ML22230A078
| ML22230A078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1977 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M771221 | |
| Download: ML22230A078 (24) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC SESSION Policy Session 77-60 SECY-A-77 State of Illinois v.
- Place -
NRC and Nuclear Engineering Corp., Inc.!
No. 77C 4190, N.D. Ill.
Washington, D. C.
(Litigation in Sheffield.)
Date - Wednesday, 21 December 1977 Pages 1 - 21 Telephone :
(202 ) 347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington , D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE -DAILY
(
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on *December 21., 1977 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. t~./-\>Jashington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9. 103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:MMISSION 3
4 5
PUBLIC SESSION 6
7 Policy Session 77-60 8 SECY-A-77-78 - State of Illinois v.
9 NRC and Nuclear Engineering Corp., Inc.,
10 No. 77C: 419.0., *:R~D .i.; Ill ...* (Li t.iga t;.ion.,:in Sheffield.)
11 Room 1130 12 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
13 Wednesday, 21 December 1977 14 15 Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened 16 at 1:40 p.m., pursuant to notice, JOSEPH HENDRIE, *chairm~n, 17 Presiding.
18 PRESENT:
. 19 JOSEPH HENDRIE, Chairman RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner 20 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 21
- s. Eilperin 22 w. Bishop
- s. Trubatch 23 w. Dircks K. Pedersen 24 K. Dragonette era! Reporters, Inc. R. Fonner 25
2
' mm l P R O C E E D I N G S 2
CHAIR}1AN HENDRIE: ;_I have 'a* riot ion :that Pet:er *Bradfdr 3
will be a few minutes late, but I hope not over five or 4 ten. And I think we ought to go ahead and kick off on 5 this matter.
6 Let's see, Steve, this is your lead.
7 MR.EILPERIN: Yes.
8 GHAIID~ <HENDRIE: * -In th:e * .It!a tter *.of the_ ::~ta te q{ .,_ ,Ju -_3 9 Illino~s
, .. *'-* ' '**'- ' - .~.v.ensus
,the
-Nuclear
. -* _; *.. *- *. *- *,R,egu1ator:;v
., . . . *.. - . ' -*** .~ ....
., ~
Commission.
10 MR. EILPERIN: That is correct.
11 I want to give the Commission-a short briefing 12 on this lawsuit, and suggest to the Commission the possibility
- 13 14 15 that we should seek a settlement in this suit.
Basically what has happened here is that the State of Illinois, the Attorney General has sued both .the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Engineering 17 Corporation over matters pertaining to the Sheffield Low 18 Level Waste Disposal Site.
19 The basic claim of the State of Illinois is that 20 the company .. back in 1968 submitted to *the Commission its 21 application to renew its license, which was going to expire 22 shortly thereafter.
23 24 era! Reporters, Inc.
And that in the intervening nine-year oeriod of time, the Commission has not yet taken final action on 25 that renewal application.
3 Basically, from that set of facts the State of 2 Illinois has two claims; One, nine years is enough, and 3 the Commission shouJdbe complelled to act. That is called a 4 mandamus action.
5 I was just explaining to Commissioner Gilinsky, 6 mandamus is a term which means that the Court grabs you by 7 the scruff of your neck and says, do it. That is basicallv 8 what mandamus is.
9 CH.AIRMAN *HENDRIE:* . Good, I I m glad you inserted 10 that explanation for my benefit, as well.
11 (Laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is not a very good
- 13 14 15 translation from the Latin, however.
(Laughter.)
MR. EILPERIN: No, I guess maybe, leads one by.the 16 hand.
17 And then the second aspect -- well, the first 18 aspect is that the Commission should be compelled to act upon 19 the license. It doesn't tell the Commission how it should 20 act. It is an action just saying, do it, pass u~on it.
21 The second claim is that,because the low level 22 waste disposal site has been operating for all these years 23 without the Commission passing upon the renewal application,
. 24 that that has been tantamount to a denial of all of the eral Reporters, Inc.
25 statutory rights to which one would normally be entitled, had
4
.. M.'vl l the Commission acted, the most pertinent of which is NEPA .
2 In other words, the claim is since this would have been a major federal action and would1have had to have don~
3 4 an impact statement; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ,
5 by just sitting around and not acting, you have basically 6 .denied us our rightsjto have an impact statement done.
7 The complaint also seeks to invalidate what is 8 called the Timely Renewal Section about regulations. That 9 is a provision which is authorized by the Administrative 10 Procedure Act, and is basically intended to protect companies 11 throughout their dealings with government. And basically 12 that provision says if a company has a license and submits
- 13 14 15 a renewal application for that license to a public agency, the company can keep operating until the government agency passes it. That has governmentwide effect.
16 We have analyzed the complaint,and Clifford 17 Smith has given the Commission a ground ~a~er a while back 18 on the facts.
19 Basically, we think that the State of Illinois 20 has the better argument in suggesting that .nine years is 21 time enough for the Commission to act, and we are not exceedingly sanguine about prevailing on that sort of 22 23 complaint.
What we have consequently suggested is that we
, 24 eral Reporters, Inc.
25 should attempt to engage the State of Illinois in discussions
5 mm l seeking an amicable settlement.
2 As we see it, the State of Illinois basically 3 wants us to do an impact statement regarding both this current 4 20-acre site as it now exists, as well as the company's 5 pending application to expand their site for an additional 6 168 acres.
7 The current 20-acre sit is fast being used up, 8 and the company has before us an application to expand the*ir 9 operations accordingly.
10 Back in December, the Staff published in the 11 Federal Register, our intention to do an imnact statement on 12
- - 13 14 15 CHAIR..TvIA.N HENDRIE: This December, or last?
MR. EILPERIN: This december.
So we have already told the world that in fact 16 we are going to do an impact statement. The company has 17 submitted its*; Environmental Report to us and we are going
_*, 8 to do an impact statement on the application as it is 19 presently before us.
20 That, I think there is no quarrel about,and it 21 would at least be one aspect of what the State of Illinois 22 apparently seeks in a lawsuit.
23 24 era! Reporters, Inc.
The other aspect is what to do about the immediate problem at hand, which is the fact that the site is fast 25 running out of space, and it will run out of space unless ther
6 mm 1 are further trenches authorized in the near future. Those 2 trenches cannot be -- those trenches will be needed, as we understand it, prior to the expected time of completion of 3
4 our impact statement. If I am correct, I think we are 'j.ust 5 seeking a contractor to work on ~he impact stab~ment for us.
6 It is probably a good year away.
7 MR.BISHOP: We are shooting for something like 8 eight months or nine months?
9 MS. DRAGONETTE: In July for draft.
10 MR. EILPERIN: For draft.
11 MR. BISHOP: The final will be better part of a year .
12 13 MR. EILPERIN: So, we are looking about about 14 another year until we have completed an impact statement on 15 both the current operations as well as the expansion to 16 another 168 acres.
17 COJYIMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is this impact statement
.*, 8 going to cover current operations?
19 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
20 CO}'.L.1\1ISSIONER GILINSKY: On the 20-acre site?
21 MS. DRAGONETTE: Yes.
22 Full range of options. Just closing it down 23 24 era! Reporters, Inc.
to let them finish filling up the 20 acres, to a se~ies of expansions. There is a couple of different types of land 25 that they are expanding on, one which has been zoned for
7 mm 1 waste, some which hadn't. So a full range of options.
2 CHAIRllilAN HENDRIE: Would it cover this proposed 3 expansion of the site?
4 ~1S. DR~GONETTE: Yes.
5 In stages, in additional to that. It is not just -
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is that what was announced 7 in the December --
8 MR. EILPERIN: Yes, that was announced in the 9 Federal Register.
10 MS. DRAGONETTE: The announcement said we will do 11 the impact statement on'the renewal and on the proposed 12 expansion .
- 13 14 15 It did not go into all the alternative~.
for renewal and expansion.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see.
But it wa 16 MR.EILPERIN: So that is sort of looking about a 17 year ahead.
18 And as I understand at sometime within the* next 19 month or so,the presently authorized activities on:the site, 20 namely the uses of two particular trenches, 14 and 14-A, one 21 of them is filled already, and the other one \.vill be filled within the next month or so.
22 So that at that point there is 23 no longer any authorization to the company to bury lmv level
, . 24 waste.
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do we specifically
8 mm l authorize each trench1 2 MR. EILPERIN: Yes, we have. In this instance, 3 Amendment No. 11 which specifically authorized the two 4 trenches involved here.
5 I think it was partly because those trenches 6 utilized a different method than had earlier been authorized.
7 It is a compact and fill method. Apparently the land was 8 running out on high level ground, so it was a question of 9 utilizing the lower level ground by compacting it and 10 filling it. It required a license amendment and the authori~*
11 zation runs only to those two trenches right now.
12 COMISSIONER BRADFORD: Who sends stuff to
- 13 14 15 Sheffield?
MR. EILPERIN: It is basically -- well, it is about 60 percent power reactors and the remainder is big hospitals, 16 places such as that. Primarily the North Central States, 17 Illinois -- (Inaudible.) -- Nuclear Power, so it is about 18 70 percent local--* (Inaudible.)
19 MR. BISHOP: Just less than half of it is from 20 Illinois, proper.
21 COMMISSIONER BRZ-\DFORD: Ivhat sorts of volume go in the trench?
22 23 MR. EILPERIN: It is a total of 2,600,000 cubi9 feet, I know, since the site was started.
, 24 A eral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. TRUBATCH: Trench 15 itself will take 450,000
9 mm cubic feet of waste. It is a 900,000 cubic foot hole .
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I didn't hear you.
3 MR. TRUBATCH: I'm sorry. Trench 15, the one that 4 is under review now, will take 450,000 cubic feet of waste.
5 CO:Mr1ISSIONER BRADFORD: How many cubic feet of 6 low level waste does , li.a power plant put out in a year?
7 MS. DR~GONNETTE: 22,000.
8 MR. EILPERIN: As I understand it, each of the 9 trenches now under review are expected to hold something like 10 a ten-month capacity of the materials generated in that area.
11 COM,.'v1ISSIONER GILINSKY: How many trenches --
12 MR. EILPERIN: Well there is an application pending
- 13 14 15 for five additioRal trenches.
The Staff so far has been proceeding trench-by-trench, so that as of now there is only one additional 16 trench presently under review.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did we individually 18 review the trenches 1 through 13?
19 MR. BISHOP: It was done under the original 20 licensing.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: All 13 trenches under the
-l**ol 22 license that expired in '68?
23 MR. BISHOP: Under the Timely Renewal Act --
~~.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They were all done under Reportm, 25 the Timely Renewal Act?
10 MR. EILPERIN: That's right, the digging post-2 dated 1968 as well.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But they are authorized 4 under individual licenses?
5 MR. EILPERIN: That's right.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Did it actually say 13 7 trenches?
8 MR. TRUBATCH: (Nodding negatively.)
9 Hhat was specified originally was called a 10 curie density, a certain number of curies per cubic foot.
11 And a certain qualification on the trench with relation to 12 water tables .
- 13 14 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Leaving aside the nine-year period and so on, why do they need authority for these additional trenches?
16 I understand 14 and 14-A go into a different 17 category. Do these others also go into that category?
18 MR. TRUBATCH: Yes, they do.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the difference?
20 MR. BISHOP: The compact and fill technology 21 means bringing in extra earth from somewheres else.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
23 If they weren't compacting and filling they 24 could presumably go ahead with work on 14, 14-A and 15 under eral Reporters, Inc.
25 the original licensing without a by your leave. But the fact
11 1~ that they have changed the construction detail, presumably an
- - 2 3
4 improvement ". - -
MR. BISHOP: That's right.
CHAIRMAt:-J HENDRIE:
Or the same.
Or the same for 5 MR.BISHOP: But it is a different construction 6
technique, and therefore we wanted to review it separately.
7 CHAI3.1'1AN HENDRIE: Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do vou think it is 9 equal to or better?
10 MR. BISHOP: I am a little bit over my head in 11 terms of technical expertise in that. But our hydrogeologists 12 tell us that preparing the earth carefully by com~acting it
- 13 14 15 gives a reasonable consistency which is predictable, and therefore it is as good or even better than the original style.
16 It is what you do in building up a base for a 17 road, in any case.
18 COMJ\JlISSIONER KENlJEDY: Or the base of a dam.
19 MR. BISHOP: Or the base of a dam.
- ,.i 20 MR. EILPERIN: So as matter stand now, the 21 company has an application before us in a sense i t has had 22 an application before us since 1968 .
23 We are obligated by our Federal Register Notice *to*
, 24 do an impact statement, and we are going to do that. That will era! Reporters, Inc.
25 take approximately a year.
12 mm And one of the immediate questions is, what 2 happens to the Sheffield site during that time period once they fill up the presently-authorized trench.
3 4 What we have suggested as a possible settlement 5 to this suit, is that the Commission treat the request:*.for 6 additional trenches as an exemption from the requirements of 7 Part 30. Part 30 makes specific reference to procedures 8 by which, if you would otherwise have to do an impact 9 statement, and if you could not otherwise begin construction, 10 you could come to the Commission and say, look, we don't think 11 we are going to foreclose any alternatives, we don't think we 12 are going to ;significantly affect the environment, let us
- 13 14 15 keep working and keep operating as you go about preparing the impact statement.
We are suggesting that that procedure be followed 16 here, which would .have the plus ~f the Commission taking a 17 look for the first time now, rather than somewhat later on, 18 at the environmental impact of these upcoming trenches and 19 analyzing them, looking into whether or not alternatives 20 wouldbe foreclosed and at least doing that sort of environ-21 mental assessment at this stage.
COM!.USSION GILINSKY: Well, some advantage to 22 23 looking at i t now -- let's see, you lose nothing by looking at i t later if you are not going to put anything into the
, 24 era! Reporters, Inc.
25 trenches?
13 mm l MR.EILPERIN: That's right .
2 I mean, if you are content not to have any further burial at Sheffield, that is right. I mean, the Staff could 3
4 deny the exemption and everything could cease.
5 The effect of that probably -- and this is sornethin 6 for the Staff to judge -- the effect of that probably would 7 just mean that the low-level waste from that North Central 8 region of states would have :*.to be transported a greater 9 distance to burials near Richland, 1'1ashington, or 'I3eatty;)
10 Nevada.
11 So that is the downside to just stopping all 12 activities at the Sheffield site.
- 13 14 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I didn I t follow you * ,
when you were saying there was some advantage to looking at the environmental impact.now.
16 MR. EILPERIN: Well so far we have a complaint 17 that says, "Look Commission, you have now looked at the 18 impact of this, you have been.violating NEPA from day 1 of 19 19 7 0
- II 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Correct.
21 MR. EILPERIN: The advantage we gain by looking at 22 the environmental impact now --
A 23 24 erol Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: For that one trench.
MR.EILPERIN: -- for that one trench, is that we have at least gone some few steps in the direction of looking
14 mm at the environmental impact .
2 COMI'-1:ISSIONER GILINSKY: Now what did we do when I
we authorized 14 and 14-A?
3 4 Did we not look at the environmental impact of 5 those?
6 MR. BISHOP: I assume we granted an exemption.
7 MS. DRAGONETTE: Normal review of the application 8 includes looking at things such as what the effluent release 9 is, or ground water migration at the boundary might be, and 10 these types of things.
11 It was not done in the NEPA format or in a 12 formal environmental impact statement, but the hydrologists,
- 13 14 15 geologists, seismologogy, geotechnical engineers and NRR reviewed the application and the procedures and how they plan to conduct business --
16 COM1USSIONER GILINSKY: When was that done?
17 MS. DRAGONETTE: That was done during, say 1976.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And was .a negative 19 declaration filed?
20 MS. DRAGONETTE: No, because this was for 21 additional activities -- well, Bob Fonner is our ELD represen-22 tative -- the authorization for trenches 14 and 14-A were 23 24 eral Reporters, Inc.
25 for ,activities within the original licensed 20 acres.
I think the Staff and legal view at the time was that it did not require an impact statement or a negative declaration And
15
., mm l be made.
2 MR. FONNER: At the time, based upon a review by 3 the NRR scientists, it was felt that there was no significant 4 impact on the environment from the use of trenches 14 and 5 14-A, and therefore under Part 51, neither an EIS nor a 6 negative declaration was required.
7 I think that would still be our position today, 8 but for the fact of the suit in Illinois, which indicates, 9 as Mr. Eilperin has been saying, a better course of discretion 10 might be to do the mini-review under the exemption regulation.
11 CO.'YIJVIISSIONER GILINSKY: What does the negative 12 declaration say?
- 13 14 15 Doesn't that say there has been significant impact?
MR. FONNER:
much more exte.nsive review.
Yes, it does in a sense, but it is a It practicaly is the scale of a 16 full environmental impact statement less some of the specific 17 statutory requirements, such as cost-benefit analysis and 18 analysis o5 alternatives.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Wait a minute. A negative 20 declaration can't be comparable 21 MR. FONNER: It is. In its scope i t frequently almost approaches the size of an impact statement in 22 23 practice.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Did I just understand you
, 24 eral Reporters, Inc.
" 25 to say that it would still be your conclusion today,, that n*o
_./ .
16
'? :m..rn statement *.were.riecessary,if the suit hadn't been filed; that 2 if the suit hadn't beeri filed
- 3 4
5
~1R. FONNER: As far as trench 15 is concerned.
Yes, sir, not as far as the renewal of the license in total and the amendment to expand the acreage.
6 COI~~ISSIONER BRADFORD: Oh, I see.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is a trench within the 8 existing licensed 20 acies?
9 MR. FONNER: Right.
10 COMi'-1:ISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I ask why this thing ll was not taken up at some earlier point?
12 I mean, was this simply left to lie there? Or, 13 was this a deliberate decision for some reason or another?
14 MR.FONNER: Are1you asking me, sir?
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well I am asking anybody 16 who knows the* anmver.
17 rrn. FONNER:* Maybe I could answer it if I knew what 18 part you were talking about.
19 COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: You mean the renewal?
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, timely renewal.
21 Why was that not acted upon?
- I 22 23 24 MR. BISHOP: I have the delightful position of saying it was on somebody else's "watch."
(Laughter.)
A deral Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have been trying that lately,
17
- ~
mm I
with notable lack of success.
2 (Laughter.)
I
- 3 4
5 right.
MR.BISHOP: It doesn't help a great deal, :that's In the Staff paper that was sent down to you, there
, was a ahronology of the events as well as a tabular format, 0
showing the history.
7 8
CHAIR-."1Al""\J HENDRIE: There is a period in there of about five years where it remarks that there was a correspon-9 dence, but not much else seems to have happened.
10 MR. BISHOP: I think the bottom line reason for 11 it was given on the far right; it was a low-priority, it was 12 just one of many materials licenses, no problems had been 13 identified, the 'entire policy was under review, and it was 14 given exactly a fraction, a very small fraction of one 15 individual's time. And I think that is probably the fundament 1 16 reason.
17 That was .a conscious decision ort the nart of th~
18 old AEC in terms of giving resources to this particular 19 licensing action as opposed to licensing reactors and other 20 major actions.
21 COM.1'-USSIONER BRADFORD: Have we '.got many others 22 that this can happeri to?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vic wanted a list of the Ald,rnl Repo,te,s, ~:
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think Commissioner Kennedy
18
,,. nun wanted that .
2 CHAIR~AN HENDRIE: Oh, you wanted a list.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's right.
4 COMivIISSIONER BRADFORD: I want to see it, too.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I hope it doesn't turn out to 6 be something like -- you know.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I didn't realize that 8 included these type of facilities.
9 MR .. BISHOP: .. That ~as the list you *asked for yesterd y?
10 CH.AIRMA.l~ HENDRIE: Yes.
ll MR. DIRCKS: It includes some reactors, too.
. COM.MISSIONER ,KENNEDY:.. Each day a new one.
12 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Except reactors all have 14 impact statements to them, don't they?
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do they?
16 MR. DIRCKS: We will know better when we see the list. I think we have some 17 (Laughter. )
18 19 MR. EILPERIN: I think there are a number of reasons why _the better part of discretion would be to try 20 to settle the case rather than to manfully say that nine 21 years was not sufficient for us to decide this matter, and 22 that since 1970 we were not obligated to~- :(Inaudible.f*-~
23 So.that is basically what we are suggesting, that Al,,,,,""'"*~:
25 the Commission give us authority to use the good offices of
I' 19
- r mm the Department of Jusice and contact the State of Illinois I 2 and see whe.ther or not some sort of an amicable settlement
- 3 4
5 can be arranged along these lines.
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY:
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okav with me.
I would certainly not 0 object to that.
7 CHAIRT\*1AN HENDRIE: I would be interested in what 8 we would say to support a nine-year licensing time.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Maybe they could send us 10 their brief on that. I really would like to read it, too.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is there any reason to think the state would not be interested -- (Inaudible.)
12 13 MR. EILPERIN: Well I 1 m not -- one problem is that 14 I am not sure what the state is interested in. So I am not 15 sure how easy it will be to settle the suit. If -the state 16 is interested in closing down the Sheffield site, and if 17 that is what they want to do, i t may not be very simple to 18 settle.
19 There was just a Congressional delegation tour 20 and hearing .tramping around Sheffield in Morris. I did read 21 Attorney General Scott's prepared statement and it basically talked in terms of unconscionable delay and the need for an
-'I*
22 23 impact statement.rt didn't specifically state --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Didn't Senator Percy say, 24 Ac"' Federal Reporters, Inc.
grand idea?
25
20 "r mm t
MR. EILPERIN: I didn't read Senator Percy, but 2 CHAIR.MAl"\J HENDRIE: Well let's see. This is --
- 3 4
5 i t circ~lated to us in the beginning as a consent calendar item.
I have been holding mine for--
, MR. CHILK: You have been holding yours, and 0
CoITu.~issioner Gilinsky has been holding his, and i t was his 7
office among.others that requested a discussion on it?
8 9* CHAI Ri.'1AN HENDRI:E : Do you want to hold and conside and then do the paper?
10 By the_ way, would i t be 1*egal and proper just to 1l go ahead 12 MR. CHILK: You could take a vote right now.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: _::.. or whatever way one wanted
.14
- to hold it. I don't want to press a vote.
15 COMMISSIONER G*ILINSKY: The vote is on what?
16 CHl\IRMAN HENDRIE: Just on the proposition bf 17 the General Counsel, to see if *we can nego_tiate a settlement*
18 with the State of Illinois, rather than leave us trying to 19 defend this nine-year hiatus, the reasons for which I under-20 stand, but which are certainly not going to be viewed very 21 cheerfully by the District Court that says, you know, for 22 I
pity sakes, nine years -- why not forever -- why bother to 23 Al,,,, t:
license.
Repmffi<S, So I recommend that. So moved. ,
25
I 21 "t
mm Steve, you have got our position.
2 I will be interested to see what the settlement
- 3 possibilities are~
4 MR. EILPERIN: Well we will definitely give *the 5
Commission the settlement to pass upon before any action, if
, we can arrange one.
0 CHAIID1AN HENDRIE: Very good.
7 1:--vell, thank you very much.
8 (Whereupon, at 2:05, the hearing in the 9
above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21