ML20234B393
| ML20234B393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1969 |
| From: | Hard J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Hendrie J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A777 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707060011 | |
| Download: ML20234B393 (4) | |
Text
. _.
7' t
/
4 oi s' o
0FHCiAl. USi DEJ,'
]
e -, ;;*
November 19, 1969 4;$ -
. pqh41-J. M. Hendrie, Chairman Shoreham Subcommittee REVISED PAGES TO MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 1969 SITE VISIT, ETED NOFElsRR 3, 1969 Revised pages 1, 2 and 3 of the minutes of the Shoreham site visit and related meetings, dated 11/3/69, are attached. Changas are indicated by a line at the side of the page.
Copies have been provided to the rest of the ACRS members.
Orig;inal Signed by J. E. Hard J. E. Hard
?
genior Staff Assistant
Attachment:
Revised Pages to Minutes of Shereham Site Visit, October 30, 1969 cc: Remainder ACRS Members, w/att.
FILE:
Shoreham project file I,
l,.
- A omcE>.. ACES........
SURNAME >
pr '".$_.l [ i 3,M CI# Y JEHard:emb
'... f.,..... Li a_.L j._
om >
11/.1.9 /.69...
8707060011 87061O IMrm A100 818 (lier. 463)
U.S GOVERWENT PRINTING OmCI 1 THOMASB7-40 PDR QF " 'V yty v e
--__________a
~
JFFECHAL UBE ONLT JEU:ctb 11/3/69 MIN"TES C2 SHOREE* M SUDCC.OdTTES MEETING (NEAR BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY)
CCTOBER 30, 1969 Vu 1: to Prc,oud Site The Subcca:nittee conducted a walking tour of the land owned by LILCO and proposed to be the site of the Shoreham Nuclear Station. The site is lo-catce on the north shore of Long Island just north of Brookhaven National Laboratory; a distance of about 60 miles from downtown New York. All but one of the privately owned homes in t.hc exclusion area had been purchased by LILCO and negotiations were in progress for the last one. A row of summer homes dot the shoreline just west of the exclusion boundary. These are the nearest residents to the proposed reactor location. At the time of visit, completed site preparations included the construction of the intake canal and the diversion of Wading Creek.
Some grading had becn done in the reactor building and gas turbine generator locations and grading ef forts were in pro 3rcss at the swi -hyard. An on-site meteorology tower was ob-served to be in operation.
The Subcommittee also was driven past the closest airport, Grumman, and ob-servcd what appeared to be commercial airline training flights (takeoffs and landings) in progress.
Meeting with R euinterv Staff Goller summarized the status of the technical review and the major problems.
There are no difficulties with population or exclusion zone. The airport question, howaver, may be a point of intervention and they have looked closely at the points brought out by the Lloyd Harbor Study Group *. DRL has evaluated the specific type flights originating at the Grumman airport and looked at the
[ probabilities of accidents for each. The final probability of accidents came out about the same as previously concluded. The training flights had better accident records than the commercial flights, according to the statistics.
Thercfore, DRL's conclusions were the same as before. One of Mr. Carl's ob-servations referred to using only fatal crashes rather than all crashes. DRL's review showed that the rate of reduction of crash frequency with distance is I larg r for all crashes than for just fatal crashes. Therefore, using the rates i
of decrease from fatal crash statistics is more conservative. Goller expected the number of training flights would be reduced in the future. The U. S. Navy does engineering test flights of Grumman aircraft from this field. As far as j is knoun, there are no nuclear weapons at the airport. Goller handed out the DRL discussion paper on the probability of crash at Shoreham.
Dr. Isbin brought up the question of whether or not the Carl letter should be referenced and Dr. Hendrie deferred this question to the next Subcommittee meeting.
R. Boyd advised against referencing these letters. A Nike missile installation 7VT" exists at the airport.
Dr. Siess observed that these bases are being abandoned around the country.
(Turkey Point has a Nike installation and a nearby SAC base.)
- See attached DRL int W $b%%UK, rnalmemorandubm.__h,h V l [0..
AL*J M d Revised 11/19/69 l
OFFECHAL USE ONLY
~
GFHCHAL UE ONLY 2-November 3, 1969 Shoreham Subcommittee Meeting
~
Regarding the " ologies", Newmark, et al, had questions on liquefaction which *-
are stif1 being evalcan a.
Rcgarding hydrology, qucstions of dilution and site flooding are answerad in Amend =cnt 8.
The contain=cnt dccign and gccmetry (trunceted cono with poni undernaath) are different here than any other plant. Stone & Webster is evaluating the per-
.c. cf this rather than GE,and DRL appears to be satisfied with the de-l for sign. The sliding base feature has been replaced with more conventional con-struccion.
The CONTEMPT-PS code was used by Regulatory to evaluate the post-cccident pressure-tima relationship.
In this design, the energy deposition ra:c/vunt is core than in any othcr LWR design. Amendment 9 will be a report on SEN's code used for containment pressure calculations.
Dr. Sicss es-tionsa the Miller pcpar which used results from a GE code. All peak pressures and pressure-time tracas came out very much the sama for all codes employed.
The containment structural design involves a floor which separates drywell from suppression chamber.
If this floor fails or leaks excessively, steam is not condensed and tha containment could be overpressurized. This aspect has no direct parallcl in the torus-drywell design. A flexible seal exists be-tween floor and contain=cnt walls. This scal, essentially a bellows, must accommodate both horizontal and vertical covements. The seal will be testable and the details of this testing method were reviewed.
NPSH requirements for ECCS pumps are met in this plant as with others by utilit-ing containment pressure. The NPSH requirement is approximately 33', so about 20' muct come from pressure.
It was not clear that the analyscs accumed cnly one heat exchanger operating.
A total of five holdup tanks with series flow and HEPA filters are uccd for waste gas handling. This system is used instead of a stack. A more conserva-tive, no-flow mode of operation is possible. There is no question that 10 CFR 20 limits can be met with this design. The design is such that relcase levels can be made very low by operating the holdup tanks in a stored vs continuous flow manner.
In this design, the reactor building ventilation system includes a mixing feature to assure that leakage from the containment does not go directly out the building exhaust duct.
This is necessary to assure acceptable post-accident doses. This is a unique design feature.
Meetine with the Applicant Site Characteristics - A 5 mile Low Population Zone is being proposcd for this site. About 8,000 people reside in this radius and this number is expected to increase to 15,000 by 1980. Brookhaven National Laboratory land is located immediately to the south.
Revised 11/19/69 OFFHCHAL USE ONLY
1 FFECHAL USE ONL1 i
1 Shorchan Subcommittee Macting November 3, 1969 1
m The scalogical history of the site was also reviewed. The present island is the result of outwash from the Wisconsinian glacial period. Thin beds of dense sands were the result and they extend to elevation -120' FEL.
Crystalline bedrock is at -1100' MSL. The entire station area will be ex-cavated to -12' and refilled with the sands compacted to at least 85%. A mat-type foundation will be employed. Liquefaction is not expected to be a problem. About 4 earthquakes, cach Intensity VII, have occurred in the i
last 150 years. The nearest one was 45 miles north in 1791. This was over-rated from VI to VIII, per the applicant. OBE and DBE are 0.lg and 0.2g at the foundation. The Regulatory Staff has no problems with the seismic spec-trum.
Ground unter flow is north toward the Sound. The ground water level is +6' to +S' in the site area. The State of New York has strict control over the ground water, principally because of the fear of salt water intrusion.
Dr. ILndrie brought up the subject of flood levels and hurricancs. The Corps of Engineers ' Technical Rcport #4 is being revised and they have problems with the applicant's calculations; both concerns having to do with higher tide levels. The plant is to be protected to +25' EIW.
LILCO's intent is to pro-tect the plant to the levels indicated by the CERC calculations (assuming they j aren't " overly conservative"). This matter should be resolved in a couple to vecks. Station grade is +20' fax and equipment will be located so as to realize protection frcm flooding to +25'.
Containment Desien - J. Noble, Stone & Webster, discussed the conceptual design.
It is basically a truncated ccncrete cone on top of a short concrete cylinder, all resting on a concrete base. A metal head and a concrete floor make up the balance of the major features of the containment. Design pressure is 48 psig and the floor is good for 30 psig. The Moody blowdown model was used, assuming zero flow friction, to calculate design pressures (37 psig for homogeneous model vs 42 psig for Moody model). Vent pipes are straight tubes so theso,P through these is less than in the tube-header system in the usual torus-drywell. Every input into the code was maximized to assure conservatism, according to Noble.
Reasonable best-estimate assumptions were not employed because of the difficulty in determining the best values. The largest pipe break gives the largest pres-sure rise in the containment. Using starting temperature assumptions of other GE plants, peak pressure would bc 37 psig vs 42 psig for current assumptions.
Drywell design temperature is 3090F.
Dr. Isbin questioned the assumption of symmetrical flow through the vent pipes since the break may be on one side of the building. Tne containment is designed to prevent direct impingement of a jet on the vents. The number of vents was determined using ground rules developed by GE in their pressure suppression tests.
Revised:
11/19/69 OFFECEAL USE ONLY l
>