ML20212M111
| ML20212M111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/20/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | J. J. Barton, Burton D, Packard R HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212M106 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910080170 | |
| Download: ML20212M111 (6) | |
Text
.
j# '%, UNITED STATES
= 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-4001 l
September 20, 1999 k.....
CHAIRMAN i
l l
I The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman Committee on Government Reform United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 {
I
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It is our understanding that the Committee on Government Reform plans to hold a markup session in September on H.R. 2245, the " Federalism Act of 1999.* The NRC is committed to 4 exercising its regulatory authority in a manner that promotes the integrity and effectiveness of the Federal system, clarifies the extent of preemption of State and local authority by Federal laws and rules, and assures consultation and cooperation with State and local authorities in connection with the development and implementation of Federal agency policy. Yet, the NRC is concerned about the unsettling impacts that enactment of this bill could have on NRC programs and on the regulation of the use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material to protect the public health and safety in the United States.
Congress has long given close attention to the respective roles of the States end the Federal govemment in the regulation of civilian nuclear uses. In establishing the framework for regulating a new and complex technology, Congress made a conscious apportionment of State and Federal authority and did not encroach upon well-established areas of State regulation.
The existing system of preemption, under which nuclear power plant regulation is assigned exclusively to the NRC, while States may regulate certain nuclear materials when they choose to assume those responsibilities under the framework of an Agreement State program, is testimony to Congress's concern to accommodate State and national interests. In addition, low-level radioactive wat,te compacts that States have entered into pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act provide further involvement of States in nuclear regulatory issues.
However, Congress recognized from the first that decisions on licensing and operational safety of nuclear power plants should be made at the Federallevel.
H.R. 2245 could introduce uncertainty into interpretation of the preemptive effect of the Atomic Energy Act, at least until the courts had an opportunity to clarify the preemptive effect of the Act in light of H.R. 2245. This is because the Act does not explicitly state that it preempts State and local regulation of nuclear safety; rather, that principle was established by court decisions in addition, it is not immediately obvious how the legislation would be applied in regard to new additions to the Atomic Energy Act or amendments of current provisions and the effect of such changes in the law on parts or all of the Atomic Energy Act. We also note that the Department of Justice has raised a number of interpretive and litigative difficulties in its June 29,1999 letter commenting on H.R. 2245.
9910000170 990920 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2 Finally, the NRC already devotes extensive resources to its evaluation of its proposed actions and their impacts on State, local and tribal governtnents. Thus, it is questionable whether the benefit conferred by the requirements in H.R. 2245 as applied to every NRC rulemaking would outweigh the cost in agency resources. In this regard, the NRC already has in place policies and procedures for soliciting State views at an early stage in the rulemaking process.
The Commission therefore recommends that the Committee consider adding an amendment to H.R. 2245 to clarify that it does not apply to the regulation of the possession and use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials under the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Sincerely,
(\b 0 \b ta Joy Dicus cc: Representative Henry Waxman Members, Committee on Government Reform
g
/ 4,*g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON. D ?. 20$55-0001 September 20, 1999 CHARMAN The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
it is our understanding that the Committee on Government Reform plans to hold a markup l session in September on H.R. 2245, the " Federalism Act of 1999." The NRC is committed to exercising its regulatory authority in a manner that promotes the integrity and effectiveness of the Federal system, clarifies the extent of preemption of State and local authority by Federal laws and rules, and assures consultation and cooperation with State and local authorities in connection with the development and implementation of Federal agency policy. Yet, the NRC is concerned about the unsetthng impacts that enactment of this bill could have on NRC programs and on the regulation of the use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material to protect the public health and safety in the United States. !
Congress has long given close attention to the respective roles of the States and the Federal government in the regulation of civilian nuclear uses. In establishing the framework for .
regulating a new and complex technology, Congress made a conscious apportionment of State and Federal authority and did not encroach upon well-established areas of State regulation.
The existing system of preemption, under which nuclear power plant regulation is assigned !
exclusively to the NRC, while States may regulate certain nuclear materials when they choose I to assume those responsibilities under the framework of an Agreement State program, is '
testimony to Congress's concern to accommodate State and nationalinterests. in addition, low-level radioactive waste compacts that States have entered into pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act provide further involvement of States in nuclear regulatory issues.
However, Congress recognized from the first that decisions on licensing and operational safety of nuclear power plants should be made at the Federal level.
H.R. 2245 could introduce uncertainty into interpretation of the preemptive effect of the Atomic Energy Act, at least until the courts had an opportunity to clarify the preemptive effect of the Act in light of H.R. 2245. This is because the Act does not explicitly state that it preempts State and local regulation of nuclear safety; rather, that principle was established by court decisions. In addition, it is not immediately obvious how the legislation would be applied in regard to new additions to the Atomic Energy Act or amendments of current provisions and the effect of such changes in the law on parts or all of the Atomic Energy Act. We also note that the Department of Justice has raised a number of interpretive and litigative difficulties in its June 29,1999 letter commenting on H.R. 2245.
i Finally, the NRC already devotes extensive resources to its evaluation of its proposed actions and their impacts on State, local and tribal govemments. . Thus, it is questionable whether the
. benefit conferred by the requirements in H.R. 2245 as applied to every NRC rulemaking would outweigh the cost in agency resources. In this regard, the NRC already has in place policies and procedures for soliciting State views at an early stage in the rulemaking process.
~
The Commission therefore recommends that the Committee consider adding an amendment to H.R. 2245 to clarify that it does not apply.to the regulation of the possession and use of '
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials under the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Sincerely, Ab M eta Joy Dicu]s cc: Representative Ralph M. Hall l
% UNITED STATES j k NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20006-0001
- $ September P0, 1999 c-The Honorable Ron Packard, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Develooment Committee on Appropriations l
United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It is our understanding that the Committee on Government Reform plans to hold a markup session in September on H.R. 2245, the " Federalism Act of 1999.' The NRC is committed to exercising its regulatory authority in a manner that promotes the integrity and effectiveness of the Federal system, clarifies the extent of preemption of State and local authority by Federal laws and rules, and assures consultation and cooperation with State and local authorities in connection with the development and implementation of Federal agency policy. Yet, the NRC is '
concemed about the unsettling impacts that enactment of this bill could have on NRC programs and on the regulation of the use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material to protect the public health and safety in the United States.
Congress has long given close attention to the respective roles of the States and the Federal govemment in the regulation of civilian nuclear uses. In establishing the framework for 1 regulating a new and complex technology, Congress made a conscious apportionment of State j and Federal authority and did not encroach upon well-established areas of State regulation.
The existing system of preemption, under which nuclear power plant regulation is assigned exclusively to the NRC, while States may regulate certain nuclear materials when they choose -
' to assume those responsibilities under the framework of an Agreement State program, is testimony to Congress's concern to accommodate State and nationalinterests. In addition, low-level radioactive waste compacts that States have entered into pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act provide further involvement of States in nuclear regulatory issues.
However, Congress recognized from the first that decisions on licensing and operational safety of nuclear power plants should be made at the Federallevel.
- H.R.-2245 could introduce uncertainty into interpretation of the preemptive effect of the Atomic Energy Act, at least until the courts had an opportunity to clarify the preempt've effect of the Act in light of H.R. 2245:. This is because the Act does not explicitly state that it preempts State and local regulation of nuclear safety; rather, that principle was established by court decisions. In addition, it is not immediately obvious how the legislation would be applied in regard to new l' additions to the Atomic Energy Act or amendments of current provisions and the effect of such changes in the law on parts or all of the Atomic Energy Act. We also note that the Department of Justice has raised a number of interpretive and litigative difficulties in its June 29,1999 letter commenting on H.R. 2245.
E
r 2-Finally, the NRC already devotes extensive resources to its evaluation of its proposed actions and their impacts on State, local and tribal governments. Thus, it is questionable whether the benefit conferred by the requirements in H.R. 2245 as applied to every NRC rulemaking would outweigh the cost in agency resources. In this regard, the NRC already has in place policies
- and procedures for soliciting State views at an early stage in the rulemaking process.
The Commission therefore recommends that the Committee consider adding an amendment to H.R 2245 to clarify that it does not apply to the regulation of the possession and use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials under the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Sincerely, Ak to b eta Joy Dicus cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky i
l i