ML20135E331

Memorandum & Order Denying Admissibility of Joint Intervenors Proposed Contention 5 Re Plant Seismic Design Adequacy.Relevant Seismic & Geologic Considerations Applied to Plant Site & Design.Served on 850913

ML20135E331
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/12/1985
From:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	JOINT INTERVENORS - VOGTLE
References
CON-#385-487 OL, NUDOCS 8509160365
Download: ML20135E331 (5)

Text

. .

.a 00LKETiD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '85 SEP 13 A10:06

{

Before Administrative Judges: cgg,ct0FSEcE -

i 00cKiimu A SU"/lo i Morton B. Margulies, Chainnan EPMCH Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris SERVED SEP 131985 i

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-0L 50-425-0L i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

l' (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) September 12, 1985

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Admissibility of Proposed Contention 5 re: Vogtle Seismic Design Adequacy) j Background In their proposed Contention 5, Joint Intervenors Campaign for a

Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy allege that ,

1 i Applicants have not given adequate attention to site geology in the

design of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), especially in  !

light of a revised or clarified position taken by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with respect to the 1886 Charleston, South I Carolina earthquake. The USGS clarification was set forth in a 1982 letter to the NRC, which stated in part that "no geologic structure or i

feature can be identified unequivocally as the source of the 1886 i Charleston earthquake." USGS letter of November 18, 1982 from J. F.

! Devine (USGS) to R. E. Jackson-(NRC). The proposed contention was filed 8509160365 850912

, PDR ADOCK 05000424

~

O PDR 35O2. ,

, . . . . . . - . ,-n, , , . - , . - ._, . - , - - ~ . . , . . - --------_r_-,--...,- , ,-_--n~ r, _,

in April 1984. Applicants and the NRC Staff (Staff) each held that the contention should be denied for lack of sufficient basis. In its prehearing conference order of September 5,1984 the Board noted that 4

certain documents relevant to the Charleston earthquake had not been addressed, and requested comments from the parties. Georgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),

j LBP-84-35,20NRC887,897(1984). Applicants responded that these documents did not cure the contention's deficiency; Staff proposed to I discuss the impact of these documents in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the VEGP, to be published in mid-1985. As the result, we deferred ruling on the contention; we gave Joint Intervenors thirty days beyond the SER issue date to file an amended contention, if they so desired; and we stated that, in the absence of such a filing, we would rule upon admissibility of the contention. I d,. The SER issued in June i 1985; no filing has been received from Joint Intervenors. Thus, the 4

matter is now appropriate for determination. For the reasons discussed below admissibility of the contention is denied.

Discussion 1 Proposed Contention 5 states as follows:

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. Geological Survey. This violates NRC rules of seismic standards described in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A.

Joint Intervenors appear to ignore the existence of Applicants'

discussions presented in Sections 2.5 ej seq. of the Vogtle Final Safety

! Analysis Report (FSAR), and offer no basis for their allegation that the i

design of the VEGP has been improperly assessed. The FSAR material discussed earth science matters related to the Vogtle site and seismic j considerations appropriate to site suitability, including the relevance l of the Charleston earthquake. Applicants' compliance with the j deterministic requirements of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A is also presented I

in the FSAR and the adequacy of that compliance has not been challenged.

Joint Intervenors have not commented upon, much less challenged, the Staff's seismic and geologic evaluation of the Vogtle site presented in

. the June 1985 SER. Georgia Power Company, et al. (Safety Evaluation 1

i Report related to the operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, t

I Units 1 and 2) NUREG-1137, June 1985. Instead, Joint Intervenors base their proposed contention upon the above cited USGS letter and the preliminary, probabilistic evaluations contained in NUREG/CR-3756, j Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States:

l Methodology and Interim Results for Ten Sites (April 1984). These materials were said to comprise significant new information calling into ,

i question the adequacy of the VEGP design, but no design inadequacies resulting therefrom were identified.

i i

1 The Staff's SER for Vogtle (NUREG-1137) deals at some length with the seismology and geology of the site, and concludes that as of the date of issue of the SER it sees no need to modify its acceptance of Vogtle, a position taken during the construction permit review (NUREG-2237, at 2-38). In so concluding, Staff has taken cognizance of the following: the clarified position of the USGS regarding the

Charleston earthquake; NUREG/CR-3756; a more recent report on probabilistic analyses (UCID-20421, Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States, Bernreuter, et al., April 1985); the results of NRC sponsored on-going deterministic studies of the Cnarleston i

earthquake; and various studies of Applicants and of others. The Staff is mindful of the current state of uncertainty about conditions leading to and responsible for the Charleston earthquake and the potential need for modifying its position with respect to specific sites as more definitive information becomes available. We encourage Staff's attention to such matters and request that they keep the Board and the parties informed if such new information becomes available.

Having reviewed the foregoing, the Board finds there is an ample basis for concluding that relevant seismic and geologic considerations have been competently applied to the Vogtle site and plant design, and that Joint Intervenors have failed to establish a basis for challenging the results to date.

.. __.= . . - . _- _ _ _ _ _ . . . . - _ ._ ... - _ ._.____ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - _ . . . . _- . - _ . _ . _ _ . __ _

, i 4

l' I

5-  !

i  !

i i Order  !

.'l j Based upon the above, the Board denies admissibility of Joint i

! Intervenors' Contention 5.  !

I

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I LICENSING BOARD i i j

u .av---

• LM W Morton B. Margulies. Chafrman .

J ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'  !

0 . 0 D u Gi.4e u  ;

1

' y ave K. Lingn M ger Jr.

] ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i

l

%WM i Dr. Oscar H. Paris

! ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i .

I Dated at Bethesda, Maryland i this 12th day of September, 1985.

?

I i l 1  :

h

$ 1

?

~!  :

l  !

l i i i

J l

l 1

i l ,

)

g---.n,me---- r---... -e,-_. -m. .e-,,,_g,y ,,,r.- ._a,

_ u , ,, , , , ,,,,--n,,.,,,,.,c, .,,,-,,p,, ,-,-,,y-__,-.v,.,-,,,,,---n--,--.,,-.,g_,n-e-