ML20125D654

Requests That NRC Cancel Util Application for Early Site Review at Fulton Township.Plant Would Infringe on Rights of Property Owners in Immediate Vicinity.Util Should Reapply When Specific Plans for Plant Have Been Made

ML20125D654
Person / Time
Site:	05000463, 05000464
Issue date:	11/18/1979
From:	Spackman T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20125D647	List: ML20125D643 ML20125D648 ML20125D651 ML20125D654
References
NUDOCS 8001150181
Download: ML20125D654 (3)

Text

- - - - .

7

. t,

, n

- .(

m i

Box 88-A, RD #1 .

Peach Bottom, PA .

17563  :

November 18, 1979 [

Mr. Victor Gilinsky QQy2()]h7$

C< nissioner {

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ~

Dear Mr. Gilinsky,

f I liked your letter to the edi.or of the New York Times straightening them out on plutoniur creation in nuclear plants.

But I am not writing just to tell ou that.

i lme Nuclear Regulatory Commi sion is not helping its already =t tarnished image by allowing a uti lity to perpetuate an application to construct a theoretical plant which, if ever conceptualized, might not even be of nuclear nat ure. And, by permitting your staff to cooperate in this wild goose chase, you are needlessly tampering with the rights of property owners in this area.

What I am talking about in the Philadelphia Electric Company's application for a constructior permit for a plant in Fulton Town-ship, Lancaster County, Penns.lvania, originally docketed in 1973.

Subsequently, the plant was cancelled and in 1978 the NRC staff moved to terminate the.appli ation. But PE, in an effort to preserve its status, requested an Ea: .y Site Review. This, in itself, would be an exercise in futility, as the site was exhaustively examined at the time of the origina] application and nothing new has entered the picture, not even plan- for another plant. In fact, as you will note in the enclosed clipring, the utility admits it has no plans 1 and that it only latched ato the ESR request because it happened ..I to be available. "

Not only is the EST revealed as a mere pretext but your staff, from news reports, is it no position to give it their attention in what appears to be the lorseeable future. To add insult to injury, if this completely unnt;essary site evaluation were to be under- 1 taken at some distant coint in time, the utility would then have, believe it or not, anc*.her six years to make up its mind if it H wanted to build a plant or not.

1 do not need tc tell you that it is this sort of thing that serves to reinforce c.he public's image of inefficiency and waste in the administrative tranches of the government. But even more i.mportantly it is creating and perpetuating a cloud over the titles

' to land that would be subject to condemnation should such a plant ever be built. While the PE application is allowed to continue, 90023257 8001150 r

.,,,.,m. , j, -+- - ' -

p Mr. Victor Gilinsky November 18, 1979 none of the affected property owners _11 be able to sell their land for its true market value even assumi .g they could find a buyer, p And the way things are going, this s'.uation could continue on into r the next century. Unless that is, y ur commission acts as I i:

believe it should, by ordering the J . application cancelled, the ESR denied, and the utility instruc ad to reapply only when it has specific plans for a plant. I hop < that you will do so.

t I am one of the property owne s affected by the plant and I speak for my neighbors as well as ayself. We have tried to get action on this through existing p ocedural channels but were met by, I regret to say, the typical bur ( iucratic obfuscation that appears to be associated with this type f action.

We are making, we feel, a ' ary reasonable request and one that is within the pwoers nf your co mission to grant. We ask that you free us from this unjust threat to our property by rescinding the utility's application.

Sincerely, Thomas Spackman II TSII/gs BCC--Honorable Robert S. Walker

Dear Bob,

We are still trying. ,

Actually, it is a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money for the NRC to " study" this ESR thing. Senseless. Ridiculous. But unless the Commissioner tells them otherwise, their confounded rules and procedures insist, so they believe, that they have to go through the motions -- but they can put it off indefinitely.

Meanwhile we poor peons sweat it out. What we especially need is to see that Gilinsky personally gets this letter and reads.

Do you think your office could see that this is done?

Best regards, d

)0,/'-

9002325B l-

~

t$Sii,W"^

-Plant Aot f e .

n

+. .;. - x '

syee in ruimn No Plans for 10 Yrs'.

(Continued %, Page Onel A-Plant Not f all to justry extra p . erat. ion capae:ty.

me Pon s,,e sae m,,,e there have been a : urce of local controver. . r

% sy for many years l.

an l m a Ongmally c: :.ng for a nuclear plant.

.=e f y, b .

Ii I a 1i those plans wera < uttled in 1975 when the

~

reactor suppbe: aMed. Opposition to the QP plant has come a am local, state and feJeral 1 WOef a2s(uyS a

representative and a local and nuclear gm.

Negatise waedon here intensified fol-Philadelphia Eleetne Co has no plans lowig the TW Mile Island nucler acei-for be:;6ng any type of power plant on its dent. Three Je Island ts operated by Met-Fulton Township site. in so;;&weste n Lan- mp an E m Co of Reading.not PE.

t caner County. m de next ten yers. 2 PE. c Hw amments came m respcnse spckesman said today. w a gn-i ;ntsa:of Pums,yMma s as Ron Harper of'Phladelph:a Electne a at futt.re state efficiais %ednesday.

said. "We don't hase any planned plants...Within a 109ear plan =ng penod. g ' Finished'in Penna.

we see no need to base a new project m d

( Th . tate s tcp energy and environmen-semee Nothingis on the draw 14 boar sJ should a plar.t be built there. it u ould

< tal ofh . .:ls saad nuclear power is firdshed m not cecessanly be a nut: ear plant. Hbper i Pennrf.vania as a future source of acw vee. -

added. "We are not comm:tteo to btuldmg a inca!, eneratig capacity.  ! q nucient plant on that site. Defirutely not." 1 don't thmk we can g ) out '.0 morrow I

and .dk about bui!6ng a nui. ear plant m , i Reason for Review Per syivaniaf said state Puebe Utbty Ce .rassion Chairman W. Wilson Goode.

PE currently is trymg to get an early Goode and state Environmental Re-site review for the Fulton Twp tract grom se rees Secretuy Clifford L. Jones spokein the Nuclear Regulatory Commusjon. But. P. aburgh to the Pennsylvania Electric As-Ha per said, this does not rnean it wants to U'uild a nuclear plant on the s:te. PE is using Bod" men said ecal was the only pracu-

.e reslew process merely to rnark the tract a w J of enerD for Pennsylvan a

y rar ' a land bank." to keep an eventual con- '

s rue ton eption open, he saJd.

' toch a move would not be possible Prodiets Brownouls wna coal or oil plants. he said. where feder.

f rettalators offer noth:r.g eomparable ta an Their remarks contrasted sharply with

> those of PEA president Brooke R. Hart-

erl v site review. , man. who pre 6eted brownouts and bla$

'The only power plant PE has under i co ist uctionis the LimenckNuciear Gener- I ouu in Pennsylvan:a by 1990 if new plana, both ecal and nuclear aren't planced soon.

it: r.r Station. Monteemery Coun v. Now 50 l pe -6ent completed 'sts Un:t ):s expected to "Given the generat cg capaesty new e l

.4 en ime m 1925. its Un 2

n ISSI. Place or under censtruction." lbr man said. "Pennsylvama would expenence Previous Fenition brownouts or power interrupuons as scen a.s 1985 w:th a moderate 4 percent rate of b'n Ma . PE said it was net necessarily powM *tneny usage?

And there was more pessitnism from l cer. I"utte to bu:16ng twin ructors on the Sta R. ragm Sample, ebirman and ebe!

esite whiensFreadsoverfultonand ,

Dru tr.cre townsh:ps. executsve.of Consobdauen Coal Co.

Seing granted :he erly site review -w, ve been heanng a lot cf talk fcr a u egulatory proces lo tirne." Samp es said. "but the e's been we she :d  :: PEspeed dec.ce upiothe buli r,d a nu: lear stat;on a lack of a .y real thmg happen:ng on conver.

sion to eca; *

. t . e icias or !?Ks. a PE spc4esman said 3 , g be>"d EI n bee ~v.' Harper ruled out such a plant ded for at least the r, ext 10 years, made e aJ too apem for u'Edu to tum t . e.n m cases where existmg oth or c:P..g electricity cemand est: mates which .re<! plants could be eenverted to ecal (a

-See A PLANT -Page 2 Thert are 70 such eons erdble plants in

' the country now, Snmples said. Cent erdnt

- them to coal could save an esurnated 106

. milbon bure!s of oil per year,if regulate s edopted rnore reasonable pobese m g ant.

Ing the perr:uts, he added.

"We can bum coal, and we can ha.e

, reasonable 21 cuabry standards." he sa:d.

"But l'.:s k:nd ci flexib!!::v d.,er-Jt seem to

• tt amor.: de b.true r ra.'

}

. .