,
t 4 In other words, one of the concerns f
I 5 that I have had, and I think all of us share that ;
i 6 concern, is that this rule change, the speeding up j 7 of the process, what Herb seems to be saying that, e in fact, the timetable that I think we've all had 9 in our heads is still relevant, this October 10 timetable, but likely later than that that we can 11 do our work.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Richard, you are
+
13 correct.
I
' 14 We are all concerned about the status L .
15 of Shoreham. That is part of our charge.
16 It is also part of our charge to take 17 whatever time is necessary -- and we would do that l
i 18 on an expeditious basis -- to study all of the 19 l economic facts and the financial facts before we go 4
l M ahead and come to a decision.
21 So I don't think that what has been l 22 said here alters our timetable, alters our 23 direction or changes the desire of this Board to 24 move forward expeditiously, professionally, l 25 prudently.
i P
La t
i
6 t
i e
'r.
1 30 i 2 B at I certainly as encouraged by the h 3 fact that the new NRC proposed change does not pu' 4 us in a more --
on a time schedule wherein the 5 j 5 opening of Shorehas would be on any more f 6 accelerated basis than it would have been without i i
(
y the'NRC proposed rule change. I i And I think that your indication of a g
g timefrase in a worst case scenario is something to that this Board needs to know and understand so 11 that we within our own timeframes can take it into l 12 proper consideration because this Board, including i
13 its Chairman, is very concerned about the granting
- -' 14 of a license to Shorehaa. And, in fact, we are [
] 15 charged by our legislation with either closing j 16 Shoreham if it is open or by not opening Shoreham i
, 17 in the event that we should gain control of LILCO 4 .
l 13 in one of the various scenarios that is described 19 in the legislation.
i j M So I think that Richard's point is i
21 very well taken and I think your comments to the 22 Board are something which to us is necessary in the i 23 preliminary timeframe evaluation. !
i l i 24 I might ask as well if you would !
} !
25 comment on the status of the litigation and what I l
i l
i -
l
1 i . 31 i 2 you have formally done and what you formally intend t 3 to do on a timeframe pursuant to the litigation {
4 that was instituted on January 15th.
l 5 MR. HERB BROWN: This is the 8 litigation concerning LIPA directly that you are 7 referring to?
g THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
9 Just the timing frame; just give the 10 Board a -- you know, the response dates and what 11 you have done formally since you have been 12 retained.
13 MR. HERB BROWN: What we ought to do I-4 ..
Ie m happy to give a general characterization --
15 it's a good idea or I would suggest in any event if 16 it suits the Chairman and the Members of the Board, 17 perhaps it is more desirable for us to discuss this 18 in an executive session dealing with that 18 litigation.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: We would intend to 21 discuss the litigation and the strategy in 22 executive session.
23 What I an only asking you to comment 24 o re is whatever you have done formally and what is 25 of the public record so that you can at least P
L .
l
,_ - .. .. - . _ . - - , . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ - - . _ . - - --. . ~
i
,.,-- 1 32
{
'"~
2 inform the public of where we stand timing-wiset if I 3 you have gotten an extension, if you have, you I i
- 4 know, answered the litigation, and just the j i
5 timeframe on that.
l
! e MR. HERB BROWN A brief extension J
y was taken -- I believe it's April 1st -- forty-five j g days, the day on which the LIPA defendants will i
e reply to the Complaint of LILCO. i
{
I j 10 There is an intermediate date in that 1
l 11 LILCO in that stipulation, if it wishes, is 12 required by March 2nd to file any actions that it 13 sight be inclined to do. We have no idea what they i
i i 14 might do. It's a milestone that is built into the j L.
! 15 litigation schedule.
{ Is And there is a date subsequent to j 17 that -- I think it's March the 16th -- which
! 10 provides for the LIPA defendants to reply to what 19 LILCO sight file.
1 j 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good.
! 21 Those timetable answers is what I was 22 seeking.
l l 23 , And obviously in executive session ,
24 today we will have a discussion pertinent to the i Il various strategies we plan to undertake and a i '
_.s l
t
)
l 1
33 L~. {
2 little more formal briefing on that. i e
3 Are there any questions or comments 4 of Herb before we introduce the next issues and go 5 further with our discussion?
6 MR. KESSEL: I just want to make one 7 further point to what you said because I think that 3 is something that is in my mind and I think it is 9 relevant to what Herb is saying.
10 I certainly agree with you that we do !
11 have a timetable and I think we are all aware of 12 that timetable.
13 The one thought that I have is that i 14 I -- obviously what is ticking in the back of our L ,
15 minds is that, assuming that LIPA were to go ahead le and make certain judgments and at some point to 17 make a judgment to in some way institute a takeover 18 of LILCO -- and that's an assumption that we have 38 to make after doing very careful study on the N economics -- but safety is certainly a relevant 21 issue here.
22 You know, the one concern that I have 23 is -- and it's something I think we need to look at 24 -- is, assuming that LIPA then ran the electric N service on Long Island, if we could not operate
!I' j L .
l I
- , 1 34 2 Shoreham -- I assume we wouldn't want to operate ;
3 Shoreham -- and so that question becomes, if you 1 4 make that move before LILCO is able to open the ,
l 5 Shoreham plant, then the plant never operates. If l 6 you make that move at a later date and somehow that I
i y plant is allowed to operate -- and again, I don't j
' t g think that it will ever operate, but certainly we l 9 have to be prepared for all those scenarios -- and !
j to then you had to close down the plant, you are i It dealing in my mind with an economic factor that is 12 far -- forgetting the safety factor for which I ,
i 13 think we are all concerned about -- you are dealing l I" 14 with an economic factor that is far greater than if iL.
I 15 the plant were never opened to begin with in terms .
1 16 of decommissioning, in terms of value of the plant.
17 And I think we need to keep that very 10 carefully and closely in mind because it may affect
)
19 -- it's certainly not going to affect our prudency, i 20 but it certainly say affect our timetable at some '
21 point in the future, i 22 And that's the point I'm trying to ;
23 aske J think. t l 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Richard, I think your I L 25 point is clear that this Board will do all it can l
! I w
I
- _J
4 i ' 35 2 do to make sure that it comes to a decision before ,
i 3 the Shoreham plant can have the opportunity to i
4 open.
5 I think it is our responsibility to !
e try to do that.
7 And I for one feel that that is part 3 of our charge and I for one will make every effort 9 -- and I'm sure those on the Board concur and they 10 might want to say something about it, anyone who 11 does want to make a consent about the fact that we 12 will endeavor to do our best to place our studies 13 on the basis that we can and will cose to a F1 14 conclusion before the date that Shoreham, based on 15 your timeframe on a worst case scenario, can open, 16 and perhaps way before that as well.
17 So your point is well taken.
10 I think it is -- and I would ask for 18 consent here, but it is the Chairman's position 20 that he will direct the Board Members, if they 21 concur, to go along with his posture.
22 And so I think if there are any 23 consents, particularly negatively on that 24 s t a t e's e n t , I would like to hear them.
25 And if anyone wants to make a consent n
L 4
I .
I l
i :
1 .
l 1 36 ,
- ~
2 positively as well, feel free to do so.
3 MS. BREDES: It couldn't have been i
a better said. ;
t s MR. HERB BROWN: I would like to 4 make a comment for the benefit of making sure'that, ,
y with all of these aiorophones that we have become e so acoustomed to over the years and the press 9 people e that the wrong sentence of what I said 10 doesn't end up being what is in the paper.
11 Categorically, any reasonable lawyer 12 -- any reasonable lawyer who looked at the Shorehaa 13 case now would have to write in his confidential 14 meno to his client that there is no basis on which Il to say the plant under present law can operate. The is conclusion now is that the plant can't operate.
17 That literally is the fact. Its license was denied le by the licensing board on grounds that there is no 19 implementable or lawful emergency plan of LILC0's M and there is no state or local government's plan.
21 So the conclusion is categorically 22 today that Shorehas cannot operate.
23 ,
The only thing that stands out in the 24 distance on which any argument can be made is a 25 combination of a prayer and a hope. ge me d
(
W-M .a a nan 6,-- x w e L ---e,, --mir-+_wa_n1- 1 gwm 1 .__ u _
,+a.Ly4_,
, o ., e I
F9 37
'
- l 2 And prayers and hope don't count in 3 the legal forum.
4 The law says you have to have a state 5 plan, a local plan or a utility plan. r 8 If none of those exist, the plant
- 7 can't operate.
e What LILCO is arguing, what those who 8 worry about worst cases are talking about, is 10 whether a prayer of Long Island Lighting Company or 11 a hope of Long Island Lighting Company somehow is 12 going to overturn the law.
(
13 A r.d it's just not reasonable for f F7 14 anyone to predicate strategen, deadline or worst L .
15 case or anything else on a hope or a prayer. !
18 The fact is today Shoreham is not 17 eligible to operate. Any reasonable lawyer will say 18 today it can't operate. ;
18 But the management of the oospany M will say we hope and pray it will. I 21 The lawyer should, if he is f l
22 reasonable, say hopes and prayers don't count, you 23 still,can't operate.
24 They tell the lawyer: " Turn my prayer 28 into a legal argument and make it."
r, <
6 e t
I . . .
I r- - 1 38 l l 2 The lawyer says, "I can't." ,
I I 3 They say, "Then we will change the ,
4 rules."
5 They 30 to change the rules.
\ '
s The rule change is not even a y proposal yet. It has caused a fire stora. i a What we have out there is a passing g cloud called "saybe, maybe, maybe" surrounded by a to Rube Goldberg machine which is called a hope and a ,
11 prayer, i 12 It just isn't something that anyone 13 , here ought to worry about or think of in terms of a
-m 14 worst case.
15 MS. BREDES: Does that mean that l
16 God's on our side, Herb 7 17 (Laughter.)
i 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We knew that before.
l 19 MR. KESSEL: I feel like Bud 20 Collier. Reseaber that show " Beat The Clock."
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further 22 questions of Mr. Brown?
?
23 , (No response.) :
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Herb, thank you. l N We will see you in a few minutes in !
--m v md I
l L
. o 1
39 2 executive session.
3 MR. KESSEL: Thanks, Herb.
4 THE CHAIRMAN:
, Thank you very much. '
i 5 It's good to have you with us.
8 I would just like to give the Board a 7 little review of the activities during the last a three weeks or seventeen days, a little over two 9 weeks, since we met last.
i
{
j to We are going forward in several i
! 11 areas.
J d
12 finstly, as it pertains to
\
\
13 organizational matters, we are currently looking ,
F7 14 for office space in the Long Island area for LIPA 1
6 .
i I 15 and I as hopeful that by the next meeting that we le may have a recommendation as to specific space. _ _ , '
17 I would like to thank Vince Tese and 3 j 18 the staff at UDC for continuing to make available 1
I' to us supporting facilities in our interia f
j 20 i
organizational mode. Their expertise and the 21 availability of their support staff and facilities l
4 i 22 is and has been of great value to the LIPA Board.
23 And on behair of the Board I'm sure i '
24 we all express our thanks.
! l 25 a,
We will hopefully at the next meeting F9 s . :
- i e
i
-. 1 40 I l.
~~
2 have a budget for presentation which is being l
3 formulated now for the year 1987.
4 We are in the process of talking to l 1
5 various attorneys to represent us on corporate and 6 SEC matters other than litigation and we will be
- moving forward on that basis. - - -
s ..
g A - A tro Ts" w e ll I think, as we have e discussed as is most important, we need to verify to the Sawhill Report and the Suffolk County Report it and update them in light of new conditions 12 including but not limited to the Tax Reform Bill of 13 1986.
~'
14 And to appoint a group of people 15 headed by one particular group to study and update 16 these changes and to present a report to this Board 17 which will be up-to-date and which will show the is different consequences and the different scenarios 19 and the different savings that could be present in
~~~~~..
M this Soard gaining control of LILCO.
21 ,' ', And in that vein, since this issue 22 and the consultants is numerous and complex, 1 23 would like to propose that we appoint a group 24 within the Board that will have as its charge N picking a grouping of people to update this report.
wood
I p, 1 41 :
1 ,
I i 2 This report must be updated on an 3 engineering basis, on a tax basis, on a financiai '
j 4 projection basis so that we can be able to have a ; l j '
i 5 proper evaluation on which to base our decisions in !
4 the future. (
7 In that vein I would like to appoint j g four people from this Board with their concurrence:
f 9 Richard Kessel,
)
10 Irving Like, t 1 11 Marty Bernstein, and l l
{ 12 John Kanas i ,_ .-
1 13 to study and come up with '
f i F' 14 recommendations for this study. !
L . l 15 There will be some preliminary work te hopefully and we will have a narrowed-down field i
- 17 that will be provided by our support staff and I I J
10 would look forward to all of you being available to
- E j 19 do this and I would appreciate your agreement.
i j M I haven't talked to any of you to 21 serve on this cosaittee. >
ji
, 22 If that's all right.
} '
i 23 MR. LIKE: Okay.
I j 24 MR. KESSEL: Yes.
i tl Mg, ggRNSTEIN:
l Yes. i l
i p9 l
\u.
1 e !
4 l t ,
\
- 7. _, t 42 >
' i
~' '
i 2 ,. THE CHAIRMAN: We have as well
~
3 interviewed a few individuals for the job of ,
4 Executive Director and chief counsel to the Long l
$ Island Power Authority Board and we are hopeful to 6 have some recommendations for appointments to those I
y positions at our next meeting; if not both !
l g positions, at least to one. ,
i 9 - - - - - - We are,,,, working on it. We are !
i to interviewing and we are going about this !
l 11 expeditiously as well.
- 12 That is approximately the status of 13 our organizational matters.
14 And pursuant to that report, if there l 15 are any questions or comments that you might have 16 regarding it, I will entertain them.
17 MS. BREDESt How long do you expect 18 the recommendations for updating the studies to 19 take, the work of this four-member group?
M THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'd rather the 21 group answer it, but I would hope that within the 22 next thirty days, maybe by the next meeting that we 23 can have a recommendation and start this study.
24 But certainly as fast as possible we 25 would want to run this group.
i j-- >
1 i -
1 43 2 MR. LIKE: Bill, on that subject, l 3 Lee Campo is not here and he has asked me to convey l
4 his thoughts at this meeting. l 5 Lee is very strongly in favor of our l 6 I establishing some kind of a time line to guide us 7
in the various statements that would be involved in 8 our study.
9 For example, a set of dates acting as 10 a check on our activities for the selection of 11 investment bankers, the conduct of negotiations, a 12 date for any kind of a friendly tender offer or a 13 hostile tender offer or a condemnation.
i 14 I
L ,
I concur that we should have some 15 kind of a timetable to act as a framework within 16 which the committee will act.
17 'N , THE CHAIRMAN: Well, your point is III very well taken and I would expect that the i
i 19 committee who picks the person who will update this 20 report or the people that will update this report 21 will set those time lines.
22 We will also at our next meeting have 23 a fur $her qualification on investment bankers as to 24 time line.
25 The negotiations, as has been stated i l L .
. --. n,- . , . - , - - - - , - - , , , , . - , , -----,------n-.-c-- ---~~m,-
---am- , - - , - - - - . - - , .-,,,e ,
l t
l 7 1 44
-~
2 before, are still in progress through Vince Tese on ;
3 i this Board and the State with LILCO. .
4 But I do as well expect that the 5 Chair will come forward with its recommendations on ;
6 investment banker scenarios as well as the f
y remainder of the things that we have outlined. '
8 But I would ask you, Irving, and the j 9 remainder of the committee to do a time line as you to select the people and to put them on under specific
\
11 time constraints so that we will have a good
(
12 working knowledge of when we can expect the report 13 and when as well we can expect our evaluation of 14 this report to take place.
15 So I think your point is well taken 16 and it is just that that I would expect this 17 committee to take up as part of their deliberations 18 in picking the people, which I trust will include 19 an accounting firm, an engineering firm as well as 20 a firm that will be able to analyze and study the 21 financial aspects of this situation.
22 As I said, the Chair will be coming 23 up with investment banker recommendati.ons as well x ..
24 as legal counsel for t'h'e~ corporate and SEC matters 25 that are so vitally important with any evaluation I'
t ,
O O i
1 45 !
i
~
2 that we have towards anything we might be 3 entertaining pursuant to the legislation dealing l 4 with LILCO.
5 MR. LIKE: I have one other comment, 6 Bill.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
8 MR. LIKE: There is, as you know, 9 takeover legislation that is pending now in the 10 Congress in response to the insider trader abuses.
11 ,/ I believe that as part of our own 12 ongoing deliberations, we should have somebody who 13 will keep us abreast of what is happening in i 14 Washington so that nothing creeps into any federal 15 legislation that might impede our efforts as a body 16 here.
17 On that subject also it might be 18 helpful if whoever is watching this effort in 18 Washington would also look for opportunities to 20 include in any legislation that might come forward 21 provisions that will aid us in our efforts since 22 legislation obviously is going to emerge in 23 Washington on the subject.
24 'N s. And in that regard I also think it 25 might be worth mentioning that there will be g i L s 1
I I !
i 7- 1 46 f
2 corrections, technical amendments, to the Tax .
I Reform Act of 1986 and we should be alert to what !
3l 4 that can or would do in connection with our own l 1
5 work. j t
6 We might seek some help on the l
7 recommendations that were made by the Arthur Young i 8 representative.
g THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
to I think as ice as the technical 11 corrections aspect, that within the committee group 12 that the person who will be doing the accounting, 13 that will be advising us on an accounting basis and 14 on a tax law change with respect to that, should 15 keep a very close eye on these technical changes or 16 these technical interpretations.
17 I know that we -- that as a private 18 individual that there are many technical 19 interpretations that are very, very material that i 20 have not come down and that we are expecting to 21 come down in the very, very near future.
l 22 The new tax bill has in some ways 23 created a more complex situation and understanding e
24 rather than a simplification.
25 But with respect to your first m &
. 4 i ,
l i
1 47 2 question, I would agree and it is academic that any ;
3 corporate and SEC advisor employed would keep a 4 close eye on any legislation or any pending i 5 legislation so that it can be part of our 6 consideration and part of our strategy.
7 All right.
8 Any other questions before we make a 9 motion to go into executive session?
10 MR. LIKE: Bill, one last comment.
11 '
Since the public is here and I know 12 that there is at least one member in the audience 13 that would like an opportunity to make some l'4
'_ comments, could we set up some kind of a system in
- i. i m ,
15 future meetings for allowing some brief period for 16 public comment or public statements?' -
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
18 I was going to do that at the end' of 19 the meeting.
20 But if there is someone in the 21 audience that would like to make a public comment 22 -- and I guess you are right, we don't wanh o 23 necessarily keep everybody here if they have a 4
24 tight timetable, Irving.
25 My own feeling was that I would wait i i L .
l I
1 48 l n
' ~
2 to the end of the meeting for public comments.
I 3 But due to the time, if there is 4 anyone here today that would like to make a public 5 comment, I will recognize that individual now.
6 But I would like to keep it brief 7 because we do have to go into executive session.
g Yes.
9 Would you stand up and tell us your 10 name, please, and your affiliation.
11 MR. MURRAY BARBASH: Most of you are 12 my friends.
13 I'm Murray Barbash. I'm chairman of l 14 the Citizens To Replace LILCO, the organization ,
L.
15 probably is really the host here and the cause of 16 your being here.
17 If I had been able to attend your 18 first meeting, I would have rather presumptuously 19 welcomed you on behalf of the people of Long Island 20 the State of New York, et cetera, and reminded you 21 of the mandate that you have been given.
l 22 By your comments today I see that you 23 are perfectly aware of your mandate.
24 We would simply like to say that we 25 are not pressing the panic button and we have the i
l - .
t l
I t
i i i 1 49 l
2 utmost respect for Herb Brown and the Lockhart firm l
3 which we have worked for the past few years.
4 We do not necessarily share his i 5 degree of confidence that there is a long timeframe 6 available in which for you to act. ,
7 We spent all day yesterday in 8 Congress, and it is true that there is a wellspring 9 of sentiment against the proposed rule.
10 But it is also true that it is 11 obvious that the NRC, despite one defection, is
., 12 hell bent on going as fast as possible.
13 And I think it is unforeseen to --
i 14 you cannot dictate what any possible time limit is 15 because they have been extremely resourceful in the 16 past and we think that they will be extremely 17 resourceful in the future in expediting their 18 licensing or their attempted licensing of this 19 plant.
20 One thing that disturbs us, Mr. Tese 21 has been in negotiations with LILCO for a long Zi time. It is obvious that the Governor would have 23 liked,to have settled this matter and keep LILCO as 24 a private entity.
25 Any responsible leadership of an L ,
r
-- 1 50 i
L~
2 organization like that would, I think, have grasped .
I 3 the opportunity than run the risk of being !
! l 4 converted from a private to a public utility. !
5 This isn't happening and we believe 6 the issue now far transcends LILCO, that LILCO is !
j l l 7 not calling the shots, but the shots are being l l 1 <
8 called down in Washington, or why would they have f
9 not accepted the Governor's graceful -- Mr. Tese's )
30 graceful offer to negotiate an end to this I
11 controversy and keep LILCO whole.
12 Therefore, we are not sanguine that 13 all is rosy on the Washington front and we think 14 that they are hell bent on going forward with this 15 license and advise you not to become too complacent 16 and to watch out for surprises.
17 Finally, Mr. Chairman, you are a 18 builder and businessman such as I am.
- 19. In the study of economics you can 20 quantify a whole lot of things.
21 The Sawhill Commission and the other 22 people working for Suffolk County quantified a lot 23 of things.
24 There are certain things that are not 25 quantifiable that go to the thrust or the intent of l
( = %
l I
(
l l
I.
t
' 51 i L ,
f 2 management of any firm that you and I know. {
3 LILCO's motivation has been to 4
benefit the stockholders of the company and rightly 5 so. It is a privately held company sad they have 6 done a lot of things intending to increase the size 7 of the company and the profitability of the company 8 and the value of the shares.
9 That has been their motivation. It 10 has been counterproductive in this case because 11 they were just a little too eager, perhaps a little 12 too greedy and overextended themselves to the 13 ratepayers' disadvantage.
i 1-4 A public power authority on the other 15 hand, the management of a public power authority, 16 would have as its motivation not only to provide 17 sufficient service but also doing it at the least 18 possible cost.
19 Those are~two different motivations 20 entirely.
l 21 So that although at the moment you 22
{ really cannot quantify that, I say if you-have got 23 management that wants to hold the rates down, they 24 are going to be able to do a lot better than your 25 simple mathematical formulas tell you, if you maka 1
t i i L a l
l
. e l
c ,
1 52 i i
~~
2 the huge indebtedness, you transfer it from a j
3 taxable high interest rate to a non-taxable low 4 interest rate, that will help the savings as the 5 other studies have shown.
6 But the intent of management is of 7 paramount importance and it should not be 8 overlooked as we think there are a lot of savings.
9 We don't want you to reinvent the 10 wheel. We want you to hit the ground running. There 11 is a lot of work that has already been done.
12 Yes, the new tax law mandates that 13 you take a. careful look at it, but don't look too i
14 long and wIntch what is happening behind your back L .
15 in Washingi}on.
16 Don't wait for surprises.
17 Thank you for the opportunity, Mr.
18 Chairman.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Murray, thank you for 20 those observations and I would just like to say 21 that on behalf of the Board we appreciate the time 22 and effort you put forth in the past on the issues 23 , as a responsible citizen.
e d
5 24 You can be assured we will not fall 5
, 29 asleep at the switch here.
t
_a
d a 4 l
, , 1 53 2 MR. MURRAY BARBASH: I'm confident 3 that you won't.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
5 I would like to call for a motion 6 that pursuant to Section 105 (1) (d) of the New 7 York State Open Meetings Law that we go into 8 executive session, 9 May I have such a motion?
10 MR. TESE: For the motion.
11 MR. LIKE: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
13 (Chorus of " ayes.")
i 14 I
(At 10:45 o' clock a.m. the public t .
15 meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Long Island 16 Power Authority was recessed and an executive 17 session of the Board of Trustees of the Long Island j 18 Power Authority was convened.)
l 18 (At 12:45 o' clock p.m. the public 20 meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Long Island j 21 Power Authority was reconvened.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I have everyone's
! 23 attent, ion, please.
24 For the record there were no votes 25 taken during the executive session.
L .
l
.e 4 l
p, 1 54 2
One addition to the committee being 3 formed to select a consultant and to update the 4 previous reports, Mr. Liss and myself will also 5 serve on that committee.
~
6 Are there any further questions or 7 comments on any of the work that we have discussed 8 today?
9 (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: If not , I will 11 entertain a motion for adjournment.
12 MR. BERNSTEIN: I move we adjourn, 13 MR. KESSEL: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
_s 15 (Chorus of " ayes.")
16 THE CHAIRMAN: The next meeting of 17 the LIPA Board will be March 12, 1987.
18 Thank you.
19 (At 12:50 o' clock p.m. the public 20 meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Long Island 21 Power Authority was concluded.)
22 23 * *
- e 24 25
o n e i
l 1
55 3
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS.
4 COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
5 6
7 I, ROY A. SELENSKE, a Certified Shorthand (Stenotype) Reporter and Notary Public within and g for the State of New York, do hereby certify that to the foragoing Pages 1 through 54, taken at the time 11 and place aforesaid, is a true and correct 12 transcription of my shorthand notes.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my l i 14 name this 23rd day of February, 1987.
15 16 17 4 18 ROY/L. SELENSKE, C.S.R.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l !
l i
I' LILCO, April 17,1987 i
00CKETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 87 APR 20 P3 :09 In the Matter of 0Fflu ? ...J /,
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 00CVE( p 5 '. nu (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' LETTER OF APRIL 14, 1986 REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF BO A R D'S HEARING GUIDELINES were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy. Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Edwin J. Reis Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mallroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy. Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing 1800 M Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy. Richard J. Zahnteuter, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Secretary of the Commission Room 229 Attention Docketing and Service State Capitol Section Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Atomic Safety and Licensing Third Floor, Room 3-116 Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
' Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 1
i hM' ~ __
Ihr6ald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams l
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 17,1987 1