ML19347C341
| ML19347C341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1980 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CLI-80-33, NUDOCS 8010170351 | |
| Download: ML19347C341 (2) | |
Text
E[: mag'o UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
\\..../
October 15, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-80-33) ISSUED IN SEABROOK; APPEAL BOARD ORDER ISSUED IN SEABROOK On September 25, 1980, the Commission acted upon the petition of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution for review of the Appeal Board's deter-minations of the seismic issues in this construction permit proceeding.lf By a divided vote of 2-1, the Commission ordered the Appeal Board to re-open the record with respect to:
(1) the methodology of Coalition witness Dr. Chinnery, who had testified concerning an empirical relationship between earthde intensity and earthquake recurrence time and (2) the consistency c' che Staff's methodology for correlating vibratory ground motion with Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100, particularly the relationship between the mean of the maximum ground accelerations and the maximum effective ground acceleration.
It should be noted that the Commission did not order a suspension of construction at Seabrook, although a motion to that effect by NECNP is likely.
In ordering the Appeal Board to re-open the record, and thus take evidence with respect to these two issues, the Commission found that the Appeal Board erred in ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 60 (1977) in holdina that Dr. Chinnery's method-ology is inconsistent with Appendix A.
The Commission noted that there was "nothing in Appendix A which compels" the Appeal Board's holding that " Appendix A would permit use of a probabilistic approach to determine the probability of occurrence of earthquakes in one area based on data from another area only if the probabilistic methodology compared geo or seismically similar" (Slip op. pp. 2-3) graphic areas which are geologically The Comission observed that the imposition of such a condition by the Appeal Board to the use of probabilistic data was " inconsistent with the intent of Appendix A [which the Commission stated was] to provide a conservative approach to determining the SSE in light of the absence of a theoretical basis for such a determination." Thus, the Commission found that Dr. Chinnery's methodology "is not inconsistent with Appendix A," and ordered the record re-opened to explore "the factual validity 1
of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis," as well as a discussion of the Staff's method-ology for correlating vibratory motion with the SSE.
OPublic Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977); id., ALAB-561,10 NRC 410 (1979).
-8010170 N
?
6 In a dissenting opinion, Chairman Ahearne stated that the Comission should have determined not to exercise the discretion to review the seismic deter-minations made by the Appeal Board relative to Seabrook. The Chaiman stated that the NECNP petition was based upon two new papers by Dr. Chinnery which merely reiterated the essential elements of his prior testimony before the Licensing Board.
In light of the Chairman's view that no new evidence was presented which, if the record were to be reopened, would alter the resuit in some material respect, the Chaiman stated that the Commission's :mn standards for reopening a record 2/ had not been satisfied. The Chairman did, however, state that he agreed with the majority that "Dr. Chinnery's proposed methodology itself is not inconsistent with Appendix A..."
On September 29, 1980, the Appeal Board issued an Order pursuant to the remand that requested each party to file by October 17th a memorandum setting forth both the nature and scope of additional evidence which it proposes to offer in the remanded proceeding, and the earliest date when such testimony may be filed. To this end, our respective staffs have been working together in con-sidering these matters in light of the October 17th deadline set by the Appeal Board and the general request by the Appeal Board for an expeditious handling of this remanded proceeding.
/'.Y 1
f Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director cc: William J. Dircks U etropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2),
M ALAB-486,8NRC9,21-22(1978).
_