ML082800106

PINGP Lr - Information Needs for PINGP Environmental Review

ML082800106
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/16/2008
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML082800106 (4)

Text

PrairieIslandNPEm Resource From: Rani Franovich Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:18 PM To: Heather Westra; Phil Mahowald Cc: Nathan Goodman; Beth Mizuno; Brian Holian; Samson Lee; Richard Plasse

Subject:

RE: Information Needs for PINGP Environmental Review Thanks for the note, Heather, and for your availability to have a conference call with me today. I just want to recap what we discussed in the interest of ensuring that you and I have a shared understanding of what was discussed this morning. As such, please let me know as soon as possible if your recollection differs from mine.

The first item we discussed was the apparent confusion regarding the site audit needs list and the information needs list. I explained the differences between the two and indicated that the staff had considered sending a site audit needs list in July (in advance of the environmental site audit). The purpose of the site audit needs list would have been to specify information from the PIIC that the NRC wished to review during the audit itself.

However, you may recall from my conversation with you on August 11, 2008, that I told you that I directed the staff not to send the list. As I explained to you during that call, it would be difficult for the NRC staff to generate such a list without knowing what information was available from the PIIC. At that time I further expressed to you that I did not want the PIIC to interpret such a list as somehow limiting the PIIC's input to only those audit needs identified by the NRC. I told you in that conversation that the PIIC should feel free to provide any information during the environmental site audit that it deemed relevant to the four areas of environmental review identified in the MOU.

As I mentioned in our discussion today, your email last Monday to Nathan requested the site audit needs list.

Given the purpose of this list and the previous discussion you and I had regarding the list, your email to Nathan generated some confusion. You clarified this morning that the list you were referring to was an information needs list, which had been discussed with Jeff Rikhoff and Jennifer Davis during the environmental site audit that was conducted the week of August 18, 2008.

When the NRC staff returned from the environmental site audit, they initiated the information needs list. Once the list was completed by the staff, it was given to me to review and forward to you - which I did last Friday.

Although the MOU does not include any provision for an information needs list, the staff has resorted to this request because, to date, the PIIC has not provided any data or information in accordance with the MOU. The list I sent to you reflects genuine, particularized information needs on the part of the NRC staff. These information needs fall within the four areas covered by the MOU. We are, therefore, requesting your assistance.

During our conference call today, you thanked me for the generosity extended to the PIIC with respect to the additional time allowed to provide data and information that was due to the NRC on August 17, 2008, in accordance with the MOU. I indicated to you that the staff is prepared to accommodate the PIIC with respect to the specific information identified in the information needs list provided that the information is submitted to the staff as soon as possible and no later than October 10, 2008. However, I also clarified that this should not be inferred by the PIIC as an extension of the date identified in the MOU. I indicated that we cannot guarantee that the staff will have sufficient time to consider information (other than what has been requested) within the timeframe established in the staff's review schedule. For this reason, I encouraged you to submit any additional information that is not identified on the information needs list as soon as possible because the sooner we receive the information, the more likely we will have time to consider it. You indicated that the information you plan to submit may be redundant to scoping comments that the PIIC is preparing to submit by September 22, 2008; I responded that this would be fine because it ensures that we will receive the information sooner rather than later.

1

I am pleased to hear that you are confident that the requested information can be provided by October 10, 2008. Please let me know if your understanding of our conference call today is different from what I have described so we can clarify our communications.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Rani From: Heather Westra [1]

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:18 PM To: Rani Franovich; Phil Mahowald Cc: Nathan Goodman

Subject:

Re: Information Needs for PINGP Environmental Review Rani Thanks for your message. I was under the impression that we would be getting a information needs request a few weeks ago. It looks like the request was dated August 27. I sent Nathan Goodman an e-mail on Monday inquiring whether the information request would be forth coming; I have not yet had a response. We are fully prepared to provide the NRC with information relative to our four areas of the MOU. Based on a quick review of your attachment, it should be no problem gathering the requested information.

We are also planning to submit EIS scoping comments on or before September 22.

Thank you for sending the information needs request.

Best regards, Heather Sent using BlackBerry From: Rani Franovich To: Heather Westra Cc: Nathan Goodman ; Richard Plasse ; Brian Holian ; Samson Lee ; Beth Mizuno ; Joan Olmstead ; Bo Pham Sent: Fri Sep 12 14:59:43 2008

Subject:

Information Needs for PINGP Environmental Review Hi Heather, Just a quick note to touch base with you. We were hoping to get some input from the PIIC in accordance with Attachment B of the MOU, which indicates that the PIIC will provide data and information related to historic/archaeological resources, socioeconomics, land use, and environmental justice within 60 days of the signing of the MOU. As you may know, that 60-day period ended August 17, 2008.

Since we have not heard from you as the primary representative for the PIIC, or Phil Mahowald as your backup representative, we took the initiative of identifying a number of areas in which information from the PIIC would be very helpful to us as we prepare the Supplemental EIS for PINGP (see the attached list of information requests).

Our ability to consider information in our analysis is largely based on the time we have to review that information within the established schedule. For this reason, we ask that responses to these information requests be provided as soon as possible and no later than October 10, 2008. This date provides almost twice the amount of time specified in the MOU and also is three weeks beyond the end of the scoping period. Any information received beyond this date may not be considered in the staff's Supplemental EIS.

2

Also, just a quick reminder that, for areas that are not specified in the MOU, the comment period ends September 22, 2008.

We look forward to hearing from you soon; have a pleasant weekend.

Rani L. Franovich Chief, Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, USNRC The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 800-554-5473, ext. 4136 or by email to legal@piic.org. Thank you.

3

Hearing Identifier: Prairie_Island_NonPublic Email Number: 20 Mail Envelope Properties (Rani.Franovich@nrc.gov20080916191800)

Subject:

RE: Information Needs for PINGP Environmental Review Sent Date: 9/16/2008 7:18:29 PM Received Date: 9/16/2008 7:18:00 PM From: Rani Franovich Created By: Rani.Franovich@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Nathan Goodman" <Nathan.Goodman@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Beth Mizuno" <Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Brian Holian" <Brian.Holian@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Samson Lee" <Samson.Lee@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Richard Plasse" <Richard.Plasse@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Heather Westra" <hwestra@piic.org>

Tracking Status: None "Phil Mahowald" <pmahowald@piic.org>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7711 9/16/2008 7:18:00 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: