ML20069H487

Comments on Seismological Presentations at Catawba ACRS Subcommittee 830304-05 Meeting.Charleston Seismic Issue Should Be Regarded as Open Item Pending Exam of Generic Issue & of Extreme External Phenomena Subcommittee Position

ML20069H487
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/07/1983
From:	Pomeroy P RONDOUT ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:	Kerr W Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-CT-1565, NUDOCS 8304060144
Download: ML20069H487 (2)

Text

, Cf -/d G .3 (T ,

. jbe eWs4G

\

, RosoouT Associates. INCORPORATED P.O. Box 224, Stone Ridge, New York 12484 March 7, 1983 Prof. William Kerr ,,

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards L -.

.p-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

Vashington, D.C. 20555 l d , ' ,, , ,

Dear Dr. Kerr:

In response to your request at the CATAWBA ACRS Subcommittee meeting of March 4-5, 1983, I would like to provide the following commentary on the seis-mological presentations. I will confine my remarks to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake issues since I view that as the critical issue for this plant and other plants in the eastern United States. This subcommittee meet-ing provided me with the first opportunity to review the Staff positions and actions following the U3GS ' clarification' letter.

1. The Staf f position appears to be that no changes in licensing pro-cedures should result from the USGS clarification pending the completion of the short term probabilistic studies and the long term daterministic studies out-lined in the memorancium from Vollner to Denton dated March 3,1983. Although I am a strong advocate of the necessity of the research programs, I disagree with the Staff position for the following reasons:

a. The Staff feels that some of the hypotheses regarding the causative r:echanir.ms of the Charleston earthquake "could be very restrictive in location". Although that might possibly be true, in a sttict Appendix A sense, for one of the many hypotheses, it is not a valid point from a scientific viewpoint.

b. The Staff position is that the deterministic studhs scheduled for co npletion in 1985 of the proposed recearch pro-gram "should reduce the uncertainty. . .". Given the results of the first eight years or so of this program, I am not so opti-mistic. In fact, barring an unforeseen breakthrough, our uncer-tainty may significantly increase. The ACRS should provide evaluations and rec.ommendt.:fons regarding the propose.1 deter-

ministic program. ,

i

c. The Staff indicates that the LLNL probabilistic studies "will t3ke into account existing uncertainties". As a l participant in that program, I do not understand how it will con-l sider alternative locations for the Charleston earthquake or the l

probability of a large earthquake occurring in other parts of the castern United States unless that is explicitly delineated in the zonation by one of the " experts". Since the " experts" realize the uncertainties involved, most will not suggest an .eppropriate delineation.

umc u cucuar. XA Copy Has Been Sent to PDR

)O%h k ekiiodBy (( 3

~

/&

~ -

gr ,

N \

r %. .

l 3

Prof. William Kerr

. March 7, 19R3 Page 2 Overall, while the research plans constitute an important part of the program, I br.lieve that they also allow a postponement of the consideration of the funds.3cntal premises of the licensing process for three years in the hope that the proposed pregrams will produce a definitive result. In my opin-ion, this approach is unfair to all the parties involved and the issues should be examined now.

Specifically for the CATAWBA site, I would recommend to the subcommittee that the Charleston seismic issue be held as an open item pending examinat ion of the generic issue and the Staff position by the Extreme External Phenomena Subcommittee and/or the full committee. Both the U.S. Geological Survey and the Staff have expressed a desire to meet with the ACRS to discuss the issue and clearly, the Staff would benefit from the guidance of the committee in this area and from committee commentary on the proposed research program. I feel that the committee should play an sctive leadership role in the resolu-tion of this problem. Action is required in a relatively short time frnme.

If it is proper to send a copy of this letter to Dr. Okrent, I would appreciate you doing so to communicate to him the urgency that I feel regarding the Char-leston situation.

Thank you for asking me to perticipate in the CATAWBA Subcommittee. As always, it provided a highly stirmlating forum and I hope that the site's spe-cific problem can be rer.olved in a rapid and satisfactory manner.

Sincerely yours,

~

h l c,d (N f _?)

' i Paul W. Pomeroy PWP:gla ec: Mr. R. Majors, ACRS Staf f l

l 1

i l

l l

. . _ _ _ _ . .