ML20039E871
| ML20039E871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1982 |
| From: | Rawson R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201110565 | |
| Download: ML20039E871 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE COMISSION In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF INTERVENORS AAMODT AND TMIA TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS p
\\
/ _
r I
JL
.I
/
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff January 7, 1982 p>So7 5
///
8201110565 820107 PDL ADOCK 05000289 0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER'IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF INTERVENORS AAMODT AND TMIA TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS 1.
INTRODUCTION On November 30, 1981, the Commission issued an order inviting comments on whether the Licensing Board's partial initial decision in this proceeding on hardware / design issues, emergency planning and the separation of Units 1 and 2 "should be made immediately effective if that decision is favorable to restart." Comments were to be filed within 20 days after the issuance of the partial initial decision.
The parties were also asked to address in their comments whether a Commission decision on restart should be deferred until after the Licensing Board issued its decision on the implications of the cheating incidents.
The decision of the Licensing Board on matters other than cheating was issued on December 14, 1981. Because of the extreme length and detail of this partial initial decision, the Commission directed in a December 23, 1981 Order (CLI-81-34) that the time for filing of comments on the immediate effectiveness of the partial initial decision be extended to 30 days. Thus, comments are due on January 13, 1982.
i On December 29, 1981, Intervenor Union of Concerned Scientists
("UCS") moved to extend this deadline to February 15,1982.E Intervenors Three Mile Island Alert ("TMIA") and Aamott have now filed motions requesting similar reliefN For the reasons discussed below, the Staff opposes the THIA and Aamodt motions to extend the deadline for immediate effectiveness commer.ts to February 15, 1982.
II. DISCUSSION Under 10 C.F.R. 62.711(a), the time witnin which an act is required may be extended or shortened by the Commission or the presiding officer for good cause.E The TMIA and Aamodt motions argue that good cause for the extensions sought exists because several events and deadlines relating to this proceeding have placed concurrent, unreasonable demands upon the parties. TMIA cites the following deadlines:
1.
a January 13. 1982 deadline for filing comments on the presentation by Victor Stello on information flow during the TMI-2 accident; and 2.
a January 15, 1982 deadline for filing proposed findings in the reopened proceeding on cheating issues.
The Aamodt motion, in addition to the January 15, 1982 deadline cited by TMIA, points to an alleged January 13, 1982 deadline for comments to the if The Staff response to the UCS motion was filed separately on January 7, 1982.
2 /
The TMIA motion, filed January 1,1982, requests the same relief as did UCS. The Aamodt taotion, filed January 3,1982, also requests that an alleg?d deadline for filing comments concerning TMI-1 staffing discussed at the Commission meeting on December 21, 1981 be extended to January 27. 1982.
y The Commission has also stated its concern that requests for extensions be timely filed.
See " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings," 46 Fed. M. 28533 (May 27,1981).
The timeliness of the intervenors' motions here is not in issue.
- Commission on TMI-1 staffing issues discussed at the Commission meeting on December 21, 1981.
While agreeing that these various deadlines impose a burden on the parties, the Staff cannot agree that this burden justifies the extensions sought by TMIA and the Aamodts.
The fact that TMIA has voluntarily taken upon itself the task of commenting on Mr. Stello's December 21, 1981 presentation to the Commission (regarding infonnation flow during the TMI-2 accident) should not be permitted to interfere with the schedule in this proceeding.
TMIA provided no input on the matter of information flot4 during the TMI-2 accident when that subject was discussed in the restart hearing and TMIA fails to explain why the task of preparing comments is so burdensome to it now or what the nature of its comments might be.
Both TMIA and the Aamodts point to their participation in the
~
reopened hearing on cheating incidents and the January 15, 1982 date for filing proposed findings therein.
Rather than imposing additional burdens, the preparation of proposed findings in the cheating hearings should facilitate the preparation of immediate effectiveness comments, which the Commission has directed should address whether its decision on restart should be deferred until after the Licensing Board's decision on the cheating issues. Moreover, the hearing sessions on cheating issues ended on December 10, 1981. The January 15, 1982 deadline for filing proposed findings on that matter provides more than 35 days for the preparation of such findings.
In short, this deadline does not justify an extension of the time within which to file immediate effectiveness comments.
l Finally, the Aamodt motion cites as a basis for an extension the l
alleged need to file comments on the Commission's consideration on December 21,1981 of TMI-1 staffing with licensed operators.
Contrary to the Aandt's apparent belief, the Commission did not invite comments l
on this sjbject at the same time as it invited comments on Mr. Stello's report to the Commission. Thus, any Aamodt comments on this issue are entirely unsolicited and should not be permitted to delay any aspect of this proceeding. As to the Aamodt's request for a two-week extension of the time within which to file their unsolicited comments, no deadline I
exists to be extended.
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Staff opposes the TMIA and Aamodt motions to extend to February 15, 1982 the deadline for immediate i
effectiveness comments and the Aamodt motion to extend to January 27, 1982 the deadline for comments on the Commission's December 21, 1981 meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
$L!=!hfn Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of January,1982.
\\
\\
l l
l Pi