ML20215G597

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Observing That While co-owners of Nuclear Generating Facility Required to Be Licensed to Own Facility,Nrc Only Licenses One Entity to Operate Facility. Few Licenses Have Differed from General Practice
ML20215G597
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom, Salem, Hope Creek, Limerick, 05000000
Issue date: 06/03/1983
From: Cunningham G
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To: Stoodley D
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20215G589 List:
References
NUDOCS 8706230312
Download: ML20215G597 (2)


Text

.-

PDR SEnb o 2ynd N O6C fi/6s W oY rnNB8 1

(-

June 3, 1983 Mr. Dale G. Stoodley General Counsel Delmarva Power & L.ight Company 800 King Street

{

-P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, DE 19899

Dear Mr. Stoodley:

This is in response to your letter of May 19. 1983. As you observed there.

while all co-owners of a nuclear generating facility are required to be licensed to own the facility it is and has been our general practice to license only one entity to operate a facility.

Although the precise formulations have differed from license to license, the Comission's customary form of license authorizes only one applicant to

" possess, use and operate" a given facility, while the others are authorized 1

merely to ' possess

  • tt. As you pointe:d out, some licenses recently issued.

for multiple-owner facilities expressly emphasize the " exclusive responsi-(-

bility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility' traditionally borne by the Ifcensed operator of a facility.

A few licenses over the years have differed from this general practice, d

depending on-the exact relationship among the parties. There are a few ceses in which the co-owners have been explicitly co-licensed to " possess'.

use and operate" the facility and in a few cases the " operating

  • licensee has been authorized to operate' the facility "on his own behalf and as agent for..." the' other owners. However in these unusual cases, the license -

itself is quite explicit.

Under our usuil form of license the entity licensed to " operate" has full responsibility for facility construction, operation and maintenance; a'.

co-owner -- licensed only to possess the facility -- may not operate-it and may not on its own authority assume any direct responsibility for f ts operation. including responsibility for the-selection of operating' staff. a determination of maintenance schedules and procedures, and execution of-plant maintenance, unless the operating license is amended by NRC to' authorize-that co-owner to become operator of the facility, or to undertake, on its own-authority, ary activities constituting operation of the plant.

It should be' recognized, however, that the licensee authorized to " operate" the facilitylthe " operator") may carry out its responsibilities thesugh thq use of employees.' agents or contractors.

There is no restriction preventingi 8706230312 a30519 PDR MISC 8706230312.

PDR

= '

1 Mr. Dale G. Stoodley j I

(-

the licensee authorized to operate from using personnel or facilities of another co-owner to carry out operating activities, as subcontractor or in some similar status subordinate to the Itcensee authorized to operate, f

provided such personnel or facilities, satisfy any applicable qualifi-cation reqdirements. Nevertheless, in such a case it is the owner licensed to operate that is responsible for assuring that such activities are carried out in compliance with the terms of the license and its techni-cal specifications, and all applicable NRC rules, regulations and orders.

Any modification of the operating organization described in the license and its technical specifications would require prior approval by MRC.

l

~

Sincerely.

OrignalMgisdhp.

Guy H. Cunningham,til Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director l

Office of the Executive Legal.

1 Director l

i e