ML20093L405
| ML20093L405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1984 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093L408 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#484-556 OL, NUDOCS 8410180563 | |
| Download: ML20093L405 (2) | |
Text
gCh_,
. =..
.n I
October.~.15 ;. 19 8 4 dNITED STATES ~0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Lic'ensine Board kk,j{Tro
.In the Matter of
)
- 84
)
NI g J
CLEVELAND ELECTRICIILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440r9 '
4' 15 7 COMPANY, Et A1. -
)
50-441"0L > -
)
(Operating-License)
' 9 ;
(Perry Nuclear Pow r Plant,
)
" nits 1 and 2)
)
y.
OCRE RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS ' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO. FILE REPLY-On October 12, 1984 Applicants. filed their Motion for Leave to File Reply requesting the Licensing Board's permission to
~
fi'le a reply (attached to said motion) to OCRE's Response to Applicants' Motion for Specification of a Credible Accident Scenario Under Issue #8, dated October.3, 198'4.
Applicants claim that OCRE's " selective use of SECY-83-357" and "new legal arguments" necessitate a reply.
The fact is that Applicants were put.on notice a month.ago n.
that OCRE would rely on SECY-83-357.
At the September 11, 1984 meeting between.OCRE and Applicants (for'the purpose of discussing OCRE's' interrogatories on Issue #8), Applicants informed OCRE of C
their intention to file a motion for the' specification of a credible accident scenario for Issue #8.
OCRE replied that much unnecessary work could be avoided if the parties could agree to the standards fbr litigating the issue; OCRE specifically mentioned the criteria of'SECY-83-357 as constituting an appropriate standard.
This proposal', along with ~all the other constructive proposals advanced by OCRE, was rejected by Applicants.
Clearly, Applicants cannot. legitimately claim surprise at OCRE's use of SECY-83-357, 8410180563 841015 PDR ADOCK 05000440 A
G PDR V
<. ~
~~
Nor should "new. legal arguments" constitute a valid ground for-their motion.
When a party files a. motion, it.shonld expect that the responding. parties might advance a theory other
~
than.that it proposed.
OCRE's arguments (based.largely on materials previously cited in this proceeding) present no-theory so' novel that it could not have been anticipated by Applicants.
In essence, Applibants now seek-"a.second crack at bat when one crack would have-done."--1/Their motion must be denied.
However, in the event that -the Board should choose to entertain Applicants' filing, OCRE. requests that the Board also.
consider the attached "OCRE Response to. Applicants' Reply.to OCRE Response Regarding Specification of a Credible Scenario Under Issue #8."
l.
Respectfully submitted, W
Wu j
Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson'Rd.
Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 t
_1/
January 28, 1983 Memorandum and Order (. Reconsideration: hA),
slip op. at 12.
I f
_, -