ML20040B614
| ML20040B614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1982 |
| From: | Bishop L, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201260247 | |
| Download: ML20040B614 (2) | |
Text
-
UNITED STRUES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR EDGUIRIDIN ODf41ISSION BENRE W E CCR USSION
'82 J/R 21 PS :24 L
[.-
- a,
)
In the Matter of
)
)
MI?rPOTOLITNJ EDISON CCt4PANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart) hjf (Three tiile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.1)
)
)
.~
)
i/
bbtion for Peconsideration of Order Granting in Part, and Denying in Part, Pequest for Extention of Tim 3 On Decml>2r 29,1981, the Union of Concenied Scientists (UCS) requested a 30 day extension of tine in which to file conmmts on whether the Dxxw;er 14, 1981 PID slould be nnd3 imrediately effective. On January 11, 1982, that notion was partially granted, and the parties were given until January 28 to file thc~,e crrm2nts. By this notion, UCS asks that the Conmission reconsider its prior decision and grant the full extension applied for, or until Febulary 15, 1982.
hhile we appreciate the Cormission's partial granting of our notion, in this case, half a loaf is not significantly better than none.
In asking for a 30 day extension to file the imnediate effectiveness cxxn-nents, we requested only that amount of tim 2 we believed to be absolutely necessary.
In addition to the reasons for an extension stated in our tremi.ur 29 notion, tiva (1xmtission has now requested cannents on another faaet of the water sutply indicators issue by February 1,1982. Therefore, under the existing sclxxlule, UCS must review another inch and a half p503
)
8201260247 820121
{DRADOCK 05000289 PDR
M 9
thick package of docunents and transcripts within the sane tine frane.
It in sinply unreasonable to impose such lxirdens on parties to this proaxxling, particularly one with extra 1ely limited resources.
i This extrately rigorous tine scledule is particularly unnecessary given tle recent decision in PNIE v. NIC, No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir., Jan.
7, 1982). That decision regttires the NIC to prepare a new environnental impact appraisal lufore it reaches any decision on restarting 'IMI-1. It sinply makes in sense to retain an unduly restrictive briefing schedule in light of this new decision, as any restart must nemssarily be deferred 4
j for at least several nonths.
Wherefore, for all the foregoing reasons, UCS requerts that the Ccmnission reconsider its January 8,1982 scleduling order and allow tle parties until Febntary 15, 1982, to file their otruents on inrediate offmtiveness of the [bconber 14, 1982 PID.
Pespectfully sulmtitted,
[f.
(, jfg
< ' - ~
Ellyn Pi W2iss r
/t-
.t Ice L. Bishop f
v/
IIAlt10N & WEISS 1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for UCS Januar'f 21, 1982