ML19253C528
| ML19253C528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1979 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060004 | |
| Download: ML19253C528 (2) | |
Text
.
ps nec oq{o, UNITED STATES y
e j ).f, (
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{&.%[je 3 C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 sv,
November 26, 1979 N
/.gy t-~,
A,g q
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary *of the Commission 2 7 ' ~,~ 3 -. 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y
Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of NM Puget Sound Power & Light Company, et al.
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 and STN 50-523
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On November 21, 1979, the NRC Staff filed its Response in Opposition to Tribes' Supplemental Petition for Review.
Upon further review, we have noted a typo-graphical error on page 9, last paragraph, line 3 of that pleading.
That sentence should be corrected to add "not" between "has" and " resolved" and should read as follows:
" Commission review of an Appeal Board decision will not be granted where.
(2) it appears that the Appeal Board has not resolved a factual issue necessary for decision in a clearly erroneous manner contrary to the resolution of that same issue by the Licensing Board.
For your convenience, we are enclosing a corrected page 9 of the Staff's pleading.
Sincerely, A
r Richard d Black Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
Service List 30 7912060COf
. parties and the Tribes since it has been conceded by all that ;he Tribes met the standing requirement to be made a party to this proceeding.
Accordingly, this allegation of error has ne merit and review should not be granted by the Comission.
III.
CONCLUSION The Tribes' intervention presents a very close question that ultimatelt hinges on a balancing of the extreme tardiness of the petition against the unique interests advanced.U After balancing all of the factors, both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board concluded that the extreme tardiness of the petition without a good excuse for such a late filing outweighed the unique interests advanced and, accordingly, denied the petition to intervene.
The Tribes now seek Commission review of that denial.
Comission review of an Appeal Board decision will not be granted where (1) the question raised does not involve an important procedural or policy issue, (2) it appars that the Appeal Board has not resolved a factual issue necessary for decision in a clearly erroneous manner contrary to the resolu-tion of that same issue by the Licensing Board, or (3) the matter could have 2/
The Staff previously supported the intervention of the Tribes on the one issue, health effects of Indian receptors, that would not be considered in the Skagit proceeding if the Tribes were not admitted as a party. As we have previously indicated, the Staff is currently studying this issue and we will report to the Licensing Board, the parties, and the Tribes the results of this study when they become available.
1506 351