[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Emergency Planning Exercises -Reply
Gee............I wonder if you will get any replys.....
ILY
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Emergency Planning Exercises -Reply
Author: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date: 4/8/96 12:51 PM
Jim and Sandy are exactly right. I was fortunate enough to have worked
at Three Mile Island, with George Giangi and some excellent contractors
from Energy Incorporated (Idaho Falls, ID) developing the very first
emergency plan and implementing procedures based on NUREG 0654/FEMA REP
-1. When we finished writing the plan, and about 60 procedures, we
exercised them. I wish we had exorcised them. We found that to make
anything work, to meet the offsite objectives, to get the release
limits up to the point that offsite monitoring teams had anything to
do, except pick their noses and b###@ we had to make some of the most
outlandish "failures" that could ever be seen. Since then, I have
written and carried out exercise scenarios at Southern California
Edison (SONGS), Louisiana Power & Light (Waterford III), Northern
States Power (Monti and Prairie Island), South Texas Project (STPEGS),
Grand Gulf, and a few others I can not even remember. To reach these
releases, we have failed containment air locks, failed open target rock
valves and supplemental closure valves, blown containment reliefs due
to stuck PORVS, and every other STUPID MEANS POSSIBLE sometimes
exceeding even the imagination of some game writer for NINTENDO, JUST
TO MEET THE EXERCISE SCENARIOS. Realism be damned.
We have failed valves that could be closed by hand in minutes and had
the poor maintenance people stymied on why they could not close a
valve that they tested or stroked every month or so. However, in all
this, the media, just as they did today when Palo Verde finally got
that fuel bundle unstuck reported "No radioactivity was released from
the plant". If we, the hp society do not begin to stand up, and tell
the media, and the feds, and the locals that the scenarios we paint,
CAN NOT happen under normal operations (remember everyone, Chernobyl
is in Mother Russia, not Wisconsin (sorry about that Wisconsin, but I
love the name of your state)) we will continue to be guilty of
harboring and even enhancing the dangerous state of nuclear power.
AND WE WILL NEVER GET A LICENSE TO BUILD ANOTHER POWER PLANT IN THIS
OR ANY OTHER CENTURY!
Sorry, did not mean to preach to the choir, but after 16 years (yes we
wrote the first scenario in 1980) of writing scenarios and trying to
get the regulators to understand realism, I am about to give up and
move to a shack in Montana (I understand there may be one for lease
real soon!) (Ultimately big grin ! ! !) Thanks for providing this
method of speaking out. I hope that just one radsafer that reads this
(beside Jim and Sandy) knows where I am coming from, and maybe have
the ear of a regulator that can make the appropriate changes.
To all who took the time to read all of this, best regards, and I bid
you peace!
Ron Goodwin
Senior Health Physicist
Ohio Department of Health
Bureau of Radiation Protection
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Emergency Planning Exercises -Reply
Author: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date: 4/8/96 11:02 AM
Sandy --
As a representative of one of those "governmental agencies"
that you spoke of, I couldn't agree with you more. Several
years ago, when FEMA first proposed that all radiological
exercises had to result in off-site doses of 1 rem whole body
/ 5 rem thyroid or greater in order to drive offsite protective
actions, we -- along with several of our colleagues, raised
holy hell. We pointed out that this requirement, along with
other "guidance" provided by FEMA, reinforces in the minds
of many otherwise reasonable people that every time
something abnormal occurs at a nuclear plant (which may or
may not result in the declaration of a Notification of Unusual
Event) that the event will escalate, eventually resulting in
massive releases of radioactive material and requiring
protective actions for the general public. Empirical evidence,
however, is contrary to the above.
I have long personally been an advocate of a concept known
as "exercise realism" -- in which the event may or may not
progress through all the emergency classes -- which may or
may not result in core damage -- which may or may not
result in releases of radioactive materials to the environment
-- and which may or may not require offsite protective
actions. We are working with one of our utilities now to set
up such a "realistic" exercise for the NRC/FEMA "off year" --
and the biggest concern is how to adequately demonstrate
certain portions of the emergency plan -- both onsite and
offsite.
Jim Hardeman, Manager
Environmental Radiation Program
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
4244 International Parkway, Suite 114
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-2675 fax: (404) 362-2653
Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
>>> <sandy_perle@email.fpl.com> 04/08/96 08:37 >>>
I'd also like to emphasize a very important point that Regis
Greenwood made, that to exercise the governmental
agencies we ultimately release more radioactivity from the
plant that is feasibly or realistically possible. This gives the
false conclusion to the governmental agencies that this is a
real possibility, which it is not. Worse than that, we have to
play the game when dealing with the real media,
newspapers, TV and radio individuals that are in the
Emergency news Center, and they go away believing that the
scenario and results of radioactivity releases is in fact real.
THAT is the worse problem with emergency exercises. It is
an educational issue that needs to be continually stressed
with the media prior to and following a drill. Unfortunately, the
media is constantly changing, therefore the educational
needs must be met on a continual basis.