March 18th, 2011 – NRC is not in a position to share licensee radiation measurements with States/Counties

Author: 3 Comments Share:

From: OST05 Hoc
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 8:59 AM
To: Maier, Bill
Cc: Erickson, Randy; Browder, Rachel; LIA04 Hoc; Howell, Linda
Subject: RE: Briefing Sheet.doc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi Bill,

We are not authorized to share the results of the measurements from SONGS and Diablo Canyon. These results belong to the plants; NRC is not in a position to share with the State/Counties.

Also, as a note, DOE has been designated the lead agency for communicating information to the States regarding monitoring of radiation heading toward or over the United States. DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (National Atmospheric Release Assessment Center) is monitoring weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean. The EPA maintains air monitoring stations throughout the country and has reinforced its monitoring effort. DOE will provide aerial monitoring.

I hope this provides the clarification that you were seeking.

Cindy Flannery

State Liaison – Liaison Team
NRC Incident Response Center

—- O-riginal Message —–
From: Maier, Bill
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:27 PM
To: Howell, Linda; LIA04 Hoc; OST05 Hoc
Cc: Erickson, Randy; Browder, Rachel
Subject: FW: Briefing Sheet.doc

Here is Diablo Canyon results from Friday evening. I am hoping to get NRC response team approval to share with CA and CA Counties on the next CA Statewide Conference Call.

Bill Maier

—- O-riginal Message —–
From: Carson, Louis
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:01 PM
To: Somerville, Mark
Cc: Maier, Bill
Subject: RE: Briefing Sheet.doc

Th’X Mark, We were also wondering if you notified any State Officials.

From: Somerville, Mark [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:38 PM
To: Carson, Louis
Subject: RE: Briefing Sheet.doc


We pulled the charcoal and filter from one of our samplers at the front gate placed to monitor this event.

That sample is about 6 miles from the plant site as you of course know.

It showed 3.779 E-13 micro-Ci/cc 1-131.

There were no particulates.

We notified Headquarters – Protective Measures team as requested.


Mark 0. Somerville Ph.D.
Manager-Radiation Protection
Certified Health Physicist
Registered Environmental Assessor
(805) 545-4007
(805) 545-3459 – Fax

From: Carson, Louis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:06 AM
To: Somerville, Mark
Subject: RE: Briefing Sheet.doc

Th’X V-Much Mark.

Did you all do a confirmatory sample/count?


From: Somerville, Mark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:00 AM
To: Carson, Louis
Subject: Briefing Sheet.doc


Here’s what I circulate inside the plant.


Mark 0. Somerville Ph.D.
Manager-Radiation Protection
Certified Health Physicist
Registered Environmental Assessor
(805) 545-4e07
(805) 545-3459 – Fax

Measurements From SONGS and Diablo Canyon – Pages From C142449-02C-4

Related Articles on Page 2…


Previous Article

San Onofre: No restart plan submitted – No root cause identified

Next Article

March 16th, 2011 – GRS request for MELCOR input deck to generate analysis to fight back against shutdown of plants built prior to 1980


  1. Nuclear energy is problematic and the data, and details from this material just reinforces the facts are that. Time to move on to renewables !

  2. Is it right that monitoring the radiation is done at 7 miles as you state, this is nuts because the wind blows the particles up and comes down about 20 miles and more away, if a plant blows up then particles will come down closer to the plant because many particles are larger and heavier. I believe the 7 mile range is used to cover up high radiation in the air without lying. They should also measure the cumulative ground radiation that increases every time a new leak occurs, they should also put monitoring points at six locations around the plant because of trade winds. If the monitoring points are less or put in bad locations they are then skewed to get low radiation readings which is then useless unless the person analyzing the data has allowed for this, but how the hell is that done. After seeing your comment of 7 miles I’m believing Fukushima is 100’s of times worse because they may even use the data that shows the lowest out of a group of reading. I cannot trust Pro nuclear people to the point that a bet they are using old meters to collect data and these old meters cannot read accurately.

  3. Thanks for providing this information, Lucas!

    Examples of just how the nuclear industry covers ups and downplaying are done is quite crystal clear in these documents. My suspicions have now been confirmed, that our State “radiolological protection” departments are more about “protecting” the nuclear industry and its image than about protecting the health of the public.

    I will never again be able to trust what any “health physicist” says, as it is apparent who they are working for, the nuclear industry, and NOT the American public. Their use of the word “health” is a joke, as their work has nothing to do with protecting the health of citizens; rather, their entire purpose seems clearly to be the protection of the “health” of the nuclear industry.

    After so many years of such lies, I for one am disgusted and FED UP. The American public deserves better. It is time to SHUT our nuclear power plants down, and stop the boldface liars from exposing us to any more such deadly, and frankly, needless risks.

    Enough is enough!

Leave a Reply