ML20235J068
| ML20235J068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1987 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3994 82-471-02-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8707150384 | |
| Download: ML20235J068 (3) | |
Text
y,
' LK f
DzxETE:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
O ':C!
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Uh,
W Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour.
SERVED JUL 141987 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-0L 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et a_1_.
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(SeabrookStation, Units 1and?)
)
July 13, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On June 24, 1987 this Board received a petition for leave to intervene in the Seabrook Generating Station licensing proceedings dated May 12, 1987 and submitted by Anthony R. Martin-Trigona (" Petitioner").
In the submittal, Petitioner claimed standing to intervene based upon his plans to reside in New Hampshire, the financial impact of licensing proceedings on investments in Connecticut where Petitioner is currently domiciled, and upon other more tenuous grounds which need not be discussed because they fail to define a " particularized" interest of the h[0 DOOKb 3
0 yso"
[6 1
Y 2
Petitioner in this proceeding.1 See " Petition to Intervene" (May 12, 1987) at p. 1.
Petitioner claims economic impact of Seabrook upon his investments in Connecticut is grounds for standing. While it is true that the economic impact of the Seabrook plant is pervasive, its effects upon investments in Connecticut nevertheless must be seen as " generalized grievances" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large i
class of citizens. This type of grievance "will not result in distinct and palpable harm sufficient to support standing." Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1),
CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 333 (1983), citing Transnuclear Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977), citing Worth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 at 499 (1975).
In addition to the foregoing assertion, Petitioner intimates that he shculd be allowed to intervene on the basis of his plans to reside in New Hampshire. His ' planned' domicile in New Hampshire, however, is r
deficient as a basis for standing. While in some cases residency near a nuclear generating station gives rise to standing, case law articulates that such residency must be within a 50-mile radius of the facility for 1
I It is settled that assertions of broad public interest in (a) regulatory matters, (b) the administrative process, and (c) the development of economical energy resources do not establish the particularized interest necessary for participation in agency (Three adjudicatory processes. Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-83-25, IB NTIC 327, 333 (1983), citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
l i
1
{
s
(
3 i
standing. See generally Tennessee Velley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, !mits 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977).
Petitioner states clearly that he currently has " accommodations" in Connecticut, at. p. 1.
As a result, he falls outside the " zone of interests" I
protected under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714.
In Applicants' Answer To Petition To Intervene of Anthony Martin-Trigona dated July 6,1987, Applicants oppose the petition based on grounds that the petition wholly fails to address the criteria for late filing and is void of a litigable contention.
Conclusion Based on our review of Petitioner's bases for standing under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714, Petitioner's request to intervene is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE SING BOARD s
~
y Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpe son Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of July 1987.
.