ML20126C211
| 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
~ :
h k
s-DISTRIH1 TION:
Central File SD-Mg, SD-ALP!R SHS-Mg.
ESB-Mg.
ESB-SUB7.
%gl
'O C
. 2 J~
6g i
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 SD:ESB
- AD E
,,,,c,,
ekey/jh JKas ava a= *
.3/11/76..
_.3/}7B6 3// M6__
Form MC 318 (Rev. 9 53) MCM 0240 W u. s. oovanwnesnt eninvino opricas tere.ess.ess 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 We the paper, which is a comparison of codels and field measurements.
suggest that.the introduction consist of a short statement to the effect that environmental monitoring prograns require the use of models and e
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 It l
6.
Page 20, line 3 and line 14 - Appendix I does not contain limits.
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 ym,,','y
..-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 s