ML19318A529
| ML19318A529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Dornsite W, Gerusky T, Reilly M PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8006230283 | |
| Download: ML19318A529 (1) | |
Text
6 g( u,. 4 N' # d? ^
h/ [
p 3-Summary of I&E Interview 105 and 106 Interview of May 3,1979 of Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania personnel:
Thomas M. Gerusky - Director, Bureau of Radiation Protection Margret A. Reilly - Chief, Division of Environmental Radiation William P. Dornsite - Nuclear Engineer, Department of Environmental Resources These personnel stated no knowledge of outstanding issues re TMI emergency plan prior to accident (p. 4).
-First call to state re site emergency received at 7:05 a.m. on March 28, 1979 from Civil Defense.
State called control room, things sounded confused but no concern re PORV was expressed and no off-sites releases were being detected by TMI teams.
At 7:25 a.m., 3/28/79, Gerusky was advised that dome monitor was reading 800 r/hr and plant was projecting at' 10 r/hr noble gas plume at goldsborough.
0800-off-site team at Goldsborough not detecting any radiation.
-8 Late morning, 3/28/79, Met Ed reported west shore rodine sample of 10 mci /cc (sample sent to State for confirmatory analysis).
State did not request BNL help until late afternoon.
The State did not have any portable monitoring equipment for iodine.
BNL arrived at 1800-1900 hours with iodine detectors.
Noon, 3/29/79 Reilly received call from site re releases of industrial waste water with noble gases (xenon) adinixed.
This water when diluted with blowdown from cooling towers would be below MRC in proposed Tech Specs.
Site indicated need to dump to provide additional storage. State appears to have given verbal OK.
Dumping stopped per NRC directive.
Morning, 3/30/79 plume reading 600 ft above stack 1.2 r/hr.
No discussion prior to release with State (p 34).
Releases not planned but expected.
Communications between parties unclear, evacuation recommendations were not in consultationwithState(p43).
State personnel appeared to believe utility met its obligations under emergency plan.
EPA protective action guidelines were not approached.
A 8006230 N 5