ML19256D543
| ML19256D543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1976 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D542 | List: |
| References | |
| 760218, NUDOCS 7910190499 | |
| Download: ML19256D543 (3) | |
Text
.
/
1
^
P ?'".I,Ti_/
/
,/
,c,.z,.
na a raw ass i
/
/
/sMETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY.. omv or ceno:,u i iaue unum cacrew.n i
j POST OFFICE BOX 542 READING PENNSYLVANIA 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601 January 20, 1976 GQL 0067
- Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspectica & Enforcement Region l' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor:: mission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19ho6
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Docket #50-289 Operating License #LPR-50 Three Mile Island Nuclear, Station Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Inspection Report 75-28 This letter and enclosure are in response to your inspection letter of November 25-26, 1975 concerning Fr. R. Meyer's inspection of TMI-1 and the resultant findings of that inspection.
Sincerely,
/
R. C. Arnold Vice President RCA :C'4S :ilm Enclosure
.1451 230 N
7910190
ENCL 0SURE 3
- tropolitan Edison Co=pany (Met-Ed)
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI)
Docket No. 50-289 License No. DPR-50 Inspection No. 50-289/75-28 Response to Apparent Infraction.
Apparent Infraction Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.201 (b), surveys were not =ade to determine if concentrations of airborne radioactive =aterials, to which two indi'viduals were exposed in the (reclaimed) boric acid storage tank roon, on Au6ust 21, 1975, were within the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.103
Response
In response to the above stated " Apparent Infract n", it is Met-Ed's contention i
that for the situation in question, Met-Ed did co: ply with 10 CFR 20.201 (b).
This contention is based on the followins points of information:
As stated in 10 CFR 20.201 (a), " " survey" means an e"Tluation of a.
the radiation hazards incident to t-he production, use,.r lease, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiat' ion under a stecific set of conditions."
b.
In accordance with 10 CFR 20.201 (b), Met-Ed did make such a survey (i.e. evaluation) prior tc sending personnel into the effected area, and as has been subsequently determined, the subject survey (i.e.
c.
evaluation) was in fact adequate in that Met-Ed complied with the regulations of 10 CFR 20.
In. further amplification of part b. above, it should be noted that the subject evaluation was based on the fact that, Due to previous proble=s'with the vent header and loop seal a.
systems, the shift _ supervisor was aware of the probable source
~
of leaka6e, and b.' the shift supervisor was aware of the composition of radioactive gases shich have been known to exist within the plant during incidents of this nature.
1451 231 Apart from'the " Apparent InfractL:n" in itself, it should be noted that:
Met-Ed considers,the Station Energency procedures to have been a.
inadequate in that they did not require respirators to be donned by the personnel who entered the hrea in question (corrective actions a2e in proc 7ess and consist of upgrading the Emergency procedures and training Operatiens personnel in their correct implementation ;
it is anticipated that this upgrading vill be completed by 2/20/76 )
and
.m 2 --
b.
the problems with the vent header and loop seal systems are scheduled to be resolved during the up-coming refueling outage (to cc=.ence February 14,1976).
O 9
O e
e 1451 232 O
/
/
l e
'*"?."*
e e
e e
9 0
m O
e e
4 d
4