CLI-81-34, Order CLI-81-34,revising Commission 811130 Order Re Scheduling.Comments on ASLB 811214 Decision Due 820113.Reply Comments on 820120.Commission,not Aslab Has Stay Authority
| ML20039C082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CLI-81-34, NUDOCS 8112280386 | |
| Download: ML20039C082 (5) | |
Text
..
OctXETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'81 DEC 23 A9:16 COMMISSIONERS:
ax.5a.
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
- SERVICE
- NU Victor Gilinsky Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Roberts 2
SERVED DEC 31981 In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY Docket h-la t)"'Ceg '
(R b
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
f/
jL UnitNo.1)
~/
bg 69
. l49.. Cg
,g
( %.
gfSO r }
l ORDER
\\
"Y vif-81-34)
N
',/
On November 30, the Commission issued an Order establishing a schedule for the receipt of coments on whether the Licensing Board's decision on hardware / design issues, emergency planning and the separatior of Units 1 and 2 should be made effective immediately if that decision is favorable to restart.
On December 14, 1981, the Board issued its decision. The Board's decision is extremely lengthy and detailed. The schedule has been revised in light of this development. Comments on the decision and on whether the Commission should defer its own decision on restart until after a Board decision on the cheating incidents must be received by the Commission within 30, rather than 20, days after the issuance of the Board's decision (i.e.,
3501 comments are due in the Commission's hands by January 13, 1982).
Reply
,s
- comments must be received within 7 days thereafter (i.e., reply comments I!l 8112280386 811223
{DRADOCK 05000289 '
l
.o l
i 2
i
~ must be received by January 20, 1982).
After considering the comments and replies described above, the Commission will either issue a decision regard-ing restart or advise the parties of the schedule that will be followed.
i l
The Commission is the exclusive administrative body with the power to determine whether Unit One may restart during the pendency of any possible i
appeals of a Board decision before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Parties may not file papers with the Appeal Board either supporting or opposing a stay of any such decision during the pendency of any such i
appeal s.
Therefore, any party which has a position on whether, in light of the Licensing Board's decision, Unit One should be allowed to restart during i
~ ghe pendency of any such appeals should so argue in its comments submitted to the Commission.
The Canmission has decided against Appeal Board stay authority because this case differs significantly from normal initial operating license cases.
Here, a decision by the Commission rather than granting effectiveness to a Licensing Board decision, would be determining, based on that decision and F
other factors, whether the concerns which prompted its original immediate 1
suspension order of August,1979, justify a continuation of that suspension.
If they do not, and the Commission therefore can no longer find that the "public health, safety and interest" mandates the suspension, then the Commission is required by law -- whatever the nature of the Licensing Board's decision -- to lift that suspension immediately. This is a matter peculiarly withii the Canmission's knowledge and involving the most dis--
l cretionary aspects of its enforcement authority.
4 4
,.-.v.,~,.
.,,....-,,,,n.,-,._..,,,_,,,.,nw,,,..,.
-,.,--------,-.n.,
,.e
3 Accordingly, we have decided that Appeal Board stay proceedings are not well suited to this case.
Comissioner Gilinsky's Separate Views and Comissioner Bradford's Partial Dissent follow.
For the Comission C
t SAMUEL _f.CHILK 3
Secretary o# the Comission s
l Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 23rd day of December,1981.
l l
Dece r 22, 1981 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY'S SEPARATE VIEWS.
I did not vote on this matter because the opinion drafted by the General Counsel for the majority, and the modifications-of the Commissioners comprising that majority, were not circulated to my office until less than an hour before the Commission meeting at which this Order was affirmed.
I agree with the points made by Commissioner Bradford regarding the restrictions placed on the Appeal Board's review of this case.
The Commission decided recently (over the objection of Commissioner Bradford and myself) that it would reverse its earlier commitment to itself review the TMI-l Licensing Board decision.
Instead, it decided to treat this case much like any other and turned the review over to the Appeal Board.
In these circumstances, I find it odd that the Commission has so little faith in the Appeal Board's judgment that it now deprives the Appeal Board of its normal authority to grant or deny requests for a stay.
o VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD, DISSENTING IN PART I had thought that the Comission's earlier decision to provide the normal Appeal Board review in this case (CLI-81-19",14 NRC August 20,-1981) was intended to put TMI on about the same appellate footing as all other adjudications. However, today's decision denying the Appeal Board the stay pcwer that it has in all other such cases-i undermines the justification for the earlier decision for no apparent reason other, perhaps, than an unspoken fear that the Appeal Board might i
actually grant a stay.
l l
l s
B l
. -