ML061710171
| ML061710171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/2005 |
| From: | Nirodh Shah NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | Gregory Roach, Richard Skokowski, Slawinski W NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0115 | |
| Download: ML061710171 (1) | |
Text
Shah - December 12, semi-public tritium meeting at Braidwood Page 7 ]
From:
Nirodh Shah To:
Gregory Roach; Richard Skokowski; Wayne Slawinski
Subject:
December 12, semi-public tritium meeting at Braidwood Rick, the meeting lasted about 1.5 to 2.0 hrs last night and went fairly well. Many of the local residents attended the meeting, but there was no news media in attendance. The licensee presented a brief history of the tri.tium issue,-the results of sampling to date, and some. perspective on the'risk from tritium exposure compared to everyday hazards (i.e., chest x-ray, etc).
A number of questions were raised regarding what the licensee did after the 1998 and 2000 vacuum breaker leaks; Whether the tritium posed any undue health effects to the residents; and what were the licensee's interim and n ii-term pians, ur,r dwaste ischarges and for remediation and monitoring.
The licensee d, but it was obvious that not all the residents were satisfied.
Some residents expressed concerns with potential tampering of the samples (specifically, why the samples weren't tamper-sealed when collected and why the property owners weren't required to sign off on chain-of-custody) and some asked about independent sampling of their homes. There was also some question re: whether there were any other radioisotopes in the wells beside tritium. Again, the licensee did an adequate job addressing these concerns.*
Jan and I briefly described how the NRC Was maintaining independent oversight of the licensee's efforts, including observing/m*onitoring the ongoing sampling and the "split" sample program. I informed them that we had taken independent samples at some homes'and invited those interested to contact either myself or Steve. I further explained that our sample results to date were consistent with the licensee results. After the meeting, one individual approached mefor my business card which I handed out.
Jan and I further explained that both the 1998 and 2000 leaks were being reviewed as part of.the licensee's investigation and that the NRC would perform an independent assessment of the results. We also explained that the NRC.was reviewing what knowledge we had regarding both leaks and what actions were.taken. I explained that I had been present for the 2000 event,.that we Were aware of it, and that based on the available information at the time, there did not.appear' to have been any offsite migration of tritium. I also stated that the water from that event was collected by the licensee and returned to the blowdown line for discharge to the river.
Towards the end, many residents expressed a desire to have similar meetings in the future. The licensee stated that they Would consider it.
There were two specific requests from the meeting:
I, sked if the region could contact him regarding the specific analysis results of the samples 6/&we collected from his well; and
- 2. Rich Allen"(IEMA) asked how involved Jeff Roman could be re: reviewing this issue. -I explained that either myself or Greg would be happy to address any of Jeff's concerns and to have him "'assist"' us in the investigation, but that any independent inspection on his part would best be coordinated with the region.
Rick, he may contact you on this.
I will fax you the pres ntation slides and will e-mail you a listing of the specific questions that were asked at the meeting. I have also aiked the licensee to provide us a list of those persons who* attended ithe*
meeting.
Informaion in this record was deleted th arlks...iN Jin accordance witb the Fr.dm of Infornition Act, exemptions CC: :Jan Strasma; John House; Steven Orth