ML20028F603
| ML20028F603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1983 |
| From: | Ottinger R HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR71023, RTR-NUREG-0880, RTR-NUREG-880 45FR71023-162, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8302020283 | |
| Download: ML20028F603 (2) | |
Text
--
Congress of the Ilinitch 6tates Npouse of Representatibes cannuittee as enerar ant conumerce Besat 2125. Raybees Deuse efice puGWag
- 9, IE45bingt0R. B.C. 20515
{fTED January 19, 1983 NI24 A9 y The Honorable Nunzio Palladino 10 M T N U318II )
Chairman p 3 j f.f;...
gy f.g}g23)kMiCN#
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,0 POSED REE ' '
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
OpKET NUMBER PROD. fs UTIL FAC..g 4
$(a On January 10, 1983, Goal Policy Statement containing a safety threshold standardthe C plant performance design objectivespart of the Policy Statement the As "The-likelihood of a nuclear reactor accident that results in a large-scale core melt should normally be less than one in 10,000 per year of reactor operation."
(Revised Safety Goal Statement, January 7,1983, p.10)
The Statement continues:
l "The Commission also recognizes the importance l
of mitigating the consequences of a core melt accident and continues to emphasize features such as containment, siting in less populated areas, and emer of the defense gency planning as integral parts in-depth concept."
(Ibid,
- p. 11)
It is my understanding that the standard established in the Safety Goal Policy Statement can be shown to be met only through l
the use of a technique knownas probabilistic risk assessment or PRA.
To date,'
l safety analyses have been performed using the PRA
- i j
methodology, with varying degrees of quality, for fifteen nuclear power reactors.
n William Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, informed theIn i
E l
Commission that six of the fifteen reactors do not meet the
[
proposed Safety Goal based on their safety studies.
six plnts falling below the safety. goal threshold is Indian Point One of the Unit Tmo.
\\
f The failure of the Indian Point reactor to measure up to the
=.
Commission's new definition of safety is made all the more discon-
.certing when viewed in light of the Commission's decision of a i;
month earlier to permit continued operation of the Unit 2 reactor 5
5
~
=
B302020283 830119
=
PDR NUREG 0880 C PDR MSO3 --
nn-yw--M^~
Th9 Hencrable Nunzio Palladino January 19., 1983 Page 2 that " Unit 2... will pose no undue risk to public health a 4
l safety."
(decision CLI-82-38, December 23,1982, p. 8).
I would appreciate an explanation at your earliest conven-Point plant, which does not meet the Commission's s is bereft of two of the three factors identified in the safety Goal as integral to the defense-in-depth concept (remote siting and emergency planning), nonetheless poses "no undue risk to public health and safety."
Sincerely,
'db
[d, hA Richard L. Ottin gr RLO/jvw i
3 l
=
h e
s 7
f5 Eidis E5:
(...;-
i:
_