ML060320404

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

ML060320404
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	12/16/2004
From:	D'Arrigo D Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS)
To:	Scott Burnell Office of Public Affairs
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: ML060320404 (2)

Text

TGClsdia Craig - RE: CT Yankee 20.2002 request ^Page 1 From: "Diane D'Arrigo" <dianed~nirn.org>

To: "Scott Burnell" <SRB3@nrc.gov>

Date: 12/16/04 4:14PM

Subject:

RE: CT Yankee 20.2002 request < C December 16, 2004 Scott Burnell NRC Public Affairs Washington DC 20055

Dear Scott:

We have concerns about the Connecticut Yankee 20.2002 request to dispose of decommissioning waste at US Ecology's hazardous waste site in Idaho, would like complete information on it and the opportunity for involvement and possible intervention.

Thank you for the information you provided, belowv. To follow up, I have a few more questions.

-- RE Q 1 below:

i What is the current expected timeline for the Connecticut Yankee 20.2002 request?

Presumably, since more information has yet to be submitted, a decision cannot be made until that is in and evaluated. What is the earliest that a final decision could be made?

RE Q 2 below:

A(j, On the OGC decision. It appears from what you say here that OGC has decided that the 20.2002 process itself does not require a hearing. What is OCG's full analysis of the 20.2002 process? It is my understanding that it is essentially a license amendment, thus open to public notice and intervention. Has that changed? If so how?

Does the decision that that there is to be no hearing requirement on 20.2002 requests in general mean that this is the case for the Connecticut Yankee 20.2002 request specifically?

RE other questions:

From your previous information you stated that we are to address requests for a hearing to Annette Vieta Cook. For your information we are doing this.

You also indicated that we are to request more information from you. We would like information on all previous and current 20.2002 requests including i\t t all correspondance on the Connecticut Yankee 20.2202 request. This includes correspondance or idscussions involving US Ecology, NRC and CT Yankee or any combination thereof; 4 2ta the full docket on the Big Rock Point 20.2002 requests; Ua~t (iand a compilation of all requests-and status. 4*4- b a For your information, I did try to access the Big Rock Point documents from the NRC Public Document Room but they are being-held-up-dueAhe-NRC t s security reviews.

Thank you--

Diane D'Arrigo

iCau&ia' Craig - RE: CT Yankee 20.2002 request Page2 NIRS 202 328-0002 x 16 dianed~nirs-org From: Scott Burnell [1]

Sent: Tue 12/14/2004 11:56 AM To: Diane D'Arrigo Cc: Sue Gagner

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 20.200:2?

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 healing on these matters. The staff's 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 caseofmtraslcnesakg alernative disposal requests, bu tey 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.