ML20207S240
| ML20207S240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1978 |
| From: | Hulman L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207S219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703190178 | |
| Download: ML20207S240 (3) | |
Text
- -
~'
JUN : 61978 i
.... :... a.i.... _... _ _ _...
j
. _ _ 5.4.._..
._..__u.........
4
_w _
...., y, _, _. ;,,,
t...
. : s
/ _ m : -
.a..:a.
...:.........,.__a_
.... g...
MDDRANDtM 70Rt Uarold R. Denton, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis j
4 I
i FROM:
L. C. Hulman, Chief
~~
' ' ~ ~ ~ '
~ -'
' ~
.. Hydrology-Heteorology Branch.. f _..
i j
..-.,a:;
c_.. >
'. Division of Site S.afety and Environmental Analysis,'"*P *~
THRU:
Richard F. Denise, Assistant Director for Site Technology Division of Sit,e Saf.e.ty and Enviroansotal Analysis r--
~..,.
SUBJECTt COMME'1TS ON D. BUNCD'S MD80 0F JUNE 19,1978 RELATED TO THE DRAFT REGULATORY CUIDE, "ATHOSPRERIC DISPERSION HDDELS FOR POTE:TIIAL ACCIDI21T CONSEQUEHCE ASSESSMENTS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 5"
..-~.:-..,...~.-
p.y;.;
.q_.7.. z :,. --. -. - -
-. On June 22,.197h D. Bunch, L. Soffer, E. Markee and I met to discuss D. ::unch's conmienta on the accident met model guide that was transmitted i
to ACRS on June 12, 1978. My comments are related to both his cover memo and the specific comments contai,ned in his enclosure. With respect to the cover memo, it is my understanding that his comments 1
._.'.i..~_ f 7 reflect what be considers to be "rachets". in aAte suitsbiliky w* ". *a,2
~
.n
..- assessments over what was contemplated when Part 100 was developed. -
rie.I'; our assessments of the future impacts of the proposed guide. arej;,y;g.. 4-:y
'l M"9;~~the opposite, derschets generally, based on 'the SRP. ?Insofst as - :: :r.- ~. -.-.- !
there exists a need to jointly consider a,ccidents, source terms,%."-* ="W i
T/jmeteorological conjitions, and doses I would agree that the. proposed iggy.. !!
P.-dd Rgulatory cuide may not reflect sa appropriate level of conservatism. 4"*;.. I
'.---* Rowever, I do believe it appropriate to modify Standard Review Flan ~~ T
~ ~
7^~~< of new experimental data, but I endorse the need for se overallproc a
~
.n
"~77.'[ appraisal of riska for site suitability assessments. "I suggest you. -=y,g ' '
I W.4 consider the need for an interdiscip11pary task force to scope.
...u.'ic'.A..
-~ ~ ~ -"
--~
-- -~ 1
- ^ ^ ^ " " _ ' -
'.. ~ ~ ~ ~.
' s.uch.. an undertaking. '..^,..
y :.
I
,_'.'.-f;$~.We s' gree with all but two of the specific comments ande in 'the ?.M...
u_..;
e Er2-' "
l
enclosure to D. Conch's memo, but not necessarily for the same W.*CW
?.M, We will furnish OSD with clarification and editorial ~~~~~"~ " !
reasons.
' " ~~ comments which we believe will eliminate all but two of D. Eunch's ' /.' cle..... '
'u hd a h eoneerne. In further consideration of the guide it would be helpful. l;.16r*gn
'."". if comments could be coordinated and resolved before transmittal
" -~f-W "e
" 1F7M~M -
- '-'" t.o Acts or ERIC. ~., i.:,, _ qs:.3
,4...- ~ *' ~ ~ ~. ~u,c,,..s.;,,,..+ wc., w%%,.,.f
.. w ;#..
y 4 h,..
- c..a.
. a.
.... _. 3;., gg.,;i,i.;' ;,,,.'.
..:.u._....
3
..s...........,_,
I
- I a.% "T,. # s:. *. P,.....,,..c.Ar.a.
,.i, s g,ja 3,.g.,.
f, 3,,, g g,.p,,,
- x. _.
.L,,s. ::
- ,s g ?.::&,..,
- s. ;
,s s.n.;,.
g.t,..g
? p. M ra.:~r,; n..,-- q*. y - -. " P;;* r *.-.e. e-~-
--a. e+: a. e. e.f.; pyL,.g9 4...,:r :,,,.. y?
' ~ ' ' *
- j
,.3,.
, y. e.y.,.,,,.w.,p, _ yp,
,e.,.
.y w
- r. e
- g ;,,R,, *.f**.,
..m. 3
.,'c..
^
.;t,a, s _*,
e
.s hh.&6iee.e..e._d;.NM...e@$MM%Jin
-i + 3, M W.. u. %, n @ w % yn c m
2 n__w m.#
.u
&fM&r'"Q,'
_ y s' 7" '
- f'f D
dT&.h*ntO..nsws Q W"._A & ' W %*>l Q-+E
{
2
.~.
.....a
.. w
.s.(gg,g,g g -,- -_ g,_,,,,, x ;
070319017e 870313 PDR GRQ NRRC 1
(
o 2-
~
Harold R. Denton
's;::::..
.... v.
p Specific cocuments on each of the two areas we disagreelith ar'e'* summarized
~~ '
s <.._,.,.,.... g._.,..
..s n.~
below
...m.._.
a.
D. tunch's Comment No. 9: The suggestion was made that stack
,axit selocities be explicitly allowed in the Guide. The Standard.. :. _
Review Plan procedures and the proposed Regulatory Guide do not explicitly
-" state that stack exit velocities are ~allevable. Furthermore. 'the staff *..,a, 2.s cannot recall ever allowing credit for exit velocitiies in the past " -- " -
~ ight years. However, the Guidesdoes not preclude consideration of the efactor, and if a case could be made by an applicant we would consider
~ r - m- ~" -.. m.,. g..., r
'it*s use.
_,,,, w _m.
b7 D. tunch's Comment No. 14: The use of madam grovad level I/Q-values from stack releases at or beyond the exclusion boundary, we believe.
to be necessary for determining the acceptability of the exclusion ^---
~ -
area boundary where plumes can jump the boundary and result.in substantially. ',,
higher doses than would be inferred by use of exclusion area boundary v.w---- - --
X/Q values. Not identifying and evaluating such hot spots could result', 'E
'~T
~2~~~r~""'r*~'*".'~'"."-
~~
~
' we believe, in misleading the public.
Original Signed by
. LyG. Hult:an r-. :-
y
- m. -
DISTRIBUTION ~
-/-
<"w
+
.^5 Central Files
-- L. C. 1.ulman, Chief._..
4.
.........s_.w..
..u.
_.-.DSE Rd
~,
s..,.
....r..
By to ogy-eteoro osy ran HMB Rdg
..- _.m n.. x. 4......
nz.. t
. n.s..s..z..r4..:i...".:..~ :
, an a g,
,g 2,- n.v.
..<...+.w w.-
. re
. Environmental Analysis
-.t...-....s,,_..,,__.
a w
'E
~&"l.*Z.L! - + Id.7* " "$U*Y '"
^* ' ~
'1 4*.5 M C*.E.*.a*.'w~d iN.u'3r..,,4..M I,#U.'.1
.:.;; 4. CC. l... I* Huller
'D*.*W
. 2.-*.~..L? W M:s YN
~C....v% o,a = ~a
. 3.*** e.s'%-..
.~..c e m h e.he
-, r L..t n
...9.......
g, pgg{g,
-o-r.w ipf. o.r.orar. ass vn.are< m.m.. v
-a p..
.rsy. 4.
r-
- mer,
, a
. m _.%,
- -.. R. Vollmer
- 1..
D. Bunch
. ;.,....... u. ' ;...
.,4 ',
.,. y. *....
...: L. Deratan,,..
.s.., 2
.t.,mm.: m e.w r w., -- -- - ---=un-w.i,.a.~
9."*. t. :..J '.*- p.m*.* O h o.%W-M.* C %'.h
.K. Collet e.,.'
.V*
,=mc y.,s. 7J pr; q,q ::* m. :77 v,~c s!'
~~
y-7 -..*. w.-...-. :::. m..am. -.. - w..s.
.....:,...L. Soffar
-_a
~
c.
,r..,.-... ~..
L. Eulmaa M.'
M.qM,W.fM?u.. '.".*M/sy.k,@gd4M-$E;.W.Mi.-
. d.
,.-E. Markea -
-~
~.
~
~.. Net Sec t ion
.~...s..-.-
,v...,~~~-~~........~.~..~-n.r....~~.~.s...~.
7..=_..
y_,.
........._....._.....a..
s...
..v c;"r.::. 8.5%W.5 lr ^; *..$5,,&.N..f.5^~'S.F.nW~.Y.55, ?..k..N. ~..A 55+~.5.. 5w$5.'.",w~5E'.~.m. ir I
.. C
.a
.i e
.s
..y
,.......,.v,.,..
. + e.,.-
ev e n,,. e..
- w
-.m.e.< e q.e u.,e,4,..ay,y.9 w,u -. ~.
y...,,.., m
,.y.a.
m.-
r
., 4.r ~. ;,*..... p N.C.s *rgsm,.rp p yd f. 4 *Witr-*-*{,.WS
.-- /. a
...&.re s..
f j.:** *B ev;yA s --
_ f.m.m g Q.h. s 4.*...
t.
d
- a,,,,
4 i, 6r '..
./.
g,,..
...4....,.M
......,...........r.,.
..t..,.,,.-..
w.:
. ;, y..
. g ts,- s_,.. m r,., c a + 4 t e...<,.gvy*s. s.c ;g spr,.w.4.cg.:nzj r - -. "gc.ser,,=
- y v.9*
r,.
e a. f c.. ~.
a t,
-.ja
......,f
_,.....,e
.M A. e-.-j.y
.g
..L rr
.tsu
-:. 2.
.";.m:
- ..a,m tnf; r 3.w..~:,w*fgrynn y-ehm-:;z~y;q.ti;) k DSE ST:UMB DSE STalMB DSE ST
..x w aa
..,9_3. 6?._~m%.' u s".t.,/~
"-'W-
,:_.. u.
.,,.n.p.)Msp.N-1 ~ s./6% *in.
7.E
.... LCHulmantjd EPMarkee
. 2PDenise A*fedEGa>*w.e.L
.nekt.# ~M.cu..
. e.6.+.
.e.V M m m m u4xr.* W re-'r r -
Y*
- 5 U *k' 0......
.. ~
t*
, -.. =
=. -..
M:
Do ent Control
, 016 Phillips X28989 The Attached document was not properly submitted for entry into the Document Control System (DCS) in accordance with Manual Chapter NRC-0232 " Placement of Documentation in the NRC Document Control System". (See below for specific area of non-compliance. )
F _ Documents submitted for placement in PDR must be sent to the Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips not to the PDR a-gDocument type not approved for placement in the DCS.
(See NRC Manual Q
Chapter-0232, Part 2)
NDocument not o.' sufficient quality to produce microfiche suitable for L_
archival storage (See NRC Manual Chapter-0232, Part 1. II.B.1.a).
o Photostatic copies or carbon copies of documentation (except NRC Form l 318, the Official Concurrence copy) is accepted for entry into DCS without a notation that the responsible program office has certified it
' as the official record copy.
5 Before sending enclosures that are themselves identifiable stand-alone
-documents, the forwarding office must confirm that the document is not already on DCS.
(See NRC Manual Chapter-0232, Part 1. II.C.9.)
1,No Nrc formal publications (e.g., NUREGS, Regulatory Guides, ETC. ) should y
be sent to DCS or the PDR by staff separately or as enclosures.
Correspondence to multiple addressees must be handled in accordance with
- NRC Appendix 0240.
q " Chapter NRC-1102, and NRC Bulletin 1401-3. Contractor material will be processed in Document Rejected by DCS Contractor as Duplicate of item previously
- entered into DCS.
6