ML20077J520
| ML20077J520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1983 |
| From: | Reynolds N TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308160481 | |
| Download: ML20077J520 (7) | |
Text
.
DOCKETED U3HRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 83 fgg 15 All:08 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING _ BOARD bCUI5ThYb In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. "Fdst43 and
)
50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, -- --et al.
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
1 APPLICANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR'S EXTRA-RECORD SUBMITTALS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.730, Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(" Applicants"), hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board") to strike numerous unsolicited and superfluous documents recently filed by intervenor CASE.
Applicants also move that the Board once again admonish CASE to cease and desist from burdening the Board and parties with any further such submittals and attempting to influence the Board, outside the record, on matters in litigation.
I.
APPLICANTS' MOTION The Board is faced once again with a blizzard of paper filed by CASE which serves no purpose in resolving the current issues in this proceeding.1/
Although CASE repeatedly has been admonished for its uncontrolled practice of burdening
-1/
These materials include CASE letters of August 2, 1983 regarding (1) collateral estoppel decision and (2) emer-gency planning guide; August 3, 1983 regarding discourage-ment from reporting nonconforming conditions; and August 8, 1983 regarding credibility of NRC Region IV.
2-the record and the parties with unnecessary paper, it apparently has let such warnings go unheeded.
Most recently, the Board admonished CASE to cease that practice when, in January of this year, CASE filed numerous lengthy and unnecessary motions, letters, and affidavits.
In dealing with that incident, the Board stated, as follows:
This Board has previously and repeatedly warned the parties to this proceeding against inun-dating it with a blizzard of filings.
See Memoranda and Orders of July 23, 1981; July 30, 1981; and August 2, 1981.
This Board is pre-siding over an adjudicatory trial-type hearing and intends to manage these proceedings fairly and efficiently.
It does not propose to allow itself to become distracted from the purposes of that hearing by prolix motions which are irrelevant to the issues and which are largely beyond the scope of the Board's function or jurisdiction.
[ Memorandum and Order, March 1, 1983 at 4.]
CASE's recent submittals fly in the face of that Board directive.
Further, the documents which CASE has submitted, many of them newspaper articles, simply are meaningless to the resolu-tion of the issues being litigated.
Besides the fact that CASE simply dropped this material on the Board and the parties without even requesting that any action be taken by the Board, the materials are being submitted at a time late in these proceedings when the parties, including CASE, should be concentrating on matters necessary to complete the proceeding,
1
. e.g., proposed findings, and should not have to deal with such superfluous documents cluttering the record.2/
Applicants object to CASE's flurry of filings containing various newspaper articles, material which constitutes inadmissible hearsay in these proceedings.
The Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R.
S2.743 (c), provide that "[o]nly l
relevant, material and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted."
Newspaper articles do not come within the scope of that provision.
As the Licensing Board
-2/
Notably, at the time CASE was filing its extraneous submissions earlier this year, it also moved for an extension of time to file its proposed findings, which it should have been preparing during the time it was generating the " blizzard of filings."
The Board correctly denied that motion.
Now, CASE again sought an extension of time to file proposed findings, again after having wasted its time and resources submitting a deluge of superfluous documents.
However, the Board bent this time, allowing CASE another week to prepare both its proposed findings and its objec-tions to the proposed initial decision.
We consider such an extension to be inappropriate and unfair, particularly in view of the length of time CASE obviously spent producing the numerous documents which are the subject of this motion, time it should have spent preparing proposed findings in accordance with this Board's longstanding and frequent directions to the parties to do so.
In addition, CASE conveniently waited until after Applicants had filed their proposed findings before seeking an extension.
- Thus, CASE will have additional time to review and respond to Applicants' proposed findings, while Applicants on the other hand are the only party not given further time to prepare its findings.
These developments lead Applicants to ask rhetorically when the Board will treat all parties fairly and consistently, rather than continuing to coddle the Intervenor at the expense of the Applicants.
l l
_4-in the Clinton proceeding has stated, "[ilt is well established that a newspaper article is hearsay and cannot be admitted to prove the truth of the assertion stated [therein]."
Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-59, 2 NRC 579, 587 (1975).
Thus, the plethora of newspaper articles which CASE has recently filed would be inadmissible as evidence in the proceeding and can serve no useful purpose in this proceeding.
See Clinton, supra, 2 NRC at 588.
Additionally, much of the materials and information which CASE has recently transmitted to the Board was previously filed in this proceeding and stricken from the record by the Board's Memorandum and Order of March 1, 1983.
CASE itself recognizes this fact.
- See, e.g., CASE's August 3, 1983 letter to the Board, discussions regarding J.R.
Dillingham, Robert L.
Messerly, Roy Combs, Lester Smith, and Freddy Ray Harrell.
Nothing has occurred since that time to alter the relevance or utility of such information to the resolution of issues currently before the Board, and CASE has not even attempted to demonstrate a showing of good cause why the Board should reconsider its prior ruling.
In sum, CASE is simply testing the resolve of the Board as presently constituted by attempting to do now what it was already prohibited from doing by the previous Board.
This Board should be similarly firm in its admonitions to CASE.
II. CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons, Applicants urge the Board to strike CASE's extra-record submittals in their entirety.
In so ruling, we urge the Board (1) to refuse to receive such j
extra-record information, and (2) to admonish CASE immediately to refrain from transmitting such further materials to the Board.
Resp c f ly
- ubmitted, f
/f v
Nicho l Reynolds Counse fr Applicants l
I August 12, 1983 I
i s
I 2
J 1
i
--...c
,.e-.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Motion to Strike Intervenor's Extra-Record Submittals," inthe above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by hand delivery (*) on August 15, 1983, or by express delivery (**)
and deposit 4
in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 12th day of August 1983:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Treby, Esq.
Stuart A.
4 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Office of the Executive Member, Atomic Safety and Legal Director Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 881 W.
Outer Drive Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. John Collins Dean, Division of Engineering, Regional Administrator, Architecture and Technology Region IV Oklahoma State University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- David J. Preister, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
,.n-, -,
-.n,.
O 1
Mr. Scott W.
Stucky
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Docketing & Service Branch President, CASE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1426 South Polk Street Commission Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20555
/
l$
NichospS 'Reynolds Jv cc:
Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
l
,