ML20246M431
| ML20246M431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Gallegly E HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909070159 | |
| Download: ML20246M431 (11) | |
Text
.
Ti2 H:nnrable Eltcn Gallegly United States House of Representatives-Washington, DC 20515 August 31, 1989
Dear Congressman Gallegly:
This.is in response to your referral forwarding to us statements dealing with a settlement agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company and the. State of New York, involving the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,Unitl'(Shoreham).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,7 s responsible for regulating commercial nuclear facilities to 1
ensure that the operation of these facilities will not be inimical to either the common defense and security.or to the public health and safety.
In accordance with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Island Lighting Company i
a full-power operating license for Shoreham on April 21, 1989 upon determining that the facility could be' safely operated.,fer of ownership of Shoreham and
.Similarly, the NRC would be directly involved in ensuring that any trans any possible subsequent decommissioning are conducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulations. We intend to closely monitor the situation to assure that all requirements of law and regulation are met.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Chairman Zech's May 19, 1989 letter to Senator J. Bennett Johnston more fully dealing with this situation.-
The NRC does not, however, have jurisdiction over the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from the decommission.ing of the Shoreham facility..
Such matters are within the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.-
In accordance with your request, we are returning the incoming correspondence.
Sincerglga siped Bp JameshPThd Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnston 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR EDO #0004627 EDO Reading TMurley JSniezek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger WButler 00C JTaylor Beverly Clayton DMossburg, PMAS (EDO #0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki M0'Brien SECY(89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FHiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie OCA Previously concurred
- PDI-2/PM*
PDI-2/D*
Tech Editor
- OGC*
ADRI*
DRPI/II:D*
SBrown WButler RSanders Ed Reis BBoger SVarga 08/11/89 08/11/89 08/11/89 08/21/89 08/11/89 08/21/89 ADP*
DONRR*
fiDQ A OCN JPartlow TMurley Taylor pld 08/21/89 08/21/89 8/Jc/89 Y@
A E909070l5 g
i j
upt.
t
r
/
U
,/
^
/
The Honorable Elton Gallegly
[
United States House of Representatives
/
Washington, DC: 20515
/
Dear Congressman Gallegly:
/
This is in response to your referral forwarding to us statements ealing with a settlement agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company /and the State of New York, involving the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nu 1 ear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Shoreham).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as charged under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is responsible for regulating commptcial nuclear facilities to ensure that the operation of these facilities will pot be inimical to either
.the common defense and security or to the public hea h and safety.
In accordance with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Island ghting Company a full-power operating license for Shoreham on April 21, ) 89 upon determining that the facility could be safely operated as needed.
directly involved in ensuring that any transferjo/Similarly, the NRC would be f ownership of Shoreham and any possible subsequent decommissioning are coJ(ducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulations. We intend to closely monitor the situation to assure that all requirements of law and regufation are met.
For your information, I have enclosed a c /
py of Chairman Zech's May 19, 1989 letter to Senator J. Bennett Johnston mo e fully dealing with this situation.
i The NRC does not, however, have jurisd ction over the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from the d6 commissioning of the Shoreham facility.
Such matters are within the jurisdi ion of the Internal Pevenue Service.
In accordance with your request, e are returning the incoming correspondence.
Sincerely, 1
James M. Taylor i
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnst n 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION
/
tDocket File ?
NRC PDR Local PDR EDO #0004627 EDO Reading TMurley JSniezek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger WButler OGC JTaylor Beverly Clayton DMossburg, PMAS (EDO #0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki M0'Brien SECY (89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie OCA Previously/
[GALLEGLY LETTER]
ncurred*
WB for PDI-2/PM*j/
PDI-2/D*
Tech Editor
- 0GC*
ADRI*
DRPI/II:D SBrom:mj WButler RSanders Ed Reis BBoger SVarga 08/11/89~
08/11/89 08/11/89 08/21/89 08/11/89 8/21/89 JSniezek for ADP DONRR ED0/A JPartlow TMurley JTaylor 8/21/89 8/21/89
/ /89
f.;;,
y l-Y
.T e Honorable Elton Gallegly United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear' Congressman Gallegly:
This. is in' response to your referral of July 25,.1989, forwarding to us statements dealing withia settlement-agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company and the State of New York, involving the decommissioning of the ShorehamNuclearPowerPlant, Unit 1(Snoreham).
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), as charged under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is responsible for regulating comercial nuclear facilities to ensure that the operation of these facilities will not be inimical to either the common defense and security or to the public health and safety.
In accordance.
with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Island Lighting Company a full-t power operating license for Shoreham on April 21, 1989 upon determining that l:
the facility could be safely operated as needed.. Similarly, the NRC would be.
E directly involved in ensuring that any transfer of ownership of Shoreham and any possible subsequent decommissioning are conducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulations. We intend to closely monitor the situation to assure that all requirements of law and regulation are met.
- For your information, I have enclos\\ed a copy of Chairman Zech's May 19, 1989 letter to Senator J. Bennett Johnsto' more fully dealing with this situation.
The NRC does not, however, have juris ction over the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from the dec(ymissioning of the Shoreham facility.
Such matters are within the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.
In' accordance with your request, we are r turning the incoming correspondence.
Si erely, James
. Taylor Acting Executive Director for erations
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnston 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION g~iocket filedy NRC PDR Local PDR ED #0004627 EDO Reading-TMurley JSniezek JPartlow PD 2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger WButler OGC JTaylor l
Beverly Clayton DMossburg, PMAS (EDO #0004627) sbr wn C. Shiraki M0'Brien SECY(89-0684) WRussell, RI JSci to FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie OCA I
Previously concurred *
[GALLEGLYLETTER]
WB for PDI-2/PM*
PDI-2/D*
Tech Editor
- OGC*
ADRI*
I:
s SBrown:mj WButler RSanders Ed Reis BBoger CE/1 9
08/11/89 08/11/89 08/21/89 08/11/89 89 l
ADP R
ED0/A JPa ow ey JTaylor I
g g /89
/89
/ /89
,Akt
E..
t.
S T e Honorable El?on Gallegly
- United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Gallegly:
,This is. in. response to your referral of July 25, 1989, forw ding to us statements dealing with a settlement agreement between the ong Island Lighting Company and the State.of New York,. involving the decommis oning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 {Shoreham),
t The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as charged u er the Atomic Energy Act i
of 1954, as amended, is responsible for regulating c rcial nuclear facilities y
to ensure that the operation of these facilities wi not be inimical to either the common defense and security or to the public h alth and safety.dn accordanc with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Isla Lighting Company a full-N power operating license for Shoreham on April 2, 1989 upon determining that the facility could be safely operated as neede. Similarly, the NRC would be directly involved in ensuring that any transf of ownership of Shoreham and any possible subsequent decommissioning are onducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulations ed W intend t closely monitor the situation to assure that all requirements of law and re ulation are met.
For your information, I have enclosed a opy of Chairman Zech's May 19, 1989 letter to Senator J. Bennett Johnston re fully dealing with this situation.
The NRC does not, however, have juris iction over the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from the commissioning of the Shoreham facility.
I Such matters are within the jurisdf tion of the Internal Revenue Service.
In accordance with your request, e are returning the incoming correspondence.
Sincerely, 1
James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnst 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION Docket File
? C PDR Local PDR EDO #0004627 EDO Reading TMurley Sniezek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger WButler OGC JTaylor i
Beverly Clayton DMossburg, PMAS (EDO #0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki I
M0'Brien SECY(89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie Previously concu red *
[GALLEGLYLETTER]
/PDI-2/D*
UB for i
Tech Editor
- OGC ADRI*
DRPI/II:D I
PDI-2/PM*
SBrown:mj WButler RSanders 36 BBoger SVaiga
)
08/11/89 08/11/89 08/11/89 f/zJ/89 08/11/89
/ /89
'ADP DONRR E00/A JPartlow TMurley JTaylor
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89 A
The lionerable Elton Gallegly-Mhy[
I
. United States House of Representatives
.Washingten DC 20515 y
l b
~
Dear Congressman Gallegly:
fvQ
.This is in. response to your referral of July 25 1989, : g::th -:#'a settlement' n ir;;;tipH--
cf-the ****-
't -- o ::d with yr ?..;;;. A p ett;;;t: r:f; t agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company and the St eofNewYork, involving)thedecommissioningoftheShorehamNuclearPowerPantgUnit1 g J-
~
(Shoreham.
Q jf
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as charged under the Atomic Energ Act of 1954, is responsible for regulating commercial nu lea facilities to ensure that the operation of thEse facilities will not be in' Cal to either the common defense and security or to the public health'a safety. In' accordance
'with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Island L h$ing Company a full-power operating license for Shoreham on April 21 1 9A Mth: gh th: 720 can
- aut heriz: Oper: tie: OfA nxb Tacihty, it is y a;:Lhin s r : :n:y's t; eper.e
- lcar-fd444ty,
- statutory-authwity te regiee-a liter, ::
M SimiJarbyThe NRC does not have jurisdiction ov the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from' the decommission ing of the Shoreham facility.
. The Internal Revenue Service has jur g tion er the matter of-tax writeoffs.
h::._; [ dire Ny The NRC is ved in en ring hat an ra sfe of m
.ownershipofShorehamandsubsequentdecommyssionin re conducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulation,f for your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Chairman Zech's May 19,198f lettte to Senator J. Bennett Johnston, 5: #*
gaa +u e hoo ane-% we /;2 ;. t f a this unprecedented situation. M#7 1
In accordance with your regue'st, we are!l returning the incoming correspondence., l
/)
/ Sincerely, yh
~N ip/# #[-T6 Alames M. Taylor M
- cting Executive Director t
A b W #
for Operations
,ga
/*'* ),.w ',,a l*
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. ohnston 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION
/
Docket File NRCPDRf Local PDR EDO #0004627 EDO Reading TMurley JSniezek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger' WButler OGC JTaylor Beverly Clayton DMossburg,Pf1AS(EDOs0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki M0'Brien SECY/ (89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGi lespie
[GALLEGLYLETTER]
1 D
r3
/
- Previously concurre hp PDI-2/PM*
PDI '/D Tech Editor
- OGC ADRI N DRPI/II:D SBrown:mj WBu er RSanders BBoger SVarga 08/11/89 C8/ I/89 08/11/89
/ /89
@/g(/89
/ /89 ADP DONRR ED0/A JPartlow TMurley JTaylor
/-./89
/ /89
/ /89 i
I l
The Honorable Elton Gallegly United States House of Representatives L'ashington, DC 20515
Dear Congresstran Gallegly:
1
\\
This is in response to your referral of July 25,19
, requesting an investigation of the statements enclosed with your note. The st ements refer to a settlement agreement between the Long Island Lighting Compan and the State of New York, involving the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nu ear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Shoreham).
\\
\\
'/
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), as c ged under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is responsible for regulating commer al nuclear facilities to ensure 7
that the operation of these facilities will 4 t be inimical to either the s
common defense and security 'or to the publi health and safety. In accordance with that mission, the NRC grhoted the Lon Island Lighting Company a full-power operating license for Shdreham on A il 21, 1989. Although the NRC can s
authorize operation of a nuclear \\ facility it is not within our agency's statutory authority to require a licens to operate a nuclear facility.
Similarly, the NRC does not have jdrisd)gI tion over the matters related to a tax writeoff that could result from the 'def mmissioning of the Shoreham facility.
The Internal Revenue Service has juri': iction over the matter of tax writeoffs.
The NRC is, however, directly involv ensuring that any transfer of ownership of Shoreham and subsequen decommissioning are conducted in accordance with the NRC's rules and regulatior}
For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Chairman Zech's May 19, 19 letter \\to Senator J. Bennett Johnston.
I believe this best describes NRC's.uthority I this unprecedented situation.
In accordance with your request, e are return og the incoming correspondence.
Sincerely James M.
ylor Acting Exechtive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnston 2.
Incoming Letter x
DISTRIBUTION
\\
Docket File NRC P R Local PDR EDO #0004627 ED0 Reading TMurley JSni ek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBog r WButler OGC JTaylor Beverly Clayton dmo sburg, PMAS (EDO #0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki M0'Brien SEC (89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FMiraglia DCrutchfield FG llespie 1
[GALLEGLYLETTER]
- Previousl" concurre PDI-2/PM i PDI-2 D Tech Editor OGC ADRI DRPI/II:D Sg8 own:m WButi r -
RSanders BBoger SVarga l
6/f7/89 y/{/89 08/11/89
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89 ADP DON R ED0/A JPartlow TM ley JTaylor
/ /89
/89
/ /89 I
i
The Honorable Elton Gallegly United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Gallegly:
This is in response to your referral of July 25, 1989, requestinganirestigation) l of the statements enclosed with your note.
The statements refer to a settlement agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company and the State of ew York, involving the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant nit 1 (Shoreham).
l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as charged under the omic Energy Act of 1954 is responsible for regulating commercial nuclear fac ities to assure that the operation of these facilities will not be inimical to either the common defense and security or to the public health and s ety. In accordance with that mission, the NRC granted the Long Island Ligh g Company a full power operating license for Shoreham on April 21, 1989. While the NRC can authorize operation of a nuclear facility, it is not hin our agency's statutory authority to require a licensee to operate nuclear facility.
Similarly, the NRC does not have jurisdiction over t e matters related to a tax write-offthatcouldresultfromthedecommissionifoftheShorehamfacility.
The Internal Revenue Service has jurisdiction over the matter of tax write-offs.
The NRC is, however, directly involved in assurjhg that any transfer of ownershipofShorehamandsubsequentdecommissJoningareconductedinaccordance with the NRC's rules and regulation. For your convenience I have enclosed a copy of Chairman Zech's May 19, 1989 letter, to Senator J. Bennett Johnston.
I believe this best describes NRC's authority in this unprecedented situation.
In accordance with your request, we are rpturning the incoming correspondence.
Sincerely, L
James M. Taylor
/
Acting Executive Director for Operations
/
Enclosure:
1.
Ltr. to Sen. Johnston 2.
Incoming Letter DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR EDO #0004627 EDO Reading TMurley JSniezek JPartlow PDI-2 Reading w/cy of incoming SVarga BBoger W8utler OGC JTaylor Beverly Clayton DMossburg, PMAS (ED0 #0004627) SBrown C. Shiraki M0'Brien SECY-(89-0684) WRussell, RI JScinto FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie
[GALLEGLYLETTER]
PDI-2/PM PDI-2]D Tech Editor OGC ADRI DRPI/II:D SBrown:mj WButAer R);
BBoger Svarga l
/ /89
/ /89 S'//l/89
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89 ADP DONRR ED0/A JPartlow TMurley JTaylor
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89 j
c.-
't o
- Mi yW..
s~' < pf. _
1". :.
1
,f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jf}r gq I
- o,[..
UNITED STATES '
5~
4 4
L-
- g Ef EDO Princ h 1T E'reIp Edence Control
- g....; [
7 i FROMs DUEx 08/Jd89 -
EDO CONTROL: l0004627
. DOC DT:
FINAL' REPLY:-
- R::p. 7 Elton Gallegly TO : -
-NRC-
- FOR. SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: Bo-0684 Executive Director
.DESC -
ROUTING:
CONCERNING SHOREHAM2 Russell, RIl Scinto, OGC DATE: 07/26/89 ASSIGNED TO::
CONTACT:
Murley NRR w
' SPECIAL.' INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
i MARK-ENVELOPE ATTN: ED COOK
.NRR RECEIVED: JULY 26, 1989 ACTION:
- DRPR
- VAPGAf lNRRROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA PARTLOW CRUTCHFIELD GILLESPIE MOSSBURG ACTION DtlE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S Fl:'
[,m%7) 7, MTf
.BY s
E( <
1
_ _z
g i S. " ',.
M y @ *. j..-..,, :...
t::' y w,
M OFFICE.OF-THE SECRETARY ~
s CORRESPONDENCE ~ CONTROL TICKET.
n1
'G v i.::-
... PAPER ~ NUMBER:'
' CRC-89-O'684
' LOGGING:DATE: Jul 25 89-
~
1
(
^
t ACTION s' OFFICE: '
iEDO e
IAUTHOR:l
[E..Gallegly--Const-Ref AFFILIATION:
.U.S.-: HOUSE OF-REPRESENTATIVES 9
U LETTER-DATE:
'Jul 25 89L FILE' CODE:-ID&R-5 Shoreham-
SUBJECT:
Supports operation'of the Shoreham plant
ACTION : '
Direct Reply
_ DISTRIBUTION:
-OCA to Ack,-Docket
'SPECIAL' HANDLING: None-
{
l
.-NOTES:
L
- DATE DUE
.Aug -8 89 L
SIGNATURE *-
.DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
(
.i s
Rec'd Olf. EDO
\\(,
klo
~1-4 '} 3 Mme 94 J
tDO---UU4621 g
v
.]
- ~ - ---- - --- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
y q
., 3
- 2
's.
- y n..
t i,:
3,. :
to CooA t
avivs Diar:toa 1
EU #'"8 am,,,o,"D. C,aosis 407 CA88#0 4a hven GmL6se6' '
gages,se OP C###"888
- (303)335 58H
.c.ur a
,,,,o,,,
4 Sir:
The attached communication is sent for -
-.your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me
. the necessary information for reply, return-ing the enclosed correspondence with your answer.
Yours truly, p.
- c.. " *.. >.c....a n EM.. G h..,j.
107 Cannon H.O.B.
Ln'a:hington, D.C. 20511.c.
- l:
t-
_____1c_____-_-___--_____.---_-______--_--____------___-----__-_-----_-_--_.-_------______.
M.
r,yy ol na tae teo sreo yee flsm nyt rrt a2hsoen aatt tdt ephi hea lhd oaro oarl t)hnyo o
d pT lr tTe i soa nycalt cer n
n e
s oyf t
elihln aduu o
dce i
a nls.g nung c.n nl a pe a
e pt aopd dlhtai ha ac f'
aNe mtu iaw t
e i sl t d n
fo gb fe a im aa ze xn r
ss cc,r e u ci en s t atioot
,e~
i c c totl oe i
yhl n ri m n t
t t t l frrh anyom a
i s p
ammn d
gu r c
neot e no h
c n e
e t n i
nt iot fr ih/.
hin,rok t olo i
w c
ek dn Tfow a
v vPiuia o iyw ai ss c eo vr peni a
to rl snhrcywpl rb e
i ed h el ttoo u ca c o t
h v
e t
t Y
eNn tl t
e s
a d
yt o
ea eb cnini iv o
iyws d
no) kpe e tpr.et h
eo eu wite ocs w tn on n ty li
,d b
,ah r e c st v eeu s a
e a l
et el ynt neeN?
bei o.
ax rh d cpaPag a
a l
fc o ee s r r gf ateo im rtu r ne er aet l r ehh d
k t dtt ae aivn sen ute lo t
Cc eii ce rr ee u r
o d
o tn no c,id e
e e fwr upe k
ft b b
een ii pdct Inl dop o
al u s pe t
i u
l s ob t
i rcd h
o o
o sa, bd ee t ofa l y d
eoiy a,en so fr bdwrvr e u aln rr n
ok sn oe u o opot t
al N r ao pe a
y c
ir o oi t
e re m s
e wt
,.t i
ol tn up pb p rn eh-t O rt wts t ia a aput cloeo o
dpu ngmi Cson oo i
l sLh Life tp t p fsC cl yt dn rn o
ia I
ch i
n r
ai io n
a a d
t ut ye wert a te sl lc u
sdIh m
ylwneesn r
n.
iraw nLts e
gwn odr tti n rl dir rch kol a u oom cn e
y opo vIr i
d l in o a nl.
t sn p
a ux o u c rwu ai Ss rcsi ef lLt eews r
hu a o
l moa e a rI ho at n
i r
l s
e s
r o oaw a fe enne v,vdt sytn t
uy vc afl e r
chtggr o
r l
Id s
o v s rtc a soli f
a eGu f,grl e ca ere d
brI io f n
n e
i gt n f
eion st on a s ni p t i few u
ot h I
i to a ohkano t
e tvni ia,he r
sep ne k tn c a n tO sh s nrfm p (w o t
o ol a
a ne s e r eeo fsC w
os uh l
r e as.ug itna o
oL pI e st h i
r l
m r tr w Pecieh ee e
o rih y l n n e
rt o
n a
f Ly l
u u
rp,er a r c aosb e
adr o r o u
e u i hcA.opf.o mish eLWl o e r ho tnedl c t
gh s u t -
fm te ten eh l
yv e nas th e c e r
t xfi als h
t ci t ty.a o v el o
.h t
msl n u s c dsta i
S e fe mr n
rt i ob ni dbe d e n,.
hn uit r
oc na w m
an un ne nIct o
ea mof lo oo wd(i e a
o o
ey gcj lo r
of n
tp eh ct ie gv fr ih r
a he yj*
u n
a rs odC o
p sc atas oks otn he x
n uh,s vl t ie a u r rh i n obe, S
ye at hotceimn e tytm c aa a,e ne ot l eg i
ti st n
u am e, y gl r n eMo l
n
- n rio he ve t
G Y ccs uo a
i i
s e,e liis ocs cfir ei eh g n
b ab e c owlmfe ni hrti uf ta h n gt n ei w or t
.Tgarn Se a eah l
t tb r
Trd Geemir aa.
i rt I
e bt ne ou st u r o
oN s ong r
ltr rh fjsa s
no rtnI ix re cgnee 1nucu 2 set o.ot ph hr i
or pei pT g u
,t e foeaorp eget st 3
an u
utrp Hotdmcao eel e elf ldre mprtd bRer aacp s
o eme uocn l ao Cbao I smaa trnvoh Iabiect jji5 r
- 4
- !i I
i
j'.
L. ' * *
/,3c ess u
'o UNITED STATES
. ! 'g y.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[.,
g nAsmNcTom o.c.nsss May 19, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorabie J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of May 2 1989, in which you asked a number of Commission's (NRC) questions concerning the Nuclear Regulatory licensing process as it would apply'to a transfer of the litanse for the Shoreham facility and the authorization to decommission that facility.
LILCO and the other principals involved in the potential transfer and decom-missionino have nor, discussed with NRC the details of such proposals.
Nevert; eless, in our enclosed responses,. we have attempted to answer your questions as fully as we can in the absence of such oetails.
Please contact me should you have further questions on this matter.
Sincerely.
(Af.
^
Lando W.
Zec Jr Encicsures:
As stated cc:
Senator James A. McClure
) ifL \\ O J q)g@
t i.,
7
.d vy E
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SENATOR JOHNSTON'S LETTER OF HAY 2, 1989 QUESTION 1.
What are the Comission's regulations for such a transfer? Do the regulations actually anticipate such a transfer; that is, do the regulations ever contemplate transfer of a license for purposes of decommissioning, or would the Commission be charting new territory in such a licensing proceeding? Would this licer. sing process follow a predetermined approach or is each such licensing process knique?
ANSWER Sec.101 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires a license from NRC in order for any persen to transfer, acquire, possess, or use a utilization facility as defined in the Act. This requirement is reflected in 10 CFR 50.10 of the Comission's regulations. Accordingly, any transfer of the Shoreham facility from the Lone Island Lighting Company (LILCO) to any other. person (legal entity) requires license approval f rom the NRC both for LILCO to transfer and fer the transferee to acquire, possess, or use the facility. Ordinarily, such transfer ano licensing would be accomplished by a single amendment to the existing license.
General provisions relating to facility license amendments are contained in 10 CFR 50.90, 50.91 and 50.92. Since the authorization also involves the transfer of a license and/or rights under such license, the authorization I
r.
( u,, z,
.1 7
j QUESTION 1 (Continued) would also be covered by 10 CFR 50.80, implementing Sec.184 of the Atomic Energy Act. That section requires that information be submitt?d to the NRC with respect to the identity, and technical and legal qualifications, of the transferee.
The regulations do not explicitly address transfer of a facility for the purposes of decommissioning. However,10 CFR 50.90, 50.91, 50.92, 50.80, and 50.82 cover license amendments, license transfers, and license termina-tion and decommissioning for all purposes. The substantive standards for
~ determining the acceptability of decommissioning are set forth in the Commission's rules governing decommissioning published in the Federal Register on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018).
'The regulations.in 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 2 (the Comission's Rules of Practice) provide general guidance governing a wide range of potential proposed license amencments and have been adequate for the power reactor decommissioning proceedings thus far considered (Humboldt Bay, Lacrosse).
The NRC has not previously had a proceeding involving (1) a transfer of a facility from an organization authorized to operate the facility to another entity for the purpose of decommissioning or (2) decommissioning of a facility licensed to operate at full power but which has had only limited low power operation.
For these reasons, the Commission might well face issues
. of first impression with regard to the particular license transfer and
~
/
QUESTION 1 (Continued),
3 de;omissioning that might be proposed for Shoreham. On the other hand, the actual licensing process for such a license transfer /anendment and decom.
missioning authorization should follow the approach established by existing regulations on license amendments / transfer and decommissioning.
l
_ =_
! ! R' D
QUESTION 2.
'What are the requirements for transfer of an operat.ing license? Who would submit an application for transfer? Would both LILCO and LIPA sub: nit a license application?
ANSWER
-The transaction involveu in the postulated Shoreham transfer is not limited
' to transfer of control or license rights under 10 CFR 50.80, but involves the complete transfer of ownership and physical possession of the facility from LILCO to LIPA. The regulations. do not explicitly address the standards for authorizing the transfer of actual possession of a facility. However, the principal requirement would be that there be a recipiert licensed by NRC to possess th$ facility and that the process of transfer and possession provides reasonable on assurance of adequate protection for public health and safety and comon defenst and security.
LILCO would be required to submit an application to transfer and LIPA would be required to submit an application to. possess (and' to decommission or otherwise use) the facility.
It may be that a combined application could be submitted or that one application may incorporate by reference substantial portions of the infomation contained in the other,10 CFR 50.31 and 50.32.
l l'
F..
]
L QUESTION 3.
What does the adjudicatory process entailir Would a license transfer actually be an e.menoment to the existing license for Shoreham, or woule a whole new licensing process begin? If a public hearing is required, could the license transfer take place cefore the. hearing is completed?
ANSWER The transfer would require an amenoment to the existing license. For reactor facility license amendments, Comission regulations require that the appli-cant ar# "any person whose_ interest may be affected by the proceeding" be afforded an opportunity to requist a hearing. Only if the Comission concludes that the amendment proposed invoh ed "no significant hazards consideration" could the Comission issue an imediately effective license amenament and grant & hearing thereafter. 10 CFR 2.105.
I
[-
o
.0UESTION 4 What are the. opportunities to intervene in this licensing l
l process?
ANSWER As indicated above, as a general matter, "any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding".may request a hearing or pemission to intervene
~
in the proceeding on the license amendment to transfer the license.
In order to be permitted to intervene, the petitioner must satisfy the standarcs of 10 CFR 2.714 relating to timeliness, standing, and contentions. See also 10 CFR 2.4(o) and (d).
i
\\
l i
)
., +
i QUESTION 5.
Who would be eligible to intervene? Would all of the parties previously involved in the Shureham adjudicatory process be eligible to intervene? How would the New York state and local governments be affected? Would they be eligible to intervene even though they were thrown out of the earlier Shoreham adjudicatory process? Would new parties not previously involved in the Shoreham proceeding be eligible to intervene?
ANSWER The parties previously involved in the Shoreham proceeding were not dismissed from participation in NRC proceedings other than the proceeding involving the initial issuance of an operating license for Shoreham. Neither were they barred from further participation in otner NRC proceedings. They would, however, again be required to establish a basis for participation either as tr.terested governr.ents under 10 CFR 2.715(c) or as interveners under 10 CFR 2.714.
Persons who have not previously participated in Shoreham licensing pro-ceedings would aise be eligible to intervene provided that they satisfied the standards of 10 CFR 2.714 or may participate ut. der 2.715(c).
l 1
l l
l
L QUESTION 6.
Would the federal goverr. ment be eligible to intervene ir a licensing proceeding? Would-ratepayers be eligible to intervene in a licensing proceeding 7 ANSWER I
1 As a general matter, agencies of the Federal government that have an interest t
which may be effected by the proceeding are eligible to-intervene in NRC licensing proceedings. See 10 CFk 2.4;p) ar.d (d). For example, the United-States Marine Corps intervened in the p mteading involving the construction permit application by Potomac Electric Power Company for the proposed Douglas Point facilities.
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating' Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975).
l The economic interest of a ratepayer has been held to be insufficient to establish standing to intervene as a matter of right in NRC reactor licensing I
proceedings since concern about rates is not within the scope of the Atomic Energy Act (Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek. Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plants, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977)) or within the zone of 3
i interest protected by the National Environmental Policy Act (Portland General l
Electric Co.
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-333, 3 NRC
'804 (1976)). Adjudicatory boards may grant intervention as a matter of discretion, exercised according to specific Commission guidelines, where it 1
is determined that the petitioner will make some contribution to the pro-caeding.
(Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
l.. ~
i i
QUESTION '.
How does the Commission judge the fitness of the proposed new licensee? Are there. specific criteria that must be met before the license transfer would be approved? What are they?
I' ANSWER 10 CFR 50.57 Issuance of Operating License, requires that NRC fird that applicants are technically qualified, and that applicants other than electric utilities are financially qualified, in order to issue an operating license.
See t.lso.10 CFR 50.40. These standards would apply to an amendment involving
- a. transfer to a new licensee.
~
NRC guidance concerning technical qualifications is contained in NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, Sections 13.1 (Management and Technical Support Organization),13.4(OperationalReview),and13.5(Administrative Procedures). Copies of these sections are enclosed. These are the criteria used by the NRC staff in determining the technical qualifications of a license applicant to conduct the proposed activity.
m.
,x i[.:
'~
QUESTION 8.
What is.the set of applicable regulations that would have to be raet before a new licensee would be granted a license?
Would the set of applicable regulations inclece those related to financial qualifications?
ANSWER w
The license issued to LILCO authorizes full power operation. In order to transfer this license to LIPA, LIPA would be required to comply with all regulations applicable to such operation and to demonstrate qualifications to
. operate the facility, if LIPA ir,tends to oper6te the f acility at full power, as permitted by the current license. Substantive requirements specifically applicable to power reactors are contained in 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 50, 51, 73, and 140; additional requirements relating to possession of new fuel, spent fuel, and byproduct radioactive materials are contained in 10 CFk Parts 30, and 70.
If the specific activities to be carried out by LIPA are more limited than LILCO is currently authorized to conouct, any transfer of the j
LILCD license to LIPA would have to contain ccnditions to that effect, and LIPA would have to demonstrate its qualifications and compliance with'the set l
of regulatory requirements that apply to the activities permitted by the transferred license.
1 Unless LIPA qualifies as an " electric utility" as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. a I
financial qualification review would be required by 10 CFR 50.33(f) and I
l
-_A
QUESTION 8 (Continued)
_2, 50.57(a). Further LIPA would be required to satisfy the requirements t elating to decommissioning funding assurance.
10 CFR 50.33 and 50.75.
Other requirements specifically applicable to decommissioning are discussed in response to question 9.
QUESTION 9.
Would the Comission have to approve a decommissioning plan for Shoreham prior to transfer of the license? What level of detail is required for a decommissioning plan? Does permission to decorimission the plant involve a separate licensing process from the transfer of the license?
ANSWER If the applicant for the. license transfer proposes to operate the facility or to conduct activities but <does not request authorization to decommission, the Commissico could consider authorizing the license to transfer without first considering and approving a decommissioning plan. A subsequent request to undertake cecomissioning would involve a separate license amendment and a separate amencment proceeding. However, if the initial request for transfer proposes transfer for the purpose of decoenissioning and seeks authorization to decommission, the steps involved -- transfer of the license by LILCO, possession of the facility by LIPA, change in the license to possession-only status, cefueling, and commencement of decommissioning -- could be the subject of a single proceeding.
In the latter case, LIPA would be required tu provide a safety analysis of proposed deconcissioning activities demonstrating that such activities will be conducted in a manner that adequately assures public health and safety.
10 CFR 50.34. Since these activities will be different from those evaluated in the PSAR and the current FSAR for the Shoreham facility, e new evaluation covering the prorosed activities would be required.
10 CFR 50.82 requires
p..
QUESTION 9. (Continued) that applicants for authorization to decommission submit the proposed I
decommissioning plan and sets forth the general requirements for the de-i 1
l commissioning plan.
The Comission must approve decommissioning plans.
l Further details concerning the content of the decommissioning plan are provided by Regulatory Guide 1.86, "Temination of Operating Licenses for Operating Reactors." 10 CFR 51.53 requires each applicant for a license amendment authorizing decommissioning to submit an update to the Operating License Stage Environmental Report reflecting any significant new information associated with decommissioning.
10 CFR 51.95 requires the NRC to supplement the operating license stage environmental impact statement or prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed decommissioning, depending on the significance of the environmental issues involved in the decommissioning proposal.
1 I
___-___.___.______._________._________________m_
__.b
Se l
OUESTION 10.
Has the Commission received any inquiries from the Long Island
~
Power Authority (or the state of New York or the New York Power Authority, in its behalf) about the licensing process involved in transfer of the Shoreham license?
ANSWER The NRC has received no fonnal inquiries from LIPA, NYPA, or New York State about the licensing process involved in transfer of the Shoreham facility.
There have been inquiries from other people associated with New York State recuesting information concerning NRC regulations that would govern the transfer of the Shoreham facility. One such inquiry was by phone from a staff member of the New York State Legislature. Another was from Commissioner McFarland of the New York State Pubiic Service Comission. A copy of Mr. Stello's letter of March 21, 1989 to Commissioner McFarland is attached.
4 QUESTION 11.
Does the Comission have any knowledge at this point of how LILCO and/or Long Island Power Authority will pursue the license transfer? Has either of these entities communicated to the Comission its intentions for submitting a license application?
ANSWER The NRC has received no specific information on how LILCO and LIPA plan to pursue the postulated license transfer other than a copy of the agreement documents and the limited statemtnts made to the Comission at the public meeting or April 17, 1989, by LILCO's Chief Executive Officer, Dr. W. Catacosinos. Dr. Catacosinos indicated that if the agreement becoraes final l
"[LILCO is) obligated to apply to [the NRC] for permission to l
transfer the plant to an agency of the State of New York. The state then will be in the position of having to make a public policy cecision concerning the future of the plant located in l
a geographic area that is clearly short of energy."
l i
l L______________
- _ - - ~ -. -
a' QUESTION 12' Does the Comission have any knowledge of the qualifications of Long-Island Power Authority to hold a license for Shoreham?
ANSWER The Commission has no infomation at this time concerning LIPA's qualifica-tions to hold a license for the Shoreham facility.
It is expected that this infomation will be provided.in LIPA's application for a license to possess the facility.
I
____.__.m_m__.__m.__ _ _ _ _
_____.._....-.._._.._____.,._.__.__..._.._-.-.m
4 QUESTION 13.
At this time, it is my understanding that the Long Island Power Authority does not have statutory authority to purchase Shoreham and that there is a bill pending in the New York state legislature to amend LIPA's charter to allow the purchase. How would this affect MRC's review of a request to transfer the Shoreham license?
ANSWER Although the Commission may start review of a request to possess the facility before LIPA had statutory authority to purchase the facility, such authority would be required before the Comission could make the finding of financial qualification (and perhaps technical qualification depending on the nature of LIPA's statutory authority) required by 10 CFR 50.57 and 50.92. These findings must be made prior to issuance of the license amendment authorizing transfer of the facility to LIPA.
l m--_---_---------_.--
_-..------------_---.---------------,,-----a
=. -
OUEST10N 14 Under the tems of the Shoreham agreement, Long Island Power Authority would contract with the New York Power Authority for decommissioning of the reactor. As I understand it. LIPA itself would not have the technical expertise and resources to carry out this work. How would this affect NRC's review of a license transfer? Does the Comission generally believe it would be acceptable that a licensee not posse:,s its own technical expertise so long as that expertise is obtained through contract? Are there any precedents for this; that is, are there any current NRC licensees similar to Long Island Power Authority who obtain all of their technical expertise by contract?
ANSWER If LIPA proposed that NYPA conduct the decommissioning work, NRC's review of a facility transfer would entail a review of the management and technical support organization of NYPA to perform the contracted activities as well as the competence of LIPA management to carry out its responsibilities as licensee to manage the. activities of its contractors so as to assure adequate l
protection of public health and safety.
It would be acceptable for a itcensee to obtain by contract technical resources that it did not possess on its own.
In fact, many licensees do not possess all the technical resources required to operate and maintain a nuclear power plant. They contract for and hire consultants to obtain necessary resources. However, it is essential that the licensee responsible for the facility have adequate technical and l
l
[_
. 3,
- ;l QUESTION 14 (Continued) management competence to manage its contractors and that the total technical resources made available by the licensee through its own resources and through contract resources satisfy the Commission's criteria (see answer to question 7).
There are no NRC licensees with an arrangement similar to the postulated LIPA
- NYPA arrangement. However, there are and have been situations involving several co-licensees in which one co-licensee operates the plant. The licensee responsible for operating the facility is required to meet the technical qualifications requirements to operate the facility. Several of these cases are discussed in response to question 15.
L OUESTION 15.
Has the Commission ever before considered a request to transfer a license? What is the Commission's past experience in this area 7 Please describe any recuests that are somewhat similar.
ANSWER l
The Commission has previously acted on facility transfer requests in a number of cases, but none are quite the same as that proposed for Shoreham.
I The Indian Point 3 facility was transferred from the Consolidated Edison Company (Coned) to the Power Authority of the. State of New York (PASNY; the name was liter changed to the New York Power Authority (NYPA)). This was authorized in two steps.
Initially, in December 1975, the operating license was amended to authorize PASNY to own (but not to operate) the facility.
Coned remained licensed to operate the facility under contract with PASNY, after sale of Coned's ownership, During the next two years, PASNY personnel undertook training and familiarization.
Subsequently, after finding that PASNY was fully qualified to operate the facility, the license was again i
amended in March 1978 to delete the authority to operate previously vested in Coned and to authorize PASNY to operate the facility. NYPA continues to operate the facility.
In 1974, the Fitzpatick plant was licensed with Niagara Mohawk anthorized to operate the facility under contract for PASNY. PASNY was authorized to own I
l
.i..
c.
s.
QUESTION 15 (Continued) the facility.
Subsequently, in 1977, after finding that PASNY was qualified to operate the facility, the license was amended to delete the authority of Niagara Mohawk to operate the facility and to authorize PASNY to operate it.
In 1982, Mississippi Power and Light Company (MP&L) was licensed to operate Grand-Gulf Unit 1, which was owned by Middle South Energy (whose name was subsequently changed to Systems Energy Resources Inc. (SERI)) and South Mississippi Electric Power Association.
In November 1986, the license was amended to delete the authority of MP&L to operate and to permit SERI to operate the facility. Both companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same holdilig company. Much of the plant staff 'and management transferred to the new licensee.
A request for SERI to become licensed to operate Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1
& 2 and Waterford 3 is currently under review by NRC.
In September 1981, the authority to operate Three Mile Island Unit I was transferred from Metropolitan Edison (Meted) to GPU Nuclear Corporation.
Both are subsidiaries of General Public Utilities Corporation. There had been an earlier change to permit GPU Nuclear Group (GPUNG) to operate Three Mile Island Unit 1.
GPUNG was an organization which combined the technical and managerial resources of the GPU subsidiaries into a single entity.
It was replaced by GPU Nuclear Corporation.
I a
o.
QUESTION 15(Continued) In 1974, Power Reactor Development Company (PRDC) changed the status of the Fermi I facility to non-operating and the license was amended to authorize
" possession only." In 1976, ownership of the facility was transferred froci PRDC to Detroit Edison. The license was amended to delete PRDC from the license and to authorize Detroit Edison to possess but not operate the
~
facility. Detroit Edison was a principal participant in PkDC, and Detroit Edison employees were previously authorized to carry out all jobs at the Fermi I site. On April 28, 1989, the possession-only license was renewed, authorizing possession of the facility in SAFESTOR decommissioning status.
During 1978'-81, ownership of Catawba Unit 2 was transferred by Duke Power Company to North Carolina Municipal Power Agency, No.1, and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (Owners), and the construction permit was amended accordingly. Duke remained responsible for construction of the facility.
The facility was licensed to operate at full power in hay 1986 with Duke authorized to operate the facility and the Owners authorized to possess but not to operate.
There have been other cases involving partial ownership transfers and corporate structural changes that did not involve a major change in plant operating authority.
- - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _