ML20207S235
| ML20207S235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/19/1978 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207S219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703190167 | |
| Download: ML20207S235 (8) | |
Text
- __ _ _ . - -
!. '. c. .
. . . - *'. ,. .i .-,,- ,
..?. !.G 1 . 4 , * /.:.h.4 ;*w*hT. ,,.?
.. ;.,.,..... . ., .: .; .- a . . . = . ..: ; ?;-'.=, . a, ;.L,,,, L.,% :.: 24 %,Q.,;,;: ' .' G.C". '.,,;,"l" :.'. ;. , .
.i.. . . ~,.; ..- . . .a
-a.. .n ~i.d.~._:~5i .+.U=. _= W~5._S &. M5. . -[M,W Q, W
.. -- . . . . - .. . . _ 3_ Y,W , ,S.. g - h . *~~3.:I. , . ,
...m..r Q. L.y,,;z.::,
i* -
- a. 94..n .n y.T
- ;W- .m p_,..? a. n.
j
, _. ~ .
, , g 77. .. . .q.% .
. . - , .. c r. % ..m.,m%_.
,.;_. .,,__., _._;. , _. g . w gg . m .. ,7 ,,
. . ~ . ,w.p.:: -
. .. . -- . .. ;; s . . . .
~ - ~* ' ' - ' g - - #^- . . ;
.JUN 19 5979..rs~~ ' - ~~
~
. _ g r ,:. . - . ci=., a
. . . . c . :. r . . .:._..; m .... .. g%__. a...2._. . _...
,._. m._. _ y .m 4, p ui.i g ipz,c r.7._ 4m m_ym_.u.. . _. y f, _,..
..,,....m.._._._. _ ._. _ m . n_ _. . _-
-~ _ .-. _ - _ - -
____ . m...._
.=..;
. , ._ _. se.
a u 4s -
- - - - _ - - - - - - _ __ . . . . . -_ . - = -
- _..ag,,, m . . . .,. .; ... .,as.4msas..a. _
me.A..ma. a.ssa,.es.er
_. . e w.e. _u_g'?.G l c.w2...rh. W x.p ). .rch1 .m&e_p. ,.
,=.1.; .
Q Ay.g ~.:.:
1 1
- . y .
- c . . . ~ . . e M,&.k. ...:3...;f.5 i. :j.y;h.p.' .,k -
z.. .m- :.;,e.: c.y _ _ y y .*y. -m .;.-: a
.._..a.~.k. ..-.. _..n.-.p
. . .-3. - , _w.
... a = . .- = r x- ; = .=.-
.;;m a.= E ORANDUM FOR:_Sarold R..Denton .. . a. . .- Director D1yision.of 51teJafetya;:W%
1.p . . . e .. N 'tand EnvironmentaI Analysis..*NANMSMM=~ - . =-w: -
~
~
- n -- -
~,
THRU:
i -
w_._,;., . . ... ._ _'_ _' _ .. '- DSERichard H. Vol1mer. ' "'" Assistant'hfrectorlor~ W -' ---- - - Si u.. 9. s , . . + ,..,...
. ~
..,~.,. ---- ...+.w_ .my.w, . ...g..9_.p.g.g.pg . . . - . _ -.- ,3. %_ . . ,w ~
- . _ .o. . . ,
~ ~ ~~-'~~ D; T. Sunchi Chl_ef,~AEtdentJna15fEBranch;~M _.,.;3 _.
. ~
i ~-1 . FROM: _.
. = w :.wi=:.h = LL W 'u.= M K = W JE L
! ___ - SLEJECT:. -
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE ?ATICSPHERIC. DISPERSION JGDELS_J '"ee
., .m . A- FOR POTENTIAL ACCIDENT COMSEQUENCE,ASSESSEtR,AT,;-eK=g,;. l i
s.
_..m m-i . 3_ .._.-.._s. = ~* ?m N'
- ~. ..- .- e- --
ann. . >E.. . .- - . ._ POWER PNS*_ -W- - - -
, - - - =.
i .
-- _ :n ---~.-:- -
, a u . - _ ,. -
_ ..n Etth respect to the~~ June 12. letter os the~ab6ve's6bJFct s~ent.Td'theACRs ~
.I
'~~ I would suggest .that the ACRS be advised .that ther.e basi.been"s~ubstantial, - ~
disagreement among the NRC staff on the positions advanced in the guide. 4. .,.
I
.;f Further they should be aware that the , guide as written has a niseber of_r.@ .9;;, :
. . . imajor deficiencies, some of which have not been discussed in.'. prior discuss '--
i ;.--- . 1ons with .the RRRC on this subject. TI.have a' number 0f comments'en'.this :T"-_~
w,w sversion~which'1 believe should be trancmitted',to the ACRS'so that:they r s :.
j . +2.:s5might have some flavor.of..the type of guestions_that..h ave twen jdentjfjed W a p :-
_ _- nc- n_-. . - - - --_- -
-.w. w-b:~ y. w~.wm-the .a-staff.=.These_-are ,= - : . . y..==.g=:
- _2;-
mew i
-- enclosed.
.::.=r.es g--~~. na.:_- -=.u- -
- ld. -.
- .- - --v: x. = ..,- .- = ..= =
be embraced m
- M. . _ = . - - -M I+ould-note .an.overall -igression'-that:the-positio . ns4 . ..... hat;wou
{ '
Z A= this" guide represent.*'in'the aggregate anschstantjal:?ratchettmer m-%-
~~^",;)y -
practices approved.by Re TllelthC4 i
- - mhe guide ~nor~the'value/gulatory 1gact~ statement staff note'this7por-do management sever'aTjears_ ve~any ~ c -
%' 'nexplanation for adoption of increasingly conservative staff posi ions with7_M.;-
- "--Mime." This trend is remarkable in the face of oury?""
~
t' statements- " ^" *ofy"olicy,#Y '
+WE'_Eregarding Pa.rt.100 -_. dose mod.el.ing and siting."m ~~~:---~-" v
. _ _ - .m . . .=e r___. . 5 my
. _. w.-
r; 3 ..- _. . 7. . ; _ .
3 - .;
l 7%WThe guide in,cludes a worst Sector X/Q criterfon;.g::.f m ;;_-of 0.6Ha an a_ttagEto.gg I d ;miFrectify the results of the new modeli generally,~vith results'from n -w.-e the no
-' direction dependent,~no wind meander model.tliowever both models,"sith all ,=~m~~-
l 7-
.their associated positions.~are far~too ~ conservative,ahd e 'c'~rtainly'far-move r- l r
! .'J_._~.'.""_; conservative than that conte @ lated when fart.;100_was -- . .enacteddit.. note.this"E'i l - - - --
-..1
'"-~-*"****a-**:**** . . -dm u..w .a is - - - - - .- ._.:-y-- . __ -g, _ .- [___.
^^
~*M****=*^^^^ _ ____
a -- e4es - , , , ,
_ ,,,,,,,_,y, ite,pg=.+ j
'v~-
.Q T Y&"**_W"*Q_**[ [ T ?*E;W3in':-g _
- W Th N 'I
{ 4.2.Y%~WIN'T '.M a. O b'.a MO N h.h-d ' s&A* M.**. . . . _m . . .',,, ..', -g,..gx;: ggy.;;_ i _ ,_ ;.s
.~
l f
j .
5 J.
e ,
Cre . C.w _+.s,4,,.e ..., _ = . A e.7 --. g&..--5,.7,, _ m . A _, -w i
l .os.4,- .1.r .
wW n s .#
W-:i.G.;:cEW3E.
v., pa.~s w c - - -- -_ _ - _
Jh . **"t *~
' % *'*- *
- W W "'
'96ii M-
. . - .. .v -.gN' .w G .^^ %.r. .; .T . t J.: *.wt nm>'1:2.** ep -
s.s *K.*: .a..v.*WG*Ter Anw s*Aa.: Mn
.f. h=H.Y**'.,
l i
- _ - . -- . g-
- , . . .M 1 -
l .
B703190167 070313 PDR ORO NRRC PDR
( (
....,...,a.__.,
,ngg.yy. . . . ..
~ . m. n - . ---.. .
7T
-m.
.e,._.._. . ..J.: t.::: . -
im.
em. h. . -. 4., .;u.Jg: _. - . ;? p.g., r WN L,G_,
_-: .R s ._ : M-:.
_ ;_g_,q, : = ^2.- ;;,.. ,..:
. . Harold R. Denton ~ ' ' .
-2 ~
_'_.:.?? $ Q . M._5@,$9.;m.wMd$.__.;p
- . -s ..,. . -,. , .,2 :
p .. , . . x. e g--,. 2: 7- a--.. . _. .,, . __
..___.e.s.
, .t..- .. ..r-c., _ ...r , ,. , , . ..
. ; y. . ,m.
-~ .
- rn.p.g 3..y.; qv7p , .
W because many of the coments by me and others pgn.-1 on the
- - -- concern about so-called technical improvements that..when adopted cause .fyE .
~ 7'Es change in the substance of the Part 100 accident evaluations."d. be'use ~4~ ;;;=p
. :4..of a 0.6 criterion is good in the sense that it attaapts to " normalize' JGig i
-- the new model to the old. It is deficient in that it fails to confront. IW
- ._. the question of whether recent staff practice . - - .
..s.,- is the '.right" -normaltration i:._9..a
. I thin.k..i,.t is not . -r-- _.m . . W, - . ._ . . . . %_. . . m... . ..r~- mx . _. ,
' n.,p= .d.%. 'asis
~ -
.. - . - -. =
~[. ...a..__~ - r..._._-.ia-.. f.[-.: 2,C W n 8 % i M u.; ,;;.Rg _.--.n. q.-Qf gp y,$1Y.;- M :.g d; gag.wrg;;wga.:g.,_ g .g:-.
-4 .y gm . . .yy_x.y _ =
.z .: ., y..m. . . 3 w 9
.....m_ m ~:.;w. _ggm._ .._.,.._ ~..=._- ~.,. wggw et- . yu.
m . :.,.
. . . ... .u .
..-.-,.:..y.-....%-.....,.. ... .. .. . .. .
_pa m ,
. -. D. F. Bunch . Chief *=mp-_ gprrm+ =;f .
7,. s . .,. ..,. -,
is-Branch %w=' 'W-#m.r
. . . _ _ . . . . . . ~ . . . _ . . . _ . . - . _ . . _ .
Accident-Anal _
+-=+- l
. _ -=._.._. . . Division of $ to $afe t
and ____ .;,..m- , e u .a .o. .
s._-_ _ _.
. -= . .Env._iro_.n_m.
ental Analys
._%_ ..z s._~. . .. _
...:...a. . . . : . _ + , aa :.._- ._x,,.
v- t .: ymy- ~;r:., ,cm. yr- ,.,.m.-m4.mawy.mm:g; g--agn ,
Enclosure:
m ~_ . ~ -_ . _ - - .=- , =- ..- cw w - : . ,,,.. _ h c = --
. - -- -- . _-- As s t ated . - _.
~ . . . .
x _
c
.- , .. - _ R. Den se ..a . . .... n.. :..e
-a..-
- . ~.e. m . ~esm..~.. w. ...
m
. :. c. =.;
m.,.,.
n.m.
.x.
Distribut1on
-..c.c . .
, ..-~
L. Ru1 man -. w ..-..-~ -
. r. .. -
- -Cantral FH e . .---w .
s.n .m.~ .:.
- v. . -:. -2.m..
m,%~ .
= e. . . , . wna. cw A, I' - - "e - .L. Beratan -
_ .. .- AAB Reading
..=. .- m _ . .
_. y , c, pny,7ty
-.- r; ~ . ~,,.~ g :,. & ~_.,a_.
~ - - -
^, *-.,~.---e
.._m-_- R. Houston._ww'._. = _- m.. AAB FileDSE Readins- " *- * " --AA-w w .#_.Br. Grimes m,mm .. .. =
W_ =" =_ _ n. ' :w-m," .. * ~ ~T
.r. =_ m-: .. n .h ge.ld.. .m.m m~
.. .-. ., . . ._ g
--.= . ~ -__t - R. D.. 9un.ch. Iollmer,,C ,, ,7, ..,_ _~ - -
~~ = 4dd T.~b.M=.:J&l . . .-_ -.
. _ - -= E-.F.E.h=. .~.
. : . _ c; ..=W-e-r; :-- .-- .w%.
-~-.<m.--- .g.- e =l'-- ---_ - = =- w --c ~"e w. -w. a_a
.. u _= - m . .
- = :.:=. -
._ e- - mn w .
- . . v..=.-.=. ..... = m
.. = ; . _ .=- . =w-.,.
. ~ -
n= - -
w w .. - u .,4 r.~.a.* 1mr.=. - =: -:.
.;,_ == w;.~w ~ w=,-
v c - _
c ~ = _ -
m .-- m~_ - ..~-- .n
+ ms.;;;--a r : - - - F = ::s_ _
- m;_-__2__._.. . .
.m m ._ . ._. #--.mm m.m m . m. . . . . _ _ .w -.-
- -r:-- ;-A
.:e . ,.
. we.c.=
.--...,...-.-n- . .. ,y : %--
~ -M...r.e.. A. #.w,, . . . w, - .,3~. -.--,+.
nw
-,._m.;n,. -3 ~m mwmnn.ya,g---pd%WL.c-.- a _-
-- n - .g.
ZE.G:.w. Cm,dAS.5.,. M&MMEn6MheaM=r- 2"M'P"-4!
q.Em Y2.T GM@v rSi -
. ,:-M. .MSM.27". .'N".N ---
' M ---=- - -- --
-. ,..-~-. . . . ,.. e . = . , . - . ~ ~ -- -m-n r _=_ --=,,
= ..
..-1 t
..a .-,,..-;~.=-.,.. ~~
wasmz--wws r = -- m.
2 a:n w __.
.,.u_.:
..- - .__ u_. w w .- a..w
. _ .-_ .,.m.,
-.. . . . - - ...a._'.- ___7._
.p.. --2*%. . ._._ _ _ _ ,,
= = * . . . . . ..
- . . P m
. % _ _+/h. ,g
,_._._syx.' a. we ,,, p .. .,.,_gp_;--., ..
. y g-
. .m . ;
.a 2,
., . .. - - e......a._
<..m.
. . nn ..i.. .-s ,c. .
m m .
m .e.m.,m w w ,,e.
, ;,g.,; ...my_fRg,
% ~_ ., . ._ w- .
._-_z_-
__. . . . . .- .-.. . _- v.wa 2 .c.w; . . . .
n.._.....---.,.-_~., . - -
. --- - - . . - . - _ - ' .- -. - ~ .
y .- - - - _ m _.=--_.;:. a ... .__ - ..-----
m.A g,, g g .m. _ _
, - .. . ...a.
_;p
.. w.m : : - -_ .. _. . .m _.
.n-_ . . _.: _ .u . . -- --
_._ _- -._..,.._--,,m.-- ,n__.
~ -
_n.g,- _._._ _. _ .
-w ,
-w.%._ , w __w w __ _ _
w r.~..,._.=.
-y
- e - - - -
Nw7
=_u.%.
w-.w m. .,~, , .
',o,~=ww- . ;
_~.+-*m..w,4 ,af,w. w ,m. . .. ___ ___ _ e..,w,u = ~= _m__
., m_ . _._: -. .. ~. m. + .~.c
- 4. . .. n. . .w = = ~ -
m w w a a, w-.g%
~~ .. .- , . . . . , _% _. . .mn... ,,.
-- mw - u s., .
m = _. w . ~.... m . .,.< ....,. m % m ,, .-
1 1 .x
.w.w n m..._.
..., .n
.~.~.
- .~AAB:DSE w.s AD.SA:DSE .
_,.g.. v. . .~.
w -g,p~.a.-m -.e -
'-*N .
v.rm. .ac . P ,.
m" . w --
N.- -
1
! m..- <m.
.4 m . e,.. .Y=n kaf g//f # 0.
. ._ >M w
.;...a.~c:a.; sa , u M. DFBunch/b...-..RHYollmerep
- 7 / (O no ,,,. w
.- w
,.. _ _ . . _a.rwt =ar 1.a-~-
f - ~ . - - * - .
, h ., =W, . . . . . ..
- -- r j
a
$ m .h -~ . -
,,,._. l
- s. ...
m . 7x _-.
i ..
M.g g _,,_g_ ,,__ ,_ _ _
g a. . .g. -M ggg p.-.4 gg..g-g A y,gyy^,.^
^
_,p__ _ py v_
a
- '-- - - =-
n.-y. . . - - . , - , , - - - . . . . . . , , . -
(
+ .
Coments On Draft Regulatory Guide, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants l.
The sentence on lines 17-20 is incorrect as written. 10 CFR Part 100, Paragraph 100.11 refers to a specific evaluation used to judge site suitability and not to design basis accidents generally. The phrase "in accordance with requirements..." is inappropriate in any event (see comment 2 below) and should be deleted. .
- 2. The guide (lines 26-43) states that the methodology should be used in the evaluation of six different accidents.-~There are a variety of events where this guide should not be used (e.g., steam line breaks, ATWS, containment purge etc.). There are some situations where a ,
guidance regarding applicability would be. helpful (for example, should X/Q's resulting from this methodology be used in calculations to aid in determinations of equipment classification in RG 1.26/1.29 - to test the 0.5 rem criterion?) A discussion of these points is needed.
- 3. While there is no specific proscription against non-circular LPZ, the While the language suggestion in line 54 has implications to NRC policy.
on line 54 is, in itself innocuous, the model suggests that an applicant could manipulate LPZ distances by sector, so as to get around problems on defining a population center. The reference to LPZ's should be deleted.
- 4. Revise the words " accident consequence assessments" on line 76 to read ~
"inevaluationsoftheeventsdescribedinRegulatoryGuides123,1.4, 1.24, 1.25, 1.77 and 1.98." (See coments 1 and 2 above).
- 5. The use of a wind speed the same as the higher of two instrument starting speeds (line 88) is clearly non-conservative. Some justification should be provided.
ep b MO w +
g g
a
(
- 6. The assertion regarding the conservatism in use of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> data on lines 100-102 is incorrect and should be deleted. ,
- 7. The use of 10 meter wind speeds for a ground level release appears to be non-conservative. Its use should be justified.
- 8. The use of the lower of two calculated X/Q values (line 147) appears to be non-conservative and should be justified. The explanation referred to in Appendix A does not address this point.
- 9. At one time it was staff practice to give credit for stack velocity ~ ~~ ~~ '
~ ~
in estimating release height (see line 167). Thisop'tionihbuldbe explicitly offered.
- 10. The conditions where a II other than 2 m/s should be used should be explicitly stated (line 181).
- 11. The rationale for selecting the less_ conservative of two calculated X/Q values should be provided (lines 187-189).
- 12. At one time, for sites greater than 2 miles from oceans or large lakes, fumigation was to be used only for the first 30 minutes and good ~~
diffusion conditions for the remaining 1 1/2 hours. '.The current language (line 172-189) is a ratchet in that it requires fumigation for two hours regardless of the site (see also coment 16, below).
This same comment also applicable to position 3b2a (lines 315-319).
- 13. The sentence beginning on line 215 should be deleted.
Staff practice and Part 100 require that the exclusion boundary be well defined in its entirety. As written, the guide infers a practice which is incorrect and contrary to the regulations. , _
'U e e e e .
^
- iC- '~ T i's . ' ~ _
'f ,_ __
(
- - 3 ,
- i. 14. The position advanced in the paragraph beginning on line 219 is highly objectionable. It implies that the 0-2 hour calculation is intended l
to apply to people within the LPZ - which it is not; it suggests an artificial and unnecessary conservatism which unduly pen'alizes the benefits to be obtained from stack releases. It should be deleted in its entirety.
l
- 15. On lines 228 and 229 reference is made to " realistic" accident condi-f
' tions and it is stated that this document provides guidance for such In fact we do not require, nor do assessments (which it does not).
applicant's provide," realistic" assessments in SARs. Rather, it is practice (which we endorse) to identify more realistic parameters for l
various assumptions as opposed to those actually used in design. This whole paragraph should be rewritten to re,flect its intended limited
- application (see Coment 4).
- 16. The use of a limiting X/Q for periods after fumigation is unrealistic l In lieu of this, the physically and an unnecessary conservatism.
r limitingsectorX/Qbasedonthe16 computed 50%X/Qval$es(asobtained from the requirement on lines 236-238) should be used.
l
- 17. The assertion regarding travel time to th,e LPZ is incorrect (lines 295-296). Further, the reason for requiring a greater than two hour dose is other than described and is already explicitly stated in the regulations (see parenthetical phrase in 100,11(a)(2)). This paragraph
' requires revision. -
- 18. The paragraph beginning on line 299 calls for extensive analyses on I
the part of both the staff and the applicant. The value of this level of complexity and effort is not satisfactorily (if at all) addressed in the value/ impact statement. As written, it presents a naive view toward risk and an exaggerated view of meteorology in the assessments l
of accidents. The position advanced in this paragraph should be ,
reconsidered. '
8 e
= . _ . . . . . - . . . = . . . . . - . _ - _ ._ _
(
- 19. " Population dose assessments are not generally performed by the staff in case reviews and are not required of applicants (lines 340-341).
Further, the requirement is presumptive of the information,,to be considered in emergency planning - which is the subject of another Regulatory Guide.
- 20. The document asserts that the guidance reflects current staff practice.
This is not evidently the case. Further, given the great amount of controversy surrounding various elements of this guide, no implementation decision should be made until after the public comments have been con-sidered.
- 21. It has been, recently, staff practice to adjust X/Q's upward where data recovery is < 90%. The staff's position should be explicitly stated.
Coments on Value - Impact Assessment General - As written, the assessment overstates the benefits and under-states (orfailstomention)theimpacts. It fails to provide an adequate basis for a reasoned decision to adopt or require modification of the proposed guide. Selected specific comments beyondthoseontheguide(above),areprovidedbelow:
- 22. There is no evident "need" for a more refined method of the form proposed to guage the effects of irregular exclusion boundaries. This factor can be, and has been, evaluated where circumstances warrant -
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Meteorological factors, or the location of the plant at a coastal site,are but two of many fectors that need to be considered in a risk assessment; the proposed method does not give X/Q's by distance (except at two boundaries)and is not tied to considerations of the distribution and size of the population at various distances and directions from the facility. If anything, use of this method could serve to lull people into a false sense of ,
ym- ' - - - , _
2'
- ~~ ' L- T
~
n -
T- '
(
s . s-confidence about the value of the calculations. In a word, this statement of need is inadequate.
23.Thisguidewouldnotfacilitate"identificationofthe'ra[iological risk from potential accidents", contrary to the assertion of C.l.
In spite of its flaws, the RSS consequence model would serve this purpose far better.
- 24. Adoption of this guide will require a significant increase in staff efforts (at least within AAB). This is nowhere mentioned.
- 25. Nowhere is the increased effort required by the " Industry" mentioned.
Given the provisions of this guide (see for example the requirements in the paragraph beginning on line 299), and the requirements for rereview of previous applications (see sscond para of III, discussed in comment 30 below), this could be extensive.
- 26. To the extent that the claim at the bottom of page 3 impl,ies a general relaxation in the approach towards Part 100 reviews, the policy implications of adopting this guide need to be addressed, and the decision that no NEPA statement is required should be reconsidered. .
- 27. The argument that "no assessment is made regarding variations in consequences" (page 4) is incorrect; the long-standing use of site specific meteorology is precisely a means of recognizing variations in the dispersion characteristics among sites.
- 28. The proposed method would not reduce "the contribution of these variations to differences" as alledged on page 5. It would merely alter how these differences were borne by various individuals.
W
'- '9* 'f*8% ' Y# e W p as, # ,g ,* ' = % ,]%p M 9 8.6 y _ . , _
~
b (
- 29. Three of the alternatives considered should be to (1) retain the existing sector-independent model and (2) adopt a different kind of model, such as one patterned after the RSS consequence model (3) revert to previous practice to restore a consistency of approach to siting reviews.
- 30. The second paragraph of III is mutually contradictory. Requirements for " increased maintenance and operational restrictions" are backfits.
- 31. Item 5 on page 12 should be deleted. The subject is nowhere addressed in the guide and implies a review which 1s not in fact performed by either the staff or the applicants.
. . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . .