ML19289E733
| ML19289E733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1979 |
| From: | Hastings W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E734 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905290042 | |
| Download: ML19289E733 (3) | |
Text
/
NRC PImLIC DOCUMENT R009
- a., f, c_,Qg
\\ Y~~ ~:
i Portlaryl Gotteral Electric Conviny
!p Ir a E
,g
# e April 23, 1979 A (A Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed you will find revised pages 1 and 3 of Licensees' Answer Opposing Review of Intervenor Garrett's Petition.
Please be kind enough to insert these revised pages in the copies mailed to you on April 20, 1979.
Very truly yours, i
//
/l
~~
- a 17. -- c'7. ' : ',0
/
Warren Hast!ings WH:jh Enc.
cc:
All Parties 2043 282 79062906 9.
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
vocket No. 50-344
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
(Proposed Amendment to COMPANY, et al.
)
Facility Operating License
)
NPF-1 to Permit Storage (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
Pool Modification)
LICENSEES' ANSWER OPPOSING REVIEW OF INTERVENOR GARRETT'S PETITION Susan M.
Garrett, one of the Intervenors in the above matter, petitioned this Commission on or about April 10, 1979 to review a decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board entered herein on March 21, 1979 and referred to as ALAB-531.
Licensees oppose Ms. Garrett's Petition because the Petition does not involve an important matter that could significantly affect the environment or public safety, an important procedural issue, or otherwise raise important questions of public policy as required by 10 CFR Sec. 2. 786 (4) (i).
In addition, no claim is made by Ms. Garrett that the Appeal Board resolved factual issues in any manner different from the way those same issues were resolved by the Licnesing Board as to justify review under 10 CFR Sec. 2. 786 (4) (ii).
Furthermore, Ms. Garrett deliberately attempts to inject new factual materials into this record in justification of her pcsition which neither the Appeal or he Licensing Boards had the opportunity to review.
In this respect, see pages 3, 4, and 5 of Ms. Garrett's Petition and footnotes 4, 6,
7, and 9 thereto.
2045 283
e Section 102 (2) (E) of SEPA is triggered by the requirement the proposal under consideration involve a "...committment of avail-able resources respecting which there are unresolved conflicts."
Both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board found this triggering requirement was here absent.
ALAB 531,335, Slip Opinion (Licensing Board) p.52-55,66 Thus, and in tiew of the fact that both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board have found there is no factual basis for triggering the mechanisms of either 102 (2) (C) and 102 (2) (E) of NEPA to require a discussion of Ms. Garrett's " reduced-power-output" alternative, Ms.
Garrett persists she is entitled te some finding accepting or repu-diating this incredible alternative she proposes.
The requirement for findings incorporated into this Commission s regulations at 10CFR Sec.2.260 exists to permit a reviewing authority to ascertain the basis for an inferior tribun l's decision.
2 Davis, s
Administrative Law, Sec.16.05.
The requirement is satisfied where the decision informs the party of the disposition of his or her con-tentions and provides sufficient information to permit such party and the reviewing tribunal to ascertain the basis for the decision.
Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.
2d. 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Both the Licensing Board and Appeal Board have done this.
There are presently a multitude of cases construing Sections 102 (2) (C) and 102 (2) (E) of NEPA.
The need for and adequacy of findings in administrative proceedings has been explored extensively. 2043 284