ML20246C965
| ML20246C965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1989 |
| From: | Watkins J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908250195 | |
| Download: ML20246C965 (3) | |
Text
_
.w Of The Secretary of Energy 1
Washington, DC 20585 July 27, 1089 4
Admiral Kenneth M. Carr Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C. 20555 l
i
Dear Admiral Carr:
I understand that, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, an application or applications will be filed shortly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the Long Island Lighting Campany l
(LILCO) and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) seeking the required j
consent of the NRC for (I) LILCO's surrender of its full power operating license in favor of a possession-only license for its Shoreham facility; (2) transfer of the possession-only license to LIPA; and (3) the decommissioning of Shoreham by LIPA utilizing the technical services of the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to perform the decommissioning activities. These NRC authorizations will be sought solely to effectuate an agreement among LILCO, LIPA and New York State pursuant to which the Shoreham facility is to be sold for a token consideration in order to dismantle it before it ever generates electricity commercially.
The dismantling of this invaluable energy resource, the safety of which i
has been affirmed by the NRC through years of technical review and extensive litigation, would be a colossal mistake. Shoreham's destruction would be contrary to every principle associated with the establishment and maintenance of a sensible national energy policy and would be inconsistent with the provision of an adequate and reliable i
supply of energy in the Northeast.
Further, dismantling of this facility will necessitate the increased use of fossil fuels and the concomitant adverse environmental impacts associated with their use--the very impacts which the Bush Administration is striving to mitigate and, where possible, avoid.
The Atomic Energy Act provides that any person whose interests may be affected by the issuance of a proposed operating license amendment may request a public adjudicatory hearing to contest the proposed amendment.
Important questions exist regarding the technical, managerial and financial qualifications of LIPA to hold an NRC license for the purpose sought, and these matters raise considerations of the type which, under I
the Commission's regulations (10 CFR 50.92), require that a requested adjudicatory hearing be conducted before the Commission approves the proposed amendments.
r
{ Q [@ [ M I
)g.
YI
A 2
The Commission also has discretion pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and its regulations to hold a prior hearing if it determines that such a hearing should be held in the public interest. There could hardly be a stronger case than this one for the exercise of such discretion Significant issues of first impression are obviously raised by the proposal to transfer a new, baseload electric generating facility *
. possessing a full power operating license, to an entity with no expertise in and no experience with nuclear facilities for the express purpose of tearing it down.
In addition, once the license transfer and dismantling are authorized and commenced, the consequences would be irreversibleandtheavailabilityofanyremedyfollowingahearQgon j
the signiffrant public issues involved would be entirely foreclosed, j
In this regard, I am extremely concerned that the plans recently announced by LILC0 for defueling the reactor and for drastic reductions 1
i in plant staffing will have the effect of disabling the facility before LILCO and LIPA ever approach the NRC with the aforementioned license i
amendment requests. There have been disturbing reports in the public media that, following dispersal of the Shoreham operations staff as currently planned, it may take as long as two to three years to reassemble the operating staff required to safely operate Shoreham.
LILCO should not be allowed to disable the facility indirectly prior to formal approval by the NRC of the decommissioning of the plant through the license amendment process.
I would urge the Commissior to monitor closely any actions, such as defueling, destaffing or reduced maintenance, which are intended to commence the dismantling.
In this regard, the Department would support the issuance by the NRC of an 4
immediately effective order prohibiting LILCO from taking actions which, in effect, initiate the decommissioning process for Shoreham before NRC j
i permission is sought and granted for that action following a full adjudicatory hearing.
I also strongly urge the Commission and the NRC staff not to consider the various steps leading to the dismantlement of Shoreham (license surrender, license transfer, and decommissioning) as independent requests for discrete actions which can be segmented for purposes of the NRC's required safety and environmental review.
These actions must be viewed as integral parts of the basic and overriding plan to dismantle Shoreham that was actually memorialized in a written agreement. The possession-only license and L]PC3 qualifications to hold an NRC license can be assessed properly only in the context of the activities to be authorized under the license. These license amendment requests should only be considered in light of both a full analysis of the decommissioning plan required by the NRC's regulations and a full evaluation of the consequences of destroying Shoreham required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
)
In this case, the written agreements among the parties clearly establish
(
that the impending request by LILCO for a possession-only license is intended to formally initiate the process of dismantling Shoreham.
I Certainly the Commission should treat this license amendment no differently than do the parties to this ill-considered plan. Under i
i
3
. these circumstances, approval by the NRC of action leading to the dismantling of a newly completed, licensed nuclear facility in the fece of increasing energy reliability problems on Long Island is clearly a
" major. federal action'significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
Accordingly, NEPA requires that a detailed comprehensive
. environmental impact statement must be prepared and circulated for public comment prior to the approval of any of the impending license amendment requests. Aside from the signif associated with alternative energy sources,icant environmental impacts with the exacerbation of the energy reliability' problems on Long Island and with the decommissioning itself, there are alternatives to the impending proposal which are obviously supericr to dismantling the facility.
The Shorehar.: plant is a significant domestic energy source that is.
capable of meeting the electricity requirements of Long Island and the surrounding region in a safe, reliable ar.d economical manner for years to come.
The dismantling of Shoreham would be a grave mistake even if the energy situation on Lcng Island were more favorable.
Taking this action under present circumstances would be simply irresponsible.
- Thus, it is obvious that the proposal for the NRL to authorize the destruction of the plant raises, and requires the NRC to addrass, issues involving power needs, alternatives and other important environmental considerations in vi EIS. Following completion of that document, these matters'should be fully evaluated in the public hearing afforded those whose interests may be'affected before the NRC determines whether to permit Shoreham to be destroyed.
The interests of this Department, the Northeast and the Nation will be affected in a far-reaching manner by the Comission's ultimate decision in this matter.
Sincerely, James 0. Watkins Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) cc: Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner James R. Curtiss 1
l 1
.