CLI-80-33, Order,CLI-80-33,remanding ALAB-422 to Aslab for Addl Evidence on Chinnery Methodology.Parties Must Discuss Relation Between Max Ground Accelerations & Max Effective Ground Acceleration.Jf Ahearne Dissenting Opinion Encl
| ML19347A702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CLI-80-33, NUDOCS 8009300037 | |
| Download: ML19347A702 (6) | |
Text
- _ _
,ci =n, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,eg r % f/s NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!dt1ISSION NW V.A ij
.x ~~ '.~
V;
,/N,-
CClif1ISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chaiman O
- ' ' ~~~ ' E
~
s
~
Victor Gilinsky
' [
s. '-.,]2}," [
Peter A. Bradford E
d i&~ ~ ~
w'.
M '"
y In the !!atter of
'O PUBLIC SERVICE C0fiPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 HAMPSHIRE, et al 50-444 (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER (CLI-80-33)
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) has petitioned the Commission to review certain aspects of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
^
Soard's decisions regarding the seismic design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. If NECNP contended that the Appeal Board erred in finding Dr. Chinnery's probabilistic analysis of earthquake recurrence times technically deficient and inconsistent with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A (Appendix).
In addition, NECNP argued that staff's correlation of the maximum vibratory ground acceleration to the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) is inconsistent with Appendix A because staff calculated this acceleration by taking the average of maximum ground accelera-tions for several earthcuakes having the same intensity as the SSE. NECtlP believes that Appendix A requires the use of the maximum vibratory acceleration that might result from the SSE.
Applicant Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCMH) and the NRC staff opposed Commission review contending that the seismic issues are ratters of fact on which the Licensing and Appeal Boards have come to the same conclusien.. 10 CFR 2.786(b)(4)(111).
-1/
These decisions are ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1972) and the relevant portions of ALAB-561,10 NRC 410 (1979).
8009300037 6
9M 5ef
2 After considering the petition for review and responses to it, the Commis-sion decided that an oral presentation on some of the issues in this proceeding would materially aid the Commission's decision on whether to take review.
On May 29,1980, the Commission received an oral presentation on the issues of staf"'s methodology for establishing the design ground acceleration associated with a Safe Shutdown Earthquake and Dr. Chinnery's methodology for calculating recurrence times of larger than historical earthquakes in a tectonic province.
NECNP, PSCNH, and the NRC staff made oral presentations.
Subsequently, NECNP moved to include in the record the transcript of the presentation and two tech-nical papers proffered by Dr. Chinnery.
PSCNH and staff opposed that motion.
That motion is denied, because, for the reasons stated below, we Way take review and remand to the Appeal Board to take 'urther evidence on the two issues identified above. 2]
At the outset, we find that the Appeal Board erred in holding that Dr.
Chinnery's methodology is inconsistent with Appendix A.
In ALAB-422, the Appeal Board held that Appendix A would pemit use of a probabilistic approach to j
deternine the probability of occurrence of earthquakes in one area based on data from another area only if the probabilistic methodology compared 93raphic areas which are geologically or seismically similar, 3_/ Appendix A does not explicitly address the conditions under which seismic data from several tectonic provinces can be used to establish a relation for predicting earthquakes in the tectonic province containing the proposed site.
Thus, we find nothing in Appen-dix A which compels the Appeal Board's conditions. Moreover, we find these 2]
Cf. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Comoany, ('.lilliam H. Zimmer Nuclear Station),
XD B-79 5 AEC 342 (1972).
3/
Public Service Comoany of "ew Hamoshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
~
ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 60 (1977).
9
3 conditions inconsistent with the intant of Appendix A to provide a conservative approach to detemining the SSE in light of the absence of a theoretical basis for such a determination. At this yet early stage in earthcuake science we are not prepared to dismiss an empirical relation on the basis of failure to satisfy criteria, which although they may appear reasonable, imply a greater understanding i
of the relation between geology, seismology, and earthquakes than is actually available.
Finally, we note that the comparison of seismic data in different tectonic provinces is not essential to Dr. Chinnery's methodology.
That compar-ison serves to support his contention that earthquake recurrence time as a function of intensity is a straight line of certain slope.
However, in calcula-ting the recurrence time of a greater than historical earthquake in the tectonic province containing the Seabrook site, only data from that province are used.
While the asserted discovery of an empirical relation between earthquake inten-sity and recurrence time might not be persuasive evidence, we do not believe it should be ruled inadmissible because geology cannot yet provide a theoretical basis to support such a phenomenological relation. Accordingly, in view of the i
need for conservatism in this area, we find Dr. Chinnery's methodology is not j
inconsistent with Appendix A.
Regarding the factual validity of Dr. Chinnery's hypothesis, we find that greater exploration on the record is required. Moreover, we note that substan-tial time has passed since Dr. Chinnery testified before the Licensing Board.
While in most cases the mere passage of time would not provide an adequate basis for reopening the record, 4f the subsequent publication of Dr. Chinerry's works and general increase in seismic knowledge suggest to us, that as a matter of prudence, the record should be reopened. 5/ Accordingly, the Appeal Board shall 4/
Cf. L'nited States v. ICC, 396 U.S.191, 521 (1970).
5/
Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Corcoration, (Vermont Yankee Nuclear, power Station), ALAB-126, 6 AEC 393 (1973).
4 reopen the record to take additional evidence on Dr. Chinnery's methodolgy and reconsider its opinion on this matter.
The Appeal Board shall also reopen the record to take more evidence on the consistency of Appendix A and staff's methodology for correlating vibratory motion with the SSE.
In particular, the parties should provide a discussion of ~
the relation between the mean of the maximum ground accelerations and the maxi-mum effective ground acceleration. The Appeal Board should also reconsider its opinion on this matter.
Tne dissenting opinion of Chainnan Ahearne is attached.
It is so ORDERED.
4 For the Commission
/
A J LTRuss M' L:-S.
f SAMUEL d. CHILK Secretary of t!ie Commission i
Dated at 'Ashington, D.C.,
.i this g,3 - day of September,1980.
w-
Dissenting Opinion of Chairman Ahearne The Commission should have determined not to exercise its discretion to review two decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) and ALAB-561,10 NRC 410 (1979)) relative to the seismic design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
The petition of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) which requested review of those decisions should have been denied.
Dr. Chinnery's papers were proffered to the Comission once before as attachments to NECNP's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review. NECNP contends that this material was not available at the time proceedir.gs involving the Seabrook facility were conducted before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and that consideration of this material would have changed the outcome of the proceedings below. NECNP suggests that the Commission effer all parties the opportunity to file written coments on any extra-record material which other parties may request to be included in the record.
The Commission's standards for reopening a record require that proffered information be timely presented, addressed to a significant safety or environmental issue and demonstrate that the material, when considered in light of responses to it, might alter the result in some material respect if the record were reopened. If Dr. Chinnery's papers and oral presentation do not support NECNP's motion to reopen the record.
That material generally reiterates the essential elements of Dr. Chinnery's
-1/
Metrooolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)
ALAB-466, 8 NRC 9, 21-22 (1978)
2 testimony before the Licensing Board. Because that material is cumu-lative, it is not new evidence which might have altered the result in some material respect. Therefore I would deny the motion filed by NECNP to add to the record in this proceeding two scientific papers by Dr. Chinnery and the verbatim transcript of the oral presentation regarding Seabrook seismic issues m'de to the Commission on May 29, 1980.
a I do agree with Mr. Farrar and the majority opinion here that Dr. Chinnery's proposed methodology itself is not inconsistent with Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100.
I would have taken official notice of the Canadian finding re-garding the 1732 earthquake.
c e