ML19312E310

Urges That Commission Grant New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition to Review Aslab Decisions on Seismic Design.Requests Review of Okrent Comments & NRC Quarterly Bulletins Supporting Activities

ML19312E310
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/17/1980
From:	Weinhold E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19312E306	List: ML19312E305 ML19312E310
References
ALAB-422, ALAB-561, NUDOCS 8006040191
Download: ML19312E310 (3)

Text

. .

[ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TH,E COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

BRIEF Due to lack of finances, this general intervenor was not able to be a Party of Record at the Appeals Board Hearings but was able to borrow copies of the majority and dissenting opinions of the Appeals Board members. I wish to call the Commissioners' attention to the following:

A_. ) MR. MICHAEL FARRAR--DISSENTING OPINION On August 3,1979, Mr. Michael Farrar issued his dissenting opinion regarding certain questions related to the proposed seismic design of the Seabrook units . Without a doubt, in the opinion of this Intervenor, Mr. Farrar has clearly and precisely verified my concerns regarding the proposed Intensity VIII .25g seismic design criteria for the Seabrook Units.

He appears to be the only NRC member who has an open and clear j

mind in understanding the complexity of the seismic issues related to Seabrook i

and the disagreement that exists between scientists. l Where such disagreement exists, the seismic design criteria should be above the basic minimum allowed by the regulations.

I wish to inform the Commissioners that Intervenor, Elizabeth Weinhold, FULLY SUPPORTS AND ENDORSES MR FARRAR'S DECISION and urges the Commis-sioners to grant NECNP's " Petition for Commission Review of ALAB Decision on Seabrook Seismic Design.

8 0060 40 $/ '

W

r o I B.) ACRS LETTER DATED DECEMBER 10, 1974 1./

The Staff stated that the ACRS (Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards) in letter dated December 10, 1974, agreed with the proposed Int. VIII -

0.25g Seabrook Seismic Design.

The Commissioners should note that Dr. Okrent, THE ONLY SEISMOLOGIST on the ACRS panel submitted his " additional comments" on page 5 & 6 of the letter,,

whereby he expressed, " I am left uneasy and believe it would be prudent to augument the proposed SSE acceleration of 0.25g". He further stated , " . . . . .

earthquakes are almost unique in their ability to fail each and every structure, system, component, or instrument important or vital to safety, and, in my opinion, the Staff evaluation of additional margin available from stress limits, methods of analysis, etc. , did not consider all such systems. . . . . "

This Intervenor and NECNP tried to introduee the ACRS letter into the Seabrook Licensing Hearings but were not allowed to do so. I have many times questioned the reasons for funding the ACRS with my tax dollars when the results of their studies cannot be placed into the record of licensing hearings.

It is interesting to see that the Staff has made reference to the ACRS letter in their 12 /11/79 Response.

I wish to request the Commissioners' review of Dr. Okrent's comments and I have attached a copy for that purpose.

1./ NRC Staff's Response to NECNP Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition to Review, et al. . dated 12/11/79. . . . Page 3. " footnote"J

. 6 3 -

C J BOSTON-OTTOWA SEISMIC TREND a/k/a SEABROOK-OTTOWA SEISMIC TREND The majority of the Appeals Board and the NRC Licensing Board relied heavily on the Staff's interpretation of :

"Two distinct tectonic provinces along the Boston-Ottowa Trend known as northeastern and southeastern regions of seismicity" 1./

The Quarterly Bulletins published by Boston College seem to indicate a disagreement with the Staff's interpretation of the activity along the trend.

Enclosed is a copy of the map depicting seismic activity during the period October 1975 to June 1979. It appears to indicate a CONTINUOUS LINE OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY along the trend which this Intervenor has (as seen in the tran+

scripts - 11912 etc. ) referred to as the Seabrook-Ottowa Trend.

l

( I question Canada's recent change of rating for the Ottowa earthquake I Avhen I

from Intensity IX to Intenstiy VIII and wonder why,they have not officially changed l l the rating of the 1727 and 1755 from Intensity IX to Intensity VIII. (Newbury &

Cape Ann Earthquakes ) Do they still hold to the Intensity IX for those quakea ? )

These publications (quarterly bulletins) would support NECNP's argument. . . A-4. . . Request dated Sept. 26, 1979...

" Appeal Board Erred in Assigning no weight to Evidence that the Montreal Earthquake MMI IX govern selection of the SSE for the Seabrook Site. " l I wish to request the Commissioners' review of these quarterly bulletins which support scismic activity - MOSTLY ALONG THE TREND - in just the past 3 1/2 years . of monitoring.

1./ Bulletin # 15 ' Northeaster US Seismic Network System , Boston Collego-Weston Observatory - published April 1980