ML20010B134
| ML20010B134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1981 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108140078 | |
| Download: ML20010B134 (5) | |
Text
,
- 4 A
tc ~ ~.
So OfRc2 cit'klgy11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 044 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1,
before the N
~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
j ocket Nos. 50-443
,)W_f g _
50-444 y
HAMPSHIRE et al.
)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)3 w' c i
G eg\\r.
- f 6
s ON REMAND FROM TH
\\>
COMMISSION WITH RESPEC iG TO SEISMIC ISSUES REPLY BRIEF OF PERMITTEES INTRODUCTION The permittees-herewith submit-a short reply to the NECNP brief.
The reply is confined to a few of the inore egregious misuses of the evidentiary record herein.
A failure to comment on any porti'n of the NECNP brief should not be construed as agreement with it.
Rather, it indicates that the permittees-believe that the' matter is either irrelevant or adequately dealt with in their initial brief.
%C3
.s
/!D 0108140078 81080fi
' gDRADOCK 05000443 PDR
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ =
O Rep 31 to the Substantive Arguments At Pages 4-6 of its brief NECNP seeks to persuade the Board that the testimony of Mr. Holt with respect to plutons forms a basis for the conclusion that the Cape Ann pluton "could generate an earthquake of MMI XII intensity on the Seabrook site."
The conclusion is a " leap of faith" unaccompanied by a record cita-tior, and for good reason.
Mr. Holt mr.de clear that he thought that localized stress on a fault at the point where a pluton (or i
other intrusive) interrupts a fault could be an earthquake gener-ator1; and he thought this was so generally.
However, he never even hinted that the mere existence of a pluton interrupting a fault meant that the associated earthquakes, if any, would be of large size (i.e., MMI XII).
Nowhere does Mr. Holt even suggest that the size (as opposed to occurrence) of earthquakes can be correlated simply with the existence of a pluton interrupting a large fault.
Indeed, he repeatedly pointed out the total lack of geological evidence in New England of large (i.e., MMI > IX) earthquakes occurring.
NECNP's argument is a wholesale misuse of the Holt testimony.
On Page 16 of its brief NECN? suggests that Dr. Trifunac has accepted what NECNP calls the " linear hypothesis".
HECNP says that Dr. Trifunac:
" testified that rcliance on linearity 'is a very typical de.ily process used by hundreds of seismologists worldwide and I meant to say that all of us do this and I just wanted to emphasize this.'
(Trifunac, Tr. p.
- 751, 1.
22-24, 776)."
1 The earthquake is caused not by the pluton, but by the fault..
k If NECNP read on they would find that what Dr. Trifunac was saying.was that he and hundreds of others, along with Dr. Chinnery, engaged in "[p]utting a craight line through a bunch of points", Tr. 752.
Dr. Trifunac was hardly. endorsing Dr. Chinnery's " linear hypothesis".
On Page 32 of NECNP's brief we fint the following:
"Although the MMI X earthquake that occurred-at Charleston left geological evidence, Mr. Holt testified that thera is no geologic
-evidence of prior large earthquakes in the area.
That means that before the MMI X earth-quake occurred at Charleston, Mr. Holt and'the.
Staff would have argued that it coald-not occur.
(Holt, Tr. p. 405-406)."
This is absurd.
Mr. Holt.readily acknowledged that the basement in South Carolina is buried under thousands oi feet of overburden.
Mr. Holt would r.at have. concluded that'MMI X could not occur; he would have concluded that no conclusion could have been reached in that area prior to the Charleston' event.
Per contra in New England the bedrock is near the surface, is well mapped and evidence of prior large earthquakes is totally, lacking.
Reply to the Motion to Strike NECNP at Pages 48ff of its brief renews its objection to so much of the Holt. testimony as discussed the probability of an event rer,ulting in MMI > VIII at the Seabrook site as opposed to the " province" as a whole.
NECNF argues that Appendix-A does not permit this.
Appendix A~does not call for the probability analysis of earthquakes at all; Appendix A-calls for determination.
-__~__.x-_._--__.__
.-..-__.-_-.__--._-.A
)
of the largest historical earthquake or the selection of an even greater SSE based on geological evidence that a larger event occurred prehistorically.
The Commission allowed probability analysis into the case.
If it be that probability is to be injected into this analysis, nothing is more relevant than the probability of the event at the site.
The renewed objection (motion to strike) should be denied.
I CONCLUSION The Board should adhere to its prior rulings as tc the seistic issue.
Respectfully submitted, Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R.
K. Gad.III Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 617/423-6100 August 7, 1981.
(
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the applicants herein, hereby certify that on August 7,1981, I made service of.the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, first class or airmail, to:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Harmon & Weiss Appeal Board Suite 506 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. John H. Buck Robert A. Backus, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing O'Neill Backus Spielman Appeal Board 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart K. Becker, Esquire-Dr. W. Reed Johnson Maxine I. Lipeles, Esquire Atomic Safety and, Licensing Assistant Attorneys General Appeal Board Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of the Attorney General.
Washington, D.C.
20555 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold 3 Godfrey Avenue Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Office of the Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.,20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
--___.__a--
_ _ _ _ - _.