ML20154M411
| ML20154M411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1986 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Reed G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154M401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603140252 | |
| Download: ML20154M411 (2) | |
Text
.
4**Cou UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIMilON a
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 Ta J
'+., * * * *
- sN February 27, 1986 CHAIRMAN Mr. Glenn A. Reed 163 Park Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241
Dear Mr. Reed:
The Commission has reviewed your letter of Octote.- 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 subsequently approved by the Commission and was consistent with ACRS comments on that policy proposal.
As stated in the n pstinn 5 nf the Snacial Proceeding Commission's conclusian nn o
(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 improvements urged by the staff and the Board, and the Commission was wrong in accepting the risk posed by the 86031402 B60227 PDR C
NRCC CORRESP E PDR
Indian Point plants for the long-term.
Other countries are already backfitting additional safety features at their plants which 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,
' Y
-4
1*i
~ { { e < ( <
.-c Nunzio J. Palfadino
Enclosures:
As Stated t
t-
~,-
- -. - -