ML20040C024
| ML20040C024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201270178 | |
| Download: ML20040C024 (2) | |
Text
-
4
/
I 5
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- G~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOltBP JM 25 P3 :00 Administrative Judges:
CFF.... ; }'^
Gary J.
Edles, Chairman U$3@
Dr. John H. Buck Dr. keginald L.
Gotchy i
)
.b b M g.
' ' ~ "
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ET AL.
)
\\@
No. 50-289 N
) 9 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Q
estart) g Unit 1)-
g)
NECEIVED a
JAN26 ;
62 ORD 4
January 22, 9
e3 g
ta On December 14, 1981, the Licensing Board is' sued its partial initial decision in the hardware / design, emergency planning, and separation phase of this proceeding.
Exceptions were due on December 31, 1981 but, in response to a request from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and others, we extended the'due date for filing exceptions to February 1, 1982.
On January 21, 1982, UCS filed another motion for extension of time.
UCS asks us to extend the date to February 16, 1982, or to March 1, 1982 in the event the Commission grants a further extension of the due date for filing comments with ~ respect to the immediate effectiveness of the initial decision.
i DSCO s
/O 8201270178 820122 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
I The motion is denied.
We believe we should proceed to ad-dress the issues on appeal as promptly as possible consistent with granting the parties a reasonable opportunity to prepare their cases.
As suggested in our earlier order, we are dis-inclined to establish a floating date for the filing of excep-tions which could place the appeal "on hold" for an indefinite period. 1/ UCS does not allege that it will be unable to comply with our schedule or that its ability to litigate its position effectively will be in any way compromised.
In our judgment, the extension already granted should permit ample time to pre-pare exceptions to us while addressing matters before the Com-nission.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
A__b _ --
~
C. Jypn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board Dr. Buck did not participate in this order.
--1/
Before we granted the extension, the parties were, indeed, under some pressure regarding the need to prepare comments both to us and the Commission under relatively short dead-lines.
The one month extension granted in our December 23 order makes the current request far less compelling.
l l
a