ML20235U621
| ML20235U621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bianchi I, Harenberg P, Robert Sweeney, Yevoli L NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235U623 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903090290 | |
| Download: ML20235U621 (6) | |
Text
E T
- ~
' +-
n ne:
Taylor (/
/
o UNITED STATES Blaha 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thompson o
- f i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ED0-4201 f
Murley o,'%*****#
March 2, 1989 Sniezek SVarga CHAIRMAN SBrown 0GC SECY 88-1208 Russell, RI DMossburg The Honorable Robert Sweeney PDR New York State Assembly LPDR Albany, New York 12224
Dear Assemblyman Sweeney:
I am responding to your letter of December 27, 1988, in which you and Assemblymen Yevoli, Bianchi, and Harenberg requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) impose an immediate moratorium on all applications submitted by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and that we thoroughly review all information previously submitted by LILCO tc determine its veracity, accuracy, and authenticity.
Your request was based on a December 5, 1988 decision in the case of County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Company which has been referred To as the 'RTUU" case.
The NRC staff performs an audit review of all materials submitted by applicants for a construction permit or operating license, including LILCO, to determine whether an issue of safety signifi-cance is involved.
When such an issue is identified, the staff conducts an in-depth review, which may include on-site inspections if necessary.
The NRC takes prompt and appropriate enforcement actions when it finds that a submittal contains false or willfully misleading information.
Given our existing review procedures and our experience with LILCO's application to date, we find no basis at this time for imposing a moratorium on LILCO submittals nor any reason to review again previously submitted LILCO materials.
However, the Commission has accepted an offer by one of the parties to the LILC0 licensing proceeding to provide information to the Commission concerning the RICO case.
I would also note, as I am sure you are aware, that the civil jury verdict of December 5, 1988, was dismissed on February 11, 1989.
I want to assure you that the Commission will not approve the issuance of an operating license for Shoreham unless and until we are satisfied that the operation of the facility will present no undue risk to the public health and safety.
Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, G/.
\\.
1 Lando W. Ze
.J i
(jf j
(Originated by SBrown:NRR) 8903090290 890302 i(\\
I PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
'i y*
b^i UNITED STATES
.g.
??.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
{
}-
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 March 2, 1989 cnAinuAN L
The Honorable Lewis J. Yevoli New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12224
Dear-Assemblyman Yevoli:
I am responding to your letter of December 27, 1988, in which you and Assemblymen Bianchi, Harenberg, and Sweeney requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Cummission (NRC) impose an immediate moratorium on all applications submitted by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and -that we thoroughly review all information previously submitted by LILCO to determine its veracity, accuracy, and authenticity.- Your request was based on a December 5, 1988 decision in the case of County of Suffolk v. Lon2 Island Lighting Company which has been referred to as the 'RTUU" case.
The NRC staff performs an audit review of all materials submitted by applicants for a construction permit or operating license, including LILCO, to determine whether an issue of safety signifi-cance is involved.
When such an issue is identified, the staff conducts an in-depth review, which may include on-site inspections if necessary.
The NRC takes prompt and appropriate enforcement actions when it finds that a submittal contains false or willfully misleading information.
Given our existing review procedures and our experience with LILCO's application to date, we find no basis at this time for imposing a moratorium on LILC0 submittals nor any reason to review again previously submitted LILC0 materials.
However, the Commission has accepted an offer by one of the parties to the LILC0 licensing proceeding to provide information to the Commission concerning the RICO case.
I would also note, as I am sure you are aware, that the civil jury verdict of December'5, 1988, was dismissed on February 11, 1989.
I want to assure you that the Commission will not approve the issuance of an operating license for Shoreham unless and until we are satisfied that the operation of the facility will present no undue risk to the public health and safety.
Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, vb(&de Lando W.
ch, r.
i
4 UNITED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g' I
WASHING 1rON, D. C. 20585
- $g,,,,,
March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable-I. William Bianchi New York' State Assembly Albany, New York 12224
Dear Assemblyman Bianci:
I am responding to your letter of December 27, 1988, in which you and Assemblymen Yevoli, Harenberg, and Sweeney requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) impose an immediate moratorium l
on all applications submitted by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and that we thoroughly review all information previously submitted by LILCO to determine its veracity, accuracy, and.
authenticity.
Your request was based on a December 5, 1988 decision in the case of County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Company, which has been referrea to as the "RICli" case.
The NRC staff performs an audit review of all materials submitted by applicants for a-construction permit or operating license, including LILCO, to determine whether'an issue of safety signifi-cance is involved.
When such an issue is identified, the staff conducts an in-depth review, which may include on-site inspections if necessary.
The NRC takes prompt and appropriate enforcement actions when it finds that a. submittal contains false or willfully misleading information.
Given our existing review procedures and our experience with LILCO's application to date, we find no basis at this time for imposing a moratorium on LILC0 submittals nor any reason to review again previously submitted LILC0 materials.
However, the Commission has accepted an offer by one of the parties to the LILCO licensing proceeding to provide information to the Commission concerning the RICO case.
I would also note, as I am sure you are aware, that the civil jury verdict of December 5, 1988, was dismissed on February 11, 1989.
j I want to assure you that the Commission will not approve the issuance of an operating license for Shoreham unless and until we are satisfied that the operation of the facility will present no undue risk to the public health and safety.
Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, W.
Lando W. I 1, Jir.
y N
. [ *%
i.
.c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o.
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20085 March 2,-1989 cNainuaN The Honorable Paul Harenberg New York State Assembly L
Albany, New York 12224 l
Dear Assemblyman Harenburg:
1 I am responding to your letter of December 27, 1988, in which you and Assemblymen Yevoli, Bianchi, and Sweeney requested that the-Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) impose an immediate moratorium on all applications-submitted by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and that we thoroughly review all information previously submitted by LILCO to determine its veracity, accuracy, and authenticity..Your request was based on a December 5, 1988 decision in:the case of County of Suffolk v. Lono Island Lighting Company which has Eeen. referred to as tKe' RTUU" case.
The'NRC staff performs an audit review of all materials submitted by applicants for a construction permit or operating license, including-LILCO, to determine whether an issue of safety signit i-cance is involved.
When such an issue is identified, the staff conducts an in-depth review, which may include on-site inspections if.necessary.
The NRC takes prompt and appropriate enforcement actions when it finds that a submittal contains false or willfully misleading information.
Given our existing review procedures and our experience with LILCO's application to date, we find no basis at this time for imposing a moratorium on LILC0 submittals nor any reason to review again previously submitted LILCO materials.
However, the Commission has accepted an offer by one of the parties to the LILCO licensing proceeding to provide information to the Commission concerning the RICO case.
I would also note, as I am sure you are aware, that the civil' jury verdict of December 5, 1988, was dismissed on February 11, 1989.
I want to assure you that the Commission will not approve the issuance of an operating license for Shoreham unless and until we are satisfied that the operation of the facility will present no undue risk to the public health and safety.
Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, Y,
tv.
Lando W. Z h, J
p
'9 UNITE 3 STATES
- f. p.
- ' 8 g
NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION
)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656 kg.....[
EDO Princioal Correspondence Control i
FROM:
DUE: 01/30/89 EDO CONTROL: 0004201 DOC DT: 12/27/88 4
FINAL REPLY:
.j
'LGwin J. Yevoli, Paul Harenberg, Rob;rt Sweeney & I. William Bianchi N;w York. Assembly 1
~TO:
Chairman Zech I
FOR SIGNATURE OF:
ROUTING:
REGUESTS MORATORJUM ON ALL APPLICATIONS Stello SUBMITTED BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CD. WHICH Taylor SEEK A LICENSE FOR SHOREHAM Blaha' 1
Russell, RI DATE: 01/19/89 Murray, DGC j
ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Murley 3
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED:
JANUARY 19, 1989 4
ACTION:
DRPRiLAINAS"-
l l
NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK i-MIRAGLIA VARGA GILLESPIE f
M0SSBURG ACTION DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S O BY_ % w
.,q(g, pgg u
ACReg!
1
t
[.
.c l
r.
l OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-89-0012 LOGGING DATE: Jan 5 89 ACTION OFFICE:
AUTHOR:
P. Harenberg AFFILIATION:
NY, STATE ASSEMBLY LETTER DATE:
Dec 27 88 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
Requests moratorium on all applications submitted by LILCo which seek a license-for Shoreham ACTION:
Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION:
RF, Cars, EDO, Secy, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: Ex Parte, Doc & PDR
' NOTES:
(
DATE DUE:
Jan 89 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
b ~~
I Q (L M 9
b EDo p %
A d E Y
y ULa, s
46 e.o :V da M
u 0%.-
l-(9-s9 i li 49 o'
1D0---004201
_ _ - - _ - _ - _ - - - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _