ML20093L405

Response Opposing Applicant 841012 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 841003 Motion for Spec of Credible Accident Scenario Under Issue 8

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: ML20093L405 ML20093L411
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 Jg 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

_, , _ _, -