ML20094S241

Georgia Power Co Response to Intervenors Motion for Continuance.* Intervenor Motion Unjustified & Prejudicial & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List

ML20094S241
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/22/1995
From:	Doris Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#495-17318 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9512060086
Download: ML20094S241 (7)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _

}'f0lf I 00CKETED USNRC November 22,1995 9

% NOV 24 A9:48 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board BRANCH i

In the Matter af ) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3

) 50-425-OLA-3 >

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )

etal. ) Re: License Amendment

) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) ,

Units I and 2) ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3  ;

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Georgia Power Company hereby responds to and opposes "Intervenor's Motion for Con-t tinuance for Good Cause" (Nov. 21,1995). Filed the evening before Intervenor's proposed find-ings are due, Intervenor's motion seeks an extension of the already generous schedule on the grounds that Intervenor's counsel was busy elsewhere. This motion should be denied because it is F prejudicial and does not provide good cause for the extension.

t Intervenor seeks an eight day extension (from November 22 until November 30). While Intervenor characterizes this as a "small enlargement of time," it is in fact quite prejudicial to Georgia Power because it may extend the schedule for findings into the Christmas holiday? In- ,

tervenor's argument that this is "the first enlargement of time requested by Intervenor for this post

~~

E If the Staff and Georgia Power's findings were extended by eight days, Georgia Power's reply findings would be due on Saturday, December 23 - the weekend before Christmas. .

9512060006 951122 4 ADOCK 0500 gDR

l9  !

r hearing brief" does not justify imposing this hardship on Georgia Power counsel. That Interve-nor's motion is the first with respect to his proposed findings is meaningless, and in fact the Board ,

should consider Intervenor's history in this proceeding ofignoring deadlines and making last min- -  ;

ute rquests for extensions. In any event, with respect to the schedule for proposed findings, In- l tervenor requested and was granted a ten-day extension of the filing periods set out in the NRC . .

i regulations when the schedule was discussed with the Licensing Board. Sn Tr.15476 (Sept. 28, i

1995). The current schedule was fully discussed and established to accommodate the needs of all .

the parties, and it should not be disturbed at Intervenor's whim, panicularly where as here the re- f quest for extension comes at the last moment. Georgia Power therefore asks that the Board en- l force the established schedule. l i

None of the purported grounds for Intervenor's extension warrant disturbing the agreed- l l

upon schedule. At the outset, Georgia Power observes that when Intervenor's counsel called l l

Georgia Power's counsel (Mr. Joiner) on November 21 and requested consent to an extension, In-tervenor's counsel stated that the extension was to allow Intervenor time to review and address in the findings an order that the Secretary of Labor has issued in the Mosbauah case. Intervenor's counsel offered no other grounds fbr the extension. Georgia Power therefore believes that all of

?

the other grounds now assened in Intervenor's motion are post-hoc justifications and should be considered only with greatest skepticism.

With respect to the two unidentified proceedings in Houston and Louisville, Intervenor t'

i' provides no specifics. He does not indicate when these hearings were scheduled or occurred,

{ how long they lasted, or which of the number of attorneys from the Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto i

l I 2 i

____,D

s law firm were involved. He also does not indicate ifIntervenor's counsel was aware of these pro-ceedings when the schedule in this case was established by the Licensing Board. Georgia Power l l

I believes that this hearing in Houston was one involving Houston Lighting and Power and under-stands, based on a communication with HL&P's attorney, that the hearing occurred in October i

and was scheduled well in advance -- before the findings schedule in this case was set. If Georgia i Power's understanding and beliefis correct, the hearing in Houston cannot possiblyjustify Inter-1 venor's eleventh hour request.

Intervenor's reference to the need to file a brief relating to the enforcement conference concerning Mr. Ilobby's Department of Labor proceeding is similarly unpersuasive. There was no rule or order that required Intervenor's counsel to file such a brief, no schedule by which such a document had to be submitted, and no urgency of which Georgia Power is aware. Intervenor's 1

counsel simply chose his own priorities and elevated the enforcement matter over his obligation to j l

work on findings in this proceeding. Further, this brief was submitted on November 2 -- nearly l l

4 three weeks ago and before Georgia Power filed its proposed findings -- and simply cannot justify i

Intervenor's request to extend the schedule the day before his findings are due.

l i

Nor does the representation of Mr. Whitehurst justify any extension. To the best of Geor-gia Power's knowledge, Mr. Whitehurst is represented by Mr. Stephen Kohn, and such represen-tation would not have prevented Mr. Michael Kohn and his associate, Ms. Wilmouth, from l preparing the findings. Again, Intervenor provides no details regarding how long the negotiations lasted and who were involved.

3

I I4 r

Last, the "need" to " study" the Commission's order on the Dixon noter and the DOL deci-  ;

sion in the Mosbaunh case is an entirely specious argument. The Commission's decision can be )

l read in five minutes and has no effect on Intervenofs findings. The order in Mr. Mosbaugh's  !

DOL proceeding is also short and has little bearing on the issue currently being addressed in find-1 ings -- iA, the accuracy of Georgia Powers statements related to diesel generators.

i In sum, Intervenofs motion is unjustified and prejudicial. Moreover, Intervenor's last minute request puts the Board and the parties in an impossible position. For all of these reasons, Intervenofs motion for a continuance should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, W

t\

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

LA David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 James E. Joiner John Lamberski TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Dated: November 22,1995 4

x

• 00CKETED USNRC November 22,1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE CF SECRETARY Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board DOCKETING & EERVICE BRANCH 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 Nuclear)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's Motion for Continuance" were served upon the persons listed on the attached service list by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of November,1995. The I

persons designated by an astersisk on the attached service list also received a copy by facsimile  ;

transmission. l t D/

David R. Lewis Counsel for Georgia Power Company l

i l

199694-01 / DOCSDC1

i h

j i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA {

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . -

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinn Board 5 i

i In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 ,

) 50-425-OLA-3 .!

[ GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )

Re: License Amendment l

1 et al. -)

) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear) .

i (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

j Units I and 2) ') ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 l SERVICE LIST l

• Administrative Judge Administrative Judge

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Two White Flint North 933 Green Point Drive 11545 Rockville Pike Oyster Point ,

Rockville, MD 20852 Sunset Beach, N.C. 28468 l Stewart D. Ebneter Adjudicatory File Regional Administrator, Region II Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 l l

• Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary l Thomas D. Murphy Att'n: Docketing and Service Branch  ;

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Two White Flint North Washington, D.C. 20555 -

11545 Rockville Pike i- . Rockville, MD 20852 i

• Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

517 Florida Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20001  ;

i r

i-

)

l

• Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Carolyn F. Evans, Esq.

Charles Banh, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John T. Hull, Esq. 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30323-0199 Office of the General Counsel One White Flint North, Stop 15B18 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Director, Environmental Protection Division 4

Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 226'783-01 / DDCSDC1 1

1 l

1 i

l l