ML20003C170
| ML20003C170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1981 |
| From: | Jordan W, Weiss E NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102260761 | |
| Download: ML20003C170 (13) | |
Text
.
i BD0bG TWE C0k;;ISSIO 3 G
m
<l-r DOCMETED k
USNAC f,
UtIITED STATES OF AMERICA r EB 2 4 19OI A f_
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l{.
Offb af eg g*'
e 3"
BEFORE THE COMMISSION b
p
,$
SA v.s. mn.axaroes q NECNP MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICAT AND REVERSAL OF G
.k APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF FEBRUARY 12, 198 4 p
f 4 i Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.785(d), the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution moves that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct the Appeal Board to certify for Commission consideration its Memorandum and Order of February 12, 1981, (Attachment 1) and that the Commission reverse that decision.
Procedurally, the Memorandum and Order involved a dispute over the scope of discovery.
Normally, such a decision would be interlocutory and not appealable until completion of the proceeding before the Appeal Board.
However, this ruling indicates that the Appeal Board has misread the dommission's dictates in such a manner that failure to grant certification would harm the public interest and cause excessive and unnecessary delay and expense.
l(
I8102260 %Iv g
. BACKGROUND The Commission is undoubtedly thoroughly familiar with the procedural background of this phase of the Seabrcok proceeding.
In July of 1977, the Appeal Board affirmed the authorization of construction permits for-the Seabrook i
reactors, accepting, inter alia, the NRC Staff's and Appli-cant's positions on seismic issues.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 54-65 (1977).
This prompted a petition for review by NECNP, which the Commission held in abeyance pending receipt of the dissenting opinion promised by Mr. Farrar, then a member of the Appeal Board.
After that dissent and the responses to it were issued in the fall of 1979, Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
3 ALAB-561, 10 NRC 410 (1979), the Commission asked the parties to participate in an oral presentation on seismic issues, which took place on May 29, 1980.
Finally, on September 25, 1980, the Commission reversed the Appeal Board's decision on seismic issues and remanded for reconsideration in light of further evidence.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-33, 12 NRC 295 (1980) (Attach-ment 2).
In particular, the Commission ordered that At this yet early stage in earthquake science we are not prepared to dismiss an empirical relation on the basis of failure to satisfy 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.
. Accord-ingly, in view of the
'ed for. conservatism in
o 2.
. this area, we find Dr. Chinnery's methodology is not inconsistent with' Appendix A.
Wh,ile in most cases the mere passage of time would not provide an adequate basis for reopen-ing the record, the subsequent publication of Dr. Chinnery's works and general increase in seismic knowledge suggest to us, that as a matterof prudence the record should be reopened.
Accordingly, the Appeal Board shall reopen the record to take additional evidence on Dr.
Chinnery's methodology and reconsider its opinion in this matter.
Id. at 297.
Based on this ruling, NECNP prepared interrogatories concerning, inter alia, the underpinnings of and uncertainties involved in the methods used by the Staff and the Applicant to determine earthquake intensities.-1/
Both the Staff and the Applicant objected to these interrogatorbes as irrelevant and forced NECNP to make Motions to Compel, to which they responded.
(Attachments 3, 4, 5 and 6).
The Applicant also made a Motion for a Protective Order, to which NECNP.::esponded.
(Attachment 7)
On February 12, 1981, the Appeal Board denied NECNP's' motions and granted the protective order on the ground that information relating to the identification of the Seabrook tectonic province was not relevant to the validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis, or to the Appeal l
Board's reconsideration of its opinion.
Public Service Co. of 1/
The language of the interrogatories is included in NECNP's Motions to Compel, which constitute Attachments 3 and 4.
. ^
New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Douket Nos.
50-433, 50-444 (February 12, 1981).
However, in 1 s last footnote the Appeal Board stated,
~
In both its motion to compel staff responses to the interrogatories and its answer to the applicants' motion for a protective order (at pp. 3-5 and pp.
2-3, respectively), the Coalition suggests that, in the event that the Chinnery approach is found valid on the basis of the reopened record, "the Appeal Board and the Commission will then be faced with making a choice between two approaches, both of which they have found to be valid."
In that circumstance, the Coalition opines,
.this Board will be requried "to accept Dr.
Chinnery's results" unless the applicants and the staff " demonstrate that the scientific foundation 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."
As the Coali-tion sees it, the challenged interrogatories have a bearing upon the strength of the scientific foundation of the applicants' and staff's conclusions.
It is neither necessary nor appropriate to decide at this juncture whether the Coalition has correctly forecast our next step should the Chinnery approach be found, after the further evidence is received, to be acceptable.
We likewise need not now determine whether there is, in fact, a linkage between the inter-rogatories and the " scientific foundation" for the applicants' and staff's conclusions on the earthquake intensity question.
For, even if the Coalition is right on both scores, the interrogatories remain irrelevant to any issue which will be considered at the upcoming hear-ing -- which, under the terms of the Ccmmis-sion's remand order, is to receive evidence (insofar as concerns the intensity question) on the " factual validity" of the Chinnery approach and that alone.
Should it subsequently become necessary or desirable to weigh the relative merits of two or more acceptable approaches, there will be then time enough for the Coalition to seek such information as it might deem rele-vant to the weighing process.
~,
. ARGUMENT' I.
Issues Involving The Foundation Of And Uncertainties In The Staff's And Applicant's Approach Are Relevant To The Remanded Proceeding In the ihterrogatories before the Commission, NECNP sought to obtain information concerning the basis for the conclusions reached by the Staff and the Applicant.
The pur-pose of obtaining this information was to allow NECNP, and later the Appeal Board, to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of that approach as opposed to Dr. Chinnery's hvpothesis.-2/
However, in ruling on the Motions to Compel, tne Appeal Board took the myopic view that consideration of the " factual validity" of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis did not involve weighing its merits against other approachus.
Instead, the Appeal Board viewed NECNP's interrogatories as an attempt to reopen the question of what tectonic province should be ch'osen for the Seabrook site and ruled that it would not allow relitigation of that issue.
As we argued to the Appeal Board, we have no intention of relitigating the issue of what tectonic province should be chosen for the purposes of the Staff's and Applicant's l
approach to determining the SSE.
That point is clearly settled.
The question now is whether the results of that approach should be accepted, or whether Dr. Chinnery's 2/
NECNP posed questions with a similar purpose in a depo-sition of the Staff's witnesses on February 12, 1981.
The Staff objected on relevancy grounds and refused to l
respond.
6
0 e
. analysis and the general increase in seismic knowledge in the last five years dictate a different result.
The Appeal Board's ruling appears to reflect a belief that it is possible to deternine the validity of Dr. Chinnery's methodology in a vacumn, without regard to the strengths and weaknesses of competing theories.
Only once the Appeal Board decides that/Dr. Chinnery has reached some undefined threshhold of validity will it then attempt to weigh his method against the others.
If there were some quantitative maans of determining the validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis, this approach might make some sense.
However, there is not.
As we contend, and as Dr. Chinnery would testify, earthquake science has not yet reached that point.
- Rather, any approach to evaluating seismic hazards is subject to uncertainties, and the only way that an honest decision can be made is by evaluating each in relation to the others.
The only exception would be where a method is proposed that is patently invalid on its face.
That is certainly not the case here, where the Commission itself has reviewed er. tensive Appeal Board opinions on the subject, heard a presentation l
directly from Dr. Chinnery, with lome rebuttal by the Staff I
and the Applicant, and ruled that Dr. Chinnery's methodology must be considered further.
Indeed, the Appeal Board's narrowing of the scope of this proceeding ignores the very reasons that the Commission ordered a remand.
We are at an "early stage in earthquake
- ~ ~ -
o
~
. science" at which it is not reasonible to assert that one method of seismic analysis can be evaluated and accepted or rejected without'considering the merits and uncertainties of other methods.
All are subject te 2ncertainties. We assert that the uncertainties in the Staff's and Applicant's method render it far more questionable for use in New England than Dr. Chinnery's, yet we will be unable to address that question at all under the Appeal Board's view.
To paraphrase the Commission, the Appeal Board continues to assume a greater understanding of the relationship between geslogy, seismology, and earthquakes than actually exists.
Partidularly in light of the Commission's expressed mandate for a conservative approach, and its broad reference to the " general increase in seismic knowledge," the Appeal Board has misread the remand order.
Accordingly, questions that would elicit information concerning the foundation of the Staff's and Applicant's conclusions and the uncertainties in their approaches are relevant to this proceeding, and the Staff and Applicant should.be compelled to respond to NECNP's interrogatories 8, 9 and 10.
II.
These Issues Are Appropriate For Directed Certification Normally, a discovery ruling would not be appealable.
The Commission and its Appeal Board are justifiably loathe to interrupt the administrative process in the absence of compelling reasons to do so.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
_g_
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-421, 6 NRC 25, 27 (1977).
However, this case falls squarely within the exception's to that general rule.
Here, the significant issue is not the discovery itself, but the Appeal Board's excessively narrow view of the pro-ceeding, as reflected in its decision.
If that view is allowed to prevail throughout the hearing, the result will be a severely constricted record that will be inadequate for a decision by the Commission.
Therefore, directed certifica-tion of the Appeal Board's order is required by the principle that directed certification will be granted if the ruling below "affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner."
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977).
The same result is reached under the test articulated in Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
ALAB-500, 8 NRC 323 (1978), where certification was granted because (1) the issue involved novel action by the Staff, (2) the issue also involved a major question of policy with ramifications beyond that case, (3) the particular facts were not.important to the decision, and (4) there were divergent views on the Appeal Board.
Here, the issue is novel in that it is the first considerstion of a probabilis-tic approach to compete with the Staff's methods under v
e
,n
r c
. Appendix A.
It also involves a maIjor question of seismic methodology that could have ramifications in other cases, and the particular facts are not important to the fundamental question of the approach to be tcken to earthquake science in its present state.
Finally, while there are not diver-gent views on the Appeal Board, the status of this case is far more unusual in that the Commission has already con-sidered the issues to the extent of receiving an cral presen-tation and giving specific direction to the Appeal Board.
Indeed, in one of its earliest decisions in this very proceeding, the Appeal Board stated a standard that requires
^
that these issues be be certified to the Commission.
In Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units i
1 and 2), ALAB-271, 1 NRC 478, 483 (1975), the Appeal Board ruled that certification will be granted if, failing a certification, the public interest will suffer or unusual delay or expense will be encountered.
Here, more than two years after the Appeal Board's original ruling on seismic issues, the Commission issued a remand decision that NECNP contends the Appeal Board does not understand and is not following.
The public interest has.already been seriously harmed by the delav, which raises serious questions about whether the plant is being properly constructed to withstand earthquake hazards and is contrary to the need for clear and expeditious resolution of such safety matters.
To allow the Appeal Board to continue on O
- - ~ ~ -
.n
1
-3
. ir3 present course will only worsen the situation.
As the Board acknowledged in the last footnote in its ruling, if it finds Cr. Chinnery's methodology to ha're a threshhold validity, it will then'have to reinstitute the proceeding to weigh that methodology against those propounded'by the Staf f and the Applicant.
Aside from the fact that the Board's view reflects a misunderstanding of our knowledge of earthquake science, it indicates on its face that we can expect further extended delays beyond those expected by the Commission when it remanded this proceeding.
Taken together with the time since the Appeal Board's~ original decision, since reversed, this will be at least an " unusual delay."
This harm to the public interest and unjustified delay are compounded by the fact that, unlike the Staff's and Applicant's witnesses who are well paid to support their respective positions, Dr. Chinnery appears without compensa-tion, although his testimony is essential to meet the Commission's desire to have his methodology fully explored.
If this proceeding continues under the view expressed by the Appeal Board in its discovery ruling, it will be necessary to ask Dr. Chinnery to come before a Commission tribunal for a fourth time.
Such an undue burden on him and on NECNP is entirely unjustified.
~
. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, NECNP requests that the Commission immediately direct the Appeal Board to certify to
=
t
. it the Board's ruling of February 12, 1981, that the Commis-sion reverse that ruling and compel responres to the inter-rogatories at issue, and that the Commission clarify for the benefit of the Appeal Board and the parties the fact that considsration of the uncertainties of the Staff's and Applicant's methods and approaches are within the scope of this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, S?w [*. bb-.'
EllyWR. Weiss pf n 'rs A n ~
William S. y,an, FII Harmon & Walss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Counsel for NECNP February 24, 1981 e
h
9 UNITED STATES QF 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 HAMPSHIRE, _e t _al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I hereby certify that copies of the "NECNP Motion for Directed Certification and Reversal of Appeal Board Order of February 12, 1981,"have been hand-delivered and mailed post-age prepaid this 24th day of February,1981, to the following i
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 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, Massachasetts 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 Mancheste'r, New Hampshire 03101
- Docketing and Service Section U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Roy Lessy, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission u-ut-nun-n c sannn
- 4 e W'e
+ $ made
,y g
O
~
- Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson D.
Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing General Counsel Appeal Board Public Service Company of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New Hamoshire Washington, D.C.
20555 1000 El.r. 5treet Manchester, NH 03105 Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold 3 Godfrey Avenue Atomic Safety & Licensing Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~ ~
fb jfRTh/-g William S. Jord III '
l l
e I
l
- /
hand-delivered.
- /
Express mail.
i f
i I
O jt I. N ( *:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,d I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W. Reed Johnson
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE ET AL.
)
50-444
- ~~~
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
- -s. Ellyn R. Weiss and Mr. William S. Jordan, III, Washington, D. C.,
for the movant, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
Messrs. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and R. K. Gad, III, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants, Publ 1.c Service Company of New Hampshire et al.
9 Mr. Roy P. Lessy for the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER February.12, 1981 I
We have at hand two motions of the intervenor New England Coal'ition on Nuclear Pollution (Coalition) to compel answers to certain interrogatories (Nos.
8, 9, and 15) which were propounded by that party to the applicants and the NRC staff in essentially identical terms. S These interrogatories seek to elicit
,_1_/
Also before us is the applicants' motion for an order that the discovery sought of it by the interrogatories in ques-tion ought not be had.
See 10 CFR 2.740 (c) and (f).
A like motion was not required of the staff.
Most of the other Coalition interrogatories have been ar.-
D 3
T' swered.
f)&h 24 y
6.
Ncch f
'{
sd-fz,,,.."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Nk ?;-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0"t1ISSION N. v' vi-
.y
-. n --:
'J CCMi!SSIONERS:
).'
.. ~.
'- c
~
~~~
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gi1insky
' Q..,
T,.
..,[ ;.l.1.O Deter A. Bracford
-7c
~W-'
)
' 4.;
idLL.N In the Matter of 3
PUBLIC SERVICE CCHPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 HAllPSHIRE, e_t;, a,1
)
50 444
)
(SeabrookStation, Units 1and2)
)
)
. ORDER (CLI-80-33)
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECMP) has petitioned the Commission to review certain aspects of.the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's decisions regarding the seismic design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant, if NECMP contended that the Appeal Board erred in finding Dr. Chinnery's probabilistic analysis of earthquake recurrence times technically deficient and inconsistent with i0 CFR Part 100, Appendix A (Appendix):
In addition, NECNP argued that staff's correlation of the maximum vibratory ground acceleration to the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) is inconsistent witn Appendix A because staff calculated this acceleration by taking the average of maximum ground accelera-tions for several earthquakes having the same intensity as the SSE. NECMP believes that Appendix A requires the'use of the maximum vibratory acceleration that might result from the SSE.
Aoplicar.t Public Service Ccepany of New Hampshire (PSCMH) and the MRC staff opposed Commission review contending that the seismic issues are matters of fact on which the Licensing and Appeal Boards have come to the same conclusion. 10 CFR 2.786(5)(4)(iii).
--i/
These decisions are ALAS-422, 5 NRC 33 (1972) and the relevant portiens of ALA3-551,10 MRC 410 (1979).
m.
(
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE AR REGULATORY C"OMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
~
r7 /
I
&/
In the Matter 6f
)
~;
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
( Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2 )
)
)
NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES on January 2, 1981, NECNP served a set of interrogatories on the NRC Staff.
In order to minimize the time spent by the Board in peripheral matters, NECNP asked that the Staff respond without requiring a motion under 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)'ii).
The 3
Staff agreed to respond to all but the following interrogatories:
Q.
8.
Please describe what the Staff believes to be the tectonic province or seismic area in which the Seabrook site is loc ated.
a.
Please justify this choice in detail.
In so doing, describe, explain the use of, and justify the Staff's conclusions concern-ing, at a minimum, the following:
1.
All tectonic structures and other tectonic or seismic features, including all iden-tified fault lines, that the Staff considered in reaching its conclusions.
2.
Any new information concern-ing tectonic or seismic features or activity in the Northeastern United States
9 a
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N'JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
._7
)
3r In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA"Y OF
)
Doc'xet Nos. 50-443 NEFi HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES In a response received by NECNP on January 23, 1981, the Applicant objected to the following interrogatories posed by NECNP on January 2, 1981:
Q.
5.
Please describe what the Applicant believes to be the tectonic province or seismic area in which the Seabrook site is located.
a.
Please justify this choice in detail.
In so doing, describe, explain the use of, and justify the Applicant's conclusions con-cerning, at a minimum, the following:
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 informat.'on concern-ing tectonic or seismic D
<D g features or activiay in the
,pj Northeastern United States that has become known to the Applican since its original 7 (p(O Sgg g).-
t 7 testimony on seismic issues in this proceeding.
= _-
5
(
l UI!ITED STATES OF, AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI before the i
. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEI; SING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
1
)
Mf/1 1
~
ANSWER OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEN HA7.PSHIRE TO NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL i
.AMSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES s
STATEMEliT OF THE CASE On January 2, 1931, NECNP served upon Public Service Company of !;ew Hampshire (PSCO) a set of interrogatories.
On January 21, 1981, PSCO served answers thereto.
In those answers 4
PSCO responded to all but four of the nineteen interrogatories posed.
I;ECNP now moves for an order compelling answers to 1
three of. the four interrogs :ories objected to vi::. Nos. 3, 9 and 15 I-All of these interrogatories (which are quoted.in s
1 Interrogatory 16 was also objected to. -NE0:!P does not-seek to compel an answer to this' interrogatory.
1 b
c[#
?TCEG/E[?c
- 1
- ...
,1 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kTOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOARD Its the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 i,
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO NECNP'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THREE INTERROGATORIES t
k Roy P. Lessy Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel February 10, 1981-l.
3 g1@
...e
(
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3 'NG APPEAL BOARD
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
)
)
( Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
-e NECNP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 7
O'n February 4, 1981, the Applicant made a Motion for a Protective Order to prevent NECNP from obtaining the Applicant's 9.and 15.1I Although responses to NECNP's Interrogatories 8, i
the Motion itself contained no justification, the accompanying Answer to NECNP 's Motion to Compel argued that the protective order should be issued because NECNP's Interrogatories 8, 9
" tectonic and 15 relate solely to the choice of the proper asserts has not been province," an issue that the Applicant reopened.
NECNP has addressed that question briefly in its Motion to suffices here to respond more specifically to the Compel.
It as NECNP has done in the accompanying relevancy objection, Motion to Compel the Staff's Response.
NECNP 's Interrogatories are res7.ated in its Motion to Compel 1/
dat<3d Februar/ 2, 1981, and in the accompany-Applicant's Response, ing Motion to Compel Staf.f's Response.
\\
Y
- ?,N4
{D
c'.
e
,o%
I i
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 approach is found to be valid, the Appeal Board and the Commission will then be faced with making a choice between two approaches, both of which they have found 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 invalid.
However, it is more likely that the Appeal Board will view itself as faced with two valid and reasonable approaches with different scientific foundations.
In light of the cruuss.on's mandate for a conservative approach to seismic issues, the Appeal Board will be required to accept Dr. Chinnery's results unless the Staff and the Applicant demonstrate that the scientific foundation for their approach is so far superior to Dr. Chinnery's that their i
results should be accepted despite the fact th'at 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 t
doing, NECNP is not challenging the Appeal Board's " tectonic province" finding.
Regardless of the finality of that f inding,
I the issue of the strength of its foundation and of the foundation l
flow from the choice of tectonic province l
of the conclusions tnat is relevant to the ' Appeal Board's choice between the Applicant's l
conclusions and Dr. Chinnery's.
I Questions 8 and 9 seek the basic information by which the i
l l
Applicant reached its conclusions and by which the strength of the i
I
m.
(
. Applicant's approach must be judged.'- Wnile they are relevant to the choice of tectonic province under the Applicant's method, 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 hypo the sis.
For these reasons, NECNP requests that the Appeal Board deny the Applicant's Motion for a Protective order and compel its response.
Respectfully submitted, I
h f
- f.' S /&A i ' #
Ellyn R. Weiss t
. p.wY 2
/
Will S. Jordan, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street,
N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 833-9070 Attorneys for ::EC:l?
nA?rn:
Februarv 6.
1981
.__