ML20065F558
| ML20065F558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1982 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210010377 | |
| Download: ML20065F558 (5) | |
Text
.
Septembar 27, 1982 D gjfpp0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMNISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'SEP 30 P1:13 In the Matter of
)
,_,_y, g
)
Y__,d-;'.e,%T%
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos."30 4@0,;cii COMPANY, Et Al.
)
50-441
)
(Operating License)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
OCRE REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS On September 13, 1982 Applicants filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to rescind its August 4,1981 Procsdural Order requiring intervenors to file responses to Staff and Applicants' answers to late-filed contentions.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730( c), OCBE hereby replies to said motion. As they did in their July 28, 1982 letter to the Licensing Board, Applicants allege that intervenors are misusing the reply briefs to the prejudice of Applicants and Staff.
OCRE believes that this argument is entirely without merit and that the motion should be denied.
The argument that intervenors' reply oriefs have put Staff and Applicants in an unfair position is simply incredible when one considers the vast disparity in resources available to Staff and Applicants as opposed to intervenors.
Applicants consist of 5 utility companies, each with its own considerable technical and legal staff, and are represented by a law firm with 93 (jl/ See also OCRE's rep 1y to that letter, dated July 31, 1982.
s 0210010377 820927
{DRADOCK05000 gg
-g-attorneys listed on its letterhead.
Staff likewise has considerable personnel available.
Intervenors, on the other hand, are all volunteers with limited resources.
The Licensing I
Board's order requiring reply briefs enhances justice by per-mitting intervenors to have the 1,ast word on new contentions.
Rather than being unfair to Applicants, the procedure merely gives intervenors an even chance.
Indeed, rescinding this procedure would put intervenors in the impossible position of having to predict all Staff and Applicants' responses in advance and to respond to same in the. original fillng.
The regulations in themselves place a substantial burden on intervenors for the admission of late-filed contentions.
This burden should not be increased by depriving intervenors of the opportunity to refute opposing arguments.
Even if this procedure has resulted in the improper ad-mission of contentions (OCRE believes it has not),. Applicants are not truly prejudiced by this.
Mechanisms exist whereby this can be corrected.
Applicants can move for summary dis-position on issues which they believe are not genuine.
If Applicants believe tnat the Board has made a truly serious error, they can move the Appeal Board for directed certificat1ong as they have done concerning the admission of Issue #8.
Of course, the usual appeal mechanisms are available at the con-clusion of the proceeding.
Numerous avenues thus exist which can resolve any prejudice which might occur to Applicants.
Applicants' complaint that they were unable co point out the numerous deficiencies in the reply brief filed by Sunflower
Alliance concerning the low-level radiation contention is l
since it is obvious that Applicants are using /
rather ironic,
_2 the motion as an unauthorized reply to Sunflower's filing.
As such, the Licensing Board should ' strike the motion.
Fi; ally, the recision of the August 4, 1981 Procedural Order would fundamentally distort the Licensing Board's precedential standards for the conduct of this proceeding.
Th3 Board has adopted a special procedure in this case (see Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order, LBP-81-24, slip op, at 12) which requires that the full procedural context be considered in the admission of contentions. This context in-cludes the responses to contentions.
Since the Board has held "that the're must be reason or authority supporting the pro-position that the responses did not completely dispose of the contentions" (Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-81-55, 14 NRC 1017, 1022),
intervenor reply oriefs are necessary to supply such reason or autnority.
OCRE believes tnat it is not improper to raise new legal or factual arguments in the reply briefs.
Indeed, it would
~
serve no purpose to have intervenors merely repeat their original arguments in the reply brief.
Applicants' allegations of the impropriety of this are without grounds.
_2/ Even if the Licensing Board should agree with the Applicants' assessment of deficiencies in those filings, this should not serve as grounds to rescind the August 4, 1981 Procedural Order.
OCRE (and bunflower in its future filings) should not ce penalized on the b". sis of one Sunflower reply brief.
_4 o
For the reasons stated above, OCRE reonests that the j
Licensing Board deny Applicants' motion.
Respectfully submitted, A[
Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Hepresentative 8275 Munson Rd.
Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158
_ / In the unlikely event that the Licensing Board grants 3
Applicants' motion, intervenors should retain the right to file reply briefs for those new contentions already suomitted, as these were filed with the assumption that reply briefs would be required.
e
}
s DCLKETEf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UShi'C Tnis is to certify that copies of the foregoing '0I:RgEP 30 P1:11.
REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO A).END SEPTEMBER 16, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER and OCRE REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION. : u.h in TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS were # M ie~d$cSERVil-
'oy deposit in the U.S. Mail, fi'rst class, postage prepaidjiRANCH this 27th day of September 1982 to those,on the service list below.
Susan L.
Hiatt
.-.... ' ~ ~ *~.....
' SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. WiIt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Bok 08.159 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland, OH 44108 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Vlas hington, D. C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C.
20555