ML20138G641
| ML20138G641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1997 |
| From: | Dwyer S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G450 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9705060350 | |
| Download: ML20138G641 (2) | |
Text
- -
l.
1 i*
j0 From:
stephen dwyer <smd@wdc. net >
To:
WNDi.WNP2(Chairman)
Date:
3/26/97 6:50pm l
Subject:
Seismic Risks @ SONGS Follow up Mar.26,1997 l
Honorable Shiriey Jackson, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington D.C.
t Re: Seismic Questionaire Response By SCE etc.
i l
Dear Dr. Jackson,
This is a follow up letter to the Seismic Risks At SONGS Introduction Draft s
i i
Ijust sent. It is about the SCE response to some tough questions posed by NRC.
3-14-97, in reguards to my Emergency 2.206 Petition on SONGS.
l
Dear Mr. Fields,
I just recieved from SCE their response to NRC Seismic Questions about SONGS.
- 1. Thank you, or whoever was responsible for taking this action.
It shows that your trying to get to the bottom of this very difficult situation and assess these serious risks.
- 2. Very good questions, and an excellent start, who should I discuss these questions with?
Could I get a copy of NRC's letter to SCE?
i
- 3. I am preparing a draft of the introduction to my seismic report.
Should I send you this draft, or wait till the report is complete?
- 4. This draft raises a number of points that could be the basis of further questions to SCE, while work continues on the report.
- 5. Can I submit questions for your consideration?
E. Can I split the petition into two parts. One dealing with the SFP problem and the other dealing with SONGS retrofitting or shutdown?
Dear Dr. Jackson,
Ijust recieved a 15 page report from SCE to NRC, Re: NRC's hard questions about some of the seismic issues I have raised. Hard questions, especially about why they purposely ieft out five of the most important recent quakes from their hazard report of 95.
SCE went to Woodward & Clyde, their old geologic buddies to save them. They did an amazing job of answering the NRC's questions in order to justify the continuation of this disaster in the making. It is very similar in style to the original report and they appear to squirm out of each question, but a critical close examination reveals the most sophist:cated pseudo scientific spin doctoring I have ever seen. They are not only sticking to their guns on every issue, but also providing some new info and graphs to show why any further updating is not only unnecessary now, but future updating will also be unnecessary!
In Fig.1-1, Northridge quake, they plotted a couple dozen Ave. Hor. Recorded Data Points, then their usual steep attenuation curves, while neglecting at least seven points that clearly were above the curve. At least two of the points clearly show 9705060350 970501 PDR ADOCK 05000206 H
i that the Design Basis Event was exceeded by this quake at distances of 25 to 40 kms! The DBE can be exceeded by a medium earthquake, M6 to 7, at over 5 times the distance,8 km, used in the DBE calc. Since a plarit failure scenario i
isnot a statistical situation, but rather simply, can it be busted by any ground motion, this data is very significant. They also omit again a../ vertical acceterations,which can easily exceed the DBE, see last page of '95 report. They also ducked completely the NRC's question of
" estimates of the ground motion at SONGS site from these(blind thrusts) events". Once again, they omit any reference to, or plot of, the DBE in relation to any of the deta or graphs. It is still clear that even with their steeply " fitted" attenuation curves, any of the recent quakes could have busted the place up real bad. They also omit almost all references after 1994. A huge amount of new published material appears not to be relavant to them. Now why could that be??? To quote SCE, "It would be innapropriate". It most assuredly would.
Nice try SCE, and very well done W & C at no cigar. I am not buying this response at all. I hope the NRC doesn't either, and conti:n as to ask these questions over until they get the correct answers, and to ask even more broader range and specific questions. Its a good start at trying to crack their facade, before mother nature does!
Thanks Dr. Jackson for reviewing this important info.
It was also se.a to about six others at NRC for their review.
Sincerely, Stephen Dwyer smd@wdc. net e
_