ML19206A977
| ML19206A977 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1972 |
| From: | John Miller Metropolitan Edison Co |
| To: | Muntzing L US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210675 | |
| Download: ML19206A977 (2) | |
Text
.
1
/ AGL?/gzj Ch g ac
~-, ~ ~n, METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY sues /CIARY OF GENERAL ?UBLIC ur:LITIE:CCRPCRAriCN
/
TCLEPHONE 215 - 929-3501 PCST OFFICE BOX 542 REACING. PENNSYLVANI A 19603 j.
November 13, 1972
..\\ J r-
.r Mr. L. Manning Muntzing Director of Regulatica United States Atomic Energy Cor=1ssion
%'ashington, D. C.
20545
SUBJECT:
'1"dREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR CERATING STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO 50-320
Dear Mr. Muntzing:
'On February 7,1972. you issued an order suspending constru.: tion activities involving the off site portion of the Juniata transmission line for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, until further order of the Co:.=ission. This action was taken under Section E of Appendi:c D to 10 CFR Part 50, which authorized suspensions pending completion of the NEPA environ = ental review. According to the Staff's initial Discussion and Findings Relating to Consideration of Suspension, the NEP A review was to be co=pleted by August 1972. However, the NEPA review has not been co=pleted to date.
Metropolitan Edison Ce:pany, Jersey Central Power & Light Ccepany and Pennsylvania Electric Cocpany (Applicants) respectfu_'.17 request that the Co==1ssion reconsider the order of February 2,1972, in light of the informa-tion developed by the AEC Regulatory Staff in its envirencental review and determine that such construction activities =ay now proceed.
Subsequent to the order of February 7,1972, the AEC Regulatory Staff issued its draft Detailed State =ent Related to the Proroseu Issuance of an Operating License to Metropolitan Edison Conpany, Jersey Central Powcr &
Light Co pany and Pennsylvania Electric Company for the I"nree Mile Island Nuclear Staticn Units 1 and 2.
This document evaluated the environmental impact of alternatives to the Juniata lire, see pp. III-5, V-3-4, VI!-1, X -12.
The costs and benefits of the Juniata line were also considered.
See p. XI-19.
This infor=ation, and the infor:stio;. previo aly submitted by Applicants, clearly establisher that continued suspension of construction of the Juniata line is no longer warranted.
Ccry sM 22 7 9 04 010 6D
~
u.*.2. m--. 06. ct E s
< yp r s
& h-50?
?
'o (Y
s Mr. L. Manning Muntzing Director of Regulation eIF It should also be noted that none o.'
che =any co _.ents which have been submitted by Federal and State agencies Ith respect to the draft Detailed Statenent have raised any questions relating to the routing or construction of thw Juniata line.
For these reasons, Applicants request that the suspension of construction activities on the Juniata line be lif ted.
Very truly yours,
,?'
(, ',
L
.fi. 2&O%
^'
J. G. Miller Vice President O
e S
G3-309