ML20117H431
| ML20117H431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1996 |
| From: | Milkey J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117H416 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9605280192 | |
| Download: ML20117H431 (3) | |
Text
. -..- - - -.
b '*i k
% %monweaB4 ofv&uacAuuth era ofMe Ahmey %esat 2MWS$W SCOTT HAAtheAAGER ATTO WitY M M7WL nmman Apr0 30,1996 Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrsor Nuclear Regulatory Commlasion, Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Re: Elevated radiation readings at C-10 monitor
Dear Mr. Martin:
As you are aware, several monitors operated by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation revealed elevated levels of radiation on November 29th of last year. 'Ihose monitors were located in Amesbury, West Newbury, and Newburyport, Massachusetts, not far from the Scabroolc nuclear power station in Seabrook, New Hampshire. We are writing today to express our concem regarding those results and to request formally that the NRC conduct an indepmient investigation of this maner.
We understand from your leeer dated April 8,1996 to Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10, that the NRC has already taken some steps to look into this maner. Your lener confumed that a " planned containmme purge" was released into the environment from Seabrook Station on the 29th. It also stated that the station's main instmment system for monitoring gaseous releases from the plant was inoperable between 2:27 a.m. and 4:05 p.rn.
that day, and that the plant operators had to rely upon " compensatory measures" to provide "a supplememal means to assess radiological conditions" in the iraerim. According to yoor letter, the analysla of these "conipensatory measures" indicated that the public should not be concemed, because the " calculated organ dose" was "a small fraction of regulatory limits."
'the focus of your letter to Ms. Osyntis was whether the Apr0 29th release from Seabrook abould be a cause for public concem. Nowhere did your letter question whether that release in fact caused the elevated readings in Massachusetts; to the contrary, the letter appean to have assumed that it did. Yet the plant operators are now claiming that the documerged November 29th " purge" could not have caused these readings, and statements attributed to the NRC in the press have supponed this conclusion. According to the press accounts, the plant operators have concluded that the Seabrook " purge" could not have caused the elevated monitoring results in Massachusetts, because for the release to have 9605280192 960523 DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR
i
<c l,*
l' j
caused such readings, k would have had to have exceeded applicabic standards by thousands of levels. Needless to say, this "WaW" is hself quite troubling.
i j
4 We we extremely mW that the public has not been given a full accounting of what occured on the 29th of November oflast year. In particular, in light of the fact that i
i your letter did not set forth what W& steps were taken to invesdgaae this matter, we are concerned tha.t an adequase indagakan review has not been conducted. Our conoom hi this j
regard has been heightened by recent revelations regarding a similar problem involving the l
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vermont. We have been told that in that incideru, the NRC accepted the results of the plant's internal review, despine the fact that h appears that the engineer in charge of that review was not even aware of the plant's startup/ shutdown j
bypass venting, a likely source of any release into the envimament.
l If you believe shaf a cormplete sad adequase review has already been undertaken, P ease inform us of precisely what steps were taken, what conclusions were scached l
l (includmg your conclusions as to the likely source of the release), and why you came to j
these conclusions. If you conclude that a complete and adequate review has not been done, j
l please conduct such a review and les as know the results of that namination 1
l l
i Very smly yours,
)
C L_
"L, %-
James R. Milkey Assistant Attorney General Director, Land Use & Environmental Projects h
i
em eqlw:27 FR HirY wn. = urr 4 4
., s consed a sh th is would havs had a have W appdindes senadeds by w d h velq Needhe e any, eds
- 7
" is inew quise modung.
s are estrisputy conosmal that the puhuc has not been sivue a set mosomains W
]
1 r whos sei med on the 2%h d November oflast year. la psaicolar, h ligid d the fact shut,
i your leqq pr did not set fonib what speedis sesgs euss> takes e bvesigens tids amener, we ese d that an " ; - independant soview has not been N Our coness in this concem resud 1 se been ha&gH by seessa se,.aa*L=a negadsig a skaBar psobhan inndving the Vennes : Yankes audaar power plans in Vaanost. We have beam said shot h that hsident, ihn NH l accepted the rendis of the plaa's beesad seview, despise the fast that k appeans that i f
in chases d abat swview was as: even swee d she phet's -," ^'_x bypeus) ensang, aIEsiy source af any selsene isso ibs envisessamms.
l f you believe h a comphes sad adsgemas aview has abgedy beam h pisess *- as at pecissey wts says wass iden, what - wees seseed (inded 4 roar conduaises as so the Bely somme of the miessek sad stir yon caso se i
these q molusions. If yes condade that a congssee and adsgemac wrisw has not been does, P ease l undest such a seview ad let as knew the membs of aus W l
4 1
Very truty yoesa, l
j c_ c s. m N
James It. Miksy A% Assosasy Ocaerd j
D' ecer, land Um & Iluvimamenal Projecs:
n 1
l
?
1 i
I i
e i
i
)
t l
l i
)
i q
1 4
4 1
i
= Torrea., PAGE.003 **
i t
1 2
j' TOTAL P,02 l
1
__