ML19256F865
| ML19256F865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Rebecca Stone SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256F866 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912270001 | |
| Download: ML19256F865 (2) | |
Text
Pnq UNITED STATES p arGuy NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisstON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y]g[ g
%h v z
s y..... j m
m The Honorable Richard Stone United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Stone:
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter from your constituent, Mr. N. L. Gelbman, concerning the safety and feasibility of constructing nuclear power plants underground.
Several studies have been performed on this subject by different organizations. The most recent and comprehensive ones were made by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comission, and by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). Also, the Swedish and German governments have performed substantive evaluations of the technical and economic feasibility of underground reactor siting.
I have enclosed a copy of the report on the NRC supported study conducted by Sandia Laboratories.
Essentially, the conclusions of all these studies are that, while it may be technically possible to place reactors underground, the potential benefits probably do not justify the added costs and operational problems.
Underground siting has negligible safety advantages over surface siting for containment of accidents (like loss-of-coolant accidents) which do not involve meltdown of the reactor core.
In the case of possibly larger accidents, other approaches, like filtered containment venting to prevent overpressurization, may provide protection equal to deep under-ground siting, but at a much icwer cost. Current research by the NRC is exploring the potential safety and practicality of filtered containment venting.
Only first order estimates of the added costs have been made, but these indicate an increase of 20 to 40 percent ($200 million to $400 million) over total current plant costs. Shallow underground siting provides very few, if any, net safettbenefits not already provided by surface plants.
Deep undergrouqd plants would be more expensive, would have greater restriction on availability of geologically suitable sites, and would present greater construction and operational problems; they would, however, provide greater potential for containing core meltdown accident products and pressures than shallow underground plants.
1642 058 N912e7000.1-
, '., p.
Senator Stone I hope that this information adequately answers your constituent's questions concerning the feasibility of placing reactors underground.
If you have any further questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact Dr. Jerry Harbour (telephone 427-4370), of our Site Safety Research staff, who will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely.
oridnni enett by R. G. Smith f tw V. Gocsick, i
putive Director j
kr Operations
Enclosure:
Sandia Report, SAND 76-0412 1642 059