ML19210B060
| ML19210B060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1975 |
| From: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Nelson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B061 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010790 | |
| Download: ML19210B060 (1) | |
Text
.
y-13, '
n I
6 e-S'-
s '. ',
k MAR 3 1 1975 dl 7
P. R. Nelson, Chief, IE I ENVIROlO2NTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - TERIE MILE ISLidD, UNIT 1 f
(F1802150) s.
Your memorandum requested action to upgrade THI-l's ETS to be consistant with the current " standard" ETS Guide. You also noted that the inspection results reinforce your previously stated position that the level of sensitivity required for analyses of I-131 in milk
~
.is too demanding for most centractor facilities.
Environmental Projsets has been informed of the discrepancias between THI's tarh=4e=1 specifications and current Regulatory Guida eriteria.
Further, REPB is maintaintne a file of comments and recommaanAmtions which have been submitted to NRR sad will assure that these are considered
.by IIR when tech =4a=1 spesifications are revised. Bowever,11 mediate
. action on consents related to " Standardized Raquirements" should not e
3 be exppeted.
7, j
In regard to your concern that the level of sensitivity for I-131 analyses in milk is too de==ading, ou position remains the same as that discussed with Bob Bores and Phil Stohr (by Bernie Weiss and Me) during our visit on January 30, 1975. Briefly stated, the position is that the level of sensitivity required is not too da==nding, that you should continue to cite licensees for failure to meet their techni-cal specifications, and that this office will relay appropriate infor-motion to NRR concerning difficulties da meeting taeh=4a=1 specifica-tion requirements.
If you have any questions concerning this reply, please contact me or L. J. Cunnir; ham.
/1/
Leo B. Higginbotham, Acting Chief Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Office of Inspection and Enforcement ec C. W. ruht n
'g g.N 7911010 770 opric. *-
0 OIE;RE nr _ig botham
/
LBH tacunninghan
...m.
_o 3/3.//75 3/
/75 o.vs D-Forsa AEC 318 (Rev. P 89) ABCX 0240 Tt u. es eovsammswr animvane or.msen sev4.eae.see
~
-.-- - Q3 _ _ _ _
I UNITED STATES f
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ~
g y'O y g oincevanava or acoutarony openavsous
/
RECloN 1
- !. 2b I
l l
631 P ARK AVENUE g,
p kino or Pnussl A. PENNSYLVA.dlA 19406 DEC 2 01974 Metropolitan Edison Company License No. DPR-50 Attention:
Mr. R. C. Arnold Inspection No. 50-289/74-34 Vice President P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Bores of this office on November 20 and 21,1974 at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station of activities authorized by AEC License No.
DPR-50 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr.
Bores with Mr. Herbeln and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection, and to a subsequent telephone discussion between Mr. Bores of this office and Mr. Herbein on November 25, 1974.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Regulatory Operations Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Our inspector also veri.ed the steps you had taken to correct the violctions brought to your attention in letters dated March 29, 1974 and June 26, 1974, following our inspections.
We have no further questions regarding these matters.
During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appeared to be in violation of AEC requirementa.
The items and references to the pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure to this letter. This letter constitutes a notice sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office within 20 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement of explanation in reply, including: (1) corrective steps which have been or will Y
},J U D a nw u
'~
1 1
Metropolitan Edison Company I
be taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps I
which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. However, with regard to Items No. 1, 2 and 3, we note that these violations were corrected prior to the completion of our inspection and th2refore, no response with respect to these matters is required.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice",
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal' Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the AEC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure.
Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information j
is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, j gif Paul R. Nelson, Chief Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
Enclosures:
1.
Description of Violations 2.
RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/74-34 cc:
J. G. Herbein, Station Superintendent R. W. Heward, Project Manager, GPUSC I ' /,
'l y O sav
^g ENCLOSURE DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS Metropolitan Edison Company P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Docket No. 50-289 Certain activitics under your license appear to be in violation of AEC requirements. These violations have been reported to the AEC as Environmental Incidents and follow up action has been taken by the licensee. These apparent violations are considered to be of Category II severity.
1.
Section 2.1(a) of the Appendix B, Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island - Unit I limits the discharge water temperature to no greater than 3'F below the inlet water temperature.
Contrary to this requirement, the discharge water temperature exceeded 3*F below the inlet water temperature on July 11, 15, 17 and 19, 1974.
(EI 74-8, Letter to Regulatory July 24, 1974).
2.
Section 2.2.la of the Appendix B, Technical Specifications limits the free chlorine component, as measured at the river discharge, to less than 0.1 ppm.
Contrary to this requirement, the free chlorine component, as measured at the river discharge, equalled 0.1 ppm on September 26, 1974.
(EI 74-9, Letter to Regulatory October 3, 1974).
3.
Section 2.2.3 of the Appendix B, Technical Specifications requires that pH, as measured at the Waste Neutralizing Tank prior to release, be between 6.0 and 9.0.
Contrary to these requirements, the pH of material released from the Waste Neutralizing Tank exceeded these limits on August 31, September 15, 20 and 23, 1974.
(EI 74-10, Letter to Regulatory October 4, 1974).
We note that these matters were reported to Regulatory as indicated above.
Your corrective measures were reviewed during this inspection.
We have no further questions on these matters at this time.
P 41<;kL 5'5?9:7
}50$ lu9
~
')
i i
Certain activities under your license appear to be in violation of AEC requirements. These apparent violations are considered to be of Category III severity.
4.
Section 4.1.1.A of the Appendix B, Technical Specifications requires, in part, that fish sampled as part of the fish impingement study be counted, weighed and identified to the lowest feasible taxon.
Contrary to this requirement,.the total weight of all fish from each ident4fied taxon was determined, rather than the individual fish weights.
5.
Section 4.4c and Table 3 of Appendix B, Technical Specifications requires, in part, that milk be analyzed for I-131 within eight days of sampling and with sufficient sensitivity such that 0.5 picoeuries of I-131/11ter of milk can be determined at the time of sampling within an overall analytical error of !25% at the one sigma confidence level.
Contrary to these requirements, in several instances the analyses were not performed within eight days of sampling and/or the sens, ;ivity of analysis was not sufficient to determine 0.5 picoeuries/ lite. of I-131 in milk within 25% overall analytical error, icoc i70 suo