ML17037C007
| ML17037C007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1976 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Brand S Safe Energy Coalition of New York State |
| References | |
| Download: ML17037C007 (10) | |
Text
November 5, l Distribution DBVassallo FJWilliams MGroff (NRR-1211)
EHughes LDreher HDenton RHeineman VStello
.Ns. Snirley A. 'Brand re 0 l, Box 169m
- Highland, New York 12528 MOocket File
~NRC PDR
'Local PDR
~NRR Reading Docket No. 50-410
~LWR P4 File
'BRusche Eease JMi 1 1 er RBoyd SAVarga
Dear Hs. Brand:
WKane
~ervice Your letter to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Comaission) dated September 20, l976, regarding the ownership of Nine klile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 has been directed to this office for reply.
As noted in your letter, and confirmed by us, there is a case pending before the New York State public Service Cmnission (NYSPSC) which involves an arrangement whereby Niagara Nohawk Power Corporation and four other utilities would become tenants in cowmen of. the Nine IIile Point Nuclear.
Station Unit 2. With that background you requested anaiers to a number of questions related to the current status of the construction permit for the facility. Our answers to each 'of'your questions follow.
P Initially, you inquired as to whether the Niagara Nohawk Power Corporation has fully informed the Commission of its intentions with regard to a change in the ownership of Nine Hile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2. To date, we have not received formal notification.
- However, we will require that this be done if and when the final agreement among the various utilities involved is approved by the NYSPSC.
He have, however, been aware of the proposed rredification of the ownership of Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 in connection with our construction permit application reviews of the Rochester Gas 6 Electric Corporation, et al, Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit l and the Long Island Lighting Company et al, Jamesport Nuclear Power Station Units 3 and 2.
Next you inquired as to whether the Comission has requested and/or received documentation from the other utilities which. may be involved. Ke believe that until such time as the formal agreement is approved by the NYSPSC, such action on our part would be premature on the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 docket.
But as noted above, documentation exists on the Sterling and Jamesport dockets..
OP PICK&
4URNAMEW DATC&
FOlCI AEC 31$ (RCl'.55) hECH 0240 4 V, 0 OOVRRNMCNT PRINTINO OPPICRI I474 424 l44
4 7
1 1
1>
3 t
0 Fis. bnzrley A. Ural You also requested whether the Commission has approved of any co-tenancy arrangement for the facility and why there were no public hearings.
'Ihe Comission has not approved of any co-tenancy arrangement for the facility.
Since the final agreement has not yet been approved by the NYSPSC, there has been no amendment to the existing. construction permits.
Therefore there has been no opportunity for public hearings to consider the matter and the existing construction permit remains in effect.
Finally, you requested copies of pertinent correspondence and documents related to this matter.
'Ihe four letters which are enclosed represent,
~ to the best of our knowledge, the only pertinent correspondence related to this matter on the Nine Mile Point-2 docket.
He are pleased to address your questions regarding this matter and hope that we have been responsive in this regard.
I Sincerely, D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Hater Reactors Division of Project Fianagement
Enclosures:
- 1. Ltr dtd 6/23/76 to G. K. Rhode from A. L. Toalston
- 2. Ltr dtd 7/11/76 from Niagara Mohawk Power to A. L. Toalston
- 3. Ltr dtd 10/24/75 to G. K. Rhode from A. L. Toalston
- 4. Ltr dtd 10/31/75 from G. K. Rhode, to A. L. Toalston I
See Previous Yellow EHK For Concurrence orrIcc~
SURNAMC~,g~R 84 11/ $ j76 DPN/AD)LWRS DBVassllo
>,P,+I'74...,...,...,,,
POTCI AEC.318 (RZT. 9-H) hECC 0240 gC U d. OOVCRNMCNT PRINTINO OPPICCI IOTA CZd Idd
1 t
'j I
)
- $)
Distr ihution Docket No. 50-410 Ns. Shirley A. Brand RD 4 1, Box 3.69'ighland, New-York 12528
Dear tis. Brand:
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading Ll<R 84 File BRusche ECase JHiller RBoyd SAVarga 1!Kane MService DBVassallo FJWi 1 1 i ams
!IjlCiRoff (NRR-1211)
EHughes LDreher HDenton RHeineman VStello Your letter to the United States Nuclear Regulat y Commission (Commission) dated September 20, 1976, regardi the ownership of Nine t1ile Poi Nuclear Station - Unit 2 has been irected to this office for reply.
As n d in your letter, and confi d by us, there is a case pending before the New qrk State Public Service omission (NYSPSC) which involves an arrangement whhqeby Niagara Mohawk er Corporation and four other utilities wou1d becooe tenants in c n of the Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2. Hith+that backgro you requested answers to a number of questions related to the curren status of the construction permit for the facility. Our answers M each f your questions follow.
Initially, you inquired as to
~ ether the Niagara Hohawk Power Corporation has fully informed the CorImis ion f its intentions with regard to a change in the ownership of Nine Hil Point nuclear Station Unit 2. To date, we have not received forma notificat'.
However, we fully expect that this will be done if and en the final greement anIong the various utilities involved is approved by e NYSPSC.
He h e, however, been aware of the proposed modification the o1eership of N e Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 in connection
~ xth our construction pe it application reviews of the Rochester Gas ectric Corporation, et al, Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit 1 and e Long Island Lighting Comp et al, Jamesport Nuclear Power Station Uni 1 and 2.
Next you inquir as to whether the Comission has r ested and/or received documentation rom the other utilities which may be inv ved.
Re believe that until ch time as the formal agreement is approved the NYSPSC, such action on our part would be premature on the Nine labile point Nuclear Station Unit 2 docket.
But as noted above, documentation exists on the Sterling and Jamesport dockets.
OPPIC23P dURNAMRW OAT23P'orm ARC-318 (ReT. 9.33) hECM 0240 Q U, d. OOVRRNMRNT PRINTINO OPPIC211074 d2d Idd
~ ~ ~
Hs.ghirley A Brand You a1so requested whether the Coaeission has approved of any co-tenancy arrangement for the facility and why there were no public hearings.
Since there has been no formal request for an amendment to CPPR-112 the Commission has not approved of such an arrangement and there has been no opportunity for public hearings to consider the matter since the existing Construction Permit remains in effect.
Finally, you requested copies of pertinent correspondence and documents related to this natter.
The four letters which are enclosed represent, to the best of our knowledge, the only pertinent correspondence related to this matter on the Nine Nile Point-2 docket.
We are pleased to address your questions regarding this matter and hope'hat we have been responsive in this regard.
I Sincerely, I
'D.. Vassallo, Assistant Director or Light Water Reactors Division of Pro)ect Hanagement
Enclosures:
- 1. Ltr dtd 6/23/76 to G. K. Rhode from
. L. Toalsto
- 2. Ltr dtd 7/ll/76 f om Niagara Mohawk Porar t A. L. Toalston
- 3. Ltr dtd 10/24/
to G. K. Rhode from A. L.
alston
- 4. Ltr dtd 10/
/75 from G. K. Rhode to h.. L.
alston OPPIC6~
SVRNAMCW OATd&
DPI'
¹4 "I'"
14/
> /76 OE (c.
hatt 1III/ I /76 DPc L,t rg 11
/76 HRs/AD PBVassallo 11//
/7F Porm hEC 318 (Rer. 9.53) hZCM 0240 Q U, S. OOVSRNMSNT PRINTINO OPPICSI l074 ~ SSS 'ISS
0 as 4 E 4 '~
L
- kal 8
'lj
-1 d
4 e~A II
~
V I
i l
4 B.
4
~
I 4
0
/
/
1, I
TO:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission FROM: Shirley A ~ Brand
> Steering Committee
SUBJECT:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit ~2 SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF NEW YORK STATE R, D, 6, BOX Y6
luEW PALYE, NEW YORK 16661
<'///( f~
(914) +7~7 (914~ ~-71~8
~914~
~~f -" '87o~
v S.h~
Y'Q,,Ai
~'J~ZCZy September 20, 1976 c
D 50>>410 Case 27013 now pending before the View York State Public Service Commission is a petition by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Central Hudson Gas
% Electric Corp., Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric 8c Gas Corp.,
and Rochester Gas h Electric Corp for PSC approval of an agreement whereby the five companies would become tenants in common of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta-tion Unit ~2.
Construction permit CPPR-112 for this nuclear plant was issued to iViagara Mohawk Power Corporation by the then Atomic Energy Commis-sion on June 24, 1974.
At the time of the application for the per-mit and throughout subsequent hearings and approvals by the AEC, Niagara Mohawk was the sole applicant.
Questions and issues con-cerning the applicant's financial'capability, anti-trust implica-
- tions, need for the plant, alternatives, cost-benefit analysis and so on were.decided on the basis of data and testimony submitted by and concerning only the iViagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
On behalf of the Safe Energy Coalition of Ne.v York State, a federa-tion of over 60 environmental and consumer organizations from through-out the state and the service areas of each of the petitioners, I ask that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fully inform me as to the current status of the construction permit issued for the con-struction of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit ~2.
SpeciL-ically, has Niagara Mohawk fully informed the NRC of its drastical-ly altered circumstances and intentions in regard to Unit ~2
? Has the Vi RC requested and/ox received full documentation from Central
- Hudson, Long Island Lighting, iVew York State Electric 8c Gas and Rochester Gas h Electric in accordance with Parts 50-51 of the Com-mission's rules and regulations?
Has the NRC approved of the co<<
tenancy agreement? If so, why ;vere there no public. hearings?
I would appreciate copies of pertinent cozrespondance and documents so that we may more accurately review and assess the manner in which this situation has been handled.
Your prompt response will be appre-ciated.
Sincerely, 4
Shirley A. Brand RD 1
BOX 169XA
- Highland, New York 12528
0 4
~
~
pi r+~