ML080600279
| ML080600279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/2008 |
| From: | Lochbaum D Union of Concerned Scientists |
| To: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| References | |
| EDATS: SECY-2008-0107, G20080134, LTR-08-0105, SECY-2008-0107 | |
| Download: ML080600279 (5) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 03/19/08 David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists EDO CONTROL: G20080134 DOC DT: 02/27/08 FINAL REPLY:
TO:
Commission FOR SIGNATURE OF :
Zimmerman, NSIR
- GRN CRC NO: 08-0105 DESC:
ROUTING:
Response Time -
Turkey Point (EDATS: SECY-2008-0107)
Reyes Virgilio Mallett Ash Ordaz Cyr/Burns
- Dyer, NRR
- McCree, RII Brenner, OPA DATE: 02/28/08 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NSIR Zimmerman SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Coordinate with OPA.
EDATS Number: SECY-2008-0107 Source: SECY GenralInfomaio Assigned To: NSIR Other Assignees:
Subject:
Response Time - Turkey Point
==
Description:==
OEDO Due Date: 3/19/2008 5:00 PM SECY Due Date: NONE CC Routing: NRR; Region I1; OPA ADAMS Accession Numbers -
Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE OhrInformaio Cross Reference Number: G20080134, LTR-08-0105 Related Task:
File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO Roadmap Item: NO Action Type: Letter Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: NSIR Urgency: NO OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions: Coordinate with OPA.
Doc n I rat Originator Name: David LochbaUrm Date of Incoming: 2/27/2008 Originating Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists Document Received by SECY Date: 2/28/2008 Addressee: D. Skeen, OCM/DEK and T. Hipschman, Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE OCM/GBJ Incoming Task Received: E-mail Page 1 of I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Feb 27, 2008 15:43 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
~a/9 LOGGING DATE:
02/27/2008 AUTHOR:
David Lochbaum AFFILIATION:
UCS ADDRESSEE:
Tom Hipshrman
SUBJECT:
ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:
PR -statement on Turkey Point nuclear power plant Appropriate RF, OPA 02/27/2008 No EDO/OPA for Appropriate Action Made publicly available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
ADAMS DATE DUE:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20080134
Billie Champ "
Original Message -----
From: David Skeen Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:01 PM To: Annette Vietti-Cook; Luis Reyes; Samuel Lee; Nancy Fragoyannis; Bruce Mallett; Joshua Batkin; Josephine Piccone Cc: Thomas Hipschman
Subject:
FW: PR - Statement on Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant
- Annette, Tom Hipshman and I received this e-mail from Dave Lochbaum this morning. Please take for "appropriate action."
Original Message -----
From: Dave Lochbaum (mailto:dlochbaum@ucsusa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:45 AM To: David Skeen; Thomas Hipschman
Subject:
Fwd: PR - Statement on Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Hello Tom:
I'm forwarding the press release on yesterday's event involving Turkey Point that the NRC e-mailed out to its list serve around 5:10 pm yesterday afternoon. The event began sometime around 1:09 pm, meaning that the NRC took about four hours to gather info, verify it, and put out two paragraphs on the event.
I'm not suggesting that this 4-hour response time was too slow, or too fast. But it would be grand if the NRC used this as an opportunity to see if its infra-structure can respond in a timely manner to a more serious safety or security event at a nuclear power plant.
During a two-day workshop on emergency planning conducted on August 31st and September 1st 2005, we were told repeatedly by the NRC that they have developed a rapid response communications package that would enable the agency to get the word out in near real time. In related public meetings, we have been told by the NRC that it is the agency to be the government's one-voice in event of a safety or security problem at a nuclear power plant.
Does the 4-hours it took the agency to speak a few words about a relatively minor event at Turkey Point mean that for 4, 8, 12, however many hours after a more serious event that the NRC's voice will be saying, "stay tuned, we'll get back to you later"?
On the surface, it appears that the NRC could get these two paragraphs out significantly faster than they will be able to get out a press release on a more serious event.
When I observed the Farley emergency exercise in the NRC's Incident Response Center, press releases were "issued" by the NRC in less than an hour. Was that significantly faster response because it was only a drill and
no one in the review chain really cared a fig, allowing it to progress rapidly? Or was it because information becomes readily available during the artificial conditions of a drill (which has to be wrapped up by afternoon quitting time) and takes longer in real life?
While I began by commenting that I'm not suggesting that the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> response was too slow, I must admit to feeling that two hours per paragraph seems too slow.
- Thanks, Dave Lochbaum UCS 2