ML19276G544

Lists Reasons for Nonparticipation in Seismic Design Proceedings.Relates TMI Incident to SSE Studies by Public Svc Co of Nh.Forwards Comments Re Fcility,Presented to Commissioner Dl Ray,But Not Allowed as Evidence

ML19276G544
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/30/1979
From:	Weinhold E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Gilinsky V 16 NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7906050034
Download: ML19276G544 (12)

Text

__ _ . _ _ _ _ -_. _ __ _ ._

. . ,-e vy ,

DLIC DCCUMENT Ermr 3 Godfrey Avenue ,

Hampten,NH03642fp April 30, 1979  ; '/ _

-4 - 1: .~ e (41 ;.

Victor Gilinsky., Concissioner  :. , . ,

Richard T. Kennedy, Oc =issicner w ,, rx Peter A. Eradford, Coccissioner z.s s sg'4. . T'.

7 Re: In the =atter of Public Service Company of N #.JJ' New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 &2 Docket Nos. 50-443 & 50-444 Gentlemen:

Please be advised that the Staff I'/ is correct in stating that since the June 1976 initial decision, until new, I have not actively participated in this proceeding with respect to the seismic design or any other issue. But, I wish to infor= the Cecrissien and the Staff that this Intervenor did not participate in the preceedings for the following reasons:

1.) Intervenor Weinhold could not afford the initial e50.00 Appeals filing fee plus the other additional costs such as transcripts, briefs, copies, postage, witnesses, etc. etc.

2.) Intervenor Weinhold could not afford to pay the expenses of round trip travels to Washington, D.C. to actively participate at the Appeals Hearings.

As a pro se intervenor throughout the New Ha=pshire Site Hearings and the Nuclear Regulatory Hearings, I have had to pay all my expenses . . . .and I a= deeply gr ateful to the Public Service Ccmpany of New Hampshire for supplying me with copies of the transcripts, etc.

(cost of which, I have given over to the Ha:pton Public Library) .

1./ NRC Staff Response - dated April 23,1979 - to Elizabeth H. Weinhc1d's Request to the Coccission -

dated April 1, 1979

(,-

7906050b3{.. .

2.-

My centern about the seismic design of the Seabrook Units did not go unnoticed by the NRC,,. ,.During the'1973 Fre-Hearing Conferences, this Intervener presented stacks of documents to the NRC Staff which subsequently resulted in the following seismic design changes:

1.) The Public Service Company of New Hampshire was requested to use an SSE of Intensity a with associated G.25 g acceleration, instead of their originally proposed SSE of Intensity 7 ,with 0.20g.

2.) The P.S.C. was also requested to add a scall cooling tower to act as an emergency backup cooling systet....also SSE Intensity 8.

Since neither I nor the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pol-lution (NECNF) felt that the SSE Intensity 8 was conservative enough for the Seabrock Units, we individually, decided to actively participat at the Licensing Hearings and try to convince the Staff that a core conservative seismic design fpr the Seabrook Units was indeed ne-cessary and warranted to insure the safety and health of all people living around the units.

The transcripts of the Seabrook Licensing Hearings and the written opinion of the Appeals Board shows that there is cuch centroversy and disagreement among renowned scientists regarding the causes, sizes, and peak acceleration values of New England earthquakes that have/cculd be expected to occur near -me Seabrcok Site.

5 -

For the Commissioners' viewing, I enclose herewith a copy of the following:

1.) Seismic Risk map showing southern New Hampshire coastline to be part of a Zone 3 High Risk Earthquake region....taken from Earthquake History of the United States publici.ed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad=inistration (NOAA) in 1973 2.) Intensity map showing that the southern New Hampshire coastline experienced earthquakes of Intensity 7-VII and earthquakes of INIENSITY VIII- IX.....taken from Earthquake History of the United States, et al.

3.) Seismic map published by Sbar & Sykes, 1973 tracing the Cape Ann to Ottowa seismic trend. (Kindly note that the center of the trend goes directly through Seabrook.)

4.) Comments by D. Okrent of the Advisory Concittee en Reactor Safeguards dated December 10, 1974 which was sent to the then NRC Chairman Dixy Lee Ray. . . . . reporting his observations en Seabrook Units 1 & 2 Seismic Design.

(Due to certain regulations of the NRC.....the letter was not allowed neither was Dr. to beOkrent presented allowed intotoevidence be calledatas thea licensing) witness. Hearings..

I am still trying to figure cut why an Advisory Committee was instituted to advise the NRC....when the Cctaission doesn't take the advice.

The Staff, in their response herein referenced, stc ed that the Ihree Mile Island tecident has no relt:5enship to selecticn of the proper SSE for Seabrook. Directly, in that an earthquake did not cause the vtive to rupture, I will agree with the Staff. But, INDIRECILY, it certainly has a relationship to Seabrook in thut it has proven that an inconceivable, improbale and impossible event leading to a serious cocident did occur and alasst resulted in a core meltdown.

The IMI accident has also shown that the Nuclear Regult: cry Ccceission and the Utilities should be giving the people the MAXIMUM AMCUNT OF FAFETY IEEY DE3ERVE. . . .not the bare minimum necessary to comply with the Rules and Regulations .

The transcripts and records of the Seabrook Hearings ccke it very clear that the SSE of Intensity 8 with 0.25 g is the 3ARE MINIMUM seismic design criteria for the Seabrock Units cnd the satll cooling tower.

( I have yet to fully understand how the Stcff can justify their reasoning for requesting that the backup emergency ecoling tower also be designed for an SSE of Intensity 8. In my opinion, an emergency backup systec ....no cctter what it is....is supposed to be the fail-safe system and should be designed more conservctively than any other pcrt of the' facility. )

In regcrds to the COOLING TUNNELS,.the tr;nscripts will shcw that I have never argued that the tunnels shoulo be designed as ;

Seiscic Category I structure.....what I have s:cted is that since the cooling tunnels are only designed fer Intensity 5 wl h an associated 0.13g, I did not feel it was an adequcte siistic design

5 -

% -- m.~ev- , a. vn .r. +v.H.u. #

..e. n., .

+'

w n .a. ~w ~u'n c- 4 ae +v eu v s .i v~f, n.,P s

o c .H.e...r..

t

. .e. ~U.v. =4-0,,, ...av y of E2rthquakes (herein referencei) clearly shcws that the Sc;treck Tectonic Zone experienced:

Fourteen earthquakes of Intensity V to "II (alse in F.S.f..R.)

Two etrthquakes of Intensity VII - VIII (nico in 2.S.A.R.)

~

m.. . o -pm.- wu 'n q k, ,.,.'a..c s o 4#

m.m,, u ca ,, o~ 1 v). "v T . T. T. +w C ,T A (' wc.

n , v . . 4 .n. 7 f no+w 4 r' . vo. .c. . .;. .

_r,a. ..- wor cueyc-.,m, t . eo r .J.e. 4 ma u u , ,a. . .. - -oc o.c _4-_4c c-.

4 mcc_a c.e . ..a. .

. im s 3 cooling tunnels cccurred on august 26, 1979 when 1 3.1 magnitude ecrth trc=or occurred two miles cff-shore of Scubrcok. ihe size is insignificant but the recorded and dccumented epicenter is cf special significance. The tunnels, in accordance with the 1976 rcquest of the Environmental Protection Agency, will 'cu Ihruc snd a Enlf niles long ( 3.5 ) .... this lengthening will make the tunnels even rcre susceptible to the effcets of Intensity 7 and lcrger earthquakes.

T.w.e-

. 3 +u m.e e..m

- w, o ..o o _

-u + __,,. - c ^w . . = .4 dv o ". c 4 - v. k. ".

.cl_'c".._'..e.*

• k- ..*", U"nC,S -,

-4t .w .

1 . ') ;cCnCm4C v . A-e.'

a e C +o C2# w.,_. n ,u ..4 .v 4 ** 6

~

s ** C ' ;- a-* * - - ' - - -* C e are ' clocked froc an Intensity V or larger carthque.ke . . . .r.nd th-cssociated aftershocks.

a ,a -

c.) scCnv,C&C ca_ee-ec. Ci c .w. _ w .e. ,c vr.e ye n.. ..l s. ,

m 4 s vi.e ou v, C .r. c- a, c: v e.o to frsqucnt shutdowns to rcpcir the tunnels.

~

.7,. ,.,.., e.au

r. A + . . . - , -

ut-. - r.

v. ~v .w. c. vc'v= 4 e.. a-m.n -

c' . , -

v--ce-.s

~nvn

- ~= ~. aw .r, ,-a

- . ~ r--. 2 ,

j2 . ')

4"'

scr e c .a . .' ,y. umu

,e..

+w 4 C C c 12.n.e

. v- ~a v~ .w ,

4e A-

-k u-v 2 e

.2 ^ c 4 ---' "

• y" ~ **

"u. ' ' d -v s'n --

w sv' # r - e "- " ~-

unscheduled shutdown 3.

, .=e.ww .=ew e- .==-w. -- .%

6-Since the Cottission has not yet, to my knowledgc, stated their reasons for concern about the earthquake resistance of the piping systcms in the five nuclear facilities that wcre shut down for raevaluatier,....I can only speculate on the follcwing:

A.) The Northeastern Seismic Network System, which went inte opcratiot. in late 1975, has recorded and documented MUCH SEIEEIC ACTIVIfY throughout the entire northeast as can be sren in their quarterly bulle tin publications.. . . .which I an certain have buen received by the Cetrission.

B.) That these documented seismic events have E.rcused the concern of the NRC .... .

(if it hasn't - it certainly shcull ! )

As the Commission is well aware, on April 17, 1979, two earthquc.kes of magnitude 2.0 and 4.1 (values us reported in newspaper accounts ) occurrec cight ( 8 ) tinutes apart in the scuthcastern Maine coastline.

This supports one of cy original contentions that it is conceivable for two Intensity VII 's *! or Ii!O IH.TEESITY 7III earthquakes to simultaneously damage the ecoling tunncis and put undue stress on the Seistic Categcry I structurcs.

ref.

2./ Two Intunsity VII earthquakes with strong uftershocks occurred in lake Ossipce en Dec. 20 and Dec.24, 1940....the Staff has put lake Cosipee in the sane tcetonic province as Scabrcok.

_ . . _ _ _ _ . _ ~ __ . . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . . . __...

7 _

I wish to oncc t-cin6 ccphssize to the Ccanissioners nnd the Stuff that the Sesbrook Units will bc 1ccated ir. t. unique ,

little understood, cnd controversi_1 seismically active earthquakes region.

It is the DUTY of the !!uclecr Regu11tcry Cc cission to establish a sufficient margin of cincervatisc in sciecting the i

MAXI ETI' SEIS!!IC DESIGII nece ssary to assurc that the S, .'rrock Units can be opertted withcut unduc risk to the hetlth nd saa ty of the public.

As President Carter recently stated, Thc nuclear industry should be giving peopic thc maximum safety they deservu ....not...

the minimum caount nece ssLry ".

Very cordially ycurs, p gj s

. jNxlA Elictbeth H. i.;cinhold cc: 211 pcrtics of record cujo sw m Frecident Jincy Car:er

..-T UD,N,

\.

. ,; ,e,V.

~.- "

!Ionorable Diry T.co P.ay

• _. g o ',7'*[-

.. e.

'\ -

.u i-N

.h M ! < t ! e ,1 e c--~~~ ~ ~ h v D . U rn., t  ? ~'

o

) ~#

.i  %..i. . ...

y.-y Tuc Scabroch Station site is near wh c is ;.;cncrally rcccanized cs 'tV ' i a; Capo I.nn-to-Ocis*a Trend. Ucchanist.ts for carthquche cencration in the I!c Enr. land area cro act veli underatoci, and cupcrt opinion differs concernin:; the potentici for and probability of relati.vcly lart,c carthquahac at or near the cite.

T.

~

' Tho Ec;uintory Stcf f hrvo ultimtcly 1,csed their juc'cr ent no tr an necepcc::!c r:fe cautdeva ca.rthquaho on ti.e .:pplicatio:. of 10 .a Tcet 100,.'qiperdin .'., rather than a probci,ilistic ccti:..ata o.;

cc):th':unho e t cc versus recurrec':c interval.

It is of interest to i

note t.aa c

,..p. envi:: e. prcnnco cr ,y ;uneral Lotunnco; .urtacr::c c, it npacificeilf refers to the pcssi'cle choice of a safe ci.utscen certhque'.e lart,cr than that fou :d in the historical record for o tcetonic ceruct'rc cr province.

During the ACCS revict the Tse;,ulatory Staff did str.tc that the scicnici.ty r;f the tecronic rc:,ica cpplicable to the Sc ;beco!. cite cGuld he ince:lpreted to be nbout En 3rdCr of L.30nitudo larger '.l.i n Other cN.tenic provincen havi.m a siniler n. .ir.u- bir.te.d er - .t c e:nnt. w he ;ne rr..o. c , a .is r.r ..t cue Oct. .lc cory i tad m.tc.d c'.a t his ca tit:tte of the probability per yesr of occurrcacc of cn,n .: ..-

qur.hc of intensity Ci VIII at hc Scabron:. aito :.a about 10, and the Stafi Jid t.oc rule out the pc.:::ibilitf of n larger ccrti. ;uc..c occurring within the rc3 co 1 under conciderr. tion. incy stated tanc conscreatim.:s in nocivais, stre.c lir.ucs, cad other factor decrce.se the evcrnll probah.lD:y of fcilure of sci'.;.si Clc.:s I cttucture an: piping by a f:u orders of Im.nitude cad hence, the overall prcbchi2 ity of a ceice:icall/ ins,uced accident cn:ccding 10 Ci"A-Part Id0 t:culd be acceptably low. .ncver, earthymhe ; ara air. cst uniqec in their chility to fail cach cnd every :Cructure, syatcr, y/

co r.,cocent, or ins tru ..cct ir';3rtant or vital to ct.foty, and , in a.y /

op'nion, the Staff ct n'.ua tion of cdslitionci c argin availar:1c fro.:. '

ntrtc. lioits , i sthc h. of miycin, etc., did not con ider all cuch (syct:.-s, c.0., D.;. power er cc.ergcccy a.L. ;.c . c r . ,

,It is cicar th t the capability of a reactor to ochieve scic sautdeva, act.w.ir.:. i:: f.i.; cccurs, cato.ot be fully oe.onstrc:c3 oy rest. 1 hec.

li::itcs, dctciled independent audi;n of sei .:ic denia . o actcal f.1:.nta tr..it c vc beca published indicate that so e i nic;ca.cies in desi;n rad construction exist. Equally or :. orc i.porb r.t, it app:.:a. to bc unli' cly that tr.: plant ccald .urv'.vc c:fely, with a high decrce of a.csur-.r.cc, a le.;Jer eartnquce navin; rne or two .-

Orm,'r.i of i ;nktur.c ,SC.ics probs.b a.A*. , tf than the p r po6cs d.44 .

a-

y, Henerable Dixy Leo nay .

/diftiorsi e.---n t s b t D. C' trne (continuo 3)

/ '

/ Given thit: bech,;round, cr.d rece;nizing the sabatontial surrounding '

d d

yccr-round population dcncity cnd the very h:th ecarby po:,ulation during the summer months at Scabrook, I a, laf t unessy and believo l it would bo prudent to augment the proposed $2 ceccleration of 0.25J.

I alco wish to reiterato ny conclusion ; revievely stated in con-nection virh the review of Grdnd Colf Units 1 cnd 2, nacly th:t it vould be prucent to provido oowe cdditionM :srsin in the scis.ric design basco for most futuro nuclear plants sited cast ,

of the Ecchies.

e e

a

\,

9 D! ,

1. % l TsN  !

m

.Ocp? o __ ,

$hp.,

% g h3 i N+. 7p.s Introduction 7

/ mJ l ,

This publication is a history of the prominent Some earthquake activity has occurred in the part earthquakes in the United States from historical of Texas located in the Western Mountain Region. l times through 1970. It supersedes all previous edi. The map facing page I shows locations of all .

tions with the same or similar titles (see page ii) earthquakes in the regions that follow. A small map l and, in additior. to updating earthquake listings showing the area covered by each region immedi.

through 1970, contains several additions and correc. ately precedes the resume o! each chapter (except ,

tions to previous issues. It also brings together under for the Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii regions). .

a common cover earthquake data pre <iously listed in fhe seismic risk map below was developed in Janu.

two separate reports: Earthquske History of the ary 1969 for the concerminous United States by Dr.

• United States, Part 1, Stronger Earthquakes of the S. T. Algermissen of NOAA's Environmental Re.

United States (Exclusive of California and IVestern search Laboratories. Subject to revision as continuing Nevada) and Earthquake History of the United research tearrtats, it is an updated edition of a map States, Part 11, Stronger Earthquakes of California divides the United States into four rones: Zone 0, and ivestern Nevada. Another addition to this pub. areas with no reasonable expectancy of earthquake lication is the inclusion of a section describing earth. damage; Zone 1, expected minor damage; Zone 2, quakes in the Puerto Rico region. expected moderate damage; and Zone 3, major de.

For the purpose of listing and describing earth'.

structive earthquakes wM may occur.]

quakes, the United States has been divided into When using the statistics inTdis ,it publicatio nine regions: (1) Northeastern Region, which should be remembered that exact seismological ,

includes New England and New York activity and information has been available for less than 70 ,

observations of the principal earthquakes of eastern years. The most common source of data is reports

• Canada; (2) Eastern Region, including the cen. from eyewitnesses. These are often subject to error,

'ral Appalachian seismic region activity and the

.rea near Charleston, S.C.; (3) Central Region, .

which consists of the area between the region just I described and the Rocky Mountains; (4) Western

' Mountain Region, which includes all remaining states except those on the Pacific coast; (5) Wash.

h h,[ -

i

\ 3, ington and Oregon; (6) Alaska; (7) Hawaii; (8) 1_'. t y # I. y '

l Puerto Rico; and (9) California and Western E' $ -p j if(

Nevada. This arrangement has been made chiefly 7 with reference to the natural seismic divisions. It 1 M

l b)2lj 2/,,j- l abo is a convenient arrangement because there are '

only three states where there is are important divi.

'i I

lnU/V ['~'"pk; \'

ston of earthquake activity: In Tennessee, there amtt L g,0 o i are quite distinct areas at opposite ends of the o n.n

^

o state that fall into dirTerent regions. Only central 1*

m 2 we '

and eastern Nevada are included in the Western '

Mountain Region, as the activity of the western Part is closely associated with that of California. Seismic risk map for conterminous United States. .

I i

,-- s - .., - * - - . - - - - . . - . -

6 g .

h,9)f.

}-

( 3-i n

q,.:;..}s - ,.

y.

~-

- - %.by1 .

.% , ,' ,\  ; >

_ 2_ 7 r-y~ - :.. . 3 ... - ., ..-

-y s

.c :?

i .

,J'-L.t, 'O - :. s ,

-. y_. .. .

, h.m - - e t. ' b e), '

QQp

^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~

^

[~'.'= ., . /

\ '

.. y' , ,', 1

\ .

..n. -

\ , . . x

g. ;

. - ...- K i .-\ 1

. ;.g s ,,

' 't L. : = .>

\.. . ... . - i. ..p

~ -

.. - -tx , 5 , ~

- e; a .

./. w/r,\ m l~~ ~

_y f

f - ) __ _ '. ,

... g~ _ \ . . . -

I- '"

h t7_L _ .

,-g... .. . t -

a. .. . . . . . . _

b eJ SEISMICITY OF NORTIIEASTERN UNITED STATES 1928 TO 1959 (SBAR I ND SYKES, 1973)

Figure 2 M

- D

-/ ?<.L L u M

, e  :

. a e

• me m s - -

D D 0) i.. .

. t.

cob o M. d .

o l i

j; '

$fbfMEN . 1 "

=

.S_~

I)!!r

!# l 7 . i= =.h."h. . .

.  ? E ,i i. j

,[9Q b.h y.=pv*.:. ,

I b

3 ..  : 2= . 71%. . . t

=

=.c ;*

e . t >  ; ..: -

-*.=:,=

= : 1 ;.. =; _

Sa;;;<e 2 -

c

%$ = ; m.M

. *. "- # 1 11 1 1 1 ;'S y '. .

..

=

.. 1;J- 3 2 3 .

I - .

= .

- r ..

. . . . s@

E

n. .

. s; '%

1.

, e/= * ... , \ .

.=

.),  :

z .s .

t

,:S.

_=

=

v. -

e r.

= .s. , ,t gi L

~

I.=_ =-

i.

/ __ = ,j!

. s. . .. .. 3 n

. a . .

. s .,

f =

f* E/ .6 M,{."y j [ ,

'{

' 1"

_ ' .. . :. . 45i

..y&,".

4 . .-~:,# ':- )

.:.a.yu....)'.v:?.. .:.:-. . . . ... . ,. ..

+

/m: ; ~m.> , . 9

. q f; a!

r n

.. .. . .y.

, . >. a kl.;r.,.d w

Ql w#,s=4 ?f l1 b.i; a.:!

..-,.%[..

. ~

,t . , .

m,

. . 4 .

.fy'-

j  ;

1 o. ,

t

[

. . . . . . , ,