ML20003B136
| ML20003B136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1981 |
| From: | Jordan W, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003B132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102100404 | |
| Download: ML20003B136 (6) | |
Text
m
\\
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE:: SING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the '<atter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY OF
)
Docket ' cs. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
( Se abrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
NECNP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FCR A PRCTECTIVE ORDER on February 4, 1951, the Applicant made a Motien for a Protective Order to prevent PECNP from obtaining One Applicant's Inte rogatories 8, 9 and 15.1/
Although responses to NECNP's c
the Motion itself contained no justification, the accompanying Answer to NECNP 's Motion to Cenpel argued that the protective order should be issued because e:ECNP 's Interrogatories 8, 9
and 15 relate solely to the choice of the proper " tectonic province," an issue that the Applicant asserts has not been reopened.
NECNP has addresseo that qu es t i o-briefly in its Motion to Compel.
Il suffices here to respond *. ore specifically to the relevancy objection, as NECNP has done in the accompanying Motion to Compel the Staff's Response.
1/
NECNP 's Interrogatories are restated in its Motion to Compel Applicant's Response, dated February 2, 1951, and in the a ccomp an y-ing Motion to Compel Staff's Response, sisc1oo 40Y
. One of the major issues to be addressed in the reopened proceeding is "the f actual validity of Dr. Chinnery 's hypothesis. "
If Dr. Chinnery's approacn is found to ce valid, the Appeal Board and the Commission will then be faced with making a choice between two approaches, both of which they have fou,nd to be valid.
It is arguable, of course, that once Dr. Chinnery's approach is determined to be valid, the Staff's and the Applicant's automatically become i
invalid.
However, it is more likely that the Appeal Board will l
view itself as faced with two valid and reasonable approaches l
with different scientific f oundations.
In light of the Commission's s
mandate f ', r a conservative approach to seismic issues, the Appeal I
(
l Board will be required to accept Dr. Chinnery's results unless the i
j Staff and the Applicant demonstrate that the scientific fcundation for their approach is so far superior to Dr. Chinnery's that their results should be accepted despite the fact that Dr. Chinnery's approach is valid.
NECNP has the right, therefore, to pose interrogatories related to the scientific foundation of the Applicant's conclusions.
In so i
doing, NECNP is not challenging the Appeal Board's " tectonic province" finding.
Regardless of the finality of that f inding,
the issue of the strength of its foundation and of the foundation of the conclusions that flow from the choice of tectonic province is relevant to the Appeal Board's choice between the Applicant's conclusions and Dr. Chinnery's.
Cu es tio ns 8 and 9 seek the basic information by which the Applicant reached its conclusions and cy which the strength of the e
h t
i
l l
, I Applicant's approach must be judged., while they are relevant to the choice of tectonic province under the Applicant 's method, i
they are also relevant to the question of which of two other-wise valid approaches must be chosen by the Appeal Board.
Question 15 seeks the Applicant's position on the maximum possible earthquake in the Seabrook tectonic province.
As such, it appears to be directly relevant to the reopened proceeding since the Appeal Board previously rejected Dr.
Chinnery's methodology largely because it questioned his belief that "there is no limit to the intensity of earth-quakes to be expected in any given area. "
Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire, ( Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 58 (1977).
Clearly the Board considers the issue of maximum earthquake intensity to be relevant to the factual validity of Dr. Chinnery's methodology and hypothesis.
For these reasons, NECNP requests that the Appeal Board deny the Applicant 's Motion for a Protective Order and compel its response.
Respectfully submitted, Dy./ w,
'{'c Ellyn R.
Weiss M
N2 Will Mm S. Jordan, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street,
N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 Attorneys for NECNP DATED:
February 6, 1981
f l
l i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAx0
)
In the Matter of
)
)
i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
i 4
Affidavit of Michael A.
Chinnery I, Michael A. Chinnery, being duly sworn, depose and state that I prepared the answers that are referred to in and attached to the document entitled NECNP Responses to Applicant's Interrogatories dated January 6,
1981.
The answers given are tr"'
..i correct to the best of my knowledea e
{ ("
[
4tL v
~
Michael A. Chinnery -
w Subscribed and sworn to before me this l
/ 9' day of t.11 r.u 2 :g., 1981.
i y
U i
' f
//
L'. 31. k.clul (
} kl.lJo Notary Public My Commisaion elpires:,{/.J. i I ###0
/
// J v
9
?
8 4
i a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD a
4 i
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 i
-et al.
)
50-444 NEW EAMPSHIRE,
)
i (Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of February, 1981 copies of "NECNP Response to Applicant's Motion for a Protective j
Order, NECNP Motion to Compel NRC Staff Response to Interrogat ories, and Affidavit of Michael A. Chinnery" were mailed first class postage pre-paid to the f ollowing :
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Atcmic 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 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Environmental Protection Office of the Attorney General Division State House Annex, Room 208 Of fice of the Attorney General Concord, New Hampshire 303301 One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire Ropes & Gray Robert A.
Backus, Esquire 225 Franklin Street O'Neill, Backus, Spielman, & Little Boston, Massachusetts 02210 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ro:r L#.ssy, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20355 Office of Executive Legal Direc or-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 9
--"~a s F =$
-""-t'
--7'M"-
7 Me-
- u m
w*
r--
g
-e*-*T""--
=='N-'t
--y
" " = > <
ee--u'w ee=+--
- *- M
1
-2 l
Dr.
W. Reed Johnson D.
Pierre G.
Cameron, Jr., Esq.
i Atomic Safety & Licensing General Counsel Appeal Board Public Service Company of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cori:tission New Hampshire i
Weshington, D.C.
20555 1000 Elm Street
- tanchester, NII 03105 Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 Godfrey Avenue Board Panel Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Was hing t'on, D.C. 20555 Office of the Attorney General j
208 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 4
o
[
WY]/f/Wa j
Willi g Jord'an, III.
1
~
l l
\\
. ~ ~
i e
k 4
'O l
1 I
l
-. - +....
.,4-
~.-...,...:,--
.