ML20010B143
| ML20010B143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1981 |
| From: | Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108140124 | |
| Download: ML20010B143 (17) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
w g
l j
}-j AUG131S8;u I
~ '
- " =~ay-j UNITED STATES OF AtlERICA q. 11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 1.ICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2)
)
REPLY OF THE HRC STAFF TO NECNP'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GN REMANDED SEISMIC ISSUES l
Roy P. Lessy l
Counsel for NRC Staff l
August 10, 1981 l
l JH S *fl
(
8109140124 010810 l'
DR ADOCK 05000
~ -.
_j-TABLE OF C0t4 TENTS fagg I.
INTRODUCTION................
1 II.
DISCUSSION.................
1 III.
CONCLUSION.................
12
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 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,.
)
50-444 (SeabrookStation, Units 1and2) l REPLY OF THE NRC STAFF TO NECND'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMANDED SEISMIC ISSUES I.
INTRODUCTION In accordance with the briefing schedule adopted by the Appeal Board at the conclusion of the' evidentiary hearing on the remanded seismic issues (Tr. 809), the NRC Staff herewith files this reply to the "New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution Proposed Factual And Legal Findings On Remanded Seismic Issues And Supporting Argument" (hereafter "NECNP Brief").
Inasmuch as this matter has been extensively briefed subsequent to the evidentiary hearings on remand, this reply is a selective response to the substance of certain of NECNP's arguments and proposed findings.
For the convenience of the reader, the Staff reply will follow the sequence and format of the NECNP Erief.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
On page three of its Brief, NECNP states that the sole issue with respect to Dr. Chinnery's methodology "... is... whether, in the absolute sense, it has scientific validity." The Staff believes that this is an overly restrictive statement of the question. The relevant
---__u-__
tenn employec by the Commission in its remand order 1/ was the " factual validity" of Dr. Chinnery's methodology. Although the Comndssion did not elaborate upon its definition of the phrase " factual validity," its discussion of the Chinnery methodology in the context of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Prrt 100 would require an investigation not only of the validity of the " science" employed by Dr. Chinnery, but also an inquiry into the application of the Chinnery methodology for nuclear power plant siting.
After examining Dr. Chinnery's methodology, the Staff's conclusion, as described in its " Proposed Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And 4
Supporting Argument... On Remanded Seismic Issues" (hereafter " Staff Brief") is that Dr. Chinnery's methodology lacks validity for current use in detenniring the seismic design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
A relevant element in that conclusion was Dr. Chinnery's own description of the accuracy of the results of his methodology, i.e., that his precise numbers of risk are " clearly nonsense" (Chinnery, Tr. 92; see Staff Brief
- p. 22 et_ seq.).
B.
The importance of the latter point concerning the statement of
~
the question, is brought into immediate focus by NECNP's subsequent argu-ment concerning the acceptance of Dr. Chinnery's methodology by others, wherein it is argued that:
... the Board must weigh significantly the evi-dence that Dr. Chinnery's peers consider his hypo-thesis to be valid and valuable for the purpose of publication. While this alone does not demonstrate that Dr. Chinnery's methodology should be adopted for Seabrook, it has strong Learing on any threshold determination of its factual WTHity (NECNP Brief,
- p. 12).
-1/
Public Se_rvice Company of tew 6.y3 ire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-33,"12 NRC Y R peptember 25,1980).
j l
l On the point of the " general acceptab:lity" of Dr. Chinnery's linear hypothesic, NECNP also contends that Dr. Trifunac has also accepted the linearhypothesis.E As to the first argument, that publication connotes peer acceptance of Dr. Chinnery's methodology, which in turn NECNP argues should have
" strong bearing on any threshold determination of... factual validity" (NECNP Brief, p. 12), NECNP has pointed to no authority for such a propo-sition and indeed none can exist.
It is almost fatuous to argue that the editors of " Earthquake Notes" or the, Bulletin of the Seismological _ Society of America, or any such journal endorse the substantive conclusions of such articles, as well as the underlying theories contained therein. Such pub-lications routinely publish articles representing divergent points of view on related or identical scientific matters. When a scientific body embraces or endorses a given theory, it usually does so directly. The principle is simple:
publication does not even imoly any endorsement or substantive acceptance.
-2/
NECNP Brief p.16; see also NECNP Brief p. 26. On p.16 of its Brief, NECNP state:
Howaver, vastly more important than the Applicant and Staff's attempt to criticize particular pieces of data, is the fact that the scientific community has accepted the linear hypothesis. This is true not only of those whom Dr. Chinnery cites, but of Dr. Trifunac as well, who testified that reliance on linearity "is a very typical daily process used by hundreds of seismologists world wide and I meant to say that all of us do this and I just wanted to emphasize this.
(Trifunac, Tr. p. 751, 1. 22-24, 776)."
l
. Moreover as to the argument that Dr. Trifunac embraced the Chinnery methodology, the Staff believes, contrary to NECNP's assertion, that Dr. Trifunac was very careful not to accept or endorse Dr. Chinnery's methodology. When directly asked by counsel for NECNP whether he had an opinion as to the acceptability of Dr. Chinnery's methodology, Dr. Trifunac first avoided answering the question (Trifunac, Tr. 750,11. (21-24) and then stated:
Dr. Chinnery simply has drawn a free hand straight line curve with a bunch of points and I have drawn the same line, and rather than say this is my line and make a third decimal figure change, I just said my line is the same as Dr. Chinnery's and I call it Dr. Chinnery's line and that's where it ends. So it is not much more you can take from that.
(Trifunac, Tr. 781).
By the last sentence of his answer, "So it is not much more you can take from that," Dr. Trifunac appeared to be expressly avoiding an endorsement of Dr. Chinnery's methodology.
The 'anguage quoted by NECNP in support of its argument that the scientific community has accepted and utilizes a linear hypothesisE completely overlooks Dr. Chinnery's admissico at the hearing that the
(
claim of scientific acceptance of the linearity of frequency-magnitude l
data was based on references which were not aimed at predicting a maximum earthquake, rather, it was based on references that were considering other issues where the assumption of linearity was not vital to the l
3f Dr. Chinnery made a similar claim in his direct testimony, see Chinnery 10.
i results (Chinnery, Tr. 66, 69).
Indeed, the record remains completely barren of acceptance of Dr. Chinnery's methodology.O C.
Finally, as to Dr. Chinnery's postulation of a linear frequency-intensity relationship in New England, it is significant to note that NES has itself recognized that Dr. Chinnery was not able to establish a complete linear relationship based on New England data.
For the Boston-New Hampshire zone, NECNP first explained that the data is probably not complete in the lower intensities (NECNP Brief, p.14) and then went into the substantial problem of Dr. Chinnery's reliance upon "the EI VII events" near Ossippee (Id.; g. Staff Brief, pp.11-13). NECNP then recognized that
... the MI IV data are probably also incomplete
[for the Boston-New Hampshire zone]. Therefore, he
[Dr. Chinnery] is left with _only two reliable datT points, one for a MMI V and one for a MMI VI. As a result, he does not rely on those points to establish linearity for the zone, but on the fact that linearity is established elsewhere and is consistent with what is known of the New England data" (NECNP Brief, p.14).
l Thus, for New England, Dr. Chinnery has attempted.to estimate return periods for high intensity earthqnkes beyond the historical record based only upon two data points at relatively low intensities.
In the Staff's 4/
NECNP argues that "... even Dr. Jackson accepted linearity up to a point, although he would truncate the line."
(NECNP Brief p. 16).
The language relied upon by NECNP was only the second half of Dr. Jackson's answer. What Dr. Jackson stated in the. entire answer was the Dr. Chinnery's linear extrapolation if he accepted it would force him to conclude that an earthquake could occur in an area for l
which he would have no reason tectonically or geologically to con-clude could occur (see Jackson, Tr. 572). What Dr. Jackson then l
added as a qualification was that in intensity VI to VII, (where there was existing data) he could accept a linear relationship, but that he would have great difficulty in accepting linear extrapolation beyond the historical record of MMI VII (see Jackson, Tr. 573).
,~,
view, such an estimation of return periods is highly inappropriate (see Reiter Rebuttal 4).
D.
On page 21 of its Brief in discussing Dr. Chinnery's assumption that there is no upper bound to earthquake size, NECNP states that
"[P]erhaps the most telling evidence of record is the opinion of a portion of the scientific community that extends beyond the advocates in this case."
NECNP then relies on Dr. Chinnery's analysis of the solicitation of expert opinion in the TERA Study and concludes:
As Dr. Chinnery suggests, the only reasonable con-servative conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence [ sic] is that the upper bound, if one exists at all, is at least MMIX, if not higher (NECNP Brief, p. 21).
net,NP immediately charges that "the Staff, by contrast, never really addresses this issue" (NECNP Brief, p. 22).
The Staff directly addressed this precise question in " Rebuttal Testimony Of Leon Retier, Ph.D. To The Filed Direct Testimony Of Dr. Michael Chinnery,* question and ansver 3, filed March 16, 1981.
In that rebuttal testimony, which NECNP did not cover in cross-examination, the Staff stated that the conservative and more appropriate way to inter-pret the estimates in the TERA study of the largest earthquake to be expected to occur in the Cape Ann, Massachusetts region, is to use such estimates in the context of the way such estimates were presented in that study, and the way such estimates were intended to be used. Namely, to l
place greatest weight on each expert's best estimate and least weight upon the expert's low and high estimates, and then use these distributions i
in conjunction with other parameters (such as "b" values, and zone configur-ation), which were stipulated by each expert in arriving at return periods l
l l
l i
for ground motion.
(Reiter Rebuttal 2-3). When this is done, it was found that the present design spectrum at Seabrook exceeds (i.e., the present seismic design is more conservative) the spectrum that would be recommended as a result of the TERA calculations, by about 25 to 50% in the period range of prime structural interest (Rei_ter Rebuttal 3, Reiter 15-16; Reiter Figure 1).O As pointed out in the Staff's Rebuttal testimony, Dr. Chinnery's intended use of the TERA materials is dubious for a number of reasons.
Dr. Chinnery (see Chinnery 13) has (1) assumed that the higher half or the high estimate of each expert represents the only estimate; (2) extrapolated linearly to that range without any regard for the uncertainties and distri-butions indicated by the polled experts, and (3) then utilized these linear extrapolations witnout any consideration for the other steps in estimating ground motion at the site (see Reiter Rebuttal 3).
E.
On page 28 of its Brief in a discussion of the uncertainties inherent in Dr. Chinnery's methodology, NECNP purports to defend Dr. Chinnery against what it interprets as a claim of bias, while at the same time stating that "... Dr. Chinnery is the only witness who had no personal stake in arriving at a particular conclusion."
(NECNP Brief, p. 28, n. 8). This discussion closely follows NECNP's statement that there are serious questions about the credibility of the Staff as a whole (See NECNP Brief, p.18) as well as comments about the Permittee's witness, Mr. Holt (See NECNP Brief, 5/
It is interesting to note that this analysis (Reiter 15-16, Reiter Figure 1) which involves the results of the TERA calculation, and l
which NECNP charges the Staff ignores, is also the subject of NECNP's
{
pending motion to strike portions of Dr. Reiter's testimony.
I l
- p. 28, n. 8). Such ad hominem comments are irrelevent to the issues in this proceeding. Moreover, NECNP has completely misunderstood the Staff's criticism of Dr. Chinnery's methodology. The substance of the matter begins with Dr. Chinnery's admission that his selection of varying time fremes for comparing different regions of the country in his Exhibit 2 (1979 article) was both subjective (Chinnery, Tr. 184) and arbitrary (Chinnery, Tr. 185).
The " regions" studied by Dr. Chinnery are not uniform in size or shape (Chinnery, Tr. 184). Dr. Chinnery also appears to have selected rather arbitrary cut-off dates in the various regions chosen for study (Chinnery, Tr. 94; Tr. 184-185). Dr. Chinnery admitted that the similarity in fre-quency-intensity data for the four regions studied as depicted in Figure 9 of his 1974 paper "is entirely fortuitous and is simply due to the particu-lar regions chosen for each study..." (Chinnery, Tr. 280).
Even within those regions, Dr. Chinnery treated the regions differently in terms of plotting virtually all events in some regions and ignoring other seemingly relevant data in other regions _(Chinnery Tr. 277-79).
Even within the time frames and regions studied, Dr. Chinnery selectively plotted less than all events of a given intensity (see e.g. Chinnery Tr. 96-98). Thus, in the Staff's view, these are but some of the examples of the unexplained arbi-trariness or subjectivity contained in the methodology which bear on the question of its " factual validity" and its useability. Wint Dr. Chintery has not demonstrated is if relatively unifonn criteria in selecting regions were utilized, and consistent methods to select or reject points to plot were employed, whether the methodology would yield results consistent with those previously obtained. The question of the consistency of results across differing regions becomes of critical importance because in the Boston-New Hampshire zone only two actual data points were utilized from New England data. Thus, the unexplained arbitariness or subjectivity (see also Staff Brief, p. 20 et seq.) bears directly on the question of the " factual validity" of Dr. Chinnery's methodology, and not his, or any expert's motives, employer, perceived claims of bias, or remuneration.
F.
On page 30 of its Brief also involving a discussion of the uncertainties in Dr. Chinnery's methodology, NECNP argues that the " Staff is forced to admit that it follows a mechanistic process leading to results for which it is impossible to determine the uncertainties "(NECNP Brief
- p. 30).
In support of this argument, which may be of dubious relevance or probative value, NECHP relies upon "Reiter-Tr. p. 601-C03." This record reference by NECNP is incomplete. What Dr. Reiter stated was that he could not give numerical estimates of uncertainty with a particular step of tLe Staff methodology, but that he could give a numerical estimate "of the
[overall] uncertainty with specific procedures involved." (Reiter Tr. 603).
Moreover, the Staff also testified to the large number of conservative steps which reduce or eliminate errors and uncertainties in its methodology under Appendix A.
For example, the Staff brings the maximum historical l
eannquake in the province to the site; the Staff also requires signifi-l cant investigations to reduce the uncertainties.
In that regard, the Staff methodology requires extensive investigations into the location of earth-quake epicenters, extensive investigations and search of historical I
I records, and trenching investigations. All of these conservative steps are utilized to reduce the uncertainties so that the Staff can make the best estimate of ground motion possible.
(Jackson, Tr. 599).
G.
Going to the second issue in this proceeding, the question of whether the Staff's methodology for correlating vibratory ground motion is consistent with Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100, NECNP cites Board Witness Dr. Trifunac as concluding "... that the Staff's approach should be rejecteci altogether if favor of a probabilistic analysis that takes uncer-tainties into account" (NECNP Brief, p. 42). To the contrary, Dr. Trifunac testified that not only was the Staff methodology "one acceptable way of rationally interpreting Appendix A" (Trifunac, Tr. 762), but Dr. Trifunac now appeared to endorse the Staff approved (subsequently also approved by both the Licensing Board and Appeal Board).25g anchor point for Reg.
Guide 1.60 (Trifunac 10, Figure 3; _Trifunac Tr. 753-55; Tr. 793-796)N rather than the.4g anchor point that NECNP had advocated. Dr. Trifunac testified that assuming that there is no bound on the maximum intensity earthquake, that the probability of exceedance of the current seismic design spectrum of.25g, Reg. Guide 1.60 is less than 5% during the next fifty years.
(Trifunac, Tr. 754). He also testified that if the upper bound of maximum intensity were a MMI X earthquake, the probability of exceeding that design spectrum is " considerably smaller than five percent" (Trifunac, Tr. 754-55).
Dr. Trifunac's conclusion was that the method used by the Staff of arriving at the seismic design criteria for Seabrook was conservative utilizing a SSE of MMI VIII, and still reasonably con-servative even if a higher SSE of MMI X were used (Trifunac, Tr. 793-96).
6/
The only caveat to a complete edorsement of.25g is Dr. Trifunac's prepared testimony in which he concluded that the design "may be acceptable;" "may" because a complete endorsement would require additional work which he elected to do (Trifunac 10).
Thus, Dr. Trifunac did not advocate selection of an SSE higher than the design basis earthquake of MMI VIII. NECNP however, relies on the results of Dr. Trifunac's calculations, but rejects his conclusion that these results are, conservative and acceptable (see NECNP Brief, pp. 45-46).
In addition, NECNP overlooks one very important additional piece of testimony. That is, that the amount of exceedence would be so minimal as not to cause any damage (See Reiter Tr. 677; Knight, Tr. 678).
In fact for design purposes at Seabrook, there is no significant or material difference between a.25g anchor point for Reg. Guide 1.60 and a.30g anchor point (Knight, Tr. 721-22).
Furthermore, one would not see even the slightest change in the size of the walls or structural elements or any other feature of the plant in light of such an increase (.25g to
.30g)inanchorpoint(M.).
H.
The only additional argument that merits response on the second issue appears on page 44 of HECNP's Brief where it is contended that the Staff "... simply used the Trifunac and Brady data because they [ sic]
were the only data available at the time." As explained in Dr. Reiter's testimony, the Trifunac and Brady data was used because it represented an analysis of the most complete data set available at the time (Reiter 17).
Since that time the NRC has sponsored analysis of new and enlarged data sets, and much of this work was summarized by Murphy and O'Brien in 1977 (Reiter 17). The Murphy and O'Brien data predicts lower mean peak acceler-ations than the Trifunac and Brady data, however it is still being evaluated I
by the NRC Staff (Jacksor., Tr. 651).
l l
I.
Finally, as to NECNP's motion to strike Mr. Knight's testimony, NECNP argues in its Brief at page 50 that it "... would be severely i
1
.. _ - ~,
prejudiced by having this testimony admitted without adequate prior notice."
As far back as October 17, 1980, the Staff identified its intention to address the "second issue" by structural engineering testimony.E
- Moreover, Mr. Knight's role and the scope of his intended testimony was inquired into on February 12, 1981 when NECNP took the deposition of all Staff witnesses.
Finally, the schedule adopted by the Appeal Board for the filing of expert testimony afforded NECNP an opportunity to rebut Mr. Knight's testimony, as it had done on the "Chinnery issue" and as it had previously done in connection with its own motion to suspend construction.E III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in its Preposed Findings filed June 16, 1981, the Staff believes it has been clearly demonstrated that Dr. Chinnery's particular version of a probabilistic methodology lacks factual validity and such methodology is not presently an acceptable way to proceed for making licensing decisions as to the seismic design of nuclear power plants. The Staff believes, moreover, that it has been clearly demonstrated that the Staff's methodology for correlating vibratory ground motion with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake is consistent with Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100. Moreover, in the course of addres-sing these two questions it is uncontradicte that the present seismic
/
See " Memorandum Of The NRC Staff In Response To Appeal Board Order y
... To Identify Nature, Scope, And Timing Of Testimony On Remanded Seismic Issues" p. 3 (October 17,1980).
" Affidavit Of Gregory C. Minor" appenced to "NECNP Reply To Licensee 8_/
And Applicant Arguments On Its Motion To Suspend Construction" (December 4,1980).
design of Seabrook of Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII,.25g, Regulatory Guide 1.60 is acceptable, safe, and conservative.
Finally, for the reasons stated, the Appeal Board should deny NECNP's motion to strike portions of the Staff's prefiled testimony.
Respectfully submitted, H.C
,fe V Roy P. Les y-Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryla~'
this 10th day of August, 1981.
f 4
,m e #
,w-
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 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SER QCE, I hereby certify that copies of REPLY OF THE NRC STAFF TO NECNP'S PROPOSED FliiDIi4GS OF FI7 AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMANDED SEISMIC ISSUES in the above-captior oceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United Sts.s mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of August,1931.
Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing 4100 Cathedral Avenge. Lit.
Appeal Board Washington, DC 20016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Ernest 0. Salo, Administrative Judge and Professor of Fisheries Dr. John H. Buck
- Research Institute Atomic Safety and Licensing College of Fisheries Appeal Board University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- 1107 West Knapp Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 0'Neill, Backus, Spielman, Little 116 Lowell Street Ivan W. Smith, Esq.*
Manchester, NH 03101 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Res latory Commission Harmon & Weiss Washington, DC 155 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006
. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold John A. Ritsher, Esq.
3 Godfrey Avenue Ropes & Gray Hampton, NH 03842 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel Norman Ross, Esq.
Public Service Company of 30 Frar.cis Street New Hampshire Brookline,l%
02146 1000 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03105 E. Tupper Kir. der, Esq.
Assistant Atta ney General Francis S. Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen.
Office of Attorney General Laurie Burt, Esq., Asst. Atty. Gen.
State House Annex Cc;.nonwealth of Massachusetts Room 208 Environmental Protection Division Concord, NH 03301 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 William C. Tallman Chairman and Chief Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Officer Board Panel
- Public.iervice Company of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New riampshire Washington, DC 20555 1000 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03105 Atomis Safety and Licensing Appe Board-Docketing and Service Section*
U.T Nuclear Regulatory Commiss*on Office of the Secretary Wasnington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 L M. QatD, a
\\
(JRf) P. Lespy 4/
Deputy Ass'istant Chief l,
Hearing Counsel l-i i
I
, - - - - - -