ML20138E073
| ML20138E073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1985 |
| From: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Strong T WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-50 NUDOCS 8510240563 | |
| Download: ML20138E073 (2) | |
Text
1 Ref: SA/KNS
.j<]
WH OOCKET COUROL CENTER OCT 2 1985
'85 0CT -3 P3 :29 Wiel Reccrd Fi'c WM Pr@c! dd _, _,
Dccket No.
POR/
Mr. Terry R. Strong Head LPDR Radiation Control Section r
nt f talandHealthServicM g
g Olympia, Washington 98504 g gg,g
' C MD
Dear Mr. Strong:
This is in response to your July 17, 1985 letter on the draft evaluation report for the NUPAC container Ft.-50/EA-50. Per discussions between hrs. Schneider of my staff and Mrs. Kirner I will respond to items 1, 4 and 5 as raised ir, your letter.
Items 2 and 3 are being considered by the Division of Wasta Management and will be addressed separately.
In item 1, a question was raised regarding the similarity between the topical report review process and the licensing process. Compliance with 10 CFR 61 waste classification and waste fom is the responsibility of the individual licensees who are not required to submit their compliance program for fomal NRC review and appmval. However licensees are required to have available to inspectors data which demonstrates compliance with the Part 61 requirements. An alternative method for simplifying the review of the waste fom and classification is to reference previously reviewed and approved generic reports. Since many licensees utilize similar services from the same fim, NRC staff encourages these fims to submit for review generic topical reports on these services.
If approved, topical reports can be referenced in licensing documents and repetitive reviews by NRC or State inspectors can be eliminated.
In item 4, it was pointed out that the package evaluation seemsd slanted toward power plant waste. The topical report on various HIC are specific to the waste stream for which the packages are designed. For the topical report to be approved for other waste streams, additional infomation would need to be submitted and reviewed.
Regarding the difference between the draft certificates of compliance, an attempt had been made to acconsnodate the. difference in draf ting style between South Carolina and Washington.
,~
w, s.
...o..
mcroau m now ucuosso OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
l Mr. Terry R. Strong i We are presently reevaluating our administrative procedures for the topical review process. When these procedures are completed, we plan to discuss them with the burial States and are hopeful that items 5 will be unnecessary.
Sincerely, original signed by5 D. Nussbaumer f' '
Donald A. Nussbaumer Assistant Director for
~.
State Agreements Program Office of State Programs Distribution:
SA R/F Dir R/F KNSchneider, w/ enc 1.
Topical Review file (fc)
LHigginbotham JGreeves y
d y
t or rice >
[YSAff di d e i KNS*c Wel'deV/1>hiANMWa' Ae ' ' B6 fr un m.>
.../.4 /.8 5.....
... 9./.[../.85...
..9/0/85...
9 cu >
-