ML20235Z754

Decision Setting Aside ASLB Order Authorizing Issuance of Provisional CP

ML20235Z754
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, 05000214
Issue date:	03/27/1967
From:	Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235X376	List: ML20235X451 ML20235X454 ML20235X460 ML20235X469 ML20235X480 ML20235X487 ML20235X501 ML20235X549 ML20235X566 ML20235X570 ML20235X577 ML20235X603 ML20235X621 ML20235X625 ML20235X629 ML20235X641 ML20235X654 ML20235X658 ML20235X661 ML20235X673 ML20235X681 ML20235X694 ML20235X699 ML20235X719 ML20235X722 ML20235X734 ML20235X741 ML20235X768 ML20235X779 ML20235X783 ML20235X805 ML20235X809 ML20235X821 ML20235X824 ML20235X827 ML20235X844 ML20235X855 ML20235X864 ML20235X869 ML20235X876 ML20235X903 ML20235X924 ML20235X941 ML20235X949 ML20235X959 ML20235X983 ML20235Y016 ML20235Y029 ML20235Y042 ML20235Y048 ... further results
References
FOIA-87-462 NUDOCS 8710210298
Download: ML20235Z754 (19)

Text

_ - - - - - - -

. i N a.pe; s-p f ';- [qM_

w.,

. r-

,y

4 i.

c

'?

i ) (q

.a 4

y

.,, 3, 1...,,

i

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l ' /-!;

6 w

l t,

~<

't'

(

ATOMIC ENERGY CCESSION L c.

9 Pg*

s a,

yt

g

(

COMMISSIONERS Glenn T. Seaborgo Chairman, +

, Q b; f,,

o...

+

I

~

r James.T. Ramey

~4

,- l ', ' W, o J. 1, S.

- f

Gerald F. Tape

'g ' f,7

.] 9 + ! -

s s

.'! Samuel M. Nabrit

'm.

/

^

P' Wilfrid E. Johnson' y':

Y,I O

,c L

j

'S t

j

+

./,4 4

7'

' g,:.

o.

(

9:

+

t

. e,-

. );

,m.,

.,, 'g.

I IN'THE MATTER OF'

)

Nl j

)

, p3 5" TW 3;:

.,H

,7 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

')<

?

);

' DOCKET No. 50-214'

• 0F THE CITF OF LOS ANGELES

) - a ',i ' 3,U C, ', $',1p.O, (*

')/,y 3,

s,

, l;A Y.

}

[ (MALIBU NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO.1)

)'

s t

)

, +%.'

)

u j

gy : ' W %.

].

4

,... t I-

'llk.

DECISION

~

,;.4

' ^

, P-This matter comes before the' Commission for final ' decision upon:

~

., exceptions filed by the regulatory staff;and by three interveners to an i

initial decision of an atomic safety and licensing board dated. July 14,

'F i a,,.

[

1966. In its. initial decision, the board orderad that a provisional;

'q t 4

[. '

N construction permit be issued to the' Department of Water and Power of the

s..

, City of Los Angeles (hereinafter the. applicant) to b'uild a pressurized

. water reactor to be located at Corral Canyon, Malibu,' California. The j

board, while finding that che prop,osed facility' in all other respects. met the safety requirements of.10 CFR I 50.35(a), imposed-the condition that the design criteria he modified and supplemented ~ to include adeq2a.te lierwri.sicci t

i

. h ' for permanent ground' displacement (ground rupture) from' earthquake activity.

't

.r.

l;..

' y-The initial deci'aion directs that the modified and supplemented design criteria g

e 1

l-

'f be made available for, such review l procedures.las' the' Commission may provide.:

a.

.- v.

+

.. w.

~

'h'$,,

F f"

I

[,,' ha,. j.O,

~

[

f i f,

,[.~ f. j d.T h k B ?sh-ki { ;.

1 w o2 @102,e e71014 ~

F g_g g g g '.

t-jho

-462 PDR t'>

u

}

. i 3

]

3:

9-

, 3,1 f~s.

]

l' 2

}

The regulatory staff has filed exceptions to the initial' decision on~

q; i

y two ground's. The staff. contends,first,that the board erred in its ' holding that the probability of permanent l ground displacement at the Corral Canyon. i site is sufficiently high that the proposed design must be modified and .. :.

.. )

supplemented 'to include' criteria' f'or such displacement before there is reasonable' ass'urance the facility can be constructed and operated at that site,without undue risk to public health and. safety. The staff contends,

.. ~

further,.that if the Commission decides the facility must be designed to.

4 withstand pe'rmanent ground displacement, the criteria for such design e

(<?

accommodation are " principal architectural and engineering criteria" within.

• e the meaning cf' I 50.35(a)(1) of our. regulations and the initial decision should be set aat,de and the proceedists remanded to the atomic. safety and

" lisensing board to determines (1) the amount of permanent ground displace-ment which the facility must be designed to witha tand; and (2) the adequacy of the design criteria which may be proposed.by the applicant to accommodate tho' permanent ground displacement.

/,

1 Marblehead Land Company, an intervenor in this proceeding, supports I

~

the board's findings and conclusions with respect to the need' for design against permanent ground displacement but, like the staff, takes exception to the issuance of a provisional construction permit with the design con-p, i-ci 'dition. Marblehead's position has been endorsed by The Malibu Citizens' i

for Conservation, Inc., and Lester T. (Bob) $ ope,,also interveners in this matter'. The applicant filed no exception to the initial decision but did-

. submit a brief in' support of the staff's exception to the need for design i, ;,

k' against permanent ground displacement and, should this staff excepti6n:.be i

T.

' denied, in support of the present issuance of a provisional construction

..L.

p.r.it.1t, th. d.s g. co.

t1o...a ord.r.d,, th.,oard.

c. 4, s

n 1ma

~

']

1

1. a u.

wy.

q. :p.

(, A :.

n

^

e,&

~v

..e wir saw ur matves" * *" '

c i

' x g,~ -

p "7

+

1 3-I 0 -

p.7.'

'~

l i

.s.'

l Applicationforaconstructionpermitandrdicensepursuantte)Sec.

)

• +,

x

.s

y tion 104(b) of the Atom!,o Energy Act (of 1954, 'as% ended, and Part Jo of lf]

1 our regulations was filed by the 'DepabEment of' Water' and Power on November j

~

4

)

.I y

1_..

1963. The application and' eightjnkndments, the isst of Ahich was fil;d on l

.v e

I. o,1.:

l-

4..

.c.

.Janudy 8,11965; were reviewed by'thg regulatory staff and the Advisory.

v 1

x a

3; Connaittee on Reactor Safeguards;. both of which concluded 'that there'is.

f l h,-

reasonable asshrance the proposed facility can be: constructed and operated i

.at the propos'ad' site without undue-risk to the health and safety.of the public.. '

n A " Notice of 1.' earing" was published in the Federal Register. on February 9,.

.,a This 'was followed byh$ pre ' hearing conferene.e'in February 26s ;1N5I.

9 1965.

P s

j and 41 days of hearings held linlintermittent sessions thereafter,' conunencing : ',

i on March 23; 1965. A poetaanring conference oW May 19. 1966, concluded this 4

('

phase of the proceedings. Marblehead Land Company,3The Malibu Citizens for

\\

Conservation,'Inc., and I4cter T. (Bob) Hopf intervened 'in,the proceedings.

,O

,4

..g

?

andopposedconstructionofthcproposedfacil!3y.

..The County of Los 7

)

Angeles also intervened in opposition to the-application. The St' ate of.

California, while it interver.ed and introduced two geological witnesses, did not formally take a position. In addition (to the interveners,there

)

were 62 timited appearances, 11 of these favoring an'd the balance opposing 1

I 1

the application.

i

{

The proposed 310 acre site is located in L's' Angeles County,but outside o

1

'the territorial limits of the. City of Los! Angeles. It is situated.at'the.

j'

,.L g} -

mouth of Corral eCanyon along a stretch of east-west Pacific Ocean coastline, approximately 10 miles west of Santa Monica~and 30 miles ~northwestLof.the;

~

. p ci g

o 3

center of Los Angeles.. The south side of the site'ahuts U. S. Highway.

_s Alternate 101 which separates th's site from Corral Beach, the proposed b

nuclear containment structure to be located approximately 550.,ftet' from.

. e h_,

..m..

4 I

f

• S-I b

, v i..

{l.

, M. ') d.'

,k[

t, i

~;.a.

._ a 1

i (i

')

~4-c

' Corral Beach.

The Santa Monica Mountains lie it.nediately, north of the site and-rise to about.2,500 feet, separating the site from the San Fernando Valley.

The' area surrounding the site is used primarily for residential and recreational.

i I

purposes...

i The facility would ut'ilizo a' closed. cycle pressurized light water' reactor, t

designed to op'erate 'at 1473 megawatts t:hermal and to produce 490 megawatts electrical. The reactor would be similar in substantial' respects to the Yankee, Connecticut Yank'ee,.Saxton'and San'onofra reactors. A significant safeguard

~

' feature of the facility is'.the. proposed housing of the primary system in.a' massive containment structure, designed so that there.would be essentially no leakage to the environment. The containment would consist of'.an. exterior shell of 'about four feet of reinforced concrete, with two steel liners separated by two and one-half feet of' pervious, " popcorn", concrete. The pervious concrete zone would be maintained at s'slightly. negative pressure'with respect to tho' atmosphere by a pump-back system.

The facility design contains several'other important safeguard systems.

/

including (1) a safety' injection system to inject borated water into the core;. (2) a seal water injection system; (3) an internal air recirculation l

and cooling system to decrease the pressure within the containment structure; i

and.(4) a containment spray system to decrease pressure.

The proposed facility is specifically designed to withstand the effects

.j

'.j of ground shaking resulting from earthquake activity. It has not been specifically designed to withstand ground-displacement (ground rupture),

-4'

~ :

resulting from earthquake activity.

While the lengthy' proceedings before the board involved consideration of q

j

. I' a number of safety, questions, raised with respect to the Malibu facility, the

{

/

} board's initial decision and the parties' exceptions reflect that all of these ques-. '

~

s

,L

. i 7

4 l

.. (

-. g

, J q

tions save that relating'to the probability of ground displacement.from l earthquake activity were satisfactorily dealt with to the extent required

.at the construction permit stage by 10. CFR $ 50.35. The board specifically

.found that the applicant's Jdesign criteria for'acconinodation of the shaking.

caused by earthquake activity. met.the requirements of f 50.35.: Our.own review of the record leads us to agree that tho' only present outstanding.

safety question.is the'one relating to design for ground' displacement which the L

,1 parties have submitted to us on' this appeal. It is'to that question we now' turn.

s, To facilitate understanding of the basis for our decision Ltoday, a brief

+

.discussio'n of the geology and Geismicity of the site'is appropriate at the

/

,W s,

~.j outset. Since the parties have not excepted to any of the board's geological'

~I and seismological findings, our summa _ry is drawn substantially from the' con,,

tents of the initial decision.

As is well known, California and other sections 'of the western United States have-a number of areas in which there is earthquake activity. The j;

' Corral Canyon site is located in the Malibu Coast zone.

This is.an' east-L

[

west trending zone of tectonic deformations,' about a' mile wide, which runs alongtheCaliforniacoastlineandincludesanumberofroughlkparallel l

g faults of varying size. On the northern edge of the M 11bu Coast sone lies-the M 11bu Coast fault. This fault bisects the site area about 800 feet north

~

of the proposed reactor containment building. The' initial decision recites that.

the N11bu Coast fault separrtes two quite different kinds of basement rock, which suggests that it is one of California's major crustal boundary faults..,

?'

Among-the other faults in the k libu coast none, two warrant specific i

. ment ons fault A, which crosses Corral Canyon about 150 to 200 feet north

~

y

..tv.

.g Ll t

e 3

'l l

W m

c y

l

,v:

a

L

f..

-s s,3-1 s

l

-6 j

),. ;

e..

. of the proposed containment locat; ion and extends eastward therefroni

• 1 1

~

i. about 8,000 feet,with a westerly extension which is not well defined;

]

and fault F which lieu directly bonaath the proposed' reactor. M Fault'F

.8 w

had not been discovered at the time of the ACAS and initial staff consid-

~,

erations.. It was uncovered ~ during the hearings when a trench was dug across.

t l

the proposed reactor location upon the request of the board, There was

~

j s,

l l

l considerable dispute during the course-of the hearings on the question of'

, whether or n.ot fault F is in fact a fault and then'on how large fault F.

l

'! might. be. The initial decision state's that fault F extends eastward from r.he -

1 j

.i j containment site about 2,000 feet and that it may extend westward under a land - j!

slide as far as Solstice Canyon (an additional 2,000' feet), in which event -

1 m.

j it may be truncated by snother fault. Each of these faults, as'well as the.

l Malibu Coast fault, is associated with a band of sheared or fractured rock y

of varying:widthw, d.

According to the interpretation of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), formation of faults A and F could have been sympathetic or, secondary to the movement on the Malibu Coast fault.- In any event, it is the view of

, the USGS that. faults A and F cannot be discussed in isolation from the Malibu Coase fault.

.c Much time at the hearings was spent in dispute over the origin of the s.

a-t

~ q deformation of the rock underlying the proposed facility,. The initial de..

g n

i' cision describes the rock materials as having been folded, faulted and.

>l t

',},/ Thi designations of'these features' correspond to those used by the

./-

board in its initial decision. For' purposes of more graphic descrip=

~

t N

tion, we are appending to our decision the maps of' the sitie which were' ' -

.5-included in the. initial decision.

i j..

1

].

i L

4; 4

l-b r

e s

, 1,

~

e

,,v g

. i,.

s

1 8,,

~

,s ;.

n.

+

'. ' 1

.)

, sheared'and concludes that a tectonic origin-is supported by'the weight'of I

the evidence. In this connection, the USGS has stated: "The intensely deformed bedrock in the plant site might be a locun' for future displacement J insed '

, along the general trend of the Malibu Coast zone."

'The Malibu Coast zone lien within an arrangement known as the' Santa i

' Monica fault system.

- The area of the system wherein this sone is located is

. described by the initial decision.as being tectonically active at depth.

" While there are no actual measurements of the current amount or rate of local

,i

)

] strain accumulation in the Malibu Coast zone, the initiial decision recites that o

1

.I the general structural and tectonic environment that produced the strong l

, faulting, folding and shearing in the zone probably still exists.

l f

It was established to 'the board's s' tisfaction that "the youngest known a

.l ' displacements at the proposed reactor site most probably occurred more than i,I 10,000 years ago, and possibly as much as 180,000 years ago."

The board l adds: "There ia no known evidence-for movement of the rock in Recent time (younger than 10,000 years) on the faults in the Malibu Coast zone.'.'

/

d As the initial decision indicates, the central. attention of the board

'in the proceedings below was directed to the assessment of geological and seismological dhtp and opinion bearing on the need for design against ground displacement. The extensive presentations of the parties in this regard -

which we havelsummarized in part, reflect numerous areas of disagreement.

a

,;c with respect to both regional and local geological and seismological consid ~

erations..

In the exceptions and briefs filed with us, however, these areas l

of dispute have been greatly reduced and the positions of the parties brought.

.(

into sharper focus. Neither clie applicant nor the interveners take' exception F

N.

to the geological and seismological findings of the board, and the staff, I

in framing its first exception, has' accepted all of the' board findings in.

' l.

t g

4 4

_ 'i....

.:....,...b..i.-

,.J. s

~

. T.

+~

_.-..,-.,_.-..-..n...

.i r~

s

. ~?

' )

. this reopect and disputed' only the board's conclusion therefrom under" "

08"*

10 CFR $ 50. 35 (a). Moreover, as the staff prcsonto this exception, it has narrowed the safety issue to the probics of assessing the signifi'cancey,

j with respect to the probability of future ground displacement, cf the accepted i

i

' fact that there h'as been no surface faulting at or-in the vicinity;of the

.i.

i i

[.l c ',

site for at least 10,000 years and possibly as long as 180,000 years.

l In reaching our decision in this matter, we are cal' led upon to apply.

I

,the standard enunciated in 5 50.35(a)(4) of our regulations, i.e., whether

'l

, there is "reaoonable aosurance" that:

j I

"(11) taking into consideration the site criteria

'3 contained in Part 100, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the pro.

I posed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."

The only elements of our regulations bearing specifically on this design-

, siting problem are to be found in 10 CFR S 100.10(c)(1) and (d):

"(c) *** (1) The des [gn for the facility should con,

I form to accepted building codos or stan-

'/

~

)

dards for areas having equivalent, earth-i l

quake histories. No facility should be.

located closer than one-fourth mile from the surface location.of a known active l

earthquake fault."

l

"(d) Where unfavorabic physical characteristics of the site exist, the proposed site may nevertheless be found to be acceptabic if the design of the. facility includes appropriate and adequate compensating engineering

, d safeguards."

i While the second sentence in subsection (c) (1),above, was the subject of. !

-)

much discussion during the hearings, the initial. decision states the board's.

)

i I

that "(nlo' standard for decision view with which we are in accord

...s can be derived from this section of the rule" as presently formulated.

j N,

i Thus, the Commission at this time must' apply,the more general. standard of

-l

.2.

I y

}

-,s

.,7 9

~

u,.,

~*

1.a

, " reasonable assurance" of no " undue risk to the health and safety of the

'"l public", as broadly expressed in S 50.35(a).

.Because of the importance and novelty of the questions raised by this appeal and the complexity of the material to be considered in reaching our =

decision, we have devoted considerable time to the evaluation.of the voluminous 3:

'l.

record (over 13,000 pages of testimony and exhibits) which these proceedings have. generated. Our evaluation has, of course, taken appropriate account of the findings and conclusions of the board. A board's assessment of record 4

avidence and.the conclusions it draws therefrom are entitled to respect on our part. In the present case this respect is necessarily enhanced in con-sequence of the board's lengthy and direct involvement with the data and ex-part analyses- (much of it. conflicting), relating to the critical geological and a

1 seismological questions. Our assessment of the record evidence and opinion, within the foregoing framework, leads us to the same conclusion as that of the board in that we are not afforded the assurance required under Section 50.35(a) 7 for a determination that the proposed facility need not be designed to with '

/

1 stand t,round displacement from earthquake activity.

As indicated, in support of its position that the probability of ground

'l displacement is so low the faci'lity need not be designed to withstand such displacement, th.e staff places principal reliance on the record evidence s

indicating absence.of surface faulting at the site for at least 10,000 ' years

7.,'

and perhaps as long as 180,000 years. This evidence, the staff urges. is the best guide for estimating ~what might reasonably be expected to occur during the s

J.

lifetime of the facility.1/ It might be noted, parenthetically, that this s.

l y

1/+.The maximum period for which a license may be issued under our regulations 1

is 40 years.

10 CFR 5 50.51. In the proceedings below, the parties-l l

.s l.

assumed a physical lifetime for' the facility of 50 years.

~

l b=

t j

,i y

p

'T p.

t

,g same evidence appears to be the basis for the opinion in the USGS report l'

that the probability of surface displacement:: through-faulting at the site during the next fifty. years is very_ low.

We see no need here for an extended semantic discussion of whether thief,

~

evidence should be characterized as " negative" or " positive'!. In our view,

-..a evidence indicating the absence of an occurrence of this type plainly'has some probative value. This evidence, however, cannot ' mark the and of our.

inquiry, since we must proceed to ascertain its significance in the light 7

of geological and seismological knowledge available to us in the record..

[

Unfortunately, the expert witnesses at the hearing could not, in the light of.the evidence, speak with much' assurance regarding future surface.

V faulting during the life of the proposed facility. The initial decision notes that all of the seismologists in the proceeding implied or stated that'more data were needed before worthwhile predictions could be made and the board cites similar uncertainties with respect to the present state of the' art of geology. Thus, while the board accepts that the probability of stirface faulting during the lifetime of the facility may be " low", uncertainties '

j.

in the data available lead it to find ultimately "that reasonable certainty. '

or assurance does not exist regarding all pertinent phases of earthquake.

activity."

l The foregoing are necessarily considerations to be.taken'into account-in making the judgment required by Section 50.35(a). These consideration'ns,:

.moreover, must be viewed in the light of the following matters of record:

J that the general structural and tectonic environment which produced.the

.7

^

G strong faulting, folding and shearing in the'Malibu Coast zone probably.

x l

.still exists; that future-fault movement, 1f any, is likely to occur along

's t

'I s

i L

,_ j

, Ie

!(

-.e.---.

T

- y 1

.- 11

. existing breaks;. that fault F passes directly through the ground' upon.

which the proposed reactor is to stand; and that, aside from/faulh F, the s -intensely deformed bedrock in the plant site might be a locus for future displacement alcas the trend of ihe Malibu Coast zene.

i

{

In the proceedings before the board,. the applicant-attempted to provide a j

.)

- basis' for the inforence which 'it draws from the. lack of surface faulting for 10,000 or more years, in its interpretation of the " recurrence interval theory"..

1 1

It assumes that the earthquake phenomenon can be described by a model'in j

+

l 1

which there takes' place a~ series.of cycles involving a slow accumulation j

'^

J

,c,'

j of strain followed by a sudden release of energy and that-these cycles will'

.i.

i

( have a roughly. constant recurrence interval. The applicant reasons that the

)

c l,

average probability of an earthquake occuiring in a year.will be the inversec '.

,e

[

of the average recurrence interval and that tho lon8er the time since the

'last displacement the'more likely it is that the recurrence interval is:

large. However,'as the testimony of the United States Geological Survey.

/

indicates, it is not known whether the recurrence interval' concept has l

-validity. We note, further, the response to this argument by the interveners' 1

,t L

, 7that, even assuming the validity of the theory, the regular repetition of

.a '

7 ~

events which it envisages implies instead that the probability of' earthquake

events increases progressively as the time since the last event passes and

~

%;;,;we: approach the next event.

'f A different approach to this matter, indicated in a.1965 article by Allen,'

' +!-St.Amand,dichterandNordquist, involves correlations between earthquake.

magnitude and frequency of occurrence. Further study 'of,this method may'in-

^

', deed prove profitable, but as used in the record it would not appear to offer.

(

)/ Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in the Southern-4 3

California Region,. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, -

'I Vol. 55, pp. 753-797 (August,1965)..

t j

i v

,e

,, 1 b(

j.,

.L

.1 y

. 'a g a 1

a 2-L..'.L + -

.,q

. = -.

'M

_ _ _.._ R.

., ;j

.g,

.s

' ;.' i w

f support for the applicant's pocition that the probability of. ground displace.

s ment at the proposed site can be 'di.oregarded.

.t As the foregoing discussion w,ould indicato, we are not persuaded by the.

. record that because thero has been no ourfacc ~ faulting at the site for.10,000 l

or more years the probability of ground. displacement during the lifetime.of i

l, the facility can be disregarded in.its design. The geology,and seismicity-r s.

i

.f.

of the proposed site bespeak some risk in this regard. The time factor i

P,. relied upon to demonstrate's sufficiently low risk is'not, in our view of

[U the record, adequate for. this purpose and does not, we conclude, satisfy the standard of reasonable assurances which underlies Section 50.35(a).

Our determination in the above respe~ct has necessarily talien into account ~

l

[.

the proposed placement of the' facility within Corral Canych. Particular con.

l cern arises from the fact that lauit V cuts across the ground iupon which the intended reactor would stand. Should the applicant propose a different loca-tion for the, facility.at Corral Canyon, it may wel1~be that the relevant geology

~

and seismicity would still require design for ground disp'lacement froid earth -

quake activity. However,'the location of tho' facility in. relationship to t

faults in the area.could have a bearing on 'the aniount of displacement for which design accournodation must be made. Theae are matters which we cannot pass upon.

here in the abstract but rather are ones to be considered by the board should a t

relocation of the facility on the sito be put forward by the applicant.

1 l

1

]

A further consnent is in order before we leave this' aspect of the case.-

[i

[

Both the staff and the applicant have expressed concern that the board, in:

I-I' g

?-

reaching its determination ~, has converted our standard of " reasonable assurance" 3

p M.

of no " undue risk" into one of assurance of absolute safety. We do. not take-l';.

.i; the board's decision to mean thic and, if there be a residue of doubt on.this

. e 3, point, we.wish to make clear-that no such implications should be drawn from r

[\\.(

i- -

+

t:

i-

'll i

n.,.m

%, c

=

m

~

..a

. - - -____N x- - _ _ _ - _ -.

-._______w-_-.__.--__.__-_____

._.,_.--.___-n'--

__-.__.-____.u-__.-

_a___

~

13-our action today. As we have stated in the past, both our statute and implement-ing regulations show that such an absolute guarantee was never contemplated,'and that "th's concept of reasonable assurances.of safety must be sensibly, though severely applied".

(In the Matter of Power Reactor Development Company, 1 AEC 65, 73; see also, 1 AEC 128, 147.)

Turning now to a matter of which earlier mention was made, we note that the applicant in its brief to un' expresses concern as to the adequacy of the present Part 100 criteria to deal.with the problem of reactor siting in seismically active are^as and urges further Comission guidance. While these criteria may, in the light of knowledge existing at the time of their issuance, have marked the outer limits for possible guidance in.this respect, we agree that Pai t.10,0 calls for re-examination and elaboration in the light of present-day' needs and p

knowledge. This adjudicatory proceeding is not, of course, the appropriate forum for establishing new Part 100 criteria. The record here - massive though' it is - is hardly of the scope required for this task. Nor do we liere have access to the variety of views from withidour own agency, from industry, from the scien-f vlfic cocmunity and'from the public, which are essential to our reaching an in-formed judgment with respect to the necessary criteria.< There are matters which lend themselves to our rule making function.

Our regulatory staff has been devoting efforts toward the development of re-vised criteria for Commission consideration within the rule making framework.

We.

l

~have not reached any conclusion as to the approach new criteria should take, but; l

our experience with this procee' ding indicates that such criteria might well cover

-the need for design against ground displacement from earthquake ' activity and

,, might also address themselves to the amounts.of displacement for which provision

~

must be made.

In a related connection, accelerating research on earthquake prediction and the nature of surface fa'ulting.may offer a'better opportunity in the' i,

4 r

[

e...r

p.=u*+ g ft ;** *j ~],

Q.

Qg-

- g

- n ~=ggggg aggggg pa

~*

l a

4

.y

~

.-14.

i J (future to plan new facilitics on a more calculable basis 'with respect to seismic risk. While hopes in this regard must be tempered by an appreciation -

i 'of the task the frontiers of knowledge concerning these matters have been

('

' '. ', undergoing expansion and efforts' are presently under,way on several fronts

,, ; further to increase that! know1' edge. ~ The Commission will, follow developments

'Y ' i

~1n this area.with great interest.

r.

\\

Since we uphold the determination of the atomic safety and licensing

5' j

1 i

i board that the design critoria for the proposed facility must be modified

.i and supplemented to' include adequate provision.for ground displacement from.

a.

earthquake activity, we must now consider the propriety of the board's issuance i

j

of a provisional construalon permit before a determination has been made on -

the matter of design adequacy in this respect. This course is disputed here g,> by both the staff and the interveners as not meeting the requirements of I

,' ? l0 CPR 8: 50.35.

~

i.

j Section.50.35(a)(1) of our regulations requires that.before a pro -

/

• s

', -.. visional construction permit may be issued, the Commission must find'thatt

~

" * *

• the applicant has described the proposed design of the facility, including, but not limited i

to, the principal architectural and.~ engineering criteria for the design.* * *."

In view of"our earlier determination today.as to the need' for design against

+

y ground displacement to safeguard the integrity of the facility and-in view k,

(.r.

' c:l l

[

of the relationship of such design accommodation to the basic structure'of

-j

~

the facility,' we think it clear that design criteria in this respect must'be.

J.

- [-

considered to be among."the principal architectural and engineering criteria-

[.'

,p

-for the. design". Such criteria,' therefore, must be appropriately described

-,]

s 0

by the applicant and reviewed in accordance with our procedures.before a-

, provisional. construction permit may be,i'ssued. ' ' -

a u

8-

+

a

_6 2

i h

E..,

i V

-t'.

4.

I

~

t nL

,,,)

,+..;..,

M:

_ _ -Q

4 i a.

s,.

l 15-

. k...

-a It is plain from the record, and the initial decisi 2-itself demonstrates,-

j

'./

y 1

' that-the requisite criteria have not been submitted for consideration. More-a.-

over, to be meantr#ul, any such consideration of design adequacy must be

'. m preceded by a determination of the' amount! of ground displacement the proposed j s

facilityneedbedesignedtowithstand-andtherecordisclearlynotsuffic-!

I

. " I' isnt for this purpose. Accordingly, further proceedings to deal with these l

1 l

, matters will be necessary.

j.} ~ '

~

h While our holding on this aspect of th'e' initial decision fixes a differ.

j

.ent procedural course than that deemed appropriate by the board, it does not

(,

g,

! (. l ;,.!

, signify any lessening of Commission reliance on atomic safety and licensinF l

l r

in proceedings gj boards for effecting appropriate resolution of' safety iss6s:

of this type; nor. does it mark a curtailment of the proc'edural latitude which -

c

~

l

,... we have left to boards for this, purpose.

(S,ee, e.g., Matter of Jersey Central I

Power & Linht Company, 3 AEC

, May 6, 1965',)

That' reliance,'as indicated i

~'

in the discussion attendant our earlier holding, and that latitude, continue'.'

o The scope accorded to bonids, however, must be exercised within the limits

/

j

. defined by our regulations. The descriptive requirement of f 50.35(a)(1) t specifying a cardinal element for consideration at the' construction permit i

'scage - is such a limit and, accordingly, must be ' observed here.

Because of the further proceedings which w e holding today makes necessary, some comment is here warranted with respect'to determining the character and amount of ground displacement the proposed facility must.be. designed to with-

' stand and the adequacy of design critoria which may be proposed in that regard.

.i I,

The initial decision and the presentations to us by the parties'have used the

1. phrase " permanent ground displacement" to ' characterize the rupture.of the ground.

W which may result from earthquake activity. We believe, however, that the. matters 3

7 4

g o

s m

. V.

,; p i

,3 4

i'

..l y a

,/*

.w 4

u

-(,

'3

.e s

j

,s

~16-yet to be considered with respect to design accommodation are 'better described

. in terms of " differential ground displacement",' which more aptly denotes that I

t

' the relative movement of the two. sidos 'of a fault (horizontal, vertical'or both) s s

, (, is of significance., Accordingly, in our Order.we have used the term "differena tial ground disp 1'acement" to' describe the matters to be taken up in the pro-.

~

caedings to follow. We would expect, of' course, that any factors which. prop.

i i

erly bear on the matter of design accommodation receive appropriate attention.

i.

It is anticipated that at some time in tha future, Determinations as to j

the amount' of differential ground displacement a facility must be designed to

".., ' ' withstand will be aided by more specific Commission criteria of the type to R

which we made reference in connection with possible revision of Part 100. The ~.

v

' m) proceedings to date o'n the instant application have not dealt with this deter-mination, so we cannot assess whether the present lack ofrsuch criteria will give rise to difficulties in the'further' proceedings'which'are required. This

. being the case, and because we do not wish to impose' unnecessary delay 'in a matter,which has already consumed much time, we leave it.to t:he parties to go

/

forward under our regulations as.they presently exist. In this connection, it '

1, may be that information generated in the course of developing. revised criteria ;

vill be of. assistance to the parties and board.

4 #

, 4 It is therefore ORDERED that:

1.

ng..

Exception "A" filed by 'the regulatory' staff be denie'd;. %.s e.

a 2.

The order of the atomic safety and licensing board [

[.3

.,y authorizing issuance of a provisional' construction ;,

i permit be set aside; and

+"

.i.

's

3.. The' matter be remanded to the atomic safety.and

+

4 ds licensing board where, upon submission by the

,7 j

N applicant of appropriate amendment to its applica-

'fion and after review by the' regulatory staff and

'T

~

o.-

r p

9 f,

c f/ '.

. l i -

'li

,s j

))

.{.

l t

$4 5

.0

]

y l ',

J'.

y

' ^

4

1

1 s

.n.

n

. ~

Y-8 e

J t.

17 -

t the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, there be further proceedings pursuant to Parts 2 and 50

'of our.' regulations to determines

. '.h /

y i

i

'l

>, i, * (a) The amount of d' differential ground,

)

,t 1

),

'i. R,:

displacement which the facility

- +

= v

.,'.,l',,.

must be designed to withstand; and 1

1 m

t (b) The adequacy of the design criteria z

p:

~

s

.' .;, I which may be proposed by the applicant

.j i..

i

• \\

t

,I

.;, 'y

.g.Y to permit the facility to accoarnodate l

t.

4

.1' t.!,,j the amount of differential ground

- d

.p

' '3 displacement determined'in accordance.

.n* -

C

F. '...,. with (a), above.

r 3

&) > h 1

1

.,. 4 1'

By the Commission..

~

s 4

)

I e

l Y'

.l

\\

j W. B. McCool

.Saoratary s

. 'O Dateds -

r'

-i '.

i :

. 1:

.a.,

March 27,'1967

'g.,

I

'4 4

9 g'

t g

'[

j '..-

1

}

4 v.

t*-j I

i, ans"*"

. 1

• • 6 t

g'

.e A

f

_e t

(

s' g-

.)

t' f*

~s s

t

/,

' i,.

')*

g-In g'

1 "a

'g 0:

g

')

k,

?

5.

.t; e

'\\

.3-'

i g

'7

- W,i

o -

o m,,

1;.

APPENDIX "A"

.g g;

[..

t

,,,,, ". ",_ / "'..........,".~. $ $, y

'd' nutr.

v

..... q" -

l h,/***...,,,.. -"'..,s * N,,**,

s y

r Inne r. Plant

'8'

']

Jai

[

g Bounda'ry, 45-acro Parce2,'-

J.

• g

~

. l JJ

'"".**.;a(f.ii(,,,,,,,,,.g.

I

.. #...z...]-.........,,,*...,,,, -,,~~ 4

_. p,,~~

u w

,,g.o#'.'"

/

p-8-

,, ' * */5 1

['.......-

~

/)-

'f f?t :;. +,,,'" ' s'N

\\

~'

s.acen

, /sN

~ y,,

i Fault

".B

/

'k

..[

g

....~.,,7 ~~..' ---.4,g w %.

..... s.

'~

g,

/

,,,,,.~,,,,:,,

.- 9

.---- 2 W. y n

.,,, ~PA CIitC..w',' ~ ~,,,~,,,~.~..~,,*,, jij ii

~ ~' W1,2 *

. ',.* 'i

i

~~

~ Y

1. ~~

Y l

~~-

---

.,g, 1

y 94C/f/C

6

~ " '-

~

j, ochy

' ~ ~ - - ~ -

l l

L MAP OF A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED GITE SHOWING PAUL'IB MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TRENCHIS. DUG BY THE DEPAR2 MENT, 'IOGETEER WITH THE APPROXIMATE I4 CATION OF A PORTION 0F THE INNER PLANT SITE AND OF THE REACTOR ' CONTAINMENT BUILDING This map is a reproduction of Figure. ld from the Department's rebuttal testi-mony of October 19, 1965, as supplemented by Staff Exhibit 14, which latter portrays r

i-the inferred extension and connections of Fault F to the east. The map also shows Fault B, which.is believed by the Department's. 6eologists to. truncate ' Fault F, and if it does so, may. interrupt the latter's extension vestward to Solstice Canyon. A

,' landslide between the reactor site and Solstice Canyon prevents certain'identifica-G

- tion of Fault F vestwardf Fault X is not shown on the, map because its exposure was too,short and its

,[

extension difficult to infer. A number of smaller faults with displacements of a F

' few feet are recognized throughout the plant site but are not projected on this map.

A solid line apparently to designate a fault, which, however, was not identified by any alphabetical designation, is located above Fault A, Just easterly of Corral

..Canyo,n and within the plant site.

The trenches dug by the Department are shown by numbered designations. The

. s No.' 5 trench was dug after the-April 1965 recess of the hearings.

j.

' The certainty of location of faults'is rough 19. indicated by the continuity of q

the lines representius them.;

m y

l i

,f-

4.<

gpgg 8fgfl I

./..

g

)

't"

).

(

.h.)li:'l' ', r{

(tq, p{

',\\

y A

4, jl QL I.

N

-)

to

)

I I

,)

Js

.r x /..

\\

\\

1 p/

t; M

tt 1

3

./< ja y so

,I.

3 3

.a y

(

)

n..

x.,-

na.'

gf.

=

f. '....,y y

., r;...

l f,

~~~

• ~~

~

_ O- :.'.~~~?0i?::s.: - ::: LG C"~

~

~.*

1 ~.~::~~ '. OEt!:..-- :::.Le2~~*-

+

..~,,,,4~~"""*%

--_,n~_"""*=

f oua on,,,,

WF.s fsfde Fig. la.

Smith-Hoffman

• Fig. Ib.

Jahns l.

(ForthetDepartment)

(FortheDepartment)

(

Y

).

I

\\

c t i,

\\

a,1

.h

., \\ t 81 s

\\

t

• \\

-*N t

'e N

E) -

'f.J p

s a) s,f

-p

+

b y

.I N

li I

\\.

N.,-

g~~~ j, _. k.~ l%.

g..l,,, l'. ",.'

g t'

g1 s.

s.

a I

)

j

.jd

' f,,

q ~~~

• i,,

i

/

'X f

s......_w__a...

!--n.&:..

,\\.,

.. !.... ~;.},....74e......! -mi.32**

Y.

~

l

....-....:vi?.

gu.

n-~~~_

.,,4

,,~

on e

,,ung

~<

~

~, _

ue.,

Fig. Ic.

Cleveland-Troxel Fig. Id.

Ye rkes-Wentworth- ",/

(For the State of California)

(Of the U. 8. Geological Survei Fnv thn AFf! hmilatnev Staff 1 b(

\\'

I

\\

N

\\

h

.\\

\\

l

• • \\

).

N

• \\

N l'))

,.l'r%

l'))

~

%,l jl.

q

.s q..

i

\\

N_\\

\\

z w=

t y;

4.

r:

1, i,

p s

,, y, s.

j

,, in

)

,,,),.

,, w' l

o

):

a f

• K.,

o,.

=

~'

/, --

a 4

V L

4o,

'A

/

/

......... 021 :.}, ~.~..... w g.... -sc39../-

4 ~

.--....-. sue.q-)..-,,,,,, n...n.... ]--spig.

n-.L.....

~"

... 1

.. ~

nn

~,

>na,,

~~--ou a,,. _

g_~ --

]

• uu

~

~, _ _

nu...

Fig le.

Kamb.

Fig. If.'

Bailey D

(For Marblehead land (ForHarbleheadland l

Company,Intervenor)

Company,Intervenor) 8,,,

CXPL ANA TION p^

SCA L. l' I

/*e800*

Etplorofory tronch f$mith-Hoffman )

0 400 000 troo 1400*

s

- Novil,m/not foulls In I'ronch 3,not shown

~~ ~ O**%,..- n Contact bolwoon mudstone and mudstone w/th sandstonefflgs. lo $lb)

Contact belwoon silicuous shole o mudstone with 'sondstonoffiht.'Ic/

~-~=~-- -

Figure 1. Index map of t reaches.aud pertinent 1goolostic f eatures.

d.

a

-