ML20207Q292

Provides Views on Probabilistic Safety Assessment Update,Per .Commission 861205 Response Disingenous. Discussions Held to Facilitate & Expedite Petition Requesting EPZ Reduction.Served on 870121

ML20207Q292
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/20/1987
From:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
References
CON-#187-2238 OL, NUDOCS 8701270129
Download: ML20207Q292 (1)

Text

j j[ r - ' - '" ' - -' 1 r " '. t. 'JT;' F?.0$ff.YI ne, II' E p *o UNITED STATES f ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C.20665

{ i g( yr ii January 20, 1987 OFFICE OF THE 87 JAN 20 P4.46 commas 80NER The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman f0CEb0m - 'M -

Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power 8" Comittee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 SERVED JAN 21 1987

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Comission's December 5,1986 response to your November 2 and December 3,1986 letters regarding the work of the NRC staff and its consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) on the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment Update (SSPSA) noted that I was on official '

travel and would provide you with my views separately. This provides my views on the NRC staff and BNL reviews of the SSPSA.

The Comission's December 5 letter attempts to justify the NRC staff and BNL reviews on the ground that these reviews provide a better perspective of risk at Seabrook. I believe that the Comission's response is disin-genuous. It is clear t t.' the extensive NRC staff discussions with the Seabrook applicant anr1 t..e detailed BNL review of the SSPSA were for the purpose of facilitating and expediting a subsequent petition requesting a reduction in the ten-mile plume 6xposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Seabrook plant. In fact, such a petition was filed by the applicant on December 18, 1986.

I would also note that the Comission has failed to respond to your concerns regarding the NRC staff's different treatment of the Calvert Cliffs and Seabrook requests for a reduction in the size of the ten-mile plume exposure EPZ. At a minimum, the Comission or the NRC staff should explain why the arguments presented in Mr. Minogue's January 27, 1986 memorandum to Harold Denton in support of the staff's decision that it is premature to consider a reduction in the Calvert Cliffs EPZ do not apply to Seabrook as well.

Sincerely,  ;

fn &

/JamesK.Asselstine cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead NBCC Qanes pondnee PDR 50L

. .-