ML20140F707

Summary of ACRS Subcommittees on Reactor Radiological Effects & Site Evaluation 850103-04 Meetings in Washington, DC Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.47 & App E, Consideration of Earthquakes in Context of Emergency Preparedness

ML20140F707
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1985
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2269, NUDOCS 8507120187
Download: ML20140F707 (16)

Text

,

g6es M69

• P D R 0 6 0106 CERTIFIED COPY

' February 28, 1985

1 ' .]

hk EE MINUTEE OF THE MEETING OF THE ACRS '

SUECOMMITTEES ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION JANUARY 3-4, 1985 WASHIN3 TON, DC The ACRE Subcommittsee on Reactor Radiological Effects and on E;te E v.> 1 c a t i on met cn January 0-4, 1985 at 1717 H Street, N . W . ,,

Weshington, D.C. 20535. The goal s of the meeting were to discuss the Frepcct-J ams"onents to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.47 and Append e C: Consice-ation of Ear thqual.es in the Context of Ere ge-cy Fre;Jredness, anc to draft for the ACRS a letter of re c-4enduJ actions for Committee conside-ation.

N:ttce o3 tPit nesting, pebitshed in the Federal Register on Thursdey, D e : t-t e r 27, 19S4, is reproduced and shown in Attachce-t A. The detailed schedule for the meeting is Attachtent E' . A list of is Attachment C. Attachment D is a list of meetirig handc;ts lept with the office copy of the c.i n u t e s , lhe entire rieeting was open to public attendence.

There wr e nc or al or written comments from members of the public. Mr. Owea E. Mcrrill was the assigned ACRS staff Member for the ceeting.

P e t. l v :vn d -D. W. Meni le -

Mr. Moeller prea*nted e brief history of the issue. The ACRS w-ute tc the NRC Eue:utive Director o* Operations on March 16, 1021 en the subject of eer thqual;es in the contert of emergency p eparedness, and rated thet the Commission ruled that it was not ne:sssery to consider the issue when it was raised at the San Onof r e as the Diablo Canyon hearings. He also pointed out that the prcposed rul e vtate*_ that the probability of simultaneoun occurrence o' or earthasale and a reactor accident is very low, and thet the probecility of an ear thqual,e induced nuclear cctidant is itceld low. Yet some euperts thini- that earthqual es can be a mejcr, even demanant, contributor to the total r i st; for nuclear power plants. Although FEMA dces not formally consider earthquales in their review: of off-site emergency preparedness plans associated with nuclear power plants, they do consider them on an inic-cal boti s. This meeting wes to gather additional information to claridy some of the apparent confusion with regard to the issaa.

0507120107 050220 PDR ACHS 22b9 pop .

4 2 M. Moel l er said that the Commission had requested that the ACRS

• aedress the following questions and provide supporting technical

! information:

i

! 1. Should the NRC adopt a general rule incorporating the San  ;

l Onofre end Diablo Canyon decisions?

) 2. If the issue is not approached on a generic basis, should it be handled on a case-by-case basis?

1

3. Should the rule be e::panded to include low frequency natural .

events cther than earthquakes?

4. If Ica frequency natural events must be considered in a!!

cases, should cost effectiveness be considered?

Antlyinc ' b,-Nec l e e r Encerience to Nucl ear Emeroency Pr e-' e r a d n e2;_- J . M. Lucas a

4

) M. Lucas, Di r ector of Emergency Preparedness, St. Charles l

Parish, LA, presented an overview of their Emergency j Preparedness Progr am. He described the function and funding of i their e-gen;:stier., and discusced their operating procedures and enperienca. St. Charl es Parish is a highly industriali:ed area on the outct:rts of New Orleans with a population of about i 4

i 100,00? pecple, having 34 mejor industries (including several chemital and petrolea r plants and a nuclear power plant, f'

Wate-ferd U.til Me.3), and crossed by 5 major highways, 5 major railrcede, and the Mississippi river (with 124 commercial vesselm passing throsgh the area de.ily).

Mr. La.as peinted out that their responsibility begins at the outside of the comp:7y perimeter. They depend on the company invc1ved to previde them with two l ey pieces of infcrmation when an occident occurst 1) the Notification Procedure, and 2) the 4

I

! Emargency Acticn Level. He, fertunately, has only one government l'

to deel with, St. Charles parish. The President of the Parish decidec whethe- to declare an emergency; once an emergency is decl ar ud , the Director of Emergency Preparedness coordinates the respen.u. An al arm tells the people to go to a radio f or  ;

instructions on the appropriate action to tale (i.e.,close their l he.sen; g= to a shelter; evacuate the area; etc.). They have special radio contact with schools. ,

t In response to Mr. Ebersole's question on cascade effects, i e. .

the effect ci accident emergency actions on the safe operation of l

f nearby plantc, Mr. Lucas said that his organization does not I participate in the "in-plant" programs developed by plant

! cperators to deal with emergencies of their own or other plants. '

However, he said there is good inter-plant cooperation, and excellent industry-government cooperation with high community awareness and suppcrt, 1:ey elements of a successful program.

Mr. Lucas mentioned that the area averages about 15 incidents (i.e. some hazardous release) per nonth, most of which result in l

N 4 M = 1

3 shel terirg as an appropriate response; 7 incidents last year Because of the rapid response time

• called f or eve cua ti on.

j generally required for chemical accidents, he considers them more dangerous than nuclear accidents. He mentioned that while their i

i plans are designed to deal with an area of radius as large as 10 miles, in practice, areas with radii of about 2 miles are i

sufficient. As an example of how well their program works, for 1

en accident in 1982 they evacuated 17,000 people in pouring rain at 40 F in about 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, without mishap. Mr. Carter asked if, e

l t

in general, there were any problems with regard to adequate compensaticn for evacuation expenses. Mr. Lucas said that they j

j Fave not had compensation problems, that the industries have te-ded to be generous.

4 While the N;C would require a O year drill cycle, they have quar ter ly drills with industry where they pool resources through Mr. Lucas emphasized the

] their Emergency Preparedness Center.

impcr tance cf br oad communi ty acceptance of their program and goed ad.ance planning (w.g. they plan f or the maximum credible hu r i c ar.c t; determine where pr oblems will be most severe, what i

l Since tha problems wt11 bo line, and how they will be treated).

4 l

thcir r espo aibili ty in all cases begins at the outer perimeter i of any plant, the,' e e at prepared to handle a nuclear incident c aused by an earthquale, tornado, etc.), as (concur re9t wi th o-a cbem.

thay would bw fc cal release or an/ ather type of nacident. The l e y angredient seems to be preparedness to handle any type c' " worst caue" ircident, without particular attention 4

being paid to its cause.

}

' A, Cverview n' Eeismic Rio e and Evoevetton Considerations from a

N nteer Proer Planta bated o, FRA Studine-P. R. Davis f To pre.ide a frama of referenco for the Subcommittee, Mr. Davis, l

an ACFS Censultant, structured his presentation around the j fc11owing four questions, ecknowledging from the start that he i

did not really have satisf actory answeru to any of them:

1. What is the contribution te nuc1 car plant rish f rom r eismic events?

! C. What earthqual e si:c dominates nuclear pcwer plant rist:7

3. How impcrtant is evacuation in reducing rish7

4. Hcw much risk reduction could be obtained by providing for

evacuation during earthquales?

l Mr. Davis described the three major steps in performing a rist '

analysis. The first step consists of a seismic analysis to predict how f requently various si:wd earthquakes occur at the site in question. The uncond step involves a fragility analysis i

to determine what Lind c4 acceluration the systems of interest i

can sustain and continue to operato satisfactorily. The third l

step is a plant Icgic analysis which is much like the development of an event tr ee methodology to determine those systems and sets l

l 1

"~

4 e

of systems which if failed would lead to certain accident conditions. The results of these analyses are brought'together to determino the rist. He listed those plants for'which PRA studies have been completed, and discussed a comparison of the seismic contribution to the core melt probability f or four of them, pointing out the wide variation in results. Mr. Ebersale asked if this was due to design variations. Mr. Davis said that he believes the variation is due to uncertainties in doing the 3 analyses. For example, he presented a set of seismic hazard curves for a particuler site which showed that forthree a given size orders of qua t. e there is a seise.it hazard range of almost magnitude as calculated by various experts. Consequently, there are alsc large uncertainties in the assessment of fragility because equiprent is not designed for earthquakes above the SSE.

M. Devis mede the following concluding statements with regard to the abovc questions:

1. Baced c.~ e:.isting PRA studies , seismi c risks, relative to total plant ristc, vary from insignificant to very significant. in

2. EcrthquaFes in the range of O to 4 times the SSE (i.e.,

the range from 0.2g to O.Sg for most plants) dominate soist.ic rast.

O. Eerly eveccation oppears to be relatively unimportant for l e ts.* t fotality risi.6, but can be important with regard to early fatalities fer largo, early releases.

4 Pelettve rial reduction from evacuation during seismic induced accidents at nuclear power plants is difficult to quantif y ar.d appears to vary significantly depending on plant type, location, and methodology employed.

Mr. Pcc11er asl ed what is the probability of occurrence of an earthgaatw that is to 4 times the CSE. Mr. Davis responded that it deperdo en the enport making thu estimate and the plant site. For enamplo, at Millstono, the probebility for a O. q earthquake wvald range f rom cno in a million years to one in 5,000 yea-s.

Mr. Davis said that he thcught a definitive general statement on the sign 2fict.nce of scimmic risi. could not be made at this time becauso a) limited results arc available, b) there are wide variations in entsting results and much uncertainty, c) swimmic rist.c are both plant specific and sito specific, d) many results are still under review and some are being revised, and el there are many different assumptions and methodologies employed in assessing rists.

Tornado and Hich Wind Herard Probabilities-R. Abbey Mr. Abbey, Director of Mateorological Research, Of fice of Naval Research, said that his presentation would treat only wind speeds 4

' 5 and prescure decpc associated with tornados, and not such things as tornado missiles and their associated effects. He focused on how tornado wind speeds are measured, the probabilities of tornado wind speeds (i . e. , tornado hazard or risk models), and the variation of tornado wind speeds across the United States.

He pointed out that there are at least four major areas of sensitivity with regard to tornado hazard probability mndeling:

1) Number of tornados; 2) Tornado path area; 3) Tornado severity or I intensity; and 4) Spatial variations along the tornado path.

Wind speeds can be measured directly with an anemometer, by photogrammetry (i .e. ,the analysis of measurements of particle displacemente f rom motion pictures tal:en of the tornado in progress), or with Doppler radar, and indirectly by an engineering assessment of damage done or an analysis of characteristic tornade ground marks (i.e., cycloidal ground marks caused by the suction of mini-vortices as they whirl about a commen center). He said that experts are converging on a value for the manimut tornado wind speed; they estimate that the ma::irum wird speede, combined rotational plus translational, are on the orde- of 200 mph.

Se.cral years ago Mr. Abbey mede a comparison of the results from dive cifferent tornado hazard models available. Ut111:ing enactly the same data sotc, he calculated wind spe:vds that ranged from OEO to 960 eph. It should be noted that the level of sophistication .f the rodels varied widuly (i .e. ,f rom a constant volocity profile, manimun velocity across and along the path - to a r am; up to some maximam and a ramp down to zero at the core -

to variatio7s along the path as well as across the path), with the mor e realistic models tending to yield less conservative r e s u l t t. . In c-der to use the results properly, one must be aware of the details of the model used to generate them.

Mr. Abbey also dis _ussed regionalization, the organization of to-nado data in termc of some property or effect and the observation of the variatienTornados of the data with location across the have been regionalized with country, i . e. ,wi th r egion.

reg ard to wind speud, frequency of tornado reports, number of d e.a t h s , entent of property damage, and probability of maximum thesat.

Mr. Abbey mentionod that the most liluly tornado damage done to a nuclear pouer plant would consist of effects, if any, resulting f rom the loss of off-site power. In response to Mr. Ebersale's '

question concerning the eschanism by which to-nadoes cause damage, he noted that on investigating tornado damage, he has not found negative pressure transient damage to structurou from tornadoes but r ather wind veloci ty damage. Nuclear power plants l

j are built to readily withstand such wind veloci ty f orces.

f l

v

i

1. 6 i

The FEMA (Federal Emeroency Manaaement Acency) Emeroency

• Preparedness Procrom for Off-site Safety. and The FEMA Natural and Technical Hazards Procram-R. Krimm A. Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness Prggram Mr. Krimm, Assistent Associate Director for the Office of Natural and Technological Ha:ards, began by describing FEMA's recponsibility in the area of radiological emergency planning and ,*

preparedness. FEMA has responsibility for dealing with civilian emergencies from military, natural, and technological standpoints. The main objective of FEMA's Radiological Emergency 7

J j Planring (EEP) Program in to enhance state and local capabilities

! te plan for and respond to radiological emergencies. FEMA is required to review off-site preparedness and report to the NRC as to w' ether the heal th and safety of people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants would be adequately protected in the event of er accident. FEMA has a memorandum of understanding with the NRC which cetablishec a f ramewcrl: for cooperation between the two agencies.

The criteria for preparation and evaluation of the radiological emorgency rsspc,ss plans and preparedness in support ofThere nuclear power p1<nts are cor tained in NUREG 0654/ FEMA Rep 1. are l

i 16 planning standards which deal with assignments of recpanaibility fcr state and local governments, and 196 evaluation crataria. Mr. Frimm capressed the view that any ccmmanity that participates in the REP program has in place an ur.ergency pier that can bn used for responding to almost any type

] of emergency that they may encountur, whether it be a flood, a l

i herricane, a tornado, or a ha:ardous materials spill. If they have these plans approved, have exercised them, and are ready to imp 1wecnt t h e ,r. , thef can respond to any type of disaster. He

said that FEMA has not yet developed preparedness planning for l chenical facilities, but if a chemical accident occurred in a

' community and if thet community were participating in the REP progr am, they would t'e abic to use many aspects of the plan for j evacuation, direction, control, etc. FEMA would not be able to l

recommend actic1 with regard to what to do with a specific chemical spill. That wculd have to ccme from EPA or the state envircncontti agercy or from a local agency such as a fire department.

I Mr. Vrimm enplained that if a nuclear accident occurs, the plant and operater usually notifies the local government first of all, The local l

then the NRC and usually the governor's office.

government would be tho first responder, and then they would call in the state, and depending upon how rapid the accident is occurring, there would be a determination made, by the governor in most staten, as to what responses are necessary to provide adequate public protection; the licensee reports the accident, i.e., what is being released, and the state usually determines

7 i the emergency action level. Mr. Orth asked how FEMA defined

• adequate public protection. Mr. Krimm responded that adequate protection is def ined by a plan that meets the criteria of NUREG j 0654. He emphasi zed that FEMA's role is that of coordinator; they look to other federal agencies for technical advice. He said that ther e are 79 sites, involving 500 state and local i jurisdictions, where plans are He required and 57 of these are also mentioned that FEMA helps j already licensed to operate. I fund the Civil Defense Program.

D. Natienr1 Earthque.le Ha:ards Reduction Program In 1C77, Congrecs, r ecogni:t ng the earthqual e threat, established The the Natienc1 Earthquale Ha:ards Reduction (NEHR) Program.

aLJectives c4 the program ere to encourage local and state goverrments in seismic areas to develop and participate in preparedness efeorts, to have f eder al agencies do research on the earthquate he:c-d: (which would even include prediction), to l

develop progra..,s to mitigate against the hazards, and to develop technicel assistance for the states. Mr. Krimm said there are l

j four c aj or agorcic: that participate in the NEHR programs the  !

U.S. Geological Survey which woris on ha:ard delineation and p.edicticn c' scistic rist; the National Science Foundation which d:es ca-thqual c engineer ing research; the National Bureau of j

{

St an dards .Aich uc-Is on building standards and practices; and j FEtT which, a: ting 39 the lead agency, recommends goals, pricrit:ec, tudgets, and target dates. He said that seismic j design 15 the best me-ans of mitigation, nont to preparedness j plamnin9, anJ netud thrt most earthquake engineers he has talked

! to believc thet nuclez- power pl an t s are the most seismically i ca s e structu-c; that have been constructed.

M. Aldrich acted if FEMA had a method or program for I  !

estabilwhing isnding priorities. Mr. Krimm said that right now l

prioritics are set on a perceived rich baniu; most communities He

! todcy laat at ha:Jrdous materials as their most serious rish.

felt, however, that althcugh the REP program is a perfect example 1 of overlill, the prog-cm can be justified in terms of the ability

! of participating communities to handle all types of emergencies. l l

That is, the chances of their having to respond to a nuclear accident are minascule compared to a flood emergency; any place there to e str e art or bod / of water there is about a 1 percent annus1 chan e of flocding. Floods are probably the most serious

] h :a-d ac far es the FEMA disaster assistance program in l

concerned. Mr. Vrimm did not think there was much value in ,

u,:plicitly requiring consider ation of tha simultaneous occurrence (

)

of a nuclear accident and a low probability naturally occurring l j disaster, sucF an an earthqual:e, in the REP program because of the very low probability of simultaneous occurrence and the f act i that they aircady l eal at alternative evacuation procedures in reviewing plans.

t l

i I

i

0 J .

Propeted Amendmente to 10 CFR 50 on Consideration of the

• Potential Impacts of en Earthcuake on Emeroency Plannino-M.

Jamgochian

}

Mr. Jamgochian began his presentation with a background review of the issue following the Commission's decisions on licensing San f

Onofre in 1981 and Diablo Canyon in 1984. In issuing the Diablo

) Canyon licenso the Commission decided that the potential impacts I of earthqual.es en emergency plans need not be specifically cc,s:dered, a* firm:ng their San Onofre decision relative to earthqaaken, and directed the NRC staff to initiate Rulemaking.

J l

The rational for the preposed rule is 1) that emergency plans are fle tibl e, not rigid, 2) FEMA has an active program of earthquake prepared.m:ss,ard 3) the probability of natural disasters with coircidant radioactive releases is low. He said that the most te;crt:-t elemc-t is flenibility. Emergency plans consist of l

'. cech thingc as ferning an organization for implementation, er r 4 ~.g i n g f cr cer+anicetions, lining up equipment, and training i

pcopic to hendic the cmc gency. It does not addrecs each and

$ ever y prob!cn tFrt mcy be encountered. For e: ample , emergency j pl cr a cc c. &v alternato routcc for evacuation as well as pr ote.- tive at ticos f er peopla if all routes are blocked.

TFo

• i nal ve- s i r- of the Pecposed Rule wac published in the l

recar:1 Rcgistor or E2cember 21, 1994. The overall focus of the rulem ling i'. to determine, through public comments, if cost-j c'f c:ti ve eed.cticn in overall rish can be ottained by explicit cor s t d:ratico o4 sever e ec-thquskec in emergency planning.

t Kith rsgard to a radiological release coincident with an

)

j f

eertFquatr, Mr. Jamgachian described three categorieb of e,ver g e n c y . He pointed out that, for seismic events up to an DDE,

]

i no o, mite demege woul d be expected, and that off-site damage f

shcald not harper protective actions (i . e. , sheltering or l cvacuaticr). For seismic events that are more severe than an i

OFE, bot de not enceed an SSE, the plant is designed to shut down safely, end off-sitt demage ecy be sufficient to hamper j

evacuttion but not sheltering. A scismic event much above an SSE j ceuld be assumed tn cause significant plant damage, as we!! as

' drvesta*.ing off-stte damage, so that the radiological emergency is cel y pert ad a much larger peoblem.

M<. Moeller not cd that FEMA has the responsibility to evaluate stete and lecal o*f-site emergency planc and report to the NRC on

' their firdingt. Their evaluation includen ronsideration of

)

wScther the radiolcgical plan is intograted with all disaster t plans. Following this approach, earthquake response planning would bu incorporated into the nuclear response planning.

Mr. Jamgochtan said that the NRC staff concluded that a) for'all j

carthquakec up to and including an SSE and other low probability

) natur al phunomene , thuru should be no radiological hazard, i

1 1

a

! 9 i.

1 .

therefere no need to take protective actions, and b) for

• earthquel.es above an SSE, the e: penditure of resources to cope with the devastating off-site damages would be of doubtful value

) considering the modett benefit on overall risk reduction.

' Therefore, the staff recommended that a proposed rule be .,

published in the Federal Register to obtain public comment on a j

i codification cf the Commission's position that the regulations explicitly state that the poteritial impacts of earthquakes on i

emergency plans need not be considered. ,,

i Meetina Recutte L

1 i A letter of recommended actions for Commission consideration was i

drafted for committee discussion at the 297th meeting of the ACRS cn January 10-12, 1985.

t l Future Meatincs No dates were cet for fvture meetings of the Subcommittees.

4 i i

L l ...... ........

a NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on N.W., file at j

l the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St.,

Weshington, D.C., or can be obtained at cost from j l Ace - Federal Reporters, Inc., 444 N. Capital l

Street, Washington, D.C. 20001 CTelephone (202) 347-3700J  ;

i 1

,i

\

i t

I 1

I 1

i lV u-e *

--~

.. ..,f . 3 Tm j.

l ATTAC MENT - --m.

.A $ -M. c - g M i

• Fa' erst Regleter / Vol. 49. No. 250 / % rod;y. December ty, tsei'l Moelses

,~

attength vacuum. treated rail. Has the ACRS staff seember far in advance as practicable so that named be.

h low C@ M as pektfDechet . 88m.8D-188 tetructions to cut rejls with rail saw appropriate ansngemente ama be made.

,g . ,% .

cnd dnll bolt boles when instelhas rail During N initial portion of the Atomic safety used Lauenehe Appenf en main track or in making repairs of all Board, Spent Feet Peel tspeneden *,

meeting. the Subcommitten. along with  :'. -

kinds. s Verrnont Railway and Clarendon and any of their consultants who may be

• Notice la hereby gives that.la ,

Pina/ord:Nov. 29:A-ob?dt Does not present. may exchange preliminary accordance wth en aMy ===&==d ,

have any high-strength alloy rails. Uses wiewa regardmg matters to be by to CR 2 Mal, se Chasruas eme '

lorch cuts only in emergency and considered during the balance of the Atomic Safety and ucessias Appeal ,

esatricts speed to to mph. meeting %e Subcommittees willthen I has reco ted A .

has Saste cep.es of thew respoowe hear presentations by and hold 'I .

g, letters are avadable on wntten requut in: discussions with the NRC Staff and

g,,,g g,, gg  :

other lnyhed experts on the above- ,,go s ra fety Boar shington, named topics. proceeding wiu commet elIbs ImWesehg l D C. 20594 Ptease indude respondent a name, Further information regarding topice members:

date of letter, and recommendabon our reque st. He photocopice wd! be numberts) to be discuued, whebt the meeting ""' "' '"

' D belfed at a cost of 14 cents perpage (11 has been cancelled or reededuled, the Dr. W. Reed Johnson

• inin" th*'3'I Chairman's ruhng on tequesta for the Dr.Reginald 1.Coachy Dated. December 30. test opportunity to present oral statements Deted. Decessbar asLiest H3ay Semith. )t* and the time allotted therefore can be . .

redero/Registerl/cison Of7wer. obtained by a prepaid telephone caU to C. Ne 98======&ar. ..

g,,,,u,y , g, p g,,,g p1t Doc. sa-33530 Ned 12-36-44, a 43 aml the cognizant ACRS staff member.Mr.

Owen S. Merttil(telephone 202/04- [PR Doc.mFUed m eis as) emisma cone teams

-- 1413) between 8.15 a.m. and SD0 p sa.

Pero ne planningi attend this NUCLEAR REGULATORY meeting are urged to contact the above ,

O IU named individual one or two daye (DessistIto.0673) before the scheduled meeting to be Adwhery Committee on Reactof General Electric Co.;Finene of Gle adsised of any changes in schedule,etc Saf eguards; Combined Subcommittees which may have occurred. 36gnificant Enytronmentalimpact en Reactof Radiological Effects and - A '9" d "8 I'T Site Evaluation; thetin9 Dated. December 21 tant Fac66 tty Operstisig usense No. 86-88 64onoe W.uberus. %e Nuclear Regulatory Ceemedeelen ne ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor AumfanrEnece0ee Dvocaurfurphvecs -

Radiological Effects and Site Es atuabon (the Commission) La considertaa will hold a combined rneetmg on ' Renew. issuance of an Amendment to Facility ,

p1t. Doc. e4-83est Ned taas.44. Aas us) Operating Ucanae No.R.33 foe the January 3 and 4.1985,in Room 1D46.

1717 H Street. NW. Washington. . ooce - General Dectr6c-Nuclear Test ma-a=r He entire meetmg wiU be open to (CrNTR) located in Pleasantaa.

put hc attendance. California. .

De a ende for subject meeting shall IDedet Isos. 80 4ae 04.4 81>449 04.1 %e amendment will renew 6e be as to lows: C4eveland Electric liluminating Co, *t Opersting Ucenee until October 31 Dursday, January 3.1985- 4 30 a m. 1997,in accordance with the hasaaee's al. (Perry Nucker Pow er Plant, Unite 1 until the conclusion of business application dated lune 13.1GP9. es Friday, January 4.1985-4 30 a.m. unbl & 2). Reconstitution of Atom 6c Safety and Ucendog Appeal poord supplernented. Opportunity for bearing the conclusion of businese was afforded by the Notice of Propeeed ne Subcommittees will nyiew (1) Notice la bereby given that. in genewal of rectlity ucense pubalahed in Proposed Arnendmente toloCFR Part accordance with the authority conferred the Federel Register on November 13

50. Section 50 47 and Appendia t- teso at 45 FR 75G11.No request for e by to CW 2 787(a) the Chairman of the Consideration of Earthquakes in the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal hearing or petition for leave to latervene Content of Ernergency Preparedness, was filed following notice of,tbo and (2) Proposed Amendments to 10 Panel has recenatituted the Atomic proposed action.

$4fety and utensing Appeal Board for CFR Parts 30,40 and 70 Energency Continued operetton of the evedor Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other this operatmg beense proceedma As nconstituted, the Appeal Board for this wiu not nquire alteration of but!dmge of Radioactise Matenal Ucenaces. structens, will not lead to danges in Oral statements may be presented by operating beenne proceeding wiu conalst effluents released from the fathty to the members of the pubbe with the of the fouowing members: mironment, wiu nM incnen to concurrence of the Subcommittre Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman probabihty or consequences of Chairman. written statements will be Dr. W. Reed Johnson accidents, and will not involve any accepted and made available to the unresolved leeues concerning alternative Committee. Recordings will be permitted Gary J. Edlep Dated Dwomletso, test- .vece of evallable noources.Besed en only during those portions of the the foregolns and on the Environmeetal meeting when a transcript is being kept. C. No thoemaker. As,essment dated Novemter 9.1944.

and uestions may be asked only by memkers of the Subcommittee,its 8""78'O'AN'" M the Comminston condudes that venewal of the license will not result in any .

consuhants,and Staff Persons desiring pli Doc. 96-asue Ned tratu a as wel ear, e come e es.e significant emtronsnentalimpects.

to make oral ataiemente should notify O

ATTACWlENT 5 c-PROPOSED AGENDA - ACRS REACTOR SITE EVALUATION ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RADIOLOGIC ,

JANUARY 3-4, 1985 3 WASHINGTON, D.C.

January 3, 1985 .

D. Moeller, Chaiman 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Introduction J. Lucas. Director Applying Non-Nuclear of Emergency 8:45 - 10:25 a.m. Experience to Nuclear Preparedness, St.

Emergency Preparedness Charles Parish, Mahnv111e, LA 8REAK 10:15 - 10:30 P. Davis, Inter-PRA Considerations in Emergency mountain Technologies.

10:30 - 11:15 a.m. Preparedness for Low Frequency Idaho Falls, ID Natural Events R. Abbey, Director of Meteorological Considerations Meteorological Research 11:15 - 12:00 NOON in Emergency Preparedness DNR for Low-Frequency Natural Events 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH R. Krim, FEMA's Emergency Preparedness State and Local 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Program for Offsite Safety Programs, FEMA R. Krim, FEMA 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. FEMA's Natural and Technical Hazards Program 3:00 - 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 - 5:00 p.m. Executive Session ADJOURN 5:00 p.m.

January 4. 1985 D. Moeller, Chaiman 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Introduction M. Jamgochian, RES Proposed Amendments to 8:45 - 10:15 a.m. 10CFR50, etc., Consideration l

of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness 8REAK 10:15 - 10:30 a.m.

i 10:30 - 1:00 p.m. Executive Session i ADJ0 URN 1:00 p.m.

0. S. NERRILL ATTACHMENT C J5thstist$ rir.cssim; REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION Room 1046,1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C.

X T10N:

January 3-4, 1985 .. .

""""3" - -

m EASE" RI ttT I

M FILIh.10 4 .

'.r. c

( '

A C R.S

\ ). 610 et i e a " -

i l J P b e r so le.

- c i

. C . Wy li e. e M- Ca z r ere

/9 cR.S Cew.s.a mar "

L ,,

.- //

• L. 0A r rex

• e

' to

\. D. O g ry "

l. Y buis .

el i tr 14 Th Ml'W

• e I, '). ' A t on sen

fs.  ?. % a c. . Smw 7/Y1ck',[le.,

/ r/P S 1 *

r. ft b pg

u. O . M e e r. II ,,

s. W . S e k H 9.e n -

Acts Pe/hw v R. Cus.hia~ -

3, A M, i 0N/a '

t ,

Sr. C h a ,. ), . h s k L A

s. O. Lu c o .

29cp 9 3A,,r.; . /

1. X. Sg r i o ' '

2 N C closElme P eG-

9. Y.f}/1AA6d .

(cL 1 M rn~ NW fdd (m ac4w hn ,

' ,O - . .. .

fo.  % & L /mJ '

DDE

n. P OT h vis

n. b T o v d u h--.

L vGkk % & ar w-li Vcauss Lwiet un.e. h es twe.s

n. *

- S. Sk wn ne h c ... .... + a , e

O. S.' MERRILL l

jg vai:Et notium; REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION T! W . Room 1046, 1717 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. , ,

I January 3-4, 1985 '

. . . ~

' NDANCE LIST ,

EASE -

i 1 RI ttT  ;,,. . c U M t il 1610:4 .

PYh]

th/(y-E.R f.t a va , bn. Lash w Abt0Lt1

~

• tw%

! h socna ustVRc -

• d

,M bk f) "

ne c ue e ,

m . x .- ~ ,,,, , ~

L .

/

K. 14 g ,, m En1A -

t .

~

s'. _

1. -

l

1. .

'l.

lt.

l

• s.

a_ ,

l 5_ *

6.  !

17. -s .

el

• • s .

0.

'21. .

FF. *

23. .

O 4

O. S. MERRILL REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL _ EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION

/t,15 SdqCOMMITTEE MEETING ON Room 1046.1717 'N St . NW. Wehinn+nn, n.C.

L,0CAIIO.i:

DATE:

January 3-4, 1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:

6'gn- Tn $ hee d-)

' i BADGE NO. AFFILIATION NAME

.Toa u $1. (crn ( G- o96/ '

E { C k - Q n -_ A A #els f S N A V' G //

L kWM U f-00V g_ s T)A vlD (CESTdEC. 3<evd6 Tx. .. p.t

- ( . _) . )EL G A +to E - 013 T ~c E -o llo Wis 7tc SE-n vu ti Tn t.

C . *3. CR AME E-OH, h/ESTEC S en vie < s Nie \ b'

&ssv .T Oatseen A CAS Con sa / raw;-

SNdhhis C-ol5l k h5TH $~ 0LA-% Al f % W4kW

% wha e-ot,y eac .aau.

c- - A4s c,._a.3- ove E u e A .r..

A-o R J1

N5t 0) A.rtA E-oxv1 A A Aa'Yben 6 0.u? , MKe 6>n U AVin) A}-eJ '-

/Jha rn ft'W ( C'7/t '

s- -

' M L,4 2 c 04 m tJ /2L T D a n Ard hN eMy '

b u b ,A E-oNi T3mA R., BAS i E-oost F G m A-d%l 5,kre-Nhvw %a.m E t

G

- . - . _ _ _ . . . - _ _ _ . - , . , - . , _ _ _ . , . _ _ . , ,,_r . _ . . . . _ ,, _ _ _ - _

~ ---

. . . . - - . =

ATTACMENT D ,  %

?.h. L .

N,3 6

DOCUMENTS AND PRESENTATION MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO THE -

ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT DURING THE if JANUARY 3-4, 1985 MEETING

1. NRC Memorandum from F. P. Gillespie to R. F. Fraley, ACRS Review of i

Proposed Rule Change to 10 CFR Part 50, 50.47 and Appendix E:

Consideration of Earthquakes on Emergency Preparedness, dated September 25, 1984.

2. NRC Final Draft (as submitted for publication in the Federal

) Register) of Proposed Rule Change,10 CFR Part 50, 50.47 and Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, dated December 18, 1984.

3. NRC Memorandum from W. J. Dircks to Chainnan Palladino entitled,

" Emergency Planning and Seismic Hazards," dated January 13, 1984.

4. NRC Memorandum from J. C. McKinley to D. W. Moeller entitled, "Dr.

Carson Mark's Consnents on the Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 50.47 j

and Appendix E," with attachment, dated January 2, 1984 (error:

should be 1985).

i

5. "The Disparity Between the Amount of Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear vs. Other Rare Catastrophic Events," W. R. Casey et al.

Health Physics, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 521-523, October, 198 C -~

l

6. Emergency Preparedness, Consideration of Earthquakes and Other Low

! Probability Natural Phenomena, M.T. Jamgochian, NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, undated.

l

7. St. Charles Parish Implementing Procedures, Hahnville, LA, December 3, 1984.

8. St. Charles Parish Emergency Preparedness / Industrial Hot Line i System, Operating Procedure Manual (Undated).

9. Detailed Report on the Evacuation of December 11, 1982 Prepared by -

Envirosphere Co. for Louisiana Power and Light Co., December, 1983. ,

10. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: Overview, Report to the U.S. Congress, Geological Survey Circular 918, Undated but .-

issued January, 1985. , ,

11. Safety Information Booklet, " Plans to Help You During Emergencies,"

St. Charles Parish, et al. Undated (circa January,1985).

- ATTACHMENT D 2 .

12. An Overview of Seismic Risks and Evac'uation Considerations from ..

Nuclear Plants Based on PRA Studies, P. R. Davis. Intermountain yh M.

Technologies, Idaho Falls, ID, January 3, 1984. , g.,.g, 7 f l .

+ . .s,*=*;

13. OverviewofFEMA'sRadiologicalEmergencyPreparednessProgram,f....O t.,i ~.

Congressional Fact Sheet, January 3,1985.

l

)

1 l

4 9

• ,e e

aN%

f' l-l l

.