ML20205D462
| ML20205D462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Neel J NUCLEAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D400 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-619 NUDOCS 8510160130 | |
| Download: ML20205D462 (2) | |
Text
.,.
y f.lL f
aMcu A
UNITED STATES 5(y^3 v /.,E r4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g"
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- '<N *.... l OCT 2. + 1979 ps I
Mr. James E. Neel President Nuclear Engineering Jompany, Inc.
9200 Shelbyville Road Suite 525 - P. O. F,ox 7246 Louisville, Kentuc(y 40207
Dear Mr. Neel:
Since your letter to Chaiman Joseph M. Hendrie dated September 27, 1979 involves matter under litigation which may come before the Commission for review, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to respond.
The following discussion responds to your concerns:
In your letter dated September 27, you noted a misstatement in Chairman Hendrie's letter to Representative John Dingell dated July 27, 1979, regarding your low-level radioactive waste site near Sheffield, Illinois.
The following statement was questioned:
"(at Sheffield the original 20 acres have now been filled, and the NRC staff has denied the application for expansion based upon site characteristics)." The statement should have been more carefully worded. A more accurate statement would have been:
"(at Sheffield the original 20 acres have now been filled, and the NRC staff reccamended denial of the application for expansion basec on the applicant's failure to furnish sufficient infomation on characteristics of the site and to propose an adequate plan for site development which considered demonstrated site characteristics)."
As you are aware, on January 16, 1979, the NRC staff filed a cross-motion before tne Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLE) "to deny that part of the subject application seeking to expand-the subject site to encompass an additional 168 acres, as applicant has not supplied and apparently refused to supply the staff with requested information." The re:;uested infomation included a revised site utilization plan to mitigate the proxinity of shale.
The burial trenches proposed for the expansion were not acceptable to the staff in view of site characteristics.
Eefore the ASLB could rule on the staff's cross-motion to deny, you moved to withdraw the application. The ASLB then considered the denial moot and granted your motion to withdraw the application.
No femal denial was issued as you noted.
8510160130 851008 PDR FOIA P IERCE85-1 A9 PDR a7 l
{
"r, Jr:c,s E i'eol The point of the pcrenthetical statenent uns to ir.dicate that closino of the Sheffield rite uns not a terporary ctter but ucs fcr the fore-s:;:able futcre. Therefore, uhile the irprecise statenent is regr'ettchle, uc de not think it changed the sense of the letter to Representative Dingell cr significantly risled the reader. Accordingly, we plan no further action'on this catter.
-Sincerely, (sinncG !.c: V. C =::'a Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operati.ons cc: The lionorable John Dingell
~
Chairman, Subco:mittee o~n Enc'rgy and Power Co:.r..ittee on Interstate and I.....
Foreign Comerce-U. S. House of Representatives h
Uashingten, D. C.
20515 tE -
l}~
pi.
Di tribution:
s
- '.15S r/f WJDircks WM r/f RGSmith E
MLL r/f TRehm
[T=
WMLL s/f HKShapar if GTuri RGRyan l,.
KDragonette OCA h
RDSmith Docket No. 27-39 (misc) ik.
REBrowning Docket r/f L'
JBMartin h~
E00 g
EDO R/f f
GErtter + 07511
,)?
I' Gill M
Eleins E
EReis (ELD)
'~
Ee-g EE=
E
'"er*
.WMLL.....
...tcS S...........
...... ELD.......
.. EDO....
6Tyri:cwh
,,,,,J D i,r c k, s,,,,,,
,J,ygp33j eg,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r W
er -r t-10/.19./. 7. 9...... 10.. /.19./.. 7 9.......
...1. 0. /.1. 9./D..
..10/..../29..
.m..
> :1 3:: ~c-70 cc:om f:....................u.............
E