ML20127N763
| ML20127N763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1993 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gilchrist J, Kraft F, Renton J, Shaver C, Thompson A AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOMESTAKE MINING CO., PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127N718 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR58657 AE77-1, AE77-1-007, AE77-1-6, AE77-1-7, NUDOCS 9302010067 | |
| Download: ML20127N763 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ .
p%9 u ) y s,
- r. *
. UNITED STATES i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
> ,f WAssiNotoN o e ms
% J
- '* January 14, 1993 CH AIR M AN Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
Perkins Cole 607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Thompsont This letter expresses the agreement in principle of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the attached draft settlement agreement dated November 24, 1992 (Draft Agreement) as that agreement pertains to matters to be implemented by NRC and the Agreement States. Once finalized, the Agreement, we understand, will be directly endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Environmenta. Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the American Mining Congress (AMC), the Homestake Mining Company, and certain other individual members of AMC.
The Draft Agreement is meant to settle pending litigation, as. set forth therein, between EPA, EDF, NRDC, AMC, and Homestake Mining Company. To this end, the Draft Agreement provides a detailed course of action designed to enable EPA to rescind its clean Air Act standards governing radon emissions associated with uranium.
mill tailing disposal (currently codified at 40 CFR Part 61, subpart T) in favor of Augmented EPA regulations (currently codified at 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D) promulgated pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). NRC will implement these generally applicable standards, once promulgated by EPA.
Tho Draft Agreement grows out of intensive discussions over the last eighteen months and represents a consensus approach among the above parties for controlling radon emissions from uranium mill tailings disposal sites in a manner that minimizes duplicative regulation while also ensuring the protection of public health with'an ample margin of. safety. Such an effort is consistent with the letter and intent of section 112(d)(9) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
NRC strongly supports the collective objective of these' efforts, namely to ensure a sufficient level of protection of'the public health and the environment while eliminating unnecessary dual regulation under the Clean Air Act and the Atomic Energy Act of l
9302010067 930115 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE-PDR
i l
i ,
2 1954, as amended. Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral to the Agreement directly call for action by NRC, or by an affected NRC Agreenent State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of the October 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (HOU) between NRC, EPA, Colorado, Texas and Washington. Thus, the NRC has settled upon this letter as the means for expressing its position with respect to the draft Agreement. This letter confirms NRC's intent:to abide by and otherwise implement those substantive provisions in the Agreement that directly pertain to NRC. To the extent that the Agreement calls for specific NRC actions that go beyond the general commitments in the 1991 MOU, the NRC will endeavor ~to fulfill these provisions concistent with applicable law and available resources.
If you have any questions on NRC's position, please contact' stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and -
Fuel Cycle, at (301) 504-1644.
Sincerely,
/
Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman s Enclosure Draft Agreement
y ...,***n,,
- /i UNITED STATES i m I i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (5 'y J wasHWGToN O C WM w .
- ..' January 14. 1993 CHAIRMAN Ms. Chris Shaver Environmental Defense Fund '
1405 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, Colorado 00302 Dear Ms. Shavert This letter expresses the agreement in principle of the Nuclear' Regulatory Commission to the attached draft settlement agreement dated November 24, 1992 (Draft Agreement) as that agreement pertains to mt eers to be implemented by NRC and the Agreement States. Once finalized, the Agreement, we understand, will be directly endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the American Mining Congress (AMC), the Homestake Mining Company, and certain other individual members of AMC.
The Draft Agreement is meant to settle pending litigation, as set forth therein, between EPA, EDF, NRDC, AMC, and Homestake Mining company. To this end, the Draft Agreement provides a detailed coursts of action designed to enable EPA to rescind its Clean Air Act standards governing radon emissions associated with uranium mill tailing disposal (currantly codified at 40 CFR.Part-61, Subpart T) in favor of augmented EPA regulations (currently codified at 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D) promulgated pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation ~ Control Act (UMTRCA).- NRC will implement these generally applicable standards,-once promulgated by EPA.
The Draft Agreement grows out of intensive discussions over the last eighteen months 'and represents a consnnsus-approach-among the above parties for controlling radon emissions from uranium mill tailings disposal sites in a manner that minimizes duplicative regulation while also_ ensuring the protection of public health with an ample margin of safety. . Such an effort is consistent with the letter and intent of section ll2(d)(9)-of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
NRC strongly supports the collective objective of these efforts, namely to ensure a sufficient level of protection of the public health and tha environment while eliminating unnecessary dual regulation under the clean Air Act and the Atomic Energy.Act of
( .-
- .-~ _ - . , . . - .- - . - - . . - . . . . ~ .. . ~ . . - . ~ . - - . . . . - -
- u. . ,
a ' I, IN[
2 Although the NRC is not a party.to the 1954, as amended.
underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral :
to the Agreement directly call;for action by HRC, or by.an t affected NRC Agreement State. NRC'also concludes that the !
Agreement is compatible with the general scheme.of the October.
1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).between NRC, EPA, Colorado,-Texas and Washington. Thus, the NRC has settled.upon' l this letter 'as the_ means for expressing'its position 1with' respect to the draft Agreement. - This letter confirms NRC's intent to abide by and otherwise implement'those substantive provisions in the Agreement that directly pertain to NRC. To-the extent,that the Agreement calls for specific NRC-actions that go beyond the. !
general commitments in the-1991 MOU, the NRC will~ endeavor to
- fulfill these provisions consistent with; applicable law 1and ,
available resources. ;
If you have any questions on'NRC':s position, please contact Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel.for Rulemaking and' Fuel' Cycle, at (301) 504-1644. ,
Sincerely, ,
kennethC. Rogers
-Acting Chairman-
Enclosure:
Draft Agreement y
~h 3 . . . . - ....- - - - - . . - . . . ,
,-. e.-,--- . --. . . . . .; , L . 1. - . . 5 . . - IJ. , , - ' .
d .
s
[ "gono.v' 4, UNITED STATES
- 't NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION j* #
WASMWOf oN,0 C. 20$BS t
t / 35nuary 14. 1993 y i CHAIRMAN i
'i Jeffrey Renton, Esq.-
office of the General-Counsel ' ,
i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Renton ,
This letter expresses- the agreement irt principle of. the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission to the attached draft settlement agreement dated November 24, 1992 (Draft Agreement).as that agreement 1 pertains to matters to be implemented-by-NRC and'the Agreement; ,
States. Once finalized, the Agreement, we understand, Willebe directly endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency'(EPA), ,
the Fnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF), . the Naturel' Resources Defense Council (NRDC) , the American Mining Congresa . ( AMC)', the' '
Homestake Mining Company, and certain other-individual members of
/,MC . .
The Draft Agreement is meant to settle pending litigation,Laseset-f orth therein, between EPA, EDF,. -NRDC, . AMC, and Homestake Mining company. To this:end, the Draft Agreement provides a detailed
! course of action designed to enable epa to rescind its clean, Aire Act standards governinc radon emissions associatedLWith uranium
~
mill tailing disposal (currently codified at-40iCFR Part 61,"
Subpart T) in favor of augmented EPA regulations =(currentlyi .
q codified at 40'CFR Part 192, Subpart1D) promulgated-pursuant to.
the' Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control'Act-(UMTRCA).s- HNRCL i
will implsment:these generally applicable standards,fonce promulgated:by EPA.
The Draft Agreement grows out'ofiintensivaldiscussionslover:the-last eighteen months and represents a1consensussapproach among the above parties for controlling radon emissionsffrom uranium-L mill. tailings disposal sitescin a manner that minimizes D k duplicative - regulation;While aiso ensuring the protection 'of-public health 1with,anEample. margin of; safety. 'Such an effort'is -
-consistent with theLletter and11ntent of section-112(d)(9) of'the -
1990 Clean Air Act amendments. ,
'NRC strongly supports >the collective} objective of~these efforts, namely to. ensure assufficientelevel of protectionsoffthe:public .;
health and:the' environment while eliminating unnecessaryLdual regulation.underithe Clean Air Act and1the Atomic Energy _ Act ofi ,
~
. - - .a , , .
. - - - - . . - . - . ~ . . . . - _ ~ - - _ - .- - -.- . - . , . . _
[.- -
.6 ,
2 ,
1 1954, as amended. Although the NRC is not a party to the. ;
underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that_many. provisions-integral i to the Agreement directly call for action by NRC, or by an s affected NRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the-Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of-the october '
i 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC, EPA, Colorado,. Texas and Washington. Thus, the NRC has settled _upon this letter as the means.'for. expressing its position with respect i to the draft Agreement. This letter confirms NRC's intent-to 1 abide by and_otherwise implement those substantive provisionszin .. .
the Agreement that directly pertain to NRC. To.the: extent that ~'
the Agreement calls-for specific NRC actions that go beyondethe1 general commitments in the_1991'MOU, the NRC will endeavor to fulfill these provisions uensistent with applicable 110w and .
available resources.
If you have any questions on NRC's position' please contact = ,
Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General-Counsel for_Rulemaking=and :
Fuel Cycle, at (301) 504-16444 Sincerely, )
Q j '
f q. .
Xenneth C.--Rogers Acting Chairman
Enclosure:
Draft Agreement
.t
' F
, i t
--%.=
n -lwww +evw-,=,sw= -=-- - , e-e #~mr-- w,- * * . se- e - w ,-e-,- + .ge avewe, <-,ie > .- *ww-me
- y. - -- - . - _ . .. . .- , . _ - . _ - -,
[h '
- jj/l '
/ ** " ' %, I i\/
12 J s, ;
!V / . r .1 UNITED STATdS i
? ! i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'g ! wasHMTON o C M86 K %, gf 4
- .=* January I?. 1993 l CH AIRM AN j l
l I
J l
Mr.. Fred Kraft '
Homestake Mining-Company P.O. Box 98;
- o Grants, New Mexico. 87020 .j l
Dear Mr. Kraft:
q This letter expresses the agreement in principle-.of the Nuclear-Regulatory. Commission.to the attached draftLsettlement agreement J dated _ November 24, 1992 (Draft Agreement) as:that agreement.
pertains to matters to be implemented.by NRC and-the Agreement- '
States. 'once finalized, the-Agreement,1 we: understand,.WillEbe5 directly endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),- 1 the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the. Natural ~ Resources; ,
Defense Council (NRDC), the American Mining' Congress (AMC)i thei. '
Homestake Mining Company, and.certain other* individual memberrief; >
c AMC. ;
The Draft _ Agreement.is_maar.t to settle-pending litigation,:as set; _
forth therein,"between EPA, EDF,_ NRDC,:AMC, and Homestake; Mining: 1 Company. To this- end,: the. Draf t Agreement provides La; detailed =
designed 1to1 enable EPA._to rescind"its Clean-Air
~
course of act! ;
-Act standard overning radon l emissions associated'with uranium: i mill:tailir Saposal (currently codifiedLat?40.CFR.Part 61,7 Subpart T) 1.. favor of augmentediEPA regulationsi(currentlyL__.
codified at 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D)' promulgated pursuant?to' the Uranium Mill Tallings: Radiation Control 1Act (UMTRCA).? t..NRC._
will-implement these generally applicable > standards, once' ,
promulgated;by. EPA. y The Draft Agreement 1 grows out of intensive 1 discussions <overfthe ,
last eighteen months.and representsta' consensus;approachLamong ;
w tho'above parties for. controlling. radon: emissions 1fromturaniumE g mill tailings disposal sitos in a-manner that minimizes-Lduplicative-regulatien while also ensuringLthe: protection of?
~
public, health with : ar.iamp'.e margin t of. saf_ety.a. . Such an ief fort is '
consistent with the' letter Land Cintent' of section 1112 (d) (9)Tof lthe?
~"
L1990 Clean; Air'Act amendments.-
- NRC strongly supports the collective l objective of these efforts, namely to, ensure a sufficient-level of protection ofithe1public health and'the" environment while eliminating unnecessary 7 dual (. y regulation ~under the
- CleanLAir Act andithe-AtomicLEnergy;Act3cf_-- ;
YW n n
~
'f l ,
xa .- -= :.~ u . . . . = n ,
s 2
1954, as amended. Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes _that many provisions integral to the Agreement directly call for action by NRC, er by an affected HRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of the October 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC, EPA, Colorado, Texas and Washington. Thus, the NRC has settled upon this letter as the means for expressing its position with respect to the draft Agreement. This letter confirms NRC's intent to abide by and otherwise implement._those substantive provisions in the Agreement that directly pertain to NRC. To the extent that the Agreement calls for specific NRC actions that go beyond the general' commitments in the 1991 MOU, the NRC will endeavor to fulfill these provisions consistent with applicable law and available resources.
If you have any questions on NRC's position, please contact-Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle, at_(301) 504-1644.
Sincerely, 1a .
Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman
Enclosure:
Draft Agreement
.r e l pu '
.l 2p'Hws e a, ,
-f UNITED STATES i < f- ti NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :
WASHINGTON O C EE65 j
{%***** - /f January 14, 1993 CH AIRM AN
?
Mr. James E. Gilchrist' American Mining Congress 1920 N Street, N.W. #300 Washington, D.C. 20036'
Dear Mr. Gilchrist:
This letter: expresses the agreement in principle of th'e' Nuclear.
Regulatory Commission to the attached draft settlement' agreement-dated November.24, 1992 (Draf t Agreement) Las' that ~ agreement:
. pertains to matters to be implemented by NRC and-the-Agreement; States. .cnce finalized, the Agreement,-we understand,,will~bej j directly endorsed by the EnvironmentaleProtection, Agency ((EPA),: '
the Environmental Defense Fund;(EDF), the' Natural Resources! ' '
Defense Council (NRDC),- the AmericanLMining CongressL I AMC)~ ,E the : '
Homestake Mining company, and certain other individual members ofj AMC.
The Draft Agreement is-meant to' settle.pendingf1'itigation, astset forth.therein,:between EPA, EDF, NRDC,:AMC, and HomestakeJMining Company. To this end,.the Draft Agreement provides al data'iled course of action designed.to enable EPAftotroscindlitsLClean: Air!
Act standards' governing' radon emissions associated 1with uranium; mill'tailin disposal (currentlyEcodified atJ40-CFRTPartl61,:
Subpart T) n favor'of augmented' EPA regulationsD(currently codified at 40 CFR Part'192,.SubpartLD)tpromulgated' pursuant to--
-the Uranium Mill Tallings' Radiation' ControlL Act ^(UMTRCA) . NRC will implement these. generally applicable standards',Honce. '
promulgated by EPA.
~
The: Draft Agreement grows out of' intensive l discussions 1overithe:
-last eighteen months and represents a. consensus approachcamong-the above parties'for controlling radon emissions..from uraniumi
-millitailingsLdisposal sites /in a manner?that minimizes-i duplicative:
public health regulation
_with aniample1while'also marginensuring;the--protectioniof; of' safety. . SuchtanLeff6rt T sL i consistent with.the letter ~and intentieffsectionE112(d)(9)foff.the 1990 Clean AirLAct-amendments.
NRC stronglyisupports the collective,. objective!ofEthese effortsi-nacelyfto ensure-afsufficient level of protectionjof thezpublic;
~
, health!andithe: environment'while eliminating unnecessarycdual
. regulation under. the' Clean Air Act: and the Atomic 1EnergyjActicf 4- f a t- d w- a M
2 1954, as amended. Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral to the Agreement directly call for action by NRC, or by an 3ffected NRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is ce=patible with the general scheme of the october 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC, EPA, Colorado, Texas and Washington. Thus, the NRC has settled upon this letter as the means for expressing its position with respect to the draft Agreement. This letter confirms NRC's intent to abide by and otherwise implement those substantive provisions in the Agreement that directly pertain to NRC. To the extent that the Agreement calls for specific NRC actions that go beyond the general commitments in the 1991 MOU, the NRC will endeavor to fulfill these provisions consistent with applicable law and available resources.
If you have any questions on NRC's position, please contact Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle, at (301) 504-1644.
Sincerely, Xenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairnan
Enclosure:
Draft Agreement