ML20202H423
| ML20202H423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gibbons J HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902080078 | |
| Download: ML20202H423 (2) | |
Text
%
y g
p g
UNITED STATES p
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20$55-0001 e
January 29, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jim Gibbons United States House Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Gibbons:
I am responding to your letter of November 2,1998, which expressed concern with the Commission's consideration of interim radiation protection standards, developed as part of a draft proposal prepared by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), entitled
" Proposed Rule: 10 CFR Part 63-Oisposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." The staff's draft proposal was submitted in response to Commission direction in a March 6,1998 staff requirements memorandum which replied to a December 24,1997 paper from the staff, both of which were made public in March 1998 (copies enclosed). This letter addresses your concern and explains why the Commission believes it is now appropriate to make public its deliberations on how it may best fulfill its own statutory responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act (EnPA) of 1992.
First, the draft proposal clearly describes the rulemaking process and accurately identifies the statutory obligations of both agencies, so the NRC release of the draf t proposal should not confuse either the process or the public.
Because the EnPA gives NRC only one year to issue finalimplementing regulations after publication of final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, the Commission believes it must undertake its own rulemaking development in parallel with development of EPA's standards. EPA's standards were to be promulgated under EnPA not later than one year after the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) 1995 report on the " Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards" was made available to EPA. The Commission agrees with you that standards for Yucca Mountain - - indeed all health and safety standards - - should be based on the best available science. To that end, immediately after publication of the NAS report in 1995, memoers of NRC's technical staff met frequently with EPA staff to cooperate on the timely development of protective, scientifically sound, and technically demonstrable standards and regulations. Results of NRC's performance assessment calculations were shared with EPA to support these discussions, which concluded in September 1996. The Commission will soon publish the results of the staff's analyses as NUREG-1538," Preliminary Performance-1 Based Analyses Relevant to Dose-Based Performance Measures for a Proposed Geologic I
Repository at Yucca Mountain."
l To permit timely and meaningful public involvement in the development of implementing yi regulations, and to attempt to meet NRC's statutory obligation to promulgate implementing regulations within one year of EPA's issuance of the final standards, the Commission believes has a responsibility to make public now how it would propose to implement the dose-based 7
standards required by statute for Yucca Mountain. Ir the absence of final EPA tandards to guide its development of implementing regulations, the Commission directed tiw NRC staff to 9902080078 990129 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR y..
i
4
.r 2
develop proposed standards that are generally consistent with statutory direction and with NAS conclusions and recommendations. The Commission views its actions in this regard as part of a good-faith effort to comply with the law, in an open and public manner. The Commission acknowledges, and the proposed rule makes clear, that NRC has a statutory obligation to implement EPA's final standards and that NRC will amend its regulations in proposed 10 CFR Part 63, as needed, to conform to EPA's final standards or any new legislation that may be I
enacted.
The Commission recently acted on the staff's proposal and has approved publication of proposed regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 for public comment. Let me assure you that the Commission will continue to give thorough and thoughtful consideration to comments received on the proposed rules and the Commission will,'of course, modify 10 CFR Part 63, as necessary, to implement the final standards issued by EPA or to carry out any new legislation enacted by Congress.
Sincerely,
-L-J Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosures:
As stated l
l I
--