1 2 3 7-24-86 ACKS SUBECMM. 10 regional assistance committee? What is that? MR. PEROTTI: The regional assistance committee is the committee made up of nine federal agencies of which the NRC is a participant. We have a NRC Region 1 representative on that committee. The committee is chaired by FEMA Region 1. 5 6 7 8 And they assist and coordinate among the federal agencies and assist the state, in this case, both 9 10 11 12 13 states, in developing and upgrading the off-site emergency response plans. Our NRC Region 1 frequently meets with these other member, committee members to discuss all of their efforts. 17 18 19 MR. PEROTTI: To the best of my recollection, just looking at the emergency planning zones depicted in that plan, it seems something on the order of six to se ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Washington, D. C. (202) 347-3700 3 MR. OKRENT: I remember that. But we are now talking about under what basis would you change it? And, so, therefore you have to relook at what was the basis for 4 5 6 the original one and then think about on what basis would you change it. MR. REMICK: Dave, I agree with what you are saying. My understanding from the subcommittee, though, is that there is no request at this moment to revise the emergency planning zone. What has been submitted is an update of their PRA, and asking: Look at it. In that there is some kind of innovative thinking along that which you are thinking, which I strongly support the idea that the Staff and the Commission should think out. In fact, one of the things that the subcommittee -- I -on a paper that I just heard on the philosophical approaches to emergency planning. I agree with you. My understanding was the Staff has no specific requests so they are not at the moment looking at reducing emergency planning zone. recommended MR. OKRENT: But let's face it. They wouldn't be reviewing this PRA at this time if they didn't think there was something like a change in the prior guidelines for emergency planning in the wind. Otherwise, I would like them to tell me why they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 28464.0 BRT 10-10-86 ACRS COMMITTEE 461 1 2 in setting emergency procedures? Distances and so forth. And then what are the general quantitative considerations 3 that you think would apply, if, in fact, there are some? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 It seems to me one should do that before going into what I consider to be a very detailed question of differences between calculating whole body dose and things to organs, or even the comparisons for a specific reactor. I would hope the Staff develops some kind of safety philosophy, if it hasn't, that it uses to guide itself in decisionmaking concerning these matters. And there was another reactor, if I recall correctly, that was proposing to propose a reduced emergency evacuation zone radius. So it is not shouldn't be altogether, you know, something new for the Staff to think about. I'm speaking for myself but let me strongly suggest that you try to develop some, what I'll call general philosophy in this regard, and then some, what you might call generic quantitative guidelines, before trying to make an ad hoc decision on a specific case. I'll leave it at that. MR. MOELLER: Dr. Okrent, at the subcommittee 22 meeting I prepared a summary I prepared for my own use of 2 23 0654, and within it - 24 I'm not saying it answers your question but within it they do give a basis for the 25 selection of the plume 10-mile distance, and the injection ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 28464.0 BRT 10-10-86 ACRS COMMITTEE 463 1 2 are taking time away from other tasks like finding out how good a Mark 2 containment is, et cetera? Okay. I can 3 rattle off several on which I think there's absent 4 5 6 7 information for resolution. MR. LONG: Just to say one thing, here, there is work in the Commission to reconsider the emergency planning criteria techniques. A lot of this is involved with the 8 9 new source term work, this sort of thing. I think that has been an ongoing program for a few years. 10 The other plant that you mentioned, I believe, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 was Calvert Cliffs. MR. OKRENT: Yes. MR. LONG: Calvert Cliffs came in based only on, you know, the desire to include the new source terms and to see what benefit that would give them in reducing their emergency planning burden. Seabrook hasn't made any sort of a request like that and we don't feel we are in a position to, let's say, complete the generic look we are taking in our generic planning regulations, in an expedited way, to handle a 21 potential request coming in from Seabrook. We are not working in that way. We are taking a look at the technical material that Seabrook gave us to see if we see any large flaws in it and that's a fairly limited study. It's not a very detailed study at this point. In other words we are 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 8464.0 SRT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10-10-86 ACRS COMMITTEE 452 in containment sprays, and yet LERS show that those do not always function properly. They have used a WASH-1400 source term in their calculations. They have used a CRACIT code which is an improved version of the CRAC code. It can handle continuous releases. They also use the MAP computer code in their assessment and the subcommittee raised the point on that, that thus far it is unavailable to the NRC. As we - for detailed analysis. I noted that they still use the whole body and thyroid dose limits which are part, as I recall, of 10 CFR 100, rather than the newer ICRP weighted factors, which The two reports that we looked at have both been reviewed by outside an outside, independent group of experts in each case, and these experts concurred with the results of the findings. However, when we asked in terms of the containment, I questioned why there wasn't a containment expert on the independent review groups, and they pointed out that the Staff, NRC Staff, through a contract with Brookhaven National Laboratory, is reviewing that aspect. So it will be reviewed. pointed out, their results show that the Seabrook Station's |