ML20134G054

Recommends Rejection of Deferred Portion of Joint Intervenors 840411 Contention 5 on Grounds That Contention Not Amended to Address Livermore Study or Ser.Pleadings & Arguments Re Contention Summarized.Svc List Encl

ML20134G054
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	08/20/1985
From:	Churchill B GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#385-306 OL, NUDOCS 8508220488
Download: ML20134G054 (5)

Text

J 2>0 6 S

SHAW. PITTMAN..,w. ..=

POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

. .=ctuoia4 .aor. t.'Ohab Co**0Ra0* 8 5800 se stat Et, N. W.

wASwoeoTON D. C. 20036

.. . . .o .. . e* ..~ (203) *'2 *oo .. ~.e-s **uv= ~ e **o g*=.c-

.c

y*i.S...'.

.e M. . .e. .o..N..Dm .".W.co.

.eD.. . g'y;'.'ob..",1,Rj:'

~ o n..r.t hat.af..af.f. ",,u.a d, .

j.r.'X.~.'

"It'#s"tJig. ,*:m"-^{23.F e 8. To1*.".bsfeltfl e

.c froc esa.o**4 e24 .e

"'T;;,"o , :'",*'"o a..fy.,.,.;,,,,,,

gg, pgy"fi".! ;,gg.1;",2. .c "'Ja:1 J .*/.i'.P.? ,'{' "* -

":"Ja c"St'0"* ag

. e. '?" 'i..?:'AVc" " ' ' " ' '

• h.a. ^rf f"'!." .. g=EN.

gl t,",:...

t'tra'"'a goa1 sftSt

• C h.fo..,J..e nt.*e;&. "1E:'Jl.h.' 'e9" * * '85 A%*M*WO M2

n .:/^ rmece.t ~~.o ...

r..n.g.t.te t.w.

o c

5e .c.  :: ::r s.e..tpa'.' ,. =,,.c , :r,,e,,, :'e: . ...

~ w . e.vy,"'c" 6..

. .c-oc

..e..aaae. - e. Lg 4 s.

..s ...

D!.g * * *m (=-* *6 aa *

• H *-o-f1FA'.r.'. wit" "'.. 7 ut:e.- c.ac.. :w K'r?An *m . . c ~ e * ~~<

m.?!.'"." -

' # 1 = ~ :a:f.n".2.di.

!:: . m: . .

.::. w ~ :. n :e ~u .< .r:dy: ,s  :::.:::: r. = *'~*. gyn: ras:"~~

1 R&.'.. on.msv{,c sr.s c-e R=,:e ac.m..

m . ..:.v::

.. cww ~ ~ im

~ ' "< e: r re.l..

u:::ra.~;. .ews.t.:

a .u m Ly a,. t.er..

• • $00t* **'" ,;:t',4>>o;*'oo~,c; ,'::',, 'P '

s r he: .c F=fr**R' p::. r ;te:4.s...

(>=

b';:e.:,:

CVP e.-# ". w 1.idt'9..F"er att bi@?.%g*TNE%1~

. . ' < "": ..7.';,, 5?Rin"^0iii'"'c'"" Q  :

bl4 .NT,a ::'

%.I. 4'F" ' .?".?*Y c ace. . a'.s

. . . coaa h Y."I'J'6" #.i."'"

5..*i?Ui$N.

"#J "'.~.

' . . . . . -0 l Auoust 20, 1985 --" a *

• a. c'

• a s aw-* * =

822-1051 Morton D. Margulies, Chairman Mr. Gustavo A. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 7 Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Dd-Gentlemon In its Memorandum and Order on Special Prohoaring Confor-once Hold Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a (Sept. 5, 1984), the Board deferred ruling on that part of Joint Intervonors' Con-tontion 5 relating to the 1886 Chirloston earthquake until after issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (GER) for Plant Vogtle. The Board rejected the portion of the contention relating to the postulated M1110tt Pault. The Safety Evalua-tion Report has now boon issued, and the deferred part of pro-posed Contention 5 is ripo for a ruling on its admissibility.

0500220400 050020 q PDR ADocK 05000424 >s o PDn c\.Je-) I)w' )

SHAW. PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. . ... . cwo. o,... uco..o..m,.

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman i Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris August 20, 1985 Page 2 For the convenience of the Board, the pleadings and arguments of the parties are summarized below.

Joint Intervenors proposed Contention 5 in their Supple-ments to Petitions for Leave to Intervene on April 11, 1984.

Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (April 11, 1984) ,

at 11-13; Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG) Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (April '

11, 1984) at 9-11. See also CPG Amendment to Supplement to Pe- i tition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (May 27, '

1984) at 10-11. The gravamen of the deferred portion of pro-  :

posed contention 5 is that Applicants have not properly as-  ;

sessed the geology of the site because of the alleged possibil-  !

ity of a high intensity earthquake, such as was recorded in  !

Charleston in 1886, occurring near the Vogtle site. As a basis for the contention, Joint Intervenors referred to a November 18, 1982 U.S. Geological Survey letter stating that "no geolog-ic structure of feature can be identified unequivocally as the source of the 1886 Charleston earthquake."

In Applicants' Response to GANE and CPG Supplements to Pe-titions for Leave to Intervene (May 7, 1984) at 33-38, Appli-cents described their consideration of the 1886 Charleston earthquake and their compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 100, i Applicants pointed out that Petitioners made no attempt to address Applicants' analyses in the FSAR or treatment of the Charleston earthquake. Applicants also observed that the USGS  !

letter did not address the geology of the Vogtle site but rath-er addressed the remote possibility that an earthquake similar to the Charleston earthquake could occur anywhere on the east-ern seaboard. This remote possibility is the subject of ongoing studies. Applicants opposed the contention as lacking I basis. The NRC Staff similarly opposed proposed Contention 5 as lacking' specific basis. NRC Staff Response to Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing Filed By Georgians Against Nuclear Energy and Campaign for a Prosper-ous Georgia (May 14, 1984) at 10-11.

By letter dated July 12, 1984, the Board requested that the parties address the significance of NUREC/CR-3756, seismic Hazard Character 1:ation of the Eastern United Statess Methodol-ogy and Interim Results for Ten Sites (April 1984). NUMEC/

CR-3756 contained the preliminary results of a probabilistic

• SH AW. PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. ..... cwo.o o.....o co..c..no .

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris August 20, 1985 Page 3 study conducted for the NRC by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in response to the November 18, 1982 USGS letter.

On July 23, 1984, the NRC Staff submitted its response to the Licensing Board's July 12 letter. The NRC Staff maintained that Joint Intervenors' proposed Contention 5 Jacked basis, being centered on a description of the Char 1<ston earthquake rather than on the seismic design of the plant. The Staff, however, proposed deferring the contention until after issuance of the SER and its discussion of the 1886 Charleston earthquake studies.

On July 27, 1984, Joint Intervenors submitted " Response to Licensing Board Inquiry Concerning Seismic Contention." Joint I Intervenors argued that NUREG/CR-3756 constituted " substantial new information requiring a reevaluation of the seismic quali-fications. . . . " Applicants responded to the Board's request by letter dated July 27, 1984. Applicants again pointed out that their compliance with the deterministic requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A was ignored and unchallenged by Joint Intervonors. Applicants also pointed out that the probabilistic results of NUREG/CR-3756, although still prelimi-nary, indicated that Vogtle's design basis is less likely to be exceeded than the seismic design bases of seven of the other nine sites studied.

In its Memorandum and Order on Special Prohearing Confor-ence Held Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a (Sept. 5, 1984), the Li-censing Board granted Joint Intervenors thirty days after issu-ance of the SER in which to amend their contention. The Doard stated that absent the filing of an amendment, the Board would rule on proposed Contention 5. LBP-84-35, 20 N.R.C. 887, 896-97 (1984).

On July 2, 1985, the NRC provided copies of the Vogtle SER to Applicants and Joint Intervenors. The geology and seis-mology of the Vogtle site are addressed in section 2.5. In that section, the NRC Staff concludes that Applicants have .

satisfied the requirements of 10 C.P.R. Part 100, Appendix A.

SER at 2-38. The NRC Staff also addressed in section 2.5.2.4 the most recent (April 1985) results of the probabilisti study conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.gj i i

1/

D. Bernreuter et al., " Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States," Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCID-20421 (April 1985).

1

l s k

l 4

SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. .m.. . cwo. on...o .s co o..r.o .

l Morton B. Margulies, Chairman i Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

I Dr. Oscar H. Paris August 20, 1985 Page 4 When uniform hazard spectra for various return periods are com-pared with the Vogtle safe shutdown earthquake spectrum, the most recent results of the Livermore study indicate that the probability of the yogtle safe shutdown earthquake being ex-

~

ceeded is about 10 per year. The Staff compared the seismic '

hazard estimates for Plant Vogtle with those for the other sites evaluated. The Vogtle seismic hazard estimates fall in the middle of the sites studied. The Staff therefore concluded ,

that the Vogtle site does not have a perceptively higher hasard than the other test sites. SER at 2-47.

Joint Intervenors have made no attempt to amend their pro-posed contention to address the Livermore study or the SER.

The time afforded them to do so has now expired. The proposed contention lacks basis. It does not address Applicants' seismic analyses and compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appen-dix A, which were described in depth in the FSAR and in Appli-cants' original response to proposed contentions. Instead, Joint Intervenors in effect do no more than refer to the November 1982 USGS letter. The Appeal Board, however, has held that the information in that letter does not provide a basis for reexamining a site suitability determination made at the l construction permit stage. South Carolina Electric & Cas Co.

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-710, 17 N. R. C. ,

25, 26-27 (1983). Moreover, the probabilistic studies that i have been conducted in response to the USGS letter further dem- '

onstrate the lack of basis to challenge this prior determina-tion. Accordingly, Joint Intervenors' proposed contention 5 should be rejected.

Sincerely yours, t

(Yl e- . hurchill '

Counsel for Applicants cc Service List

(

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

~~ ~~ ) Docket No. 50-424

) 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

l SERVICE LIST l

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Douglas C. Teper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1253 Lenox Circle U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, GA 30306 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Laurie Fowler Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 218 Flora Avenue, N.E.

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, CA 30307 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Tim Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Campaign for a Prosperous U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Georgia Washington, D.C. 20555 175 Trinity Avenue,'S.W.

. Atlanta, GA 30303 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel {

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bradley Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Regional Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Suite 3100 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, GA 30303