ML20212P706
| ML20212P706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/12/1987 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212P709 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-849 NUDOCS 8703160209 | |
| Download: ML20212P706 (5) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEA3 RE!ULATORY COMMISSION NRC FoiA t.EOuEst Nuvatasi fo/A 74 9 p % g'
}[ gl -EseONs1 TveE C
" 3 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF
^"
l""" lll '^^7
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST (e..e/e NAR 12 ISS7 DOCKET NUMBERI$a Uf appeceael REOut$yER
- $ , 2h6 11/T h n PART BARECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked bones)
No agency records subrect to the request have been located.
No additional agency records subrect to the request have been located.
A0ency records subrect to the request that are identified in Appendix 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
[ are already available for svblic inspection and copy 6ng in the NRC Public Document Room, A0ency records subpect to the request that are identified in Appendix [ are being made availaNo for puNic inspection and copying in the NRC Public Docurnent Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC. in a folder under this FOIA nurnber and requester name.
The nonproprietary verson of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation wwth a rnember of my staff is now being made avadable for public inspection and coying et the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copies of the records provided and payment procedures are noted in the comments section.
Records subject to the request na<e been referred to another Federal agencybes) for review and direct response to you.
In view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated PART ll.A-fNFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain informaten in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions desenbod in and for the reasons stated ;n Part 11, sec-tions B, C. end D. Any released portiens of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
Comments l
$ RE. DIRECTOR, DfVISION O RULES AND RECORDS wH A N$
l g g g cf 8 7 0 s 2 ggfN^s49 PDR NRC FORM 464 (Part 0 re est
~ l Re: F01A- f4-pp9 l APPENDIX [
RECORDS MAINTAINED AMONG PDR FILES NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION
- i. pqu y p~.n
- Ax, sn n,a w *
-par mA
/ r J # -AG, ?
esogn ssA.)y 6 n ' /= - / D 4 .
i l
I l
-$ s __
- N Re: FOIA- 74-ff9 APPENDIX [
RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE AB0VE REOUEST NUMBER NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION
- i. n+u m AA, a- / wa
-fdeM ' uteri
.daz%,(fm- M, p' $m Z </41. -
Am, .
W J f&w fn, ~
(r q .)
.e. m Pg ./r 7 '
A k w /~ A'74 a YA A "Ma,MrJ ,4namir n,, ,y, s ~ pe g .) .
- s. .r- sy Jaito WA // A Y
f , "fy 6AnA s b/?M 4 ot/s/r3 7//md~> d
- A //fa N 44; XLier Tzad 4Gmh 6e .)
d 7L m
M g x -
=~ f g=s f,te
-,' m n.5 a / ,
" (yM)a=-
Jg. I L....._ -
. ~.
Re: F0IA- 72 _pg 9 APPENDIX /*bg,M)
RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE AB0VE REQUEST NUMBER NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION
- t. nsnt /zuk Ay 444 A AJ
,,x &ch 19.
M ,"8 - P M d;+ 2n - >dL n
(,4y
-a /
W sg. $)
Aus /eca,sa o, ~
z M rs
- >&k&A, y-Arus A w/ 4
,EewwM g :,=a J .2ff p A & M ,~( q .)
- r. W (Afe/s
'/ g }' "% " 2 E Wm n a sn- nw
, % ,a y .)
- gsza s/AcL
/ % ts A y: , / fnn
. 4 an-M faaer PS y-.s. A Cu ~ $ m .)
L
- a. 74a34 W &'wA A
/
w/yf N r / ~s n- s P M n) .-
, W.
QeW (#Yq- i
--m- +e-w-----'-m ,,ww ---,.rr-,.- g, , _ , , , _ . , , _
Re: F0IA- ff- pg 9 APPENDIX g g g /
RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE AB0VE REQUEST NUMBER NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION
?
"f Y
- a. 7AAN /2 Lxa scau 6LZ%a- h/ &
,& = n .
a + %y & # ~ u-fM Q w d(/
M Pfa- q x d nq .
m s16 flc A-e-M
& .,e&Wld 0 Js d ea ,= e 4 & , /$ f d /
, 7/s /
f sons).
/.t. 1/9/n 7px /Han f b e q.y ag . q- x A'
- a. pp/u AwM
//Je uG R
a '7/
n/ &q' W f ,# n +h, M s=4 fd % </ , 6sg.)
. /* 4/x M a & f,ws J,e--u .%p d ~A g A --
An a )-
- a&n, -
9;C ,+ #p + n
.3 , i e
f 9f HARMON & WEISS 2001 S STREET,N W SUITE 430 NASHINGTON. D.C. coooo-nes Gall McGREEvY H A AMON TELEPHONE CLLYN R. WEISS (202)328-3500 DIANC CURRAN DE AN R. TOUSLEY ANoRcA C. rcRsicR October 21, 1986 HAND DELIVERED FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Donnie H. Grimsley, Director ACT REQUEST Division of Rules and Records [ C//f- N ~ b f Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission /ps//6 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552, et seq., the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
requests that you make available the following documents that re-late to statements made on page 36 of a memotandum from Victor Stello, Jr. to Samuel J. Chilk , re:
" Report Requested by Commis-sioners Asselstine and Bernthal." Copies of the relevant pages of the memorandum are attached.
For each document identified in response to this request, please identify the title and date of the document, the author, the author's title, and the recipient of the document.
- 1. Please identify and release all documents which form the l
basis for the the statements made in paragraph (1) on page 36.
- 2. Please identify and release the " currently available i
models" for dose projections to which paragraph (2) refers, and
(
release any documents that indicate at what nuclear power plants those model; are used.
l l
t
- 3. Please identify and release all NRC staff risk assess-ments involving plume washout, as described in paragraph (2).
t
- 4. Please identify and release all documents reflecting the way in which conservative assumptions used to compensate for un-i certainties in licensing evaluations are developed and used, as
( described in paragraph (2).
l
- 5. Please identify and release all documents which describe the research described in paragraph (3), all results of that re-3 J 1 l ^
l l
&f l&&lNW(OT l
Ji -s HARMON & WEISS Donnie H. Grimsley December 10, 1986 Page 2 search, and any documents which describe the current status of the research.
proceeding.
NECNP is an intervenor in the Seabrook operating license The organization intends to use this information in the licensing hearings to further the public's interest in the safety of operation of the Seabrook plant. Therefore we request that you waive any copying and search fees pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9.14(c).
days, I
look forward to receiving your response within ten working as required by the Freedom of Information Act.
Sincerely,
-7 Diane Curran i
i l
l l
L i
p omic UNITED STATES l
,# o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y )- [g;, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C5 FEB 2 1983
....+
MEMORANDUM FOR: S. Yaniv ,
Health Effects Branch Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Jim Martin Reactor Risk Branch Division of Risk Analysis
- . Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
SENSITIVITY OF EARLY HEALTH EFFECT ESTIMATES TO I ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR SEVERE ACCIDENTS l
As I related to you on January 27, 1983, concerns regarding the necessity for more detailed information on hospital facilities for reverse isolation Jnay be misplaced. The reason is that upon making realistic assumptions about emergency responses by the public in a disaster situation, the large numbers of early fatalities calculated using unrealistic assumptions disappear.
This does not mean that large numbers of early fatalities and injuries due to a LWR accident are impossible. Such results are possible; they are possible when employing bizarre assumptions such as: we had a disaster and nobody cared.
The massive earthquake is the only special case I can divine where this isn't necessarily so.
In the attached table I've listed some key results of an investigation of ne meteorological sequence for the Salem site for which the peak early fatalities were calculated in the SNL siting study. In this sequence, the SST) release -
occurs under dry weather conditions with a 15-20 mph wind. About an hour later, it rains like h---! right over a highly populated area. Because of a fixed assumption, built into CRAC2 at the time the siting report calculations were run, people in this area were assumed to conduct normal activities for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with little to no shielding. (We had a disaster and a gulleywasher and nobodycaredl) .
There were two other problems with the code at the time the siting study runs were made. A relatively minor error in arithmetic caused too many people to be involved. This was a true error, but minor on the scale of things. There was also a modeling mistake which caused a " washout coefficient" to be used which depleted the activity in the puff at a rate of 1 percent per second.
This is ten times greater than any evidence we can find would support. The code was dropping radiciodines on the ground at a rate of four million curies per second! And it (the code) did not let the material wash away into sewers.
kkB&00$
FA'
. . 1
l 2 .
s S. Yaniv .
The former two problems have now been fixed. The third has not, but we're '
working on it. Further, with CRAC2 one now has control of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> assumption--
one can choose the ground exposure time as one wishes, usirig input _ data.
With all this in mind, I asked Dan Alpert (SNL) to run CRAC2 for the noted Salem case, using a few different assumptions. These assumption's are listed in the table, with the results,. Case 1 was the result in the siting study. In Case 2, the arithmetic error _was fixed, dropping the calculated maximum early fatalities from 102,000 to 71,000. Not a big change.
For Case 3, a shielding factor (ground) of 0.08 was assumed, presuming that people would go inside in the rain, or be told to go inside. Early fatalities dropped from 71,000 to ZER01 For this case, the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> assumotion was also used, after which the people disappeared from the problem. l BIG change here! '
Case 4 tested the sensitivity to the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> assumption. This case is the same as Case 2 except that the people were presumed to leave the area after 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, conducting normal activities in the meantime. Early fatalities i dropped from 71.000 to 6,400. 's Case 5 tested the sensitivity to the washout coefficierit; Here, the washout coefficient was fixed at 10'3 per second, a factor of ten lower than for _
Case 2, and a credible maximum from published dats. People conducted normal '
activities for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The peak early fatalities dropped from 71,000 to 1,200. -
As you can see, the calculated pea.k early fatalities are extremely sensitive to the assumptions. But for credible assumptions the number of early fatalities-calculated are well within the range of the number of supportive treatment facilities currently available. And with any kind of rational emergency response assumption, or rainoff into sewers assumption, this peak disappears.
A different peak, for a different meteorological sequence, then pops up, of course.
But the really big consequences are all associated with either rain or extremely slow (no) emergency response assumptions, or calms, or all of these together.
l .
(
I hope this is useful. We do have the problem that people ignor'e the low probability and focus on the maximum consequences. , That's the problem to solve, because I can always make up an entrapment scenario.
b
/ Jim Martin ,
j ' Reactor Risk Branch -
Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research-
Attachment:
Table 1 --
~
cc: R. Blond ,
S. Acharya G. Burdick -
M. Ernst R. Bernero I D. Alpert (SNL) 5 I 9 V
, , , . . - . . ,.-------,,n. - , - . - ,
,) . .
TABLE l
$ALEM PEAK CONSEQUENCE SEQUENCE 44EE. PROBABILITY WEA j
c ,
SST) ACCIDENT 5/YR PROBABILITY
- 1 1
CALCULATED PEAK EARLY FATALITY EARLY FATALITIES RISK #
1 Case 1 - SNL- Siting' Report (Normal 102.000 0.0001 Fatalities /R-Y
.. activities > 10 mi; 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> exposure to ground contamir.c tion)
Case 2 2 Cas'a 1.with arithmetic 71,000 0.00007 Fatalities /R-Y
'- " error fixsd -
),
Case. 3 - Case 2, but 0.08 shielding 3 .
Zero Zero Fatalities /R-Y facter ,
Case 4 - Case 2, but 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> expo,sure 3 6,400 0.000006 Fatalities /R-Y .
! to ground contamination i ,
Case [5 - Case 2, but washout coefficient 1,200 0.000001 Fatalities /R-Y fixed ny -.JL7 4nu. .
5 i
, , _ _ . - _ _ , , . - . . _ , . , , , ,