ML20117L144

Request Answers to Questions Concerning 951129 C-10 Radiological Monitoring Sys Findings of Insp 50-443/96-05 & 50-443/95-15

ML20117L144
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/13/1996
From:	Doughty J SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	De Agazio A, Jason White NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20117L125	List: ML20117L144
References
NUDOCS 9609120334
Download: ML20117L144 (3)

Text

//944 The Seacoast Anti-Fbilution League PL

-t9P=t&#-G-66-6-9-56-5-5-T / P. O . 5 O X 1138 Ebunded 669 PORTSMOUTH,NH 03802 SO3 431-5089 August 13, 1996 Albert W. DeAgazio, Project Mgr.

Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 John R. White, Chief Radiation Safety Branch Division of Reactor Safety i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Re C-10 Radiological Monitoring System Findings of 11/29/95

Dear Mssrs. DeAgazio and White:

The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League has some questions concerning the above-referenced matter that are raised by the S/23/96 letter and accompanying attachments sent from. Thomas T. Martin, NRC to James R. Milkey of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, by NRC Special Inspection 50-443/96-05 dated 6/25/96, and by Attachment 1 (Radiation l Protection Inspection) to NRC Inspection Report No.

1 50-443/95-15 dated 2/8/96.

We ask for vour answers to the following:

1) Does NRC interpret the requirement, contained in Technical Soecifications. Seabrook Station. Unit 1, that there be compensatory monitoring when the Wide Range Gas Monitor (WRGM) is inoperable, to allow the licensee

' deliberately to initiate and/or continue a containment purge when the WRGM is in that inoperable condition? If so, for how long has the NRC interpreted technical specifications for Seabrook Station in this manner? Does the'NRC know of any other instances, in addition to the instance occurring on 11/29/95, when the licensee has deliberately initiated and/

or continued releases of either liquid or gaseous radioactive effluents when monitoring equipment, required to be operable by the technical' specifications, was not functioning per those specifications? If yes, please provide information on the dates, times of day and circumstances of each such instance.

9609120334 960909 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

)

Letter to Mssrs. DeAgazio and White, 8/13/96, --- p. 2

2) When did the NRC find out that the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) at Station 5 (referenced in Enclosure 4 of ,

the letter to Mr. Milkey of 5/23/95 mentioned above), which had been at 1.2 miles from the plant at Azimuth 243 degrees, was " missing" and that there was "no net data"? Does the NRC have any explanation as of today's date for how the equipment disappeared? .Has the NRC initiated any investigation into the cause of the disappearance? Has this matter been referred to the FBI or any other federal, state, or local authorities for investigation?

3) NRC Special Inspection 50-443/96-05 at p. 4 references

.the " maintenance of fuel clad integrity during the operating

cycle" as reason for the unavailability of Kr-85 for release. 1 Were there any inspections for fuel clad damage in the wake of the two episodes of exceedance of thermal power which occurred in October- 1995? If yes, please provide details on l the scope and nature of the inspections.

l

4) . What explanation was given by the licensee for the decision to take Seabrook Station off-line for refueling in early November of 1995 before an 18 month operational cycle

~

had been completed?

.5) To what does the NRC attribute the " considerably more exposure than expected" to plant personnel that caused the licensee to defer inspection of the reactor head funnel guide until the next refueling outage (see Inspection Report i.

o No. 50-443/95-15 at A1-3).

)

6)- Why was there no sampling for entrained noble gases during and immediately following the period of time spent fuel.was being offloaded into the spent fuel pool? (see Inspection Peport 50-443/96-05 at p. 3) At what time of day were samplea collected on 11/29/95 taken?

l i

We look forward to' receiving your reply to these questions and thank you in advance for your cooperation in i

. providing them. I 4

4 Sincerely,  ;

i i

Jane Doughty Via Certified Mail I

t

, _ _ ______________---b

• *i 1

Letter to Mssrs. DeAgazio and White, 8/13/96 --- p. 3 cc: Commissioner Shirley Jackson Office of the Inspector General, NRC C-10 We The People NECNP NIRS CRC EPZ Towns