ML20098E671
| ML20098E671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1984 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-120 OL, NUDOCS 8410010270 | |
| Download: ML20098E671 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ W I ggcca;IESPOMDEJNCE. September; _26,, 1984 'dNITED STATES OF AMERICA TkED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION F Before the Atomic Safe 1!y and _ Licensing BpardEP 28 A11 :10 In the Matter of ) LFFQ U SECRGil - ) Docket Nos."$dd}N0 f 0 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY, Et-A1. ) 50-441 g ) (Operating License) (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) -Units'1 and 2) ) ~ ) OCRE.' RESPONSE, TO ' APPLICANTS ' FURT'HER ANSWER TO OCRE 'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY ON ISSUE #8 On September ^24, 1984 Applicants filed a further answer'to 'OCRE's motion requesting the. reopening,of discovery on Issue #8, on hydrogen control. Because'of the fallacious arguments and reasonintJ presented therein, OCRE finds it necessary to res' pond to this "further answer." Applicants claim that the OCRE Representative did not negotiate'in good faith the disputed interrogator,ies'in the September 11, . 1984 meeting between Applicants and OCRE. The fact is that OCRE made reveral offers for stipulations which would greatly reduce the ccope of discovery and proof on this issue. These offers were rnjected. Furthermore, it' quickly became apparent [ that Applicants wsre not willing to negotiate in good' faith. The OCRE Representative -was met'with a barrage of irrelevant statements such as "what do you think.you will get,'out of this?", "what do you.think you can prove?", "we gave you enoughl documents on the QA issue","the Commission will decide this issue","we don't enjoy working until midnight", etc. Obvidasly the true purpose of the meeting was not to discuss interrogatories, butratheritwa$anattempttointimidateOCREintodroppingIssue
- 8.
8410010270 840926 .PDR ADOCK 05000440 O PDR In addition, Applicants' proposed objections to the interrogatories were so arbitrary and iilogical that OCRE should . not have the. burden of compelling their answers. For example, - Applicants did not object to answering interrogatories on containment response analyses performed specific to Perry using"a. computer code known as'CLASIX-3. But they did object to answering interrogatories requesting information about the modelling and uncertainties in the CLASIX-3 code. Applicants objected to answering-interrogatories Hon the construction (and deficiencies therein) of the PNPP containment vessel, apparently on the incredible theory that the as-built condition . of the' containment is somehow-not relevant to its ability to - withstand the pressures.resulting from the combustion of hydrogen It is OCRE's position that if Applicants can answer any of the gas. interrogatories in OCRE's 13th set, they can answer all of them. Applicants also complain about the burden of answering the -interrogatories, and that a blanket reopening of discovery "would ma'e even greater demands on Applicants' resources and might interfere k 1/ with_ Applicants' current projected fuel load date.*~ Further Answer et 4.- Suffice it to say that the Commission has plainly stated dhat -all parties must meet their hearing obligations, r _ rdless of their 2/ resources or other obligationsT It is certainly nuc unreasonable to expect a consortium of 5 utilities (represented by a large law firm) which is seeking an operating license from which it will profit,,to meet its hearing obligations as a requisite to obtaining said license.
- This bizarre argument should fall on deaf ears.
1/ Applicants project fuel loading for Unit 1 in mid-1985. The NEC's Caseload Forecast Panel has found that late 1985 is a more appropriate goal. In any event, this proceeding must be completed before' fuel loading can begin. The quality of this proceeding must not be compromised to please Applicants. This proceeding is (continued) W-
p o --- ~ h* n. f . Applicants _then go on to quote from various-Licensing r . Board Orders in an. attempt to buttress their position against k-. die-reopening' of-discovery. However, it.is important to recognize t I thatLthe Licensing Board has in fact granted a blanket reopening -of discovery, which-Applicants so vehemently oppose. Much of the reasoning in the Board's February 28, 1984 Memo.andum and Order (Motion to Reopen Discovery) could apply here as well: it is. clear that many of the facts that Sunflower will L need to litigate its contention are not yet available to it. .we recognize the inevitable complexity of emergency management concerns . we do not think it pro-ductive to perpetrate an adversary relationship with respect to the r6ceipt of information. Memorandum i j and Order at 2. Many of the facts OCRE will need to litigate Issue #8 are e V not yet available;.for example, experiments on hydrogen combustion l .in a 1/4 scale model of a Mark III containment will be conducted l carly next year. _OCRE believes that Issue #8 is no less complex ( than.the emergency planning issue. Adversarial bickering no more has a place here than in Issue #1. ~ OCRE finds that it is imperative (and consistent with the Board's previous rulings) that discovery be reopened on Issue #8 cs requested in its July 30, 19 84 Moti on. OCRE prays that the Board is so moved. Respectfully submitted, .yj{Nr.s W2hvc.C Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd. Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 1/ Continued. not a Procrustean bed, the length of which is dictated 1 by Applicants, which the issues must be made to fit regardless of justico and fairness, 2/ CLI-81-8, May 20, 1981, 13 NRC 452, 454. g b----
p" M
- . 3 --
.i 000KETED -{ UwRC I CERTIFICATE Op SERVICE 84 SEP 28 A11:10 t .This.is 'to. certify,that copies of the foregoing were served by l deposit' in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepai'dyl_th1!sgy.yi ~ 2/fM day of-W4 ,1984-to those Th%dCb 3 service list b,elow. / %) Susan L. Hiatt W S';:Aer'ck YNuf s y SERVICE LIST K Peter B..Bloch, Chairman Terry Lodge, Esc. ^ Atomic Safety & Licens:.ng Board 618 N. Michigan St. ~ U.~S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Suite 105 Washington,'D.C. 20555 Toledo, OH 43624 Dr. Jerry R..Kline
- Atomics' Safety.& Licen. sing Board.
~U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory. Commission i Was'hington,'D.C. 20555 ~ Mr..Glenn O. Bright Atomic, Safety &. Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.'C. 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C'. 20555 ~ Jay.Silberg, Esq. Shaw, Pittman; Potts, & Trowbridge ~ 1800 M Street, NW . Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing'& Service Branch .Offi'ce of'the Secretary U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory.. Commission Washington,- D.C. 20555 Atomic, Safety.&, Licensing Appeal.Bo'ard' Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l t- - - -}}