ML20133G128
| ML20133G128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1985 |
| From: | Reiter L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B198 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-363 NUDOCS 8508080563 | |
| Download: ML20133G128 (2) | |
Text
.
,[.p * *c%ja UNITED STATES q
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wasmNcTON D. C. 20555 t
e
%..'..'. /
MAy 3 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Acting Director Division of Engineering THRU:
0%
Stephan J. Brocoum, Acting Chief b
Geosciences Branch, CSE FROM:
Leon Reiter, Leader Seismology Section Geosciences Branch, CSE
SUBJECT:
ASLAB DECISION ON MIDLAND SEISMIC ISSUE In a Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils Issues at Midland issued on January 23, 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has supported the staff's seismic conclusions on all issues and its methodology.in all our evaluations with one important exception. The Board found that the staff placed too much reliance upon seismicity in its definition of the tectonic province within which the site lies. On p. 178 it stated:
"This Board finds that the Staff's own past practice, Appendix A to Part 100, and the teaching of ALAB-422 do not support the definition, or subdivision, of a tectonic province solely on the basis of historic seismicity, even if that seismicity is viewed as somehow indicative of otherwise poorly known. tectonic conditions."
The Board accepted the applicant's tectonic province (Michigan Basin) which was based upon geological arguments which the staff could not support. The bottom line was not affected since the controlling earthquake was the same a.9d the Board accepted cur use of site-specific spectra. The Board decided to rule on this issue even though it was urged not to since the choice of controlling earthquake was the same.
The Board decided to rule on this issue because it perceived a need to do so under Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and because of the need of " regulatory stability" in application to sites other than Midland. Our initial review (we only received the ruling two weeks ago) indicates some inconsistencies in the Board's ruling and a tendency of the Board to rely upon arguments and logic not presented by any witness.
If accepted as precedent the Board's ruling would put into jeopardy staff decisions with respect to Tectonic Provinces in other instances. These include:
1.
Subdivision of the Atlantic Coastal Province to allow smaller a SSE at St. Lucie.
2.
Not requiring use of tne.1982 New Brunswick earthquake for Limerick and Millstone and allowing for a smaller SSE.
e
e i
4 James P. Knight _
3.
Keeping the Charleston Earthquake at Charleston and not assuming it should be used to control design values along the east coast.
This ruling may also have some impact upon the proposed revision to Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.2.
If the Board ruling is to be given any weight we may want to consider an appeal (which may be too late) or revitalization of staff efforts to update Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.
We are continuing to clarify this issue. We have already met with Bob Jackson and Jeff Ximball who were the GSB members at the hearing and we will bc meeting with Joe Scinto of ELD. We will keep you informed.
~-
- 64 Leon Reiter, Leader Seismology Section Geosciences Branch o s;3 cc:
S. Brocoum GSB R. Bosnak L. Beratan (RES)
~~
W. Payton (ELD) 1 e
'l
-