ML19290F132

Motion to Strike Applicant'S 800211 Motion to Dismiss Class 9 Accident Inquiry,Applicants' 800211 Motion to Delete State of Ok Response to ALAB-573 & Applicants 800211 Response to Aslab Inquiry Re Need to Consider Class 9 Consequences

ML19290F132
Person / Time
Site:	Black Fox
Issue date:	02/26/1980
From:	Farris J FARRIS, J.R.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19290F130	List: ML19290F129 ML19290F132 ML19290F135 ML19290F137
References
ALAB-573, NUDOCS 8003180159
Download: ML19290F132 (3)

Text

.

. . -,

. . ,

^

.

.y -

.bf  :

u.i AJ

.,2:~,l=!

'.\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

s -

- . .

-

Before the Commission In the Matter of the Application of )

Public Service Company of Oklahoma, )

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. )

and )

Western Farmers Electric Cooperative ) Docket Nos.

) STN 50-556 (Black Fox Units 1 and 2) ) 'STN 50-557 INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STRIKE (1) APPLICANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS 9 ACCIDENT INQUIRY:

(2) MOTION TO iRIKE RESPONSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ALAB-573; (3) APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INQUIRY BY APPEAL BOARD CONCERNING THE NEED TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS IN THIS PROCEEDING In ALAB-573, the Appeal Board directed the NRC Staff to inform the Commission of its position regarding whether or not the consequences of Class 9 accidents should be considered in the Black Fox proceeding. The Appeal Board directed the NRC Staff to provide its response within 30 days from the date of ALAB-573 (dated December 7, 1979).

On January 7, 1980, the Staff filed its " Statement of Position on Need to Consider Class 9 events pursuant to direc-tion in ALAB-573". On January 18, 1980, Intervenors filed their Response to the NRC Staff pleading and th' Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma filed its Response on Febru-ary 6, 1980.

800318o159

.

. .

On February 11, 1980, the Applicants filed the following three documents: (1) Motion to Strike Response of the Attorney General to ALAB-573; (2) Applicant's Response to Inquiry by Appeal Board concerning the Need to Consider the Consequences of Class 9 Accidents in this Proceeding; and (3) Motion to Dismiss Class 9 Accident Inquiry. Intervenors move, therefore, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part II, Section 2.710 to strike the aforesaid pleadings by Applicants because all three were filed beyond the period of time epecified by the Appeal Board in ALAB-573.

Although Intervenors have frequently argued before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that this proceeding should be decided on its merits rather than on hyper technical pro-cedural requirements, Intervenors have just as frequently been on the receiving end of adverse rulings based upon such rules of practice and procedure. Indeed, Applicants seek to strike the response of the Attorney General to ALAB-573 because the State of Oklahoma was not a " party" at the environmental hearing phase of this litigation. Applicants' hyper technical position in its Motion to Strike the Response of the State of Oklahoma is typical in these proceedings, and Intervenors submit that if these important issues are to be decided upon such strict rules of procedure, Applicant, having chosen to live by the sword, should die by the sword.

2

-

For the foregoing reason, the responses of the Applicants to ALAB-573 should be stricken as being filed out of time.

Respectfully submitted, b b teph/ R . Fardis e of the Attorneys for the Intervenors