ML20028B525
| ML20028B525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8212020223 | |
| Download: ML20028B525 (53) | |
Text
.
-. Mf.T*i.sN/h..NAy'! O M' w;@.cA,Av.[V)'MWNV.f,O.M Mlis.mdm 4,aw
',.af./.J,J/c.'. we.;.gg,sa., A,.,G.;,p mi.A,"%,y,%.,gg,,,ile, p4.,
%4 t
d.s4 4*V.Q WQft,74(f.Q.e, y. f.f'.*ge.f Jr(f6) *- f M,$r,4.'.p'u d
2.
a.w. 4. eae,..*.4o =.e. wg, v.f w 4 s
<.,%.v..Sa*%..r4,.4./ ".,
,g 4 9
- h. %,
,a ytau n
4
,w q,.
%,y
..y g
7
. v.,
s.,
w.o.
.s N.$* Q**
4 Y
,. ?* *
-.~. ~, Y*Q ff.. *** f.,'"y']..} 7,. f.,',%Y* &... y ? Q..l -[}.'C'Q';'.',*::i'*( f } *$~~:.
+
7 }.~.."., f,?._Y I
.... n..
.dsd ezp u* f?.w.N McN. re:v,.a t. wc,.V,#e gg.'*p@*s'V,,. ;,%. f;gQ.,.p,, @
.,,y l '.W
.e s,. w,... Qs,
,3 u
4..
c.. rs.
- v..v, r.r eer ae. ew,
e-=.e a v.i.. m.er*, mw.
.n.e. s.
.g,
%.s..
.m..,...,
.am
...s,.
.. ~
1
,... +.
a
.Z. i'.. <.
..T-f',.
.,f 3 n,p;
- 9. y - -
~
u
.. t, r,.
e=
..... c m.., n... n a..
. : :.~.. -
- m... w.,,.
.. aa u.
n.
c.
...a...
~..~.....:,.,,..,...
... e. n.
r
.~.
-. w :n..,.s.
r :.wnu
~.o.w.suw.ww.u;.s.amum6,>.n.m uwwa..~.u..m.: n...:smi.a e.w.u m.s:rm,...
..... m.w..
u.,*...
<.,..t s
s: m.., 4..
.:. n _... > -
.. REGUIhTORY COME..i,3Si.~UN I E'CCZ
~ 2CC J. ~~"J. J ~7.
_ - -. _ _. ". ~ ~".~._.- N UCLE.X.R1
~
Z
.-=
=
~~
.3.cCOMMISSION MEETING 4..
-_.m...
- r....,,..
_.,.,,...,m..
am......
. ~ _.,,.. _..
.n,,,..,
o
,. ~, o.
w.
.~.,
m..,..
.e.,
..... -..~~~PUBLIC MEETING
~~ T T
~~~ ~~~
~
... ~.. ~
w:.
n:
_. _ ~
m 4...
..~
a.
- o r
_._._.._-N.
.. _a....., _ -. _.... _
... ~ _...,.. _.... _ _..-. _.. _. _ _........
{
BRIEFING ON PROPCSED STAFF ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
,,mTO..THE..RECENT.U.S GEOLOGICAL, SURVEY POSITION: saw
..1 i
-v, -
e PLACE wnSnINaToN,
~ -+w.
~1-
- o. C.
.. DATE EvEM8ER 19,1982
. ~...,,..
.. n.
,a..
.,. ; e, ~
.y PAGES 1 - 49 f et..t.4../ A6 w
4#'..ws.s k ste d %' egg 7 4.,,.
.~l
... i.1. J. 46.M s.'Am. "'e
. 4is.h/E.d,'L%W...
?.'* h 4 Ni,gI.
w.~t.. s.4 s [$ e **
l our>... M M6 - e4%.uw.:.'re:.tk.d.i.G.ea,es4 des'.e'.h,&,ho k.av.15sra.or.al.i' **%+*W e ne Wi.MM.N
% ' a *.~ u..+ AN M.#. m* *.~
r
..u ;?..
s
.a*
.. + -
-i.
.u.
-,o w..~,
.r w
h w #a
..,c,.
..w...
,t.
.u*
q, /:D.-
... 7
.e g
....c., N
- :r.,2 s,.
- L..
. w,,..
s -.
. -. s. '., rv m.r..
sAe.
t,,..
49,..
. %.,.w ev, s.-
-w.r a.-e.
.,-.a%,..,
, m,.,,,<...<,,,,.m w. e. 4. %.
..e.
...~.,...,.e.t 4.,.w,:,.,..
p w,. n. ;,..
w,
. u,%.4 -
1
- n..cw.
p&. '
u n',.. *, + r X.
~.lg. a;r n, M.,. 'sv.' '
.3 n;x n s.V;.a.,2. " >. o g as v. a v,y 4
L.M' w.
u v
w,,-
- r.- ~ m e
ly.
J.
- m.,,
~
',D.
u.
s i'
t---A-L =mt= = = --%
z;--am EE==@ea=td wa w-a W
is a= =
=-
'N
,/o
..,s'
('m. Q.. H.f..,<, y,..p;;.)4. ggc0 R, PCRTM,,3
' '.,. V,..
f.,......,
x
. ' c r.
L.:. ~
,,, y m
m y
, ' _ ~ '
i
-. E
.a. 4
. - :- 6 G212020223 821119 ya,b... c.a..7 a.. g ".,; 7. :
.c e, z.g g.g.v,, m y j.
W
<C n " W "p:. ".c.. gcc;. -.. c.,
PT9.7 PDR TREET N W '..
^
v+.w e
7~;
.m
,..s.....
, -. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
(
..P
- e'"
%g t c
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
8 SRIEFING ON PROPOSED STAFF ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE 7
RECENT U.S. GE0 LOGICAL SURVEY POSITION 8
9 PUBLIC MEETING 10 11 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 13 1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
14 Friday, November 19, 1982 15 The Comwission convened, pursuant te notice, at l
18 3:50 p.m.
17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
18 NUNIIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 19 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 20 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
22 W.
OIRCKS S. CHILX 23 M.
MALSCH E.
CASE 24 R.
VCLLMER R.
JACKSCN 25 J. OEVINE ALoansoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
,N
4
(
(?
DISCLAIMER This is an ' unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States
. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission held on nov ms'er 19, 19s2 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.
The
. meeting was open to public attendance and observation. 'This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transc'ript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.107, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the cetters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this. transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
ilo pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in
(-
any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any'orize.
statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may auth 9
l l
~
l
2 1
EBDGEEC18G1 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This meeting this 3
afternoon is to hear a discussion of the proposed staff i
4 actions with respect to recent clarification of the U.S.
5 Geological Survey position.
This position relates to 6
the seismic potential in certain regions of the eastern 7
United States.
At issue is whether earthouakes similar 8
to the 1886 event in Charleston, South Carolina, should 9
be considered as having the potential to occur at other 10 locations on the East Coast.
11 In addition to the NRC staff, se have 12 representatives here from the U.S. Geological Survey to 13 discuss their recent clarification and to answer 14 Ccamissioner questions.
15 I will turn the meeting over to Mr Circks to 16 introduce our visitors.
17 MR. DIRCKS3 Thank you.
I 18 We transmitted to the Commission yesterday the 19 letter from Mr. Devine to Bob Jackson on the new U.S.G.S 20 views and the memo se sent down yesterday.
We did send 21 a memo to the Commission back in March alerting the 22 Commission that there were new developments coming about 23 over in U.S.G.S.
24 Today, Jim Devine is hora who will discuss l
25 that with you.
He is the Assistant Director for ALDER $0N REPCRTINo CCMPANY,INC.
03 FQEEPA% WM @$ M 8M
3 1
Engineering Technology at the U.S.G.S.,
but today he is i
2 the Acting Director of the U.S.G.S.
We have a celebrity 3
here today.
4 Bob Jackson, who is head of the --
5 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
It couldn't happen to a 6
nicer fellow.
7 MR. DIRCKS:
Bob Jackson, who is in charge of 8
the Geo-Sciences Branch is here from NRR to discuss also 9
what actions se intend to take.
10 Ed, did you want to say anything?
11 MR. CASE:
No.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Dick?
13 MR. VOLLMER:
No.
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Jim, if you would talk about your-15 letter, and then se could go on to the other part.
16 MR. DEVINE:
I will start out by saying that I 17 appreciate the chance to speak with you on this 18 subject.
It is one of great interest and concern to us 1g that not only our only our views be known, wot be 20 interpreted as best as we can see them interpreted.
So 21 I welcome the opportunity to try to clarify any 22 questions that may come as a result of our letter.
We 23 have worked hard to make the letter self-explanatcry, 24 but it is a difficult subject, and I am sure we haven't 25 succeedea fully.
ALDERSON REPOKnlW3 COMPANY,INC.
4 1
I will not offer an extensive summary of it.
2 I would hope that most of the words are concise and 3
precise.
I would offer an overall philosophy that 4
guided this letter, and that is, as a result of the 5
investigations we have been doing in Charleston, se have 6
been increasingly concerned that shat we have learned is 7
understood by the rest of the scientific community, and 8
that what me have learned is not misunderstood by the 9
scientific community.
10 It is in that flavor that we have attempted to 11 clarify what as said in our previous letter in 1980 12 concerning the potential for earthquakes outs 11e the 13 Charleston region.
The reason for this specifically 14 comes from two factors.
15 One is, we have not yet been successful in 16 identifying the specific geologic features that can be 17 unequivocally associated with that earthquake.
- And, 18 two, a previous statement has been and is being used 19 extensively in the scientific community, and cur concern 20 is that while it was being used as a true statement, not l
l 21 necessarily tne entire truth was being applied to it.
22 That is, there have been statements made in 23 various scientific circles that such an svent can be 24 categorically excluded from areas outside Charleston 25 baseo on the U.S.G.S. position, and that is a ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
_ _ - - - - ~. - _ _ _
440 FIRST sT., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 82H300
5 1
1 misinterpretation of our 1980 position.
It is these two l
2 factors that caused us to write this letter to the NRC 3
in an effort to clarify the two items.
4 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Is that the largest 5
earthquake that we know of on the Eastern Coast?
6 MR. DEVINE:
On the Eastern Coast, yes.
It is 7
smaller than any of the three at New Madrid in Missouri, 8
but east of the Applachians, to our knowledge, in the 9
historical time, yes.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In your December 30, 11 1980, letter, as you quote in your first paragraph, you 12 said "The likelihood of a Charleston-size event in other 13 parts of the coastal plain and Piedmont is very low."
14 Is that not a true statement, then?
15 MR. DEVINE:
That is a true statement, sir.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What has changed, then, 17 your uncertainty?
18 MR. DEVINE:
No, sir.
That statement is still 19 true and complete as written.
However, there was an 20 aeditional statement made in the 1980 letter concerning 21 Charleston itself, which was has been interpreted to 22 mean that it applied to Charleston and only Charleston.
l l
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I remember that, but I 24 was wondering if something had changed with regard to 25 that first quote.
l AmsmsCN AEPoRTING CCMPANY. INC.
l
q
\\
6 1
MR. DEVINE:
No, it has not.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Then what has changed, 3
the uncertainty?
4 MR. DEVINE:
I would not argue that it has 5
changed, that is shy se used the word " clarified" in our 6
opening letter.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
I circled " clarified" 8
someplace along here and I put a cuestion mark by that.
9 MR. DEVINE:
We would argue that the position 10 has not changed.
In fact, in our last sentence, wo 11 repeat what we said in 1980 as it still applies to 12 Charleston, as we said it before.
13 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
I guess, Jim, the 14 question would be, is there any -- I know that you had a 15 big meeting, in what 19787 16 MR. JACKSON:
We have had many meetings on l
17 Charleston.
18 MR. DEVINE:
We have had many meetings on this 19 subject.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You put out a l
1 21 professional paper, a 10-28 report based on it.
22 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER ANEARNE:
So that you have had 24 over the last five years a lot of effort looking at 25 Charleston.
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
7 1
MR. DEVINE:
Ys.
2 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Eut from the date of 3
your previous letter, December, 1980, to the current 4
time, essentially two years, has there been new 5
information or has there been a specific distillation of 6
that new information that has come out?
7 MR. DEVINE:
Both of those items have been 8
occurring, but the result being that we are in about the 9
same position we sore in 1980, and that is, it is still to our judgment that the potential is very low, but we have 11 not yet identified the specific structure at which to 12 attach that earthauske.
13 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Then going bzek to your 14 two reasons that you felt it was necessary, I gather 15 then that the principal concern since the first part, 16 you haven't yet identified a scocific geological 17 structure, that was also true two years ago.
16 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
l 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In fact, it has always 20 been true?
21 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, thereferer it has 23 to be the second one, which is that you are concerned 24 there were some people saying that the U.S.G.S. position 25 was that that Charleston earthauake was sclely ALDERSCN REPORT 1NG COMPANY. INC.
8 1
restricted to Charleston.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Some people like the 3
NRC.
4 MR. OEVINE:
That it was restricted to 5
Charleston solely on the basis that the U.S.G.S.
said 3
6 that it was so.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
8 Therefore, I have to then ask you what you 9
meant by "at a particular location, deterministic and 10 probabilistic evaluations of the seismic hazard should 11 be made."
What does that mean?
12 MR. DEVINE:
I would state that that is 13
- onsisten* mith the first paragraph where we state that 14 the likelzhood of a Charleston-size event in other parts 15 of the coastal plain and Piedmond is very low, that 16 "very-low" is indeed the operative section which says 17 that you ought to then make an analysis to show how
(
18 loa.
I 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Help me understand.
l 20 You have said that you can't identify the Charleston l
21 with a specific structure.
l 22 MR. DEVINE:
yes.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, you understand 24 that our approach to treating earthquakes and which 25 aarthquake sizes should me apply at a site.
ALDER $0N REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHIN@TCN, D.C. M S @DCGB
i 9
1 MR. DEVINE:
I believe so.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There isn't too much in 3
the way of a proba,bilistic analysis associated with that 4
once you have said an earthquake is a potential 5
candidate.
6 Is t'he U.S.G.S. saying (a) and I realize 7
that it is up to us to try to decide what we should do, 8
but are you saying (a) that we should now use the 9
Charleston earthquake at every eastern seaboard site; or 10 (b) are you saying that we should change the way that wo 11 treat earthquake and weight them by a probability 12 esasure.
If it is the latter, what kind of probability 13 measure is very low?
14 MR. DEVINE:
Taking the first part of your 15 cuestion, "use the Charleston earthquake."
If I am 16 allowed my definition of "use," I would have the option 17 of selecting that half of your question.
That is, you 18 sould indeed, when making your assessment of seismic 19 potential of any site in this region, you would consider 20 the Charleston earthquake.
You wouldn't categorically 21 throw it aside without any consideration.
I 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would mean, that, 23 then, the largest earthouake, as we use the term 24 tectonic province, ought to be the Charleston 25 earthauake.
ALCERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC.
_ MO FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 S EDEG
10 1
MR. DEVINE:
If that is the definition of 2
"use" and " consider," th6n I will go to the second half 3
of your question, sir.
4 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
All right.
5 MR. DEVINE:
That is, I do not think the first 6
half the would apply in your definition of "use" and 7
" consider."
Consequently, I would go to the last option 8
you offer, and that is, considered it in a pecbabilistic 9
manner.
I realize that is not primarily the system that 10 has been devised in the past.
So I recognize that there 11 is an askzardness there.
12 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
In a probabilistic 13 manner, can you I guess one can talk about recurrence 14 times, or probability of occurrence per year.
You have 15 used the term here as "very low."
Can you translate 16 that into a quantitative expression?
17 MR. DEVINE:
There are a variety of studies 18 that address that question, and I don't have a pat i
19 answer to a specific probability number that I can 20 answer you with, and say it is 10 to the minus X,
Y or 21 I.
22 There are studies being made.
There are 23 studies being funced by NRC that address this problem, 24 and we believe those are the right kinds of studies that 25 should be done.
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ _ _.* W ST, N.W., WASHINGTON D.C.20001 (202) 628-4300 __.
11 1
COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
At the present time, 2
then, the U.S.G.S. would not be prepared to say that --
3 You say "The likelihood of a Charleston-size event in 4
other parts of the coastal plain and Piedmont is very 5
low.a 6
MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is the U.S.G.S. not 8
prepared t.
say, by very low, we mean a recurrence time 9
no less than, and fill in some blank.
10 MR. DEVINE:
We are not prepared to offer that 11 categoric statement as to what it is everywhere based on 12 just our studies.
13 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
Why do you conclude 14 that the probability is very low?
What is the basis for 15 that conclusion?
16 MR. DEVINE:
The lack of evidence of 17 occurrence of events similar to Charleston in other 18 parts -- in parts other than Charleston.
The lack of 19 young tectonic features that one sould associate large 20 earthquake potential with.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Jim, you do say here, 22 "However, as studies in the Charleston River and 23 elsewhere along the Atlantic margin have progressed, it 24 has become evident that the general geologic structure 25 of the Charleston region can be found in other locales ALcERSoN REPORTING CcMPANY,INC.
440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTcN. D.C. 20001 (202) 6284300
12 I
within the eastern seaboard."
2 That says, you don't know what the structure 3
is, but there is evidence that that structure exists 4
elsewhere.
Is that right?
5 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
I think what they are 6
saying is that they can 't identif y the occurrence of the 7
earthquake to any specific geologic feature.
8 MR. DEVINE:
The features that are similar to 9
those identified in Charleston may not have any 10 relevance because those features identified in 11 Charleston may not have any relevance to the occurrence 12 of the earthquake.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, then, what leads 14 you to think that we need to make a change?
15 MR. DEVINE:
The other side of that coin.
If 16 se had a feature that we could identify specifically, 17 all ones like it could then very carefully be identified 18 elsewhere.
We do not have such, consequently you are 19 forced to look at some other basis whereby you have i
20 restricted its occurrence.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLA0INO:
If you had drawn the 22 conclusion the other way earlier, I still come back to 23 shat made you change?
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think they are 25 saying they didn 't change.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
440 RR$T ST., N.W., WASHOETON. D.C._8_ gE3_@DGED____
_m 13 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Wait a minute, the 2
statement was pretty clear back here.
It says that it 3
applies to Charleston -- I want to get your own words, 4
so that I don't misquote you.
Maybe I have to look for 5
it.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask my 7
question?
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Go ahead.
9 MR. DEVINE:
I think I can identify the 10 sentence that you want.
11 CHA2RMAN PALLADINO:
It was in your December 12 30, 1980, letter, " Consequently, earthquakes similar to 13 the 1886 event should be considered as having the 14 potential to occur in the vicinity of Charleston.
15 Seismic engineered parameters should be determined on 18 that basis."
l 17 MR. OEVINE:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It did not go on to 19 say, "should not be considered potentially to occur 20 elsewhere."
21 MR. DEVINE:
That is right, it did not go on 22 to say that.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Then we make a mistake in 24 misintepreting it.
25 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Let me see if I can --
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
MC FCEiiFOi?, N.W, WCOGIRST@Q $$ @ M
14 i
1 My understanding of what you are saying, and see if this 2
is correct, U.S.G.S. is concerned about the 3
interpretation that has been made of its position.
4 MR. DEVINE:
Particularly that last sentence.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The U.S.G.S. position 6
is that the Charleston earthquake did occur.
They 7
cannot find any feature that would enable them, in the 8
way that they have previously elsewhere in the world 9
said, here is an earthquake and here is the linkage to 10 this geological feature.
1ney cannot find that in 1)
Charleston.
Consequently, because they cannot find it, 12 they cannot say that they know what caused the 13 Charleston earthquake.
There are, therefore, put in the 14 position of being unable to preclude its occurrence 15 anywhere else.
The probability at Charleston is high 16 because it haopened at Charleston --
17 MR. DEVINE:
And other event there have 18 happened.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
20 MR. DEVINE:
And it hasn't happened 21 elsewhere.
22 COMMISSICNER AhEARNE:
Are you really saying, 23 which is obviously completely within your right to say, 24 how we treat that really should be up to us, and we 25 nappen to have a licensing approach that doesn 't re ally ALDERsCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
15 1
match with the way the knowledge has been developed.
2 MR. CASE:
But the Appeal Soard has saic, and 3
the Commission concurred, that -- What is the right 4
sced, Bob?
5 MR. DEVINE:
That does not offend.
6 MR. JACKSON:
That was the staff'c mothedelogy 7
that we used, but in the situation dealing with Dr.
8 C h en ery 's testimony that such methodologies, although it 9
didn 't specify probabilistic methods per se, certainly 10 implied that it could be utilized.
11 MR. CASE:
It did not offend Part 100 was the 12 Appeals Board view.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
We have just not 14 done it.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It sounds like the 16 Appeal Board.
17 MR. JACKSON 3 If I could make a comment.
I 18 think we should not fall into the trap of saying that we 19 do things a certain way, more or less the way we do 20 things under the current regulation is deterministic, in 21 its own right makes a probabilistic statement.
The idea 22 that we fix an earthquake to a structure and me hold it 23 there is artifact of the licensing process.
No 24 scientist really thinks of that as being the actual 25 case.
l RDERsoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
16 1
It is a judgment -- It is a binary step, I 2
guess that is the problem.
In the earth sciences, the 3
process is not binary.
It isn't all capable or active.
4 It is not all not-active.
It is some degree 5
in-between.
I think the letter from the Survey is a 6
major letter.
It is the first in 20 years of licensing 7
assistance that the Survey has mentioned probability.
8 (Gener:1 laughter.)
9 MR. JACKSON:
Having worked with Jim for many 10 years, I knos.
11 I think what is involved in the eastern United 12 States is, we found that applying some other concepts in 13 the east that we have tried and have been able to apply 14 in the western United States is not an easy one to 15 warrant transferance.
16 The recurrent movement criteria, that you l
17 ought to be able to see recurrent movement, is not 18 obvious in the east.
The earthquakes are deeper and you 19 don't always see them.
So we use, essentially, a 20 regulation that was written for the west.
We hava 21 adopted it in the east.
We use it as best possible.
22 I think we are somewhere in that middle range 23 and what has happened in my opinion, since the 30th and 24 so work very closely with the U.S.G.S.
on this, so we 25 are not in a vacuum, is that se slid over that line a ALDERsON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
(
17 1
little bit to say, the uncertainty is such now that that 2
ju d groe n t of holding it there just purely on a statement 3
from the Survey, se ought to be very cautious about.
4 They are not essentially telling us to take 5
this and randomly stick it at every site and design for 6
it, but on the other hand, you ought to take a look.
7 That is, let's say, a modicum of movement or shift from 6
that point of viae.
9 From a regulatory staff point of vias, we have 10 known this.
I have been here eight years, and se 11 certainly have never officially tied Charleston down 12 just because we have the U.S.G.S.
letter.
When you make 13 a licensing decision, that is one way of representing 14 it, which is convenient within the process that we use.
15 I think that it really becomes a degree of 16 belief, and we have had so many working hypotheses on 17 charleston, many of which have changed by each year as 18 to which one is the favored hypothesis, and that depends 19 a lot on the current state of the science in the area.
20 The oil industry is looking at this new theory 21 called decoma, which is a major new theory over the last 22 few years, which really changes your perception of the 23 eastern United States geology in general, and that was 24 not even known very sell even in 1980.
So there have 25 been some significant changes.
ALcERsoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
15 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
But, Jim, back in the 2
days of the ACRS, I somehow got the impression that the f
3 geologic structure around Charleston was different from 4
other places, and there was a fooling that it was that 5
difference that led to the Charleston earthouake.
6 MR. DEVINE:
That is the first reason.
I said 7
there were two reasons to be here, and that is the first 8
one.
The more we have looked at the superficial 9
geology, the less differences we can identify in the 10 Charleston area, or the least ce can find other areas 11 that have similar features.
12 Not necessarily an area has all the same 13 features, but many areas have small, moved faults and 14 many areas are covered by the decoma, and so forth.
15 Many areas have low gravity and high magnetism.
All of 18 those features are found elsewhere in some sort of 17 combination.
The more we have locked, the less we have 18 been able to say, these items are all unique at 19 Charleston.
20 MR. JACXSON:
I think I would like to add that 21 there is also --
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Maybe that is the reason 23 shy I was so surprised, because I remember those 24 discussions on the unique features at Charleston.
25 MR. JACKSON:
Although the Survey has taken ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
440 FIRST ST., N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 ES 828 e300
19 1
this position, I know in the scientific community there 2
is definitely not uniformity of opinion on that.
There 3
are many scientists who would argue strongly that there 4
clearly are unique structures in the Charleston area, 5
and that these earthquakes that have occurred there can 6
be associated with them.
7 I think there is a wide spectrum of viars in 8
the scientific community, some of which are held by the 9
Survey, and some by other comoetent scientists outside 10 of the U.S.G.S.
So I think this statement I have 11 received is not purely an absolute statement for the 12 scientific community, but is a statement of the Survey.
13 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
Has there been a shift 14 in what me might call the center of gravity in the 15 Survey's vises?
16 MR. DEVINE:
I wouldn't call it a shift.
I 17 think there is probably a wider spectrum of opinion as e 18 result of all of our research.
I canvassed a lot of our 19 people, before signing this letter and w,-it in g large 20 portions of it, I would not say that I see a shift.
21 Each scientist I talked with agrees with that 22 opening sentence, th'at the probability of it occurring 23 elsewhere is very low.
It is when you start asking 24 which hypotheses each one favors that you see a wide 25 spectrum of opinion.
ALDERsON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
H]l21.I'iP fR JMll N1F7arJn! Wa
20 f
1 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
May I ask you.
Was 2
the timing of the letter in any affected by recent 3
licensing action on Summer?
4 MR. DEVINE:
No.
We have been trying to put 5
words into a letter that would be helpful for quite some 6
time.
7 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
It was on February 5th 8
that so were first informed by Mr. Circks that there 9
would be a letter coming.
10 MR. DEVINE:
Yes, and it has gona through many 11 iterations in the maantime.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
Jim, the first paragraph 13 that contains the quote that the likelihood is very low 14 leaves you sort of hanging there.
After I had coac it, 15 I wasn't sure whether you had changed your position on 16 that or not.
17 MR. DEVINE:
No.
In fact, Mr. Palladino, wo 18 have never, even back years ago, never categorically 19 stated that we had evidence that Charleston would occur 20 only at Charleston.
21 CMAIRMAN PALLADINO I agree with that.
22 MR. DEVINE:
In the binary mode, that Dr.
23 Jackson keeps talking about, it was true at the time, 24 and still largely is, and the mechanism that you use in 1
l 25 assessing this problem.
i l
ALDERsCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
03CU~ri?friLtM"LN fMR R N
21 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But you still confirm 2
that that is a true statement?
3 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Then what do we do 5
with that.
6 (General laughter.)
~
7 MR. DEVINE:
We haven't attempted --
8 MR. DIRCKS:
I think that is where Bob Jackson 9
comes in.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
11 MR. JACKSON:
Basically, we have had many 12 meetings with the U.S.G.S.,
I think one or two per year 13 on Charleston earthquake since our major research 14 program was initiated.
I know Leon Beratan is here in 15 this room, and most of this work in Charleston has been 16 dominantly funded by NRC, if not totally.
It is a major 17 contribution, and we have a yearly or twice-yearly 18 meeting with the Survey to asssess where the Charleston 1g position stays.
20 I have already commented since I came here 21 that Charleston has been tugging at the chain since, I 22 think, 1974, the type of earthcuake to kind of get away, t
23 and I think we have learned, over the past four or five 24 years, how to deal better with earthquakes in a 25 non-binary fashion.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
d
22 1
Cur best attempt at doing that has been the 2
recent evaluations we have implemented for the 3
systematic evaluation program, which has allowed us to 4
deal with earthquakes in a more " realistic sense" than 5
this binary step process.
6 In evaluating the letter from the U.S.G.S.,
we 7
have talked to Jim arid othe rs in the U.S.G.S.
We plan 8
on an extensive meeting with them on the 30th of this 9
month on the 1st of December to discuss the on-going to research and scientific findings in the Charleston 11 region.
12 Many of these have been published over the 13 past two years in publications, and they are available.
14 Some of the articles are by Mr. Hamilton, and Wentwirth 15 and -- so we are pretty much aware of shat has been 16 happening.
17 Now there are two basic approaches that you 18 can take, and we lump them into deterministic, which in 19 our procedure really should be better called judgmental 20 and not deterministic.
Deterministic goes back to first 21 principles on developing the size of an earthquake from 22 what the fault looks like in its parameters.
23 The other part is probabilistic, and to be 24 honest we coined it that way because that is the way we 25 work on problems now, but also within the U.S.G.S.
ALDER 8oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
03 FIG 07sC3% N M N
D l
f
\\
23 1
letter.
2 There are several alternatives i
,)
3 deterministically.
One is to go out and 4
deterministically, simply put, I think would be drilling 5
holes and trenching possible faults ano' determining
\\
6 their age of last movement, and making assessments of 7
those par'ticular faults that are suspect.
8 COMMISSIONkR AHEARNE:
It wouldn't really help 9
you here.
10 MR. JACKSON:
That is one of the p r o bl e rr s,.
i 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It wouldn't what?
i 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It wouldn't reasily 13 help you.
)
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No.,
15 MR. JACKSON:
Many of tho' hypotheses --
a 16 MR. CASE:
Unless you know what you are f
17 looking for.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is right.
4 19 MR. JACKSON:
Many of the hypotheses that haile 20 been offered, over the past year or two especially, aFe 21 not really amenable to that kind of work.
It is a 22 problem'that the decoma, which is in m uy viess the 23 least favored this is a large sheet that underlies 24 the whols eastern United States, it cannot be drilled,
/
25 it cannot' be trenched.
ALDEMsON REPoMTING CCMPANY,INC.
__ _,M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WhSHINoTCN, D.C. 2000_1 @__628-0300
4 s
24
/
i 1
It can be worked on by other methodologies, 2
but it does not -- There is no thing that you are going f
3 to go out there and look at, and say, it is a problem or l
,4 it is not a problem.
We have discussed that in the 5
paper as to why --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, you are 7
addressing the question of how to decide whether a large 9
earthquake is possible in some region?
93' PR. JACKSON:
That is right, on a particular
,estructur's.
10 11 1 think, given a certain amount of work on f
12 certain structures, you can make that judgment.
But you 13 need to cknow -- You need to do more in Charleston to 14 better understand the mechanism.
15 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
By how much is the 16 Charleston earthquake bigger than the ones one routinely 17 takes into account?
/
l^'
18 MR. JACKSON:
The routine earthquake in the 19 eastern United States ranges somewhere in the magnitude J7 20 of 5.3 to 5.8 range.
This Charleston earthquake would 21 be a magnitude 7.
In terms of design values, it sould 22 be more akin to a San Cnofre type of design for plants J
23 in the east as compared to the design we currently 24
.have.
25 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
Suppose se fix on the 4
ALDERS 0N REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
IL 05)
25 1
5.5 earthquake.
Where do me put that earthquake sith 2
respect to the plant?
3 MR. JACKSON:
We deal with it -- We represent 4
it near the plant or somewhere at the plant, but we 5
treat in the far-field spectrum.
We do not assume it 6
will be so close into the plant that it will have l
7 frequency content at the high end of the high frequency 8
motion in terms of the near-field.
9 It is treated essentially probabilistically.
10 We assume it occurs at the site, but not right smack l
11 underneath the site, but close enough.
I would say, wo 12 don 't have a number per se, but it would be on the order 13 of 15 kilometers.
14 Essentially, most plants in the east would be 15 designed for magnitude between 5 and 5.8 sithin 15 to 20 16 kilometers of the site, roughly.
We don't go at it in 17 that manner, but roughly that is shat is represented.
18 So this would be a considerable increase in the ground l
19 motion for a particular plant to assume that that 20 earthquake was nos a magnitude 7.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If you put it at the 22 same distance.
23 MR. JACKSON:
If you put it at the same 24 distance, yes.
25 MR. CASE:
Or gave the probability of its l
l ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMP ANY. INC.
. _ -. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628-0300
26 1
occurrence the same weight as you give the 5.
2 MR. JACKSON:
That is where the probability 3
is.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In this old paper, you 5
are really suggesting, after this brief look, setting 6
the Charleston earthquake aside.
7 MR. JACKSON:
That is not really what is 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
For the time being it 9
sounded that way.
10 MR. CASE:
I think you ought to talk about the 11 probabilistic method.
12 MR. JACKSON:
I was trying to lay the 13 foundation, the deterministic to say that it really 14 isn't readily amenable to short-term solution.
So now 15 in the probabilistic assessment, we will then 16 incorporate, using a number of methodologies, but 17 primarily one that we have developed under the SEP 18 program, and which we are trying to fine-tune, and 19 started last April to redo for the whole eastern United 20 States.
21 Essentially what that does, that incorporates 22 a wide range of expert opinion.
Each expert selects his 23 zcnation and represents umper-magnitude earthcuakes in i
24 those particular zones, and then that is factored into 25 the prebabilistic method.
ALcERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
27 1
In that concent, the Charleston earthquake 2
likelihood of occurring in certain zones, or with some 3
certain frequency of occurrence, would be made by some 4
of the experts and not by some others.
It weighting 5
process.
So it is then considered in the total 6
methodology.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
3ut how would you know to 8
what extent it should be included in the weighting?
9 MR. JACKSON:
In this particular methodology, 10 se would rely on the expert opinion.
This particular 11 survey that we would be doing involves approximately 20 1
12 expert seismologists in the eastern United States and 13 Canada.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do you mean, you 15 would weigh it?
16 MR. JACKSON:
Each expert would weight --
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you mean that you 18 sculd up the 5.5 to 5.7 on the basis of that?
1g MR. JACKSON:
No, it doesn't do that.
It goes 20 through a probabilistic development equation in which 21 the experts would select a zonation, the number of 22 earthquakes, the return period of earthquakes in that 23 particular zone.
They are all then factored in, and 24 from that you develop ground motion probabilities at a 25 given point.
When this methodology is completed, it ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
M0 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. MS$1 @;S EDGG
28 1
will allow us to pick essentially a grip point 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So the ground motion 3
would have some component weighted by the probability 4
from this large earthquake.
5 MR. JACKSON:
That is correct.
6 MR. DEVINE:
That is right.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Jim, weren't there 8
precursor data to the Charleston earthquake?
9 MR. DEVINE:
Yes, there were.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Which we haven't seen in 11 these other parts of the country, or have we?
In other 12 words, the Charleston earthquake wasn't a complete 13 surprise.
14 MR. DEVINE:
That is right.
I note directly 15 of 13 events that occurred prior to 1886 right in the 18 same area as the 1886 earthquake.
So it is true, it did 17 not come as a total surprise.
18 But the second half of your question, we may 19 be able to find areas in the eastern U.S. that have had 20 13 earthquakes and not have had a big one, and that 21 souldn't necessarily mean that those are precursors to 22 another large ore to come.
23 For exampla, Newbergport, Massachusetts --
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They have the same sort 25 of timeframe as the others?
ALDERSON REPORT 1NG COMPANY. INC.
-- 440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300
29 1
MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It almost sounds like 3
he is endorsing Chenery's method.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, I am not endorsing 5
anybody.
I just may be remembering old information 6
where so were sort of agreeing with this being a unique 7
situation.
8 MR. OEVINE:
In my judgment, I think those 13 9
precursors are very significant.
It Moes indicate that 10 you don't just get, in my judgment, a large event 11 without any prior information.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When were those 13 precursors?
14 MR. DEVINE:
They ranged 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What year?
16 MR. OEVINE:
As I recall, about in the 17 previous 20 years, spread over about 20 years.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That may or may not 1g help you with the siting decision.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was just wondering, is 21 that the same kind of thing you are seeing at other 22 locations?
23 MR. DEVINE:
That is shy I say that it is 24 difficult to answer that.
We have other locations in 25 the eastern U.S.
that have had more than one earthquake, ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
30 1
and there is no say for me to judge whether tPose are 2
precursors to a larger one coming or not.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was just going back to 4
shy was I so surprised by thise because I had been led 5
to believe Charleston was quite unique.
I remember the 6
precursors.
I remembered the changes.
7 MR. DEVINE:
And literally hundreds of events 8
since in the same area.
9 I would argue qualitatively that it is still 10 unique, but it is difficult to quantitatively lay out 11 those uniquenesses.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is why I asked you 13 what changed.
14 MR. DEVINE:
Our frustration of not being able 15 to identify the specific structure that generated it, 16 and seeing similar structures elsewhere to anyone that 17 we have found at 2harleston.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You say that 19 qualitatively some of the features are still unique.
20 MR. DEVINE:
The combination of all the 21 features we have seen at Charleston, I am sure don't 22 occur in that same combination at any other place.
But 23 that in itself doesn't mean that we have identified what 24 has occurred that is significant.
25 One of those may well turn out to be, when we ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
G N W RZL N RAF330 M M
31 1
find enough to know, to be that uniqueness that we are 2
talking about.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Cr it could well be, as 4
I think you have said at other times, that the cause may 5
be sufficiently far underneath it.
6 MR. OEVINE:
A high likelihood that it is 7
underneath the decoma, for example, in which case you 8
cannot see it except through very indirect m thods.
9 MR. JACKSON:
I think an important comment to that was made in some of the discussions that we were 11 having is that we have two basic premises in the earth 12 sciencies that we rely on for essentially predicting 13 earthquakes, but to don't really predict them.
14 One is recurrent movement.
It means that you 15 should be able to see repeated movement on features 16 which are going to have the next repeated movement.
The 17 other one is seismicity.
The occurrence of 18 micro-earthquakes and larger size earthquakes in a given 19 area.
Without those two tools, se really can't do much 1
20 more, and what we do is everything we can with those 21 particular tools.
22 I think the point you raised on the seismicity 23 prior to Charleston has been one of the keystones of 1
l 24 making the licensing decision -- I think I would like to l
25 come back and separate out -- that the probability of l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Mf2f%li?Pi?
32 1
the Charleston type event occurring in the rest of the 2
eastern United States was los enough that for 3
engineering design, it did not have to be explicitly 4
included in that design, at least as the input motion.
5 This is very different from saying, such an earthquake 6
cannot occur anywhere.
7 In many hearings, we have always incicated, 8
because se, as an agency, or even the U.S.G.S.
in 9
advising us, say that this is the design earthquake, we 10 are clearly not precluding that something larger cannot 11 occur.
12 The only thing that we are saying is that wo 13 feel the likelihood of that being larger is los enough 14 that it doesn't have to be explicitly considered.
We 15 then utilize, and have utilized, seismic design margin 16 in strutures to say, if something larger does occur, the l
17 facility will be capable of withstanding that.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought U.S.G.S.
had 19 some problems with giving a design earthquake in the 20 east.
21 MR. DEVINE:
The answer to that is, yes, we 22 de, but I am not sure specifically to what you are 23 referring.
24 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
If you were giving 25 design earthquakes for eastern sites, then I was going ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INc.
CG N W M-6 MKFJN N
33 1
to ask you what sculd this modify in the design 2
earthquake, if you would give it a design.
3 MR. OEVINE:
We, over the years, have been in 4
the mode of reviewing that which was considered by an 5
applicant at the time, and advising the NRC whether in 6
our judgment it was sufficient or not.
But we have not 7
been in the posture of identifying what would be our 8
choice.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would this recent 10 Now that the U.S.G.S. has gone through the process of 11 generating this letter, do you see this as modifying any 12 of the advice that you have given with respect to 13 eastern sites?
14 MR. DEVINE:
I don't have any that come to 15 mind, any advice that we have given in this area that 16 would be now ruled out as a result of our position now, 17 in the words that we have given you, but maybe in some 18 of the ways they have been used by other people, 19 possibly.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But as far as the 21 advice that you have given us, you don't see this as 22 requiring a re-examination on your part of the advice l
23 ycu have given us7 24 MR. DEVINE:
Yes, I believe that is true.
[
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you see the ALDERSON REPORT!No CCMPANY, L"C.
&%dT^T~i?PR 1N"L
34 1
probability of occurrence of such an earthouake at a 2
distance from Charleston or anything like thati or do 3
you see this as something, which on the basis on what 4
you, however unlikely, is soually likely anywhere up and 5
down the seaboard?
8 MR. DEVINE:
We don't have a uniform position 7
on that Mr. Gilinsky.
My own personal opinion is that 8
there probably are two or three areas that have a 9
somewhat higher probability than the rest of the areas, 10 but that is a jud; ment on my part.
11 The total package is, as best as I can 12 represent our consensus, that there is a greater 13 probability at Charleston than elsewhere.
The elsomhere 14 is irregular, it is potential and, therefore, it should 15 be looked at each time you need to answer the question.
18 MR. JACKSON:
To be clear, and to make sure, 17 let me make a comment.
18 There are probabilistic maps that sould have 19 values in other areas that would be equivalent to 2C Charleston.
There are many ways of doing probability 21 studies, and there are many maps of different 22 probability studies.
t l
23 COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
That would give other j
24 areas the same probability of occurrence.
25 MR. JACKSON:
Yes.
AL.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
M M 9h % % M kT% 9'Dd372L
35 1
COMMISSIGNER GILINSKY:
Cistant from 2
Charleston?
3 MR. JACKSON:
Yes.
4 MR. DEVINE:
There are other probability maps 5
that would be quite different from that.
That is why I 8
tried to answer your question --
7 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
You answered the 8
question as to your personal map that you were referring 9
to.
10 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
You can get a fairly wide 11 spectrum of probability maps depending upon the input 12 assumptions.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that where you are 14 going to the various experts?
15 MR. DEVINE:
Yes.
16 MR. JACKSON:
One of the problems we have had 17 essentially in the regulatory framework for many years 18 is that the applicant chooses a set of tectonic 19 provinces, the staff chooses a set and the intervenors 20 choose their set, and we fight over them for four years, 21 and then in the hearing one of those is selected as the 22 right one.
J l
23 What we have tried to do with the new 24 methodology we have developed is to incorporate that 25 expert opinion at the early stege in terms of input ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
36 1
assumptions.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All three expert 3
opinions?
4 MR. JACKSON:
All three expert opinions.
In 5
fact, 20 experts, and they each can weight their own 6
opinions.
Some of the individuals who have been on the 1
7 opposing side in particular hearings, and some important 8
hearings for us, are included in the methodology, the 9
extremes, for instance.
It is surprising that they are 10 not quite so extreme, actually, shen you take it and put 11 it in a synthesized group and self-weighting.
It is a 12 very complicated methodology, and I do not understand 13 all of it, but it parallels our review process quite 14 well.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You don 't know 16 understand it.
17 MR. JACKSON:
The probabilistic ecuation 18 aspect of it.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Who developec it?
20 MR. JACKSON:
Livermore developed it.
We have 21 been -- I think one of the advantages we have had, we 22 have been heavily involved in doing it, and what I meant 23 was the mathematical -- some of the mathematical 24 assumptions that go into this equation.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems we are ALcERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
,.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _MO FIRST ST N.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20001 (202) 62N
37 1
running ahead of our understanding of geology.
2 MR. JACKSON:
One of the stronghts of this 3
methodology, though, over many others is that it clearly 4
incorporates geologic opinion and assumption and 5
weighting.
It also includes seismological assumptions 6
such as historic seismicity.
It parallels in many mays 7
the way we do our licensing process.
8 Many of the probabilistic methods, a number of 9
them, are black-box studies.
I don't mean that as an 10 insult to the way they are done.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is still a black 12 art.
13 MR. JACKSON:
I think this one is much better 14 in the way it is run and the way it can go, and it is 15 the way that tne expert opinions carry through the 16 methodology rather than forcing a decision at the 17 front-end.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But given that you have a 19 process for weighing, now what would be the result?
Hos 20 sould we apply it?
Does it change the spectrum?
21 MR. JACKSON:
Essentially what we set out of 22 this one particular esthodology is a spectrum which has 23 a probability of occurrence, let's say, one in a 24 thousand, or one in two thousand.
We have avcidec 25 coming up with a specific level, and we have tried to l
ALDERSoN REPCRTING CcMPANY,INC.
l l
b
38 1
use it in a relatively sense.
In other words, somewhere 2
in our normal procedures, saying, on the order of one in 3
a thousands, for one in ten thousand for --
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
I would expect that you 5
would have a change I don't know whether you would 8
have a change in distribution, or the frecuency, but 7
certainly in the magnitude or both?
8 MR. CASE:
The frequencies change, too, d on 't 9
they?
1'J MR. JACKSON:
The frequencies change.
It 11 would be a different curve.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Sut would the magnitudes 13 go up because you postulate the Charleston earthquake?
14 MR. CASE:
The peak valuws would go up, too.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, the values go up.
16 MR. JACKSON:
I think until we actually do it, 17 se don't know.
But I think, as you would get closer to 18 a zone --
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADING:
This is influenced by 20 what the prooability is.
21 MR. JACKSON:
If you get closer to a zone of 22 higher seismic --
23 MR. CASE:
What different people think the 24 probability is.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
Yes, I agree.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
0"0CETs?GEP E L
39 1
MR. JACKSON:
As you got closer to a zone of 2
higher seismicity that most of the experts would agree 3
upon, I would think that the spectrum would go up as you 4
as you get closar to that particular zone.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
When they come up with 6
these probabilities, are they related, at least in their 7
opinion, to the geologic structure as they understand 8
it?
9 MR. JACKSON:
Some experts may weigh it as a 10 single line source.
Others may zone it as a broad 11 region.
Some may take a huge zone.
There are some 12 interesting trade-offs, if you assume that it is all one 13 area and this earthquake can occur anywhere in the area, 14 then the probability of that occurring at any single 15 point in that area drops drastically.
16 In fact, that is really one of the reasons for 17 the U.S.G.S. saying, for Charleston, keep it at 18 Charleston, because if you are building at Charleston, 19 don't use just a probability method because you would 20 essentially be decreasing the risk at the Charleston 21 area.
22
' MR. DEVINE:
I agree.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But now 's e are 24 postulating that the likelihood of the Charleston kind 25 of earthquake being elsewhere on the East Coast is very Al.DERSON REPCRTINo COMPANY, INC.
C"O FIDDi' fiiL fM1
40 1
los or los.
Not knowing what is implied by that, do you 2
have any feel for how much greater the magnitude er the 3
impact of this very low probability would bring about?
4 Are se talking about significant changes in the --
5 MR. CASE:
If you go through this process that 6
he has described 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am calling for his 8
technical assessment, his guessing, so to speakr because 9
if he more to comment and say, "My gracious, is that 10 going to be a tremendous incroise," then I would have to 11 ask him why did he come up with sahing that se don't 12 have to do something nom.
13 MR. JACKSON:
I think our general conclusion i
14 is that when we go through this methodology, se may 15 find, se may find a few locales that do have higher 16 spectrum.
3ut by are, large, based on our experience 17 with the systematic evaluation program, se find that 18 those designs and the methodology se have used in the 19 past, and the way we have looked, seem to be fairly 20 adequate.
21 Sometimes it means going back and looking at 22 the way the equipment is designed and the design 23 analysis.
Mr. Knight could comment on some of those in 24 terms of ductility and the like.
But generally, I think 25 se feel that there won't be any major surprises.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
E" N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628-e300 _ _.._ _,_ ___. _ _ _ ___
41 1
think ze know the areas where there are somewhat higher 2
zones of seismicity, and in the deterministic process 3
some of these have fallen out.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You had considered them 5
in the deterministic may?
6 MR. CASE:
I think what he is saying, in the 7
deterministic process, quaint as it may be, unscientific 8
as it may be, he comes out with a fair answer when 9
looked at the other way.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The deterministic method, 11 I gather, had a little bit of probability in it when you 12 put it together.
13 MR. JACKSON:
Yes.
14 MR. DEVINE:
And vice versa.
15 MR. JACKSON:
It clearly has it in there, and 16 in fact we do range acceleration values up and doen 17 based on our knowledge of the seismicity in given 18 regions.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are we talking about a 20 given G value, or are we talking about something like an 21 increase of 25 percent, or more?
22 MR. JACKSON:
I really can't speculate on it 23 right now.
24 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE:
It sounds, Bob, like 25 one of the difficulties you would have in saying where ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
.~.
MO F1R$T ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 82N
i e
42 1
you are going to como out is that you are really 2
approaching your values in an entirely different way.
3 So it is not that you are now making a marginal change 4
on the previous, it is a different approach, so where it 5
is going to come out, you just don't know.
6 MR. JACKSON:
I think that that is.one of the 7
problems that I am having.
We have thought, and me have 8
been conditioned to think in this binary process for so 9
long that until we actually do this, I really don't know 10 exactly.
I would prefer, based on the experience wo 11 have had with the systematic evaluation program for the 12 older plants, we find that there are no major 13 surprises.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have you done all 11 15 SEP plants?
16
'MR. JACKSON:
We have used this kind of 17 methodology only for the eastern United States plants.
18 I can't remember the number, but it is nine, I believe.
19 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Now your plan, you say, 20 you are going to continue development of the study.
21 Does that imply that there is still furthe refinement, 22 or is this study the one that you are talking about as 23 actually going on and applying this method to the other 24 plants?
)
l 25 MR. JACKSON:
It probably is worthy of a short ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i M0 FIRsT sT., N.W., WASHINGTCNo @.@, FEE 31 M M
43 1
description, but se had implemented, around the 1979 2
timeframe, what was called the seismic Jazard 3
methodology.
That method was completed on a tight 4
schedule because of the systematic evaluation program 5
schedule.
We made some decisions during that program to 6
do certain things.
7 Last April, after that study was completed and 8
we had experience in dealing with the decision making 9
process for the SEP plants, and had heard criticisms of 10 that methodology, we decided to incorporate those 11 criticisms and try to improve the methodology, and wo 12 went back into this program with Livermore.
13 That was initiated about last April, with a 14 timeframe of having some rough initial results around 15 June of next year, and completing at least the first 16 phase of the program around December of next year.
Once 17 this methodology is done, we can than plug in, 18 essentially put in any coordinate or location that we 19 would like, and we would come up with a particular suite 20 of spectra for that site.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What is your time-scale 22 for reevaluating the eastern plants based upon using 23 this different methodology and incorporating the 24 U.S.G.S.?
25 MR. JACKSON:
We, at least in the last few ALoensoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.- " * ? " " " * ' "*"'"***"' *'** " U " *
- a 64 1
days, have not discussed anything like that.
I think it 2
would take at least a few years to do this kind of thing 3
and evaluate it and do an appropriate job of making that 4
kind of an assessment.
I think we could have 5
probabilistic spectra at sometime a year from now.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me ask Jim whether 7
you believe that that kind of a schedule is appropriate 8
from the U.S.G.S. 's view?
9 MR. DEVINE:
I am not sure we have the 10 wherewithal to judge to whether that schedule is 11 adequate on that basis.
I would say, though, I am not 12 upset that it is not going to be done in the next three 13 days, or the next six months.
I don't see that sort of 14 panic for this needing to be done.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Bob, did you say s's have 16 already applied this probabilistic assessment in the SEP 17 program?
18 MR. JACKSON:
Yes, we have.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did that include that 20 interpretation of the Charleston earthquake?
l 21 MR. JACKSON:
No.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLA0INO:
It did not?
23 MR. JACKSCN:
It didn't in terms of the 24 experts who had been solicited at that point.
Telling 25 them that this was the Survey position, personally I ALDERsON REPORTING COWPANY,INC, MC F1RsT sT., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) N
l 45 1
doubt that it would change most of the experts' opinion 2
anyway.
3 Butt that study was concentrated -- one of the 4
other elements was concentrated dominantly on the 5
northeastern United States and the central part.
But 6
some of the experts did include in there the possibility 7
of earthquakes of a magnitude even greater than this 8
occurring.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC' Did those produce, let 10 sry, significt.nt change in the basic acceleration 11 assumption?
12 MR. JACKSON:
In some cases, they did 13 increase, but I would say not as much as if we were 14 going into -- Those plants are quite old plants, and 15 that is one of the problems.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was just trying to get 17 a feel for how serious a problem we have got.
18 MR. CASE:
That is not the right question to 19 get that feel.
You should compare the present curve --
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am searching for some 21 feel for how serious is the problem.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But what they are 23 trying to tell you is, if you were to apply the current 24 method to those plants, even never mind this 25 probabilistic approach, if you had just taken the other ALDERSCN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
46 1
current method, it would have led to a significant 2
change also.
3 MR. JACKSON:
Even if we took our current 4
method we use today'and applied it to many of these 5
plants -.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did you do that?
8 MR. CASE:
The probabilistic method probably 9
came out alth a lower value than using the current, 10 today's method on the old plants.
11 MR. JACKSON:
That is generally true.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is an interesting 13 thing in itself.
14 MR. JACKSON:
It indicates that what ze are 15 doing today is generally correct, or conservative, in 16 our opinion.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLA0INO:
That gives me a better 18 feel that we don't have a problem.
Maybe I am 19 prejudging.
I feel better when you tell me that, than 20 if you had not said that.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is why I asked.
I 22 felt upset about the kind of schedule, and his answer 23 that he doesn't feel that something at that time-scale, 24 six months or so, looking at this beyond.
25 MR. CASE:
I think a several year time-frame, ALCEMSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
M0 FIRsT ST., N.W W/ JHINGTCN. D.C. 20001Q EDEB_
47 1
that is what I think Sob is talking about.
I 2
CHAIRMAN PALLA0ING:
Bob, have se done any 3
probabilistic --
4 MR. DEVINE:
I don't see that the hazard is so 5
great that I am upset the schedule hat you have set.
6 But it is not for me to say what your schedule ought to 7
be.
8 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE:
I understand that.
On 9
the other hand, you are best able, as
- c. lear as your 10 letter might be --
11 (General laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are best able to 13 tell me whether I should be upset about the schedule.
14 MR. DEVINE:
I was personally irvolved with 15 the letter that we expected immediate response to in the 16 proceedings of the Diablo Canyon site in 1975, and I 17 recognize the difference.
I say that only because I do 18 have a basis for making that judgment, I believe, and I 19 am not concerned that this is an immediate problem.
I l
20 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Fine.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The only other question I 22 was going to ask is whether we had to plot the 23 probabilistic approach to plants that are more 24 consistent with present day evaluations?
25 MR. JACKSON:
Yes, we have.
We have used this ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
48 1
methodology, as we key-in with its limitations, in 2
comparing, for instance, some recent OL applications, 3
such as Seabrook is one.
We have used that to make that 7~.
4 comparison, and they come out essentially below our 5
current requirements using this methodology.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Jim, I have got to say, 7
nos that I have had this background here, the letter is 8
very clear.
9 (General laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It wasn't clear before.
11 MR. JACKSON 3 I did mant to make one quick 12 point.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That says that when you 14 are going to have communication, the receiver must be as 15 good as the sender.
16 MR. JACKSON:
I was going to comment that 17 under the systematic evaluation program, Mr. Russell and 18 I,
and the two branches, the Systematic Program Sranch.
19 have to work closely together, because it really is 20 important.
We have identified where ther. are some 21 exceedances, things that could be fixed, and these kinds 22 of actions have been taken hand-in-hand, if it was 23 necessary at a particular frequency range.
He certainly 24 could address that.
26 COMMISSIONcR AHEARNE:
Bob, what is an l
l i
ALDERsoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
M0 FIRST ST., N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300
49 1
exceedance?
2 MR. JACKSON:
Something larger than what you 3
had before.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you have any other 5
questions?
6 Thank you very much, Jim and Bob.
7 MR. DEVINE:
Thank you for the opportunity to 8
speak.
9 CHAIRMAN P'A L L A DIN O :
The meeting is 10 adjourned.
11 (Whereupon at 4:45 p.m.,
the meeting was 12 adjourned.)
13 14 15 s
16 17 18 19 20 21 l
M l
l-24 l
25 l
ALDER $CN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
440 FIRST ST., N.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300
N NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN This is to certify that the attached pecceedings before. the COMMISSION MEETING in the :statter of:
Public Meeting - Briefing on Proposed Staff Actions with Respect to the Recent U.S. Geological Survey Position Dace ef'Freceeding: November L9, 1982 Docket llumber:
Flace cf Proceed.ing:
Washington, D. c.
were held as he' rein. appears,. and that this is the-criginal transcript.
thereof fer tha file of the Cc 4 ssica Patricia A. Minsen Official.ieporter (Typed) h W
CfficiaJ.Yepercer (Signature) o e
sw.
I.
s.
... mm,,mmm ummuununnmmmWWUTWVRUT\\T\\%TVR/MUMVM@y.I[y
}>
.P m
i -
12/81
-b TRANSMITTAL TO:
.9 Document Control; Desk, 5
016 Phillips
/
'b
~
.P
's ADVANCED COPY TO:
O The Public Document Room j
DATE:
///2.2[f.2-0?, File N
cc:
f From: SECY OPS Branch
-p o
CIR (Natali.e-)
g Attached.are' copies of a Cor:: mission meeting P
transcript /s/ and related nesting document /s~ /.
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession D
List and placement in T.he Public Document Room.ki i
No P
other distribution is requestied or required.
I st ng P
DCS identification numbers are _ listed on the iddividual documents wherev,er known..
j b
Heeting Titie; & /
.<,_. tw /LM,4tL& dr/>- L
.b e
/
+./
O Y
A-N d' u
A-lAA
. fh _.
/Lp pj g;
/b _
6 pen '){
l MEETING DATE:
//// 9// 2
' Closed DOS COPIES:
Copies (1 of each Checked) 5 ITEM DESCRI? TION:
Advanced 1.ay To PDRt Original be Duplicate.= -
1.
M u s A --fp h Document Dup
- Copy *
{>
/
/
c 2.h)mns h~o LOG
/
/
Un>&-&
=.
Q cGnL
' p W F.m q
.g F
l h
3.
WJ SL-
%i p fi< T (7 U% ' h /,,__ >
f t -
")MJ (:
/fs'414
//// lfF.2.
P 4.
E 4
e g
5.
b g
p
~
1 Ob
- Verify if in DOS, and b
ch'ange to "PDR h
(PDR is advanced one of cai:h document, available."
b tvo of each SECY paper.)
r*
/.,
i l I -
I i
-