ML19207A147: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:i s. . - w . . m
{{#Wiki_filter:i s. . - w . . m   .. ~ -   7   .J ., j j
.. ~ -7.J ., j j y -t 6.--..., , . , ., 4 . . ..9'' , n d,~~3 Godfrey Avenue Hampran, :! H C3342
                                                                              , ., . , . y -t 6        ,
:ce , ', 6 April 1, 1979 L c. .... , Victor Gilincky, Coccissioner Richard I. Kennedy, Cctaicsioicr
9 4 . . .
.-r-Dhv t Ib1E/uS Peter is. Bradford, Ccamiscicner Qg (1-;: '' 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coccicsien
                                                                    ' , n d, Godfrey Avenue
,, c e_e 0 ,Q23 Vashington, D.C. 20555 Q 7 Re: In the uatter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units i i 2 )
                                                                  ~~3 Hampran, :! H C3342
:ce , ', 6     April 1, 1979
: c. ..     .     . ,
L Victor Gilincky, Coccissioner Richard I. Kennedy, Cctaicsioicr Peter is. Bradford, Ccamiscicner
                                                                  .-r-Dhv t Ib1E/uS Qg (1-;:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coccicsien                                                                 ,,
Vashington, D.C. 20555                                                               c e_e7 Q0 ,Q23 Re: In the uatter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units i i 2 )
Docket Nos.. 50-443 & 50-444 Gentlemen:
Docket Nos.. 50-443 & 50-444 Gentlemen:
In view of the fact that an accident has cocurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility, that the same Un'ited En-gineering Corporation will be building the Seabrook'nucleaf units, and that the Nuclear Re6ulatory Cocriscion recently shutdown five nuclear facilities to re-analize the piping sysleas ability to withstand stress from earthquakes, I as a General Intervenor of record in uhe above referenced matter, respectfully request that the I!uclear Regulatory Cornission IICEDIATELY STOP CCUSTRUCTICII 0F THE SEAER00K UNITS until the following desi n changes are made:
In view of the fact that an accident has cocurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility, that the same Un'ited En-gineering Corporation will be building the Seabrook'nucleaf units, and that the Nuclear Re6ulatory Cocriscion recently shutdown five nuclear facilities to re-analize the piping sysleas ability to withstand stress from earthquakes, I as a General Intervenor of record in uhe above referenced matter, respectfully request that the I!uclear Regulatory Cornission IICEDIATELY STOP CCUSTRUCTICII 0F THE SEAER00K UNITS until the following desi Cn changes are made:
C 1.) That the Seabrcok units be re-designed tn,vithstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 8 earth tremer in order to allow
1.) That the Seabrcok units be re-designed tn,vithstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 8 earth tremer in order to allow for a conservative margin of error.'
,'for a conservative margin of error.'
At present, the unita are designed for Intensity 8 (codified                                     --
'At present, the unita are designed for Intensity 8 (codified
mercalli scale ) and both the M.R.C. Staff and the Public Service Company of I!ew Hampshire have agreed that an Intensity 8 carth-quake occurred near the Seabrock site and could be expected to occur there in the future life tice of the nuclear units.                                       -
--mercalli scale ) and both the M.R.C. Staff and the Public Service Company of I!ew Hampshire have agreed that an Intensity 8 carth-quake occurred near the Seabrock site and could be expected to occur there in the future life tice of the nuclear units.
                                                                                                                    /
-'/.coor, h~%J u el.]Ce
                                                                                                    .coor,         \ ,3 ]
\ ,3 ]-_ = : :----7g05 goo 3%
h~%J u el.]Ce
N{. ,  
_=::       ----
>--*-..page two.2. ) That the "cmergency baby cooline tower" which is to be used as a backup emergency cooling system, chould be designed to withstand an Intensity 10 not Intensity 8 earth tremor 4 At present, the " baby cooling tower" is only designed to uithstand an Intensity 8 earth tremor -- the same as the reactor units.
7g05 goo 3%               N{. ,
So, if an Intensity 8 earth tremor damages the reactor piping system or the coaling tunnels - or both-why isn 't it conceivable that it would damage the tower.
 
3.)That the three mile long COOLING TUNIGLS be re-designed to withstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 5 earthquake.
page two.
: 2. ) That the "cmergency baby cooline tower" which is to be used as a backup emergency cooling system, chould be designed to withstand an Intensity 10 not Intensity 8 earth tremor 4 At present, the " baby cooling tower" is only designed to uithstand an Intensity 8 earth tremor -- the same as the reactor units.       So, if an Intensity 8 earth tremor damages the reactor piping system or the coaling tunnels - or both-why isn 't it conceivable that it would damage the tower.
3.) That the three mile long COOLING TUNIGLS be re-designed to withstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 5 earthquake.
At present, they are only designed to withstand Intensity 5 earth tremors and history has shown that Seabrook is part of a seismically active region where nucerous Intensity 5 and larger earth tremors have occurred quite frequently.
At present, they are only designed to withstand Intensity 5 earth tremors and history has shown that Seabrook is part of a seismically active region where nucerous Intensity 5 and larger earth tremors have occurred quite frequently.
Support of seismic activity can be found in the Bulle tins issued by the Northeastern U.S. Seismic Network - Ecston Collcge.
Support of seismic activity can be found in the Bulle tins issued by the Northeastern U.S. Seismic Network - Ecston Collcge.
All of the above issues were argued at the N.R.C. Seabrock Hearings but they were considered insignificant and'Omerelevant s by the Staff,.. Utility and Licensing Board.
All of the above issues were argued at the N.R.C. Seabrock Hearings but they were considered insignificant and'Omerelevant s
2-f Then, in June 1976, your agency issued an Amend =ent to
by the Staff,.. Utility and Licensing Board.
__,[theN.R.C. Rules &Regulationsgoverningceismicdesigncriteria which states in part...." the largest earthquake to have been historicallyr[portedataproposednuclearsiteshouldbe considered othe :IIIIIIIUII no t the maxinum seismic design criteria for all future nuclear units. . . . . . ".So the question arises, if future nuclear units are tn eno a v a,o.t n s3_ . . ..e--w eg  
2 f         Then, in June 1976, your agency issued an Amend =ent to
..,.-......-, . . .pa;u thre..
[theN.R.C. Rules &Regulationsgoverningceismicdesigncriteria which states in part...." the largest earthquake to have been historicallyr[portedataproposednuclearsiteshouldbe considered othe :IIIIIIIUII no t the maxinum seismic design criteria for all future nuclear units. . . . . . "
.have a more censervative scis=ic design to allcu i'or a cargi .
So the question arises, if future nuclear units are tn eno a v a,o.t s3 n e--                                                                             w eg
of error, why not Seabrook?
 
It is still ty opinier, now suppcrted by recent dcvelopments, that the Scabredk Units wf.11 be UIISAFE cnd a HAZARD to humans and the environnent.
pa;u thre..
If Sea'.;rcok is built as presently designed, we here in IIew Hampshire, could be part of the first people to expericnce
have a more censervative scis=ic design to allcu i'or a cargi .
-a completc " core celtdown ".
of error, why not Seabrook?     It is still ty opinier, now suppcrted by recent dcvelopments, that the Scabredk Units wf.11 be UIISAFE cnd a HAZARD to humans and the environnent.
/Very cordially yours, b ik4%..Okt -bhf--Eliz?-abe th H . 'deinhold (General Intervenor-Seabrock Licensing Hearings )
If Sea'.;rcok is built as presently designed, we here in IIew
SO'lLt &/;.s w [.W h e 6 m-em 809358.-* . ,}}
-                      Hampshire, could be part of the first people to expericnce a completc " core celtdown ".
                              /
Very cordially yours, b ik4%. .Okt -         bhf--
Eliz?abe th H . 'deinhold (General Intervenor-Seabrock Licensing Hearings )
SO' lLt &         /;.s w [
W h
e 6
m em 809358
                                                                                        * . ,}}

Latest revision as of 06:30, 2 February 2020

Requests NRC Immediately Stop Const Until Design Changes Are Made
ML19207A147
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/01/1979
From: Weinhold E
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To: Bradford P, Gilinski V, Kennedy R
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FOIA-79-98 NUDOCS 7905300336
Download: ML19207A147 (3)
v • d • e


Text

i s. . - w . . m .. ~ - 7 .J ., j j

, ., . , . y -t 6 ,

9 4 . . .

' , n d, Godfrey Avenue

~~3 Hampran, :! H C3342

ce , ', 6 April 1, 1979
c. .. . . ,

L Victor Gilincky, Coccissioner Richard I. Kennedy, Cctaicsioicr Peter is. Bradford, Ccamiscicner

.-r-Dhv t Ib1E/uS Qg (1-;:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coccicsien ,,

Vashington, D.C. 20555 c e_e7 Q0 ,Q23 Re: In the uatter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units i i 2 )

Docket Nos.. 50-443 & 50-444 Gentlemen:

In view of the fact that an accident has cocurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility, that the same Un'ited En-gineering Corporation will be building the Seabrook'nucleaf units, and that the Nuclear Re6ulatory Cocriscion recently shutdown five nuclear facilities to re-analize the piping sysleas ability to withstand stress from earthquakes, I as a General Intervenor of record in uhe above referenced matter, respectfully request that the I!uclear Regulatory Cornission IICEDIATELY STOP CCUSTRUCTICII 0F THE SEAER00K UNITS until the following desi Cn changes are made:

1.) That the Seabrcok units be re-designed tn,vithstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 8 earth tremer in order to allow for a conservative margin of error.'

At present, the unita are designed for Intensity 8 (codified --

mercalli scale ) and both the M.R.C. Staff and the Public Service Company of I!ew Hampshire have agreed that an Intensity 8 carth-quake occurred near the Seabrock site and could be expected to occur there in the future life tice of the nuclear units. -

/

.coor, \ ,3 ]

h~%J u el.]Ce

_=:: ----

7g05 goo 3% N{. ,

page two.

2. ) That the "cmergency baby cooline tower" which is to be used as a backup emergency cooling system, chould be designed to withstand an Intensity 10 not Intensity 8 earth tremor 4 At present, the " baby cooling tower" is only designed to uithstand an Intensity 8 earth tremor -- the same as the reactor units. So, if an Intensity 8 earth tremor damages the reactor piping system or the coaling tunnels - or both-why isn 't it conceivable that it would damage the tower.

3.) That the three mile long COOLING TUNIGLS be re-designed to withstand an Intensity 9 not Intensity 5 earthquake.

At present, they are only designed to withstand Intensity 5 earth tremors and history has shown that Seabrook is part of a seismically active region where nucerous Intensity 5 and larger earth tremors have occurred quite frequently.

Support of seismic activity can be found in the Bulle tins issued by the Northeastern U.S. Seismic Network - Ecston Collcge.

All of the above issues were argued at the N.R.C. Seabrock Hearings but they were considered insignificant and'Omerelevant s

by the Staff,.. Utility and Licensing Board.

2 f Then, in June 1976, your agency issued an Amend =ent to

[theN.R.C. Rules &Regulationsgoverningceismicdesigncriteria which states in part...." the largest earthquake to have been historicallyr[portedataproposednuclearsiteshouldbe considered othe :IIIIIIIUII no t the maxinum seismic design criteria for all future nuclear units. . . . . . "

So the question arises, if future nuclear units are tn eno a v a,o.t s3 n e-- w eg

pa;u thre..

have a more censervative scis=ic design to allcu i'or a cargi .

of error, why not Seabrook? It is still ty opinier, now suppcrted by recent dcvelopments, that the Scabredk Units wf.11 be UIISAFE cnd a HAZARD to humans and the environnent.

If Sea'.;rcok is built as presently designed, we here in IIew

- Hampshire, could be part of the first people to expericnce a completc " core celtdown ".

/

Very cordially yours, b ik4%. .Okt - bhf--

Eliz?abe th H . 'deinhold (General Intervenor-Seabrock Licensing Hearings )

SO' lLt & /;.s w [

W h

e 6

m em 809358

  • . ,
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19207A147&oldid=2392925"