ML19309E291
| ML19309E291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1980 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004210108 | |
| Download: ML19309E291 (1) | |
Text
__
f[}
jg UNITED STATES 2
e(3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g.
j.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\' % /
++***
March 12,1980 Docket No. 50-289 Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Your letter of January 8, 1980, indicated that if we check all the licensee event reports regarding boron dilution errors made at other plants, we would find that boron dilution errors have been made at plants with more extensive boron dispensing and maintaining systems than TMI-1. You find that our con-clusion accepting the licensee's method for limiting boron dilution as unaccep-table.
We are aware that there have baen boron dilution errors mada at plants with even more extensive boron dispensing and maintaining systems than TMI-1.
Licensees' of all PWR plants were asked to investigate the potential for boron dilution and to report the results to us. Based on our review of the experiences at other plants, the various scenarios postulated by Metropolitan Edison and considering the consequences of the worst case boron dilution event, we conclude that the provisions to protect against an accidental boron dilution at TMI-l are acceptable.
Your letter also questions our letter of December 31, 1979, which defers work on the spent fuel cask drop evaluation. This task is concerned with the load analysis of the spent fuel shipping cask using the crane in the fuel handling building. The licensee is not permitted to ship fuel or handle spent fuel shipping casks in the fuel handling building.
Further-more, fuel shipment from TMI-1 is not anticipated until at least one year after restart which would permit ample time to address the evaluation of the spent fuel cask drop.
In establishing priorities for various tasks, we give top priority to those tasks which have existing safety questions after considering existing plant conditions. The spent fuel cask drop does not fall under this category at this time.
In regard to your request for information on the filters in the auxiliary building, this will be provided in response to your interrogatory.
I trust this response has addressed the concerns raised in your letter.
Sincerely, Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors l
8004210lO%
/F w / 6,a
~
c5 crou #s. L K Pl$Da nw?
i
.D
/ - r -8 o.
bd.
Ah (&<k-l liS/llk0 Sa; :
4 % / u 'a 7 L :
f
!- 'f6n dk% d]4ad(er An dM E p am41 >g as. y eJ,4 Wthe dahwAwe GM AM -A'aw -n aALkku 6
- Ay suc& myu?fyn'Ny f 5ta > L / /77/ Q j% "Ma /<h(Vla h in m;ga]4. " d inne,/Sd 2 - spsnaR&D+t
/ v/ /
ikk Lb-n~ Lt
%tI apas, sat
/
taLh pafli 4 4 fd w f
{W */l~ X & a/ abo di a&f y2 L
? 0* I 7
/
/g*4 n g/umt& y pc,a_p.,go qbc_
s >-
as,p
<- - 1 4 3ae vad aer hu& 5LCy 1"