ML20071F459
| ML20071F459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1983 |
| From: | Greenbaum R HAMPTON, NH |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071F457 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305180448 | |
| Download: ML20071F459 (4) | |
Text
-
Va.
m
, J ;, m
\\,:.
n p,\\..,
'~
..a. g,;.
=.....
\\
=.....
a.
d s'
Y?
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 159 Pantigo Road East Harapton, New York 11957 RONALD GREESBAUM senavison (sie. 324 414o Aprit 11, 1983 Ci1citman Hunzio J. Paitadino Commissioner \\lietor Gilinshu Commissioner John F. Altecutn'e Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts CommLssioner James K. AsscLstine U.S. Nuctec Regutatoraf Commission Wcshington, D.C.
20555 Re: Sho.teham Nuclear Poteer 3?ation Docket No. 50-322; Suffolk Count >J Mo. tion to Terrinate Shoreham Licensing Proceeding Dea. St.ts:
The Totea of East Herpton, on castcrat Long Isicaid, Lies cast of L1LCC's Sitorcham NacLear Power Plan.t, and 1 am tJie Sayerviso1 of tire aforemattioned toten.
East Hampton is home to mc?.c thca: 15,000 yeaa-round residents, and during 31e summer, the poputation sc:ctls to more tJian 45,000 peopic.
I am tetiting utis Letter to support Suf folk Cowity's Motion to Terminate tlic Shoteham Cpertiing License Procceding (dated Febra ty 25, 1923), and its Motion for Certificetion witich sceks a p.tompt resolution by tJ1e Commission on.the issues ?.alsed by Les motion.
In view of the ove.uchetming and corirolling significance of the Legal cuestiors ra:1.std b] ti1e Cow:ty's Mo. tion and.tne need for a ouich.tesolution cf tiie prcsatt Sitorcham dispute by tJ1e residents and.tatepayers of eastera1 Long Istcaid, I u.tge you to devote your immtlia.te attention to the Cow 1ty's Motion and to termincie the Sho.tcham pracceding teitlicut further delay.
My support for Saf fath Courly is bo. sed upon a number of factors, in r
D DO 7
H
?y
t W
W
~
Cliairman Nw1:Lo 3. Palladino Commissioner Victor Gilinsky
-Commissioner John F. Alzechne CommLssioner Thoma.s If. Robe?2,s
, Commissioner James K. Asselstine Page Two April 11, 1983 particular, &c deteranination by Suffolk Cowity tJiat die safe evacuation af eastern Long Tstand (a.s west as oGer areas of Suf folk Cowtty) is impossible and my bcLief.tita.t die Shoreham Nuclear Ptari is not safe enough to operate.
I support die exhaustive cf fort made by Suf folk Cowsty
. Officials and experis to determine ne feasibility af safely evacuating Suffolk residotts and de subsequent decision of de Suf folk Cowity Legislature, on be basis of tJta.t investiga. tion, dat safe evacuation is not possible.
Accordingly, I share Suffolk Cowity's vicw titat Shoreham cannot be permitted t.o operate and na.t Btis Legat issue must be resolved immediately by de Commission itself.
As you can appreciate, tJte future of Sho.teham is of utmost concesut to all of Long Island, and the presatt w1certairst) regarding its future and de continued expenditure of tens of milliosts of dollars.to compicte a plant wisich Legaily cannot be permitted to operate is wasteful and intespostsible.
I strongly believe dat tJte public irieres.t would not be served by fu?212er months of debate and Litigation in de NRC Licensing heatings and tJ1at tJte matter requires your direct. intervention.
1 ur3e that you devote your immedia.te attertion t.o resctving ne presen.t legal dispute surtcunding Die ShoraJ1am project by gr.:atting Suffolk Cowsty's 110 tion to Terminate ne Operating Licutse P.toceedings widtout furtlier delay.
Sincers.ttj, CW A/
RONALD GREENBAWA Supervisor il i
r I
l
s.
4.,
~
y g
=
, r ',
i
- TOWN OF.EAhT HAMPTON W"
t
/
~
159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, New York l1937 RONALD GREENBAUM SUPERVISOR (516) 324 4140 Aprit i1, 1933 1.Lt. Harold R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. NacLear Regulatory Commission Wasitington, D.C.
20555 Re: Shoreham Nuciear Pcwer Station Coststruction Persit #CPPR-95
Dear Ilt. Dertton:
The To:en of Ecst Hampton, on zastemt Long islend, lies cast of L1LCC's Shoriham' Nuct:ar Pcwer Plasti, and 1 on tite Supe 1 visor of d e aferena.tioned :wn.
Ea.st Hampton Ls home to more u an 15,000 year-roetd ruidotts, and in ne swmer n.cadts de papalation sweils to more that 45,000 people.
It has Lect brougitt ?.c my attuttion &M $1e costsstuetion pe.vrit fnr Shoreham expLted on Ma.tch 31, 1953, unless on cr-
^
wise extended by your office.
This Letter is to urge did you deny LTLCO's reques.t to con.tinue consttucticn at Shcreham and.tc prevott furtiter wo.stefat expenditure of tats of willions cf dollars on n e prcject.
On de basis of many mostuts of intensive examination, Suf folk Cowst: has determined $ tat &c safe evacua. tion of its residatts, and nose on ealtern Long 1 stand in paMicula.1, could nd be acccmplished.
Accord-ingly, Suffo& has urged ute NRC to tenminate ne Shoreham operating Licaise proceedings in vicw of de fact that app.1ovat aid implematteilon of a Suf fcLk Cowttj of f-site emergotet) plan is a requiremott fcr de issuance of an ope.tating Licertsc.
I agree with &c Ccwitf s detewination and sce no reason why construction et Shcreham should be pewittted to continue.
I have a4so been made aware of comments atttibutable tc NRC spoke,s-mot in NEWSDAY, suggesting &ct tcss &an serious attention taltl be given to de Cowtbj reques.t dat coststruction be halted.
As an example, James Fitzgerald, assistanti gazeral counsci ci ne NRC,.teportedly stcaed "I don't titink you need an evacuation pian during construction", witile NRC spokesthan Frank Ingram is alicged to have remarked, " Requests tc cxtend plant consttaction dates are a dime a de:ot".
(See enciosed copy of articie.)
These comments do not instill confidence in de integrity of
ais ss r
3 REGMX Permit Extension For N-Plant Fought By Robert Fresco In an unusual move aimed.at preventing the opening of the Shoreham nuclear plant, Suffolk County has asked the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn to block a routine extension of the plant's construction permit.
The county contends in its request that because it has not approved an emergency evacuation plan for the plant, Shoreham cannot open, and as a re-sult, construction should not proceed.
But the legality of the county action was i=me-Cately guestioned by a t.7 NRC atwney. Jr :cea Fitzgeraid, an assis+ ant genersl counsel, said be doubted the county's objection had any lega! basis. "!
don't think you need an evacuation pian duri'ig the construction phase," he said.
And N2C spokesman Frank Ingram said that
" requests to extend plant construction dates are t.
dime a dozen." And, he added, the commirzion rou-tinely grants them.
"His attitude doesn't surprise me," Deputy County Executive Frank Jones said of Fitzgerald's comment. 'The Nuclear Regulatory Commission consistently falls on the side of the nuclearmwer advocates."
LILCO's construction permit expires March 31.
Oh Feb. 25, the company submitted a request for a nine-month extension. LILCO spokeswoman Judith Brabham said that the utility is not changing its previously announced plan to load fuel into the reae-tor by the end ofJune and begin commercial produe-tion of electric power there in early 1984. She said i
en extension beyond June was requested to allow
" minor construction work" st.ch as painting in the "non-nuclear" area of the plant.
LILCO's construction permit for the $3.2-billion plant has already been extended twice, Brabham said. The original permit was granted in April, 1973, and expired in May,1979. Brabham said it was "custo=ary" for utilities to ask for extensions.
But the county's lawyer, Herbert Brown, wrote in a letter Wednesday to the NRC,"We submit that the LILCO request (for the extension] can't lawfully be granted." This, he argued,is because,"no operat.
ing license for the Shorehem plant can lawfa!!y te issued," since there is no emergency evacuation plan fer the plant. "Suffolk Ccun:y has resolved that it will not adopt er implement" ruch a plan, he ad&d.
.