ML20092B750

Motion to Strike Friends of the Earth 840606 Rebuttal to Applicant Reply Findings on Contentions V-3a & V-3b

ML20092B750
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/18/1984
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20092B717	List: ML20092B713 ML20092B726 ML20092B734 ML20092B750 ML20092B755
References
NUDOCS 8406200353
Download: ML20092B750 (3)

Text

.______-_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I 4

f.'^

00txITED W his UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '84 3 20 A'0:24 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4q 'i- {

In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Unita 1 and 2) )

MOTION TO STRIKE FOE'S REBUTTAL TO APPLICANT'S REPLY FINDINGS ON CONTENTIONS V-3a AND V-3b On June 6, 1984, Friends of the Earth (" FOE") submitted a pleading purporting to rebut the Applicant's Reply Findings and, by implication, the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings on FOE Contentions V-3a and V-3b.1/ The Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, had submitted its Proposed l Findings and Conclusions of Law on Contentions V-3a and V-3b on April 20, 1984. FOE filed its Proposed Findings on May 2, 1984 and the Staff filed its Proposed Findings on May 14, 1984. The Applicant subsequently filed its Reply Findings on May 18, 1984. Inasmuch as rebuttals to reply l findings are not permitted under the NRC's Rules of Practice, the Atomic and Safety Licensing Board (" Board")

should strike FOE's filing. In the event its motion is not

~

1/ R.L. Anthony / FOE Rebuttal of Applicant's Reply Findings, S/18/84, on Contentions V-3a and V-3b" (June 6, 1984) (Robuttal Findings).

8406200353 840618 PDR ADOCK 050003S2 g PDR

8

. , l t

[

g granced, the Applicant should be given sufficient time to recpond to this document.

The Commission Regulations, 10 C .F . R. 52.754, provide that all parties may file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within a designated time after the record is closed. This section further provides, however, that only the party with the burden of proof, the Applicant in this case, may file reply findings.1/ Indeed, this fact has been recognized by the Board in its orders scheduling the submission of findings on these contentions.1/ It is l likewise well accepted that a motion to strike is proper i l  ;

l when a party submits an unauthorized pleading, such as FOE i

has done in the instant case. Cit.cinnati Gas and Electric Company (W. H. Zimmer Nuclear Station) , LBP-79-22, 10 NRC

,. 213, 218 n.5 (1979); Houston Lighting and Pot.er Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , Docket No. 50-466-CP " Memorandum and Order" (June 2, 1982) (slip op. at 6-7). ,

s As noted by the Board in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook - Station, Units 1 and 2) , Docket Nos.

l l

l l -

2/ See Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak  ;

l Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.

l 50-445 and 50-446 " Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)" (December 28, 1983) (slip op..at l 17 n. 41) .

l 3/ See Ae., the Board's oral order of March 23, 1984, at

~

E ,9276-A. ,

-s e .

50-443-OL and 50-444-OL, " Memorandum and Order" (January 13, 1984) (slip op. at 3 n.4), the filing of " pleadings clearly <

not authorized under the Rules of Practice (forces the l

parties) to expend unnecessary efforts. . . . "; the proper t

remedy in such cases is to strike the unauthorized pleading.

! Accordingly, the Board should strike FOE's pleading.

l l In the event its relief is not granted, the Board should l allow the Applicant sufficient time to respond to the matters raised in that submittal.

l Respectfully submitted, l CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant June 18, 1984 '

I I

i 0