ML20042B501
| ML20042B501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Costello N MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203250371 | |
| Download: ML20042B501 (1) | |
Text
i
~
y~a,.
,. g._.
s.
. g,
.~...
r ;."
7 __.,
\\
...-..f MAR 18198
{\\ e r
'1
'82 18 23 P152 Docket Hos.:
50-443/444 g
j
=
p.,,
u The Honorable Nicholas J. Costello Massachusetts House of Representatives
{
"y Q
Boston, Massachusetts 01913 ;-
DOCKET NUMBER
' PROD. & UTIL FAC..
Dear Mr. Costello:
Mw Thank you for your letter dat'ed February ll,1982 to Chatman Palladino in which you expiress concerns related to the seismic design of the Seabrook n'uclear power planti.'
The Seabrook Project Manager for the Division of bicensing,-Mr. Louis L..
Wheeler, has attempted on several occasions to schedule a conference call to you with our staff seismologists to give you an insight into the status of our current evaluation of Seabrook and provide a framework for l
{
making a fomal reply to your letter.
Unfortunately, there were schedule l
conflicts each time which hav;e, prevented such a call from being made.
During our comunications with your staff, Mr. R. Berkson suggested that further correspondence'on this matter be deferred until your staff has i
reviewed the appropriate sections of the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis i
Report.
p-m._'
Mr. Wheeler and provide clarification of your interests and identify any After completion of that review, your. staff will write to i
l further infomation you may viish to have.
Upon receipt of your letter, i
i a follow-up reply to your February 11, 1982 letter will be prepared.
You should also be aware thati~on March 3,1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a " Decision
- on Remand" with respect to tvlo seismic issues relating to Seabrook. That decision ~was issued after an 'e'xtensive reanalysis and public hearing in B
Nashua, New Hampshire with re' gard to the seismic design of Seabrook.
The Appeal Board, in that dec'ision concluded, among other things, that E
the present seismic design of'Seabrook is both conservative and acceptable.
g As the decision delineates iridetail much of the history of seismic 2
questions'which had been raised with respect to Seabrook..a copy is B
attached for your fnfomatiori.
Bj
~n
=
b Sincerely, l
.E I'
istgned) T. A. Rehm 8203250371 8203 2 e A
05000443 William J. Dircks, Executive Director PDR ADOCK sd 5
PDR for Operations
- T is
Enclosure:
~
=
Asstated*SEEPREVIOUSCONCbRRENCE.
g DL:LB#3*
D
.....L : L B !.3.*......
... D.L..:.A..D./.L..*......
......O..E.L D *................D..I....
.... N..R..R..............
E.D..O.....
..v..yh.ee1.ena.. 9.w.r.asu.a..R.gedes.co.;... J...R.Lessy.........,R. ')1s
.g3uf1... Aal.
y 1...#ao.tr.o l sa mm A 1Am an
- m
/
N b_ "=&q~ m. '-
% LnomaaL/b-wa j
HOUSC OF REPRESENTATWES
-s 7
STATC HOUSC. BOSTON 02133 h
'3
- v. n y
C0" "IH'*8 Da NICHouS.!. CoSTELLo Notvrol Resources and Agriculture ser EssEx c sTmict WHITEHALL MOAD Commerce and Labor AMEOCURY. MA 01913 Special Commission on TEL 386 2552 Hozordous Weste Chairman, ShellAsh subcommittee ROOM 473F. STATE HOUSE TEL 722 2210 February 11, 1982 l'r. Nunzio pallnMno, Chaimnn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ocmnission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chainmn palladino:
I am a state representative, representing nore than forty-thousand citizens of the far northeastern corner of h!assachusetts. This area borders the Seabrook Nuclear power Plant construction site in Seabrook, New Hampshire.
Tne other day I was asked about the plant's ability to withstand earth tre: ors.
Unfortunately, sufficient infonmtion does not appear to be readily available on this very vital subject.
Recent quakes in our region have given rise to nuch concern from everyone vbo lives in this area.
I would like to be able, as an elected and tnisted official, to offer my constituents or any concerned citizen scan reassurance that future quakes would rJt pose any dangers to public health or environ-mantal safety with regard to the Seabrook plant. Given the current infon:ntion l
on hand, it simply is not possible.
l'y deep concern is based on the fact that the Seabrook plant is situated l
in the middle of the fault which extends into the state of h!aine where the epicenter of the nest recent quake measuring Richter nngnitude 5.2 rocked the eastern New England earth and frightened thousands of residents.
Furtherrore, we are not guaranteed by geological experts that New England is free from the chance of any reoccurances.
I, therefore, feel that the plant at Seabrook should be constructed to withstand quakes of Richter nngnitude 6.0 or better and unnt to have written proof that such safeguards are indeed in place. Be the case that such is not, I would like a further explutation of why and would favor an inrediate halt in the construction process until neasures to safeguard the plant against quakes of 6.0 are appropriately and expalitiously undertaken.
2/19...To EDO for Direct Reply.. Suspense: Mar 12..Cpys to: RF Docket..82-167
% =op... ar l
p
"=
~
b
, - =
's.
~
Mr. Ilunhio Palladino, Chairnan Pagn 2 February 11, 1952 It is imperative that I receive a highly qualifiable explanation relative to the above mentioned concerns.
I request this infornation as a state representative but, assuringly, will not hesitate to obtain it via my federal delegation.
I shall anticipate a prcunpt response.
'Ibank you for your time and attention to this untter.
Sincerely, j
NIGOLAS J. '0]SIELT.O State Representative NJC/kmp OC:
Cbngressann Nicholas Mavroules Senator Paul Tsongas Senator Edward M. Kennedy 9
... _ _