ML20080E115
| ML20080E115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1994 |
| From: | Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#195-16130 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9501100161 | |
| Download: ML20080E115 (19) | |
Text
-- _ - -
p :
0 ;
DOCKETED :
December ti3SRf994 i UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO% MISSION 94 DEC 23 R2:56 i l
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 00CKETmG & SERVICE i BRANCH
) '
In the-Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
) 50-425-OLA-3 I GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, !
et al. ) Re: License Amendment I (Transfer to Southern
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating ) Nuclear' Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ;
) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 i
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE i INTERVENOR'S PREHEARING STATEMENT OF ISSUES !
i I. INTRODUCTION l
?
f Georgia Power Company (" Georgia Power") requests the Licensing Board to strike portions of Intervanor's Prehearing Statement of Issues (December 12,_1994) (sometimes referred to herein as "Intervenor's Issues") and Intervenor's Profiled Castimony (December 5, 1994). In several instances, as discussed below, Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues (1) relies on factual bases for which the Board has already ruled there is no !
genuine issue of fact in dispute, (2) mischaracterizes testimony or selectively presents testimony so as to mislead the Board, or (3) raises issues that were not included in Intervenor's Amended Petition and are, thus, outside the scope of the admitted !
contention.I' i'
l' Georgia Power does not believe that Intervenor's misrepresentations are simply the result of hurried work, but !
l rather demonstrate a pattern of misrepresentations in this l (continued...) !
l 9501100161 941222 i PDR ADOCK 05000424 O PDR .
l ._-
e ree; t
/.
i The Board's. Memorandum and Order-(Prehearing Conference l
Order), dated December 16,-1994, stated that~ Georgia Power l 1
"should file motions'to strike that'are available to it or it may' l
t be bound by'the issues at the hearing whenever questions of l
}
relevance are raised. Tr. 880-882." Id. at 5. Accordingly, l Georgia Power files this motion, . however, Georgia 1 Power reserves r the right to raise additional objections related to'the !
L !
Intervanor's evidence at the hearing. ;
II. DISCUSSION A. Power of the Board to Police the Proceedina
- The Licensing Board has authority to strike pleadings which i
do not live up to the high standards of practice expected before j
, the Commission. ERA Houston Liahtina and Power Company.(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-45, 22 N.R.C. 819, 828 (1985) citing 10 C.F.R. SS 2.708 (c) , 2.713 (a) , and 2.718 (e) .
The NRC's Rules of Practice provide that the sJgnature of a party's representative on a document filed in an adjudicatory proceeding subject to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 is a representation that the document has been subscribed in the capacity specified with full authority, that [the representative] has read it and,knows the contents, that to the best of his (or her)-knowledge, information, and belief F(... continued) proceeding. Georgia Power has previously raised this concern with the Board. 333, sagt, Georgia Power Company's Motion to Strike Intervanor's Response to Georgia Power's Motion. for Summary Disposition, dated October 14, 1994.. Georgia Power requests the Board to strike the offensive portions of Intervenor's Issues and the irrelevant portions of Intervanor's Profiled Testimony as an
~
appropriate remedy and to take such other action as the Board deems appropriate.
_ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ . - . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ = . . _ _ . . - _
'I
{
INi i i
i
.the statements-made in it are true, and that it is not interposed for delay. If a document is not signed, or is ,
signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it ;
may be stricken. :
10 C.F.R. 5 2.708(c). Further, the parties to a proceeding a
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and their i representatives "are expected to conduct themselves with honor, dignity, and decorum as they should before a court of law." 10 ;
a C.F.R. $ 2.713(a). In order to enforce these requirements,
?
Licensing Board's are empowered to " regulate the course of the -
hearing and the conduct of the participants." 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.718 (e) .
- i)
B. Factual Bases Where No Genuine Issue of Fact is in Discute Intervenor's Issue 15, at 37, relies in part on the alleged ,
basis that the "NRC Staff was advised (at a March 2, 1988 '
meeting) that The Southern Company implementation of SONOPCO ^
would only commence after SONOPCO was incorporation (sic). Long l Dep. at pp. 25, 30." This allegation was raised in Intervenor i i
Allen L. Mosbaugh's Response to Georgia Power Company's Motion f
for Summary Disposition of Intervanor's Illegal Transfer of f
License Allegation (October 4, 1994) ("Intervenor's Summary I 1
Disposition Response"), at 18. The Board's Memorandum and Order l i
(Summary Disposition: Illegal Transfer Allegation) , LBP-94-37, 40 l,
N.R.C. __ (November 8, 1994) (" Summary Disposition Order"), ;
i ruled that there is no genuine issue of fact concerning "whether ;
or not Georgia Power improperly delayed informing the NRC that !
its corporate offices were being moved to Birmingham . . . .
k
C
<d Id. at 30, 32. Accordingly, Georgia Power requests the Board to strike this restatement of the same assertion as a basis for Intervanor's Issue 15.
C. Mischaracterizations in Prehearina Statement of Issues i
- 1. Mischaracterizations Previously Stricken by the Board On October 14, 1994, Georgia Power Company's Motion to Strike Intervenor's Response to Georgia Power's Motion for ;
i Summary Disposition (" october 14, 1994 Motion to Strike") was filed with the Board. Georgia Power's motion set forth instances ;
where it believed the Intervenor, among other things, misrepresented evidence to the Board. The Board's Summary Disposition Order found instances where the Intervenor failed to
, " place evidence in its full context" and partially granted Georgia Power's Motion to Strike. Id. at 13. Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues repeats, for the most part, the factual bases addressed by Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response. Accordingly, Georgia Power identifies below instances where Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues are premised on mischaracterizations of evidence which the Board has already ruled should be stricken. The page and paragraph numbers used as headings below correlate to the page and paragraph numbers used ;
in Georgia Power's October 14, 1994 Motion to Strike and footnote 13 of the Board's Summary Disposition Order, which specifies the l portions of Georgia Power's Motion to Strike found to be meritorious by the Board. Since the Board has previously l
identified these assertions as failing to properly characterize j l
the full evidence, Georgia Power requests they be stricken from ,
Intervenor's Issues. r
- a. Page 10, Paragraph d Intervenor's Issue 1, at 5, is a condensed form of the same assertion found in Intervanor's Summary Disposition Response at 26-27. In both documents Intervenor asserts that Oglethorpe manager, Mr. Dan Smith's observations Icd him to conclude that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Farley ard that Farley's control over nuclear operations might violate the terms of the Vogtle and i Hatch nuclear licenses. 333 also Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response at 73-72 (co-owner statements support the inference that', "from an organization prospective (sic), GPC lost
- control of its nuclear plants"). There is no evidentiary support for Intervanor's assertions. To the contrary, Mr. Smith, a witness called by Mr. Hobby in the Hobby DOL case, admitted on cross-examination that his concerns were resolved once he l received a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Williams to Mr. Hobby, dated May 15, 1989 (ggg Stip. 37 and Stip. Ex. 35). DOL Trial l
Tr. 886-87. Further, Mr. Smith made clear in his deposition that '
he had only raised a question about the reporting relationship --
not that he had made any conclusions. In commenting on his own handwritten notations (which are referenced at page 27), Mr.
Smith explained:
You noticed that I requested in the April 1989 subcommittee meeting for power generation an organization chart to clarify this issue, because according to this i document [his handwritten notes), it aooeared 1
c L t
' . i that maybe we had a problem. My job was to !
look after Oglethorpe and our compliance with j the licensing condition, and I said that it appears that there could ha a' conflict. And I I went to Georgia Power, and I asked them to i clarify that, and they did, with that organization chart, which didn't answer all :
the questions I asked, but it really out to :
bad the nuestion that I had of what the '!
renortina chain was. f Smith Dep. at 36-37 (emphasis added).
- b. Page 14, Paragraph j j Intervenor's Issue 1, at 5, and Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response, at 47, maintain that Georgia Power's former l general manager of NOCA, Marvin Hobby, identified Mr. Farley as-i head of GPC's nuclear operations and that this concern was l l
shared, in part, by Mr. Hobby's supervisor, senior vice president [
'l George Head. Both signed a " confidential" letter regarding this. i issue. Intervenor's Response at 47. Intervenor's assertion is j i
not supported by an affidavit or any reference to prior' i i
testimony. Further, the record of the Hobby DOL casa does not -
support this statement. In early 1989, Mr. Hobby told Oglethorpe i
that Mr. Mcdonald reported to Mr. Dahlberg and that he had no reason to believe otherwise. DOL Trial Tr. 246-248. He further i
testified that he had no norsonal knowledae of a single instance in which Mr. Mcdonald received his management direction from Mr. j i
Farley with respect to the Hatch and Vogtle nuclear plants. IX)L l Trial'Tr. 239. This testimony by Mr. Hobby has been stipulated. j to by Intervenor. 133 Stip. 41. Because Mr. Hobby has no j personal knowledge of the matters he alleges, he is not competent [
i h
t i
to testify to these matters. Egg 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749(b). Further, the-record of the DOL casa does not support Intervenor's claim that Mr. Head shared, in part, Mr. Hobby's concern that Mr.
Farley headed-up Georgia Power's nuclear operations. Mr. Head testified that "in (Mr. Hobby's April 27, 1989 memorandum) we were talking about who Pat Mcdonald reported to, and I was very '
well aware that he reported to the president of the company."
DOL Trial Tr. 648. This testimony of Mr. Head has beun stipulated to by Intervenor. Egg Stip. 41.
- c. Page 23, Paragraph g Intervenor's Issues 1 and 14B, at 6 and 32, as well as Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response, at 31 and 50, ,
, selectively edit Mr. Farley's deposition testimony concerning his review of budgets in remarkable fashion. Both state "Mr. Farley testified 'we've done the best we could in trying to manage the nuclear budget for each of the companies....' Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 94-95." Egg also Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response at 57. Intervenor edited out the following underscored testimony, by Mr. Farley: "Yes, it has my blessing, but I did not make the decision. That's a matter for Georaia Power Company and for Alabama Power Company." Farley DOL Dep. at 95 (emphasis added).
- d. Pages 26-27, Paragraph 1 Intervenor's Issue 1, at 6, and Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response, at 45, claim that " key negotiations between l GPC and Oglethorpe were conducted by Farley. Farley DOL Dep. at pp. 32, 97." A close examination of Mr. Farley's deposition !
testimony demonstrates that Mr. Farley was acting at the behest of Georgia Power's CEO, was not the chief negotiator, and many others were involved. Farley testified that Between September and December of '89? I think the most ,
important part was between me and Mr. Stacey, but there have been many, many others involved. It is a multi-leveled i negotiation.... I was discussing with Mr. Stacey the barriers to the creation of the atmosphere in which we could go forward with the project and I was conducting them really on Mr. Dahlberg's blessing on behalf of Georgia Power i company and the Southern Company.... I was not the chief ,
negotiator but I was the one that I think as far as I can ;
tell -- Mr. Stacey prefers to have some of the substantive ;
matters negotiated at a higher level when we do that than -
otherwise.
Farley May 7, 1990 DOL Dep. at 97-98. Intervanor's mischaracter-ization of Mr. Farley's testimony is confirmed by Mr. Hobby's DOL testimony that most of the discussions of "important issues" involved Georgia Power's Mr. Williams and Mr. Baker. DOL Trial Tr. 175-76.
- e. Pages 26-27, Paragraph 1 Intervenor's Issue 1, at 7, and Intervenor's Summary Disposition Response, at 53, mislead the Board by alleging that "Mr. Farley would review all the (PSC data) requests to determine whether the SONOPCO project would respond. Farley DOL Dep. at 119." The full context of Mr. Farley's statement is Mr. Mcdonald and I would both see all requests and a part of that is to make sure that the requests are things that we can in fact supply. Some things we can't. If we have a question about it, then someone is to discuss that with the Rate Case group to be sure that we are able to supply what they want in a form that's acceptable. But as far as saying we won't supplied (sic), he is the Georgia Power Company ;
official. He is obligated to uphold the undertaking. j Farley DOL Dep. at 119-20.
l I
i
2.. Additional Mischaracterizations
- a. Intervenor's Issue 1, at 3, states that "[b)y 1989 the Southern Company Management Council began functioning as the SONOPCO project board of directors. Farley 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at p.
84." Intervenor's selective editing and unsupported additions ;
make Mr. Farley's actual testimony barely recognizable. Mr. {
l Farley's actual testimony cited by the Intervenor was as follows: 1 i
Q: Is there an informal Board of Directors l of SONOPCO? !
A: We have talked tentatively about a Board '
and have had meetings of a group consisting I of Mr.. Addison, Mr. Harris, Mr. Dahlberg, Mr. !
Franklin and Mr. Mcdonald and myself and if !
we were to incorporate today, I think that ;
would probably be the Board but I would not have the proxy so therefore I would -- I-am ;
not the one to make the final decision but we [
have discussed that tentatively and have so :
advised others. i Farley 5/7/90 DOL Dep. at 84. Moreover, how Intervenor takes !
this statement and transforms it into his assertion and l mystically dates it "by 1989". defies reason. Since the !
admissibility of Intervenor's Issue 1 hinges entirely upon !
showing a misrepresentation to the NRC on March 30, 1989 (i.e., l the date of the Unit 2 full power license hearing), this basis should be stricken as it relates to Issue 1 because no time frame !
for it is firmly established in the evidence, f
- b. Intervanor's Issue 1, at 6, states that "Mr. Farley .
implemented Plant Vogtle changes in personnel evaluation and pay l I
to Plant Vogtle nuclear operations. Smith Dep. at pp. 50-51 !
(Exhibit 30); Mosbaugh Profiled Testirmny." Intervenor cites as j r
I i
i f
1 l
the basis for this assertion certain pages from Mr. Dan Smith's April 12,_1994 deposition and Mr. Mosbaugh's Profiled Testimony, ,
1 In fact, the portion of the Smith deposition referenced indicates ;
i that Mr. Smith was making a general observation regarding Mr.
I Farley's involvement in the dissemination of information to plant i personnel related to futura plans for SONOPCO, and how it would eventually effect Georgia Power employees at the nuclear plants. 1 l
His testimony was l
I can remember that Mr. Farley did address the employees, Georgia Power employees,-at [
Plant Hatch. I believe it was Plant Hatch.
And he made a number of statements concerning, if my memory serves me correctly, about what they proposed as future actions for the -- future personnel actions regarding those employees. His comments were published !
, in -- it was either a newsletter that was put out by SONOPCO or a newsletter that was put i out by the plant management of Plant Hatch.
Smith Dep. at 50-51. Again, since the admissibility of Intervenor's Issue 1 hinges entirely upon showing a misrepresentation to the NRC on March 30, 1989 (i.e., the date of the Unit 2 full power license hearing), this basis should be stricken as it relates to Issue 1 because the time frame for it established in Intervenor's evidence was "at the end of 1989 or early 1990". Mosbaugh Prefiled Testimony at 10. Further, Mr.
Smith's general observation and Mr. Mosbaugh's second-hand observations can hardly support Intervenor's assertion that Mr.
Farley " implemented" changes to employee evaluations and compensation.
- c. Intervenor's Issue 1, at 7, asserts that "Mr. Farley f
r discussed and approved the plant outage philosophy."
Intervenor's wording of this assertion is deceptive in that two i
meanings can be ascribed to the word " approved." Intervenor creates the false impression that he has some basis for asserting that Mr. Farley " approved" the outage philosophy in the sense that he formally sanctioned or ratified that philosophy.
However, Intervanor's evidence, at most, supports an assertion that Mr. Farley " approved" it in the sense that he held a favorable opinion or endorsed it. Intervenor's liberal embellishment of evidence to support a position can hardly provide an appropriate basis for the admission of an issue.F
- d. Intervanor's-Issue 1 is generally defective in that, in y addition to those bases discussed above, Intervenor relies on a number of other bases that either occurred after March 30, 1989 and, thus, even if true the NRC could not have been mislead by those action at the time of the Vogtle Unit 2 full power license hearing, or Intervanor provides no evidence to determine when such events occurred. In either case, the Board should strike these events from the bases for Issue 1. These events include:F (1) page 4 --Mr. Farley's receipt of verbal reports from Mcdonald, Hairston, McCoy, Long and McCrary concerning nuclecr F Intervanor's Issue 20 at 44, recounts the same basic mischaracterization regarding Mr. Farley's role in establishing the outage philosophy and, thus, should be stricken from the factual basis for that issue.
F The following page number references are from Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues.
l
performance (no date established), (2) page 4 -- Farley conducts weekly executive staff meetings (no date established), (3) page 4
-- Mr. Shipman stated that Mcdonald reported to Farley on April 19, 1990 (after March 30, 1989), (4) page 4 -- Mr. Farley makes nuclear plant status reports to The Southern Company board (no date established), (5) page 5 -- Mr. Hobby's April 27, 1989 memorandum regarding Mcdonald's reporting relationship (after March 30, 1989), (6) page 6 -- Mr. Farley implemented plant Vogtle personnel evaluation and compensation changes in late 1989 or early 1990 (after March 30, 1989), (7) page 6 -- GPC's management council excluded nuclear personnel from its company-wide review in late 1989 (after March 30, 1989), (8) page 6 --
, Mr. George Head reported to Dahlberg that the SONOPCO project was refusing to cooperate with NOCA (based on Mr. Hobby's Prefiled Testimony, at 34, this occurred at the end of April 1989, after the full power hearing), (9) page 6 -- GPC nuclear budgets reviewed by Farley (no date established), (10) pages 6-7 -- Mr.
Hobby's inquiry to Mr. Jeff Wallace regarding nuclear budget approval in December 1989 (after March 30, 1989), (11) page 7 --
Mr. Farley approved the nuclear plant outage philosophy (no date established), (12) page 7 -- Mr. Farley's role in responding to PSC data requests (after March 30, 1989), (13) Mr. Farley identified as GPC corporate management contact by on-call project manager (after March 30, 1989),
- e. Intervenor's Issue 6, at 17-18, asserts that "Mr. Farley implemented changes in personnel evaluations and pay for plant l l
1
Vogtle nuclear operations personnel and selected and approved GPC's nuclear management staff." Intervenor cites no support for this assertion, but Georgia Power observes that it is similar to one of Intervenor's bases for Issue 1 discussed above (agg S C.2.b above). There, Intervenor referred to Mr. Dan Smith's April 12, 1994 deposition, at 50-51. As previously discussed, Mr. Smith was making a general observation regarding Mr. Farley's involvement in the dissemination of information to plant ,
personnel related to future plans for SONOPCO, and how it would eventually affect Georgia Power employees at the nuclear plants.
- f. Intervenor's Issue 17, at 40, asserts that "Mr. Dahlberg '
testified that the Southern Company Management Council functionsd
, as the board of directors for Southern's nuclear division." r Intervenor grossly mischaracterizes Mr. Dahlberg's testimony regarding this topic, which was as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Kohn) Is there an informal Board of Directors of SONOPCO?
A. There is no corporate entity so there is not a Board of Directors.
Q. That's what I mean by informal; a group that will function as a Board of Directors upon a corporation that exists today?
A. During the discussions about SONOPCO and how it will be constituted there was a proposal for a Board of Directors that would exist at such time as the corporation would exist.
Q. And who are the proposed Board of Directors?
A. It would be the chief executive officers of the companies that own the plants; the i
.e Chief Executive Officer of the Southern Company, Southern Company Services, SONOPCO and perhaps the Chief Operating Officer of-Alabama, Georgia, and SONOPCO.
Q. -Well, are there meetings of the individuals who will -- are the proposed Board of Directors of SONOPCO?
A. We have had -- that group has met a couple of times to talk about the status of SONOPCO and its formation. We are also '
participants at the Southern Company Management Council. So to the extent there might be some discussion of SONOPCO all those participants would be present. If there is an item of common interest and there would be i some like budgets and those type things, then there might be a meeting, not for approval but for general discussion just for information dissemination.
i Dahlberg 5/8/90 DOL Dep. at 66,68.
- g. Intervenor's Issues 14A, at 30, and 14B, at 33, assert that Georgia Power's Management Council did not participate in the finalization of Georgia Power's nuclear budget. Further, Mr.
Hobby and another NOCA employee (Johnson) were advised that GPC's nuclear budget was approved by The Southern Company's Management Council and that Mr. Dahlberg disagreed with the final budget.
Intervenor relies on Hobby Dep. at 73-74, and Johnson DOL Dep. at 41-42 for support. Mr. Hobby's testimony cited by Intervenor recounts a conversation he alleges occurred with Mr. Jeff Wallace. Mr. Jobby stated that he called Mr. Wallace to find out the status of Georgia Power's nuclear budget for 1990 sometime in December 1989. Mr. Hobby stated that Mr. Wallace told him the nuclear budget had been approved by the Southern Company Management Council (but makes no mention regarding whether- f Georgia Power's Management. Council had approved it as well):and j that Mr.'Dahlberg personally disagreed with it as being too high. ;
Mr. Wallace then allegedly said that Mr. Dahlberg had expressed his disagreement with the budget to Mr. Addison but Mr..~ Addison said "that's it, that's the budget." Hobby Dep. at 72-74. -;
i However, Mr. Wallace's deposition, not cited by Intervenor, does not support Mr. Hobby's recollection. Mr. Wallace testified that he has no recollection of Mr. Dahlberg expressing disagreement f with the 1990 nuclear budget or Mr. Addison's response to that.
Wallace Dep. at 14-15. Further, he did no know whether the'1990 nuclear budget, by itself, was specifically reviewed and approved ;
q by.the Georgia Power Management Council but that the nuclear budget was reviewed as a specific component of the overall !
Georgia Power O&M budget for 1990. Wallace Dep. at 13-14. Mr.
Johnson's testimony cited by Intervenor, if this is possible, is even less reliable and probative. In sum, Mr. Johnson testified I that he did not know the 1990 nuclear budget approval process, !
that he did not attend any nuclear. budget related Management Council meetings, that he had heard a rumor the 1990 nuclear budget had been approved, and that he guessed the Southern Company Board had also approved the 1990 nuclear budget. DOL i
Dep. at 39-42. ;
D. Issues Not Identified in Intervanor's Amended Petition j Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues identifies for hearing several matters not identified in the Intervenor's !
h i
0 1
- c' Amendments to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing l (December 9, 1992) (" Amended Petition"). Intervenor was aware of these matters at the time the-Amended Petition was filed. As this Board has'already' observed, "[m)atters that were not I discussed in the Amended Petition, except by reference to Intervenor's prior 5 2.206 petitions, shall not be considered to have been raised in the Amended Petition and shall not be included in Phase I of this proceeding." Memorandum and Order '
(Georgia Power Motion to Reconsider Scope of Proceeding), LBP 21, September 24, 1993, at 11-12.
Intervenor's Issues 1, 9, 10, 13, 14A, 14B, and 22 directly i relate to matters that were known to Intervenor at the time the i Amended Petition was filed but were not addressed in the Amended Petition. The factual bases for these issues were discussed in Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh's S 2.206 Petitions and are precisely the type of issues that the Board'u order intended to exclude from the Phase I proceeding (i.e., issues that Intervenor clearly knew about but chose not to discuss with reasonable specificity in the main text of the Amended Petition) and as such cannot be used as support for the admitted contention.F As a result, the Board's prior ruling in LBP-93-21 mandates that these issues be stricken from the proceeding.
F For example, Issue 1 relates to information provided (or in this case not provided) to the NRC during the March 30, 1989 Vogtle Unit 2 full power license hearing. Intervenor, along with Mr.
Hobby, raised this same issue in their Section 2.206 Petition (S III.2). Egg Georgia Power's April 1, 1991 Response to Intervenor's 5 2.206 Petition, Attachment 2.
k l
i
- o. .8 a
- i. .
III. concLusros l Based on the foregoing, Georgia Power' moves the Board to !
-strike those portions of Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of !
1 Issues identified above. This remedy is called for in this case f
where Intervenor and his counsel have demonstrated a propensity .
i' for misrepresentation and where they either knew or should have known of the unsupported statements, misrepresentations and deficiencies related to the scope of this proceeding contained in Intervenor's Issues at the time of its filing. In addition, Georgia Power requests that the Board take.such other action as 4
the Board deems appropriate to address Intervenor's misrepresentations.
.I ,
i Respectfully submitted,
~
ames E. Toiner !
John Lamberski [
TROUTMAN SANDERS l 600 Peachtree Street, NE ,
Suite 5200 i Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 ,
(404) 885 3360 l l
Ernest L. Blake, Jr. !
David R. Lewis :
SHAW PITTMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N' Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 i (712) 663 8000 !
Counsel for Georgia Power Company !
t Dated: December 22, 1994 l
t
00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 94 g:c 23 R256 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board g c5CRETARY_
,U- N
) f0C T1 b(j 50-424 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. E LA4N
) 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-OLA-?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Georgia Power Company's Motion to Strike Intervenor's Prehearing Statement of Issues," ,
dated December 22, 1994, were served by deposit with an express mail delivery service upon the persons listed on the attached service list, this 22nd day of December, 1994.
Af _ .
6 LamberEki~
l l
l l
l
4:
.. l f-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
- Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
.At Al.
- 50-425-OLA-3 l
- j (Vogtle Electric
- Re: License Amendment
- Generating Plant, * (Transfer to Southern [
Units 1 and 2)
- Nuclear) i.
- ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Stewart D. Ebneter -
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Regional Administrator :
Atomic Safety and Licensing USNRC, Region II i Board 101 Marietta Street, NW -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 2900 ,
Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Two White Flint North ,
11545 Rockville Pike Office of the Secretary .
l Rockville, MD 20852 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory !
Commission i Administrative Judge Washington, D. C. 20555 :l James H. Carpenter ATTN: Docketing and l Atomic Safety and Licensing Services Branch '
Board -
933 Green Point Drive Charles Barth, Esq. i Oyster Point Mitzi Young, Esq. i Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Office of General Counsel One White Flint North .
Administrative Judge Stop 15B18 Thomas D. Murphy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D. C. 20555 :
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I Commission Director, Two White Flint North Environmental Protection 11545 Rockville Pike Division Rockville, MD 20852 Department of Natural ,
Resources Michael D. Kohn, Esq. 205 Butler Street, S.E. i Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. Suite 1252 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 ;
Washington, D.C. 20001 office of Commission Appellate i Adjudication One White Flint North l 11555 Rockville Pike j Rockville, MD 20852
- . - _ --- - . .