ML20093N261

Response to ASLB 840712 Inquiry Whether NUREG/CR-3756 Constitutes Substantial New Info to Lead to Redetermination of Adequacy of Seismic Design.Inquiry Fully Warranted. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093N261
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/26/1984
From:	Johnson T CAMPAIGN FOR PROSPEROUS GEORGIA (EDUCATIONAL)
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-3756 OL, NUDOCS 8408010253
Download: ML20093N261 (17)

Text

_

Compaign far a Prospersus Georgia PO Box 7302, Atlanta, Georgia 30357 i

h

!'?*~.

n ;-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t.

~D#"

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

GEORGIA POWER CO.

)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 DL.

et al.

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

)

l Units 1 and 2)

)

Response to Licensing Board Inquiry Concerning Seismic Contention l,

Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia hereby submits this response to the letter dated July 12, 1984 from Morton B. Margulios, Chairman of the Atomic Safety &

Licensing Board, to Robert G. Perlis, Esq., Counsel for the NRC staff, inquiring as l

to whether the study entitled NUREG/CR-3756, Seismic Hazard Clarification of the Eastern United States: Methodology and Interim Results for Ten Sites (April 1984) constitutes " substantial new information" to lead to a redetennination of the adequacy of the seismic design of Plant Vogtle.

Content.on CPG-5 states in part, "The applicant has not properly assessed the geology of the site and has not properly considered the geology of the site in the engineering design of the project, especially in light of new data made available by the U.S. Geologic Survey." The basis for this contention quotes a USGS letter-to f

the NRC which says that "after several years of intensive study in the Charleston OO

$2 region, no geologic structure or feature can be identified unequivocally as the

.Og source of the Charleston earthquake."

(letter from James F. Devine, Assistant 00p Derector for Engineering Geology, USGS, to Robert E. Jackson, Chief, Geosciences

-In$

Granch, Division of Engineering NRC, dated November 16, 198E) r.o -

This USGS letter prompted Board Notification--USGS Position on the Charleston Earthquake (Board Notification 82-122A), which in turn resulted in NUREG/CR-3756, Ob

pp MV cited by the ASLB.

The applicant failed in its application to discuss either the substance of the USGS letter or the fact that the NUREG study had been undertaken.

Applicant also failed to disclose in its application that Mr. Ruble Thomas, vice president for nuclear services for Southern Company Services, is a member of the Seismicity Owners' Group, which is financing an industry study of levels of seismic hazard on the eastern seaboard.

Results of this study are expected in 1985, according to a recent article in Nuclear Industry magazine (Attachment 1).

It is clear that the report cited by ASLB constitutes substantial new infonnation requiring a reevaluation of the seismic qualifications, as requested in Lontention CPG-5. At the Construction Pennitting stage of the proceedings, the NRC stated:

"Of particular significance to any site in the Southeastern United States is the tectonic feature that is responsible for the seismic activity in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina, including the very large 1886 Charleston earthquake. This activity is believed to be associated with a r

specific structural anomaly that is confined to the area in the vicinity of Charleston. " This was apparently the basis for the staff's agreement to the applicant's seismic design at the time of the construction permitting.

(response to F0IA request, Bell, May 23, 1983, Attachments 2 and 3).

(

This compares with 1.he later USGS position (in the letter cited above):

...no geologic structure or feature can be identified unequivocally as the source of the 1886 Charleston earthquake."

USGS ; hen goes on to state in the Devine letter:

"Although the probability of strong ground motion due to an earthquake in the eastern seaboard may be very low, detenninistic and probabilistic evaluations of the seismic hazard should be made for individual sites in the eastern seaboard to establish the seismic engineering parameters for critical facilities."

The NRC's Executive Director for Operations acknowledged that this is substantial new infonnation in his November 19, 1982 memorandum to the Commissioners on " Clarification of U.S. Geological Survey Position Relating to Seismic Design Earthquakes in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States," page 1:

"For the purpose of licensing of facilities in the Southeastern U.S., the NRC

(

~

ll has taken a position, based primarily on the advice of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), that any reoccurance of the 1886 Charleston, S.C. earthquake (Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) X, estimated Magnitude about 7) would be confined to the Charleston area."

The seismicity experts who participated in the preparation of NUREG/CR-3756 varied widely in their conclusions as to the hazards at the Vogtle site. As stated in the report, "The spread exhibited by the seismicity experts is rather large (a factor of 12 to 15 at low PGA [ Peak Ground Acceleration] and 50 to 70 at high PGA between the lowest and the highest BEHC [Best Estimate Hazard Curve] of experts 2 and 12)." (p. 168, Attachment 4)

Clearly, so wide a disparity among experts--a factor of up to 70--constitutes dramatic.new infomation which merits.further investigation by the Licensing Board.

The infomation provided in this report is highly technical, and Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia has of course not had sufficient time to hire an expert seismologist to review it; we hereby retain our right to submit further response in the future if we deem it necessary following review by such an expert. But even without detailed expert review, the existence of new information and the need for reevaluation is clear as demonstrated by the <tisparity of expert opinion cited above--a disparity not existing at the construction permitting stage.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself has recognized the need for t

reexamination. NUREG/CR-3756 constitutes the first stage in the Comission's f

reexamination.

In addition, according to a brief Associated Press story, the NRC has hired two. University of South Carolina professo.s to study the seismology of the area; one of them stated, "Despite ten years of U.S. Geologic Survey studies in the L

area, there is still gr :t uncertainty about when and where earthquakes are likely, to occur."

(Augusta Chronicle, January 8,1984, p.' 9B)

The' Commission's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research further acknowledged the need for additional study following NUREG/CR-3756 when, on May 7,1984, 'through its Division of Contracts, it issued a Request for Proposal on " Charleston Earthquake Research Program." This was described as follows:

I

-m,

,,r a

---a--,.

--n---

f

~

f

. "The contractor shall develop geophysical and geological information that will identify and differentiate the range of theories that may help explain the

- course of seismicity near Charleston, South Carolina.."

(Attachment 5, Weekly Inforination Report, Division of Contracts, Week Ending May 11,1984)

As this Board is aware, it is not the burden of the intervenor, at this point, to prove the merit of its contantion (Alabama Power Company, Joseph M. Farely Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-183, 7 AEC 210., 216, 1974).

The petitioner is not required to detail 1.he evidence which will be offered in support of the contention (Mississippi Power Company, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426, 1973).

Instead, the contentions must be sufficiently detailed "(a) to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and further inquiry into the matter is warranted and. (b) to put the parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose."

(Washington Public Power Supply Systems, gal., WPPSS, Nuclear Project No. 3,. ASLBP No. 83-486-01 OL, September 27,

~1983)

In this last case, the Licensing Board's ruling on a question of seismic l

capability is. directly to the point:

~ "We find the proposed contention to be supported by an adequate basis to be

~

litigable...The method of asse > sing site seismology was shown to be open to question.

System may well be able to provide the answer to satisfy the criticisms.

Until it is done, the as'sessment, involving a matter that can be j

vital to health and safety. is not adequately justified. The issue must be resolved on the record before a final determination can be made. Further inquiry into the matters raised is fully warranted." (p. 24, Attachment 6)

Sufficient new information is available to raise significant unresolved questions that, merit adoption of CPG-5 (as amended) as a litigable contention.

1 These questions have been raised by the USGS letter, by NUREG/CR-3756, by the hiring j

l of University of South Carolina professors to study the situation, by the

- participation of the applicant in an ongoing industry study on the issue and by RFP

(

No. RS-RES-84-128 (Attachment 5, the request for proposal cited above) to require l

l resolution on the record before a final deterinination can be made. The applicant l-may well_ be able to resolve these questions to the satisfaction of the intervenors

'and the Board.

However, "until it is done, the assessment, involving a matter that I

l

,r-www---,--y,

, _,,,y wv,.

3,w.c, e,-w_,-ww,--

- -.. -.. -,.. - -. - - ~ -

'[

4 can be vital to health and safety, is not adequately justified.

Further inquiry into the matters raised is fully warranted."

July 26, 1984 Respectfully submitted, i

~

Tim Johnson Executive Director Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 175 Trinity Ave. SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404)659-5675 i

)

t O

L.

h l

f

~

/!la M +

f Understanding an 1886 Quake New Seismic Concern Assessed 100, Appendix A, " Seismic and Geo-that although there is no recent or What began as a " Dear Bob" letter late in 1982 from an of-logic Siting Criteria for Nuclear historical evidence that other regions ficial of the U.S. Geological Power Plants", developed by the have experienced strong earth-Survey (USGS) to a colleague in the Atomic Energy Commission. It quakes, the historical record is not, of Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rested on an interpretation years ago itself, sufficient grounds for ruling set in motion a 15-month, $3.1 mil-by geologists and seismologists that out the occurrence in these other re-lion research program, largely un-seismic activity was a continuous, gions of strong seismic ground mo-d:rwritten by utilities which have

" stationary" process-that is, that tions similar to those experienced 1

nuclear power plants operating or be-geographic areas with no historical near Charleston in 1886. Although i

ing built east of the Rocky Moun-record of quake activity were thought the probability of strong ground mo-tains.

to have a low potential for quakes in tion due to an earthquake in any That one-page letter of Nov.18, the future, especially big ones. As re-given year at a particular location in 1982 spurred the industry to get itself cently as the end of 1980, the USGS the eastern seaboard may be very

]

into a strong technical posture, just felt that the likelihood "of a low, detarministic and probabilistic in case that program and a com-Charleston-sized event in other parts evaluations of the seismic hazard j

panion one mounted by NRC indi-of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont is should be made for individual sites in cates that changes may be required in very low."

the eastern seaboard to establish the the seismic design basis for plants Now USGS has backed away from seismic engineering parameters for ccst of the Rockies. Such a deter-that. As James F. Devine, its assistant critical facilities."

mination could involve a costly out-director for engineering geology, put Initial Interest i

lay some years hence if upgrading is it in that letter to Robert Jackson, needed to satisfy a more stringent li-head of the geosciences branch in That letter had long been antici-censing regime.

NRC's engneering division:

pated. In fact, for years the Advisory Tae letter dealt with an earthquake

... no geologic stnicture or fea-Committee on Reactor Safeguards that caused vast damage to Charles-ture can be identified unequivocally has been something of a catalyst in ton, S.C. in 1886. Experts are far from as the source of the 1886 Charleston urging that greater efforts be made to certain what produced that quake, earthquake. However, as studies in resolve those uncertainties, and early cnd for years they have been uneasy the Charleston region and elsewhere in 1982 its subcommittee on " extreme with the assumption that any future along the Atlantic margin have pro-external phenomena" convened on major seismic activity would occur gressed, it hcs become evident that the issue with experts in the geo-only in that general area. Their di-the gene:al geologic stnicture of the sciences. In March the five commis.-

lemma is a curious exercise in nega-Charleston region can be found at sioners were alerted by William J.

tives: they have not invalidated that other locales within the eastern sea-Dircks, executive director for oper-cssumption, yet they cannot rule out board (Appalachian Piedmont, At-ations, that any " major modifications the possibility that it may be an un-lantic Coastal Plain and the Atlantic of the former USGS position could t:nable one.

Continental Shelf).

have a significant impact on many "Because the geologic and tectonic eastern U.S. nuclear plant sites."

AEC Rules features of the Charleston region are Acting on the new USGS ap-To the regulators, the problem is similar to those in other regions of proach, which an NRC official wrote that the assumption underlies 10 CFR the eastern seaboard, we conclude was "not so much a new under-30 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

u-

,1 standing but rather a more explicit ' subcommittee on seismic design Specific parts of the overall objec-recognition of existing uncer-bases is acting as the licensing inter-tive are:

tainties," the Comrrussion approved face between the group and the

• -Strengthening the seismic haz-a two-part plan that involves an in-Commission.

ard methodology; t:nsification of research it has funded

-* Considering a comprehensive since the early 1970s. One part deals Industry Effort set of tectonic models or hypotheses I

with'a short-term probabilistic as-A member of the owners' group, for geologic causes of large earth-srssment using an extensive new Ruble A. Thomas, vice president, quakes in the east, and developing saismic hazard study being de-nuclear for Southern Company Ser-the specific application and physical

.veloped by Lawrence Livermore vices Inc., said that industry and meaning of each for earthquake gen-N1tional I.aboratory. The second is a NRC are carrying out parallel but in-eration; long-term deterministic assessment dependent studies on the question of

• Compiling from existing sources

~of the causes of big quakesin the east probability of quakes, and that in-a data base for use in evaluating such as the one at Charleston.

formation is exchanged between these hypotheses, a tectonic frame-them. The concept is to provide in-work and specific seismic sources; M thodology Uncertain dustry with a sound methodology,

• Adding a major technical input A memo from Richard H. Vollmer, he said, to come up with " regional to the NRC's comparative evaluation

' director of NRC's division of engi-evaluations of seismicity in the east-of seismic hazard at existing nuclear

. neering, notes. that there are many ern states... that will be available plant sites; hypotheses about the locale of future for utilities for their use to determine e Generating broadly based scien-

. big quakes there, none of them defin-their own seismicity on a probabil-tific support for the program results;

. itive and all contaming a high degree istic basis."

• Working closely with NRC and

- of speculation.

He said that the Commission has its Lawrence Livermore program;

. "Probabilistic methods which al-not determined how the information

• Identifying additional actions

. Iow for the consideration of many gathered by itself and industry will and investigations that could signifi-

~

bilities, and the explicit incorporation ' be used in the licensing process, but cantly strengthen confidence in the hypotheses,'their associated credi-iof uncertainty are much better

.it is considering modifying its rules to program results and reduce overall include the probabilistic assessment uncertainty.

equipped to provide national frame-of quakes as well as the determmistic The huge area of uncertamty sur-works for decisionmaking," he : approach. Like the probabilistic risk rounding the earthquake issue sur-

_ noted.."The question that needs to assessment of an accident occurring faces constantly in talks with NRC, be answered is:

within a nuclear plant, he said, it EPRI and industry figures connected "Taking uncertamties into account, could be considered without nec-with the research programs. It is a

= have licensing decisions for plants in essarily being a legal requirement or cloud, however distant, that lies near the eastem seaboard (i.e., in the re-a rule.

the horizon of 70 or more plants in gion affected by the USGS clarified An objective stressed by EPRI's the eastern United States. And the

position on the Charleston Earth-program is to set the industry "in a formation of the Seismicity Onwers qquake) resulted in acceptable levels : technically strong position to re-Group is an industry response-less

cf assumed seismic hazard (exposure spond to any positions taken by the costly and of shorter duration-to earthquake ground motion) at the ~ NRC as a result of the agency's comparable to the establishment of individual sites?"

change in position regarding as-the Industry Degraded Core Rule-p Industry's response to that ques-sessment of large earthquakes in the making (IDCOR) program, a $13.5

~ tion in 1983 was to establish the Seis-east."

million industry project from early

micity Owners' Group under the di-1981 to mid-1984 to develop a tech-rection of Sherwood Smith, chauman Experts Needed nical position on the issue of a severe Land president of Carolina Power oc The program will involve six or accident.

Light Co. This group includes some seven teams of expertrr-smad teams But Thomas noted that IDCOR

-45 eastern utilities which are con-of two or three persons-working in meant " responding to a proposed tributmg $2.6 mdbon toward the re-

~several regions east of the Rockies.

rule. That's the difference, we're not

search program, which is expected to An EPRI source, noting that contracts doing that here. At the'same time, it

'yi;ld results early in 1985. An ad-

- have been let and work has been in is a professional study on a very ditinnal $500,000 is being provided progress.since late 1983, said one dif-complex subject, to try to bring as l by the El-ctric Power Research Insti-ficulty has been in recruiting qual - much professionalism and sound-tute in Palo Alto, which is acting as. ified experts who can devote long ness as you can to the phencmena tMAz.1 manager of the project. The - stretches of time to such a project, that you're talkmg about."

ff Atomic Industrial Forum through its

'especially during an academic year.

-John Ma re 31

' JANUARY 1984 e -

- -, - - + -,,,,..,

-r

,---,-,wn-,-

- - - - = ~,-www-.

w,w,w,

-vw,

. - ~,,

w-

-w-w-,-,~,

v~

A& hun i i

{

Nuclear Information anc Resource Service

' 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW. 4th Floor. Washington. 0.C. 20036 (202) 296-7552 May 23, 1984 James M.-Felton, Director Division of. Rules and Records Office of Adminstration U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

)

Dear Mr. Felton:

J Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, as amended, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service ~re-quests the followin3 documents regarding the Charleston

' Earthquake of 1886 und seismic design for the Vogtle nuclear Please consider " documents" to include power plant.

reports, studies, test results, correspondence, memoranda, i

. meeting notes, meeting minutes, working papers, graphs,

)

charts, diagrams, notes and summaries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forms of written communication, including internal NRC Staff memoranda.

The documents are-specifically requested from, but not limited to, the-Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD);

. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (Research);. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR); Generic Issues Branch of the Division of Safety Technology, NRR; and the Operating

-Reactors Branches of the Division of Licensing.

In your response, please identify which documents correspond to which requests below.

r Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents pre-pared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to:

1. The Millett earthquake fault postulated to exist 7 miles from the Vogtle reactor site (USGS Open File Report No.82-156);

2. The implications for the siting and seismic design of the Vogtle nuclear plant of the 1886 Charleston earthquake; b 3. The development (and any subsequent reanalysis) of a Safe X Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and an Operating Basis Earthquake

/(OBE)fortheVogtlenuclearplant;

4. Contract No. RS-RES-84-128 " Charleston Earthquake

~

\\

q

-2 (ResearchProgram";

5. All correspondence between USGS and the NRC regarding the CCharlestonearthquake,theMillettfaultortheVogtle nuclear plant; and

6. All NRC Staff memoranda or correspondence related to the j

seismic design and/or siting of the Vogtle nuclear plant.

n our opinion, it is appropriate in this case for you to waive copying and search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(A) "because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public."

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a non-profit organization serving local organizations concerned about n'uclear power and providing information to the general public.

Sincerely, Nina Bell Nuclear Safety Analyst oc: File

mM W * --

• 7 - 3 ky me.w g 4

_m n'e'5$g g'.tps.:.[m;~ q ; g e

X

' %. v oil w %.

J K<

. ~.g y

. ~

' u lE W-Q5 6 2. %n.p': $y:n. c. m.x.- n..

w Thie

'EEIA'W:. $:

S S' M O &.a...g n;Y-U h ' -

~

p W. r,.u.,$ a $a x..<..-

m ky M.ys;tt h U d A.'h.M,N h '4 @d$h!lN EibN M b dL5A.:

Q)fb/s>.%ma.m. site fis ' located 'in -the Atlantic' Co i

t 2eyA. :.:n.4.; ;- n ~';. m -:.:.1m :c.. pm..

..,. <.+ v. ~c l

y.e-m

.ge wan w. m.4 %.d. -26 miles southeentleif. Augueta,;Geergia, '~

%y%ys-m

...dww Di5$~i.W-x.Provisan, appr=i==*=1y.:m.w.+ s e m. p*.n.:m.r..m,, zW **W n'% T.g. ~~

. ~N

^*

.w...,

m

~ '.

?

mg. e x-

,w.:..

.t; {.'.i. 'e-W:ww,m the;esoterminergia'af theliften spland'and-adja W 4..] !X'ijk?*.yT'1'4'*' -,'*AT@

b M-l+~a @ m

s..

4;.o

.s a.,

.a

=p

~, x,n.

.-c..

-.. a,. w.. u n-..x...-

=

m+

.n

+.:...

4m w

~m ii b ic t l Plats m.

,(n..

.r, Sesammah River.'v' De plant will he andar a s' r oas a..

w '? n.

' ' ~ *...

a.,

e 3'

.. sediamats consisting of fama 800 to 1000. feet of pr=4a=i==tly

a. -

N'

g. u

, g e @..!r emi 'b :..a.*. f.

.~7e-s j.

F :

'E9

~

elays, sends;11asstene, and ear 1~, zanging islage frea. N.-

w

.w w.,e c.

L-

.a y.~.,.w:&..

An appemently domeCasited bleek of ~.*

.... ~.,.,....... e,a...

p

t..-

Cuatasseus to'.Becent.

n.

[.

Triassic red bede underlie the-Coastal Flaim mediamats@ Igneous

~..... ~.

.. +,.

+..

a.

+

~

v.

s

.and matemorykie roehm typical of the Fiah rocks la terma.1

-mr

- m..=.

+., ',...

4,-

n

..:.n..,

anderlie~ the Triassie red.(.bedsi. ' N. ; QyW. E.e w

..... e.,...

w., n.,, o 3

~

,..~

n

. ~

n... e.._..:e.

. & n :,.

w:.. v 4... n, r.s. w ~.- :..

. r.

w m

-m

... =

...v A4aemat to and northmost'of the AHame'4e Ceest r

. ~.

e.e w

.i L

.. m.. : w. w Q.; y 4.;;f g.np.e.,:w.w.**'.

.c'*. a

' e8 x

. ~-y op -'

Provines is the Piedmont Proviaes.? 1bie benadery between the.

...* y.

. w

• m v.

A ;.;.,.;

.i * * -. :

.. ;p

,: ;.,,n.

- _.,.. g: m;

,..g;3.. g ; _.

. :. L

.. ~.

.a.

w._, _ _

b.

m a :t,,-.

_ ' w ;M=x cis kasus asithe Fall Line ubiek 'is' appremiantely

..w..

a n

.%,. ' e

m.. - *,

t.m c.

two

. a.-

. 4..

Rocks that characterise the 1.=.,- w.-., w.i.-../

25 miles mortlweet of the site.

.o

~.

Ot M k t N M tak iia $a

.rw

,, ;, e.,

M C'

~~

.r,,,.

-~. -c s.

r

- 4.

.r,

. Fall' Limes 'but so stemeturally sismiftamat W entstsW.

. V s.- - 4.;

,4* v,. ~ e. c '.,.

, - + -

m.

. s,. v..m..t.....

+ w se.*

..n.=, n...;4' ~,.. e.e.m..e s o t..

9.,:.. ;9.,,

.4 p',

-w M'. M ISE N..

.s

'4

.., 'n. m

.,.,.e-p * =' pas a.

. 9 w s..

f

,. b > M 17 kWriSd,StrWCtWrab

. v s

7.y e-ar.g* y

. c w,wam...r.m..- a n~ - -'~

^

i is m

. =.:

m.

.Flata.is asweH M.,,. I,,Df par'ddae @im to g s te m,,,4

+

.e-u s s no,s. p

• ,ug,..

Q.-

~ + :.- u..

-;;q - i. @...

[

J'

,.,e;

~..c.. -.n

.:..a w

r+.

W...

the Southeastaan:ttnited States -is the -testante 'fesesse, that; n,.--

p '- h :: n.

5,;

w.y an

. g.,.ii.:..w; m~ %. 7.*'mp&a ~g.;s.'.:..

m..:

er the seismic SCtivitF ^$a the;"TicinitF [of,.

..,x z.

%.::: n.,Q: &:. n.w.w'W

.va.o-e

-.......pow. J :,a ". 1..,s.

- Q. f,

'f.m.;

.e

--. = *.es

...3

.".13 reSpensible g m.r... m w. n m %,.. 3' ': w.- a ~ :.z. p-. w a.;: w :

,2.-

,Qr *..%

U.h..ep. blestmi 'SOWth CSEOliaS incM' * ~ we thS,TSIF

-' E h h 4 l

~'~

z ' W-4 pe i

r.r

- w;r... e~n-Q g. *rd'l...

-ww niw o.,e m I

g,y;g ;.y _-

yy n g.% w.p

.,,.w w w.g. g.g..: x m _g esq.y, g_ ten O@. '

Vi k k M. )qw'a1..,.eifietr.ew:. enemair that -se es=f*m.aw ww=mmewerdru m

l

=

.id

.e.'

.e'

r.......,. '$*.

., fi[. f.

., *F.'-$.

, ~.

'?g.,

'-%.v.

.N

-W

• p'

~ ~ * ' ~. :.'*

' ri

^

~'T-.-

...l.g-::,Q.i G. ?,$.%.:..'.~1.

n~z..r.=:

=(,Q.L.; )*.'.'.,'.l.- ".. j.

'~ :

W^o.,,.

,J-*

8

.v'-

,Q ;

t'? -

f

... l Q.:

' 4 '., e,*

d*w...-

..'.h.

jf hX.pl.'..

7...L.... \\,,

.%L y. d,.

ll-

~

.w

~...- ~,.,.,,

j ?* f' f 3 R.. :. (.

1.'-

...'a jk

..u.

f

.... 3, y. s.,,,-**,

, m ' ' ',..*l a,. q

_s m.,

~...,..$.....,,,e**

g p, ',

,r....<

+,

T _, ~

. s..,

j'

• b w.

fap *%*,

'E'

• . f

..2,.J...,,.:s"..

?-

3 v

.g.a.

w. ~.

.....~-.,..__...-------c..

,,w

1 1

,,J/ 7.@gq%Q

...e.

, ;o.:c.1.- m, W;,e.a; s

.:.-n

.m..

a..,.u n.e.

.'L ~-

to the area in the vicinity cf &melasten."..Evidense, *though.M

.-m-v r

l w..,

2 i...

v

-a

- '..',m;+

s q.;)_.. Q :*.,d!:,.}#.['

..s,

t-

..', f._.D. y.;.

lial.ted, seems to indicate that the nisserous earthquakes that:W.!c.gt,_

,m.,U.'p" c

ta

+-

r.

.-. t e i

.t l

t

..s.-

..a... :gw.x,.

l

.... ~ m...:....>

.. n.m.... ;,..

have occurred in the Qiarlestop vicinity are localised along the'.::d:. g@..^-

x.

. ~,

l e p :.,3y.m. m w,;.g.,3 4,,g-g g g.g_

.. L, ; :... m,. 2 deepest part of the northsest trending Southeast Georgia-

'.,m c. '. AGjh g,g.. ;. o. p,.. g.;,g.,..

c.w.,

s.

u.. c., a.

2,,.

Embayamme.

The Charleston area is apprazinstely 100'ailes east, (i. y!.i,.,

... -.-....v ;.

,a ?>

, e,--

southeast of the site.'

n' u-v.

.c The site ' lies within a mortheast trending Triassic Basin.

.m approximately 1 mile southeast of the northeast trending probable-

. m.. :.. ;=.

c

... n. _

fault that forms the northern boundary of the Triassic Basin..,

.. n :c.,... w.w,.

We and our U.S.C.S. advisors are of the opinion that any faniting associated with this Triassic Basin does not appear to have been

~

tectonically active sinos Cretaceous ~ time.~ Furthermore, there are

. p.

v. &

no other identifiable fanits"or other 'yousg geologic,.... structures r.. a-n

- : e. - c. Sur.

m. a.a.

.w r. s ;. 1

1....

in the areas that might be aspected to laemHam seismicity in the w.

....-.. u

,-,.:.w.u.n

.,w. u.=

x..,

immediate vicinity of the site.

e. n. 2 r - ~ -.. m;.a t.

va,2

~

u..:.

l 1.5.2 Sita Geolow y :e Solutioning of a amar surface limestame strata has g-f _ z f x.+..v l

surfaes @essions throughout the site area.- 1s assure adegestai.,;;;.

.^ ~.. -

,, a 1 4..

~

4

-. ~.

c.,.

-.+, -

. q.,.

-.a q c,.,.p

...yr foundation conditions to support the plast structussi ' the app 11 east ~ J~

r.: m..e-. y Su-t m _, e.2 e.% %,;.74 will remove all strata imeloding the soldla 11assteen strate---#....'g.

.. ~.

., 7.-...,,,. m.. 3 u,#g,,,

.g,..

4 down ta firm, hard, clam 1,.at,elev_ation 126. Salast oasd5f..&w..

4 3..3'm

._.,c...._.

5., - -.s, ;(... g.

,.a r.

j.:

backfill or lean cameress will be place.d.from the tap.af,the fins ~,r. '.

v a, n,..

.. p. =, -

x.

u.. ~ :

...-.. m.

o g.a.

clay-marl bearing strata up to the design elevottom cf the Category.1,'.;

c '. vv. L. :. :. M..,M %.. W..

...a : m 4.).

e 1

w.

,n

=~ r 2: a w,.e.. A,..; @.r :

structussa.

.J.

' 'g,

. ',[,s\\.' Q

-.,o

.. ~ :...E,.l* ; s.;.

.m

.. ~. -

k.. :,

.s v

. 4.. M,., a,.y.\\a ?.%.

.. s.

..,.u.,

, T,

~: s,..

~

.#,.,'. (* 4 a,. b'. #,

.,..'j g G ' 4* * ' ',

t.

4. -

+ f i,**

_%.. Id.

..3

~ ; ' f, ' T *.

a.

• c.-

.....4.,p ))l r

{

a

,5 I~ ~.4 *#

• f.

_ pg 4

^* 4

,,, p,,. a g p.,,., @. r. p..c

3 a.

O, t.

.s v,; i s-

-N

v

' \\*V Q

g s

4 4

4.3.9 Vogtle (VO) 4.3.9.1: General-The.Vogtle site is located in the southeast region of the IUS.

It is classified as a soil site For none of the seismicity experts does the site

' f all into the C2,' but it always falls into a zone associated with the

' Charleston ares.-

s 4.9.9.2 PGA Hazard Curve Table 4.1 shows that.for;most of the seismicity experts the dominant zone is a large area surrounding a limited Charleston zone. For Experts 1 and 2 at low

>7

PGA levels the small zone with higher magnitude / intensity cutoff dominates;

[L-and at higher PGA levels the larger zone, with also a high magnitude / intensity cutoff takes over. 1For experts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, the site is

-located within a zone of high magntude/ intensity cutoff which dominates the hazard at both low and high PGA levels.. In the cash of expert 13, the small

- (q'

. Charleston zone dominates at low PGA levels by contributing 97% of the hazard. For this' expert, high PGA levels the.CZ becomes the dominant zone.

The CZ'has a magnitude cutoff only slightly lower than zone 9 (6.3 versus 6.8 for sone 9) which has a surface area several orders of magnitude greater than zone 9. - Figure V01 presents the HC for all experts combined. The spread exhibited by the seismicity experts is rather large (a factor of 12 to 15 at low PGA and 50 to 70 at high PGA between the lowest and the highest BEHC of

~

experts 2 and 12). The BEHC of experts 2 and 12 are the two extremes, although only expert's 12 data leads to an outlier, significantly lower than the other experts, as' shown on Fig. V02. This is due.in part to the relatively low seismicity and low magnitude cutoffs attributed to the zones at the site and surrounding the site. The dispersion in the hazard estimates represented by the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile curves in Fig. V03 is similar to the dispersion observed for other sites. Note, howaver, that the BEHC is higher than the 50th percentile (by a factor of 2 o 3).

.4.3.9.3 Uniform Hazard Spectra The BEUBS presented in Fig. V04 for the 5 selected RP's appears to be smooth, o

without departure at any period. This is due to the very stable shape of the

• curves obtained for each of the experts, shown in Fig. V05. Figure VOS shows that aside from experts 2 and 12 which appear to be clear outliers for this site,,the remaining experts are constrained within a very narrow band of values; typically less than a f actor of 3 between the lowest curve in the L

clue:er and the highest curve in the cluster. The same comments apply to Fig.

V06. As a result, the uncertainty analysis leads to 15th-50th and 50th-85th intervals. in the same range as the ones obtained for the typical sites (i.e.

moderate values) instead of much man 11er values which could be obtained by removing the outliers or updating the-input data of the outliers. The same comments apply for the 1,000 year and 10,000 year pP curves of Fig. V08 and V09.

It is also remarkable that for these three cases the BEUES lies practically on top of the CPUES.

4 e

-168-

~

R.C. k M6.

y WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT DIVISION OF CONTRACTS WEEK ENDING MAY 11,1984

~

c IFB ISSUED I FB No. : RS-ORM-84-386

Title:

" Preventive, Remedial and On-Call Maintenance on Data General Computer

.and Peripheral Equipment"

==

Description:==

The contractor shall provide preventive, remedial and on-call maintenance for NRC-owned computers and peripheral equipment located within~ the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

Period of Performance: Two years Sponsor: Office of Resource Management Status:

IFB opened on May 3,1984.

RFP ISSUED RFP No. : RS-RES-84-128

/Tilt e:." Charleston Earthquake Research Program"

-Description:.The contractor shall develop geophysical and geological information that will identify and differentiate the range of theories that may help expla'in the course of seismicity near Charleston, South Carol ina.

Period of Performance: Two years with one year option

' Sponsor: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Status: RFP issued on May 7,1984.

• Proposals due on June 7,1984 RFP No'.:

RS-RG1-8'4-432

Title:

' " Radiophones"

==

Description:==

Purchase _of radio-telephone system to assist response team members in Region I's Emergency Operations Facilities. The system is being procured under a two rtep formal advertising procedure..

Period of Perfonnance: To be detennined under Step 2 Sponsor: Region I Status:

RFP Step 1 issued on May 8,1984 Proposals due on June 8,1984.

CONTRACT AWARDED Contract No.: -NRC-04-84-120

Title:

" Scientific and Engineering Assistance and Services"

~

Description:

The contractor shall make available uniquely qualified individuals for service on specific technical reviews and/or peer review committees as the NRC requirements are identified. The contractor shall develop a list of these specialists with NRC concurrence so-that they may be available to NRC on a timely basis, as their services are needed..

. Period of Perfonnance: Three years Sponsor: Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research Status: A cost plus. fixed fee task order 8(a) contract awarded to SBA: Enginee-ing and Economic Research, Inc. in the amount of $349,167.00 effective May 2,1984 ENCLOSURE A MAY I1 1934

~. - - - - - - -.--

sm Anehmed c t

CCcy.ETE?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L'i S O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D E 2I El 62 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3efore Administrative Judges:

c.77.;;..: : n..,.

, Morton 8. Margulies, Chaiman UC0i'SI:G 4 SE.S."

Frederick J. Shan M3 Dr. Richard F. Foster sgs0 SEP ?.7 30

)

Docket No. 50-508 In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC PO'WER SUPPLY

.ASLBP No. 83-486-01 OL SYSTEMS,- ET AL.

~~

...r 3 )

(WPPSS, Nuclear ProjectjNEF;;~3) i ~ )

September 27, 1983

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER sRulino on Proocsed Cententions)

By Memorandum and Order of April 21,1983, this Licensing Board r-found that petitioner. Coalition For Safe Power (Coalition) satisfied the interest and standing requirements of 10 CFR 2.714 for intervention in the proceeding but. required the submission of a litigable contention for c

it to be admitted as a party intervenor.

-Coalition filed a supplement to its petition on June 15, 1983 contah.ing 17 proposed. contentions.

On July. 6,1983 Applicant, j

Washingbn-Puolic Power Supply System (Supply System) responded j

I objecting to the admissability of all proposec contentions.

Nuclear _

Regulatory Staf f (Staff), in its answer of July 11, 1983 concluded 12 of th' proposed contentions to be inadmissable, with the remainder

.<-3 litigable 1n whole, in part or combined.

..,, u.

i !, I 's., 3 C. #..[ ',E' 4

O

,P.<.-

. 4 or"has no't justified its position."

It claims the letter transmits a serias of questions to be asked of the licensee regarding its analysis, similar to' the hundreds of questions any Appl.icant.must answer from the Staff (Tr. 77).

We find the proposed contention supported by an adequate basis to be litigable.

The letter details areas that the evaluation did not show I

were considered.

The method of assessing site seismology was shown to be open to question. Supply System may well be able to provide the answer to satisfy the criticisms.

Until it is done, the assessment, involving a matter that can be vital to health and safety, is not adequately justified. The issue must be resolved on the record before a final detennination can be made.

Further inquiry into the matters raised is fully warranted.

Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for submitting a litigable contention.

ProposedontentionSixteen:

Petitioner contends that the Applicant has underestimated the cost of WNP-3 operation in the cost-benefit analysis required by 10 C.F.R.

Section 51.21 in that Applicant had underestimated the effects of WNP-3 operation on aquatic biota of the Chehalis River.

The admissibility of the proposed contention has been stipulated to by the Applicant, Staff and Petitioner (Exhibit 1).

We also find the proposed contention meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b).

. c.

Schedule Fcr Further Actions.

'dt=theconferenceApplicantadvisedofitsintentiontofilean appeal from the. Licensing Board's rulincs..in this matter. The g partiTcipants agreed that.at the conclusion of the, appeal process., if a

.. {.,.

w-l.

t

[

UNITED STATES OF AMEP.ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

Q';'E r-In the Matter of

" '?4 GEORGIA POWER CO., et al.

)

DocketNos.50*844gdp-

-(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

%~ z.y: u-s79

ahkC-s.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing Response to Licensing Board Inquiry Concerning Seismic Contention were served by deposit with the U. S. Postal Service in the City of Atlanta for Express Mail delivery to the Licensing Board and for first class delivery to all other parties to this proceeding this twenty-sixth day of July, 1984.

Tim Johnson Executive Director Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 175 Trinity Ave. SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404-659-5675

V' y ;o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER CO., et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425

)

(Yogtle Electric Ganerating Plant,

)

Units 1 and, 2)

)

SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atcmic Safety & Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Gusteve A. Linenberger Bernard M. Bordenick, esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Director Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Carol A. Stangler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 425 Euclid Terrace Washington, D.C.

20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Douglas'C. Teper Dan Feig 1253 Lenox Circle 1130 Alta Avenue

.. Atlanta, Georgia 30306.

Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Jeanne Shorthguse George F. Trowbridge 507 Atlanta Avenue Ernest.L. Blake, Jr.

Atlanta, Georgia 30315 David R. Lewis Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge James E. Joiner 1800 M Street, N.W.

Sumner C. Rosenberg Washington, D.C.

20036

. Troutman,, Sanders, Lockerinn & Ashmore 127 Peachtree-Street N.E.

Ruble A. Thomas Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Southern Company Services, Inc.

P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202