ML20040H234
| ML20040H234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040H227 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-OS, TASK-SS-926-4 REGGD-01.023, REGGD-1.023, NUDOCS 8202170479 | |
| Download: ML20040H234 (8) | |
Text
,n
'. ~
FINAL VALUE/ IMPACT STATEMENT 1.
PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Description The proposed action consists of the revision of Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23) to update the recommendations for establishing and operating the meteorological programs at nuclear power plant sites.
The meteorological programs are necessary to measure and collect meteorological information that is used in estimating potential radiation doses to the public resulting from actual routine releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and to estimate either potential doses to the public as a result of a hypothetical reactor accident or actual doses in the case of a real accident.
1.2 Need for Proposed Action Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs," was originally issued as Safety Guide 23 in February 1972.
Consequently, much of the infor.
mation provided in the guide is obsolete, having been made so by changes in the state of the art in meteorological measurement technology and by changes
~
discussed in the guide in the meteorological evaluation procedures in which the meteorological data are to be used.
Long term improvements in emergency preparedness outlined in the Task Action Plan (see Item III.A.2 of NUREG-0737)'
and criteria outlined in NUREG-0654 and -0696 necessitate the availability of guid'nce to deal with the meteorological measurements requirements.
The time,
a table for compliance was graded to minimize the impact on licensees; however, the milestone for submittal of plans demonstrating compliance is due by April 1982.
A revision of this guide is deemed necessary, therefore, to strengthen the guidance in an area shown to be weak as a result of the Three Mile Island
(*
experierce and to update othe areas that are obsolete and of little or no l
l value to, users.
l l
4 (0202170479 020216 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR 23 PDR
o 1.3 Value/ Impact of Proposed Action l
1.3.1 NRC The meteorological capabilities requn ed to implement current emergency f
pt ns for operating reactors and OL applicants include measurement programs to represent the plant vicinity and area through the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone.
The integration of this function with the various planning standards of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 had been outlined in NUREG-0654, -0696, and -0737.
This regulatory guide provides detailed guidance on measurement
'l N programs and will be used as a basis for the staff evaluation of the adequacy of emergency plans.
As part of the ongoing staff review this guide will con- -
tinue to be used as a basis for other licensing actions.
i As noted in the aforementioned NUREG documents, when systems are installed that comply with the guidance, the necessary meteorological and dose projection information will be accessible by appropriate offsite agencies charged with the protection of the health and welfare of the public.
The NRC operations centersrespondingtoincidentswillhaveaccesstounambiguousinformationin!
rapid fashion that will permit the evaluation of potential'offsite consequence.
in a time frame that may result in dose savings actions.
Additional benefits to the NRC are gained with the publication of this 1
guide as inquiries related to current practice would be minimized.
The use of the unrevised guide with obsolete or insufficient guidance increases the
~
burden on the staff with repetitious discussions that could be much abbreviated.
I 1.3.2 Other Government Agencies l
Applicantagencies(e.g.,TVA)wouldbeaffectedasdiscussedinSectiong 1.3.3.
Upon completion of the proposed action, other agencies will have a current reference document describing the NRC's recommendations concerning meteorological measurement programs at nucl:.ar power plant sites.
Shouldtheg remote-access capability recommendation be implemented, agencies (Federal,
{
State, and local) that may be involved in a radiological emergency at a nuclear power plant will be assured of rapid access to meteorological data to assess.
and monitor onsite and offsite consequences and make recommendations for taking protective measures.
i 24
1.3.3 Industry Industry will benefit by having available a current source of information concerning NRC recommendations for establishing and operating the meteorological measurement programs at nuclear power plant sites.
Costs to industry will result from having to become familiar with the product document.
It is anticipated that studies will cost approximately $100,000 to $200,000 at those coastal sites and $100,000 at those valley sites where it is necessary to characterize anomalous mesoccale airflow and diffusion conditions.
For a nuclear power facility which does not have any meteorological measurement program, the total estimated cust of purchasing, siting and installing.the necessary equipment to meet the recom-mendations of this guide may range from $250,000 to $500,000 depending on the complexity of the site.
A substantial number of facilities currently have primary systams which are expected to require only minor modifications.
Upgrades of meteorological measurement systems for emergency preparedness con-siderations are not isolated since a portion of the necessary equipment is expected to be part of an integrated system in conjunction with emergency These response facility hardware which is outside the scope of this guide.
cost estimates include the Durchase and installation of meteorolooical data disclavs such as strio chart vernrders ne the incromant al enct nf enmnoter teletven terminals which need hp nniv nno crall nart of a much larcer emer-cency preparedness capability.
Telemetry, microwave, hard wire, telephone line and satellite installations. etc.
are alternative means of data trans-mission and display which reouire site soecific estimates.
Supplemental systems, primarily consisting of 10-meter masts with limited instrumentation i
are estimated to cost $20,000 to $30,000 per installation.
The benefit to industry resulting from the installation of such a capability will be the ability to provide emergency response groups involved in an accident situation with meteorological data representative of the site vicinity, even if the f
onsite recorders are inaccessible.
1.3.4 Public l
l The,public will. bear the monetary costs of completing and implementing the proposed action.
In addition, the costs incurred by the utilities from the installation and operation of the remote-access capability, if implemented, would be expected to be passed on to the consumers of electric power in the 25 n
- i form of higher rates.
In return, the public will benefit by an increased assurance that meteorological information representative of the site, which might prove crucial in an emergency situation, will be available to emergency response groups.
The public will also benefit from the availability of a current reference document that presents the NRC's recommendations concerning meteorological measurement programs at nuclear power plant sites.
1.4 Decision on Proposed Action The proposed action should be accomplished on a priority basis.
2.
TECHNICAL APPROACH The alternative methods of accomplishing the proposed action are to per-form the work in-house or initiate a technical assistance contract with an independent contractor.
2.1 Discussion and Comparison of Technical Alternatives The information and expertise needed to revise the guidegct currently l.
available within the NRC. The amount of work necessary to accomplish the pro-posed action is of limited extent and can be performed in-house within the anticipated time frame without adversely impacting on other task requirements.
Considerable time would be expended on the initiation and completion of a tech-nical assistance contract with an independent contractor.
Although staff time expended on direct work on the proposed action would be eliminated by contract-ing the task, additional staff time would be required to prepare and issue a contract and monitor contractor performance.
2.2 Decision on Technical Alternatives Since the information and expertise to accomplish the proposed action exist within the NRC, the completion of the task in-house is the most benefi- {f cial technical alternative.
26
3.
PROCEDURAL APPROACH Since the proposed action is an update of information contained in an existing regulatory guide, the only appropriate procedural approach is a revi-f sion to the existing guide.
4 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Authority Authority for this guide would be derived from the sa'fety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act through the Commission's regulations.
In particular, paragraph 100.10(c)(2) of 10 CFR Part 100 states that, in determining the accept-ability of a site for a power or test reactor, the Commission will take into consideration meteorological conditions at the site and in the surrounding area.
Appendix E, " Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities," to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that applicants for an operating license develop plans
.for coping with radiological emergencies. The plans must include criteria for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health, safety, and property.
In this regard, it is necessary for the applicant to establish and maintain a meteorological program capable of rapidly assessing critical meteorological parameters.
Paragraph 50.47 of 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utili-zation Facilities," requires nuclear power plant licensees to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
In developing the onsite and offsite emergency response plans, licensees should provide that "(a)dequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite con-sequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use."
Further, para-graph 50.36a(a)(2) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires nuclear power plant licensees to submit semiannual reports specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in gaseous effluents and such other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential doses to the public resulting from these releases to ensure com-pliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
A knowledge of meteor-ological conditions in the vicinity of the plant is necessary to make these 27
i i
I estimates.
Finally, in order for the Commission to fulfill its responsibil-ities under NEPA and in accordance with the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and of 10 CFR Part 51, meteorological information must be avail-able for use in assessing potentially adverse environmental effects resulting from the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant.
4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment The proposed action is not a major action as defined by paragraph 51.5(a)(10) of 10 CFR Part 51 and does not require an environmental impact statement.
5.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICIES No potential conflicts with other agencies have been identified.
The product document will be used in the implementation of 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 51, and 10 CFR Part 100 as described above.
The guidance in the proposed revision will be consistent with that in Regulatory Guide 1.70,
" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition," Regulatory Guide 4.2, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations," Regulatory Guide 1.3, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.4, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolent Accident for i'ressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.21, " Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radio-active Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.97, " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident," Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating k Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," and Regulatory Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants." Tha cuidance in the proposed revision will also be consistent with Revision 1 of NUREG 0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of V @
28
=oi f
\\
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0696, " Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facil-ities,"andNUREG-0737,"ClarificationoItheTMIActionPlanRequirements."
Regulatory Guide 3.8, " Preparation df Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills," references the meteorological measurement program and data format presented in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
Since the revised meteorological measure-ment programs described in proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.23 may not be appropriate for most uranium mills, a recommendation to make changes in'.
Regutory Guide 3.8 was made during the comment resolution process.
Guidance concerning meteorological measurement programs is being deve oped for uranium fuel processing and waste storage and disposal f5cilities.
Backfitting requirements will result from the implementation of the remote-access capability at those installations where the data reduction systems do not presently have such a capability.
Potential backfitting costs are discussed above.
6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS A revision to Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs,"
should be prepared.
This revision should be done in-house.
A 29
e S
01/21/82' r-s
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES s
c Changes made as a result of discussions with CRGR and support staff
,s Change number Description of change 6, 26 Wording changes to clarify recommendations which apply specifically to emergency j
preparedness 11, 16, 23, 24 Deletion of recommendations specifically I
concerning backup systems 14, 15 Wording changes to clarify recommendations concerning supplemental measurement system -
17, 19, 38, 39 Deletion of references to this proposed Revision updating Regulatory Guide 1.97, since a January 15, 1982 memo from F. Arsenault to K.
Goller requests changes in Guide 1.97 Deletion of data availability objective of 995.
21 explicitly and related changes 25 Wording changes to clarify apparent meteorological data display discrepancies Insertionofcostestimatesformeteorologicah 35 data display in control room, EOF, TSC Changes made as the result of discussions with ACRS Change number Description
+
3, 4 Movement of material which had been in an appendix into Section B (Material which had been inithis section was already in the Value/ Impact State-ment) 8 Provide a method of evaluating compliance of I regional meterological data availability redom-mendation L
27 Reiteration of footnote on page 9 for emphasis
[
Other changes Change number Description 1
Major reason for changes in the operational meteorological program 2
Statement of the objective of issuing the proposed
~
Revision
t' 3
.g a s* Editorial changes Change number Description 5
" Program" changed to " systems" 7
"An example" changed to " examples" 9
" Siting" changed to " location" 10
" Consist of" changed to " include" 12 Deletion of sentence about measurements made at 60m level (Suggested by ACRS) 13 Insertion of "plahned" 18, 19 Renumbering of footnote 20 Insertion of " operation objectives" 22 Insertion of clarifying footnote 26, 29-33 Relettering of appendix 28 Rewording for clarity (Suggested by ACRS) 34, 36, 37 Correction of typos, grammatical errors