ML19323G067

Response to Antinuclear Group Representing York Followon Interrogatory 40.Includes Info Re Radiological Release Characteristics & Evacuation Measures.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML19323G067
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	05/05/1980
From:	Carter K PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
References
NUDOCS 8005300333
Download: ML19323G067 (6)

Text

, , ,

e moconams m g

• k WITED STATES OF AMERICA ^<

N NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0bMISSION

{ DOCKETED g333 , ,

, -2 BEFORE THE Al m IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD -

g; "IAY2 01980 >  ;

- Citica et the S, Cc:kstinga g&*I &

In the Matter of ) b 85Ch

)

METROPOLITAN EDISW CWPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

• h '

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Pastart)

Station, thit One) )

Cat M EALTH PESPONSE TO FOLi m - m INIERROGATORY #40 OF ANGRY .

40. Identify all reports, studies, or other documentation relied upon by the Cm momealth in providing this response.

RESPONSE

The docurmnt relied upon is " Examination of Offsite Radiological Frergency Protective Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents Involving Core Melt." (NUREGc/CR-ll31; SAND 78-0454).

a. Specify the radiological release characteristics, particularly the source-release duration time, assumed in the first paragraph of the Cmmomealth's response to interrogatory #23(b).

RESP 0tGE The release characteristic; assumed in the first paragraph of the answer to 23(b) are those of WASH-1400 Release Categories Rm 1-5 and RE 6-7. Duration times are 0.5 to 4.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> for BR l-5, and 10.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> for PWR 6-7. R a 1-5 releases have dose consequences in the life threatening range. PWR 6-7 releases have dose consequences in the PAG range.

b. Specify any differences in the radiological release characteristics assumed in the first and third paragraphs, respectively, of the i Cmmorraealth's response. )

RESPONSE

The assumed release characteristics given in the third paragraph of the response to 23(b) are similar to a Ra 6-7 but are due to scme fault l

8005800 W 3

other than the loss of coolant accident with core melt leading to a PWR 6-7.

c. Under the conditions postulated would the Cormunwalth trake the i emergency response recomendation set forth in paragraph 3 l regardless of wind speed and warning time?

i

RESPONSE

l i

Under the postulated condition, evacuation would probably be recomended regardless of wind speed and waming time. The extended time frames assumed increase the risk of wind direction change, and the introduction of a strong elment or confusion.  !

l

d. Were the emergency response recomendations set forth in paragrapns l 1 and 3 of the Cmmxuealth s response based upon comparative dose reductions factor calculations for the alternative emergency response options of evacuation and sheltering, respectively? If yes, please attach copies at documentation in which such calculations are set torth. If no, explain in detail the bases for the Comorr.malth's total rejection of sheltering as an appropriate energency response under the postulated conditions.

RESPONSE

The sheltering option has not received " total rejection". Please note the use of the word "probably throughout the response to 23(b) and the use at the word " shelter" in the second paragraph. The evacuation option will probably be used tor accidents of long duration and/or of high consequence,

e. Does the Comorr.malth erploy a system or procedure for energency response selection equal or similar to that described in pages 35-51 or the document referenced at tootnote #1(3) on page 55 of NUREG 0654? If yes, please describe the system so enployed by the Comnonwealth in detail. If no, does the Cormonwealth have any intention to adopt such a systen or procedure?

RESPONSE

In the past, we had seriously considered approaches similar to that expressed in your citation ( Evacuation and Sneltering-Protective Measures Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases, G. Anno and M. Dore,

_z_

Pacitic-Sierra Research Corporation, Dec. 1975, USEPA Contract No.

i 68-01-3223). As a result of our experiences in the course of the crisis cays with Three Mile Island, it appears that such an elegant approach would probably not work in a real situation. The principal reasons for rejection are:

1. A climate of crisis is not the place to attempt elaborate calculations.

2. Precise values for the many parameters are difficult to establish at the time of interest. ,

An accident may well involve a series of significant discharges with each discharge in the series worthy of protective actions. If evacuation was.

conservatively selected for the first discharge, tne consequences of the tollowing discharges are avoided cmpletely.

f. Does the Conmonwealth perceive any inconsistency between the emergency response reconmendations it has set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3 or its response and the following language from page 1 or NUKEG 0610:

The iMnte action for this class (general emergency) is sheltering (staying inside) rather than evacuation until an assessment can be made that 1) an evacuation is indicated and 2) an evacuation, if indicated, can be conpleted prior to significant release and transport of radioactive material to the atfected areas.

Explain in detail the bases for the Comnonwealth's beliet that under the postulated conditions its recamendation would afterd greater protection to public health and safety than that quoted from NUREG 0610.

RESPONSE

The response given in the tirst, second, and third paragraphs to 23(b) assume that the appropriate assessments have been made, and that the protective action is appropriate. This position is reasonably consistent with NUKEG-0610. If evacuation is cancelled as an option when the action l

l l

can not be accomplisned prior to transport to the affected areas, nuch otherwise avoidable dose will not be avoided.

Respectfully submitted, W &c) . 0%br>

KARIN W. CAx ms Assistant Attorney General Connenwealth or Pennsylvania I

1 I

1

gEI_HED Coluu:SPONLENCE UNI'IED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CatESSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEIY AND LICENSItC BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISCtl CCtfANY ) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mlle Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit One) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MARGARET A. REILLY Carmionwealth of Pennsylvania )

) SS '

County of Dauphin )

MARGAREI A. REILLY, being duly swrn according to law, deposes and says that she is Chief of the Environmental Radiation Division, Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; that the information contained in Camenwealth's Response To Follow-on Interrogatory No. 40 of ANGRY is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.

t gr-f -

iliikA blkd k MARGARET A. RFILLY Chief, Environmental Radiation Division Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Swrn to and subscribed before me this R 4 day of May,1980. G &,

4 s cccxsrso fg,_A/](N-}o T U* -2.

tUrARY PUBLIC -

MAY 2 01980 > -

lu v f.t. Cur %. flotary Put:4 9' Officacf theSecretary }'

W haien rirkn ver 2. nn Hanisburg PA D :ksting & Senics D::phin County y 03 4

?> q

ftELiTED CORRESPONT)ENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY 00bMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETI AND LICENSING BOARD In the Ifatter of '

) <Y

) N i IEIROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Ib. 50-289 8 occumo '

s 1

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart) t!SNRC \

Station, Unit One)

) ..g .g gg + l {3

> Othce of the Secrehrv g Docketing & StrVice Branch q

Lt.KunCATE OF S"rRVICE N c' o

I hereby certify that copies of the Gmnonwealth of Pennsylvania's Response to Follow-On Interrogatory No. 40 of ANGRY were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States trail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of May, 1980.

.] ~. 1

/(A^t I,u b0 KARIN W. CAlut.K (L( ,

Assistant Attorney General Dated: May 5, 1980 i

l l

!