ML19338F859

Responds to Aslab 800929 Order Re Hearing Reopening & Farrar Resignation.Requests Farrar Be Reinstated Due to Knowledge of Issue,Or Entire Panel Be Changed to Experts in Geology & Seismology

ML19338F859
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/15/1980
From:	Weinhold E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8010270433
Download: ML19338F859 (2)

Text

.

Q, D (o s Mig

{  %. ,

6g - 3 Godfrey Avenue

-S. C. Hampton, NH 03842 h fe/ A .r l October 15,1980 e -l TO THE COMMISSIONERS: y #'ec g$*c

~~q  %^y e John F. Ahearne, Chairman .

gi' j Victor Gilinsky DIC Peter A. Bradford UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAMY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2 . . . . Docket 450-443'& 50-444)

Gentlemen: -

As a General Intervenor, pro se, in the above captioned matter relevant to the issue of the SEISMIC DESIGN OF THE SEABROOK UNITS, I am in receipt of the " September 29, 1980 Order of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board", whereby, they will proceed to re-open the Seabrook Hearings to permit evidence on the New England Coalition's (NECNP) contentions as described in Order of the NRC Commissioners dated September 25, 1980.

The Appeals Board, in its Order of Septembe'r 29, 1980, mentioned that MR. FARRAR resigned his position as a permanent member of the Appeal Board and that another Appeal Panel Member will be assigned to the Board in his place. I desire to make the following comments in this regard:

1.) Dr. Farrar became very familiar and knowledgeable with all the seismic data and evidence regarding the seismic design of the Seabrook Units during the lengthy Appeals Board Hearings relevant to that matter.

2.) A new Appeal Board Panel Me adequately study the issue and gain /indept ger willknowledge not be able o fto find the the that issue timeisto necessary to adequately evaluate the significance of the new evidence that _

will be introduced into the record.

This Intervenor respectfully requests the following:

a.) That the Commissioners request that Dr. Farrar be reinstated as a member of the Appeal Board, specifically to sit in on the scheduled Seabrook Re-Hearings because of his familiarity and knowledge of the issue.

SSo1 8010270tg

$e!

G

_ ._L.

2 -

I I b.) That if Dr. Tarrar declines the effer, that the Commissioners seek a CHANGE OF THE ENTIRE PANEL specifically to allow a uniform panel ,

of individuals who will be able to evaluate the evidence without prior  !

aforethought to the issue of " what is Dr. Chinnery, etc. going to present l this time" ? )

c.) That if the Commissioners order a complete change of Appeal Board Panel Members for the Seabrook Re-Hearings, that said members will be experts in the field of geology, seismology and earthquake engineering.

This issue, seismic design cf the Seabrook Units, has and will continue to conce m this Intervenor. . . .as Dr. Farrar so aptly stated in his comments " the burden of proof is on the Utility and Staff to prove that an Intensity VIII is a conservative design " . They have not done this '. All they have done is to bring in scientists to contradict the evidence presented by the scientists brought in by the Intervenors. If the Appeals Board Panel consists of members who are not experts in the field of geology, seismology and earthquake engineering,how can they possibly understand what the value and significance is of the data presented by the Intervenor'ssyvitnesses?

Very truly yours, f

zabeth H. Weinhold General Intervenor cc: All parties of record I

G I

l

}

f

. r