ML19261B261
| ML19261B261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1979 |
| From: | Rosalie E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902150151 | |
| Download: ML19261B261 (5) | |
Text
UC 0000MENE M 4
E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSi GN jy BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 80 RD, in the Matter of 1
)
s PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 1
Docket No. 50-344 COMPANY, et al.
1 (Control Building
)
Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
ANSWER TO MOTI ON TO STRI KE DOCUMENTS Now comes Intervenor, Coalition for Safe Power, and in answer to Portland General Elect ri c Company's Moti on to St ri ke Documen ts Accompanyi ng Peti tion f or Stay Filed By Coali tion for Safe Power, states as follows:
Intervenor's Peti tion f or Stay was a nine page pleading filed pursuant to and in accordance with 10 CFR 2.788.
Attached to said Petition was an Exhibit, a four page docu-ment relating to the safety of fire protection systems, a mat ter which Intervenors attempted to raise at the hearing bef ore the Atomi c Saf ety and Licensing Board and whi ch Inter-venors felt shoulo be considered by the Appeal Board es part of its duty to insure the protection of the public health and safety.
Although this Exhibit is not in the form of an Affidavit, it is a document which bears directly on the issues of the instant case and wes supplied with the scme purpose as that of of fidavi ts, that i s., to supply the Appeal Board with an appropri a te. ef erence on mat ters of di sputed facts.
In addition, the Appeal Board has the authority to go through the entirc record and even to base i ts decision on enti rely Page 1 - ANSWER TO MOTION 10 STRIKE DCCUMENTS 7902150/5/'.
different grounds than those relied upon by the Licensing Board and to consider new matter, it is posited that the Appeal Board may at its discretion consider the exhi bi t.
The exhi bi t is not, as Portland General E l ect ri c Company con t ends, a bla-tant attempt to circumvent the page limitation on the stay petition, but an attempt to supply the Appeal Board with rele-vant data concerning disputed facts.
In the instant case, Intervenors filed a Peti tion for Stay which set forth the basic reasons for requesting a stay.
In support of this Petition, intervenors filed a separate document, not a pleading, clari f ying i ts posi tion.
This non-pleading document is in the form of a Memorandum.
Not being a pleading, the Appeal Board is not required to rule on the Memorandumt indeed, Intervenors do not ask the Board to rule on the Memorandum.
It should be noted that nothing in 10 CFR 2.788 or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preclude or prohibit the filing of supporting memoranda.
In fact, in both state and federal courts and bef ore admi nist rative t ri-bunals, parties frequently and routinely file memoranda, par-ticularly in proceedings where oral argument is not scheduled.
The purpose of memorando is as an, aid to the court or reviewing body, to present to the court or reviewing body the law appli-cable to any pleading on which a body will rule.
Such was the nature of Intervenor's Memorandum in the instant case, a review of the applicable l aw re l a t i ng t o t he Pe t i t i on for Stay.
Just as no law speci fically prohibi ts intervenors from Page 2 - ANSWER TO MOTION TO STR!KE DOCUMENTS
filing a memorandum, no law prohibits Portland General Elec-t ri c Company f ran f i l i ng a Memorandum i n Suppor t of their An-o swer were this their choice, in addition to regular pleadings, Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a variety of motions attack-ing the pleadings.
A party may move to strike any insuf ficient defense or any redundant, i mma t eri a l, impertinent or scandalous matter.
5 Wright & Miller, Sections 1380-1383.
Such motions are not favored; the motion should be denied unless the allege-tions attacked have no possible relation to the controversy and may prejudice the other party.
Jones v.
Thunderbird Trans-portation Co., 178 F.
Supp. 9, 11 (1959); Hoffman Motors v.
Alfa Romeo, 244 F. Supp. 70, 81 (1965).
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Motion to S t rike Docu-ments be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
'y+ >.s 4cj)b Eugg'ne Rosoli.e Intervenor Pro Se For Coalition for Safe Power JA * % st 13,1979 Eugene Rosolle Coalition for Sefe Power 215 S.E. 9th Street Portland, Oregon 97214
\\ on
~
f.\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e$ Y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the matter-of
)
)
PORTLAND OFNFRAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-344 COMPANY, et g.
)
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan. Nuclear Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 23, 1979, I served copies of the " Answer To Motion To Strine Documents", by placing a true copy of each of said documents in a sealed envelop with postage prepaid, in the Untied Statec mail at Portland, Oregon, addressed to the following:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licen' sing Board Atomic Safety and Iicensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Division of Engineering, Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
- Mr. Stephen M. Willingham Dr. Hugh C. Paxton 555 N. Temahawk Drive 1229 - 41st Street Portland, Oregon 97217 Los Alamos, New Mexico 97544 Joseph R. Gray, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Lowenstein, Ncran, Reis & Axelrad U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite '1214 Washington, D. C.
20555 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library H. H. Phillips, Esq.
Circuit Court Room St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary X Ms. Nina Bell Portland General Electric Company 632 S. E.
18th Street 121 S.W. Salmor Street
}
Portland, Oregon 97214 Portland, Oregon 97204
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Concluded) htColumbia Environmental Council John H. Socolofsky, Esq.
P. O. Box 611 Assistant Attorney General St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Cf Attorneys for the State of Oregon 100 State Office Building 4 Mr. John A. Kullberg Salem, Oregon 97310 Route 1, Box 250Q Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231
?f Gregory Kafoury, Esq.
Counsel for Columbia invironmental Mr. David B. McCoy Council 348 Hussey Lane 202 Oregon Pioneer Building Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 320 S. W. Stark Portland, Oregon 97204 Ms. C. Gail Parson P. O. Box 2992 William Kinsey, Esq.
Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Bonneville Power Administration P. O. Box 3621 Docketing and Service Section Portland, Oregon 97208 Of fice of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 LG/S2L f-Cf Dated this day the Eugahb Roso1Le 23nd of January, 1979.
Coalition for Safe Power e