ML19345G619
| ML19345G619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cohalan P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104070624 | |
| Download: ML19345G619 (2) | |
Text
.
f MAR 311981 Mr. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Veterans Hew.orial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787
Dear Mr. Cohalan:
I am pleased to respond to your letter, dated February 10, 1981, to former l
Chairmar Ahearne, concerning our review of the application for an operating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This licensing action is under consideration by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Since any decisions or rulings by the Board are subject to review by the Comission, it would not be appropriate for the Ccmissioners to coment on the details of the review at this time.
Your letter indicates that the County of Suffolk is o " neutral" intervenor in the Shoreham proceeding and that paramount to your approach, as County Executive, is your concern that this plant must, in the first instance, be proven to be absolutely compatible with public health and safety of the citizens of Long Island. You then indicate that you are also concerned that the licensing proceeding not lag behind the actual construction of the plant, since to have the plant physically complete without the licent,ing proceeding being complete would be a disservice to the ratepayers of the County.-
l I share your approach and concerns. As you know, it is the primary concern l-and responsibility of the NRC to assure that licensed nuclear power plants provide a high degree of assurance of protection to the public health and safety. This is my principal concern in connection with Shoreham and all other licensed nuclear plants.
For Shoreham, the staff expects to issue a Safety Evaluation Report within the next few days. Our thorough comprehensive review of the safety of this plant will be completed June, at which time the staff Supplement to Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) would be issued. This means that our comprehensive safety review on this schedcle would be completed well before the expected completion of construction of Shoreham in September, 1982. Thus, as you will note, but for the hearing process, the licensing decision could be completed well before the construction completion date.
However, as you also know, licensing of nuclear power plants is subject to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act concerning the opporturity for interested persons to request a herring prior to the issuance of the l
operating licanse. Due to the formal procedural nature of the adjudicatory hearing process, completian of hearing prior to completion of licensing may take months after the completion of the staff SSER. Unfortunately, this may l.
mean that the licensing process will not be complete when the construction i) of the Shoreham facility is complete.
l:
9104070624
""c4;.
"""k....
' L car d r
i uc rew s,e cc amcu c:*c OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
" * - ~
~ _
~
E 4
I Mr. Peter F. Cohalan While the County of Suffolk has always had the opportunity to pursue the Ccunty's concerns by formal participation in the adjudicatory hearing process, I believe that safety concerns that the county officials may have can much more expeditiously be resolved in a satisfactory fashion by continuing infomal discussions with the staff.
In these discussions, the County's concerns have been brought directly to our reviewers' attention before the staff review is complete and these have been factored into our review. The staff has infomed me that the County has in fact been quite cooperative in this regard, and, as a result, a number of concerns the County had at the cutset of the hearing process have already been resolved by these fomal discussions.
In connection with your concern about potential delays in the Shoreham plant, let ne personally again, on behalf of the staff urge you to wort with us on a close infomal basis so that all or most, of the County's concerns can be satisfactorily resolved by an infomal discussion process without the need to resort to the 'nore time and resource consuming formal process of adjudicatory hearings.
I am sure that these infomal cooperative discussions between the HRC staff and the County can go a long way to resolve the County's concerns l'aving few, if any, issues between the staff and the County to be resol ved in the adjudicatory process. Resolution of the County's concerns in this expeditious fashion we believe can have a significant effect on expediting the completion of hearings for the Shoreham facility so as not to impact on start up of operations at Shoreham at the appropriate time.
Sincerely, orignat signed by R. R. Dantes Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l' l,
l t
- SEE PREVIOUS WHITES FOR OTHER CONCURRENCES & CORRECTIONS
" M.NRR:
J,,,
- sua=r>!.HDe n/.1..s..
I Nl...
OFFICIAL idCORD COPY sac r:au m ne..cm.cu cun
- " w-A
i I
Per our discussion the other day -- is this what you had in mind? If so, I will have Wilson and Bordnik put in final and move along.
Joe Scinto March 24,1981 1e" -(,
i
.5f26 i
I i
f 1
- -. es se ss M ev,'
~s B
y 9
N g
- s.
O
Mr. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787
Dear Mr. Cohalan:
l l
I am pleased to respond to your letter dated February 10, 1981, to fomer Chairman Ahearne, concerning our review of the applicaticn for an operating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This licensing action is under consideration by an Atomic Sefety and Licensing Board. Since any decisions or rulings by the Board are subject to review by the Comission, it would not be approp iate for the Commissioners to coer.ent on the details of the review at this time.
Your letter specifies that the County of Suffolk is a " neutral' intervenor in the Shoreham proceeding. However, a party to the proceeding, the Ccunty submitted 136 cor.tentions for the operating license hearing. Over the past two years rapresen*.atives of the NRC, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), and the County have met.nany times in informal discovery to consider these issues. After five stipulations among these parties, 74 contentions still remain and an unspecified number of THI-related contentions may also be proffered by the County. To engage in further discovery, negotiation, i
stipula* ion,'and litigation of these remaining issues will place a large burden on the NRC's already strained resources that have been assigned L
to this project. Further, the great number of your contentions that remain l
will undoubteGy result in protracted hearings and a longer tw to reach a decision.
Now, at this late point in the Shoreham proceeding, you are requesting that the kRC expedite its review of the application for an operatinC license for l
ShorehJa and promptly issue the Safety Evaluation Report. Obviously, your two positions have opposite effects; that is, on the one hand the large number of contentions you have raised as an intervenor will result in a longer time for the hearing process and an NRC decision, and, en the other hand, as the Suffolk County Executive yeu have requested that the NRC expedite the same decision making process. L'ntil your intentions are clarified, the NRC cannot respond to what appears to be the opposing demands placed on it by the County of Suffolk.
Concerning your statement regarding rapidly increasing utility bills and your related desire for a prompt decision on the nuclear plant, we suggest that the most effective method esf achieving this objective is f ar the County i
- ' ~
4 c
._.4
~
Mr. Peter F. Cohalan to promptly begin negotiations with LILCO in hopes of resolving its safety concerns.
If LILCO can resolve these concerns regarding the safe operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station without time consuming discussions in the hearing, itself, the Shoreham operating license application can proceed to a more rapid decision.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
(
1 f
h.
J y{n f
- SEEPREVf(USWHITEFORCONCURRENCE v
c"'c r >.;
31..
.D. L.. :.D..I.R..*......
.NR..R..: D. I R.........
""'>%4,. son /.ls..DEisenbut*.... HDetttao.......
'" > P/.123al....p/.../.81,...
. p/,,/81
. i...
Na: rc aw m oo.eomacu cado OFFICIAL RECORD COPY emm
- l COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I
I l
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETrn F. CoHALAN JOHN C. GALUGHER surroux couwry exrcumc cmcr ocav v February 10, 1981 t
John Ahearne, Chairman occKETED U. S. Nuclear Regubtory Commission
/
usrne Washington, D. C.
20555 pg { 7 g p Re:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station D 0"a h. W Unit 1 - Docket No. 50-222 WM*
e~
O E$
Dear Mr. Ahearne:
ega uoh As you probably know, the County of Suffolk is an active party intervenor in the operating licensing procedures currently pending before~the m.
- l Atomic Licensing Safety Board regarding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
3 As intervenor, the County has, through its attorneys and technical experts, been actively engaged in discovery, negotiation, and stipulations with reference
.s to what we perceive to be possible safety issues regarding the Shoreham facility.
a: o The schedule date for issuance of the Shoreham SER was originally ao E"
December 1980. We are now informed that your staff's report to the Bevill Sub.-
dy comittee under date November 21, 1980, indicates a June 1981 appearance date oe for that SER, or an additional delay of six months, for which no explantion has u%
been offered.
In addition, the County feels that the Staff's suggestion that 27, the OL hearings for Shoreham will only take 4 months (November 1981 to March o
1982) is at best highly speculative and not in keeping with what I feel will be 8.
a well-researched and wel7-presented argument regarding the safety aspects of
" l; Shorene.m by the intervenors.
.8 To clarify the record, the County of Suffolk is at this point specifically a " neutral intervenor".
Paramount in my approach to the Shoreham ag Nuclear Power Station is the concept that this plant, must, in the first instance, be proven to be absolutely compatible with the public health and safety of the c.
citizens of Long Island.
I am further concerned that the licensing hearings by your Agency not lag behind the actual construction of the plant, since to have the plant physically complete without the OL hearings also being complete, would be a disservice not only to the Company, but also to the ratepayers of the County.
In recent months, the fuel cost adjustment, which under New York law is automatically passed on to the ratepayers, has been decreasing dramatically.
Many of our ratepayers have found their utility bills increasing at the alarm-ing rate of 50% monthly, due to the fuel cost adjustment. LILC0 believes the Shoreham Plant, when operable, will relieve part of this financial burden caused by spiraling world oil prices. The SER, in my judgment, is essential and should be released promptly so that final decisions can be made regarding the entire project.
w CTE R ANS *8 E**caH AL MMW A Y e
M AUP* AUGC.N.Y.10 797 e
596 3644000
~-
~
i John Ahearne,' Chaiman February 10, 1981 Page Two May I raq<
.aa you and your Staff give this raatter imediate consideration to the end that the SER be issued within the next few weeks.
T-Sincerely yours.
G PETER F. COHALAN COUNTY EXECUTIVE PFC:pl cc:
Honorable Noman. F. Lent Mr. W. O. Uh1 Mr. I. L. Freilicher L
4 er I
L i
e I
e
_--m--'--
t A
.4F'<
QCTIOPS rON TROL DATES CONTROL WO 10157 F ROM:
C MPL E AOLINE Peter F. Cohalan, County Executive AC KNOW LEDGM ENT DATE OF DOCUMENT 2-10-81 INTERIM REPLY PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO:
FINAL REPLY ypyg Chairman Ahearne FILE LOCATIDN
/
O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
/
/
OTHER:
OPMIOM DESCRIPTION l$i LETTER OMEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Urges Cornission to issue Shoreham SER Do not answer until Chaimn replies to Rep. Udall (10079) and Rep. Lent (10090).
Suspense date will be est211shed at that time.
CLASSIFIED DATA OOCUMENT/ COPY NO.
CLASslFICATIONl NUMBER OF PAGEs CATEGORY PostAt REGISTRY NO.
O Nsl O ao O Fao SECY 81-0197 AS$1GNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW O FINAL O COPv Denton 2-19-81 DirCks Case ASslGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS Eisenbut 2/19/81 Cornell DentOn 4.
Murley 0E oMin a COR REs en
'[# dOJ/13 d)p;h7/ _
Rehm 1.
PPAS 5.
Snyder ext. ~
8 f d f,_
v g/.V/#I Shapar 2.
Hanuaers-Vollmer COcuENTS. NOTIFY:
EXT.
Eh-46 JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
O YEs O No Stello 3.
ROSS V tuum hf si>
NRC FdRM 2d EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE TH/S COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL f~
l d
+
Y
',i :*
q Ah;
+'k,
{
r
- .,.g S
s
, gytpf fr j
' -Q*
.s l
i
(( y.
(
-s...
7*
'4 g
d k., *
~
] J..
[
-- i i
t 4
e-f g
,,w a
ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO10157 FROM:
COMPL DEADURE Peter F. Cohalan, County Executive ACMNOWLEDGMENT DA TE OF DOCUMENT 2-10-81 INTERIM REPLv PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO:
d FINAL REPLY /f/ fj g g
/ I O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FILE LOCAT16N'j/g y/ 9 /
Chairman Ahearne Danton
@ LETTER OMEMo O REPORT O OTHER Urges Comission to issue Shoreham SER Do not answer until Chainnan replies to Rep. Udall (10079) and Rep. Lent (10090).
Suspense date will be established at that time.
CLASSIFIED DATA COCUMENT/ COPY NO.
CLASSIFICATION l NUMBE9 0F PAGES CATEGORY POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
O NSI O Ro O rRo SECY S1-0197 ASSIGNED TO:
SATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVtEW O FINAL G COPY NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS DentOn 2-1s-81 Dircks Case ASSIGNED TO:
OATE-Eisenbut 2/19/81 Cornell Denton 4.
Murley 0E OMIN & CORRES BP
'/B dOJA7) 4)M/fL Rehm 1.
PPAS 5.
Snyder Exy.
4/.uyg/
Shapar 2.
Hanuaer6. Vollmer COMMENTS NOTIFY:
fjSf_ _
~
EXT.
%D^
Stello 3.
Ross Y (liu a h[1)@i } M JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENOED:
O vES O NO NRCF AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY PRINCIPA_L CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL S
I J
G
E GREEri TICKET #10157 DISTRIBUTION: *w/ incoming TERA NRC/PDR*
L/PDR*
ED0 Rdg LB#1 Rdg*
HDenton/ECase DEisenhut/RPurple TMurley FSchroeder JYoungblood JWilson MRushbrook*
4s\\' 'ro RVc11mer
/
Ov (hf y NWJL f j,f) ('f OELD 1
GErtter(ED0#10157) j l
W. 0 li9815 [g e esco's SECY LStowers
"Qyar,7' OIE(3)
N
.(J/
PPAS Rdg t / j, - I-7.f\\/
6' Dross SCavanaugh SECY (3) (81-0197)
WDircks KCorn.ll TRehm W,hapar VStello SHanauer BSnyder l
h l