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