ML19254F535
| ML19254F535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1979 |
| From: | Ertel A HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254F525 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911090584 | |
| Download: ML19254F535 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- %zu r. Rm. , ~.. = r - _._ m i, " = L ""' Congreggof tijetEnitchStates 3!)ouge of Representatibes w- = - ~ '=' co--n= o .u mn as-=u 4x: = =. - rui EasSugten,DE. 20515 ' ggg,,,,,, co==nm .e ca mn su-un July 31, 1979 =, Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie p Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g 1717 H Street NW p: Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
I.am writing in reference to the latest " incident" at Three ~ Mile Island, involving the discharge 'of 4,000 gallons of Unit I wastewater into the Susquehanna River. [ The basic facts of the episode certainly gave the impression that Met-Ed had once again violated NRC regulations by dump-ing this water af ter being told that additional testing was FM to be done. However, my preld.minary analysis of the details k points to the NRC itself as the culprit in this incident. Apparently, Met-Ed had in fact done the testing of the water to be discharged in accordance with their technical specifi-cations. However, they had not done the gross beta analysis which NRC inspectors had suggested be done given the po~ssi-bility of higher-than-normal strontium 90 levels in the water. When it was learned that Met-Ed had dumped water without hav-ing done this test, NRC ordered that the dumping be stopped. As it turns out, the advisability of. conducting a gross beta analysis was merely the subject of a conversation between NRC~ representatives and the operating staff of Unit II, and the i-substance of that conversation was nev'er relayed to the oper-ating staff of the undamaged Unit I, whbse water 4.t was that was discharged. b. b I an astounded that the NRC would not have made known its opinion on the matter of the beta analysis through a formal memorandum to the operating staffs of BOTH reactors, if they really intended for it to apply to the undamaged reactor as well, which it certainly should have. In addition, I am astounded that the Commission would not have made some pro-vision for monitoring the utility company's compliance with this procedure. I might also point out that this information ,~ was received from the NRC staff itself. This example of the communications problems between the Com-mission and reactor staffs is unsettling to say the least. It is particularly inexcusable when it could have resulted in a major assault on the public health; fortunately, it ap-911090 [8 f THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYet.ED FIBER i
4. h=..
- g. _
==.a EE. HONORABLE JOSEPH M. HENDRIE July 31, 1979 t,5".E page 2 "T,'3=
- s. s.
C"*.':. n= = :;- uears that it did not, but the public cannot be expected to M.:=E continue to tolerate these mishaps whi'ch have the potential r" for endangering their health. I took great pains to develop the chronology of events lead-ing up to the discharge, and to resarve jisagment until I had s.:. carefully examined all the facts. I certainly do not wish ~~~. .to be required to be a fact-finder, but it appears that some-gs one has to improve their performance. At this point and on E: this issue, the only conclusion I can draw is that the respon-E;;... sibility for this mix-up rests with the Commission, and I [iF ' think an explanation is due Congress. I look forward to your p= M.. _ pro =pt attention to this matter.
- _ r
{, gcere 52N =~ allen rtel MEM3ER OF CONGRESS
- .5 AEE/nb hw L
'q ~"... cc: Commissioner Victor Gilinsky. 5","- Commissioner Richard Kennedy Commissioner Peter Bradford Commissioner Richard Ahearne fjf. M.:.l i, Mr. John T. Collins [ 3h] If"..E ~ 1 .=u. i.: l.^:.. {.'.; Et ="}}