ML20052H161
| ML20052H161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1982 |
| From: | Rosso J SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Brenner L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205200013 | |
| Download: ML20052H161 (2) | |
Text
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE JOHN ROSSO p o. mOx 7 LeoisLArom, sEcoNo otsTR>CT t i suoi MONTAun Nichw Av M ASTic. NEW YORK 19 950 M;MgER-(51613994 500 PLRMS. RECRE A flON & CULTUR AL AFF AsRS COMMITTEE TC A NSPORT AtiON. ECONOMIC oEVELOPMENT tho PLANN.Na C ""'""
(ENIOR CITIZENS COMMITTEE April 6' 1982 Honorable Judge Lawrence Brenner Administrative Judge Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Re: April 18, 1982 Shoreham Public Hearing
Dear Sir,
I am unable to appear before you personally to testify on the above inasmuch as I will be out of town for several days, however I would app-reciate it if my following remarks would be included in the record of the hearing.
The Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham facility has been ex-ceptionally controversial since its inception and continues to this date to be disruptive to the harmony and well being of the Suffolk County consnunity.
County government had not been permitted input into the siting determination and have no determinability in the licensing procedure, yet we are asked to rationalize that plant's existence and provide a foolproof evacuation plan for the residents of Long Island. An item that is foolish in its contemplation alone given our one way geographic confines and very limited transportation capabilities.
The demand for electricity contemplated in the siting proposal due to anticipated growth has been found to be fallaceous. There is no need for additional electricity via the Shoreham plant. LILCO has sufficient on line capacity as well as reserve, not to mention alternate supply by purchase through the upstate grid system to provide all the electrical requirements for its service area. The simple fact is that the plant should not have been built.
D503 s
/ O 8205200013 820406 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g
2 When construction was contemplated nuclear fuel was relativity inexpensive and we were in the midst of soaring petroleum fuel proce e scalations.
In the more recent past petroleum proces have stabilized and in fact are reducing whereas nuclear fuel has now increased in cost tremendously. There is no longer any great disparity of generation cost, in fact should this plant go on line and its amortization of 84 million dollars per year be included in the rate base the cost of electricity will be increased by 48% for that reason alone. We cannot exist at current rates and certainly cannot possibly survive that type of increase.
All during the course of construction many instances of defective uorkmanship have been brought forth. Due to the potentially extreme disasterous effect of a nuclear accident and also the many safety changes recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission since approval of the original plans, it is imperative that a final and full physical inspection of the entire plant and safety systems be conducted with the exception of course of the electrical generating section which is the standard commutator design.
I, therefore, respectfully request that no license to load fuel, test or operate the Shoreham plant be granted until completion and analysis of a full physical inspection including, but not limited to, the reactor containment vessel and all safety systems.
Veryf[ j, y
urs./
/
o b'
J
'ROSS JR/j d
(
cc: Nora Bredes, S.O.C.
-er
, +,
,