ML20126C211

Forwards Comments on EPA Draft Rept, Air Pathway Exposure Model Validation Study at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

ML20126C211
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/18/1976
From:	Kastner J NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:	Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 9212220422
Download: ML20126C211 (3)

Text

&> a e -v ~ :

, , k ,

s- h DISTRIH1 TION:

Central File SD-Mg,

. SD-ALP!R SHS-Mg.

ESB-Mg.

ESB-SUB7.

- i %gl

'O C . 2 J~ 6g N N 1

Imo B. Higginbotham, Chiaf Safety ard Emria.w.e.saal Picwumidi Branch i

Office of Inspection and Enforcemmt i

! REVIZH OF EPA PIINE E'IUDY AT !{NTIrvnn 5

j As you requasted in your memo dated March 4r 1976, we have reviewed i

the EPA draft report " Air Pathway Exposure Model Valhtien Study at j

l the Mxthllo Nts::laar Generating Plant." Our coments are attached.

Jacob Kastner, Chief Envirervaantal Standards Branch Office of Standards De % ad, bcc: B. Weiss, IE J. Hickey j H. Peterson

! J. Kastner I. C. Rnberts I

4 i

Task No: N /it

,,,,c,,  :- SD:ESB :AD E .

ava a=

• ekey/jh JKas _

. . , . * .3/11/76.. _.3/}7B6 3// M6__ _ . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . .

W u. s. oovanwnesnt eninvino opricas tere.ess.ess Form MC 318 (Rev. 9 53) MCM 0240 9212220422 760318

! PDR ADOCK 05000263-P PDR

ee

• m_

i .

Co. aments of Enviro:. ment:21 E . ahtds Branch, Of fice of Standards Development

., on j EPA Draf t Report, " Air Pathway Exposure Model Validation i

Study at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant."

)

1. The Introduction includes a lengthy discussion of proposed rules changes, the function of EPA and NRC, etc. This discussion is irrelevant to '

the paper, which is a comparison of codels and field measurements. We suggest that.the introduction consist of a short statement to the effect e that environmental monitoring prograns require the use of models and measurements which are reliable down to exposures of a few milliroentgen per year. As a minimum, the Introduction should be rewritten to t reflect the final Appendix I, since the proposed rules described in the Introduction are now obsolete. '.

J

2. The last sentence on page 2 refers to data provided according to Regulatory Guide 1.21. We suggest the Introduction be more specific on the type and format of data used, since (1) not all reactors follow l

Regulatory Guide 1.21, (2) the average reader might not be familiar - \

with the details of the guide, and (3) *there may be different inter-pretations as to what Regulatory Guide 1.21 requests.

3. The first paragraph of section V-B should clearly state that gacea expoante rates and concentrations of ".e-133 were predicted by the

~-

ciodel, . The u t rap m e.h e i ; f.'  ;  % i La that other thPy.

such as beta dosco, whole body doses, or inhalation doses are being calculated, bec,ause (1) the Introduction discusses Appendix I requirements, (2) one modol is named AIRD(, and -(3) on pages 16 and j t

20 the abbreviation for roentgen is incorrect.

l

4. Page 3, last paragraph .* It should be stated whether all radiciodines

- were excluded with particulates. ,

9

5. Page 8, last paragraph'- It should be clarified whether any radio-  !

i nuclides were excluded from the input to the models. This paragraph  ;

raises the question as to whether minor radionuclides were' ignored. .

9 l 6. Page 20, line 3 and line 14 - Appendix I does not contain limits. It specifies design objectives. .

I

7. Page 20, last line -The meaning ot " estimate extreme violations l .

of Appendix I Guides" is unclear, We.suggest this phrase be changed _

I to " detect conditions where doses are substantially above design objectives given in Appendix 1".

l

} .

i T

F r

P

~~

I , -]..

L a

+

.- A

,, , ..-v wn---. - n u.wna w - m ..ww..rw,-,m-+--,,,, v s , ~~ , y,k .,,re, -.ge, , -w.y -

n n . - +4-eu r- m4 - ,,.sm, t en ~- e ym,,','y s , . . , ,