ML20127G829

From kanterella
Revision as of 04:56, 22 August 2022 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 850304 Request for Review & Comment on Revised Us Ecology Closure Plan for Beatty Low Level Radwaste Disposal Facility.Issues Involving Site Closure Complex & Understanding by All Parties Necessary
ML20127G829
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/30/1985
From: Nussbaumer D
NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To: Vaden J
NEVADA, STATE OF
References
REF-WM-8 NUDOCS 8505210156
Download: ML20127G829 (1)


Text

__ _

L D istribution:

SA R/F Dir R/F

'KNSchneider w/ enc 1

-NJHornor,'/wenh. APR 3 0 1985

.NV file fc w/ enc 1 and w/ incoming JShaffner Ref: SA/KNS l

WM Record file WM Project Mr. John D. Vaden, Supervisor Docket No-Radiological Health Section PDR -

Department of Human Resources 505 East King Street LPDR Distribut. ion:

Carson City, Nevada 89710

[ _c'AA-4+n sa s-rw2 m &AL .

Dear Mr. Vaden:

ZM CIrn (Return to_WM,623-SS)_ L.3 This is in reference to your March 4,1985 letter r* questing NRC review and comment low-level on the waste radioactive revised US Ecology disposal facility. closure WasteplanManagement for the Beatty(WM) staff reviewed the revisions to the closure plan which were intended to i address areas of concern that WM raised on the previous version.

It is the staff's opinion that the revised closure plan does not adequately address a number of these concerns. We have included three ,

enclosures which form the basis of the WM opinion. Enclosure I was.

prepared by the Low-Level Waste Project Branch. Enclosure 2 was

prepared by the Geotechnical Branch and presents comments regartling concerns with respect to flood protection, environmental monitoring and .

transport processes in the unsaturated zone. Enclosure 3 provides consents from the perspective of the Engineering Branch.

3-We do not feel that the best way to resolve these rather complex issues is for the licensee to respond item by item to each of the consents as was done in the past but rather to reflect the points made in an overall revision of the plan.- The issues involving site closure are complex and a common understanding by all parties involved is necessary. If you feel it would be useful NRC staff would be willing to participate in a meeting with the licensee and the State to discuss and perhaps arrive at-resolution of the technical, administrative, and financial concerns raised herein.

m o 9 Sincerely, y E.

O$ original signed byI g i p.Eussbau=er 50 !E Donald A. Mussbaumer o Assistant Director for r $

State Agreements Program 5 Office of State Programs

Enclosures:

-As stated 8505210156 850430 PDR WASTE j WM-8 PDR

.... ..SA...&.' .. A .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

KNSch,neider/bh..D..us.sba mr. , , . . . . . . , . ... , , ... .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

4/2 91.05... . .. ..u......

. .. A/fl.as..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, we ronu sta sio noi nacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY