April 20th, 2011 – PLE Re-entry criteria – EPA PAG Manual – Fukushima Re-Entry Paper

Author: No Comments Share:

From: Merzke, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:43 PM
To: Virgilio, Martin
Cc: Milligan, Patricia; Andersen, James
Subject: Summary of Meeting w/ Patty Bubar re: Re-Entry Criteria

Marty,

I met with Patty and Andrea this afternoon to try to answer questions they had on the PLE re-entry criteria paper, the EPA PAG Manual, and the Fukushima re-entry paper. Trish was unavailable, so I did my best to address their questions.

One issue that Patty said she would speak to you about is on the Fukushima re-entry paper. CMR Magwood is concerned that it looks like an NRC policy paper, which includes criteria like infrastructure, which is outside NRC expertise. Patty made a recommendation that the paper have some context.

The suggestion was that the paper should start out by stating this is a staff-generated paper developed at the request of the U.S. Ambassador/GOJ/whoever, to recommend criteria for U.S. citizens to reenter the area inside 50 miles, or words to that effect. That will make it clear that it is not a Commission endorsement of the recommendations being made.

Andrea also thought it should be clear that it is an interagency paper, not just an NRC product. I was asked if the Commission would see the paper before it goes out, and I couldn’t answer that.

Patty said that they’ve spoken to Pete Lyons at DOE concerning the PLE re-entry criteria to get his support. Apparently NNSA briefed him that EPA said that the criteria being recommended were just a starting point, so it was downplayed considerably. She said he’s willing to support us, but he doesn’t appear to be sufficiently informed. Patty asked if staff is trying to work any coalitions with other agencies to build a consensus on optimization. I told her Scott Morris told me they’re working on doing just that, but I didn’t have any specifics.

The other question was on the timeline for sending the EPA letter stating our non-concurrence on the draft PAG Manual. They think it’s important that it be done prior to the Deputies meeting on the PLE document.

The need will become more manifest based on the results of your meeting with EPA tomorrow. It was ticketed to be due next week, which will be prior to the Deputies meeting.

Dan


Previous Article

April 14th, 2011 – Fukushima Daiichi Units 1, 2, and 3 Chronologies of Status

Next Article

April 18th, 2011 – This is different from the water sampling video that we obtained from TEPCO