ML20112E383
| ML20112E383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1985 |
| From: | Johnson T CAMPAIGN FOR PROSPEROUS GEORGIA (EDUCATIONAL), GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112E375 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8503260529 | |
| Download: ML20112E383 (273) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. I - 1 I ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0c; ryc;, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONMC IN THE MATTER OF ) 25 A?0:47 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.) DOCKET NOS. 50-424
) M?iCF "EC 1U.,050-425 (V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING ) j,.j';f U M PLANT, UNITS 1 and 2) )
. .\ _
Deposition of TIM JOHNSON, taken on behalf of the Applicant, pursuant to Notice, in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, before Sharon D. Upchurch, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, at 1400 Candler Building. Atlanta, Georgia, on the 12th day of March, 1985, commencing at the hour of 9:30 a.m. I I l STUART S. H USEBY & ASSOCIATES,l NC. CERTIFIED SHORTHAND COURT REPORTERS I Sui +e 400 One Park Place 1900 Emerf Street. N.W. Atlanto. Georgio 30318 - P. O. Box 719 Gainesville. Georgio 30503 (4041 536 7028 (404) 351-0300 8503260529 850322 PDR T ADOCK 05000424 pop
.E
I I 2 I a 4 I 5 I
- 7
" 8 l
9 10 l I 11 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 l 21 l 22 l l 23 24 25 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1404) 351 0300 (4041 536 7028 GEORGIA l
l
= w --e- - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - - - - - -
I ' I 2 3 4 IiDEX TO EX!JIINATION 5 ?,agg 6 Examina tio n by lir . Davenport --------------------- 3 7 8 . , , 10 IIIDEX TO EXHIBITS 11 Applicant's . 12 Exhibit pge 13 1 ----------------------------------------- 44 14 2 ----------------------------------------- 71 1 l 15 3 ------------------_------_-------_------- 94 IG 4 ----------------------------------------- 125 i l 17 5 ----------------------------------------- 151 18 l 19 i 21 i I 22 24 I \ l 25 l I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE (404 351 0300 (404 536 7078 I GEORGA
BR 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 On behalf of the I 3 Applicant Georgia Power Company: HUGH M. DAVENPORT, Esq. JAMES E. JOINER, Esq. 4 Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore 5 1400 Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I 6 BRUCE W. CHURCHILL, Esq. 7 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridg.e 1800 Main Street, N.W. 8 Washington, D.C. 20036 9 On behalf of the Intervenor 10 Campaign For a I 11 Prosperous Georgia: LAURIE FOWLER, Esq. 1102 The Healey Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 12 On behalf of 13 Mr. Johnson: CARY FLACK, Esq. I 14 1515 The Healey Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I 15 16 MR. DAVENPORT: This is the deposition 17 of Tim Johnson, taken pursuant to Notice at is a time and place agreed upon between the 19 parties. This deposition is being taken in m accordance with the Nuclear Rc:, 'latory 21 Commission's Rules of Practice for econonic 22 licensing proceedings. 23 Mr. Flack, since your name doesn't l 24 appear on any pleading in this proceeding, 25 would you please identify yourscif and I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VittE I4048 351 0300 f 4041536 7079 GEORGIA
,w - - - _ - , , - -
3 1 indicate who you represent today. 2 MR. FLACK: My name is Gary Flack. My 3 address is 1513 Healey Building. I represent 4 the deponent, Tim Johnson, for this depo-5 sition. 6 MR. DAVENPORT: So you're representing 7 him in his individual capacity? 8 MR. FLACK: I'm representing him as a 9 witness here pursuant to the Rules o f ther 10 NRC. 11 MR. DAVENPORT: Are you also represcating 12 either of the intervenors in this proceeding;7 13 MR. FLACK: No, sir. 14 MR. DAVENPORT: Mr. Johnson, dc you utsh 15 to reserve the right to review and sign your 16 deposition? 17 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. TIM JOHNSON, I 18 19 having been first duly affirmed, was examir.cd and 20 deposed as follows: 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. DAVENPORT: 23 Q Mr. Johnson, would you state your full name 24 f r the record, please. 25 A Charles Timothy Johnson. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404: $36 7028 I404 351 0300 GEOPGA
I
- 1 Q And what is your address?
2 A 175 Trinity Avenue, Southwest, Atlanta, 3 Georgia, 30303. 4 Is that your business address? Q I 5 A Yes, sir. 6 What is your residential address? Q 7 A 216 Flora Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia. 8 Q Have you ever had your deposition taken 9 before? 10 A Mo, I have not. 11 MR. FLACK: Excuse me. Before we got 12 started, let me make a brief statement. I 13 maybe should have done it before you aware 14 the witness. 15 First, I recognize that I got involved 16 late in this proceeding. I called yo2, I 17 think, Friday to advise you I was representing 18 Tim; and I understand that you have, in fact, I 19 advised the parties and the intervencr and, 20 I presume, everyone else of the time and l 21 place of the deposition and also of the 22 general matters that you were going to 23 discuss with them. Unfortunately, I didn't 24 receive a copy of that letter; and I just 25 learned of it this morning. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. l ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE l (404l 351 0300 f 4041536 7028 GEORGIA l l
g s I The real purpose for making this state-2 ment is to let the record reflect that aside 3 from your brief telephone conversation, I'wcs 4 really unaware of the matters that you - oul! 5 be questioning him about which, in your phone 6 conversation, was simply the various contentiens I and CPC itself. Therefore, Tim has not been 8 -- I have not worked with him to try to preparc 9 him in any given area because I quite frankly to didn't know what areas you were going to be I 11 questioning him on. So, to the extent that 12 there are any difficulties, I just want to 13 apologize at the outset and let the record I 14 reflect the reason for that. I didn't have 15 any knowledge as to what he was to be questioned 16 on. 17 MR. DAVE!! PORT : Sure; and j ust for the 18 record, we'll note that all o f that corres oond-19 ence was sent to Mr. Johnson, your c'. ien t . 20 as well as to the intervenors. 21 Q (dy Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, have you I 22 calked to your attorney or to the accorneys for the 23 intervenors about depositions in general? 24 A Yes. 25 Q So you know what a deposition is? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE I404l 351 0300 idadi 536 7028 i I GEORGIA e
6 1 A Yes. 2 Q And you know that you're testifying under 3 oath and that your responses are bein6 transcribed by 4 the court reporter jus t as if you were testifying at a 5 hearing before the Atomic Safety Licensing Bureaui 6 A Yes. 7 Q I'm basically trying to get some information I 8 from you about your background, about the Car.caign for a 9 Prosperous Georgia, and about the factual basis for some 10 of the contentions asserted by Campaign for a Prosperous 11 Georgia and Georgians Against duclear Energy. 12 I'm not trying to trick you or confuse you. 13 If I'ask a question that you find you don't understand, 14 please tell me; and I'll h y to rephrase the cuc3 tion. 15 llave you donc anything to prepare for this 16 deposition? 17 A I read back through your responses to our i 18 contentions and questions related to TDI dicael 19 generators, which is the only contention to which I 1 20 might be a witness at this point, the only on that'a 21 among those at this stage o f the proceeding. I 22 Q So the Contention 14, the one ccaccening the 23 TDI diesel generators is the only contention at thic 24 time you intend to testify in regard to? ! g 5 25 A Among the ones now accepted by the licensing ! 3 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 8404l 351 0300 84041 $36 7028 GEORGIA k
7 1 board. 2 Other than the QA; is that correct? Q 3 A And other than the enes that haven't been 4 addresaed as yet by the licensing board, such as 5 emergency evaluation. 6 MR. FI.ACK: Also, I think he indiccted 7 that's the only one that he might tes tify I 8 about. They have not made any formal 9 decision as to who the witness will be, as 10 I understand the position. 11 TiiE '.!ITNESS : That's right. 12 MR. DAVENPORT: Well, as I understand 13 it, the intervenors have at this time indicated 14 that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lawless, and Mr. Deutach 15 are the only people who they intend at t h i.s 16 time to present as witnesses; and if you have 17 changed anything at all, please tell us nou. 18 MS. FCULER: These are the ones that I 19 we are expecting to call. We might additionally 20 find people, and we will certainly let you know. 21 TF.E WITNESS: And on the TDI, if vc got 22 a different witness, there is a possibility 23 that 1 might not testify at 211. At this 24 time, I am a witness. 25 Q (By Mr. Davenport) llave you looked at any STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE 1404 351 0300 '404: 536 7028 GEORGIA 4
I s 1 documents other than the pleadings that you mentioned 2 just a minute ago in preparation for this deposition? 3 A Only a brief description of what'a depo-4 sition is. I 5 Q Are you married, Mr. Johnson? 6 A Yes, I am; although I don't really see the 7 relevance of the question, 8 Q What is your wife's name? 9 MR. FLACK: What is t.hc relevance 10 of that? 11 IIR. DAVENPORT: Well, it is relevant 12 for a variety of reasons . First of all, 13 I'm entitled to some background information 14 about Mr. Johnson; and certainly, whether he's married and his wife's name is I 15 16 relevant. I'm interested in getting into 17 the record the relationship between !!s. 18 Fowler and Mr. Johnson. 19 MR. FLACK: Why is that relevant? 20 MR. DAVENPORT: Well, I don't know 21 right now; but it may turn out to bc 22 relevant. 23 da. FLACK: The Rules permit you to 24 l ask questions that relate to evidence. !; oles s 25 you can 3how me the relevance, I'm going to I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 14041 536 7028 GEO MIA I
9 1 instruct the witness not to answer the 2 quostion. 3 MR. DAVENPORT: Okay. I'll state the 4 relevance then. I think the relevance might 5 be that I'm not sure under the Rules of 6 Ethics for the State of Georgia whether the 7 relationship between Ms. Fouler and someonc 8 who intends to be presented as a witness in 9 this case might be relevant; and I think to certainly the question would be relevant to 11 that. 12 MR. FLACK: I have instructed the 13 witness not to answer. 14 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, are you 15 married to Ms. Fowler? ! 16 MR. FLACK: I object to the ques tion 17 on the same basis. , 18 MR. DAVENPORT: Are you ins tructing 19 the witness not to answer? 20 MR. FLACK: I'm instructing him not 21 to answer. ,I 22 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Have you ever bean l 23 married before, Mr. Johnson? 24 MR. FLACK: Object to the question on 25 the same basis. It seems to me that the l l l STUART S. HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVtLLE 1404 351-0300 f 4041536-7028 GEORGIA
'O 1 relevance of his personal life has nothing 2 to do with the parties before the NRC. There 3 is no relevance.
4 11R. DAVEliTORT : I'm aware of your I 5 posicion. I'm just establishing the questions 6 I would like to ask. 7 Q (By !!r. Davenport) lir . J o hns o n , would you 8 please describe for me your education since high school? 9 A I attended the Georgia Institute of 10 Technology for five quarters. I did not get a degree 11 from Georgia Tech. 12 I attended Emory University and i;radcated , 13 with a degree in English and political science. 14 I attended a cource in utility regulatcry 15 Policy at lichigan State as an employee of the Ge: r-ia 16 Public Service Commission and completed that, and I've 17 attenced various seminars related to these types of l 18 issues throu3h the years. !I 19 Q When did you attend Georgia Tech? 20 A The fall of '72 through winter quarter of 21 '74-l I 22 Q And when did you accend Emory? 23 A Spring of '74 until winter of '76 whan I 24 graduated. 25 Q And what again was the course tbat you took , STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 1404 351 0300 14041 536 7078 GEORGIA L
11 1 at Michigan State? 2 A -It was in utility regulatory policy. It was 3 on behalf of the National Association for the Regulatory 4 Utility Commissioners, and I was on the staff of the 5 Public Service Commission at that time. 6 Q And when did you attend that course? 7 A It was in the summer o f 1980. 8 Q How long did it last? 9 A I believe it was three weeks; either two or to three weeks. 11 Q Was it a sort of thing where you went several hours per day? I 12 13 A Yes. It was full time, day and night, for 34 that period. 15 Q What sort of subjects were covered? I 16 A General areas of utility regulations , g7 incluaing telephone, electric, and gas, although I 13 attended mostly the electric utility related classes. 3g Q Did it cover any subjects relating to the g operation or licensing of nuclear power plants? A I believe it did, but I do not specifically 21 g recall, g Q And the only degrees that you have received g from colleges are a degree in English and political science from Emory; is that correct? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESvitLE
#4041 351 0300 8404i 536 7028 GEORGIA L
12 1 A That's correct. I 2 Q have you ever served in the military, Mr. 3 Johnson? 4 A No, I haven't. 5 Q Have you ever been charged with a crime, 6 Mr. Johnson? 7 A Nothing other than traffic violations. 8 Q You are executive director of Cancaign for 9 a Prosperous Georgia, are you not? 10 A Yes, I am. 11 Q And you are also executive director for Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? I 12 13 A That's correct. 14 Q Are you currently enployed by anyonc else? 15 A tio , I'm not. l I 16 Q What are your duties as executive director 17 of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 18 A They are varied, including administration, 19 fund raising, general organization, research, organising 20 regulatory interventions, et cetera. 21 Q When was Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 22 rganized? I A l 23 January of 1983. I l ,,4 Q Were you associated with it at that time? A Yes, I was. I was the first staff person. 25 I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE I404i 351-0300 #404 536 7028 I GEORGIA
'. 3 1
Q I'm sorry? I 2 A I was the first staff person. 3 Q Was Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia formed l 4 from some other organization? I 5 A No, it was not. 6 Q Sy whom was it founded? 7 A By a group of citizens from throughout 8 Georgia, including small business people, environ *aental 9 and consumer advocates,and other concerned citizens. 10 Q For what purpose was it founded? 11 A Initially, to promote alternative energy 12 sources and to advocate policies that would lead to a 13 stronger environment and a healthy economy or healthy 14 environment and stronger economy with an emnhasis on the 15 relationships between the two. I 16 Q Is it incorporated? 17 A Yes, it is. 18 Q Is it a nonprofit corporation? 19 A Yes, it is. 20 Q So if you were to make a donation to 21 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, would it be tax 22 deductible? 23 A Not as yet. The process is in motion to 24 attempt to obtain that tax deductible stacus for 25 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE sdodi 3510300 #404: 536 7028 GEORGIA I .
14 1 Q As executive director, are you supervised 2 by anyone? 3 A A board of directors. 4 How many persons sit on the board of I 5 Q directors? 6 A Between 20 and 30. 7 How is the board of directors chosen? Q 8 A By election by the membership. 9 How often are elections held? Q , 10 A Annually. 11 Can you give me some examples of some of the Q 12 people who sit on the board of directors? 13 MR. FLACK: We could provide you with 14 a list, if that would be easier. 15 THE WITNESS: John Lewis: Atlanca City 16 Council member. Julie Sharpe, Tifton, 17 Georgia; geographer 2nd political activist. 18 Geneva Reece, R-e-e-e-e; she's the community 19 organizer in Montezuma. Bill McLaughlin; 20 Savannah, Georgia. Molly Barrats in Oakman, 21 Georgia. There are quite a few, t 22 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Basically, people from 23 across the State of Georgia? 24 A Yes. I 25 Q Is there anyone on the board of directors? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 1404i 351 0300 '4041 536 7078 I GECRGIA
15 1 from outside the S tate of Georgia? 2 A There is one person who is currently residin g 3 in Washington, D. C. , who 's on the board of directors. 4 Who is that? I Q 5 A William Reynolds. He was residing in 6 Atlanta, but he is now living in D.C. and may or may not 7 be back here in the near future. 8 Q Are you on the board of directors? 9 A No. 10 Q How often does it meet? 11 A At leas t quarterly. They can meet more 12 often. I'm sorry. There is an executive committte 13 that meets at least quarterly, and the board of 14 directors meets semiannually. 15 Q How many are on the executive com=ittee? 16 A I ' don't recall. It's on the order of 10 or 17 12. 1 l 18 Q Does the board of directors either as a whole 19 or the executive committee of the board of directors 20 Provide much direct day-to-day direction to you? 21 A Not as a whole. They establish the general l 22 Policies. We remain in close contact with the president i 23 ll of the board on not a day-to-day basis, but at lease a 24 weekly basis. 25 Q Has your position with Campaign for a STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404 351 0300 84041 536J028 GECRGIA
I Prosperous Georgia ch.tngac at all since its formation? 2 MR. FLACK: I don't understand the 3 question. Could you rephrase it? 4 MR. DAVENPORT: Sure. l 5 Q (Sy Mr. Davenpo rt) Today, you are executive 6 director of the Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia; is i 7 that correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q liave you held that position with Cant.nign 10 for a Prosperous Georgia since it was formed in January 11 of 19837 12 A Yes, 13 Q Have you held any other position with 14 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 15 A No. 16 Q Have the duties that you have perforried 17 as executive director changed at all since January 19f;3? 18 A Well, only in the sense that circumstances l 19 change. For example, there was no NRC operating licensi:Lg l 20 proceeding in progress at the time it was formed ; and 21 so obviously, I was not representing the o r:;ani.:< t tan l n in said proceeding. I 23- Q due in general you have the same responsi-24 bilitics and duties that you had when it was forned? 25 A Yas. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (4041 351 0300 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA
17 1 [ Q Does Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 2 employ anyone other than yourself? 3 A Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia does not. 4 Q ~4 hat sort of activities does Campaign for a I 5 Prosperous Georgia engage in? ! 6 A Regulatory interventions, public education, 7 lobbying, general research, distribution of literature i 8 and information. 9 :iR. FLACK: Ifugh, I have not objected l 10 to these questions, although it strikes 11 me since CPG has been admitted as an lg 12 intervenor in this proceeding, I'm not sure i3 13 of the relevance. I'm wondering if we can 14 3et to the more substantive areas that I 15 understood from our phone conversation 1I 16 you were concerned with. 17 112. DAVE;iPORT : One of the areas that 18 I'm concerned with is the makeup and activities 19 of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. I would 20 also note as the attorney for an individual 21 witness, I think objections as to relevance
! 22 and that sort of thing from you are not 23 proper. If the attorney for the parties 24 wishes to make those objections, fine; but I 25 don't see that those objections relate to any STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE t 40413510300 14048 536 7028 GEORGIA 1
15 1 function you serve as attorney for the 2 witness. 3 MR. FLACK: I appreciate your advice l l 4 on that subj ect. 5 (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you Q 6 mentioned regulatory intervention. Has Campaign for a 7 Prosperous Georgia participated in proceedings before E 8 the Georgia Public Service Commission? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What sort of proceedings? 11 A A rate case, a finance case, and the fuel 12 cost recovery case. 13 Q Did most of those involve Campaign for a 14 Prosperous Georgia? 15 A Yes. 16 Q lias Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 17 intervened in any other proceeding or any proceeding l l 18 before the Georgia Public Service Commission involving lB 19 a different utility than Georgia Power? 20 A !io t to date. 21 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia lI 22 participated in any proceeding before any other State 23 agency? 24 A Ilot -- well, they provided brief comments 25 to the Environmental Protection Division concerning the i STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4048 351 0300 14041 536 7078 GEORGIA
19 1 NPDS permit for Plant Vogtle or the groundwater with-2 drawal permit. 3 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 4 participated in any way in proceedings before State I 5 agencies in any state other than Georgia? 6 A No. 7 Q 11as Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia I 8 participated in proceedings before any federal agency - 9 other than the Plant Vogtle licensing proceeding before 10 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? 11 A I don't believe so to date. 12 Q Ras Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 13 participated in any lawsuits either in the State Court 14 or the Federal Court? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What lawsuits? 17 A We intervened in the Georgia Fewer Comprny 18 appeal of the Public Service Commission ruling and 19 finance case last year. We have had filed our cun 20 appeal but withdrew it when the PSC icaued its order, t 21 We appealed the rate case decision by the Public Service n Commission, and that is still pending in an appeals t 23 court. l 24 Q Those are two separate proceedings? 25 A Yes; and we are a plaintiff in the suit STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE r404 351 0300 #4041 536-7028 I
GEORGIA
~
I 20 1 against the Huclear Regulatory Commission and against 2 its rule barring consideration of financial qualifi-3 cacions and licensing proceedings. That is all that I 4 can recall at the moment. 5 Q You are actually a party in the suit against 6 the NRC? 7 A Yes. 8 Q tihere is that suit pending? 9 A I believe it's in D. C. Circuit Court. 10 Q The other two suits that you mentioned, was 11 Georgia Power a party to both of thost actions? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Are there other plaintiffs in the suit 14 against the NRC? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Elow many plaintiffs altogether? 17 A I don't know. 18 Q Is it more than two? 19 A Yes. 20 Q You indicated that Campaign for a Prospercus 21 Georgia engages in lobbying activities. 22 A To a degree, yes. 3 Q Would that be before the Georgia General 24 Assembly? 25 A Virtually all of it has been, yes. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 1404 536 7028 l GEORGIA I
. i I 21 !
1 I 1 I 2 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia engaged in a lobbying before any other legislative 3 body? 4 A We mailed letters to the members of Congress 5 urging their support for a form of utility tax loss. 6 Q What sort of issues has Campaign for a 7 Prosperous Georgia engaged in any lobbying before the 8 Georgia General Assembly? 9 A Some related to electric utilities; some 10 related to transportation, particularly rail passenger 11 :scrvice and materials transportation as well as a 12 very limitad amount on right-to-know legislation for 13 workers in communities. 14 Q When you say electric utilities, have you 15 lobbied with respect to any electric utility other than I 16 Georgia Power? 17 A Yes, to the extent that the legislation -- 18 we have lobbied only on legisintion -- well, in the 19 Georgia General Assembly, there was legislation 20 introduced two years ago, the 1983 session of the l i 21 General Assembly, which we lobbied against that would 22 have affected all vendor-owned utilities in Georgia. l l I 23 24 The letters I mentioned that we sent to Congress concerning tax reform would have affected all the 25 electric utilities in the United States, industrial and j I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 84046 351 0300 I4041 536 7028 i
GEORGIA
22 electric utilities at any rate. I 1 2 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 3 engaged in activities opposing actions by Georgi 1 Power 4 Company other than its participation in the F1:nt 5 Vo8tle licensing proceeding? 6 MR. FLACK: I obj ect to the form of 7 the question. 8 :1R. DAVENPO RT : On what basis? 9 MR FLACK: I don't know that Georgia 10 Power and CPG are adversaries. Everybody 11 is interested in fair rates. 12 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Has Campaign for a 13 Prosperous Gaorgia engaged in any activities relating 14 to actions by Georgia Power Company other than its Participarten in the Plant Vogtle licensing proceeding? I 15 16 A Yes, 17 Q 'Jha t sort of other actions by Georgia hver 18 Company? gg A Its requeses for higher rates, general 20 rate increase, before the Georgia Public Service 21 Commission; its requests for financing of various 22 capital activities before the Georgia Public Service g Commission; its requests for increase in rates rela:ing 24 uel c ses; its reques ts for certain legislation from 25 the General Assembly. I also debated someone from the STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'404i 351 0300 1404i 536 7028 GEORGIA
23 1 Committee for Energy Awareness , which Georgia Power 2 helps fund. 3 Q Uho was that that you debated? 4 A I don't remember her name; but she's a I 5 consultant to Energy Awareness, which is a wholly-6 owned s ubs idiary o f -- I 'm s or ry . Energy America, 7 which is funded entirely by a committee for ener,;y 8 awareness. 9 Q Uhen did that debate occur? 10 A Last month. 11 Q Was it televised, broadcast by radio, or -- 12 A WTBS, Channel 17. 13 Q Televised it? 14 A Yes. Q ilas Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia I 15 16 2ngaged in any activities relating to the acticos of 17 any other public utility or corporation? 18 A To the extent that we have advocated 19 financing of alternative energy sources before the 20 various State legislative committees, we were invited 21 to testify before the Utility Regulatory Study 22 Committee or whatever it was called. It was a joint 23 committee created by a specific act of the legislature 24 las t year; and before it we advocated that the utilities 25 finance conservation measures and other cost-beneficial STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'404 351 0300 (4041 536 7078 GEORGIA
24 1 activities for residential, commercial, and industrial I 2 consumers of all utilities. 3 Q Uhat was the name of the committee again? 4 A The name of the committee takes about two 5 lines on a page, but it was a joint committee of the 6 House and Senate set up to review utility regulatory 7 policy in Georgia; and I don't remember the exact name. 8 Q Did you ye*sonally appear before the 9 committee? 10 A Yes, I did. 11 Q Did anyone else appear before the committec g 12 on behalf of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? l g 13 A Deborah Shepphard did at one point. 14 Q When did you and Ms. Shepphard appear before ( 15 the committec? Just approximately. 16 A Fall- o f 1984 17 Q Have you ever opposed a rate hike request 18 made by a utility other than Georgia Power? Has 19 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, that is? 20 A NO-21 Q liow is Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 22 financed? 23 MR. FLACK: I object. [ 24 MR. DAVENPORT: On what basis? 25 MP. , FLACK: That it has nothing to de I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 84041 536 7078 GEORGIA I .
23 I with these p ro c eedi.ng s . It's not evidence I 2 to be used in this proceeding. 3 MR. CHURCHILL: The NRC Rules of 4 Practice specify in 2.740A that obj ections 5 can be made, and the reporter will record 6 them; but the answer is to be made and will 7 be taken down subj ect to the obj ection. 8 MR. FLACK: It says that evidence 9 s ubj ect to the obj ections -- I'm looking at to subparagraph (d) of the section you cited. 11 MR. CHURCHILL: Evidence, of course, 12 refers to all of the answers to the questions I 13 taken. 14 MR. FLACK: I'm not sure what the 15 evidence means. We apparently have.a dispute I 16 about that, but I would sugges t that evidence 17 means evidence admissible in the proceeding. 18 And the questions that you are asking do not 19 have that meaning, and I will instruct the 20 witness not to answer any questions regarding 21 the financing of the CPG. 22 IIR . CHURCHILL: Just to close out the 23 discussion, the Rules of Practice also 24 specifically state that the purpose of 25 discovery, of which this is a part, anything I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 1404 536 7028 GEORGIA
. 25 1
is relevant which is designed to clicit 2 relevant evidence. 3 MR. FLACK: Which seccion are you 4 referring to, sir? I understand that's the 5 Rule in Federal Court. 6 MR. CHURCHILL: Well, if you'll give 7 me a moment, I can find it; but clearly, 8 that is in the general Section 2.740, 9 MR. DAVENPORT: In any event, it s ectes 10 to me that any questions regarding the back-11 ground or the nature of the intervenor or 12 the witness or organization for which he 13 works is certainly relevant if the witness 14 intends to be a witness because the charact2r of the testimony has to be assessed by the I 15 16 board. These are perfectly relevant 17 questions. 18 MR. FLACK: I would just add, for the 19 record -- well, I have instructed the witness 20 not to answer. 21 MR. DAVENPORT: You are instructing 22 the witness not to answer? 23 MR. FLACK: Yes, sir. 24 THE WITNESS: I just thought of some-25 thing relating to an earlier question. We STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 8404: $36-7078 I
GEORGIA
l l 27 l l 1 also sent letters to Congress urging that 2 natural gas prices not be decontrolled. I J 3 had forgotten about that when you were asking 4 your earlier questions. I 5 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, does 6 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia receive private 7 contributions? 8 MR. FLACK: I object to any questions 9 relating to the financing of CPG, and I have to inscructed the witness not to answer any 11 questions relating to the financing of CPG. 12 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, does 13 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia receive grants from 14 any organizations? 15 MR. FLACK: I repeat my obj ection 16 and my instruction. 17 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, does is Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia receive financia'. 19 ass is tance from any other organizations? 20 MR. FLACK: I repeat my obj ection 21 and my instruction. 22 Q (By Mr. Davenport) What is the total 23 Operating budget for Campaign for a Prosperous Ccorgia 24 for 1935, Mr. Johnson? 25 MR. FLACK: I repeat my objection STLART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'404 351 ~0300 8404 536 7078 I
GEORGIA
26 1 and my ins truction. 2 Earlier you
!!R. CHURCHILL: Excuse me.
3 said that you were appearing as counsel for 4 the witness -- I 5 2tR. FLACK: That's correct. 6 !!R . CHURCHILL: -- and not the intervenor 7 in this case, and you said it was pursuant to 8 NRC Regulations? 9 MR. FLACK: Yes, sir.
;0 MR. DAVEllPORT : Could you identify the 11 regulation?
12 ;iR. FLACK: I think we are talking about 13 the same section, subparagraph (i) of the 14 section you cited, that is to say Section 15 2.740A, subparagraph (1). 16 MR. CHURCIILL: 2.740A? That doesn't 17 dis tinguish between personal repres entative 18 and counsel representing the parties. I 19 MR. FLACK: It says the witness may 20 be accompanied and represented and advised 21 by legal counsel. I am that legal counsel. 22 MR. CHURCHILL: And so I understand you 23 do not represent either of the intervenin?, 24 parties? 25 MR. FLACK: That's ::o rre ct . STUART S. HUSEGY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE (4041 351-0300 84048 536 7028 GEOeGlA I - - - - - - - - a - , - - - - , - - . - -
29 1 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, when was 2 Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia formed? 3 MR. FLACK: Let me state for the 4 record that I'm making the same obj ection 5 as to any questions relating to the 6 Educational Campaign. That entity is not a 7 party to this proceeding. It has no 8 relevancy to that proceeding, and I will 9 obj ect to any questions relating to the to Educational Campaign; and I will instruct 11 the witness not to answer any questions l 12 relating to the Educational Canpaign. 13 MR. DAVEUPORT: Mr. Flack, Educational 14 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia has 15 submitted comments to the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Agency, for example, on the draft environ-17 mental s tatement. It has participated in 18 these proceedings. In fact, quite often the 19 pleadings filed by Campaign for a Prosperous 20 Georgia have been on stationery from i 21 Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia; 22 and I think I'm entitled to know the relation-ship between the two organizations since I 23 24 Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 25 has inserted itself into this proceeding. ? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1404 351 0300 84041 536 7028 GEORGIA I .
30 1 MS , FOWLER: Many organisations have 2 submitted comments to the NRA -- 3 !!R. DAVENPORT : l And if I were so 4 inclined, I would be entitled to take depe-I 5 sicions -- 6 MR. FLACK: But Tim here is a repre-7 sentative for Campaign for a Prosperous 8 Georgia, and that is who the questions shcul; 9 be addressed to. 10 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm entitled to ask 11 Mr. Johnson any questions I consider 12 relevant to this proceeding. 13 MS, FOWLER: And we don't consider 14 those relevant. 15 MR. DAVENPORT: So you're going to 16 refuse? 17 MR. FLACK: For the record, I will 18 instruct the witness not to answer as his I 19 attorney. 20 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm asking the attorney 21 for the intervenors, who are the only par-ies 22 to the matters . Are they also stating an 23 objection? 24 MS, F0WLEP.: Yes. 25 MR. DAVENPORT: On what basis ? STUART 5. HUSEGY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANIA
- GAINE$VILLE tdodi3510300 8404i 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
31 1 MS. FOWLER: I'm I It 's no t relevant. 2 representing Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. 3 Tim is here in his capacity as a witness 'for i 4 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. Educational l 5 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia has not 6 intervened in the proceeding, and they have 7 not requested anybody to tes tify for them an 1g E 8 a party to that proceeding. 9 MR. DAVENPORT: Let me note for the 10 record that Mr. Johnson is here because we 11 noticed his deposition and not specifically
- g 12 as a witness for a party.
1 l l 13 Rather than reading the questions 14 that I would ask and have you state an 15 objection, if it's agreeable with you, I'll l I 16 go briefly through the subj ect matters 17 that I would cover just so we will have it 18 on the record. I intended to ask Mr. Johnson 19 about the discinction between Educational 20 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Campaign i 21 for a Prosperous Georgia. I intended to ask 22 him about the activities of Educational 23 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, about his 24 association with it, about its status as a I 25 nonprofit corporation, about its employees, l l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. !
- ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 4404 351 0300 1404i 536 7028 GEORGIA
32 1 about its activities relating to actions by 2 Georgia Power Company or other utilities, 3 about its activities in the form of lobbying, 4 about its involvement in proceedings before 5 state or federal agencies or in lawsuits, and 6 about the financing of Educational Campaign 7 for a Prosperous Georgia. I 8 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, by whoc were 9 you employed prior to becoming executive director for 10 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 11 A Immediately prior? 12 Q Immediately prior. 13 A I was campaign manager for the Muclear 14 Freeze / Jobs With Peace campaign in Atlanta. 15 Q Could you tell me again the title o f ':he 16 campaign? 17 A Nuclear Freeze / Jobs With Peace campaign. 18 Q How long were you campaign manager with I 19 that organization? 20 A As I recall, it was August through November 21 of 1983. I'm sorry, '82. 22 Q Let me ask you one more ques tion about 23 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. Do you receive your 24 Paycheck from Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 25 MR. FLACK: I object to any q nscions STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. AftANTA
- GAINE5Vitti 1404 .1$ 1 -0300 (4048 536 1028 GEORGIA
\
l
i 33 1 about the financial affairs of this witness. I 2 MR. DAVENPORT: So you are directing 3 him not to answer from whom he receives his 4 paycheck? I 5 MR. FLACK: Let me have just a momenc 6 to think about that. 1 7 Hugh, I instruct the witness not to 8 answer the question. 9 MR. DAVENPORT: So you're instructing 10 the witness not to answer the question about 11 from whom he receives his paycheck? , E 12 MR. FLACK: I have instructed him not r 3 13 to answer the previous question; that's 14 correct. 15 MR. DAVENPORT: And that is the previous 16 question. 17 MR. FLACK: Substantially those words, 18 yes, sir. I 19 MR. DAVENPORT: Let me state for the 20 record going back to the question of the i 21 financing of Campaign for a Prosperous lI n Georgia, and that would apply as well to 23 Educational Campaign for a Prosperous 24 Georgia. The intervenors have indicated 25 that they intend at this time to use Mr. Johnson 1 STUART S. HUSEBY t ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
! #4041 351 0300 84046 536 7028 ( I GEORGIA
36 l 1 as a witness in the hearings before the 2 licensing board, and he is executive 3 director of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, 4 one of the intervenors in the proceeding. As 5 both an intervenor and,in particular, as a 6 witness, we feel that we are entitled to 7 inquire into the financing of the organisation I 8 on the grounds that the board will have te 9 determine credibility of witnesses; and we 10 will be entitled before the board to probe 11 the bias of the witnesses, the prejudice 12 of the witnesses, and the. general background 13 of the witnesses. We're entitled to that 14 inquiry here just as we will be before the 15 board. 16 I would note that under Rule 2.740(b)1, 17 that it is not a ground for action that the 18 information sought will be inadmissible at I 19 the hearing if the inforraation sought ap, c ir.1 20 reasonably calculated to lead to the dis.overy 21 of admissible evidence. 22 I will aSk you again if you are 23 directing the witness not to answer any 24 questions about the financing of Campaign 25 for a Prosperous Georgia? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. (NC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 84041 351-0300 8404i 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
35 1 MR. FLACK: Yes, I an. I 2 Q (By Mr. Davenpo rt) iihat were your duties 3 as campaign manager for Nuclear Freeze / Jobs tiith Peace? 4 A Fund raising; public speaking; general 5 organi=ation; coordinating of activities; just the 6 pretty traditional position of a political campaign 7 manager. 8 Q Ucre you supervised by anyone? 9 A The campaign committee would meet regularly, 10 and I was supervised by them in a sense. 11 Q ifere there any other workers for the 12 campaign that you supervised? 13 A Yes. There was a press secretary; and I 14 believe that there was another paid assistan't to super-l 15 vise, plus many, many volunteers. l I 16 Q Can you tell me the general purpose of the l 17 campaign? i 18 A The Atlanta City Council voted to place on l l 19 the ballot in the City of Atlanca the quos tion of should l l 20 the City of Atlanta request of Congresa that they 21 enforce a freeze on production and deployment of nuclear 22 weapons and diverting some of the money from the 23 military bud det into peaceful civilian activities. The l 24 City Council voted to put that on the ballot; and 25 shortly thereafter, the campaign requested that I come STUART S. HUSEE;Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. I ATLANT A
- GAINE$VitLE
'40413 $10300 I4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
'3 1
on as campaign :aanager. 2 Q dy whoc were you employed prior to becaning 3 campaign mancy.er for the Nucicar Free =e/ Jobs With 4 Peace campaign? I 5 A Georgians for Billy Lovatt for Governor. 6 Q What position did you hold with Georgians 7 for Billy Lovett for Governor? 8 A Campaign coordinator. 9 Q What were your duties in that position? 10 A General campaign activities incl udin s, 11 speech writing, position paper writing as well as fund 12 raising and public speaking, participating in various 13 panels around the S tate, soliciting support. 14 Q What period of time were you coployed as 15 campaign coordinator? I 16 A June of 1981 until Augus t o.? 1982. 17 Q Who did you report to in that position? 18 A The candidate and at various times, other 19 individuals in the campaign board. 20 Q Did you supervise the work of other norsons? 21 A At times. 22 Q "Jere you employed by anyone else during 23 that period frou June 1981 to Augu se of 1982? 24 A Iio , I was not.
~4ere you employed by anyone elsa during the 25 Q STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC.
ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 #40d1536 7028 GEORGIA I .
37 1 period fro: Aagust 1952 to November of 1982 that you 2 worked as campaign manager for liuclear Freere? 3 A !!a ; but at various times, I've written 4 articles that may have occurred during that time period, ) I 5 but I don't specifically recall. 6 By whom were you employed prior to becening Q 7 campaign coordinator for the Georgians for Billy Lovett? 8 A The Georgia Public Service Comaissiori. 9 Q What position did you hold with the Georcia 10 Public Service Commission? 11 A Administrative aide to Commissioner 31117 12 Lovett; executive assistant. 13 Q Is that the same position? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Did you hold any other positions with the 16 Georgia Public Service Commission? 17 A IIo . 18 Q 11ow long did you hold that position? I 19 A As I recall, it was December of '78 -- wait. 20 December of '79 through May of 'S2. I'm so rry , :tay o f 21 'dl. l 5 22 Q i.' hat were your dutics as executive assistant 23 to Commissioner Lovett? 24 A Technical rescarch on utility preccedings 25 and geacral background research related thereto. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. r40413510300 '404: 536 7028 GEORGIA
30 1 When you asked if I was -- oh, you haven't I 2 asked if I was employed by anyone else. 3 Were you employed by anyone else in the Q 4 period from December 1979 to May 1981? 5 A I wasn't specifically employed by anyone 6 else, no. I was thinking about something else anyuay; 7 so no, I was no t. It was earlier. 8 Q Why did you leave your position with the 9 Georgia Public Service Commission? 10 A To become campaign coordinator for 3 illy 11 Lovett in the gubernatorial campaign. 12 Q Who did you report to in your position as 13 executive assis tant? 14 A 30th to Commissioner Lovett and to all five 15 commis s ione rs . The vote to hire me was a unanimous I 16 vote by all five commissioners. 17 Q Did anyone report to you? 18 A No; other than when Commissioner Lovett 19 requested that I request things of the Public Service 20 Commission staff. 21 Q By whom were you employed prior to jcininc, 22 the Georgia Public Service Commission? 23 A Consumers Utility Council of Georgia, which 24 was the State law of fice es tablished to repres ent 25 consumers in utility proceedings. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC.
" ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 14041 $36 7028 GEORGIA
33 1 Uhat vna your position with the Consumers I Q 2 Utility Council of Georgia? 3 A F.csearch assistant. 4 Q What were your duties in that position? 5 A To research technical issues related to 6 utility regulation, specifically, electric utilities. 7 Q When were you in that position? 8 A . Summer of '77, I believe I s tarted; late 9 summer, until I went to work for the Public Scrvice to Commission in the early winter of '80 or -- no, '79. 11 Q December of '79? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Were you employed by anyone else during that 14 period from the summer of 1977 to December of 19797 l 15 A Well, I served on a couple of advisory l 16 commitcoes, including one that was established by the l 17 IiRC to investigate financing of decommissioning nuclear 18 power plants as well as one that was established by the , 19 Georgia Power Company to look into the possibility of 20 load management. 21 Q Who was the Consumers Utility Council l during the period from the summer of 1977 to Decenber of 22 23 19797 24 A Sid Moore and Vick Beard. Sid Moora 25 initially hired me, and Vick Board kept me on until I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. B ATLANfA . GAINE$VILLE i '4041 351 0300 '404 536 7078 l GEORGIA
40 1 decided to leave. 2 Who did you report to in your position as Q 3 research assistant? 4 A The council. I 5 Did anyone report to you? Q 6 A No; other than secretarial help, when I had 7 something I needed secretarial assistance. I 8 Q You indicated that during the period from 9 the summer of 1977 to December of 1979 you served on l 10 advisory committees, and you mentioned specifically one 11 for the NRC relating to decommissioning nuclear power 12 plants and one for Georgia Power relating to load 13 management. Were there any other advisory committees 14 that you served on during that period? 15 A Those are the only two that I remember. 16 Q Have you served on any advisory committees 17 since that time? 18 MR. FLACK: Do you mean related to I 19 utilities? l 20 MR. DAVENPORT: Sure. l 21 THE WITNESS: I don't specifically 22 recall any. 23 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Do you recall serving 24 on any advisory committees not related to utilities 25 since that time? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4048 351 0300 '4041 536 7078 GEORGIA
41 1 A :;o t specifically, but I'll let you know if 2 I think of any later. 3 liad you served on any advisory committees Q 4 prior to the summer of 19777 5 I'm sure I did, but I don't reneaber A 6 specifically. 7 Q Who appointed the advisory committee 8 concerning dacommissioning of nuclear plants? 9 A I don't specifically recall. I believe that 10 they requested that governors have representatives, and 11 the governor requested that the council provida a 12 representative; and Sid Moore was the council at the 13 time and asked me to be on it. But I'm not certain of 14 that process. All I know is that I was requested to 15 be on it. 16 Q Who asked you to be on it? 17 A Sid Moore, as I remember. 18 Q And j us t so the record is cicar, it tras the 19 lIRC who requcated the governor to provide rearaiente.tive s? 20 'A It was an 1;RC advisory committee. 21 Q Who else was on the Committee? n A As I recall, there were individusin " rom 23 public utility commissions around the country. I 24 believe there were some representatives for utilitics 25 as well as other State government officen. I'n v.ot STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VillE 14041 351 0300 14041 536 1028 GEORGIA I .
I L: 1 certain about the utility representation. 2 How large was the committee? Q 3 A Aa I recall, it was three or four d~cton 4 people; but I'm not sure. 5 What was the purpose of the committee? Q 6 A Thore was concern at the time that when 7 nuclear reactors were shut down, thora uouldn'c be ar.y 8 money available to pay for decommissioning the reactors 9 or the utilitics would want to chargo consumers at that to time for decommissioning other reactors when, in fact, 11 those consumers had not received any clactricity out of 12 the plants. And the concern was to como up with a 13 mechanism for assuring that the financing would bc 14 providad and that it would be paid for by the people 15 consuming the electricity. 16 Q How often did the committee meet? 17 A I don't recall. It wasn' t very of ten; 18 between one and three tiscs. 19 Q Did the committee issue any type of Written m report? 21 A There was a report -- I don't have a copy 22 of it -- but it excluded a minority opinion that had a been requestod to be included. 24 Q Did you reques t that minority opinion? 25 A Yes. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE I4048 351-0300 I4041 536 7078 GEORGIA
43 5 1 Q What was the minority opinion? 2 A The committee agreed pretty much unanimousiv 3 that the money should be paid by consumers as the 4 electricity was consumed. The disagreement came on 5 what would be done with that money in the meantime , l 6 and I argued that it should be es tablished in some sort 7 of account independent of the utility in case there were 8 utility bankruptcies. And the committee members 9 generally -- the other committee members generally l to argued that there could never be an electric utility 11 bankruptcy. That was in '78; and in '79 after the Three 12 Mile Island incident, I underscand that the report was 13 amended to include the suggestion that something perhaps 14 should be done to isolate the funds from the cor7 orate 15 entity. I 16 Q Do you recall whether any representative 17 of Georgia Power Company or the Southern Company served 18 on that committee? 19 A I do not secall. m Q The advisory committee concerning load 21 management for Georgia Power, who appointed that 22 committee? 23 A I'm not sure. It was chaired by Ernie 24 Ellinger with the company; and the Consumer Utility 25 Council was asked to provide a representative, and STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 #404 536 1028 GEORGIA
LL 1 initially that was Leslie Schaffer. She left the 2 employ of Consumer Council, and then I replaced her. 3 As I remember, in order to maintain 4 independence, it was -- I'ri not sure if ex cffinis is I 5 the right word, but rather than calling ourselves 6 members of the committee, we were advisors to the 7 committee and attended the committee meetings. 8 Q l!ow many people were actually on the 9 committee? 10 A I think about 10 or 12. I don't know 11 specifically. 12 IIR . FLACK: Could I have just one 13 taomen t? 14 MR. DAVENPORT: Would you like to 15 take a ahort break? 16 }f R . FLACK: Sure. Thank you. 17 (Thereupon, a short recess una l 18 taken.) l 19 (Thereupon, the court rencreer i marked Annlicant's Exhibit 1 20 for identification.) 21 Q (Sy Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, I '.anding 22 you what has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit I* umber 1 ; 23 and I'll ask you if you can identify that document, 24 please. l 25 A It is entitled -- STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 I4041 536 7028 I
GEORGIA w
45 1 11R . FLACK: Could we have j ust a 2 minute to look at it? 3
!!R . DAVEUPORT: Sure.
4 T11E '*ITNESS : It's the petition for 5 leave to intervene and request for hearing
, 6 filed on behalf of Campaign for a Prosperous 7
Georgia. ' I 8 Q (3y :tr. Davenport) Did you assist at all 8 in the preparation of this petition? 10 Yes, I did as I remember. It's dated A 11 January of 1984. 12 Paragraph three of this petition indicates Q 13 that Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia is a membership 14 organization, and one of its constituent members or 15 some of its cons tituent members are consumer grcups. 16 la that correct? 17 A That is what it says, yes; that's ccrrect. 18 Q Could you identify for me, please, which 19 consumer groups are members of Campaign for a Prosperous 20 Georgia? 21 A Rate Watch. I belicyc in the early days M the Georgia Power proj ect was still around and identifie d 23 itself as reques ting membe: ship, and I believe Georgians 24 Against Nuclear Energy, CAME, joined; but I'm not sure 25 about them. When you say -- could you repeat your STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 1404 536 7028 GEORGIA
46 5 1 question, plesce? 2 Q I'm asking you basically what Campaign for 3 a Prosperous Georgia means when they say th'at they 4 are a membership organi=ation formed by a coalition of I 5 consumer groups. 6 A That does not even -- that those consumor 7 groups are members of the organisation? 8 Q What does it mean? 9 A It means that the representatives of to consumer groups and environmental groups and those 11 others took part in the formation of the organisation. 12 Q So Rate Watch, for example, is not actually 13 a member of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 14 A ' dell, my counsel has ins tructed me not to 15 answer questions relating to membership. 16 !!R . DAVEllPORT: As I understand, tha 17 obj ection is currently -- 18 MR. FLACK: !y undcrstanding from :fr. I 19 Johnson's tes timony earlier chia morning in 20 enat thia is a corporation. 21 MR. DAVE! PORT: Let me ask Mr. Johnson 22 since he's the one testifying. 23 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Is Camcaign fo r a 24 Prosperous Georgia carrently a corporatloa? 25 A Campaign for a Prosperous Ceorgia tac STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE f 4041351 -0300 (4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
hi 1 incorporated in the fall of 1984 or winter. 2 MR. FLACK: I believe he testified to 3 that earlier this morning. 4 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) '4 hat was its atatus 5 prior to incorporation in the fall of 19847 l 6 7 A It was a membership organization, un-incorporated association. I 8 Q 'Jha t does that mean to you? 9 A It means to me that it was an organization 10 with members in it. 11 Q At that time, prior to its incorporation, 12 were consumer groups members of Campaign for a 13 Prosperous Georgia? 14 MR. FLAC': I object to the questions 15 regarding the cons tituent members o f the 16 organization when it was a -- prior to its 17 being incorporated. 18 !R. DAVEliPORT : So you're objecting I 19 to the makeup of the organization at the 20 time it intervened in this proceeding? 21 IIR . FLACK: That's correct; and I 22 instructed the witness not to answer. 23 MR. CilURCHILL: Mr. Flack, I realize 24 you're not familiar with this proceeding 25 and the filings and the pleadings that have STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14043 351 0300 1404: 536 7028 GEORGIA
41 1 1 gone before, but ;rour client's orr,anization 2 is an latervenor based en representa:I.ons he 3 made to the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board 4 about the cakeup and the cons':itutton .:r 313 5 organisation and what his organi.:a tio n was . 6 This organization still is a party. 7 The Board would be very interestet, I 8 indeed, to find that the organi:stion now 9 refuses to answer questions about the repre-10 sentations they made in order to gain acces: 11 to that hearing. 12 MR. FLACK: My understanding is th .1 : 13 the Board has decided that issue and that 14 ther e fo r e , the questions you are asking .nay 15 well have been relevant at sorte cima in the 16 past; but given the current pos ture of the 17 pro c e edin;;s , that they are no lon';er relevant. 18 MR. CEURCHILL: Ms. Fowler, is that I 19 your position as counsel for CPC that he 20 should refuse to answer about the -- 21 MS. FOWLER: No. That's not ny 22 position. That's Mr. Flack's position. 23 MR. CIIURCllILL : Then, I think the rules 24 require that you answer the questiens abject 25 to the objections. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 (404 536 7028 GEORGIA
1 l M ' 1
.iR . FLACK: l' instructing my witness 2 not to answer the questions.
3 _ IR . CHURCHILL: So tha aitutttien herc, 4 as I .nderstcnd it, is that counsal for the I 5 intervenors is not obj ecting; but the 6 personal representative of this particular 7 member of the intervenors and proposed 8 witness is objecting to answering the 9 questions about the constitution of the 10 intervenors; is that correct? 11 ;IR . FLACK: That's my understanding of 12 the situation. 13 MR. DAVENPORT: And what is the basis 14 on which you stand to make that obj ec tion?
;-IR. FLACK: I cited the section earlier, I
15 is I believe. 17 MR. DAVESPORT: I'm not talking about is your standing to participate in this proceeding. 19 I'm talking about your standing to make 20 objections and to instruct the witness not 21 to answer questions. 22 :iR . FLACK: Could you repeat the 23 ques tio n? I just didn't understand what 24 you were saying. 25 :!R . DAVEM POP,T : The section that you STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE idodi 3510300 14048 536 7078 I
GEORGIA
3 ') I cited giving you the right to participate 2 in this procaeding says that the witness 3 may be accompanied, re :resen :ed , and a hl' sed 4 ay legal counsel. It does not aay :ha: that 5 legal counscl, if not representing, a party, 6 say make objections, may instruct tha 7 witness not to answer questions, may parti-8 cipate in the proceeding in any way otaer 9 than giving advice. 10 :il . FLACK: I'm advising the witness 11 not to answer the ques tions . 12 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, are yca 13 going to answer the question? 14 A Xo. On advice of my counsel, I will not. 15 32. CliURCilILL : You realize you are I 16 d i ving as very serious ground to petition 17 the Board to have this particular inter ren t i:. 18 party cismissed as a party in this proceeding. 19 MR. F ACK: Uell, I've advisad tne 20 sitness. 21 !!R . CituRCllILL : You advised the wi:nass 22 not to answer, but you have not directed him 23 not to answer. 24 MR. FLACK: I have used the word 25 "advisad," taking cognizance I am directinr, STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 I404' 536-7078 I
GEORGIA
5 :. 1 the witness. If that will clarify the record 2 for you, I used the word " advised" in light 3 of the language in the regulations. 4 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Ifr. Johnson, let me 5 refer you to Paragraph 10 o f the petition for inter-6 vention filed by Campaign for a Prosecrous Cecrgia. In 7 that paragraph, Campaign for a Prosperous Ccort i a 8 indicates that the participation of it and its members 9 in prior regulatory proceedings indicated its 1511107 10 to assist the licensing board in this proceeding; isn't 11 that correct? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q Yet, you are at this time refusing to 14 answer questions concerning the membershin of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia at the time it filed this I 15 16 Petition for intervention? 17 A At the time we filed the petition for 18 intervention, we provided the licensing board with -he i 19 affidavits that are attached to the actition swearing 20 that we represented members of the organi::stion ehe 21 reside within the required distance from the reactor; ! Em and the licensing board accceted our intervention. 22 In 23 fact, as I recall, the applicants did not object to l 24 our standing; and I have been directed by counsel not 25 to respond to specific questions at this ti'.e conce rr.iag I I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE 1404i 351-0300 (4041 536-7028 GEORGIA L
52 1 the sc=bership. 2 Q Eo those affidavits indicate the co=plete
~3 membership of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia'at the 4 ti.te the petition was filed?
5 A No. 6 Q Do those affidavits indicata in any ray the 7 previous regulatory proceedings in whicn members of 8 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia had participated? 9 MR. FLACK: Let me sugge'st that the 10 affidavits speak for themselves and are part 11 cf the record. 12 MR. DAVENPORT: Are you obj ecting to 13 the question? 14 MR. FLACK: No. I'm just suggesting 15 that they are in evidence, and whatever they 16 say would be better evidence chan -- I'm 17 trying to get along to the aca of thia 18 deposition. I 19 liR . DAVENPORT: I'm trying to ash *fr. 29 Johnson concerning his prior response. 21 !!ould you read back the question, 22 please? 23 (Thereupon, the court reporter read 24 the referred-to question.) 25 TiiE UITNESS : I don't recall. I can I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 14041 536 7028 84041 351-0300 GEORGIA
53 l 1 read the affidavits which provide -- no. I. 2 It does not, unless I overlooked it. 3 Q (By 21r. Davenpo r t) At the time Campaign 4 for a Prosperous Georgia filed its petition for inter-5 vention and at any time up until it became incorporated. 6 have any groups or organizations been members of 7 l Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? I 8 MR. FLACK: I repeat my objection 9 and instruction regarding questions relating , 10 to the membership of CPC prior to its being I 11 incorporated. 12 ;iR . DAVE 11 PORT: Let me ask you again 13 what is the basis on which you are asserting 14 the right to make obj ections in this depo-15 sition? 16 MR ., FLACK: The basis is the section 17 that I read you earlier,
!!1. DAVEliPO RT : Which you claineil I
18 -- 19 MR. FLACK: Section 2.740A, subparagraph 20 (1). 21 .G . DAVEAPORT: -- which you claim
'22 gives you =cr- chan the right to accompany, 23 represent, and advise?
2: .11. FLACK: I am advising the vi::nass. 25 !R. DAVENPORT: So you' re no t stating STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE (4041 351-0300 '4047 536-7028 l GEORGIA
54 - 1 an objection? 2 MP. , FLACT. : Well, I would say I'm 3 permitted to object in my capacity o f 4 representation. 5 IIR. JOINER: Let ne make a statement 6 for the record. Paragraph 10 of the petition 7 to intervene filed on bahalf of Canpai;;n fer 8 a Prosperoua Georgia states that the partici-9 pation of CPC and its members in previo.is 10 regulatory proceedings is indicative of its 11 ability to assist in the development of a 12 sound record. 13 It would seem to me that bearin3 that 14 representation to the Board in mind and on 15 the assumption that the Board censiderad the 16 representation that Campaign for a ?rospercus 17 Georgia vould, indeed, attempt to aasist in 18 the oevelopment of a sound record in this 19 proceeding, and assuming further that the 20 Soard relied upon that repres entation rine; 21 believed it to be true, then it is aur ;-0 2 !. t!.o n 22 that under such circumstances, the intervenor 23 and any and all of its members including Mr. 24 Johnson is unoer a duty to provide infort ation 25 with respect to that representation and, ir. STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE i4041 351 0300 (4041536J028 I
GEORGIA
I " I particular, infornation as to its members 2 and choir willingness to ascist in the 3 development of a sound record in the 4 proceedings. 5 If the intervonor now takes the position 6 that it is withdrawing that representa*. ion or 7 that it is unwillina to as sis t in the develop-8 ment of a sound record before this Bo:2rd, 9 then it will be incumbent upon us to seek to 10 have the intervenors removed from this 11 proceeding. It is not clear to applicant 12 precisely what information the intervenor ic 13 attempting to prevent this licensing board 14 from having access to or knowledge of. But 15 I simply want to state for the record that 16 based on the representations thus far made, 17 based on the fact that the Soard has 18 instituted a proceeding in part in reliance - I 19 on intervenor's participation and their 20 representation that they would assist in the 21 development of a record, in light of the fact i a that the United States government is exp en d in7, 23 a great deal of money and a great deal of 1 l 24 resources as well as applicant expending 25 'noney and resources in this licensing proceeding STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 (4041 536 7028 ! GEORGIA W . n ---, . , - - - - - - -- ,-
Sn 1 based in part on the intervenor's repre-2 sentation, we do feel that intervenors have l 3 a duty to respond fully under oath to anf ' 4 and all questions propcunded. 5 Je do not believe that Itr. Flack has 6 any right as personal counsel for Mr. Johnson 7 to impede that process, and I sinply note for 8 the record that appropriate action will be 9 taken by the applicants in that regard, 10 tiR . FLACK: Jim, I'd j us t like to say 11 one thing in response, and that is that Mr. 12 Johnson is here to assist in making a record 13 as to the issues, the substantive issues, 14 that I thought we were going to be talking 15 about based on my conversation with ilugh 16 last week, Hugh Davenport. He's prepared 17 to answer -- to make that record, to assI.st 18 in the development of the record on t.t e 19 substantive issues as are the other witnesses 20 that I understand have been scheduled "or 21 depositions. So why don't we go ahead with -- I 22 !!R . DAVENPORT: Let me state again that 23 chis is a discovery deposition, and in no trar 24 in my conversation did I indicate any intent 25 to limit myself to particular issues or STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 r4041536 7028 GEORGIA
I :7 1 particular subjects in examinin~ Mr. Johnson. 2 In fact, I intend to ask him about any mattera 3 that we consider relevant to the proceeding. 4 MR. FLACK: I understand. As I stated 5 at the outset, I was sort of uncertain as to 6 how to prepare Mr. Johnson better for this 7 deposition because I didn't have any 8 significant guidance from you as to what 9 areas you were going to question him; so I 10 simply don't mean to suggest that you limit 11 yourself in going beyond that. 12 MR. DAVENPORT: Just so the record in 13 clear, it is my understanding, based upon 14 your refusal to identify or to answer 15 questions concerning the makeup of Comnoign 16 for a Prosperous Georgia at the time it filed 17 its petition for intervention, that you would l 18 also refuse to answer questions concerning i 19 the environmental organizations, business m operators, labor activists, and government 21 officials that participated in the f o rma tion lI I n of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia. 23 MR. FLACK: My instructions to the 24 witness would be the same, i 25 Q . (By Mr. Davenport) 'Jould you refuse to I l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 (4041536J028 GEORGIA
33 1 answer the questions on those subj ects? 2 A I have been instructed by counsel not to 3 answer those questions. 4 Q Ifr. Johnson, by whom were you employed erior 5 to becoming employed by the Consumers Utility Council 6 in the summer of 1977? 7 A Southern Regional Council. I 8 Q Does the Southern Regional Council hn.ve any 9 affiliation with the Campai;;n for a Prosperous ';eorgia? 10 HR. FLACK: I obj ect to any questions 11 relating to the membership of CPG. 12 MR. DAVENPORT: I didn't ask him 13 about the membershin. I asked him about 14 affiliation. 15 MR. FLACK: Could you explain whae 16 you mean by affiliation? 17 MR. DAVENPORT: I think it's a commonly understood English word. I 18 19 MR. FLACK: Could you rephrase the 20 question so I can unders cand it better? l l 21 MR. DAVENPORT: No. I'm asking for an I 22 answer. 23 THE WITNESS: Could you rephrase the 24 question, please? 25 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) What is the Southern I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 54041 536 7028 GECRGIA
I j sv 1 Regional Council, Mr. Johnson? 2 A It is a civil rights organization head-3 quartered in Atlanta. 4 Q Does the Southern Regional Council provide 5 any assistance in any form to Campaign for a Prosperous 6 Georgia? 7 MR. FLACK: I object to the question I 8 on the same grounds as I did earlier regarding 9 financial questions as to CPG, and I instruct to the witness not to answer. 11 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Are you refusing to 12 answer, Mr. Johnson? 13 A Sy my counsel instructing me not to answer, 14 I am not going to answer. 15 Q So we can take that as a refusal to ausuer 16 on your part -- j us t so we can speed this up a little 17 bit -- whatever he says not to answer? A Yes. I 18 19 Q What position did you hold with the Southern 20 Regional Council? 21 A Research assis tant. I a Q What were your duties in that position? 23 A General research and writing on the issues 24 of concern to =inorities and poor people in the South, 25 Q How long did you hold that position? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE$vitLE (4041 351 0300 14041 536 7028 GECRGIA
G's 1 A From the spring of '76 until I took the 2 position at Consumers Utility Council; and I believe it 3 was late summer of '77. 4 Q Were you employed by anyone else in the I 5 period from the spring of 1975 to th e summer o f 19 77 ? 6 A Yes. 7 Q By whom? 8 A Georgia Public Interes t Research Group 9 during the spring and part of the summer of '76. 10 Q Why did you leave the Southern Re:; ion il 11 Council? 12 A Because I was offered a position at Consumera 13 Utility Council. 14 Q Who did you report to while you vere em loye i by the Southern Reglonal Council? I 15 16 A Various people chroughout the time. 17 Initially, it was -- I guess there were two peopla, i 18 Initially, Peter Peccus, who was the director of the 19 Southern governma.ntal monitoring project and then 20 director of Southern Research Council, and Steve Suits. 21 Q Did you supervise the work of any other l 22 employees? 23 A Yes . 24 Q What sort o f em;)1oyees did you supervise? 25 A Student interns. 1 l l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE l '404 351-0300 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA E .
~
t; [ l 1 Q 'Jha t sort of work were they doing? 2 A They were graduate and law students do f.n3 3 research on various areas of concern to the poor and 4 minorities in the South. 5 Q Let me go back to Campaign for a Prosnerous 6 Georgia for a minute. You indicated that it at this 7 time is a corporation? 8 A Yes. 9 Q So it no longer has members as such? 10 A I do not unders tand the dis tinction. 11 !!R . FLACK: It probably calls 'o r ?. 12 legal conclusion on the part of the witness, 13 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Does it have neonic :ha: 14 you refer to as members? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Are any consumer groups currently members 17 of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia as you use the 18 word membership? I 19 MR. FLACK: I object to any questions 20 regarding the current membershin, as Mr. 21 Johnson uses the term membership, of the 22 current entity known as CPG and instruct the 23 witness not to answer. 24 MR. DAVENFORT: On uhat basin? 25 MR. FLACK: On the basis that it is not I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 1404: 536 7028 I
GEORGlA
62 1 relevant to this prococding. 2
- t?.. DAVEtiPC' I: Any other basis other l
3 than relevanca? 4 MR. FLACK: Ilo , sir. 5 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Who owns the stock of 6 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 7 SR. FLACK: I obj ect on the same basis . 8' M"c. . DAVENPORT: Are you refusing to 9 answer the question? 10 MR. FLACK: I instruct the witnesa not 11 to answer. 12 Q (By Mr. Davenport) What is the relationshin 13 of Thomas Reynolds currently to Campaign for a Prosperou a 14 Georgia? 15 MR. FLACK: Just one moment, if I may. 16 I object in that it calls for a legal 17 conclusion on the part of the uitness. I I'm not sure -- could you rephrase 18 19 do you mean member in the sense that -- 20 MR. DAVENFORT: I didn't ask him if he 21 was a member. I said what was his relation-I 22 ship with Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 23 currently? 24 TP.E WITt!ESS : We were representing him 25 in that intervention. 3 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 f404 536 7028 GEORGIA
iM 1 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Is he a stockholder for 2 Campaign for a Prosperouc Georgia? 3 MR. FLACK: I object on the grounds 4 that it calls for a legal conclusion. 5 MR. DAVENPORT: As to whether ha owns 6 stoch? 7 MR. FLACK: Yes. I 8 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) Let me ask you this, 9 Do you know to whom the shares of Campaign Mr. Johnson. 10 for a Prosperous Georgia have been issued? 11 MR. FLACK: Perhaps we could facilitate 12 chis. If I could confer with the witness for 13 a few minutes -- 14 MR. DAVE;iPORT : Sure. 15 (Thereupon, a short recess vac held.) l 16 MR. FLACK: 11 ugh , it's my understanding 17 -- well, why don ' t you ask -- repeat the 18 question. Maybe Mr. Johnson can answer 1.t. lI 19 MR. DAVENPORT: Would you read bach A che question, please? 21 (Thereupon, the court reporter read 1 I M the referred-to question.) 23 IdL WIT;1E3S : No. lie is not. 24 Q (dy Mr. Davenport) Is 3cujanin .leynolds i
- 25 a acockholder?
I 'I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14048 351-0300 r404 536 7028 GEORGIA
1 i 1 A lio , he is not. 2 q Is claire ilicks a s tockholder for Cacpaign 3 for a Prosperous Ceorgia? 4 A No, she is not. 5 Doca Thomas Reynolds have any relationship Q 6 with Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia currently other 7 than the fact that Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia I 8 is representing him in this proceeding? 9 A Any relationship? Certainly. Evervbedy in 10 Georgia has a relationship to us. 11 Q What is his relationship to Campaign for a 12 Prosperous Georgia? 13 A liis relationship, like everybody in the 14 State -- when we appear before the Georgia Public 15 Service Comnission or any other agency in the public 16 interest, then our success is to his benefit. 'lco. 17 he has worked with us on various iss ue s . 18 Q Is he an officer or director of-Canpaign for 19 a Prosperous Georgia? 20 A I don't believe so, but I'm not certain of i 21 that. I 22 Q Is he an employca of Campaign for a 23 Prosperous Georgia? 24 A !o , he is not. 25 Q Is Benjamin Reynolds an of'icer or firector I STUART S HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVitLE f 4041351 -0300 84041 536 7028 GEORGIA
53 1 or employee of Campaign for a Prosperous Geor3 i.t? 2 A No, he is not. 3 Q Is Claire Hicks an officer, employee, or 4 director of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 5 A Yes; she is a director. 6 Q Does Benj amin Reynolds have any relationship 7 currently with Campaign for a Prosperous Geor:;ia other I 8 than a relationship similar to the one you descri'ed 9 with Thomas Reynolds ? 10 A liis relationship is similar to that of il Thomas Reynolds. 12 Q Claire Hicks is a director of Campaign for 13 a Prosperous Georgia? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Does she have any other involvement with l 16 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia other than acting as 17 difGCU0f7 l in !iR. PLACK: I'm not sure I understsnd I ig the question. 20 :!R. DAVENPORT: Do you underscand it? 21 Tlir UITNESS : Not really. 22 Q (By Mr. Davenpor t) Does she engage in any 23 activities on behalf of Campaign for a Prosperous 24 Georgia or in conjunction with Campaign for a Prestarous 25 Georgia other than her activities an a director? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1
'dodi 3510300 '4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
I r, :, 1 A Well, as director of the organization, any ) 2 activities that she performs with the organization are 3 related to her being a director. 4 Q You indicated earlier that during the period 5 of spring and summer of 1976, you were employed by the 6 Georgia Public Interes t Research Group? 7 A That's correct. I 8 Q What position did you hold with them? 9 A Adminis trative assis tant , I believe was the 10 cicle, I 11 Q What were your duties in that position? 12 A General research and writing and organizing. 13 Q And you held that position at the same time 14 that you were a rescarch assis tant for the Southern 15 Regional Council? 16 A Yes ; part of the time that I was a research 17 assistant for the Southern Regional Council, but not all 18 Q Were you employed by anyone else daring the 19 period from spring of 1976 to the summer of 1977 c:hcr 20 than the Southern Regional Council and Georgia Public 21 Interest Rescarch Group? I 22 A No. 23 Q Who did you report to at the Georr;ia ?ublic 24 Research Group? 25 A To the director and to the board; cxacutive STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 84041 536J078 < GEORGIA
67 1 director and the board. 2 What sort of organication is Georgia Public Q 3 Interest Research Group? 4 A It's a nonprofit organization. 5 What sort of activities does it engage in? Q 6 MR. FLACK: Excuse me. Are you asking 7 at the time he worked there cr in the prescnt 8 tense? 9 MR. DAVENPORT: At the time he worked to there. I 11 THE WITNESS: It involved college 12 s tudents on six college campuses around 13 Georgia who researched a variety of issues 14 and concerns to the public in Georgia. 15 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Does that group 3till 16 exise today? 17 A Not to my knowledge. 18 Q Does the Southern Regional Council still 19 exist today? l l 20 A Yes, it does. 21 Q Nhat sort of activity is it engaged in today l I 22 do you know? 23 A Research related to issues of concern to i 24 minorities anc the poor in the South. 25 Q Do you continue to have any involvenent with STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESvitLE
'4046 3500300 f 404' 536 7028 GEORGIA
65 1 the Southern Regional Council? 2 A am a member of the Southern Regional 3 Council; associate, I believe is the word actually. 4 Q 13 there any relationship currently between 5 the Southern Regional Council and Campaign for a 6 Prosperous Georgia? 7 MR. FLACK: Again, I object to the I 8 question as to the members of Campaign for 9 a Prosperous Georgia; and I instruct the 10 witness not to answer the question. 11 MR. DAVENPORT: I didn't ask him about ) l 12 the clembers of Campaign for a Prosperous 13 Georgia. 14 MR. FLACK: Could you read back the 15 question. 16 (Thereupon, the court reporter read 17 the referred-to ques tion.) MR. FLACK: I object to questions I 18 19 regarding the relationship of groups to CPG. 20 MR. DAVENPORT: On what b a s is ? 21 MR. FLACK: On the basis of relevancy. 22 MR. DAVENPORT: Any other basis? 23 MR. FLACK: That's the only basis. 24 Q (By Mr. Davenport) By whom were you employec , 25 Mr. Johnson, prior to becomine employed by the Southern I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GA:NE5VILLE e404' 3510300 (404 536 7070 GEORGIA
i 1 7,egicnal coun.; ,;; 2 a , e ,1, .,3 c n ; . 7 n in e:. t , eg e , 7 17 , . 3 e, .
,g tay,23 go; ,r3., , erta eq eg3 . 7 gg73 g 7 g. .n 4 for sh:ut sia .r savon -- sia 72ars for Magnellt O'l and 5 initas Cil h us:rics.
I 6 , q
.. rc thos e relateu- ecep.:n t e s .
- a 7 1 1,.
.a .
8 ; l,.,ac pagi:13u i; 7 9,; hyl - gt " ;7-;e , ,1 9 ca 3p g,j ? 10 A I cc act roccuber the titic. I 11 ; .;..at were your dutics? 'ih e t sort of
- hine,e 12 would you do?
13 A Acccants receivable; cal:ulation: 14 connissions for the southern service station ene ators; 15 the taking cf orders; general bact;rcurd,rescari .: n 16 trends in tha industry, prices char;cd 5't the r -{ us 17 st.ppl crs , anc sc on. 18 ; Lid you hold a separate position with I*nited 19 Cil Inuustriss, or eid you ucrh for both of them 20 basically? A !.s I recall, I ucrhem for bo th c f ' n 21 I 22 'o as i c ally . 23 Q .nd you uorhc* for Macnolia Cii Ccmpany for 24 approxt: atel; six yearsi 25 A les. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 f404)536JC28 GEORGIA
70 1 Q Were you in school at that tima? 2 A Yas. 3 Q So it was part-time work? 4 A It was part time except during the s u a:mers I . 5 it was full cine. 6 Q Have you authored auy articles on the 7 public utility industry? I 8 A Yes. 9 Q What articles? l 10 MR. FLACK: Hugh, excuse me. Would l i 11 it be easier for you if we gave you a lis t? 12 MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. That would be l 13 satisfactory. 14 MR. FLACK: Why don't we respond by 15 letter. 16 MR. DAVENPORT: Can you provide us l 17 with a list of the articles this aftornoon Possibly, so that we could ask Mr. Johnson I 18 19 about them? 3 MR. FLACK: We'll try to do that when 21 we take a break. l 5 22 MR. DAVENPORT: In fact, we could 1 23 break now. 24 (Thereupon, an off-the-record I 25 dis cussion was had.) I 1 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE f404 351 0300 1404) 536 7078 GEORGIA
I 71 ) 1 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) I . 2 (Thereupon, the court reporter I 3 marked Applicant's Exhibit 2 for identification.) 4 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you'vc been ,I 5 handed what has been marked as Applicant's Exhibic 6 Number 2. Wculd you identify that document for me, 7 please. I 8 A Yes. This is a lis t of signed articles that 9 I specifically recall having written. 10 Q The first one is " Money on the Mainline." 11 What was that article about? 12 A That was about, as I recall, citizen 13 activities concerning Georgia Power Company in Georgia. 14 Q When was it published? 15 A Spring of '33, I believe. 16 Q What publication did it appear in? 17 A Southern Changes, is Q Did that article discuss in it any aspect of I Plant Vogtle? 19 20 A Yes, it did. 21 Q What aspect of Plant Vogtle did it discuss? 22 A I don't specifically recall all the aspects 23 it discussed. I t 's been two years since I wrote it. 24 All I recall is it discussed the economic and environ-25 mental concerns about the plant, but it focused more on I STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5vitti 1404 351-0300 '404) 536 7028 !
GECIPGIA
f 72 1 citizens' activities than on the plant por sa. But 2 again, it's been two years; and I have not reviewed it 3 lately. 4 Do you rccall at this time what environmenta: Q 5 concerns were discussed in the article? l 6 A Not specifically. 7 Q The article concerning Senate Bill 111, was 8 that published in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution? 9 A Yes, it was. 10 Q When was that published? 11 A February of 1985. 12 Q Did that article concern Plant Vogtle in 13_ any way? 14 A Yes, it did, j 15 Q What discussion about Plant Vogtle appeared 16 in that article? 17 A How the plant related to Senate Bill 111, 18 Q Was there any discussion in that article 1 19 or any material in that articic relevant to any of the 20 contentions admitted in this proceeding by the Atomic 21 Safety and Licensing 3oard? 22 A Not that I recall. l 23 Q Okay. The third item lis ted here is 24 contributions to newsletters of various nonprofit 25 organizations. Did each of those organizattens that are STUART S. HUSESY' & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GA:NESVILLE i I404 351 0300 i404) 536 7078 i l GEORGIA ! M
l 73 1 listed which include Georgin Public Interes Research 2 Group, Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, Educational 3 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, Georgians'Against 4 duelear Energy, Legal Environmental Assistance I 5 Foundation, did they each have a newsletter that they 6 published? 7 A Yes, although the CPG /ECPC newsletter -- 8 at one time, CPG had a newsletter. It is now published 9 by ECPG. 10 Q Is that a joint newsletter? 11 A I believe that that is j ust ECPC 's news-12 letter. That's a legal question that I'm not sure of 13 the answer to. 14 Q Does it discuss matters concerning Campaign 15 for a Prosperous Georgia? 16 A Certainly. 17 Q And it discusses the activities o f Campaign l 18 for a Prosperous Georgia? .I 19 A Yes. 20 Q Does it solicit contributions for Campaign 21 for a Prosperous Georgia? 22 MR. FLACK: Again, I cbj ect on the 1 23 ground this is a listing of the articles 24 he wrota. l 25 MR. DAVE!! PORT : I'n trying to find out I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE (4041 351 0300 8404 536 7028 GEORGIA
I , 76 1 about the newsletters. 2 MR. FLACK. We'd be glad to provide 3 you with a copy of it. 4 MR. DAVENPORT: I prefer to have hin 5 answer it on the record. 6 MR. FLACK-: I believe the newslette: 7 would be the best evidence of what the I 8 article is about. 9 (By Mr. Davenport) Q You are the executive 10 director for both CPG and Educational Campaign for a 11 Prosperous Georgia? 12 A Yes, I an. 13 Q Do you supervise the publication of this 14 newsletter? 15 A Yes, I do. 16 Q Do you know whether that newsletter solicits 17 contributions for Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 18 Do you know whether this newsletter colicits ca::p aign 19 contributions? 20 MR. FLACK: I object to the question. 21 MR. DAVEMPORT: On what basis? I 22 MR. FLACK: On the basis of relevancy. 23 It has nothing to do with this proceeding. 24 MR. DAVENPORT: Are you going to 25 answer? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLS I4041 351 0300 f404) 536 7028 GEORGIA
75 1 MR. FLACK: I instruct the witness not 2 to answer. 3 (By Mr. Davenport) Q Is this list'of nonprofi:: 4 organizations the complete lis t of nonprofit crgani-5 zations that you have contributed to their newsletters? 6 A It is a complete lis t of the ones that I 7 could recall off the top of my head over the lunch hour. 8 There may be and probably are others. 9 Q With respect to the newsletters published to by the Georgia Public Interest Research Groun, did you 11 contribute any articles that discussed any aspect of 12 Plant Vogtle? 13 A I believe so, although it's been a decade. 14 Q Do you recall any specific articles? 15 A I recall writing in general about whether 16 Plant Vogtle would be needed or not and environmental 17 concerns, but I don't recall specifically the content 18 of any of the articles. 19 Q Do you recall with any greater spccificity 20 what environmental concerns were discussed in any ocher 21 articles? I 22 A lio ; not with specificity. 23 Q Did those articles discuss in any way any 24 issues raised by the contentions admitted in this 25 Proceeding by the Aconic Safety and Licensing Board? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA.* GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 (404i 536 7028 GEORGIA
7G 1 A Not that I recall.
-I 2 Q With respect to the newsletters for Campaign 3 for a Prosperous Georgia and Educational Campaign for a 4 Prosperous Georgia, was there any time at which thos e 5 organizations published tuo separata newsletters?
6 A Not simultaneously. 7 Q With respect to the articles that you contributed to navsletters for Campaign for a Prosparcus 8 9 Georgia and Educational Campaign for a Prosperous 10 Georgia, have any of those articles discussed Plant 11 Vogtle? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Do you recall any specific articles?
' A 14 I don't recall the names of them; but in 15 virtually every newsletter, there has been at least one.
16 Q Have any of those articles discussed eny of 17 the issues raised by the contentions admitted in Ohls 18 proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board? I 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you authored those articles ? 21 A I believe so. 22 Q What discussion appeared in those articles 23 of issues raised by the contentions in this proceeding? 24 A As I recall, descriptions of the contantions 25 that were put forth, descriptions of the contentions that 5 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351-0300 '4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
p 77 1 1 were accepted, descriptions of the licensing board's 2 order. 3 Did those descriptions of the concentions Q 4 that were put forth and contentions that were accepted 5 outline the arguments made by the parties? 6 A As I recall, yes. 7 Q Did they do any more than outline the I 8 arguments made by the parties in their pleadings? 9 A What do you mean did they do any more? 10 Q Did they simply summarize or repeat 11 arguments made by the parties in their pleadings, or did 12 they have any additional analysis of the issues? 13 A I'm sure they had additional analysis. 14 Q Would that additional analysis contained in 15 those articles have been prepared by you? 16 A Probably. 17 Q The articles that appeared in the newsletters 18 for Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, did any of thosc 19 articles discuss Plant Vogtle? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Do you recall any specific articles? I. n A I don't recall the names of any specific 23 articles, no. 24 Q Do you recall how many articles have 25 appeared in Ccorgians Against !!ucicar Ener.cy 's neus le tte: I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VittE f 40413510300 14041 536-1028 GEORGIA
73 1 1 that you have written or contributed to? 2 A Mo. I don't recall how many. It's been 3 quite a few over the years. 4 Q More than ten? 5 A Y es ; I believe more than ten. I'm not 6 certain, but I believe so. 7 Have any of those articles discussed issues Q 8 raised by the contentions admitted by the Atomic Gafety 9 and Licensing Board in this proceeding? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What sort of discussions did those articles 12 contain about those issues? 13 A As I recall, very similar to the ones in 14 ECPG and CPG's newsletters. 15 Q Did they differ in any relevant respect? 16 A Only in their organizational focus, 17 Q llow was that different? 18 A One was oriented to members o f G AME , and 19 the other was oriented to the readings of the CFC and 20 EPCG's newsletters. 21 Q Can you describe for me how the article 22 would change depending on whether it was orienced to 23 members of GAlit or CPG 7 24 MR. FLACK: Again, I'm trying to speed 25 things up. I think the articles would speak STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE I4041 351.0300 8404) 536 7028 GEORGIA
79 1 for themselves. You have several of them in 2 a pile in front of you, apparently. 3 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm just asking Mr. 4 Johnson about the articles. I 5 THE WITNESS: Well, the difference would I 6 be if it's written for the GAME newsletters, 7 it would focus on the GANE intervention. If I 8 it was written for another newsletter, it 9 wouldn't focus on the GAME intervention. 10 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Is there a difference in 11 your mind between the GANE intervention and the CPG 12 intervention? 13 MR. FLACK: Excuse me. In this 14 proceeding? 15 MR. DAVENPORT : Yes. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, since the licensing 17 board asked the two organisations to j oin 18 together, it is now a j oint intervention. i I 19 Q (By Mr. Davenpor t) I'm really j us t trying 20 to find out what you mean when you indicated the focus l 21 would be different depending on whether it would be l 22 directed to GAME or CPC members. 23 A In a CANE newsletter, it would be, "Cecrgians 24 Against Huclear Energy's intervention in the Vogtic n licensing proceeding" -- dot, dot, dot -- and socewhere STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. l ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 1404r 3510300 f 40415'6-7078 GEORGIA
1 in it, it would also mention the joint intervention. 2 Q Is GANE a member of CPG 7 3 MR. FLACK: I object to questions i l 4 regarding the memberahip or relationship of ' E 5 people to CPG and instruct the witness not 6 to answer. 7 Q (37 Mr. Davenport) Is there any association 8 between GANE and CPG other than the fact that they're 9 acting as joint intervenors in this proceeding? 10 MR. FLACK: I'm not sure I underntand 11 what you mean by association. Do you mean 12 that in a legal sense? 13 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Do they have any inter-14 action? 15 A Many of the members of CANE are cetive 16 supporters of CPC and ECPC. There~is no formal 17 connection between -- no legal connection between the 18 organizations. I 19 Q Is there any connection other than thc fact 20 that members of CAME may support CPC in its activitics? l 21 A Well, they are j oint intervenors in this 22 Proceeding. 23 Q Other than their joint intervention and the 24 fact that individual members of Georgians Against 25 Nuclear Energy may support the activities of Campaign STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANIA
- GAINESVfLLE t (4048 351 0300 I4041 536-7028 GEORGIA
31 1 for a Prosperous Georgia, is there any interaction I 2 between the two? 3 l A Not that I can think of beyond the fact that l l 4 the two organizations are working for what they perceive l 5 as a better future for Georgia. 6 Q Is Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia a 7 member of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy? 8 A No, it is not. 9 Q Are you a member of Georgians Against 10 Nuclear Energy? 11 A I don't think I've ever signed up as a 12 formal member. 13 Q Are you a member of any associations or 14 organizattons other than Campaign for a Prosperous 15 Georgia, Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Coorgia, I 16 and I believe you indicated the Southern Regional 17 Council? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What o ther organizations ? 20 MR. FLACK: Excuse me. Do you mean 21 related to utility issues or any organi-22 zations at all? 23 -Q (By Mr. Davenport) First I'll ask you in 24 relation to utility issues. 25 A Ye8 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. I ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 (4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
82 5 1 Q What other organizations? I 2 A. Environmental Action Foundation; Public 3 Citizen. These are the only two I can think~of~ofC the 4 top of my head. 5 Q Are you a member of any orgenizations that 6 are not utility directed? 7 A Yes.. 8 Q What organizatioas? 9 A I'll tell you the ones that I can think of to provided my attorney thinks that is okay. The ACLU; 11 you've already got Southern Regional Council. I' sure 12 there are others. LEAF; Legal Environmental Assis tance I 13 Foundation. Those are the ones that come to mind of f 14 the top of my head. 15 Q You are a member of Environmental Action l 16 Foundation? 17 A I believe I am. I know I was at onc cine. 18 I'm not sure. My membership may have expired. 19 Q Do you have any involvement with : hat 20 organization other than the fact that you're j us t 2 l 21 member? 22 A I subscribe to their utility news le tter. 23 Q Are you employed by them in any way? 24 A No. 25 Q Do you serve on any board of directors or STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. 'I ATLANTA . GAINE5VILLE
'404i 351 0300 8404i 536 7078 GEORGIA t .
L
53 1 in any way participate in the fornation of activitics? 2 A No. 3 Q Let me ask what sort of organization is the 4 Environmental Action Foundation? 5 A It's a nonprofit environmental foundation 6 based in Washington, D.C. 7 Q Could you describe for me briefly what .7 3 r t 8 of activities they engage in? 9 A Activities concerning energy issuas; to: tic 10 was te issues ; just about any environmental issue yoc 11 can think of. 12 Q You indicated that you're a member of 13 Public Citizen? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you have any relationship with that I 16 organization other than the fact that you are a member 17 of it? 18 A That and subscribing to the various news-19 letters of its various projects. 20 Q Can you describe for me how Public Citizen 21 is organized? 22 MR. FLACK: I don't want to delay 23 things, but it seems to me this is well 24 beyond the scope of what this hearing is 25 about. I'd like to progress. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'404: 351-0300 (404 536 7028 GEORGIA
P,4 1 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm entitled to find 2 out about Mr. Johnson's background. 3 MR FLACK: I'm not obj ecting to it. 4 MR. DAVENPORT: And you're not speeding 5 things up by interj ecting these comments. 6 MR. FLACK: It certainly seems ir-7 relevant. 8 Q (By Mr. Da venport) Could you describe for 9 me, Mr. Johnson, how Public Citizen is organi:cd? 10 A My understanding is that they have a beard 11 of directors that directs their activities. I 'm no t 12 sure. What do you mean -- I 13 Q I'm jus t curious why they have more than one 14 newsletter? 15 A They have various proj ects watch are nart of 16 Public Citizen; energy, health care -- 17 Q Do you participate in any particu:.ar pr:: 8 2=ts is that go under the umbrella of -- 19 MP. FLACK: Could you cxplain what vou 33 mean by participate? 21 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) Are you invol-'ed in any 22 proj ects ? 23 A 3eyond getting their newsletters? 24 Q Yes. 25 A No, I thought of another organization. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
#404 351 0300 f 404) 536 7028 GEORGIA I .
35 1 Friends of the Earth. I 2 Q Can you describe for me briefly what sort 3 of activities Public Citizen is involved in? 4 A ' Jell, it was founded by Ralph Nader and I 5 involved activities related to issues that he has been 6 concerned about. 7 Q Do you have any involvement with the ACLU 8 other than the fact that you are a member? 9 A I occasionally go to their meetings, but to I'm not actively involved in any o f their proj ects . 11 Q You are a member of Southern Regional Council? I 12 13 A Yes. I'm not sure if they use the word l 14 member. It might be associate or something like that; 15 but, yes. l I 16 Q Do you have any involvement with the 17 Southern Regional Council other than your status as an l 18 associate or member or whatever term they use? 19 A I was formerly employed in a Southern 20 Governmental Monitoring Project. 21 Q I 'm sorry? 22 A The Southern Governmental Monitoring Proj ect 23 was a part of Souchern Regional Council. 24 Q '4 hen you testified earlier concerning your 25 employment by Southern Regional Council, was that the I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. AfLANTA
- GAINE5Vitti f 40413510300 84041 536 1078 GEORGIA
C6 1 employment you were describing? 2 A Yes. 3 Q But you were actually employed by Southern 4 Governmental Monitoring Proj ect? 5 A Well, I was actually employed by Southern 6 Regional Council; and my work was in their project, 7 one of their proj ects , which was Southern Governmental 8 Monitoring Proj ect. 9 Q Could you describe for me briefly what that to project was concerned with? 11 A It was initially set up to study the inricts 12 of new federalism programs on the poor and minoritier; in I 13 the South, and then it went beyond that into other 14 issues, areas. 15 Q Currently, do you have any involvenant with 16 the Southern Regional Council or any projects that it 17 is sponsoring other than the fact that you are a member 18 or associate of the Southern Regional Council? 19 I!R. DAVE!! PORT : Let the record reflect 20 Mr. Johnson is conferring with his attorney. 21 MR. FLACK: I'm going to instruct the 22 witness not to answer the ouestion on the basis of irrelevancy. I 23 24 HR. CAVE!; PORT: You're saying we're 25 not entitled to inquire into organi=ations I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE
'404 351-0300 8404i 536J028 GEORGIA
g 1 that Mr. Johnson, who has been identified as I 2 a witness in this proceeding, is involved in? 3 MR. FLACK: Yes. 4 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you 5 indicated you are a member of Legal Environmental 6 Assiscance Foundation? 7 A Yes, I am. 8 Q Do you have any involvement with that 9 organization other than the fact that you are a member? 10 A I am on their board of advisors. 11 Q llow many people are on their board of 12 advisors? 13 A I'm not sure. Somewhere between 10 and 30, 14 I think. 15 What sort of function do you perform in Q 16 your role on the board of advisors? 17 A Advise. 18 Q On what type of matters? 19 A Fund raising. So far, I think that's been 20 about the only thing I've prcvided to LEAF as an 21 organization. 22 Q You indicated that you are a member of 23 Friends of the Earth? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Do you have any involvement with Friends of I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAiNESVILLE 1404 351 0300 '404r 536 7078 GEORGIA l
5 .
I ;'. '. 1 the Earth other then the fact that you are a r. caber? 2 A No. 3 Q What sort of organication is Friends of the 4 Earth, and what sort of activities do they enstge in? I 5 A They are an environmental organization 6 engaged in lobbying and public education on environ-7 mental issues. 8 Q Are they a Georgia organization? 9 A No. 10 Q A nacional organization? 11 A Yes. I believe they are based in 12 San Francisco. 13 Q Coing back to your contributions to news-14 letters, what sort of contributions have you mcde to the newsletters put out by the Legal Environnental I 15 16 Assis cance Foundation? 17 A I wrote an article for what I believe was 18 their last newsletter on their representation of CFC 19 and CA!!E and the current Plant Vogtle licens in:; 20 Proceeding. 21 Q Is that the only article that you've 22 written for their newsletters? 23 A I believe so. 24 Q And I take it that article discussed 'lant 25 Y UU187 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE f 4041351 -0300 '4041 536 7028 I GEORGIA j
l l
09 8 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did it discuss any issues raised by the 3 contentions admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing 4 Board in this proceeding? I 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did it do more than simply describe the 7 contentions put forth and those accepted by the board? 8 A Yes. It tells who is working on them and 9 that kind of thing. 10 Q Did it have additional analysis of the 11 merits of the contentions? 12 A Probably. 13 Q '.J i t h r e s p e c t to the contributions that you 14 made to newsletters put out by the Nuclear Freeze / 15 Jobs With Peace campaign, did any of those articles 16 discuss Plant Vogtle? 17 A I believe so. 18 Q Did any of those articles discuss any I 19 issues raised by the contentions admitted by the Atomic 20 Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding? 21 A Not that I recall. 22 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 23 received assiscance from the Environmental Action 24 Foundation with respect to this proceeding? 25 MR. FLACK: Could you reneat the quea cion? i STUART S. HUSEBY & AS30CIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAIN!D stLE 1404 351 0300 , soel 536 7078 I
GEOltGIA
90 l 1~ Q (Ey Mr. Davenpo rt) Has Campaign for a 2 Prosperous Georgia roccived assis cance from the 3 Environmental Action Foundation with respect to this 4 proceeding? 5 MR. FLACK: What do you mean by 6 as sis tance? Do you mean have they helped? 7 Uhat do you mean by assis cance? 8 MR. DAVENPORT: I mean it in the 9 commonly used ceaning of assis tance. I'm to willing to let Mr. Johnson define what he 11 thinks the word means and answer it in that 12 respect. I 13 IHE WIT iESS : Not specifically, at 14 least that I recall specifically, related 15 to this proceeding. 16 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Has Campaign for a 17 Prosperous Georgia received assistance from the Union 18 of Concerned Scientis ts with respect to this proceeding? 19 A Ycs. 20 Q '4 hat sort o f assis tance has it received 21 from the Unica of Concerned Scientis ts? 22 A Dr. Deutsch, D-e-u-t-s-c-h, Howard Deutsch, has spoken with them; and I'm not sure of the extent of I 23 24 that assistanco. Beyond that, none of the specific 25 information was providad by them except, I believe, some I i STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. l ATLANTA a GAINESVittf ) 8404i 351-0300 (404: $36 7028 l GEC9GIA I -
91 1 of the briefs that we have provided you with before now 2 were used; but Dr. Deutsch could better answer that 3 question than I. 4 So you have not had any direct contact Q 5 associated with the Union of Concerned S cientis ts ? 6 A Regarding this proceeding? 7 Q Yes. 8 A Not that I recall. 9 Q Do you know what subject matters the Union I 10 of Concerned Scientists provided Dr. Deutsch information 11 about? 12 MR. FLACK: I think the witness 13 indicated Dr. Deutsch could answer that: 14 and I understand you're planning to depose 15 Dr. Deutsch. 16 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm interes ted in 'that 17 Chis witness knows. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't know specifically 19 what -- 20 MR. DAVENPORT: What subj ect matters? 21 THE WITNESS: What was provided, if 22 anything, other than what we have already Provided you. I 23 24 Q (By Mr. Davenport) When you sa'r crovided us, 25 you mean in the documents produced? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 84041 351 0300 GEORGIA 84041 536-7078 I -
92 1 A Yes. 2 Q lias Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 1 l 3 received assistance from the Nuclear Information and 4 Resource Service with respect to this proceeding' 5 A Yes. 6 Q On what subject matters? 7 A General kinds of what a licensing nroceedin? 8 involves and that kind of advice; where to scch cut 9 information and that kind of thing. 10 Q Have they provided you any informatien with 11 respect to the particular contentions admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceedinc? I 12 13 A Yes. 14 Q Which contentions? 15 A You'll have to ask the other witnesses if 16 they provided anything to them on the contentions other 17 than the TDI. I do know that they specifically provided 18 some information concerning TDI, which I believe is 19 Contention Number 14. 20 Q But so far as you yourself know, that's the 21 only contention about which they provided information? 22 A That's the only specific one that I know 23 that they are providing information on. You'll have to I ask the other witnesses if they provided inforreation on g 25 theirs. l l' STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 8404i 536 7028 GEORGIA
93 1 Q What type of organization is the Nuclear 2 Information and Resource Service? 3 A They provide information and refer nonprofit 4 organizations to resources concerning nuclear power. 5 Q Do you have any association with that 6 organization? 7 A Personally, no, I don't. 8 Q Does Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 9 A Yes. I I 10 Q What sort of association? 11 A I'm not certain of this , but I believe it 's 12 a member of NIRS. 13 Q A member of Nuclear Information and Resource 14 Source? 15 A They subscribe to the newsletters, 16 Q And you're jus t not sure whether their 17 subscribing makes you a member? 18 A I don't know if member is the right word. 19 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia received assis tance from Critical Mass Energy Proj ecc I 20 21 with respect to this proceeding? 22 A Not that I recall, 1 l 23 Q Has Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia ' B 24 received assistance from any organization other than 25 the ones that you've mentioned with respect to thic STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. l ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404 351 0300 1404' 536 7028 I GEORGIA E -
94 I I proceeding? I 2 A Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, 3 of course, is providing legal counsel. 4 Q Anyone other than LEAF? I uculd also 5 include GAliE, since you're joint intervonors. 6 A I don't recall specifically any others, but 7 you'll need to ask the other witncsses concerning their 8 There may have been. contentions. 9 (Thereupon, the court reporter I marked Applicant 's Exhibit 3 to for identification.) 11 Q (By tir. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you've 12 been handed what has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 13 Number 3. Can you identify that document for me? 14 A This appears to be a photocopy of a news-15 letter called " Plugging In ," from Educational Campaign 16 for a Prosperous Georgia, March-April 1934 17 Q Let me refer you to the third Sheet of this 18 newsletter, the middle column, lase paragraph in that 19 column. That paragraph indicates that CPC has received 20 assistance from the Environmental Action Foundation. 21 Does that j og your memory at all about that? m 22 A I think that this is referring =crely to 23 general newsletters and general information on nuclear 24 issues as opposed to this specific proceeding. I don't 25 specifically recall. j I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINE5vitLE (404 351 0300 1404 536 7028 i GEOGGIA lI
95 1 Q And it also indicates that CPC has received 2 help from Critical !! ass Energy Project? Do you recall 3 any assistance received by CPG with respect to this 4 proceeding from that group? I 5 A I don't specifically recall. 6 Let me ask you also to turn to the second-Q 7 to-the-last page of this document; and the bottom 8 half of that page has the logo for Campaign for a 9 Prosperous Georgia, does it not, on the left-hand side? 10 A Yes, it does. 11 And on the right-hand side next to the logo Q 12 is the solicitation for contributions for Canpaign for 13 a Prosperous Georgia; isn't that correct? 14 A That is not correct. 15 Q Well, it does say -- in fact, the worda are, 16 "Yes. I support the Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia." 17 It continues, and then it says , "I pledge to send a 18 monthly contribution," does it not? 19 A That is what it says. It's not a 20 solicitation. It's a response. 21 MR. FLACK: I think the document 22 speaks for itself. 23 Q (By Mr. Davenport) So this is a form that 24 someone can fill out who wishes to send a concribution 25 for Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE 84041 351 0300 '4041 536 7028 I
GEORC:A
95 1 A Yes, it is. 2 Why would Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Q 3 reques t anyone sending them a contribution who wishes 4 the contribution to be tax deductible to make the check 5 payable to ECPG/SRC7 6 A Because contributions to Campaign for a 7 Prosperous Georgia were not tax deductible. 8 Q What does SRC stand for? 9 A Southern Regional Council. 10 Q What is the involvenent between the Southern 11 Regional Council and Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 12 MR. FLACK: I obj ect on the basis I 13 indicated earlier. 14 MR. DAVENPORT: What basis is that? 15 MR. FLACK: Relevancy to this inquiry. 16 MR. DAVENPORT: So you're saying that 17 the source of contributions to the Camnatgn 18 for a Prosperous Georgia, where those funds 19 are directed, is not relevant? 20 MR. FLACK: I'm saying the financing I 21 of CPC is not relevant to this proceeding. 22 MR. DAVENPORT: And you're instructin? 23 the witness not to answer? 24 MR. FLACK: That's right. 25 MR. CHURCHILL: Cxcuse me. What vore STUART S. HUSE9Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. i ATLANTA . GAINESViLLE I404 351 0300 1404 $36 7028 GEO9GIA i .
97 1 those other initials? 2 M P. . DAVENPORT: CPG and SRC. 3 (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, have you Q 4 aver appeared as a witness in any proceeding before a 5 court or administrative agency? 6 A y es , 7 When? Q 8 A ' fell, I appeared before the Fulton Superic: 9 Court at the reques t of the City Actorney 's Of fice in to response to a suit by the Southeast Legal Foundation 11 agains t Atlanta to take the Nuclear Freeze / Jobs "fith 12 Peace referendum off the ballot. I have testified at i 13 the U. S. Office of Revenue Sharing hearings concerning 14 employment discrimination in state and local government. 15 I have testified at White House hearings on consu=er 16 representation and federal agency proceedings. 17 Q I'm sorry? 18 A White House hearings. I'm not sure if 19 that's an administrative agency or not. Consumer 20 representation for federal agencies . 21 You said administrative or judicial? 22 Q Yes. 23 A I've testified before -- ins tead of Of fice B 24 of Revenue Sharing on the employment discrimination, 25 it was the Office of Federal Contract Compliance STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. i AftANTA
- GAINE5VitLE I4041 351 0300 8404: 536 7028 GEORGIA E .
93 1 Prograns. The Office of General P.evenue Sharing,, I 2 testified on participation of citizens in revenue 1 3 sharing proj ects . Those are the ones I recall off the 4 cop of my head. There may have been others. 5 Have you ever appeared as a witness befere Q 6 the Georgia Public Service Commission? 7 A I don't believe so. 8 Q Have you ever appeared as a witness in any 9 proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or I 10 the Department of Energy? 11 A Not that I recall. 12 You don't consider it appearing as a witness 13 to provide written comments; is that correct? 14 Q I would consider providing written testimony 15 to be appearing as a witness , but not written comments. 16 MR. FLACK: You mean like pre-17 filed testimony? 18 MR. DAVI:NPORT : Yes. 19 MR. FLACK: Is that helpful? 20 T!!E WITNESS : Not that I recall, but 21 there may havo bacn. Not before NRC, bue 22 there may have been before DOE. 23 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Have you ever apncared 5 24 as a witncas in any proceeding to which Georgia Power or 25 any of the other co-owners of Plant Vogtle were a party? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE$viLLE
'4041 351-0300 14041 536 1078 GEORGIA E -
99 5 1 A Not that I recall. 2 In the lawsuit in Fulton County, the Superior Q 3 Court of Fulton County, did your testimony relate at all 4 to Plant Vogtle? 5 A No, it did not. 6 In any of the administrative or White House Q 7 hearings that you have appeared before, did your 8 cestimony relate at all to Plant Vogtle? 9 A Not specifically. I to Q Indirectly? 11 A Well, in the sense that -- for example, 12 the White House hearings on consumer representation 13 before federal agencies, I was advocating on behalf of 14 Georgia Public Interest Research Group that measures 15 be made to increase consumer representation before 16 federal agencies including NRC; and in the sense that 17 that relates indirectly to Plant Vogtle, yes. 18 Q But Plant Vogtle was never specifically 19 mentioned? 20 A No; not that I recall. 21 Q Have you ever appeared as a witness in any 22 other type of proceeding of any kind relating to a n nuclear generating plant? 5 24 A Mot that I recall. 25 Q Have you ever provided any person, any I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5vittE
'4041 351-0300 GEORGIA
#404i 536 1028 E -
100 1 organi=ation, or any group an affidavit for use in a 2 proceeding relating to a nuclear generating plant other 3 than this proceeding? ' 4 MR. FLACK: Could you repeat the 5 question? 6 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Have you ever provided 7 any person, any organization, or any group an affidavit 8 for use in a proceeding relating to a nuclear generatin:; 9 plant other than this proceeding? 10 A Not that I recall. . 11 Q Have you cver submitted written comments to 12 the fluelear Regulatory Commission, the Department of 13 Energy, any other federal agency, that related to a 14 nuclear facility? 15 A A specific nuclear facility? 13 Q Or nuclear facilitics in general? 17 A Yes. 18 Q When was that? 19 A Well, las t year, on behalf of Campaign for 20 a Prosperous Georgia or Educational Campaign for a 21 Prosperous Georgia or both. I don't recall. I submitted 22 written comments to USNRC concerning the rule naking of 23 financial qualifications. I don't recall the specific 24 instances or dates, but in the past, I have nrovided g CeGCimony both Co the NRC and to DOE concerning various STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. tNC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE 14041 351 0300 1404' 536 7028 GEORGIA
101 1 proposed rule nakings related to nuclear facilities, E 2 nuclear activity, and similar issues. 3 MR. FLACK: Let me see if I can 4 clarify the cestimony. You used testimony 5 -- did you mean that in the sense of pre- l 6 filed testimony or comments? 7 THE WITNESS: Comments. 8 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Have you filed written . I 9 comments with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, f to Department of Energy, or any other federal agency 11 concerning Plant Vogtle? A Comments on the draft environmental acate-I 12 it ment, yes. 14 Q Any other comments that related to Plant 15 Vogtle? 16 A I don ' t specifically recall others. 17 , Q Have you submitted written comments to any 18 st' ate public service com=ission or any other s tate agency 19 that related to Plant Vogtle? 20 A Proposed orders to the Public .S crvice 21 Commission relating to financing of Plant Vogtle. 22 Q I.believe you indicated earlier that you 23 submitted some comments to a state agency with reseect I. 24 to the NPDS permit for Plant Vogtle? 25 A Groundwater withdrawal with the State STUAftT S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. i ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE i4041 351 0300 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA
102 I 1 Environmental Protection Division. ! i 2 Q Any other state agencies that you can recall 3 that you've submitted comments to that related to "lant 4 Vogtle? 5 A State agency, not specifically. 6 Q The comments that you submitted on behali 7 of Campaign for a Prosperous Coorgia or Educatic.:'.tl 8 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia to the O.C concernt.3 9 rule making for financial qualifications, did those 10 comments discuss any issues raised by the contentions 11 that have been admitted by the Atomic Safety and 12 Licensing Board in this proceeding? I 13 A I don't recall any specific relationship. 14 Q What about the concents that you submitted 15 to the NRC on the draft environnental -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did those comments, in fact, discuss .?.ch 18 of the admitted contentions? 19 A Yes, as I recall. i $ l 20 Q Did you prepare those comments? 21 A Yes, as I rccall. l 22 Q The proposed orders that you submitted to 1 23 the Public Service Conmission relating to the financing 24 of Plant Vogtle, did they dis cuss in any way 12 s u c a. 25 raised by the contentions admitted by the Atomic Safety i STUART S. HUSESY & ASSCelATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVittf 8404 J51-0300 84041 536 7028 GEORGIA I
103 1 and Licensing Board in this proceedin57 5 2 A Not specifically, as I recall. 3 Q The cortments that you submitted to the 4 State Environmental Protection Division, did they discust 5 issues raised by the contentions admitted by the Atomic 6 Safety and Licensing Board? 7 A They discussed the groundwater withdrawal, 8 and the groundwater contention has been accepted by the 9 Atomic Safety Licensing Board. I don't recall the 10 specific content.
. 11 Q So you don't recall what those comments 12 discussed specifically?
13 A They specifically discussed groundwater, 14 but I don't recall whether they related directly to the 15 contention as accepted by the licensing board. 16 Q Did they discuss groundwater withdrawal 17 rates? 18 A I'm sure they did. 19 , Q Did they discuss potential contanination of 20 aquifers at Plant Vogele? 21 A I believe they did. 22 Q Did they discuss the mechanisms by which 23 contan.ination might reach the lower confined aquifer at 24 Plant Vogtle? A Nt that I recall. h 25 STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I404i 351 0300 8404: 536 7028 GEORGIA B -
104 1 Q Do you recall the gict of the discussions 2 about the aquifers beneath Plant Vogtic? 3 i A The comments provided the EPD uore very 4 brief, and the gis t was concerned that the Tuscal;csa 5 aquifer is a very precious water source; and a nuclear 6 power plant is not needed, should not be licensed to 7 operate on top of that aquifer, as I recall, 8 Q Did it discuss, to the best of your 9 recollection, potential contamination of water table to aquifer? 11 A To the best of my recollection; but I'm 12 not sure. 13 Q llave you submitted written comments to the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the Department of Energy, or 15 any other federal agency, with respect cc any cther 16 specific nuclear facility other than Plant Vogtic? 17 A I'm not sure; but I believe I sub=itted 18 comments relating to the Allied General Nuclear 19 Services facility in South Carolina and perhaps the m Clinch River Breeder Reactor in Tennessee, but I'm not I 21 sure on each of those. If I did, it was many years as;o . 22 Q Do you recall the substance of any com=ents 23 that you might have submitted tiith respect to the Clinch 24 Breeder Reactor facility? 25 A NO. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ( W ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 1404' 536 7028 GEORGIA
l 1 105 Q vo you recall the substance of any comments I 2 that you submitted with respect to the Allied Nuclear 3 General Services Reactor facility? 4 A IIo , I do not. 5 Q Have you provided any assistance to any 6 party to a proceeding involving nuc1 car energy or a 7 nuclear generating plant other than the licensing 8 proceeding relating to Plant Vogtle? 9 A I'm not sure I understand the ques tion. I .- 10 Q What I'm asking now is whether you have been 11 involved in providing assiscance to any organizations 12 with respect to opposing other nucicar facilities ? 13 A Not that I recall. 14 Q Have you provided any information to the 15 intervenors in this proceeding for their use in supplying j 1 I 16 the bases for any contentions admitted by the Atomic l 17 Safety and Licensing Board? 18 A Yes. l l W 19 Q Which contentions? 20 A I believe all of them, if by information l 21 you mean written documents and that kind of thing. 22 Q Y es . So all of the contentions? 23 A I believe that I provided at lessc cone 24 information on all of the contentions. 25 Q Can you tall me what subj ect matters you STUART S. HUSESY & ASSOCIATES. INC. I ATLANTA . GAINESVitLE I4041 351 0300 (4041 536 7028 GEORG3A
l 106 1 provided information about? 2 A The subj ect matters in the contentions. 3 Q For all the contentions? 4 A To the bes t of my recollection. My 5 assis tance has run the gamut from very little ce deine: 6 most of the work. 7 Q Have you provided any information to the 8 intervenors for their use in responding to any 9 Interrogatories from the applicants in this nroceedin.7? 10 A Yes. 11 Q '4hich contentions did those Interrogataries 12 relate to? 13 A Well, I provided copies of the 14 Interrogatories; so in that sense, all of them. 15 Q '4h'ich Interrogatories have you provided the 16 intervenors with information that they used in 17 responding to the Interrogatories? 18 MR. FLACK: This strikes me as a 19 matter of logic. If he gave them copies 20 of the Interrogatories, the answer would 21 be the same. 22 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, do you know 23 what I'm trying to ask you? 24 A I know what you're trying to ask me, but 25 could you rephrase the question? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 '404 $36 7070 GEO9GIA
107 1 I'm trying to find out which contentions I 2 Q you provided information to the intervenors about that 3 they then turned around and used in their responses to 4 the Interrogatories received from the applicanta? l 5 A Other than the Interrogatories themselves? 6 Q Right. 7 A Of the ones that we're addressing today, 8 I wrote the responses en the TDI Interrogatories. I 9 don't recall specifically giving either Dr. Deuts ch or 10 Mr. Lawless any information for the responses to the 11 Interrogatories related to the contentions on which thev 12 are working other than the Interrogatories thecselves 13 and the deadlines for responding and that background 14 information. 15 Q So you did not provide any of the infor-16 mation included in the intervenors' responses to the 17 Interrogatories concerning groundwater contamination, 18 Contention 7? 19 A Other than what had been provided to them a) prior, you know, to the time to respond to the 21 Interrogatories, I don't recall providing anythina. 22 Q Are you saying that you provided them 23 information which they then used in responding to the 24 Interrogatories? 25 A Yes. l' STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. AflANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 i4041 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
I 1M 1 q Did you prepare any of the responses to the I 2 Interrogatories concerning greundwater contanination? 3 A I typed then, and I nay -- there may have 4 been a coupla of the questions in there that related to I 5 information that was done by someone who was workin.q 6 with us earlier and no longer was by the ti=0 the 7 Interrogatorias came in to which I may have responded. 8 I would have to review the responses to be sure. 9 Q Is that Carla -- 10 MR. FLACK: Hugh, jus t for the record, 11 there vas a reference to whatever Interrogatories 12 we're talking about here. ' Thy don ' t one o# 13 you define that universe. 14 MR. DAVE:' PORT: We're talking about l 15 Contentien 7 with respect to the questienc i I 16 that were just addressed, 17 THE UITNESS: Uith respect to Contention 18 7, Carla Gelbaun was the one who wort.cd I 19 carlier and no longer is. 20 Q (By IIr. Davenport) Uhat subj ect cattars 21 do you consider yourself to be an expert about? l 22 A Could you define the word expert? 23 Q Lot me go back for a minute before I get 24 to that. 25 What involvement did other employees of STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVitLE I4041 35i.0300 #4048 536 7028 GEORGIA
^
109 1 Campaign for a Prosperous Coorgia have in responding to I 2 the Int:errogatories from the applicants? What I 'm 3 getting at, were those responses basically prepared by 4 you with information from various people like ifr. Deutsch 5 and Mr. Lawless, or was someone else involved? 6 A I was the only staff person involved in that 7 process, as I recall. 8 Q With respect to gathering the information 9 used to provide the bases for the contentions proposed 10 by Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, was your rol the 11 same with respect to that information? Were you the 12 focal point in information gathering ef forts ? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Nere there other people associated with 15 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia who assisted you in 16 that? 17 A There were volunteers who worked on it, I'm 18 sure. 19 Q What subject matters do you consider your-20 self to be sufficiently knowledgeable about to orovide 21 assistance to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo.trd in 22 ruling upon the contentions in this proceedin3? 23 A The issues raised by the intervenors in 24 their contentions. 25 Q All contentions? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOclATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 44041 351 0300 i4041536J028 GEORGIA
ll? 1 A 'Jh a t do you nean when you say provide 2 assistance to 'the licensing board? 3 Can you identify for no the subj ect' =atters Q 4 raised by the contentions that have been admitted b-I 5 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board about which you 6 consider yourself to be sufficiently knowledgcable to 7 provido assistance to the Atomic Safety and Licensing 8 Board in ruling on th at contention? 9 MR. FLACK: Let me suggest that a 10 secretary who types up responses and 11 staples the papers together with no 12 editorial input would be in a po::ition 13 of providing assis tance to the board in 14 making its adjudication to the extent that 15 the information on the paper is helpful. 16 It strikes me that the Interrogatories have 17 identified contentions that Mr. Johnson is 18 expected to testify to and that it might 19 save all of us time if we directed our 20 questions in that area. 21 MR. DAVENPORT: Mr. Flack, I achnouled:c 22 the fact that you haven't been involved and, 23 therefore, don't know what they say. But 24 theyidentify Mr. Johnson as having knowled;;c 25 about all contentions, and I 'm trying to STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE l
1404 351 0300 14041 536-7078 GEORGIA l l
111 1 pinpoint which ones speci'icc11y he has any 2 knowledge about. 3 (By Mr. Davenport) Q I will take note of 4 your counsel's obj ection and suggest that what I'm I 5 really trying to get at is which subj ect matters do 6 you consider yourself competent to testify about before 7 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board? 8 A At this time, the only accented contention 9 Which we're considering today that is a likelihood would to be the TDI. 11 Q And is that the only contention about which 12 you feel sufficiently knowledgeable to testify? 13 A No. 14 Q Jhat other contentions do you have knowledge relevant to? I 15 16 A All of them to varying degrees. Some of 17 them very limited; and others, more at the present time. 18 MR. DAVENPORT: Let the record note I 19 that Mr. Johnson was conferring with his 20 counscl. 21 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Do you consider yourself 22 an opponent of nuclear power, Mr. Johnson? 23 A I consider myself an opponent of Plant 24 Vogtle. 25 Q Do you consider yourself an opponent of STUART S. HUSESY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 35 00300 8404i 536 7028 GEORGIA
112 I nuclear power in general? 2 A In terms of current light water reactor 3 technology, yes. 1 4 Q So you feel that no nuclear generating plant l 5 should be granted an operating license on any basis at 6 chis time? 7 !!F. , FLACK: I object to counsel I 8 leading the witness. l 9 liR. DAVESPORT: On what grounds? 10 I'm cross-cxamining. 11 liR. FLACK: You can ask a direct 12 question. 13 THE WITNESS: There are no nuclear 14 generating plants in any country that do not 15 already have operating licenses, to my 16 knowledge; so yes, I would object to 17 licensing them. 18 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) So at this time you 19 would obj ect to any nuclear generating plant being 20 granted an operating license that does not already have 21 an operating license? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Lo you feel that those generating plants 24 that already have . operating licenses should be Shut dcwn1 25 A Today? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I404) 351 0100 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA
113 1 Q res. g 2 A Not necessarily. It varies from site to 3 site. 4 Q What site do you feel should not be shut 5 down? 6 A I don't know. I have not dcnc an anclysis 7 of every site in the country. 8 Could you name one? Q 9 A No. 10 Q 'w"nich site do you feel should be shut down? 11 A I'm not sure of the relevance of the ques tior , 12 but I would shut down Plant Hatch since it's broken down 13 half the time anyway. 14 Q Do you base that opinion on anything other 15 than Plant llatch's operating record? 16 A The overcapacity of generating capacity in 17 Georgia. 18 Q And do you feel that Plant Vogtle should I 19 not be granted an operating license by the Nuclear : 20 Regulacory Commission? 21 A I do feel that Plant Vogtle should not be 1 i 22 granted an operating license by the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission. 24 Q For what reason? 25 A Safety, environmental, and economic. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA
114 1 Q What safety reasons? A Those cited in our initial contention filing, those cited since that time, and others. 4 Q What o thers ? 5 A That the utility itself would not accept 6 financial liability in case of a major accident, for example. 8 '
.Q What environmental reasons?
9 A That they do not know what they are going to to do with the was te products from the plant, among 11 others. 12 Q Any ochers? 13 A The effects of radiation on the workers. 14 Q Anything else? 15 A The effects of potential leaks. 16 The effects of potential leaks? Q 17 A Radiation leaks, yes. 18 Anything else? I 19 Q A The concentration of nuclear facilities in l 20 21 one area. You're asking beyond what we've already I M cited in our concentions; is that correct? 23 Q Yes. 24 A The availability of alternatives. 25 Q Anything else? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1404) 351-0300 14C41536J028 GEORGIA
115 1 A I'n sure there are others, but those are I 2 the ones that come to my mind immediately. 3 You have been identified by the joint Q 4 intervenors in this proceeding as someone who would 1 I 5 testify as a witness on their behalf in hearings before 6 the acate and licensing board. 7 A Someone who would tes tify on their behalf. 8 Q Do you intend to appear as a witness before 9 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on behalf of the 10 intervenors? 11 A At this time, yes. 12 Q Arc you familiar with the contentions 13 admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in 14 this proceeding? 15 A In general, yes. I 16 Q Let me ask you a ques tion for clarification 17 purposes. Previously you have referred to the 18 contentions that are at issue in your deposition today: 19 and j us t so we're both clear on that, that includes I 20 every contention that has been admitted so far except 21 for Contention 8, which deals with quality assurance; l 22 is that correct? 23 A Yes. ,I 24 Q Do you intend to tescify about any issues 25 raised by Contention 7 concerning groundwater contami-STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE I4041 351 0300 (404) 536-7078 GEOltG:A l
I
116 1 nation? 2 A Ho. 3 Q Any issues raised by Contention 10 4 concerning dose rate effects? 5 A No. 6 Q Contention 10.3, multiconductor effect? 7 A go, 8 Contention 10.5, ASCO, Automatic Switch Q 9 Company? 10 A go, 11 On 10.7, hydrogen recombiners ? Q 12 A No. 13 Contention 11, steam generator? l Q 14 A No. 15 Contention 12, cooling tower drift? I Q 16 A No. 17 Q But you do intend to testify concerning 18 Contention 14, TDI emergency diesel generator? f l 19 A Yes. M Q With respect to that contention, what 21 subj ect matters will you testify about? l l u 22 A Those which we have provided you in the 23 responses to Interrogatories. 24 Q Lverything indicated in the responses to 25 Interrogatories? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 14041 536-7028 l GEORGIA i
117 1 A No; but I have not prepared my testimony 2 and do not know more specifically than that what will 3 be included. The general areas in the responses to 4 Interrogatories should cover it, though, at this time. I 5 Q What are possible areas that you might 6 eescify co? 7 MR. FLACK: I assume you're not asking B 8 the witncas to speculate. He 's under oath 9 here; is that correct? 10 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm asking him to tell 11 me what areas he may be a witness about. 12 THE WITNESS: The adequacy of TDI or 13 inadequacy of TDI generators to provide 14 cmergency backup power in an emergency l 15 situation. 16 Q (By Mr. Davenport) What aspects of your 17 educational background, training, or experience qualify [ 18 you to testify on that subj ect matter? 19 A The fact that I can read the English l 20 language. 21 Q Anything else? 22 A The fact that I have reviewed the documents 23 which we have provided to the applicants in response to y your Interrogetories and which you have provided to us 25 in response to our requests to produce. l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE I 1404135 bO300 (404) 536 7078 GEORGIA
17.6 I So you have reviewed all of the documents Q 2 produced by the applicants in response to your requests 3 to produce? 4 ;1R. FLACK: I don't think the witness I 5 said that. 6 TliL WITNESS: The documents that were 7 in the public document room -- not public 8 document room, but the discovery room, what-9 ever it's called, at Plant Vogtle. I looked to over -- I did review all of those that I 11 found that related to TDI. 12 (By Mr. Davenport) And how long did you Q 13 spend reviewing those documents? 14 A I was at the site for two days, but not all 15 of that time was spent reviewing. More was spent on 16 those than all the others put together. 17 Q And you arrived at the site at approxi-18 mately noon on the first day? I 19 A 11:00 or 12:00; something like that. I 20 don't recall. 21 Q And you spent six or seven hours looking at 22 documents th at day? 23 A Selecting the documents that I thought were 24 relevant to the contention; requesting that they be 25 copied. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 1404i 536 7078 GEORGIA
119 1 Q And you spent six or seven hours the 2 following day also looking at documents? 3 A Yes; and reques ting copies of those that I 4 thought relevant. 5 Q And you requested copies of approximately 6 300 pages of documents? 7 A As I recall. 8 Q What documents in the possession of the 9 intervenors specifically have you reviewed in conjunctior 10 with TDI? Could you describe the types of documents for 11 me? 12 A All of the documents which you provided in 13 response to our reques ts for documents and all the i 14 documents that were cited in our responses to your 15 inquiry as to what documents we had reviewed. I l i 16 Q The documents that were in the possession of 17 the intervenors prior to receiving the documents produced by the applicants , those documents consis ted primarily of
~
18 l 19 documents from the NRC, did they not? 20 A That's correct, as I recall. 21 Q Those are publicly available documents? 22 A Yes, as I recall. 23 Q INE notice; that type of documents? ! 24 A As I recall, yes. l 25 Q And also correspondence from either TDI or STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINE$vlLLE 1404i 351 0300 (4041 536 7028 i GEORGIA
120 1 the applicants to the NRC reporting problems with the 2 diesel generators? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Anything else? ,g E 5 A I provided you with a list of all the 6 documents we used or with copies of all the documents 7 we used, and we didn't use any beyond those that we 8 have already provided you with. 9 Q Those listed in the Interrogatory responses? 10 A Yes. We didn't use any prior to obtaining , 11 these from the company. 12 Q Have you had any formal education that you 13 consider relevant to the issues raised by the TDI 14 contention? 15 A I learned how to read. 16 Q Anything other than that? 17 MR. TLACK: I think he described his 18 education in detail this morning in response 19 to your questions. 20 MR. DAVENPORT: Your memory is the 21 same as mine. I 'm asking what aspects of 22 that education he thinks relates to this 23 contention and prepares him to testify 24 on this contention. 25 THE WITNESS: In terms of using it in I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404 351-0300 f 4041536 7028 I
GEORGIA I
121 1 preparing the responses to this contention, 2 I don't recall any other specific cther than 3 general training and analytical reasoning and 4 reading. 5 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Have you had any training 6 or work experience that in your opinion facilitates your 7 ability to testify concerning the TDI diesel generator? 1 8 A I have worked in the state regulatory 9 agencies dealing with a variety of issues. None of then 10 were specifically TDI generators; but I do think that 11 experience is relevant to this, yes. . 12 Q llave you had any experience concerning the l 13 mechanics of engines? l 14 A My car breaks down, but -- 15 Q Other than on your personal automobile? 16 A I don't specifically recall any specific 17 training. 18 Q IInve you ever s tudied or donc any research I 19 on geology or hydrogeology? m MR. FLACK: Do you mean a formal 21 course o f s tudy? 22 MR. DAVENPORT: Or research. n Tile WITNESS: Yes. 24 Q (3y Mr. Davenpo r t) What courses? 25 A I don't recall any courses, but I have STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE
'4048 351 0300 84041 536 7028 GEORGIA
122 1 researched it. 2 What sort of research have you done in that Q 3 area? 4 A Reviewed the company's FSAR in that area and 5 other publicly available information. 6 Q Have you had any training of any hind with 7 respect to or in the areas of geology or hydrogeolc27? 8 A No. 9 Q Do you consider yourself knowledgeable to about geology or hydrogeology? 11 A It depends on how encompassing you mean the 12 word knowledgeable. 13 Q Do you consider yourself knowledgeable about l l 14 the geologic formations that exist underneath Plant I 15 Vogtle? 16 A I consider my knowledge to be limited to 17 that which I provided in responses to your Inter-18 rogatories. I 19 Q To responses that you prepared or that were 20 Prepared by Mr. Lawless? 21 A Well, I have read his resconses :2nd have 22 general knowledge of what areas he will testify to. I 23 don't have sp 2cific knowledge to the areas whic!- he is 24 testifying on our behalf to. 25 Q So your knowledge is basically limited to STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAM $ VILL [ i404: 351 0300 14041536J028 GECRGIA
123 1 the information he provided in his Interrogatory 2 responses? 3 A Basically. He and in the early parts of the 4 Interrogatories, Ms. Gclb aum . I 5 Q Contention 7 states that the applicant has 6 not adequately addressed the value of the groundwater 7 below the plant site and fails to provide adequate I 8 assurance that the groundwater will not be contacinated. 9 MR. FLACK: Would it be possible for 10 him to look at Contention 7 if you're going 11 to question him about its Would that be 12 helpful to you? 13 MR. DAVI:NPORT : Why don't we take a 14 short break. 15 (Thereupon, a short receas was held.) 16 Q (By Mr. Davenpor t) Mr. Johnson, could you 17 describe for me generally what your role has been in 18 the licensing proces. ling? I 19 A I have been serving partly as a coo rdina *:or 20 of the Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia intervention, 21 and I have also done research on some of the specific 22 issues; and I have helped pull together responsca to 23 Interrogatories and that kind of thing. 24 Q Which specific issues have you donc research 25 oni STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1404l 351 0300 '4041 536 7028 GEORGA J
124 1 A To some er. tent on all of them. I guese all 2 of the contentions. 3 Q Are there any contentions that you have done 4 more research on, that you have focused more on? 5 A TDI is the one that I have focused more on. 6 Q Why did Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 7 intervene in this proceeding? 8 A For the reasons set forth in our application 9 for intervention and the amendments thereto. 10 Q Were you involved in the planning of that 11 intervention? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Was there anyone else from Campaign for a 14 Prosperous Georgia involved in the planning? 15 A Volunteers. 16 Q In the actual planning of the intervention? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Who decided what contentions to raise on 19 behalf of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia? 20 A The people who were working on the inter-21 vention. 22 Q Who was that other c'.cn yourself? 23 A I'm trying to recall. 24 Mark Merland and Howard Deutsch were the 25 two who decided what contentions ue were going to interve ne I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 '4041 536 7028 l GEORGIA i
)
125 1 on. 2 Q Who nas involved in deciding what 3 contentions to raise? 4 A Later, not at that point, but later, 3i11 5 Lawlcss; myself, of course. 6 Did you have the final decision as to what Q 7 contentions to raise on behalf of CPG? 8 A It was a group decision at the nectings. 9 (Thereupon, the court reporter marked Applicant's Exhibit 4 10 for identification.) 11 (3y Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you've Q 12 been handed what has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 13 Number 4. Can you identify that document for me? 14 A It appears to be the Atomic Safety and I Licensing Board's order and memorandum on special pre-15 ! 16 hearing conference held pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.71Sa,
- 17 dated S eptemb er S , 1984.
18 Q On page 17 of that order, the Atomic Safety 19 and Licensing Board discusses Contention 7. Let me 20 refer you to the statement of that contention that 21 appears on that page. 22 , Have you had a chance to read it? 23 A Yes. l 24 Q Just the s tatement of contention? 25 A Yes. STU A TT S. H U S E BY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINfSVILLE i
1404 351 0300 14041 536 7028 i GEORG3A E .
126 1 Q Could you sunmarize for me what is Cauprign 2 for a Prosperous Georgia's position on that contention? 3 A Our position is that the contention is 4 accurate. 5 Q Can you summarize for me the arguments that 6 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia will advance in 7 support of that contention? I 8 A Well, Professor Lawless will be your 9 witness on that; and so he would be much better able co 10 respond to that question. 11 Q So you yourself don't feel capable of 12 responding to that ques tion? 13 A I feel that Professor Lawless is more 14 capable of responding to that question. I 15 16 Q Well, do you yourself feel that you have the capability to respond to that question? 17 A I do not know everything that Professor f Lawless is going to present in his testimony at this I 18 19 time. 20 Q Can you tell me what arguments Caupaign for 21 a Prosperous Georgia at this time intends to pursue in I 22 support of this contention? 23 A Those presented in the organization's filing 24 with the Commission to date. 25 Q Do you have any knowledge about the infor-I STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. AflANTA
- GAINESVILLE (4041 351 0300 14041 536-7028 I - , - - - - - -
GEORGIA
127 e mation supporting those arguments other than the I 1 2 information provided to you by Professor Lawless? 3 A Yes. l 4 Q What subjects are you yourself knowledge-5 able about? 6 A Well, I know what generally Carla Gelbaum 7 raised, the information she raised. 8 Q Miat information did she raise? 9 A I don't recall specifically which points to she raised and which points Professor Lawless raised, 11 but certainly on this contention, she raised the points 12 that he did not. With the initial filing, he was not i 13 involved. 14 Q Dv you have any knowledge about issues 15 raised by Contention 7 other than information that comes I 16 to you from Carls Celbaum or Professor Lawless? l 17 A The information that was contained in the l 18 FSAR and in various publicly available documents from ! E5 l ig the NRC, correspondence between the applicant and the 20 NRC. 21 Q On the groundwater, you mean? 22 A Yes. 23 Q What correspondence or documents are you 24 referring to? 25 A I don't recall specifically what documents STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351-0300 '4041 536-7028 i GECRGIA
l 123 I were used, but they have been provided to the anplicants }, , ! 2 Q And these are documents that relate to 3 Plant Vogtle rather than the Savannah River Plant? i 4 I'm talking now specifically about Contention 7, ground-5 water contamination. 6 A I don't recall specifically what docutents 7 were used other than that and the applicant's responses 8 to the intervenor's Interrogatories and disecvery. 9 Q Contention 7 states that the applicante 10 have not adequately addressed the value of the ground-11 water below the plant site. What do you mean by value? 12 A I don't recall the citation; but I know 13 that in the regulations there is reference to the value 14 of the ground -
, and that is what we're referring to in that contention.
I 15 16 Q Do you know how that term is used in the 17 regulations, what it's used to refer to? 18 A I did at the time. I don't recall off the 19 top of my head. 20 Q Can you explain to me how the applicants 21 have failed to adequately address the slue o f ground-22 water? 23 A In the ways that we set out for our bases 24 for our contentions and in our responses to the 25 Interrogatorics. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE f 40413510300 1404: 536 7028 I GEORGIA
12.9 1 Q Can you identify any of those ways now? 2 A I can refer you to the Interrogatories and 3 to Professor Lawless. lie is our witness on this is cue , 4 and I'd rather he responds to that question. 5 Q I'm trying to ask you whether you have any 6 knowledge about these issues independent of Professor 7 Lawless and Carla Gelbaum? 8 MR. FLAC.{: And independent of the 9 documents that he des cribed earlier? 10 11R DAVENPORT: No. Just independent 11 of Professor Lawless and Carla Gelbaum. 12 TiiU 'JITNESS : I'm aware that Tuscaloosa 13 aquifer is a major groundwater source and is 14 the largest freshwater aquifer in the United 15 States. 16 (By Mr. Davenport) Q Do you yourself have 17 any knowledge of the geologic and hydrogcologic 18 formations that exist underneath Plant Vogtle? I 19 A I have knowledge that the Tuscaloosa aquifer l s 20 is under Plant Vogtle, groundwater table aquifer is 21 under Plant Vogtle. 22 Q And what is that knowledge based on? 23 A It is based on readings over the years 24 related both to Plant Vogtle, to Savannah River Plant, 25 to publications of U. S. geologic surveys, to conver-STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA e GAINE5VitLE (4041 351 0300 1404i $36 7028 GEODGIA
i 13C l l 1 sations with geologists and hydroscologle ts and other 2 specific rescarch or the specific documents referenced 3 in our responses to your Interrogatories. 4 Q Do you have any knowledge of the inter-5 relationship of the aquifers beneath Plant Vogtle? 6 A Ilot beyond what Professor Lawless will 7 costify to. I 8 Q That knowledge comes to you from Professor 9 Lawless? 10 A I don't specifically recall. 11 Q Contention 7 also states that the applicants 12 fail to provide adequate assurance that the groundwater 13 will not be contaminated. What is the basis for that 14 contention? 15 A The basis for that is as set forth in the 16 initial petition for leave to intervene and in the 17 amendments thereto and in the responses Oc Interrogatories is related thereto. 19 Q Do you individually have any knowledge or 20 information that supports that contention? l 21 A Only that which uns described in our infer-t 22 mation we provided to the applicants and the licensing n board. 24 Q And that information came from you and not 25 from Professor Lawless? STUART S. HUSEaY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'404i 351-0300 (404: 536-7028 GECRGIA
-, - - , -e ,
I 131 1 A Some of it came from the applican:2; some 2 of it from Professor Lawless; and I believe scze of it 3 from Ms. Galbaum, 1 l 4 What information did you personally provide? Q l 5 A I don't recall having personally providad 1 6 any other than perhaps which was in the applicants' 7 FSAR. 8 Q When the intervenors say that the anplicants 9 have failed to provide adequate assurance that ground-10 water will not be contaminated, are they referring :o 11 normal or accidental conditions? 12 A Both. I believe that Professor Laaless 13 could better address that question. 14 Q Are you familiar with the provisions o ." 15 10 C.F.R. Part 50? 16 A When you ask me that citation, I don't know 17 what it refers to off the top of my head. I'a sure 18 that I have looked at it if we referenced it in cur 19 documents. 20 Q Lo you know what informaticn the intervencrs 21 relied on to support their claim that the applicants have i g B n failed to comply with 10 C.F.R. Section 50.34? g; A The information contained in our basas and 21 in our responses to the applicants' InterroGatorias anci 25 also the licensing board. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE 84041 35I.0300 1404i 536 7028 I GEOoGIA
ts. 1 Q Did you provide any of that information? 2 A I don't specifically recall having provided 3 any of that. 4 Q Did Professor Lawless get involved in this 5 proceeding before Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 6 submitted to the licensing board the bases for its 7 contentions or its proposed contentions? 8 A I don't know if he was involved in the 9 proceeding prior to that time. 10 Q Did Professor Lawless provide Campaign for 11 a Prosperous Georgia with information used in providing 12 the bases for its proposed contentions? 13 A I'm unsure of the .tnswer to that. 14 Q Who wrote the bases for the contentions? 15 I'll start with Contention 7. 16 A I think that I pulled together the infor-17 macion that various pecple had been pulling together to orovide that basis. I 18 19 Q And you just don't recall whether Mr. 20 Lawless is one of those people? 21 A I did not specifically convarse with :4r. .I 22 Lawless. You'll have to ask him if he provided it co Z3 any of the individuals who were working with us. 24 Q I have forgotten what your response was to 25 the question about whether you provided any in forma tion I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
- 404 351-0300 1404 536 7078 GEORG1A
133 1 on which the intervenors relied in contending that the 2 applicants failed to comply with 10 C.F.R. Section 50.34, 3 A I don't specifically recall having donc so i 4 other than what was in the applicants' FSAR and other 5 documents that we. have provided to the applicants. 6 Q Are you familiar uith the provisions of 7 10 C.F.R. Part 517 8 A I don ' t know what it references, no. 9 Q Do you know what information the intervenors 10 intend to rely upon in support of their contention that 11 the applicants have failed to comply with 10 C.F.R. 12 Section 51.267 13 A That question is better addressed to 14 Professor Lawless. 15 Q Do you know whether you provided any infor-16 mation used by the intervenors in making that contention: 17 A I'm sure that I checked the Code of Federal 18 Regulations. I'm not sure that I'm the one that I 19 specifically came up with that citation.
. 20 Q In what respects do the joint intervenors 21 contend that the applicants ' analysis of groundwater 22 conditions beneath the Plant Vogtle site is inadequate?
23 A In the respects which are described in our 24 responses to your Interrogatories and the information 25 that we provided to the licensing board. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 1404: 536 7028 GEORGIA
134 1 Q '4ere you the source of any of that infor-2 mation? 3 A Uct that I recall. 4 Q Do the intervenors contend in this proceeding 5 that any inadaquacics cxist in the applicants' assessment 6 of possible accidental releases? 7 A Yes, I believe so. I 8 Q lave you reviewed the applicants ' assassment 9 of possible accidental releases in Section 15.7 of the 10 final safety analysis report and Section 7.1 and 7a of I 11 the Operating License Stage Environmental Report? 12 A I believe I did at one point, yes. 13 Q On what basis do the j oint intervanors 14 contend that the applicants' assessment of the possible 15 accidental releases is in adequace? 16 A Ihat question is better addressad :o 17 Professor Lawlcas . 18 Q So you have no answer for ac? 19 A Not at this point. Not off tha top of =y 20 head; no, sir. 21 Do the joint intervenors contend that any I Q 22 inadequacies exist in the applicants' ascessmen: of 23 accidental spillages? 24 A That question is better addressed to 25 Professor Lawless. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351-0300 (404i 536J028 GEORGIA
132 1 Q So you can't give me a respons e to it? 2 A Not off the top of my head. 3 Q Do the intervenors contend that any' i
\
4 inadequacies exist in the applicants' liquid waste I 5 management sys tem? 6 A That question is better addressed tc 7 Professor Lawless. 8 Q Do you yourself know whether the interveners 9 uako that contention? 10 A Not off the top of my head. I did not 11 review the groundwater contention or basis relaced 12 thereto recently. 13 Q Do you know whether the joint intervenors 14 contend that the applicants' RAD waste program is 15 inadequate? l 16 A That question is better addressed to 17 Professor Lawless, Q Do you yourself at this time know? I 18 19 A Not off the top of my head at this ::ima . m Q Do the joint intervenors contend that any 21 design or construction deficiency exists with respect i I E 22 to Plant Vogtle that might relato to a contaminant 23 being released to the groundwater? 24 A Yes. 3 Q Ilhat design or cOnsCruction deficienOy are l g STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE i f 40413510300 f 4041536 7028 l GEORGIA 1
136 1 you referring to? 2 A That question would be better addressed to 3 Professor Lawless and to the QA contention. 4 Q So you yourscif cannot prcvide ce with an 5 answer to that question? 6 A Not off the top of my head at this ti=e. 7 Q What information do you base your opinion on I 8 that you do make that contention? 9 A I recall that contention having been made 10 or to that effect. 11 Q But you don't knou the basis on which it was 12 cade? 13 A liot off the top of my head at this time. 14 Q Have you ever sought to determine the 15 sequence of hydrologic units and geologic formatianc 16 underlying Plant Vogtle? 17 A That question is better addressed to Professor Lawless. I 18 19 Q l'm asking you individually whether you'ru 20 ever sought to determine the sequence of hydrologic 21 units and geologic formations underlying Plant 'To.7 t l u ? 22 A I believe so, but it's been a uhile. 23 Q When did you do that? 24 A When we were preparing the bases and the 25 contentions. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 84041 351 0300 1404 536-7028 GEORGIA
137 1 q tem sorry? 2 A The bases and the contenticus. 3 What documents did you look at? Q 4 I do not recall in their entirety. I do A 5 recall looking at the FSAR. 6 Did you look at well log data from the Q 7 United S tates geological survey? 8 A Not that I recall at that time. 9 Q Have you looked at any other geophysical 10 well log data provided in the preliminary safety I 11 analysis report relating to Plant Vogtle? 12 A Not that I recall. 13 Q Can you tell me what the sequence of hydro-14 logic units is beneath Plant Vogtle? 15 A Not off the top of my head at this cine. 16 Q Do the joint intervenors dispute the 17 exis tence of Blue Bluff Marl beneath Plant Vogele 18 center? 19 A That question is better addressac to 20 Professor Lawless. 21 Q Do you have any idea whether they diapute it I n or not, yourself personally today? 23 A I do not know off the top of my head. 24 Not that I recall, but I don' t know. 25 Q Do you know yourself today whether the joint I< STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE (404) 351-0300 I404 536 7078 GEORGIA
135 1 intervenora dispute that the Blue Bluff Marl cona titutes 2 an effective impermeable layer between the groundwater 3 aquifer and the lower confined aquifers? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q On what basis do the intervenors dispute 6 thatt l lI 7 A That question is better addressed to 8 Professor Lawless. 9 Q So you yourself do not know any information? 10 A I do not recall off the top of my head at 11 this time. 12 Q Do you know whether or not the intervenors
~
13 contend that the Blue Bluff Marl changes to limestone 14 anywhere in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle? 15 A Could you repeat the first part of that 16 question, please? l 17 Do you personally know whether or not the Q 18 joint intervenors contend that the Blue 31uff Harl 19 cha.ges to limestone anywhere in the vicinity of Plant 20 Voge'e? 21 A I do not know with certainty off the top of I 22 my head at this time. 23 Q Do you know with uncertainty?
- 24 A tio .
l 25 Q Uo you know whether or not the joint i g STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I404i 351 0300 84048 536 7028 I GEORGIA
139 5 1 intervenors dispute that the water table aquifer 2 beneath the Plant Vogtle site is hydraulically isolated 3 on an interfluvial high? 4 A As I recall, yes. 5 Q Eo you know the basis on which the j oint 6 intervenors dispute that? 7 A That question is better addressed to 8 Professor Lawless. 9 Q Do you personally know of any information 10 on which the intervenors might rely in disputing that? 11 A My recollection is that it includes but 12 Perhaps is not limited to the experiences as to other 13 sites including the Savannah River Plant, which has a 14 similar geology. And my understanding is that the 15 general knowledge in the field is that there is no 16 such thing as a truly hydrologic unit of groundunter; 17 but again, that is better addressed to Professor Lauless 18 Q Do you know of any other sites besides the 19 Savannah River Plant? A Personally, I do not off the top of cy head I 20 21 at this time. 22 Q Do you know what hydrologic units and ge 1 gic formations exist beneath the Savannah River I 23 24 Plant? 25 A I know the Tuccaloosa aquifer exis ts below I, STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4048 351 0300 14041 536 70.28 GEORGIA
160 1 cha Savannah River Plant. 2 Other than the Tuscaloosa aquifer, are you Q l 3 familiar with any other hydrologic or geological 4 formations 1.2ncath the Savannah River Plant? I 5 A I would not call myself f amiliar with it. 6 So you do not know how the geology of the Q 7 Savannah River Plant is similar to that o f Plant Vogtle, I 8 do you? 9 A Mot off the top of my head at this time. 10 Q And with respect to general knowledge in 11 the field that there is no such thing as a truly 12 isolated unit of water -- 13 A Hydrologic unit. 14 Q Is that knowledge that you personally have 15 or did someone communicate that to you? 16 A It was communicated to me. I have not 17 examined all the hydrologic units in the United S ta:es 18 or in the world to determine if there are any that are I 19 isolated. 20 Q Have you ever examined any hydrologic unit? l 21 A No. Not personally. l 22 Q Do you know whether the intervenors di:;pute 23 that immediately beneath the pouer block, water la tae 24 water table aquifer = oves in the direction of Mathis 25 Pond? STUART S. HUfiEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404: 351-0300 14041 536J028 I
GEORG:A
141 1 A My understanding is the intervenors d i.s p ute 2 that s tatement as a fact. 3 1 On what basis? 4 A On the basis that water may flow in I 5 directions other than toward Mathis Pond. ; 6 That ques tion is better addressed to 7 Professor Lawless. 8 Q So you yourself don't have .2ny information 9 that would be used by the intervenors to discute that 10 atatement? 11 A I have no information other than what 12 Professor Lawless has communicated to me. ile would *;c 13 far more capable in answering that than I. 14 Q Do the joint intervenors contend that the 15 applicants' escimate of time it would take any I contamination reaching the water table aquifer beneath 16 17 Plant Vogtle to travel to Mathis Pond as set out in ig Section 2.4.13.1 of the FSAR or final safety analysis 19 report is erroneous? That was a long question. Let e 20 restate it. 21 To your knowledge, did the joint intervonors 22 dispute the applicants ' es timate o f spill travel ci:ne 23 contained in that section of the final safety analysia 24 #"P #UI A The intervonors, as I recall, rej e c t that 25 I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE (404i 3500300 14041 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
142 1 scate= ant as a fact; and Professor Lawless would be 2 abic to address tha specifics. 3 You yourself have no infe"mation that would Q 4 be relied upon by the intervenors in dispucing that? 5 A All my information on that comes from 6 Professor Lawless. 7 1 Do you know by what means the joint 8 intervonors contend contamination could reach the vacar 9 table aquifer beneath Plant Vogtle? 10 A Through the meanc described in the 11 contentions and in the responses to Interrogatories cnd 12 other information provided to the applicants and the 13 licensing board. 14 Q With respect to the contamination both in 15 the water table aquifer and in the lower aq'atfer, de 16 you personally have any knowledge on which the 17 intervenors would rely in support of any discussion about is contamination at Plant Vogtle? I 19 A Not off the top of my head at this time. 20 Q Let me ask you specifically whether you have 21 any information on which the intervenors might rely to 22 Support a contention that concamination reaching the 23 water table aquifer could migrate through the Blue Bluf f 24 Marl to the lower confined aquifers? 25 A My recollection is based on the 2xncrtence STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'4041 351-0300 14041 $36 7028 GEORGIA
140 1 at the Savannah River Plant. 2 Q Do you personally have any knowledge of 3 what happened at the Savannah River Plant? 4 A Professor Lawless would be better abic to I 5 answer that. All my information on that comes fro = him; 6 all that has been used in this proceeding, certainly. 7 Do you have any information relating to Q 8 contamination of the Savannah River Plant that hasn't 9 been used in this proceeding? 10 MR. FLACK: Could you repeat the 11 ques tion. 12 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Based on your inst 13 response, I 'm asking whe ther you have any information 14 about contamination at the Savannah River Plant that 15 hasn't been used in this proceeding? I 16 A I've read news reports and that kind o# 17 thing through the years, but nothing that weio uaad in 18 chis proceeding. 19 Q You have no knowledge other than uhat 20 appears in news reports? 21 A Off the top of my head, I don't have en.y 22 Specific knowledge other than what has appeared in the 23 news raports. I know I have read 3avannah ".iver ?lant 24 documents , but I don't recall what informa: ion came from 25 what source. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'4041 351-0300 I4041 536 7028 I
GEORGIA l
144 1 Q Any documents other than those produced 2 by the intervenors to the applicants in this proceeding? 3 A Not to my knowledge. 4 Q And I believe I asked you carlier and you 5 indicated that you yourself have no specific knowledge 6 of the hydrologic units and geologic formations that 7 cxis t bencach the Savannah River Plant other than the I 8 fact that the Tuscaloosa is beneath? 9 A Other than the breaking water and aquifers 10 there; but I don't know the specifics, no, sir. 11 Q Do you know anything about contamination 12 found in the lower aquifers beneath the Savannah River 13 Plant? 14 A I know nothing other than what Professor 15 Lawless has provided. 16 Q What preventative measures do the jo!.nc 17 intervenors contend the applicants should take to 18 prevent contamination from reaching the lower confined I 19 aquifers beneath the Plant Vogtle site as has occurred 20 at the Savannah River Plant? 21 A That ques tion its better addressed to 22 Professor Lawless. g 23 Q So you have no specific knowledge yourself 24 on that issue? 25 A .io t specifically off the top of my head at STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE IdO413510300 '4041 536 7078 GEORGIA
l 11 5 1 this time. 2 Q Have you ever studied about or done any 3 research on the effects upon polymer materials 6f 4 radiation? 5 A Ho. 6 Q Do you have or do you consider yourself 7 knowledgeable on the effocts of radiation on polymer 8 materials? 9 A Again, it depends on what you mean by the 10 word knowledger.ble; but certainly at this point, I'm 11 not prepared to appear as a witness on these inauca. 12 q 4 hat sort of knowledge do you have about 13 the effects of radiation on polymer materials? 14 A I have read Dr. Deutsch's bases and 15 responses to your Interrogatories in the past. 16 Q Do you have any knowledge about the effects 17 of radiation in polymer materials other than information j 18 you've received from Dr. Deutsch or from the applicants 19 in this proceeding? 20 A Not that I can think of off the tc p :f 27 21 head at this time. l 22 Q Do you know what arguments the joint 23 intervenors intend to advance in support of the doso 24 rate contention, Contention 10.17 25 A Not off the top of my head at this time STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINE5VfLLE
'4041 351-0300 (4041 536 7028 I GEORGIA I
14 f. I I 2 beyond what has buen already presented in the centention: and related information prcvided to the applicants and I 1 3 the licensing board. 4 But you were not the source of any cf that Q 5 information? 6 A I don't believe so other than there may hcvc 7 been cases where -- and this is truc on all of these I 8 -- where the IIRC may have asked us for comething, and 9 the applicants asked us for the identical information: 10 and I took from the responses prepared by somecna 4'" 11 to the NRC the responses for the applicants. t.nd in 12 that sense, I prepared those responses; but only it 13 was not original research by me. 14 Q So in terms of the basic information 15 provided in the responses concerning the dose rate 16 contention, you were not the source of any of that 17 information? Ycu were jus t the person the informaticn was sent to, and you helped put the responses together? I 16 19 That type of thing? E 20 A Taac's correct; and when information ecme d 21 in the mail from the applicants or correspondence from 22 the NRC or whatever that came across my desh, if it 23 related to that, then I referred it to Dr. Deutsch, 24 Q When did Dr. Deutsch get involved in .:a a 25 licensing proceeding? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I4041 351 0300 I4041 536 7028 I .
GEORGIA
147 1 A I believe he was involved in the preparation 2 of our original contentions and the bases therefor. 3 Q Who got him involved? 4 A I don 't specifically recall. I believe I 5 may have called him, but I'm not sure. 6 What is your relationship with Dr. Deutsch? G 7 A I know him. I 8 Q Did you ever work with him? 9 A Not directly other than on this intervention, 10 Does he have any relationship with Car.raign Q 11 for a Protperous Georgia? 12 A lie is on our board of directors , and I 13 believe he is .ow vice president. 14 Q Is there a president of Campaign for a 15 Prosperous Georgia? ! 16 A Y es , there I.S. 17 Q uho is that? 18 A Julie Sharpe. I 19 Q Who are the other officers of Cacpal.p f'r a 20 Prosperous Georgia? 21 A 3ruce Gunter is the treasurer. l I 22 .9F., FLACK : Would you prefer us to 23 give you a letter resporese? 24 TiiL WIT.'IESS : And the only other 25 officer is the secretary, who is Alvin Surrell. i 3 STUART S. HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE 14048 351 0300 (4041 536 7028 GEORGIA i l
1/ 3 h 1 Q Who was the accretary? 2 A Alvin Burrell, B-u-r-r-e-1-1. { 3 Q Are there any officers other than Ju'.ie e 4 Sharpe, Howard Deutsch, Bruce Cunter, and Alvin 5 Burrell? L 6 A Other directors, but those are the only r L 7 officers. 8 Q What function do these officers serve? 9 A The president is the presiding officer at to board meetings and performs the general dutics o f : t'.e 11 president; and the same with all the officers . 12 Q Would you say they perform the general l 13 duties of that position? Did they direct you in t!.c 14 day-to-day activities in the Campaign for a Prospecous { 15 Georgia? j 16 A They communicate to me the wishes of the 17 board, and we stay in communication on a weekly bcsls 18 or so. 19 Q If there is a disagreement between you and l 20 Howard Deutsch about some matter, who wins ? 21 MR. FLACK: Let me suggest that it 22 might facilitate this discussion if we 23 sent you copies of the articles of 24 incorporation which set forth in detail 25 the duties. Would that be satisfactory? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'404: 351 0300 1404 536 7028 GEORGIA
149 1 MR. DAVENPORT: I would be happy to 2 receive them, but I would also like some l 3 testimony on the record. 4 MR. FLACK: Let me suggest then for 5 the record that I'm puzzled by the relevanca 6 of this line of ques tioning. 7 MR. DAVENPORT: Again, I am simply I 8 trying to find out information about the l l 9 organization that is a party to this to proceeding. 11 MR. FLACK: I would think that the 12 articles of incorporation would be the 13 highest and best evidence as to the nature 14 of the organization. 15 MR. DAVENPORT: Well, being a lawyer 16 like me, you know that there are certain 17 Ways to introduce evidence; and one of them 18 is by taking people 's cestimony in a depo-5 19 sition. The choice of which way I do it 20 is mine, and I prefer to do it this way. 21 Q (Sy Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, I believe l 22 I asked you if there was ever a dispute between you and 23 liowarn Deutsch about sotae aspect of the operation of 24 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, who would win?
, 25 A That circumstance has not come up. Any STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC.
ATLANTA
- GAsNESVILLC (4041 351-0300 8404i 506 7078 GEORG1A i .
150 l 1 time we've disagreed -- and I don't recall any spo.:ific I 2 instances -- we've been able to resolve it between us . 3 Q Have you ever had any dispute with any 4 officar of the corporation? 5 A Not that I recall. 6 Q Mr. Johnson, have you ever studied or done 7 any research on the effects of radiation on electrical 8 cable? 9 A Not beyond the information provided to the 10 applicants in this proceeding and to the licensint 11 board. 12 Q Are you the source of any of that infor-13 mation? 14 A Not other than serving as a conduit. 15 Q So the information thac has been provided I 16 to the applicants and to the bcard on the effects of 17 radiation on electrical cable has come from someone 1 18 other than you in terms of the source of information? 19 A Yes; and again, when I say the conduit, 20 it goes in both directions. The informatioet coces to 21 my office from the applicants or the commissioner -- 22 or I can't think of r -'y o ther source -- as it related 23 to that contention. 24 Q Would you basically act as a conduit? Ycu 25 were not yourself a source of any information? l l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. tNC. ATLANTA e GAINE5VILLE
'404i 351 0300 (404 5361028 GECRGIA
151 1 A On that contention, that is correct, as I 2 recall at this time. 3 Q And this contention is the multiconductor 4 effect, Number 10.37 I 5 A Right. 6 Do you personally, Mr. Johnson, have any Q 7 knowledge concerning which multiconductors have 8 performed subs tantially worse on qualification tes ts 9 in corresponding single conductors? 10 A Not off the top of my head at this time. 11 I believe if we have that information, we have already 12 provided it to you. 13 Q But you yourself have no knowledge abcut 14 that subject? 15 A That's correct at this time. 16 Q Mr. Johnson, have you ever studied about 17 or done any research on the environmental qualification 18 testing of equipment? 19 A Not beyond reading what we have providcd m in regards to this proceeding and perhaps some of the 21 background information. 22 Q You're referring to the information provided l u by the joint intervenors to the applicants and ec the 24 board? 25 A And perhaps by the applicants to the j oir.t i STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. AflANTA e GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 '4041 536 7028 , GEORGIA
~ - . - - , - . ,-,,, - - -
132 l 1 intervenors and the board. I 2 Q But you yourself uere not the source of 3 any of that information? 4 A Not that I recall. 5 Q Do you know on what basis the intervenors 6 contend in this proceeding that Solenoid valves 7 manufactured by Automatic Switch Company us ed at Plant 8 Vogtle are not environmentally qualified? 9 A On the basis described in the material: 10 we filed with the licensing board and the annliennts. 11 Q But you yourself are not the source of any 12 of that information? 13 A' Off the top of my head, I believo sc. 14 Q Who was the source of that inforuation? 15 A I believe it was Dr. Deutsch. 16 Q Do you know whether the intervenorn contend 17 that any solenoid valves used in Plant Vogtle ment-i 18 factured by any company other than ASCO are not 19 environmentally qualified? g A I do not know off the top of my heari at 21 this time. 22 Q Do you know the basis of Tte intervencra ' g contention that the Wes tinghouse Model 3 *.tydro::en 24 recom' o iners used at Plant Vogtle have not bcon properly 25 environmentally qualified? STUART S. HUSEsY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5vlLLE
'404 351 0300 14041 536-7078 i GEORGIA 1
l .
153 1 A The information providec in the basis f 3r 2 the contention and other information provided to the 3 licensing board and to the applicants. 4 Were you the source of any of that infor-Q 5 mation? 6 is Not that I recall. 7 Do you have any knouledge about the Q I 8 qualification tests that were performed by Uustinshouse 9 on the Model B hydrogen recombiners? 10 A Certainly nothing beyond what we have 11 provided. 12 Q What you have provided in -- 13 A In our contentions to the licensing borted 14 and to the applicants' responses to Interrogatorias in 15 this proceeding. 16 Q So you yourself have never reviewed any 17 report on qualification testing donc by Westin?, house? 18 A Mot that I can recall. 19 Q Do you know whether the intervenors contend 20 in this proceeding that the Model B hydrogen recombi.er 21 used at Plant Vogtle contains any type of transducers or I 2a sensors important to their proper functioning in an 23 accident environment? 24 A I do not recall off the top of cy head at 25 this time. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE$VILLE 14048 351 0300 1404i $36 7028 GEORGIA
156 1 Q lieve you, Mr. Johnson, ever studied about 2 or done any research on steam generator tube degredation? 3 A I have read articles about it in the past, 4 the specific contenta of which I do not recall; and I I 5 have read the materials we have provided to the anplicands 6 and to the licensing board. l 7 1 You don't recall the contents of any of 8 the articles that you have read?
~
9 A No I do not. 10 Q Have you ever taken any coursos covering that 11 subject? 12 A Not that I recall. 13 Q Have you ever donc any research other than l 14 reading these articles that ycu refer to on that 15 subject? 16 A Not beyond what has been provided in this 17 Proceeding. 18 Q Do you consider yourself knowledgeable I 19 about the effects of steam generator tube degredation? 20 A Not beyond what we have provided to :he 21 applicants, l 5 22 Q Uere you the source of any of the infor-l 23 mation provided to the board or the applicants in chis 24 Proceeding on this contention, which in Contentica 11? 25 A Not that I recall. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINE5VILLE (4041 351 0300 '404) 536 7028 GEORGIA M .
155 1 Who was the source of that information? I 2 Q A I believe it was Dr. Deutsch. 3 Q To your knowledge, did the intervenors 4 contend that the s team generator tubes of any Wes tin.c-5 house pressurized water reactor have shown evidence 6 of degredation due to bubble collapse? 7 A I do not recall, 8 Q Have you obtained information from anyone 9 other than Dr. Deutsch with respect to Contentien 11, 10 steam generator issues? 11 A I don't recall having gotten anything from 12 anyone else. There may have been others who sent 13 materials in that I forwarded to Dr. Deutsch, but ha 14 would have anything that we have go t. 15 MR. FLACK: Hu6h, you mean also in I 16 addition to whatever articles he read 17 earlier, referred to earlicr? 18 Q (37 Mr. Davenport) Did you use any of the 19 information that you personally were aware of as a m result of having read these articles in drafting the 21 basis for Contention 11 or in responding to the 22 Interrogatorios regarding Contention 117 23 A Uot that I recall. 24 el Have you ever gotten information Cron 'in 25 Beardsley on steam generation issues? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVILLE (4048 351-0300 #4048 $36J028 I GEORGIA
156 1 A Mot that I recall; certainly not since ic 've I 2 baan involved in this proceeding. 3 Q Have you gotten any information froci anyone 4 other than Howard Deutsch with respect to che environ-5 mental qualification, Contentions 10.1, 10.3, 13.3, 6 and 10.77 7 A Again, anything that would have come in 8 related tc those, I would have forearded them to Dr. 9 Deutsch; and he would have referenced them in responses 10 to Interrogatories. I don't recall any specifics, but 11 there may have been other things that came in. 12 Q But there are no other specific indiv U.uals 13 that you yourscif go t information from relating to those 14 contentions? 15 A Not that I recall. I 16 Q Mr. Johnson, do you knew whether the 17 intervenors in this action centend that th .1 s t.iam 18 generator tubes of any Wes tinghousc pressuri::ce trater 19 reactor has shown signs of vibration induced fatigue 20 cracking? 21 A I do not recall at this t ic;e . l 22 Q So you have no knowledge to support such 23 a contention yourself personally? 24 A Beyond what is in the information <re 'tave ; 25 already provided to the applicants, I do not. I STUART S. HUSEBY a 5SOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GA AtSvitLE
'4041 351 0300 '4041 536 7028 GEORGIA
1M 1 Q And you are not the source of any of *:hnt 2 information? 3 A That's correct, as I recall. 4 Mr. Johnson, have you ever s tudied about Q I 5 or done any research on the effects of cooling teucr 6 drift deposition or water chlorination? 7 A Uot beyond the readings that I've done, the 8 information the applicants have provided and that Dr. 9 Deutsch has providad in this proceeding. 10 Q When you refer to the information that the 11 applicants provided, are you referring to your 12 Interrogatory responses and our responses to your 13 supplemental petition? 14 A And requests for production; and I myself 15 read some in the FSAR. I don't specifically recall. 16 Q Ilave you reviewed any of the studies 17 produced by the applicants concerning the effects of 18 salt drift? 19 A Mot in detail. I have looked to seu what a studies the applicants have. 21 Q You basically just looked at the citia. and 22 maybe the table of contents or tha sunnary; that sert 23 of thing? 24 A As I recall, I think I did look into some 25 of them in a littic more detail than that; but I don't STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE
'4048 351 0300 1404 $36 7028 I
GEORGIA
1 l 15C I specifically recall how much detail. 2 Q Do you consider yourself knowledgeable 3 about che effects of cooling tower drif t? 4 A Dr. Deutsch is going to bear witness on 5 this issue, and he is far more knowledgeable than I. 6 The information I have probably came from him. 7 Q So you yourself do not have any information 8 to support the intervenors' position on Contention 117 9 A Not beyond what we have already provided. 10 Q Well, of the information that has already 11 been provided on Contention 12, did any of that originato 12 with you? 13 A No, it did not. 14 Q Mr. Johnson, I believe a minute ago I 15 referred to Contention 11 when I meant to say Contention I 16 12. Did you understand I was asking you about 17 Contention 12, cooling tower drift? 18 A Yes. 19 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 20 dis cussion was had.) 21 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, have you 22 reviewed the report prepared by the NUS Corporation 23 concerning drift deposition from the Plant Vogtle 24 natural draft cooling towers? 25 A Not that I recall. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 8404 351-0300 '4041 536 7028 I
GECRGIA
g 159 1 Q Do you know whether the intervenors in this 2 action contend that the model study performed by NUS 3 Corporation modeling the performance of the Plant 4 Vogtle natural draft cooling towers is inadequate or I 5 incorrect in any respect? 6 Dr. Deutsch is going to testify on this A 7 contention, and the ques tion will be better addressed 8 to him. 9 So you yourself personally have no knouledge Q 10 on that issue? 11 A Not off the top of my head. 12 Q Do you personally have any knowledge 13 concerning what drift or what salt drift deposition 14 race might cause damage to vegetation? 15 A No, I do not at this time. 16 Q Do you yourself have any knowledge as to 17 what chlorine gas might be emitted from the Plant 18 Vogtle natural draft cooling tower? 19 A No, I do not at this time. 20 Q Do you yourself have any knowledge 21 concerning what chlorides or chlorine derivatives 22 might be emitted from the Plant Vogtle natural draf t 23 cooling tower? 24 A I do not at this time. Again, Dr. D eu ts c'.t 25 will address those questions in his testimony. I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I404 351 0300 84041 536 7028 GEORGIA I .
1 160 1 Q With respect to Contention 14, you have 1 2 indicated that at this time you may be a witness for 3 the intervenors on that contention; is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Would you please state the substance of the 6 opinions to which you will testify? 7 A Those as outlined in our contention and the I 8 basis therefor and in the information ve presented to 9 tae licensing board. 10 Q What information are you referring to 11 specifically? 12 A Specifically, our contention is that TDI 13 generators do not provide adequate assurance of backup 14 power in case of an emergency at Plant Vogtle. 15 Q What do you base that argument on? 16 A On the record of TDI generators around the 17 country and on documents which we have provided to the 18 applicants and which the applicants have provided to us I 19 in the dis covery process as well as the information 20 presented to the board and the information we have 21 obtained from the Nuclear Regulatorv Come.isston ac we 22 discussed earlier. 23 Q With respect to the emergency diesel 24 generators manufactured by TransAmerica Delaval, Inc., 25 for Plant Vogtle, do you contend that any defects exist I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE 14041 351 0300 '404 536-7029 I GEORGIA
161 1 in those generators that will not be adequately ccrrected I 2 or resolved by the applicants? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Nhat specific defects? 5 A I don't recall off the ton of my head, but 6 we had -- the applicants themselves have cited some 7 that won ' t be corrected until the end o f 1986 ; and I 8 have not yet prepared my testimony, and so -- 9 Q Are you aware of any that you contend will 10 not be corrected at all? 11 A Any specific defects of the generators? 12 Q Yes. 13 A At this time, I cannot name any specific 14 defects in the generators that will not be corrected. Again, I have not prepared my testimony on this. I 15 16 (Thereupon, the court reporter marked Apolicant's Exhib it 5 17 for identification.) tg Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, you've 19 been handed a document that's been marked as 20 Applicant 's Exhibit Number 5. Could you identify that 21 document for me, please? 22 A This appears to be a photocopy of the 23 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 24 concerning the operation of Plant Vogtle submitted by 25 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Educational STUART S. HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA = GAINE5VitLE f 40413510300 1404) 536 7028 GEORGIA
162 1 Campaign for c Prosperous Georgie. 2 Q Does that look like a complete and correct 3 copy to you? I'll reference the question or I'll say 4 that that ques tion excludes any handwritten cot:=ents I 5 on it. 6 A Beyond a follow-up. There is also a 7 follow-up letter which was sent to the !!uclear 8 Regulatory Concission referencing connents on the DES 9 that were provided by Professor Lawless and by Dr. 10 Judith Gordon. 11 Q Did you draft this particular document? 12 A As I recall, yes. 13 And I believe it is your signature that Q 14 appears at the end? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And these comments were subctitted on behalf 17 of both Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Educationa: 18 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia; were they not? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q 'dhat is the involvement of Educational 21 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia in this pro ceedinr;? 22 MR. FLACK: I object. Educational 23 Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia is not 24 a party to this proceeding, and I think tae 25 ques tions about them are not relevant. STUARTS.HUsEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
- 4041 351 0300 84048 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
103 i I Q (By Mr. Davenport) Ir. Johnson, I'm asking 2 you why Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia submitted comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 on the Draf t Environmental Statement? 5 MR. FLACK: I'm sorry. I misunderstood 6 what you meant by this proceeding. I THE WITNESS: Why ECPG submitted comments 8 to the NRC? Because of its concern for the 9 environment of Georgia, 10 Q (By Mr. Davenport) lias Educational Campaign 11 for a Prosperous Georgia participated in any way with 12 the activities of Campaign for a Prosperous Georp,ia in 13 this proceeding? 14 MR. FLACK: Would you identify which 15 proceeding you mean? 16 MR. DAVENPORT: This licensing 17 proceeuing for Plant Vogtle. 18 TliE WITNESS : You mean in Campaign I 19 for a Frosperous Georgia's intervention in 20 the licensing proceeding? 21 MR. DAV'4NPORT : Yes. I 22 Tile WITNESS: In any way? Yes. 23 Q (By Mr. Davenport) In what ways? 24 A Well, this morning my attorney directed me 25 not to respond to ques tions concerning the relationship STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 1404i 351 0300 1404i 536 7028 I GEORGIA
164 between the tuo organizations. I 1 2 MR. FLACK: That 's s till my ins truction. 3 Q (By Mr. Davenport) So you're refusing to 4 answer that question? 5 A 3ased on the direction of my attorney, yes. 6 Q Mr. Johnson, you've testified earlier 7 concerning the assistance provided to Campaign for a 8 Prosperous Georgia in this proceeding by other 9 organizations and other individuals, and I'd lthe "or 10 the record to be clear as to why you're obj ecting or 11 you're refusing to respond to questions about the 12 involvement of Educational Campaign for a Prosecrou.I 13 Georgia in assisting Campaign for a Prosperous Georr.ia? 14 A Because I have been so directed by my attorney. I 15 16 If R . C11URCIIILL : May I just comment l 17 a minute. He 's right. He asked about a i 18 number of organizations and the assistance 19 they provided Campaign for a Prosperous 20 Georgia in this proceeding, and you answered 21 that without any problem. Now, he's asking 22 you about ECPG and the assis tance it 23 provided, and I don't underscand why c'aa t 24 is not relevant whereas the o ther quos tions 25 could have been answered. l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VILLE l '404: 35I.0300 '414i $36 7028 i GEORG!A l
~
ISS I MR. 7LACI: The record is clear. You 2 have made four s tatement. 3 MR. CHURCHILL: Could you clarify for 4 me the basis as to why that can ' t b e 5 answered whereas the questions, the idents. cal 6 questions, with respect to other organi-7 cations could be answered? 8 M. R . FLACK: I'm trying to shorten chia 9 whole process this afternoon. I thought to that rather than obj ect and get into a long 11 discucsion, I did not object; I did not so 12 ins truct him. I a= on this point, so I'u 13 sorry if you don't understand it. It's f.n 14 the interes t of proceeding expeditiously ; 15 and that's still our goal, to proceed I 16 expeditiously. 17 FIR . CdURCHILL: To proceed expeditiously 18 can't possibly be the grounds for your obj ection. 19 MR. FLACK: I don't think I made it 20 the grounds for my obj ection. 21 Q (By tir. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, let me 22 refer you to page 15 of the comments that you submitted 23 on behalf of Educational Campaign for a Prosporous 24 Ceorgia and Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia, 25 specifically to the fifth paragraph on that page and the I STUART 5. HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINE$ VILLI
#404: 351 0300 8404 536 7078 GEORGIA
166 1 third scntence of that paragraph. Do you see the 2 sentence I'm referring to? It begins with , "TDI's 3 record is abysmal." - 4 A Yes. 5 Q Can you tell me what the basis is for your 6 statement that "There is an excellent chance that 7 Plant Vogtle could not be safely shut down if thesc 8 generators are not replaced"? 9 A Could you repeat the question? 10 Q I'm asking what the basis for that statement 187 I 11 12 A As I recall, that s ta tement is based on 13 lack of power to operate emergency backup sys tems in 14 case of an accident at Plant Vogtle. i 15 Q And uhat made you think there would be a 16 lack of power? 17 A That's the reason for backup emergency 18 generators. 19 Q What made you think that the TransAmerica 20 diesel generators would not provide them backup power? 21 A The fact that they have such a terrible 22 record. 23 Q What record are you referring to? 24 A The record that has been provided to the 25 applicants in our responses to your Interrogatories as I # STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAIN ($VILLE I404 351 0300 GEOliG8A 14048 536 1028 I
167 I I wall as to the board. ' 2 Q So you're referring to the specific problems 3 noted in your Interrogatory responses? 4 A To the specific problems and to the general I 5 indications and conclusions that can be drawn from those G specific problems . 7 Q Are you aware of any problems with TransAmeri ca 8 diesel generators othar than those referred to in your 9 Incarrogatory responsas? 10 A Those referred to in the applicants ' 11 responses to our Interrogatories and the requests of 12 documents. 13 Q The next paragraph, second sentence, 14 refers to a defect involving the governor lube oil 15 cooler assembly. Jo you contend that the applicants 16 have not adequately resolved any problem that has 17 existed with the governor lube oil coolor assambly on l 4 18 the Plant Vogtle dicsol gonorators? I 19 A I do not specifically recall on that noint, 20 but the point in listing some of those defects is not 21 so much to contend the specific defects have not been 22 or will not be directed as to point to a general 23 pattern of poor quality assurance and quality control 24 and poor operability of TDI generators. 25 Q Do you know what a governor lube oil cooler STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINE5VILLE e404 35I 0300 r4041536 7078 I GECRGIA
1 g 164 1 assembly is and what it does? 2 A Not at this time. 3 Q Do you have any idea what aceps the 4 applicants have taken to resolve any problem that aight I 5 have existed with that component? 6
- A I believe I have that information in :sy 7
office, but I do not recall the specific conten: of it 8 at this time. 9 Do you know whether that problera even Q 10 applied to the diesel generators at Plant Vogtic? 11 A No; I do not off the top of my head at this 12 time. 13 Latcr in that paragraph, you refer to a Q 14 starting air valve assembly problem., Do you contend 15 that the applicants have not adequately resolved ac.y 16 problem that exis ted with the s tarting air valve 17 assembly? 18 A IIy response to that is the same as on the 19 previous and will be to any other specifics to .thica 20 you address my attention. I do not recall the specific 21 resolution of that at this time. I do not contend ona 22 way or another whether it has been or will be resolved. 23 Q So you don't have any idea what actions tac 24 applicants might or might not have taken to resolve 25 thosa problems? STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE r4O4 351 0300 8404 536 7028 I
GEORGIA
1 G '.: 1 A I believe I have this information at tay 2 office, but I do not have that information off the cop 3 of my head. 4 Q Let me read you a lis t of components that I 5 you have identified either in this document or in your 6 Interrogatory responses and jus t tell me whether your 7 response would be the same for each component. 8 dasically, I'm asking you whether you have 9 any idea what actions the applicants have taken to 10 resolve any problems that exis t with that component and 11 if you even know what the problem was with that 12 component; so if you know either of those for any 13 particular component, just stop me. 14 What about piston skirts? 15 A My response is the same. .I 16 Q Engine mounted electrical cables? 17 A dy response is the same. 18 Q Excessive turbocharger thrus t bearing wear? I 19 A My response is the same. 20 Q Unqualified instrument cable? I , 21 A My response is the same. 22 Q Piston crowns? 23 A My response is the same. I might interjacc 24 here that when I say my respons e is ene same, I racer 25 the applicant back to the information we have al rea dy STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA e GAINE$VILLE f 404) 3510300 84041 $36 7028 I GEORGIA
170 I I i provided to the applicants in response to the 2 Interrogatories and request to nroduce, as ecl1 ts our 3 contention itself. 4 MR. FLACK: And also, it might be 5 fas ter if you read the list and assume 6 it's the same unless he says something 7 different. In other words, you don't have 8 to aay anything. 9 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Let =c ask you thic. 10 In any of the information you have provided to the 11 applicants, have you ever discussed what stcps the 12 applicants have taken to resolve the problems , to your 13 knowledge? 14 A I don't specifically recall, although ! 15 believe that the documents that we have provided have 16 included the descriptions of either the resolution or 17 the plan for attempting a resolution of the prc51cnn. 18 Q Have you, in any materials that you haro 19 provided to the applicants, cither Interrogatories, 20 Answers, documents or whatever, cvor indicated that th a 21 applicants' response to any particular problems with 22 the TDI generators was inadequate or that they would 23 not correct the problem? 24 iC. FLACK: Did you say inadequate? 25 MR. DAVEll?OP.T : Yes. STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 '404 $36 7078 I
GEORGIA
1 171 1 TUL VI?.iEJ3: Cur contention is based 2 on the general pattern of problens with TDI 3 generators. We have not contended in any~way 4 specific instances that any specific problem I 5 has been corrected or has not been corrected. 6 Q (Sy Mr. Davenport) Let me continue with my 7 lis e, and you do remember the ques tion I asked you? 8 A Yes. 9 Q For example, drive coupling; and you will 10 respond if you have any information about that problem? 11 A Anything beyond what I have already s 2id 12 or provided to the applicants. 13 Q Lacching relay; air s tart sensing line; 14 engine pneumatic logic; non-class lE motors supplied 15 with the emergency diesel generators; auxilliary system 16 pumps; crankcase cover capscrew; hi S h pressure fuel 17 injection line; fuel oil lines; connoccing push rods; 18 turbocharger vibration; turbocharger mounting bolts; 19 cracked cylinder heads; engine jacket water pump; 20 engine rocker arm shaft bolts; crankshaft assemblies; 21 connecting rod bearings; cylinder head s tud nuts ; 22 cracked bedplates in the arca of main journal bearings; 23 engine fastener failure. 24 3o with respect to all of those items, you 25 are not aware of what actions the applicants may have STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ArtANtA . GAINESVILLE I4041 351-0300 f 404i 536 7028 I GEC#GIA
172 1 taken to correct any problem that existed other than I 2 to the extent that that information contained in any 3 Interrogatory responses or documents provided by the 4 intervenors? 5 A And other than the possibility or likelihood 6 that I have the information in my office as to what the 7 applicants have provided to the NRC. 8 ond to the best of your knowledge, do the Q 9 intervanors contend that with rcspect to any of the
~
10 items listed that a. problem exis ts with that item that 11 will not be corrected by the applicants? 12 A Our contention again is on the general 13 unacceptability of TDI generators; not on specific 14 problems. We merely cite the specific probicms tc 15 demonstrate the pattern of problems . I 16 Could I get a copy of that list that you 17 just read from? 18 Q Let me ask you an .dditional question about 19 each of the items on this list. Certainly stop me 20 whenever I read an item that you know what the 1:ca is l 21 and what it does. 22 Do you know what a piston skirt is? 23 A Not off the top of m/ head. It 's ;sJing to 24 be the same answers. 25 Q So you don't know what any of them are? I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE 14041 351 0300 #404i $36 7078 GEO9GIA
173 1 A No t off the top of my head; although, I I 2 would like it if you would provide me with a copy of 3 the list so I could verify that. 4 Q Do you contend that the applicants ' QA/QC I 5 Program has failed to detect any defects used in the 6 manufacturing of the Plant Vogtle generators? 7 A We contend that the applicants' QA/QC 8 Program allowed for the procurement of an inadequate 9 backup generator, namely, the TDI. 10 Q Do you contend that the applicants ' QA/QC 11 Program has failed to detect any defects in the 12 materials used in the manufacture of Plant Vogtle diesel 13 generators? 14 A Again, -- 15 Q What document are you referring to? 16 A I'm referring to the memorandum and order 17 from the licensing board. 18 ?!R . FLACK: Exhibit 4. 19 THE WITNESS: Our contention is: 20 There is no reasonabic assurance that the 21 emergency diesel Senorators manufactured by 22 TDI to be used at Plant Vogtle will provide 23 a reliable and independent source of - " 24 :!R. FLACK: Why don ' c we jus e allude 25 to his reading the proposed Contention 14 as STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'404i 351 0300 '404i $361028 GEORGIA
176 1 set out in that Exhibit 4 which ic part of 2 the record. 3 MR. DAVENPORT: That's fine. My 4 ques tion can be answered with a yes or no , E 5 and I would appreciate a yes or no before 6 you give me any more explanation. 7 Q (By Mr. Davenport) Mr. Johnson, do you 8 contend that the applicants ' QA/QC Program has ftiled
- 9. to detect any defects in the materials used in the 10 manufacture of the Plant Vogtle generators? Y e.; er nc?
11 A Read that one more time, please. 12 Q Do you contend that the applicants' OA/QC 13 Program has failed to detect any defects in the 14 materials used in the manufacture of the Flant Vogtle 15 diesel generators? I 16 A Any specific defects? We do not contend 17 Chat it does or does not. 18 Q Are you aware of any defect in the materials 19 used in the manufacture of the Plant Vogtle diesel 20 generators that has not been covered by the applicants ' 21 QA/QC Program? 22 A Off the top of my head, I am not. 23 Q Do you contend that the applicants' QA/QC 24 Program has failed to detect any defects in the Plant 25 Vogtle diesel generators resulting from the mano-STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VitLE
#4048 351 0300 #404: $36 7028 I
GEORGIA I
- 175 1
fac:uring process of TDI? 2
!!?. . FLACK: Hugh, I think the ansucr 3
to this is the same as previous -- 4
- 1a. DAVEllPORT: }!r. Flack, you're I 5 not testifying. I'd appreciate his testimony
~
6 and not yours. 7 ;In. FLACK: He 's tes tified already . 8 MP. , DAVEllPORT: This is a different 9 question, and I'd appreciate a response to 10 this. 11 (By ;ir. Davenport) Previously I ashed you Q 12 chout the defects in the materials. Now I'm asking y = 13 about defects in the manufacturing process . 14 A Specific defects? 15 Q Yes. 16 A Lio . 17 Q Do you contend that the applicants' QA/QC 18 Program has failed to deccct any defect in the Plan: 19 Vogtic dicsel generators resulting from their 20 inscallacion at Plant Vogtic? 21 A At this time, we do not contend that there 22 are any specific defects resulting from the installation 23 beyond what we have stated in our contention, the 24 basis therefor, the responses to Interrogatories, and 25 the documents that we have provided and you have STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5vitLE
'd0di 3510300 'dadi 536 7078 GEORGIA I .
176 1 provided to us. 2 Q This information that you're referring to, 3 are you aware in all of that information of any 4 reference to any defect in the Plant Vogtle diesel 5 generators resulting from their installation in riant 6 Vogtle that was not discovered in the QA/QC Program? 7 A Not off the top of my head. 8
, Q With respect to the Plant Vogtle diesel 9
generators, do you contend that the applicants ' QA/QC to Program was or is deficient in any other respect? 11 A Read that one more time. 12 Q With respect to~the Plant Vogcle diesel i 13 generators, do you contend that the applicants' QA/QC 14 Program was or is deficient in any respect? 15 A Yes. 16 Q how? 17 A In enat it allowed for the procurement o f 18 che inadequate diesel generator, namely, the TDI 19 generator, as act forth in our contention and the 20 basis therefor and all the other documents that wo 21 aavo provided and that you have provided to us. 22 Q Other than failing to pravent the procure-23 ment of TDI diesel generators, has the anplicants' I 24 QA/QC Program failed in any respect with respect to the h 25 TDI diesel generators that you are aware of? STUART S. HUSEGY & ASSoclATES. INC. I ATLANTA
- GAINE5VittE 1404i 351 0300 8404 $36 7028 l GEORGIA l
l
l 177 l 1 l A Off the cop of my head, I'm not awaro of 1 5 2 any' specific probicos other than that. 3 l Q So you are not aware of any defects in the 4 diesel generators that have not been identified in the 5 applicants ' QA/QC Program? 6 A Any specific defects in the specific 7 generators, no. ! 8 Do you contend c: tat the TDI emer:;cncy Q 9 generator resolution program adopted by the aprilicants 10 in conjunction with the design review quality 11 revalication program conducted by the TDI owners ' grcup 12 for the Plant Vogtle diesel generators is not sufficient l l I 13 to identify and correct any deficiencies that oxise in l 14 the diesel generators? l 15 A Yes. l l 16 Q On what basis? 17 A On the basis that the experience wi:" . th *. 18 TDI diesel gancrators has boon so abysmal c'.iat the 19 generators thensolves are inadoquate, and the applicants 20 will probably do better not going with TDI. 21 Q Those generators have been licensed at other 22 plants, have they not? l 23 A Yes. 24 Q And on that basis, do you contend that the 25 dieael generators at Plant Vogtle should not be STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. aNC. 5 ATLANTA + GAWE5Vitti 1404 351 0300 .404i 536 1028 GEO9GIA E -
i I 173 ! l 1 liccused when TDI generators at other plants hava been 2 licens ed? 3 A The information was not available concerning 4 many of the problems at the time the licenses were 5 issued at the other plants. 6 Q Have there been any licenses issued to 7 plants with TDI diesel generators within the las t six 8 i months, to your knowledge? 9 A I do not specifically know; but if there 10 have been, I would argue that it was a nistake. 11 Q Do you contend that the TDI emergency 12 dieael generators at Plant Vogtle will not adequately 13 Perform their intended functions to provide emergency 14 backup power? 15 A Yes . 16 Q On what basis? 17 A On the basis that we have provided in Uar is contention, our basis therefor, and our responses to 19 your Interrogatories, and your responses to our 20 subpoenaes and requects to produce, and in the 21 information presented to the licensing board, 22 Q 'that specific information do you hava ch.i t you will tes tify about to the licensing board that I 23 24 indicates that the TDI diesel generators will n3t 25 work adequately? STUART5.HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. AflANIA
- GAINE$Villt
'4048 331 OLO '4041 536 1028 GEO9GiA
17? 1 A I have not selected out which specific I 2 documents wi;l be used of those that I have provided to 3 you, those documents now in my possession that I have 4 reviewed. I have given the applicants everything that I 5 might be used. Tnat does not mean that that is all 6 that will be used, but I can't tell you right now which 7 specific ones. 8 Q Can you tell me one thing that today 9 indicates to you that TDI generators at Plant Vogtle 10 will not work? Any one defect that will prevent then 11 from working? 12 !!R. FLACK: llugh, I think that he 13 indicated earlier he has not yet prepared 14 his direct testimony. 15 MR. DAVENPO RT : I'm just asking him 16 based on his knowledge. 17 THE WIT!!ESS: Our contention is based 18 on the general pattern of defects with TDI 19 generators; not on specifics. 20 Q (By !!r. Davenport) So I assume that the 21 answer to my question is no? n A Not at this time, n Q So at this time you cannot identify any 24 particular things that would cause the TDI diesel 25 generators at Plant Vogtle not to work? STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4TLANTA
- GAINESVitLE 14041 351-0300 'd0di 536 7028 GEORGIA
ISO i 1 1 A Other than the infcrmation that vc've 2 provided to the applicants in response to your 3 Interrogatorics and as the basis for our contention and 4 the general information we provided to the board. 5 Does that information indicate any specific Q 6 problems that exist with the TDI diesel generators c: 7 Planc Vogtic to prevent them from working when the plant 8 becomes operational? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What? 11 A I can't recall the specifica, but I do 12 recall that there was at leas t one problem uhich th'a 13 applicants said would not be corrected before Uccember 14 of 1986. And certainly, I cannot accept that this is a 15 problem now; but it wouldn't be a problem then wLthcut 16 seeing the results. 17 Q Other than that one problera, are you cuar; 18 of anything that uould prevent the TDI diesel 19 gencrators from working once the plant beconcs 20 operational? 21 A The general pattern of incompeten: matufacture 22 by TDI. I have seen nothing to indicate that the enca 23 manufactured for Plant Vogtle are any battar than the I 24 ones manufactured for other plants which have had one 25 l problem after another, many unrelated to each cther STUART 5. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA = GAINESVittf 14041 351 0300 44041 $36 7028 GEOliGIA
=
l?1 I except for the manufacturer. 2 But you cannot at chts time point to a Q 3 specific defect or problem that would prevent the T'I J 4 diesel generators from operating? 5 A I just pointed to one. I'm not able r.o 6 specifically identify, but it's one that the applicants -.- 7 Other than that one? Q 8 A Off the top of my head, in terms of 9 specific defacts of those particular diesel generncora, 10 1 do not have specific knowledge off the top of my head 11 at this time. 12 Q Mr. Johnson, let me refer you back to what 13 has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit Number 5, the 14 comments submitted on the Draf t Environmental S tate =ent 15 and specifically to page nine of those comme.n ts . The 16 third' full paragraph on that page, the firs t sentsace 17 indicates that a significant contamination incident 18 could result in contamination migrating vertically down-19 ward from the water table aquifer into the deet cr Lisbon 20 Sand Formation and the Tuscaloosa aquifer, re you have 21 any information yourself personally to support that 22 statement, or does that come from Professor Lawles c? 23 A That comes from the information that un I 24 provided in either the response to Interrogatories or 25 in our contentions in the licensing proceeding; and so l I STUART S. HUSEDY & ASSoclATES, INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 GEORGIA 8404i 536 1028 I -
181 1 1 I assume it comes from Frofccscr Lawless. I 2 Q But you're not the source of any of the 3 information to support that statement? 4 A Not that I recall. 5 Loc me refer you now to page 11, the last Q 6 line of that page and the first line of the nex: n r.g o 7 wnich states that particularly sensitive are polycers 8 which are found in cable insulation and jackets, scals, 9 rings, and gaskets at VECP. Lot me ask you this. Can 10 you personally identify for me any polymer materials 11 found in, for example, cable insulation or any of thene 12 other items at Plant Vogtle? I 13 A I think that cama from the intervonors' 14 basis for concention or responses to Interrogatorian 15 prepared by Dr. Deutsch. 16 Q So you personally have no infornation to 17 support that statement? 18 A That's correct, to the bes t o f my k .wi c .'3 C 3 19 at this time. I 20 Q Mr. Johnson, to your knowledge, have ycu 21 or anyone else associated with the intervenors a c e cme t e d 22 to calculate the amount of chlorine or chicrinc l 23 derivative that would be emitted froc the Plant ilog cl e 24 cooling towers? 25 A I do not know. If anyone has, it would be l STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE$Villf U04135t 0300 84041 536 7078 GEORG8A
10 1 Dr. Deutsch; and he is going to be a witness on that 2 contention, so I understand he's going to be deposed. 3 Q But you're not aware of any attempt by the 4 intervanors to make s uch calculations ? 5 A I personally have made no accompt to make 6 such calculations. 7 Q And you personally are aware of no one cho l 8 making such calculations? 9 A I personally an aware of none. 10 Q Do you know whether anybody associated with
~
11 the intervenors has attempted to calculate 'the amount 12 of salt drift that would be emitted from the Plant 13 Vogtle cooling towers? 14 A My response to that is the same. 15 Q So you personally do not know whether any
~
16 one of the intervenors has attempted to make such a I 17 18 calculation? A That's correct; and again, if anyone has, 19 it would be Dr. Deutsch. MR. DAVEllPORT : Let me take a break I 20 21 and make sure that's all the questions I 22 have. 23 (Thereupon, a short recess was held.) I 24 Q (3y Mr. Davenport) I do have one more 25 question. Mr. Johnson, what constituted membership in STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE I404I 351-0300 (404 $36 7028 GEORGIA
104 1 Campaiga for a Prosperous Coorgia at tha ti=c the I 2 petition to intervenc was filad? 3 A As I recall, provided this isn't c orn thin;; 4 my at torney haa lastructed me not to answer -- let ma 5 wait and see what he says. 6 MR. FLACI: My objection is the sanc. 7 That is not relavant to this current 8 proceeding. '4e ' re b eyond that coint. 9 M2, DAVENFORT: You'ro instrueting to him not to answer? 4
=
l 11 MR. FLACK: That's correct. 12 (37 Mr. Davenport) And you' re refus in: . te I Q 13 answer? 14 A Based on the directive of my counscl. 15 M P. . DAVENPORT: That's all the 16 questions we have. Thank you. 17 (Deposition concluded.) 18 - - - 19 I 20 21 I 22
)
I 24 l I 25 I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSoclATES. INC. ATLANTA . GAINESVILLE
'4041 351 0300 t404i 536J028 GEORGIA I
i
l l 184A I l 1 2 I ' 4 5 TIM JOHNSON I 6 I hereby certify that I have read or have had read to me 7 the foregoing. I e 9 Sworn to and subscribed before me 10 this day of , 19S5. 12 Notary Public. I 13 My commission expires 14 15 l 16 l 17 . __ 18 - 19 I 21 22 I 24 I STUART S. HUSEBY & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINE5VittE 84041 351-0300 (404) 536 7028 GEORGIA
185 1 I 2 1 1 3 CERTITI CATE I 4 G L 0 R G I A: 5 FULTON COUNTY: 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing 7 deposition was cahon down, as acated in the 8 caption, and the questions and the ansucrc 9 thereto were reduced to typewriting under I 10 my direction; that the foregoing pages 1 11 through 134 represent a true and correct 12 transcript of the evidence given upon said 13 hearing, and I further certify that I am 14 not of kin or counsel to the parties in the 15 case; au not in the regular c= ploy of counce ! 16 for any of said parties; nor am I in anywiso 17 interes ted in the result of said case. 18 This, the 15th day of March, l')SS. ! 19 20 21 a. L4Y- P ((LL a i E- - SHARON D. UFCHURQR, CCR-3-93E. l 22 My commission expirca the 14th day o f S eptember , 1985. 23 lI 24 lI l STUART S. HUSE8Y & ASSOCIATES. INC. ATLANTA
- GAINESVILLE f 4041351 -0300 14041 536 7028 GEORGIA I -
I LAWYER'S NOTES PAos LINE I I I I I gs3 a 5 8 1J* S 4 5 I.O N b Ia8 h 3 I I .
- I I
I I I 1
r g [i X H I B li Appl.b w '
/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C;v.ETE3 j LMC I M 4ct g,.g.gl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0!.??
v, J M 27- A!1:38 In the Matter of )
) .:-.....
GEORGIA POWER CO. ) et al. Docket Nos. 5CI-424 and 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REOUEST FOR HEAF:NG Introduction
- 1. By application dated September 13, 1983, Georgia Power Cersany, acting fo-itself and as agent for co-owners, applied for an operating license fcr tw pressurized water nuclear reactors, designated as the Voc le Elec -ic Gecerating Plant, Units 1 and 2. Each of the reactors, locatec on the applicar. 's site in Burke Co., Georgia is designed for an electrical outout of 1160 mecar.a::s.
- 2. On December 28, 1983 a notice of Receipt of Acclication for Facility Operating Licenses; Availability of Applicants' Environmental Reper:; Consiceratic-g of Issuance of Facility Operating License; and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing w:s E published in the Federal Register in the Matter of Georcia Power Co. e al., Occie-Nos. 50-424 anc 50-425. This notice set January 27, 1984 as tne ceacl'ne t r receipt of petitions for leave to intervene and recuests for hea-ir.cs. Purs ar.: Ic 10 CFR 2.714, the Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and its memoers cereby suomi:
their petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing. i Descriotion of Petitioner
- 3. The Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG) is a membersnic crear.ization l
I formed in early 1983 by a coalition of consumer groups, ervironmental cr:ani:ations , business operators, labor activists, government officials and otner ci:irens concerned about the economic anc environmental imoacts of electric utili:ies operating in Georgia.
- a. CPG nas intervened before the Georgia Public Service Com-iss'cr in rate
- I
l proceedings, wherein CPG presented expert testimony, cross-examined witnesses for the applicant and intervenors, presented briefs and fully participated as a party in the hearings. CPG has also presented testimony and other information to state and federal legislators on issues of concern to its membership.
- 5. Members and staff of CPG have served on an advisory panel to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review utility cost recovery for decommissioning nuclear reactors and have participated as intervenors in construction licensing proceedings for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant before the Atomic Energy Co=ission anc the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Interest and Standino of Petitioner
- 6. Several members of CPG, including Benjamin Reynolds, Thomas Reyncics and Claire Hicks, whose afficavits are attached, reside within the fifty-mile radius of the Vogtle plant site. These and other members of CPG live, own property, work, travel to and engage in outdoor recreational activities including fishing, boating, swimming, hunting, hiking and camping in the environs of Plant Vogtle. They consume vegetables, dairy products and meat produced in the area that will be immediately affected by plant operations; the air they breathe and the water they drink will also be affected by operation of the plant.
- 7. Members of CPG are consumers of energy for resicer.tial, recreational and business uses. All members now purchase electric energy from co=ercial sources but they would make more extensive use of reasonable alternative energy sources sucn as solar, wind, bio-mass and conservation techniques if such were more readily available and competitively priced. Petitioner's members include retail electric customers of Georgia Power Company and retail customers of wholesale customers of Oglethorpe Power Corporation and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia.
How Petitioner's Interests May Be Affected
- 8. The above-stated interests of Petitioner and its members may be affected by the proposed operation and on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel at Plant Vogtle.
I
1 g - l The operation of a nuclear power plant at the site may endanger the health and safety of Petitiorer's members on many counts. Routine and accidental releases of ionizing radiation from the plant may contaminate the air, food and wate'r essential for members' survival. The safety and well-being of members may be adversely I affected by the possibility of a nuclear accident damaging or destroying their livelihood, homes, property and lives. Recreation may be jeopardized by the project's effect upon the water and acuatic life of the Savannah River and the surrounding environment. A nuclear accident at the pl.nt may affect the economy of the region. Insurance would not adequately compensatt losses sustained by members of CPG in case of an accident. The proposed operatio , :f Plant Vogtle will place an excessive burden on Petitioner's members who are elect'< :al rate;;ayers. An Order granting an operating license in this case may subject Petitioner's members to uncue risks to health, life and property interests. Scecific Aspects of the Subject Matter
- 9. CPG, if granted leave to intervene in this proceeding, will file contentions on the following aspects:
There exists no reasonable assurance that:
- a. Georgia Power Company and co-owners have the financial ability to safely operate Plant Vogtle;
- b. The production capacity of Plant Vogtle is needed;
- c. A reasonable exploration of alternatives to the plant has been consicerec by the Applicant;
- d. Conditions have not changed since the construction permit was issuec in June, 1974;
- e. The Applicant possesses the technical ability to operate tne oroject in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission;
- f. The geology of the site has been properly assessed and has been considered in the engineering design of the project especially in light of new data made
~
I ' available by the U.S. Geological Service;
- g. Emergency response plans are adequate;
- h. The Applicant possesses the ability to conform to NRC-approved quality control
'and quality assurance procedures for operation of the plant;
- i. The operation of the plant will not contaminate the underlying groundwater and the Ocala Aquifer;
- j. The proposed carrying capacity of transmission lines from the plant will not endanger the lives and health of humans, livestock and plants exposed to the electromagnetic radiation;
- k. The salt drift emissions from the cooling towers will not threaten public health and safety;
- 1. The fear caused by living adjacent to a nuclear facility will not threaten t.te security and well-being of the community;
- m. The effect of atomspheric patterns, particularly Pasquille Type A, has been adequately assessed in relation to impacts on the plant;
- n. Construction will have been completed in accorcance with tne rules anc regulations of the Commission given:
- 1) The fact that inferior materials have been used at the site.
- 2) The poor performance and defects of currently operating b'estinghouse reactors of the same models as those installed at the Vogtle site.
- 3) Defective workmanship including documented drug abuse by Vogtle workmen; I o. Transportation of nuclear and spent fuel to and from the plant will not threaten the lives of citizens in light of recent train derailments in Buckheac and Greensboro, Georgia.
Effect of Intervention
- 10. The participation of CPG and its members in previous regulatory proceedings is indicative of its ability to assist in the development of a sound record due to its familiarity with the. process and the issues, and its access to I
expert witnesses. 11. Petitioner's interest in protecting its members from probable harm to their health, safety and economic interests can only be protected through full participation as a party to this proceeding with the right to offer evidence and to confront evidence offered by other parties. No other party can adequately represent Petitioner's interest. Conclusions 12. The Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia having established herein a standing of right under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.714, is I entitled to receive the hearing requested on the Georgia Power Company's application for operating license for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 and an Order granting this petition for leave to intervene. January 26, 1984 Respectfully submitted, I nou
) my 4 ,
laurie Fowler tor: 1.egal Environmental Assistance Founcation 1102 Healey Building /57 Forsyth St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 404-688-3299 Attorney for Petitioner Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia I ' I I . I 5
i I. CCCKETED USN.C l 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '04 d.tN 27 bl NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.v3.ISSION I . -- - - : C. C *
;n :. " ,r , : .
In The Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-424
) 50-425 VOGTLE ELECTRIC )
I GENERATING PLANT )
)
)
facility operating license for Units 1& 2 Affidavit State of Georgia )
)ss: .
County of Burke ) Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly l authorized by law to administer oaths, THOMAS REYNOLDS, who, after being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says as fcilows: I I 1. l 5 I reside at Wood Valley Road, P.O. Bcx 227, Waynesboro, l Georgia 30830. I reside within 50 miles of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant located near Waynesboro, Georgia. I believe *.he plants are actually about 20 miles from my house. I use the Savannah River near Plant Vogtle for water skiing t and swimming. I hunt in the area surrounding my residence. My I family and I obtain drinking water from a ground well on the l property. lI I
I - 2. I am a member of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG). I am aware of CPG's petition for Leave to Intervene in this application to obtain an operating license for Plant Vogtle. I am concerned about potential health, safety and environmental problems related to the operation of this plant. I authorize CPG to represent me in this proceeding. This affidavit is made for the purpose of satisfying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that CPG has membership residing I within fifty miles of Plant Vogtle that is concerned about the proposed operation of this plant. I _,
/7
,! < (
,' km.M & s E-:Lh Thomas Reyno ' ' '
I Sworn to and subscribed before me This .45 day of >>...v , 1984. ./ J I I .b. e notary Puolic R g xy commission expires / '. . / > /o/> . I I I I I I -
~
I. 00'.%E... gy .. C I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . JR.127 AU'N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO I . . . .
- y. . .C 7 w. i: - - '
~ ~". '.;;'e'~ ' '
In The Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-424
) 50-425 VOGTLE ELECTRIC I
)
GENERATING PLANT ) facility operating
) license for Units
) 1& 2 Affidavit I State of Georgia )
)ss:
County of Burke ) I I Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized by law to administer oaths, BENJAMIN REYNOLCS, who, after being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says as follows: I 1. I I reside at Wood Valley Road, P.O. Box 227, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. I reside within 50 miles of the Vogtle Electric I Generating Plant located near Waynesboro, Georgia. I believe the plants are actually about 20 miles from my house. I I use the Savannah River near Plant Vogtle for water skiing and swimming. I hunt in the area surrounding my residenn . "y f 3-ilv ar 1 I obtain drinking water from a ground well xr.!E by the city.of ~la yne sb oro . I I
~
I I I 2. I I am a member of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG). I am aware of CPG's petition for Leave to Intervene in this I application to obtain an operating license for Plant Vogtle. I am concerned about potential health, safety and environmental problems related to the operation of this plant. I authorize CPG to represent me in this croceeding. ! This affidavit is made for the purpose of satisfying the Muclear Regulatory Commission that CPG has membership residing within fifty miles of Plant Vogtle -hat is concerned about the proposed operation of this plant. I uu Ben]ad.n Reynolds ' i Sworn to and subscribed before me l This .29 day of Id n un e- e , l 1964. J
% e.jws
.NotaryPplic' ,me ~ .... , c m . s: m : u =
I My commission expires ,
!/.; .;,.? r .3 v. EnP'M *L0 1E' aCU5 I
I
- I I
1 lI
I . My name is W.Claire Hicks and I live at 2109 Richmond Ave, in Augusta, Georgia. I am opposed to the issuance of an operating license for the Vogtle Nuclear platts for the fo1&owing reasons:
- 1) The facility, if completed and placed in operation I will endangdr my health, as well as that of the child I hope ,to conceive.
- 2) The plants, unnecessary to meet my need for power, if placed in the rate base of the Georgia Power Company will increase my electric rates with no commensurate improve-rent in the character of the service.
- 3) In the event of an accident at the facility the danger to my health will be increased proportionate to the sevdr ity of the event.
- 4) The liability coverage possessed by the applicant Geor-gia Power Company is insufficient to adecuately insure me
$E8kE5htp ssible damages I may incur in the event of an
- 5) In view of the fact that the Vogtle Nuclear Plant is I adjacent to the Savannah River Plant of the Department of Energy, the already highlevel of risk of radioactive con-contamination of the Augusta area is increased still fur; ther~, with no commensurate benefit to me.
I hereby designate the Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia to represent my interdsts in the proceding for an operat-ing license for the Vogtle Nuclear plants. I . cje<3 (;teccet - I dard DId
- E 05-g . an ay q ' ;/in .
l , t_ 5 n
.;g
.ij k .%.
&N%k gi- N *g vnL ..a. . .. .
r,b c -=t c - d '-
. u_
I I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CCLKEIEI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LT" BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .g g g p3) 33 In the Patter of )
) :.c. . . i * : 5 L ,. .
~
GEORGIA POWER CO. ) Docket Nos. 50-424-'ind- 504425':. -. et al. )
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) REQUEST FOR A HEARING IN ATLANTA For the convenience of the parties in the matter of Georgia Power Ccmpany's application for an operating license for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, petitioner Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia requests that hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board be held in Atlanta, Georgia. The offices of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and its counsel are located in Atlanta as are the regional offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the offices of state agencies that might participate in the hearings as interested parties. Respectfully submitted,
/
waw $u
/m-t
' Laurie Fowler for:
I Legal Environmental Assistance Founcation 1102 Healey Building /57 Forsyth St. Atlanta, GA 30303 404-688-3299 Attorney for Petitioner Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C:r.ME*E:
'M C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0APD g g gg In the Matter of )
) .:;- . -
GEORGIA POWER C0. ) Docket Nos. Sh &2F . ;... .:an150i425 et al. ) E? 3C'
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) I Units 1 and 2) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned enter a notice of ' appearance on behalf of Petitiorer Cam aign for a Prosperous Georgia in the matter of Georgia Power Co=:any's application for an operating license for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 anc 2. Both Laurie Fowler and Vicki Breman are membe.rs of the State Bar of Georgia and have been admitted .to practice in the Federal District Courts in Georgia and in tne State Courts of Georgia. Respectfully submitted
, .a tsd e. 1 i f. m ., _
Laurie Fowler ano Vicki Breman for: l Legal Environmental Assistance Foundaticr. 3 1102 Healey Bldg., 57 Forsytt St. Atlanta, GA 30303 lI 404-688-3299 Attorneys for Petitioner Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia I
G I I _
/%y - +r, /sau " can csyd I ,,v se a 9w cpur a~s/maum)
I g w+un s n,w s -s.1 n n p a .: e ' aryesubw.s, 1shby %,, A& IA;+'
>Ce& %,, CfG, ECPG, GA#6 LEq l
/Vades< Fmn/h6s wN ferce I
I I ( I
~
- I I .
I [emrm, jh2#60.d- 'j; $ I 3( (( W ,_ _ 3-a -c,1 N I .
l l !
"22 CSS $CEONE23pC$]E NO2 C EECOp3 TOED O?.02 3 g; m 175 Trinity Ave.S.Y/ At! ants, Georgia 20303 C1-4SP. SUS Cn_ ..g e
bP O g@ %
,D I%g" % #% V1 B' 142 i3 LUGGING ~
IN J 4 '.z ' u gyW ,a3 I MARCH-APRIL 1984 a s CPG SUES GEORGIA POWER could have adopted CPG's Pcwer would be given an Campaign for a Prospe- proposal that no rate hike additional $87 millio n, rous Georgia has filed suit be given and that a reduc- bringing the total rate I against Georgia last $87 million rate in-crease. Power's If the suit suc. tion in rates be cons i-dered. However, the PSC granted increase to $195 million. The PSC then let Georgia Power increase rates an additional $87 rillien, an I ceeds, rates will be icwered and consumers will action CPG considers to receive refund checks in have been illagal. CPG protested tnis to the mail for overcharges '3, the PSC and requested that I since last October 1. In spring of 1983. Geor-gia Power requested a rate the Coc ission raconsider its decision. Finally, in hike of $320 million. Rep- ,. ) y 5 j
- mid-January--three conths later--the PSC tr.rned down resented by for=er Consu. ,
mars' Utility Counsel Sid CPG's req:. cst. Af t ..- studying the PSC d nial, Moore. CPG intervened against -the increase over y y /[/ Ei18,o CPG filed tuit in Fulton the objections of Georgia -- -J r County Superict Court, rc-questing that the !87 mi!- Power. Steve Prenovitz, a management consultant who lion incrossa be thec sn cc had served as a construcl ' 9# * "" I tion Southern auditor Company for owns Georgia Power), testi-The (which Georgia Power $108 million* which was more than an intervenor in the rate
" #8
#~
""9 3 case--including the Co=mi s- u s at R was g n n W I fled on behalf of CAG; he pointed out that all the problems cited by Georgia sion's own recocmended- Nevertheless it was the lowest percenI staff--had ##
#
- 28 "98 Power in requesting the tage (34t) of a rate hike I rate hike would be solved if the Company would simply stop building ur.needed request Georgia Power had ever received Following this " final" 9* #9
- 9 "
power plants. Combining "'" # I PrenovitI's expert hearings , with other testimony in the the Cocaission dec.ision'er g an 3 j th agree the PSC staffe that G r a case. It is expected to go intervenors andto trial in !'. arch or April hr ge. I The Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia is a no npro fi t , nonlobbying organization concerned about the economic and environmental impacts of electric utilities. If you are not a member, please join with us by filling our the form in the back of this newsletter. I .
l. I GEORGIA POWER REQUESTS $750 MILLION FAIRMESS 00CTRIME I . ECPG has joined with other groups under the um-brella Georgia Alliance for Georgia Power has asked -- - - - - - - - - - - the Public Service Commis- 1984 Financing Plans ^"" E"*'3' Ad*iS'"5 to counter misleading anti-sion for permission to solar, pro-nuclear adverti-issue $750 million in 'g* Q , bonds, preferred stock and we com mm - sing being sponsored by the I loans for program. GAME its construction have ECPG, CPG and intervened car ==Po== c===i u,,,, m % m ro seno sim
.ao seo no so sno rso 3,,
so-called "U.S. Cormi ttee for Energy Awaraness," an industry comittee chaired against this application on %, ,, ,, , by Bob Scherer of Georgia the grounds that the con- Power.
"" '" "* 5 USCEA is sponsoring struction is clearly un-
" 8a'****a" ** * ** national advertising needed.
ns eso clat=ing that solar energy I the PSC has *'s. sani u=s= 47s Although never denied or even re- armara kee. s-*= ' sea m amo isn't available and that a stock and bond n.av. me =o ,o ., nuclear energy is naces-duced p., proposal of Georgia Pcwer, mese e.,,, 3, ,,a 3,, sary--two totally false I many factors indicate that they might deny or at least reduce it this time. Let-
,,, m, 2"
'en
" 5 rrs assertions.
ECPG has written to all 13 network affiliates in requesting ters and phone calls to the """"" its Georgia that they present the other sida Commissioners are extremely cw e*=is in m no x===c of this issue, as they are important. ico im neo Deppish Kirkland, the on.n ea ses- o ies required to do under the Fairness Doctrine. 'de haya I state Consumers ' Utility %. , ,3,, Counsel, has asked the PSC offered to provide prepar:d to rule on the prudence of spots or speakers to the the Company's construction
""'"*"-" m 88 'm stations.
"a== cu m. - - its Endorsing the call fo r program before granting carweena au som isso es.co fair time in addition to permission to issue any ECPG and CPG are GAEE, more stocks or bonds. - s ea cese so.es o esas o
Audubon, Sierra Cluo. Leg.1 The hearings are sche- c m ots o o Environmental Assistar.ca duled for March 14 at 2:00 mm , , . Foundation (LEAF), Par-p.m. at the PSC hearing m room. 244 Washington Street faming Artists for Nucle:r The public is (Wall Street Journal, 2-14-34) Disarmament (PAMD), Solar in Atlanta. I welcome attend. and urged to Coali tion. Athenians for Clean Energy (ACE) and AFSC
,Disarmacent Project.
?w *t\@ tf!" %W5 ITl" q.m. . 1. .
...:e ,, ,
I.Q[.
- g rf! k 'N+
~ , %
M' f f
$'J '
?.
e
\
$.[.[u.g[t[vo fQ Wi n
ff i,,' :., ,
'iQg.. Q! : .
S ' &' 'f a..dQ[W%, p . y s .
-~
I% 4 . :.3 saw y g- g} v.sY i % , ?>.
;m. I s y ,h%p. g ? l p{.f. d.M- u c. ..
[y w [ h _?:?yt, s; I - % I . .= ,l (W ,.r: wW mAM5p%
. .% n. . , .
~
/ ~
I . M hd ( ( I .
U I CPG I!!TERVENES AGAIMST PLANT V0GTLE T 9a g g ~ I paign In late January, Cam-for a Georgia filed intervention Prosperous Several members of CPG live in Waynesboro and "[NQ" $ h-
]a papers against a , proposed Augusta. Both Georgia I
SOLAR TAX CREDIT PASSES operating license for the Power and the NRC staff Vogtle Nuclear Plant being have agreed that CPG has The Gacrgia General A:- built by Georgia Power, stan.iing to intervene sembly has passed a bill Oglethorpe Power, Municipal allowina taxpayers to taka I against the facility. Electric Authority of Geor- Joining CPG in the a credit on their income gia and Dalton. The staff intervention are Georgians taxes for solar enargy in-of the federal Nuclear Against Nuclear Energy vestments. i th sup; ort Regulatory Commission, I which conducts the 11-censing proceedings, has accepted CPG's standing in (GAME) and Coastal Citizens for a Clean Environment. The Audubon Society also intends to intervene and, from Governor Joe Harris and Ways & Paans Committee Frank Cha i .- Joe Mac Wilson, the bill easily I the case. Plant Vogtle, according to Georgia Power estimates, at press t.ime, the Sierra Club was considering an intervention. The state passed Senate. be signed the Housa It is expected to by and Governor is running one thousand Consumers' Utility Counsel Harris. I percent over budget will cost more than all currently operating plants and filed with MRC that it wanted to intervene, but then withdrew its interven-Sapport for the bill us coordinated by the Georgia Solar Coalition and the combined. In addition, the' Solar Industries Associa-I tion . U.S. Geologic Survey has tion. Members of Campaign raised questions concerning for a Prosperous Geo rgic the vulnerability of the CPG has requested that wrote letters frca all cvar area to earthquakes (Plant I the hearings be held in Georgia in support cf the Vogtle is being built on Atlanta since all the gjjj, the Savannah River south of intervenors and the Company A resolution estab-Augusta, east of Waynes- are located there. GAME lishing a study comi ttee I boro). Numerous other pro-blems with the were cited by CPG in its proposal also supports the hearings being held in Atlanta, while Georgia Power (with unlimited resources) pro-to examine the Public Sar-vice Coc=ission and utility regulatic.- in Cecrgia ciso petition to the Nuclear- passed.. The co =ittae 9111 I Regulatory Comission. poses that they be held in Waynesboro. The Legal Environmental hold hearings investig3tions, then report back to .next year's sessica and Assistance Foundation with recc=endations fo r I (LEAF) is providing legal what changes, if any, it f, - g counsel for CPG's interven-LEAF is a nonprofit believes are needed.
% ; tion. Another study cc=i ttaa M ~
law firm providing assis-tance to Georgia was created to study rail JR$j Vg T p (e mental groups andcitizens environ- passenger service in Geor-gi a. q~ c concerning about environ-This cc=i ttee is f/ gg p expected to recommend esta-
, .g ,
mental problems facing our blish ant of co= uter rail eWh ib l [ G is working closely with national and local s g 1e I Iifh M h.*A k experts on the case. Help has been received from the Environmental Action [v.>%.Af% p Foundation, the Union of u g g glg m .-. c I "Q % cl/ S
;&,0 E:
% (;p
'4 Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Informtion and Resource Service, Critical
[g 3 3 C6 o g Energy Project and n I Mass STOPVOGTIE otners- - kifu5M Daud I -
WE NEED YOUR HELPI Our successes have been-totally due to the concern, hard work and generosity of I people like you. We don't need to tell you that your electric bill is higher than it should be: Georgia Power tells you that every month in the mail. We don't have to tell you that it is inappropriate for Georgia Power to be cperating coal plants 1 j without sc rubbers , to be building incredibly expensive nuclear plants that aren't I needed, or to discourage conservation and solar energy. You know all this, and yet you are paying for the Company's actisities in your electric bill every month. The P.S.C. allows them to pass through all their legal fees. " expert" witness fees and other costs of raising your bill and polluting your environment. I Only- through organizations such as Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia can you present a counter to these activities. We need your help--please plug in. Talk with your acquaintances, urging them to join us (or let us write to them by giving us names and addresses of folks you think should be involved). Arrange for us te I speak to a civic group, or help organize 4 community chapter. Plant Vogtle, Georgia's coal plants, electric rates and other issues. Write latters to the NRC, the PSC and the newspapers. Help us research If you take a few minutes to take one of these actions each month when you pay your electric bill, it can have a tremendcus I impact. We also need your financial support. Many concerned Georgians are now contri-buting to CPG or ECPG on a monthly basis--a counter to their own (involuntary) I contributions to Georgia Power or other electric utilities. tribute will be a sound invest =ent that can help us protect Georgia's environment Anything ycu can con-and save you money on electric. bills for years to comet W ha F. YESL I support th: Ce:psign for s Fre:p:rct: ; Georgia in your offorts to centrol utility
. .. 7r, - . rates, halt unneedad p=:: plants ::d curb I
triasse primtaleurtr.1 ~ 1 ,G , t:ssteful :: nag:::st practic::. I piedr2 ts S' ~-- send a contly contributica, th0 fir:t of t.Mch h is enclosed. My centributica e:ch c: nth will n . be I gio g3
"" . 8::o cico citrsaae 4 g::o oge rhams .
[.. . . 3"" " ' . ;f ~ ;/ . . - ,
~ L prefer to pay one lug sus rathar than =cathly contributtens. Enclosed is $ .
I 01 am interened in seams involved be one or mom ef tt.efoCowing nuns- 0 Joi.iq p + m L--"'~.s O Mfonninglor:cniwn:pecpie in m cres O hdpi.y with md! n .$2.~.k::, tn--- "n cr i O ceruacci.y locnf mafis-- w.i. recfo. tv otAsc0rx=l .:::Ar
* ~ O writfag/.1peakingwithstaseleguistorzcadlocal O rth. Icd a=::r.=:2 ,
I
- 7 ggaafr ,
O other(#:=rspect/s
~
I Note: If you wish your contribution to be tax-deductible, please make your check payable to "ECPG/SRC."
ECPG JPEMS OFFICE 0FFICE GRA!!D OPEMIMG With the help of two HE".EERSHIP GR0"S ECPG will hold our offt- grar.ts and the hard work cial o f fice-warming party and generosity of top car. Membership in C9G and
' "** 9**
- daI' 7 in E*" "'**
E'plumbers
" "' ,"the
~ -
Avenu e,a SW, c 30'Atlanta. vators and now have mambers in the ; We Educational Campaign for a following cc=.a i ti es : ! 0111 gleefully accept - pposperous Georgia has Athens; Atlanta; Au psta; donations of five dollars opened an office in the Eogart; Brunswick; Suck-to five thousand dollars to Trinity-Peachtree Building, hcad; Chacblee; Columbas; help cover some of the 175 Trinity Ave. SW, Cumming; Cawsonville, Ceca-expenses of the office. It Atlanta, GA 30303, 404- tur; Doraville; Cunwoedy; will be your chaace to meet 659-5675. Forest Park; fortson; other ECPG members, staff The space was renovated Gainesville; Hartwell-and celebrities. with tne volunteer help of Joncsboro; Lexington; M25 I the following: clearing: sheetrocking, Doug space-Teper; pasting. con; Harietta; Metter, Houltrie, Newnan; Morcross; North Augusta. S.C.; Cak-taping: Dennis Hof farth, wood; Ontario, Canada, I c O i.-_ Jim Kulstad, Danny Feig; painting: Jeanne Shurt-house Dennis Creech, Alvin Savannah, Smyrna; Tifton; Tucker; Tuskegee, Alabaca; Waynesboro. Paul Mormandia; If you know people ycu I OUTREACH Burrell, hanging ceiling: Jim Kul- think would be interested ECPG is anxious to pro- stad. Danny Feig. Neill in joining, invite thca to vide information to con- Herring; hanging doors: do so. Or, send us their I cerned Georgians about all these issues. Tim Johnson and Deborah Sheppard have Canny Feig, Steve Johnson, Jim Kulstad; knobs / locks: door-Jim Kulstad; names and addresses and us will write to them, spoken on behalf of the trim: Jim Kulstad; bath-l I organization to the Forest Park Optimists' Cl u b , the Atlanta Chapter of Ope-room tile: John Ruff, Jim Kulstad; lation: vanity Jim instal-Kulstad; SUSINESS SUPPORTS U3RX Support for ECPG has ration P.U.S.H. (People plumbing: Carey Mande- also cece frem the business I United to Save Humanity), Morth Muclear Georgians Energy Against (Gaines-ville; moving: Tingle, Peyton Tingle. Special Rabun apprcciation community, which is greatly affected by increaus in ele:tric and unjust ville). Georgians Against Oth8" "tIII 7 P8t85* I Muclear Energy (Atlanta). Sierra Club (Athens) ard Athenians for Clean Energy, goes to Jim Kulstad and Danny Feig, who did an extraordinary job coordi-nating the office renova-Call Offica Supply in Atlanta providad us with pons, pencus, paper clips, paper, index cards a r.d I We were very well received by all of these organiza-tions. tion. Thanks also to small Carpenters at Large
- donating five new doors u for other supplies.
very grateful to them. We ara Speedy Instant Pesss in P.U.S.H. is sponsoring a the office, and to community forum including Sheppard's Draperles Atlanta donated printing of t l a us, GAME, Georgia Power and Harietta for donating and of an alert sheet on the stock and bond hearing. I Atlanta Gas Light, it i s- installing draperies. carpenues expected to be held in Scall at i early spring. ART 00 MATED L2rge of Atlanta don:ted We will speak to a pub. five doors for our office lic meeting id the South- ECPG's new offices had renovation. west Chapter-of the Georgia Sheppard's Crap ries in ' I Conservancy in Moultrie on March 27. We will. make a presenta-an extra touch of class added in February well-known Atlanta artist Barbara Brazict donated a when M:rietta donated draperies for the office. If your business could 1 tion to a Sierra Club chap- itmited-edition print of like to donate scPPlies, E her marvelous Serendipity. services or finances to 3 ter in Augusta on April 17. If you would like us to Jim Kulstad donated the help CPG or ECPG, please [ speak to a meeting in your framing and installation of contact us. Donations to l community, please call our the artwork, which now ECPG are tax-deductible. 3 office. adorns ECPG's reception area.
I : PHANTOM TAX BILL INTRODUCED STAFF HIRED Legislation to curb uti-I lity abuse of holes--wherein Power tax loop-Georgi: (for example) has ECPG has native Georgians as staff. people. hired two Georgia', ' She has extensive experi.nce organi:ing charged ratepayers more lim Johnson, who has conferences and puolic I than $1'b111 ton for federal' ircome taxes that have not been paid by the government worked witn' the Campai gn-for a Propercus Georgia since January 1383 is thE interest campaigns. execJtive director of the newly established As Sandy exective director of ECPG. I been introduced in Creek Nature Cen:er from Co-has ngress. He has helped organize 1977-1979, she was The legislation would several public interest responsible for develop:ent allow the Public Service groups and political cam- of the physical site and the educational I Commission tax savings to require that be through te consumers if the flowed paigns and has worked more than nine years researching electric utilities in Geor-related thereto. progracs Tim will focus on the tecnitcal aspe:ts of EC?G's PSC has reviewed the utili- gia and othe. states. He I ty's approach to meeting consu:rers ' needs and con-cluded the utility is fol-has been a paid researcher for the Southern Regional Cot.ncil , the Consumers'
'vork--regulatory intervan-tions, research, sheets and similar work.
fact lowing a "least cost" ap- Utility Counsel of Georgia Ceborah will coordinate I proach. The PSC is now prohibited by federal law from passing the savings and the Georgia Public Ser-vice Commission. published articles on the He has outreach, education fund-raising effcets. ECPG is seeking founda. and tion support for a door-to-I electric utility issre in through to consumers when Geo rgia, door canvassing cac7aign utilities get these tax which would hire a cocrdi-breaks. Deborah Sheppard is pro-The tax breaks gram director of ECPG. She nator, an assistant coordi-I has a masters degree in netor and, over a 3-conth themselves are an incentive public and urban affiars period, fifteen canysssers, for electric utilities to Those interested in working build more power plants, from Georgia State whether they are needed or University. Her studies for positive refors of I not. ' For exampl e, every billion dollars Geor-gia Power spends on the for included review of the electric regulatory process and related issues in Georgia's electric utili-ties should contact the ECPG office. Vo3tle Nuclear Plant, fede-I
~
ral taxpayers pay more than ' .
$100 million; ratepayers ,. . -
ECPS RECEIVES GRAMTS aust pay Georgia Powcr as . I if the Company received no . tax break but actually paid all its taxes. This is in Grants have been awarded to ECPG by the Sapelo continued volunteer workers spite of the fact that I . Island Foundation and d individual contribu-electric utilities are re- [035 + quired. by law to build Rockefeller Family Asso- -- ciates, providing seed ife c:nnot thank all tha enough plants to meet the individuals who helped us need, and PSC's must pro- money to open the office I vide them high enough rates to pay for prudent, needed investments. and cover expenses through April . Another grant is being sought to initiate a by providing advice support in cur search for foundation suppo... and Spe-cial notes of appecciation door-to-door canvassing I In addition, under the amendments to the tax law passed in 1981 (" Economic Recovery Tax Act"), utili-campaign. Individual sup-port is more important now than ever; with profes-are due to: Steve Suitts and Southern Regional Coun-cil; Alden !! oyer and Envi-ron= ental A,ction Founda-I ties receive a bigger tax sional staff, we are able tion; nian .'.scGregor and break for building nuclear to be much more effective plants than for building in assuring continuity, the Fund for Southern Cc=- coal or other types of coordination and expertise munities; Chip Reynolds; Carol Stangler; and Alvin I plants, even though nuclear is the most method being used. expensive in our efforts. Continuing success will depend upon Bu rrell .
I e , l
;I s
I !,I iI '
.' ~ * '
.:.....(
,. . ' ~~
' l ampaign P.O.for Box a Proscercus Georg,ia 7302 l , Auanta, Georgia 30357 Q_ ; , ~ .T T :. 4 I ..- Dr. Howard Deutsch
- E 765 Myrtle Street, N.E.
5 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 i
- I 4I I
- I I
I I I I .
.__._a , ____.__ _ _ _ _ . _ , , _ , - _ .
3 GFT,ELB,HHG,DRL,NJK ORIGINAL HEARING BCCK 9/5/84 OLA .:L-5 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3efore Administrative Judges: I Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
I In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
)
Docket Nos.-EO-44-OL 50-45-OL (ASL9P No. 84 49 M 1-OL, (Vogtle Electric Generating - Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) September 5,1984 I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE HELD PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. 2.715a Following the publication of a Notice of Opportunity for r m g an December 28, 1983, for the captioned operating license applicaticr proceeding, petitions to intervene and to hold a hearing were filed b, Carpaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG), Georgians Against Nucle - Energy (GANE) and Coastal Citizens for a Clean Environment (CCCE). I Applicants, represented by Georgia Power Company (GPC) acting for itself and as agent for Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal EM-tric Authority of Georgia and City of Dalten, Georgia and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) filed responses concluding that CPG and GANE satisfied the interest requirements of 10 C.F.P., 2.714 and t.nat each Petitioner would have to plead one admissible contention, as required by 2.714(b), for it to be afforded party intervenor stat 0s. They further concluded that CCCE failed to establish requisite interest. I l cww 9.i//$ 7 " l, us - A' ~
. {~ ,
I ' In a Memorandum and Order of March.9.1984, we found that CPG and GANE had fulfilled the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 establishing that their respective interest to participate as intervenors in an adjudicatary proceeding and that full party status for each was dependent on the submission of at least one litigable contention. he further found CCCE had not shown that the action be:ng challenged cculd I cause injury in fact to any of its members and therefore had r.ot submitted grounds for representative intervention. A Special Prehearing Conference was ordered pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.751a to resolve, inter alia, tne matter of standing and to pass upcn any preposed contentions that would be submitted. Filings were to be made by Petitioners, through amendment or supplemental petition, by April 12,1984. CPG and GANE each filed 13 proposed contentions, the last nine of which were identical to each others. Nothing was received from CCCE. Responses to the proposed contentions were timely made by Applicants and Staff. Prior to the holding of the Special Prehearing Conference on May 30, 1984, at Augusta, Georgia, Applicants, Staff, CPG and GANE conferred in an attempt to resolve differences on proposed contentions. This conference resulted in CPG withdrawing two of its contentions, rewording of others, and it submitted a new contention which was based on material drawn from one filed previously. It proposed to resubmit another contention upon receipt of additional information. At the special prehearing conference GANE altered some prepcsed contentions I I
previously filed and, like CPG, submitted the same additional proposed contention. No one opposed the submission of the additional contention by each petitioner. A review follows of the proposed contentions submitted by Petitioners, as supplemented and amended, and of the responses of Applicants and Staff, with our respective rulings. Furt'her, in this Memorandum and Order, we will set future scheduling and dispose of the CCCE petition. Disposition of the cpg Proposed Contentions Procosed Contention 1. Witndrawn. Procosed Contention 2. There is no reasonable assurance that the production capacity of Plant Vogtle will be needed, as required by NEPA (42 USC 4331-4335) and by NRC regs 10 CFR 50.42 and 10 CFR 51.52(c)(3). CPG's proposed contention asserts that there is no need for the power from the subject plant. In support of its contention CPG sets forth that GPC incorrectly projected its annual electricity sales growth and peak demand. It alleges that the utility has overcapacity and had tried without success to sell this capacity to out-of-state utilities. Petitioner contends that if additional capacity were needed conservation, solar energy and other environmentally preferable alternatives would be the way to provide it. Both Applicants and Staff responded that the proposed contention is inadmissible because 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c) specifically provides: I
'I I .
I . I I (c) Presiding officers shall not admit cententions proffered by any party concerning need for power or alternative energy sources for the proposed plant in operating license hearings. That response in turn resulted in CPG filing on May 25, 1984, a request for a waiver of 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.755. I The latter section provides that a party may petition that the application of a specified Comission regulation may be. waived or an exception made for the particular proceeding. The sole ground shall be that there are special circumstances with respect to the subject nattar of the particular proceeding which are such that application of the regulation would not serve the purposes for which the regulation was adopted. The Comission in promulgating 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c), succinctly set forth its reasons at 47 Fed. Reg.12940 (March 26,1982). It statec: [t]he purpose of these amendments is to avoid unnecessary consideration of issues that are not likely to tilt the cost-benefit balance by effectively eli.minating need for power anc alternative energy source issues from consideration at the operating license stage. In accordance with the Comission's NEPA responsibilities, the need for power and alternative energy sources are resolved in the construction pemit proceeding. The Ccmmission I stated its tentative conclusion that while there is no diminution of the importance of these issues at the construction pemit stage, the situation is such that at the time of the operating license I proceeding the plant would be needed to either meet increased energy needs or replace older less economical generating capacity and that no viable alternatives to the completed nuclear plant are I likely to exist which could tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. Past experience has shown this to be the case. In addition, this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alternative is shcwn to be marginally I environmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility because of the economic advantage which operation of nuclear power plants has over available fossil generating plants. An exception to the rule would be made if, in a particular case, I
I
~
I I I special circumstances are shcun in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.758 of the Commission's regulations. i l In the same Federal Register issuance at page 12942 the Comission comented that there had never been a finding in a Comission operating license proceeding that a viable, environmentally superior alternative to operation of the nuclear facility exists and that'the Comission expects this to be true for the foreseeable future. The Comiss' ion, in promulgating the restrictive regulation 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c), relied upon its conclusion found at 46 Fed. Reg. 39441 (August 3, 1981). It provides: Based on all of the above, the Comission believes that case-specific need for power and alternative energy source evaluations need not be included in the environmental evaluation for a particular nuclear power plant operating license. An exception would be made to this rule if, in a particular case, special circumstances are shown in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.758 of the Comission's regulations. Such special circumstances could I exist if, for example, it could be shown .that nuclear plant operations would entail unexpected and significant adverse environmental impacts or that ar environmentally and econcaically superior alternative existed. In its petition for waiver CPG contends that special circumstances now exist concerning the plant which justify a reconsideration of the need for its power at the operating license stage. It gives as a basis l I dramatically changed circumstances since the construction permit was issued in the areas of economics, electricity consumption patterns and availability of alternative energy. The petition for a waiver is supported by an affidavit of Tim Johnson, executive director of CPG. His background qualifications in I e
i the area of the subject of the affidavit are not given. The affidavit is virtually a verbatim repetition of the bases given in support of Proposed Contention 2. Affiant reports that Georgia Power Company's average annual grcwth in territorial sales and peak demand through 1983 had been incorrectly forecast. The utility is stated to be already overbuilt. CPG names nine other generating units under construction along with the capacity of each. CPG claims this should compound GPC's overcapacity. Affiant reported further that the company had conceded to the Georgia'Public ) Service Commission that it had tried without success to sell its l I overcapacity to out of state utilities. Affiant's position is that even if additional capacity were needed, the facility would not be the best way to provide it. Johnson asserts conservation and solar energy are less injurious to the physical and human environment than Plant Vogtle would be. He claims that a solar water heating system could be installed on every household in Georgia at I less cost than that of completing the nuclear facility. The proposed water heating system, it is alleged, would provide more energy and jobs and have less environmental impact than completion and operation of l Plant Vogtle. Unnamed experts are relied uoon in support of the propositions. Conservation and passive solar measures are stated to have essentially no operating costs. No figures are submitted by Petitioner to support any of its assertions as to cost compariscns. Georgia Solar Coalition, Inc., a non-profit organization, in a notari:ed letter of May 28, 1984, submitted a figure of 22 M8tu as the typical
I. yearly demand for delivered energy for an electrical resistance domestic water heater for a family of four; 15.4 MBtu is the average yearly savings that can result from energy conservation measures and a standard active solar flat plate collector domestic hot water system. Petitioner states that it is clear that Plant Vogtle is not needed I to meet increased energy needs or to replace older, less' economical generating capacity. Affiant asserts that operating costs of the facility will exceed the total costs of many environmentally. preferable alternatives, including co-generation using existing industrial process steam, conservation measures consisting of increased insulation of homes and applications of solar energy for water and space heating. No details or figures are furnished. Petitioner also relies in the matter on a statement mace by a Commissioner of the Georgia Public Service Commission that unnamed experts are cuestioning whether large scale generating plants should l continue to be constructed and are of the position that an era of co-generation, combined cycle generation, photocell or light cell and fuel cell generation is being entered and that alternative scurces of generation should be studied. Applicants filed a response on June 11, 1954, alleging Fetitioner had failed to make a prima facie case for waiver as provicec in 10 C.F.R. 2.758 and ask that the request be denied. The pleading was supported by an affidavit from Georgia Power Company's senior vice president of marketing who is experienced in planning and rarketing of bulk power resources for the utility. f l
I Affiant noted that Georgia Power Company's currently available capacity includes nnly approximately one third of the new capacity additions which the Company had planned to construct a decada ago, achieved in part through cancelling units and selling interests in others under construction. He further pointed out that the Company's generating capacity is predominantly fossil fueled and that under nomal I procedures Plant Vogtle's capacity will be utilized in preference to fossil-fueled generation because its fuel costs will be icwer. Affiant g also reported that the majority of households in Georgia Power Ccmpany's service area use natural gas to provide hot water heating. Among other points, Applicants further asserted CPG makes no attempt to show that Plant Vogtle would not be used to replace older, less economical generating capacity, a vital requirement for making a prima facie case for waiver. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff tcck the same position in its response. Three of the owners, other than Georgia Power Company, now cwn a majority interest in the plant. l Based upon the foregoing record, we find that CPG has not made a prima facie showing that should result under 10 C.F.R. 2.758(d) in a certification of whether the regulation should be waived. Under 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c), if the presiding officer detemines that the petitioning party has not made a prima facie showing, the presidire officer may not further consider the matter. l A formidable burden is placed on one seeking a waiver of 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c). See Ducuesne Licht Company, et al., (Beaver Valley Pcwer Station, Unit 2), LBP-84-6, 19 f:RC 393, 401 403 (1984). Here Petiticner e
failed to make a prima facie showing that the Vogtle facility will not be needed to meet increased energy needs. It provided no probative information bearing on what will be the electrical energy requirements of Georgia Pcwer Company and its 3 partners who hold a majority interest, and their production capacity during the expected life of the facility. Without such informM ion it cannot be determined whether the proposed operating plant will represent needed or excessive capacity. The fact that Georgia Pcwer Company erroneously estimated it annual electricity sales growth and peak demand for a preoperational period does not establish- that the pcwer of the plant will not be needed during its planned life. The providing of the names and capacities of additional facilities Georgia Power Company has coming on line and I making known that Georgia Power Company had unsuccessfully attemoted to sell electricity out of state does not establish that Vogtle, when ready, will represent over-capacity. Applicants' affiant has furnished information shcwing that Georgia Power Company reduces plan ed capacity when the situation warrants. CPG has not provided sufficient infomation to provide a comprehensive picture of what electrical needs will be during the projected life of the plant and whether Vcgtle.will represent needed or excess capacity. Because CPG has failed to establish that the subject plant will not be needed for increasec energy needs, it has not provided a basis for waiver of 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c) and its petition must fail. Equally as fatal to its waiver claim is CPG's failure to shew that l l the facility would not be used to replace older, less econcmical ; l
I I generating capacity. The Comission's regulation barring need for power as an issue in an operating license application proceeding is based on the presumption the new nuclear plant would be used in that manner. Applicants' affiant states it will be so used. Petitioner has made no showing to overcome the presumption and the evidence that the plant would not be so used. Petitioner has not sustained its burden of proof I on this aspect of the waiver petition which must therefore be cenied. CPG has not made a prima facie case that an environmentally and economically superior alternative exists to the proposed Vogtle plant which could tip the NEPA cost benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. To be a viable alternative power source for the subject plant the substitute must be capable of serving the consumers in an equivalent manner that the power from the Vogtle plant could be used. Consumers must be abi'e to utilize the power from the substitute source in whatever varied ways' they see fit. Petitioner has not offered an alternative power source for the proposed plant. It proposes conservation and installation of solar water heating systems. Neither of these offers the consumer an alternative power source in the manner indicated. Petitioner only offers conservation in various forms, which the Commission concludes does not negate a need for the new plant. The Comission stated in its rulemaking on need for power at 47 Fed. Reg.12941: If conservation lowers demand, then utility companies take the most expensive operating plants off-line first. Thus a completed I I I
nuclear plant would be used as a substitute for less economical generating capacity. For the sake of argument, even if one were to consider conservation and# the solar water heating system an alternative energy source, Petitioner has offered nothing convincing and probative that they are environmentally and economically superior to the Vogtle plant. All that are offered are conclusional statements withcut factual support. The figures given by Georgia Solar Coalition, Inc. do not support the assertions made. Had the affiant been qualified as an expert.in the subject matter under discussion, which he had not been, Petitioner's prima facie case still would not have been made because what was offered were unsupported conclusions. Petitioner makes us aware that there are potentially beneficial energy sources other than from nuclear and fossil fuels and that research is being conducted on their use and more is being called for, but this does not meet the regulatory requirement of showing any of them to be currently environmentally and economically superior as an alternative to the Vogtle plant. Its request for waiver of 10 C.F.R. I 51.53(c) therefore must be denied. ! Having found that Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing for a waiver of 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c), under the prevision of 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c) we cannot consider the matter further. Consideration of the matter in Proposed Contention 2 being denied to us, the proposed contantion is not litigable and is therefore dismissed. lI I l s
. \
L
I I Proposed Contention 3. There is no reasonable assurance that Georgia Fewer Company and co-owners will have the financial ability to safely operata Plant Vogtle for the period of the license or to pemanently shut ccwn the facility and maintain it in a safe conditio., as required by 10 CFR 50.40(b), and other applicable laws, rules and regulations. Petitioner expects Georgia Power Company and the plants co-cwners will be subjected to hardships to the extent that their financial I ability to safely operate the plant for the period of the licensa anc w properly decor:nission it is questionable. The Comission promulgated on March 31, 1982 regulations, 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(1) and 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b) that eliminated as an issue the financial qualifications of an electric utility as an applicant in an operating license application proceeding. Applicants, in their response to Petitioner, pointed out that the Commission's rule barring financial qualifications in an operating license proceeding had been the subject of a recent remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in '.ew Encland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, No. 82-1581 (0, C. Cir. February 7,1984) and the Comission had undertaken a rulemaking proceeding to revalidate the proscription. Their pcsition is trat because the matter of financial qualifications is the subject cf rulemaking it is an inapprcpriate subject for a conte-tion in : e proceeding and at the very least the issue should be deferred penci g Comission guidance to the licensing boards. Staff in response noted that the Ccemission had met on April 26, 1984 to discuss policy guidance on financial qualification litigatien I I . I
~
~
I 1 and it recocunended that the matter be deferred pending a statement by the Commission. Staff subsequently reported that on June 7,1984, the Cctnission issued its Statement of Policy which concludes: Accordingly, the March 31, 1982 rule will continue in effect until finalization of the Cormissions response to the Court's remand. I The Comission directs its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel to proceed accordingly. The Comission's finding that the rule continues in effect proscribes us from considering the issue of financial qualifict. tion of utility applicants in an operating license application. The proposed contention is therefore distdissed. Proposed Contention 4 Withdrawn. Disposition of the Initially Identical Proposed Contentions of CPG and gaffe Procosed Contention 5. The applicant has not properly assessed the geology of the site and has not properly considered the geology of the site in the engineering design of the project, especially in light of new data E made available by the U.S. Geological Survey. This violates NRC E rules on seismic standards described in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. In their separate submittals of April 11, 1984, CPG and GANE cited U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information released in 1982 relating tc a postulated Millett fault about 7 miles from the Vcgtle site (USGS Open-File Report 82-156 (1982)), and to a USGS letter (J. F. Cevine to R. E. Jackson, November 16,1982) indicating that its investigati:ns of , I I I
I I the 1886 Cha'rleston Earthquake do not justify confining an event of that magnitude to the immediate environs of Charleston. We address each USGS matter separately. By the time the prehearing conference was held on f4ay 30,1954, CFG had amended proposed Contention 5 (submitted May 25, 198a) to delete inclusion of the postulated Millett fault, whereas GAliE retained the Millett fault as part of its contention (Tr. 18). Applicants anc Staff, in their submittals on May 7 and May 14, 1984, respectively, opposed including the Millett fault on the grounds that its existence is only l l speculative, and that the extent of overlying, undisturbed sediments provides reason for not considering it to be a capable fault. At the prehearing conference, CFG stated that recent discussions (about one week prior to the conference) with a USGS staff member indicated that the Millett fault lacked significance. GAfiE offered no basis in supcor?. l of its allegation that the Millett fault exists, is capable and should be censidered. Accordingly, we dismiss any consideration of the postulated Millett fault within the scope of Contention 5, because no adequate basis for its inclusion has been provided. The above action l I restores proposed Contention 5 to an identical status for CPG and GA.'iE involving only the Charleston earthquake. However, the Board is mirdful l of two considerations not addressed by the participants in :ne proceeding: a) Scard Notification 82-122A cf December 30,1982 (pro ::ted by the USGS reconsideration of the 1885 Charleston Earth-quake) wherein the Staff recercended that certain studies be undertaken as the result of this revised USGS positicn; and,. l I lI .
I 1
)
b) The issuance in April 1984 of NUREG/CR-3756, " Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States: Methodology and Interim Results for Ten Sites," which I considers ten sites including the Vogtle site and which appears to be the first report on certain of the studies recomended in BN 82-122A. In its letter of July 12, 1984, the Board asked the Staff to coment upon this matter as it relates to the proposed contention. The Staff's response of July 23, 1984 indicated that it sill discuss the impact upon Vogtle of its reassessment of the Charleston event in the Vogtle SER, currently scheduled to issue in June of 1985. Further, the Staff suggested that the Board's ruling on admissibility of this proposed contention be deferred until after the Vogtle SER issues. Other participants were also invited to comment upon the Board's inquiry. CPG filed coments on July 26, 1984 to include recognition of . the recommended reassessment program identified in BN 82-122A as well as recognition of the issuance of NUREG/CR-3756. CPG alleged that these matters constitute new information that justifies admission of the proposed contention. GANE did not respond. The Applicants, on July 27, 1984, filed coments in which they concluded that the publication of NUREG/CR-3756 did not cure the lack of a basis for the proposee contention and maintained that it should not be admitted. We find merit to the Staff's position regarding deferral. Accordingly, Petitioners are advised that within 30 days followir.g issuance of the SER they may amend this proposed contention if they consider that the SER contains a basis for such an amendment. Applicants and Staff will have the usual prescribed time for responses. I I I
I I Absent the filing of an amendment by either Petitioner in accordance with these instructicns, proposed Contention 5 (limited to the Charlesten earthquake) will be ruled on by the Board. Procosed Contention 6. The applicant cannot guarantee the safe operation of the reactor for the life of the plant due te unresolved questions of thermal shock effects on irradiated reactor I vessels as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendices A, G, and H and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Applicants and Staff both opposed the admission of this contentien for reasons that include lack of a shcwing that a specific basis exists for concern about pressurized thermal shock effects on the Vogtle reactor vessel, failure to show that the Applicants' analyses of thermal shock are flawed, and failure to justify inclusien of this unresolvec safety issue in the Vogtle proceeding. Petitioners' concern a:: cut the existence of copper and phosphorous in the reactor vessel alloy was not shcwn to relate to accelerated embrittlement. Finally, Petitioners' cer.cern about the cost to Applicants should the pressure vessel need to be heat treated during the operating lifetite of the Vcgtle plant is beyond the scope of this proceeding. During the prehearing conference discussion, Petitioners offered no additional information that woulc negate the objections raised by Applicant and Staff. We agree with tre position of Applicant and Staff; acccrdingly, the acmissicn cf ;;r0;;ose: l Contention 6 is denied on the grounds that it lacks a sufficion:ly particularized basis. I I I il .
- l I Proposed Contention 7.
Applicant has not adequately addressed the value of the I groundwater below the plant site and fails to provide adequate assurance that the groundwater will not be contaminated as required by 10 CFR 51.20(a), (b), and (c), 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), and 10 CFR 100.10(c)(3). Petitioners contend that the Tuscaloosa aquifer, which they state is located approximately 300 feet below the Plant Vogtle site, is a valuable regional resource of excellent quality water that supplies domestic water to many cities and cormunities across east central Georgia and the South Carolina coastal plain. They point out that the Tuscaloosa acquifer provides water for 15,000 people in Richmond County and most of the drinking water for residents of Girard,-lccated five miles from the plant, and of McBean, which is 13 miles from the plant. (GANE Supplement, April 11, 1984 at 15). In addition to the Tuscaloosa aquifer, Petitioners state that the Lisbon Sand Formation located approximately 200 feet below the Plant Vogtle is another valuable grcundwater source. They contend that this aquifer is important as an existing scurce of drinking water and to future development along the Savannah River. They state that Plant Vogtle's cooling system make-up water wells penetrate and obtain water from both the Lisbon Sand Formation and the Tuscaloosa aquifer. (: bid.) Finally, there is a water table aquifer located directly below tne surface at Plant Vogtle, and while Petitioners acknowledge that this aquifer is not as extensive as the two deeper aquifers discussed above, they contend that the water table aquifer is used in Burke Ccunty te supply water for agriculture and comercial establishments. I:bfd.) l
I Petitioners contend that any release of radioactive water on site would quickly contaminate the water table aquifer because at the site the soils are sandy and pemeable and there is little runoff. They argue that radioactive contamination of the water table aquifer could endangerthepublichealthandcauseeconomichardship(M.,at15-16). They argue, further, that contamination of the water table acquifer I could result ultimately in contamination of the Lisben Sand Fo mation and the Tuscaloosa aquifer, by vertical movement of contaminated water through fractures in the clay separating the aquifers, or through pemeable sections of the clay. (Id., at 16.) In a GANE filing of June 13, 1984, Mr. W. F. Lawless discusses at length various sources of contaminants at the Savannah River Plant (SRP). He also states that the Tuscaloosa aquifer has produced contaminated water in at least five wells, including two drinking water supply production wells. The contaminants appear to have been chlorinated hydrocarbons, however, not radioactive material. (GANE filing, June 13, 1984 at 13). The hydrocarbons, however, conceivably could have come from the M-Area at SRP. (Id. , at 13-14.) Mr. Lawless alleges, further, that ground water above the Tuscalcosa aquifer is severly contaminated. (Id,.. at 18). Applicants discuss the water table acuifer and the Tuscalcosa aquifer, but do not acknowledge a Lisbon Sand Fomation acuf fer between I I I
the two.I Applicants state that a 60- to 70-foot thick marl fomation makes contamination of the Tuscaloosa aquifer unlikely. They ackncwledge that an accidental release could contaminate the water table aquifer, but state that spillage at the plant would eventually make its way to Mathes Pond via the water table aquifer and from there by a (Applicants' Response, Ma'y 7, 1984 at stream to the Savannah River. 42-43; Tr. 139-142)
'The Staff objects to the admission of Contention 7 on the grounds that Petitioners have raised no new facts to call into question the assessment of ground water problems at the construction permit proceeding. In addition, Staff has difficulty in discerning the gravamen of the contention, or whether it addresses nomal operation or accident conditions. (Staff Response, May 14, 1984 at 12)
The Board has no difficulty in discerning the gravamen of the contention: it is that the Petitioners are concerned that an accidente.1 spill of radioactive water on the site could result in radioactive I Applicants do state that there is a third aquifer in the region, which they characterize as the " principal artesian aquifer"; because the principal artesian aquifer is not hydraulically I isolated frem the Tuscaloosa aquifer, however, Applicants elect :o refer to the combination as the Tuscaloosa aquifer. Response, May 7, 1984, n. 27 at 42-43). (Apelicants' It is not clear wnet.her l I the principal "esian aquifer is distinct from , or synonymcus with , the Lisbor. ' ind Formaticn acuifer. GANE refers to the principal artesian aquifer, also, but characterizes it as being "a major regional water supply aquifer" located just south cf Plar.: I Vogtle, and GANE seems to suggest that in that reginn the clay that separates the water table aquifer from the deeper aquifer changes to a permeable limestone (GANE Supplerent, April 11, 1984 at 16). I
i I l contamination of the shallow, and possibly the deeper, aquifers under Plant Vogtle, all of which are used as public water supplies. .W reover, from the infomation provided in the pleadings and at the Special Prehearing Conference, we are not convinced that radioactive contaminants that might get into the water table aquifer could not get into deeper aquifers. We believe that the retitioners have, indeed, raised new information concerning contamination of the Tuscaloosa aquifer; this fact, if true, suggests to us that the Tuscaloosa aquifer may not be as isolated from the surface as Applicants would have us believe. In addition, we feel we need to detemine whether there are one or two deep aquifers, and whether these are hydraulically connected anywhere in the vicinity of the plant. For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the Petitioners have raised a litigable issue in Contention 7. Therefore Contention 7 is accepted for litigation in this proceeding. Proposed Contention 8. Applicant has failed to enforce a quality assurance program in the construction of Plant Vogtle that provides adequately for the safe functioning of diverse structures, systems anc I components, as required by 10 CFR Appendix 2. In their separate submittals of April 11, 1984, both Petitioners originally proposed the same identical contention (as stated abcve) and offered identically worded bases to support it. These bases in !ucec a discussion of standby diesel gener.ator problems, which tcpic both Petitioners proposed to exclude from this contention and to include same in a new Contention 14 proposed by each Petitioner. Staff and r*
I
~
Applicants offered no objection to this change (Tr. 62-63). New proposed Contention 14 will be addressed belcw. CPG, in its filing of May 25, 1984, revised its Contention 8 to read as follows: Applicant has not and will not implement a quality assurance and quality control program which will function as required I by 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8. By restricting quality assurance methods to explicitly designated procedures in disregard to more comprehensive standards of engineering practice, the Applicant has undemined confidence in the critical function-ing of welds in both the reactor coolant and containment systems of Plant Vogtle. CPG stated that its revised contention is restricted to a consideration of welds (Tr. 41) and that the contention faults both the quality assurance program and its implementation (Tr. 62), as they apply to the adequacy of welds. The supporting basis of this reyised contention cites certain irregularities involving weldments. During the prehearing conference, CPG explained that it was not cceplaining abcut the adequacy of specific welds, per se, but rather that the methodolcgy of the quality assurance program and its implementation do not generate confidence that welding practices generally meet the professional standards intended by the NRC regulations and ASME code recuirements (Tr. 41-43). By contrast, GANE, at the prehearing ccnference stated that it hac l also modified its proposed contention, but in a different manner than CPG. GANE promised a copy of its revised language (Tr. a8), but tne Board is unaware of its having been submitted. Thus, we assume that GANE is adhering to the original statement of the contention cited
I - ?2 - above. By way of amplification, gat;E stated that "systemmatic quality assurance deficiencies have existed and continue without resolution in the following areas . . ." (Tr. 49). Those areas were identified by gat 4E (Tr. 49) as "[p] roper welding, vendor surveillance, inspection, testing, implementation of procedures and procurement." The Board is thus now confronted with two different proposed Contentions 8 frcm CPG and GANE. Applicants' submittal of May 7, 1984 presents a lengthy detailed rebuttal supporting the adequacy of their QA program in which they make, in sur=ary, the following points:
- No violations were more severe than severity levels IV and V; I - Applicants identified and voluntarily corrected many of the anomalous conditions adverted to;
- NRC SALP and I&E reports cormended the Applicants' QA program; and
- Intervenors' identification of several anomalous matters cces not impugn the adequacy of Applicants' OA program but rather evidences a lack of appreciaticn of how a CA program functions. (Applicants' Response,tiay 7, 1984, at pp. 46-63).
The Staff, in its May 14, 1984 response found the original proposed contention broad and lacking in specificity; and judged the contention not to be susceptible to focused litigation (Staff Response at pp. 12-13). During discussion at the conference, Staff counsel o;;ined that CPG's amended and narrowed contention approaches admissibility. However, Staff still considers the gat:E contention to be too bread to be admitted (Tr. 56-57). l
I Despite the representations of Applicants and Staff, the Board is ] concerned about the possible impact upon the operational safety of the i Vogtle plant in view of the many instances of noncompliance that have been cited. Thus, we feel that an evidentiary inquiry is justified to determine whether Applicants have fomulated and implemented an adecuate QA program. Although we do not decide the merits of the'se two proposed Contentions 8 at this time, we are mindful of the concerns of Applicants and Staff with respect to what a' focused litigation might comprise: they and we have a right to know more specifically what is to be litigated. Accordingly, the Board now instructs Applicants, Staff, CPG and GANE to confer about the language of these contentions with the objective of rewording them in a manner that is susceptible to more focused ligation; and the Petitioners should consider consolidating the two contentions. The results of such a conference (be it a stipulation as to acceptable wording or statements of positions regarding the reasons for continued disagreement) are to be reported to the Scarc 30 days after service of this Memorandum and Order subsequent to which we will rule upon its acceptability. Proposed Contentions CPG 8 and GANE 8 are admitted to the extent indicated. Procosed Contention 9. Novel design features must be discussed and described adequately in the PSAR and FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.34. The Applicant has embarked on the implementation of the reactor coolant system primary loop at Plant Vogtle using a pipe restraint system design that differs substantially from that currently required. Although assertions of the effectiveness of this new design have been issued, substantiating mechanical modelling and empirical justificatien have been withheld. The Applicant has therefore failed to provide even
I I the minimal information required to understand and assess the safety repercussions of this innovative design. At the Special Prehearing Conference Applicants agreed to provide Petitioners with additional information on the matter under a protective proprietary agreement. CPG agreed that within 30 days after receiving the document it would either decide to amend or withdraw the proposed contention. GANE agreed that it would follow suit. By letter dated July 26, 1984, CPG notified the Board of its withdrawal of proposed Contention 9. No separate expression was received from GANE.- Based on Petitioners' taking identical positions for the handling of the proposed contention at the Special Prehearing Conference, we consider it withdrawn from the proceeding. Proposed Contention 10. Applicant has not shown that safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment and components will be environmentally qualified at the onset of operations and throughout the life of the plant as required by General Design Criteria 1, 2 and 4 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A and other applicable NRC rules. In their submittal of May 7, 1984, Applicants used the identical supporting discussions of CPG and GANE to identify eleven specific subcontentions; Applicants then addressed the admissibility of each. At the prehearing conference Staff and the Petitioners agreed to this breakdown into eleven subcontentions as the basis for determining admissibility and the scope of any litigation of this contention. Staff's request to cement upon each of these was granted (Tr. 77-78). We now discuss each subcontention. I e
I' l
- 2s -
)
10.1 Integrated Dose vs Dose Rate This subcontention alleges that Applicants' testing methods are inadequate because the Applicants only use high levels of radiation or integrated dose. Petitioners cite research perfomed at Sandia I Laboratory for the proposition that many materials, including polymers found in cable insulation and jackets, seals, rings and ' gaskets at Vogtle may experience greater damage from lower dose rates. !n its submittal of June 27, 1984 (affidavit accompanying same) Applicants' affiant quotes Regulatory Guide 1.131 as limiting the qualification test 0 exposure rate to 10 rad /hr. Neither Applicants nor Staff (in its June 20, 1984 submittal) object to tnis subcontention if it is restricted to the polymers identified in the Sandia study report NUREG/CR-2157, l " Occurrence and Imp 1tcations of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for Material Aging Studies," June 18, 1981. With this restriction to the particular polyrers so identified, Subcontention 10.1 is admitted for litigation. 10.2 Synergism This topic deals with another Sandia study examining the effects of synergism. Petitioners state that this Sandia study (NUREG/CR-2156,
" Radiation-Thermal Degradation of PE and pVC: Fechanism of Synergisms and Dose-Rate Effects," June 1981) examined the combined effects of radiation, heat, and (in some experiments) oxygen concentration and determinated that "the greatest amount of degradation was found upon exposure to heat followed by exposure to radiation." Petitioners further allege that the existence of synergistic effects established by this report have not been considered by the Applicants.
I I
I The Staff does not object to admitting this subcontention (Staff Supplemental Response, June 20,1984). However, the Applicants, in their May 7, 1984 Response, note that the Vogtle FSAR does address synergistic effects in cables. The Board's review of the FSAR indicates that the results of cable testing (cables are said (without reference) to be the only component in which synergism has been, identified) will not be available until testing has been completed. Thus cables, at least, are being tested for synergistic effects, an example that Applicants point out seems to have been ignored by Petitioners. Nor can we find that Petitioners have identified any other equipment or components which they believe to be susceptible to synergistic effects, despite the Sandia report's identification of PE and PVC as possibly susceptible materials. We find this subcontention to lack a specific basis and we deny its admissibility. 10.3 Cable in Multiconductor Confinurations Again, Petitioners cite a Sandia study (not identified) for the I proposition that in tests of EFR cable material, multicanductor I configurations performed "substantially worse" than single conductor configurations and that qualification testing impling only single ccnductors may not be representative of multicceductor perfor ance. Petitioners further allege that the results of this report have not been censidered in Applicants' testing program. The Staff does not cbject to the admission of this subcontention, nor do Applicants. Based on the foregoing reasons, we admit Subcontention 10.3. lI i
I 10.4 Tenninal Blocks l Applicants' affiant states that there are no teminal blocks associated with safety-related applications that will be exposed to, and therefore need to be qualified in, a steam environment (Affidavit attached to Applicants' letter response of June 27,1984). In its letter response of July 26, 1984, CPG withdrew this subc'entention. Although Staff had previously offered no objection to the acmission of this subcontention and GANE has not responded to Applicants' affidavit, there appears to be no basis for its support. We deny its admission. 10.5 Solenoid Valves This subcontention challenges the qualification of. solenoid valves used at Vogtle. The contentien is based upon test results perfonned by ASCO and Franklin Research Center and upon an NRC Board Notification issuance. The Staff and the Applicants do not object to the admission of this subcontention. Having found a sufficient basis for, and no opposition to, the admission of this subcontention, the Scard deens it to be acceptable for litigation. 10.6 Limitoroue Motor Operators Petitioners cite IE Notice 81-29 for the propcsition that motor l operators manufactured by Limitorque has exhibited failures upcn exposure to steam spray. Further tests by Westinghcuse confin eo tne unacceptability of the motor design. Applicants' affiant (citation above) stated that new motors designed by Westinghouse and Limitorque had been successfully qualified in a 420*F steam environment, and that these new motors have been ordered as replacements. This would seem to I ' I .
I I moot this matter; and, indeed, CPG, by letter of July 26, 1984, advised that CPG will not raise this issue. Although GANE has not replied, we consider this issue to be mooted and we deny admission of the instant subcentention.
,10.7 Hydrocen Recembiners Petitioners have presented three ingredients in this subcontention:
a) Rockwell catalytic recombiners have corrponents that did not pass certain environmental qualification tests; b) The entire recombiner system, as a unit, has not been qualified; and I c) A recombiner with unqualified transducers was delivered to another nuclear facility. The Applicants' responses have mooted (a) and rebutted (c) by pointing out that a Westinghouse electric recombiner is to be used in the Vogtle plant (Applicants' Response, May 7,1984, at p. 69), and by stating through its affiant that no pressure transducers are contained in the Westinghouse unit (Affidavit accompanying Applicants' letter response of June 27,1984). Petitioners do not clarify whether item (c), above, exclusively relates to pressure transducers; nor do , Applicants make clear that there are no transducers nf any type cresent in their recombiner. Furthermore, althcugh the attachments to the above cited affidavit indicate that radiation testing of certain rec mbirer components have been perforred,'these attachrents have been expurgatec in a manner that does not report nor pertnit a critique of scme of the test results. For this reason, it is difficult to determine whether a radiation-hot steam environmental test of the overall recombiner unit is I I ' g .
1 I l g ! appropriate. The Staff does not oppose the admission of the portion of this subcontention dealing with the radiation testing of sansducers. We believe further inquiry is necessary in the areas embraced by the following questions: Are there any types of transducers or sensors important to the proper functioning of the Vogtle electric type I hydrogen recombiner in an accident environment that require environmental cualification testing in an accident environment; if so, what testing is planned or completed and with what results? If environmental qualification testing in an accident environment of an entire prototype recombiner is not I required, what is the basis for this conclusion? If such testing is planned or has been completed, what is the nature of the test and what criteria exist for asse: sing the acequacy of the test results? The Board deems the subcontention to be acceptable for litigation. 10.8 Fire Protection Petitioners contend that Applicants have not satisfied 10 C.F.R. 50.48 with respect to a showing that in the event of a fire the Vogtle plant can be safely shut down. They cite the lack of an NRC testing program on the qualification of safety equipment against fire, and a challenge by the Union of Concerned Scientists of the adequacy of NRC's fire protection requirements. There is no such NRC testing pregram and no regulatory requirement that Applicants' safety equipment satisfy an NRC testing program. Nor have Petiticners identified any portien of the Vcgtle plant wherein specific safety features, eouipment or ccmponents have not met applicable regulatory requirements. Applicants and Staff would have us deny this subcontention as lacking any specific or particularized basis. Applicants further allege that the subcentention I
~
l
I challenges the Comission's regulations regarding environmental qualification and fire protection. We find that the lack of an adequate basis is sufficiently compelling to justify denial, without addressing the question of an attack upon the regulation. Thus, the Board denies admission of Subcontention 10.8. 10.9 Seismic Oualifications Intervenors cite NUREG-0606 (Unresolved Safety Issues Sunrary, August 20,1982) for the proposition that design criteria and methods for seismic qualification of equipment in nuclear plants have undergone significant change, requiring a reassessment of Vogtle. However, they fail to note that USI-46 (Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants), which we assume to be the focus of their attention, is addressed to the question of the need for any backfitting of operating plants.. No nexus to Vogtle is offered nor is any specific Vogtle plant equipment or component alleged to have not met seismic l qualification requirements. We agree with Applicants and Staff that this subcontention lacks an adequate basis. We deny the admission of Subcontention 10.9. 10.10 Shortcomings to Oualification Methodologies This subcontention is vaguely based upon a Sandia Laboratory consideration,of the adequacy of qualification methodologies apolied to the testing of safety equipment. Petitioners identify no metheds applied to components or equipment associated with Vogtle that wculd cast doubt upon any safety feature of the plant. Absent more, we again must agree with Staff and Applicants that there is an insufficient basis I ll . !I
to define or support a litigable issue. We deny the admission of' Subcontention 10.10. 10.11 Accident Parameters Petitioners cite post THI-2 accident investigation issues raised in 1979 for the proposition that accident parameters and post-accident functionality requirement times for Vogtle safety featur'es have not been given proper consideration. Again, no specific Vogtle inadequacies have been identified that fail to meet the Commission's upgraded (1983) qualification requirements; and again we agree with Applicants and Staff I that no definitive basis has been provided to support a litigable issue. We deny admission of Subcontention 10.11. Proposed Contention 11. In its amended supplemental petitions filing of May 25, 1984, CPG altered its version of proposed Contention 11. At the May 30, 1984 prehearing confe'rence, GANE stated that it agreed with this change. Thus, the proposed contention now reads as follows: Applicants' failure to consider defects in the Vogtle steam generator system constitutes an undue risk to public health I and safety in violation of 10 CFR 50.34(b) and 20 CFR 50 Appendices A and B. Petitioners cite an NRC surrary of Unresolved Safety !ssues (August 20,1982) for the proposition that Westinghouse PWR steam, generator tubes have shown evidence of degradation from several causes. Thus Petitioners have safety concerns about Vogtle, during nomal operation and under accident conditions, that they allege Applicants have not considered. Petitioners cite the following causes of steam generator I
I l I . tube degradaticn: "corrcsien inducad tastage, cracking, r:ct:.'en.fr tube diameter, degrad:tica due to bubble collapse <.2ter h:.m a r :.r r. vibration-induced faticus crachs." (Suppiscent to Fa:iticn, fiin ' .-i; 11, 1984, p. 26, and CPG's Second Amendment to Supplement, filed June 1 I l i 13, 1984, p. 1). ,,, Applicants cita Vogtle FSAR references wherein specific measures I are described to protect against water hammer effects and corrosion effects that include denting and stress corrosion cracking. Petitioners have not indicated in what specific manner any of these measures adcpted by Applicants are inadequate. Applicants do not, however, adcress bubble collapse nor vibration-induced fatigue cracking mechanisms for tube degracaticn :nat could contribute to accidents associated with tube failure cccasioned by these mechanisms. The Board concludes that an evidentiary airing of a selected portion of this contention is appropriate. Hence we admit for litigation proposed Contention 11 restated and narrowed in scope as follows: 3 Applicants have not demonstrated their basis for confidence that no unacceptable radiation releases will occur as tne I 5 result of steam generator tube failures occasiered by , vibration-induced fatigue cracking and oy bubble collapse within the yogtle steam generators.
~
Proposed Contention 12. The applicant has not properly assessed the amount of salt and chlorine gas release from the cooling towers and the extent of consecuent adverse agricultural and environmental damage in the area of Plant Vogtle. I I I I
I The gravamens of this contention are that (1) the expected salt drift from the Plant Vogtle cooling towers is in the range that can damage vegetation; and (2) chlorine gas will also be released from the cooling towers, and no consideration was given this fact in *,he Vogtle CP-FES or the OL Environmental Report (OL-ER). Petiticners p.: int out that the CP-FSAR estimates salt drift to be at the annual rate cf 305 pounds per acre within one mile of the plant, and they state that in the I OL-ER this rate of salt deposition "is admitted to be presently considered to be in the range of potential damage to vegetation." (GANE Supplement, April 11, 1984, at 29) In fact, their citation to the OL-ER referred to a question from Staff to Applicants relating to the l conclusion in the CP-FES that a deposition of 305 lbs/ acre / year would be negligible. The Staff indicated that such a rate of deposition is ncw considered to be damaging to plant corrunities. (CL-ER,Cuestion l E290.3, Amend.1, 2/84) With regard to chlorine, Petitioners argue that chlorine gas will be injected into the circulating water system at a maximum rate of 10,000 pounds per day; consequently there is the - potential for the release of thousands of pounds of chlorine gas per day from the cooling tcwers. They argue that the releasec chlorine may have an adverse environmental' effect, and its impact has not been assessed. I I I I
I I Applicants responded by stating that the impact of the expected salt drift was assessed in the CP-FES and determined to be negligible.2 Further, Applicants stated that in the OL-ER the estimate has been revised dcwnward to 31 lbs/ acre / year on-site and 21 lbs/ acre / year off-site. (Applicants Response, at 78-80) With regard to chlorine, Applicants acknowledged that chlorine would be used to prevent bio-fouling of the cooling towers, and Applicant's counsel commented cn the chemical behavior of chlorine in the cooling tower water. (Tr. 91-93) Petitioners challenged the revised salt drift estimates during the Special Prehearing Conference, and stated that the NRC Staff had suggested that the calculation might have to be redone. Petitioners alleged, further, that the OL-ER did not describe how the recalculation
, was perforced. (Tr. at 88-89) Our own inspection of the CL-ER, supplied to us by the Applicants subsecuent to the Special Prehearing Conference, revealed that the Applicants' reassessnent of salt deposition was based on the salt deposition reduction ratio obtainec from data on salt drift deposition at Susquehanna. No detailed 2 At first glance it might appear that the Staff's fincing in the CP-FES that a deposition rate of 305 lbs/ acre / year would have a regligible impact is contradictory to the Staff's statement ir I Ouestion 290.3 of the OL-ER. We note, however, that in Cuestion 290.3 Staff stated that 305 lbs/ acre / year is " presently consice ec" I to be potentially damaging to vegetation, and we assume that tne apparent change in position by Staff resulted from information accrued since the Cp-FES was prepared.
I I . I , l
I infomation about the reassessment was presented, however. (OL-ER, Response to Question 451.17, Amend. 1, 2/84) The Staff opposes this contention on the grounds that the Petitier.ers have shown no new information that has become available since the CP stage. (Staff Response, at 15) In response to a questien from the Board, Staff counsel stated that he believed that the te:hnical Staff was working on another salt drift calculation. (Tr. 94) Applicants' reassessed salt drift estimates are certainly new, contrary to Staff's assertion that the Petitioners have failed to show that new information has become available since the CP stage of this proceeding. Applicants point out that it would be ludicrous to assert an order of magnitude reduction in the estimates as a basis for re-opening this question. We would agree, were it not for the fact tnat the Staff apparently is still working on its own calculations of salt drif t or still working on its review of Applicants' reassessment; or both. We are unwilling to accept as dispositive the meager infcrmation about the reassessment contained in responses to questions in the OL-ER, absent an evalution of the reassessment by Staff. We desire a more definitive estimate and a determination of whether that amount will be damaging to vegetation. Moreover, we are also dissatisfied with the record on the ef'ects f of chlorine; more definitive information is required on this matter as well. I I I I '
I l We conclude that the Petitioners have raised issues in this 1 contention that need to be litigated. Therefore proposed Centention 12 is admitted. Proposed Contention 13. - Petitioner contends that Applicants' proposed emergency plan fails to ensure that protective measures can and will be taken in the event of.a I radiological mishap at Plant Vcptle as reqcired by 10 CFR 50.33, 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E to Part 50. . I
~
Prior to the holding of the Special Prehearing Conference on May 30, 1984, CPG, GANE, Applicants and Staff met and it was agreed Petitioners would refile Proposed Contention 13 based upon information contained in emergency plans of Richmond and Burke Counties, expected sometime in the fall of 1984 It has been agreed by the participants, in which we concur, that the revised contention is not to be considered a late filing subject to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) pertaining to tardy filings, if filed within the time prescribed for its submission. Applicants have a target date of October l',1984 to revise their I emergency plans. It was represented that the revision is to contain the Richmond and Burke County emergency plans. Based upon the foregoing, issuance of Applicants' emergency plans should provide the basis for measuring the time from when the revised proposed contention is due. Petitioners have 30 days frcm the issuance of Applicants' emergency plan in which to respond. Applicants and Staff are given the time prescrioed in the regulations in which to reply. I I
I
~
l l E Proposed Contention 14. There is no reasonable assurance that the emergency diesel generators manufactured by TDI to be used at I Plant Vogtle will provide a reliable and independent source of on-site pcwer as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A General Design Criteria #17, in that I adequate design, manufacture and QA/QC have resulted in substandard engines which are subject to common made failures. , E The bases for the proposed contention were contained in three paragraphs which were originally a part of CPG's Proposed Contention 8 and an identical GANE contention. Prior to the holding of the Special Prehearing Conference on May 30, 1984 they were removed and made the - bases for Proposed Contention 14 We find the proposed contention has adequate bases for a litigable contention. CPG stated that Applicants were made aware of problems with the diesel generators manufactured by Transamerican Delaval, Inc. as early as December 1981. Applicants reported problems on two occasions with components that could result in the nonavailability of engines. Another defect was reported as late as September 1983. Petitioner further asserts Applicants should have made a general assessment of the suitability of the Transamerican Delaval, Inc. diesel generator for this important emergency function and alleges tnat its
~
failure to do so has brought Applicants' own quality centrol capabilities into question, undermining confidence in the safe functioning of its operating plant in contradiction to NRC QA requirements. I I
l iI E At the Special Prehearing Conference both Applicants and Staff stated that they had no objection to the contention. We find Contention 14 to be admissible and it is so admitted. Disposition of the Gane Proposed Contentions Proposed Contention 1. g Applicant has not adequately nor correctly assessed. the
- g potential release of radionuclides from Plant Vogtle during nor al,
- transient, and accident conditions, nor the somatic, terategenic l and genetic effects of the ionizing radiation. Applicant thJs fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34, 50.36, 20.10,
I 20.203 and Appendix I of Part 50, and, further, underestimates the human cost of the project in the cost-benefit analysis requifed by 10 CFR 51.21, 51.20(b) and (c) and 52.23(a). !E 3 The Board cannot discern a basis for this contention. GANE argues: that the existing radiological burden of people residing in the area l resulting from releases at the SRP has not been considered by the Applicants; that low-level radiation has a cumulative effect (citing J. Goffman); that doses to which pregnant and lactating wcmen would be exposed and the effects of those doses have not been assessed; tha*. the risk of releases to the food chain (including the human food chain) has not been considered; and that radiocesium released into the Savannah River will pose an unacceptable threat to persons consuming fish from the river. (GANE Supplement, April 11, 1984 at 1-3). These assertiens I might be considered sub-contentions, but they fail to inform us on what basis GANE believes the estimates of releases have not been adequately or correctly assessed. I . 1 I lE
J B Applicants, who oppose admission of this contention, point out that GANE has failed to explain why it believes the estimates contained in i the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) are incorrect. Applicants argue, further, that the environmental assessments and cost benefit balancing required by 10 C.F.R. Part 51 are the responsibility of the NRC Staff and not the Applicants. (Applicants' Response, May 7, 1984 at 10-21). Staff also opposes admission of this contention on the grounds that GANE has not stated with adequate specificity the bases for its concerns. Staff characterizes the contentions as a " generalized discussion stating that operation of the plant will involve envirormental impacts without specifying what these impacts will be." (StaffResponse,May 14, 1984'at 4). At the Special Prehearing Conference held in Augusta, Georgia,' cn May 30, 1984, the Board expressed its reservations with regard to the vagueness of the contention and the lack of bases for it. The Soard provided GANE's representatives an opportunity to shore up the contention by an oral presentation. GANE responded by stating that it lacked the engineering and scientific expertise to really assess the data in the FSAR, but that it "just seems that there are [ radiation levels that are in question." Tr. at 100-101. The 30ard agrees with the position of the Staff. GANE's Contention 1 is not specific enough to put the Applicants on notice as to what they must defend against, nor has GAME set forth any specific bases for the contention, as is required by 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b). Further, the I I L
I Applicants are correct in stating that compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51, which sets forth the NRC's policy and procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852), is the responsibility of the NRC Staff and not the l Applicants. NEPA requires that all acencies of the Federal Government conduct a careful consideration of environmental aspects of any major agency action which might significantly affect the quality of the human environment. (See 10 C.F.R. 51.1-(a) and (b).) No such requirement is placed on the Applicants by NEPA, although 10 C.F.R. 51.20 does require an applicant to submit an environmental report with an application for a construction permit or an cperating license. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that GANE's Contention 1 must be dismissed. Procosed Contention 2. Applicant has failed to assess the environmental and public health effects of the addition of Plant Vogtle within 20 miles cf the SRP and to quantify this factor in its consideration in I violation of 10 CFR 20.103, 50.34(a)(4), 51.21, 51.23(b),104, 105, 105 and 201. GANE argues that Applicants have failed to adequately address the cumulative impact on health and safety, and on the environment, of radioactive releases projected for Plant Vogtle plus those fren the SFP. GANE places particular emphasis on the proposed reactivation by the Department of Energy (D0E) of the L-reactor at SRP; it alleges that 00E has failed to make an adequate assessment of the impact of again operating the L-reactor, and that therefore it is i.rpossible for i I E .
Applicants to accurately assess the cumulative impact of Plant Vogtle and the SRP facilities. (GANE Supplement, April 11, 1984 at 3-7) At the Special Prehearing Conference GANE stated that within the week preceding the conference, additional new infomation had become available as a result of the issuance of the environmental impact statement for the reactivation of the L-reactor and the release by COE of documents that apparently had been previously classified. GANE , argued that this infomation had'not been, but should be, considered by the Applicants in assessing the cumulative impact of Plant Vogtle and the SRP facilities. (Tr. 109-110) Counsel for Applicants stated that Applicants have addressed the cumulative effects in the CP-FSAR, but GANE's representative stated that the new information indicated that the SRP releases are greater that those estimated at the time of the Vogtle construction permit. (Tr. 110-111). Applicants maintained, further, that because the proposal to reactivate the L-reactor occurred after the proposal to construct Piant Vogtle, the responsibility for considering the cumulative effects of releases from the two plants fell on DOE, not Applicants. (Tr. 112) Counsel for Applicants indicated that the final environmental impact statement for the L-reactor did assess the cumulative effects of SRP, Plant Vogtle, and other potential facilities in the area; he stated that l E he thought the tritium estimate was higher but other estimates were 1 l lower. (Tr. 113) I I - 1 1 l
~
I Counsel for Staff argued that the only incremental impact open for litigation in this proceeding was that from Plant Vogtle. Staff argues that other facilities contributing to the cumulative effect must be accepted as a given for this hearing because this Board and the NRC has licensing authority over only Vogtle. (Tr. 116-117) Subsequent to the Special Prehearing Conference, GANE filed an amplification to ,its bases in support of Contention 2.3 (GANE filing, June 13, 1984). The GANE filing consists primarily of a discussion of 3 GANE's untitled document containing amplified bases for Contention 2 was filed on June 13, 1984. (GANE filing, June 13, 1984 ,at I 1-2.) In it, GANE addressed the five factors which must be considered pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714 (a)(1) when a party seeks admission of a late-filed contention. Staff stated that this effort by GANE was nisplaced; Staff has never asserted that the I " amended" centention is late-filed. Indeed, Staff pointed out that in the Staff Response dated May 14, 1984, it had suggested that GANE consider information available to it and either explain wny the information is inadequate or why it shows some specific I indication of harm to the public. (Staff Response, Jure 27, 1984 , , at 4). i l The Applicants, on the other hand, took the position that the tardy ) filing could only be accepted upcn a showing that the five factors 3 set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) militate in favor of the 3 Petitioner. Applicants argued that none of the five factors should be decided in favor of the Petitioner and~ urged us to disa11cw the late-filed document. E GANE's filing consists of a document prepared by W. F. Lawles:;, who gave an oral presentation of bases to support Contentien 2 at :ne Special Prehearing Conference. (Tr. 118-121) We view :he material I contained in GANE's filing as providing essentially an amplification of the material contained in the oral statement of Mr. Lawless. We agree with Staff that we need not apply the I criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.7141(a)(1) for censidering a late-filed contention. Therefore we have accepted and censidered the GANE filing. I I ~
II I I June 13, 1984).- The GANE filing consists primarily of a discussion of radioactive releases from SRP facilities and groundwater contamination resulting from SRP releases. The filing fails to address, except in vague, unmeaningful terms, the incremental impact of Vogtle. Nor does it attempt to show how or why the assessment of SRP releases contained I in the Vogtle FSAR is in error or needs to be reexamined. Consequently the filing fails to provide support for Contention 2. - Finally, it appears to this' Board that GANE's primary concern is with the radioactive releases and environmental contamination resulting from the operation of the L-reactor and other facilities at the SRP. This Board and the NRC have no responsibility or authority over the SRP. GANE may want to a'ddress its concerns about the L-reactor and other SRP l facilities to DOE, the agency responsible for those facilities. For the foregoing reasons, we find GANE Contention 2 inadmissable for litigation in this proceeding. Proposed Contention 3. Applicant fails to show that the fear caused by living adjacent to a nuclear facility will not threaten the security and well-being of the s corrmunity, in violation of various laws and rules and regulations. The gravamen of the 3roposed contention is that Applicants fail to address the alleged psycholo9 Mal impact of the threat of nuclear contamination or nuclear explosiori uoon the public. Petitioner asserts that laws, which were unspecified, requee Applicants to do so. To tne contrary, the law does not place any such requirement upon any of the parties.
. l N _ _ _ . _ _
I - I The Comission in 1982 instructed Licensing Boards not to entertain j psychological stress contentions absent evidence of a " unique and traumatic" nuclear accident in the vicinity of the plant. Consideration of Psychological Stress Issues; Policy Statement, 47 Fed. Reg. 31762 (1982). There is no allegation that there has been a " unique and traumatic" nuclear accident in the vicinity of Vogtle. The rule
, prohibits consideration of the proposed contention.
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Metropolitan Edison Comoany v. People Against Nuclear Energy, -U.S. ,102 S. Ct.1556 (1983) held that the National Environmental Policy Act does not require the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to consider whether risk of accident might cause harm to psychol'ogical health and community well-being of residents of the surrounding area, in deciding whether to permit a company to resume operations. The case held that NEPA must address environmental effects of federal action; and the effects must have a close ccnnecticn to the physical environment, which stress, a psychological condition, does not meet. Proposed Contention 3 does not present the Board with a matter that it can consider. It is therefore dismissed. Proposed Contention 4 The Applicant has underestimated the danger to lives ar.d health of human, livestock and plants exposed to the electro-magnetic radiation of the proposed 500 KV transmission lires from plant Vogtle in violation of 10 CFR 51.20 and 51.21 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321 et I seq. I. O
Petitioner cited several authorities for the alleged proposit. ion that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is injurious to health in general; and, in particular, that Applicants' proposed 500 kv transmission lines will produce undesirable health effects. In their responses of May 7,1984 and during the prehearing conference, Applicants provided information demonstrating that, taken in full I context, none of the cited authorities in, reality provides a substantive l basis of support for this contention. Additionally, Applicants hold that GANE has not identified any inadequacies in Applicants' and Staff's construction permit evidentiary assessment. Petitioners countered that there have been fr.cidents (unspecified and undetailed in nature) of farmers having been knocked off of their tractors while working in the vicinity of transmission lines. No attempt was made to relate such incidents to conditions that might obtain around Vogtle type transmission lines, accepted by the prior Board at the CP stage. Applicants ar.d Staff both find the basis for this contention to be inadequate. We concur, and we deny admission of proposed Contentien 4. Admittina CPG and GANE as Party Intervenors Based upon the foregoing we find CPG and GANE have each submitted l at least one allowable contention as required by 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) and they have otherwise fulfilled the requirements to be admitted as party intervenors in the proceeding. We therefore admit them as party intervenors . I O
I The CPG and GANE contentions we have admitted are identical or one fully encompasses the other. Obviously it is to everyone's interest not to treat these in a repetitious and cumulative canner. To that end it would be appropriate for CPG and GANE to look to consolidating their efforts in the manner discussed in 10 C.F.R. 2.715a. It may well prove more effective for a single Intervenor to be wholly respcnsible for an individual contention. The Intervenors shall advise the Boarti how they intend to proceed as to this matter within 20 days of service of this Memorandum and Order. This may obviate the need to issue orders under 10 C.F.R. 2.715a and 2.757. Discosition of the CCCE Petition In our unpublished Memorandum and Order of March 9,1984, we found that CCCE had provided no basis for intervention in the subject i proceeding in its petition of January 27, 1984. As an organization seeking representative participation, it had not shown that the action I being challenged could cause injury in fact to one of its members. Petitioner was given the opportunity to cure the deficiency in its filing and to submit a contention f'or litigation by April 12, 1984. It failed to make an attempt to do so, nor did CCCE appear at the Special Prehearing Conference on May 30, 1984, as directed. l On the basis of the foregoing, we deny and dismiss its petition. CCCE is ineligible to become a party intervenor having failed to establish that its interest may be affected by the subject proceeding and to submit a litigable contention, as required by 10 C.F.P., 2.714. Its failure to appear, as directed, at the Special Prehearing Conference E .
l I on May 30, 1984, provides an additional ground under 10 C.F.R 2.707 to l deny it entry to the proceeding. Procedural Matters The Parties have been able to stipulate to the following discovery schedule:
- 1. There will be two rounds of discovery consisting of an initial roynd of discovery requests and responses and a follow-on of requests and responses. Additional dis-covery shall be had on.ly as provided in paragraph 6 I. below.
- 2. All initial round discovery requests shall be served I< within 60 days after the date of the Licensing Board's order allowing the contention to which the discovery request is addressed.
- 3. Responses to initial round discovery requests, shall be served within 30 days after service of the request.
4 Follow-on discovery requests shall be served within 120 days after the Licensing Board's order allowing the contention to which the request is addressed.
- 5. Responses to follow-on discovery request, shall be served within 30 days after service of the request.
- 6. Further discovery shall be had only (a) by agreer.ent of the affected parties or (b) by order of the Licensing Board for good cause shown.
We find it acceptable and adopt it as the discovery schedule for the proceeding. As to the matter of future locations for the holding of conferences and hearings, the decision will be made as each occasion arises and will be appropriate to the circumstances. Each participant has expressed their views extensively on the matter. We are fully aware and appreciative of the various positions and will take them into account in I : I -
I making our deter:nination No further infortnation is desired on this ORDER Based upon all of the foregcing, it is hereby Ordered that:
- 1. Petitioner CCCE is not admitted as a party intervenor in this proceeding.
I 2. Petitioners CPG and GANE are each admitted' as party intervenors in this proceeding.
- 3. GANE's proposed Content' ions 1 and 4 are withdrawn as well as CPG's and GANES's proposed Contention 9.
- 4. CPG's proposed Contentions 2 and 3 are dismissed as well as CPG's and GANE's proposed Contentions 6, 10.2, 10.4, 10.6, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10 and 10.11.
- 5. GANE's proposed Contentions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed.
- 6. CPG's and GANE's proposed Contentions 7, 8, 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, I 7.
10.7,11,12 and 14 are admitted, in the manner stated. The Board defers further ruling on CPG's and GANE's proposed Contention 5 for the reascns stated.
- 8. Intervenors may refile their proposed Contentions 13, as discussed.
- 9. The discovery schedule contained in the Memorandum shall be followed. The period for discovery, as set forth, will I -
10. commence immediately with the service of this Order. . The Board shall be advised by Intervenors within 20 days of I service of this Order of their intended course on cor. soli-dating the contentions and how they will assume responsibility for handling them.
- 11. This Order shall control the subsecuent course of the proceeding unless modified by further order of the Board.
under 10 C.F.R 2.751a(d) ob,iections to this Order may be I filed by a party within five (5) days after service of the Order, except that the Staff may file objections within ten (10) days after service. See 10 C.F.R 2.710. I I I -
- 12. This Order is appealable by Applicants, Staff and CCCE under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.714a to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board within ten (10) days after service of the Order. See 10 C.F.R. 2.710.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AfiD LICENSING BOARD V.A
- An I M5rton B. Marguli~es , Ch/jir r.an ADMINISTRATIVE LA .JUDE-s emr fave A. Linenberc r.
ADMlNISTRATIVE JUDG I 04cu4%s Dr. (Tscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of September, 1984. I I I - I I I I - a - .-._,.,..w-~ , , . _ . - - . _ . . . . , - . . . . _ -
c.. , .,. . l // I h [-d 2 C P. S $ E T.5 D . E. E O.$ i 2 O O T P. 2 T O ~' " O T '_ ~~.~ {}
~~'C[7.
175 Trinity?.n.5.W.,f.&nts,G:c .-i: .'r:3 ";' E.' I'J5 f ~" g_ __ I- 'M ' COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING .CLANT, U:!ITS 1 A D 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1087 Georgia Power Company, et al.
,/ Op I Submitted by Campaign for a. Prosperous Georgia lMM g.
and kp '* g-Hl33,j Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Q / qt I/ ;
.. I (6
i January 4, 1985 ,
.5 -13 ' S Organizational Backaround and Sumary g Qualifications U
I The Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and the Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia are nonprofit organizations concerned about Georgia's economy and I environment. Approximately two thousand supporters in more than fifty communities in all parts of Georgia have now signed up with the organizations. I These comments were written by Tim Johnson, Executive Director of both I organizations. He has been employed in research and technical positions with the Georgia Public Service Comission, the Georgia Consumers' Utility Counsel, the Southern Regional Council, the Georgia Public Interest Research Group, Magnolia Oil I Company and United Oil Industries. He has authored articles on the utility industry. He has served on a Nuclear Regulatory Comission advisory panel on decocraissioning of nuclear power plants. He has, served as Executive Director of I Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia since the organization was founded in January of 1983. Summary of Coments I D -- Plant Vogtle presents a clear danger to the economy and the environment of the state of Georgia. If operated and placed into the rate base, it would cause I unprecedented electric rate increases, economic dislocation, rising unemploy.ent, shutting down of industry and small business, inflation and related problems and it could cause unprecedented environmental damage, threaten endangered species, destroy agricultural areas and present the largest human-created environmental catastrophe in history. The Draft Environmental Statement (DES) issued by the Office of Muclear Reactor Regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is unacceptable in that it I fails to address adequately many of the' environmental impacts of the proposed operation of Plant Vogtle, it fails to consider adecuately the sictiff e--t :P: ::s ? ^A .. wnich have occurred since issuance of the Construction Permit (CP), it f.Gs :c ' C [ W A
consider the fact that the plant is clearly not needed, it fails to consider alternatives which are superior both environmentally and economically, and for other reasons. Specific Coments I Originally issued a construction permit for Plant Yogtle ir.1974, Georgia Power anticipated annual growth in electricity sales in excess of 10%. Since that time, annual electricity sales growth by Georgia Power in its territory has declined In no year since the construction pemit was originally issued has growth I steadily. in electricity sales matched the average on which the Nuclear Regulatory Comission predicated the construction permit, let alone the average which Georgia Power forecast. In fact, never has the growth exceeded 6%; the average growth since I Georgia Power applied for a construction pemit in 1973 has been less than 2%; and the average annual growth in the last six years has been less than 1% (Georcia Power Company Financial and Statistical Review 1973-1983). During the Atomic Energy Commission hearings on the construction pemit application by Georgia Power (April 16, 1974 transcript), Georgia Power executive Bob Scherer told the Commission, "I believe there are still important economies of I scale to be gained in the future, particularly in nuclear generation." Scherer added, "...the demand for electricity is relatively price inelastic." Of course, history has proven him wrong on both counts--as other witnesses at the time warned. The decline in growth described above can be directly attributed to a price increase i 8 of more than 250% from 1972 through 1982, and to saturation of certain markets (especially air conditioning). i Consequently, Scherer also erred in his forecasts of peak demand. He projected
, that in 1980, peak demand would be 16,728 megawatts while in fact it was 11,154 megawatts; he predicted a 1981 peak of 18.528 MW and the actual peak was 11,514 M4; l 3 he predicted a 1982 peak demand of 20,528 K4 while the actual peak was 10,683 K4; 3 and he predicted a 1983 peak demand of 22,728 K4 while the actual peak demand was only 12,257 MW. These lowered peaks occurred despite the absence of any serious actions on the part of Georgia Power.to control peak demand.
Georgia Power cried wolf during the CP application process, claiming that failure to build the four Vogtle units then planned would cause shortages in the !g state due to increases in load of "approximately 11 percent annually" (Environmental l3 Report, CP stage, p. 1.2-12). In fact, to meet 1985 needs Georgia Power l anticipated building twelve (12) nuclear units as well as many fossil and hydroelectric units which are not operating; despite the failure to build these ' facilities, Georgia Power suffers an extraordinary overcapacity (see below). The Atomic Energy Co=nission ignored those who said that the Vogtle units would not be needed and granted the construction pemits in June,1974. Within a matter I of weeks. Georgia Power cancelled Units 3 and 4 of Plant Vogtle, and they have repeatedly postponed Units 1 and 2. Today, the critics have been proven right-- Plant Vogtle was never needed and never will be. I Georgia Power's load factor has steadily declined in the past decade, from 59.7% in 1973 to just 51.9% in 1983. This reflects a tremendous peak relative to base load, precisely the kind of demand curve that requires cutbacks on baseload E plant construction and increased use of ways to control the peak (such as radio load 3 control ). I 2 l
I Georgia Power is already greatly overbuilt. A 1978 Congressional report stated
" Georgia Power Company rated first (in annual cost to consumers of excess generating I capacity) with overcharges of $39 million." (Nuclear Pcwer Costs US House Comittee on Government Operations,1978) Since that time, the overcapacity problam has become even worse in Georgia as several more coal and hydroelectric plants have begun operation while growth has not been comensurate with this new capacity. !n I fact, territorial kilcwatt-hour sales have increased at a rate Of less than 1". per year despite some of the most severe weather conditions ever re m ded in Georgia.
I In addition to Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power is constructing nine other generating units, including Plant Scherer Unit 3 (818 megawatts), Plant Scherer Unit 4 (818 megawatts). Bartletts Ferry Units 5 and 6 (108 megawatts), Goat Rock Units 7 and 8 (67 megawatts) and Rocky Mountain Units 1, 2 and 3 (847.8 megawatts) (Georcia I Power Company Annual Repor_t 1983). Thus, the Company's overcapacity problem will be compounded if and when Plant Vogtle comes on line, particularly in view of the public's increased use of alternative energy sources including conservation. Georgia Power itself has implicitly acknowledged that it does not need the capacity of Plant Vogtle, as it has repeatedly conceded to the Public Service Comission that it has tried without success to sell the capacity to out-of-state I utitlities. Even if additional capacity were needed, Plant Vogtle would not be the best way to provide it. Expert testimony before the Georgia Public Service Comission ( PSC)~ has stated that it may be mnre prudent economically to invest in alternatives (particularly conservation and solar energy) than to operate Plant Yogtle even if the plant is completed. Clearly, conservation and solar energy are less injurious I to the physical and human environment than Plant Vogtle would be. A solar water heating system could be installed in every household in Georgia at less cost than the remaining cost of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant. Said water heaters would provide I more energy, would provide more jobs and would have far less negative environmental impact than completion and operation of Plant Vogtle. Furthemore, conservation measures will provide even greater return on the investment than solar water , I heating. Yet, Georgia Power does not address these issues in its operating license application or supporting documents. . m In addition, there is tremendous potential for cogeneration of electricity by industry in Ge rgia. ue t the lack f adequate c mpensati n--Ge rgia Power will lI pay less than one-tenth to cogenerators for a kilowatt-hour of electricity what they will ask from ratepayers--this potential is largely untapped. Tapping it would be l 35 far more economic than Plant Vogtle (the fuel is usually free, since electricity is produced from waste industrial heat), it would be much better environmentally (since the fuel is being burned anyway). The cogeneration potential alone in Georgia is greater than the output of Plant Vogtle would be, not even considering the I likelihood that Plant Vogtle will be broken down much of the time (Georgia Power's Plant Hatch, its only operating nuclear plant, has been broken down n: ore than forty percent of the time). ' The PSC has begun to question whether Plant Vogtle will be needed. In Georgia Power's most recent rate case, the Comission reversed its previous practice and l g disallowed Plant Yogtle's nuclear fuel from the rate base, stating in its final rd'r dd 3*"" 7 2 S84 " ' ' "'5' 't t h' * 5'"' ** P! '"' V S t ' ' 5"t 5 operational and it is not expected that it will produce electricity for several more i years, if at all...It is the Commission's position, as it has made clear from previous orders, that to be included in rate base an investment must be used and l 3 I -
N useful to the retail ratepayer, if not iixnediately, at least in the raasonably near future. In' the context of the nuclear fuel purchased for Plant Vogtle, since the I plant itself is not yet in operation, it is obvious that the nuclear fuel purchased by the Company for use in that plant is not currently used or useful to the retail ratepayer, and cannot be for some time, if at all." (emphasis added) (Ga. PSC Docket No. 3397-U, Order on Reconsideration, JaiEia7y TT 1984, pp. 3-4) It is important to i note that in past cases, the PSC allowed the Vogtle fuel to be included in the rate base although the plant was further from operation than in 3397-U, demonstrating that a key concern to the PSC is whether the plant will ever be "useful" as well as whether it will ever be "used." It is clear that Plant Vogtle is not needed either to meet increased energy needs or to replace older, less economical generating capacity. Increases in I consumption have been far below the projections on which the construction was based, and new nuclear,~ coal and hydroelectric generating plants which have come on line since the construction permit for Plant Vogtle was issued already provide far more additional capacity than is needed. Furthermore, it is clear that the running costs alone of Plant Vogtle would exceed the total costs of many environmentally preferable alternatives, including I cogeneration using existing industrial process steam, conservation measures including increased insulation of homes, and certain applications of solar energy for water and space heating. These alternatives would be of insignificant environmental impact relative to the operation of Plant Vogtle. lE As conditions relating to economics, electric consumption patterns, and availability of alternative energy sources have changed since the construction I pennit was issued for Plant Yogtle, the NRC must at this time make a full assessment of the current and future need for the plant, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the regulaticns. As described above, it is clear that Plant Vogtle is not needed. As even Georgia Power acknowledges, the PSC must ascertain p0rudence of Georgia Power investments before allowing them to be included in the rate base. If a facility is I imprudent or is not used and useful for ratepayers, the PSC should refuse to allow it to be charged to the ratepayers. I If the PSC determines that an overcapacity exists--that certain capacity is not useful for retail ratepayers--then the PSC will not allow Georgia Power to include in rate base the most expensive (and therefore least prudent) portion of new I capacity representing the percentage of overcapacity needed to bring the Company down to a level commensurate with safe reserve margins. Plant Vogtle is by far the most expensive capacity under construction. In fact, Plant Vogtle, according to Georgia Power, will cost $7.2 billion to construct (including financing during I construction) while all production plants in operation at the end of 1983 combined cost only $2.9 billion (Georgia Power Comcany Financial and Statistical Review 1973-ISd3). The fact that Georgia Power has sold all electricaT capacity in the four Scherer coal-fired units through 1992 (Georgia Public Service Comission Docket I #3397-U), and that the electricity from the Scherer coal plants will be substantially cheaper than that from the Vogtle nuclear units, increases the likelihood that the PSC will conclude that Georgia Power acted imprudently in constructing the Vogtle nuclear units. In addition, the PSC may look at the prudence of alternative investments, such as conservation and alternative energy. Expert testimony before the PSC in a 4 I .
I. previous proceeding has stated that it may be more prudent economically to invest in alternatives (particularly conservation and solar energy) than to operate Plant l e Vogtle even if the plant is completed. This increases the likelihood that the PSC wi 1 exclude Plant Vogtle from the rate base. l5 l As mentioned above, in its final order dated January 17, 1984, the PSC ruled. l "Of course, at the present time Plant Vogtle is not operational and it is not ! I expected that it will produce electricity for several more years, if at all...It is l l the Comission's position, as it has made clear from previous ordeH,7 hat to be l included in rate base an investment must be used and useful to the retail ratepayer, l
- if not imediately, at least in the reasonably near future. In the context of the I nuclear fuel purchased for Plant Vogtle, since the plant itself is not yet in l operation, it is obvious that the nuclear fuel purchased by the Company for use in that plant is not currently used or useful to the retail rateoayer, and cannot be for some tiFe', if at all. As a consequence, the Comission finds as a matter oT fact that the nuc'1Hr fuel purchased by the Company for use in Plant Vogtle should be excluded from rate base." (emphasis added) (Ga. PSC Docket No. 3397-U, Order on Reconsideration, January 17, 1984, pp. 3-4) It is important to note that in past cases, the PSC allowed the Vogtle fuel to be included in rate base although the plant was further from operation than in 3397-U, demonstrating that a key concern to
( the PSC is whether the plant will ever be "useful" as well as "used."'
- Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia believes that the PSC will disallow Plant Vogtle as not used or useful even if said plant is completed and Georgia Power I attempts to place it in the rate base.
The Georgia Public Service Comission has recently ruled that a complete review I of Georgia Power's construction program will be required before any further financing will be allowed. This ruling preceded by less than three weeks an announced bond issuance totalling $150 million and came in a proceeding in which . Georgia Power requested permission to obtain $750 million for construction-related L expenditures. The Fulton County (Georgia) Superior Court upheld the PSC's authority l in this case and, acting under court order, the PSC denied the Company's ra:;uest for l the first $150 million bond offering. The PSC eventually allowed the financing to proceed pending a review of the Company's overall construction program. If the review finds that the construction is imprudent--a likelihood if it is done objectively--it will likely result in PSC refusal to allow Plant Vogtle to be included in the rate base, even if the NRC licenses it. Failure to collect a return on Plant Vogtle would itkely cause Georgia Power to cut corners on safety in order to save money. This is clear as Georgia Power I employees attempted to override safety systems at Plant Hatch in order to prevent a shutdown and save fuel costs. l Georgia Power itself has implicitly acknowledged that it is in financial l trouble. In the 1984 financing proceeding, the Company requested a sinking fund provision to protect potential investors. According to the Company witness (under cross-examination by Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia), the last time the Company l l l I used such a provision was 1975, a time when the Company nearly went bankrupt and required two emergency rate increases to remain solvent.
- Another potential financial burden which the Company has failed to address is the impact of changes in federal income tax accounting being censidered by Financial Accounting Standards Board and the U.S. Congress. These changes coult. remove or reduce tax incentives for unneeded construction, particularly in cases where 5
lI 1
i conservation and other renewable energy has not been aggressively promoted. According to Georgia Power, its total accumulated deferred income taxes (net) at the end of 1983 totalled over $800 million (Georgia Power Company Financial and Statistical Review 1973-1963); hundreds of millions of dollars more in investment tax credits might be " flowed through" to consumers by the regulators if the changes being considered are implemented. Similarly, recent tax reform proposals from Donald Regan would, if implemented, remove the investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation that Georgia Power now enjoys.
. Georgia Power will be unable to safely operate the facility and will be unable to safely shut down and maintain the facility in the face of these self-inflicted financial difficulties. In order to save money, Georgia Power will attempt to bypass safety considerations (as it.has already done at Plant Hatch), operating the facility despite 1.ndications Jof safety problems, failing to file Reportable - Occurances and skimping on quality of workmanship and materials. The Company will be unable to safely shut down and decommission the reactor upon ccmpletion of its operating life (or in the event of a major accident) due to these financial considerations, and will be unable to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes due to the fir.ancial problems.
3 Furthermore, partners in the project will be unable to financially offset Georgia Power's inability to safely operate the plant. Indeed, it may be difficult for the partner.s to finance their shares of the facility. The financial burden faced by the other partners--Oglethorpe Power Corporation (and its thirty-nine member electric membership corporations), Hunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (and its forty-seven members) and the City of Dalton--far exceeds their entire assets. Recent efforts by the Reagan Administration to remove financial guarantees for electric cooperatives will, if successful, have substantial impact on Oglethorpe's ability to finance its share of the facilities. The Washington Public Power Supply System's municipal members defaulted on their share of that five-unit nuclear project, and the cities in Georgia may face a similar situation. MEAG has estimated that its share of Plant Vogtle will cost approximately $2.3 billion; this compares with the entire general bonded indebtedness of all its members of less than
$128 million, less than one-seventeenth their share of Plant Vogtle (Official Statement, $300,000,000, Municipal Electric Authority of Georcia, General Pcwer Revenue Bonds, 1984A Series, Dated March 21 1984).
Failure by the NRC to consider these matters would constitute a violation of NEPA. Although the Commission passed a regulation excluding consideration of financial capability (a regulation thrown out by federal court, passed again by the _ NRC, and once more in litigation), that regulation was based on the assumption that state regulators would allow a utility to charge ratepayers for any operating plant. The Georgia Public Service Commission has explicitly stated that it will not allow Georgia Power to charge ratepayers for any plant that is not useful (see above), even if it is used. Thus, even if the NRC's generic rule on financial qualification is upheld by the courts, it snould be waived in this instance. The increased danger presented by the financial inability to operate the plant gg also presents further evidence that alternatives would be environmentally preferable, since cogeneration, conservation, solar energy and coal do not present the potential for catastrophe in case of a single accident that nuclear power presents. The DES also fails to address adequately the potential danger from earthquakes at the sight. 6
I The U.S. Geological Survey has pointed out to NRC that "after several years of I intensive study in the Charleston region, no geologic structure or feature can be identified unequivocally as the source of the 1886 Charleston earthquake." (letter from James F. Devine Assistant Director for Engineering Geology, USGS, to Robert E. I Jackson, Chief, Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, NRC, dated November 16, 1982) The Charleston earthquake was the among the worst ever recorded in American I history and was more intense than the San Francisco earthquake. USGS in 1887 said of the Charleston Earthquake, the " area within which motion was sufficient to attract... attention would be somewhat nore than that circumscribed by a circle of a I thousand miles radius. Six hundred miles from the origins, the long swaying motion was felt and was often sufficient to produce seasickness (nausea)." USGS reported that the earthquake was felt in the Adirondacks; Ontario, Canada; Michigan; Milwaukee and Green Bay, Wisconsin; and even Cuba. In eastern Kentucky and I southeastern Ohio, " chimneys and bricks,were shaken down." USGS went on to say, "In all of the large towns within two hundred miles of Charleston, more or less damage was suffered... dams were broken (on the Savannah River and near Barnwell)...At I Augusta, 110 miles distant from the epicentrum, the damage to buildings was considerable...(For example) at the Arsenal, the comanding officer's residence was so badly cracked and shattered as to necessitate practical reconstruction...In Atlanta, 250 miles distant, there was no worse injury than falling chimneys and some I slight cracks in the wall, but the houses were instantly abandoned in great alam and confusion by their occupants, and many preferred passing the night in the streets to re-entering their dwellings." The situation in Charleston itself was, of course, even worse. The words of an eyewitness survivor are particularly relevant to this proceeding:
...It was upon such a scene of calm and silence that that shock of the great I earthquake fell, with the suddenness of a thunderbolt launched frun the starlit skies; with the might of ten thousand thunderbolts falling together; with a force so far surpassing all other forces known to men that no similtude can I truly be found for it. The fim foundation upon which every home had been built in unquestioning faith in its stability for all time was giving way...For a few moments all the inhabitants of the city stood together in the presence of death. in its most terrible fom...
(Within one minute) Every home in the city had been broken or shattered--and I beneath the ruins lay the lifeless or bruised and bleeding bodies of men, women and children, who had been stricken down in the midst of such security as may be felt by him who reads these lines at any remote distance of time or space." I The Vogtle area is of a similar geology to Charleston and therefore poses a risk of a devastating earthquake, far worse than that upon which the plant design is based. In fact, at the time the CP was issued, the USGS maintained that the I Charleston Earthquake was centered in Charleston, and the CP and plant design are based on the assumption that the worst seismic activity expected to occur at Plant Vogtle during the forty years of the operating license and the unspecified period before (if) decommissioning removes the radioactive remains from the site would I occur in conjunction with such an earthquake at Charleston. The fact that USGS has changed its position with regaro to the Charleston Earthquake constitutes new infomation which is not adequately considered in the DES. In order to assure conservative consideration of the seismic dangers for Plant Vogtle, the DES should 7 I .
I analyze the results of an earthquake of the magnitude of the Charleston Earthquake occuring at the plant site. I Another question inadequately considered in the DES is themal shock. Themal shock and the effects of operator response, neutron irradiation, and pressure vessel steel impurities remain an unresolved scientific question. Pressurized water reactors are susceptible to cracking of the reactor vessel due to severe drops in I vessel temperature under high internal pressure. Neutron irradiatien of the reactor vessel, especially at the midline, weakens the vessel and raises the reference temperature at a rate dependent on the impurities in the steel and welds and the I rate of neutron irradiation. Studies by the Oak Ridge Nstional Laboratories showed that conditions created during a routine transient at Rancho Seco reactor near Sacremento, CA might be enough to cause cracks in older irradiated pressure vessels. Further analysis and model simulations showed that whether pressure vessel ruptures I would or would not occur in a Rancho Seco type transient depended on the operator response. If the model assumed correct operator response then the simulations indicated the pressure vessel would not rupture during the life of the reactor. I Conversely, if the model assumed incor. rect operator response, the reactor vessel would be subject to rupture within 3 or 4 years of start-up. Thus, protection from reactor vessel rupture seems to depend totally on operator response and not on redundant safety features built into the plant (Marshall 1981,1982). I The reactor vessel for Plant Yogtle contains 0.10-0.12% copper and 0.012 to 0.020% phosphorous (FSAR sec 5.3.1.1) but no discussion is undertaken by the DES as I to the effects of these levels of impurities on accelerated brittleness and increased reference temperature for the pressure vessel. The DES also does not consider the effect of varied fuel rod geometrics on pressure vessel embrittlement. In general, the DES does not consider the long tem safety hazards posed by the I problems of thermal shock combined with the effects of vessel material impurities, embrittlement due to irradiation, and the confounding effect of operation error. A major concern of Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia is the failure of the DES 5 to consider adequi.tely the value of and danger to the groundwater underlying the Plant Vogtle site, particularly the Tuscaloosa Aquifer. The groundwater underlying the Vogtle Plant is a valuable resource whose protection is not assured by the DES. The DES fails to address adequately the fact that, contrary to assertions by the Applicants, radioactive contamination of the Aquifer could occur from spillage I at Plant Vogtle. This is evidenced by contamination of the Tuscaloosa Aquifer by the Savannah River Plant directly across the river. Approximately 300' feet below the surface is the Tuscaloosa Aquifer, a pemeable I sand fomation which contains large volumes of excellent quality water. This aquifer is an important regional aquifer which supplies water to many cities and comunities across central Georgia .and much of the South Carolina coastal plain. In I eastern central Georgia, the Tuscaloosa Aquifer is the major source of water for many communities. In Richmond County just north of Plant Vogtle, eighteen Tuscaloosa wells provide water for 15,000 people. In Girard, which is apprcximately I five miles from the plant, and McBean, only thirteen miles away, the Tuscaloosa provides drinking water for most of the comunity residents. The Tuscaloosa Aquifer is not the only valuable groundwater rescurce underlyir.g the plant site. At a depth of approximately 200 feet below surface and a thickness I of approximately 100 feet, the sand member of the Lisbon Fomation also represents a valuable groundwater resource for the area. Cooling system make-up water wells for 8 I .
I the plant which penetrate and are open to both the Lisbon Sand Fomation and the Tuscaloosa Aquifer can provide as much as two thousand gallons per minute of I excellent quality groundwater. This groundwater is not only important as an existing source of drinking wster but it is important to future development which is likely to occur along the Savannah River corridor. I Directly below the surface at the Yogtle Plant is the water table aquifer. While this aquifer is not as areally or vertically extensive as the Tuscaloosa or Lisbon Sand Fomations, it is used extensively in Burk'e County as a source of l I drinking wate. for numerous domestic supply wells, as a small scale agricultural supply and for some comercial establishments. To these individuals, famers and businesspeople, loss of this source of water through contamination from Plant Vogtle f i could endanger health and cause economic hardship. l In the case of a release of radionuclides to the ground at Plant Yogtle, the water table aquifer would be the first and the most seriously irpacted owing to its I close proximity to the surface. In the area of Plant Vogtle, soils are pemeable and virtually no runoff of rainwater occurs. Any release of radionuclide contaminated water would seep immediately into the ground and eventually reach the ! water table aquifer. The sandy nature of the soils and the aquifer material would offer little retention of radionuclides. The radionuclides would migrate with the groundwater and contaminate larger portions of the aquifer. I A significant contamination incident could result in contamination migrating vertically downward from the water table aquifer into the deeper Lisbon Sand Formation and the Tuscaloosa Aquifer. While a clay separating the water table from i the deeper aquifers may provide some protection for the deeper aquifers, the 50 feet i of hydraulic head on the water table aquifer acts as a vertical force on the groundwater, pushing it through fractures or more pemeable sections of the clay. It is known that just south of the plant site, this clay changes into a limestone, becoming part of a major regional water supply aquifer, the Principal Artesian
.I Aquifer.
The Georgia Power Company's record of groundwater protection is not encouraging l l l I as demonstrated by events at the Hatch Nuclear Plant. Groundwater underlying Plant Hatch has been contaminated with tritium from a source or sources never fully identified. (See, for example, HNP Annual Report to NRC,1979 and 1930.) The DES does not address this concern. The DES also fails to consider adequately the impacts of the withdrawal of groundwater and Savannah River water on supplies. It fails to consider the impact of the proposed operation of a hydroelectric project in Augusta, Georgia, which is
' expected to severely affect the levels of the Savannah River. Pulling 20,000 l gallons per minute of water out of what may already be severely depleted water flow could have consequences far more severe than considered in the DES.
The DES fails to address adequately the danger presented to the environment by the inadequacy of the quality assurance program at Plant Vogtle. I The success of a quality assurance program is ultimately tied to the generation of adequate confidence concerning the correct functioning of critical nuclear power plant systems and components. Repeated violations of NRC regulations by Applicant in the construction methocs applied to pipe-fitting, welds and other areas must be interpreted as undermining 9 I ,
I I , confidence in the capability of coolant and containment systems to perform their essential tasks. I Although potential deficiencies involving welds in containment liner penetrations had been raised as an issue at least as early as April 29, 1981 (I & E file fX7BG03-M18), problems involving the appropriate inspection of welds have occurred at least as recently as September 1983. Violation notification has been issued in several instances related to implementing the required test procedures. As indicated in IR 50-424/83-15 Appendix A, the aplicant's construction sheet for examination of reactor coolant pressure 5 boundary welds did not specify the penetrant examination test required by NRC. Such a failure, not simply in the execution of a prescribed test, but the omission of the test from the required procedure, certainly reduces the confidence in the correct functioning of a vital reactor safety system. Failure to assure that non-destructive testing is conducted consistent with applicable codes led to another violation as reported in IR-50-424 and 50-425. In I this instance grit-blasting of the closure head weld cladding of Plant Vogtle Unit 1 (IE X78610) was performed after liquid penetrant examination of the component. This I represented not only a departure from the standard procedure of performing the examination on the component in its finished condition but an unintended method of degrading a critical steam system component after its final installation and inspection. This is much more than a flaw in an isolated procedure; it is a basic failure in established quality assurance methcdology. Any adequate quality assurance program must take into account a broad range of "question. planned and systematic actions necessary" to establish confidence in the system in Any quality assurance prorram predicated exclusively on the implementation of dictated procedures without regard to the exercise of critical judgement and standards of professional practice must be considered woefully inadequate. In an examination of welving activities involving steel structures ano I supports in both Units 1 and 2 of Plant Vogtle, the applicant was cited for failure to include the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the weld in acceptance radiographs (IR 52 50-424 Appendix A Report Details). In response to the notice of violation, the 1 applicant defended its procedure by replying that the Code "gives no requirement for including the heat-affected zone in the area of interest" (X78610). This response, which, erroneously equates methods of quality assurance with simple ccmpliance to written procedures, was so unacceptable to the NRC that it was directly criticized I by Richard C. Lewis even though the violation itself had been withdrawn. In his words,
" Interpretations of the code by ' Code Experts' make your response appear to set aside engineering reason when you consider that, based on failure analysis experience, the technical world realizes that the heat affected zone of a weld is the most critical area of the weldment."
In a related matter on November 18, 1982, welding on sections of the I containment dome of Unit 2 was conducted during a "very light misty rain." The welding and site QA supervisors felt that the conditions were suitable for welding since the surfaces of the pieces involved were not completely covered with moisture (425/82-29-02). The inspector, more concerned with the quality of the weld than with the " General Welding Procedure Specification for Shielded Metal Arce Processes," prevailed upon the two to stop the work for the day. 10 I _ _ _ _
The applicant's disposition to prefer restrictive implementation of prescribed procedures to the more circumspect methods of professional practice does not contribute Plant Vogtle. to confidence in the proper functioning of a completed and operating In addition to these procedural aspects of quality assurance, there are other I questions involving the applicant's " controlling the quality of the ... component or system to predetemined requirements." In the case of quality control the repeated discovery of inadequacies and defects in the perfomance of an essential safety I subsystem would generate a cause for concern. Furthemore, at some point in time, good quality control practice mandates the abandonment of a suspect manufactured article in favor of a more reliable alternative. The number of past and continuing failures of the Georgia Power /Bechtel CA/QC program represents a pattern which indicates an undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Violations involving activities at times resulted from failure to provide documented procedures. (For example, Report No. 50-424, 50-425/83-04 regarding concrete QC problems) , l The severity of Quality Assurance perfomance at Plant Vogtle forced a meeting
- 3 conducted 22 August 1983 at Georgia Power headquarters on the subject of g Subcontractor Quality Assurance Perfomance Allegation by Pullman Power Products quality control . personnel about pipe support installation and piping installation was well as job intimidation of quality control workers. Allegations had been made
;I by a Walsh Company boilermaker that improper welding and work practice had cccurred.
' Twenty-three concerns which dealtn with twelve separate items were discussed.
Defects were found during the reinspection of Pullman Power Products manufactured 3 piping spool pieces. (Letter from James P. O'Reilly to Georgia Power, 28 September g 1983,
Subject:
Summary of Meeting--Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle 1 and 2). Countless other specific problems with Quality Assurance, outlined in filings I with the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board in the operating license proceeding for this facility and described in numerous documents, also exist. These increase the danger to the public and increase the potential for significant damage to the environment. Yet the DES fails to address these concerns. The DES also fails to consider the potential environmental impacts of the failure of certain equipment at Plant Vogtle to withstand the conditions of an , accident. The concept of environmental qualification, i.e. that safety systems must be I able to survive and perform their functions under accident conditions, is fundamental to NRC regulation of nuclear power reactors. Safety is the "first, last and permanent consideration and can lead to the shutdown of noncomplying plants. Power Reactor Development Coro. v. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 402 (1961). Applicant has not demonstrated that its present safety systems testing methods, ! g YEGP FSAR Table 3.11.B.1-1, Figures 3.11.B.1-1, 3.11.B.2, are adequate to ensure g effective operation under emergency conditions. For example, in investigating accelerated aging of materials, Sandia Laboratory has found that many materials experience greater damage from lower as opposed to raised dose rates when the total I I integrated cose is the same. Proceeding International Meetino on Licht Water Reactor Severe Accident Evaluation, August 1983, TS-3.1; JndustHal Researcn and Development, June 1982 at 55-56. Particularly sensitive are polymers wnich aiT 1 11 I .
I . l I found in cable insulation and jackets, seals, rings and gaskets at VEGP. Current methods of testing have used high levels of radiation or only reported the I integrated dose (VEGP FSAR, Table 3.11.B.1-1) and therefore underestimate the effects of the toWdose. NUREG/CR-2157, "Occurance and Implications of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for Material Aging Studies," June 18, 1981. The effects of synergisms, involving the combined effects of radiation, heat and in some I experiments oxygen concentration, were also studied at Sandia. The greatest amount of degradation was found upon exposure to heat followed by exposure to radiation (significantly affected by oxygen during a LOCA simulation). NUREG/CR-2156, I " Radiation-Thertnal Degradation of PE and PVC: Mechanism of Synergisms and Dose-Rate Effects," June 1981. Sandia has also identified other interesting " anomalies." " Proceedings, I International meeting on Light Water Reactor Severe Accident Evaluation (August 28-September 1,1983) Cambridge." In tests of EPR cable material, multiconductor configuration perfomed "substantially worse" th'an single conductor configurations. I Sandia concluded that qualification testing employing only single conductors as test specimens may not be representative of -multiconductor performance. Testing of terminal blocks by prior industry standards (function before and after accidents) is not adequate. i Instead, applicant must show equipment can function during accident conditions. Simulation of these conditions led to instrument reading errors on high resistance instruments of 15-90%, which were not conservative. This could have led real operators to think that there was adequate subcooling when in fact the degree j of subcooling was significantly less. The results of these reports have not been applied to environmental i a qualification testing performed and referenced by Applicant to demonstrate g compliance of safety-related equipment and components with applicable standards. Several pieces of equipment specified in VEGP FSAR Table 3.11.N.1-1 as being E environmentally qualified may in fact be unqualified. For example, on August 31, l N 1983, NRC issued a Board notification transmitting a summary of a staff i investigation into Franklin Research Center tests on solenoid valves. Over half the ! valves failed in tests simulating nomal and accident conditions. SN 83-128. Several valves manufactured by ASCO failed early after exposure to 340 degrees F., i.e., they had little or no time to perfom their safety function before I failing. Over one year earlier ASCO's own testing had shown poor perfomance of 5 these valves, and had reported this to the EQB. The EQB memo from R. Vollmer to D. Eisenhut (included in BN83-128A) stated the staff " continues to approve" the l a qualification of valves on the basis of 1978 tests. The applicable standard in 1978 I was IEEE 382-1980. The EQB concluded that the early failure of the ASCO solenoid valves makes them unacceptable for use in safety systems and suggested that licensees and applicants be prohibited from using the valves in any application . EE where conditions could be more severe than those reported in the qualification test report. VEGP_ FSAR Table 3.11.N.1-1 shows the use of twenty-three separate ASCO i sellenoid valves. The function of some of the valves is not listed and in no case ! a is the qualification reference listed. ! g Also shown as qualified are forty-three (43) separate motor operators l canufactured by Limitorque. The company's own testing, see IE Notice 81-29 EEQN , $ No. 1 (September 24, 1981), had shown motor failure on initiation of steam spray l 5 accident profile. An update, IN 82-52, simply noted that "this is an ongoing l problem. " Westinghouse perfomed further tests and concluded that "the present j motor design will not successfully pass Westinghouse specified test parameters." 12 l I .
i The NRC staff has only confimed that they will pass IEEE 323-1971, a standard explicitly rejected by the Comission in CLI-80-21 as virtually useless. A critical safety component in LOCA is the post LOCA hydrogen recombiner. One I. comon type of unit manufactured by Rockwell International has recently been shown to have a large number of defective parts. EEQN No.14 in IN 83-72 (10/28/83). For example, ITT pressure transducers failed typical IEEE 323 environmental qualification testing, i.e., they would not withstand radiation doses of 1 x 107 rad and showed gradual driftirg of readings after 1 x 104 rads. Other hydrogen recombiners may suffer similar problems. l I The applicant has not satisfied 10 CFR 50.48 which requires a showing that safety equipment is capable of surviving a fire in order to shut the plant down. l Since the NRC has no testing program to establish that the necessary safety l equipment is qualified to withstand the fire environment, there is no assurance that the applicant's equipment can withstand such conditions as high humidity, high temperature, spray, corrosive gas, smoke, all of these probably combined with l I radiation. Comission meeting of January 6,1984, Tr. at 36; without this assurance, Plant Vogtle should not be allowed to operate.. , The DES fails to address adequately these concerns. Applicant has not detemined that suitable seismic qualifications of safety related equipment have been used in selecting equipment for VEGP. The design I criteria and methods for seismic qualification of. equipment in nuclear plants have undergone significant change. Consequently, the margins of safety provided in existing equipment to resist seismically induced loads may vary considerably and i must be *eassessed. NRC " Unresolved Safety Issues Summary," August 20, 1982. l Again, the DES fails to address this concern adequately. At the Commission meeting of January 6,1984, Sandia Laboratories reported I numerous " shortcomings" in qualifications methodologies used to test safety equipment. For example, compounded effects (related to the order in which several conditions are tested) can be very important and produce nonconservative results (under testing). A broad range of generally accepted methods was also questioned I which included: Can gamma radiation adequately simulate the effects of beta radiation? I Is it necessary to include oxygen in LOCA simulation chambers? Under what circumstances is the Arrhenius methodology for accelerated themal aging valid? I Are mechanical stresses significant in aging of electrical equipment (cables, seals)? Are the procedures of IEEE standards for qualifying specific type of electrical equipment adequate? i These criticisms and questions about current environmental qualificaticn method raise fundamental doubts about the applicant's ability to employ only I environmentally qualified equipment in all required applications. The DES again fails to resolve these concerns. Applicant has not accurately defined the parameters of an accident which would affect the operability of safety-related equipment. Furthemore, Applicant has I underestimated the period of time safety-related equipment will be required to operate. S. H. Hanauer, NRC, perceived this issue as a problem shortly following 13 I .
O
\
the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2:
"I think that as a result of the TMI accident we have to rethink:
- 1. Environmental Qualifications Envelope
- 2. Things which may have to be qualified Changes in my thinking include:
- 1. Core damage is credible
- 2. Long-term plant operation is essential, initiation isn't enough
- 3. LOCA and SLB may not give an envelope that includes THI experience."
! --Note from S. H. Hanauer - NRC Assistant Director for Plant Systems Division of Systems Safety April 6, 1979 I Such thinking was reiterated by R'bert o Pollard, Nuclear Safety Engineer of the Union of Concerned Scientists and formerly with the NRC: - I think it is clear that what is needed is essentially a reassment of the environmental qualifications of safety related equipment in light of lessons learned from the accident." I --Special Prehearing Conference, TMI-1 Restart Hearing. Docket No. 50-289, November 8,1979, TR at 236. I The failure of the DES to resolve these concerns is another demonstration of the inadequate consideration of the potential environmental impact. g The DES fails to consider adequately generic problems with Westinghouse l_g reactors. l Wastinghouse PWR steam generator tubes have shown evidence of corrosion-induced l 5 wastage, cracking, reduction in tube diameter, degradation due to bubble collapse water hammer and vibration-induced fatigue cracks. Of primary concern is the capability of degraded tubes to maintain their integrity during normal operation and ! under accident conditions. NRC " Unresolved Safety Issues Summary" August 20, 1982. l The DES does not adequately address and the applicant has not considered nor is sufficient, technical infomation currently available to deal with a steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident. This was considered in a hypothetical study of the I Borselle Nuclear Power Station. NRC BN 83-151. The THI-2 accident convinced Westinghouse to change the ECCS actuation logic by eliminating the icw pressurizer level trip, and this was implemented by licensees with Westinghouse plants. The ' I simulated SGTR accident at Borssele was calculated to actuate the ECCS which would probably produce " undesirable attendant problems, such as RCP trip ar.d containment isolation, which would make accident management more difficult." Memo from D. J. lE iW Mattson, Director DSI, NRC to D. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRC, September 26, 1983. As stated in the above-described nemo the NRC staff feels a revision of the ECCS logic to the pre-TMI accident configuration "has the potential . g to improve the management of SGTR events." However, the staff did not conclude 5 whether this " revision would have an overall net increase or decrease in plant risk." ! I 14 I .
. - . r- ._
The DES assessment of the potential impacts of chlorine emissions and salt emissions from the plant is inadequate. The VEGP FSAR 5.5.1.1 estimates an approximate salt drift of 305 pounds per acre per year (see CPSER 5.3.2) within a one mile radius of the cooling towers, assuming a two-unit operation. Naturally this amount would decrease at greater I distances. No mention was made of chlorine releases, although this point was brought up by NRC staff at the Construction Pemit Hearing. Chlorine could be emitted from these towers, since chlorine is injected directly into the circulating g water system, with a maximum system design chlorine rate of 10,000 lb/ day. Thus 3 there is the potential for the release of thousands of pounds per day of chlorine both in cooling tower emissions and in water emissions. This is not addressed in the FES-CP or OLSEG (see section 3.6.4.2) and could pose a serious environmental problem. In the VEGP-OLSER-0-E290.3 the rate of salt drift e::nission of 305 lb/ acre / year is admitted to be presently considered in the range of potential damage to vegetation. Failure to address these concerns adequately is a serious shortcoming of the DES. The Emergency Response Plan has not yet been developed by the Applicant. Unless and until an adequate plan is developed, the Environmental Statement cannot adequately consider potential environmental impacts. The DES fails to address adequately the unacceptable use of diesel generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) for emergency backup power. In an
- a emergency, adequate and fast power must be available to operate the emergency g equipment. TDI's record is abysmal; there is an excellent chance that Plant Yogtle could not be safely shut down if these generators are not replaced. Obviously, failure to consider this represents a major failure in assessing potential environmental impacts.
! The standby steam generators manufactured by Transamerica Deloval have been riddled with problems. The applicant was notified of such problems as early as December 198 That defect involved the governor lube oil cooler assembly and, I according to Transamerica Deloval, "could result in engine non-availability." The applicant itself reported a starting air valve assembly problem (X73603-M29) that also "could result in engine non-availability." Likewise problems with piston I skirts, reported in October 1982, in the applicant's own analysis (X78503-M35) could, postulating a comon mode failure, "cause the failure of both angines, resulting in a loss of power to both trains of the emergency core cooling system and most of the emergency safety features equipment." I/ In a report of a defect in the engine mounted electrical cables submitted to the NRC in September 1983, TDI also noted a potential engine perfomance I~ deterioration. Many other problems with TDI generators ahve also occurred. The applicant's responsibility for quality control extends beycnd collection of I individual defect notification and corresponding remedial action. By failing to make a general assessment of the suitability of the TD diesal generator system for such an extremely important emergency function, the applicant has breu;ht its own E quality control capabiitties into question. undermining confidence in the safe 5 functioning of its operating plant in direct contradiction to NRC QA requirements. The failure of the DES to address this concern similarly undennines confidence in its assessments. I 15
I. 3 The DES fails to address adequately the potential impacts of radioactive releases on the environment either during normal operating conditions or during [ emergencies. Another major inadequacy of the DES is its failure to adequately consider the I r various problems related to the location of Plant Yogtle in such close proximity to the Savannah River Plant nuclear weapons facility. Cumulative impacts of radiation releases to the air, water and land and synergistic effects 6f accidents at cne plant and their effects on operations at the other are just two examples of the I potential negative consequences of such close operations. The DES fails to resolve these concerns. The proposed operation of the L-Reactor at SRP will only make the effects on the environment of Plant Vogtle's operation greater, yet the DES fails to
, resolve this concern.
h The DES fails to address how NRC will detemine the scurce of radioactive p' other. releases to the environment with two major nuclear facilities operating next to each l The DES fails to address adequately the impacts of transmission lines from Plant Vogtle on the environment. Running lines through Ebeneezer Creek National i Landmark when there is a more benign alternative route is unacceptable. Endangered species may be affected by the lines and, since the plant is not needed, the alternative of not building it would remove any doubt about effects on the endangered species; the DES does not address this. The DES fails to adequately i address the health danger from nonionizing radiation emitted by the transmission lines, despite the availability of much new evidence since the CP was issued. The DES states that conversion to a single-port instead of a multi-port discharge will decrease the area of discharge. It fails to address adequately the effects of greater heat discharge at one point with the single-part than with the i E E muiti-Port. If the sinsie-Port is environ =eatally Preferabie, wny was tne multi-
' port chosen for the CP? If the multi-part is environmentally preferable, then why is the single-port chosen for the OL DES?
/
I plant.The CP stated that 1011 acres would be cleared for what was to be a four-unit In fact,1492 acres have been cleared for what is planned to be a two-unit l q ' plant. The DES fails to address adequately the reasons for this change or whether it is a violation of the regulations. I l 3 \radwastedischarge."The DES It fails tostates thatthat point out the merely Savannah River mixing will provide ? dilution wate radioactively 'E contaminated water which doe 5 aot meet em$555ons staneards with clean water eefore dumping it into the Savannah River has no effect on the total radiation being put into the river. hW l l The DES fails to consider adequately the potential impact on several threatened g and endangered species, including the hairy rattleweed (Baotisia arachniferi), the i ' 3 persistent trillium (Trillium persistens), the oreophila), the wood stork (Nycteria americana) ,green pitcher plantwcccpecker the red-cockaded (Sarracenia g ,h: (Piccoides borealis), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoephalus), the Bachman's wartler (Vemivora bachmanii), the American alligator (All10ator mississipDiensis), the eastern indi I concolor coryl) go snake and (Drymarchon the shortnose corais(Acipenser sturgeon couperi), the Florida pcntner brevirostrum). (Felis The potential impacts on these species of operations of Plant Vogtle in nomal conditions or 16 I .
i i (3B l accident conditions could seriously threaten one ( l radiation, chlorine, transmission lines, constr or more of these specie i other weather impacts of the coolThe DES fails to consider fogging which occurs in this area.ing towers, particularly in view of thr I' e heavy operations on the comunity and on the stateThe DES f I The DES environment. fails to address adequately the impa t
. oeconomic impacts of plant c s of the fuel cycle on the The DES claims that decommissioning will hav environment, yet no plan yet exists for decomissie minimal impact on th oning the reactor.
,any of the dams upriver from cthe plant.The DES fails to con The DE on the plant of dam failure of I listed on For the example, National no mention isRegister made of the Franci ofu tural Historic Plr Vogtle transmission line be routed across ths Plantation which is aces.
It has been propo, sed that a Plantation be moved to make room ransmission for the line.e t Plantation and that a buildin offers effect. The DES assumes to justification that alternatives for this assumption g bey to Plant Yo tl I Vogtle,Apparently, even undernothe effort wasmethodology NRC's made ond to aassess generic whrulemaking to thate wi should be made in this case; clearly ether this holds true for it should
, and consequently whether an exception I disposal, which will affect thousands of f tThe DES fails to available to dispose of nuclear wastes other th u ure generations.- erm impacts of nuclear waste No method is now an putting them in storage.
Request for Hearing I economy and environment of GeorgiaBecause the operation of Pl Campaign forfor a Prosperous Georgia andave such be held on the DES the final environment impact statement to allow greater publiEducation
. c participation in the preparatien of I Respectfully submitted this, the fourth day of J anuary. 1985, W
I Tim Johnson Executive Director
~
Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Educational Campaign for a i Prosperous Georgia 17 _ 8 _ . . . . _-}}