ML19254F524
| ML19254F524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ertel A HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254F525 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911090575 | |
| Download: ML19254F524 (2) | |
Text
7
.f
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION @ 3.p...y
[
g
- j E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
%,*****j NOV 2 1373 The Honorable Allen E. Ertel Member, United States House of Representatives
. Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Ertel:
This letter responds to your letter of July 31, 1979, addressed to Chaiman Hendrie concerning the release of 4000 gallons of water into the Susquehanna River from Three Mile Island Unit #1 reactor on July 26, 1979.
Chairman Hendrie has asked me to respond to your letter in view of the fact that there are now adjucatory proceedings for Three Mile Island Unit #1 underway before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Under the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) rules of practice, Chairman Hendrie and the
. members of the Commission will be called upon to review the orders and decision of the Licensing Board and hence it would be inappropriate for him or otner members of the Commist. ion to coment on the matters raised in your letter.
The entire event started as a normal routine release of waste water from the Unit #1 waste evaporator condensate test tank. Prior to initiating a release, the licensee is required by plant Technical Specifications to sample the contents of the tank and analyze the sample for the principal gacr emitters.
In addition, the licensee is required by the Technical Specliications to t.:ke a portion of that sample and add it to the composite sample of all previous batches of liquid releases made during the month. At the end of the month the composite sample is analyzed for, strontium - 89 and 90. Both of the above sctions were completed by the licensee.
It should be noted that the staff does not require that the analysis for strontiun be performed on every batch prior to miease because the concentrations od strontium are (1) normally well
'below the detection limits of the analytical method, and (2) normally orders of magnitude lower than the principal gama emitters such as iodine and cesium.
Approximately a week prior to the incident, an NRC inspector discussed with the licensee's Unit #2 operating staff the desirability of performing. a gross beta analysis on each batch of waste water to be discharged from
. Unit #2.
It should be recognized that this type of analysis has never been a Technical Specification requirement for this or any plant prior to releasing liquid waste for the reasons noted previously.
In making this recomendation the NRC inspector felt that because of the higher-than-normal levels of strontium in the waters in the Unit #2 auxiliary building that analysis would be a prudent course of action in case there was cross contamination between Units #1 and #2. The Unit #2 operating staff, which is completely independent4
@Q{t,e
~
7 358 7 911090 E 7[
Q't f
s
, Congressman Ertel.
from the Unit #1 operating staff, infonnally agreed to pe:' form the gross beta analysis on all waste waters to be discharged from Unit #2 prior to the actual discharge. Although there was no formal documentation of the discus-
'sion and coamitment, the NRC inspector's log book does make reference to thi,s meeting.
In discussing this analysis with the Unit #2 staff, the NRC inspector was under the assumption that the same analysis would be perfonned on all waste waters including those from Unit #1. However, the information was never conveyed to the Unit.#1 operating staff.
On July 26,1979, the release from' Unit #1 was initiated and during the release an NRC inspector questioned the licensee as to whether or not a gross beta analysis had been performed in accordance with the previous commitment. At this point,. Met-Ed management suspended the release and performed the required analysis. The analysis showed that the gross beta was 1.8 x 10-7uC1/mi or 1.8 times the maximum permissable concentration (MPC) noted in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 for unidentified beta emitters released to unrestricted areas. As a result of this analysis, the licensee collected another sample and had it sent offsite for a detailed analysis for strontium-89 and 90. The analysis performed by Radiation Management Corporation showed this sample contained a total strontium (89 and 90) concentration of 8.5 x 10-5uCi/ml. The licensee's calculations concentration of Sr-89 and 90 was 2.6 x 10 gcharge to the river, the effluent showed that, after dilution and prior to di uCi/ml. This represented 8.7%
r of the MPC for average annual release for strontium.
Since this event, the operating procedures for both Unit #1 and Unit #2 have been modified to require that a gross beta analysis be performed on all the concentration exceeds 1 x 10 -y procedures further require that if waste waters prior to release. Th uCi/ml, the MPC for unidentified beta emitters, a detailed isotopic analysis for beta emitters be performed prior to initiating the release.
I am satisfied that this action will prevent further occurrences of this type.
3-I believe Met-Ed's failure to conduct the gross beta analysis can be characterized'as a misunderstanding that stemmed from a lack of connunications between the licensee and the NRC staff In o'rder to minimize future occur-rences of this type I have personally requested that the NRC on-site staff at Three Mile Island be more diligent in overseeing the activities of its licensee.
Sincerely, (Signed) Lee V. Goss}ck
~
Les V'. Gossick, Executive Directoi-for Operations "7 359
,