ML20028G385
| ML20028G385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1983 |
| From: | CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G382 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302090230 | |
| Download: ML20028G385 (3) | |
Text
_
ERRATA SHEET Title page, add "and Contention 1.1" to title.
Page 2, line 21, " Sequence" should read " Consequence."
A revised page 5 is enclosed.
Page 21, the third reference should be numbered II-3.
Page 33, line 23, " assumed" should be changed to
" calculated."
Page 38, footnote line 2,
" radium" should read
" radius."
Page 49, line 7, " hurricanes" should be changed to
" extreme winds."
should be 1.6 x 10-gre melt frequency for "Others" Page 70, the mean c Also, "Seisic" should read
" Seismic."
A revised page 71 is enclosed.
Page 74, line 15, "Psai" should read "Tsai."
Page 77, line 25, " failure o" should read " failure of."
8302090230 830206 PDR ADOCK 05000247
. II.
INTRODUCTION A.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE ve ilSTIMONY The purpose of unis testimony is to address Commission Question 1 in this proceeding as well as Contention 1.1 and Board Question 1.1,1 concerning the level of safety of Indian Point.
The major conclusions of this testimony and a summary of the individual and societal risks of the Indian Point 1.
Commission Question 1:
What risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, includ-ing accidents not considered in the plants' design basis, pending and after any improvements described in (2) and (4) below?
[The full text of Question 1 is not reproduced here.]
Contention 1.1:
The probabilities and conse-l quences of accidents at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 l
combine to produce high risks of health and property damage not only within the plume exposure EPZ but also beyond the plume exposure EPZ as far l
as the New York City metropolitan area.
Board Question 1.1:
What are the consequences of j
serious accidents at Indian Point and what is the probability of occurrence of such accidents?
In answering this question the parties shall address at least the following documents:
(a) the Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study (IPPSS) prepared by the Licensees; (b) the Sandia Laboratory "Let-ter Report on Review and Evaluation of the Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study" (Letter Report),
dated August 25, 1982; and (c) any other reviews or studies of the IPPSS prepared by or for the Licensees, the NRC Staff, or the Intervencrs, or any other document which addresses 2he accuracy of the IPPSS.
. TABLE V-3 COMPARISON OF INDIAN POINF CORE MELT MEDIAN FREQUENCY UI'IH NRC SAFE 1"I G3AIS Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 NRC Goal 1 x 10 4 or 5.9 x 10 5 Core Melt 1.4 x 10 4 or or Frequencies once in every once in every once in every (per reactor year) 7,100 years 17,000 years 10,000 years (internal and external) 3.8 x 10 5 Internal Initiating 6.2 x 10 5 or or Events Only once in every once in every 16,000 years 26,000 years J
l l
l l
I s
r--
_