ML20023C210
| ML20023C210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1983 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305120319 | |
| Download: ML20023C210 (2) | |
Text
-
o.
<f-SER 6 !Un 1 1 hj83 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,i(
M l
ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOARDk~,(,)y Nf Administrative Judges:
(. :., \\,J G
s g' /..
Gary J.
Edles, Chairman p'
^
Dr. John H. Buck
- d. b l'
'.,..f,,, Y. ((f)
Christine N. Kohl "q '
_. \\ p
'7
)
1; i
In the Matter of
)
i
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
)
~~ --
)
(Management Phase)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Staticn, Unit No. 1)
)
)
ORDER May 10, 1983 On May 5, 1983, the Commission issued an order disposing of numerous requests made in connection with the Commission's pending determination as to whether the Licensing Board's initial decision authorizing the restart of TMI-1 should be made immediately effective.
Among other l
l things, the Commission indicated that it has placed the exhibits and depositions (and presumably the trial transcript) that were part of the GPU v. B&W litigation in the Public Document Rooms in Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where they are available for public inspection.
It also gave the parties until June 1, 1953, to file any additional comments as to the relevancy of that material to the Commission's immediate effectiveness l
~~'
8305120319 830510
{DRADOCK 05000289 t
~*
l
O' 2
decision.
Finally, the Commission referred to us the Aamodts' April 16, 1983, motion requesting a reopening of the record on the management phase of this case.
In a pleading addressed to us and dated May 3, 1983, but received on May 9, TMIA asks the Commission (a) to order the Public Document Room in Harrisburg to allow removal by TMIA of the GPU v. B&W trial documents after normal working hours or, alternatively, to provide TMIA with its own set of materials, and (b) to extend the time for filing its immediate effectiveness comments with respect to the GPU v.
B&W trial.
The TMIA motion, although filed with us, effectively constitutes a request for modification or reconsideration of the Commission's May 5 order.
As a consequence, we refer it to the Commission for its consideration.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.. b --3 8 - _ A C. JQn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Panel 4
Pecognizing the large volume of material involved, the Commission also authorized the filing of additional comments after June 1, but added that such comments might not "necessarily be a prerequisite to a Commission decision on TMI-l restart."