NUREG-0041, Request Addl Info Re Requested Clarifications/Exceptions to NUREG-0041,respiratory Protection Program.Nrc Comments Encl
| ML19309B067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1978 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0041, RTR-NUREG-41 NUDOCS 8004020672 | |
| Download: ML19309B067 (5) | |
Text
.,,
f y y..,,;,,y
~
w'.
,~,
x c
d'
.4 w
_\\
^
~.
DISTRIBUTION: /
N DocketFile\\/
s June 13,1978 ORB #4 Rdg n
3 MRRXR LPDR NRC PDR SBlock.~
VStello
.JCapl i_n Docket t 50-312-BKGrimes-JCunningham v-ATTORNEY, OELD
~
hr.f}
'T.
g 3
~
GZwetzig'
/, 'i #
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
.a RIngram
. _(
ATTH: Mr. J. J. Mattimoe DEisenhut Assistant General Manager j
and Chief Engineer ETBAhernathym, y ';
4 JRBuchanan 6201 S Street s
%.., y w~
-BEXXMMMHKX
< A,A
/
'3'
~
P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 l _. _ -,. 1.
'. : ACRS' (16)
.y-
, " ^
-TCarter Gentlemen:
, y.. ;
- 7
. Gray _ File
(~'
~ ",.; g b
r By letter ' dated February 2,1978, you requested. amendment' of t'he R
-f respiratory protection portion (Section 6.12) of the. Rancho Seco e mg% y
,f V
Technical Specifications in response to our' request of July 28, 1977.--
~
In your submittal you. state that you?will " define.a~ Respiratory.i W.y P ':g%@
. Protection' Program asTstated jn Regulatory, Guide 8.15,;butfshall &&
VE use NOREG-0041 as a' g0idelonly;"iYour. submittal then lists"eight' i *p ~sg cl a ri fi cations / exceptions. to;.l!UREG;-0041_ which _you i pl ari. toi incl ude? $ d;M
' n'your programi je t
- N 7.U m-
~ -
-WQ J WS SeJ@Wi&&#
i MV ^
4,%~. p y;a.m % a em ~p. w;:;;:,.
>~
- ~
c.
7.
With regard _ to thes,e," clarifications / exceptions," you are adi.-s;7.
y.py?,.;
.s
.a,-
ws.
... / -&.
~. L.v u.
ised?
that because Regulatory Guide (RG):8.15 is part of the NRC regu-js,. A L lations, we interpret those portions.of HUREG-0041 referenced by' J % *: H
~
RG 8.15 as acceptable means for confoming to the regulations...
n, [ _.j 9 (
Fs"'
Accordingly, if you desire to deviate from the referenced portions ~ - c of RG 8.15, as you have indicated, you should advise.us of the,. deviation
$ n... a g~
~
~
.3#
i
~
, ;H.-
alternative measures prsposed' provide.an equivalent levelof. pro--
- 7. y.a
. 'tection. DYouLh. ave, of course,iidentified the planned " exceptions /5h.i 4 w
& clarifications" in your letter;of february 2,1978.~ LIn reviewing *$ q,M.&
. these, however, we find that' we need add.itional. infonnation in brder 4.0. QO, Elevel of' protection. ;The detailed infomation.needed is. listed 'in,R
~ to determineEif your proposed _ alternatives provide an.equivalentX I
s7 c
u the enclosure.
Z,_ u
'F-
~
\\
pa M D[
e lA-THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS p' o/
[
POOR QUALITY PAGES I
j 8004020 D R
c r -+ -
~-
- - _ _.c.
....,g,
..,. w,, ;; _, p,
3.
,3,;
.._a,...
...,. n.,
g A_egS-
--g 2
e
.41 3,3 Sacramento l'unicipal Utility
.\\
\\
District '
In order that we ray reference a single ~ letter upon completion of our review, it is requested that you submit a revised letter setting forth your proposed " exceptions / clarifications" and supporting justifications, as previously stated, supplemented by the additional infomation listed in. the enclosure.
L It is requested that you submit this revised letter within 45 days of receipt of this letter..
i
- Sincerely,
' I?43.1 E7.
1 Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4,
'. Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Staff Coments on Clarifications
.and Exceptions Proposed by S!!UD.
[,..,
?'
'~
,J
' > 5^;H
_ms
~^
- 1.tr. of 2/2/78,e, 1
, s.S_'c i
., s y, '.,.
3 j
m cc w/ enclosure:. See next page
,.,,,,,,y 2,,,,7
~
..' ~
x-s c
J
'f.
1 J
3-
- r.,1
&'[..f c ^
p.
4
~
n.
,j
(.
}
, ~
rp s
3 w.
m 4
i '
t ORBh4:dbR C-0RB#4iD0R.9-EEMI)%
. or,,C.,
, s'unmaus e-GZwetzig:rm
'RR'e'iif ' '
[, hk j 5// 3/78
-6/45/78
.6_..j/7f' TE YA D W 1ETO fCfnn.. E Ot 0240 W us s. eovanMMgNT PalMTING oFFICEa 1974 = $36 483 t
Sacramento Municipal Utility District David S. Kaplan, Secretary and cc:
General Counsel 6201 S Street Post Office Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Business and Municipal Department Sacramento City-County Library 828 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 i
k i
b
,,- m STAFF COMMENTS ON CLARIFICATION':.
AND EXCEPTIONS PROPOSED BY SHUD LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2,197 Item 1.
Supplement the discussion of this item to indicate the following:
~
The specific conditions when use of sorbent cartridges or a.
cannisters will be authorized.
b.
The training and other means by which users will be informed of the limitatiens of protective devices using sorbent cartridges or cannisters.
The measures that will be implemented to prevent inappro-c.
priate use of sorbent cartridges or cannisters, d.
The qualified supervision that will be provided for users of sorbent cartridges or cannisters.
The conditions under which the results of bioassay tests e.
will supersede exposures obtained from air samples.
Item 2.
Supplement the discussion of this item to indicate the followin The inspection and testing that will be performed on each a.
particulate cartridge following use and prior to resealing, to insure continued filter effectiveness.
b.
The acceptance criteria for the inspections.
Item 3.
Inasmuch as the protection factors in Table 6-1 are based on trained individuals wearing properly fitted respirators (Note d.2 to Table 6-1), you should clarify your discussion of this item to indicate that protection factors greater than those stated in the table will not be utilized unless of paragraph C.7 of Regulatory Guide 8.15. prior NR 1
~
-s 2 --
Item 4.
Supplement your discussion of this item to indicate that individuals who cannot be properly fitted will utilize U. S.
Bureau of Mines /NIOSH approved hoods or other U. S. Bureau of Mines /NIOSH approved equipment or they will be prohibited from working within atmospheres which require respiratory protection.
Item 5.
Revise your discussion of this item to indicate that "a consulting physician, familiar with the guidance given in Section 7.4 of NUREG-0041, will establish..."
Item 6.
Revise the discussion of this item to include a description of the approved method of qualitative testing to' be used in lieu of the stannic chloride irritant smoke test.
Item 7.
Revise the discussion of this item to indicate your commitment to inspect respirators in accordance with Section 9.6 of NUREG-0041 prior to use following removal from the sealed plastic bag used for storage.
Item 8.
Revise the contamination limits for the exterior of the face-piece to be the same as 'or the interior (i.e.1000 cpm fixed beta and gamma and 200 dpm/100cm2 on smears) or provide the following additional infermation:
Describe how you can discriminate between contamination a.
on the exterior of a respirator facepiece and that on the inner surface if the activity is predominatly a gamma emitter such as Cs-137 or Co-60 ans' a G.M. detector is used for the measurement, b.
Provide the bases for 'the acceptability of a 5000 cpm limit -
on contamination on the exterior of the respirator face-piece, as compared to a 1000 cpm limit for the internal surface.
Provide an' analysis showing the facial radiation exposure c.
rate (mr/hr) that would be received from an external sur-face contamination level on a respirator of 5000 cpm as measured by a G.M. detector.
4 y
~,,