ML20003B319
| ML20003B319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Dignan T, Gad R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003B320 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102100656 | |
| Download: ML20003B319 (7) | |
Text
,
h-N/
gip
/
" ' ^ G 3l p 'E,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-- t 4
%e,1 2
5 h N s.-[t YT k NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?O11SSION
/
6 k / j,, A'N before the sso ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL ECARD 1
)
l In the Matter of
)
)
50-43 PUBLIC SER' LICE COMPA!;Y OF NEW
)
Docket Mos. 7 0 c a, 3, nan.3 S n..
-., et a _,.
)
...s.,
_n s) l (Seabrock Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
I h,
R[. fE(r'bN'g ANSWER OF PUBLIC SERVICE IEB O S IOOI A
/
COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE H
'l f ~i, u.s. g%,sDece, I
TO NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL p(>,
M(,/
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
\\
/,,
s.Q>M \\
STATEMENT CF THE CASE l
l Cn January 2, 1951, NECNP served upon Public cc vice i
Company of New Hampshire (PSCO) a set of interrogatories.
On January 21, 1931, PSCO served answers thereto.
In those answers PSCO responded to all but four of the nineteen interrogatories posed.
NECMP now moves for an order compelling answers to three of the four interrogatories objected to viz. Mos. 3, 9 and 15.-
All of these interrogator ies (which are quoted in f
1 NECNP does not seek Interrogatory 16 was also objected to.
l i
to compel an answer to this interrogatory.
i i
i 3 10:n 0o W g
6 a/
i
.-s e
..r-.
.v..,yv.,.
m--,.,.my
~,.,.-,__,y
- r...,,.,
m.
..--,y
full in the '.'ECNP motion) seek information as to PSCO's posi-tien to the " tectonic province" which encompasses Seabrook (Nos. 3, 9) and information as to the chosen tectonic province (No. 15).
PSCC has objected to these interrogatories on the 2
004 4.n.
- o. w. a. - - n.,m. m. d _
4 - -.. m..*
-..ma..evan
.wm.
e a
g. o d.m.u
. w..,. _ w m. g,.
~.. a
,.ma m
,v.
v ing as recpened b'/ the Ccrmission.
,2,....
h..J L c. ~. 4.
I.
The Standard to be Applied is One Of Relevance to the assues neogenec s "m 3 3. ' *. * ". o *
.e n. = '.< a..a s A *. *. *..a. =
- q =..", r_ o.".. ~.. ^ *.. '. " sae.=
- n.
--a v
v m
.a",
o "u..- a a a ha *. h a. "
o."
- n. o t
.da
.... a. ".." " 3 a '. ".# a. s.= ". r u ' d.
k a.
.r
- k.a. s =.
~
^
v m
are relevant to the issues reopened if they are found to be
" calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".
NECNP Motion at 3, 6.
That is not he law.
If the infcrmation sought is irrelevant to the issues, teen the discovery should
.:ot be allowed.
The NRC discovery rules as between private parties are, insofar as the language here material is concerned, identical to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
" Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant t'
the subject matter involved in the oe. ding action It is not ground.or objection that the information sums t will be inadmissible at the trial a
if the information sought appears reason-ably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
F.
R. Civ.
Proc. 2c(b)(1).
The "RC Rules of Practice are identical except that "pending action" reads " proceeding" and " trial" reads " hearing".
mye
10 CFR $ 2.7t0(b)(1).
't is therefore appropriate to look to c s a..n n.1 vaa.ca
+ v. a.
.a
, a,.v-
.r o.
one.ss ~..,.e n a.
.n a. a. v" o l,. -,u...a n e
.i n., a.n
- o..n.
w a.
.a aa 4
a' T a ~ _ s; 'eo, J. ;.L~
I'-
c4o' n.7
( i.'A. a, n.q a 0, o.n. *.
"..n.4 a-m.m o
?,)
d 7
-no o-,
s
.a s
s. G ~ ~t )'.
'L.e. a..n
.e in..
e u
.v.a.
2,l a.sn. 4 a., m.e a n ~. 4 o. n., C w.
Aa a
.a 2 ~ ~~
a
..c. a..
w
.v u
y m
s
.aan a. q +
.c - w n o m a., a + 4 c p.
4 agmw.e
.e.n.. v m.. a... a n..,.e.n n. a us.
- b.,*.
- e. w. a.
c 3
w v.
y.
aas a -
e a
e.
r ew..
a
. s w a. ' a...a..
Ae s
ona e n u.n+
b.a s -,a, *.
4...
.. v.
n-v v
y n..n. a. e.o.n 5. a.
>.4~.<,,. u.,wa,a g u.a
.y
..u g e.
- v. a.
n
.ulo u
v v.a.nwaA h s..
- t..h a.
c o w *.* e.e s a a. 'n. 4.n
- A J-x a s r p w,.
,1 c,
e-.
s u..+
1 - ~ o Aan..e no. mo~ a.
~. k a.
n a. '. a... o.e.,m a.
nP + > a.
e
.c a
.u o.
4..c-,..2 4.,n OV...w.
.u
-- L. 5. A w v-
..w. a. 4..2.. a. s.<.m. d
. \\. a. u a
u 4.r.
. w. a.
,2 a..n
.4 a. m. e s,
u.... a a.
- 1 a.,,
,1 e-a 423 F.
Supp. 334, 390 (D. Cel. 1977).
.v. n.- a. n,. a,
>+
o ~. a.n.,a n
..e.w a., s,
. u,
.e,.. ~ u a ~.
- e. s.a.
- d..a
., v.. e s.
a n.
.a u
s.
c
-s ea
. s
- o. _n ' '.".' a '. a. s.
' a. a d *. o *..*. e
^m * - ~ e. ". e,".~ " o ^
- s = s.* v. ' a.
- a. v
- A a.~. ~. a,-
a m
^Se e ('o []
.#F.
4o v.7 e o.n
- h. n *.
.O,i.l a.
. a.
. 4.n p c
.P.8 ws *o
- h a *
- e h e.= u &. e w.J ' s a
w o
c.
a.
m s.
n, o a...mn 7:v Ce g.,
.e r 2.
n. _.... e.
..w.a - e e,..a..c w
o..
m e w a.
- a. s.a....
a o
m o.
3
=. y, r.... D,.
2.;,
-1.
oo (v..D,.
, o. I d ).
i d
2P T..n. sb-w*
& h e w u.9 a.
.o,
&. n' a.
m..u. e.n.4 m.,
4-
- n. i o &.
w a 7 a.t/ _a n
- g6 um..,
e e
c u.,
- asa, r..pA u
c.ewo.a..
- e.-a.,..
"$ n.r.ame c.oma, 4.
s_4-.1
_4-a a
w, nc.s.
a, m,
s 273, 280 (5th Cir. 1 9 7 i ; ; !;. 0. vt., Inc.
- v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 73 F.R.D. 467, 472 (D. Minn. 1977); Brown
- v. 'laco Fire and Casualty Co., 73 F.R.D. 297, 299 (S.D. Miss.
1976); Shaver v.
Yacht Outward Bound, 71 F.R.D. 561, 563 1-/0); nye, V.
.. u rp >.y, 70 w.n.a.
6pi, op3
(<,.
-a.i.
( e.. D.,,,
1 u
i i
i i
i
. e - : s,.
n..a s a. a.
.= a,4 c.4,. G.
s=.C.
(m
,.4s,a...
4ue,,,.,w
=.,v v a.,.,
2...
?
,yie a.
m Ur.it 1), ALia-550, 9 IiRC 633, 695 (1979); Censu ers Power Co.
(Midland Flant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-113, 6 AEC 233 (1973).
.T T.
m.. o.
T b,.lo o.e
- ha. o.w n. r o.w
. o. m t m r. 4 n.
m
.a o
w y
v.
Province haS not [,een Reopened
+ w.e,, ba.
"a. C a ' ' a. u
- k. m *s
's.. a.
"v'e.*"....*^.
d n
k
.S""a."
n' a 5 u."5.u a
~ad 1.
vi a
L o n *..b.e C e..... 4.e S.4n..r.
_n -a. n
.4 + n...
c iv.
.s
- u..i o..
4r
.g n..a.
u.va.1 ano so*
nn y
v.
a v.
ma.
- o ". h a.
." a C *.
- ho'.
. ' *. N. a " d a. # a." " a 4 " "s
+".a.
I ^ ".."...# ".".' o.n p a. ". d..# " 3~
s.
ov..-
o
- - h o " =.h..' " c.'
'w a.wa r n "" o." d.' S S a..". *w.
n'.". a.." * ". a.
a u.c o.' a...a..r. s c ". s" o"*
~
y a
n e.ar.e, r.
2..o.
nU.
( n. 7.n.;. c t.1 f.. n.. l, e.non.ps...r. C ".O w.a. r.4 ~.x... n.
,T a
sy a
v.
s
.a n
3 o
.c.2. o.
o-
.. a. N ( o "
a" 'a' 9. ".' a. ~~ a. n. *.
- b a.
".".4 ^ " I, y" c...#..# ^ r.
" rgo'a'".'# ".h.c. 4
.y
-a y
.a n w a g.m c - ~
nu3 u _;, 70f 0,.
". r n "h:
.. g p.
c, 3 7 -
0
- a. g..., r...
g~ a.
3 r.
..w..a
.u c
0
.a v.
.a.
.c.e l e.. y~
'q_y
=ro.
..o.. a. o..q au.. r 7 c N. o ~.. ' a~ a~ ' ". e C b.'.". " *. "r a" r
c ro w
y 2 " a. " o'.
9 y.u a
y.
'a
- b o.
E..o.... o "...r..* u" 7.. w ~ m. d
.q4X
.e r o..n.4.c.4 a.
- o. n.w n w r.
7.;..o n.c
- b.o S e
.e va
- a. a a
y 2 7 7 o e~ p a.
o.w w o.w s w o.w e..h.o.
.c o..l o n *. 4 cn o.#
- h.. * * ' 'w C n.' a.
p " v^ V.# ".. ^ a.
Chosen 33 opposed to another (the So-called 3cSton-Ottawa bo.1 '.>)
... w
- e.h. wm -.
a" a V e
- a..". C v^.~.."y S
- S a. d *ha 'S.o ". *.." a,'. l a a ". *, b -
.c o. 4 -... 4 n c
.a..
v a
- v..
a ga3Ae.
& n C o-m....s S.< n
-.. 1 o asa no*. wevyen. vno, 4S a-.lo.
T..
u'
,o w
en a
a.
p y u
c.4 A n o. o y. r.
k o.
4e-,p-n n. 4 w1,. 4.r.s-n' a..m*ho.n
.e - o. n 4.c.4,a ~.4 c a.e oe n o.
a aa a -.
y r
a".."^".
b "a *. ". v *. 'ha.
." = ' a. a '..' r " o.c
- h.a.
- e ^ *e ^.7.4 c "." o "..*.". c a..
v a
e v
g Be"cre an ASLE, discovery muSt be relevant to the conten-tionS admitted to the proceeding.
See Allied-General Nuclear Scrvices (Earnwell.ruel ?.eceiving and Storage Station), LEP-I
( l y,.,, ).
nere there muSt be Shown a l
4t-l,,
p. ; n,u 4, 0 9, 4 9 e-tI a
l l
l relevance to the " Contentions" allowed by the Commission.
No i
H o o n*. e n.&. 4 r n. S ueno..o.7 1 a.vo A pa vu
&..b p n.w e n e.n 6pn*on.4C n wo.l.4 n c o..
e
- n m
a n
m
. e vy s.
y.
I i
l i
s i
l L
I I
l 4
L
III.
';EC::F 's Ef forts tc " Boot strap" the Tectonic Province Issue Should be Rejected Ferhaps realizing that the issue of the proper tectonic province is no longer open,-) "ECHP seeks to establish "rele-vance" by a number of other analyses.
First, ::EC:!? assumes that PSCO is arguing that its choice of tectenic province "is the proper data base from which a s a.
a, c. a n.
- c C O _> a-
- v e. u a. v. < ~. <.,. _., a.. a _ s e > a-
,.l,.,, a..
- u. a.. a.
m.
y.
e - >.
'c'a o n a' -' * ~ a* a 7.'x 4 n
- v.b 4.= ~.~ o ^ =. a. d.' r. s.
~~ce^s*
s~ o.r.",
e.
"a".'~.
^-
, a a e
- e xt, it is argued that PSCO's cwn interrogatories should be read as an admission that the ones here at issue are rele-70...
r _<, o.
v,o 2.,,
'"a.
_'s
". v
.e ^ a o-n.
..at'oe" o.".'aw ^"
'^3-'.
~'
And in any event, the questions about tectonic provinces (Ncs. 12ff) that were asked, dere directed to a specific letter which Dr. Chinnery had written to counsel, and counsel had attached to a notion.
Finally, it is argued that the questions are " relevant l
to a reassessment or Dr. Chinnery's methodology".
Dr. Chinnery l
I doesn't seer to think so.
See Chinnery answers to PSCO Inter-rotatories 12-16.
r
(
)
See IIEC ;P Motion at 6.
i e
m
i e
OO'IGLC(oHOL 1
1 f
c;(
DOctu1D (GDF(*Dl PDp tTD 1
g 1T iOt4c F O l3
- 4. TOG 6 LG s
" L T t
O'Oc(
O ' O O e-6iG
< (
(
I t
l
.a t
$(f*
iO1@p O *3 b3 cG*D t
(l C t s' 0cfi cr(f=
DD) t 3
- 4
)
ft ttDt
- (0(3GOct 1flO!Pl' Q*
3*1MWMw i$
)
tFJ t'
+
1&DOiPu G*
C' tNMp;3 G '$
l h
(
=
s 4
)
n64t Cpp I
't 5
GpL HHH t
5
- t e
3OOG(n s
O * (a N it D *3 1
c
+> O *
&tt'<cG(D ritt (4(
lccO'OD0)/
g ly(g
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
l I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the at*.orneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that on February 4, 1931, j
I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, first class or airmail, to:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Appeal Board Suite 506 U.S. Nuclear Regul-atory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
1 Dr. John H. Buck Robert A. Backus, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing O'Neill Backus Spielman Appeal Board 116 lowell Street
~
U.S. Nuclear Regula cry Commission Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart K. Becker, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson Maxine I. Lipeles, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorneys General Appeal Board Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02 03 Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold 3 Godfrey Avenue Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Office of the Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex i
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
j
-Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
4 h
l l
i 9
1 i
.e I
i 1
.)
y. - -. _..,.
y
,