ML20205A934
| ML20205A934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1969 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A535 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-443 NUDOCS 8810260140 | |
| Download: ML20205A934 (6) | |
Text
- _ - - -
4 T"en"^" === ==
- een us r
v a n'BUBP & U Q L M M 9h H ,
I t
9 Docket tio. 50-340 July 23, 1969 l Report to ACR$ l t
l I
i
?
(
SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 l
r l
i i
l l
l I
l U. 2. Atoste Energy Coeunission i Division of Reactor Licensing l r
l l
1 i
)
8910260140 800920 '2",'N
" W -~Q ~3" yU'* Gs"Q {J1
'd* % I PDR FOIA MOKR2YC88-443 PDR l
. . ,.-_- ~_ . .-_ . - _ ~ . - _ . .-
! . , s m pfm n A n nw
- c n m.
j
, V E a'L % uP MLa U d L M M iiL 3 i
j ABSTRACT ;
i This report summartres the scope, as envisioned at this time, of the staff review of the Seabroc,k Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Review areas which have a been identified to date as requiring particular attention are site seismology, ,
i ef fluent discherge, quality assurance, radiolytic hydrogen formation follow. !
ing a LOCA, and the adequacy of the spent fuel pool with respect to tornadu ;
j ' and accident ef fects. We will continue to evaluate the systematic f ailures of !
]
the instrumentacion and c 3nt rol sys tems. In addition, special emphasis will j be given to the evaluation of the nuclear design and incore instrumentation
- requirements; the two system containment design; leak detection; missiles 7 generated f rom eqJipmenti the adequacy of the ECCS system; conduct of operations i i and staf f competence; and the meteorology and dif fusion assumptions used in ;
i calculations of potential doses in the event of accidents. This revtew will [
be coordinated with those in process for the Peaver Valley Power Station and !
j the North Anna Power Station. The same three loop Vestinghouse nuclear steam (
3 supply system is used in all three C.P. applications. l 4
{
! l 1 :
! f I l i
i
} !
)
e f
I i L i
1 .
l l l J
l I
l
, t n - , , - mt y j
s E %e 1 da d d %rlT M
, vm"w r n n m .m msn =>
W J'b b E M L U tJaCa 4//1 % d on April 9,1969, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire filed an application for a construction permit and f acility license for the Seabrook Nuclear :;tation Unit No. 1, to be located in the northorn part of the town of Seabrook, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, approximately eight miles southeast of the county seat of Exeter and five miles northeast of Amesbury, Massachusetts.
The center of the Boston metropolitan area is approximately The precise boundaries of the 40 miles to the south southwest of the site.
site have not been defined. Much of the land surrounding the site is marshland, and the applicant has had dif ficulty in determining property ownership.
However, th6 applicant intends to buy suf ficient land so that the exclusion distance vill be greater than 3000 feet in every direction.
' The Seabrook Nuclear Station vill be owned by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (657.) and The United Illuminating Company of New Haven (357.);
the plant will be operated by Public Service Company, which has small ownership interests in the nuclear plants of the Yankee group. Wes tinghous e viH pro-vide the nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator. Ebasco Services will be the architect engineer and constructor. ';he containment for the plant consists of two systens, a steel containment vessel and a reieforced concrete shield butiding, similar to that proposed for Hutchinson Island. The reactor vessel win be f abricated by Babcock and Wilcox.
The reactor vill be designed f oi an initial power output sf 2652 Mwt with an equivalent gross electrical output of 885 Mwe. The corresponding ultimate power ratings are 2774 Mwt and 927 Mve, respectively. These are approximately j the same values as those for the North Anna and Beaver Valley plants, and about
- 87. greater than corresponding values for the Surry Power Station.
t
)
8 mt e m " *; a a a* *
- r=5 m v7
'Y a l u m a A &~h % ' teaJW _
) .. A O*3"M'*lt? A ff M TMW At1TI "/ !
i ~ %vs T 4.MNu bliGPL %.A4 eu.a c. !
! 2 .
l The principal areas of review which we have identified to date as requir- ,
ing particular attention include site seismology, ef fluent discharge, quality assurance, radiolytic hydror,en formation following a LOCA, protection of the spent fuel pool with respect to tornado and accident effects, and systematic f 2 f failures of the instrumentation c-d control systems. In addition, emphasis i,
i will be given to the evaluation of incore instrumentation requirements, con-j !
" tainment design, leak detection systems, missile generation inside of l L
1 1
containment, sta f f competence, and meteorological assumptions ,. f 3
1
] '
acceleration factors of 0.08 and 0.17 g, respectively. The applicant states f i
that an intensity VIII earthquake has occurred near the site. Our seismic l i t consultants are reviewing the acceptability of the proposed acceleration j
] I J factors, and we expect some dif ficulty in accepting the values as proposed.
N
- 2. the ef fluent discharge line will pass through a state park and beach which ;
i is occasionally very crowded. Our evaluation will include an analysis of the ,
a l consequences of the ef fluent line near the beach. f 1
)
- 3. We find the applicant's proposed quality assurance program as described in t
j the PSAR to be defied.ent. Our views on this matter were discussed with the applicant at the introductory meeting on Aly 2,1969. The appitcant stated l c
that an amendment will be filed which will more accurately describe the PSC quality assurance program for the Seabrook Nuclear Station. We expect this l
l subalttal to be more in line with the AEC criteria on quality ast.urance, f l
- 4. The applicant does not cite any research program on the radiolytic hydro. I gen issue. We expect this applicant to be a party to the Westinghouse program }
4 i, on this question. Although the appitcant has not yet proposed venting of the !
t I
! containaent as a protective feature agains t the accumulation of hydrogen.
I i f % e mama a a v a.m %s 7-d OYYuwa dOdd J {
[
% ,e. wu A L U S E U lift.Mf f
1 F
l 3 !
4 !
j we expect that venting will eventually be proposed for this plant. Accordingly, i j
- this will be included in our evaluation.
l
, $. Adequacy of the spent fuel pool design with respect to tornado and !
accident'ef f ects is being emphastred in our current reviews. We are on- [
[
! i sidering the following elements of the problems j a. Consequences of a dropped fuel element.
Consequences of a dropped heavy object (such as a fuel cask). l
- b. ;
- c. Tornado ef fects including dewatering, and missiles damage to i
the fuel and to the fuel pool.
l The We have not yet established criteria for fuel storage pool protection. l l f problem is complex and relates to some 4tgree to all manufacturers. We expect
)
i
' to develop a position on this issue before completion of our review of Seabrook. i i
- 6. Our review of systematic f ailures of the instrumentation and control sys.
tems has not been completed. We will continue to evaluate WCAP 7306, "Reactor j
) i We Protection System Diversity in Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors."
i expect to complete the evaluation before the Construction Permit for Seabrook l is issued. l l ,
i 7. Although we have agreed with Westinghouse that for smaller reactor cores
]
J Itke Cinna, permanent incore instrumentation may not be necessary, we have not f
] '
i reached such a decision for the larger reactor cores Itke Seabrook. !
I I
i 8. The containment for the plant consists of two systema, a steel containment l s .
i I
and a reinforced concrete shield building. Although this system is similar to ,
J J
l the one proposed for Hutchinson Island, the steam supply system is from a i
dif ferent vendor and this could modify the retponse of the containment to I accident situations. This will be reviewed in our evaluation.
1 i
I
. Cw.G T. " 3. ". L. 2V '1.3.
w 2._r hw M.."- y -
i , ;
4 '
fr Jt5pg m o w wmm m un u
. N u awnh U@@ U39u a ,
4
}
l 9. Leak detection inside containment has not been completely resolved, and l ve will continue to look further into this problem. [
t i
j 10. Evaluation of the requirements for missiles generated from equipment inside i the containment, like the flywheel of the pump, and any requirements for l shielding from such missiles is continuing.
- 11. The new generation Westinghouse reactors have an ECCS dif ferent than l I those now in operation or under construction. We will continue to evaluate [
1 the extent to which the new ECCS meets the proposed criteria for this system, i i
j 12 This is the first nuclear plant that PSC is building and is going to j operate. Although the applicant has small ownership interests in the nuclear l t
l plants of the Yankee group, he has not participated in the design, building or operation of any of the nuclear plants. l C
l 13. It is our Freliminary opinion that the meteorology and dif fusion assumptions
's made for the plant are not conservatise enough. We will review the potential doses generated from hypothetical accidents based on assurptions and modtts used in previous plants. f 1
l The Seabrook application was filed on April 9,1969. An introductory f 4
meeting was held on July 2,1969. A meeting to discuss the proposed quality 1
i assurance program is scheduled for July 24, 1969 We expect to hold our
]
j first technical meeting early in August. We anticipate that our review of I
, the Seabrook application will be completed and ready for consideration by the i Coevaittee at the January 1970 session. ,
i s ;
I !
? i l l i t I
i k
j DQQ".,,w v.
3L [ "a "v}QAL* a vric.,Wufm i !
i 1
1
_ _ _ _ _ - .