ML111530446

Exhibit 3C in Support of Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention Re Inadequacy of Environmental Report, Post Fukushima

ML111530446
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/01/2011
From:	Pilgrim Watch
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML111530440	List: ML111530441 ML111530442 ML111530443 ML111530444 ML111530445 ML111530446 ML111530447 ML111530448 ML111530449
References
RAS 20407, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML111530446 (7)

Text

l *

~' t"~ ~",

• *.

r

"

JMIC Ei'-lL-r GY CO\1M!S: ,,

) ',1 l\()'.JCi!i~c.r 17, 1]71 I

l:otc to

/

E.

P.

Ple2sc lc't Li2 h\Ci~" if yo," concur; if l:ot, \-l,~ 'dill hc!ve to di.scuss it fur::.hc.r and reoch a decision',

l'

'. , .. l.\

Force Rcvicu

~,

,"

i (

'-,

.,

J

)

S U1LJ l-:c:~r; D I SCU ~~ S JJ):-!

-+-~.-------------- .. -------------.-----~--.----- .. -

~- -~-.- --- ~. -.- -----. ------------.-

1. Def:initic~l: Bypass m~~ns n rath without passinG th::ough the ,:2ter of the suppression pool and therefore without condensing th~

.*..

2. Consen\lC'nces

--_.'-----

a) L~rge LOCh - no problem.

b) Small LOCA - slow pressure buildup in dryoell, bypass lets wetwcll pressure follow without cond~nsing steam.

This trouble cases on slowly, but if the prim3ry leak widens and the LOCA severity in-creases (the advertised course of cvc~ts for a big leak starts 5m311) then the bi~

.. /. -

b10,:doh'n p,-essure vill build on the c.:":istin~; pressure built up sJ.O'.;l::.') and the con-taiument would overpr~ssurize.

That could l03~ the torus

~

water source, hence ECeS, as well as leak out fission products.

3. Prob2bility a) Small pri~3ry lLak rather probable - alreauy hnd one S10'.7 blowdown (Dresden 2). Another (Honticello) b1m'ldmm occurred through the byp:,ss valve, then through a safety valve. A large leak i~ improbable, but is supposed to be a small one first.

b) GE claim~ two passive failures b) The GE position that this

""

are required for trouble, but is too improbable to any malfunction of 12 vacuum worry about is rejected.

sp~cted in the locus, over ~O y~3rs will set up half th8 accident, rc~dy {or tr6~blc if

a. s tC0.:~ leak occurs.

c) 0;11)" a limited L',r~f:~ of lc:,-~~ c) Further study is required sizes gets into trouble. for this and other configura-Large L!aks clc;lr the VC.l1ts tions, including sensitivity and assumption va~iations.

postulated bypass. Very snaIl leaks are condensed on the dry>*,cll ,,70.11. Thc "t~:2ched GE cu;::ve subrailted foc E",:~,:h  ?

has not been revicw~d very much by REG) shQ";.Js SOt:le troub]-,~

0.05 - 0.5 ft. 2 Other GS containments (s~311er 0= over/

under with ~eepcr vents, or other parameters dif[cre~t).

have problems not yet calcu-latc~ and, in some cases, worse than Ho.tch.

'V "eli ~. - ()~l .DECFIO::S

'r-- ----~-- ----------- --

/

a) Containment spray (particularly torus air s pac e spr<lY) \7C'~i lcl We cnnnot expect an operator 0 condense t 1t c. s t CeliU and L! e ~ -;,:c G.S C. the r,ravcyarc! shift to sort ou the pressure, but at enormous the pros and con~ of turning cost (ruin equipment in dry- oti the containree~t sprny, w~ll, maybe hnve to retire thus ruining his reactor) to reactor). In present designs, cope \*11 lh a trarsicnt he -only contain~cnt spray water is dimly undcrstan2s.

diverted fro:;\ the LPCIS, thus from Eces.

b) Inservice inspection of poten- b) Check the! valve ~.lu [f c~re-tial bypass leakage: corrosion, fully to make sure it cracks in vent pipes, nalfunc- doesn't increas~ (too ~u~~)

tioning valves. The Ha:ch the probability of f<1i1u:::e..

applicant offcrs an elaborate Push for adequate inspection I

scheme to inc~ica::e the' positions of valves and pipes.

of the: valves using rec1u:1cL:mt devices) and to allo~l rC;010te testing of the valves, but nothing in the H.JY of inspection.

DEcr STO:~S ication

--<..A.-______ ._ \

past and prcse~t CE prcss~re- co~~it~cnt to stu2y 2~d fix the problc~ in whatever 40 such ar~ already app~u~2d. way is fou~~. F6r back-Hatch-2 C? is th~ next ACRS fitting. wait until fixQ5 revie\.]. are studied and problem is scope:d.

b) CE wants us and ACRS not to mention the ~roblen publicI;. from nml on for plants They are afraid of delaying affected will have to 'fcss up. Hearings for CP s~0ul~

be satisfied ,;Hh a s<.:itab 1 commitment; if they're not.

maybe that's a suitable spu-::- to CE- to resolve the problel:l. In any event-, th is probably trouble for Vermont Yankee and Pilcri~

hearings; it will have to

)

DECISTO::S faced ~nd a real solutio~

found. All GE prc3sure stippression cases in hearinG

,*lill soon have to Get letters fio~ REG aboutth~ problen; better that they hear from us than from 2~ ACRS letter on. another caSe.

2 CP ACRS letter docs nat mention the problem, thus giving us a li:t c more time. The subject is dis-cussc~ in the ?ublicly aV0.ilaolc Hatch-2 docket as an ::mSiJer to a DRL question.