ML20154M398
| ML20154M398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1986 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Okrent D CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154M401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603140239 | |
| Download: ML20154M398 (2) | |
Text
,-
t
((
$g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g g
.E WASHINGTON, D. C 20555
%*****4 February 27, 1986 CHAIRMAN Dr. David Okrent Professor Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science University of California 5532 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024
Dear Dr. Okrent:
The Commission has reviewed your letter of October 12, 1985, which raises issues and recommendations related to the Indian Point Special Proceeding.
Your specific concerns appear to center on three issues:
the dense population in the proximity of Indian Point, core melt frequency and containment effectiveness, which we address in the enclosure.
With regard to the broader issue raised by your letter, the general safety of Indian Point, reasonable individuals can have diverse views on technically complicated issues, particularly on those considered in a proceeding that took almost five years to complete and involved highly judgmental factors.
Nevertheless,
\\ {} ;
we believe that the Indian Point decision was, in total, consistent with the Severe Accident Policy Statement N/
subsequently approved by the Commission and was consistent with ACRS comments on that policy proposal.
As stated in the Commission's conclusion on Question 5 of the Special Proceeding (21 NRC at 1075) we do not consider Indian Point to be a risk
- outlier, i.e.,
in a high-risk class all its own.
However, we do recognize that the plant is in an area of relatively high population density and, as a consequence, warrants continuing effort to assure its safe operation.
The specific technical concerns raised in your letter appear to be consistent with ACRS views expressed on Safety Goals and we will consider them further in that context in the longer term.
Commissioner Asselstine has the following comment:
I believe this response inadequately addresses the matters raised in your and your colleagues letter of October 12, 1985.
As indicated in my attached separate views on the Indian Point Special Proceeding, I believe the Commission was wrong in adopting the bottom-line results of probabilistic risk assessments, the Commission was wrong in ignoring the uncertainties in the risks associated with the operation of the Indian Point reactors, the Commission was wrong in rejecting the relatively straightforward safety 8603140239 860227 PDR COMMS NRCC CDRRESPONDENCE PDR L
r
...u improvements urged by the staff and the Board, and the Commission was wrong in accepting the risk posed by the Indian Point plants for the long-term.
Other countries are already backfitting additional safety features at their plants vdiich appear to provide substantial improvements in safety at reasonable costs.
It is unfortunate that U.S.
citizens'are not afforded similar protection.
I commend you-and your colleagues for attempting to bring about safety improvements at the Indian Point reactors for the long-term.
Sincerely, A c-n s', '
/C0
+c Nunzi J. Falladino
Enclosures:
As Stated
,.