ML20073L729

Objects to NRC Action or Inaction Permitting Continued Const & OL Proceedings for Facility

ML20073L729
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/13/1983
From:	Lang M SOUTHAMPTON, NY
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8304210229
Download: ML20073L729 (2)

Text

, .

.. . sw sw Gaum of 4% Boutlyampton ennthampton. \hlcongmetana,w.v.

i TOWN H ALL -- 116 H AMPTON ROAD MARTIN LANG. SUPERVISOR SOUTH AMPTON. L. L. NEW YORK 11968 51Ei- 283 6000 April 13, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit #CPPR-95

Dear Mr. Denton:

The Town of Southampton, on eastern Long Island, lies east of LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, and I am the Supervisor of the aforementioned town. Southampton is home to more than 45,000 year-round residents, and in the summer months the population swells to more the 125,000 people. It has been brought to my attention that the construction permit for Shoreham expired on March 31, 1983, unless otherwise ext-ended by your office. This letter is to urge that you deny LILCO's request to continue construction at Shoreham and to prevent further wasteful expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on the project.

On the basis of many months of intensive examination, Suffolk County has determined that the safe evacuation of its residents, and those of eastern Long Island in particular, could not be accomplished. Accordingly, Suffolk has urged the NRC to terminate the Shoreham operating license proceed-ings in view of the fact that approval and implementation of a Suffolk County off-site emergency plan is a requirement for the issuance of an operating license. I agree with the County's determination and see no reason why construction at Shoreham should be permitted to continue.

I have also been made aware of comments attributable to NRC spokesmen in NEWSDAY, suggesting that less than serious attention will be given to the County request that construction ce halted. As an example, James Fitzgerald, assistant general counsel at the NRC, reportedly stated "I don't think you need an evacuation plan during construction", while NRC spokesman Frank Ingram is alleged to have remarked, " Requests to extend plant construction dates are a dime a dozen". (See enclosed 8304210229 830413 n PDR ADOCK 05000322 g 'O H PDR

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director April 13, 1983 Page Two copy of article.) These comments do not instill confidence in the integrity of the NRC decision making process, and I trust this is not indicative of the attention you will devote to this matter.

It is my belief that the County's determination that there can be no safe evacuation of Suffolk residents is dispositive of the question of whether Shoreham will be permitted to operate.

In view of that controlling fact, it would be irresponsible for your office to continue to permit LILCO to expend millions of dollars in funds for construction. I strongly object to any action, or inaction, by the NRC that would permit further es-calation of Shoreham's construction costs.

I urge you to give Suffolk County's opposition to the extension of LILCO's construction permit your immediate att-ention, and will await your response to my concerns in this issue.

Sincerl ,

i MARTIN NG Supervisor lw Enc.