ML19211A363

Believes Util Application for Early Site Review Is Futile Gesture.Nrc Review of Application Will Reinforce Public Image of Inefficient & Wasteful Govt Administration. Lancaster News 790920 Article Re Early Site Review Encl

ML19211A363
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	11/18/1979
From:	Spackman T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19211A361	List: ML19211A363
References
NUDOCS 7912180107
Download: ML19211A363 (3)

Text

- . ,

t r

/ .

[

Box 88-A, RD #1 Peach Bottom, PA 17563 +

November 18, 1979 ,

Mr. Victor Gilinsky Commissioner U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D. C. 20555 l

Dear Mr. Gilinsky,

}

r I liked your letter to the editor of the New York Times straightening them out on plutonium creation in nuclear plants.

But I am not writing just to tell you that.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not helping its already tarnished image by allowing a utility to perpetuate an application to construct a theoretical plant which, if ever conceptualized; might not even be of nuclear nature. 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 is the Philadelphia Electric Company's, application for a construction permit for a plant in Fulton Town-ship, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, originally docketed in'1973.

Subsequently, the plant was cancelled and in 1978 the NRC staff moved to terminate the application. But PE, in an effort to preserve its status, requested an Early Site Review. This, in itself, would be an exercise in futility, as the site was exhaustively examined at the time of the original application and nothing new has entered the pictu.re, not even plans for another plant. In fact, as you will note in the enclosed clipping, the utility admits it has no plans and that it only latched onto the ESR request because it happened to be available.

Not only' is the ESR revealed as a mere pretext but your staff, from news reports, is in no position to give it their attention in what appears to be the forseeable future. To add insult to injury, if this completely unnecessary site evaluation were to be under-taken at some distant point in time, the utility would then have, believe it or not, another six years to make up its mind if it wanted to build a plant or not.

I do not need to tell you that it is this sort of thing that serves to reinforce the public's image of inefficiency and waste in the administrative branches of the government. But even more importantly 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, 1597 288 y9121s0\l)

/

Mr. Victor Gilinsky November 18, 1979 none of the affected property owners will be able to sell their land for its true market value even assuming they could find a buyer.

And the way things are going, this situation could continue on into the next century. Unless that is, your commission acts as I believe it should, by ordering the PE application cancelled, the ESR denied, and the utility instructed to reapply only when it has specific plans for a plant. I hope that you will do so.

I am one of the property owners affected by the plant and I speak for my neighbors as well as myself. We have tried to get action on this through existing procedural channels but were met by, I regret to say, the typical bureaucratic obfuscation that appears to be associated with this type of action.

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

e.8,incerely, ,

e

' - Inomas

1. % 0:s; h R '; eD Spackman II % -

Q TSII/gs .

1597 289~

- urc2a 2.2 sam w ras sa, se d.Mgf g

. . - S _ ,.. m e. 7 No Plans for 10 Yrs'.

E y e d m. ,PUJCn (Cor" wed from Page One!

A"P4 'N fail to just:r a:ra generauo:: capac:y.

The F u.1 ;n L:e and proposals for piants

, cere have en a source of !ccal con: rover-m, \> sy for rner ean.

2"7OC in PU ton * "'C*""'""*"r"'

those p!: were scut !ed in ;9 5 wnen the 3-reactor :Nier folded. Oppostaan to !!.e 6 plant ha eme from local, stateand ieueral T w pe, PE Says ---,

g ="~e ~ -"*"

Ph:ladelph:a Electric Co. has no plans cauve reaction here intensified fe!- '

for bu:lding any type of power plant on its lowir he Thre* Stile Island nuclear aca-den- Jee 3:i e Islanc ts operated by liet-Fu!:on Township site. in sou2 western Lan-t to an Emsa Co of Read =0 not PE caster County. In the nex: ten ye.an. 2 PE.

spckerman sa:d tcday.

c 7 > - -em came m respm i ~

~ *n...n c Pennsylvaca s aucie-Ron Harper of PNiadelpha Electnc 'T a 2 ' CF i ;;* Cif;C1ai5 W'C *5d2F-said. "We don't have any planned (

,finssned,in Penne-plants...,Nitbn a 10-year planang pened. g we see no need to have a new project in (

semce. Nothng is on the dramng boards.' The state 5 tcp energy a .d ennronmen-i off:cals sicd nue! ear power :s fimshed :n Should a piant be built there. it would not necessanly be a nucien plant. Hfber .nsyivaraa as a f uture source of new eiee -

added. "We are not ecm:::::eo to buikting a -cal gener: tmg capac:y.  !

uclear plan:cn mat site. Def2rutely not ' "I den't th:nx we can go oct tomct ow

.nd talk ateu: bufing a nue: ear p!an: m Reason for Review

?ennsylvan;a. sa.d state Puclic Cu!::v Comm:ssion Cha:rman W. Wilson Goode. '

PE currently is t:)ing to get an ear!v Goode and state Encronmental Re-site renew for the Ful:en Twp. tract frorn s arces Secretry Clifford L Jcnes spoke m '

the Nuclear Regulato v Cornmission. But. P::tsburgh :o the Pennsylvania Electric As.

Ha per said, th:s does not mean it wants to sociac n.

bui d a nuclear plant on the site. PE is using Bom men said coalwas the only practt.

te renew process merelv to mark the tract

~ cal Mw sourcepf cergy fcr Pensylvama for ' .i bnd bank." to keep an eventual con- through the 199us.

cruc . ion option open. he sas,d.

. .such a move would not be possile Predicts Brcwnouts with coal or ot! plants. he said where feder-al ter ;;;ators effer n om:ng comparabie ta an Their remarks contrastec sharply Mth

~eari y qte review those of PEA presicent Brocke R. H;: -

The only pcuer plant PE has under rnan. who pre 6ctec trownouts and blacs.

outs in Pennsy. vama oy 19N :l new riants.

cce istruction is the Limer:ck Nuciear Gene -  :

it: -e stauon. Mon:2cmeryCounty Now 50 i both coal and nu&r. aren alarned scc te cent comp;eted. ::s Un.t ! :s expected to "Given tne generanna dpae:v nce p an une m 15&$. .u Cntt ::: ISU i p; ace et uncer ance"- a:" H; a-said. Pennsynn.a wouac expenen:e Previous Position browncuts or power .:e:- up : ns as s.nc--

as 1985 with a mxerate 4 percent rate ci

n Mav. PE said it was net recessan!v EIU" C 'DE# 25AE' "

cor. m:tted to butidng tmn reactors on th'e And mere was m. ore pess:=:sm frc r "40 scresite whienspreadsover Fultonand R.  : ugee Sampie. chairman anc chef nn3 more lownih!;s.

e of Consui2datcn CoalCc.

' Bem grante me e:6 site review .execuin.Qy

.g been hng a !c cf G fcr I we tid shed up de regu.a:c v process u' there s r.

snr uid PE ceede :o bu:1d a nuclear state:: es }a d

. - m " " -", e ~ J <

m t ne ;9Is c; Jh. a PE spokesman sa:d " " ," " _ ,'

Samp!es sa:d a pc uuon res:ne: - .

.t: E'e'Huper v. rJeJ cc: such a slant ne) ne nee' d ed for a ;eas: the next 10 ers.

had mace ecal too expensa e for uuttie,s ::

, turn to even a c.ses anere ex: sung ctr --

c:t't.) e' ectr:civ cemand esumates which E3 N'"d PUS C0C Et h""C*C i; ' -

tu rx s.

-See c. PLANT -Pog. 2 Inere are % sur .c:aer.:.e -

ee ec.gt.v now. Simples src. CE.; w- e them to coal co dd sste an estmaa; s ali.on barrels of ci! Mr yer. If reg:. ;-

adopted mere reason:cle pal.a. : . mn .

Ing tre perm:u. he a::ec q

%e can L.:r . cal, and we can hau i J .:s .:n .

w.  ;-- -

1597 290