ML20003B131

Request to Compel NRC to Respond to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 810102 Interrogatories.Interrogatories Are Relevant to Reopened Proceedings & Answers Are Necessary for Proper Decision

ML20003B131
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: ML20003B131 ML20003B136
References
NUDOCS 8102100392
Download: ML20003B131 (7)

Text

. . . _ - _ - - - - . _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _

.- g g'r.1 x-UNITED STATES OF AMERIC.a . f/ y .

! y *

.y99 NUCLEAR REG'JLATORY COMMISSION ,g.,J > _.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARg ev,. 3 MM 2/

s ,.

,yA

• gg g& 4T' t

y/ l N (c ,

) gg

, In the Matter of )

PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 $[

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. )

)

50-444 }4l l ( Seabrook Station , Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

J

! NECNP MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES i

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 peripberal matters, NECNP asked that the Staff respond without requiring a motion under 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii). The I  ;

Staff agreed to respond to all but the following interrogatories:

I Q. 8. Please describe what the Staff believes to be the tectonic l 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 Staff's conclusions concern-ing, at a minimum, the following:

1. All . tectonic structures and other tectonic or seismic g, s M' ; '

features, including all iden-

,r. tified fault lines, that the

/,9/G'iT','!# -1. h Staff considered in reaching

[J ,.

i (f,h

' ','h, its conclusions.

" ~

a t :'.

v. n, -. --

9-: u. t  %

'O,/ A 6 2. Any new inf ornation concern-k?s ing tectonic or seismic ed'IQwo,(9 features or activity in the Y' g$'

Northeastern United States

'i'.,

pS80

~

$ /

81es188 3 @ G L

that has become known to the Staff since its original testimony on seismic issues in this proceeding.

3. All historical earthquakes considered by the Applicant, including their intensity on the Modif ied Mercalli scale.

4. The " Boston-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 Staff.

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, locatien within the province or area, and intensity.

Q. 9. Has the Staff or any of its witnesses examined other pcssible tectonic province choices for the area?

a. If so, please describe each one and explain in detail why it was rejected in favor of that described in response to Question 8.

Q. 15. What, in your opinion , is the mLximum epicentral intensity of the largest earthquake that will ever occur within the province or area described in response to Question 87

a. Please jus tify your answer in detail, including reference to all relevant tectonic structures, tectenic or seismic features, and historical earthquakes,

b. Explain why you are exactly 100%

confident that your answer is correct. If you are not exactly 100% confident, state your degree of confidence, and explain how it was estimated.

I 1

i The Staff argued that those three interrogatcries were irrele-vant because they relate solely to the de finition of tectonic province. According to the Staff, since the Board's prior findings regarding " tectonic province" have not been reopened, no questions i

on the subject are relevant to the proceeding at this point. For the reasons set out below, NECNP disagrees'and moves that the Staff be required to respcnd to NECNP Interrogatories 8, 9 and 15.1/

j Although the Staff objected only on relevancy grounds, it asserted that any effort by NECNP to compel a response would have to be resolved pursuant to 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii), which also

}

requires a finding that answers to the interrogatories are "necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding," and "not reasonably obtainable from any other source." NECNP's interroga-tories meet all of these tests.

I. The Interrogatories Are Relevant to the Reopened Proceeding.

One of the major issues to be addressed in the reopened I

proceeding is "the factual validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis."

If Dr . Chinnery 's approach is f ound 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 f aced with two valid and reasonable approache' 1/ The same interrogatories are also the subject of a Motion to Compel Applicant's Response by NECNP and a Motion for a Protective Order by the Applicant.

l  ;

!r 9 m Nee *wt-v' P w w + =v-W e '"-'t'rP1 T T**"4'F"wNNW'%*="T'W'*--19*"'"""'"~M"'*w"w"9 WN**'t'"8 ** T- -"+=--e-e=-=Te'= 7 3 -"?tra ,u s-,-ew- y .eeram#ewvN+,9*ys *5 y-w- r- m t"

,i t

I with different scientific foundations. In light of the Commission'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 results should be accepted despite the fact that Dr. Chinnery's approach is valid.

NECNP has the right, therefore, to pose interrogatories related t to the scientific f oundation of the Staff's concluaions. In so doing, NECNP is not challenging the Appeal Board's " tectonic prov ince " 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 Staff's conclusions and Dr. Chinnery's.

Questions 8 and 9 seek the basic information by which the Staff reached its conclusions and by which the strength of the Staff's approach must be judged. While they are relevant to the choice of tectonic province under the Staff's method, they are also relevant to the question of which of two otherwise valid approaches must be chosen by the Appeal Board. 1 Question 15 seeks the Staff's position on the maximum possible earthquake in the Seabrook tectonic province. As such, it appears to be directly relevant to the reopaned 4 proceeding since the Appeat Board previously rejected Dr. Chinnery's methodology largely because it ques tioned his belief that "there is no.11mit to the intensity of earth-

quakes to be expected in any given area." Public Service Co.

of New Ha_mo s h i r e , ( Se ab rook St ation ,' Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 53 (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.

II. Answers to the Interrogatories AEe Necessary to a Procer Decision.

In the absence of answers to these Interrogatories, NCCNP has had some dif ficulty preparing its own direct case on the relative s trength of the two dif f erent conclusions, and it will be hampered in its attempts to address contentions that Staff conclusions must be chosen despite the validity of Dr.

j Chinnery's approach. As a result, the Board will have a poorly developed record from which to reach a decision.

That is particularly true here, where the parties and the Board must grapple with highly technical information that requires careful prep ar a tio n . Any argument that this informa-tion is . t necessary is, in fact, an attempt to hamper NECNP's 7

full participatic.i and the Board's ability to reach a reasoned decis io n .

The impending receipt of the Staff's direct testimony does not cure this deficiency. Since the Staff asserts at this time that this sort of testimony is irrelevant, one must conclude I t, I that the staff will not include any of the necessary information l

in its direct te s timony . At the most, we will receive it only on l

rebuttal, and then only in the sanitized and care fully craf ted form prepared by the Staff. A full and f air hearing on these issues requires responses to these intarrogatories.

.,.n. -_ , .. _u_ q m _y _+ --

III. These Answers Cannot Be Catained Elsewhere.

For the most p ar t , tnese interrogatories do not request simple factt:1 information that could be cotained from another re f eren ce , but seek the Staff's j us tif ic a tions for various pos it i o ns . Only the Staff can provide that information.

It may well be that some of tne answers are already contained in the record of this proceeding. If that is tne cas e, the Staff is certainly welcome to refer us to the appropriate material, which may substantially reduce its perceived burden. Otherwise, of course, fresh material will be necessary.

IV. Staff Delav Ca nn o t Be Justi fied .

In its response to NECNP's interrogatories, the Staff suggested that if tectonic province questions were reopened, substantial delay might be required since all of the relevant people were not yet involved. Each a delay cannet be justified.

If the Staff has taken an unreasonably narrow view of the reopened proceeding, it cannot be allowed to delay consideration of these issues because it was not adequately prepared. To allow that to happen would be tantamount to ruling that the Staf f c an eff ectively allow Seabrook to be completed before these basic seismic' issues are finally decided by the Board. A deadline was set long ago, and the Staff must join the other parties in meeting it.

Ccnclusion For these reasons, NECNP requests that the Staff be compelled to respond to NECNP Interrogatories 3, 9 and 15.

f, Respectfully submitted, 1

fY s' (Y h *

! Ellyn R. Weiss / - 1

~

.-~ n. 4 W. X-lp_

Willias Jor an, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Attorneys for NECNP DATED: February 6, 1981 J

l

[

e I

l 1

l l

l l

_ , , . .. .