ML20003A673
| ML20003A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Jordan W, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102040678 | |
| Download: ML20003A673 (9) | |
Text
'
-- 5. yI79
.\\
/
/N
~
ge[/
- 'r
- 7 c f~E y
l S~;.,I ' N a...
':a y
..a_ e.s.
~l
\\,.Wgi
']
'M f
rNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\$,
k ca 7
\\'
'{ c/
.,.:.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW EAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
79 s
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
f y-y& v.'
+,D
)
R:.m-NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL fl gg j'331 F i
g L
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES vA %ws-s?
9
//
In a response received by NECNP on January 23,. 9 Qt 2 \\ '
the Applicant objected to the following interrogatories pos by NECNP on January 2, 1981:
r Q.
8.
Please describe what the Applicant believes to be the tectonic province or seismic area in which the Seabrook site is located.
Please justify this choice in a.
detail.
In so doing, describe, explain the use of, and justify the Applicant's conclusions con-cerning, at a minimum, the follcWing:
1.
All tectonic structures and other tectonic or seismic features, including all iden-tified fault lines, that the Applicant considered in reaching its conclusions.
2.
Any new information concern-ing tectonic or seismic features or activity in the Northeastern United States that has become known to the Applicant since its original testimony on seismic issues in 8102040 Cg this proceeeing.
A
$ off
.g
-3.-..
3.
All historical earthquakes considered by the Applicant, including their intensity on t"e Modified Mercalli scale.
4.
The "Bw uw..-Ottowa seismic trend."
b.
Please explain the relevance of this choice of tectonic province to the determination of the design basis earthquake, under the method-ology propounded by the Applicant.
c.
Please identify and describe the sources from which you have com-piled a historical record of earth-quakes in the tectonic province or seismic area described in response to this question.
In particular, how complete is the record as a function of time, location within the province or area, and intensity.
Q.
9.
Has the Applicant or any of its witnesses t
examined other possible tectonic province choices for the area?
If so, please describe each one and a.
explain in detail why it was rejected in favor of that described in.res-pense to Question 8.
Q. 15.
What, in your mpinion, is the maximum epi-central intensity of-the largest. earthquake l
that will ever occur within the province or area described in response to Question 8?
l Please-justify your answer in detail, a.
l including reference to all relevant tectonic structures,. tectonic or seismic features, and historical earthquakes, b.
Explain'why you are exactly 100% con-
.fident that.your answer is correct.
If you'are not exactly 100% confident, state your degree of confidence, and.
i cexplain how it was estimated.
, i The Applicant states the basis for its objection as follows:
Obj.
8.
Interrogatory No. 8 is objected to as being irrelevant to any issue before the Board.
The reopened proceeding was ordered with res-pect to two issues; a relitigation of the proper tectonic province or seismic area was not one of them.
Since the interrogatories in question are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence, NECNP moves that the Appeal Board order the Applicant to provide a complete and timely response.
In ordering that this proceeding be reopened to reconsider Dr. Chinnery's methodology for predicting earthquake probabil-ities in New England, the Commission specifically referred to tectonic provinces serving as data bases from which to 1
predict earthquakes:
At the outset, we find that the Appeal Board erred in holding that Dr. Chinnery's methodol-ogy is inconsistent with Appendix A.
In ALAB-422, the Appeal Board held that Appendix A would permit use of a probabilistic approach to determine the probability of occurrence of earthquakes in one area based on data from another area only if the probabilistic method-ology compared areas which are geologically or seismicelly similar.
Appendix A does not explicitly address the conditions under which i
l seismic data from several tectonic provinces can be used to establish a relation for pre-i l
dicting earthquakes in the tectonic province l
containing the proposed site.
Thus, we ' find l
nothing in Appendix A which compels the Appeal l
Board's conditions.
Moreover, we find these conditions inconsistent with the intent of Appendix A to provide a conse rvative approach l
to determining the SSE in liga.t of the absence of a theoretical basis for such a determination.
At this yet early stage in earthquake science we are not prc>ared to dismiss an empirical relation on the basis of failure to satisfy i
J t.
criteria, which although they may appear reason-able, imply a greater understanding of the relation between geology, seismology, and earth-quakes than is actually available.
Finally, we note that the comparison is not essential to Dr. Chinnery's methodology.
That comparison serves to support his contention that earthquake recurrence time as a function of intensity is a straight line of certain slope.
However, in calculating the recurrence time of a greater than histocial earthquake in the tectonic pro-vince containing the Seabrook site, only data from that province are used.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-33, NRC (1980).
Clearly, the use of a tectonic province or other seismic area as a data base by Dr. Chinnery or by anyone else applying Dr. Chinnery's methodology is directly relevant to the issues reopened by the Commission.
The Applicant has stated that the tectonic province determines the maximum earthquake.
(Applicant's Answer to NECNP Interrogatory 10, dated January 21, 1981.)
Presumably the Applicant would assert, therefore, that the tectonic province or some specific region of the f
province is the proper data base from which a probabilistic analysis would have to be done.
The Applicant's Interroga-tories to NECNP, dated January 6, 1980, demonstrate that the l
l Applicant considers the data base issue to be relevant.
In Question 1, the Applicant requests a description of the
" Boston-New Hampsaire area" from which Dr'. Chinnery drew his data, and in Question 2, it asks why a. larger area of New England is not the valid data base.
Several other questions l
l
d pursue that issue for New England and for the other two regions studied by Dr. Chinnery.
Indeed, the Applicant even poses the following question:
12.
What is the " tectonic province establish-ing the Seabrook site" which you advocate should be adopted for analysis of the Seabrook seismic design?
It is nothing short of remarkable that the Applicant should serve this interrogatory on NECNP and later argue that NECNP's questions on the some point are irrelevant.
In addition, the interrogatories seek information con-cerning the Applicant's basis for its own intensity predic-tions.
Question 8 seeks details on the Applicant's justification of its choice of tectonic province.
Even if the choice i
itself is settled, the basis for that choice is surely relevant to the question or what earthquake intensities can be expected in the area, and therefore to the issue of i
whether Dr. Chinnery's methodology and predictions are I
correct.
For example, if the Applicant argues that a parti-cular tectcnic structure or other feature governs earthquake intensity at Seabrook, or that the historical earthquakes within the chosen tectonic province establish a maximum possible earthquake, and if those conclusions are contrary to those drawn by Dr. Chinnery, those points.are directly relevant to the issues before the Appeal Board.
The same is true of raasons that the Applicant may have for having rejected l
other possible tectonic provinces, information requested by Question 9.
Of course, Question 15 is directly ralevant on i
. l I
the same grounds.
Obviously, if the Applicant asserts that there exists a maximum intensity earthquake that will occur in the Seabrook tectonic province, that assertion and any information that supports it or relates to it is relevant to the validity of Dr. Chinnery's probability methodology, particularly if Dr. Chinnery predicts an earthquake that is of greater intensity than the maximum chosen by the Applicant.
Therefore, the information requested in Questions 8, 9 and 15 is relevant to this proceeding in that the results of Dr.
Chinnery's methodology must be weighed against the results of the Applicant's methodology in order to reach a final decision.
The Applicant suggest,s that NECNP's Interrogatories I
raise the spectre of relitigating the precise choice of tectonic province for the Seabrook site.
That is not the Assuming that the issue of the proper tectonic province case.
has not been reopened, NECNP's Interrogatories are relevant to a reassessment of Dr. Chinnery's methodology and are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.
. For these reasons, NECNP respectfully requests, pursuant to 10 CPR 2.740(f), that the Appeal Board compel the Applicant to answer t.ECNP's Interrogatories 8, 9 and 15.
Respectfully submitted,
& 74kad/s,
Ellyp R. Weiss
,. W + r f Y
/sYFx M William,,JiW Jordah, III Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 i
DATED:
February 2, 1981 6
5
}
I t
a 0
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW EAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
u d 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICL'
'I hereby certify that copies of the "NECNP Mction to l
Compel Applicant's Response to Interrogatories," have been hand-delivered and mailed postage pre-paid this 2nd day of February, 1981, to the following parties:
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Frank Wright, Esquire Assistant Attorney General l
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division
{
, Environmental Protection Office of the Attorney General Division State House Annex, Room 208 Office of the Attorney General Concord, New Hampshire 03301 One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr., Esquire Ropes & Gray Robert A. Backus, Esquire 225 Franklin Street O'Nei?l, Backus, Spielman, & Little Boston, Massachusetts _02210 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03'01
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Roy Lessy, Esquire cashington, D.C.
20555 Office of Executive _ Legal Di.m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissit Washington, D.C. 20555
O
_2_
i I
- Dr. W.
Reed Johnson
~
D.
Pierre G.
Cameron, Jr., Esc Atomic Safety & Licensin9 General Counsel Appeal Board Public Service Company of l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission New Hamoshire Washington, D.C.
20555 1000 Elm 5treet Manchester, NH 03105 W
fh d
I William d' Jordan, ~ III II I
f
- /
hand-delivered.
-**/
Express mail.
1 I
9