ML20235D446
Text
.. _
h
,s SUSIW '4SMEN l'Olt TIIE PODLIC IFr!'TtEST
. DAVID 'DINSMORC CONCY,
109 N. DEAHDOp?C sT.
..are m or: = no w eiu u rstanca CuscAco.IL 60402 Tzternons ate-c4t-5570 A
I Jtaic 3, 1971 51-a6L
- St -n <t
~
3
- R 13
.24 7Y OO8[d/
t Dr. Glenn Scaborg, Chairman qg
_ag U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 19g
. Washington,.D. C.
20545
-h9
-2g Vcar Dr. Scaborg:
-N
-Qat We have reviewed the Idaho Nuclear Safety Reports on Tests 845-850 of the Semiscalc Blowdown and ECC Project, and have compared them with the Water -
. Reactor SaIcty Program Plan and otbcr AEC docmnents.
Warnings that ECC water might bypass the core and be blown out the primary system broch appoor explicitly at page 90 of the Ergen report, pago 40 of NSIC-24,
'and pages 2,10 und 20 of IN-13S4. 1\\1orcover, the Leidenfrast effect is a well-
.imown p!]cnomenon in two-phase flow theory.
In view of the fact that tho' tests verified the accuracy of those test objectives, wo fec1 that the Commission if wrong fu regarding the test results as " surprising" or,."uno:gce ted. "
We are particularly disturbed by :m AEC press reicase, dated May 2S,1973, which attempts to denigrate ();c tests by saying:
The recent small moch-up tests at NRTS were not designed to represent
~
the responso'of an actual operating nucicar power plrmt to a loss of coolant accident. There were significant differences in ido experi-mental sysicm which was tested as compared to an opercting reactor.
In view of the fact that the blowdown test data from that same facility has bcon used to support licenso applications, we do not sea how the Commission enn have its cake and cat it too. Either the facility does closely model commercial plant j
nec'd o,;[. 0:r. at F.c Me,/ 7 71 i
~Ds'.-3458 B709250228 870921 lime b.
~
17 b]2 E / MS 3
o
9
)
Dr. Glenn ficaborg
' page 2 Junc 3,1971 1
f ECC systems" (pago 27 of IN-13S4), in which case the ECC systems on com-mercial I;VR's do not work, or the test results on blowdown used in previous license applications must be cast out and the matter rcmanded forg novo consideration, which would entail holding new hearings on those license applica-tiens.
In view of the crucial nature of this problem, we bcIleve the only prudent course for the Commisrlon to follow, in addition to fic exprocsed Intention to hold up licensing now plants, would be to suspend the licenses, until the ECC system has been c.s;perimentally verified, of the reactors named on the attached list.
N We ask the Commicslon to suspend these licenses on the grounds that the assur-ance of no undue rish to the public health and safety demands that no other course be followed by the Commission.
Sincercly,
. 0,5;'bl/ ll l bib?h$$
DDC:mh i
enclosurc o
9 i
I n
e
't
'o OPEH A.NG 12 CENSES TO BE SUSPEN.
D Name of Plant _
, Location Operator Connecticut Yankee
. Haddam Neck, CT Connecticut Yrutee' Atomic Power >
.Dresden 2, 3 Grendy County, IL Commonwealth Edison Co.
Ginna Ontario, NY Rochester Gas and Electric Co.
Lionticello Lionticello, LIN Northern States Powcr Co.
. tiillstonc l '
Millstone Point, CT Connecticut Light and Powc) Co.
Nine hiile Point Oswego, NY Niagara Llohawk Power Co."
Oyster Crook Oyster Crcck, NJ Jersey Central Power and Light Cc Point Dench 1 Two Creeks, WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Robinson 2 IIartsville, SC Carolina Power and Li.;ht Co.
N San Onofrc Camp Pendleton, CA Southern California Edison Co.
w 1
l a
l
~
/**,
I b
e 4
i