ML19289E997
| ML19289E997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1979 |
| From: | Hastings W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906010076 | |
| Download: ML19289E997 (5) | |
Text
\\7tC pUDLIC Do m
f y
E.VT ftgqq
. /*
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
of Docket No. 50-344 PORTLAN 4ERAL ELECTRIC
)
(Proposed Amendment to
' tp al.
)
Facility Operating License
)
NPF-1 to Permit Storage (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
Pool Modification)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true copies of the foregoing LICENSEES' ANSWER OPPOSING REVIEW OF INTERVENOR GARRETT'S PETITION were served on the following parties of record by deposit in the United States mail at Portland, Oregon, postage prepaid, on the 20th day of April, 1979:
Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Esq., Chair.
Sharon S. McKeel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Route 1, Box 9B U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Otis, Oregon 97368 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Dr. Frederick P.
Cowan, Member Panel Apt. B-125 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6152 N. Verde Trail Washington, D.C.
20555 Boca Raton, FLA 33433 John J.
Haugh Mr. Frederick J.
Shon, Member Attorney at Law Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 555 Benjamin Franklin Plaza U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 SW Columbia Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Portland, OR 97258 Columbia County Courthouse Richard M.
Sandvik Law Library, Circuit Court Room Assistant Attorney General St. Helens, OR 97051 Department of Justice 500 Pacific Building Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 520 S.
W.
Yamhill Panel Portland, OR 97204 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chair.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Susan M.
Garrett Panel 7325 S. E.
Steele Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, OR 97206 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Mr. David McCoy Office of the Secretary 348 Hussey Lane U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grants Pass, OR 97526 Washington, D.C.
20555 P
/
,C!pyC/MxD 2234 054 WARREN HASTINGS Of Attorney for Applicants April 20, 1979 7906010B7(,,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket 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 th'e Intervenors in the above matter, petitioned this Commission on or about April 10, 1979 to review a decision of the Atomic Jafety 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 position which neither the Appeal on the 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.
2234 055
Ms. Garrett as disclosed by her Petition herein sought to raise before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contention and as alternative to the proposed storage pool modification the operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant on a reduced power basis which according to Ms. Garrett's would extend the life of the fuel rods in the reactor core thereby obviating the need for placing additional racks in the plant's storage pool.
(see Garrett Proposed Findings of Fact).
The Licensing Board did not make a specific finding either accepting or rejecting this contention.
This was Ms. Garrett's chief complaint before the Appeal Board and would appear to be the cause of her concern here.
As noted by the Appeal Board, the Licensing Board found the environmental impacts of the proposed modification were local in character and insignificant in extent.
8 NRC at 438-446, ALAB 531, 532.
The Licensing Board also determined an Environmental Impact Statement under Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA was not required and declined to consider various alternatives to the rack modifi-cation including the " reduced-power-output" suggested by Ms. Garrett because any of such alternatives had similar or greater impacts to the action proposed.8 NRC at 454, ALAB 531, 533.
Claiming the Licensing Board had considered alternatives only under Section 102 (2) (C)of NEPA, Ms. Garrett appealed to the Appeal Board asserting the Licensing Board erred because it did not make findings on her " reduced-power-output" alternative under Section 102 (2) (E) (formerly 102 (2) (D)) of NEPA.
2234 056
_2_
Section 102 (2) (D) of NEPA 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 531,535, Slip Opinion (Licensing Board) p.52-55,66 Thus, and in view of the fact that both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board have found there is no factual basis for triggering the mechani.sms 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 to some finding accepting or repu-diating this incredible alternative she proposes.
The rquirement 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 tribunal's decision.
2 Davis, 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.
2234 057
_3_
A review of these matters in the context of Ms. Garrett's " reduced-power-output" alternative will add nothing of significance to NEPA or to the public health and safety, resolve any important procedural issue, solve any question of public policy, or be of benefit to man-kind in any respect.
Similarly, nothing will be gained from reviewing Ms. Garrett's
" cumulative impact" argument.
It is the same argument that was made by Minnesota and rejected in the Prairie Island proceeding [' Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7NRC 41_7 See ALAB-531 at p.536 through 539.
Going outside the record, Ms. Garrett alludes to statements in the March 1979 Inter-agency Review Group Report to cast doubt on the validity of Prairie Island (Garrett Petition p.5).
However, what she fails to mention is her quotation is not from the majority report but is rather the separate view of one of the contributors to the report--
much like citing a dissenting opinion in a lawsuit.
This outside the record material cited by Ms. Garrett in no way impairs Prairie Island.
The Commission when asked by Minnesota to review this name question found no reason to do so.
Ms. Garrett has presented no new good reason justifying any change in this position.
Licensees respectfully urges Ms. Garrett's Petition for Review be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
'l
,!O.% ;rY,4 &CO Warren Has6ings, of Attorneys for Licensees Dated at Portland, Oregon this 20th day of April, 1979. 2234 058