ML19323A544
| ML19323A544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1980 |
| From: | Fleischaker D, Phillips J CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, FLEISCHAKER, D.S., SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340A907 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004210322 | |
| Download: ML19323A544 (18) | |
Text
--
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
COMPANY
)
50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN Introduction i
The SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC., ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB, SANDRA SILVER, GORDON SILVER, ELIZABETH APFELBERG, JOHN J.
FORSTER
(" Joint Intervenors") request the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") to reopen the record in order to receive new information material to the resolution of the seismic issues and the issue of environmental quali-I fication of the safety-related equipment.
The new informa-tion is described in the attached affidavits of Dr. James Neil Brune, Mr. Robin Bruce Leslie, Mr. Richard Burton i
Hubbard, accompanying documents and in documents furnished recently by the NRC Staff to parties"and to the Appeal Board.-1/
-1/
Board "Totification - USGS Strong-Motion Record (BN-79-43),
December 17, 1979 (cited hereinafter as BN-79-43); Board Notification - Recent Offshore Seismic Reflection Data And Its Significance To The Diablo Canyon Site (BN-80-6),
February 11, 1980 (cited hereinafter as BN-50-6).
a 80 0.4 210 o n e~~
, ARGUMENT I.
THE MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE SEISMIC REANALYSIS SHOULD BE GRANTED A motion to reopen the record in order to receive new information should be granted if (1) it concerns information pertinent to significant safety issues; (2) it raiscs a triable issue that will affect the outcome of the proceeding; and (3) it is timely.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 328 (1978); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973);
Id., ALAB-167, 6 AEC 1151-2 (1973).
The new information dis-cussed below satisfies all three tests and, accordingly, the Appeal Board should order the record to be reopened.
A.
The New Information Related To The Seismic Reanalysis Is Significant To Safety And Raises Triable Issues That Will Affect The Outcome Of The Proceeding.
No one disputes that the determination of whether the Diablo Canyon seismic reanalysis meets regulatory requirements is crucial to the public health and safety.
The October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake provides compelling new information that the design criteria used in the reanalysis do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR S100, Appendix A (cited hereinafter as Appendix A).
In addition, new seismic reflection data invalidates the Licensing Board's evaluation of the Hosgri fault.
l
5 1.
New information from the October 15th Imperial Valley earthquake demonstrates that the seismic reanalysis fails to meet regulatory requirements.
A recently completed evaluation of new data from the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake demonstrates that the design criteria for the seismic reanalysis fail to meet regulatory requirements.
The records from the recent earthquake are an unprecedented addition to the data base.
They constitute the only extensive set of data for a single earthquake of magnitude 6.6 (M6. 6 ) or greater, recorded at dist'ances comparable to the distance fro.3 the Diablo Canyon site to the Hosgri fault.-2/
Tha evaluations demonstrate that the seismic reanalysis fails to meet regulatory require-ments in two respects.
(a)
The regulations require that the charac-terizations of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake - the free field response spectrum - include "the maximum vibratory accelera-tions at the site throughout the frequency range of interest Appendix A V(a) (1) (iv).
The 0.75g response spectrum 2/
A Staff memorandum included in the documents forwarded to the Board states "[B]ecause of the presence of an extensive strong-motion instrumentation array in close proximity to both the active fault and the earthquake epicenter, seismologists have acquired the best near-field data set available to date."
BN-79-43, Memorandum,
" Transmittal of USGS Strong-Motion Record and Staff Re-connaissance Report - Imperial Valley Earthquake," from Robert E.
Jackson, Geosciences Branch, OSS, dated Decem-ber 12, 1979.
. used in the seismic reanalysis - the Newmark free field response spectrum'- does not meet that requirement.-3/
The Newmark spectrum is based on a peak acceleration, velocity, and displacement equal to 0.75g, 61cm/sec, (24in/sec) and 20cm (8in. ) respectively.
SER, Supp. 5 at C-4.
These values were exceeded by the Imperial Valley earthquake with a magnitude of only 6.6 at distances comparable to that of the plant site to the fault.
(:Brune Affidavit at 13 & 16 ).
Response spectra from the Imperial Valley earthquake for clos,e-in stations (distance less than 10 km) exceed the Newmark spectrum in almost all instances for the vertical acceleration and in some instances for the horizontal acceleration in the frequency range of interest (2-33 cps).-4/
Furthermore, earthquakes of M7.5 are expected to produce even higher peak accelerations.
(Brune Affidavit at 15).
This is direct proof that the characterizations of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake do not meet regulatory requirements.
-3/
The Newmark " free field" response spectrum (2% damping and without tau reduction) is depicted at pages C-21 and C-22 in Supplement 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report.
4/
A detailed comparison of the Imperial Valley earthquake response spectra with the Newmark response spectrum is at Attachment 1 to this motion.
The instrument location and the response spectrum of the Imperial Valley earth-quake are at Attachment A and B to Dr. Brune's affidavit.
The response spectrum used in the reanalysis underestimates the free field maximum vibratory accelerations for the 7.5M Hosgri earthquake and, in fact, more closely represents a 5/
6.5M earthquake.-
(b)
The regulations require that "[T]he vibratory ground motion produced by the Safe Shutdown Earthquake shall be defined by response spectra correspond-ing to the maximum vibratory acceleration at the elevations of the foundation of the nuclear power plant structures *.
This. requirement is violated by incorpora, ting into the seismic reanalysis two assumptions contested by the Joint Intervenors.
The new information confirms the Joint Inter-venors' contention that the reliance on these two assumptions is unwarranted by the data and violates the regulations.
The first assumption is that vertical accelerations produced at the site will be equal to two-thirds the expected horizontal accelerations.
The new data, as well as data
-5/
The occurrence of " focusing" in three recent earthquakes (Santa Barbara, 1978; Gilroy, 1979; and Livermore, 1980) is further evidence that the response spectrum used in the reanalysis underestimates the maximum vibratory accel-erations for a 7.5M Hosgri earthquake.
Dr. Brune testi-fied that focusing of earthquake energy, among other things, could result in maximum accelerations of 2g and velocities in excess of 200cm/sec at the Diablo. Canyon site during a postulated 7.5M on the Hosgri fault.
(Joint Intervenors' Exhibit 66 at 3-2 through 3-3).
The Licensing Board im-properly rejected Dr. Brune's testimony as " speculative."
LBP-79-26, 10 NRC (September 27, 1979) (Slip. Og.,
Part III at 61).
. from the Gazli earthquake, indicates that close to the fault (within 10 km) vertical accelerations may often exceed horizontal accelerations.
(Brune Affidavit at 16).
Verti-cal accelerations as high as.93g corresponding to recorded horizontal accelerations of.51g and.37g werr obtained Skm from the fault during the Imperial Valley earthquake.
(Brune Affidavit at 54).-6/
The second assumption demonstrated to be incorrect by the new information is that free field maximum vibratory acce,lerations can be reduced on the basis that the large structures at the site will experience "less intensity" than small structures.
This is the so-called tau reduction applied to the free field response spectrum to obtain design response spectra for the various structures.
Records from the Imperial Valley earthquake confirm Joint Intervenors' contention that the tau reduction is not warranted by the data and violates regulatory requirements.
Records from the Imperial County Services building and an adjacent recording reveal that accelerations recorded at the base of the build-ing foundation were higher than those recorded in the " free 1
6/
In the case of the OBE analysis, nonconservative esti-mates of plant or equipment response are further exag-gerated by the Applicant's assumption that vertical accelerations are constant when, in fact, they increase with building elevation.
(Joint Intervenors' Brief On Exceptions at 78).
i i
. field" for both the east-west and the north-south components 7/
of motion.~
The Imperial County Services building, designed in 1968 in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (1967 edition) is a large structure, measuring 136ft. 10in. by 8/
85ft. 4in.-
It was heavily damaged by the Imperial Valley earthquake.
The only set of data showing a reduction in foundation response from that recorded in the free field nearby has questionable application to the Diablo Canyon site.
Both Drs..Luco and Trifunac testified that the conditions causing the reductions of the foundation response at the Hollywood Storage building were not present at Diablo Canyon.
(Joint Intervenors' Brief On Exceptions at 44-45).
Now the only other set of data permitting comparison of the foundation response of a large structure to nearby free field ground motion shows that accelerations may be amplified in the foundation.
This raises such grave questions regarding the tau reduction that its use in the seismic renanalysis is totally unwarranted.
2.
New seismic reflection data invalidates the Licensing Board's evaluation of the Hosgri fault.
New high resolution seismic profiles in the area of the postulated link-up of the Hosgri and San Simeon fault invali-dates the Licensing Board's evaluation of the Hosgri fault.
7/
C. Rojahn and Rags' dale, J.D.,
"A Preliminary Report On The Strong-Motion Records From The Imperial County Services Building" at 7.
8/
Id. at 2.
. Previously no seismic reflection data existed for this' area.
Based on the new data, the researcher who conducted this surve
- oncludes that the San Simeon and Hosgri fault zone represent a continuous and throughgoing fault system.
(Affidavit of Robin Bruce Leslie at 17).
The Licensing Board's evaluation of the Hosgri fault's seismic potential is predicated in large part on findings that (1) the Hosgri and San Simeon faults are distinct, unconnected brakes; (2) the Hosgri has a length of 145 kilopeters; and (3) the Hosgri fault is not throughgoing in the sense of connecting with other faults in a way that would permit transmission of tens of kilometers of lateral offset.-9/
The new information invalidates those findings as well as the conclusion the Licensing Board draws from them:
the 7.5 magnitude earthquake is a very conservative value for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
Where, as here, the Applicant must demonstrate that the plant can safely withstand the 7.5 Hosgri earthquake in order to obtain an operating license.
It should not matter whether the 7.5M is "very conservative" or simply "conserva-tive."
However, " extreme conservativism" in selection of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake has been asserted as a basis 9/
LBP-79-26, supra. (Slip. Og., Part III at 55) ; see also, Joint Intervenors' Exceptions at 6-16.
. for permitting the Staff and Applicant to incorporate in the Diablo Canyon seismic reanalysis, engineering criteria and procedures that are largely untested, not conservative, and not previously permitted in the seismic analysis of any other nuclear power plant.--10/
Thus, the record must be reopened in order to receive the new evidence that invali-dates the Licensing Board's evaluation of the Hosgri fault's seismic potential. --11/
B.
The New Information Is Timely.
,The Joint Intervenors' submission of this information I
is timely.
Dr. Brune's evaluation was completed in late February when he received the necessary data.
However, due to some confusion, Attachments A and B were not received i
until March 27, 1980.
[
10/
As an example, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards reasoned that use in the seismic reanalysis of design bases and criteria less conservative than those that would be used for an original design choice was offset by the fact that "the Committee's consultants believe that the choice of magnitude 7.5 for the postu-lated Hosgri event is relatively more conservative than the values considered acceptable for other plants.
Letter from Dr. Stephen Lawrowski, Chairman, ACRS, NRC, to Dr.
Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, NRC, dated July 14, 1978, at 3.
i 11/
The USGS evaluation of the Hosgri contrasts sharply with the Licensing Board's.
The USGS states "a.
earthquake with a magnitude of about 7.5 could occur in the future anywhere along the Hosgri fault."
- Further, while rejecting assignment of an even larger magnitude 8 earthquake to the Hosgri, the USGS states that " legit-imate and serious questions exist as to whether the Hosgri-San Simeon-San Gregorio fault system is capable j
of a magnitude 8 earthquake."
SER, Supp. 4, C-10
)
through 14.
j i
l i
Attorneys for the Joint Intervenors' became aware of Mr. Leslie's study in January 1980.
Shortly thereafter, efforts were made to contact Mr. Leslie to determine his willingness to provide an affidavit describing his work.
Joint Intervenors met wi'_h Mr. Leslie at the first available opportunity and obtained the enclosed affidavit on February 28.
The Rojahn and Ragsdale study, yet to be published, was received in late January 1980.
In response to arguments that,the Joint Intervenors have moved on this matter as expeditiously as permitted by the resources and by the need to be thorough and accurate.
In any case, this Board has ruled that if a safety problem presents a sufficiently grave threat to the public, as is the case here, a board should reopen the record to consider information even if it is not newly discovered and could have been raised in a more timely fashion.
Vermont Yankee, ALAB-138, supra.
II.
THE MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED A.
The New Information Related To The Environmental Qualification Of Safety-Related Equipment Is Significant To Safety And Raises Triable Issues That Will Affect The Outcome Of The Proceeding.
The environmental qualification of equipment to assure that aging will not impair the proper function of safety-related equipment is one of the crucial factors upon which
- the safety finding depends.
New information indicates that i
the Licensing Board's approval of the Applicant's environ-mental qualification program was not warranted.
The program failed (a) to identify all Diablo Canyon safety-related equipment for which environmental qualification is required; and (b) to evaluate as part of the environmental qualifica-tion, the effect of " aging" on the ability of equipment to perform its safety functions.
The Licensing Board's approval of the Applicant's program hinges on the Staff's position that, despite these deficiencies, the program is adequate.--12/
The new informa-tion described in full in Mr. Hubbard's affidavit reveals that the Staff, in a 180* turn-around has now requested the Applicant (a) to identify the safety-related equipment evaluated in the environmental qualification program; and (b) evaluate the effects of aging on safety-related equip-
~
ment.
(Affidavit of Richard Burton Hubbard at 17-14).
This requires that the Licensihg Board's decision on this matter be vacated and that the record be reopened to examine the adequacy of the Applicant's environmental qualification program.
B.
The New Information Is Timely.
The motion to reopen on the Licensing Board's approval of the Applicant's environmental qualification program is i
12/
LBP-79-26, supra., (Slip. Og., Part III at 89-92).
1
. timely.
The change in the Staff's position was first sug-gested by correspondence to the Applicant, dated November 2, 1979.
However, it wasn't until the February 5, 1980 corres-pondence that the Staff's turn-around became fully apparent.
e CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Joint Intervenors request the Appeal Board to reopen the record in order to receive new information material to the resolution of the seismic issues and the issue of environmental qualification of the safety-related equipment.
Respectfully submitted, h
David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 709 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 638-6070 John Phillips, Esq.
CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 (213) 879-5588 Attorneys For Joint Intervenors SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC.
SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE ECOLOGY ACTTON CLUB SANDRA A.
- W1ER GORDON SILV: 9 JOHN J. FORSTER ELIZABETH APFELBERG MARCH 28, 1980 i
i.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
50-323 0.L.
Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of March, 1980, I have served copies of the foregoing JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN, and accompanying documents, mailing them through the U.S. Mails, first-class, postage prepaid, by Express Mail, and hand-delivery to those parties designated by an asterisk.
Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.
Docket & Service Section Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Coinmission Mail Drop East West 450 Dr. William E. Martin Washington, D.C.
20555 Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio 43201 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety & Licensing James R.
Tourtellotte, Esq.
Board L.
Dow Davis, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Marc R.' Staenberg, Esq.
Commission Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Mail Drop East West 450 Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C.
20555 Director - BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.. Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Mr. Richard S.
- Salzman, c/o Nancy Culver Chairman 192 Luneta Drive Dr. John H. Buck San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety & Licensing Mr. Frederick Eissler Appeal Board Scenic Shoreline Preservation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conference, Inc.
Commission 4623 More Mesa Drive 4350 East West Highway i
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Sandra A.
Silver Malcolm H. Furbush, Esq.
1760 Alisal Street Vice President and San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 General Counsel Philip A. Crane, Esq.
Gordon Silver Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1760 Alisal Street 31st Floor San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 San Francisco, CA 94106 John *Phillips, Esq.
Center For Law In The Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Public Interest Snell & Wilmer 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard 3100 Valley Center Fifth Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85073 i
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Mrs. Raye Fleming Bruce Norton, Esq.
1920 Mattie Road 3216 N. Third Street Shell Beach, CA 93449 Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Mr. Yale I. Jones, Esq.
Suite K 100 Van Ness Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Carl Neiburger Telegram Tribune Andres Baldwin, Esq.
P.O.
Box 112 Friends of the Earth San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 124 Spear Street San Francisco, CA 94105 J. Anthony Kline, Esq.
Legal Affairs Secretary to Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
the Governor i
321 Lytton Avenue State Capitol Building Palo Alto, CA 94302 Sacramento, California 95814 Janice E.
Kerr, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
Hill, Christopher & Phillips J.
Calvin Simpson, Esq.
1900 M Street, N.W.
California Public Utilities Washington, D.C.
20036 Commission 5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 dd. ksJA h5 David S. Yleischaker/ Esq.
t 4
ATTACHMENT 1 COMPARISON OF IMPERI AL VALLEY AND NEWMARK RESPONSE SPECTRA (2% DAMPING) 1.
El Cen t ro Station 7 (1 km) */
a)
Imperial spectra exceeds out to 0.10 seconds period,,
(above 10 cps) and also around 5 seconds (0.2 cps). - f b)
Imperial spectra exceeds at 0.8 seconds (1.2 cpg) and between 2 and 10 seconds (0.5 cps to 0.1 cps). ***/
c)
Spectra's close between 3 and 6 seconds (0.3 cps to 0.2 cps) ****/
2.
El Centro Station 6 (1 km) a)
Imperial ex'ceeds out to 0.25 seconds (above 4 cps) and between 3 and 6 seconds (0.3 cps to 0.2 cps).
b)
Spectra are close out to 0.10 seconds (above 10 cps) and Imperialexceeds.between 2 and 20 seconds (0.5 cps to 0.05 cps).
c)
Spe ctra are close at 0.06 seconds (16 cps) and Imperial exceeds between 2 and 6 seconds (0.5 to 0.2 cps).
3.
Bonds Corner (3 km) a)
Imperial exceeds out to 0.10 seconds (above 10 cps),
b). Spectra are close out to 0.15 seconds (above 6.7 cps).
Imperial exceeds between 0.15 and 0.60 seconds (6.7 cps to 1.7 cps).
c)
Spectra are close at 0.13, 0.40, and 0.80 seconds (7.7 cps, 2.5 cps, 1.3 cps).
Imperial exceeds be tween 8 and 9 seconds (0.1 cps).
Distance to the nearest point on the 1940 Imperial Faul t trace.
Vertical.
Horizontal - perpendicular to the faul t.
Horizontal - parallel to the faul t.
4.
El Centro Station 8 (4 km) a)
No records available.
b)
Spectra close out to 0.13 seconds (cbove 8 cps),
and Imperial exceeds between 3 and 8 seconds, c)
Spectra close at 0.0 7 and 0.12 seconds.
Imperial exceeds between 4 and 8 seconds.
5.
El Centro Station 5 (4 km) a)
Imperial exceeds the spectra out to 0~.12 seconds, and both spectra touch at 5 seconds, b)
Imperial exceeds between 2 and 20 seconds.
,c)
Imperial exceeds between 2.5 and 10 seconds.
6.
El Centro Di fferential Array (5 km) a)
Imperial exceeds out to 0.10 seconds and between 4 and 6 seconds.
b)
Curves touch at 0.16 seconds.
Imperial exceeds between 3 and 8 seconds.
c)
Spectra close at 0.15 seconds and curves touch at 6 seconds.
7.
El Centro Station 4 (7 km) a)
Imperial exceeds between 0.04 and 0.06 seconds, and again between 3 and 7 seconds.
b)
Imperial exceeds between 2 and 10 seconds.
c)
Spectra touch at 7 seconds.
8.
Brawley Airport (7 kt<)
a)
Almost touches curve at 0.09 seconds.
b)
Exceeds between 3 and 6 seconds.
c)
Almost touches at 5 seconds.
i
.o i
9.
Holtville Post Office (8 km) a)
Imperial exceeds between 0.04 to 0.08, approaches (touches) curve at 5 seconds.
b)
Exceeds between 7 and 8 seconds.
c)
Exceeds between 3 and 6 seconds.
10.
El Centro Station 10 (9 km) j a)
Imperial slightly exceeds at 3 to 4 seconds.
b)
Exceeds between 3 and 8 seconds.
c)
Close between 1 and 3 seconds, exceeds betwhen 3 and 9 seconds.
l
!,