ML19257C181
| ML19257C181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1974 |
| From: | Moll K STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE |
| To: | Brown H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257C164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001250146 | |
| Download: ML19257C181 (3) | |
Text
C fl. (tcl{tih bb.N SJ'IY D00ffD (f6meiQk w
ST ANI of tD ut SL AnCH IN%IIT UI(
vt t t ne c ^ t o o n Ni n 9 40.",
t 15 August 1971 Mr. Ilerbert II. Brown, Director Offico of Government I,i a i so n --H e[;u l a t i on U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20515 De a r '.f r. Il row n :
Thank 30's for returning the comment s of yotar sta f f on the "Deci sion Cri t eri a" chapt er dra f t of the California Nuclear Incident Plan.
They will in. of help in f u rt her development of our ideas.
In case someone may wish to work further with the draf t in the future, I am attachinr. a set of responses and explanations to the comments.
Sincerely, f ft c,4 i (/E w (?
Kendal1 D. Mol1 Senior Operations Analyst KDM:emk ec: 11. E Col 1 ins 1807 345 8001250146
<^o,
.,so,o.
s,.n o,. s o.
,0
.. o i,3, m
D]'
D
- D wnr [
i:enda i t r.toi t g
g Aug 11, 197A i
SPI I:lf;l'O::.-;t e 'IO /.f r r w.".tl;;T:
- 0. "lH. CISION Cl!!Ti l:IA" DilAFT lul* CAT.IIDI:"l A !!tlCI.LAl' 1NCIIC T PLAN 8
The "t c;;t hooh" t3pe ni tont it of the drajt si1J he sttcamlined for the p i t i: ta t e pleu.
Our depa rt ute i r..:a 1he 1!!C de f ini t ion of " Prot et t i ve Action Guides" was intended to tighten th" l o:' i c I (a) c::ph, ; i c. i n;: that t h e PAG i: a liniting value rather t han an ob:,erved oi ne,
(b) chang i n:' the c a t eg o ri c a l FitC annertion that a PAG " warrants pro-tretive ac t i nq" to a more permincive statement that ac ti on ba. sed en the PAG ro,y depc ud on condi t i ons.
3.
'l h e runerical value'. in the pl an v.ere onl y in t ended to illustrate the tacthod by u'ing plausible quantitative est inates on an interin hasj 1.
't h e graphs co" relating instrument readings w it h action criteria will probably end up as supporting documents to the final California Plan.
5.
The 1:mergency Dose Limi t probability in Table 3.4 vas intended as nn a posteriori estimate, and can be used as such without ever intro-during t he conc ept of a priori accident probabilities.
In this way it avoids con t roversy ove r t he exact value of such probabilities.
But it atini t t ( dly int roduce: a change of perspectives itom the estimates in Thule 3.1 and therefore may not seen appropriate in that context.
G.
The initial California Plan was intended to cover only reactor incidents, and for this reason the draft did not deal with t ransportat ion or re-proces sing accident s.
(This linitation was not explicit in the draft.)
7.
Tabic 3. 5 s h o't. s higher PAG's for taking shelter than for evacuating because shelter has a higher cost /rlsk ratio.
Under the cost / risk ratinnale, one would not recommend an action as quickly i f t he cost s to l' re ven t a given dose are higher.
1807 346
P.
Th r m: 11'ri":i t i ca l ratitnale behi nti 11 e g raph r.
for iruplementity; protective rar a su rer. s e l i: 11 y sh ve lop <1 u it h illust rat i ve examples in the prior (fraft i t.ino a l :arb;ii t t e il to I:PA i n Fel.iruary 1971 It vias cieleted in this elenf1 to :.i v e-
. pace :nel to make the text appear less theoret ical.
C"
- B
' 9
' y '" '
D LwI oK Lt 1807 347