ML20129C999

Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant 850701 Response to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Hydrogen Control

ML20129C999
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/10/1985
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20129D003	List: ML20129C999 ML20129D030
References
CON-#385-800 OL, NUDOCS 8507160392
Download: ML20129C999 (2)

Text

b 3 :<; .

00CKETED USNRC Ju1Y 10. 1985 UNITED STATES OF AtIERICA -

22 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ff t1ISSION CFFICE or 35cag7ggy Before the Atomic Sofety and d i set VjCf.

L i ce n s i khCNM.#,,W, s

In the-Mother of ,,

) ,

)

THE' CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 OL

' ILLUMINATING ' CO. ET'AL. )56-441 OL

)

(PerryfNuclear Power Plant, ) '

Units 1 and 2) )

i

' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO APPLICANT 5' REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAU FILED BY THE OTHER -

. PARTIES (HYDROGEN CONTROL) .

On July'1, 1985 Applicants filed their reply to the findings of foCt and conclusions of low submitted by the other parties. ./

T h'o t reply 'w a s little more than a compendium of distor. ion, J deception, insinuation, and invective directed toward the 1rin'ings d and conclusions of Intervenor Ohio Citi: ens for Responsible Energy ('OCRE*). In addition, new orguments were made and new Cases cited. That reply is extremely prejudicial ,'

to CCRE and may lead the Licensing Board to commit reversible >

. error, should the Board rely upon the misrepresentations therein. Therefore OCRE. respectfully requests permission to t

-file-the attached response to Applicants' reply. OCRE's response is conrined to the new cases and arguments oevanced by Applicants.

-It is-the policy of this Licensing Board to permit parties to respond to new informoeion contained in the replies of their a d v e r s o r.i e s . See LBP-S2-89, 16 NRC 1355 (1980), in which the <

8507160392 850710 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 ppg

$D}

1

• g,

. Board declared:

The principle that a party should have on opportunity to respond is.reciprocol. When applicant raises legal and factual-issues in its response, intervenors may respond to those. When intervenor , introduces moterial that is entirely new ,we will permit opplicant to respond. Due process requires on opportunity to comment.

The Board has even applied this standard to motions for summary disposition, where 10 CFR 2. 749 (o) expressly prohibits

- supporters of summary disposition from filing further supporting statements. See LBP-83-46, 18 NRC 218 (1983), note 22. Since 10 CFR 2.754, the regulation governing proposed rindings of roct

, I and conclusions of low,-neither prohibits nor permits porties

.no t hoVing the burden of proof from filing responses, the Board's policy is opplicable here and permits such responses in the interest of due process. ,

i i

Finally, os discussed in the ottoched response. Applicants' i orguments con be distilled to the theory that OCRE, and not ,

1 Applicants, bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. If Applicants believe;this, then they should certainly not object to OCRE having the lost word on Issue M8.

Respectfully submitted, c

b Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representoeive 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

---

e h ~ J

, v n,..

a

J u l y. 10.. 1995 88C ED UNITED STATES 10F' AMERICA ..

NUCLEAR., REGULATORY COMMISSION

,%5 g 6 $~;p Before the Atomic $0fety and Licensing B,Qard In'the.Motter Of. )

THE: CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-4 40- 0L sILLUMINATING.CO. ET .AL. ) 50-441HOL

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1.and 2) )

OCRE RESPONSE T0' APPLICANT 5' REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO. CONCLUSIONS OF LAU FILED BY:THE OTHER PARTIES (HYDROGEN CONTROL)

Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responszble Energy ('OCRE')

hereby responds'to Applicants' reply to the findings and conclusions filed-by the other parties. OCRE has confined this response to the most' egregious of the new, false arguments advanced by Applicants. Omission or any.porticular point should not be construed as acquiescence thereto. To refute every point Would be inconsistent with the Commission's 9001 of brevity in such submittals. See Section V(9) (3) of Appendix A-to.10 CFR Port 2. The examples herein are sufficient to demonstrate tnar Applicants' assertions,-based on a distorted and imiErepresentative interpretation of the record, are entirely without merit.

Appitconts imply that OCRE advocates a literci interpretatson of the role of the staff under the neW hydrogen

. rule. Applicants' Reply at 6. OCRE does not advocate such on interpretation; OCRE's discussion on thzs point instead 4