ML20108D630
| ML20108D630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Deyoung R, Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105B503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8412130331 | |
| Download: ML20108D630 (4) | |
Text
'
f'"
").-
UNITED STATES i
i NUCLEAR REGULATOR,Y COMMISSION
,/
8
- i.,L wassmcToN. o c. 20sss
- ,.. :.. / J 'c.
- JMgy July 15,1983 s
- Q.. w-1
' MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. Denton, Director /NRR R.C. DeYoung, Director /IE R.B. Minogue, Director /RES Guy Cunningham, ELD FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM PANEL Attached is the list of issues that the Cuomo Commission will be addressing during its deliberations.
I discu'ssed these issues at the staff meeting this morning.
9 Will.ia J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Enclosure r
0331 90521
-250 AI
o 1
a.
7 Attnehed the general i:h r. rge de l i *. c re<! to the Shorcham Panel by I)r..'.larbt.rger at its f i r s t s e s.- i v.s.
There was unanimous agreement that t he: e are the generic issues which should be addressed.
The Panel has not developed a precise list of questions to answer.- This is an evolving process.
The Panel has established steering committccs on specific issues.
These committees are framing the issues and raising qu'estions for consideration by the Panel.
Questions have been developed by outsi.de parties.
While a pr:ecise list of specific questions has not.
been developed, this does not mean there is no consensus regarding what issues should be examined.
Among.the issues under review by the Panel and the steering committees are the following:
a) Safety:
i 1.
What are the nature and manner of risks associated with the operation of a nuclear power. plant?
2.
What are the nature and manner of risl:s associated with the ope. ration of the Shore. hum facility?
3.
Are there elements of the Shoreham f acility which make the nature and manner of risks associated with its operation di f ferent from those associated with nuclear plants generally?
4.
What are the requirements imposed by NRC and FEMA for off-site preparedness?
5.
What are the reasons why Suffolk County asserts that it is impossible to develop an adequate off-site preparedness plan?
6.
What are the essential di f ferences between LILCO's preparedness plan and the Suffolk County plan rejected by the County Legislature?
7.
What responsib'ility and authority docs the State have for off-site emergency preparedness?
Economic 4
4 g.--
, + - -
.r,
,-..-ee.
y
, -, - - - - =,
-e e
e-,
-+.y-
- -. =. -
o 1.
Assuming staulard rnte:ahing procedures, what. is the projected impact on Lil.CO's ratepayers if Shoreham should operate?
If Shorcht.m does not operate?
2.-
Assuming various scenaries for phasing-in the costs of Shoreham.(5 years, 10 years, etc.), what is the. projected impact on LILCO's ratepayers i f Shoreham should operate?
Would this be any dif ferent if Shoreham does not operate?
e
~
. Assuming that the PSC should-conclude 3.
that some portion of Shorcham's costs was imprudently incurred, and assuming both standard ratemaking procedures and various phase-in scenaries, what would be the impact on LILCO's ratepayers if Shorehna should operate?
If Shoreham should not operate?
4.
'Suffolk County officials have stated that it would cost LILCO ratepayers no more to keep Shorcham closed than it would to operate Shoreham.
What.are the bases for this conclusion?
. 5.
What is LILCO's current financial i
si*uation?- What are the amount and potential sources of revenue required to service.the debt on Shorcham and to enable LILCO to meet its normal operating costs?
6.
For financial reasons, should LILCO be s required to. divest i tself of its interest in Nine P.lile
=II?
How should this be done?
7.
In the event of LILCO's bankruptcy, what consequences would occur?
To shareholders?
Bondholders?
llatepayers?
8.
.Should consideration be given to creation of a public utility on Long Island to replace LILCO?
!!ow would this be done?
9.
Should PASNY be required to acquire Shoreham?
Should PASNY acquire additional LILCO facilitics?
Should PASNY replace LILCO?
What would be the economic consequences for ratepayers and local governments of such an actlon?
t 4
e-
..w
,,.-.,-,,.,,.,..-.,-,...cm,v.
,v.-+
,,,.y.---,g-,-
.,,,,w-+.g-,p
.v
, y
<yv~#,
1
.m...
10 Is it possihic to quantify the projected revenue it..p n e t s o n local governments and un Long Island's economy of these various scenarios?
c)
Energy 1.
What is the projected growth demand of the LILCO' service territory?
2.
Is Shoreham-needed to meet projected demand among LILCO customers?
3.
Is Shoreham necessary to increase reliability within LILCO's system?
~
4.
If additional power is needed to meet growth demand, and i f Shoreham should not operate, what alternative sources-of powcr are available?
5.
Should LILCO be required to convert some of its oil-fired facility to coal as a means of reducing rate increases?
G.
What are the transmission limitations upon the importation of additional power to Long Island?
7.
Assuming scenario 4, what role can conservation plan in reducing the demand tor additional power?
8.
Assuming that Shoreham does not operate, should the proposed Jamesport coal plant be revived?
.