ML20071M229
| ML20071M229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1994 |
| From: | Doris Lewis GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Bloch P, Carpenter J, Thomas D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#394-15484 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9408040116 | |
| Download: ML20071M229 (9) | |
Text
/5Mf SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTS & Nk,,_.
~cm.,~..
c _ _
ws,0E*J"#E';57,9A2eJUL 28 P 3 :53 gg;^y,==;gy",,.
a (202) 663-8000 soo gr cjl'r r
^
(LeassuE[v$o$r re57at a
(2o2 es r
oavio n. Lewis (203) 663-8474 July 27,1994 Administrative Judges Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Dr. James H. Carpenter Mr. Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 933 Green Point Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oyster Point Two White Flint North Sunset Beach, N.C. 28468 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 In the Matter of Georgia Pcwer Company I
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3,50-425-OLA-3 I
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your July 15 Memorandum and Order, Georgia Power Company proposes the following agenda for this Friday's prehearing conference.
I.
Intervenor's Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Georgia Power Company l
GPC believes that these new interrogatories, filed on the very last day permissible, are inconsistent with Intervenor's commitment at the May 26 prehearing conference that it would not file last minute interrogatories. In light of Intervenor's indication at the May 26 conference that it had already filed all the interrogatory questions it thought were relevant and anticipated only limited follow-up written discovery on admissions which would be filed well m advance, this latest and last minute filing (which is the fifth set of written dis-covery requests filed by Intervenor in the last month) appears excessive. This is particu-larly so given the breadth and generality of the interrogatories in this package and the apparent lack of any tie to recent developments in discovery. GPC therefore suggests that Intervenor be required to explain why each of the new interrogatories could not have been asked earlier. The pertinent transcript pages of the May 26 prehearing conference are attached.
I II.
Mr. McCoy's Notebook from June 1990 through January 1991.
GPC will provide the original to the Board on July 28 pursuant to the Board's request during Mr. McCoy's deposition so that the Board may conduct an in camera review 9400040116 940727 gDR ADOCK 05000424 PDR d
SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARThanSMir thCLUDshG Pm0Ff 58tomak Comp 0mations Atomic Safety & Licensing Board July 27,1994 Page Two roduction of the relevant portions identified by GPC are a sufficient to determine whether p's discovery request.
response to Intervenor III.
Depositions of NRC Personnel.
IV.
Agreed Deposition Schedule Beyond August 8 End of Discovery.
Sincerely, b/
O David R. Lewis Counsel for Licensee cc (w/ encl.): Service List s
y..
y
402 1
Mosbaugh's counsel observed, that is their anticipation, 2
that b'y putting the depositions, the bulk of them after 3
getting our response on the admissions that they will be 4
able to do that.
5 After the responses from the licensee and the 6
Intervenor are exchanged on the admissions on June 30, there 7
would follow essentially the month of July ending on August 8
1 an opportunity for depositions on the diesel generator 9
issue.
No date or names have been yet exchanged on that.
10 JUDGE MURPHY:
When will that be done, Mr. Blake?
11 MR. BLAKE:
August 1.
12 JUDGE MURPHY:
When will the names be exchanged?
13 MR. BLAKE:
We haven't established any even target 14 schedules for when the names would be exchanged, but we're 15 hopeful with the end date having been agreed to by the 16 parties, if we can get the board to extend the schedule to i
17 accommodate that, that they'll be plenty of incentive to get 18 names early enough so that you can reach agreement and get 19 them in within that schedule.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
There will be no problem, I'm sure, 21 getting the agreement by the board on a reasonable schedule 22 that has been agreed to by the parties.
23 MR. BLAKE:
Thank you.
24 When I said the end of depositions by the end of 25 August, that is also August 1 I'm sorry -- the end of
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
403 1
depositions by August 1, that is also the end date for 2
completion of discovery in all respects.
And by that I t
3 mean, interrogatories will have been sent, delivered to the 4
other parties in a time frame so that under the NRC's 5
regulations for typical responses, responses would be due by 6
August 1.
7 Therefore, if you decided to serve your e
interrogatories by mail, you would subtract 19 days about 9
from August 1, 14 for typical time for interrogatories, and 10 5 for motion -- for serving by mail and you would have to 11 have submitted your interrogatories 19 days prior to August 12 1.
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
I see one possible problem with that 14 and that is just that it's possible that adding a bunch of 15 interrogatories could be so extensive that the party sending 16 it would know that there is going to be an extension.
I 17 would think that you really want it done so that 18 interrogatories are filed as early as possible, and whatever 19 is done at that last moment would be the smallest amount 20 that is left until that moment.
21 MR. BLAKE:
Speaking for the licensee, I would 22 certainly follow that lead and we will try to do that.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
That seems to be something the 24 Intervenors can stick with also.
As I was thinking about 25 it, the interrogatories are awfully useful to get back i
g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 j
Washington, D.C.
20005 i
(202) 842-0034 i
404 1
before you do the depositions.
2 MR. COLAPINTO:
Your Honor, we have attempted 3
already to file all the interrogatory questions that we 4
think are relevant.
We're going to try to finish that off i
5 so we don't have to file any in July.
But it's a good 6
suggestion.
As we discussed in our negotiations, we do l
7 anticipate some follow-up written discovery once the answers 0
to the admissions come in, and so it's kind of foreseeing 9
the small period of time to do that.
But I think as a f
10 general rule, I agree completely.
But I don't want -- but 11 the way it is set up now is the parties would be able to i
12 file their last set of interrogatories 14 days prior to l
13 April 1,
or if they did it by mail, 19 days.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
I thought I heard you say something
{
15 else, I'm not sure, and that is you thought there might also 16 be some interrogatories following the last two weeks of 17 depositions to follow-up?
18 MR. COLAPINTO:
No, no, no, following the i
19 admission, the requests for admissions which are due on June 20 3.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
But that is well in advance?
e 22 MR. COLAPINTO:
Yes.
23 MR. MICHAFT KOHN:
There is one other item that we 24 haven't really covered in this, but the deposition schedule 25 from July through August 1st -- when we were framing it, it i
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportere 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
405 1
was in my mind leaving at the most the time to do that and 2
we would be filing our discovery, that the due date would 3
actually end on July 1st as well.
But I don't know if the 4
parties actually agreed that because we may have a vigorous 5
deposition schedule going on there, that the actual answers 6
might actually arrive after August ist, but the actual 7
filings would occur before that time.
8 MR. LAMBERSKI:
You're talking about August 1st?
Yes.
10 MR. LAMBERSKI:
You said July lat.
11 MR. MICHAEL KOHN:
I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
What is this one time, that will be 13 an exception?
I didn't understand that.
}
14 MR. MICHAEL KOHN:
I'm afraid I didn't, either.
t 15 MR. COLAPINTO:
What he is saying is that the way 16 the schedule is that the discovery has to be filed so that 1~
it would be answered by July 1 -- August 1.
I'm sorry.
18 That would not necessarily foreclose a party from asking for 19 an enlargement of time to answer that discovery request, you 20 know, if they were in the middle of depositions, but when it 21 is setting the final date is when there will be no more 22 discovery filed.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand that, but I thought 24 there was a question on that which is to attempt to get 25 interrogatories so there won't be a multiple one to answer
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
406 1
so it will reduce the chance of needing an extension.
2 MR. BLAKE:
That, I believe, gives you the 3
schedule that we were talking about for completing discovery 4
in this case.
We did not go on and discuss the other items 5
that appear in your agenda, or even try to.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
It could be better to put that off.
7 MR. BLAKE:
If we could, please.
8 Let me continue now wi'.h our agenda items and give 9
you any other agreements or things that we are agreed upon.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Just one second.
I would like to 11 ask the reporter to bind our agenda in so that there will be 12 a record of what it is.
Bind it at this point in time in 13 the transcript, not at the back, right there.
14
[The Board's Agenda follows:]
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842'0034
4 UNITEP STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
Re: License Amendment (Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-0LA-3 SERVICE LIST
- Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Peter B.
Bloch, Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 g
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commis' ion ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mitzi A.
Young, Esq.
Administrative Judge Charles Barth, Esq.
Dr. James H.
Carpenter Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board One White Flint North 933 Green Point Drive Stop 15B18 Oyster Point U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sunset Beach, N.C.
28468 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Administrative Judge
- Director, Thomas D. Murphy Environmental Protection Division Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Department of Natural Resources U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 205 Butler Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334
- Michael D.
Kohn, Esq.
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
Carolyn F. Evans, Esq.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20001 101 Marietta Street, N.W.,
Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323-0199 Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Office of Commission Appellate USNRC, Region II Adjudication 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 2900 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
=
Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- By Hand Delivery M /0329/071DRL.94 M /0329/086DRL.94 s
f i
f l
I
_ _ -