ML20058J652
| ML20058J652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1982 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208110147 | |
| Download: ML20058J652 (7) | |
Text
Licensna 8/9/82
'e ;; " o' 00CHETED 39iRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q,
q, BEFORE THE COMMISSION c,
7 -
." c BRANCli In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSEsTO AAMODT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR COMMENTS CONCERNING THE BOARD'S DECISION OF JULY 27 By Order dated March 10, 1982, the Commission announced that it would not make any decision regarding immediate effec-tiveness of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decisions dated August 27, 1981 and December 14, 1981 until the Board rendered its decision on the matters covered in the hearing reopened by the Board's order of October 2, 1981.
The Commis-sion's Order also provided that if the Board's further decision was favorable to restart the parties were invited to file comments within fourteen (14) days after service of the Board's decision and that reply comments should be filed within seven (7) days after service of the initial comments.
The Licensing Board's decision in the reopened hearing, favorable to restart, was issued on July 27, 1982.
By motion dated August 3, 1982, the Aamodts have requested an extension of time until August 20, 1982, to file their comments (1)6()
8208110147 820809
- Daanacx 030002e, PDR
with the Commission.
The Aamodts intend August 20 to be a mailing and not a delivery date.
For the reasons set forth below, Licensee opposes the Aamodts' motion.
1.
We begin with a computation of the time presently available to the Aamodts and other parties, pursuant to the Commission's March 10, 1982 Order, for comments and reply comments on the Board's decision.
Consistent with prior prac-tice in this proceeding, service is taken to mean official service by the Docketing and Service Branch of the Office of the Secretary rather than courtesy service by the Board.
Offi-cial service was made by regular mail on July 29, 1982.
Accord-ingly, adding five (5) days for mailing time in accordance with 10 CFR 2.710, initial comments are due on August 16, 1982.
The due date for reply comments will depend on the date and method of service of the initial comments.
If the initial comments are served by regular mail on August 16, 1982, reply comments must be served (allowing for mailing time) by August 28, 1982.1/
2.
In a companion filing with the Appeal Board, the Aamodts acknowledge that they received a courtesy copy of the Board's July 27 decision on July 28, 1982.
Thus the decision 1/ The Aamodts motion would apparently not only fix August 20 as the day for their mailing of initial comments but would also fix August 27 as the date for reply comments, making no allow-ance for mailing time.
This compression of the reply schedule is unacceptable to Licensee.
2/ On August 2, 1982, the Aamodts also filed with the Appeal Board a request to extend to August 20, 1982, the date for fil-ing exceptions to the Licensing Board's decision.
Licensee has advised the Aamodts and the Appeal Board that it has no objec-tion to this request and has been informally advised Ly the Appeal Board that the request has been granted.
will have been in the Aamodts' possession for a total of 19 days prior to the present August 16 due date for the filing of initial comments.
3.
The Aamodts base their request for extension in part on the assertion that they are " committed to a response, due August 6, concerning another matter before the Appeal Board (emergency planning for TMI-Unit 1) " and that "this matter re-quires us to peruse a voluminous document (approximately 500 pages) received just seven days ago at the same time as the Board's decision."
The document in question consists of Staff answers to Appeal Board questions concerning NRC's own emergency response capability.
It has no connection with the Aamodts' contentions or exceptions in the restart proceeding.
- Further, the Aamodts have not participated in previous filings on this subject nor participated in that portion of the oral argument before the Appeal Board on emergency planning which gave rise to the Appeal Board's questions.
The time required for the Aamodts to verify the nature of the information supplied by the Staff by " perusal" of the Staff document is negligible.
l 4.
The Aamodts also complain that the Board's decision l
[
l
" arrived at an importune (sic) time," that "no warning was given so that prior commitments could be rearranged" and that "we are busy with our own affairs."
The complaint ignores the extra l
l notice and time afforded by the Board's courtesy service of its decision.
More importantly, the Aamodts have been on notice l
throughout the restart proceeding that the Commission intended t
to make its decision on immediate effectiveness within 35 days after the Licensing Board's decisions.
Order and Notice of Hearing, August 9, 1979, 10 NRC 141, as amended by the Commis-sion's Order of March 23, 1981 (CLI-81-3).
The Commission re-emphasized its intention to adhere to this schedule in its Order of August 20, 1981 (CLI-81-19).
While the Commission subsequently decided to withhold its immediate effectiveness decision until the issuance of a decision on the reopened pro-ceeding, the Commission gave no indication of any intent to abandon its 35-day decision schedule once the Licensing Board completed its work.
Commission Order, March 10, 1982.
The schedule presently set by the Commission for comments and reply comments (see schedule computation in paragraph numbered 1 above) allows time for receipt and consideration by the Commission of all comments within the 35-day period.
Any significant exten-sion of the comment period would not.
Respectfully submitted, N, PO S&
OWBRIDGE
- SHAW, i
/ 4 M
./
a beor[eP. Trowbridge, P C.
Dated: August 9, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATEAOF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Aamodt Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Comments Concerning the Board's Decision of July 27," dated August 9, 1982, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or as indicated by asterisk, by personal service this 9th day of August, 1982.
N
/
ge F. b wbridge Ge
.C.
Dated: August 9, 1982
UNTIID STATES OF AVIRICA hWZAR PB3ULA'IORY CQEISSION BEEDRE THE CGNISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Pm]PGLITAN EDISON CUFANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Bestart)
('Ihree Mile Island htclear
)
Station, Ltit No. 1)
)
SEWICE IlST O htnzio J. PallaMm, Chairman Adninistrative Judge Gary J. Edles U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Chairman, Atcmic Safety ard Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. htclear Regulatory Ccmnission Victor Gilinsky, Ccmnissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Ccnnission Washingtcn, D.C.
20555
- dninistrative Judge John H. Buck Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board oJohn F. Ahearne, Ocmnissioner U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission U.S. htclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Washingten, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Idninistrative Judge Christine N. Echl c':hcmas M. Peberts, Ccmnissioner Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l
U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission U.S. Nuclear Pegula* wry Ccmnission Washingten, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James K. Asselstine, Ccmnissicner
- dninistrative Judge Paginald L. Gotchy U.S. htclear Fegulatory Ccmnission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. htclear Pegulatory Cmmission Washingten, D.C.
20555
(
Adninistrative Judge Ivan W. Stnith Chairman, Atanic Safety and Joseph Gray, Esquire (4)
Licensing Board Office of the Execrive Iagal Director l
U.S. Nuclear Pegulatcry CWmsicn U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washingten, D.C.
20555 Adninistrative Judge Walter H. Ccrdan Docketing and Service Section (3)
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary 881 West Guter M ve U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Caanission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Pdninistrative Judge Linda W. Little Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bcerd l
Atctnic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
5000 Hermitage Drive U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccanissicn Paleigh, North Carolina 27612 Washingtcn, D.C.
20555 l
w r
e aa,----
e -- - -
1
Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ca mission FaL u & Weiss Washington, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Bobert Adler Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Steven C. Sholly Assistant Attorney General Union of Concerned Scientists Camorrealth of Pennsylvania 1346 Cbnnecticut Avenue, N.W. #1101 505 Executive House Washington, D.C.
20036 P. O. Box 2357 Parrisburg, PA 17120 Gail Phelps ANGRY John A. Ievin, Esquire 245 West Philadelphia Street Assistant Counsel York, PA 17404 Pennsylvania Public Utility Camtission P. O. Ecx 3265 Mr. and Mrs. Norman Pm odt Farristurg, PA 17120 R.D. 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 Jordan D. Cunningbam, Esquire s
Fox, Farr & Cunningham Iouise Bradford 2320 North Second Street DfI ALERT Harrisburg, PA 17110 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Farnon & Weiss Oauncey Kepford 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Judith J. Johnsrud Washington, D.C.
20006 Blvnume.ntal Coalition on hbclear Power 433 Orlando kante State College, PA 16801