ML20081M634
| ML20081M634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1995 |
| From: | Kohn M KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | Bloch P, Carpenter J, Murphy T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#295-16552 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9504030019 | |
| Download: ML20081M634 (2) | |
Text
,
P' _
do-q'z.Y f 25-OLA -3 02
'PGA-TG-1995 11143 -
y.
N^ d8M
' KOHN, KOHN, S COLAPINTO, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DOCKETED USNRC 517 FLORIDA AVENLE, NW WASHINGTON, CC 20001 1850 tao 2) 224-4esa. rAx (2023 4s2-45<.s.g,
IN2
- $2';T,4?l.
m one w co."
0FFICE OF SECRETARY
' $ NUN
' ^ " " " "
wLe DOCKEIWG i CERWCF
~
BRANCF gg,;,..
March 30,1995 Via Facsimile Hon. Peter B. Bloch, Chair Hon. James H. Carpenter Hon. Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licensing Amendment (transfer to Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No.93-671 OLA-3
Dear Sirs:
Yesterday, at 4:59 p.m., Georgia Power Company's counsel transmitted to Intervenor's counsel the letter sent to the Board seeking a postponement of the date for prefiled written testimony concerning diesel air quality. They request to delay the l
fUiug until one week after the Board rules on Georgia Power's motion for summary disposition, presumably after NRC Staff' files its brief on April 27th. This request constitutes a motion for continuance and is not supported by a statement demonstrating good cause; it should be denied for that reason alone. There is no reason why Georgia Powcr cannot meet the April 3,1995 filing deadline. It makes no sense for Georgia Power to argue that, while it is entitled to summary disposition, it is unable to timely file testimony on the issue it seeks summary disposition.
At our last prehearing conference call, Georgia Power requested to present its l
case first. The Board also indicated how it intended to ruling concerning the Motion to Strike. Georgia Power's counsel did not alert the Board that in order to proceed first, a delay in submitting prefiled testimony might be warranted. Instead, Georgia Power opposed any action that could result in delay. Requesting a delay at this juncture is counter to Georgia Power's prior position.
l l
9504030019 950330"
)
ADOCK 0500 4
pj gDR
I p,m M00-33 1995 - 16849
~...
Page 2 March 30,1995 Intervenor believes that the parties should follow the established prehearing schedule. Consideration of Georgia Power's motion after the first week of the hearing will not prejudice any party, whereas Georgia Power's request to delay filing prefiled testimony will. Intervenor will ultimately be forced to present his case piecemeal; he would find it necessary to require witnesses to appear on more than one occasion; and it will add confusion with respect to submitting exhibits. Moreover, it will allow Georgia Power to use the response to summary disposition as a discovery tool and would grant Georgia Power the significent procedural advantage of recasting its prefiled testimony in light of Intervenor's arguments and factual basis.
Intervenor believes that the current schedule should remain in effect. But, should the Board consider rescheduling, Intervenor requests that all prehearing testimony be filed at one time and that a new hearing date be discussed at the upcommmg prehearing conference.
In short, Georgia Power is prepared to submit testimony on air quality and, except for procedural advantage, there is no logical reason to delay its submission and thereby delay the proceeding.
Sincerely yours.
hA Michael D. Kohn CC:
Service List l
TOTAL P.03
.