ML20010H448
| ML20010H448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1981 |
| From: | Sears J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010H445 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109240481 | |
| Download: ML20010H448 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
}
}
SOUTHERil CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPANY, i
)
50-362 OL (sir Enfre fluclear Gerierating
}
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
TESTIMONYOFJOHt[R.SEARSOFTHENRCSTAFFON r.c 2 CONTEuT10s; ADi'ITTED BY ASCB ORDER ON THE jiECORD OF AUGUST 4, 1981 'TR.6803) l I
8109240401 010921 PDRADOrK05000g
TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. SEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE EPZ CONTENTION ADMITTED RY ASCB ORDER ON THE RECORD OF AUGUST 4, 1981 (TR.6803)
Q.1 State your name and title 7 A
John R. Sears - Senior Reactor Safety Engineer. My qualifications are already in the record of this proceeding.
Q2 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A The purpose of this testimony is to address item 6, the SAI report aspect of the following contention:
The emergency response plans fail to reet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)'2) because local emergency planning of'icials have arbitrarily established the boundaries of the Plume Exposure EPZ in that they have mechanically applied a 10 mile boundary and that the Interagency Agreement (IAEP) among sll local jurisdic-tions defines the EPZ by drawing compass lines on a map of the area.
In determining the exact size of the EPZ, emergency planning officials have failed to considt the following 1" al conditions:
1.
topography 2.
meteorology 3.
evacuation routes 4
demography, 5.
jurisdictional boundaries 6.
SAI report 7
land characteristics Q.3 Please describe the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone :EPZ) for the han Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 &.2).
A The Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone is the area within a 10 mile radius of the reactors.
Toward the Northwest, San Juan Creek is the natural boundary of the Emergency Planning Zone. Ortega Highway also forms a position of the Plure Exposure Pathway, EPZ boundary to the North.
2 Q.4 Please identify and describe the SAI Report?
A The SAI Scie'nce Applications, Incorporated) Q ort is a study of the conyaquences of serious nuclear power plant &ccitients for sites in California conducted for the State of Califcrnia by SAI and severai subcontractors.
Q.5 In ycur opinion, ooes the SAI Report provide any basis for a mod 1*ic3 tion of the EPZ for Songs 2 & 3?
A No. The SAI report has been reviewed by the NRC staff.
The SAI report was dorje for the California legislature and is the basis for the recommendation by the California Office of Emergency Services for extended emergency planning zones larger than the 10 mile EPZ required by NRC regulations. The risk study performed for the State of California is similar in many aspects to those studies that were the basis for NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water fluclear Power l
l Plants."
l l
l One difference between NUREG-0396 and the SAI report was in the calculation of Pcunt of radi<ation people wnuld be exposed to during an evacuation.
NUREG-0396 assumed that people would le exposed to radiation during cloud passage and tnen to ground contamination for a hours more.
SAI assumed that people would be exposed 'to the plume and ground contamination tor an extended l
period.
P
[
~
SAI used site specific meteorology and estimetes of accident frequency for specific reactor of San Onofre.
NUREG-0396 used the meteoro'.ogy and the reactor characteristics of WASH-1400.
These two considerations would tend to lessen the consequences of an accident at San Onofre, but when combined with a longer exposure time to ground contamination assumed in the SAI rcport, the calculated consequences rf the two approaches are similar.
..e State of Califor.7 e elected to use the consequences of the 1
SAI report but assumed that people would be exposed to ground contamination for 7 days, and has recommended extended emergency planning zones larger than 10 miles.
The NRC Staff has no objection to offsite authorities laying explicit plans for distances farther tFan 10 miles if those authorities choose to expend resources for this purpose.
If a more realistic time (shorter) were assemed in the Californis study, the EPZ sizes derived using the OES methodology would have been similar to those in NUREG-0396.
The NRC staff concludes that after examing the SAI report and State OES use of the SAI report it provides no basis for any modification of the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ for SCNGS 2 & 3;.
Q.c What factors are required to be considered in defining the EPZ boundary at about 10 miles in the NRC regulation?
e 4-A The NRC regulations state, in section that "
shall be taken into account.
Q.7 Are site meteorology on consequence calculations reauired by the NRC regulation in this regard?
A No.
e I
i 1
-me---
-r--
--,---y
9,9-r-
--,-,.--.f p--
---a,-*--
--w
-- - -