ML20054L269
| ML20054L269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Hollingworth B, Pevear R NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L270 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0880, RTR-NUREG-0895, RTR-NUREG-880, RTR-NUREG-895 NUDOCS 8207070327 | |
| Download: ML20054L269 (5) | |
Text
--
4'Qfi 6 tate of Nem Wampslyire 8%
~
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCORD Reply to:
Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, N.H.
03844 June 30, 1982 50 4"/3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Director, Div. of Licensing, y L '[
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
' lashing ton,
D.C.
20555 In Re:
NUREG-0895 Draft Environmental Statement on Seabrook Nuclear Plant in N.H.
Gentlemen:
de, as elected Representative ~ to the N.H. House, representing the Towns of Hampton and Hampton Falls, wish to vigorously and adamantly protest the falso assumptions and totally unfounded statements and conclusions of the Draf t Environmental Statement on Seabrook Nuclear Plant in N.H.
(NUREG-0895).
ilith specific reference to page vii, "There are no special or unique charac-teristics of the site and environs that would warrant requiring special uccident-mitigating features", we call your attent, ion to the fact that Seabrook has been designated among the top 12 problem plants with regard to evacuation by the NRC/FEIA.
'Jo, also, enclose for your information copies of testimony, comments on reports, letters and statements, together vith copics if news items, indicating some of the problems which have been totally ignored in the conclusions made.
In addition to the above reference, the " economic impact" issue, pages 5-14 to 5-17, is specifically addressed in the attachments.
e am Jc, along with 114 other elected Selectmen and Legislators, call upon you, E$ the members of the NRC/FE:'A who have been appointed / hired to orotect the
>y public to ensure that our constituents (taxpayers) are given that nro-8$ tection which is not only renuired by law, but which is their birthriqht!!
nu
@@ Deverly A. Hollingworth (d)
Roberta C. Pevear (r) hu Members of U.H. House of Representatives frca Hampton and Hampton Falls 80 ENCh)
President Ronald Reagan Public Utilities Commission l
cc:
Gov ernor Hugh Gallen Attorney General, N.H.
Executive Council Ccunty Commissioners j
Legislative Delegation Selectmen / Council
- f"
- Q*M*'1
- ,,. v a.
. ~ "
- fJ.%
c.
f e
1 d'
.LTHEf Q Q { GLOBE WEDNESDAY. M ARCil 31. Ik2 I
.I.
+
r a.
[ Federal report Nvarns on tubes in 40 N-plants Assmiated Press
. WASHINGTON - Weak steam generator tubes in 40 commercial nuclear units are **vir-tually impossible" to fix and.are causing higher operating msts and radiation exposure for plant pensonnel acmrding to an internal federal re-Port.
o
.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stafT re-port. dated February 1982. says the tube, prob-km in more than half the nation's nuclear units also is responsible for about 23 percent of nucle-
.ar plant shutdowns that are unrelated to sched-
- uled refueling The report also ratses the possibility - char-2 acterized as an." extremely low probab!!!ty" -
l
' 21 hat tube ruptures in more thad one ganerator
- at a plant could cause " Ineffective reflooding" of I
the radioactive core, which in turn could lead to l
. raelting of the uranium fuel.
(
2
.The New England piants mentioned in the )f l
4.trport are Haddam Neck in Haddam Neck, l
[ y Conn.: Maine Yankee in Wiscasset. Maine: Mill-f, stone 2 in Waterford. Conn.: and Yankee Rowe in Rowe, Mass.*
\\
I l Tubes are used only in pressurized water ir-actors (PWRs), which have from two to four., 4 1
p,. steam generators with 3000 to 15,000 tubes p
< - each. Another NRC study based on 1981 data reported tube degradation in 27 of the 4711-I censed PWRs, but the new report states the con-1 firmed number la now "at least 40."
e T
The nation's 25 other nuclear plants use 7
boiling water reactors, which do not have steam generator tubes.
v 6
p
- The report notes that faulty tubes have pla-
^
I ed the industry since the early 1970s and are
[: ~ p'due to a combination of steam generator me-t chanical design, thermal hydraubes. materials 0, selection, fabrication techniques and secondary system destgn and opemtion."
Ii i Rep. Toby Moffett (DConn.), whose energy
) subcommittee has been Investigating the prob-t/c lem, termed it " widespread and persistent" and E..* caled its cost coc_W-as t* staggering." - -
- n. _.
wI g.
m....
, =
W G M 6 Q u & b 4 y p w. M Q :.b - G.;
_. L
- l. 4 BecondsfoiWIMonn:
4 7 :;...,
'y
.a u,
e
_ 'g_. Pum, au's S.4Yg; #p aved*.
.. m,._ p...o. w a.4
' q, 1,3u g g t w ""
g,.
.g
- 7....
p A pa "c',g2.?iM N w
.r -
M y.
m A
- e..D. say enenee u -prae
. Nuclear. Plant
" " "" j
- keep an overall eye on events and pro-
- vide advice to the operstors.
m
'MONTPELtER, Vt,( AP) J De first
'~
"lo.tnvest!gatten shows' that the opera.rs g
alarm sounded at l2:56 a.m. In the next 3
four minutes the reactor core of the fya..A using the feedwater pumps, unaware 4;
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant 9
.-. thattheyhadturned off agaln.
' De three men in control.cf the plant,
came within 44 seconds of a meltdown.
g
'also were unaware that the einergency Any,one of three automatl6 safety
~
~#
core cooling system had switched on -
systems was sufficient to end the dan ' L q'M..
h pL h h,f i}
Mg
- f
%jder
j ger, and they all worked. De plant shut gp gf e. Q andhadprovidedthecriucalwater.
l
.. t..
.. " De safety engineer, meanwh!!e, had
,.o don safely.
.~ -
7 hb-l.. $, D.f.. m'. 6 ' '.p' i O;w---
noticed the emergency system's act!vs.
.' StlII, the April 24 Incident provided a l
p unar
..d
' Uon.and assumedthe othershad too.
reminder,in the words of Public Ser-d REE
~
. )L.' ~ [,. )j*"Y,y.' ','.5. v.A.N.',- f,
(
..I i vice Department Commissioner Rich-m De main question raised was: Itow
,)
' ard Saudek, that " ultimately it is hu-c I
b
,3 e ose did the reactor come to men-
}
. ;7.g f.ei
..i don?.
mans tho control this plant."
s
%n Men the emergency core coollng i
ne Nuclen Regulatory Commission gqyf f F,(n.. g ' systemc!!cked on,the reactorcore was t
74 sald eperators tathe controt room were IM.-* O " - f-- ~ ~ ~ >.g C off the mark in guessing what was
- F$i;gO h,* ' '
W.
~
e
~
J.
a M.*L,1
~ 1 Q".'Y within 87 inches of losing its coolant.
But effletals said that uncovering of the
~
NN' OO{*N
' +
i wron and also faued to realize how the
^^ ~ reactor fuel in those next 44 seconds il j:
plant ad saveditself.
--J*
Probably the most seriousproblem at couldnever have happened.
1 J
'.MORpFELIEn, vt. f AP)*-
the Vernon plant in.Its deeade of pro-IThis is the control roorri at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power pfsht Dere were two emergency cooling e
today with i ducingpower, the tncident also was one systems - one hfgh pressure and the the. Verrnord. cf the most closely documented at the ? wa;ter level terches 170 inches above pump shut down, the water level was. ether low p efficials will meet of down to 136 inches, and the resetorit. sw!!ched on, but ettber would have been
, ecpreacntatives Yankee Nuclear Power plant to 1 plant due to investigations by the NRC the fuel,t4 Inches above normal.
. At 12:56 the rtstag water led to a shut-scl!turnedoff automatically. -.
discuss wsys to improve operationd W and thestate of Vermont.:.
dow of the
- s. De !!rst alarm. Fourteen seconds later, th' ' water' sufficient to rsise the water level. i e
%e meeting was arrartged [
De f611owing reconstruction is based At the same time another emergency at the Vernon facility.
on NRCdocuments.
went off. With seconds; a control level hn 87 inches. De emergency core system switched on,'ene that isolated cooltribsystem switched on, pouring the reactor from the rest et the plant 000 room operator had turned the' pumps 88
- water to the vessel at 4,250 galbns a and slowed the boutng rate by increas-g
,g n At 12:50 a.m., two reactor operators back on.
iplant AprH 2t, ar now in the, and the nuclear safety engineer were tn' But 2% minutes later when the pumps. minute. It was the first time the plant's Ing the pressure inside the vesse!. Dat g
- too would ha ve kept the w ater irom bo!!-
the control room of the 54 LmegaWatI automatically turned off a
'emergen coo!!ngsystem was used.
hs level.o the reactor's cooling 4.,.Sreactor. De shlfts had just changed Daterlevelhadreached171baln - the ehes-no 11took ghuymore than a minute fo'r
. and the plant operators were preparing onein the control room noticed the shut-the emergency coo!!ng syste i
t' operators were criticized fot -
Wh!!e the hardware gets good marks,
. tolowerreactorpower from 100 percent down By now their' eyes were on the.. work, bringing the waterlevel up toJ72 ' invest!gators were critical ci the wor their handling of the emergency and for fautng to noury state officials of.
to riormroutine checks.v.
malnreactorcontrol panel.
.... ' inches.Deptantwas safe. -
ers, ecmplatning that the shift supervi-the tncident untn aeven hours tater.
- . hrnet!me before.12
- 56,, with the..sWithout any water flowing into the'! When the pumps first tuirn'd'ott,15ie ~
sor became too involved in the actual e
. powerin theprocess of being reduced to vessel, the water inside the container. two operdtors quickly~went to the main '
! 75 percent,of capacity, a valve slutk. began bolling off at a rate of about two,I reactor control panet located at
...+ -
.J A.. W. center'of a' Y-shaped wall of.Ilghts, whatwas goingen. Officials also are bafUed
. open on one of the pumbs that feed Inchesaaecond.Aloss of walbr would!ead to a melts.ialarms anddlaiss 7(a.
, -;. $ ' J b uced the pumps shutting down, be -
water to the vessel conta ing the re-.. ulownof thereactor core,releastn' rad! *. De supervisor heaid the puidps s!
- r.. o' Y down and entered the control room,. "ca'use thelndicators were g
- actor's fuel.
but turn off automatically:when the. 4. Twenty two acconds after the se'cond jointngtheothersatthemalnpanel.',,; j.c De pumps are turned ' n mansally,, aUon tato the environment. '
o
. - c.
~
s a _.... _.
l
~~
Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, N.H.
03844 June 10, 1982 i
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
On April 24th the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant problem which j
brought the reactor core to within 44 seconds of meltdown points out that even when the machinery functions perfectly, human error can bring a nuclear plant near catastrophe.
A federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation determined
)
that the problem began when a valve stuck open on one of the pumps i
that feed water to the vessel containing the reactor's fuel.
The pumps are turned on manually, but turn off automatically when the water level reaches 170 inches above the fuel, 14 inches above nor-e mal.
Six minutes later the rising water ied to a shutdown of the pumps and the first alarm went off.
Without any water flowing into the vessel, the water inside the container began boiling off at a rate of about two inches a second.
The loss of all water would lead to a meltdown of the reactor core, releasing radiation into the environ-ment.
Within six seconds of the first alarm, a control room operator had turned the pumps back on.
But 2 minutes later when the pumps auto-matically turned off again -- the water level had reached 171 inches --
no one in the control room noticed the shutdown.
Their eyes were on i
the main reactor control panel.
1 i
Twenty-two acconds after the second pump shut down, the water level was down to 136 inches, and the reactor itself turned off automatical-f ly.
Fourteen seconds later the water level hit 87 inches, and the i
emergency core cooling system switched on pouring water into the vessel at 4,250 gallons a minute and saving the plant.
The NRC in-vestigation showed that the operators thought they had saved the plant by using the feedwater pumps, unaware that the pumps had turned off again.
The three men in control of the plant also were unaware that the emergency core cooling system had switched on and had provided the 3
critical water.
The investigation gave high marks to the hardware but was critical of j
the workers, complaining that the shift supervisors became too in-volved in the actual operations and failed to step back to see what was going on.
l
-,,c
- ~--
i LETTER TO THE EDITOR June 10, 1982 Is this tha kind of thing we'll be subjected to when Seabrook is on line?
What if this had been Seabrook, and the incident had happened
)
in the middle of the tourist season?
What effect would it have had on the people and economy of New Ilampshire?
l Why weren't the Vermont officials advised of the problem until 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> after it occurred?
Why, when the problem occurred on April 24th,
],
did it take until May 20th for the information to come out in the press?
Why aren't the people being advised?
Why isn' t the government j
being advised?
Such an incident at Seabrook could have severe consecuences for the Scecoast region and the state.
If this sort of thing occurred here, not only would my constituents be wiped out financially, but the i
I state would lose a significant portion of its revenues.
On Wednes-
)
day, June 9th, the House was scraping for nickles and dimos with 1
which to fund the state supplemental budget.
What would happen if we suffered a significant loss of rooms and meals tax and liquor I
revenues because people were afraid to come to the Seacoast area?
It is unconscionable that there could be a seven hour lapse in notify-ing state government of the problem and almost a month lapse in in-forming the public.
j#484--
Representative Roberta C. Pevear (R) Hampton Falls /Hampton ;
j Hampton Falls Civil Defense Dir.
l l
l l
l I
1 f
-,-m,---,,-~---
,--,--,,,c-,-----.w--,,-
,----.-c
,w
-, - -