ML060660073
| ML060660073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/2004 |
| From: | Miller H NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Blough A, Holody D, Wiggins J NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML060660073 (1) | |
Text
...
IDaniel Holod~y - Rve: Fwd: Utah recommendations tor bale m / Hope GreeK Page 1 1 e
y From:
Hubert J. Miller 9
To:
A. Randolph Blough; Daniel Holody; James Wiggins Date:
6/14/04 1:48PM
Subject:
Re: Fwd: UCS recommendations for Salem / Hope Creek Jim, you are correct......I think this is the way ogc: is reading and it fits with what our common sense would say is prudent (My first take was different based on what I have seen ogc do in the past.... glad to have the room to handle this in less than a bureaucratic way.)
>>> James Wiggins 06/10/04 07:22AM >>>
I'm just opining here...but my reading of 2.206 leads me to conclude that a requester must request that a issue be treated as a 2.206....In that way it's unlike an allegation.
We run the risk of enflaming emotions it we ignore the requester's request and handle it in a way he doesn't want.
Having said that, I continue to believe that we need to (internally) treat the request with the rigor provided to 2.206 Petitions...answering each of the assertions made...but our response to UCS can be at a higher level....
Jim
>>> Daniel Collins 06/09/04 06:54PM >>>
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 UICS 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 thie 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 treatinga a 2.206 in the PRB's meeting minutes.
>>> 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 S/D 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; Karl Farrar AARi