ML20032A657
| ML20032A657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1973 |
| From: | Jensch S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Trosten L LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110310866 | |
| Download: ML20032A657 (1) | |
Text
Nkb UNITED STATES
/
(( C' ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIONG h C. f, C. 9 W 7 I
h af' - 9'l
'sg'fgv
\\ w%]k] /,7., \\
ygf WA5m MGTON, D.C.
20H5
- ~ v'?
si:,
January 3, 1973 c,.
N c " i, s i f f D \\,' \\
i s
,y C,.t i.
I ;
JAfl
/
u U,733
\\
cv:e.
Iconard M. Trosten, Esq.
\\.k
%,N.J,j,7 IcEceur, Imla, Leiby & Macitae 4
^
a 1821 Jcffercon Ploce, H. W.
6 /s._ _, '
Washington, D. C.
20036 hly' In re:
Concolidated Edison Company of Her York, Inc.
Dear Sir:
(Indian Point Unit 2)
I%chet No. $Q-2h7 Thic will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 29,
[
lef(2, with references to ceveral cases for consideration in ec.inec-tion with the availability, or not, of judicial analysis of the legislative process.
The question remaininc appears to be: to vhat extent is an enaatrr.ent revietzable. The Christeffel end other cases cucie,est that en enactment by the Houce of ilepre.ren'.ativen purporting to give finality and approval to a Cc:.mittee'c action io ncverthelcca revievable. The distinction in the several cases cited by you, and based upon factual differeneca, may not be reol. The initial predi-cate for a review is come cuestioned action by n Corrittee, an elecent not present in the M er v. Carr case, i
j Very traly yourc,
/)
+AAWD A
p
\\
/%
Gunuel U. Jensch, Chairg d 2
Atomic Safety und Licensing Board cc: Angus Macbeth, Esq.
Anthony Z. Poiccan, Esq.
Myron Karman, Ecq.
Bruce L. Martit, Ecq.
Paul S. She:ain, Esq.
Secretary, USAEC 8110310866 730103 PDR ADDCK 05000247 G