ML060320401

E-mail from S. Burnell, OPA, to D. D'Arrigo, Nirs, Subject: CT Yankee 20.2002 Request

ML060320401
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	12/14/2004
From:	Scott Burnell Office of Public Affairs
To:	D'Arrigo D Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS)
Shared Package
ML060320259	List: CY-05-002, Letter to NRC Document Control Desk from G. Bouchard, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Request for Approval of Proposed Procedures in Accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 ML060320284 ML060320293 ML060320393 ML060320401 ML060320404 ML060320407 ML060330078 ML060330091 ML060330095 ML060330119 ML060330131 ML060330134 ML060330136 ML060330137 ML060330139 ML060330143 ML060330145 ML060330149 ML060330153 ML060330157 ML060330159 ML060330162 ML060330164 ML060330173 ML060330182
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0293
Download: ML060320401 (1)

Text

XClaudia Craig_- Re: CT Yankee 20.2002 request Page 1 From: Scott Burnell To: Diane D'Arrigo Date: 12/14/04 11:56AM

Subject:

Re: CT Yankee 20.2002 request Diane; This e-mail is a response to your e-mail and the several follow-up calls to you made to NRC staff members in OGC and NMSS. I'd like to again request that you use myself or another OPA member as your point of contact for questions such as these. Having a single point of contact will save both you and the NRC staff time in answering your questions, and will ensure you receive the information you seek. As for your Connecticut Yankee questions:

Q.1) What information is NRC requesting of Connecticut Yankee regarding their request for alternative disposal of decommissioning waste under 20.2002?

NRC staff are seeking a clearer definition of the material to be covered by the request. We expect the information within the next couple of weeks.

Q 2) When will the Office of General Council make its decision [on public involvement in alternative disposal method requests]? Will the decision by the staff proceed regardless or will there be coordination with public notice, opportunity for public comment,, hearing and potential intervention?

OGC was reviewing the 20.2002 process in general, not the Conn. Yankee request specifically, and the decision was that there is no opportunity for a hearing on these matters. The staffs review of the Conn.

Yankee request will continue. Of course, any member of the public can provide unsolicited comments on licensee requests for regulatory action.

Q 5) What are the other sites and what were the alternatives approved?

First, to clarify answers you have already received on other alternative waste disposal requests:

Big Rock Point received two approvals, one to send waste to a landfill and one to bury waste onsite; Big Rock Point left the second approval unused.

The NRC does expect a similar request from Yankee Rowe, but nothing has been received.

There are two current cases of materials licensees making alternative disposal requests, but they are being handled through regional offices:

The Air Force has a request in to Region IV to dispose of obsolete tanks used as gunnery targets; Merck has a request in to Region I to dispose of tritium-bearing soil.

Compiling a list of past alternative waste disposal method requests will require additional staff resources.

Again, please feel free to contact OPA for additional information.

Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer Nuclear Regulatory Commission CC: Sue Gagner 1l Vto