ML20246G383
| ML20246G383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1989 |
| From: | Tokar M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Sumpson S U.S. ECOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING |
| References | |
| REF-WM-91 NUDOCS 8903170383 | |
| Download: ML20246G383 (2) | |
Text
~
l
. .. . . ~
. l
< l l
MT/LTR TO STEVE SIMPSON l
Steve I. Simpson pg j TY l
Chief Process / Nuclear Engineer U.S. Ecology, Incorporated Technologies Division 212 South Tryon Street, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28281 l
Dear Mr. Simpson:
While I was in attendance at the Waste Management '89 meeting in Tucson recently, I was asked on several occasions by U.S. Ecology representatives )
about the review schedule for your report, " Stability of NS-1 Solidified with High Strength Asphalt, " Report No. USE-61-001-P, Revision 0. Each USE representative expressed a sense of urgency about the need for a timely decision by the NRC concerning the acceptability of the topical report and j bituminized NS-1 waste form. ;
\
I was reluctant to provide an "off the top of nty head" estimate of schedule in I response to the queries in Tucson, and so upon nty return to NRC Headquarters I have checked further into the work that is currently in the queue with regard to priority, availability of resources, and impact on scheduling. Though we had originally estimated that final 1st round questions would be ready by March 1989, we have had to revise that estimate because of a re-prioritization of work and re-assignment of personnel resources. Our current best estimate for the issuance of formal 1st-round questions on your topical report is September, 1989. Factoring in a reasonable amount of time for resolution 9f technical issues (and assuming that there are no issues that would require additional experimental work--note that I cannot estimate the likelihood of that at this time), I would anticipate that a Technical Evaluation Report describing the results of our review could be developed in early 1990. This estimate is based on current work and does not take into consideration the potential impact of work of a " brushfire" nature that is not presently in place but which might adversely affect the schedule because such work typically has very high priority.
I fully understand the concern expressed by the U.S. Ecology representatives I met with in Tucson regarding the stretched out schedule for this review, and I wish that we could expedite the review in some manner. However, we have i exhausted all alternatives, and in the absence of new resources (which I do q not anticipate being able to acquire), there is nothing further that can be 4 done. )
1 w m l f[ WO315 NL ,1l
i
,; i l
Steve I. Simpson 3
~
I regret the necessity of having to apprise you of this schedule projection d for the review of your NS-1 report. I realize that you are developing )
information that was to be submitted in a' separate topical report on several 1 I
other waste streams and waste' form formulations. Obviously, any new topical report submittals would have to go into the work queue in the order received and would then be addressed and prioritized against other work. You may want to take this into consideration in'the development of a marketing strategy for 1 new waste form stabilization media. )
I If you have any further questions on this matter, please call me at (301) l' l 492-0590.
' Sincerely,
! Original _$fgne[W Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS cc: John J. Surmeier John T. Greeves Distribution:
- ZCentra12 FilesiG WM.91- JSurmeier, LLTB MTokar, LLTB NMSS r/f LLTB r/f JGreeves, LLWM. JCraig, NRR KSchneider, SLITP 1
ACNW Yes:/ g / No:/ /
PDR/NUDOCS Yes:/ W / No:/ /
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
- 1 1
o9
_[. _[_ ___[... ____ [. _____[.. ......[__ ...__.[ _________
NAME:MTokar/lj :J rmeier: : : : :
bA[E[hk'/b9 / b9 / hb9 ))b9 / /b9 $ ) /b9 h/hb9 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
,