ML20094A611

Testimony of Ma Reilly Re Limerick Ecology Action Contention LEA-12 Concerning Adequacy of Bldgs for Sheltering During Radiological Emergency.Related Correspondence

ML20094A611
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/01/1984
From:	Reilly M PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20094A385	List: ML20094A384 ML20094A393 ML20094A405 ML20094A416 ML20094A432 ML20094A582 ML20094A611 ML20094A639 ML20094A650
References
OL, NUDOCS 8411060479
Download: ML20094A611 (3)

Text

..

O~

RELATED Cc ;r,r.sPCMDENCE UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA WTP '"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and_ Licensing Board In the Matter of. ) L ' ; !'n i t E u.. H 00picinG a 5EW Li.

)

Philadelphia Electric Company .) -Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353-(Limerick Generatin~g Station, )

Units 1. and 2)

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET A. REILLY ON LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION CONTENTION LEA-12 REGARDING' SHELTERING Q.l. Ms. Reilly, please state your name, address and position with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

A.l.. My name is Margaret- A. Reilly. My business address is P.O. Box 2063, Harrisburg, PA 17120. I am Chief, Division of Environmental Radiation, . Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental Resources.

Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?

A.2. Yes. My statement is appended to my testimony o'n City Contentions City-18 and City-19.

Q.3. What is the purpo,se of the testimony?

A.3. The purpose of this testimony is to discuss' the adequacy of buildings for sheltering in a radiological emergency.

8411060479 841'101 PDR ADOCK 05000352 T PDR

. - _ _ __ _ _ - _ _---_a

's Q.4. Why-is this issue relevant to_ LEA-12?

~

A.4. Contention LEA-12 asserts in part thatLthere has been no . determination of which school district buildings are

-adequate for sheltering, which will bear on teachers / school staff willingness to remain on duty during a radiological emergency.

Q.5. What is your' response to this concern?

• A.S. Adequate sheltering means a winter worthy house or commercial structure with a basement in the northeastern United States. ~According to NUREG/ll31, " Examination of Offsite Radiological Emergency Protective Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents Involving Core Melt," this kind of structure should, on the average, provide a dose reduction factor (DRF) of 0.5 against airborne k

radioactivity and 0.08 against general shine. These values may be compared with_a DRF against airborne radioactivity of 0.75 and against ground shine of 0.33 for houses in_the southwest.

In addition, sheltered individuals will inhale roughly 35% less than those outside during cloud passage. With tight construction apd reduced ventilation rates, larger reductions are possible.

Q.6. What does the ' Commonwealth's plan state regarding building adequacy fo?. sheltering?

A.6. The Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection Plan for Nuclear Power Generating e es e - e- + p 4 e ma + w*-

t>

[. _ _

Station Incidents,. Appendix 12,. Annex E j.

Commonwealth Disaster Operations Plan states in Section- 10.2.2.2,'p.

E-12-49 th'at a structure for sheltering may' be a home,.

commercial or public building. It goes.on to provide that,

"n the general climate of. the Commonwealth, any building which. is reasonably winter worthy will suffice, with windows and doors closed." Such a building is adequate for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> protection from inhalation hazards.

h e

0 m

, s .. ..

. __ -- -