ML19224A686

Requests Leave to Intervene in Proceedings Re Selection of Alternate Sites.Protests Previous Denial of Intervenor Status

ML19224A686
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	04/12/1979
From:	Keeping W GARDINER, NY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7905240148
Download: ML19224A686 (1)

Text

@ 4 NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM s

4 o}\O m TOWN OF GARDINER g gdsj!

G ARDINER. NEW YORK 12525 Q

m '

E f UE fbl<di April 12, 1979 ep Q>

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Denial of Right to Intervene - NRC STN 50 - 596 & 50 - 597 Gentlemen:

We appreciate the decision of your staff to deny us inter-venor status in the case of New York Electric and Gas - Long Island Lighting proposed New Haven (New York) reactcrs 1 anf

2. We repeat that our interest in the case indicated in the NYEG news release of March 12, 1979, is as the site for nuclear reactors alternate to the proposed New Haven site. The NRC staff is correct in concluding that we are ' distant' frca New Haven.

However, in the case of the Cementon nuclear reactor proposal of Power Authority of the State of New York, for which the NRC recommended denial last February, the same staff referred to

'....six alternate sites in the Hudson valley preferable to...

Cementon'. Gardiner could be so ncminated.

We could then expect to be designated intervenor though at that stage, both we, the NRC, and applicant would have to spend a great deal more time and money on the whole prcceefing.

Our interest in pleading for intervenor status in the New 10 Haven siting is to avoid these potential future difficulties, ul imate con-de-tribute information which we have so that your cision can be ' informed' concerning alternate sites since fcu have recctmended those in the recent past.

We could also dispute your staff ccnclusions concerning cur lack of ' standing' in regard to fission product spread and elec-tric distribution facilities affecting the citizens of the Town of Gardiner. However, our interest in beccming an intervenor is because of our possible alternate site status. We would apprec-iate being informed of whether we are being considered as an alter-nate site to New Haven or whether we are not.

If we are an alternate site, then we respectfully request leave to intervene in the New Haven siting for the reascns briefly outlined above.

Very truly your ,

/

^

, 5/~uEww Ap

.q- - n. _v.

. m:-r

__ r_: 7_'_! G ,

r, su=erv scr

~

418 304 730g~ so,o c

>