ML20046A856
| ML20046A856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/10/1993 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9308020014 | |
| Download: ML20046A856 (2) | |
Text
- +
c............,,,,,,,
N0TATION V0TE5 EELEASED TO THE PDR *<
AG[$
df, 7
RESPONSE SHEET
- ....t,,,,,
,igi{li T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-106 - WITHDRAWAL OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 z., p+A En P "b APPROVED X DISAPPROVED X ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
a guc4 l cs ~'vn/
,9p,y y
l
( f ( /' /
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/d
M N DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO
- gge==Ob1#u EbLo (02r J
1 i
CORRESONENYEPDR t=
e p
Comments of Commissioner Remick on SECY-93-106 I approve SECY-93-106 subject to incorporation of the following:
1)
The proposed Federal Reaister notice in Attachment B should be modified to be consistent with Item 6 of the SRM on SECY-92-045 dated April 15, 1992.
In the April 15, 1992 SRM, the staff was directed to move forward with those initiatives that could be accomplished under criteria and guidance that were in existence prior to the July 3, 1990, BRC Policy Statement.
On this issue, I join Commissioner Curtiss in not being willing at this point to reverse the Commission's existing policy on the case-by-case treatment of exemption initiatives, including rulemaking petitions for slightly contaminated wastes.
2)
With regard to the University of Utah petition, it is my understanding that the staff has contacted the petitioner and the petitioner intends to withdraw the petition.
If this occurs, the issue related to the University of Utah petition will be moot for purposes of this Federal Recister notice.
If the University of Utah submits a subsequent petition for rulemaking for medical wastes as the staff has indicated, it should be handled by the existing policy on rulemaking petitions as described in Item 1 above.
3)
I agree that the staff should defer the development of an interpretation of Section 2901 of the Energy Policy Act.
However, the staff should keep the Commission informed of any state actions that it becomes aware of involving the implementation of the provisions of Section 2901.
t