ML082590666
| ML082590666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/2008 |
| From: | Lalor M General Electric Co |
| To: | Lippy D, Wang A - No Known Affiliation, Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| Wang, A B, NRR/DORL/LPLIV, 415-1445 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC4686 | |
| Download: ML082590666 (1) | |
Text
From:
Lalor, Mike (GE Infra, Energy, Non-GE) [Mike.Lalor@ge.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 12, 2008 5:12 PM To:
Alan Wang; Donna Lippy
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question Donna and Alan GEH agrees that the non-proprietary trip report does not contain proprietary information.
Do you need anything from us other than this email??
From: Alan Wang [1]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 5:56 AM To: Donna Lippy; Lalor, Mike (GE Infra, Energy, Non-GE)
Subject:
FW: Affidavit question Mike, here it is. Good talking to you. Thanks for the help. Alan From: John Lehning Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 7:52 AM To: Alan Wang
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question
- Alan, Thanks for the prompt reply. I attached our non-proprietary version of the trip report. I have already removed the information cited in the previous affidavit as being proprietary (with the exception of one clause later determined to be non-proprietary via email from GE) and therefore I expect that there should be no proprietary information in the attached. I know the licensee and vendor are busy and appreciate their help with confirming this for us.
- John L.
From: Alan Wang Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:09 PM To: John Lehning Cc: HANSHER, BILL R; Donna Lippy
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question John, I spoke to Mike Lalor (GE). Mike said if you will send him a copy of the trip report as how you want it issued, he will write an affidavit from GE to the licensee for it. Alan From: John Lehning Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:50 PM To: Alan Wang
Subject:
FW: Affidavit question Alan, I still haven't heard anything back from the licensee on this affidavit question described in the
email chain below and in the attached message. I thought an email would be sufficient to get this rolling again, but maybe what we need is to set up a phone call with the licensee. Seems unnecessary but I can't just keep waiting (now since August 12th) with no reply from the licensee or timeframe on what is going on with this affidavit.
Can you ask the licensee about this for me please? Do you want me to be on a call with them?
I'm willing to do whatever it takes.
- Thanks,
- John L.
From: Michael Markley Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:52 AM To: John Lehning Cc: Michael Scott
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question
- John, I was selected BC for DORL Plant Licensing Branch VI. I have reassigned my PM responsibility to Alan Wang until I select a replacement. Alan was the PM or FCS for about 6 years. Please follow-up with Alan.
Mike From: John Lehning Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:44 AM To: Michael Markley
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question
- Mike, I haven't heard anything about this in a bit and am still waiting to take action. Did the licensee agree to send an affidavit back that is corrected? Just wondering when it will come in if so.
- Thanks,
- John L.
From: Michael Markley Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:57 PM To: 'HANSHER, BILL R' Cc: Jack Donohew; John Lehning
Subject:
FW: Affidavit question
- Bill, As you may recall, GE agreed to certain clarifications that John Lehning pointed out with regard to the affidavit. I believe that GE should resubmit its affidavit incorporating those clarifications.
Mike From: John Lehning Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:48 AM To: Michael Markley
Subject:
Affidavit question
- Michael, You remember the trip report for the testing the staff observed at Fort Calhoun, for which we requested a proprietary review, subsequently had a phone call on a draft version, and then received a proprietary affidavit from the licensee?
After the phone call and draft version of the affidavit that was faxed in, we reviewed it and gave feedback in an email. Through an email forwarded by the licensee, GE replied that they agreed with the staff's view that one of the passages that GE stated in the draft was proprietary actually was not proprietary. However, when the final version of the affidavit came in, the passage in question was still highlighted as being proprietary. (see attached emails, the passage in question is #2 in first attachment)
Do we need another affidavit that is corrected, or is the email from GE sufficient basis to include the passage in question in the non-proprietary version of the report. Thanks,
- John L.
E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (1F5D4BA41725AF41B17F7BE5333FEA7914C089E6)
Subject:
RE: Affidavit question Sent Date: 9/12/2008 5:12:34 PM Received Date: 9/12/2008 5:12:34 PM From: Lalor, Mike (GE Infra, Energy, Non-GE)
Created By: Mike.Lalor@ge.com Recipients:
Alan.Wang@nrc.gov (Alan Wang)
Tracking Status: None Dllippy@oppd.com (Donna Lippy)
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com Files Size Date & Time
MESSAGE 18661 9/12/2008 Options Expiration Date:
Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: