ML20207F957
| ML20207F957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Downey T, Hochbrueckner, Mrazek R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207F962 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6942 OL-3, NUDOCS 8808230324 | |
| Download: ML20207F957 (9) | |
Text
_. ~ _..
p
!E h
[
Distribution UNITED STATES 3%
't, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Stello WButler j,..{da.,., j ayIor OGC WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
\\.7.'.9
!!8?
5I CHAIRMAN 9UI 2
Murley/Sniezek p
Miraglia
=
The Honorable George Hochbrueckner PDI-1 Reading lill United States House of Representatives Varga Washington, D.C.
20515 Boger DMossburg
Dear Congressman Hochbrueckner:
Beverly Clayton M0'Brien I am respondirg to the letter of August 5, 1988, in which you and Representatives Mrazek and Downey urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to discontinue the licensing process for the dhorehamNuclearPowerStation)
The NRC has before it applications for a full power operating license and for operation at reduced power levels (up to 25% of W
full power) filed by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO).
4 Neither application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
The
'F Commission notes that the pending agreement between the State of k -
New York and LILC0 does not constitute a formal request for i t-withdrawal of the license application.
Moreover, absent the 4
agreement actually becoming effective, we do not understand LILCO g
to have made a permanent pledge not to operate the Shoreham facility if a license should eventually be issued.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act Section 558, regulatory agencies such as the NRC have an obligation to continue licensing pro-E ceedings and work to reach a decision within a reasonable period 3
of time.
Therefore, pending any change in the applicant's position, the Commission believes that it would be inappropriate a;3 under these circumstances to terminate the Shoreham licensing
- t proceeding.
I have enclosed our responses to the specific questions you Ef4 raised.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
- 4 i%
Sincerely, h (A/.
Lando W. Ze
, Jr (Originated by WButler, NRR)
I t
i E
/
b b
k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
h.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 J
August 18, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert J. Mrazek United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Mrazek:
I am responding to the letter of August 5, 1988, in which you and Representatives Hochbrueckner and Downey urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to discontinue the licensing process for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The NRC hcs before it applications for a full power operating license and for operation at reduced power levels (up to 25% of full power) filed by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO).
Neither application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
The Commission notes that the pending agreement between the State of New York and LILCO does not constitute a formal request for withdrawal of the license application.
Moreover, absent the agreement actually becoming effective, we do not understand LILCO to have made a permanent pledge not to operate the Shoreham facility if a license should eventually be issued.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 558, regulatory agencies such as the NRC have an obligation to continue licensing pro-ceedings and work to reach a decision within a reasonable period of time.
Therefore, pending any change in the applicant's position, the Commission believes that it would be inappropriate under these circumstances to terminate the Shoreham licensing proceeding.
I have enclosed our responses to the specific questions you raised.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
'a lA).
Lando W. Ze
. Jr.
anno \\"g u
/
UNITED STATES 8%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
{,
I wAsamGTON, D C. 205$5 t
/
t l
cH AIRM AN August 18, 1988 The Honorable Thomas J. Downey r
United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Downey:
I am responding to the letter of August 5, 1988, in which you and Representatives Hochbrueckner and Mrazek urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to discontinue the licensing process for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The NRC has before it applications for a full power operating license and for operation at reduced power levels (up to 25% of full power) filed by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO).
Neither application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
The Commission notes that the pending agreement between the State of New York and LILCO does not constitute a formal request for withdrawal of the license application.
Moreover, absent the agreement actually becoming effective, we do not understand LILCO to have made a permanent pledge not to operate the Shoreham facility if a license should eventually be issued.
Under the i
Administrative Procedure Act, Section 558, regulatory agencies such as the NRC have an obligation to continue licensing pro-ceedings and work to reach a decision within a reasonable period of time.
Therefore, pending any change in the applicant's position, the Commission believes that it would be inappropriate under these circumstances to terminate the Shoreham licensing proceeding.
I have enclosed our responses to the specific questions you raised.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
[@
(A/.
Lando W. Zech, r.
i.
. QUESTION 1.
What is the legal basis for considering a license application where the applicant has pledged not to use the license?
ANSWER.
PursuanttotheAdministrativeProcedureAct.5U.S.C.sec.558(c),theNRC, like other regulatory agencies that receive an application for a license required by law, must set and complete its proceedings, and reach its decisions en license applications before it, within a reasonable time.
The copies of the agreement between New York State and the licensee provided to NRC by the Long Island Lighting Company indicate a very limited agreement on operation of the Shoreham facility. LILC0 has agreed, in p.2 of the Settlement Agreement, not to operate Shoreham provided the Settlement Agreement becomes effective without modification within 90 days of its filing with the New York PSC (or the limited extension provided for at p.13).
This conditional suspension of operation dees not constitute a withdrawal of the company's application for a license pending before NRC, and LILC0 has explicitly indicated that it intends to actively participate in the licensing process until the settlement conditions are satisfied. Thus, there remains pending before the NRC for licensing decision the applicant's request for a license to operate the Shoreham facility at full power as well as an application for operation at a more limited power level (25% of full pcwer).
l
. QUESTION 2.
Putting aside the legal question, please explain the policy and fiscal considerations, if any, that make it appropriate for the NRC to continue active consideration of LILCO's license application.
In this regard, it is not responsive merely to state that it is LILCO's desire to continue its consideration of LILC0's application.
ANSWER.
The NRC has before it LILC0's application for an operating license for its Shoreham facility.
This application has undergone extensive staff evaluation over the course of the past thirteen years. Only the hearing phases on a limited number of issues remain to be completed.
Since June 16, 1988, the rate of expenditure has been minimal and is needed to conserve the work already accomplished.
Since there is some uncertainty that the agreement in principle will in fact be implemented, we believe it is prudent to complete the record of the proceeding.
The staff also initiated in June 1988 an effort to define needed staff activities and associated resources to deal with the potential change in ownership of the Shoreham Station, including its ultimate decommissioning.
Resources are being spent on this activity, i
I i
L
4 Question 2.(continued).
The NRC's regulations call for the payment of fees for recovery of its licensing expenditures.
In this regard, LILCO has paid to the U.S. Treasury more than $3,000,000 to support its operating license application.
i 1
I f
f l
.00ESTION 3.
How many staff hears n-VM NRC expended in regard to LILCO's license applicat'an a nr ted matters during the period June 16-August 5 toa 6,ow many staff hours do you project that the NRC will devote to these matters in the period August S-September 23?
ANSWER.
The NRC staff has expended the following resources related te LILCO's license application for the requested periods:
June 16 to August 5 August 6 to September 23 (Estimated Expenditures)
(Projected Expenditures) 960 staff hours 570' staff hours (0.5staffyears)
(0.3staffyears)
These incurred and projected expenditures do not include estimates for Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, which do not maintain records in a form that would permit a direct response to inqt:iries in terms of hours expended for particular cases.
i
. QUESTION 4.
What is the dollar cost to the NRC, including personnel costs, that have been incurred in the period June 16-August 5 in connection with LILCO's application and related matters, and what are the expected costs for the period August 5-September 23?
ANSWER.
The dollar cost incurred by the NRC staff including personnel cost, related to LILCO's license application activities for the requested periods are:
June 16 to August 5 August 6 to September 23 (Estimated Cost)
(Projected C0st)
Personnel cost *
$59.520
$35,340 Othar cost 0
0 TOTAL
$59,520
$35,340
- This cost is based on an assumed rate of $62 per staff hour These costs do not include estimates for Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board which do not maintain records in a form that would permit a direct response to this inquiry.
1 As noted in the answer to Question 2, these costs are subject to NRC regula-tions on payn.ent of fees to recover licensing expenditures.
= -
M.
UNITEJ 8TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO wA6MINGTON, D. C. 20666
- es,,e EDO Princioal Correspondence Control FROM DUE: 08/11/88 EDO CONTROL: 0003876 DOC DT: 08/05/88 FINAL REPLY:
REP. GEORG"d HOCHBRUECKNER REP. ROBERT J. MRAZEK REP. THOMAS J.
DOWNEY TO:
CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE OF:
ROUTING:
DESC:
QUESTIONS RE LICENSING PROCESS FOR SHOREHAM STELLO TAYLOR HOYLE DATE: 08/09/88 RUSSELL, RI ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
MURL.EL._
JdRS MURRAY OGC SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
PROVIDE IN O & A FORMAT TO EDO VIA 5520.
A003,P 9, 1988 IRR RDCEIYCD:
T 1
ACTION:
DRPR VARGA IRR ROUTING:
PURLEY/SNICZEK MIRAGLIA MARTIN GILLCSPIC MOSS!URG t
(
>