ML20207C505

Intervenor Exhibit I-State-29,consisting of 860115 Response to 851231 Request Re State of Nh Emergency Plans for Beach Population

ML20207C505
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/25/1988
From:	Church W FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
To:	Eric Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency
References
OL-I-STATE-029, OL-I-STATE-29, NUDOCS 8808090252
Download: ML20207C505 (3)

Text

- - . -_

I- - -

86~~M +/& 8b  % $XhiW

< ~

s/z y - 2 s/er #&

UNITED STATES GOVERNM 1 - S+nk- 29 mw+

C) cani January 15, 1986 IIlelT10TCIlCllI mm.y to ATTMOFl Warren 01urch, FDA, RAC Manber ' 3 M.19 . P 6 :03 suurevi Seabrook Bnergency Plans OFHg u .y 00cxc w; ., ,u me,,

OffANCy D$ ward A. Micrnas, Division Chief /

Division of Technological Hazards, TD% *

, , q i " .' .it..-js..[*c In response to your Decanber 31, 1985 request, I would like to offer the followirg connents regarding the State of New Hampshire's energency plans f their beach population.

A. Transient Beach Population

1. The concept of closing the beaches during the early stages of a radiological emergency at Seabrook has merit. Certainly it is realist to assane a minimun of several hours between the initial recognition o a potential problen (alert stage) and the need to escalate to a higher energency level where protectivevactions are normally indicated. (The probability of a fast bre: ming event where there would be little or no warning is much too low te plan for) .

O There would be very little cost in autanatically closing the beaches a the "alert" level because this is a relatively rare event (approximate every 10 reactor years) . Also there is approximately only one chance 50 that it would occur when the beaches were populated.

2. The procedures for closing the beaches wuld have to be simple and the:

would have to he implenented within a short period of time in order to be effective in the "worst case" scerurio where the energency is rapid' escalating. This may mean that the beaches would have to be autanatically closed at the "alert" stage.

3. Refere the effee iveness of *his conce?t can be fully evaluated two questions need to be answered.

a. If the beaches are full, and the closure takes place, hcw long wil:

it take to enpty the beaches?

b. What percentage of beach evacuee:: would actually leave the seacoas-are' i

l

4. If the beaches can be evacuated within a 2 - 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> period ard a good percentage of the evacuees leave the seacoast area, then I believe thi: I concept to be sound and acceptable. -

O V

8808090252 880525 PDR ADOCK 05000443 o PDR

I k

O O

\\\'

_i\ ,

%N f\

4' &h i

W , O

'd W N

~.; d Q

B. Occupants of Unwinterized Accorredations The protection afforded by sheltering in unwinterized cottage aM motel rooms will definitely be less then normal airnie floor woodfrana$ houses. The exact protection factor will of course to deperudent on many parameters inclu$ing the radionuclide cmposition of the plune ard the length of the sheltering period.

The limited sheltering protection of fered by this type of housing should definitely be factored into New Hamphire's plans arx3 energercy decision making process, campgrourds should be assuruned to of fer no shelterirg protection. Public shelterire should be identified for this population.

I hope tne above emments correrning protection of beach populations will be helpful in New Hampshire's energency planning process for Seabrook. My connents on the other radiological hcalth aspects of this plan are beiry subnitte$ under separate cover.

OJf M Warren W. Church O

. , . - . _ _ . , . . , _ - , _ - . _ , , , , _m _ ,_,., _.. , . . _ . . _ _ _ . . - _ . _ .