ML20214N028
| ML20214N028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1986 |
| From: | Shaffner J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Knapp M, Starmer J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-8 NUDOCS 8609160026 | |
| Download: ML20214N028 (2) | |
Text
.-
.. Y WM Record File WM Project Docket No.
UTION:
JUL 2M M #
ME[rf gg), [
LPDR NMSS rf h / Z /06/ G/44-Distribution:
JBunting 2, - --
RBrowning o.
MBell 65: urn to M,1. 623 S3)
JShaffner PJustus NOTE T0: John Starmer, WMLU JGreeves Mal Knapp, WMLU KJackson MTokar FROM:
Jim Shaffner, WMLU
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO NEVADA REGARDING BETTY LLWDF LICENSE RENEWAL On Thursday June 26 Kitty Dragonette and I met with Stan Marshall who recently became supervisor of the Nevada Division of Radiological Health. Kathy Schneider and Cardelia Maupin, OSP, were also present at the meeting.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the upcoming license renewal for the Nevada site. The license, which is administered solely by the State, has been in timely renewal since 1980. Recent court decisions in Nevada suggest that the site will remain operational for some time. Therefore, an amendment for renewal is appropriate to pick up Part 61 operational and closure requirements.
Kitty gave Stan an overview of Part 61 similar to a presentation she had given DWM technical staff.
Stan says that he is under pressure for both US Ecology and his own superiors to renew the license for continued operations.
The State is in the process of waiving the third party inspection program which is likely to increase the number of generators using the Beatty Site.
Q Stan was most interested in finding out how the renewal process should precede and the degree to which we could provide technical assistance.
I suggested that he revisit all of the issues he raised in our tech. assistance review of the license application in 1980 as well as issues we raised in our meeting with. John Vaden last June vis a vis site closure. Since, to my knowledge, none of these i'
issues have been addressed by US Ecology they provide a good point of departure from which the licensee can redraft his application.
At the very least US Ecology must do some rudimentary site characterization and performance assessment. This will probably take them 6 months to a year. I said that the NRC staff could provide some preliminary guidance during the next year but that a full renewal application review would have to be factored into our long range planning.
I suggested that Stan have US Ecology develop a work plan for renewal application.
8609160026 860702 PDR WASTE WM-8 PDR OFC :WMLU c _ _ _ _ : - - -.. - -.:
- NAME
- JShaffner@
- j. _ _ _ _ :. - _ _ _.. ~, :_-__.-__--.:_________--_:----....____:---___----:-_____--..:--..___--
DATE :86/07/01
.. ~ -
200/JAS/86/07/01 Stan said that US Ecology had requested an immediate meeting with him to discuss the renewal process.
I suggested he put them off for a couple of weeks until he got his feet on the ground vis a vis Part 61, the licensing process and specific issues related to the Beatty license. Stan wanted to know if I could attend the meeting with US Ecology.
I told him to submit a T/A request through State programs.
Jim Shaffner, Project Manager, WMLU DISTRIBUTION Dragonette Maupin, OSP Nussbaumer Greeves Justus Browning 1
Bell l
O i
I i
l
@FC :WMLU 0....:...__....__:..___.......:___________.:___________.:.___________:.______.....:_.._______
AME :JShaffner:bm TE :86/07/01 1