ML20045E981
| ML20045E981 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1980 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-108, NUDOCS 9307060271 | |
| Download: ML20045E981 (31) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATE 3 NUC1. EAR REGUl ATORY COMMISSION h
ADJUDICATORY ITEM --
sec u -s u cs x;i y ~,...:s.
C O M M....I S..u...LO. _N..E..R ACTI O N S
=..
T s e. n...s = d O d..a gg d.
-w s
s.'..
.T.a e....
General Counsel e_,.
y,_
,s,.,.
r.
n
, r,.
.-.., z,
w
.f m p yv....,
..n,.
- e. 3.*. + n; yr.
- p t c-a.
-- m 7..q n st c e /.;.
W
..s
...n.2 w a. s.k. r p i
m..
s vu v.
- 7 y ed.' i).
,a r.
4 /.
. 15 u. N. W ;.,;. n '.i-U.. ts c.. _ '** * (s.l' r* U..T
-".-t. r
- m
)
.U s
- $m w
- e. A,
is....e gn&
-.,2 2nd C. a". 4 79,d._'_.s.e,.
..,,. a. s w.
2.a t
I. s.,,t
- s.. * #.. 3 J
= e c. e
- a
. :v...'_...
- a.,. a,..m. & c. a. '.
- _ C. C " !.= o=
l J
\\
.r
_..y 1g..
.J.., ~.. e =.
e*
t y.
- y4 e
9.
1
- r. y y,
- C.e.,a C o..,..
+
e a
- v. e 5
n.
. +. a w
a,ca,,,.
...e.
. v v... 0 u.e2.
....w...
o...c..y...,e..5
..- - a. v..sa. v..
.n.e y a.
. a. a..e a
e
&a u
-o
_n
.e 4.,.
e.
.r,-.
.,+t w _,.
c,,,,
.,.< s..,
fy
- ~
1 r2
,a j a,,. ;
a.._...
e.
va_
c...
u e U ~,
s.
a.
c a. s e. ~... a..e. a. a.. j
.n n a. a. s t..e. 3-o
-ua e m,,
.. s. _ _., 4 s q
{w 4_5,Lg 2,~..=.
rg o*4
. a..,. _4.,_
.O.
- ,Y. ~. ~.'. %.4L'e... $ 4 e.
~
.'?S m.
d' e
-..".'.'dO'..*".
I S." '. b. -
0" 4
Ca
'w"..*
Ca4#a w_ r n < ~ r.~ 8 *.,
p.w o.
..w..,.
qe wa
. e.,. a,
- 4..,.e,..
e e
. m. a.
O u r.w-
, o o_._ 3.+. _e C a3 _,...
a t
v.
. j C n ~o / c.
s.
e
,...a
.. -.n.. y c.
1,
- p,
,, s. n g y s ~, a ~... n r.
- k.a.
su a..e.e u.e
.a s.
.~
. 7 c. *..'. ".. " ".. O "..'.^.." 4.*. ~s
..". e
- . a. a. d.
- ~,, ^ G r ' a ". p'- a * ".. a r
y
. e. A t_,e.
.a 4,,..w. a.
. e 4 e. t e. d./
g.
v.
2 a
s.
,,, o..e., n..., a
- a., a. C ~. e.,
as,
+
..4...
r....;
,e n...;
w y,
-C3.
a
- , 4..
... o.
..yy c-
- u..t c.., 2 a..,=..
. e.. <, = e.
. w. a...e....,..<.,,...
~
r..,
-3
.t u...
a.
..rr..
- r. e... w.
- . 3
'..e..r.,
.o.
3.. =.. o..
e,r
.,.w..,..
a s.r s_a.
.=. w. n., - _ a_
_... a.
e.a... '..._ ', ~ _ - -
a y
-s
...., s
,,3.e
.w.
... e _4 2.
.r.....
.e a.. e.,.
.w..,.
e
,,. o _..n..._3.4
.o,.,.. e..,. o.
c...
v.mEioa m. ; p.. w
.~-.,..u.m.- d.
..e...
o a.,..
m a
~
2.3
..s i
5 C0id37ta vidh 1% N.gnm g. ls rm. a. iOB. S.w.,, L. a. Ca_<
c-.
- n.. *
.../
. n,.
.=.3
,,0 1
s y
- a.,c..e r 'w
".. u...: s..,
6
. e o~
. 6 y c.1 a. o.
p.m.
-a
-w c
e e
- t. CE.QiGr.S
_3 e.
- e a g.e. 4 3 'r.
3 [ " Q
- g m. e..M J-.f.
- 3. H
,. 2.e.4 ()'.
A..
- a. e.. e J,.
'OO, y.
h a
a
..yy
~
.e.o..'.arg.q.
,2.
y.
g o.
g
_~...._a.
aie.4.
m J m..
4 J
J p
%. o.
.. g,,,,, q g e
..w. a S..re 4 n, 1_ Q
,.v,
.= A A.
. a 5.e...
4 3... a.
w.,.
oca.
4
,e
.y. w 4, w c 1 w.. :.a
=.e...
r l
1
... o.
3,> 4 s
.a F.,
- 3..e..e 3.,,....:., s...
..--...e.,
e..
.c aa.e
r a.
=.,...a,...e. y e.. a... e.....e.,
m g
.. a. c'.
w r.*
J i
~
,, 3. 9. c _. w.m
..e
. w m a..p. =...,.
J
.. -. - ~. -
'. a.
".,_=. t...' _' '. = 4,
_=...=..c__'..
e_. -.
.e...' u ' - '. a.
. =. =.. ' _. -.. "., ' _.,
=-
w
=,...a..,....
_ r - -
SECY 00TE: Mr. Trubat;n of OGC will
-j
...... ~.
e..
rmnissioners. et ces
.w
,.,---s.
..n 2..-..,
......,., ~.
accropriata pericd of ti e for 1
e will recare an extencirc
... _. 3.. ~ w.., -..
f 930706O271 930317 PDR FOIA 7
'/ f GILINSK92-436 PDR
1 k
%c Appeal Ecard =ecter Farrar Originally disse.rafd frem findings 2 and t in Outline f:rn, and reserved judgment on finding 1.
The 0;r-ission' l
thereupon held '- ohayance its decision en whether to review the seismic ca :ers in ALA3-236 until Mr. Farrar filed his cenplete dissent.
Cn Aurust 3, 1979, 3n, Farrar. filed his dissent-ing opinion; en September 6, 1979, the Appeal Board majority issued a supplemental opinien in reply.
These opinions are contained in ALAS-561. ?/
Petitions for review have been filed j
by in?ervencrs New York State Energy Office f"New York") and Citizens' Committee for Pro-tection of the Environment ("CCPE").
Sc h intervenors primarily seek review of -he Appeal 2 card's decisicr to delete the license :endi:icn requiring extension cf the -icr -seis 10 moniter- ~
i ing network.
Responses have been filed by the staff and licensees, Consolidated Edison Ccepany.
i of New York (" Con Ed") and the Power Authority.
cf the State of New York ("?ASNY"), supporting the Appeal Scard's decisions.
Staff, in its response, now contends.that the licensees need not expand the monitoring network because the Lamont Doherty Geophysical Observatory of Colum-bia University (Lamont) has constructed additional.
micrc-seismic monitoring stations along the Ramapo Fault.
CCPE has moved the Cettission to strike those pcrtions of the staff's answer containing data obtained after close Of the record in the evidentiary proceeding.
Discussi n:
In 1975, the Cemmission ordered an At:mic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) to consider seismic issues affecting the Indian Point site. $/
The Appeal Scard framed-the issues as follows:
1.
Lees the Cape Anne earthquake of 1755, er any other-historic event, require the assump--
tion, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, of a safe. shutdown earthquake for the Indian ?cint site greater than a Modified Mercalli Intensity VII?
.e
?
m/
Mr. Farrar also dissented from certain seismic findings regard-2 ing Seabrook.
The majority response to that dissent is also contained in ALA3-561.
-/
L:-75-8, 2 NRC 173 (1975).
e 2
9 2.
Should the ground acceleraticn value used for the design cf indian Point Units 1, 2 cr 3 be increased?
3 Is the Ramapo Fault a capable fault within the meaning of Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 100?
During the course of the hearings on these issues, the Appeal Soard learned that staff had amended the operating license for Indian Point Uni: 3 to require the licensee to expand its micro-seismic monitoring network.
The.3 card stayed installation of the new system and evi-dentiary hearings were subsequently held'on this v.at t e r.
In ALAE ;36, the Appeal Scard answersd l
the three questiens in the negative and deleted the 1-icense condition ' requiring expansion of the micrc-seismic monitoring network Mr. Farrar dissented on the issues of ground acceleration value and of the conitoring network.
Safe Shutdown Earthcuake Controversy over the magnitude of the Safe Shut-down Earthquake involved concerns about the boundaries cf the tectonic provinces centaining and surrounding the Indian ?cint site i/
The Commission's regulations define a tectenic province as "a region of the North American Continent characterized.by a relative consistency-cf the geclegic structural' features centained therein."
Appendix A, Secticn III (h).
New-Ycrk contended that this definition mean: that-relative consistency should-be based'cc what it called'"first order characteristics." i.e.
gross geologic similarities.
On this basis, New York claimed that Indian Point lies in a tectonic province which stretches from the western edge of the_ Appalachians to'the western edge of the Ccastal Plain and from Alabama to the St. Lawrence River.
The' Appeal..Soard found it unreasonable to believe that Appendix A would 1/
10
?? Part 100, Appendix A essentially requires that he Safe Shutdown Earthquake should be the highest intensity cre-dible earthquake in the tectonic province containing the reactor site.
Delineation of the boundaries of the tectonic provinces determines whether certain high-intensity historical earthquakes will have to be considered in determining the: Safe:
Shutdown Earthquake.
m
b E
not refer explicitly to the pcssibility that such a large area could-be a :ectonic province,. _f /
After extensively reviewing the evidence, :he Appeal 3 card found that the licensees presented i
convincing geologic data supporting their division of this area of North America into scaller tectonic provinces. Z/
On the basis of.
these provinces, :he Appeal Board determined that the. earthquakes greater than MMI VII listed by New York were not in the tectonic-province containing Indian Point and, thus,J did not require the assumption of an SSE-greater than MMI VII for :ndian Point. 1/
- n his dissent, Mr. Farrar reached the sane cenclusicn by an alternative line of reasoning.
- n his view, no party's evidence sufficiently relates its proposed tectonic provinces to current earthquake activity. 9/
His analysis eliminated consideration of most of the large earthquakes on the basis of province boundaries.
agreed to by all parties and concessions by.New'
+
York. 10/
Regarding the remaining. earthquakes, Mr. Farrar joined the majority's analysis,11/
New' York contends that its delineation of large tectonic provinces is more conservative than the smaller provinces accepted by the Appeal 4
Board ' maj ority. 12/
In addition, New York contends that the method used by Mr. Farrar to-eliminate consideration cf the 1892 Giles Ccunty' earthquake is inconsistent with.the method he used in his Seabrook. dissent.
- However, 1
New Ycrk does not maintain-that,.as a factual matter, the site can be proven to require an SSE greater than MMI VII on.the basis of curren:
+
geological or seismological knowledge.
6/
6 NRC at 562.
4 7/
Id.
_S/
6 NBC at 572 g/
10 NRC 410, at 415
_1_0/
10 NRC'at h15
\\
_1_1/
10 NRC at 213 319 p W O O D Mh 4
- M &
'8 M
O 6
4 9 -
e.
s
)
=
- n our view, EX.6 Accordi~ngfy,le~believe
~~
~--
/
Ground Acceleration Value The controversy over-the ground acceleration value used to design the Indian Point facili-ties arose frca the methed utilized to correl-ate maximum vibratory ground notion to the safe shutdown earthquake.
The licensees, NRC staff, and New York contended that an acceleration i
corresponding to the safe shutdown earthquake could be obtained by' averaging acceleration peaks for MMI VII earthquakes. 11/
Dr. Trifunac, the expert witness.for CCPE, contended that use of the average may not be conservative enou5h The correlation of ground acceleration to earthquake intensity is based on West Coast data, while there is evidence.that the high.
frequency waves responsible for.high ground-accelerationsLdo not attenuate as rapidly as they travel through_ Eastern ground.
- Thus, Dr. Trifunac believed that the design ground acceleration should be the average of peak accelerations plus one standard deviation, li/
i The Appeal Board, on the basis of the record, found that use. of the average value was a sufficiently conservative method for calculat-ing the maximum Eround acceleration. 15/
However, the Appeal Board noted that fE would be desirable for staff to provide a more j
quantitative assessment of its. current methods. 16/.:
Mr. Farrar dissented for.the same reasons he
~~
11/
6 NRC at 582.
_1_4/
6 NRC at 583 M/
6 NRC at 584,
_1_6/ 6 NRC at 585
-i
e 6
dissented in Seabrook: the wide variation in peak accelerations associated with MMI VII earthquakes prevent the establishment of a demonstrable relation between the average of the peak acceleration and the maximum peak acceleration required by Appendix A. 17/
Neither interyenor petitioned for -aviaw no this issue.
gy. E ~
Capability of the Ramaco Fault After carefully reviewing the evidence, the Appeal Board majority concluded that: (1) the most recent movement at or near the surface of' the Ramapo Fault occurred at least seventy-three million years ago; (2) the Ramapo Fault is not directly related to recorded macro-seis-micity; and (3) there.is no evidence:that'the Ramapo Fault is structurally. related to other faults known to be capable._ Hence, the fault was found not capable for the purposes of Appendix A.
18/
Mr. Farrar agreed that the fault is not capable. 11/
In its petition for review, New York contends that seismic activity in the Ramapo Fault area leaves open the question of the fault's capability.
However, New York does not contend that the fault is capable.for the purposes of Appendix A. /.In cur. view,.
51..;
Thus, we believe that
~
11/
10 NRC at h34.
13/
5 NRC at 586-601.
12/
10 trac at 335
J M
I Expanded Micr0-Seismic.!etwcrk Staff proposed :c amend' the Operating li:ense for indian ?cin: Uni: 3 to require expansi:n of I
=0nitorin~ network alcng the.
the micr:-seismi:
s Ramapo Fault.
Staff and New York centended l
that the expanded network was necessary for reascnable assurance that public health and safety was protected, because the expanded network would enable geologists to deternir.e if micrc-earthquakes in the vicinity ef_ indian Point are localized by the Ramapo Fault.
The Appeal Scard carefully analyzed the data and exper cpiniens to find that expansion cf the netwcrk was not justified, because it would-not enhance assurance of public health and safety.
':0 relation has been established between micro-earthquakes and the potential for larger earth-quakes.
Thus, micrc-seismic monitoring would not lead to a determination of the risk of a larger than SSE earthquake.
Moreover, the existing monitoring network shows that' Only a few of the recorded micro-earthquakes are in the vicinity of the Ramapo Fault, and that the frequency of occurrence of larger earthquakes is too low to permit establishment of a rela-tion between their occurrence and micr0-seismic activity. 20/
Mr. Farrar believes that safety would be enhanced by further investigation to determine what, if anything, is localizing earthcuake activity 'in the vicinity cf the Ramape Fault.
In resperse, the Appeal 3 card found Mr. Farrar's unpar:10u-larized and unsupper:ed belief insufficien; -to require the licensee to bear the cos: Of an expanded monitcring network.
New York and CCPE petitioned for review.
- ew York contended that the continuing pattern :f small earthquakes along and in the vicinity of-the Ramapo Fault show that.the fault..is active and requires further monitoring to determine 1f it is capable.
Thus, "ew York believes -:ha:
the need'to more precisely determine the seismic-hazard justifies the cost of an expanded n:n-itoring network.
CCPE contends that the Appeal
_2_0/
6 NRC at 614-624.
.amm.A
/
l h*
0 CCPE clair::s that Sta*"* % s.<. ~touced new data
-~
En; apinions in:o :he vecc:d.
In our view.
As discusse-d -
above, we believe Accorcingly, we believe
,,3:
8 Board erred by not giving fair weight to expert testimony that an expanded monitoring network would shed light en the earthquake potential of the Ramapo Fault.
In reply, PASNY contends that nothing in the continuing pattern of seismic events in the vicinity of the Ramapo Fault affects_ the validity of the Appeal Board's decision.
Con Ed contends that public health and safety would not be enhanced by an expanded monitoring network because there is no general agreement on the existence of a relation between micro-seismic activity and larger earthquakes.
hbnouropinion,
~
~
~
~
9
- p. fI '
Other Matters New York contends for the first time in this proceeding, that ALAB-436 reveals that an inequitable burden of proof has been placed on the parties to New York's disadvantage.
New York does not provide any specific instances of such inequities, but cites as proof Mr. Farrar's 1
Seabrook dissenting opinion.
?ASNY, in its response, points out that Mr. Farrar did not raise the burden of prbor issue'in his dissent ~
from ALAB-(36. frf our view,
~
gy.,,
Staff reports that the Lamont Observatory has added seven monitoring stations along the Samapo Fault and that the data gathered by the combined Lamont and present Con Ed networks is the type of information which the now deleted license condition was designed to provide.
Moreover, staff has reviewed the data gathered by the two networks since the hearing concluded and now alleges that it can no longer state that the information which would be provided by further expansion of the network would add to the assurance of public health and safety.
i 10 r-g y, (.,
. i
~
j
.f
_.e c orrenc ation :
b Q \\ 1_7d s
k Leonard 31ckwit, N
3eneral Counsel' A :ach::ents :
- 1. Draft Order
- 2. NF.C Staff Answer
- 3. COPE.N1otion to Strike Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.
Friday. Aucust 1, 1980.
Comission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July 29,1980, with an infomation copy to the Office of the Secretary..If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the -
Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat 4 <a
i i
i i
1
-l
. i
-1 A
l l
l e
i J
1 1
. o.
j i
i
}
t t
ATTACHMENT 1
..,1.g..,.
... > e..
- =..,
e u.
s.
e
'r n,-
t.
- , '.~ y.y y gn.-
.,p.r., s ' -.
A., ' *:
'. w w..
t s
t..2.-
- i. p.t.
.s
~
m a.:.
'h.
['
s' 4
9
,.t
/t.'
..-g*,..
- .e
- rA.*
4
+.
.i a.m.
k
- .n
},
1 p.
)
2".i r. ? Q.... t:l*..;.
.~
, >~
.,.;.. r
.r '
.t; eg.
- a.,).,. e..
' f:t ' A ~. Zi'.
Q:.?. if. ?t*
'.Ah{
Q. '.'~
- +.i :. p.,):, j.
~~'> i,j.!.f4. Rg ";;;f...!*
.'i 'f.,
...r..
n^ F.';
P:.*
' is-
. w - - ~ y.....,. g -
.v.
...., ~,
., n.
.,.s.
.,r.3,...,,
- 6 p2+u-f
- g. + y,.rb,,
.. A x.*~%..',, l f, y $aK.v3, +.,.
- i go..'. St,.? ' ~ d 4. =4.
h..
L e.
!P er*
d
...,;,T
- v..w;.:. 4,,
no. e,
...s
'.ca.
.?..-...<..
. :s i., v t $ q %. % C.+...
.a,
- g, g *4,*
s.
r
- ".*j
'. N.:,.%. i +j.. *.e
.3 *-
t
, n ,e
.~ -
J.y
'v
- 1,y"
- ,h
'w'
.$1 yk.o..,J.
r.*
n.
y
.y
.m
.. 4.,,
. p"'.
d.,.r...J
? '1;
- Q..;f:
.;n, ~<
... rgy:
,, m s
f.4 4,....
. 4,. p.,q.'r
,?
e
+
,g.
,v.-*
- ,a
..'h e k
.t,
2
- I ~'
- 3 T'
.,,(
m,.
,,.q. m.
v e.t,.
y
.s.,
. <pl1.'-4.~r. h.. yGA 'Q \\.
. % '.*{,' 5, v*.
N e~
..,5 a.
s s
4;,a, 1.s.. y-
...~..
r'2..,.
,-4
~*.
.-,3s..'.-*.,.
- ( e sg,..
e
.o.
f.$9. b.'N f*f. *..&
- ';..,e ik,,b',. S' g.
'y' gjhs* ^ W
~
p
..m.__;
.. J
% !,. u -
l' ATTACHMENT 2
<t s,
,s
.... +
, e.
i.
r.
a
.i
.?
r.
ad.
'.t s
a.
..i a.
7.,.3. u e
- 5...
. f!
,. ;..",%j,..
en n,. fl. I ' ? r.V a 4.*
. 7 r-
'.j !y',4.' %.m.;..
.,, :.'q,.
- 3..,
n,.,
,. gr
. ;, _ f,
',,a Pg,3.hy'*.
a
, ~ '#,,
e, i '. p i.,. Cd i + 4/,';.f y *,'.
4(5' H o-
,a,
< a.. ;e'W w: o i
,,,. y.gf,x..
t.*.
f,. f.,,
- ,..a-,...,.
...,.5 o
~
v.
s.
.w
.c a,
~w.....,...c,. a..~. m
- y. ~.
as
.,.,;..ji.,
n
,r,-
x.,. ?yc.y v.
.sr
.a.r..
,'x y
7g,t-a
., r, ;
g..
z s,.
.f-
.s 4-
- -l...J1
. c + =.
r.
r,
, g.6
..A.
s-
.r.
1 f
r-2.
r,
.r. r
... I..
2/8/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!t41SSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY 0F
)
NEW YORK, INC. and
)
Docket Nos. 50-3
)
50-247 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
50-286 ND4 YORK
)
)
(IndianPointStation, Units 1,
)
2, and 3)
)
NRC STAFF ANSUER TO THE PETITIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY OFFICE AND THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR REVIEW 0F ALAB-436 AND ALAB-561 The answer of the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) to the petitions of the New York State Energy Office (State). and the Citizens' Com-mittee for Protection of the Environment (CCPE) for review of ALAB-436 and ALAB-561 filed on September 21 and September 24, 1979, respectively, is sub-mitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 32.786(b)(3) of the Commission's regulations.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Staff submits that the Comission should not grant review of these petitions.
INTRODUCTION In 1975 the Commission ordered the consideration by an Atomic Safety and Li-censing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) of seismic issues affecting the Indian Point site.
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Comoany of New York Inc.
(Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173 (1975). The Appeal Board was to use its discretion in framing the issues to be heard in the pro-ceeding before it.
Ld_. a t 17B.
In accordance with the Comission's Order, the Appeal Board conducted hearings on three seismic issues relating to the Indian Point facility from April 27 to July 25,1976.1/ During the course of these hearings it was brought to the Appeal Board's attention that the Staff had imposed a condition on the operating license for Indian Point 3, requiring the Licensee to expand its existing micro-seismic monitoring network.
See Tr. 5454-5547.
The condition in question was part of Amendment 2(c) issued by the NRC Staff on April 5,1976.
On August 27, 1976, the t.icensee, Consolidated Edison Company, filed with the. Appeal Board
~
a Motion to Modify License Condition in which it requested modification of the time set forth in the license. condition by which the seism _ological investigation involving the expanded microseismic monitoring network was to be completed.
On November 10, 1976, the Appeal Board ruled that evidentiary hearings should be held concerning this license condition.
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Station,. Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-357, 4 NpC 542 (1976). The Staff filsd a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by 1/ The three issues considered by the Appeal Board were:
1.
Does the : ape Ann earthquake of 1755, or any other historic event, require the assumption, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, of a safe shutdown earthquake for the Indian Point site greater than a Modifie~d Mercalli Intensity Vil?
2.
Should the ground acceleration value used for the design of Indian Point, Units 1, 2, or 3 be increased?
3.
Is the Ramapo Fault a capable fault within the meaning of Appendix A, 10 C.F.R. Part 100?
the Appeal Board, In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Comoany of New York, Inc.
~
(Indian Point, Units 1 2, and 3), ALAB-360, 4 NRC 622 (1976), and this denial was upheld by the Commission.
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison comoany of New York, Inc. and Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-77-2, 5 NRC 13 (1977).
Evidentiary hearings on the issue of whether the ccndition for Indian Point 3. requiring the expanded microseismic monitoring network along the Ramapo Fault was warranted, were held from March 15-23, 1977. At those hearings, it was the position of the Staff, the State, and CCPE that the license condition in cuestion would enhance the assurance of public health and safety.
The Licensee, however, asserted that the " contribution to the reasonable assurance of public health and safety, that wo0ld be provided by the enlarged microseismic monitoring network, would be next to nil."2_/ A detailed analysis of the testimony presented by the parties is set forth in the Appeal Board's decisien (6 NRC at 604-614) and will not I
be repeated here.
At the conclusion of the hearing the majority of the Appeal Board ruled that:
That section of Amendment 2 to the Indian Point, Unit 4 operating license numbered 2(C)(4)(c), which contains the requirement for an enlarged microseismic monitoring 2_/
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Comoany of New York, Inc. and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and -
- 3). ALAB-436, 6 NRC 54/, 605 (1977).
-w i.5, m
i
~
network will not add to the assurance of public health and safety and is unnecessary. 3/ ALAB-436, supra,
6 NRC at 624.
' l One member of the Appeak Board dissented from portions of the majority opinion including that portion relating to the need for license condition 52(C)(4)(c).
That dissent, as well as the supplemental opinion of the majority members of the Appeal Board, is contained in ALAo-561.1/
The State and CCPE filed Petitions for Review by the Commission of that part of the Appeal Board majority's decision which ordered the deletion of the con-dition requiring the expinsion of the microseismic monitoring network from the Indian Point 3 operating license.
In addition, the State, in its petition,
-3/
Concerning the other three issues before it, the Appeal Board foun'd:
1.
In accordance with Appendix A,10 C.F.R. Part 100, that neither the Cape Ann earthquake nor any other historic event requires the assumption of a safe shutdown earth-cuake for the Indian Point site of greater than a Modified Mercalli Intensity VII.
2.
The ground acceleration value used for the desian of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 should remain at 0.159 Indian Point 1 was designed for a lesser value, but the reactor is currently shut down and the fuel re-moved.
If it should be reactivated it must be back-fitted to sustain an ace,eleration of 0.159 3.
The Ramapo Fault is not a capable fault-under Appendix A, 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
ALAS-436, suora 6 NRC at 548-549, 4/ Chairman Farrar's dissent was issued on August 3,1979. The supplemental opinion of Drs. Buck and 'Quarles was issued on. September 6,1979.
9989 n-w m,
9
~
1_._....._.._.
. se has requested review "seccndarily" of the Appeal Board majority's Findings 1 and 3.1/ State Petition at 3.1/
The Staff opposes the petitions for review and asserts that because of the change in circumstances which has occurred since the issuance of the Appeal Board's decision, r view by the Comission of the Appeal Board's decision to delete condition 2(C)(4)(c) from Amendment 2 to the Indian Point 3 operating license is not approriate.
ARGUMENT I.
Petitioners Have Failed to Show That the Portion of the Appeal Board Majority's Cecision Relating to Expan-sion of the Microseismic Monitoring Network is Erroneous with Respect to an Important Ouestion of Fact, l.aw, or Policy.
1.
The Petitioners have asked the Commission to review that portion of the Appeal Board's decision which pertains to the expansion of a microseismic monitoring network.
In its Petition CCPE argues that:
- 1) since the Appeal Board made a ruling which went against CCPE's reading of the testimony of Staff and State witnesses, the Appeal Board was in error (CCPE Fetition at 2-3); and 2) that the Commission must review the Appeal Board's decision because there is a split among the members of the Appeal Board on an important b/
Finding 1 relates to the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) used in the design of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
Finding 3 relates to the capa-bility of the Ramapo Fault.
The State also asserts that if the Com-mission finds the SSE used in the design of Indian Point would be inadequate, then the Commission should review Finding 2 for the limited purpose-of recalculating the maximum accelerated ground motion used in the Indian Point design.
State Petition at 3.
5/
By unpublished Order dated December 14, 1979, the Commission extended the-time for the Staff to respond to these petitions until February 8,1980.
4 Id.at3.7/ The State in its petition aig..es:
- 1) that, sa fi.,
- .a r.
q because of a pattern of earthquakes monitored from June 15, 1975 through April 13, 1976, the Ramapo Fault must be considered a seismically active fault and thus
=
in need of monitoring (State Petition at 5-6); 2) that the Appeal Board erred in detemining that the expansion of the microseismic monitoring network would not add to the assurance of public health and safety (M. at 6); and 3) that, due to the geologically complex characteristics of the Ramapo Fault, conserva-tism in the Appeal Board's approach is necessary for the Board to meet the mandate of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
- g. at 7, 2.
In preparing its response to these petitions, the Staff has revie ted its previous position taken before the Appeal Board,as well as data now available to it regarding the seismic monitoring currently being perfonted by the Lamont-Doherty Geophysical Observatory of Columbia University (Lamont) and the Licensee.
Based upon the information the Staff now has, it cannot conclude that the Appeal Board's decision with regard to microseismic monitoring was erreneous.
The Staff reaches this conclusion based upon its current belief that while the monitoring data is helpful, the information received to data does not demonstrate a technical basis for stating that the assurance of public health and safety will be enhanced by such an expanded network.
See attached Affidavit of Phyllis Sobel at Para.10 and 11.
Coverage of the Ramapo and neighboring faults in the Highlands has iicreased in recent years.
The present seismic network is collecting the type of information 7/ 10 C.F.R. 52.786 imposes no requirement on the Commission to review decisions simply.because there is a s plit in the views of various Appeal Board members.
It should be noted that, a',though the "important safety matter" referred to by CCPE in its petition as the question on which the split of Appeal Board members occurred is the ability of the Indian Point plant to withstand earthquakes, CCPE is requesting review of only a portion of the Appeal Board's decision--that portion dealing with the expansion of the micro-seismic monitoring network.
See Petition of CCPE at 1.
envisioned by the Staff when it imposed condition 2(C)(4) on the Indian Point 47
~~;.
Unit 3 operating license.
Sobel Affidavit at Para. 8.
In 1976, 1977 and 1978, Lamont increased the coverage of the southern end of the Ramapo Fault by adding five stations in New Jersey.
Sobel Affidavit at Para. 6.
In 1978, two stations were added to the Lamont network at the northern end of the Ramapo Fault.
I d..
Therefore, while the Licensee's network was not expanded to the extent suggested by the State and the Staff in the Indian Point 3 hearing, coverage of the Ramapo Fault system has been increased in recent years through Lamont's efforts by the addition of these seven stations.
The Staff has also learned that seismologists operating the presently existing Consolidated Edison and Lamont networks have incorporated the data gathered from the two networks in order to moie accurately determine the location of recorded microearthquakes, and to aid in distinguishing between earthquakes and quarry blasts in the area of the Ramapo Fault system.S/ obel Affidavit S
at Para. 9.
The Staff has reviewed data from these networks obtained since the end of the 1977 hearing (a period of over two years). These data have not shown, in the Staff's view, that the Ramapo Fault is a capable fault within the meaning of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
Sobel Affidavit at Para. 10.
However, there continues to be uncertainty as to whether earth-quakes activity may be associated with the Ramapo Fault and neighboring i
faults.
Id Thus, while the information provided by the current seismic monitoring networks is valuable, and is the type of information which the i
Staff still wishes to receive, it cannot state that such information would add to the assurance of the public health and safety.
Accordingly.
E/ The Staff receives quarterly seismic monitoring reports from Con Edison and the Power Authority of the State of New York and from Lamont.
1
the Staff believes that if such information is to be obtained, it should be gathered by a continuation of or possible expansion of the presently exist-ing research programs, rather than by the imposition of a license condition
=-
upontheLicensees.9f 3.
A Petition for Comission Review should only be grantea if the Petitioner has established that the decision below was erroneous with respect to an impor-tant question of fact, law, or policy.
10 C.F.R. 52.786(b)(1).
Due to the changes i meumstances discussed above which have occurred since the end of the 1977 hearings, it is the Staff's view that the Appeal Board majority's decision is not erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, I
cr policy.
No arguments put forth either by CCPE or the State contradict I
this view.
Neither Petitioner takes into account the extent of the seismic monitoring networks in place before the 1977 hearings and the fact that at least one of them has been expanded since that time.
Nor do Petitioners question the quality of the seismic monitoring which has taken place since 1977 or the results of that monitoring.
The Petitioners' only point appears to be that some seismic monitoring of the Ramapo Fault system must be conducted. They have failed to show in what respect the current seismic monitoring system is d6fi-cient or how a license condition requiring the' expandsd monitoring system will enhance the assurance of the public health and safety.
Absent such a showing, the Petitioners cannot establish that the Appeal Board's decision to delete the condition requiring the expansion of the microseismic monitoring network from the Indian P6 int 3 operating license is erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, or policy.
Therefore, Comission review of the' Petitions is not merited in that the requirements of*10 C.'F.R. 52.786(b)(1) have not been' met.
9/ The NRC has already been involved in the Lamont research program by pro-viding a portion of the funding for that program in 1977,1978,- and 1979.
The Staff has also submitted a request to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation for continuation of or possible expansion of that research program
)
in the future.
m
IT.
The State Fails to Show that the Appeal Board's Determination that No Historic Event Requires the Indian Point Site to be Designed to Withstand a Safe Shutdown Earthquake of Greater than Modified 3,
.x Mercalli Intensity VII is Erroneous Though the State does not assert that the Appeal Board concept of tectonic provinces was erroneous, it argues that the Appeal Board sh61d have used the State's tectonic provinces in determining the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) for use in the design of Indian Point.
State Petition _ at 9.
The State does not maintain in its petition that the Appeal Board erred in its use of the Intensity VII earthquake as the SSE for Indian Point.
In fact, the State specifically notes that it "... does not maintain that, as 'a factual matter, the site can be proven to require Intensity VIII on the basis of current geo; logical or seismological knowledge."
State Petition at 10.
Since the State's dispute seems to be with the approach taken by the Appeal Board in reaching its i
decision (the Appeal Board used smaller tectonic provinces that those advocated
- [
by the State) rather than with the decision itself, Petitioner has failed to show, as is required by 10 C.F.R. 62.786(b)(1), that "...the decision or action is erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, or policy."E For this reason, review of this issue by.the Commission should be denied.
1
)
III.
The State Fails To Show In What Way The Appeal Board's Determination That The Ramapo Fault Is Not A Capable Fault Is Erroneous.
The State argues that, due to the presence of seismic activity in the area '
of the Ramapo Fault, the capability of that Fault must be treated as an open question until the sianificance of such seismic activity has been determined.
State Petition at 6.
The Staff took the position, at the time of the hearings I 0_/
Though the Staff may differ from the Appeal Board's view of the appropriate boundaries for the tectonic provinces to be used when defining the Safe Shutdown Earthquake for the Indian Point site, it does not differ with the ppeal Board's conclosion that the Safe Shutdown Earthevake for Indian j
l t
^
z.: '
a_..
before the Appeal Board that the Rar. ape Fault is not a capable fault within the S.
meaning of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100.
The Staff has reviewed the data
'=
collected by the utility-owned microseismic monitoring network, and that collected by the Lamont network, and still finds no evidence that the Ramapo Fault is a capable fault.
Beyond saying that this should be treated as an open question the State makes no attempt to show in what way the Appeal Board's determination concerning the capability of this fault is erroneous.
Therefore, review of this issue should be denied.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above:
- 1) the petitions of the State and CCPE for Commission review of that portion of ALAB-436 and ALAS-551 dealing with the
~
expansion of a microseismic monitoring network should be denied, on the grounds that the petitions do not show that the Appeal Board's decision is erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, or policy as required by 10 C.F.R. 52.786(b)(1); and 2) the State's petition for review of Findings'.1 and.3 of ALAB-436 as well as the requost for review of portions of Chairman Farrar's dissenting opinion should be denied since the petition does not establish that the Appeal Board's decision is erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, or policy.
Respectfully submitted, j
3 Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of February 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. 2.5..
2" BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-3 OF NEW YORK. INC., and
)
50-247
, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
50-286 OF NEW YORK
)
)
(Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2
)
(Show Cause - Seismic) and 3)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF PHYLLIS SOBEL. Ph.D.
I, Phyllis Sobel, do depose and state:
1.
I am a Sta.ff Geophysicist, Geology and Seismology Section, Geosciences Branch, Division of Systems Safety, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'1 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l 2.
My professional cualifications were submitted to the Commission with my affidavit dated November 7,1979.
3.
I have reviewed the record in this proceeding and the information relating to the Ramapo Fault system. My evaluation of the above-mentioned information, and the conclusions I have drawn as a result of that evaluation are stated below.
1 4.
Since 1975, Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. (Con Edison),
has operated 12 seismic stations located around the Ramapo Fault and near the Indian Point site.
. l
~
^
5.
The Lamont-Doherty Geophysical Observatory of Columbia University (Lamont) has operated a network of seismic stations in New York and New Jersey since 1970.
6.
In 1976,1977 and 1978, seismologists at Lamont increased coverage of the southern end of the Ramapo Fault by establishing five stations in New Jersey.
In 1978, Lamont increased coverage of the northern end of the Ramapo Fault by establishing two stations. Thus, although the Con Edison network has not been expanded to the extent suggested by the State and thlSta!!in the Indian Point 3 hearings. coverage of the Ramapo Fault system has increased in recent years by the addition of seven stations.
7.
In 1977,1978 and 1979, Lamont's seismic monitoring progra. was funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the U. S.
Geological Survey, the New York State Geological Survey, and the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES).
8.
The Lamont and Con Edison networks have provided valuable information on the microseismicity of the region. This is the type of information envisioned by the Sta!! when it imposed condition 2(C)(4) on the Indian Point Unit 3 operating license.
9..
Seismologists operating these two networks have incorporated their data to more accurately determine the location of microcarthquakes in the area of the Ramapo Fault system, and to aid in differentiating between micro-earthquakes and quarry blasts in that area.
+
J'-
.L. L 10.
I believe that there is no seismological evidence to indicate that the Ramapo Fault is capable within the definition of Appendix A to Part 100 and I believe 3r seismicity is distributed throughout the Highlands and not confined to the Ramapo.
However, there continues to be uncertainty as to detailed knowledge of the locations and focal mechanisms of earthquakes and the nature of crustal structure in the Highlands region. In this region of low seismicitf, I believe that NRC funding of seismic monitoring should continue. For this reason, the Staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) prepared an NRR User Need Statement for RES which asked that there be continued funding and possible expansion of the presently existing seismic network in the Highlands, 11.
My review of the data mentioned in Paragraphs 4 through 10 leads me to conclude that based on the information in Paragraph 10, unless a substantial increase in r-the size and frequency of earthquakes were to occur, the imposition of a condition on the Indian Point Unit 3 operating license requiring the expansion of the existing Con Edison microseismic monitoring network would not add to the assurance of the public health and safety. In addition, seismic monitoring of the Ramapo and neighboring faults in the Highlands has increased in recent years, and therefore the present seismic network, partly funded by the NRC, is collecting the type of information envisioned by the Staff when it imposed condition 2(C)(4)-
on the Indian Point Unit 3 operating license. Therefore, information pertaining to
+
seismic activity in the area of the Ramapo Fault system should be obtained througfi continuation or possible expansion of presently existing research programs.
g
,>--<p-
+- y e.-
i4,,i---
i
9
-4_
m I hereby certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
0 PhylligSobel Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of February,1980.
/
Elizabofh Ann Tipton Nota.ry Pub'ic in and for the State of Maryland, Montgomery County
\\
My Commission expires: July 1,1982.
i i
i i
i e
d
+(
..?
~=-
..,.c ' '... ;~ ;
&.h - :.:. i. i.'c
.~
s.e
~
7
- . - n.-::
- r...~
6.. :,,.%,,g;sc_.
t :..
~, -
' : w. * :d,; - i. *..-
..e
- :.~. >.
... e M.l.; ;_
e
- u. ;.Z
.e i
u
[...d 5.
~
. ~ z,l.
1
."... f);x e.-.
0,3 4',t.g..
.+
g
- y:
.E.,.. M_. ;,-
cv
,,a,
~
%... -.:2&gy My *:,
.l.,: :.::(a. 9#ma.:gy p s..
g, y :' ? xQ.
.&....,j.. :.,.. ;.s.,fy n..,; Q(.3.
K
~,fe-; !;5 l Y:. : s v..
,.. s.
, y. '
b..i@L.f. 7,
E Y ?:
j.i & }. n
~.
- m.g....:.. i.,
-~
m..;.
- ... w.,; u.
_~.e.-
O
- '"k
,..e ?,
,f,.
I,h
- *.' ? *
~
t s
- '*t s'
' g. ; ".ry. ' sl ',y. _,.,c;. ' f ' ATTACMENT" 3
. :v:.cky: v** ' " ;ff ' W
~. * -
y v
m V.y d Tv.j, $ a' Ng +.:'-p;.,t......
- .. S, a.q;,.... x....... if. p c '...
n,.. ;-
...q.e.
c
. J..,,
. i, H:...., ; f.Q, n...;g ~
,:g<.
- ,
- . :/r.v.,, ~.,.'[* W4.?;!.,..:i.M';-(k;2.j, n'.,..
y a
,,'.~j.
-.f.*n4
- .W.:
- ..y-l, l.
.n 5Q,n.,
.. n.,.,,
y
..,..y, y. gg;f. y f, T
eb...
I, $s. *
. m...,....,*g. - - _
w..
.w. p,.,u. 2 g. s..~te...w.
J,hhI
- 9yygg,;. ggQ.,.;,',;.g,';g<.s3;.,, p. c,'.
v.
k.
........,3
,s
% 3, DQ'.ap!,%,,- L; 4.,hgg* ys_
.a a-
, >+
L.'
s
'*f y
.- 4 e-
~s
. er 3@SM..ps. T s,.%~f;, *;;'!$kk,;,,,. $.;tw Y
hi
. s
^_'%@n $M$$4#h
.n.
M> P
~
$Y'
.' L -
EdW-w W?$$
N a,*.ih.
4 ",;-
<. #!M,.ffi.WO.. h,t M
J v
- m..
k.s.
u x,, a.$Q ' *
- t' f'I' "*e.
s i
- f l. b~j
.,?',.
.N.
.g n
- y " <Q*a.,.*
at
$,Y OY, 54h[$[
j lf, *
'5 '.
- h. ek.h:fh'
+..
.'. \\
s.hi a'-
'^
a
=
., + >
m.
.z h
53 h'
Jg,.
h.'
)
n I
.,3... - w, n..
.... e ;
- ,*I.
f
,k
' *7 k,.,
3.M.". W.34.;f Mg4.p j.- !
w-
- W~
- .c.r ak.3
).:s;,,.y. y.h.
p:h(.rgd. %w %v..y.
- ~at q
9,..
.b?;.
..,u 42..
L ' r.m:.e r
- 0.t
. k. >
~
.n
,Q..,c' 5,
~ "*
c g?. i 3 % M % w g w.
-4g-3
- y. s.l.
M,6W
^
,v
..:p;&gnAs
- t.,
e
..;~.,,_[
.. m
- a
,D t
- k 1
Wi%F.t,.
, =. y<.ar,.,.
{c J b V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
3EFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
OF NEW YORK, INC. and
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-3 POhTR AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
50-247 OF NEW YORK
)
50-286
)
(Indian Point Station,
)
Units 1, 2, and 3)
)
i MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO THE PETITIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY OFFICE AND THE CITIZENS' COMMT.TTEE FOR PROTECTION OF THE
.NIRONMENT FOR RE"IEW OF ALAB-436 AND ALAS-561 and CCPE'S RESPONSE TO THE STAFF'S ANSWER A.
Motion to Strike f
In its response to the petitons seeking review of ALAB -
436, the NRC Staff improperly introduced into the record data and opinions related to seismic activity-along the Ramapo fault.
Specifically, in both the ANShTR and the AFFIDAVIT OF PHYLLIS SOBEL, PhD., references are'made to data obtained after close of the record in the evidentiary hearing.
For the reasons outlined below, CCPE requests the Cormission to strike those. references.
2 a
S
9
_2-g It is well established that this commission's decision
- .i.i must be based on the record below.
The references to the new monitoring data puts before the Commission scientific viewpoints that have not been subject to cross-examination.
Furthermore, no party has been given the opportunity to introduce evidence to rebut the Staff's views.
The Staff's approach offends basic principles of administrative practice.
Accordingly, CCPE requests that the Commission strike those portions of the ANSWER and AFFIDAVIT set out below.
ANSWER page 6, line 11, starting with, "as well as data" through the end of the paragraph.
page 7, line 15, starting with "The Staff has reviewed" through line 24 ending with "public health and safety."
.., _. g..-
page 8, line 14, starting with "Nor do Petitioners" through the end of that sentence at'line 16.
page 10, line 2, starting with "The Staff has reviewed" through the end of that sentence at line 5.
AFFICAVIT OF PHYLLIS SOBEL,,PhD.
paragraph 10, from the beginning of paragraph 10 through "In this region of low seismicity" at line 6 of paragraph 10.
Paragraph 11, strike from the beginning of paragraph 11 3
through "of the public health and safety" at line 6 of paragraph 11.
-e I
e
i
{
3.
Response to the Staff's Answer
' ', -3 M'
Finally, CCPE wishes to make one point in response to the Staf f's argument.
The Staff concedes that a seismic monitoring network is necessary.
It argues that the current monitoring network - comprising the expanded Lamont network and Con Ed network - provides the requisite information.
What the Staff fails to address is that funding may be withdrawn at any time for either of these networks.
For example, as the Staff points out, "Lamont's seismic monitor-ing program was funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the New York State Geological Survey, and the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)."
New York State or the USGS could withdraw funding'of the Lamont network at any time.
In fact, New York'.s refusal to be saddled with the financial responsibility of funding a proportionate share of the network was the principal reason that the settlement agreement fell through.
Further, there is no assurance that Con Ed will continue to fund its network.
Absent some other financing mechanism not yet discussed by the Staff, a license condition appears to be the only way to assure that adequate funding to operate the networks will-be available.
i l
1 e
r
p '
?..
,o
-5
.!51:.
...d Respectfully submitted, hLLQ(k h i LSUNW David S.
Fleischaker, Esq.
~
COtJNSEL TO CITIZENS ' COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1735 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 709 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 638-6070 FEBRUARY 13, 1980 r
9 1
,