ML20032D915
| ML20032D915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111180325 | |
| Download: ML20032D915 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA % srig NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOA' ipr '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD-
- 81 NOV 16 Pl2:29 Administrative Judges:
4 j(($gNgy$
I Gary J.
Edles, Chairman Dr. John H.
Buck ERANCH Christine'N. Kohl SERVEDHOV 1 6 1981
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart - M M "egt, (Three Mile Irland Nuclear
)
Issues)
Station, Unit 1)
)
/
Vj NYd $'
t yo t u, yI I 198 7 w f
- DE" a
E 33 D ' ** 4 November 13, 1981
/
~
8 q
We received today notification of the wl. '
'A f
the appeals of the Licensee and..the "three involved indivi-i duals" from the Licen __ng Board's Novembar 6, 1981, decision 1/
in this case.
These notices were filed as a result of a
~~~1/ The "three involved individuals" withdraw their appeal, except as to those portions of the Licensing Bcard's decision. characterizing the conduct of counsel in the presentation of their Privacy Act arguments.
We note that the Board's November 6 decision ~is interlocutory.
Thus, whether we would exercise any appellate review
.at this stage would be determined pursuant to the
,' criteria for review via directed certification.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f), 2.718(i),
- 2. 785 (b) (1) ; Houston f
Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-637, 13 NRC 367, 370 (1981).
The portions of the Board's decision that the "three involved indi-viduals" continue to appeal fall far short of satisfying these criteria.
Therefore, to the extent that these appellants continue to seek our review, via directed certification, of the identified portions of the Board's November 6 decision, we deny that request.
o 'k A8 f SW 8111100325 811113
$0 l
PDR ADOCK 05000289 I
G
.PDR
s.
2/
Stipulation approved and signed by all the parties--
4-and Administrative Judge Milhollin, acting as.a Special Master.
The Licensing Board has not yet approved the Stipulation or expressly indicated that Judge Milhollin acted on its behalf.
Because it is the Board's decision that we were asked to review, we feel obliged to await the Board's action in this regard before formally disposing of the two appeals.
3 We need not await such action, however, with regard to the matters addressed in our own order of November 10.
There we entered a stay of the Board's decision, requested briefs, and scheduled oral argument.
Because of the with-drawal of the appeals, we hereby cancel that oral argument and the required filing of briefs.
We also see no need to continue our stay, in view of the Stipulation and the Special Master's commitment to issue a protective order as described therein.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.. S Q N m e be C. JQan Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board Mr. Edles did not participate in this order.
~~2/
The parties are:
the "three involved individuals";
licensee Metropolitan Edison Company; TMI Alert, Inc.;
the Aamodt Family; the-Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and the NRC staff.