ML19345D502
| ML19345D502 | |
| 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) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345D498 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012150248 | |
| Download: ML19345D502 (2) | |
Text
c ws
.5 s
- i:e:q
{
y
'-s.a. e.
E, 3 Godfrey Avenue
- p.
. Hempton, NH 03842
{' ff*c/g9jTm4k A.4-l October 15,1980 l
- c%d%e TO THE COMMISSIONERS:
y John F. Ahearne, Chairman
" DM' 3 j.
Victor Gilinsky Peter A. Bradford UFITED STATES OF AMERICA
.,CI. EAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: PU3I.IC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2.... Docket #50-443 & 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 & I.icensing Appeal Scarc", whereby, they will proceed to re-open the Seabrook Hearings to permit evidence on the New England Coalition's (NECNP) cententions.as desc tibed 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 t le following comments in this 7, gard:
1.) Dr. Farrar became very familiar and knowledgeable with all the seismic data and evidence regarding the seismic design af the Seabrook Units during the lengthy Appeals Board Hearings relevant to that matter.
2.) A new Appeal Board Panel M adequately study the issue and gain /ger will not be able to find the time to
- i ndept knowledge o f the issue that is necessary to adequately evaluate the significance of the new evidence that will be introduced into the record.
l This Intervenor respectfully equests the following:
a.) That the Commissioners request that Dr. Farrar be reinstated a s 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.
8012150AYP
,--..--+,c-e
-*-,,--,y-
-p
,,.g9 c,,y-,.,.---p----,.,e.-,-
,-.m. - -, - - - - -
-.. -,,, +,., -
y-.e--y
.=
I e y+-
2
=
l b.) That if Dr. Farrar declines the offer, that the Commissioners seek a CHANGE OF THE ENTIRE PANEL specifically to allow a uniform panel ofindividuals who will be able to evaluate the evidence without prior aforethought to the issue of " what is Dr. Chinnery, etc. going to present this time" ?
c.) That if the Commissioners order a complete change of Appeal Board Panel Members for th a Seabrook Re-Hearings, that said members will be experts in the field of geology, seismology and earthquake engineering.
This issue, seismic design of the Seabrook Units, has and will continue to conce rn 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 VIIIis 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's witnesses?
Very truly yours, kj f
=abeth H. Weinhold General Intervenor cc: All parties of record l
l l
l l
1 l
1 l
f