ML20155H290

Responds to to Lj Callan Expressing Concern About Continued Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station.Explanation Why NRC Do Not Think Revoking OLs for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Justified,Provided

ML20155H290
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/03/1998
From:	Bajwa S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Rechtschaffer AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20155H293	List: ML20155H290 ML20155H302
References
NUDOCS 9811100056
Download: ML20155H290 (6)

Text

!

, e VD ~ H b i

. M%q go - ;M 7 g k UNITED STATES @ M d

s* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 1

\.....[* .

November 3, 1998 Bertram Rechtschaffer, DDS ,

71 Old Post Road N Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520-2011 Dear Dr. Rechtschaffer.

I am writing in response to your September 24,1998, letter to Mr. Leonard J. Callan of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In your letter, you expressediconcem about the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station. You also expressed concern about the age and performance of the plants, about the effectiveness of emergency planning, I

about the chances for an accident at the plants, and about the burden these pla.nts place upon -

the taxpayers of the State of New York. You requested that the NRC revoke the licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and not renew the operating license for Indian Point Unit 1.

p. '  ;

The NRC conducts a program of ongoing inspections of every operating commercial nuclear power plant in the country. During inspections of Indian Point Unit 2 in 1996 and 1997, we noted ,

equipment problems and declining performance in the areas of maintenance and engineering. l During a shutdown period in 1997-1998, the licensee conducted an independent safety l assessment (ISA) to verify that the plant is being operated safely and in conformance with l regulatory requirements. This assessment was witnessed by the NRC staff. The ISA team I concluded that Indian Point Unit 2 is being operated safely; however, the team also concluded that certain problems still existed. The NRC ensured that the plant's owner, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Consolidated Edison), addressed the deficiencies identified by the ISA before the plant was re-started earlier this year. Through our ongoing inspection program, we have continued to monitor the unit's effectiveness in dealing with their problems and we have concluded that their performance is adequate and that the continued operation of the plant poses no undue risk to public health and safety.

Indian Point Unit 3, owned by the New York Power Authority (NYPA), was on the NRC's list of plants that require increased attention for several years; however, our inspections noted improvements in operations, maintenance and engineering thatjustified removing Indian Point Unit 3 from this list in 1997. Through our inspection program, we will continue to monitor and to assess the performance of both plants, in your letter, you st'a te that Indian Point is within 50 miles of one of the world's densest

/

populations and that there is no workable solution for complete evacuation. Our regulations require the establishment of a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) of about l 10 miles in radius and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of about 50 miles in radius around ,/

each nuclear power plant site. In the event of a severe reactor accident with offsite consequences, NRC guidance calls for the prompt evacuation of the population within a 2 mile l radius of the plant and about 5 miles in the downwind direction. Protective actions would be expanded, as necessary, based on further assessment of plant conditions, dose assessment, [

i and field monitoring information. The NRC staff believes that at greater distances from the 9811100056Y81103 PDR ADOCK 05000003

. b

t .

J B. Rechtschaffer plant, the appropriate protective action would be for people to take shelter. This might be followed by relocation of segments of the population based on the analysis of radiological measurements taken in the field. The action planned for the 50-mile EPZ is protection of the public from the ingest.an of contaminated food and water. We considered it extremely unlikely that evacuation would be required at a distance of 50 miles even for the most severo type of accident, in your letter, you state that we have given Indian Point a 50% chance of a major accident. This is not accurate. Both Consolidated Edison and NYPA have performed probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for their respective plants. These PRAs estimate the risk of a major accident at the plants by estimating the frequency of core damage and the frequency of a large early radioactive release. We have reviewed these PRAs and have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2013, the chance of an accident involving core damage at Indian Point Unit 2 is about 0.05% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 2 is about 0.0007%. We have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2015, the chance of an accident involving core damage at Indian Point Unit 3 is about 0.08% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 3 is about 0.002%.

In your letter, you state that the Indian Point plants place a financial burden on the taxpayers of New York. This issue is not within the scope of our agency's mission.

I hope that the above information explains why we do not think that revoking the operating licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is justified. Regarding your concerns about Indian Point Unit 1, this unit shut down on October 31,1974, because the plant emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements. Consolidated Edison plans to decommission Unit 1 by keeping the plant and its spent fuel in a safe storage condition until the operating license for Indian Point Unit 2 expires in 2013. After this date, Consolidated Edison intends to dismantle both Units 1 and 2 and to decontaminate the property so that it can be released for unrestricted use.

I trust that this letter answers your concems. If you have any other questions please contact the project manager, George Wunder, at (301) 415-1494.

Sincerely, S. Singh Bajwa, Director Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - t/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Distribuildn List for letter to B. Rechtshafer dated .

GREEN TICKET #O960600 ,

Docket File (50-003, 50 286, 50-247) (w/ original incoming)

PUBLIC (w/ incoming)

EDO#

W. Travers

' H. Thompson A.Thadani P. Norry J. Blaha S. Bums H. Miller, Rl S. Collins /F Miraglia i B.Boger PDI 1 Reading (w/ incoming)

J. Zwolinski

- S. Bajwa C. Norsworthy (e-mail only RCN), DRPE K. Cyr, OGC OPA NRR Mail Room (EDO#G980600 w/ incoming) (05/E/7)

N. Olson i C. Norsworthy  !

G. Wunder w/ incoming l S. Little 1 W. Hehl I

'l

B. Rechtschaffer 2-plant, the appropriate protective action would be for people to take shelter. This might be followed by relocation of segments of the population based on the analysis of radiological measurements taken in the field. The action planned for the 50-mile EPZ is protection of the public from the ingestion of contaminated food and water. We considered it extremely unlikely that evacuation would be required at a distance of 50 miles even for the most severe type of accident.

In your letter, you state that we have given Indian Point a 50% chance of a major accident. This is not accurate. Both Consolidated Edison and NYPA have performed probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for their respective plants. These PRAs estimate the risk of a major  !

accident at the plants by estimating the frequency of core damage and the frequency of a large early radioactive release. We have reviewed these PRAs and have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2013, the chance of an accident involving cere damage at Indian Point Unit 2 is about 0.05% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 2 is about 0.0007%. We have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2015, the 1 chance of an accident involving core damage at Indian Point Unit 3 is about 0.08% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 3 is about 0.002%. '

1 In your letter, you state that the Indian Point plants place a financial burden on the taxpayers of l New York. This issue is not within the scope of our agency's mission.

]

l I hope that the above information explains why we do not think that revoking the operating licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is justified. Regarding your concerns about Indian Point Unit 1, this unit shut down on October 31,1974, because the plant emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements. Consolidated Edison plans to decommission Unit 1 by keeping the plant and its spent fuel in a safe storage condition until the operating license for l Indian Point Unit 2 expires in 2013. After this date, Consolidated Edison intends to dismantle both Units 1 and 2 and to decontaminato the property so that it can be released for unrestricted use.

I trust that this letter answers your concerns, if you have any other questions please contact the project manager, George Wunder, at (301) 415-1494. I t

Sincerely, original signed by:

S. Singh Bajwa, Director Project Directorate I 1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: See attached list DOCUMENT NAME: G:\lP3\RECHT.GRN To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE DRPH W l DRPE:PM , . l DRPE:LA q 0 l DRPE:PD_ _o [hQRPF/

NAME GVWder JHarold d/'M Spttle W SBajwa ADR JZv)Afnski DATE 19/G/98 1$/ y/98 ( "I ihti /98 1$/ 3 /98 M / /9 1 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY d

t'  ; .

4 Distribution List for letter to B. Rechtshafer dated GREEN TlCKET #G980600, Docket File (50-003, 50 286, 50-247) (w/ original incoming)

PUBLIC (w/ incoming)

EDO#

W. Travers H. Thompson A.Thadani P, Norry J. Blaha S. Bums H. Miller, Rl S. Collins /F. Miraglia B. Boger PDI-1 Reading (w/ incoming)

J. Zwolinski S. Bajwa C. Norsworthy (e-mail only RCN), DRPE K. Cyr, OGC OPA NRR Mail Room (EDO#G980600 w/ incoming) (05/E/7)

N. Olson C. Norsworthy G. Wunder w/ incoming S. Little W. Hehl

f a J

B. Rechtschaffer plant, the appropriate protective action would be for people to take shelter. This might be followed by relocation of segments of the population based on the analysis of radiological measurements taken in the Md The action planned for the 50-mile EPZ is protection of the public from the ingestion of contaminated food and wa;er. We considered it extremely unlikely that e /acuation would be required at a distance of 50 miles even for the most severe type of accident.

In your letter, you state that we have given Indian Po.nt a 50% chance of a major accident. This is not accurate. Both Consolidated Edison and NYPA have performed probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for their respective plants. These PRAs estimate the risk of a major accident at the plants by estimating the frequency of core damage and the frequency of a large early radioactive release. We have reviewed these PRAs and have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2013, the chance of an accident involving core damage at Indian Point Unit 2 is about 0.05% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 2 is about 0.0007%. We have determined that, between now and the time the license expires in 2015, the chance of an accident involving core damage at Indian Point Unit 3 is about 0.08% and the chance of a large early release from Unit 3 is about 0.002%.

In your letter, you state that the Indian Point plants place a financial burden on the taxpayers of New York. This issue is not ,vithin tne scope of our agency's mission.

I hope that the above information explains why we do not think that revoking the operating licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is justified. Regarding your concerns about !ndian Point Unit 1, this unit shut down on October 31,1974, because the plant emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements. Consolidated Edison plans to decommission Unit i by keeping the plant and its spent fuelin a safe storage condition until the operating license for Indian Point Unit 2 expires in 2013. After this date, Consolidated Edison intends to dismantle both Units 1 and 2 and to decontaminate the property so that it can be released for unrestricted use.

I trust that this letter e.nswers your concerns. If you have any other questions please contact the project manager, George Wunder, at (301) 415-1494.

Sincerely, original signed by:

S. Singh Bajwa, Director Preject Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: See attached list DOCUMENT NAME: G:\lP3\RECHT.GRN To receive a coty of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E' = copy wdh enclosures "N* = No copy OFFICE DRP M l DRPE:PM , _ l DRPE:LA 10 l DRPE:PD g) kRPF/

NAME GM(der JHarold W/l Spttle W SBajwa /DR JZvjh(nski DATE 19/G/98 1p/ 4/98 l 'I ihti /98 H/ 3 /98 A/ /A 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY J l

_ _ _ _ _ .