ML19312A231
| ML19312A231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1979 |
| From: | Bishop C, Mike Farrar NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093380357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030189 | |
| Download: ML19312A231 (3) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,og 1 $f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS c(T@co q
C N'
I ufl Michael C. Farrar, Chairman 6
Eo 10 eq S ' A* h Dr. John H. Buck ep Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles
'q (9
b' N
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-3 NEW YORK, INC. and
)
50-247 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
50-286 OF NEW YORK
)
)
(Indian Point Station,
)
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michae]
C.
Farrar
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2))
)
MEMORANDUM September 6, 1979 Amendment to August 3, 1979 opinion of Mr. Farrar:
Mr. Farrar is amending his August 3rd opinion to avoid possible confusion between two different areas of " conservatism" 1085 299 5
1910080
. mentioned therein.
His views on the existence of the asserted conservatisms are dissimilar in the two Instances.
Thus he wishes to make certain that there be no ambiguity in his opinion concerning them.
First, he is adding an explanatory footnote (numbered 54a) in the middle of the quoted material appearing on pp.
50-51 of his decision.
This is to make clear that he did not intend to express agreement with his colleagues that the approach he advocates is less conservative than the current procedure for correlating intensity with ground acceleration (a statement they made in ALAB-436 and have explained today in their Seabrook supplemental opinion, pp.
~
15-19).
Specifically, the additional footnote will be attached to the following quoted sentence which begins on p.
50 and ends on p. 51, and will read as follows:
Such a correlation (based on " sustained" acceleration) would appear, on its face, to be less conservative than the procedure cur-54a/
rently used by the staff and licensee.
54a/
Although I have included this sentence in the quotation in the interest of com-pleteness, what I say below (pp. 53-54, infra) indicates that I disagree with it.
1085 300
The second amendment Mr. Farrar is making is to the first sentence of the last paragraph on p.
54 of his opinion.
The purpose of this change is to make it clear that that sentence was intended to refer to a different area of conservatism relied upon by his colleagues.
Together with an additional footnote, that sentence as amended reads as follows:
In support of their conclusion that the use of the "mean of the peaks" is acceptable, my colleagues have relied upon the staff's testimony that conservatisms are used at other stages of the process of designing 603/
plants-to withstand earthquakes.
60a/
6 NRC at 584 (Indian Point) ; compare 6 NRC at 64, fn. 34 (Seabrook).
The remainder of that paragraph, indicating that Mr. Farrar is not prepared to dispute that point, remains unchanged.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS b.
cd C. JeaQ Bishop
\\
Secretny to the Appeal Boards 1085 30i