ML20211J834

State of UT Supplement Response to Applicant Second Discovery Request (Contention L).* State of UT Acceded to Applicant Request to Suppl State 990628 Discovery Request. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20211J834
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	08/31/1999
From:	Chancellor D UTAH, STATE OF
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
CON-#399-20787 97-732-02-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9909070033
Download: ML20211J834 (6)

Text

M RE1ATED CORRESPONDENCE 00CKETED u9mo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 99 SEP -3 P2 35 l

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

\\

o;

)

A In the Matter of:

)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC )

ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel

)

Storage Installation)

)

August 31,1999 STATE OF UTAH'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S SECOND DISCOVERY REQUEST (CONTENTION L)

The State of Utah informally acceded to the Applicant's request to supplement the State's June 28,1999 discovery responses, even though the State believed that it fully answered the Applicant's discovery requests. The State provided supplemental responses to the Applicant by letter dated August 11,1999, with the exception of a supplement to Interrogatories 1 & 2, Contention L.'

The State files a supplemental response to Interrogatories 1,2,3, and 4, Utah Contention L, in accordance with 10 CFR S 2.470(e).

UTAH CONTENTION L Interrogatory No.1: To the extent that the State denies Request for Admission No.

1, identify each fault that the State contends could result in greater ground motion at

• Counsel for the Applicant proposed that "it was conceivable for the State to claim that faults not in the immediate vicinity of the site, and which were not the

)

subject of the seismic reflection data and relr.ed site investigative work (such as the i

Stansbury fault), could result in greater grcond motion at the PFS site than those identified in the Geomatrix study, and that PFS was entitled to know if such was the l

case." Letter from Paul Gaukler to Denise Chancellor, dated July 20,1999.

GD) 9909070033 990831 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C

PDR

\\

the PFS site than those identified in the Geomatrix study, and the bases therefor.

Interrogatory No. 2: To the extent that the State denies Request for Admission No.

2, identify each fault that the State contends could result in greater ground displacement at the PFS site than those identified in the Geomatrix study, and the bases therefor.

State's Supplemental Response to Interrogatories No.1 and No. 2:

With respect to faults "not in the immediate vicinity of the PFSF and not the subject of the seismic reflection data and related site investigative work,"2 the State at this time has not identified faults that should be considered seismic sources with a potential to cause greater ground motion at the PFS site than those accounted for in the Geomatrix " Fault Evaluation Study and Seismic Hazard Assessment" (February 1999). The State notes, however, that agreement on an inventory of such faults as potential seismic sources does not necessarily imply agreement that the largest expectable vibratory ground motions at the PFS site have been characterized in a way that precludes dispute. For example,in terms of deterministic methodology, see Response to Interrogatory No. 4, Utah Contention L, dated July 28,1999.

I Interrogatory No. 3: Identify and fully explain any deficiencies claimed by the State in the probabilistic seismic hazards assessment for both vibratory ground motion and surface displacement conducted for the PFS facility, as detailed in the Geomatrix study and the April 2,1999 PFS Request for Exemption to 10 CFR 72.102(f0(1), and the bases therefor.

Interrogatory No. 4: Identify and fully explain each and every respect in which the State claims that the Applicant's seismic analysis is insufficient to satisfy the 2The State informally agreed to supplement its response with respect to this issue. See letter from Paul Gaukler to Denise Chancellor dated July 20,1999.

2 l

requirements of the NRC regulations, and the bases therefor.

State's Supplemental Response to Interrogatories No. 3 and No. 4:

The State's objections to Interrogatories No. 3 and No. 4 filed in its June 28, 1999 response are fully incorporated herewith. This supplemental response relates only to the Geomatrix " Fault Evaluation Study and Seismic Hazard Assessment" (February 1999) and the Geomatrix " Update of Deterministic Ground Motion Assessments" (April 1999).

The Geomatrix seismic hazard analyses do not appear to include the possibility of synchronous coseismic rupture of the Stansbury fault with the East and/or West faults, a scenario that could lead to larger ground motions than for independent rupture of the individual faults. Fault rupture during the magnitude (M ) 7.3 Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of 1959 provides a relevant precedent for this scenario. See D.I. Doser,1985, " Source parameters and faulting process of the 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake sequence": Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 90, pp. 4537 4555.

DATED this 31st day of st,1999.

Respectf Ily ubmitted,

/2Als/

DeniseThancelior, FretfG ' elson, Diane Curran, N

Connie Nakahara, Laura Lockhart Attorneys for State of Utah Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South,5th Floor, P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0873 Telephone: (801) 366-0286, Fax: (801) 366-0292 3

00CKETED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of STATE OF UTAH'S SUPPLEMENTAL 09 SEF -3 P2 :55 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S SECOND DISCOVERY REQUEST or, ii.

(CONTENTION L) was served on the persons listed below by electronic maihnless otherwise noted) with conforming copies by United States mail first class, this 31st day of August,1999:

Rulemaking & Adjudication Staff Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Secretary of the Commission Catherine L. Marco, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop 15 B18 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc. gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (originaland two copies)

Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: set @nrc. gov G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman E-Mail: cim@nrc. gov Administrative Judge E-Mail: pfscase@nrc. gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Ernest L. Blake,Jr.

E-Mail: gpb@nrc. gov Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Washington, DC 20037-8007 Administrative Judge E-Mail: Jay, Silberg@shawpittman.com Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E-Mail: ernest _blake@shawpittman.com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: paul _gaukler@shawpittman.com Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: jrk2@nrc. gov John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.

E-Mail: kjerry@erols.com 1385 Yale Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Dr. Peter S. Lam E-Mail: john @kennedys.org Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: psl@nrc. gov i

I 4

1

1 1

O Joro Walker, Esq.

James M. Cutchin Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board 2056 East 3300 South Street, Suite 1 Panel Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: joro61@!nconnect.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-Mail: jmc3@nrc. gov l

Danny Quintana, Esq.

(electronic copy only)

Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.

68 South Main Street, Suite 600 Office of the Commission Appellate Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Adjudication E-Mail: quintana @xmission.com Mail Stop: 16-G-15 OWFN U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (United States mailonly)

I l

/

Denisgfh'ancellor Assistimt Attorney General State of Utah L

5

AUG-31-99TUE12:06PM SEISM 0GM:F fiATIONS FAX:8015855585 PAGE 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIEf0RY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING _ BOARD t

)

in the Matter of:

)

Docket No. 72 22-ISFSI

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC

)

ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel

)

Storage Installation)

)

August 31,1999 DECLARATION OF DR. JAMES C. PECHMANN 1

I, Dr. James C. Pechmann, hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 'U.S.C. $ 1746, that the factual statements contained in State of Utah's Supplemental Response to Applicant's Second Discovery Request (ContLition L), to be filed August 31,1999, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Dated this 31st day of August,1999.

bckmawvv B:

L/

7 o1 Jones C. Pechmann, PhD Research Associate Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah 2 Both Dr. Pechmann and Dr. Arabasz assisted with, reviewed, and commented on a draft of the State's Supplemental Response to Discovery. Dr.

Arabasz is, currently traveling and unavailable to sign a Declaration. Dr.

Pechmann has reviewed the final document.

j