FRI

High:40 Low:29

40°

29°

SAT

High:31 Low:16

31°

16°

SUN

High:29 Low:18

29°

18°

Subscribe to the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader
Wilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Garage SalesWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA JobsWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Cars for SaleWilkes-Barre, Scranton and NEPA Homes
Times Leader FacebookTimes Leader TwitterTimes Leader YoutubeTimes Leader RSS Feeds
View Story As PDFView story as PDF
March 25, 2008

PPL moves third nuke unit plan forward

Environmental testing, land buy will precede the reactor project proposal in Salem Twp.

Though PPL Corp. has not committed to building another nuclear reactor in Salem Township, it is taking steps in that direction.

The new reactor would be separate from the two existing units at the Susquehanna site, and would be owned in a joint venture separate from the one PPL currently has with Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc.

It would be located on adjacent land owned by PPL on the west side of Confers Lane, according to Susquehanna plant spokesman Joe Scopelliti.

Environmental testing is being performed there, he said, to define a site for proposal, but the company is simultaneously attempting to purchase property rights from adjacent landowners to secure a federally mandated 1,800-foot “exclusion area boundary” around the site.

Scopelliti said the area available for the proposed site is probably larger than the current Susquehanna site, which is 115 acres. He said PPL owns 1,700 acres on the western side of the river in that area.

Acquiring the land before the project has been proposed is easier and cheaper than waiting, he said, and provides the company with future options.

“Today if we decided not to build, that doesn’t mean that in a few years, with the growth of the electrical industry” the company wouldn’t reconsider, he said. “As the need changes, we re-evaluate the properties that we have.”

Scopelliti did not divulge the number of acres the company is seeking, but said it would consider purchasing any additional adjacent land offered by the owners it had contacted.

Ownership isn’t necessarily required in the buffer zone, he said, just “authority to determine all activities in that area.”

Scopelliti said residences are “usually prohibited.” That could cause conflict between the company and homeowners in the way.

“Our process would be to try and reach a fair and equitable (price) with the property owner. Obviously, if that didn’t happen … eminent domain ... could be a last resort, but that’s not where we would like to be,” Scopelliti said.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.








Times Leader Commenting Guidelines
Tuesday March 25, 2008, 1:00:00 EDT


The Times Leader Directory



Find Local Restaurants, Shopping & Businesses


Place Quick Ads