ML20154G333
| ML20154G333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Churchill B GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-326 OL, NUDOCS 8603070627 | |
| Download: ML20154G333 (11) | |
Text
.326 Q CORR,ESPONo p
\\
March 5, 1986 i
DOLMETED
+
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 MAR -6 P3:25 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f0 ge cd
';.o.n. lM '1ga,z g 9, g F
BRI HUi In the Matter of:
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. :
DOCKET NOS. 50-424 OL-50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
APPLICANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LAWLESS ON CONTENTION 7 (GROUND-WATER)
I.
Introduction Applicants hereby move the Board to strike " Inter-venors' Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board March 11, 1986:
Contention 7, Groundwater Contamina-tion," dated February 23, 1986 (hereinafter " Lawless testi-mony"), and " Analysis of the Atomic Safety and Licensing l
t Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 re Ground-l water Contamination)," dated December 15, 1985 and designated an attachment to Mr. Lawless' testimony.. This testimony and attachment are untimely, irrelevant, immaterial, and improper.
9603070627 860305 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G
PDR c-3
l II. Legal Standard The Commission's Rules of Practice state that "[o]nly relevant material and reliable evidence which is not unduly t
repetitious will be admitted."
10 C.F.R. S 2.743(c).
The Rules further provide that the presiding officer may strike r
argumentative, repetitious, cumulative, or irrelevant evidence.
10 C.F.R. S 2.757 (c).
The Appeal Board has also held that sub-l missions that are insufficient or improper, unauthorized (e.g.,
l filed by a non-party), or untimely may be stricken.
Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units lA, 1B, 2A and l
2B), ALAB-409, 5 N.R.C.
1391, 1396-97 (1977).
III. The Lawless Testimony Is Untimely and Improperly Filed By Memorandum and Order of January 14, 1986, the Licensing i
I Board directed that testimony be profiled by February 24, 1986.
Also, section 2.743(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice t
requires that testimony be profiled at least fifteen days in advance of the session of the hearing at which the. testimony is to be presented, which would dictate that testimony be filed by February 24, 1986.
On February 24, 1986, Joint Intervenors served upon the parties an " attachment" to the profiled testimony of William Lawless.
The attachment is entitled " Analysis of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum t
and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of i,
'--v*v~w~
,4, n q -m p ye~ve n w-s---m-y w w.e m_
-yy,-----me-e-~-w--n_eww.gww~
m-e w+m w~-g, ww o r ww"
I I
f Contention 7 re: Groundwater Contamination)."
In a cover f
letter enclosing the attachment, Joint Intervenors asserted j
that Mr. Lawless' testimony was being filed separately on I
the same date.
Mr. Lawless' testimony, however, was not i
J received by the Applicants until Saturday, March 1, 1986, i
j and the envelope enclosing the testimony was postmarked 4
February 26, 1986.
Mr. Lawless' testimony was not accompanied i
by certificate of service or service list.
]
IV.
The Lawless Testimony and Attachment are i
Irrelevant, Immaterial, Argumentative, and Improper 4
1 By Memorandum and Order dated November 12, 1986 (Ruling i
i on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentio" 7 re: Ground-i j
water Contamination) (hereinafter " November 12, 1985 Memorandum
[
)
and Order"), the Board designated five specific issues to be i
j adjudicated.
Mr. Lawless' testimony and the attachment virtually ignore these issues, and instead pertain almost entirely to the issues that Licensing Board decided in Applicants' favor and removed from consideration at the hearing.
For this and the i
other reasons detailed below, Mr. Lawless' testimony and attach-J ment are inadmissible and should be stricken.
1 l
This document was previously submitted to the Licensing l
Board without conformity to the Rules of Practice, and was rejected by the Board.
See Letter from M. Margulies, Esq.,
to T.
Johnson (Dec. 26, 19T5).
i I !
1
I A. The Attachment The first nine pages of the attachment are devoted to argument that the Licensing Board erred in resolving certain issues in the Applicants' favor in its November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order.
At these pages, the attachment contains arguments pertaining to the Licensing Board's rejection oft (1) "Sr-90 Contamination of Groundwater at VEGP" (allegedly due to SRP operation) (see November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order at 9-10); (2) " Statistical Analysis of Hydrological Data" (see id. at 10); (3)
"Effect of Settlement on the Marl" (see id. at 10-11); (4) " Leakage of Radioactive Water from Auxiliary Building" (see id. at 11-12); (5) " Hazardous Chemical Wastes" (see id. at 16); and (6) " Contamination of the Cretaceous Aquifer at SRP" (see id. at 17-21).
These arguments do not' address the issues designated by the Board for hearing, are nothing more than an untimely attack on the Board's rulings, are for the most part vague and speculative, and should not be admitted.
Only on the last two pages of the attachment, under the heading of " Groundwater Travel Time," are there any statements even colorably related to the issues delegated for hearing; but this section of the attachment is again argument and is immaterial.
In essence, the section advocates the adjudica-tion of ground-water travel time by arguing that SRP experience
_4_
L l
suggests that the methodology Applicants used to calculate ground-water travel time may be in error.
The Licensing Board, however, has already designated ground-water travel time as an issue to be adjudicated, and it is now incumbent on the parties to present factual evidence and analysis.
The last section of the attachment focuses solely on events l
l at the SRP, contains no meaningful analysis of methodology, l
l and thus has no probative value.
B.
Lawless Testimony Paragraph 1 of the summary in Mr. Lawless' testimony relates to the need for statistical treatment of data -- an issue considered and decided in Applicants' favor by the Board at page 10 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order -- and is therefore irrelevant (i.e., outside the scope of the hearing).
Furthermore, the statements in paragraph 1 are vague (offering no specifics), speculative (alleging that data " appears" to be inadequate), and conclusory.
l Paragraph 2 of the summary again relates to the statisti-cal analysis of hydrological data, and is irrelevant.
Paragraph 3 of the summary pertains to the effect of settlement on the marl -- an issue considered and decided in Applicants' favor at pages 10-11 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum and order -- and is irrelevant.
The paragraph is also vague and speculative. l
e A
^
l e
Paragraph 4 of the summary pertains to wells as a pathway l
f for contaminants -- an issue considered and decided in Applicants' 3
i i
favor by the Board at pages 21-23 of the November 12, 1985 i
Memorandum and Order -- and is therefore irrelevant.
It is also vague, speculative and conclusory.
i Paragraph 5 of the summary relates to statistical analysis i
i of hydrological data -- an issue decided in Applicants' favor j
by the Board at page 10 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum
+
and Order -- and is irrelevant.
- l i
Paragraph 6 of the summary relates to wells as a pathway I
for contaminants -- an issue decided in Applicants' favor at pages 21-23 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order and is i
therefore irrelevant.
Paragraph 6 is also vague and speculative.
I t
J Paragraph 7 is argument, not testimony.
Moreover, the argument, that the NRC Staff should provide ground-water i
i contamination results from all other NRC licensed facilities in l
order for the public and intervenors to be able to test the i
l cfficacy of the NRC licensing process, is irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding.
Paragraph 7 can also be construed as an j
attack on the Commission's regulations and the NRC itself.
This i
paragraph is irrelevant, immaterial, argumentative, and t
{
improper.
Paragraph 8 is argument and pertains to chemical wastes.
In its November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order, the Board ruled that chemical wastes are beyond the scope of Contention 7.
I Paragraph 8 is argumentative and irrelevant.
l I
l !
l
Paragraph 9 of the summary relates to alleged contamina-j tion of the VEGP area from SRP emissions.
This paragraph is irrelevant to the issues designated by the Board for hearing.
This proceeding is one to adjudge the operation of VEGP, not SRP. Furthermore, with respect to Sr-90, the paragraph relates to an issue already resolved in Applicants' favor by the Licensing Board.
See November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order at 9-10.
Paragraph 10 of the summary alleges that improved surface runoff and "apparently" significantly different K's between the power block and surrounding area "may be" a cause of "some concern."
The staten.cnt is vague and specula-tive, and has no probative value.
Paragraph 11 states that the ground-water travel time calculated by VEGP "could" lead to a significant undercalcula-tion of the actual travel times as was done by SRP.
This paragraph is confusing, vague, speculative, and conclusory.
Paragraph 12 is immaterial.
On the fifth and sixth unnumbered pages of the Lawless testimony (in the first and second paragraphs under the heading " Adequacy of Geological /llydrological Exploration"),
Mr. Lawless again argues for a statistical treatment of data.
Again, this issue has already been considered and resolved in Applicants' favor by the Board.
November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order at 10.,
I 1
4 i
f on the sixth unnumbered page, in the last paragraph under the heading, " Adequacy of Geological / Hydrological i
Exploration," Mr. Lawless speculates concerning the effect of settlement.
The paragraph is vague, speculative, and I
i irrelevant, addressing an issue already resolved in Appli-i cants' favor at pages 10-11 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order.
1 4
At the bottom of the sixth unnumbered page, under the heading of " Uncertainty in Data on Marl Thickness and i
)
Permeability," Mr. Lawless again, without specifics, argues j
for a statistical treatment of data.
This paragraph is a
j argumentative and irrelevant, addressing an issue already j
considered and decided in the Applicants' favor by the Bocrd i
at page 10 of the November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order.
{
On the seventh unnumbered page, under the heading, 1
" Data on Marl Continuity," Mr. Lawless again speculates concerning the effects of settlement on the marl and the l
possibility of wells as a pathway for contaminants.
Both of 5
i l
these topics were considered and resolved in Applicants' i
favor by the Board. November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order at 10-11, 21-23.
Mr. Lawless then continues with argument for statistical treatment of data -- an issue also previously I
j considered and resolved in Applicants' favor by the Board.
Id. at 10.
This paragraph is argumentative, speculative, l
i l
and irrelevant.
{ 4 I
I J
Finally, on the' seventh and eighth unnumbered pages, under the heading of " Groundwater Travel Time," Mr. Lawless once again argues for statistical treatment of data and speculates that the " potential for rapid water transport through fissures in the backfilled material exists."
This paragraph is vague, speculative, and conclusory, and the argument for statistical treatment of data has already been considered and resolved in the Applicants' favor by the Board.
V. Conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Applicants submit that the "Intervenors' Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board March 11, 1986: Contention 7, Groundwater Contamination," dated February 23, 1986, and the " Analysis of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 re Groundwater Contamina-tion)," dated December 15, 1985, and designated an an attach-ment to Mr. Lawless' testimony, should be stricken.
Ros cctfully submitted, N
j Brpet!&. Churchill, P.C.
David R. Lewis S!!AW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE James E. Joiner, P.C.
Charles W. Whitney Kevin C.
Greene llugh M.
Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN
& ASilMORE Counsel for Applicants Dated: March 5, 1986
e EDcoggggpng, ENcg March 5,986 l
.l DO(.KE T E!.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA usNat NUCLEAR REGULTORY COMMISSION i
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W MR -6 P3 :25 l
hFFICL D' tt'.h t 't q 'CKL In the Matter of
)
l
)
l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 i
)
50-425 i
(Vogtle Electric Generating
)
i Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
+
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copics of Applicants' Motion To Strike 1
Testimony Of William Lawless On Contention 7 (Ground-Water) was served this 5th day of March,196,3, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties licted on the I
attached Service List, except that those whose names are marked by asterisk were served by hand delivery this 5th day of March,1986.
1 dk E. /h,2!
l Ilug i i. Davenport
/
j Counsel for Applicants f
i Dated:
March 5, 1986 l
d I
1 1
J i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
i
}
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
1 In the Matter of
)
)
i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-424
)
50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
l I
Units 1 and 2)
)
l 1
SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman
- Douglas C. Teper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1253 Lenox Circle i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Washington, D. C. 20555 l
- Tim Johnson l
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Executive Director 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Campaign For A Prosperous Georgia j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1083 Austin Ave., N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission j
Washington, D. C.
20555 Bernard M. Lordenick, Esq.
^
Office of Executive Legal Director Bradley Jones, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 3100 Panel 101 Marietta Street U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
l 4
1 I
.