ML16019A028

NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) for Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 Regarding ASR at Seabrook

ML16019A028
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/16/2016
From:	Grinnell D - No Known Affiliation
To:	John Lamb Plant Licensing Branch 1
References
Download: ML16019A028 (6)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Deborah Grinnell <grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:57 PM To: Lamb, John

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Thank you Johm Debbie On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:28 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov> wrote:

I will schedule the teleconference for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. If it ends sooner, that is OK. I need to find a day and time that all the PRB members are available and then check if that day and time is OK with you.

From: Deborah Grinnell [1]

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 9:27 AM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Importance: High John, I believe we should be able to state our goal and justification scientifically within an hour. If the PRB asks questions, I donknow.

Debbie On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov> wrote:

Ms. Grinnell, Currently, I am in the process of planning the teleconference. So, I understand that C-10 does not want to have the teleconference on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between 9:00 am to 12:00 pm, but otherwise, C-10 is flexible for a teleconference. Typically, the NRC lets the petitioner manage within the petitioner allotted time, who the petitioner has speak and for how much time those petitioners speak.

How much time do you think C-10 needs for the teleconference?

Thanks.

John From: Deborah Grinnell [2]

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:49 AM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Importance: High Hello John, We would need you and the PRB is know, what our expert can never be in a call 9AM-noon on Mon Weds, and Fri. How many C-10 staff can be on the call? How long is the call?

Thank you, Debbie 1

On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Ms. Grinnell, A teleconference is held if the petitioner desires it. The teleconference, if held, is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in advance of the Petition Review Boards (PRB's) evaluation. The PRB members may ask any questions needed to clarify the petitioner's request.

So, it is my understanding from the below email that C-10 would like to have a teleconference regarding the C-10 petition, dated December 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16006A002). The purpose of the teleconference is to give C-10 an opportunity to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition before the PRB's initial consideration and recommendation.

a. The teleconference is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for C-10 to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request.

b. No decisions regarding the merits of the C-10 petition will be made at the teleconference.

c. Following the teleconference, the PRB will conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome of the internal PRB meeting will be discussed with C-10.

d. The PRB typically consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the senior executive service level at the NRC. It has a Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator. Other members of the PRB are determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the information in the petition request.

f. As described in 2.206 on the NRC website, the NRC staff may ask clarifying questions at the teleconference in order to better understand C-10's presentation and to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the C-10's request for review under the 2.206 process.

Thanks.

John From: Deborah Grinnell [3]

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:37 PM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Hello John, C-10 Foundation would like to participate in a call with the NRC PRB. If the board has questions concerning our Petition, we have a a expert to be on the call if possible. To-date, Paul Brown PhD.

was requested to speak to the NRC ACRS on Seabrooks ASR in 2014, has spoken with the NRC ASR team, submitted three commentaries to assist the NRC on ASR reports, and has spoken with NRC Commissioner Magwood in Seabrook..

C-10 would like to know available dates and times the NRC PRB is available to plan and if they have questions to ask us. C-10 would appreciate receiving them in advance.

2

Thank you, John Debbie Begin forwarded message:

From: Sandra Gavutis <sgavutis@gmail.com>

Subject:

Fwd: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Date: January 12, 2016 at 12:43:06 PM EST To: Debbie <debbie@c-10.org>

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Subject:

For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook To: "sgavutis@gmail.com" <sgavutis@gmail.com>

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director C-10 Research & Education Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newburyport, MA 01950

Dear Ms. Gavutis:

My name is John G. Lamb, the senior project manager for Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook) at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I have been assigned as the Petition Manager for the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 2.206, Requests for action under this subpart, petition you submitted to the NRC on December 22, 2015, regarding your concerns of the alkali silica reaction (ASR) in the concrete structures at Seabrook. As the basis for your request, you state that C-10 Research

& Education Foundation (C-10) has studied the ASR and C-10 concludes that its presence at Seabrook is inimical to public health and safety.

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process - the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. This process permits 3

anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staffs guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available (Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML041770328).

The 2.206 process provides a mechanism for any member of the public to request enforcement action against NRC licensees.

Therefore, because you specifically requested in your letter that the NRC take an enforcement action, it was referred to the 2.206 process. C-10 requested that the NRC issue an order to the licensee of the Seabrook requiring immediate implementation and enforcement of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349.3R, Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures, and American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, code standards requiring core sampling, and petrographic testing for the mechanical properties of tensile strength, Poissons ratio, modulus of elasticity, and compressive strength specifically for walls of the Containment Building and Spent Fuel Pool at Seabrook. The 2.206 process is separate from the allegations process, which affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of their identity. In the 2.206 process, all of the information in your letter will be made public, including your identity.

In addition, in accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11, you have the opportunity to address the NRC Petition Review Board (PRB) to further discuss your petition, either in person at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, or by telephone conference.

I would appreciate if you could advise me by January 15, 2016, if you agree to the NRCs processing your request under the 2.206 process. In addition, please advise me if you would like to address the PRB. If you would 4

like to meet in person, I will need to schedule a formal public meeting at the NRC Headquarters at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. If you would prefer to address the PRB via phone, I will also work with you to coordinate a date/time during the upcoming weeks.

Thank you, John G. Lamb Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch LPL1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 5

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2603 Mail Envelope Properties (DD989405-01AD-42CE-BA03-1912613F4A9F)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Sent Date: 1/16/2016 12:57:16 PM Received Date: 1/16/2016 12:57:23 PM From: Deborah Grinnell Created By: grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com Recipients:

"Lamb, John" <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 9109 1/16/2016 12:57:23 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Deborah Grinnell <grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:57 PM To: Lamb, John

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Thank you Johm Debbie On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:28 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov> wrote:

I will schedule the teleconference for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. If it ends sooner, that is OK. I need to find a day and time that all the PRB members are available and then check if that day and time is OK with you.

From: Deborah Grinnell [4]

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 9:27 AM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Importance: High John, I believe we should be able to state our goal and justification scientifically within an hour. If the PRB asks questions, I donknow.

Debbie On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov> wrote:

Ms. Grinnell, Currently, I am in the process of planning the teleconference. So, I understand that C-10 does not want to have the teleconference on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between 9:00 am to 12:00 pm, but otherwise, C-10 is flexible for a teleconference. Typically, the NRC lets the petitioner manage within the petitioner allotted time, who the petitioner has speak and for how much time those petitioners speak.

How much time do you think C-10 needs for the teleconference?

Thanks.

John From: Deborah Grinnell [5]

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:49 AM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Importance: High Hello John, We would need you and the PRB is know, what our expert can never be in a call 9AM-noon on Mon Weds, and Fri. How many C-10 staff can be on the call? How long is the call?

Thank you, Debbie 1

On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Ms. Grinnell, A teleconference is held if the petitioner desires it. The teleconference, if held, is an opportunity for the petitioner to provide any relevant additional explanation and support for the request in advance of the Petition Review Boards (PRB's) evaluation. The PRB members may ask any questions needed to clarify the petitioner's request.

So, it is my understanding from the below email that C-10 would like to have a teleconference regarding the C-10 petition, dated December 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16006A002). The purpose of the teleconference is to give C-10 an opportunity to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition before the PRB's initial consideration and recommendation.

a. The teleconference is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for C-10 to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request.

b. No decisions regarding the merits of the C-10 petition will be made at the teleconference.

c. Following the teleconference, the PRB will conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome of the internal PRB meeting will be discussed with C-10.

d. The PRB typically consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the senior executive service level at the NRC. It has a Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator. Other members of the PRB are determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the information in the petition request.

f. As described in 2.206 on the NRC website, the NRC staff may ask clarifying questions at the teleconference in order to better understand C-10's presentation and to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the C-10's request for review under the 2.206 process.

Thanks.

John From: Deborah Grinnell [6]

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:37 PM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Hello John, C-10 Foundation would like to participate in a call with the NRC PRB. If the board has questions concerning our Petition, we have a a expert to be on the call if possible. To-date, Paul Brown PhD.

was requested to speak to the NRC ACRS on Seabrooks ASR in 2014, has spoken with the NRC ASR team, submitted three commentaries to assist the NRC on ASR reports, and has spoken with NRC Commissioner Magwood in Seabrook..

C-10 would like to know available dates and times the NRC PRB is available to plan and if they have questions to ask us. C-10 would appreciate receiving them in advance.

2

Thank you, John Debbie Begin forwarded message:

From: Sandra Gavutis <sgavutis@gmail.com>

Subject:

Fwd: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Date: January 12, 2016 at 12:43:06 PM EST To: Debbie <debbie@c-10.org>

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Subject:

For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook To: "sgavutis@gmail.com" <sgavutis@gmail.com>

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director C-10 Research & Education Foundation 44 Merrimac Street Newburyport, MA 01950

Dear Ms. Gavutis:

My name is John G. Lamb, the senior project manager for Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook) at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I have been assigned as the Petition Manager for the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 2.206, Requests for action under this subpart, petition you submitted to the NRC on December 22, 2015, regarding your concerns of the alkali silica reaction (ASR) in the concrete structures at Seabrook. As the basis for your request, you state that C-10 Research

& Education Foundation (C-10) has studied the ASR and C-10 concludes that its presence at Seabrook is inimical to public health and safety.

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process - the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. This process permits 3

anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staffs guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available (Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML041770328).

The 2.206 process provides a mechanism for any member of the public to request enforcement action against NRC licensees.

Therefore, because you specifically requested in your letter that the NRC take an enforcement action, it was referred to the 2.206 process. C-10 requested that the NRC issue an order to the licensee of the Seabrook requiring immediate implementation and enforcement of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349.3R, Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures, and American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, code standards requiring core sampling, and petrographic testing for the mechanical properties of tensile strength, Poissons ratio, modulus of elasticity, and compressive strength specifically for walls of the Containment Building and Spent Fuel Pool at Seabrook. The 2.206 process is separate from the allegations process, which affords individuals who raise safety concerns a degree of protection of their identity. In the 2.206 process, all of the information in your letter will be made public, including your identity.

In addition, in accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11, you have the opportunity to address the NRC Petition Review Board (PRB) to further discuss your petition, either in person at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, or by telephone conference.

I would appreciate if you could advise me by January 15, 2016, if you agree to the NRCs processing your request under the 2.206 process. In addition, please advise me if you would like to address the PRB. If you would 4

like to meet in person, I will need to schedule a formal public meeting at the NRC Headquarters at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. If you would prefer to address the PRB via phone, I will also work with you to coordinate a date/time during the upcoming weeks.

Thank you, John G. Lamb Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch LPL1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 5

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2603 Mail Envelope Properties (DD989405-01AD-42CE-BA03-1912613F4A9F)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: For Your Action - 2.206 Petition from C-10 regarding ASR at Seabrook Sent Date: 1/16/2016 12:57:16 PM Received Date: 1/16/2016 12:57:23 PM From: Deborah Grinnell Created By: grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com Recipients:

"Lamb, John" <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 9109 1/16/2016 12:57:23 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: