ML20009E103
| ML20009E103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107270099 | |
| Download: ML20009E103 (2) | |
Text
..
m
/
i.
,Q.'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
' 4.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i,}
Loi F $
m n ::::ci ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,Q -
%~T3 8
r c:-
~
s
'O Before Administrative Judges:
g 4g Marshall E. Miller, Chairraan Dr. Forrest J. Remick Dr. Richard F. Cole Docket Nos.
In the Matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
(Application for Operating License)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
July 22, 1981
)
gs JUL 231981 ORDER CFUR on July 17, 1981 filed and served by mailIl a so-called Motion to Clarify Contention 3.
The stated purpose of this filing was "to summarize the background which led to the current wording and scope of Contention 3 and to rectify any misimpression which may be left by the Applicants' Answers to9 i rp CFUR's Motions (1) To Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR's Fourth Set of,
'h h '
d Interrogatories and (2) To Find Applicants in Default and Request or o
g Argument."
gj pb
'p This " Motion" is by its own terms clearly contrary to the Commislion's
/<I l
- ,\\
/
J NQT% \\'
Rules of Practice, and it will be summarily stricken and dismissed.
CFUR's filing, although couched in the form of a motion, is actually an attempt to file an argumentative reply to the Applicants' answers to CFUR's motions dated June 18, 1981.
10 CFR 62.730 governs motion practice, j
DSO3 1/This filing was received by the Board on July 21, 1981.
O 8107270099 810722 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
t~,
.. and it provides that after a motion is filed, "a party may file an answer" in opposition to the motion. The rule further expressly provides that the
" moving party shall have no right to reply, except as permitted by the presiding officer..." (Paragraph (c)).
This attempted reply by the moving party (CFUR) was not permitted by the presiding officer or anyone else. No request for leave to file such a reply, accompanied by a showing of good cause, was ever filed with the. Board.
No attempt was ever made to comply with 10 CFR 12.730.
This proceeding is already suffering from a flood of motions, answers, objections to interrog6 tories and the like which constitute an imposition upon the Board. The subject of excessive and unnecessary filings with the Board and proposed remedies therefor will be discussed in another Order to be released shortly. This motion is a clear example of an attempted evasion of the Rules of Practice, and it will not be permitted.
ORDER The Motion to Clarify Contention 3 fiied by CFUR on July 17, 1981, is summarily stricken and dismissed.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_k b.
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of July, 1981.
~
w y
-v--
-,g,.
,,,4 y
,,-- -