ML20206Q485
| ML20206Q485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1986 |
| From: | Schulze D HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206Q484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609040426 | |
| Download: ML20206Q485 (4) | |
Text
' RipHARD*T. SCHULZE WAYS AND MEANS Eru Distac, Pennsytv.mA COMMITTEE Congregg of tfje Wniteb fptates Douse of Representatibes = Washington, BC 20515 l
August 5, 1986 Mr. Harold Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H. Street, NW Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
I am enclosing a letter from some of my constituents regarding an article in the Wall Street Journal regarding the GE Mark I Containment System. I believe the attached is self-explanatory.
Any comments you can provide my Paoli, Pennsylvania office regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated and most helpful to responding to my constituent.
Many thanks for your kind attention to this matter, and with best wishes, I am Sincerely, LL i
DICK SCIIULZE Member of Congress DSecs Enclosure H
- 002023 PLEASE RESPOND TO.
O 220in..... woo..o,..c.so....
2 r.., t..c....
4...
W.smestom. DC 20516 P.ou. P41930 t (2:2)228-5789 000-382-6852 (vou..t) 215-848-0665
a,-.. ',,.
WEtts, WEu.s, LGEBEN, HOFFMAN & HOM.OWAY COUNSELOR $ AT LAW 635 HIGH STREET P O box 8657 RICHARO E WELL S PO1TSTOWN. PENNSYINANIA 19M4 C. EOMUND WELLS ARTHURF LOEDEN. JR (1961 1975) tt LEP**oNE (2 '51 NJ-74 64 R KURf 2 HOLLOW AY r nEDERICK L RAKER
- 1916-1979)
July 25, 1986 The Honorable Richard T. Schulze 2 East Lancaster Avenue Paoli, PA 19301
Dear Representative Schulze:
We are enclosing herewith an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, July 22, 1986, regarding nuclear reactor containment systems designed by General Electric.
We and our families live and work in the shadow of the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant operated by Philadelphia Electric Company.
The possibility that the containment system at Limerick is not sufficient to protect our community in the event of a " serious" accident is very a la rm ing.
We were dissatisfied, to say the least, with the comments by Harold Denton of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it would be paying "a lot of attention" to utilities' efforts to deal with the issue.
What does this mean?
If the Commission has determined that these containment systems would fail in nine out of ten types of severe accidents, why are the utilities not being ordered to correct the problems immediately?
It seems as though we are placing a great deal of faith in the NRC to protect our health and property but after reading this article, we are not convinced that this faith is fully justified.
There is growing concern in our community and perhaps nationwide that we are at the mercy of the utility companies operating these reactors.
Currenty, property insurance is unavailable from any source to protect us from nuclear accidents.
We believe a congressional investigation is in order to look into at least the two issues we are raising in this letter.
1)
Why, if the NRC has determined these containment systems to be unsafe in serious accidents, is it not demanding immediate correction of the problems?
The lionorable Richard T. Schulze Page 2 July 25, 1986 2)
Why have no provisions been made for insurance to protect private property in the event of a nuclear accident?
We are anxious for your response.
Very truly yours, b
E.. [
L
.ucw e Richard E. Well
^ =.
Art
. Loeb p, JQ
/..
ic Thomas L.
Iloffman L-R. KurtzHo)lo y,
(/h1luL$',D1,J9&o
/
( *
/
g b
1 rupture or omer breaMown, with the ra-have charged that the NRC's assessment is d1oa<t> e eieme t> t ki e a eas ens re<.
Nuclear Reactor Containment System seen-aily nawed -d toi, -ed The pressure of the steam inside the rear-4 J
failure rate is "way, way less" than 9n, for would hmid to a point where the ron-M 77 n T 7 77F MD J
7 O
according to Cordell Iteed, vice president, crete shcIl would crack, allowmg ra<hoac bL', lleSItrHCG IS 1'lG106(I, imC /.UG8 OGVS nuclear operations, of Commonwealth Edi.
live gases to escape into the atmost here.
D son Co. In Chicago, which has four GE re-Containment shcIls are supposed to pre O
actors ~
vent radioactivity from escaping, but the The study, which Mr. Ilouston said was Other utilities that have reactors with Mark I shell may not be chic to do so, the py gm pm more detailed than a similar study that Mark I containments mche Carolina dB d m mM staff ncp-en ef Tw wu t Srnm Jmma.
reached the same conclusion 11 years ago, is sure to cause disputes. In the wake of Itwer & I.lght Co., Southern Co.'s Geor. n IWold I)enton, director of' the NitCs e
The Nuc! car Itegulatory Comm.isuon will report in September that the contam-the recent Chernobyl disaster, which in-IMwer Co. unit. Philadelphia Elcrtric Co.,
t)ff cc of Nuclear Regulation, s erently ment shell on certam nuclear reactors de-volved a Soviet-designed reartor that Northeast Utilitics and the Tenacssce Val-fueled the Mark I controversy when he told signed by General Electric Co. would fall didn't have say such containment shcIl ley Authority, a group of utilitics that the NRC will te Nuclear industry officials say the prob ng a lot of attention" to utifiries' cf in nine out of 10 types of severe accidents, and thus quirmly released radioactive ma.
tem with the Mark I appears to te that it is an NRC official said-terial into the atmosphere, anti-nuclear g
g g,, g g g too small and wasn't designed to withstand There are about two dozen such com-groups called for a shutdown of U.S. reac-mercial reactors in the U.S., of which tors that have GE Mark I containments.
the high pressures it is supposed to resist.
Mr. Reed maintains that the real prob In the past, GE has maintained that its lem hes in the testing procedures of Saniha about 18 are currently operating.
They also want Congress to investigate.
containment is adequately designed.
National I.aboratories, the federal testing Wayne Ilouston, deputy director of the A spokesman for GE, of Fairficid, NRC's Boiling Water Reactor Division-Conn., declined to comment, maintaining In general, in a " serious" accident the facility in Albuquerque, N.M., which the
- said the agency has urged utilities with that this is a matter between the NRC and fuel core of the reactor, which normally is NRC is using for its Mark I investigation.
surrounded by water, would be at least Mr. Reed said Sandla hasn't sufficiently GE's Mark I containments to make modifi-the utilities.
cations that could cost several million dol-Meanwhile, utilities with GE reactors partly exposed because of a steam pipe considered what an operator would do to lars per reactor. But he said that for now.
mitigate the effects of a severe accident in I
the first critical hours. lie said an operatar -
thq NRC isn't ordering any safety changes, generally wnuld be able to prevent a-re-nor does it intend to sfmt down any reaS lease of radioactive material by venting tors. Moreover, he said it would be "e&
and filtering before Ihe pressure inside lhe nomically unfeasible" to make "really ma-reactor built to a point at which the con.
jof changes" that would upgrade the tainment shcIl was imperiled.
safety of the shell-I "It is perhaps a little scary for the pub-lic" to learn that GE's Mark I containment system has such a high probability of fall-ure, Mr. Ilouston said in an interview. But, he added, the chances of an accident oc-curring that would test the containment system are "still are quite low."
.The NRC's Mark I conclusions are part of a " risk reassessment" study that the commissim has been conducting on about half a dozen types of nuclear reactors. The reassessment comes in the wake of new and sometimes conflicting scientific data on how much and how fast radioactive ma-terial mig *tt be released into the atmos-phere during a major accident.
I
.