ML20246A136

Expresses Concern Re Apparent Dismantling & Imminent Decommissioning of Plant.Before NRC Permits Dismantling, Environ Review,Required by Nepa,Should Be Carried Out Through Preparation of EIS

ML20246A136
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/15/1989
From:	Wendy Moore ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#291-11866 2.206, DD-90-08, DD-90-8, NUDOCS 8908220372
Download: ML20246A136 (2)

Text

- _ - _ - - - .

y, s.

v -

l'b L s

Y j ..;,

[, *

( The Deputy Secretary of Energy.

a-1

+ Wasnmgton, DC 20585

. August 15, 1989 Admiral Kenneth N. Carr Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission L

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Admiral Carr:

On July- 27, 1989', Admiral Watkins wrote to you .re Shoreham nuclear power plant and among other things, garding expressed histhe statusabout.

concern of the reports that LILC0 was planning to take actions which, in effect, would initiate the license amendment process.the decommissioning process for Shore In this regard Admiral Watkins emphasized that effective order to prevent de facto deconstissioning o While l' realize that the Coassission must be permitted to consider carefully 1 requests'for ext:sordinary action pending before it, time is a cousmodity wh in the present circumstances, is in short supply. As you know, on July 20,19 LILCO informed the Consission of major organizational changes which constitut the first step in dismantling the Shoreham organization by-removing from the positions key members of the senior management team which has been resp for plant operations.

Further, LILCO made clear in .its July 28, 1989 briefing.

. of the NRC Staff its intention to complete a major destaffing which has alre begun at the apparently takefacility.

place ' A significant reduction in systems maintenance will also at Shoreham following the completion last. Week of will1apparently ba dismantled.defueling. . In addition, the entire LILC0 offs Clearly, the parties to the Shoreham agreem

. commencement of the decommissioning process.ent consider these actions to be the The Department believes that before the Consission~ permits the. dismantling of Shoreham to proceed de facto in this manner, the environmental review required by NEpA shculd be carried out th the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement In this regard, NRC regulations provide completion of. the NEPA that no action concerning a proposa. l is permitted prior to s i

-reasonable alternatives." process if such action would " limit the choice' of 10 CFR 51.101(a)(1). There can be no doubt that the choice'of- alternatives would be limited by allowing LILC0 to take actions which

. effectively disable the plant and place ~ it in a condition in which its restoration to safe operating status could take up to three years.- In addition, by taking no action to preserve the status quo until it has determined how it will discharge its NEPA responsibilities, the consission is allowing the license amendment process to be- circumvented and abused by permitting LILCD to effectively achieve " possession-only" license status without formally applying

.for and receiving the required NRC approval.

8908220372 890813 Of#

R ADOCK 0500 2 ' t

~

n n__= - - - --

~

-hh

s. t4 On July 20, 1989, the Director response to a petition of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in his interim filed by the Shoreham-Wading- River Central School District, justified his refusal to take imediate action to prevent destaffi of Shorehamuntil implemented on the grounds early August."that the "destaffing of the plant will not be The' Director further stated that the NRC Staff's evaluation of the staffing changes would be completed by the en

~However, the Staff's evaluation is apparently not yet complete, early Au come and gone, and the destaffing of the facility together with a reduction in systems maintenance has already begun.

Thus, to the extent that requests for

~immediate action to prevent de facto decommissioning of the facility wre to be premature on July 20, that position is no longer tenable.

Given the management changes and the significant reductions in staffing maintenance which have already taken place #r are immine'nt,~the Depar the Commission to prevent action by LILCO which would prejudice the outco the Commission's consideration of Admiral Watkins' July 27 letter and the petitions for action which are now before it.

On behalf of the Department, I therefore urge that the Commission consider taking action to prevent further reductions in staffing and maintenance at Shoreham until scch time as the -

Commission and the pendingis prepared petitions.to address the issues raised in Admiral Watkins' letter Taking such action on an interim basis would prejudice no one and conducted and completed. would- allow an orderly decisionmaking process to be the issues-involved, and the prejudice to the environmental re occur should the alternative of near-term operation of Shoreham operation be precluded byisstaffing Commission and maintenance reductions, such temporary action by fully justified.

Sincerely, g /, ~ ,,

~>

W. Henson Moore Deputy Secretary cc: Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts

? commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner James R. Curtiss I

L N - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -