ML20236C740
| ML20236C740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1987 |
| From: | Delano C, Johnston N, Vogler D DUXBURY, MA |
| To: | Ronald Bellamy NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236C743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270316 | |
| Download: ML20236C740 (2) | |
Text
_
r:w y,
y
,:p:
%n of Dux6ary, MassacEuseHs j
\\
^02332 aus
.. @?.
l+1
%,,, elg a'
s cg e o
E
~
to x T
c3 October 13, 1987 i
> c3 v>
? Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief
,p Emergency Preparedness-& Radiological co
~ Protection Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatiory Commission Region #1 f P us
, Pa.'
19406 g
i
Dear Mr. Bellamy:
'The. Citizens Committee on Nuclear Matters was recently appointed by the
, Selectmen of the town of Duxbury to collect information, assist in developing.
policy and generally keep abreast of events relating t'o the Pilgrim 1 Nuclear Power. Plant as well as problems relating to the movement of nuclear waste within and through the town limits.
As a result of our effort to collect information, we have noticed a letter which.
we believe contains information and direction that requires clarification.
Lebter BECo ltr 87-97 dated June 4, 1987 forwarded an Evacuation Time Estimate and Beach Population Sheltering report to you with instructions to forward this in-formation to the Regional Director, FEMA, Region 1 for review, in accordance with
- accepted procedure. Also by copy this information was transmitted to several state and lo' cal agencies so they could use it in updating sections of their plans found to contain outdated material.
The final version of this report was issued in August 1987 with some modification.
In addition, the information in the preliminary report was formally questioned by the Evacuation Study Committee in a letter to Boston Edison in May 1987.
We do not believe that the information in the Evacuation Time Estimate and Beach Population Report should be used by FEMA for review or by state and local agencies in updating sections of their plans until the concerns of the Evacuation Study Committee are formally responded to and any final discrepancies corrected. In particular we are concerned that the sheltering space as described is not available and we are confused by the' types of space that are listed.
-Dose reduction factors for different types of buildings (Burson and Profio 1977) are as follows: Wood frame structures above the basement have a typical dose reduction factor (cloud) of 0.9 (i.e. the building reduces the gamma radiation originating from the airborn cloud source outside the building and from gamma radiation infiltrating the 1
structure from the cloud by only 10%). Masonry structures above the basement level have e y= "s-IE 35x
er 4 e-+ q
(
Ronald R..Bellamy US Nuclear Reg. Comm.
King of Prussia, Pa.
I 10/13/87 a' typical' dose. reduction. factor of 0.6, the basement of a masonry structure has a typical dose reduction factor of 0.4, and the basement of a wood frame structure j
has a typical dose reduction factor of 0.6.
We feal that the space actually should
. be categorized by dose reduction factor.
Source term research suggests that the most probable accident at the plant would be expected to release only noble gases with few, if any, radiciodines or particulate and that exposure would be whole body gamma dose from the passing cloud.
Exposure from ground deposited particulate would be negligible.
We question using any space that provides only a 10% reduction in gamma radiation from the airborn cloud in light of the potential additional airborn release due to the 1
recent containment enhancement effort.
Please feel free to contact this committee if you hr.ve any question concuning this matter.
l k
Very truly yours,
.,a, 4 1
N 11 M. Johnson i
Chairman, Citizens Committee on Nuclear Matters
))
L.
Aft; Y N2 c _J/ 21
., ft' t
4.,
C.MartinDelanot.i[/([
David J./fogleg Ch @ /
Patricia A. Do'wd Selectmen Selectm2 I
Selectmen cc:
Nuclear List
___ _ _ _ _ -.