ML102090399
| ML102090399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/2010 |
| From: | Mark Franke NRC/RGN-II/DRS/EB3 |
| To: | Marvin Sykes NRC/RGN-II/DFFI/FFB3 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116, G20090690 | |
| Download: ML102090399 (2) | |
Text
Lake, Louis From:
Franke, Mark
/72-Sent:
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:27 AM To:
Sykes, Marvin Cc:
Lake, Louis
Subject:
RE: PIs. review: Draft G20090690- 2.206 petition request against Progress Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. PRB Initial recommendation
- Marvin, I discussed with Lou this morning and we are understanding that we plan to accept only #3. This seems appropriate to us.
- Thanks, Mark From: Sykes, Marvin Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:10 AM To: Lake, Louis; Franke, Mark
Subject:
FW: Pls. review: Draft G20090690- 2.206 petition request against Progress Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. PRB Initial recommendation Lou/Mark, Please review Farhad's comments and let me know your opinions. There may be a need for additional PRB discussions before we can respond to Mr. Saporito.
From: Farzam, Farhad 1Z-9-A'**"
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:06 PM To: Saba, Farideh; Mensah, Tanya; Blount, Tom; Rosenberg, Stacey; Thomas, George; Lake, Louis; Sykes, Marvin; Franke, Mark; Clark, Michael; Rezai, Ali Cc: Khanna, Meena; Boyce, Tom (NRR); Mozafari, Brenda; Lupold, Timothy
Subject:
RE: Pls. review: Draft G20090690- 2.206 petition request against Progress Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. PRB Initial recommendation
- Farideh, See my comments below.
As I expressed my views in our internal PRB meeting, I still believe that Item 1 and supplemental request (reform concrete... ) should also be rejected since they fall into the same category as Item 2.
Region 2 phone connection was lost during our internal PRB meeting and we did not get their views on this subject.
Farideh, do you have their concurrence on this decision before we send this e-mail out to Mr. Saporito?
- Regards, Farhad From: Saba, Farideh...
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:34 PM To: Mensah, Tanya; Blount, Tom; Rosenberg, Stacey; Farzam, Farhad; Thomas, George; Lake, Louis; Sykes, Marvin; 2
Franke, Mark; Clark, Michael; Rezai, Ali Cc: Khanna, Meena; Boyce, Tom (NRR); Mozafari, Brenda; Lupold, Timothy
Subject:
PIs. review: Draft G20090690- 2.206 petition request against Progress Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. PRB Initial recommendation Importance: High
- All, Please review the following draft e-mail to Mr. Saporito regarding his petition request on December 5, 2009. I am planning to send out this e-mail today by 5:00pm. I appreciate it, if you provide me with your comments by 4:00pm. I will assume that you do not have any comments, if I do not hear from you by 4:00pm today.
Thank you in advance, Farideh
Dear Mr. Saporito,
The NRR Petition Review Board (PRB) had a conference call with you on January 7, 2010, regarding your December 5, 2009 petition request, against Progress Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3. Attached is the publicly available transcript of that meeting. The PRB discussed your request during an internal meeting on January 21, 2010. The PRB's initial recommendation is to accept your petition for review, in part.
Specifically, item 2 of your request (test samples of the concrete...) is being rejected due to [Farhad]
insufficient facts[Farhad], to constitute a basis for the requested action[Farhad], *6 R9 provided in the your request dated December 5, 2009, or during the January 7, 2010 conference call. The PRB recommended to reject item 4 of your request (provide the public.. ), since it is outside the scope of the NRC's 2.206 process, in accordance with MD 8.11. Items 1 (physically remove the outer ten-inches of... ) and item 3 (maintain the CRN in cold-shutdown... ) of your request are being accepted for review under 2.206 process. In addition, PRB is considering your request (transcript of January 7, 2010 conference call) to reform the containment building with additional concrete as a supplement to item 1 of your original request. Items 1 and 3 of your request that are being accepted for review will be processed in accordance with MD 8.11 and the resolution to these items will be documented in the Proposed Director's Decision. Further details will be provided to you in an acknowledgement letter We are offering you another opportunity to address the PRB, if you wish to provide any additional support for your petition. Please notify me by February 1st, if you wish to address the PRB in a public meeting or via a recorded conference call. Please let me know of your availability for this meeting or conference call in February. If I have not heard from. you by February 1st, we will proceed with processing your request'as recommended by the PRB.
- Regards, Farideh E. Saba, P.E.
Senior Project Manager NRC/ADRO/NRR/DORL 301-415-1447 Mail Stop O-8G9A Farideh.Saba@NRC.GOV 3