ML20032B219
| ML20032B219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050307 | |
| Download: ML20032B219 (4) | |
Text
-.
.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00 p))CED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ' APPEAL PANEL kJ g 3 P2:27 Administrative Judges:
{FFigEgSpCP L' Gary J.
Edles, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Christine N. Kohl SERVED NOV3 jggy
~
)
In the Matter of
)
~
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY '"
) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart -. Managem (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Issues)
Unit 1)
)
'f' c.>
)
NOygI
/Sg ORDER
%,7g,,?'J'.!
November 3, 1981
.Q,',
Intervenors Three Mile I: land Alert, Inc. (TMIA),
ckO Ms. Marjorie Aamodt have each filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's August 27, 1981, partial initial decision (P.I.D.) on management competence issues.
They have also filed a joint motion for a 30-day extension of the time i
1/
for filing briefs in sup > ort of those exceptionE A grant of that request would make intervenors' briefs due in late December.
i We note, however, that the Licensing Board has kept g507 the record in this part of the TMI Restart proceeding open t
5 for further hearing and investigation of alleged incidents
/ /
t 1/
Neither the NRC staff nor licenser Metropolitan Edison
~
opposes this motion.
gk O
G
of cheating on reactor operator examinations.
The Board recognized that the resolution of that matter could affect other issues in the proceeding, and, consequently, it explicitly deferred making any conclusions on operator testing and licensing until its inquiry is completed.
See also 'T204 n.18, LBP-81-32, P.I.D.
ST43-45, 584 n.63.
T 276, 385.
While we have no desire to add any delay tc the disposition of this proceeding, we see no value in having the appeal on management competence issues presented to us in a piecemeal fashion.
In our view, permitting briefing to proceed now on the basis of the Board'.m August partial initial decision -- when the Licensing Board itself has reserved its final judgment on certain i: Lues, thereby necessitating further briefing later -- would encourage ultimately greater delay and unproductive use of the parties' and this Board's resources.
We believe the important issues in this case will be more clearly defined and argued if they are presented at one time, after the Licensing Board has rendered its final judgment on the r
licensee's management capability.
We therefore suspend the briefing schedule in these appeals until the Licensing Board issues its decision on 2/
the management competence questions still pending before it!
l i
'--2/
We understand that this decision is anticipated in February 1982.
V
. Any exceptions tc that Board decision shall be filed with us 10 days after service.
Briefs for appellants on all management competence issues are due 30 days thereafter, and responsive briefs are due in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.762(b).
Because we expect all the parties to begin work on their briefs during the period of suspension, requests for extensions of briefing time will be disfavored.
We also take this opportunity to remind the parties-of a relatively recent change in the Rules of Practice that imposes a 70-page limit on briefs.
Requests to
-exceed this limit are discouraged and must be filed at least seven days in advance of the brief's due date.
They must also state good cause for exceeding the page limit and specify the enlargement required.
See 10 C.F.R.
2.762(e); 46 Fed, Reg. 12192 (February 13, 1981).
We also expect the parties to comply with other briefing require-ments regarding format and content.
See 10 C.F.R.
2.762(c),
(d); 2.708.
It is ORDERED:
(1) Briefing of the appeals in this case is suspended until the Licensing Board renders its final decision on matters raised in connection with the pending cheating inquiry.
l l
l l
4-(2) 2xceptions to that Licensing Board decision shall be filed with us 10 days after-service of the decision.
(3) Appellants' briefs in support of exceptions to bo'th the Board's August 27, 1981, partial initial decision and the Board's subsequent decision on its cheating inquiry shall be filed 30 days later.
Responsive briefs shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Requests for extensions of briefing time will be disfavored.
(4) The joint motion of intervenors for an extension of time to file briefs is denied as moot.
FOR.THE APPEAL BOARD D
W-K =h C. Jgan Shoemaker Secretary to the
' Appeal Board 4
e
3(.k
{*~
g 1
.'O 9'
UNITED STATES-OF' UiERIC#,'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISlION I
' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL 4
-Administrative 3udges:'
e Ga W J.
Edles, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Christine N. Kohl 1
)
~
In the Matter of
)
)
l
. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ~~'
) Docket No. 50-289 i
) (Restart - ; Management
~
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
. Issues)
~
Unit 1)-
)
)
4 l
ORDER November 3, 1981 Intervenors Three Mile Island Alert, Inc..(TMIA), and Ms.-Marjorie Aamodt have each filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's August 27, 1981, partial initial decision (P.I.D.) on management competence issues.
They have also
=
j filed a joint motion for a 30-day extension of the time i
1/
[
for filing briefs in support of those exception E A grant
.of that request would make intervenors' briefs due in' late December.
We note, however, that the Licensing Board has kept-i the record in this part of the TMI Restart proceeding open t
f for further hearing and investigation of alleged incidents i
1/
Neither the NRC staff nor licensee Metropolitan Edison
~
opposes this motion.
i
[
I., -..... _ _,,,,,... _ _.,.. _...,, _., _..... _ _,, _
.4 V
of cheating-on reactor operator examinations.
The Board recognized that the resolution of that matter could affect other issues in the proceeding,.and, consequently,.it explicitly deferre~ making any conclusions on operator testing and licensing until its inquiry is completed.
4 LBP-81-32, P.I.D. 1143-45, 584'n.63.
See also [11204 n.18, 276, 585.
While we have no desire to add any delay to the disposition of this proceeding, we see no value in having-the appeal on management competence issues presented to us in a piecemeal fashion.
In our view,-permitting briefing to proceed now on.the basis of'the Board's August partial initial decision -- when the Licensing Board itself has reserved its final judgment on certain issues, thereby necessitating further briefing later -- would encourage l
ultimately greater delay and unproductive use of the-I parties' and this Board's resources.
We believe the important issues in thia case will be more clearly defined l
and argued if they are presented at one time, after-the l
Licensing Board has rendered its final judgment on the i
licensee's management capability, j
We therefore suspend the briefing schedule in these appeals until the Licensing Board issues its decision on l
2/
the management competence questions still pending before it7 l
l
--2/
We understand that this decision is anticipated in February 1982.
l l
N
, 9 Any exceptions to that' Board decision shall'be filed with us 10 days after service.
Briefs for appellants'on all management competence issues are due 30 days thereafter, and responsive briefs are due in.accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
See 10 C.F.R.
2.762(b).
Because we expect all the parties to begin work on their briefs during the period of suspension, requests for extensions of briefing time will be disfavored.
We also take this opportunity to remind the parties-of a-relatively recent change in the Rules of Practice
~
that imposes a 70-page limit on. briefs.
Requests to exceed this limit are discouraged and must'be filed at least seven days in advance of the brief's due date.
They must also state good cause for exceeding the page limit and specify the enlargement required.
See 10 C.F.R.
2.762(e); 46 Fed. Reg. 12192 (February 13, 1981).
We also expect the parties to comply with other briefing require-l ments regarding format and content.
See 10 C.F.R.
2.762(c),
(d); 2.708.
It is ORDERED:
(1) Briefing of the appeals in this case is suspended until the Licensing Board renders its final decision on i
matters raised in connection with the pending cheating inquiry.
4 e
i.
(2) Exceptions to that Licensing Board decision shall be filed with us 10 days after service of the decision.
(3) Appellants' briefs in support of exceptions to bo'th the Board's August 27, 1981 partial initial decision and the Board's subsequent decision on its cheating inquiry shall be filed 30 days later.
Responsive briefs shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Requests for extensions of briefing time will be disfavored.
(4) The joint motion of intervenors for an extension of time to file briefs is denied as moot.
FOR'.THE APPEAL BOARD O ~ I4 h,, --' =3 C. Jgan Shoemaker Secretary to the
-Appeal Board i
l l
l l