ML052490110

E-Mail from Wiggins to Holody, Ucs Recommendations for Salem/Hope Creek

ML052490110
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/16/2004
From:	Wiggins J NRC Region 1
To:	Holody D, Miller H NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490110 (2)

Text

olody - Re:Fw :U-CS recommendatinsfo lem ape Creek Page I From: James Wiggins To: Daniel Holody; Hubert Miller PA Date: 6/16/04 7:24AM

Subject:

Re: Fwd: UCS recommendations for Salem / Hope Creek This is good news...

j~?2~ld e w:USrecommrendations for -SalemJ o0Pe Cre-ek-- ae From: Herbert Berkow' 1 To: A. Randolph Blough; Daniel Collins; Daniel Holody; James Wiggins Date: 6/16/04 6:50AM

Subject:

Re: Fwd: UCS recommendations for Salem / Hope Creek We discussed this at length last week when the letter came in. There is no question that it fits the 2.206 mold. However, Mr. Lochbaum, for whatever reason, has stated that he does not want to use the 2.206 process. I have confirmed with Jack Goldberg that we cannot force a member of the public to have his/her concern addressed through the 2.206 process.

We have no choice but to handle this as controlled correspondence unless someone wants to call him and try to convince ,imto accept the 2.206 process for his concern.

>>> Daniel Collins 06/09/04 06:54PM >>> I I think we need to take a very close look at whether or not this should be treated as a 2.206 petition.

Even though Mr. Lochbaum explicitly states that UCS doesn't view the letter as 2.206 petition, the letter contains the necessary elements of a 2.206. It requests specific action be taken against the licensee (i.e.

Shutdown Order - or - an Order to demonstrate tangible improvement within 6 months) and it sets forth an argument that constitutes the basis for that request.

We might want to send it through a PRB to get the "expert" eyes on it and, if nothing else, capture our rationale for not treating ad a 2.206 in the PRB's meeting minutes.

y

>>> A. Randolph Blough 06/09/2004 9:33:04 AM >>>

this is a surprise; although we were expecting comments from UCS, including recommendation of an order to fix SCWE,, we did not expect the primary recommendation to be for a SID order.

I don't know if UCS will make a public statement on this. They, for the most part, have not made this is highly public issue.

will update you as we get more.

randy CC: Brian Holian; Cornelius Holden; David Vito; Diane Screnci; Ernest Wilson; Gina Matakas; Hubert J. Miller; James Clifford; Jeffrey Teator; Lisamarie Jarriel; Neil Sheehan; Tae Kim; Wayne Lanning