ML19323G686

Informs NRC That Financial Difficulties Prohibit Attendance at 800523 Briefing Re Intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Petition for Review of ALAB-422 & ALAB-561.Forwards Written Remarks for Inclusion in Record

ML19323G686
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/17/1980
From:	Weinhold E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ALAB-422, ALAB-561, NUDOCS 8006060479
Download: ML19323G686 (4)

Text

.' .

.

i

,3gae,81 DIE P!A $B-Q d'_k b 3 Godfrey Avenuc Hampton, NH 03842 Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner May 17,1980 Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner Pcter Bradford, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Rcgulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -

.

Re: BRIEFING - May 23,1983 Genticmen:

Thank you for noti ~fying me of the May 23, 1980 Briefing before the Commissioners reicvant to Ncw England Coalition on NucIcar Pollution (NECNP) Pctition for Com:aission Rcview of the Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board's Scabrook Seismic Decisions in ALAB 422 and ALAB 561. '

Please bc advised, that due to lack of finances, not that of -

interest, I will not be able to personally attend the briefing but, since I have been a General Intervenor at the Seabrook Licensing Hearings (Docket

1. 50-443 and #50-444 ) relevant to the Seabrook Seismic Design Criteria, I respectfully request the attached written remaphs be made a part of the record in this briefing.

l I would appreciate rccciving a copy of your dccision relevant to this matter.

. _

Very cordially yours, N m

9ad.#'a/a Elizabeth H. Weinhold

%f ghg Enclosures t Y

cc: all parties of record USNRC Ib .

,

{ CM_citin

c. Seantuy~l Erm '

6 l 8006060 4 7 e i .j

. - .

.

~

..

. .

, g -

5/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKMD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS ION USNRC ,

_ MAY 3 01980

• C BEFORE THE COMMISSION - -5 gs Office of the Secretary

) Dockstin: & Service In the Matter of ) Er p PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 D ^

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-444 2

)

(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 LMR. 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 I seismic design criteria for the Seabrook Units. )

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

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

. _.

and the disagreement that exists between scientists.

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-1 sioners to grant NECNP's " Petition for Commission Review of ALAB Decision on '

Seabrook Seismic Design.

~

.

.. .

-

.

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 tho 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 0.259". He further stated , ". . . . .

earthquakes are airc.ost 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 %ve many times questioned the reasons for funding the ACRS with my tax dollars when the results i

of their studjes cannot be placed into the record of licensing hearings.

. _,

It is interesting to see that the Staff has made reference to the I.CRS 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/ll/79. . . . Page 3. " footnote" l -- -

1

'

.. .

,

.-

-

3 -

CI BOSTQN-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 Ge tran+

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

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

/when from Intensity IX to Intenstly VIII and wonder why Ahey have not officially changed 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 quakes ? )

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. "

I wish to request the Commissioners' review of these querterly bulletins which support scismic activity - MOSTLY ALONG THE TREND - in just the past 3 1/2 years. of monitoring.

1

......................................................................

'

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