ML20105B222
| ML20105B222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1982 |
| From: | Hafner B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Joshua Wilson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105B226 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8203160412 | |
| Download: ML20105B222 (5) | |
Text
_
9 t c, 4
RECEN D i
MAR 1'51982* b aill nafner at:mtream '
54 aobinwood Street 8"*8 "*' "
/
Mastic, NY 11o50 m
4 07 March lo82 3
c Jerry N. Wilson, P.E.
Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4ashington, DC 20555 SUBJ: Pool Dynamic Ioads & Reactor changes for 31oreham Nuclear Power Station unit 1
Dear Mr. Wilson,
In 1968, design changes were made at SNPS which resulted in an increase of net electrical output from the original 5k0 T4 to the current 820 MWs. However, the volume of the Suppression Pool was not correspondingly increased and it remains at 81,350 gallons.
1 At that time, when notified by the applicant (Lilco ) of the in-tent to increase the power level while maintaining the same pool volume, what was the technical justification for allowing such a design deviation?
2 What should have been the proper pool volume for this 820 MW level?
- 3. At that time, what design modifications were ordered to.compan-sate for the reduced efficiency of this pool?
- 4. With the discovery of the unexpected Mark II contairment pool dynamic loads in lo75, now complicated by the already reduced L
. pool volume, wnat design features nave been'incorocrated into the facitity to compensate for these greatly increased stress forces?
- 5. In NUREG-Ok20, Supplement 1, dated September lo81, FSER for the facility, section 3.8.1 Concrete Containment (page 3-1) it states :
...the effect of fluid-structure inter-action (FSI) was assessed by the applicant and found to be either insignificant or adequately covered by other conservatisms in the design.
'diat FSI effects were found to be significant and what "o ther conservatisms in the design" are being relied upon to compensate for _them ?- -__.
~
- ~
mn.
sao3$$$2 ENh2 o
g
o PAGE T'40 Dynamic loads / reactor Bill Bkfner
- 6. Shorehem 's reactor vessel was originally designed per the ASME code, lo65 edition and was ordered in Fbbruary lo67. However, it was not until November-December '1968 that the apolicant deceided to increase the not electrical output power. Therefore,
what system and/or hardware modifications were necessary to achieve this 820 MW 1evel?
Thanks for your time and your cooperation on these questions is greatly appreciated. While I certainly have no objection to a telephone reply on this matter, it seems that the specific nature of some of the inquiries may be more suitable for a written reply although your free to use your own discretion on the matter.
(516 ) 281-6946 during normal business hours.
Daanks aEain, Sincerely, W
\\
Bill Hafner O
em aes e e e e e 9
e w-
7 n w x.M
/*
C.C.e I
.2. - T X
/
7 LILCO and Muclem. Safety
{
In raponse to your editorial "Hd:!ing Down the
- Price fo-Safe. Nuclear Power" whid appeared on
- Dec. 27
)
i The 5"'olk Legis!ature's disappreval of the pro-pwed a--
T.ent veith LILCO was c. a " mistake" t e r "e.-
. udter al sts:c a. LYLCO-with Ntclear i Regulatcry C.c.u-1.on up; wal " granted ccnces-s: ens"(r.w an:o:ar as the e.
tions for those " con-cession.$* ere dictated c otherwise strictly controlleu. For those who teck the time to study the I agreement. the. county's coricerns were consic.ered
'(only insofar as they.were esnvenient.
Now LILCO has another full intervenor to con-i tend with-something they had hoped to severely L restrict with the proposed agreement. Poor LILOO.
nothing seems to go its way. Well. I suppose
, they'll have to soothe their ego by asking for an-pother rate hike.
3 Bill Hafnar Mastic
/
p i
'6 t^
Y.
y.
4 -
4
k Date 5-hl-7/
HEPSDAY 6
1 /
LILCO IS THE HINNEll IN SCO3EEDI DEAL Several key issues are conspicuously absent ' fired. Then it successfully lobbied against the from the editorial supporting the deal arranged county, changing its legal status in the hear-between Suffolk County Executive Peter Coha-ings from that of being neutral' to being "op ;
lan and the Long Island Lighting Co. ["Negotiat-posed." And now we are being told that LILCO ing a Safer Shoreham," May 25). Let's look at is giving the county an opportunity to " win"
, some of those issues.
but few mention that it's ultimately according-
% The S245.000 of ratepayer's money that to the company's terms.
LILCO has offered Suffolk County to develop a One of the concessions that LILCO has radiological emergency response plan is contin-agreed to is that of allowing the ecunty a repre-gent upon the following specific concessions from sentative on the Nuclear Review Board. Howev-the county:
er, Newsday's editorial failed to mention that all e That the County Planning Department de-the members on this board would sign an agree-velop the study from the starting assumption ment to keep all information in confidence. Deci.
that evacuation of Long Island's East End, in the sions over disclosure would be up to LILCO or event of an accident tt Shoreham, is actually the Nuclear Remlatory Commission. That is possible. I, and many e>perts on the subject, sim-called a "negoti. ed victory" only by the naive.
ply don't agree.
On the other hand, the conditions set by the e That the county agree to drop its status as Shoreham Opponents Coalition, while being un-an intervenor in upcommg hearings for LILCO's precedented, are not unreasonable. First of all, license to operate Shortham.
the Price-Anderson Act should be repealed and e That LILCO maintains the authority to allow our free enterprise system to reflect the approve or disapprove of any outside technical true costs of nuclear power. Furthermore, by consultants the county would hire.
exempting itself from the provisions of the act, e That LILCO maintains significant author-LILCO would have a more compelling incentive ity over the release and distribution of the for avoiding careless mistakes than attempting study's findings.
to cover them up with their dictatorial control LILCO, in return, agrees to build a control-over the Nuclear Review Board.
room simulator on site.13ig deal! The bottom line The only side which stands to gain through is that LILCO is pcying the county to not do its job such negotiations is LILCO. The utility is not of protecting the interests ofits citizens. Ycu may looking forward to the NRC hearings,in part be-find this all " encouraging," but I think it stinks.
cause it is concerned about what might be re-William Rutter vealed about the Shoreham reactor. Then again, East Northport ifI spent S2.2 billion on a piece of obsolete equip.
ment and was about to recover that from my cus ;
For years, LILCO has tried to get county tomers (without their consent) I wouldn't want i ofIlcialn to sofien their stand against Shore-the hearings either.
-Bill Hafn%
ham. I'irst, the company led a succe siul drive ! -
er ;
to get Irving Like, the county's special counsel,1 Mastic l
e
.