ML20207C374: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.
{{#Wiki_filter:.
= 'l . o 4                                                              b0~ W .       // Yy -6 d.
= 'l. o b0~ W.
                                                                              %ke y      ,                                            OCT 151S07             g-3 00(HT ten 13Nhc V
// Yy -6 d.
MEMORANDUM FOR:     St TURK, OGC
4
                                                                          *88 Jtt.19 p5 37 FROM:         W. LAZARUS, EP SECTION CHIEF, NRC REGION I
%ke OCT 151S07 g-3 y
00(HT ten 13Nhc V
MEMORANDUM FOR:
St TURK, OGC
*88 Jtt.19 p5 37 FROM:
W. LAZARUS, EP SECTION CHIEF, NRC REGION I


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
BACKGROUND CONCERNING RECENT FEM 4 I RAC MEE         ONNRNYNY' SEABROOK BEACH POPULATION ISSUES                       NW I attended two RAC meetings in the past few months in FEMA Region I that were called by Mr. Ed Thomas, the RAC Chairman to address the issue of the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP for the protection of the so-called "Seabrook beach population". The first meeting was held on April 15, 1987. To the best of my recollection all of the principal RAC members (DOE, EPA, 007, DOA, and HHS) were present, plus two representatives from NOAA, as the discussions were to include meteorological aspects of plume dispersion and expected wind and weather patterns typical of the Seabrook beach areas during the summer months.
BACKGROUND CONCERNING RECENT FEM 4 I RAC MEE ONNRNYNY' SEABROOK BEACH POPULATION ISSUES NW I attended two RAC meetings in the past few months in FEMA Region I that were called by Mr. Ed Thomas, the RAC Chairman to address the issue of the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP for the protection of the so-called "Seabrook beach population".
The first meeting was held on April 15, 1987.
To the best of my recollection all of the principal RAC members (DOE, EPA, 007, DOA, and HHS) were present, plus two representatives from NOAA, as the discussions were to include meteorological aspects of plume dispersion and expected wind and weather patterns typical of the Seabrook beach areas during the summer months.
(I am technically not the RAC member for the NRC, however I have been working closely with Bob Bores, (who is the official NRC Region ! RAC member for Seabrook) on this issue and felt it appropriate to attend the RAC meetings).
(I am technically not the RAC member for the NRC, however I have been working closely with Bob Bores, (who is the official NRC Region ! RAC member for Seabrook) on this issue and felt it appropriate to attend the RAC meetings).
During the April 15th meeting, Bob Bores' submittal regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire Plan for the beach population was the main subject for discussion. After a discussion of the various aspects of the NH Plan (early closure of the beaches, and the capability to make PA announcements frcm the plant control room on the beach sirens to provide protective action g       recommendations for fast breaking accidents), the beach meteorology, and Bob Bores' submittal, it appeared that the RAC agreed that the Plan was adequate.
During the April 15th meeting, Bob Bores' submittal regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire Plan for the beach population was the main subject for discussion.
Subsequent to that meeting Bob Bores' redrafted his submittal in consultation with NRR and OGC to remove any reference to Seabrook site specific design features (double containment, etc.).     The second meeting was held on July 30, 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the changes to the NRC RAC comments.
After a discussion of the various aspects of the NH Plan (early closure of the beaches, and the capability to make PA announcements frcm the plant control room on the beach sirens to provide protective action g
The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives. At this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly pointed out that he was ignorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members.     The elimination of reference to site         l specific design f eatures appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas. During the meeting I pointed out that elimination of the site                 l l
recommendations for fast breaking accidents), the beach meteorology, and Bob Bores' submittal, it appeared that the RAC agreed that the Plan was adequate.
specific information regarding plant design features should have no bearing on a finding of adequacy for the Plan because those features only impacted the probability of an accident. Since emergency plans must provide for protection     !
Subsequent to that meeting Bob Bores' redrafted his submittal in consultation with NRR and OGC to remove any reference to Seabrook site specific design features (double containment, etc.).
                                                                                                      ]
The second meeting was held on July 30, 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the changes to the NRC RAC comments.
from a spectrum of accidents without regard to their probability,. W 4 p e must         I assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide             I reasonable assurance of protection.     On the issue of sheltering, which was         ,
The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives.
discussed at length, I pointed out that sheltering only provides about a 10%
At this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly pointed out that he was ignorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members.
reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scenario which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern.       I then asked Mr. Thomas   to poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP provide reasonable assurance that beach population would be protected.
The elimination of reference to site specific design f eatures appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas.
He declined, so I asked for a show of hands for my own information.         All those l
During the meeting I pointed out that elimination of the site l
8808090182 890518 PDR   ADOCK 05000443                                             ENCLOSURE 2 PDR G
specific information regarding plant design features should have no bearing on a finding of adequacy for the Plan because those features only impacted the probability of an accident.
l l
Since emergency plans must provide for protection
]
from a spectrum of accidents without regard to their probability,. W 4 p e must assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide reasonable assurance of protection.
On the issue of sheltering, which was discussed at length, I pointed out that sheltering only provides about a 10%
reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scenario which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern.
I then asked Mr. Thomas to poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP provide reasonable assurance that beach population would be protected.
He declined, so I asked for a show of hands for my own information.
All those 8808090182 890518 PDR ADOCK 05000443 ENCLOSURE 2 G
PDR


g g POe O
POe g
                                  .          . .o ,
g O
I O
..o I
                      \\
O e\\ \\\\
z e\ it wN  \ \\
bn it
bn b$                 \
\\ \\\\
                            \
wN z
g<000\
b$
8                    0 <. , u   ;      .
\\
p3         i    !! ?. 2 s               '
\\
O                       t       i !
g<000\\ 0 <., u 8
5           ,
p3
k            't
!! ?. 2 s
      ?             \ \\       \ \\\,                                 q m                         i s
i O
a z(\
t i
z !;
5 k
( ol     e
't
  ,-                                                    -,,--,----c- -
?
\\ \\
s z(
\\ \\ \\\\\\,
q i
m
\\
a z !;
( ol e
-,,--,----c-


At o'   ,
At o'
t                                                                                                               ,
t OCT 15 1987 j
OCT 15 1987                         j i
i present rxcept FEMA indicated that they found the plans to be adequate with respect to the beach population (apparently agreeing that reliance on sheltering for the beach population in the case of a serious release was not appropriate).
present rxcept FEMA indicated that they found the plans to be adequate with respect to the beach population (apparently agreeing that reliance on sheltering for the beach population in the case of a serious release was not appropriate). At that point Mr. Thomas indicated that he was tired and wanted to adjourn the meeting. He would take into account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework the RAC position on the issue and send it out for comment. With that in mind the meeting was adjourned. He did not follow up on his commitment to provide a revised position to the RAC for review and comment and instead drafted his own input, largely ignoring tne RAC comments from the meeting.
At that point Mr. Thomas indicated that he was tired and wanted to adjourn the meeting.
W. arus Em rgency P   aredness Section Chief
He would take into account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework the RAC position on the issue and send it out for comment.
With that in mind the meeting was adjourned.
He did not follow up on his commitment to provide a revised position to the RAC for review and comment and instead drafted his own input, largely ignoring tne RAC comments from the meeting.
W.
arus Em rgency P aredness Section Chief
()
()
e f'e
e f'e
                                                                                        -e v ~-         L i
-e v ~-
                                                                                        / c; 5
L i
/ c; 5
L
L
{\                                                                                                             \
{\\
    \_/                                                                                                             l ENCLOSURE 2}}
\\
\\_/
ENCLOSURE 2}}

Latest revision as of 22:19, 6 December 2024

Staff Exhibit S-3,consisting of Memo Discussing Background Re Recent FEMA I Radiological Assessment Coordinator Meetings on Plant Beach Population Issues
ML20207C374
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  
Issue date: 05/18/1988
From: Lazarus W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Sherwin Turk
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
OL-S-003, OL-S-3, NUDOCS 8808090182
Download: ML20207C374 (3)
v • d • e


Text

.

= 'l. o b0~ W.

// Yy -6 d.

4

%ke OCT 151S07 g-3 y

00(HT ten 13Nhc V

MEMORANDUM FOR:

St TURK, OGC

  • 88 Jtt.19 p5 37 FROM:

W. LAZARUS, EP SECTION CHIEF, NRC REGION I

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND CONCERNING RECENT FEM 4 I RAC MEE ONNRNYNY' SEABROOK BEACH POPULATION ISSUES NW I attended two RAC meetings in the past few months in FEMA Region I that were called by Mr. Ed Thomas, the RAC Chairman to address the issue of the adequacy of the New Hampshire RERP for the protection of the so-called "Seabrook beach population".

The first meeting was held on April 15, 1987.

To the best of my recollection all of the principal RAC members (DOE, EPA, 007, DOA, and HHS) were present, plus two representatives from NOAA, as the discussions were to include meteorological aspects of plume dispersion and expected wind and weather patterns typical of the Seabrook beach areas during the summer months.

(I am technically not the RAC member for the NRC, however I have been working closely with Bob Bores, (who is the official NRC Region ! RAC member for Seabrook) on this issue and felt it appropriate to attend the RAC meetings).

During the April 15th meeting, Bob Bores' submittal regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire Plan for the beach population was the main subject for discussion.

After a discussion of the various aspects of the NH Plan (early closure of the beaches, and the capability to make PA announcements frcm the plant control room on the beach sirens to provide protective action g

recommendations for fast breaking accidents), the beach meteorology, and Bob Bores' submittal, it appeared that the RAC agreed that the Plan was adequate.

Subsequent to that meeting Bob Bores' redrafted his submittal in consultation with NRR and OGC to remove any reference to Seabrook site specific design features (double containment, etc.).

The second meeting was held on July 30, 1987 to discuss the issue in light of the changes to the NRC RAC comments.

The same RAC members were in attendance less the NOAA representatives.

At this meeting Mr. Thomas clearly pointed out that he was ignorant of any of the technical aspects of nuclear power, indicating that he depended upon the technical expertise of the RAC members.

The elimination of reference to site specific design f eatures appeared to be particularly troublesome to Ed Thomas.

During the meeting I pointed out that elimination of the site l

specific information regarding plant design features should have no bearing on a finding of adequacy for the Plan because those features only impacted the probability of an accident.

Since emergency plans must provide for protection

]

from a spectrum of accidents without regard to their probability,. W 4 p e must assume that an accident happens and then determine whether the plans provide reasonable assurance of protection.

On the issue of sheltering, which was discussed at length, I pointed out that sheltering only provides about a 10%

reduction in dose for a fast breaking accident, and would not be depended upon for protection in a severe fast breaking accident, which was the scenario which appeared to be Ed Thomas' principle concern.

I then asked Mr. Thomas to poll the RAC members to determine whether they felt that the New Hampshire RERP provide reasonable assurance that beach population would be protected.

He declined, so I asked for a show of hands for my own information.

All those 8808090182 890518 PDR ADOCK 05000443 ENCLOSURE 2 G

PDR

POe g

g O

..o I

O e\\ \\\\

bn it

\\ \\\\

wN z

b$

\\

\\

g<000\\ 0 <., u 8

p3

!! ?. 2 s

i O

t i

5 k

't

?

\\ \\

s z(

\\ \\ \\\\\\,

q i

m

\\

a z !;

( ol e

-,,--,----c-

At o'

t OCT 15 1987 j

i present rxcept FEMA indicated that they found the plans to be adequate with respect to the beach population (apparently agreeing that reliance on sheltering for the beach population in the case of a serious release was not appropriate).

At that point Mr. Thomas indicated that he was tired and wanted to adjourn the meeting.

He would take into account our discussions and have the FEMA contractor rework the RAC position on the issue and send it out for comment.

With that in mind the meeting was adjourned.

He did not follow up on his commitment to provide a revised position to the RAC for review and comment and instead drafted his own input, largely ignoring tne RAC comments from the meeting.

W.

arus Em rgency P aredness Section Chief

()

e f'e

-e v ~-

L i

/ c; 5

L

{\\

\\

\\_/

ENCLOSURE 2

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20207C374&oldid=4040723"