ML19220A393
| ML19220A393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1976 |
| From: | Bunch D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Morris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904170542 | |
| Download: ML19220A393 (2) | |
Text
&
- ~
6 i
OCT 1 575
., r.a.o..: s.n.s
?
.. c. :.,, ra.cc.,
..r,_..u.
. nl. rc. e;.;
g r...:
c.
r
...:-. %. i
. r 2...s C.
O, t
..f, r.
C...
v.,
l g
=,,,d j
6 :a...a i- - v,.
s..i
- . 1 ;2
{.Te..y-
- e.. x.. i, 4 i.i.:_....
...s
..s
1..*
+e C j* '*M
- ,c.... _..
~'*j".','-
.s r c r'
' ' ~ ' ' '
'.' '. c."' ' T C.' * '
~g
' ' ' ' ' ~ '. ' ' ' ' '
' ' ~
G r. '; _,
g
..C 1'
....) Ut- -;.
- .), i;i; i...
,a.
W i 'J
>.-:C 1!!
~.
.A v. <.... - l ?.., _...e
.,. _.a
.Ie
. i.. : C < e,. l.. _..
4.0
.d ci./1....
c.
.L s
p
..g iG,, 3a w il d. )
.e.,s u..al. I w.
- .2
....;3....]. :i a... l..,
-)
T. a, *s,...
,.).L a..3 y
v.
e.- -... *
.s I t,,g,,_3 r.,:r.1...13.
) ill t.. e.
u,
,..., O
..;,t 3
., r4 ia-a v,s
.....t,.
. il....
.,, il uT..w.
v v
2
_s..rce !.il d I S i a..C.
1.61 5 T..... e' 0 5 :.' C r.l. J '. d
- ,-,.. '. e r
- 1 t : '.. Si.
.. ']l, c,:.w.
N '.;5
...e
.,:..,.t
._l;.,4..
..i.....;..
.:, *i,; s.,.,,. _ i 1 7.
a 5 --6.
.i
.u..
.a a -.
fc..n. a.~.A 3
Q-a.
a,1 su 7
/
qwa
.: i
/
I;.
. '.il u f
. /L.,
..t.
P. a i v.1, m,e-a (q..,.; s) r I c...,w s t
- s ;.,s s1 N...a 2
~
.....s....
.,,. ~
4 _;
2 6 ;. p.wVy'
.g-
. 1 i.,,.....- l
. - 1,.,. :
t.-.) h rwm
_.:;1 m ra:
u D i s t ri bu t i o._n_
..>..2 Cintral rile
., 2 e i ri q
,,, e
,a
..,,. m.,
.v-3 5 c.2. i. ' y
. i. '...
4
/43 File a.r.... 11.,
.m...
P.
c..
_1
..;..2 CSE Readin9
.. /.. - } u..
7
.a.
.e.
...I.
-./
i
. i i. i.
as s:.c i
7904170ct d 44 - 4 r t~
N.
.. a (
3
,,,:L,c.c
,.m.
o.
2 : nS,c /
s
..c o s t
.y,
x.
.. n t en f rdl'1/ c a L 4...N c '
i ser n
.c_
g 1
l
- ) -',f 7. 3 y3) -
l I
l
] ;'J /..-'fn 1
i3
...3.\\,CJ'3 (E.ge.J.I)) A!C{ '243 T." v.._ _ _... _.. _. - _
_ __I
..r z y t.
o 2
,. a
- L.?
=..a
. eg g
y
-me
.s.
.w*-as e+
em +
e
r -!
S t
1 4'
- m. e 7., c 7 S re c
- m. _ 7_... -
..fm. y, :.
,c....-....,C.3 1
r v..
.a u.u i u
.a u
~.-
1.
Mr. Kepford ccu ents on the Reactor Sciety Study and states that it appears that the NRC would have the public accept the Study as "true and correct" while many of the conclusions of the Study, in Mr. Kepford's words, have been severely criticized. Our overall assessment of the Reactor Safety Study is that it provices an objective and meaningful estir. ate of the i
probable risks associated with the o;eration of present-day light cater i
}
nuclear pcher plants in the U. S.
We believe the Study's r3thodology as it ap; lies to the calculation of bett accident prcbabilitias and ccnse-cuences has received a broad and increasing endcrsement by the informed scientific com unity.
It should be noted that the Study was referenced as a source of data and did not by itself form the basis for the staff's evaluation of postulated accidents in the Draft Supplement to the Final Envircnmental Statement.
2.
The Interior Department suggests that a specific study of the consequances of a Ciass 9 accicent at Tnree Mile Island, Unit No. 2 upon tne Susquehanna River should be rade. The staff disagrees with this view.
A general discussion of Class 9 accidents has been given in the Reactor Safety Study.
This study deals primarily with dose consequences via the airborne pathway, since this nas bean judged to be the patnway of primary icportance. The staff is also conducting a generic study on the dose consequences that could be conducted via the liquid patnway. The staff believes, in view of the remote possibility of occurrence of a Class 9 event, tnat tne an viron antal risk of such an event is acceptably Icw, and that generic discussions of these events are adequate.
3.
The EPA commented that a proposed recreation area at the south end of the island could pose difficulties in the remote event that evacuation of people was required, and stated that no balancing of risks vs. benefits had been rcade in the DES.
It is true that no balancing of risks vs. benefits was mde in the DES.
Tne staff did investigate pcssible evacuation of the exclusion area, including the preposed recreation area and concluded that e'.acuation could be carried out such tr.at little risk to the public i.ould result from the use of the south end of island as a recreation area.
In view of tne recote prct: ability of an accident occurring and the fact that esacuaticn could be carried cat with little risk to the ;uclic in tFe as rnt of in sciient, the c ta ff a.ncl u _2s tr it t'a c', s'ss of such a Scil i ty ara fa r c ut.ai 3 d y t':e 7
r -c ca.a t.i.c. n 3l.Le! e fi t s. to be deri ved ficm i t.
..er $ 58
. _,,f
. -. -