ML20138R062

Returns 851220 Transmittal of 11 Page Unsigned Document Entitled, Analysis of ASLB 851212 Memorandum & Order.... Document Does Not Conform to NRC Rules of Practice & Is of No Use in Case.W/O Encl.Served on 851227

ML20138R062
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/26/1985
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Johnson T CAMPAIGN FOR PROSPEROUS GEORGIA (EDUCATIONAL)
References
CON-#485-611 OL, NUDOCS 8512300310
Download: ML20138R062 (2)

Text

_ - . - .

G) .

1. pa Mrog'o UNITED STATES

~g

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t, wAsMNGTON, D. C. 20665 j

\ % .*/ December 26, 1985 3;

'85 WC27 crc, 23 6 Mr. Tim Johnson Executive Director Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 00ch' y.gg%,Q~

1083 Austin Avenue, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Re: In the Matter of SERVED DEC 271985 Georgia Power Company, et al.

(Vogtle Electric GeneratTng Plant Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 dL

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On December 24, 1985, the Licensing Board received from you a transmittal stating that it enclosed "Intervenors response to the Board's Ruling on Motion for Sumary Disposition (re: groundwater),

prepared by William Lawless." Attached was an ll-page, unsigned '

document titled " Analysis of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Ruling On Motion For Sumary Disposition Of Contention 7 re: Groundwater Contamination)." The

, document, .in its initial paragraph, recites that the "Intervenors want to argue their case in front of both the. Applicants and the ASLB board where confusion can be more easily resolved rather than trying to do so through the mails." It goes on to state that Intervenors feel that sufficient information had been sup) lied to the Licensing Board to make a determination on whether or not t1e Contention should be heard in its entirety. It is then stated that "This analysis will review seriatim

.the dispositions by the.ASLB' board of the Intervenors' allegations on the groundwater contention." There then follows the author's commentary on the Memorandum.

Contention 7, to which the correspondence refers, was the subject of a motion for sumary disposition filed by Applicants on July 15, 1985. Joint Intervenors responded to the motion on August 9, 1985 and filed an amended response on August 21, 1985. On August 26, 1985, Applicants filed a motion to strike Intervenors' response, or in the alternative to file an answer. Intervenors did not respond to this motion. The Licensing Board on November 12, 1985 denied Applicants' motion to strike and authorized the filing of a limited answer. We also issued the Memorandum and Order on the motion for sumary disposition.

It denied the motion in part and granted it in part. On November 22, 1985, Applicants filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Licensing Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order. No response to that motion has been received from Intervenors.

UD12300310 851226 PDR ADOCK 05000424 .

O PDR

. 2 The Licensing Board has now received your transmittal dated December 20, 1985. It is immediately apparent that it does not conform to the Commission's Rules of Practice which do not provide for a

" response" to a licensing board's Memorandum and Order. ,Furthermore',

within the context of this adjudicatory proceeding conducted in accordance with the practice of administrative law, it is quite unclear what is sought to be accomplished by your latest filing. The submittal,-

as presented, is of no use in this case. We are, therefore, returning it to you. You may want to consult about the matter with your counsel ~

of record, Laurie Fowler, Esq.

Very truly yours, Morton B. Margulies Chairmah Administrative Law Judge Enclosure.

cc: Service list without enclosure.

t

_ , . - - - - . , . , - _ . _