ML20115J442

Provides Addl Info Re Motion to Compel.Understanding of Agreements Listed.Taking of D Teper Deposition on 850422 & 26 Confirmed.Objection to Applicant 850415 Answer to Motion Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20115J442
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/19/1985
From:	Johnson T JOINT INTERVENORS - VOGTLE
To:	Joiner J TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA
Shared Package
ML20115J444	List: ML20115J442 ML20115J447
References
CON-#285-639 OL, NUDOCS 8504230547
Download: ML20115J442 (2)

Text

A.9.

15L Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia m

L% 175 Trinity Ave.5.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404 659-5675 Y- DOCKETED

'C '

USNRC April 19, 1985 James Joiner, esq. '85 APR 22 All 55 Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore 1400 The Candler Building

• Atlanta, Georgia 30303 0FFICE OF SECRETAfP 00CdETmG & SEftvtr.!

8"^" "

Dear Jim:

"PROD.&

" " UTIL 30 FAC.3 ;tq Jla s o t This letter is to provide additional information as a result of our meeting on Wednesday concerning our motion to compel and to let you know our understanding of what was agreed upon there.

A-2(concerningopenitems): We will withdraw our request that you be compelled to answer this in view of the information you have provided.

A-3: As we told you at the meeting, we withdraw this request since you have not done the calculation.

B-6(p): As we said, we withdraw this since you have now answered it.

B-19, B-20, B-24 and B-29: You requested a definition of " range of uncertainty":

The range of uncertainty is the potential for error involved; what is the probability that your calculations are correct? Can you mathematically prove them?

For instance: You can postulate a time for calculated groundwater travel time under the surface to the first outcrop; what is the range of uncertainty of that estimate?

B-25: As we told you, the figures for Plant Hatch are quite relevant to this proceeding. Analytic calculations are often based on liberal assumptions which cannot be verified. The Hatch figures will allow normalization of your calculations for Vogtle against real world experience. In other words, we want to bound your calculations by experiencial data base. We understand that you will not provide this information unless compelled to do so by the ASLB; our request to the Board stands.

B-26: You refuse to answer the question concerning technical measures to prevent groundwater contamination following the'useful life of the plant on the grounds that it is not relevant; however, this clearly relates to Contention 7 concerning groundwater. Applicants also argue that Intervenors' question as to financial provisions for preventing contamination of groundwater following plant shutdown is not relevant since it deals with a financial question; however, as we explained to you, we asked not whether the Public Service Commission will allow you to collect

• the money or whether you would be able to collect the money, but whether what e4 8 mechanism would you provide (that is, are you providing a mechanism to assure that 588- this is done)? The NRC itself, in fact, requires " acceptable decommissioning gg methodologies, timing, environmental review requirements and funding mechanism" mo (" Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Vogtle Electric w Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1087, p. 9-33, emphasis added). We maintain gg our request that the Board compel your response.

89 m B-27(c): The effects on the groundwater of accumulated releases (including airborne

• releases) are clearly relevant to the groundwater contention. This includes data g@

R$ concerning the SRP releases; precipitation cateches emissions and can contaminate en.o the groundwater.

~

mtle data base was generated in the early 1970s; since that time, therp has i fort to update it. How do you know when contamination has

occurred if the groundwater has already been contaminated? Arguably, it has. It is not only relevant but essential to discriminate Vogtle releases from background releases, an impossible task without up-to-date background data. We understand that at this time you refuse to respond to this request; we therefore let stand our request that the Board compel your response.

B-40: We withdraw this request.

B-41: We withdraw this request.

B-42: You refuse to respond to this question because you claim it goes beyond the basis for our contention; on the contrary, as we explained, our contention concerning solenoid valves goes beyond the ASCO problem (serious in itself) and wording of the Board's order in no way restricts the contention to ASCO valves. We will therefore retain our request that the Board compel a response to this question.

B-43: Applicants argue that operating experience with the type hydrogen recombiner to be used at Plant Vogtle is not relevant. Clearly, the operating experience is relevant. Intervenors maintain their request that the Board compel Applicants' response.

B-44: Applicants argue that maintenance and surveillance of the hydrogen recombiners is not relevant to the contention accepted by the Board. Clearly, it is relevant, since operating experience might lead to the recombiners not being qualified (the concern raised in the contention). Intervenors maintain their request that the Board compel you to respond to this question.

B-45: We withdraw this request.

B-48: We agreed to further clarify this request. Please provide the rate of transmission of contaminants from the surface to the aquifer described by contaminant and pathway, seasonally adjusted. This includes surface rleases and/or cooling tower releases.

This letter also confirms taking of the deposition of Doug Teper on April 22nd and 26th, beginning at 9:45. In further clarification, as our counsel has repeatedly informed you, at this time, Mr. Teper is the only potential witness Intervenors have identified under QA; in the event more are identified, we will promptly notify you.

Sincerely, s e

, y : v7 l d-; k m Tim Johnson for Intervenors Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy cc: Service List s