ML11262A341
| ML11262A341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/2010 |
| From: | Bo Pham Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Andy Imboden, Susco J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11262A341 (3) | |
Text
cY~6 Pham, Bo From:
Pham, Bo Sent:
Monday, August 09, 2010 3:40 PM To:
Imboden, Andy; Susco, Jeremy
Subject:
Re: ACTION: Salem & HC SEIS I asked Jeremy to look it over for me this week. He has the summary report.
Sent from NRC blackberry Bo Pham From: Imboden, Andy To: Pham, Bo Sent: Mon Aug 09 15:26:47 2010
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Salem & HC SEIS Update: Nobody's seen scoping summary comments.
From: Pham, Bo Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 5:27 PM To: Eccleston, Charles Cc: Imboden, Andy
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Salem & HC SEIS
- Charles, Regarding you comment that "we could simply add a footnote explaining that the applicant completed this [CZMA] approval process and therefore there was no need for NRC to do it," the NRC does not do CZMA consultation with the states. It's a "CZMA consistency determination" made by the state of NJ for the Salem & HC facility. The only stipulation for the NRC is that we cannot issue the renewed license without a consistency determination.
LIC-203 discusses this process.
My main concern regarding the comments is that, where we may say that we'll consider an issue in the DSEIS, someone better be able to account to how/where we considered it. Did you fwd each of the in scope comment to the respective tech reviewer?
Thanks.
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 36
IV. 3051-415-8450 From: Eccleston, Charles Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:31 PM To: Pham, Bo
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Salem & HC SEIS Bo, I hadn't forgotten the request concerning scope of the comments, I've been doing final a review of the comments, but keep getting side tracked with other issues that are popping up. Will have final review of comments completed by the end of this week. In summary, we received 21 separate comments from different entities. 15 of the comments are from companies/organizations and 6 comments are from individual citizens. The majority of the comments are fairly typical of what I've seen before and about what I expected to see on S/HC. The comments can be broadly categorized into the following groups.
- 1. Comments in support of extending the license
- 2. Comments concerning license renewal and its processes
- 3. Comments concerning aquatic ecology and related Issues
- 4. Comments regarding accidents'
- 5. Comments concerning waste
- 6. Miscellaneous issues i.e., emergency preparedness, aging management, etc After many meetings, emails, and revisions we (myself, Tina Ghost, Bob Palla) finalized the response to the one remaining comment issue involving a major solar flare about a month ago.
Also, I changed the ML number in Appendix D to refer to the individual ML number for each of the letters.
With respect to the 3 letters from PSEG. This project requires CZMA consultation. This was done by the applicant and they received official clearance from the state, so there was no need for NRC to repeat this approval process. While it's true that this consultation was not strictly conducted by NRC (i.e., applicant), we need to demonstrate that this was requirement was completed, which is why I included the PSEG letters. I asked Andy about this and he's going to get back with me. One, thought, we could simply add a footnote explaining that the applicant completed this approval process and therefore there was no need for NRC to do it.
C From: Pham, Bo Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:32 PM To: Eccleston, Charles
Subject:
ACTION: Salem & HC SEIS 37
1G arles, lots of actions to follow-up on here...
I haven't gone over the list of consultation letters for App D yet, but here are some comments:
- 1.
Why are we putting the 3 letters to PSEG in there? This is a list of our correspondence with other agencies, not the applicant's.
- 2.
You have the same ADAMS accession numbers for a lot of the letters; upon investigation, I realized that it was the package accession numbers. But, why are you putting it all under one package with the title of "Fish and Wildlife Consultation Response..."? They all have their individual accession numbers, and should not be in the same package when some letters are regarding CZMA, not Fish & Wildlife.
Also, I asked for a summary of the scope & scale of the comments received for Salem & HC (e.g., we received x number of comments, from the following org/people, the main issues of concern are x, y, z, etc.). Please provide this for me as well.
Please also figure out a way to keep track of my tasks/requests for you to take action. I will try to clearly mark the email subject lines with "ACTION" to make sure you don't miss them, but I need you to follow-up on them rather than having me ask them repeatedly. Thanks.
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8450 38