ML20043C191

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses NRC Position on Proposed EPA Stds for Disposal of Low Level Radwaste
ML20043C191
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/05/1990
From: Bernero R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Macrae J
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
Shared Package
ML20042C963 List: ... further results
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040210
Download: ML20043C191 (13)
v • d • e


Text

..,

~..

y j

Li j

$[

hi i

UNITED $TATES N

E.

4-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V

I.

I wAsWNGTON, O. C, 20658

. /j

.-C January 5, 1990 James B. MacRae,.Jr.

Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

-Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 3236 Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. MacRae:

For some time nowIthe staffs of tho' Office of Management and p

-Budget (OMB), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and L

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been

' discussing. EPA's draft standards for disposal of low-level L~

radioactive waste (LLW) (40 CFR Part 193) and' discrete-

[

naturally occurring and' accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste (40 CFR Part 764 of Part 193 deal with radiation exposure)s from LLWSubparts A and-B management and disposal and Subpart c d&als~with-groundwater protection.

EPA'is proposing to issue these standards under-

?

its Atomic Energy Act authority to set generally applicable standards for radioactive materials in the environment and L

under its Toxic Substances Control Act authority for disposal of NARM-waste.

V I

In, December 1982, the NRC issued regulations for licensing c

of LLW disposal' facilities (10 CFR Part 61), in respon'se to the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980.

These existing regulations currently provide a comprehensive framework for the development and regulation of commercial low level waste disposal facilities.

Indeed; using EPA's own. estimates, not more than 2 to-8 health effects:could be expected ~over a 10,000-year period'as a consequence of LLW' disposal 1in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61.

Despite this low level of risk,-Subpart C of the proposed EPA standards would impose further regulatory requirements, including an additional 1init on doses to individuals at the site boundary through the' groundwater pathway only.

This proposed limit would place further constraints on environmental release of radionuclides below the 10 CTR Part 61 limit of a 25 mrem /yr dose to the whole body from all environmental pathways with no concomitant reduction in anticipated health effects.

9006040210 8P1130

$1bhFR49886 PDC wr r

e-

Of '.

p M

James B. MacRae, Jr.- January 5,1990

,s In the Commission's view, EPA's proposed regulation is duplicative of the NRC's existing regulations, wholly unnecessary to protect public health and safety, and potentially extremely disruptive-to the' site selection and development process the States are conducting under rigorous schedules set by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

' Amendments.Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985.

On November: 17, 1988, Dr. Malcoln Knapp,~ Director of NRC's Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWM) wrote to-Ms. Nelle' Miller of OMB, documenting NRC's concerns with the draft stahdards.

Between November 1988 and April 1989,,the staffs of NRC and EPA met several times to attempt to resolve-these fundamental concerns.- on April:

4, 1989, Mr. John Greaves, Acting Director of NRC's Division of LLWM, and on April 25, 1989, Mr. Richard Guimond, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, wrote to Dr.

Arthur Fraas of OMB to inform him that the two agencies had reached an-impasse.

EPA and NRC staff met again on November 9, 1989, to discuss the unresolved-issues.

Despite this additional meeting, the NRC's major concerns with the draft LLW standard are unresolved.

NRC's principal and overriding concern is that'

' EPA's proposed 'IJJi standards-are not necessary to protect public health-and safety and are duplicative of NRC's requirements for licensing of land disposal of~ commercial LLW.

Moreover, because of the approach the EPA is proposing, promulgation of these standard at this late date in the process will be extremely _ disruptive to the development of new LLW disposal sites by States and Compact groups under the'LLRWPAA of 1985.

I particularly wish to note that in 1984, during hearings-before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Rocky Mountain LLW compact, EPA testified that development of their standard would'not be disruptive to the siting and development of new LLW sites, and that Part 61 was adequate for selecting new sites and would require no change as a result of the publication of the EPA LLW Standard.

Unfortunately,'these assurances no longer appear to be true.

EPA is under no statutory or court-ordered mandate to issue these standards.. Therefore, I recommend that EPA discontinue its plans to issue those portions of Subparts A and-B of this rule that would apply to NRC-or Agreement State-licensed LLW facilities and discontinue its plans to issue Subpart C in any form.

The Commission has reviewed and approved this position.

t 1

I

1 q

.?

James B. MacRae, Jr. ' January 5, 1990 In the November 9, 1989 meeting, NRC and EPA discussed-alternatives that, if: adopted, would resolve NRC's concerns l

with'the NARM and below regulatory concern (BRC)-portions of the standards.

In the case of NARM, NRC suggested modificationLof the definition of'a " regulated low-level waste disposal facility" to include EPA permitted disposal facilities.for discrete NARM.

ByLpermitting disposal of commercial-discrete NARM wastes at sites other than Atomic

- Energy Act licensed low-level waste sites, our primary.

concern with 40 CFR Part 764 is resolved.because the standards would no-longer require States-to dispose of NARM in licensed low-level waste sites.

In the matter of "below regulatory concern" wastes, EPA expressed the willingness

. t nel to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR Part 193.

4 The NRC agrecs'that the'BRC standard should not be issued.

Sincerely.

-f Robert M. Bernero,. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards t

/

4 9

D

cQ@ $ A$

(

4* ^

1....k-UNITED STATES E\\

'A i7 I-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s ;-

WASHileGToN, D. C. 20666 k,,.....o January 5, 1990 d

b i

R B

James B. MacRae, Jr.

)

Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator

-Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs l

office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 3236 Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. MacRae:

4 y

For some time now the staffs of'the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and j

the Environmental Protection Agency -(EPA) have been discussing EPA's' draft standards for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) (40 CFR Part 193) and discrete naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive P

materials (NARM) waste - (40 CFR Part 764 Subparts A and B of Part 193 deal with radiation exposure)s from LLW e

management and disposal and Subpart c dealsiwith groundwater-protection.

EPA is proposing to issue these standards under; 4

its Atomic Energy Act authority to set. generally applicable standards for radioactive materials in the environment and-under-its Toxic Substances Control Act authority for disposal of NARM' waste.

In December 1982, the NRC issued regulations for licensing

~

of LLW disposal' facilities (10 CFR Part 61), in response to the= Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980.

These-existing regulations currently provide a comprehensive framework for the development and regulation of commercial

-y

. low level waste disposal facilities.

II. deed,-using EPA's L

own estimates, not more than-2 to 8 health effects could be expected over a 10,C00-year period as a const.quence of LLW-disposal in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61.

Despite this low level of risk, Subpart C of the proposed EPA standards would impose further regulatory requirements, L

L including an additional limit on doses to: individuals at the site boundary through the groundwater pathway only.

This l

proposed-limit would place further constraints on i

environmental release of radionuclides below the 10 CFR Part 61 limit of a 25 mrem /yr dose to the whole body from all environmental pathways with no concomitant reduction in anticipated health effects.

{

vfl

&T.,

Q January 5, 1990 L

James B. MacRae, Jr.,

~

P i

In-the Commission's view, EPA's proposed regulation is i

duplicative-of the NRC's existing regulations, wholly unnecessary to protect public health.and safety, and og i

. bi potentially-extremely disruptive to the site selection and development process the States are conducting under rigorous i

schedules set by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy i4 Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985.

On November 17, 1988, Dr. Malcolm Knapp, Director of NRC's i

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning 7-

'(LLWM) wrote to-Ms.'Neile Miller of OMB,. documenting NRC's j?

Between November 1988 concerns with the draft standards.

and April 1989, the staffs of NRC and EPA met several times V

On April

~[

to attempt to resolve these fundamental concerns.

i 1989, Mr. John Greeves, Acting Director of NRC's Division' 4,

and on April 25, 1989, Mr. Richard Guimond, of LLWM, Director-of EPA's office of Radiation Programs, wrote to Dr.

Arthur Fraas of OMB to inform him that the two agencies had S

reached an impasse.

EPA and NRC staff met again on November 9, 1989, to discuss the unresolved issues.

Despite this additional meeting, the NRC's' major concerns with the draft LLW standard are NRC's principal and overriding concern is that unresolved.

EPA's proposed LLW standards are not'necessary to protect public health'and safety and are duplicative-of NRC's requirements for licensing of land disposal of commercial Moreover, because of the approach the EPA is LLW.

proposing, promulgation of these, standard at this late date in the process will be extremely disruptive to the development of new LLW disposal sites by States and compact groups under the LLRWPAA of 1985.

I,particularly wish to note that in-1984, during hearings before the Senate EPA Judiciary Committee on the Rocky Mountain LLW Compact, testified that development of their standard would not be disruptive to the siting and development of new LLW sites, and that Part 61 was adequate for selecting new sites and would, require no change as a result of the publication of the EPA LLW Standard.

Unfortunately, these assurances no longer appear to be true.

EPA is under no statutory or court-ordered mandate to issue Therefore, I recommend that EPA these standards.

discontinue its plans to issue those portions of Subparts A and B of this rule that would apply to NRC-or Agreement State-licensed LLW facilities and discontinue its plans to issue Subpart C in any form.

The Commission has reviewed and approved this position.

O

>m

.y.

J q,

James B.-MacRae, Jr. January 5,1990' J

In the November 9, 1989 meeting, NRC and EPA discussed ~

alternatives'that, if' adopted, would resolve NRC's concerns-with the NARM. and below regulatory concern (BRC) portions of-the standards.-

In the case of NARM, NRC auggested.

modification of the definition of a," regulated low-level waste disposal. facility" to include' EPA' permitted disposal facilities for discrete NARM.

By permitting disposal of commercial discrete NARM wastes at sites other than Atomic Energy Act licensed low-level waste sites, our primary concern with-40 CFR Part 764 JLs resolved because'the standards would no longer require states'to dispose-of'NARM

~

i in licensed low-level waste sites. ltn the matter of "below q-regulatory concern" wastes, EPA-expressed the willingness net to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR Part 193.

The NRC agrees that the.BRC standard-should not be issued.

Sincerely,.

g _ ~ _

--/

Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Materia 1' Safety and Safeguards i

i w

tw n

-v w

w mm

~

w

..:.;. ~...v

,v,

...,u.,,

7 i

,.7,,

n..

I

(

L y

TALiin Efts lult STAFF n'""' TO ON 05 -

EPA's 0ROU W WAftt PR0ftCT!0ll 87A E ARDS N R INACT!VI URAN!Ifl TA!LI N S 81

- 40 CPR 192, Subparts A.C (llarch 4,1989: Desumsat #0010s: 3060 AC08)

M

  • stC ts wf11 tag to work with DA to resolve substaattve issues prier te pre m igation of es standards.
  • Notes represent prelfstaarp ff esaments en EPA's draft flasl sesadaNs for grouaduster pro at taastive greatus tatilags sites.
  • Staff tpattffed subgtantive legal, preeshes1. and teabatest issses abset D A s draft fins standards.
  • List'ted ttas ava11able to perform reviews m y est have identified all

- substant"ve tseses.

b)

Detsber 15e fdsattfted ta' ear cements en tee standseds fa

  • Same is and 1anuary 1988: reseletten was no ed en mest u-i f

assumats.

' Diffiss1tr understeadt and taplementing the standar:s will enese sewarranted'dslave to schedule and tastessos to the east of te greatushillTa0 tags talAstfen,ProjecthistfRAP).

M

1. Issensistency with tfffRCA and ABA a
  • Framework established ta the standaNs fs (seenststent win De Ursatus Mill failtags Radistica Centeel Act of 1978, as assaded, and es Atesis Emery Act. For esemple.

Standards 192.0t(4)(3)(11 and 111)]

t ODE to a 'estch.It

feestring that dissesal te be desisted to sessly with situatten has authority to estabitsh ifeenses afser disposat settens. E esatentrat limits seestfied la at Iteense. Neuever are esspleted and Det has asuplied with DA's standaNs.

StandeNs se berend the generally app 11eebte standaNs esadsted IRITRCA Section Ics by providing precedural 1

veterved or S C and 005. For enasple the standards 198 fit;and(v)]

require IIRC to e pecify sen,contration Itai(ts ande at of 5

Ceap 11ance. Susi precedur 1 reevirements EPA's standards ret wr than establish eisimal standards to humans and me envireame6t.

  • ='~-v

.u.m.au E

Standards provide EPA wtPA site.spostfts ttias aet-herity ta concurritas with certa a al to a

limits before and durtag Ras itsenstag 192.08 (3)

(

. Under the esserved for hRC and 808 as taplementing agens es. peciftsalh frenework estettshe er se as is s and eerrestive settens Standards for g g sal monitori q$04Nf N t tN suEsoa ender a mtGA

1. Procedural Flaws
  • Standards developsont has been procotrally flawed because (1) the standards are ambiguous, taterna1 h tacoaststent, tesesplete. -

and saaeossaartly comptes (t) EPA did act Justt h all sitatfiaast abanges betasen the proposed and f1 mal standards f3)dequatetoresolvesubstaattveissues.!ateratene consvitatten sad

(' i, 4aa te sigatfisantly

  • Withrespectte(1)ll)slementaticaofthestandards disrupt the Urantua M Tatitu0sRemedialAstlesProje ennecessarily '

faeresse NRC resourse requireaants, and increase 11tiga v,e rists because, for saasple.

App 11sabt11ty of the standards is analear with respect to

=

  • vicinity esterial stabilfsed la elace
  • estattas ter costastaation beneath processtag sites
  • sites p a have already been substaatta1 V seaplete,d partions of the standards are interna 1 % fassaststests trements ta 1st.0g(b) require Oat senttertsg progress be to)to demonstrate soepliance ute the destga requirements in a

(a,taaluetagprevistensforlong-tersstant11graden 1st.

$st a bt terfag tb d

greenbat e protettica

'standardsta1st.02(a)(3)(itt)(A)(3)provideaeencontrattaa Itatt for gross-alpha partiale activity even thoesh e s Itait could not be enforced because grass-alpha is act a 'ltated esastitueat' I

~ - - -. - - - _ _. - _ _ _ _. _.. _

y;

3. :.

.r.

n...r. 3 w ~ - -,3.,.m..cr; -

c ; 3,3 7 - --- 9,g g,gy j

- -. -.c p

p,:

l} s; I

. i 3

L y

L The cleanup standards are taccelete per asuple, etsadsets to Subpart e reference previstens for estabitshtag ca centrattaa Itsits e

rt A. fleusvar the standards eseld for Itsted genetituents ta not to implemented beessse do set provide,for the estabitshment er listed constitseats and a tat of Ctep11ance, ubich are required R

+

to tspleanat saaesstratten Itetts-for groestater sleensp.

'Withrespectte(t)Ike-DA has set adequately Justified att sigatfienst changes ande betueen sed and final standseds. -per le EPA changed es defteftfos a witbestidentif)tasthat was providtag a rettenale flesase ande$e change with respect to tuplementa on of me elesampthe l

of t res.

s eu(to (8), sensultatten between DA sad RRC under leffR

  • With sD 1) ses act adequate to resolve RRC's somenta se the L

Section proposed standards. Based en the DA's ressesses it appetes that EPA

- any set have understood me fatant and sigaTftsano,s of MRC's emments se -

tht proposed standards.

8. Implementattoe Costs

~i

7'

' !spleasatatica of spa's groua b ater protysttoa standards stil i Fftandcentrastorsupport) sigaff1sast iaereastptresourceneedgHeterpretationsefthe

.for develop and esfondine Stanovative etsadards

.senduettag site.spectfts:lleenstag.

' standards preslede geners) Itsenses hr re atring site.speetfts

~

estabitshment of.eencontration 1tetts,for Itsted aestituents to

~

groundwater at the potat of Comp 1taase. Additiona' NRC resources' aseded for festastadigtemalitseaseapp11esttensIsprepartag environmenta tapact assessments.d adjudtestory heartag and pa

.easesting amendnea to pubits t feation heartags an s.

  • Addittenal rescuese sosts not Ittely to taprove protection of the pubite and environment,
4. Tesamtsa? Offffaulttes
  • The standards reestre actions'that any not he techsteelly defensible er appropriate.
  • For le. the standards de act provide soffistent fleatht11ty to deterates need for estd objectives of groundwater esatter reme.

a Postdisposal acattertag.any be of little er as value la bes1th and the environment at some sites, whereas seat tag any essential at o m er sites even before me and of the disposal period.

A

.-------,r---

n e-, -

-w e-

~

( ?.[

I 0

i

As asether essapleb withis restdual rediensttve antertal regardless the standards require DOE to deteratas the geeseem of itsted seastitusa ehether the seastitsents are stable,dv saa to rellab ted la e ter.

or are vessend espected ta er et fromrest redtesettve esterial.

theAppen(40CPRpartdiaVI!!(40 part 1 Itst m erent h_tesluded in II is a le sad defensible

.etterestive K

to the standards.

  • A114eugh the standards provide for supplanostal standseds to see cases.

- I supp'esental staadards app 1tsettens require greater enesets of NRC resserees to review and a e because of their site <-

ifts and ene ef.e ktad nature. Se lesental standards should become a roottne substitute for the genera applicable standards es ear be necessary L,

if the standards require as taas that are met tesInfalt sektevele or appropriate.:

Areasmsadatten

~

  • NRC wt11 tag to serk with epa to resolve substaattve lepel and precedural issues rpised by the steedsrds and to develop standards that.

are clear,' teshetes V assurate, preceduralh serrest, and taptementable.

C'.9'

  • Under Sectten tesfe)(1 of ifmlCA, epa and NRC should eenes1% further toresolvesubstant4veis)suesetestthestandardspriortopromulgetten.
  • 0 5 showiti esta611sh a allestene for spa's rettsten of the standards to essere ressenable and tias pre m igation of the standards.h progress teuerds tsses reseletion and e

4 e

n,.,,,.,.-

r--

g

c..,

i y' -

a.

I 8LS A R W 188 E8 M EPA'8 SRAFT FINAL EROUMATER PROTECfl0N STAMARS FOR IfffRAP SITES 450ER 40 CPR PART 192, SUBPARTS A C W

EEE i

8. Raours sonsistj with the testslative franswerk tapeeed A

tify and basass the legislative chan SPA's Groushater protestfee steedards. ges W MfRCA er clear

~

aseded to taplemen

2. Clarth aselieshtlity of the standards ta resAandIsfor A

~

esseplet d' tFe standards to Subpart A apply to stabilisation of s

vistetty property meterial outside of the disposal es11t what standards severs the cleanup of contastaated greva hater beneath-disposal sites tf-the ta11 tags are stab 111 ed en afte?

3. Clarify whether sites are grandfathered'with resseet to se'mpItsees A

with the standards if thy have alreaty been substsattally empleted.

trements for post-elessee annitertog and eerrective A

d. Delete cate NRC's statutory aethertites provided ender Section (t.T.104(f)(that.asties ) of 3

L t

alarify that anty apply to A

8.:Ifassitoriasstandardspersistl11tyorredesest as describe L

grouaduster esatiertag and act stah addittenal asettertag requirements betag doveteped ny ender the

-CleanAirAst.

6. ldentify assess and. justify differences between the Title !

8 andTitleII,standerIsforgroundusterpreteettee.

7. Revise the title of Subpart C and delete precedural requiremssta C

therets.

-8.

Use same deftaittee of ' groundwater" as uns faserporated b C

reference in the Title !! grounduster protection standards er Justify the teeenststone.

C

g. Require ' reasonable assuranse of esaformanse" rather than

. absolute *cesformance' with a site.ssocifts grounductor protestien standard to preytde floathitity for teenstaal Judgesats.

C

10. !aslade gross alpha partiste activity in the Itst of bassedens eenstituents er delete the eensentratteeltatt for gross. alpha.

"'33eTHUeratingsystesenpage3.

~ ~ ' '

~ - ~ -

SENT BY:XeroxiTelecopier 7020 't 1-19-90_i 4:56W 1-R. 1. 5. C. -

462 02:0;s26 i

,?.'.

1'.

g' tel 39/Imf/89/06/18SIES

-2 i

(.

min aptam

11. Revise in192.0t(a)(3)(111)teestettagprecederst A

rogstrement ma ify esasentratten 1tatts is me eastedtal lleense. ettet is en effective semeletion of the disposa) eetten. Revise ses res to dele 1em'enttagreestressats.

St. Selete provtstens for SPA sensurrease with ACLs ta 190.0ffa)(3h(3)

A desistens and to be seaststant the it e !! pretteenstas and 1 to avete spa partistpatton la site.

ifts j

regulatory frescuerk.

13. preytde site-speciffs floatht1 tty la 192.0t(s)(3)(tv) and 192.0t(6)

A todeterstae-theneedforandab,jeettvesofgrousewatereasttertag progress Ag!g and after disposal.

A

14. Ceaplete the standsets by tastedtas previstens for estabitantag L

11sted seastituents and pelat of Caspitanes for gramaduater cleanup ender subpset 5.

8 la. Clattfy deffettles of *1and* 1a 192.11(b) to fadieste abat sEth tepah E

sed ter a i

as nevtse reestrements to 1st.0t(s)(a)(t) hat arefor tenettfy issted e

used seastituents to preytde # e ease (artteria tfa VI!! of depart to the hasardess t a program - 1) rJreassa6btt ta er dortved resideal act(asamended)t and(a'le iserved to ter er tat 1 tass er Appeadts V!!! pere redteastive aster 284 f1std. Substitute Ap,pendia "I 140 CPR ps o

8

17. Revise requiressats to 192.0t(a)($1(t) to provide for L

estabitshinghastgroundgresahatargealityat313g31attee.

5

14. Clartfy the entended *dt pesal perted' eessept for esteret bessess as defined is restoratica under 194.Ithe)(2 and 153.20(b)(4)lettaa of Sebpart A 198.01(a),disposalpertedon applies to seap regetrements.

n e

v

'7 n;;;ii.xp;r..;;;..ir;;;s;7;- i-ven;;,em-~~ m.n;r; -

^ ~~~ air;it, ;st;-

a

.w.

-(

p. :.,

. ' i m

(

ts 80AIFW/89/es/tsluts p

e IR ATIVC RATINIS l

M

. V ** D*

L A

As issue that s ificant Iamentatten and esforcenset of

's ties standards to greatus M111 Tetl gatess rose ved, t o issue is to amuse unneesses de ta the ususeranted taereas la the ses of-Project i

rIseressedIttigative sts to the Feders governmeal.

As fesus that fepedes tuplementatten and enfersessat of DA's.-

3 standards. If unresolved to the standards B C say be ehle te resolve the issue through to tatteeofthestandards dortag teplamentatten. Such reso atten, heuever, aar sesso saaesessary deitys is the Pro samarten essas to MC, and increased litigative ris to Feders government.

L r i tementattee of W A's standards. tot C. -l1 An issue that any'gse ved h ERC taterpretatten of the C

sealdhereadilyro standards.

I i

('

l..

a

~ - - '

^

CTICE OF MEETING 2/23/8g-

- '0'ste h tion LLR8 r/f CGlenn JGreeves

- a r/f-

. Central f11e r

PLohaus JSurmeier PLohaus-pgg FEB 151989 MENDRANDUM FOR:

NRC Meeting Attendees t

(listedbeow)

FROM:

Chad Glenn 4

Regulatory Branch P

Division of Low-Level Waste Management.

and Decosmissioning Li e

.a

(

'SU8 JECT:-

MEETING NOTICE ON BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN u

DATE:

Thursday, February 23, 1989 7

~

TIME:

10:00 a.m.

LOCATION:

White Flint Bldg., Rm. 6-B-11 PURPOSE:

A representative of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) has requested a meeting with NRC staff.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss information needs relative to criteria in NRC's " Radioactive Waste Below l

Regulatory Concern; Policy Statement" (Federal Register p

-30839, August 29,1986).

l-ATTENDEE:

NRC NLMARK i.

L M. Bell, LLWM L. Fairobent

-i

-8. Labs.'RES ~ /

R. Bishop L:

D. Hopkins~, RES L

R.' Fonner, OGC R. Boyle, LLWM i

L.

K. Dragonette, LLWM P. Larkins L

If there are any questions concerning this meeting, please contact Chad Glenn

)

on X20567.

1 (OriginalSiEif@ v

')

Chad Glenn Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning h

I 0FC :LLRB

LLRB

~ NAME:CGleny/ec :RBoy(le DATE: t//t/89

1/g /89 :

3 c, 3,,e, OFFICIAL RECORD COPY o

1-

-una.,

C C.

t v

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20043C191&oldid=4537653"