ML20129E706

Forwards RAI Re Changes to Research Reactor Emergency Plan. Response to Be Submitted within 60 Days of Ltr Date

ML20129E706
Person / Time
Site:	Ohio State University
Issue date:	10/01/1996
From:	Michaels T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Cruz J OHIO STATE UNIV., COLUMBUS, OH
References
TAC-M90641, NUDOCS 9610030253
Download: ML20129E706 (5)

Text

<

l October 1,19%

l l Dr. Jose B. Cruz, Jr., Director l Engineering Experiment Station  ;

l Ohio State University  ;

167 Hitchcock Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210 l 1

SUBJECT:

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTOR EMERGENCY PLAN i

(TAC N0. M90641) i i

Dear Dr. Cruz:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the changes to the Ohio State University Research Reactor Emergency Plan submitted by your letter of December 23, 1994 and by Dr. Richard Myser's letter of May 2, 1995.

i Our review of the Emergency Plan concludes that most of the changes do not .i decrease the effectiveness of the Plan and can be implemented without prior 4 NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). However, in order to complete our review we need further clarification on the questions / comments raised in the enclosure to this letter. Please respond to this request within 60 days of the date of this letter.

If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1102.

Sincerely,

{

Original signed by: 1 Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-150

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-150 TMichaels TEssig (09-H15)

PUBLIC OGC (015-B18) LCohen PDND r/f EHylton TMartin(09-H15)

SWeiss Region III P~.A PDND: PDND:D E on TMichaels SWeiss 6/p/96 6/Q796

{6/[/96 l 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY b DOCUMENT NAME: A:M90641 Qipp [.pj;- Q Q { } OI[ [- [

n ws . .

l 9610030253 961001 1 PDR ADOCK 05000150 F paa r

w _ . - - - - - . ,m- . ,nnn. ~_ , , - . - . i a e uro i

y Jg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION If WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 4001

% ,, # October 1,19%

Dr. Jose B. Cruz, Jr., Director  :

Engineering Experiment Station l Ohio State University 167 Hitchcock Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210

SUBJECT:

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTOR EMERGENCY PLAN l (TAC NO. M90641)

Dear Dr. Cruz:

i l

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the changes to the  !

Ohio State University Research Reactor Emergency Plan submitted by your letter of December 23, 1994 and by Dr. Richard Myser's letter of May 2, 1995.

Our review of the Emergency Plan concludes that most of the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan and can be implemented without prior NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). However, in order to c complete our review we need further clarification on the questions / comments raised in the enclosure to this letter. Please respond to this request within 60 days of the date of this letter.

If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1102. l Sincerely, 4 4

Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager  :

Non-Power Reactors-and Decommissioning Project Directorate l Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-150

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

l

_y.  ; - .-. -.. .

i Ohio State University Docket No. 50-150 .

I cc: t Ohio Department of Health ATTN: Radiological Health Program Director P. O. Box 118 ,

Columbus, Ohio 43216 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency '

Division of Planning Environmental Assessment Section P. O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mr. Richard D. Myser Reactor Operations Manager Engineering Experiment Station >

Ohio State University 142 Hitchcock Hall -

Columbus, Ohio 43210 I

~

ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTOR EMERGENCY PLAN i

1. In the discussion of the emergency organization, why was the clear '

identification by title of the individual in charge of directing emergency operations, i. ., Emergency Director, changed to the " Senior Staff Person?" Kay was tha line of succession information placed in the implementr', ion procedures?

2. What doe. the phrase " corrective action guideline" mean? Why was the i dose of 100 mrem selected for life savings situations? The current '

federal guidance on dose limits for workers performing emergency services can be found in Table 2-2 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication, " Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," dated May 1992. The publication number i l

for the document is EPA 400-R-92-001. We have attached a copy of I Table 2-2 for your information. According to this document, a dose of l 25 rem TEDE is recommended for life saving or protection of large populations, and 10 rem TEDE for protection of valuable property.

i l

l l

I

l , ; ENCWSURE l

emwwwwwamwam.mw .- ;

Table 2-2 Guidance on Dose Limits for Workers Performing Emergency Services l

Dose limit' Activity Condition (rem) l l

5 all 10 protecting valuable lower dose not practicable property 25 life saving or lower dose not practicable protection oflarge populations

>25 lifesaving or only on a voluntary basis protections oflarge to persons fully aware of populations the risks involved (See i Tables 2-3 and 2-4)

" Sum ofexternal effective dose equivalent and committed effective dose equivalent to nonpregnant adults from exposure and intake during an emergency situation. Workers performing services during emergencies should limit dose to the lens of the eye to three times the listed value and doses to any other organ (including skin and body extremities) to ten times the listed value. These limits apply to all doses from an incident, except those received in unrestricted areas as members of the public during the intermediate phase of the incident (see Chapters 3 and 4).

services may be treated as a once-in-a- of five rem per year for adults and one lifetime exposure, and not added to tenth this value for minors and the occupational exposure accumulattd unborn (EP-87). We recommend use of under nonemergency conditions for the this same value here for the case of purpose of ascertaining conformance to exposures during an emergency. To normal occupational limits, if this is assure adequate protection of minors necessary. However, any radiation and the unborn during emergencies, exposure of workers that is associated the performance of emergency services with an incident, but accrued during should be limited to nonpregnant nonemergency operations, should be adults. As in the case of normal limited in accordance with relevant occupational exposure, doses received occupational limits for normal under emergency conditions should also situations. Federal Radiation be maintained as low as reasonably Protection Guidance for occupational achievable (e.g., use of stable iodine, exposure recommends an upper bound where appropriate, as a prophylaxis to 2-10 3