ML20206Q485

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Constituent Inquiry Re GE Mark I Containment Sys, for Comment
ML20206Q485
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom Constellation icon.png
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, i

LL DICK SCIIULZE Member of Congress DSecs Enclosure H EDO - 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

  1. 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 .ucw e E. . [ L Richard E. Well

" ^ =.

  • Art . Loeb p, JQ ic /.. -

Thomas L. Iloffman L-R. y, KurtzHo)lo -

(/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 J seen-aily nawed -d toi , -ed failure rate is "way, way less" than 9n, The pressure of the steam inside the rear- 4 for would hmid to a point where the ron- ,

J O according to Cordell Iteed, vice president, M 77 n T 7 77F MD 7 crete shcIl would crack, allowmg ra<hoac bL', lleSItrHCG IS 1'lG106(I, imC /.UG8 OGVS *'

nuclear operations, of Commonwealth Edi.

son Co. In Chicago, which has four GE re-live gases to escape into the atmost here.

D Containment shcIls are supposed to pre O actors ~ vent radioactivity from escaping, but the The study, which Mr. Ilouston said was py gm pm more detailed than a similar study that Other utilities that have reactors with Mark I shell may not be chic to do so, the staff ncp-en ef Tw wu t Srnm Jmma. reached the same conclusion 11 years ago, Mark I containments mche Carolina dB d m mM Itwer & I.lght Co., Southern Co.'s Geor. en IWold I)enton, director of' the NitCs The Nuc! car Itegulatory Comm.isuon is sure to cause disputes. In the wake of IMwer Co. unit. Philadelphia Elcrtric Co., t)ff cc of Nuclear Regulation, s erently will report in September that the contam- the recent Chernobyl disaster, which in-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.

terial into the atmosphere, anti-nuclear tem with the Mark I appears to te that it is g g g, , g g g an NRC official said- too small and wasn't designed to withstand There are about two dozen such com- groups called for a shutdown of U.S. reac- Mr. Reed maintains that the real prob mercial reactors in the U.S., of which the high pressures it is supposed to resist.

tors that have GE Mark I containments. 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. National I.aboratories, the federal testing containment is adequately designed.

Wayne Ilouston, deputy director of the A spokesman for GE, of Fairficid, In general, in a " serious" accident the facility in Albuquerque, N.M., which the NRC's Boiling Water Reactor Division- Conn., declined to comment, maintaining NRC is using for its Mark I investigation.

fuel core of the reactor, which normally is

- said the agency has urged utilities with that this is a matter between the NRC and Mr. Reed said Sandla hasn't sufficiently surrounded by water, would be at least GE's Mark I containments to make modifi- the utilities. considered what an operator would do to ,

cations that could cost several million dol- Meanwhile, utilities with GE reactors partly exposed because of a steam pipe mitigate the effects of a severe accident in I lars per reactor. But he said that for now. 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

.