ML20077P744
| ML20077P744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1995 |
| From: | Kohn S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#195-16195 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9501180237 | |
| Download: ML20077P744 (7) | |
Text
-
Lo
$ p'lh ?
t 1
DOCKETEDL USHRC 4
i
'95 JfJ4 -9 P1 :31_ aanuary 4, 1995 i
UNITED STATE 8fDEEAMERicKETARY j
NUCLEAR REGULATORRKb6NHXsSI6 NICE
/
I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENstNdF OARD B
)
In the Matter of
)
i
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
50-425-OLA-3 e
et'al.,
)
)
Re:-License Amendment.
(Vogtle Electric Generating
)
(transfer - to Southern Nuclear)
L Plant, Unit'1 and Unit 2)
-)'
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 i
1 INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO STRIKE i
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MESSRS DAHLBERG AND MCDONALD l
NOW.COMES Allen Mosbaugh, Intervenor in the.above. caption proceeding, and moves this Honorable Board to strike certain' portions of Georgia Power Company's prefiled testimony of A.
l William Dahlberg, III and R.
Patrick Mcdonald.
Intervenor has l
1 set out below the portions he asserts should be stricken and the reasons they should be stricken.
Prefiled Testimony of A.W.
Dahlberc Intervenor hereby objects'to portions of Mr. A.W.
Dahlberg's testimony and requests that these portions of Mr. Dahlberg's testimony be stricken from the record for the grounds listed.
The objectionable portions are as follows:
)
1)
Page 1, lines 22-page 2, line 2:
Mr. Dahlberg's j
testimony regarding the " purpose of his testimony" is i
irrelevant, immaterial and constitutes legal argument; j
l
~
9501180237 950104 b 6 l'
PDR ADOCK 05000424
]\\
G PDR
. =. _
2)
Page 2, line 4-page 3, line 3: calls.for narrative from the witness and is cumulative of the witness's testimony; 3)
Page 4,. lines 15-17.("While I was an of ficer of Georgia Power, the Company maintained exclusive control over all-i licensed activities at these plants."):
Opinion, legal conclusion, beyond.the scope of'the witnesses knowledge
-)
(i.e. the witness had almost no first hand knowledge ~of the L
day-to-day interaction'between Mcdonald and Farley);
L j.
4)-
Page'4, lines 18-22:
Opinion, legal conclusion,.beyond i
i the scope of the witnesses knowledge,. calls for speculation.
The witnesses, testimony about actions of Robert Scherer and-I l
"anyone else at Georgia Power" are clearly beyond the scope I
i of this witnesses knowledge.. Additionally,-as stated in-objection No.
3, this witness had very little' opportunity to 1
observe Mr; Mcdonald's interaction with other persons, sach as Mr. Farley; 5)
Page 5,
line 1- ("His involvement was substantial and
~
well known") :
Objection to the phrase "well known."
It is l
unresponsive to the question "What was the extent of Mr.
Farley's involvement."
6)
Page 5-6:
Except for the first clause of the first sentence on line 4 of page 5 ("His involvement was sub'stantial"), intervenor objects to the entire answer to the question on lines 1-2 of page.5.
This answer calls for testimony beyond the knowledge of this witness.
Mr. Farley 2
c-will be called as a witness and he is the better person to answer the question in the manner the question was asked by
[
GPC.
For example,'if GPC had asked "What was your t
l.
understanding of Mr. Farley's involvement
".the l
question would not be as objectionable.
However, in'its present form it is improper.
7)
Page 6, line 23-Page 8 lineJ2; opinionnevidence l
requiring theLwitness to. reach an ultimate finding of fact and/or a. conclusion of law.
The manner in which GPC chose to ask this question is completely improper.
GPC could have asked the witness specific fact questions,.but the way in which they propounded'this question is' improper.
In addition, the witnesses answer contains~ numerous instances l
i of speculation.
For' example, at one point the witness testifies that "I knew I had control over the actions of Mr.
Mcdonald concerning the operation of Plant Vogtle."
This l
witness had no first hand knowledge of this witness' i
interaction with numerous persons.
This testimony is purely speculative and rhetorical.
At other times in the answer, j
the witness uses phrases such as "we were~ careful."
once again, the "we" is not identified and this witnesses testimony about what other persons contained in the phrase "we" did is purely speculative.
l 8)
Page 8, lines 20-26:
This portion of the testimony is unresponsive to the question GPC chose to ask.
Additionally, the testimony is improper opinion, states a 3
l
l i
l I
l legal conclusion,.is immaterial and is not based on this witnesses direct first hand knowledge.
On this last point, l.
this witness is attempting to provide testimony regrading "all decisions" made regarding Plant Hatch and'Vogtle.
This I
witness has no direct first hand knowledge about how "all l
decisions" were made.
Further,.the witness also is I
attempting to testify for Mr. Scherer. 'Once again, _this witness cannot testify for Mr.,Scherer_and any such testimony would constitute hearsay.
i 9)
Page 9, lines'4-page 10, line 5:
Intervenor objects to this answer, except for the first sentence of the answer
("A:
Yes.") which appears on line 4 of page 9.
The g
i question called for a yes or-no answer an'd the remainder of
~
the answer is unresponsive to the question.
Additionally,.
l the remainder of the answer calls for speculation from the witness and calls for the witness to testify to matters for j
which he has no direct first hand knowledge.
For example, l
the witness uses phrases such as "I.believe" and "probably" i
in discussing some of the budget process.
GPC failed to lay.
any proper foundation as to this witnesses direct knowledge 1
1 or involvement in the budget process for which he provided l
l an unsolicited narrative answer.
i.
10)
Page 10, lines 7-12:
Opinion, beyond the scope of the witnesses knowledge.
This witness has no knowledge of any l
private' interaction between Mr. Addison and Mr. Farley l
1 j
and/or what discussions or decisions were reached between-l.
t 4
J
l i
1 l
l" l-l
- I i
I
~
including.the' Ethese:two-individuals regarding;any. matter, i
-approvalLof'GeorgiaLPower. budgets; 11). 'Page 10, lines;19-page.11,Iline 3:
This' witness is j
q
(:
- attempting.to testify.for Mr.; Addison.
Mr.' Addison 2can j
itestify as to why he:is involved-in.the, budget 1 process'.
once again,.this. question calliforJthe witness to" speculate.
~
l
.I and provide' opinion' testimony.
j Prefiled: Testimony of R.
Patrick Mcdonald
'l Intervenor.hereby objects to;the1following parts-of Mr.LR.
l I
Patrick' Mcdonald's testimony'and requests that,these portionsfof__
j Mr. Mcdonald's'testimonysbe. stricken /from.thel record forithe-l grounds-listed. 1The'objectionableLportions are,as follows:
1)
Page 2,L line 10- Page:3, line 1: ' call'sL for narrati' e' v
i from the witness'and'is. cumulative lof the' witness's:
I testimony; j
i l
2)
Page 3, line 15 (the phrase "or another") :
Beyond the scope of the witnesses knowledge;.
j 3)
Page 5, lines 21-22: improper reliance'on the' testimony i
of another witness; i
4)
.Page 6,Elines 16-17: improper reliance' on'the testimony I
of'another witness;
~
y 5)
Page 11,' lines 7-10'and 12-20: improper reliance on the testimony.of another,; violation of best evidence 1 rule?-
' improper reliance on hearsay; the witness has no first' hand; knowledge and must speculate; 5
... m ~..
..-,~..~._;,.
.l
. o.
c
.]
I l
i i
6)
Page 17, lines 19-page 18, line 3:, violation of best evidence rule improper reliance on hearsay; the. witness j
.has no first hand knowledge and-must speculate.. Lack of 3
foundation, opinion.
Conclusion For'the above stated: reasons,.Intervenor requests that'this-
'l e
motion be granted and the above cited portions of the:prefiled testimony of Mr. Dahlberg and Mr. Mcdonald be stricken from'the l
~
record.
i l
t o
l l
Respectfully submitted, j/ Di* dht h
'$fz, 0
Stephen / '. Kohn M
l
' Mary. Jane Wilttoth j
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
l 517 Florida Ave., N. ki.
{
Washington, D.C.
20001 l
(202) 234-4663 1
l
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -
4 1
1 hereby certify that the above motion was served on January 4,, 1995 by hand delivery on the persons listed in the attached service list (except that it was served by first-class mall as indicated by "**).
khbi%Ad?M/kh r l
Mary Jane Wilmoth
//
C:\\ FILES \\301\\ MOT.si L.
1 6
L
~
m
o 00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'95 JAN -9 P 131
)
In the Matter of
)
0FFICE Dr 3ECRE TARY
)
Docket Nos. 50-4240cfME31NG & SERVICE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
50-425-OLA-3 BRANCH g.t. al.,
)
)
Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating
)-
(transfer to Southern Nuclear)
Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Peter B.
Bloch, Chair James H.
Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 933 Green Point Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oyster Point Washington, D.C.
20555 Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Administrative Judge Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Thomas D. Murphy Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. N.R.C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Washington, D.C.
20555 John Lamberski, Esq.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
i Troutman Sanders David R. Lewis Suite 5200 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
TROWBRIDGE Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037
- Office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
- Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 301\\ Cert. Lot l
l l