ML17208A844

Responds to Re Corbin Inquiry About Plant Safety Aspects.Safety Design Approach Involves Use of Multiple Physical Barriers to Prevent Release of Radioactivity to Environ

ML17208A844
Person / Time
Site:	Crane, Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/15/1980
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Rebecca Stone SENATE
Shared Package
ML17208A846	List: ML17208A844 ML19321A975
References
NUDOCS 8007240444
Download: ML17208A844 (17)

Text

wk 0-DISTRIBUTION:

N/incoming Courtesy Copy

, Docket File*,(50-389)

JUL i 5 1980'- NRC/PDR* '. Ertter D. Vollmer L/PDR*

(809104)

J.

Youngblood TERA A. Fer'guson M. Rushbrook The Honorable Richard Stone EDO Rdg.

M. Fudge IE (3)

United States

Senator, NRR Rdg.

L. Stowers B. Grimes P. 0.

Box 4081 LBk'1 Rdg.

E.

Hughes SECY (3) (80-1153)

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 H. Denton B. Snyder D. Eisenhut E. Case R. Mattson RE Purple

Dear Senator Stone:

Attorney, ELD S.

Hauaner R. Tedesco CA (3)

D.

Ross J.

Cook PPAS Rdg.

This is in response to your letter of May 21, l980, to Carlton Kamrerer, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (NRC), regarding correspondence addressed to you from Ms. Sandra Corbin of Jensen Beach, Florida.

In her letter Ms. Corbin solicited comments regarding the nuclear plant under construction on Hutchinson Island, Florida, including safety'aspects of the plant relating to the Three Mile Island Unit 2 design and protection against radiological effects.

The Florida Power 8 Light Company presently operates the St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1, on Hutchinson Island, Florida.

This unit was granted an operating license by the NRC in March 1976 and utilizes a pressurized water reactor designed by the Combustion Engineering Company producing approximately 800 MWe.

A similar second unit is being constructed at the same location.

The applicant estimates construction of Unit No.

2 will be completed'in late 1982.

The safety design approach, for a nuclear power plant consists of multi-levels of safety involving (I) the design for safety in normal operation, providing tolerances

, for system malfunctions, (2) the assumption that incidents will nonetheless occur

,and the inclusion of safety systems in a facility to'minimize damage and protect the

public, and (3) the provisions of additional safety systems to protect the public.

based on the analysis of very unlikely accidents.

This safety design approach has also been described as involving the use of multiple physical barriers (e.g., fuel, fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, containment buildings) to prevent the release of'adioactivity to the environment.

As part of this safety design there are many engineered safety features provided to mitigate the consequences of a large release of radioactivity to the environment.

For instance, should a break occur in the reactor coolant system and high-pressure, high temperature reactor coolant system water would be rapidly dischar ged into the containment building, the engineered safety features system would actuate the emergency core cooling system which would operate to keep the reactor core cool.

And, any radioactivity released from the core would be largely retained in the low leakage containment building.

Also, the natural deposition processes and radio-activity removal systems would remove the bulk of the released radioactivity from within the containment building.

In addition,'heat removal systems would reduce the containment

pressure, thereby reducing leaking of radioactivity to the environment.

8 0 0 7840+@

OFFICE) g SURNAME DATE$.

NRC FORM 318 {9.76) NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289 369

dt d ~

'7

'I d

W)d1 V")

d d

d d plI t$

d

~ r

The Honorable'ichard Stone Prior to the Three-Nile Island (TNI) accident, 20 years of commercial nuclear power had not caused aI'single death or caused a serious. physical injury.

'This same statement can also be made if one includes the Parch 28, 1979 Tt'lI accident and events whic)~ have transpired since then.

However, the NRC and the President 's Commission on the Three Nile Island Nuclear Accident, after extensive

studies, recommended that additional nuclear safety design features be incorporated in operating nuclear plants including the St. Lucie Plant

'nit No.

1 as >>ell as Unit No. 2,prior to the NRC granting it an operating license.

Also, the NRC review oi'he THI accident disclosed a number of actions in the area of design and analysis and plant operations required for public safety which have been implemented on operating.nuclear pow'er plants.

These actions have been im-plemented on St. Lucie Unit No.

1 and other recommendations requiring a longer period of time to complete are now underway.

An NRC approved emergency response plan with appropriate State and local plans has been in effect from the time that the St. Lucie-Plant, Unit No.

1 received an op-erating license.

'. However,- all operating nuclear plants are being required to up-grade their emergency plans based on the lessons, learned from the THI accident.

An NRC Emergency Preparedness Task Group has been organized and is visiting every nuclear reactor site in the country to evaluate upgrading emergency planning.

During the period November 6 to 8,

1979, a team from this task group visited the St.

Luci e Plant to discuss with the licensee the upgrading of the facility's emergency-plan.

Discussions were held with the licensee and the appropriate State

.and County officials (10.miles around the reactor site) so that proper coordi nation will occur between the licensee 's augmented emergency plan and required interfaces with State and local officials.

IP Because. of public interest in emergency

planning, a specific section of the docket file for a nuclear po><er plant is being reserved for all information related to em-ergency planning, including State and local Plans, in order.to provide ready access for public information and use.

The, augmented emergericy plah for St. Lucie can be found in the'public docket files which are'available for public information at the NRC

's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. H., Mashington, D. C.,

and at the Indian River Community College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, ft. Pierce, florida.

OURNAMR)

DATC~

1 NRC FORM 518 (9-76) NRCM 02I10 I "

OOVCRNMCNT I'RINTINO ONNICCI I ~ 'I ~

R ~ ~

'I ~ ~

h 1

N

'I h

I r

I I

/

T I

)

1 k

'TPe.Rono,r>b1.e Richard Stone 3

As stated. earlier, the design of nuclear power plants and NRC regulations imposed on these plants is to preclude large scale releases of radioactivity to the en-vironAnt.

Controlled radioactive releases allowed and ds specified in the St.

Lucie Technical Specifications are many orders less than the natural background radiation in Florida.

than is continually exposed to ionizing radiation which occurs naturally.

There are 'three primary sources of this natural radiation background.

These are:

(1) solar and galactic cosmic radiation, (2) long lived radionuclides in the earth's crust and (3) radionuclides formed in the upper'atmosphere from the interactions of cosmic radiation with gases in the atmosphere (cosmogenic radi onucl ides).

Natural background radioactivity varies according to latitude and altitude.

The natural background radiation i n the yici nity of St. Luci e is approximately 100 millirem (mrem) per year.

A rem is a unit of measure of reactivity expressed as the quantity of ionizing radiation whose biological effect is equal to a standard unit of X-rays.

A -mrem is one-one thousandth of a rem.

Denver, Colorado, located at a higher altitude, has a measured natural background level of 193 mrem.

After the Tf1I accident, a government task action group composed of technical staff mIembers from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Healtl>,

Education and Welfare, and the NRC prepared an assessment of the radiation dose and potential health impact on the populace living within 50 miles of the reactor site at THI.

Although. TNI's described as the worst nuclear accident to have occurred in the United States, the report of this task group states the estimated dose that might have been received by an individual is less than 100 mrem.

The collective dose received by the 2,164,000 people estimated to live within 50 miles of the reactor site, is calculated to be 3,300 person-rem.

This corresponds to an average dose of approximately 1.5 mrem.

We trust that this information will prove useful to you.

Sihcerely, (Sgaed) T. A Rehm William J. Dircks, Acting Executive OrrICS~

OIIRHAMEW DATC~

DL:LB¹1 MBirk'el'/1's I

IRy)brook..

DL

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

blood DL

/L ALT

$co

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6/

/80.........

D OE'n ut--

/

.80........

HD on-"-"-

e.99 -""

ED

~ ~ ~

F 0'

~ ~ ~ i ~ ~

NRC PORM 318 (976) NRCM 0240

• V~ OOVOII MONT ANINTINOONNICOI IOT ~

'IO ~

7 ~ O

~a II II

'b I

II III h

h F

'I h

~ e

~ %

A I

DISTRIBUTION:~w/incoming Courtesy Copy D.

Ross Docket File* (50-389)

D. Vollmer NRC/PDR*

J.

Youngblood L/PDR*

G.

tter M. Rushbrook*

TERA 09104)

IE (3)

EDO Rdg

. Ferguson B, Grimes The Honorable Richard Stone NRR Rdg M. Fudge SECY (3)(80-II53)

United States Senate P. 0.

Box 4081 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 E

Case B.

S d

R Tedesco B. Snyder R,

e esco Attorney ELD R. Mattson J..Cook

Dear Senator Stone:

CA (3)

S.

Hanauer PPAS Rdg Th1s is in response to your letter of Nay 21, 198, to Carlton Kaomerer, Director, Office of Congress iona1 Affairs, Nuclear Regula ry Commi ss i on (NRC), regarding correspondence addressed to you from Ms. Sandr Corbin of Jensen Beach, Florida.

In her letter Ms. Corbin solicited coments garding the nuclear plant under construction on Hutchinson Island, Florida, ncluding safety aspects of the plant relating to the Three Nile Island Unit 2 d ign and protection against radiological effects.

The Florida Power 8 Light Company prese ly operates the St. Lucie Plant Un1t No. 1, on Hutchinson Island, Florida.

This un t was granted an operating license by the NRC in March 1976 and utilizes a press rized water reactor designed by the Combustion Engineering Co~any producing approxi tely 800 MMe.

A similar second unit is being.,

constructed at the same location./Co truction of Unit No.

2 1

ccapleted in late 1988..

t/~

The safety design approach for a nuclear power plant consists of tm1lti-levels of safety involving (1) the design foJ safety in normal operation, providing tolerances for system malfunctions, (2) the lssumption that incidents will nonetheless occur and the inclusion of safety syst ks 1n a facility to minimize damage and protect the

public, and (3) the provisions o

additional safety systems to protect the public based on the analysis. of very u ikely accidents.

This safety design approach has also been described as involvin the use of multiple physical barriers (e.g., fuel, fuel cladding, reactor coolant

ystem, containment bu1ldings) to prevent the release of radioactivity to the enviro ment.

As part of this safety design there are many engineered safety features provided to mitigate the consequences of large release of radioactivity to the enviroment.

For instance, should a break occur in the reactor coolant system and high-pressure, high temperature reactor co ant system water be rapidly discharged into the con-tainment building, the engi eered safety features system would actuate tht, emergency core cooling system wh1ch ould operate to keep the reactor core cool.

And, any radioactivity released fro the core would be largely retained in the low leakage containment building.

Al o, the natural deposit1on processes and radioact1vity removal systems would re ve the bulk of the released radioactivity from within the containment building.

I

addition, heat removal systems would reduce the containment

pressure, thereby reduc g leaking of radioactivity to the environment.

OrrICNea.

OUIINAMISW

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DATC~

WEC FORM 316 (976) NRCM 0240

~ ~ ~

~ ~

• V4 OOVONNMONT rNINTINOOrrICOI I ~ Te 040 Te ~

m

FROM:

SGQ~ P~k&BFv (Q6R) Sco@&

TO:

ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY, DATES FINALREPLY FILE LOCATIPl. g (y

09104 DATE OF DOCUMENT iI PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OFI Q CHAIRMAN g EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OTHER:

DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER

- t.tr Pre-;~ $ae@rh f:orMri ms> $r,f@ tlat safety cf QU>)MP pQM~f'fcAc 48)4@ 54) l'0 65 lfQX'sil)Fi569 ES)Rp4 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS fmtam

$~>"c."dAg ~~/t'ep3g

.Pzspen4+o Ta))el:as+<

e chica DOCVMENTjCOPYNO.

NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL, REGISTRY NO.

CLASSIFIED DATA C LASS IFI GATI 0 N CATEGORY >

Q NSI QRD Q FRD KN',A-77&3.

ASSIGNED TO:

f.<Ci QA DATE INFORMATIONROUTING Vo~~me Benton Ross Case Hanaue PWS russo SA3fdQP Q

COPY NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:

Q EDO ADMINdc CORRES BR EXT.

COMMENTS, NOTIFY:

EXT.

DATE ASSIGNED TO:

QVES Q

NO JCAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED; LEGALREVIEW Q

FINAL NRC FORM 32 I11-15)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NOT REAfOVE THIS COPY

I E

~.

'I I

~ 'E

~ ~

E P I

• I I H

I I

~

FROM:

5<+. fil h'w8 (QM~) S,~"ae Ct TO:

Cking ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACICNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY FINALREPI Y /

~

FILE LOCATION/'"

DATES 09104 DATEOF DOCUMENT PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:

Q CHAIRMAN g

EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OTHERc DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER Ltw f'~ Saz~~ra rbfn w~q 4r:fa va safety vf eacieae ge;<~r p'tent helay ho))e, em rg&5)nfartcc ggf4 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Respond 4a 7@'f)a~~ssoe ofhce DOCUMENT/COPY NO.

NUIVIBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.

CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY Cl NSI Q RD Q FRD 5FCY M-Oir3 ASSIGNED TO:

IRAN Ac DATE 6 4 N$

INFORMATIONROUTING Vo)>m Benton Ross CQSG HclnRUQ PPAS Hattso Snider LEGALREVIEW Q

FINAL Q

COPY DATE ASSIGNED Toc NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY' EOO ADMINIIcCORRES BR EXT.

COMMENTS, NOTIFY:

c EXT.

JCAE NOTIFICATI N RECOMMENDED:;

Q YES Q

NO

'NRC FORM 232 I11-75)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS;,, =.: PQ 4tbTc R EhfOVE THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTRO'L

t I

80-TO:

Lj Commissioner XQ Exec. Dir /Ope'r Q

Cong. Liaison' Public Affairs en'eferral Incoming:

From:

'6/3/80 Logging Date NRC SECRETARIAT

~

'ate 0

Gen. Counsel 0 Solicitor O Secretary 0

Inspector & Auditor Policy Evaluation To:

Subject:

, ~51 80t bein Cl Prepare reply for signature of:

0 Chairman Cl Commissioner CI EDO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, IA, PE 0

Signature block omitted 0

0 Return original of incoming with response Xgg( For direct reply 0

For appropriate action Q

For information Remarks:

Suspense:

JUNE 10

'</7/~

o'etzi gg9e! siss<44 For the Commission:

.bs se

'Send three I3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Branch NRC42 ACTION SLIP

~

~

> ~

s* y q 'gg<

<< ~~

g<<

~ J

~

~

'2lfnifeb ad~fee annie WA5HINGTON<<D.C. 20510 May <21, 1980 Our File:

Z0137170036 I <<g~ ~

1 Congressional Liaison Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Nash ing ton, D.C.

20555

Dear Director:

~

e

~ g)

~

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested.

Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, would be greatly appreciated.

It would also be helpful to me if your response i'

mailed to my office at the address below and INCLUDES THE FI LE NUMBER SHONN ON THE COMMUNICATION I HAVE SENT TO YOU.

Cordially, III II/'

~

(.

.'ichard (Dick) Stone RDS/vms Enclosure Z

-<gT ~s

)

PLEASE REPLY TO:

POST OFFICE BOX 4081 TALLAHASSEE'LORIDA 32303 so ov 34o,'Yfp'

0, ~

5M

~

I y

g<,")

t-)(

p~

J f ver 8

(( )>.If'5(sir i

', )];.(((t'i( i ~'~~ ~

Hv,'~igC) e

~cL Mhrnc. ~~~~( 0)

Q $+. ~~I ((Lt-'jl.C~

~~J~gC,~,

Q. C..

'> Op On s!I co'ie'r~::ice.xo <~A

~. I~ 1 ply CI r>'s

~ p >> s gjp~

I t 0

~

djg7//d~

~g~ ~f~g+g i'Mi<

~g~ ~cm<cl ~<V G- ~~+~

P~~~~

~

Q-+m~ck:u- ~~ ~pQ~~~~ ~~( (g'x-c9

~

~~6~~

(

~mv~~ ~g~~ Q<<"" g~

Ql~

Ql (5, ~~i ++ Kl< C~~

loA ~c+L <

L ~n.

~~ ~~~.. g~ ~r~d. -l Ld~4i~<

pj.~p<~ l km.k L,ud

c. i(.

c ~~~> ~]

-( g( ~c~(.w c Mp << ~~

~.(-(

e X- ~gj('(~(f Q'~< gm M

~(A. LAJ<~A <~ ~&~ gl(,.P

~

QhmD<. g~

~c~.d ic

0

~

o a