ML20128L409
| ML20128L409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Chiles L SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128L411 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505310346 | |
| Download: ML20128L409 (10) | |
Text
'
Q ctg ff, Q\\
UNITED STATES y
/'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
/.' l WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
(.....,/
MAY 2 01985 The Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senate Federal Building l
Lakeland, Florida 33801
Dear Senator Chiles:
Your letter of April 19, 1985, addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been referred to me for response. Attached to your letter was a letter dated April 5,1985, from your constituent, Mr. Phillip Crenshaw, in which he expressed his view that local politics in Suffolk County, New York, are preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from going on line. You have requested our comments on his statement.
Suffolk County's opposition to the operation of the Shoreham plant is well known, having received considerable public attention during the past few years. Suffolk County, with the support of the State of New York, has opposed Shoreham's application for an operating license in NRC adminis-trative hearings, and has sought to block the licensing of the plant in State and Federal courts.
Cvider.tiary hearings related to the the Shoreham operating license appli-cation were initiated pursuant to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and have now been largely completed. For example, hearings were held to consider the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness for the plant, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. G 50.47. Suffolk County and the State of New York refused to participate in planning for an offsite protective response in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and LILCO submitted its own offsite plan for consideration by the Commission, pursuant to the author-ity provided by three successive NRC Authorization Acts. The adequacy of LILCO's offsite plan was challenced by Suffolk County and the State of New York, and lengthy evidentiary hearings were conducted.
In April 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a Partial Initial Decision resolving most of the emergency planning issues. The ASLB found that LILC0's offsite emergency plan generally meets the requirements of the Commission's regulations but, as was recently held by a New York State trial court, LILC0 lacks the legal authority, under New York State law, to implement that plan. The ASLB's Partial Initial Decision has been appealed both by LILC0 and by Suffolk County and the State of New York. Those appeals will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, whose decision may then be reviewed by the Commission.
It would be inappropriate at this time for the Commission to comment on the correctness of the ASLB's decision.
8505310346 850520 PDR ADOCK 05000322 F
PDR e
O One offsite emergency planning issue remains to be litigated before the ASLB, and a decision is then expected to be issued as to whether, pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.47, LILCO's emergency plan provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in the event of an emergency, such that a full power operating license may be authorized.
The Commission has granted LILCO's request that it be permitted to load fuel and to conduct cold criticality testing at levels of up to.001 percent of power. LILC0 has also requested that the plant be permitted to ascend to five percent of rated power, which request is currently the subject of administrative hearings, which presently involve consideration of Suffolk County's assertion that inadequate security arrangements have been made to assure the protection of onsite power sources, which would be called upon to provide emergency power for the plant in the event of a loss of offsite power.
In addition, administrative hearings have been conducted to consider the County and State's contention that LILC0's onsite power sources are inadequate, and a decision on that issue may be issued in the near future.
Sincerely, (S'g.aD WJhm J.B!ffi William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
ED0 #000606 SECY #85-381 0CA Docket File PDR LPDR WDircks JRoe TRehm HDenton J Taylor TMurley, Reg. I GCunningham EChristenbury STurk Chron
@h.
BBordenick JGutierrez, Reg. I gh RCaruso, NRR VStello g/f ELD FF 3
f
- 0 ELD J_
- 0 ELD fx
- ELD A hf/'
- EDO 7
0FC
- 0 ELD
_____: ____C p p______:________
s F,
V LM NAME :BMBordenick:ll
- SETurk
- ESChristenbury
- GHCunningham
- WJD s
.DATE :5/t6/85
- 5/ W/85
- 5//r/85
- 5/N /85
- 5/jf/85
r-i
[
4 UNITED STATES hJ 's @ /). j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55
.s
\\*#.
MAY 2 0 W The Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senate Federal Building Lakeland, Florida 33801
Dear Senator Chiles:
Your letter of April 19, 1985, addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been referred to me for response. Attached to your letter was a letter dated April 5,1985, from your constituent, Mr. Phillip Crenshaw, in which he expressed his view that local politics in Suffolk County, New York, are preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from going on line. You have requested our comments on his statement.
Suffolk County's opposition to the operation of the Shoreham plant is well known, having received considerable public attention during the past few years. Suffolk County, with the support of the State of New York, has opposed Shoreham's application for an operating license in NRC adminis-trative hearings, and has sought to block the licensing of the plant in State and Federal courts.
Evidentiary hearings related to the the Shoreham operating license appli-cation were initiated pursuant to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and have now been largely completed. For example, hearings were held to consider the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness for the plant, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47. Suffolk County and the State of Ncv York refused to participate in planning for an offsite protective response in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and LILCO submitted its own offsite plan for consideration by the Commission, pursuant to the author-ity provided by three successive NRC Authorization Acts. The adequacy of LILC0's offsite plan was challenced by Suffolk County and the State of New York, and lengthy evidentiary hearings were conducted.
In April 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a Partial Initial Decision resolving most of the emergency planning issues. The ASLB found that LILCO's offsite emergency plan generally meets the requirements of the Commission's regulations but, as was recently held by a New York State trial court, LILC0 lacks the legal authority, under New York State law, to implement that plan. The ASLB's Partial Initial Decision has been appealed both by LILC0 and by Suffolk County and the State of New York. Those appeals.
will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, whose decision may then be reviewed by the Commission.
It would be inappropriate at this time for the Commission to comment on the correctness of the ASLB's decision.
l One offsite emergency planning issue remains to be litigated before the ASLB, and a decision is then expected to be issued as to whether, pursuant to 10 CFR 9 50.47, LILC0's emergency plan provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in the event of an emergency, such that a full power operating license may be authorized.
The Commission has granted LILCO's reauest that it be permitted to load fuel and to conduct cold criticality testing at levels of up to.001 percent of power. LILC0 has also requested that the plant be permitted to ascend to five percent of rated power, which request is currently the subject of administrative hearings, which presently involve consideration of Su.ffolk County's assertion that inadequate security arrangements have been made to assure the protection of onsite power sources, which would be called upon to provide emergency power for the plant in the event of a loss of offsite power.
In addition, administrative hearings have been conducted to consider the County and State's contention that LILC0's onsite power sources are inadequate, and a decision on that issue may be issued in the near future.
Sincerely, IS%ntU Mliam }. Ditch William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
_ DISTRIBUTION:
ED0 #000606 SECY #85-381 0CA Docket File W
LPDR WDircks JRoe TRehm HDenton J Tay1or TMurley, Reg. I GCunningham EChristenbury STurk Chron BBordenick JGutierrez, Reg. I RCaruso, NRR VStello ELD FF 3
- _C [
______l b_l____________l______
NAME :BMBordenic :11
- SETurk
- ESChristenbury
- GHCunningham
- WJDircks DATE :5/t6/85
- 5/ W/85
- 5/)k /85
- 5/N/85
- 5/ /85
p.wouq cy_
h UNITED STATES y(',,
(g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,Mj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..c
/
MAY 2 01985 t
}
The Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senate Federal Building-Lakeland, Florida 33801
Dear Senator Chiles:
Your letter of April 19, 1985, addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been referred to me for response. Attached to your letter was a letter dated April 5,1985, from your constituent, Mr. Phillip Crenshaw, in which he expressed his view that local politics in Suffolk County, New York, are preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from going on line. You have requested our comments on his statement.
Suffolk County's opposition to the operation of the Shoreham plant is well known, having received considerable public attention during the past few years. Suffolk County, with the support of the State of New York, has opposed Shoreham's application for an operating license in NRC adminis-trative hearings, and has sought to block the licensing of the plant in State and Federal courts.
Evidentiary hearings related to the the Shoreham operating license appli-cation were initiated pursuant to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and have now been largely completed. For example, hearings were held to consider the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness for the plant, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47. Suffolk County and the State of New York refused to participate in planning for an offsite protective response in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and LILC0 submitted its own offsite plan for consideration by the Commission, pursuant to the author-ity provided by three successive NRC. Authorization Acts. The adequacy of LILC0's offsite plan was challenaed by Suffolk County and the State of New York, and lengthy evidentiary hearings were conducted.
In April 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a Partial Initial Decision resolving most of the emergency planning issues. The ASLB found that LILCO's offsite emergency plan generally meets the requirements of the Coninission's regulations but, as was recently held by a New York State trial court, LILC0 lacks the legal authority, under New York State law, to implement that plan. The ASLB's Partial Initial Decision has been appealed both by LILC0 and by Suffolk County and the State of New York. Those appeals will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, whose decision may then be reviewed by the Commission.
It would be inappropriate at this time for the Commission to comment on the correctness of the ASLB's decision.
---...,,nr y-
,m.,,
s One offsite emergency planning issue remains to be litigated before the ASLB, and a decision is then expected to be issued as to whether, pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.47, LILC0's emergency plan provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in the event of an emergency, such that a full power operating license may be authorized.
The Commission has granted LILCO's request that it be permitted to load fuel and to conduct cold criticality testing at levels of up to.001 percent of power. LILC0 has also requested that the plant be permitted to ascend to five percent of rated power, which request is currently the subject of administrative hearings, which presently involve consideration of Suffolk County's assertion that inadequate security arrangements have been made to assure the protection of onsite power sources, which would be called upon to provide emergency power for the plant in the event of a loss of offsite power.
In addition, administrative hearings have been conducted to consider the County and State's contention that LILC0's onsite power sources are inadequate, and a decision on that issue may be issued in the near future.
Sincerely, 5' W lina}.Bircy William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
ED0 #000606 SECY #85-381 OCA Docket File PDR MR-WDircks JRoe TRehm HDenton J Tay1or TMurley, Reg. I GCunningham EChristenbury STurk Chron BBordenick JGutierrez, Reg. I RCaruso, NRR VStello ELD FF 3
_ _ l _ _C,fd
______l b _: __ __ _________ _ ____ /
NAME :BMBordenic :11
- SETurk
- ESchristenbury
- GHCunningham
- WJDircks DATE :5/t6/85
- 5/1b/85
- 5/)k /85
- 5/N /85
- 5/ /85
p%
f UNITED STATES 8 '
- s- [gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
[ /e j WASHi*:GTON, D. C. 20555 o
MAY 2 01985 The Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senate Federal Building Lakeland, Florida 33801
Dear Senator Chiles:
Your letter of April 19, 1985, addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been referred to me for response. Attached to your letter was a letter dated April 5,1985, from your constituent, Mr. Phillip Crenshaw, in which he expressed his view that local politics in Suffolk County, New York, are preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from going on line. You have requested our comments on his statement.
Suffolk County's opposition to the operation of the Shoreham plant is well known, having received considerable public attention during the past few years. Suffolk County, with the support of the State of New York, has opposed Shoreham's application for an operating license in NRC adminis-trative hearings, and has sought to block the licensing of the plant in State and Federal courts.
Evidentiary hearings related to the the Shoreham operating license appli-cation were initiated pursuant to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and have now been largely completed. For example, hearings were held to consider the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness for the plant, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47. Suffolk County and the State of New York refused to participate in planning for an offsite protective response in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, and LILC0 submitted its own offsite plan for consideration by the Comission, pursuant to the author-ity provided by three successive NRC Authorization Acts. The adequacy of LILC0's offsite plan was challenoed by Suffolk County and the State of New York, and lengthy evidentiary hearings were conducted.
In April 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a Partial Initial Decision resolving most of the emergency planning issues. The ASLB found that LILC0's offsite emergency plan generally meets the requirements of the Commission's regulations but, as was recently held by a New York State trial court, LILC0 lacks the legal authority, under New York State law, to implement that plan. The ASLB's Partial Initial Decision has been appealed both by LILC0 and by Suffolk County and the State of New York. Those appeals will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, whose decision may then be reviewed by the Comission.
It would be inappropriate at this time for the Commission to comment on the correctness of the ASLB's decision.
L i
One offsite emergency planning issue remains to be litigated before the ASLB, and a decision is then expected to be issued as to whether, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.47, LILC0's emergency plan provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in the event of an emergency, such that a full power operating license may be authorized.
The Commission has granted LILCO's reauest that it be permitted to load fuel and to conduct cold criticality testing at levels of up to.001 percent of power. LILC0 has also requested that the plant be permitted to ascend to five percent of rated power, which request is currently the subject of administrative hearings, which presently involve consideration of Su.ffolk County's assertion that inadequate security arrangements have been made to assure the protection of onsite power sources, which would be called upon to provide emergency power for the plant in the event of a loss of offsite power.
In addition, administrative hearings have been conducted to consider the County and State's contention that LILC0's onsite power sources are inadequate, and a decision on that issue may be issued in the near future.
Sincerely, 15iped) William L Bircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
EDO #000606 SECY #85-381 L 0CA Decker File PDR LPDR WDircks JRoe TRehm HDenton J Taylor TMurley, Reg. I GCunningham EChristenbury STurk Chron BBordenick JGutierrez, Reg. I RCaruso, NRR VStello ELD FF
_ c, d
b _:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. f
.. _ _ I.
.__f______________
_C,fkiV____f s
.__f NAME:BMBordenic1:ll
- SETurk
- ESChristenbury
- GHCunningham
- WJDircks DATE :5/t6/85
- 5/lb/85
- 5/#/85
- 5//,(/85
- 5/ /85
r-(o,,
UNITED STATES
.[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*****/
.EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:
DUE: 05/20/85 EDO CONTROL: 000606 DOC DT: 04/19/85 SEN. LAWTON CHILES FINAL REPLY:
TO:
ROWDEN
.FOR'SIONATURE OF GREEN SECY NO: 85-381 EXE.CUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:
ROUTINO:
ENCLOSES l LETTER FROM PHILLIP CRENSHAW RE DRICKS REGULATIONS & LOCAL POLITICES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY ROE NOT ALLOWING SHOREHAM TO GO ON LINE REHM STELLO DATE: 05/06/85 DENTON ASSIGNED TO: ELD CONTACT: CUNNINOHAM TAYLOR MURLEY.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
O2
=
Sen Lawton Chiles CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
.SECY NUMBER:
85-381 LOGGING DATE:
5/6/85 0FFICE OF THE SECRETARY ACTION OFFICE:
ED0
, AUTHOR:
Sen Lawton Chiles--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
Phillip Crenshaw LETTER DATE:
4/19/85
FILE CODE:
A00RESSEE:
NRC SUSJECT:
Regs and local politics in connection with participation of NY State auth at Suffolk ACTION:
Direct Reply... Suspense: May 15 O!$TRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING:
None SIGNATURE DATE:
FOR THE COPMISSION:
Champ I
t EDO 000606 l
Rec'd Of lg. g s'N.,
net...
no..
~~ ~- e
,.g'$ %
.