ML20235B917: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_-             _
{{#Wiki_filter:_-
4
4 f
: ',,6 f                    ,;
: ',,6 L
L
ADVISOliY COMMlWEE ON RE/.CTON EAFEGUARD~;
                          -                                          ADVISOliY COMMlWEE ON RE/.CTON EAFEGUARD~;
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COT.1MIGSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$45 February. 11, 1970,-
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COT.1MIGSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$45 February . 11, 1970,-
Ilonorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman U._S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
Ilonorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman U._S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
20545 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1
==Dear Dr. Scaborg:==
==Dear Dr. Scaborg:==
 
At its 118th meeting, February 5-7, 1970, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the plans of the Long Island Lighting Company to accommodate hypothetical piping failures in their nuclear plant con-tainment drywell. The project had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its 116th meeting, December 11-13, 1969, and the Committee's report to 18, 1969, discusses the results of that meeting.
At its 118th meeting, February 5-7, 1970, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the plans of the Long Island Lighting Company to accommodate hypothetical piping failures in their nuclear plant con-tainment drywell. The project had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its 116th meeting, December 11-13, 1969, and the Committee's report to you, dated December 18, 1969, discusses the results of that meeting.
you, dated December During its present review, the Cownittee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of Long Island Lighting Compsny, Cencral Electric Comprny, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, and the AEC Regulatory The Committec also had the benefit of the documents listed below.
During its present review, the Cownittee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of Long Island Lighting Compsny, Cencral Electric Comprny, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, and the AEC Regulatory Staff. The Committec also had the benefit of the documents listed below.
Staff.
The appliennt stated that it is a design criterion for the Shoreham Station that in the event of pipe rupture within the primary containment, resulting pipe movement will not violate the integrity of the primary containment.
The appliennt stated that it is a design criterion for the Shoreham Station that in the event of pipe rupture within the primary containment, resulting pipe movement will not violate the integrity of the primary containment.
It is also a design criterion that, in the event of such rupture, adequate emergency core cooling be assured. The Committee believes that these
It is also a design criterion that, in the event of such rupture, adequate emergency core cooling be assured. The Committee believes that these
                                            ~
~
criteria are acceptabic.
criteria are acceptabic.
The Committec believes that the above item can be resolved during construc-tion and reconfirms its previous conclusion that, if due consideration is       j given to the items discussed in this report and the Committee's prior report,
the above item can be resolved during construc-The Committec believes that tion and reconfirms its previous conclusion that, if due consideration is given to the items discussed in this report and the Committee's prior report, j
                                          '            the nucicar plant proposed for the Shoreham Station can be constructed arith reasonable assurance that it can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
the nucicar plant proposed for the Shoreham Station can be constructed arith reasonable assurance that it can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
necrely yours, MM%&
necrely yours, I
I dTeph M. Hendrie Chairman Reference attached.
MM%&
8709240279 870921 PDR FOIA MENZB7-111                     PDR j
dTeph M. Hendrie Chairman Reference attached.
8709240279 870921 PDR FOIA MENZB7-111 PDR j


1       s ,.             ,
1 s,.
  '.'+
'. ' +
M   9 I
M 9
4
I 4
                                  - tionovalde Glenn T. Seaborn 2-          February 11, 1470 Referenec:                                               .
2-February 11, 1470 tionovalde Glenn T. Seaborn Referenec:
1,   Letter from Long Isinnd Lighting Company, dated January 30, 1970; Amendment No.11 to License Application, additional and replacement pages e
1, Letter from Long Isinnd Lighting Company, dated January 30, 1970; Amendment No.11 to License Application, additional and replacement pages e
I s
I s
6 b
6 b
_____-m_ _ . _ _}}
_____-m_
_. _ _}}

Latest revision as of 06:13, 3 December 2024

Provides Supplementary Rept on Facility Based on ACRS 118th Meeting on 700205-07.ACRS Believes That Item Re Event of Pipe Rupture within Primary Containment Can Be Resolved During Const.Proposed Plant Can Be Constructed
ML20235B917
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 02/11/1970
From: Hendrie J
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To: Seaborg G
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20235B311 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-111 NUDOCS 8709240279
Download: ML20235B917 (2)


Text

_-

4 f

',,6 L

ADVISOliY COMMlWEE ON RE/.CTON EAFEGUARD~;

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COT.1MIGSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$45 February. 11, 1970,-

Ilonorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman U._S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1

Subject:

Dear Dr. Scaborg:

At its 118th meeting, February 5-7, 1970, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the plans of the Long Island Lighting Company to accommodate hypothetical piping failures in their nuclear plant con-tainment drywell. The project had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its 116th meeting, December 11-13, 1969, and the Committee's report to 18, 1969, discusses the results of that meeting.

you, dated December During its present review, the Cownittee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of Long Island Lighting Compsny, Cencral Electric Comprny, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, and the AEC Regulatory The Committec also had the benefit of the documents listed below.

Staff.

The appliennt stated that it is a design criterion for the Shoreham Station that in the event of pipe rupture within the primary containment, resulting pipe movement will not violate the integrity of the primary containment.

It is also a design criterion that, in the event of such rupture, adequate emergency core cooling be assured. The Committee believes that these

~

criteria are acceptabic.

the above item can be resolved during construc-The Committec believes that tion and reconfirms its previous conclusion that, if due consideration is given to the items discussed in this report and the Committee's prior report, j

the nucicar plant proposed for the Shoreham Station can be constructed arith reasonable assurance that it can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

necrely yours, I

MM%&

dTeph M. Hendrie Chairman Reference attached.

8709240279 870921 PDR FOIA MENZB7-111 PDR j

1 s,.

'. ' +

M 9

I 4

2-February 11, 1470 tionovalde Glenn T. Seaborn Referenec:

1, Letter from Long Isinnd Lighting Company, dated January 30, 1970; Amendment No.11 to License Application, additional and replacement pages e

I s

6 b

_____-m_

_. _ _