ML19344B488

Memorandum on Addl Seismic Evidence,Requesting That ACRS Provide MD Trifunac as Witness.Urges Certification to Commission If Aslab Rejects Approach.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344B488
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/17/1980
From:	Jordan W, Weiss E NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8010210260
Download: ML19344B488 (7)

Text

~

[cf 17, l@l0 p, N

1. '~. //

l; V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E T\ -

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA g @

) ,

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443

.NEW HAMPSHIRE, _et _al. ) 50-444 (Seabrook. Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

NECNP MEMORANDUM ON ADDITIONAL SEISMIC EVIDENCE AND REQUEST THAT DR. TRIFUNAC BE CALLED AS A BOARD WITNESS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered that the record of this proceeding be reopened to address two issues:

1. the factual validity of the hypothesis underlying Dr. Chinnery's conclusion

'.~

that the likelihood of an Intensity IX earthquake at th a she is approximately 10-3 per year,.and

2. the validity of the Staff's methodology for correlating vibratory motion with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake, including particularly the relation botween the mean of the maximum. ground-accelerations and the' maximum'offective. ground accelera-tion.

The Appeal Beard has requested that the parties indicate the nature and scope of the additional evidence that they propose to adduce on these issues and provide an. estimate of when written prepared ~ testimony will be available..

~NECNP intends at this' time to present additional testimony on

.both'of.these issues--through Dr.~ Michael Chinnery and Dr. Mihaila Trifunac, althoughsit; appears that it will be necessary for-the-Board to call-Dr. Trifunac.as.its own witness,--for reasons 8010210_2.60 6.

l E  ? .

" discussed.below. We will' address.the issues separately since our projections involve entirely different considera ,

[ ~

tions in each. case..

l.. Intensity of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

NECNP-will call Dr. Chinnery.to establish the validity l offhis probabilistic method of predicting earthquake intensity.

l . While we do not.yet know the' scope of Dr. Chinnery's testimony l

.in'prec^ise detail, he has begun to outline it, and we can

! present th'e scope.as we have discussed it with him. First, he l

l will' draw on his more recent work and apply his probabilistic approach to the determination of a safe Shutdown Earthquake at the Seabrook. site itself. In so doing, he will address the j

! question of whether-there is a maximum possible earthquake, and I

how that question affects the determination of the SSE for .

1 i

r Seabrook.- Second, he intends to address the arguments that have been made by the Staff and others to the effect that the available i geologic _and seismic information can reasonably be used to predict j th'e Safe Shutdown Eart'.1guake . intensity. This discussion will cover the issueslaf whether tectonic structures can usefully be examined.in.New England, how the tectonic province ~should be l . determined,1and how~the ultimate conclusions-are affected.by-the ,

t l Echoice of the' tectonic province.- As a general proposition, he l w'ill.not address the-level of' risk that would be acceptable, but

'wil' . himself.'to projecting ~ earthquake probabilities.

Dr.1 Chinnery is_now working.on'a first draft from which

.his i tostimon'y:will ultimately;be. developed. Barring unexpected complications,sincluding new' questions that might be raised:

.. , , .. . . - . _ _ __; , , ~ _ . . , . _ , . . _ . . _ _ . , . - . - . , . . ,

.. . . - ~ . ~. - . .

'by the' Board, we believe his testimony can be ready by

' NovemberT 21. -

-2. Effective-Ground Acceleration for Design Purposes -

Request-to Call Dr. Trifunac as a Board Witness In the hearings below, NECNP presented the testimony of Dr. Mihailo Trifunac, who suggested that' the design horizontal acceleration for Seabrook should be the mean value of the peak accelerations plus one standard deviation, approximately -

0.4g for an Intensity VIII earthquake. All of the other m' witnesses who addressed this point argued that the mean value of 0.25g was itself acceptable for design purposes. Public  !

l Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2). ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 62-63 (1977).

Since presenting that testimony _several years ago, Dr.

1 l Trifunac has become a consultant ~to the Advisory Committee on

, Reactor Safeguards with respect to these issues. He has informed NECNP that he has, in that capacity, consulted with L

J the ACRS on.the question of seismic hazards at the Seabrook site itself. As'a result, in order to protect his own scientific integrity and the collegial nature cf the ACRS, he does not wish to testify on behalf of'any~ adversary parties to NRC proceedings.

Instead,t he would prefer to be called by the Board itself and j to provide his testimony;in the spfcit.of assisting the Board I

~

in-achieving; scientific-objectivity and a complete record rather ,

l thanfin.the adversary: spirit inherent in appearing on behalf of one' D

ofLthe-parties.- .

1 In. addition to Dr. Trifunac's personal.and professional

reservations, we-would'ex'pect.the' Staff co argue,-'as it has l

~

.~ . _ , _ . . -

V -

J L- .; ,

l .

I: (-, .

l, .

v:

'before, that-Dr. Trifunac'is prohibited from appearing on  ;

behalf of.NECNP lkr virtue of his status as a "Special .

Government employee," under 10 CFR 0.735-4 (c)1and the opera-

. tion of 18 USC 207. Accordingly, while Dr. Trifunac appeared on behalf of NECNP carlier in'this proceeding, we believe it' appropriate and we specifically request that he be called as a Board witness to address the points raised by the Commission.-

NECNP's request is precisely the solution adopted by e i the Appeal Board when faced with nearly the same situation l

with respect to seismic. hazards at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. There, the intervenors asked the Appeal Board to subpoena Dr. Trifunac and Dr. Enrique Luco, both of.whom, as consultants to the ACRS, had expressed sharp criticism of the plant's seismic design and its. underlying assumptions. When it first faced this issue, the Appeal Board ruled that'the.

f' l

consultants' role in reviewing Diablo Canyon and their dissenting l~

l views constituted " exceptional circumstances" that justified i

10- CFR 2.720 (h) (2) (i) .

issuing'the s'ubpoenas_ pursuant to Pacific Gas-and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 11and 2), ALAB-519, 9.NRC 42 (1979).

After_'that phase of the operating license hearings was completed,~Dthe record was ordered reopened in order to_ address  ;

l the impacts of the 1979-Imperial Valley Earthquake. When the

-issue of calling Drs. Trifunac and Luco was raised once again,-

the Scaff-respopded"that they.could not_be called Sy a fparticular party, but that the Board could request'the

'ACRSIto: provide them as witnesses "for. the purpose of_.

I 3

L 1

i I responding to the questions the Board has identified which relate to previous testimony of Drs. Luco and Trifunac."

Given the importance of their testimony, the Board requested i

~

the ACRS to provide the witnesses under their consultancy contracts so that they could review the testimony of the l

parties and comment to the extent of their expertise. In particular,-the Board contemplated that these witnesses would indicate why they agree or disagree with the positions taken and would describe any additional information that they believe is necessary to clarify the issues before the Board. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Po':ce Plan, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-604, 12 NRC __ (August 7, l 1980).

l The situation here requires precisely the same response.

As in Diablo Canyon, Dr. Trifunac provides the only counter-point to the positions taken by the Staff and the applicant j on the question of effective ground acceleration for design purposes. Dr. Trifunac has already reviewed the Seabrook site, and'his own data were used as the basis for much of the testimony-of all parties in the hearings below. Public

~

Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units l and 2), ALAB-422c 6 NRC 33, 62 (1977). There is no reasonable way that the Appeal Board can assure a complete record on the issues of interest to the Commission unless Dr. Trifunac is -

called as a Board witness.

Accordingly, NECNP requests that the Appeal Board ask the ACRS to provide Dr. Trifunac to testify as a Board witness in

~

this' proceeding. Due to[the seriousness of<this question, we'also requestLthat'if the-Board chooses.not to adopt this-1  !

i approach, it certify this question.to the Commission.- I With' respect to the nature,-: scope,-and: timing of Dr.

Trifunac's testimony, much will depend -ulx>n the approach 1-that.the Appeal Board decides to take. At this point,

-he is reluctant to address the specific nature and scope without knowing the Board's wishes. Presumably, his comments would simply address the issue raised by the Commission and refute the position taken by the Staff and the applicant.

He indicated that he would be able to provide: testimony in late October or early November, but that he may be out of-the country for some time after mid-December. s v

The Board should also be aware that counsel for NECNP is presently engaged in evidentiary hearings in the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Restart proceeding.and will not be free I

-for hearings in this case until 'approximately January 1, 1981.

Respectfully submitted, k&&h_l ,/ ljr.. > , -

x

. Ellyn R. Weiss [ . .i.

_ ; ,, , ,W;>- 5.8 William S.-Jordan, III

.HARMON &-WEISS

-1725.1 Street, N.W. P Suite.506

-Washington,_D.C.~ 20006

-(202) 833-9070 "

Counsel for NECNP-

, -DATED: October 117, 1980 ..

o

~l '

< 1'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ~

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 NSW HAMPSHIRE, - et_al. ) 50-444

.(Seabrook Station, Units 1 )

and 2)- )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby~ certify that copies of "NECNP. Memorandum on Additional Seismic Evidence and Request that Dr. Trifunac be Called as a Board Witness" was' malled postage pre-paid this 17th day of October 1980'to the following parties:

i

• hand-delivered

• Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman , Dr . John: H. Buck Atomic Safety &. Licensing. Atomic Safety.E 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 Of fice~ of the Att'orney General Concord,1 New Hampchire 03301 One Ashburton Place ._

Boston, Massachusetts 02108- 2 Thomas'G. Dignan, ' Jr. , . Esquire Ropes & Gray Robert A. Backus, Esquire 225 Franklin' Street O'Neill,' Backus,3 Spielman,1& Boston,: Massachusetts'02210-Little Manchester, New Hampshire.03101 , Docketing and Service Section-

~

U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington,-D.C. 20555

~

, + RoyT Lecsy,qEsquire ~

Office 1of Executive. Leg'al Director U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- 'f _: - .. .

-Washington,7D.C.c20555 ^--e /M 'W 'S W Jordan, III Will-fam S.