ML20023A677
| ML20023A677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1982 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A419 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-399 NUDOCS 8210190112 | |
| Download: ML20023A677 (3) | |
Text
fDL-ong fs s.tcu e
UNITED STATES Ej
.,(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 4
- :y WASHING T ON, D. C. 20555
[
October 6,1982 Joseph Gallo, Esquire
'Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F01A-82-399
Dear Mr. Gallo:
This is in partial response to your letter dated August 25, 1982 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, five categories of documents regarding the systematic evaluation program.
As per a September 29, 1982 telephone conversation between Ms. Lisa Campagna of your office and Mr. Stephen Isaacs of my staff, the documents listed on Appendix A are enclosed. These are the documents she discussed with Mr. Joseph Scinto of NRC's Office of the Executive Legal Director (ELD).
Also enclosed, as Appendix B, is a listing of the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) documents already available for inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
As agreed during that telephone :onversation this office will continue to review and prepare a listing of documents, including the SECY papers under review by the Commission, but will await your telephone call regarding the possible termination of this request as a result of the review of Mr. Scinto's documents.
Sincerely, f
kJ
/
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules ar.d Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated
-J M 10390112 821006 ~~Y
~
4 4'
POR FOIA i'
e_GALLOS2-399
.PDR L_._
, f ';
h :' i.4 f I,d' ~
Re: F01A-82-399-1 i
1
^ y,if x Appendix A 1.
'8/18/82 Letter:from C. Whitehead to the Licensing Board for the
- i Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor. transmitting " Affidavit of
~ Leon Reiter, Jeffrey Kimball, and William Russell in response to Board Questions."-
2.
3/10/82 Note to Gus Lainas from Joseph Scinto re: memo to Ed Christenberry,
dated 2/18/82.
~
3.
9 /3/76 Note to Karl Goller from Joseph 1Scinto re: Legal. Questions Concerning Re-Review Program.
4.
Undated Draft note to Richard Vollmer re: Applicability of Appendix. A
-to Part 100.
' 5.
1/16/80 Memo to Ed Christenbury from R. Vollmer re: Appendix A to 10 CFR Part-100.
-i i
i kE
j.g j'i Re: F0IA-82-399 2
Appendix B DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
' ACRS' Full Committee Meetings 213th'
. January 5-7, 1978 ACRS-1510 ACRST-540
'214th February-9-11,1978 ACRS-1520 ACRST-551 ACRS Subcommittee Meetings
-Seismic Activity December 15, 1977 ACRS-1505 ACRST-533
. Seismic Activity January 26-27, 1978 ACRS-1514
.ACRST-543/545 ACRS Consultant Reports Ang February 8,.1978 CT-0940 Zudans January 30, 1978 CT-0928 Maxwell February 1, 1978 CT-0932 Seed February 1,1978 CT-0931 Wilson February 2,1978 CT-0933 White February 5,1978 CT-0936-Philbrick March 3, 1978 CT-0962
August 18, 1982 1
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman, Dr. George C. Anderson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Ato.nic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Oceanography U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Washington Washington, DC 20555 Seattle, WA 98195 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Administrative Judge Route 4, Box 190D Cambridge, MD 21613 In the Matter of Dairyland Power Cocperative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor)
Docket No. 50_409 (FTOL Proceeding)
Dear Administative Judges:
I am forwarding to the Board, as promised in my letter of July 30, 1982, the affidavits of Messrs Kimball, Reiter, and Russell in answer to the questions contained in the Board's Memorandum of July 2, 1982 concerning the Board's sua sponte seismic issue.
Sincerely, Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service list
(
gxY
[ifC
- 0ELDji
- 0 ELD
_ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _J_/ i. jll___:__
NAME :CWoodhead:sl:STr y
[;. i :8/l /82
- 8//[/82
k.,, 3 '
h
- ,; y _ lc
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of-
)
)
Dairyland Power Cooperative
)
Docket No. 50-409 (FTOLProceeding)
(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor AFFIDAVIT OF LEON REITER AND JEFFREY KIMBALL
-IN RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTIONS.
I, Leon Reiter, being duly sworn, state as follows:
I am employed as the Leader of the Seismology Section in the Geosciences Branch of the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my professional qualifications-is attached.
I, Jeffrey K. Kimball, being duly sworn, state as follows:
I am employed as a Seismologist / Geophysicist in the Geosciences Branch of the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
In the July 2,1982 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum concerning the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (Docket No. 50-409), the Board raised a number of questions concerning an affidavit filed by the NRC staff on January 28, 1982. The affidavit contains five attachments, one of which (attachment 3, Memorandum to D. Crutchfield from Robert Jackson dated June 23, 1980 entitled, " Initial Review cnd Recommendation for Site Specific Spectra n SEP Sites") has raised specific ~ questions by the Board. These questions are listed below along with a-response in question and answer fonn.
References are attached.
.g
~.
7,*
?,
Question 1 "We refer in particular to the deterministic study reported on pages 14-16 of the enclosure to Attachment 3, including Tables 1 and 2.
- First, there is no indication in'the record of who did this study nor of the staff's views as to.its acceptability."
(Page 2, lines 7-10.)
Response-The study (the calculations and the writing of the enclosure to ) was completed by Dr. Leon Reiter of the NRC staff.
This study was completed to further evaluate the adequacy and reasonableness of the recommended SEP design spectra.
Specific comments regarding Tables 1 and 2 are answered in subsequent questions.
In general the difference between the deterministic and probabilistic values result from the ability of the uniform hazard approach to overcome the artificial constraints often posed by the " tectonic province" approach.
For the Lacrosse site, the probabilistic peak acceleration is less than the deterministic peak acceleration because Lacrosse is in an area of low seismicity and estimated seismic hazard in the central United States.
i Question 2 i
Throughout these proceedings, the Staff has consistently held that a magnitude 5.0-5.5 or intensity VII earthquake is appropriate for Lacrosse and that this earthquake corresponds to a peak acceleration of 0.129 Yet Table 1 shows for.the five reactors in the central U.S. a magnitude 5.3 earthquake but an intensity VII-VIII. Why?"
(Page 2, lines 10-15.)
Response
The earthquakes listed in Table 1 are based upon the largest historic intensity earthquakes which have not been associated with a known structure within the host tectonic province.
This Table was developed for comparison with the recommended SEP desigii *"ectra.
For o
i y
Y%
1'
. c'
+
. Lacrosse.this earthquake would be (assuming central stable region province) the 1937 MMI=VII-VIII Anna, Ohio event for which both available instrumental data and felt area estimates indicate a magnitude of 5.0 to 9
5.3.
In general, however, based upon many central United States earthquakes Nuttli (1974) and Nuttli and Herrmann (1978)~have found that an epicentral intensity VII is about a magnitude 5.3 (Intensity = 2X magnitude - 3.5).
The staff position during the hearings has been based upon this generalized relationship.
Question 3 "More seriously, Table 2 gives the result for Lacrosse as.135g which is higher than the 0.129 for which potential liquefaction at Lacrosse has thus far been-evaluated."
(Page 2, lines 15-17.)
Response
As stated in response 1 these values (Table 2) were completed to help the staff evaluate the adequacy and reasonableness of the recommended SEP design spectra.
They were not intended to replace the SEP spectra.
For Lacrosse, the probabilistic acceleration is slightly less than either deterministic peak acceleration (0.12g or 0.135g) because this site is in an area of low seismicity and estimated seismic hazard in the central United States.
The value 0.129 was originally proposed by the applicant in 1973, and in the review related to the show cause order (1980) it was determined that this peak acceleration roughly correlated with intensity VII based upon Trifunac and Brady (1975).
i Trifunac and Brady (1975) is the relationship most cften used for reviews by the staff in the past seven years.
132 cm/sec2 (0.135g) was determined using both state of the art relationships and those developed P
=.'"t,
.specifically for the SEP study by LLNL.
In any case, differences on the order.of 0.01g are not significant and are certainly lost within the scatter of estimation techniques.
Question 4 "Moreover, Attachment I states that the Anna, Ohio earthquake of 1937 is classed as intensity VII-VIII and that the vibratory ground acceleration corresponding to MM intensity VII-VIII is 0.20g."
(Page 2, lines 18-20.)
Response
Intensity VII-VIII corresponds to about 0.20g using the relationship of Trifunac and Brady (1975), and was the technique used by the staff in.
This relationship relies only upon intensity. Trifunac and Brady (1975) was not used to calculate the values in Table 2.
The relationships used and referred to in the response to Question 3, placed greater emphasis on the magnitude of the Anna, Ohio earthquake.
Magnitude is a more reliable estimate of earthquake source strength than epicentral intensity.
See also response to Question 5.
Question 5 "Of lesser significance, Table 1 appears to equate magnitude 5.3 to intensity VII for four reactors and to intensity VII-VIII for the others.
Why?"
(Page2, lines 20-22.)
Response
As stated in response 2 the earthquakes listed in Table 1 are based upon the largest historic intensity earthquakes which have not been associated with a known structure within the host tectonic province.
For j
the Central United States sites this is intensity VII-VIII which has an t
~
s -;*
, estimated m = 5.3 based upon felt areas and available instrumental data b
while for the Eastern United States sites this is intensity VII which has an estimated m = 5.3 based upon epicentral intensity.
Estimated b
a magnitudes based upon' felt area are more accurate than those based upon general correlations with epicentral intensity.
Estimated magnitudes based upon felt area have~not been completed for all eastern United States earthquake as of yet.
Question 6 "Is the solid line labeled Western U.S. Trifunac and Brady on 5-2, page C-48, NUREG/CR-1582, Vol. 4, the intensity-acceleration used in this deterministic study?
If so how does one read a peak acceleration of 0.135g for an earthquake of intensity MM VII-VIII?"
(Page 2, lines 22-26.)
Response
Trifunac and Brady (1975) was not used to determine values in Table 2.
The suites of equations used are referred to at the base of Table 2.
Question 7.
" Finally, what is the staff's basis for rejecting Dr. Nuttli's view that 'For nowhere in the central United States would I estimate the PGA 2
(peak acceleration) to be less than 160 cm/sec ' (page A-10, Vol. 5, NUREG/CR-1582)?"
(Page 2, line 26; page 3 lines 1-3.)
Response
Dr. Nuttli goes on to state (Page A-11, Vol. 5, NUREG/CR-1582) that "I do not wish to imply that my ' deterministic' estimates are the proper ones and that the UHM values which differ from them are' incorrect.
It i
may well be that the UHM values are better." Dr. Nuttli was involved in
[
.~-y,
many aspects of this project (seismic source panel, attenuation panel and peer review panel.)
In addition, the staff regulaily is in contact with Dr. Nuttli regarding his views and ideas on seismicity and ground motion.
~
The staff SEP decision is based upon a total integration of all available information from many experts.
It does not rely on any one individual whether they be higher or lower than the reconnended SEP spectra.
I hereby attest that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Leon Reiter W. r
'W T
~ \\
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /4/A day of August 1982 aif.,A b
dotary Public
~~
T My commission expires:
/, / 98(o q.
l i
O
~
7.-
s-5.
REFERENCES
. Nuttli, 0.W.,1974, Magnitude-Recurrence Relation for Central Mississippi Valley Earthquakes, Seismol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 64, 1189.
Nuttli, 0.W. and R.B. Herrmann,1978, Credible Earthquakes for the Central United States, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Report 12.
Trifunac, M.D. and A.G. Brady, 1975,-On the Correlation of Seismic Intensity Scales with Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion, Seismol.
Soc. Amer. Bull., 65,139.
t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE Docket No. 50-409 (FTOL Proceeding)
'(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM T. RUSSELL CONCERNING REGULATORY APPROVAL OF SEP SEISMIC METHODOLOGY I, William T. Russell, being duly sworn, state as follows:
I am employed as the Branch Chief of the Systematic Evaluation Program Branch of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of nty professional qualifications was provided with the Staff's c
January 28, 1982 affidavit.
The following references (copies of which 'were provided to the Board by Staff Counsel's letter of July 30, 1982) form the basis for nty statements concerning the regulatory approval of the SEP seismic methodology (Staff affidavit, p. 7):
1.
Policy Session Item:
"The Systematic Evaluation of.0perating Nuclear Power Plants," SECY-76-545.
November 12, 1976.
2.
Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to Lee V. Gossick:
Subject:
SECY-76-545, " Commission Guidance on NRR Systematic Evaluation Program for Operating Reactors," January 27, 1977.
3.
Staff Information Report to Commission:
"The Conversion of Provisional Operating Licenses (POLS) to Full Term Licenses (FTLs),SECY-77-539, October 14, 1977.
4.
Commission Paper:
" Systematic Evaluation of Operating Reactors F
Phases I and II" SECY-77-561, October 26, 1977.
5.
Memorandum from Samuel' J. Chilk to Lee V. Gossick:
Subject:
SECY-77--561, " Systematic Evaluation of Operating Reactors -
Phases I & II," November 15, 1977.
V
.r:-.
c
- 6. _ Transcript of Commission Meeting:
Biiefins on Systematic Evaluation Program, May 6,1980.
Specifically a major program objective 'of the SEP (Reference 1, p. 3,
. program objective 2) was to " establish documentation which shows how each operating plant reviewed compares with current criteria or significant safety issues, and should provide a rationale for acceptable departures from these criteria." As a result of the Commission's directions to the staff (Reference 2) and the need to complete license conversion of Provisional Operating Licenses (POLS) to Full Term Licenses (FTLs) (Reference 3), the staff proposed to accomplish the safety review for POL to FTL conversion as part of SEP Phase II (Reference 4).
The Commission approved the staff's proposed SEP Phase II review of eleven plants (including Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor) on November 15,1977 -(Reference 5).
The Commission also required that the staff provide " periodic status reports on progress of Phase II" and "that the staff report back to the Commission at the time decisions are to be made for individual plants" [ Reference'5,- Items I.(a) and I.(b)]. The staff identified the seismic review of SEP plants as the most resource intensive and difficult review early in the program and reviewed with the Commission during a periodic review of SEP Phase II on May 6,1980, the approach being followed by SEP seismic reviews (Reference l'
6, p. 14 line 23 through p. 25).
The Commission is aware that the Site l
L Specific' Spectra Program documented in NUREG/CR-1582, Volume 2-5, " Seismic i
L Hazard Analysis" by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and TERA was a state of
.the art program to develop a realistic estimate of the seismic hazard (reanalysis' spectra) for SEP plants.
g
t
. Following the Comission meeting on SEP Phase II progress, the staff determined that the Site Specific Spectra Program preliminary results should be used for SEP seismic reanalysis of structures, systems and components _at fiye plants.1I These preliminary results were finalized in June 1981.2/
. As indicated in the staff's January 28, 1982 affidavit, no specific Commission approval of the SEP approach to definition of the seismic hazard has yet occurred.
Two SEP reviews have been completed and issued in draft fonn pending Commission approval (1) draft NUREG-0820, Integrated Plant
' Safety Assessment, Systematic Evaluation Program, Palisades Plant issued April 1, 1982 and (2) draft NUREG-0821, Integrated Plant Safety Assessment, Systematic Evaluation Program, R. E. Ginna Plant issued May 27, 1982.
However, the seismic reviews of these plants used more conservative Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra since the Site Specific Spectra Program results were not completed at the time the reviews were started.
For five older plants (including Lacrosse) the initiation of the seismic reevaluation was delayed until preliminary results from the Site Specific Spectra Program were available.
The staff is going to present the SEP seismic methodology and its application to all SEP plants with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards (ACRS) Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena on October 22, 1982.
The ACRS Subcommittee on the Systematic Evaluation Program and the
-1/ Letters pursuant ~ to 10 CFR 50.54(f) from D. Eisenhut to F. Linder.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, dated August 4,1980.
-2/ Letter from from D. M. Crutchfield to ALL SEP Licensees Except San Onofre, dated June 17, 1981.
e
,p full Committee are scheduled to review the SEP seismic methodology and its application on Lacrosse in January and February 1983 respectively.
The Commission is currently scheduled to review Lacrosse in April 1983.
The regulatory approval of SEP seismic methodology will be established following Commission review of the first plant-for which the SEP Site Specific Spectra Program results are the principal basis for establishing the equivalent Safe Shutdown Earthquake input for reanalysis of structures, systems and components.
It is the staff's position that the SEP seismic methodology (i.e., the Site Specific Spectra Program) provides an acceptable rationale for a departure from current licensing criteria (i.e.,10 CFR 100 Appendix A).
(
&I ES-l William T. Russell Subscribed and sworn to before me this.13th day of August,1982.
- /j.t/
k.*/
Notary Public v
My Commission expires: 7
^f
/!
,