ML19225A334

Comments on AEC Rept, Site Visit to Naval for Facility, Dtd 740103.Town Officials Had No Basis for Giving Assurances Regarding Support for Nuclear Plant Const within Township

ML19225A334
Person / Time
Site:	New England Power
Issue date:	05/25/1979
From:	Bliven G, Seely S CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RHODE ISLAND
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7907180870
Download: ML19225A334 (2)

Text

.

Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island Box 525 Charlestow n, R.I. 02813 , ,;,c [0-JM[6 7

-

m

• e' 4 May 25, 1979 f

9 m 7$

l'

_

V

- c-

,

, $<

$

-

ge Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chaiman ( '9 gff a U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocatc ion

• dM Washington, D. C. 20545 4 s

Dear Dr. Hendrie:

We call your attention to the Atomic Energy Cornission report on the

" Site Visit to the Naval Air Pacility" from D. E. Sells to the Assistant Director of Environmental Projects, dated January 3, 1974. Cwo very serious errors are c ontained in the following excerpted paragmphs:

"The site visit v.as also attended by the Presidens, ?Ir. P. Gibbons and Vice-President, Mr. C. R. McLean of the local town council. They both agreed that the local residents (pe=anent as opposed to transient) during a recent meeting had voiced no objection to a nuclear plant being placed en the old tir base and would like to see the necessarf studies initiated..."

"At a neeting with G3vernor No# in the afternoon the local authorities assured the Govemor that it ,as the desire of the residents to proceed with the detailed studies of the site. .."

In the first cited paragraph, reference by McLean and Gibbons to the local residents having "no objection to a nuclear plant being placed on the old air basd', we believe tnat these town officials had no basis for giving these assurances about the views of the townspeople.

In the second paragraph, reference by McLeen and Gibbons to Govemor Noel that "it was the desire of the residents to proceed with detailed studies of the site", also appears to be a serious misrepresentation of the feeling of the town's residents.

We find that ne town meetings wem held to detemine specifically the attitude of the voters of the town. Other than a pmmotional pmsentation by the Narragansett 31ectric Co. , no infomational nee +ings were held in the town that would help the citizens dete=ine their course of action. When a 1974 mail questiennaire from the new Town Council under Gilbert Mook showed a 5 to 3 vote against a nuclear plant en the site, "cok then conducted an official referendum to detemine the attitude of all voters of the town. '"c.ey again rejected a nuclear plant on the site, despite an extrenely intensive door-to-door propaganda campaign by the power comprny.

Since it is 'ur understanding that NRC tries to avoid placing nuclear plant facilities in areas when they are not welcone, we recuest that your records be changed: (1) to chew that a majority of the people of the town of Charlestown 7 0 0718 0 f M 4 g rj 333

Dr. Joseph L'. Hendrie 5-25-79 had voted against this nuclear plant proposal, (2) to show that there appeared to be, at the verf beginning, cajority opposition to the nuclear plant proposal for the old Navy airbase in Charlestown, and (3) to strike the original invalid statements by thLean and Gibbons from the record.

Verf truly yours,

,

'l&LL C , ,i

'

2 0 L, "Senuel Seely, ;h .D. , 3 resident

, -, -

- -

..

.

/- /

.-,, ./ - . , ' i,,_ /,

SS/s George J. Bliven, Jr., Director cc: C . A. Le e , Jr. , G Sa, Concenled Citizens of Fr. ode Islend fRGiu/

^'

A J J ',