ML20236F262
| ML20236F262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/21/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Atkins C, Downey T, Hochbrueckner, Markey E, Mavroules N, Mrazek R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F263 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8711020067 | |
| Download: ML20236F262 (6) | |
Text
NGWWWata t@g i
p PROPOSED RULE (52 FR 6980)
Q1 EMERGENCY PLAUNING o "%'o
- UNITED STATES 0
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[CED y
. [ ",.,.,
VI ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 '
j
- \\
pf Oc tober.21, 1987 :
h g 27 A8:j0 1
cHAmuas phkNahhgy'-
00 BRANCH Th'e Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington..D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
This respondsLto your letter of September _22, 1987-regarding i
the handling'of communications related to the Commission's proposed amendment of its emergency planning rule as it applies to state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
j i
The Commission is committed to an open, public process for the
^
consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this.
policy consistently.
In. February, as you know, a staff briefing was followed by numerous presentations from elected officials.
Thereaf ter, the rule was is:;ued in proposed form for public comment, and mu~f than 11,000 individual comments.
as well as petitions and form letters,.have been received.
j Since the date of your letter, the. commission has released.to-the'public an options paper, prepared by the General Counsel
.and the Executive Director for Operations, discussing five-
.)
possible. options and the pros and cons of each.
The 1
. Commission has scheduled a public meeting for October 22, 1987 at which it will receive a briefing on.the options paper.
Any final decision on the rule will also be made in public session.-
In addition, any decision that'the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue.
Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing on this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
Congress has never required such measures in an informal I
rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline your request.
l Sincerely, I
i S711020067 871021 l
PDR PR f,
50 52FR69BO PDR DS10:
P. Crane, H-1035 J. Lane, 266 PHIL cdd:
b
t po aro
/
uq{o.,
UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5s E
WA$mNGTON, D. C. 20655
$ *,i
\\,*.d..J October 21, 1987 N A19 V A N The Honorable Chester G. Atkins United States House of Representatives j
Washington, D. C.
20515 l
Dear Congressman Atkins:
This responds to your letter of Sertember 22, 1987 regarding the handling of communications related to the Commission's proposed amendment of its emergency planning rule as it applies j
to state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
)
The' Commission is committed to an open, public process for the consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this policy consistently.
In February, as you know, a staff briefing was followed by numerous presentations from elected officials.
Thereafter, the rule was issued in proposed form for public comment, and mere-thin 11,000 individual comments, j
as well as petitions and form letters, have been received.
Since the date of your letter, the Commission has released to the public an. options paper, prepared by the General Counsel and the Executive Director for Operations, discussing five possible options and the pros and cons of each.
The i
Commission has scheduled a public meeting for October 22, 1987 at which it will receive a briefing on the options pap r.
Any i
final decision on the rule will also be made in public j
session.
In addition, any decision that the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue.
l s
Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing en this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
1 Congress has never required such measures in an informal I
rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline your request.
Sincerely,
)
Zec W, Jr\\-
W Lando W.
4
l
/ pet 880 'o, UNITED STATES
$, ' p,,,
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W
g October 21, 1987 t
i CHAeRMAN I
The Honorable Thomas J. Downey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Downey:
This responds to your letter of September 22, 1987 regarding the handling of communications related to the Commission's proposed amendment of its emergency planning rule as it applies to state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
The Commission is committed to an ooen, public process for the consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this policy consistently.
In February, as you know, a staff briefing was followed by numerous presentations from elected officials.
Thereafter, the rule was issued in proposed form l
i for public comment, and more than 11,000 individual comments.
l as well as petitions and forn letters, have been received.
Since the date of your letter, the Commission has released to j
the public an options paper, prepared by the General Counsel and the Executive Director for Operations, discussing five possible options and the pros and cons of each.
The l
Commission has scheduled a public meeting for October 22, 1987 I
at which it will receive a briefing on the options paper.
Any
]
final decision on the rule will also be made in public j
session.
In addition, any decision that the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, the Commission could hardly have structured a more open l
process for addressing this issue.
l Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing on this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
Congress has never required such measures in an informal rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline I
your request.
Sincerely, h.
I Lando W.
Zec,Jr I
l 1
0" U'0%,#
UNITED STATES
/
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ } j jy W ASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 l
j October 21, 1987 CH AIRMAN l
l The Honorable George J. Hochbrueckner l
United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Hochbrueckner:
This responds to your letter of September 22, 1987 regarding the handling of communications related to the Commission's I
l proposed amendment of its emergency planning rule as it applies to state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
l The Commission is committed to an open, public process for the consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this policy consistently.
In February, as you know, a staff briefing was followed by numerous presentations from elected I
officials.
Thereafter, the rule was issued in proposed form for public comment, and mr~J than 11,000 individual comments, as well as petitions and form letters, have been received.
Since the date of your letter, the Commission has released to the public an options paper, prepared by the General Counsel and the Executive Director for Operations, discussing five possible options and the pros and cons of each.
The Commission has scheduled a public meeting for October 22, 1987 at which it will receive a briefing on the options paper.
Any final decision on the rule will also be made in public session.
In addition, any decision that the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue.
Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing on this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
Congress has never required such measures in an informal rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline your request.
Sincerely, 1
M w.
l Lando W. Zec, Jr i
)
p q.
yo,
[icuCto, u
'o,
. UNITED STATES j
m
@.- i
'V
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOri j
L.
lE a AsmNcToN. n. c. 2ous l
j !:
hL/'/
October 21, 1987 4
+....
' CHAIRMAN
=The Ho'norable Nicholas Mavroules United. States. House of Representatives
- Washington, D. C.
20515-
Dear Congressman Mavroules:
.3 This responds to your letter of SeptemberE 22, 1987 regarding the. handling of communications related to the Commission's' 1
. proposed amendment of.its emergency planning ruletas'it applies-to' state ~and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
q The Commission-is committed-to an1open, public process for the i
consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this y
policy l consistently.
In February, as you-know, a staff
-i briefing was followed-by numerous presentations from elected officials'- Thereafter, the rule was issued in proposed: form.
for; public comment and mper1 than 11,000 individual comments, l
as well as petitions and form letters,-have been received.
.Since the date'of your. letter,- the Commission has released to i
the public an options' paper, prepared by_the General-Counsel and the' Executive-Director for-0perations,ndiscussing five possible options and1the pros and cons of each.
The
~
Commission has scheduled a public meetinn f.or October 22, 1987 at'which'it will receive ~a briefing on the options paper.
Any final decision on the rule will also=be made in public session.
In. addition, any decision that the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue.
Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing on this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
Congress has never required such measures in an informal rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline your' request.
Sincerely, l
Ms. -
Lando W. Z h,
r.
I
's.
N ug -
M G
'o, UNITED STATES j.
j-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j'
,. o WASHINGTON, O. C 20555 l.
g.1 j
k f
October 21, 1987 1
g... - j
' CH AIRMAN E
The Honorable Robert J. Mrazek United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Mrazek:
I This responds to your letter of September 22, 1987 regarding.
the' handling of communications related to the Commission's proposed amendment of its emergency. planning rule as it applies to state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning.
The Commission is committed to an open, public process for the consideration of this rule change.
It has followed this policy consistently.
In: February, as you know, a staff briefing was followed by numerous presentations from elected officials.
Thereafter, the rule was issued in proposed form for public comment,' and mora' t hcn 11,000 individual. comments,
as'well as petitions and form letters, have been.. received.
Since.the date of your letter, the Commission has released to s
the public an options paper, prepared by the General Counsel and the Executive Director for Operations, discussing five possible options.and the pros and cons of each.
The Commission has scheduled a public meeting for October 22, 1987 at which it will receive a briefing on the options paper.
Any j
final decision.on the rule will also be made-in public l
session.
In addition, any decision that the Commission reaches must be based on the rulemaking record.
In short, j
the Commission.could hardly have structured a more open i
process for addressing this issue.
Viewed in this light, we do not believe that the process would be further illuminated by imposing on this rulemaking additional procedural burdens of the kind you suggest.
Congress has never required such n.easures in an informal rulemaking and it would be unprecedented for the Commission to accede to such a request.
We therefore respectfully decline your request.
J re i n c e r e l y,
b.
Lando W. Ze h, J I
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _