ML20044B809
| ML20044B809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1993 |
| From: | Gavutis S CITIZENS WITHIN THE TEN MILE RADIUS |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B808 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303040314 | |
| Download: ML20044B809 (3) | |
Text
--
0\\
Citizens Within the Ten Mile Radius
^
Post Offico Bc; 382, Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913
~.-
January 8, 1993 Ivan Selin, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Selin,
We write today to express our serious concern over the response of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to a recent jncident at the Seabrook reactor.
In light of your expressed commitment to public safety and more consistent regulation, we believe that you will want to investigate this matter.
On Monday, January 4 of this year, Seabrook Station was shut down by reactor operators in response to a number of equipment failures that was initiated by the mechanical failure of a water j
heater relief valve.
This appears to have been the prudent response of operators to a condition that may have led to the release of nuclides into the general environment.
We applaud the actions of operators who exercise conservative judgments to minimize the potential adverse impacts of reactor operations.
We were outraged, therefore, by the public statement of NRC Inspector Richard Laura to the regional press on January S.
Mr.
Laura admonished reactor operators for their prompt response and suggested that the reactor need not have been tripped.
He said, in effect, that operators should have run the reactor until it broke down and tripped itself, ignoring the potential consequence to those who live close to the reactor.
This response by the NRC Inspector raises a number of l
questions:
First, without a complete investigation of this incident, nem how could Mr. Laura conclude that the operator was in error?
The so$
obvious answer is that he had little on which to base such a judgment, and he was performing a public relations function that gg exceeds the scope of his responsibilities.
Second, is it not the function of the Nuclear Regulatory l
gg Commission to regulate the operation of reactors in order to e<
protect public health and safety?
If so, Mr. Laura has assumed the additional responsibilty of protecting the economic interests Qg of consumers, which is not his mission.
The Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire is charged with the responsibility of
&am ensuring an adequate supply of power to its state at a reasonable cost.
This is not the function of the NRC AMI GI ti ll U. M1 1 (I tlMN :. NI WI !! J1 U. Ni ;WI tt 11 UI T )I (l. hAl 101 !UI U. W1.Gl Nl.WBUI U. N l
t
7
(
l E
Page 2 i
y i'
Third, does the NRC desire regulated utilities to take imprudent risks in the course of normal operations?
Inspector j
Laura gave an unmistakable message to reactor operators at Seabrook.
By his public criticism of the operators, he has increased the
.l likelihood that they will be less conservative of public health and safety, fearing public scrutiny of their actions when they should be making considered judgments based on available data and their professional judgment.
l We understand that opearators are run by people who sometimes make mistakes.
Being human, we all err.
But errors made in caution are far preferable to those made by carelessness.
l The comments by Inspector Laura only reinforce the notion that l
Seabrook and other reactors shuuld be operated in less diligent fashion than your public statements have indicated.
j i
i Simply stated, Inspector Laura's actions call to question the commitment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protecting l
a public health and safety.
His response to the incident of j
January 4 was reckless and potentially deadly.
We demand that
[
the NRC take immediate disciplinary action.
l Thank you for your prompt response to this matter.
We await your reply.
i i
Sincerely,
/
'y n
,,m((ut.Ekt. ( [:#c4 d s l
Sandra Gavutis For the Directors, l
Citizens Within the Ten Mile Radius 1
1 cc:
Honorable Albert Gore j
Honorable Edward Kennedy j
Honorable John Kerry i
Honorable Peter Torkildsen l
l l
\\
I i
l
l I
_. ~.
i f r; :E New England i
t tEC we
- News Briefs
- /n:
/
l Seabrookblame l
' levied'on 2'ironts
/
' Q c'gubtory officiids at the Sea-,
l id '
.LObrook nuclear power plant sa yesterday equipment tnalfunction was the cause of a reactor shutdown
. Sunday morning,but that proper ac-
' tion by the operators might have i
kept the plant online. Itichard Lau-ra.an on-site inspecto
' elcar Regulatory Coinmission, said thatthe actions of operators,were under reviewyesterday. Aleaky re-lief valve on awater heatdr started a
[
' chain reaction thatled to the deci-j
' sion by plant operatorsto shut the l
reactor down, Laura add.' But he :
l
,. added,*]t appears the problem l
could have beenisolatedwithout
)
tripping the reactor.Thatis what la
^
still under review by the plant's own-l i
cra and the NRC." -
?
l f
i 5
I f
!