ML20206B350: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20206B350
| number = ML20206B350
| issue date = 03/19/1987
| issue date = 03/19/1987
| title = Responds to 870217 Ltr to Chairman Zech Re Possibility of Entombment of Facility Following Accident or Core Meltdown. Protection Similar to That Provided at Chernobyl Possible. Entombment Plan Should Be Developed Soon After Accident
| title = Responds to to Chairman Zech Re Possibility of Entombment of Facility Following Accident or Core Meltdown. Protection Similar to That Provided at Chernobyl Possible. Entombment Plan Should Be Developed Soon After Accident
| author name = Denton H
| author name = Denton H
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = NUDOCS 8704090110
| document report number = NUDOCS 8704090110
| title reference date = 02-17-1987
| package number = ML20206B337
| package number = ML20206B337
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
Line 20: Line 21:
                                   .      MAR 191987 o
                                   .      MAR 191987 o
The Honorable Michael Weddle New Harpshire House of Represartatives Conccrd, New Hanpshire 03301 Oear Mr. Weddle:
The Honorable Michael Weddle New Harpshire House of Represartatives Conccrd, New Hanpshire 03301 Oear Mr. Weddle:
Your letter of February 17, 1987 to Chairman Zech, regarding the Seabrock plant has been referred to me for response. Your letter expressed reservations as to whether nuclear power plants, and in particular the Seabreck plant, could be entombed following an accident involving core melt. In a letter dated February 3,1987 to the Office of Legislative Servicer, State of New Hampshire, I stated that should entorbnent be needed, we see no irpediment to providing protection similar to that provided at Chernobyl.      I would like to elaborate on that response.
Your letter of February 17, 1987 to Chairman Zech, regarding the Seabrock plant has been referred to me for response. Your letter expressed reservations as to whether nuclear power plants, and in particular the Seabreck plant, could be entombed following an accident involving core melt. In a {{letter dated|date=February 3, 1987|text=letter dated February 3,1987}} to the Office of Legislative Servicer, State of New Hampshire, I stated that should entorbnent be needed, we see no irpediment to providing protection similar to that provided at Chernobyl.      I would like to elaborate on that response.
The NRC does not require studies to be performed to detemine if and how entombment should be done at each nuclear reactor following a core melt accident. Our evaluation of severe accident risk for U.S. reactors indicates that the likelihood of needing entombment is very remote. The U.S reactors incorporate stringent design and operation requirements to prevent a severe meltdown accident and provide containments to help mitigate the consequences of such an accident in the unlikely event one was to occur. The study of the implications of the Chernobyl accident for U.S. reactors, which will be sent to you when it is available, supports the position that U.S. reactors are funda-mentally different than the Chernobyl reactor and are not subject to the same accident. This that the (TMI-2) position  is though accident,  supported by thedid severe,    experience not result at in TMI-2 andfor the need  the fact entombment. We note, however, that the Soviets were able to devise a success-ful ad hoc plan for entombment subsequent to the accident. The design of an entombment schere can best be done after the details of the accident are knowr, and we believe there is sufficient capability within the United States to successfully design and implement an entombment scheme in the unlikely event that such an action were necessary.
The NRC does not require studies to be performed to detemine if and how entombment should be done at each nuclear reactor following a core melt accident. Our evaluation of severe accident risk for U.S. reactors indicates that the likelihood of needing entombment is very remote. The U.S reactors incorporate stringent design and operation requirements to prevent a severe meltdown accident and provide containments to help mitigate the consequences of such an accident in the unlikely event one was to occur. The study of the implications of the Chernobyl accident for U.S. reactors, which will be sent to you when it is available, supports the position that U.S. reactors are funda-mentally different than the Chernobyl reactor and are not subject to the same accident. This that the (TMI-2) position  is though accident,  supported by thedid severe,    experience not result at in TMI-2 andfor the need  the fact entombment. We note, however, that the Soviets were able to devise a success-ful ad hoc plan for entombment subsequent to the accident. The design of an entombment schere can best be done after the details of the accident are knowr, and we believe there is sufficient capability within the United States to successfully design and implement an entombment scheme in the unlikely event that such an action were necessary.
Your letter also asks whether there are sufficient protective radiation suits to sustain vital operations at nearby military facilities should a massive release of radioactivity occur. We are not aware of the specific provisions by the military to sustain vital operations in the unlikely event of a large 8704090110 870401 PDR  ADOCK 05000443 U                  PDR
Your letter also asks whether there are sufficient protective radiation suits to sustain vital operations at nearby military facilities should a massive release of radioactivity occur. We are not aware of the specific provisions by the military to sustain vital operations in the unlikely event of a large 8704090110 870401 PDR  ADOCK 05000443 U                  PDR

Latest revision as of 14:34, 6 December 2021

Responds to to Chairman Zech Re Possibility of Entombment of Facility Following Accident or Core Meltdown. Protection Similar to That Provided at Chernobyl Possible. Entombment Plan Should Be Developed Soon After Accident
ML20206B350
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/19/1987
From: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Weddle M
NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20206B337 List:
References
NUDOCS 8704090110
Download: ML20206B350 (4)


Text

3

. MAR 191987 o

The Honorable Michael Weddle New Harpshire House of Represartatives Conccrd, New Hanpshire 03301 Oear Mr. Weddle:

Your letter of February 17, 1987 to Chairman Zech, regarding the Seabrock plant has been referred to me for response. Your letter expressed reservations as to whether nuclear power plants, and in particular the Seabreck plant, could be entombed following an accident involving core melt. In a letter dated February 3,1987 to the Office of Legislative Servicer, State of New Hampshire, I stated that should entorbnent be needed, we see no irpediment to providing protection similar to that provided at Chernobyl. I would like to elaborate on that response.

The NRC does not require studies to be performed to detemine if and how entombment should be done at each nuclear reactor following a core melt accident. Our evaluation of severe accident risk for U.S. reactors indicates that the likelihood of needing entombment is very remote. The U.S reactors incorporate stringent design and operation requirements to prevent a severe meltdown accident and provide containments to help mitigate the consequences of such an accident in the unlikely event one was to occur. The study of the implications of the Chernobyl accident for U.S. reactors, which will be sent to you when it is available, supports the position that U.S. reactors are funda-mentally different than the Chernobyl reactor and are not subject to the same accident. This that the (TMI-2) position is though accident, supported by thedid severe, experience not result at in TMI-2 andfor the need the fact entombment. We note, however, that the Soviets were able to devise a success-ful ad hoc plan for entombment subsequent to the accident. The design of an entombment schere can best be done after the details of the accident are knowr, and we believe there is sufficient capability within the United States to successfully design and implement an entombment scheme in the unlikely event that such an action were necessary.

Your letter also asks whether there are sufficient protective radiation suits to sustain vital operations at nearby military facilities should a massive release of radioactivity occur. We are not aware of the specific provisions by the military to sustain vital operations in the unlikely event of a large 8704090110 870401 PDR ADOCK 05000443 U PDR

,' The Honorable Michael Weddle - 2'-

radioactive release at Seabrook. However, in the event of any such release, the NRC, as well as other Federal Agencies, would provide appropriete support to the military to minimize the impact on vital military operations.

Sincerely, r :: t} +

  • .. . ;'24:n Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reector Regulation >

9 l

2

. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - . . _ . __ . _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ , - _ . ~ . . ~. . . _ - - - - _ .

i

~

,./'

E'- Ye nn[%;t, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'f . I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O

f

  1. 's,

/

-ag yM0 L .i u d d (

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM: Di tF: 03/27/87 EDO CONTROL: 002631 DOC DT: 03/01/87 REP. JUDD GREGG FINAL. RFPLY:

TO:

CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GRFEN ** SFCY NO: 87-256 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC: R,OtlT T NG:

ENCLOSES LTR FROM STATE RFPRESFNTATIVF MICHAFL 7 MitRt.EY WEDDLE RE FEASIBILITY OF EMERGENCY ENTOMBMENT [~MURRAY

). TAYLOR DATE: 03/13/87 G.KERR, SP ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

REF. EDO 2436 .

URR RECEIVED: fMRCH 16,1987

.'.CTIOll: M D Pt.A:d.'vaE, NRR ROUTING: DEIGON/SNIEZEK ms ACTION I40SSBURG DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE BY 32Y27 I I a

O e

o_____________..______.____

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-87-0256 LOGGING DATE: Mar 12 87 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: J. Gregg AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE: Mar 12 87 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Seabrook

SUBJECT:

- Emergency preparedness for Seabrook ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:

DATE DUE:

SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

4 W(d Ott. EDO D*

3-jyd7-p yos -

Time t i

EDO

- nogg3t