ML20044H385
| ML20044H385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1993 |
| From: | Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306080291 | |
| Download: ML20044H385 (2) | |
Text
-.
~
l RELEASED TO THE PDR l
AFFIRMATION V0TR 6No RESPONSE SHEET
!...Nf.'........I"Nf....!
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COTHISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER R0GERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-351 - FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10'CFR PART 61, " LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DISPOSAL 0F RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE" ws APPROVED to**-tr DISAPPROVED.
ABSTAIN KL NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION
)
COMMENTS:
su
+r ra tme "T.
letL i
040103 M %.
SIGNATURE G
RELEASE VOTE
/
/
M M, / ? 73 I
j DkTE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES No 9306080291 930129
$0RRES kl N EN E PDR
Cornissioner Rogers' Comments on SECY-92-351:
I approve the staff's recommendation.
However, I think that the definition of " Land Disposal Facility" proposed by Commissioner dePlanque is clearer than the definition proposed in SECY-92-351 and should be substituted for it.
Also, the characterization of the public comment about increased regulatory uncertainty for above-ground disposal (on page 8 of Enclosure 1) and the response (on page 9) are not consistent.
As characterized, the comment is concerned with the potential for legal uncertainty that could arise frca differences between criteria developed by the states in the absence of NRC criteria.
The response focusses on whether Agreement States may set more stringent criteria than the NRC -- a difforent issue.
If the comment has been mischaracterized, that should be corrected.
Otherwise, the response should be revised to be more to the point. K w E
.