March 16th, 2011 – Where the NRC deeply regrets MSNBC’s reporter using the GI 199 Data against them

Author: No Comments Share:

From: Beasley, Benjamin
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:35 PM
To: Killian, Lauren
Cc: Kauffman, John
Subject: FW: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Lauren,

Is there a Q&A in the Comm Plan that addresses Doug’s question?

Ben

From: Tifft, Doug
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:24 PM
To: Manoly, Kamal; Scales, Kerby
Cc: Wilson, George; Munson, Clifford; Beasley, Benjamin; Chokshi, Nilesh; Nguyen, Quynh; McNamara, Nancy; Gray, Mel
Subject: RE: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Thanks, that helps.

But is the reporters statement that our data shows that Indian Point Unit 3 is the plant in the US with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake an accurate conclusion from our data?

I seem to recall discussions where it was mentioned that the GI-199 data is only valid in aggregate for the nuclear industry, and is not enough data to draw any conclusion about any one reactor site. Is that true?

-Doug

From: Manoly, Kamal
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Scales, Kerby
Cc: Wilson, George; Munson, Clifford; Beasley, Benjamin; Chokshi, Nilesh; Nguyen, Quynh; Tifft, Doug; McNamara,Nancy
Subject: RE: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Kerby,

The list in GI-199 Comm Plan (Q/A23) identifies the plants by name only that are in the continue category for GI-199 (Delta CDF) to request additional information via a generic communication.

The GI-199 applies only to plants in Eastern and-Central US.

The list provided for the top 10 contains interpretation of total CDF based on information provided to the reporter concerning all plants in the US.

That is why you see Diablo in the list of 10 even though Diablo is not a GI-199 plant.

Kamal

From: Scales, Kerby
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:47 PM
To: Manoly, Kamal
Cc: Wilson, George; Munson, Clifford; Beasley, Benjamin; Chokshi, Nilesh
Subject: FW: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Kamal,

Can you review the list below and respond back to George and copy me?

Thianks-,

From: Nguyen, Quynh
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Scales, Kerby
Cc: Tifft, Doug; Meighan, Sean
Subject: FW: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Can you get somebody to check this quickly?

Thanks,
Q

From: Tifft, Doug
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:56 PM
To: OST05 Hoc; LIA04 Hoc; Nguyen, Quynh
Cc: McNamara, Nancy
Subject: FW: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

Please see below list. I think this is referring to GI 199, but the list of plants is completely different from the list in our GI 199 Comm Plan. Did the reporter mis-interpret the GI 199 documents? If so, where did they go wrong?

See Q23:
http://www.internal.nrc.gov/communications/plans/active/CommPlan Generic Issue199.pdf

-Doug

From: Giarrusso, John (CDA) rmailto:_ohn.Giarrusso(state.ma.us1
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:48 AM
To: McNamara, Nancy; Tifft, Doug
Subject: Fw: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

From: DeNicola, Fran (CDA) [mailto: Fran. [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:00 AM
To: john.ciiarrusso~state.ma.us ; Viveiros, John L. (CDA)
; peter.judgecstate.ma.us ; linda.lecuyerostate.ma.us
Subject: As per MSNBC investigative reporter

The top 10

Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data. (The full list of 104 reactors is below.)

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. ‘Pilgim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1,2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

Previous Article

Japanese Rice’s Radiation Levels Stump Scientists – Fukushima tests show rice contamination over thought transfer coefficient

Next Article

March 16th 2011 – Confusion Created by 50 mile evacuation

Leave a Reply