ML20149F650
| ML20149F650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1988 |
| From: | Alpert D, Oatmeyer R NRC |
| To: | Soffer L NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149B718 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-743 NUDOCS 8802170294 | |
| Download: ML20149F650 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:g MMM3Nbkbbbb l
-- - ---murm i to: Mr. L. Soffer Division of Risk Analysis U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D,C, 20555
. I'r om : R. catmeyer and D. Alpert r Re: "Technical considerations for a Graded Responae in Diergency Planning and Preparedhens" Len These are our thoughts on the draft report. So that we could get back to you in a timely manner, we have only listed our ideas withput too much attention to wording. Later, if you woulo like, we can discuss the points in more detail . In addition, Dave, Aldrich wrote some comments on the drafk report which vc will mall to you. ,
one quick comment on the comput er print-out you brought us. The input and outp;t all seem reasonable. Jay was able to duplicate the results with one exception. Jim has changed the washout calculation so that the constant in the lambda;a C R equation is always 0.0001, CHAC2 uses c=0 101 for neutral and unstable precipitation. This cbongo was not made in the "siting study." Jiti's change,' we f eel is probably reasonable given our knowledge (n the. area, hovover, the change is undocumented. iforeover, the change probably doesn't affect most'of the resulta you are interested in. Generally, our coccarnts below present a rough outline of the key points we think should be presented along with posalble plots whichiclearly demonstrate these paints. Section 3.1 Distance end source term l - Risk te not constant betwaan g and in miles { 1
- present planning inplicationt' treat all individuals equally between 8 and ten milesa {
- Jndividuals closest to the reqctor ere at greatest risk because 1) Acas time available and 2) leno dilution -- higher potential dose rates. These are facts of nature, not endeling.
Plot - nean wholabody dose vs. distance for EST1, 2, and 3 (linear acale).
- Mean dose decreanna sharply wL'th diatenco 8802170294 880204 3 PDR FDIA pDR ' '
SHOLLYB7-743 g___ ' -
massaummairannarewramr- mar, sant~a g-
- e
( Page 2
- orders of magnitude dif ference between 8871, 2, and .
3.-
-{- PLOT - CCDP, wholebody dose at. e.g. 2 and 5 miles i
- j. - ahows range over possible weather conditions, t -
1 - mean dose at 5 miles is XX, 95%ile done is YY.
!. Early effecta are threshold effects Therefore: dependence of risk with distance is even greater than it is for doso.
PLOT - Risk of fatality and injury With distance for SS?1 and 2 and no evacuation (linear scale),
} - Steep drop off with distance.
; 1 -
- Note that the risk is potenti' ally non.zero beyond
. even 19 alles. .
Pbot cumulative cancers with distance (NUREG/CR-2239) 1
- occur to great distances. -
j - population cancer risk is not amenable to reduction
, by emergency response planning, thcogh, indiv idual risk ~la.
i CONCLUSION 1 s l - Only the worst ace! dents (ssT1 and 2) can result in i . early health effacts,
- .' - People within about 2 ailles are et greatest risk l
. - sharp. drop off with distance.
- Cancera occur to great distance, nasbors not
+
', sensitive to emergency responsa.
Section 3.2
- tiow much time is there between accident initiation and release? Review of recent PRAs (include Zion, Indian Point, etc.) shows xx to yy. some are very i short, most are longer; However, you won't know at the time.
Plot- time done relationships.
- your replots of our data are very good; probably - don't need to prunent ours.
I
~ Doses result from 1) exposure to plume via
{
- h. .
Vag3 $
~~
7-inhalcticn cnd cicudshin3 p2thraya, Cnd from 2} groundshine both during and after plume passage. Perhaps, showing plots of dose via mach pathway versus ' distance would be uneful. He could do those . calculetions if needed.
- Domes exceed early ef fects thresholds very quickly in close.
- Hou quickly depends on u!.ndspeed and release duration.
- If it takes about 2 hours to evnouate 0-2 miles, ,
people in this range must be out before an ssT1 relcoce begins, once rolcase begins, it is likely to . be ~too late for people in clote. retal doses are enconded very quickly.
- Prompt evacuation within two miles will require ,
advanced planning.
- The further out you go, the more time is available for ovacuation before high doses are received.
- Priority of resourcon for planning and response must be given to those in close.
CONCLUSION
~ people in close are not only at greeter risk, but they are at greator rink much quicket,
- people f ar ther out are et loss rink, and you have ,
more time.
- these are facte of nature. *
- 4. Protective Action Atrategies civon the distance and time dependency of rink, -
emergency pisnning should he graded to direct priority to people at gccatest risk. ,
-The plen should be to evacunte thune with about 2 nilos at the first hint of trouble end tell everyone cine to stand by indoors. Au time permits, and conditions within tha containment or offsite warrant, evaeustion beyond two miles should be considered.
Pto?S - conditional risk or dose vs. distance for a variety of emergency response scenarios, all on the same paper. Possible scenarios include: no response, good evacuation, poor evoeuation, poor sheltering with fest tc 3 ocation, good sheltering with f ast relocation. etc. IP kE O O e w , -m -- Chemumme .- -- -}}