261 



Applications Filed — 9/5/67 

 Withdrawn— 11/4 & 12/30/68 



(The dual nuclear power and desalting plant project was postponed due to 

 economic and organizational problems. ) 



3. Florida West Coast Nuclear Power Group, Inc. 



Application Filed— 12/10/59 

 Withdrawn— 6/26/61 



(The 50 MWe gas-cooled heavy water reactor project was terminated in mid- 

 1961 because of technical and economic uncertainties. ) 



4. Baston Station — Niagara Mohawk Power C!orp. 

 Application Filed— 8/1/67 

 Withdrawn^8/22/68 



(Application had difficulties obtaining site approval from other governmental 

 bodies dealing with matters not related to radiation safety.) 



5. Bodega Bay — Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

 AppUcation Filed— 12/31/62 

 Withdrawn— 11/4/64 



(Application withdrawn due to opposition of the AEO regulatory staff based 

 on a need for a design against positive ground displacement, because of the 

 proximity to the San Andreas Fault. ) 



6. Malibu — Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 

 Application Filed— 11/26/63 



(The Atomic Energy Commission's decision, issued 3/27/67. upheld an Atomic 

 Safety and Licensing Board's determination that the probability of permanent 

 ground displacement at the proi)Osed site was sufficiently higli to require that 

 the design criteria for the plant be modified and supplemented to include provi- 

 sion for ground displacement from earthquake activity before a construotion 

 l>ermit could be issued. Although the application was not formally withdrawn, the 

 applicant's contract with reactor supplier was terminated. ) 



7. Burlington — Public Service Electric & Gas Co. 



(The AEC regulatory staff and the Commission's Advisory Committee on Re- 

 actor Safeguards (ACRS) told the company informally that they found no way 

 in which Burlington could be approved. The applicant amended its application 

 changing the site to Salem County, New Jersey. ) 



8. Bell Station^ — ^New York State Electric and Gas Corp. 



(The applicant announced indefinite postponement of its plans to build a 

 nuclear plant at Cayuga Lake, New York, in order to provide more time for addi- 

 tional research of cooling systems for thermal discharge from the plant and for 

 consideration of the economic effect of such systems. Although this application has 

 not been formally withdrawn, it is considered to be inactive by the AEC.) 



9. Seabrook — Public Ser'S'ice of New Hampsliire 



(In November 1969 the applicant announced deferrment of plans for the pro- 

 jected Seabrook Nuclear Station as a result of a decision by one of the partici- 

 pants not to contribute to the funding. Although this application has not been 

 formally withdrawn, it is considered to be inactive by the AEC. ) 



Exa/mples of Results of Informal Site Reviews by AEG 



10. Jamestown Site, New York 



(Proposed for the Small Size Pressurized Water Reactor Project.) First site 

 (35 acres of city-owned land located in the northwest corner of the city approxi- 

 mately 1.75 miles from the center) was disapproved by the ACRS (letters 3/14/ 

 60 and 6/30/60) due to smallness of site, proximity of City of Jamestown with 

 its high population density, unfavorable meteorlogy, and consequent adverse ef- 

 fects on liquid waste disxwsal. 



Two additional sites (located east of Jamestown) were found suitable by 

 the Committee (letter 11/7/60) , but project was abandoned. 



11. Point Loam Site, California 



(Proposed for the Experimental Low-Temperature Process-Heat Reactor 

 Project) The ACRS (letter 3/14/60) considered the site unsuitable due to 

 unfavorable meteorology and high population density. 



12. Cayucos, Oxnard, Sycamore Canyon and Tehachapi Sites, California (City 

 of Los Angeles ) 



