ML20114F577
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.
s..<f j.
s April 21,1966 l
Q-MEMORANDlM FOR CHAIRMAN SEABORG C(Be(ISS100mt - FALFREY Cope (ISSIONER RAMEY C(BeIISSIONER TAPI j
SUEJECT:
BRIEF OF INTEEVENDR, MARBLEHEAD LAND CONFANY, IN THE MALIBU FROCEEDING l
t Marblehead Lead Company, an intr rvenor in the Malibu preseeding, has filed a volumissus brief in support' of its propeoed findings of fast sad seesiusione of inw which I received today.
Section VI of-that brief consists of criticles of the performenee of the regulatory staff.
Since this may becone the subject of newspaper easeent, I en anslosing a copy of Section VI for your information.
t l
l
' Sic"ed) ELP Harold L. Fries Direster of Regulation Enslosures As stated above ec:- Ceneral Manager j
General Counsel Seeretariat 9210130186 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
/-*
N Ornct >
...HL ric.e/ma..
=c
.4L211.6.6.. W....
...)
,p
.m>
io..unan#ui
..............,,...,,,o i-....
. ~..
a
'/
=.
ti t *-
t s.
et it et O
D t'
- 1 D
e
- r sa C
p y 0
r:
C p
O O
If t> -
- t*
u*
p O
to O
O tt O
O t>
t:
O GJ
- (
o O
O ct O
O C
is 03 r,
- O t*
t ti
- 1 O
C rt O,
P-rt O
rt tt I,
p D
O tt
'O O
LO t/s O.
p tt
- r ft
- r C
O t2 O
D If ti D
et O
v1 t '*
fie O
O tt O
D tt rt
+)
l ts O
O O
D O
r1 o
O tt et O
O tt
- r
- 5 C2 O
D tt i
il P-t fi t1 O
tt if tt O
O
=
tia
- O O
tr t !i F*
O O
- O P
O M
p tt et
- f D
(*
tt P
tt O
tt O
D s
n V-M O
- J
- j O
tr t'
O M
if
- U C
O O
Ft D
re rt W
'O t:
h*
t-ht t:
V' ta p
D r
O O
- )
et O
tt O
t:
O O
to it S.
O I >I P
U-ca et "U
O F-O O
O D
C O
ct M
ti F-O O
O
- O p
o
- U O
O t te et t>
O tr (L
D O
y
- r
(;
rt rt f(
g' te p*
O 0,
f:
f*
tt M
O.
O O
t t.
O t'
l3 w
o O
t ii
- O F-r
- r O
th O*
rt F-vi P
O 0
O e
O O
O O
O P
O t *-
O S
tt O
p L'.
D U
tj t i-t i.
rt
- 1 CJ D
tt it r
t '-
O O
D w
F2 O.
Er i,
O O
F-O p*
- r O
O il
(*
t '-
- 1 ce tt O
V-D D
V-O D*
O tt O
O t ts M
et is i
- P 4
s p
p*
(*
O D
C f:
N O
P-O t
tt
- O O
t' ti p
O-rt re in O
O O
O O
O O
O p
O D
O D
p' y
t :.
t '-
C O
C4 e '-
rt tt O
p O
e P
O c.
v-rt p
er 8;
c O
o t-O O.
- O
- 1 ti rt in P
(t O
p*
N t*
M F*
O
- )
- 1 if ge e
O O
l '-
D
- n rt f'.
0 ti O
(J If ti II r,
o o
O t e.
O O
p O
O t-tt o
o c.
t ti rt t;
O 4
D D
0 D
- O ti M
te
[]
O p'-
O O
O O*
I4 O
th tt O
O
- 1 O
D to
- d O
- r
'O ti t;
O t '-
M CL C
U*
tt O
ft t"
O O
M 0) t' L e-t>*
C (t
O
- 1 O
P D
et ib tt f3 ti O
O' O
O M
ta
()
D D
O t.: Y O
O t*
r.
M
- 3 O
O
>h t*
8 ti D
r8 CI t*
O tL O
w a
O.
9*
I ',
t'
()
O O
- )
D o
(;
C l'
O P
O l8 O
O t'.
t'
[1 t '-
O t.
t*
t; D
- t O
D (s
(1 O
D D
(t t '-
l '-
p 11 D
D tb O
ve C
G t *-
t, t s.
I*
O?
M O.
- J ff l1 O
M
'l D
ti o
et f"
to to u
o O
(%
O O*
ti t '-
O t;
D et 1-t3 O
tt O
w t *.
t' O
O c
e it
- 1 O
O t:
O O
O O
6 tt,
- O O.
O to o
fi
- )
b*
O O
t.
M 0
0 O*
- fe
- 1 O
t *-
t '-
D
- O O
t '.
J
'1 r1 0 -?
C t e-Es O
t ri et j!
O P
O O
O
- s t;
O re C
D t;
O tt rt O
O M
-i t '-
D ts
- J O
J r.
D
- J D
p*
C O
4 ti O
O Ir rt G
t' M
t.
O O
tt
'd f
ci O
O to O.
O (t
ti c
D M
t(
p t '-
O i:
'J O
O tt F'
- O tt ti t'
1:
ti rt
- O P-D Il 7
O O
p" D
ti O
O ft 4
t *-
- J De P
t '-
D D
O
(>
O t;
D D
O t2 ih O
t '-
M O
M O
P !s O
D o
ti O
t :.
t*
O ct
- 1 o
p t e-C rs O
G7 O
b*
rt O
ti O.
"O O
O D
M O
C O'
D O
t>
L 4-t; V
U N
O.
p O
O O
C M
O
- 1 O
t; t ;.
- s
- r
- 1 c.
.O D
o
- O D
O N
D te t '.
O O
o O
P O
D C
rt O
O ti O
I '.
O O
O' O'
o D
8; e.
tt O
t *-
- J
- )
O O
tt p
rt ts O
t e.
O t*
l v.
tt O*
- r 0,
et D.
m ti F-m F-t *-
et M
C D
et et rt o
O V
I '-
O O
O O
(t M
O r1 y
0, et t*
tl ti it rt 48-t *-
et C
V-D if tt D
O p*
O CD rt p*
P O
t t.
O D
O U*
rt rt F-e rt O
p rt M
O D
F-t t.
t O
t '-
tt O
+
M O
M tt t '-
M O
o p
tt, P
[3 C7 tti M
rt l
t l,_..._
.h
.*.1,
.. w C +. 6 w
- ..J
..V w.
v.
.w.
w.
II
- a 3.
s.
.t.,/.
.Lw
....g w
r.
L.,; s:. ).
- s.. w..,
- aav, a.w
..s w.
.r
- w..w w. j
.e v. M.- e.,..../...
w....,...2.,,
. s..,
j e.
,s e.. v....,,.,
.m........, C
-D.,
, N., r
...v
..w.
ws..
j w
s, O s..
H w....eww, s.
.. s.. w.,w.:.
...s e.
4 1
s..
C O
O,
.w l
I
.s..v..~ ;
%.~.,/C _ s..,
www.C.,,
.2 v.-.%.....,
.. s..w, %. c. s-O.-
e.
a u.w w
.j ov
.3
-ws 4..C~
e.
s 3
.. s w
i 2
3 3 0 w*.*1, W'..O *********..'e'w"
- b.. $ w 'w" w 4.
u.
- ~ *~
~..w
'.'..'..*4.'.o
C *
.w..sw.
w i
D w.:O..C
- s..w, CCCeS CO d s,,.. s..,
wCC~ >
...v.....U
...,.s...
C0, e
.w
.w-w w.
5 4..~.,w g.a, g. g d 4.)
..m.* erg J e..o~
0.
- 3 g w. J. 4. O n
~w..w" ~..#, w"." e' 'b' "
2 b
e w
.w wow..
w j
o y
I
.c C /...t..uu.wS h., G O u. C, v.Je~4->
.vw
.w..
.s..w
- u. o.1C >,
4
-jCCt:..4 qb.CS.:O e
DC v-.%. %.....
c.
.......3,j,,
. C t., w,.-.
. j
.vu
.. C C,s S w,.m. y v
..a C.OwS.C...
4..,,g.eO n.' O *.* C O * ' '.'.s v' ' ". O. C g-' 'w' w'.'.~.
"k..w" t '. ' '. '. - c, ' ' S "* 4*0n e
~
v..
.u.
DC TCrCCd hCCOUSC Of C non-rCSpOLSiVC Cam.'Or by Dr. DOCL i
('Tr. 1055, 1065, 107 7, 1090).
n rCSpOnSC CO C Speci*ic
~
C L.,S t.; O.,
,e%<
s.s..,,, n4.3.O v es C..s u..v0
. C e. C,w,aw...v..
(' ~A..
,~'.os,
%.. C w
vo /
..o m
C s.4 s. p w..C n
- s..w,. 4. C e e
s
-D vu s..w,..C..
w,C v v,w a C..v..
C..,.w.....w...
. w ww
.v.
w w
4
%..w,...
%..C
.a. 4..L.
C CC.D.i ww ww.. C w 3 3.y W w S n. V.,...., C. c. C' e h. 3. C J-9
.,, e.:..
3 o
.j t e.,
1.v^ o 5).
-no u..c p v. :,.
.u
., w.e..a., C w D O...
g...
..w,
.w..
-w u.
...,.nvy n-
...w. #.
w i
- p. " O.# QV C C'w' u ~w 0 n, '..w'
%..u~ c' C'.#.#.#.' C '
.*. )'... s W C '..* 4..*. o**~. '.. ' Q U C S 'w* 4.0 n 7
4 e
1 hCCCUSC hc COuld LOC CCCapC O s..C prCR: SG C.'.C C SUCn Cn CRCrCCUCy 3
b'Ou O CNCr CriSC ar.,1VVV-1.
,-~
n p w e C L,3. w...s, L.e, ?
e.....,,
m.s v... t
,.v.....,,, ju. v.c m.
v.
c w
.s o
u..
.,J,,.
,4u-c
'.,.a. g
.C-
.. : ~ ~... w.,,, c
.O w e. p...,,., O p # '.* -
u.
w w o - w... w.
.......o..w.,.
...y w
. ~.
u
- O.,
n 3 2. w, C v... ~ ~ CwVv
.wmov.-.wa.e m
. e V w..ww.w....n..
,s. w..
jj ww
.v, u
em
?
i r
j j
i
)
i in the event-of an cuergsney (Tr. 1051, 1053), even though f
it turned out that his opinion '.cd no basis in fact or 1
4 cxperience and that he had not thought the matter through 3
before expressing his opinion (Tr. 1081-9)..
3 i
]
Dr. Doan's performance was repcated by Mr. Caso, j
the Staff representative at the hearing following the recess, 1
Mr, Case, who presented no qualifications.as a stologist or 1
j scismologist (Tr. 6166 - Case, pp. 1-2),gave opinion testimony 4
a i
in these fields with reckless-abandon._ For-exampic,-at one i
j point he expressed the opinion that the scismic historyfas
{
reported by the United States Coast and Geodedic Survey had predictive value (Tr. 6221), specifically, that "you can 1
r predict with some degree of precision an upper limit of what i
siac carthquako'might occur during a relatively long period of time" (Tr. 6222).
Yet
.'t. Murphy, representing the United'
[
S tates Coas t and-Geodedic Survey, denied that the USC&GS data l
could be used for predicting carthquakes (Tr. 1431), and f
stated that the data were nothing more than an histo'tical i
j report on what had occurred during a recent period in the past (Tr. 1435, 1451).
4 i
Mr. Case was even brash enough to express an opinion on the carthquake magnitude that can reasonably be expected E
during the next 50 years in the Malibu coast conc, which he l
.s tated to be "about a magnitude of approximately G.5" J
G
- " ~ ~ -
+ - -
y,
'i.
. ~.,, _.,.
... -........, ~,.,_. -.__
.J-,,,-,-,,,..._,_-.,--,,e
(Tr. 6224)*
- ' hon asked what thcc statema..
- .: s bcccd upon, he responded blithcly, "It is based upon contidor:ble testi-mony concerning the geology of the site" (Tr. 6224).,
At an early stage, the Staff, like the Applicent, became firmly committed to the Corral Canyon site, and there-
[
after seemed to be more interested in vindicating its position thcn-critically judging the ecsc on its merits.
This was demonstrated by the Staff's successful effort to get the USGS to change beforo publication the single most important sentence
- in the entire case -- the OsOS conclusion on the probability-of surface faulting at Corral Canyon-during the life of the plant (M-56 :77 ; S-6 :186).
As origins 11y written by the USGS field geologists and submitted to Washington, c'r 2 conclusion
" Based on'the available geologic evidencu, the probability was:
of permanent ground displacement by faulting in the Corral Canyon site in the next 50 years is very low" (Tr. 4545-6) --
a conclusion quite similar to the USGS conclusion about the probability of surface faulting at Bodega head (sco p. 131, footnm.e *, suora).
Apparently fearful of any comparison with' Bodega head, the Staff demurred to the USGS conclusion on Corral-LCanyon on the ground that it sounded too much like the USGS 3
l s-it is difficult on this basic clone to see how the Staff'
. reached its conclusion that the probcbility of-curfcce fculting is "so low that it can be disregarced" (Secff Finding 61),- for the USGS stated that 'surfccc fculting "can be c::pected to i
accompany a shock of magnitude 6.5 or greater" (S-6:150).
8
~~ ~-
1 r
m
.. m
-wm_,.,-.
..m,_
,m
.,,,w.w.--c.
wrn y v,.w,r..v-v.v,,,,
~...
4 i
I conc 3.u'Jion in tac s,oGega nc0c Tc?Or0 (ar. OJ,J).
,,,na D tO t *c J
i 1'
advisce the USGS that it thould rcvit; its conclus on 4
~
(Tr. 4551-2, 6333), and the USGS cccommodated by changing "very low" to " negligible" (Tr. 4545-6).
This constituted a matorial change in meaning, for "nogligibic" clearly implies l
that the USGC thought that the probcbility was so low that i
it could be cisregarded.
The chance to "nogligibic" permitted the AEv 3taff, in its Hazcrds Analysis, to dismiss the prob 1cm i.
of surface faulting simply by quoting without conment the USGS report that the probability was "acgligible" (Tr.1024 - Staff Hazards Analysis, pp. 41-42).
The Staff merely stated:
"2ecause of the conclusion reached by the U. S. Geological Survey, we believe that tha possibility of differcatial ground motion at this site due to an earthquake need not be con-sidered
[i.e,.,
it is n3gligible)
." (Ifd, at 16).
The Staff's successful effort to change the original USGS conclusion raises two quer -ions :
(1) Since the USGS geologis ts used similar langungs to describe the probcbility of surface faulting at Sodega 'dcad and Corral-Canyon, does that not suggest that the two sites are similcr in this respect, and if so, how is the Regulatory Staff qualified tc cvaluate the geolor,y of the two s tes ana conclude that they should be dis tinguished ?*
(2)
Why did tne USGS depart frcra "c.
tomary l
?.%r. Case, caspite no credentials cs a gcologist, urgad tha l
cxperts of the USCS to revise tr.cir conclusion on the Corral l
Canyon site _(Tr. 6333) beccuse "acsed on av cvc.luccicn of the geologica,l ractors in tnase two s tes, u,ne procca12ity was l
L not at all comparable" (Tr. 6355).
3 practice" (Tr. 454S) in changing the report without getting the approval of the authors ?
One of the co-authors, >1.
Yerkes, origina2.2y objected to the change on the basis "that the word negligibic '
might be misinterpreted" (Tr. 4557-8).
Pr. Yorkes consented to the change only af ter his e"periors told him that the-word sense of "very low"
" negligible" wours be used :
(Tr. 4559).
The other co-aut2.sr, Mr. Wentworth, was not consulted until af ter the change was made (Tr. 4545).
When Mr. Yerkes reported the change to Mr. Wentworth, _ "back in the trenches," Mr. Wentworth also objected (Tr. 4559).
Mr. Wentworth explained the basis of his objection cicarly and concisely:
"Segligible to me means can be neglected.
We could not say-that the probabiiity of faulting could be neglected" (Tr. 4560).
We submit that it was an act of irresponsibility for the Regulatory Staff to camper with the conclusion of the experts of an independent agency, the United States Geological Survey, and then accept the change from "very low" to " negligible" -- a highly significant change in meaning --
as the basis for its conc 3usion that the risk of-surface faulting could be disregarded in the design of the reactor.
Q
--_--_---._____._m____w
---.--a-1