ML20024E688
| ML20024E688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1983 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2088, NUDOCS 8309060092 | |
| Download: ML20024E688 (33) | |
Text
/ D/f'65 % O D
9 6 $s
% ['
POM DATE ISSUED: July 7,1983 N)!
b
@)
d l
RcRs-ao s s 1
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 182, 1983 MEETING OF THE ACRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 HAMPTUN BEACH, NEW HAMPSHIRE The ACRS Subcommittee on the Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2 met on April 1 & 2, 1983 at the Ashworth-by-the-Sea Hotel in Hampton Beach, New Hampshire.
The purpose of the meeting was to consider the application by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al, for operating licenses for the Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.
Notices for tnis meeting were published in the Federal Register on March 15 and 24,1983 (Attachments A & B), A copy of the schedule of presentations is attached (Attachment C). A list of persons attending the meeting and signing the attendance sheet is attached (Attachment D). A list of printed material distributed to the aCRS members and consultants during the meeting is attached (Attachment E). Copies of these documents are on file in the ACRS office.
Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Employee for this meeting.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance and four mem-bers of the public presented oral statements. Three written statements from members of the public were received. Approximately fourteen mmbers of the public attended the meeting.
UPENING STATEMENT BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Dr. Kerr, Subcommittee Chairman, opened the meeting at 2:00 p.m., Friday, April 1,1983 with a statement regarding the conduct of the meeting in ac-cordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Mr. Richard Major was the Designated Federal Employee for this meeting.
l NRC STAFF SUhhARY l
Mr. Louis (Duke) Wheeler, the NRC Project Manager for tne Seabrook Station, i
l introduced the various members of the NRC Staff that would participate in the meeting.
He then described the chronology of the project from the application j
i for a construction permit in 1973 to the present. The NRC Safety Evaluation y
Report for an operating license was published in March 1983.
l Mr. Tony Cerne, NRC resident inspector, summarized the construction experience at Seabrook.
Ninety routine inspections have been made of the Seabrook cone struction site by NRC Region I personnel. Although a number of violations Q
of NRC requirements have been observed, none have been particularly serious.
$g Because of the repetitive nature of three tyra of violations, enforcement S
s i
action was taken with regard to pipe weld repair; control of plant design and E <N l
design changes; and contractor bypass of QA inspection hold points.
In addi-g%
tion to the routine inspections, there have been Construction Appraisal Team y
N
[
(CAT) and Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (5 ALP) reviews.
Al-g i
though some problems were uncovered, these appear to have been corrected and g
x A
it is Region I's view that Seabrook is being constructed in accordance with y
NRC requirements and the Final Safety Analysis Report. Several allegations
'd have been made during the construction of Seabrook. - These have been inves-C tigated and in some cases confirmed and corrective action taken.
}
8309060092 830707 8
2088 PDR
f SEABRD0K STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 PLANT DESCRIPTION Mr. Beckley, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), presented a description of the Seabrook Station and its environs. Within ten miles of tne station there are about 23 towns which will be part of the emergency planning zone.
The two Seabrook units are being built to essentially the same drawings and specifications with one just moved about 500 feet west of the other. They are duplicates, not mirror images.
Mr. McLain (PSNH) described the startup test program for the station.
Thus far 20-25 percent of the plant has been turned over for preoperational testing.
MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Mr. Merrill, Executive Vice President of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, described the complex organization of the sixteen joint owners of the Seabrook Station.
He identified principal individuals who sometimes served in various capacities for different organizations involved in the Seabrook project.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire is the lead participant and appli-cant but depends on Yankee Atomic Electric Company for project management and technical support and United Engineers and Constructors for architect-engineer services.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire will provide the plant operations personnel.
It is projected tnat the station will require about 503 people for operation, 365 of these are currently on board. Although the interrelationships between the various organizations is quite complex, th3 Subcommittee did not identify any significant concerns related to the organiza-tion.
Mr. Michelson asked that the Applicant describe for him at the April ACRS meeting, tne functioning of the Nonconformance Review Board.
It was noted that, at the present time, 32-35 percent of the electricity consumed in New England is generated by nuclear stations.
QUALITY ASSURANCE l
Mr. Mcdonald (Yankee Atomic Electric Company) noted that Public Service l
Company of New Hampshire did not intend to have an outside consultant perform an independent design review of the station since it is their belief that Yankee Atomic is providing an independent review. Part of the organizational complexity stems from an attempt to maintain independence. The plant verifi-cation program includes:
requirement verification, design verification, construction verification, and performance verification.
United Engineers Inc. is the architect-engineer and the construction manager and provided the design for the balance-of-plant.
Westinghouse designed and supplied the nuclear steam supply system.
They each have their own programs to assure the quality of their programs.
Yankee Atomic audits them periodi-cally and Public Service audits Yankee Atanic.
f a
SEABROOK STATION 1 &,2 APRIL 1 & 2,1983 Tne actual procurement of equipment is done by Westinghouse and United Engineers with Yankee Atomic and Public Service making selected reviews and audits. Third party inspections are performed on specific components.
The as-built design verification program has just begun.
It is intended to assure that the plant is built as intended, and will function as designed. The Applicant believes that plant quality has been assured by management involvement and support from the early phases of the project.
Mr. Michelson expressed an interest in the group that looks at the various lapses in Quality not from the repair point of view or the systematic failure point of view but from the plant operational safety point of view of what would be the consequences of this lapse or similar lapses going undetected.
Mr. Mcdonald said that Yankee Atomic had a Nuclear Nonconformance Review Board that was made up of design and construction personnel that looked at issues from that point of view. Mr. Michelson asked that the Applicant be prepared to discuss this item at the meeting of the full ACRS.
Mr. Thomas (PSNH) described the procedure for transferring responsiDility for completed system from the construction group to the operations group and the system of tags used to identify tne status of systems and components.
TRAINING Representatives of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire described the l
training being provided and planned for both nonlicensed and licensed plant personnel.
Mr. DiProfio, an Assistant Station Manager, described the non-i l
licensed training program. Currently the training department includes a training Manager and nine instructors and has its own training center. Tne nonlicensed program includes general employee training, introductory training, administrative service training, a number of technical programs, and emergency and fire training. The general employee training program meets all of the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.8 and related INP0 guidelines.
It also includes technical training for different specialties and skills.
Mr. Swanson, the training center manager, discussed the screening of candidates and the training program for licensed reactor operators.
The licensed operator training goes on to college level courses in nuclear reactor fundamentals including math, physics, fluids, heat transfer, instru-mentation and control, and radiation protection. The training goes into detail on system a'nd plant performance. The utility has provided extensive and impressive permanent training facilities which include a plant-specific simulator that is an exact duplicate of tne station control room.
Lessons learned from the simulated control room are fed back and incorporated in the plant control room and plant modifications are incorporated into the simulator. Tne training facilities include extensive modern mediagraphics as well as computer assisted teaching. Tne facilities appear to be state-of-the-art for large, well-endowed colleges. The selection and screening of potential operators includes individual interviews, Memphis State Uni-versity aptitude tests, psychological screening, background investigation,
e O
g O
APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 The screening process appears to be reasonably and physical examination.
One candidate effective since the success rate of training is about 97%.The screening and training has been dropped and two others were down graded.
The Subcommittee did program meets or exceeds NRC and INPO requirements.
not identify any problems in the area of operator selection and training.
STATION EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Mr. Walsh, Station Operations Manager, described the station's emergency The Seabrook policy has procedures and functional restoration guidelines.been to adopt the Wes The utility is developing both event-specific to plant-specific procedures.and symptom-based procedures to deal with plant em Tne procedures more severe than the design basis emergencies and accidents.
Event provide for event diagnosis, recovery actions, and contingency actions.
trees are developed to guide the operators to the correct recovery actions.
The procedures are aimed at restoring functions rather than specific equip-As an aside, plant operators are required to initiate a manual reactor The Applicant ment.
trip as a back up, any time an automatic trip is indicated.
believes the Seabrook emergency procedures reflect the Westinghouse Owners Mr. Wheeler Group guidelines and comply with the guidance in NUREG-0737.
(NRC) reported that the NRC Staf f had reviewed the emergency procedures and compared them to the Westinghouse Owners Group guidelines and NRC guidelines.
The preliminary conclusion is that they are acceptable.
The procedures are available in the control room both on the CRT (cathode ray tube) display and in paper copy for operator reference.
Dr. Kerr noted fankee Atomic's extensive participation in the development of Mr. Thomas said that they INP0 and asked what Yankee had gotten from INPO.
INPD will make an eval-were just beginning to get some feedDack from INPO.uation of the S The utility is using pre-startup evaluation is scheduled for early next year.
a number of INP0 developed guides and reports in structuring operating instruc-tions and training programs.
PROBABIllSTIC RISK ASSESSMENT l
Mr. Moody, Yankee Atomic Electric, discussed the plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) being performed by Pickett, Lowe, and Garrick which is The purposes of the study scheduled to be completed later this year (1983).
l are:
Provide an indication of the risks posed by the Seabrook Station, l
and the major contributors to that risk and to draw comparisons l
1.
with safety goals and perhaps with otner risks.
To be used as ah aid in risk and decision management at the plant.
2.
To be used to evaluate proposed changes to the plant.
To document risks such that the analysis will be useful and pre-3.
sentable to the public.
W' SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2,1983 The scope of the study includes fires, floods, earthquakes, chemicals, and other external and common cause initiators. A containment model is included as well as a site model for consequence analysis. Yankee Atomic expressed its infonnal intent to periodically review and update the PRA to reflect the as-built plant and any observed potential physical interactions. The current study includes analyses of various possible aircraft crash consequences, in-cluding those from a F-111. The study is approximately 75% complete with a final report expected in about October 1983. A preliminary assessment indi-cates that it would be premature to draw conclusions from the current results.
Having said that, it appears that the reactor coolant pump seal performance is an important factor in the reactor portion of the model and that greater emphasis should be directed to scenarios involving a dry reactor cavity in modeling containment performance.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Walsh (NHPS) described the enphasis being placed on the various means of communication between operators performing various functions of plant They are trying to establish good communications habits amongst
. operation.
the operators starting with normal shift turnover checklists, operating logs, and oral briefings.
Simulator training includes practice of watch turnover communicat ion s.
Tne problem of clear communications during maintenance and refueling is addressed by detailed step-by-step written procedures and ded-icated voice communications channels from the work area to the control roca.
Simultaneous work ef forts will be coordinated by representatives from each working department using the station's critical path schedule. Communications during emergencies will be formalized with procedures and frequent drills.
Particular attention will be given to communications between the control room l
and the energency operation facilities.
l CONTROL PANEL HUMAN FACTORS REVIEW Mr. Sawyer (Yankee Atomic) described the results of the Human Factors review of the main control board. The review was based on NUREG-0700.
It was pointed out that the utility and Yankee Nuclear Services designed the reactor control board rather than the architect-engineer. The review included use of the simalator and interviews with experienced operators. Details of the control room environment such as noise level, heating, ventilation, anu communication will have to be evaluated later after tne station control room is available Mr. Sawyer thought the layout of the control panel was very for occupancy.
good and pointed out that it used mimicing and color coding extensively.
General improvements resulting from the review include some additional labeling and demarcation and some physical changes such as relocating meters, changing l
The review group is currently evaluating meter scales, and adding recorders.
the use of a pistol grip twist type switch for the manual scram function (the pistol grip switch is currently installed). Overall, the human factors review team found the input from experienced operators to be very useful.
l
o SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APHIL 1 & 2,1983 REMOTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM Mr. Maidrand (Yankee Atomic) described the remote shutdown system which is located in the switchgear room of the diesel generator building. The remote shutdown panels have all of the safety grade instruments and controls (with The one one exception) to bring the plant down to a cold shutdown condition.
This exception is deenergizing some power supplies in certain fire scenarios.
is done at local panels not very far from the remote shutdown panels.
CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY Mr. Littlefield (Yankee Electric) discussed control room habitability and responded to some of the concerns expressed by the ACRS in its August 18, 1982 l
letter to the NRC.
The habitability of the control room is, in part, related to the location of the ventilation system intakes. At Seabrook two intakes are provided which are about 900 feet apart and 350 feet from the nearest reactor building and l
l are located on opposite sides of the plant.
Tne conduit from the intake structures to the control room is all welded pipe. Each intake is monitored for radiation and smoke.
It was also pointed out that there is complete l
independence between the ventilation supply for the control room and the remote shutdown panels.
The Applicant calculated the radiation dose to the control room operators for accidents that exceed the design basis using information from WASH-1400.
These calculations indicate tnat for a core melt accident with early contain-ment failure the operators would receive doses on the order of 10 rem.
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL Mr. Fodden, Yankee Atomic, described the accident monitoring instrumentation.
The Applicant has committed to provide the accident monitoring instrumentation suggested in NUREG-0737.
This includes wide range steam generator level, containment pressure, sump radiation, hydrogen concentration, plant vent radiation level, primary coolant saturation monitor, and incore thermocouples.
The specifics of the saturation monitor are not yet defined since the Applicant The is evaluating both the Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering designs.
Applicant will compare the instrumentation he is proposing to that suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 and will justify those differences that may occur.
The Seabrook units will be provided with loose parts monitoring instrumentation in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.133 plus at least one additional sensor.
This Mr. Walsh, NHPS, described the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).
The system is provided to assist the operators in the event of an accident.
The parameters and SPDS will utilize two CRT displays in the control room.
hard-copy logic are available in the control room in the event that the One of the CRT displays will be a colored chart which will computer fails.
The second CRT display will represent the overall status of the plant.
WDuW~
SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2, 1954 provide the highest priority plant status tree or the highest plant. challenge status tree. The displays are color coded to describe the situation. Green is normal, yellow is of f normal but not a threat, orange is approaching a challenge to a safety function, and red indicates that a safety function has been challenged.
The SPDS screens can be used to call up response procedures.
Hard copies of the procedures are available in the control room if the computer mal functions.
DECAY HEAT REMOVAL Mr. Anderson, Yankee Atomic, described the decay heat removal systems provided for the Seabrook units.
The utility and Yankee Atomic Electric Co. have modified the standard systems to provide an enhanced decay heat removal system. The primary decay heat removal route is to dump steam to the con-denser. A special startup feedwater pump is utilized to replace water in the steam generators frgm the condensate storage tank. After the primary system is cooled to to 350 F and 400 psi, cooling is transferred to the RHR heat e xchangers. There are two completely separate, independent, and redundant RHR trains and service water systems. The first ennancement was to upgrade the steam generator atmospheric relief valves to safety grade. The second l
was to upgrade the pressurizer power operated relief valves. The prior valves have been replaced by a new design DC operated solenoid valve that has been tested by EPRI to safety grade 1-E service.
The third enhancement was to eliminate reliance on the plant instrument air system. All pneumatic opera-tors have been replaced with electrical operators. Cooldown to cold shutdown can be accomplished using only safety-grade equipment from either the control room or the alternate shutdown panel.
(There is one minor exception in that one group of valves must be energized from a local panel.) The units can be cooled using bleed-and-feed through the pressurizer from the high pressure safety injection pumps.
j REACTOR C0OLANT SYSTEM VENTS Mr. Anderson, Yankee Atomic, described the venting provisions being added to the reactor coolant system and the reactor vessel. The utility proposes to l
provide a relatively small reactor vessel head vent to release noncondensable gases if they should accumulate. The system will consist of an orifi,ce and two valves in series. The first valve is a DC solenoid vent valve, the second is a motor operated valve.
Both valves are Class 1-E.
There is an open item in the NRC review of the reactor vent system which involves obtaining more information from the Applicant. There is no basic disagreement between the Staf f and the Appl,1 cant.
Mr. Michelson explored the desirability of redundancy to assure tnat a vent path can be opened as well as to assure that it can be closed. The utility was concerned about preventing a small LOCA but felt thdt other means cculd be utilized to vent gas from the reactor vessel and prevent the core from being uncovered. Hr. Michelson asked the Staff to explain later why this is an acceptable arrangement.
l l
4
.G APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 o
In addition to the reactor vessel head vent there is a pressurizer vent (the The utility believes the vent system meets all of the requirements PORVs).
of NUREG-C137.
STEAM GENERATOR TUBE PERFORMANCE Mr. Thomas, NHPS, discussed the actions being taken to reduce the likelihood Tne utility is using Westinghouse Model F of steam generator tube failures.
steam generators which incorporate design improvements that it hopes will The operators' plan is to use all-volatile chem-minimize tube degradation The utility istry on the secondary side and to monitor tube performance.is p contingency procedure for a number of situations, including multiple tube Multiple steam generator tube failures are being considered in the failures.
Seabrook PRA and are included in the station operating procedures.
STATU3 0F OPEN ITEMS Mr. Wheeler, NRC, reviewed the status of the open items identified by the NRC Tne status as of this Staf f in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
meeting was:
I APPR0XIMATE DATE NEXT ACTION ITEM 1.
Design Basis Temperatures Applicant April 1983 for Safety-Related Equipment Staff April 1983 2.
Emergency Preparedness Summer 1983 Applicant 3.
SSE Design Response Spectra Summer 1983 4.
PSI /ISI and Pump and Applicant Valve Operability April 1983 5.
Functional Capability Applicant of ASME Class I Piping Sept. 1983 Applicant 6.
Equipment Seismic and Envi ronmental -Qu ali fi-cation June 1983 Staff 7.
Flow Measurement Un-certai nties Staff & Applicant Continuing 8.
TMI Action Plan Items April 1983 Applicant 9.
Materials Fracture Toughness April 1983 Applicant 10.
Level Measurement Error
qun 1
\\
i SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 'd,1983
\\
ITEM NEXT ACTION APPROXIMATE DATE
- 11. I&C for Safe Shutdown Staff June 1983
- 12. Radiation Data Manage-Sta f f June 1983 ment System
- 13. Secondary Water Chemistry Staff June 1983
- 14. Solid Radwaste Applicant Summer 1983
- 15. Effluent Monitoring Staff June 1983
- 16. Shift Technical Advisor Staff June 1983
- 17. Steam Generator Tube Applicant TBA Rupture
- 18. Q-List Applicant Sept. 1983
- 19. Control Room Design Review Applicant April 1983 The first issue ig a justjfication by the Applicant for the use of extreme temperatures of 0 F to 90 F for the design of the heating ventilating and air conditioning system when observed extremes extend from about -30 to 95+ F.
The Applicant is to provide more ir. formation on this issue.
The second issue is emergency planning.
The NRC is currently reviewing the onsite plan but the Applicant still has to submit state and local plans.
Much work remains in this area.
The third issue relates to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and the response spectra to be associated with it.
The Applicant is evaluating data derived from recent earthquakes to see if any changes are needed in the SSE. Further information is to be provided by the Applicant.
Another issue that remains open is that of solidifying radioactive wastes.
The Applicant has not yet selected a solidification system. As soon as the selection is made and the information submitted, the NRC will review it.
The remaining issues are relatively routine and generally either require the Applicant to provide additional infonnation or the Staff to review the information in hand.
The details of the loop flow measurement uncertainty were not clearly understood and the NRC Staff agreed to clarify the issue at the full Committee meeting.
Mr. Michelson asked the NRC Staff to provide the ACRS with a final Staff position on what reactor vessel liquid level indicators will be provided and when they will be provided.
Mr. Wheeler agreed to have such a position for the full Committee meeting.
qMWWE w-SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 april 1 & 2, 1983 Mr. Michelson further requested the NRC Staff to be prepared to discuss the potential problem of brittle behavior of metal components if the service water was very cold.
Mr. Wheeler indicatec tnat he wou'd review the transcript of this meeting and would be prepared to answer those questions that he could not answer at this time.
FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY OF CLASS 1 PIPING Mr. Cizauskas, Yankee Atomic, elaborated on the fifth item of NRC concern, the functional capability of ASME Class 1 Piping.
Appendix F of the ASME code permits plastic deformation of stainless steel piping under faulted conditions.
The preamble to that appendix states that the rules assure structural integrity but not structural stability.
Yankee Atomic and Westinghouse are currently reviewing the design to assure geometric and functional stability.
MAIN FEEDWATER SYSTEM FRACTURE TOUGHNESS Mr. Cizauskas pointed out that the ASME code for Class 2 piping does not require an analysis of fracture toughness unless it is specified by the system designer.
The design of the Seabrook feedwater system did not include a fracture toughness specification. The Applicant is currently reviewing the design against the materials used to assure the system integrity.
Prelimina ry results indicate that the system is adequate.
PRESSURIZER POWER OPERATED RELIEF VALVES Mr. Anderson, Yankee Atomic, explained that the pcder operated relief valves (PORVs) on the pressurizer are provided with redundant limit switches to indicate if the valve is in the full open or full closed position. The Applicant believes that the station operators will have enough information to determine if a PORv is stuck open and that an automatic isolation feature is not required.
HYDROGEN CONTROL With regard to hydrogen control, the NRC Staf f is satisfied with the design provided by the Applicant pending the outcome of ongoing rulemaking proceedings.
Seabrook utilizes a large dry containment with hydrogen recombiners.
Assuming a 757 metal-water reaction and the burning of the hydrogen released, the containment pressure would be in the vicinity of 70 psi which is within the expected ultimate ' capability of the containment. However, the safety-related equipment located inside of containment is not, nor is it required to be, qualified against hydrogen burn. Containment purging is possible through redundant filter systems which discharge to the station stack.
SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2,1983 AC-DC ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS Mr. Tsouderos, Yankee Atomic, described the AC and DC electrical systems.
They appear to be sufficiently reliable and redundant. There were a few qustions regarding the raliability of the gas (SF,) insulated AC distri-bution system.
The plant-specific PRA is developTng numbers for the prob-ability of a loss of of fsite AC power. The Applicant assures that the plant can be safely shut down in the event of a total loss of both offsite and onsite AC power.
The batteries provide DC power for vital functions and a steam, turbine-driven feedwater pump supplies water to the steam generators through manually throttled feedwater valves.
ATWS Mr. Moody, the Station Manager for Seabrook, discussed their approach to ATWS.
All operators are instructed to manually trip the reactor whenever an auto-matic trip signal is indicated. The operators have developed both general and specific procedures to be followed in the event of an ATWS. These in-clude dispatching an operator to switchgear room to manually trip the breakers and to start the boron injection pumps.
Although Seabrook utilizes a different model trip breaker than the type that failed at Salem, they are also arranging their circuits so tnat trip signals are sent to both the undervoltage and shunt coils.
The utility reviewed a Westinghouse analysis that indicates this class of nuclear power plant can ride out an ATWS event without exceeding service level C.
l SYSTEMS INTERACTIONS Mr. Anderson, Yankee Atomic, explair.ad how the utility has examined the possible interactions between inadvertent fire protection system actuation and safety systems.
The fire protection sprinkler systems have been designed to be single failure resistant, i.e., a motor operated valve in the line and a fuse link sprinkler head. Water is not expected to flow down conduits or ventilation ducts since they are provided with fire stops.
More detailed studies are being performed as part of the PRA effort.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that the four component cooling water pumps are relatively close together and could be disabled by a single water spray event.
The utility recognized this and will erect metal walls between the pumps of the A and B trains.
Sprinklers are being provided for the diesel generators but with limits on their application. An open nozzle automatic sprinkler is positioned over the trench under the diesel engines and fusible link sprinkler heads are positioned over the engines. These latter require manual opening of a valve outside the diesel room plus sufficient heat in the room to melt the link. The rationale for this is to permit the fire brigade leader to choose the method of fighting a diesel generator fire.
SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 The interactions resultino from actuation of the containment spray system were also considered and no problems were found. The Seabrook containment is not provided with vacuum relief valves. The Applicant's analyses indicate that evan with spray actuation, no negative pressure is developed within containment. Mr. Michelson asked the Applicant to provide a reference, at the full Committee meeting, to the report of equipment qualification for prolonged exposure to a moderate energy line break.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Mr. MacDonald, Yankee Atomic, reviewed the status of emergency preparedness planning. He showed the locations of his various emergency control centers and discussed coordination efforts with local and state authorities. He also showed the corporate organizational structure designed to support the plant staff in an emergency. The of fsite emergency plans by local and state au-thorities are not yet complete, tested, or approved.
The Applicant believes that workable emergency plans can be developed to protect the public at all times, including summer weekends with large crowds on the nearby beaches.
He pointed out that most of the station personnel lived to the west of the plant site and had better access roads than the beach areas to the east.
Therefore, he thought that personnel that would be called in to respond to an emergency would have little dif ficulty reaching.the plant.
Mrs. Roberta Pevear, a state Representative from New Hampshire, described some of the problems faced by the small towns in the vicinity of Seabrook in the development of workable emergency plans.
She pointed out the part time l
character of local government and the limited number of full time emergency pe rsonnel.
Ms. Jane Doughty, a member of one of the intervening groups, also addressed emergency planning.
She pointed out the difficulties of either evacuating l
or sheltering the large daily transient population of tourists and beach goers.
She requested that emergency preparedness receive equal consideration l
as engineering features to prevent or mitigate an accident.
Because of the problems associated with evacuation or sheltering in the event of a serious accident, Ms. Doughty, does not believe the Seabrook Station should be li-censed for operation, l
l Mrs. Beverly Hollingworth, a member of the Coastal Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern for the operation of the Seabrook Station on the local
)
business community. She feared that the station would adversely affect tourism. She asked how emergency instructions and perhaps potassium iodide I
tablets would be distributed to visitors.
She painted a picture of check I
points and hazard signs that would discourage visitors. Sne didn't care how safe the plant was, she considered evacuation to be the most important problem.
1 1
SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 A great deal of further effort and coordination will be required to develop and test emergency action plans for the offsite public.
It was pointed out that a number of states that will be involved in this plan already have nuclear emergency plans since they have currently operating nuclear power pla nts. The Applicant is planning an exercise of the emergency plan, with local participation, in May 1984.
OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE Mr. Rafalowski, the Station Radiation Protection Manager, described the radiation protection program directed at keeping exposures as low as reason-ably achievable. He showed the organizational structure and educational requirements for the various positions. He pointed out that Seabrook Station has been designed, constructed and will be operated to minimize exposure. As an example, materials that are low in copper, nickel, and cobalt were used in the reactor coolant system to reduce crud buildup.
Shielding is provided as well as remote panels. Potentially contaminated components are housed in individual shielded cubicles. One health physicist has been assigned to devote full time to ALARA.
SEISMIC DESIGN BASES Mr. Holt, Weston Geophysical Research, reviewed the seismic design basis for the Seabrook Station. The plant foundations rest on sound crystalline bedrock.
The controlling earthquake for the Seabrook Station occurred offshore in 1755 and had an estimated intensity of VIII within 50 miles of the site. Tne original design was for an Intensity VIII earthquake with horizontal ground accelleration of 0.25 g.
Tnere have been two recent eartnquakes that suggest that this basis be reevaluated. One of these was the January 9,1982 central New Brunswick earthquake of Intensity VI and of Magnitude 5.7.
The other was the January 18, 1982 Gaza, New Hampshire eartnquake. The question of earthquakes as severe as the 1886 Charleston event occurring anywhere along the Eastern Seaboard was discussed. The Applicant and his consultants believe there are no geologic conditions near the Seabrook site that would produce an earthquake as severe as that at Charleston.
The NRC Staff stated that it had not yet seen sufficient evidence to cause i
it to change its position that the current design basis SSE is adequate.
It proposed no specific action on Seabrook.
The Applicant's consultants and the Subcommittee's consultants had an ex-tended discussion of the causitive factors for the Charleston earthquake and the earthquake!; in the New England States. Mr. Holt, the Applicant 's consultant, believes that earthquakes in the northeastern United States are related to individual tectonic structures. He thinks there m3y be a long northeast trending fault that has some interruptions, such as a cross structure or a pluton or anything that impedes the fault. The sites of these impediments are likely locations for strong earthquakes.
SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 APRIL 1 & 2,1983 Mr. Holt discussed the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) letter which " clarified" its position on the 1886 Charleston earthquake.
First, the USGS has not identified a geological feature which can be unequivocally identified as the source of the Charleston earthquake. Second, the general geologic structure of the Charleston region can be found at other locales along the Eastern Seaboard.
Third, the historical earthquake record is not, of itself sufficient grounds for ruling out the occurrence of strong ground motions. Fourth, a determinis-tic and probabilistic evaluation of seismic hazard should be made for each individual site.
Mr. King, NRC Staff, stated the NRC position with regard to a Charleston-like event occurring elsewhere on the Eastern Seaboard. The bases for shifting the Charleston earthquake are tuo speculative at this time to be used as bases for changing the seismic design of any particular nuclear power plant. The NRC is pursuing both a short-term and a long-term investigative program but proposes no changes for the Seabrook Station.
Mrs. Dolly Weinhold, a member of the public, expressed her long standing con-tention that the seismic design bases for the Seabrook Station are inadequate.
She argues that the SSE snould be intensity IX with 0.4g horizontal grour.d acceleration.
She pointed to the Brunswick, Maine earthquake of January 9, 1982 and the Franklin, New Hampshi e earthquake of January 19, 1982 as support for her position.
SEISMIC DESIGN MARGIN Mr. Toland, Structural Analysis Group of United Engineers, reviewed the seismic design process and then described a limited study of possible seismic design margins. The study has included typical " factors of safety" between expected values and design values and are based on elastic response. Areas of margin include design response spectra, structural analysis, materials prop-erties, load combinations, code conservatisms, and damping factors.
Tne pre-liminary results of this study indicate that the plant could safely withstand an earthquake almost twice as severe as the SSE.
EQUIP!!ENT QUALIFICATluN Mr. Maidrand, Yankee Atomic, reviewed the qualification requirements "for safety-related equipment. He pointed out that equipment qualification has been a requirement from the inception of the project and that equipment has been and is being qualified in accordance with IEEE-323.
CONCLUSION The Subcommittee concluded that this project was ready for full ACRS review.
Dr. Kerr noted that the ACRS usually waited until construction of a station was more nearly complete, than in this case, before it made its operating license review. Dr. Kerr provided the Applicant with a list of topics that he expected would require presentations before the ACRS. He also advised the Applicant that the ACRS might not write a report recommending full power op-eration at this time but would reserve full power approval until construction is more nearly complete.
15 -
APRIL 1 & 2, 1983 SEABROOK STATION 1 & 2 Dr. Kerr thanked all of those who made presentations and specifically those members of the public that appeared before the Subcommittee.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m., Saturday, April 2,1983.
NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., NW, Washington, D.C. or can be obtained from Tayloe Associates,1725 I Street, NW, Suite 1004, Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950.
O
\\
l
. - ~,. - -
e e
.0962 Fed:r:1 Register / Vd. 48. No. 51 / Tuesday. March 15, 1983 / Notic s October 1,1982 (47 FR 43474), oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public, recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting when a transcript is being kept, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee. Its consultants. and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Designated Federal Ernployee as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow the necessary time during the meeting for such statements.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance except for those sessions during which the Subcommittee finds it necessary to discuss proprietary information (Sunshine Act Exemption 4).
One or more cloped sessions may be necessary to discuss such information.
To the extent practicable, these closed sessions will be held so as to minimize inconvenience to members of the public in attendance.
The agenda for subject meeting shall be as follows:
Thursday. March 31.1983-100 p.m.
Until the Conclusion of Business Friday. April 1.1983-4.30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business During the initial portion of the meeting. the Subcommittee, along with any ofits consultants who may be present, will exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.
The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
NRC Staff their consultants. and other interested persons regarding this review.
Further infonnation regarding topics to be discussed. whether the meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled. the Advisory Committee on Reactor Chairman's ruling on requests for the Safeguards; Subcommittee on opportunity to present oral statements Seabrook Nuclear Power Stauon Units and the time allotted therefor can be 1 and 2; Meeting obtained by a prepaid telephone call to The ACRS Subcommittee on Seabrook the cognizant Designated Federa' Naclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 will Employee. Mr. Richard Major (teh phone hold a meeting on March 31 and Aprill.
202/634-1414) between 8:15 a.m. and i
1983 at the Ashworth By The Sea. 295 5:00 p.m EST.
Ocean Blvd Hampton Beach.NH.no I have determined. In accordance with Subcommittee will visit the plant and Subsection to(d) of the Federal review the application of the Public Advisory Committee Act, that it may be Ser ice Company o!New Hampshire for necessary to close portions of this an operating license. Notica of this meeting to public attendance to protect meeting was published February 23, proprietary information.He authority 1963.
for such closure is Exemption (4) to the In accordance with the procedures-Sunshine Act. 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
outlined in the Federal Register on Deted: March s, tes3.
Ms C Hoyle.
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
b T T A r L.) AA r kI T
e 12464 Fedaal Register / Vol. 48. No. 58 / Thursday. March 24. 1983 / Notices l
p.m. until the conclusion of business.
Saturday. April 2.1983-430 a.m. until the conclasion ofbusiness.
All other itema regarding this meeting remain the same as announced in the NUCLEAR REGULATORY Federal Register published Tuesday.
COMMISSION March 15,1983 (48 FR 10962).
Advisory Committee on Reactor Further information regarding topics Safeguards, Subcommittee on to be discussed. whether the meeting Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Units has been paneelled or rescheduled, the i
1 and 2; Date Change Chairman's ru!Ing on requesta for the opportunity to present oral statements The ACRS Subcommittee on Seabrock and the time allotted therefor can be Nuclear Power Station Unita 1 and 2 obtained by a prepaid telephone call to scheduled for March 31 anf April 1.1983 the cognizant Designated Federal has been changed to Aprill and 2.1983 Employee. Mr. Richard Major (telephone at the Ashworth By The Sea.285 Ocean 202/634-1414) between 8:15 a.m. and B1vd Hampton Beach.NH.
5:00 p.m EST.
The agenda for subject meeting shall be as ioilows: Friday. April 1.1963-2:00 Deted: March te,1983.
g c, yq,,
g Advisory Committee hfanagement Officer.
gra om smsi rtw m aes !
osussa cout 7ses 41-se l TTACHMENT 0
w gr FINAL AGENDA FOR ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SEABROOK OPERATING LICENSE APRIL 1-2, 1983, HAMPTON BEACH, NH April 1 2:00 p.m.
I.
Introduction by Subconsnittee Chairman (5 min)
W. Kerr 2:05 p.m.
II.
Introduction by NRC Staff (15 min)
L. Wheeler A.
Overview of OL Review (brief chronology and current status)
B.
Any Dissenting Staff Technical Opinions C.
I&E Sum: nary of Construction Experience 2:30 p.m.
III.
Introduction by Applicant (25 min)
G. S. Thomas A.
Overview of Plant and Site B. B. Beckley
(
B.
Construction & Startup Schedule B. B. Beckley
- 1. Dates of fuel load and consnercial B. B. Beckley operation.
Percent of construction completed.
Schedule of ASLB hearing.
- 2. Schedule and description of startup D. McLain l
and low power testing l
2*55 p.m.
IV.
Organization and Management (35 min) l A.
Public Service Courpany of New Hampshire D. N. Merrill (PSNH) Corporate /Seabrook (SB) Project Organization B.
PSNH Nuclear Production Organization G. S. Thomas
- 1. Cocrparison with NUREG-0731, " Management Structure and Technical Resources"
- 2. Management and Experience levels
- 3. Status of Staffing
'(
- 4. Description of Plant and Cerporate Safety Review Cousnittees
~*~
- TTACH MEhlT
%e.
AfDCLggQ
^ M?V C. SB Station Organization D. E. Moody
- 1. Comparison with NUREG-0731
- 2. Management Experience levels
- 3. Status of Staffing D.
Yankee Nuclear Services Division (YNSD)
J. DeVincentis
- 1. YNSD History and Structure
- 2. Management Experience levels
- 3. Engineering Services Provided to SB
- 4. Staffing levels E.
Plans for Independent Audit, Conformance G. F. Mcdonald of As-Built Plant with Design, Assurance of No QA/QC lapses F.
Transfer of plant control from construction G. S. Thomas
(
to operating staff 3:30 p.m.
V.
Operations Staffing and Training (1 hr)
A.
Selection and training of operational / maintenance personnel
- 1. Non-License training W. DiProfio
- 2. License training P. Swanson a.
Selection of operators b.
Training program descriptions c.
Simulator training B.
T'caining for serious accidents, DBA and L. Walsh beyond DBA i
- 1. Schedule for writing EOPs
- 2. Process used to review E0Ps
(
l _ __
s~
3.
C.
Plant & Industry Operating Experience G. Thomas
- 1. Owners Group Discussion and Exchange of Information
- 2. Feedback to Operators, STA, Plant Staff D.
Lessons learned from Seabrook PRA -
J. Moody Scope, Status, Preliminary ResultS E.
Plant Communications - Normal Operations, L. Walsh maintenance and refueling outages, emer-gencies (how are routine and emergency instructions handled between unit operator auxiliary unit operators, be: ween units) 4:30 p.m.
- BREAK *** (10 min) 4:40 p.m.
VI.
Control Room (25 min)
A.
Control Room Design including Human E. A. Sawyer Factors Resiew B.
Description of Remote Shutdown System D. Maidrand C.
Habitability for Accidents (and those beyond DBA)
- 1. Address concerns in ACRS Letter of P. Littlefield 8/13/82 on Control Room habitability
- 2. Independence of Control Room and remote D. Maidrand shutdown location ventilation systems l
5:05 p.m.
VII.
Instrumentation to Follow the Course of a l
~
Serious Accident (45 min)
A.
Task A:: tion Plan Item II.F.2, " Detection W. Fadden of Inadequate Core Cooling" (RVLIS)
- 1. Type of system to be used
- 2. Uncertainties associated with system
- 3. How operators will use system B.
Status and Conformance with Reg.
W. Fadden
'(
Guide 1.97
.: a.
\\
..v
{-
C.
Instrumentation to detect severe fuel W. Fadden damage and prevent escalation of damage D.
Instrument to monitor vibration inside W. Fadden RPV, steam generators (brief description of loose parts monitoring)
E.
Description of safety Parameter Display L. Walsh System F.
Recognition by the. Operator of Instrument L. Walsh Failure 5:50 p.m.
VIII.
Capability of Decay Heat Removal System to Deal With Plant Transients or Degraded Core Conditions (45 min)
A.
Status of NRC Staff review of Westinghouse NRC guidelines B.
Applicant's assessment of DHR System P. Anderson capability (system enhancements and cold safe shutdown capability)
C.
Description of RCS Vents P. Anderson D.
Applicants follow of industry initiatives G
S. Thomas on multiple SG tube failures 6:40 p.m.
ADJOURN * *
- April 2 8:30 a.m.
IX.
Introduction by Subconsnittee Chairman (5 min)
W. Kerr 8:35 a.m.
X.
Discussion of Open Items, Confirmatory Issues, and Licensing Conditions (90 min)
A.
Open Items from SER - Presentation by NRC NRC-L. Wheeler Staff followed by Applicant's response to each item J. DeVincentis B.
Staff Summary of Confirmatory Issues and Applicant's Response C.
Staff Sunanary of Licensing Conditions and Applicant's Response 10:25 a.m.
BREAK *** (10 min)
-A-
1 ca 10:35 a.m.
XI.
Hydrogen Control (10 min)
A.
Status of NRC position NRC B.
Combustible Gas Control System at Seabrook P. Anderson 10:45 a.m.
XII. AD/DC System Reliability (15 min)
A.
Station Electrical Distribution System G. Tsouderos B.
Compliance with NUREG-0666 G. Tsouderos C.
Grid Reliability G. Tsouderos i
D.
Assessment of SB Emergency Power System C. Tsouderos E.
Station Blackout and Loss of Off-Site P. Anderson Power (how long can station survive and still recover) 11:00 a.m. XIII. ATWS Mitigation (15 min)
A.
PSNH Comments on Methods for Dealing D. Moody with ATWS l
B.
Current Staff and Applicant views on D. Moody modification / testing of scram breaker configuration. Any changes being made in response to the Salem incident.
11:15 a.m.
XIV.
Systems Interaction (15 min) l A.
Fire protection and its effect on safety P. Anderson related equipment B.
Effects of containment spray on P. Anderson containment and equipment inside containment l
C.
Interaction between Control and Safety-W. N. Fadden Ralated Systems - Results and significant findings from Failure Modes and Effects Analysis l
l 11:30 a.m.
XV.
Emergency Planning (20 min) l A.
State - Licensee coordination J. MacDonald H
B.
On-Site and Off-Site Emergency J. MacDonald A
Preparedness 1
o
C.
Test Exercise J. MacDonald D.
Emergency Support Facilities J. MacDonald E.
Impact of projected population growth J. MacDonald 11:50 a.m.
XVI.
Radiation Protection Program (10 min) i A.
PSNH Radiation Protection Policy Statement J. Rafalovski B.
SB Radiation Protection Organizational J. Rafalowski Structure C.
Qualification / Certification of HP J. Rafalovski personnel D.
ALARA Design and Operational J. Rafalowski Consideration 12:00
- BREAK ***
12:10 p.m. XVII.
Seismic Design of Plant and Equipment (30 mir.)
A.
Site Specific Spectrum R. Holt B.
NH and NB earthquake update R. Holt C.
Effect of USGS position on Charleston R. Holt Earthquake D.
Seismic Design Margins, particularly of R. Toland equipment necessary for safe shutdown G. Rigamonti 12:40 p.m.XVIII.
Environmental Qualification (15 min)
A.
Design Objectives and Evaluation Criteria D. Maidrand B.
Program Description D. Maidrand C.
Schedule for Qualification D. Maidrand 12:55 p.m.
XIX.. Instructions to Applicant - Full Conunittee W. Kerr 6.-.
~
. nnoun EETING DATE: APRIL I-2, i m l' hBC6MMITTEE MEETING: _ SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 S
@ TION:
HAMPTON BEACH, N.W.
ATTENDANCE LIST TLEASE TPJ NT AFFllIAlION hRf6
(/,,
)
- 1..
Vt/. kt*vY C /Aichplsorl at RS
)
p_
7 MD > WfII
,4 cie s cas rut % Y'
{}
}.A 3
2 s
/
Ps:#y cv
)
A cses 5 rpF?
J.An 'ki u l" /
s,
)
S / 4J c, R A
,6 LEl%C - RewT %. Resd<,1 IweS hC CERNF Exettu hk k l ERekr'sM 1
Il6 nl AC 8.
N Vatik/ son u 5 anc - ),; d/W.A /,c ws ir-
't L. le brcera e
UMW 0* R'>' kI'm!'
^M k
l ?! 4 ' a h. T )
S. S, de of N<N.
'M
- 10.
11.
D. /V.
fV) E c A i t_t.
DS fn fVW
- 12. 60 ras ln. %,v l]d/s s.vra yance Arat sc. Lu tt e lo -
David A./%Aan d
% Ac-Mowc. E/e c.
G I
l-u vs w o.-
br)Voe N,-.', floc 0, N'
n_
l16. $ct n A. VM A do EL L O Yl r l DF lNT >
N, b 01
\\
I 1
- 17. 0, lh p i.l!.t Jr (ih.
4 /7 i, N < A n r,..- Rw 1o re
- 18. kies de I t ?
> - ),, > s i,
.n.
i h m s c, ei n L ha ss,u winn;"&
~
- 10. S% L., b. A s' PGNH
- 11. 4 k & G S d.,a'e n Ji PsNN
- n. Anmarw n Ypas14 mig t+
- n. d~ s-4 ~5' C c A L.. s o WV u As/#
- n. 44/2',= n.N M /
~
ATTAR HAA FN7~
0
W @ "n. maoun ETING,DATE: _ APRIL l-2,1983 m
t,0MITTEE MEETING: SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 s
[CA. ION: _ HAMPTON BEACH, N.W.
T 1
f ATTENDANCE LIST 4
gLEASE N5 AFtJLlAllON l
hA.it I
P sw a l. %, b,=,
U h w s r o -
PErGr L. Asicee. sex)
Vssxer Assin,c' s n nea a raasr r=v c= c.12. 0 C C.
YAMt.C5 Aroxte
[
G. TsoobE Clos YpydMEE 1776 M /C.-
fER7;ex
$8 M. C\\ uctLeR Uh /MZ );t-76 / )/b fl(C7?? 1 C Ca -
Y t
f C.
tvesl 4,.e l.
G, E. L%
i G
O tJeerim % se I
- 15Racm. l* RE^
l.
N P'>b / faq C u 30 h.
hh 4J l o's>.9 hWkW kMM/c $ Fc h S ward b)..(A LMV Ek
).
////J L} alm Al. h4 OEW W bb N#'
Yb b.
[.N, Mo c hi' Ficrono Luc mo Gvvic.te.rsuc..
h, RAr'.L t) Ftts'[4G P.T-Cs. & NH.
N. \\
Ewis K;lloa e v, %
k' weak L
'k'i,,e c
)
Psyy YA-Mk&[- A ro.*,16 E Lf dff) @
n.
dl-O
- 5. f f 7'f A S A i r r d f /
YhCes'r r AT, ttic /E LCenf ir 6.
JC H O C-Metl<k.'
TEL.ECT/$C. -
YAllkEE A TC) /71) C.
7.
A.M1/
5..
L. A7 Ei/Eli W at M6t% CE hp, M E t rt-A.. P OE.BBRNE emem s am; l
v o r. ~.
l wes%%
i,.
ho. vne c. % / w Aem j
9sw la. %% e tmm P.S 94 n, 'Junu O Pennsm
- n. n/n n s A. ir/& b s S faa tua-l o
- n. %.(
/c' l?SMH
] -
= -
APRIL 1-2,1983 lETINGDATE:
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i.
'JBC0W.1TTEE MEET]HG: _
HAMPTON BEACH, N.W.
SCAT 10N:
r
ATTENDANCE LIST _
PLEASE lTRI N T Apy3L]Ajjgg
~
hAME
[.
%&amn M
L
,Pshe % dled 93NH
%V4 Pwil-
- , 1( b c i. 0 2.s k.
PSM /4 I
td psp l4 ILppppn 3, pauc i
b.
%"s/m-E_ c.
2 j.
h,1 pi J.c,
h.
W i1 c r e r.- [ I m n,w=.
Arunn t u c21:
'.. rrua.
11
.M 4
f.d.8AXTER p'
k H E // i/: / -
{.
i i&. c De rc.
LWiTED EtR WEEQ5 d@Al57RLC 1
DAW D A
fRHOA) 5 g,
[p.
Rudal4 P. Ale us tadw I'
h>h#(?D $ $7~2 -
i.
3.
C hh s' l d i
_. ( nr 2 i /r h :
3, Las P :s m bs. %ss m
~P3 N N b6. % l&
f Mtmmi 9c, U n Va d E n n ec<s $ ce J }, u t,es h7. kre/ceik Z E4n r-y 2/m7'r olfnm,,eees dCe4..[w.
v
/Ve-t b rr (. E. E d e ra, 19.
_Givist v1 p 'c a A n u n t-
_l unie20 E ac, iarea s s cisirkoc, i6.
psn fI s o <s,,,hh l20. Jcad m nmWk l
weco m-O 1 raua
!n.
A. /w a
na a s,-.,
YllEO
$, k}
b rt (m
- _23, YAfiG n.
.J M. %'c Asc-. - -
U2'r97,5p'eu K. MAJUK ETING DATE: _ APRIL 1-2, 1983 3t0F.1TTEE MEETING: _ SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
~
ChTION: HAMPTON BEACH, N.W.
ATTENDANCE LIST LEASE TRI NT AFFILIAllON E
I AE
"".. T lC KEb 9.
hoqTIE P5d3 A
~
4 Prff
~
E. 1 o'.A M 3 c r E.
T&mes R. CSAfmN YAEC EL Kid ntA F Ce n d-b thv'y. & Low w I (n.)
7 Pasu' O
Gge 6ORy j'i
'JiidC e'W
{ y.t V. k l M c'// '
u,- s c,. -
PE.
2-n ho k.
IlMe' 7.
A n a rF'EE hR-rs East dTs ur, e s y ga es-a rear e, <= c.
5 Joke Tr. si E F A r0 o s.
N DA V17) ('
/7If/EO F A P3//N e
kS k}N
', $. m e a ( 1 e e r.,.o c-4 0.
PGN d E1.
%Ge et le a dia m s,
- .5 A,' d neu?.
E//ra C /)ce.i e' //
/Ls c.
E==
h-l C Y ') n/7 C* t 8l3 V /' CE l(
,, n G s
r Postic EL Gi(W R%a' l
m A,xu D..<fo ~
r-mc as,s.
Nm.,e ceveu s S%st5Ai?iLLIe-oo F wc Es.
. L,['mL O
O f'r/ p i
i;- 17.
L :..,
!'~*s-l ll
ff ll Q,
Ok
\\ bl.
b N_
_g
=
l b e m C u //r d PsW/
~
s to. Su 8 dan 4 vs w
/-/DM /4vfre" l~'/wwceu~rrr Ocu Eci/SC 44*c-
'Dut tw flll'.s on fa 5%D Tku l1 Dc m c WCS#
72 D.
EV$1m./ 6. ud-eau l 7b>sZ1 cla15. 'k %. *
a.~
v a n m
,u w g ts.
-=-u
tr. Dam, usLe MEETING ROOM:
EVISORY CCW.lTTEE ON REACTOR SAJEGUARDS MEETING DH SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i*
m, April. 1 -2, 1983 tnoc-C.t \\}
ATTtsotts ettist sie: stto -
- ST AT' mmm:
at
, m t so.
Shk
- h. Ro J- _)
_ &SM 1
J ASWN
./)hb $ S&L G
{
-~-
[.4.qvMteeg_ A. \\AlALS H 'b N
3dok 3 R/ds-nbhk bfM Q.4T),Pc.fm___
BOO
=- -
o I
PMi lT4f;r, T. h.-p u> a__
p g_-
U f
W-W 2
, c
_ ~ v.
w-4 I
YMC PArre L. 8__M_Det30M __l-L YMc
=
a 4
\\ -fp7;&ee
^
- an Ak 0
q, L Ge;_ LML _
f ""Y""'
%___u_."
n!
- 1_ u -
d L_nH (M1y J_!
.i Wr+d~~
~
f f w _,;o A _ b_ y a I
D, A M
- =.. 4
._ J_' -
J WK -
~'
__ kAue L F mA i
}
.*AEC
\\
c =u p % s.i - - -
=
_ [_ __
_ _..,. _ ~,
~ ~ ~ -
g
- - - ~ -. - - -
g w r e 3 %, _L. _ _1. 1 g e _
a --
GA L rp _.._L.,_..d, EXL M
. R~re mausGL.~--:-:-1M%
= - -. "
hGluyadL_
_-[ MC 3
~ ^
n... noun, nuna MEETING ROOM:
M y150RY CCHMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING CH SEABROOKNUCLEARPOWERSTATIONUNITSiAND2
~
m --
April. ;1-2,1983 wx-
_m ATTE5 DEES PLEASE 51C' BELO'.!
PRIRT trnuirm:
q s ect so.
x,.yE
\\ Aau/
m 2nwu 5
1MW ges
_p,0.sgen l
! msw i
g i_
tJuw w w.
.,e
{Enga n_pr w.s a
OI *^$O
._ WGSN "q hww ft h__ C-P 2, <.m ao.e e.tn3mTre j
pimi+
k l 3egas, t-mu m_
i
[l Psud s
Ice b h W_
h Psud i
%'IN ttht}wA{
\\
$~&>__
g I
1,
%,, /fn
_-p Ra.ss# // 2. /Vke Fhe rson
)
y A ugs e--
I Yoh 3 S W-A-ro o 1
_=.
1 f& rest i
g L O sca. X J te resEL-
{
L_ Pwa La.m y at L
h
%, k e, $~ ec p kj%C u[ Oc ef)
_s. h ei > HaJk y
Grk___iI A y_v.waJ c;cMv,u u /
' ") '
i
=V,n,. w CnAL' i
-W - c m ' A'.
=
=
'#AJ OMid d%,2 -
da @ s., Q a,____ _ - 4 4 A L Q Lea y I.,___ _ 1A PSud L
_ -W/, A_,_ _ _
?.___
y
"__)
P S /v /+
t-
,__.uta a s E A A a.u u 2 2 e. t 1
Qatc_
- p. w w Jp9. g_w_
__w --
. Ja'/./m e-D w h Li i
PSN R r
J DSW7f
-);
L Q e c g,qcgg,e,---e-
--v n----
,m-w w
w-.--------..g
,7m-
-p--
_,,--emy..
....._...,mwg.p-. - - -y-..
-e-.e,,---,.+-----
n.. n o v a,
n,....,
MEETING R00M: g
(
_3 E V150RY CCNMITTEE ON REACTOR 5)fEGUARDS MEETING CH t
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2_
i
=
APrf f.
1-2.1983
-.m
(
m-g ATTENDEES PLEASE SIC': BELO*.'
3 Nw KIRT' AFFIt.IATION BADCE NO.
NJ.':E bN
\\hl 0/X&*106 j
PSAW h \\kk.Sdc
[ ]
. Bs/0>._
~
l VEK
($,,._ 'A E C.
Los %A u.v_n--
Orstps l
-l YAEC
)7 - -
k, Si68'&
-m, fy/jQ &
l
/ &,' y -s ~,,/ A's. W M ;cyae t o, cwm-3. l.
J PSuH n
~
0 h f a, 9~
.e
-e
.,',*?'.
_ I^)
I {)y,
.io r t. ' i a
-s,i' I
/* 10,.
I_
k_u/j;s')^l,if.g_cL/5 --
_ hit;//M d I./ h it:
/
~
A' Y.
S Et/F/N '/ [ T t o /,,7 7 y k 4/s/e3
}
/kwuS
&BLIV mw--
'13 -
f /) k _ -
J$! JD _
i-
..]
/
~
0
_-}
-./
=
-~
-m 1
'"G*
t O'---
- ~ --
A.
t-
.I 3
= ---- m.c,,c w _
~ _, _
_4 i
M d. - _-
---e -
--=::: -
~ ~.m h-,
e -
r L _ _ _ _ - ___.. _ _ _i. _ _.
l; -
e
)
1>
t
-::.w,
-- - c_-w W
'----m,.-
m m,, wm 1 1
_- ~
-_2 s
- a
(
e2m
---m.----
. rue r-=-
h 4%ws ma.m.m 1
'~ -
---e,
-y
R.. MAJOR, ACRS MEETING ROOM:... _ _m.
ALVISORY CCHMITTEE ON REACTOR SAJEGUARDS MEETING
/
DIl f// / b /7b, j
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS l' AND 2 r
-. = -
April. 1 -2, 1983 t.E A.S'n.
ATTENDEES PLEASE 51C': BEto'.'
3KLRT ATTILIATIO';
BADCE NO.
R 1
1 ocas
.-\\
Nr.ME l
- w. ure b
I l
- c. pic helso" 1
A c ss co~ san s~r
~-
l l
Z_ MCs ue f f 1
[- =
,n l
P ro - c m,.
A
- S STDff __
I Y lf ' W ' (~' Y
/? M O uR l
l l
- j A R. C /. W
]
Q. l/,hi Al te t-l hCFR8 L j
f N Ac. - Reo, I
-}L
_ _ _ =
I W ?a%w 1
_i a c
- oc u3 L
\\
l.
hphtu'u '
l
'I ggc _
~
5 6hb.*SW h
H (JW - THV. chm.
l.
2.k%
hf(tc - 6 asc.n.:< s l/6(/o ef /X N' 0
h.
D /V Al b2 e i t c I
[~ /p>iw b~.c wu.c Li, r
CT-M.
@ 3d;A-Vi.w ns A h 4 l *5en h e Tc i
] l%h lwc mru ci
^] %b e /+-4,,,,,t gyi c LA A _/thik_id'
~
m n
b,. o _r-rs _ &.w a ___ ~x____
1
.g,n w.
I1. 1 ?a p ~4 % <cII,.-r<.
- 4. _ '
"l % 6, A p e E k J ; e* o.,.,'
\\
'?
amm mm-ew w
SL L%au.M%u_._L =~]Lwh< Ar
.shteAJ fL Am.1&zm__L,_.
9ss J
.1-J
ATTACHMENT E DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE SEABROOK STATION SUBCOMMITTEE 1.
Seabrook Station Final Safety Analysis Report.
2.
NRC Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0896, dated March 1983.
3.
Status Report prepared by ACRS staff members, C. McClain and R. Major, dated March 17, 1983.
4.
Tentative Schedule prepared by ACRS staff member, C. McClain, dated March 21,1983.
5.
Memorandum for Dr. D. W. Moeller, ACRS, from Dr. R. Tripathi, ACRS Senior Fellow, regarding Radioactive Waste Management at Seabrook 1 & 2, dated March 30, 1983.
6.
Visual materials used by the NRC Staff in its presentations (about 18 vi ewgra phs).
7.
Visual materials used by the Applicant and his consultants in their presentations (about 201 viewgraphs).
8.
Written Statements from members of the public:
Roberta Pevear, Member of tne New Hampshire House of Representatives, a.
dated April 2,1983.
b.
Elizabeth Weinhold, dated April 1,1983.
Jane Doughty for the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, dated April 1983.
c.
f e
e 1
..