ML083650308
| ML083650308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/2008 |
| From: | Bedell D Resource Relations |
| To: | Peter Bamford Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| Bamford, Peter J., NRR/DORL 415-2833 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML083650308 (3) | |
Text
Workplace Communication e so u r ce '
Business Blogging elations Community Relations Mediation Risk Communication Building Communities of Interest P.O. Box 125, Cornwall, PA 17016 717-571-4741 E-mail: dougb@paonline.com Web: www.resrel.com December 10, 2008 Mr. Peter Bamford Project Manager for Three Mile Island U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission II555Rockville Pike Mailstop 08B3 Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Mr. Bamford:
I have your October 10 letter in response to the concerns about moving the Three Mile Island Joint Information Center from Susquehanna Townswhip (just outside Harrisburg) to Coatesville, Pa., that I expressed in my letter to you on May 28, 2008. I would have responded somewhat sooner, but have just returned from an extended trip to California. I appreciate the attention the NRC staff gave my letter. Even so, I find your response dismaying. It indicates that there is not the focused, responsive, communication policy for nuclear plant emergencies that I thought existed and that the nation needs.
You advise that AmerGen, TMI's operator, in August changed its mind and withdrew its request to the NRC to move the TMI HC to Coatesville because the NRCs approval wasn't actually necessary.
The NRC staff, you note, has no problem with that decision because the effectiveness ofthe Coatesville HC can be evaluated in inspections of the facility. That underplays the situation that would exist during a General Emergency at TMI - the "tangled web" of relationships that Professor Sharon Friedman depicted in the graphic I submitted with my letter and whieh can't be adequately simulated for an inspection. There comes a time for standing on principles and the principle that relationships would trump technology in a TMI General Emergency is paramount. We would likely find the utility advising residents around TMI that they need to leave their homes from what would be perceived as an exceptionally safe distance of 62 miles.
Your letter does not even acknowledge the concerns of public officials opposed to the relocation of the TMI HC -like Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed and Middletown Mayor Robert Reed. And it seems to miss, as well, the founding concept of a Joint Information Center - that there should be only one HC, one point for the release of official information on a nuclear emergency. The staff seems willing to substitute an electronic link - PEMA's satellite communications van - for the HC itself. Broadcasting from Coatesville to what you refer to, revealingly, as "the PEMA HC' in Harrisburg envisions two Joint Information Centers for TMI during a general emergency. While it is true that the State of Pennsylvania, through PEMA, would have a key role in response to a TMI emergency. the potential for confusion and conflict was minimized when TMI's HC in Susquehanna Township was only a mile or so from PEMA's headquarters, not in Coatesville.
Further, the NRC staff seems entirely unwilling to look into the confusion that apparently exists among officials of the five TMI risk counties who. I was told by a PEMA spokesperson. did not oppose
Mr. Peter Bamford - '2 moving TMI's media center to Coatesville because there..vould also be a "near-site media cen ter," presumably at the TMI Training Building. That center, however, would likely be unavailable during a General Emergency, with a radiation release occurring from the plant just across High way 441.
In short, your well-intended response raises, for me, questions whether the communica tions lessons of the TMI-'2 accident, and the reforms that followed, remain in force at the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA would be responsible for overseeing the Coatesville JIC during a General Emergency, but it apparently wasn't included in the NRC staff's consideration of the move. The actual requirements for good, relational commu nication during a nuclear plant accident, should one occur again, seem unappreciated by the NRC staff.
Yours sincerely, r
")
I
.~
/ ~ Pl--rd(
,I Douglas Bedell Principal cc: Matthew Boyer, U.S. Rep. Tim Holden's Office Ad Crable, Lancaster New Era Ralph DeSantis, Arnergen/Exelon Dennis Fisher, WHTM-TV Robert French, Director, PEMA Sharon M. Friedman, Lehigh University Caroline Imler, WHP-TV Peter Jackson, AP Gary Lenton, Patriot-News Bill Mead, WHP Radio David Newhouse, Patriot-News Barack Obama, President-elect Beth Rapczynski, Exelon The Hon. Stephen Reed, Harrisburg City The Hon. Robert Reid, Middletown Borough Diane Screnci, NRC Henry Tamanini, PEMA
7016 lurce YM tions Communities of Interest m1.~."
700B 2B10 0001 4316 3550 Mr. Peter Bamford Project Manager for Three Mile Island U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1I555Rockville Pike Mailstop 08B3 Rockville, MD 20852 U""T~DST4TES POSTi1l SERtllCF U.S. POSTAGE
./
PAID CORNWALL. PH 170/6 DEC 10. '08 AMOUNT 0000
$5,32~
20852 00052500-01 20Ei52::t:27..::iS 1"1,111,,,1"1"1,11,,1,1,,1,1l,,,1,,1I,1,1,,1,1,,1,1,,,1,,11 NRC FORM 253 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (9-96)
MESSENGER/COURIER RECEIPT TO:
MESSENGER/COURIER CONTROL NUMBER TIME RECEIVED SENDER:
- 1. Complete "DATE OF REQUEST:TO::FROM::'
and unclassified "DESCRIPTION" blocks.
- 2. Obtain MESSENGER/COURIER signature, date received, and time received in first blocks provided.
- 3. Retain "SENDER'S SUSPENSE COPY."
MESSENGER/COURIER:
- 1. Deliver package to recipient or next messenger!
courier enroute to addressee.
- 2. Obtain MESSENGER/COURIER or RECIPIENT signature, date received, and time received in the appropriate blocks provided.
RECIPIENT:
- 1. Provide signature, date received, and time received in the appropriate blocks.
- 2. Retain RECIPIENTS COpy.
- 3. Return original to mesenger!courier immediately, who will return it to the sender.
NRC FORM 253 (9-96)
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RETURN THIS COPY TO SENDER