ML20127N715: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20127N715 | | number = ML20127N715 | ||
| issue date = 01/15/1993 | | issue date = 01/15/1993 | ||
| title = Responds to | | title = Responds to Re NRC Participation in Agreement to Settle Pending Litigation Among Epa,Environmental Defense Fund,Natural Resources Defense Council,American Mining Congress & Homestake Mining Co | ||
| author name = Rogers K | | author name = Rogers K | ||
| author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM) | | author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| case reference number = FRN-58FR58657 | | case reference number = FRN-58FR58657 | ||
| document report number = AE77-1, AE77-1-008, AE77-1-7, AE77-1-8, NUDOCS 9302010042 | | document report number = AE77-1, AE77-1-008, AE77-1-7, AE77-1-8, NUDOCS 9302010042 | ||
| title reference date = 12-30-1992 | |||
| package number = ML20127N718 | | package number = ML20127N718 | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | ||
| Line 32: | Line 33: | ||
the American Mining Congress (AMC) and Homestake Mining Company. | the American Mining Congress (AMC) and Homestake Mining Company. | ||
The Commission understands that the above parties are engaged in ongoing negotiation and that a final settlement agreement does not exist at this time. | The Commission understands that the above parties are engaged in ongoing negotiation and that a final settlement agreement does not exist at this time. | ||
Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral to the Agreement (set out in copies of the draft settlement agreement provided to NRC) directly call for action by HRC or by an affected NRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of the October 1991 Memorandum of Under-standing (MOU) between NRC, epa and the NRC Agreement States of Colorado, Texas, and Washington. The NRC has provided to the above parties the enclosed letter dated January 14, 1993, expressing its agranment in principle to the Draft Agreement. | Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral to the Agreement (set out in copies of the draft settlement agreement provided to NRC) directly call for action by HRC or by an affected NRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of the October 1991 Memorandum of Under-standing (MOU) between NRC, epa and the NRC Agreement States of Colorado, Texas, and Washington. The NRC has provided to the above parties the enclosed {{letter dated|date=January 14, 1993|text=letter dated January 14, 1993}}, expressing its agranment in principle to the Draft Agreement. | ||
The 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. | The 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. | ||
The Commission shares your hope.that this matter can soon be brought to a close. The Commission agrees that the Draft Agreement can serve as an example of how interested parties can work together to achieve a rational, consensus-based regulatory 260134 i | The Commission shares your hope.that this matter can soon be brought to a close. The Commission agrees that the Draft Agreement can serve as an example of how interested parties can work together to achieve a rational, consensus-based regulatory 260134 i | ||
Latest revision as of 01:12, 22 August 2022
| ML20127N715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/15/1993 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Simpson A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127N718 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR58657 AE77-1, AE77-1-008, AE77-1-7, AE77-1-8, NUDOCS 9302010042 | |
| Download: ML20127N715 (75) | |
Text
. . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t x<
. ,, . , g 0<
/ UNITED STATES
! i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
((k[$1/p',!
wasam0 TON. O C FM
' ' " ' January 15, 1993 CHAINMAN The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
This letter is in response to your letter to Chairman Selin dated December 30, 1992, regarding NRC participation in an agreement to settle pending litigation, as described in the Agreement, among the Environmental protection Agency (epa), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
the American Mining Congress (AMC) and Homestake Mining Company.
The Commission understands that the above parties are engaged in ongoing negotiation and that a final settlement agreement does not exist at this time.
Although the NRC is not a party to the underlying lawsuits, it recognizes that many provisions integral to the Agreement (set out in copies of the draft settlement agreement provided to NRC) directly call for action by HRC or by an affected NRC Agreement State. NRC also concludes that the Agreement is compatible with the general scheme of the October 1991 Memorandum of Under-standing (MOU) between NRC, epa and the NRC Agreement States of Colorado, Texas, and Washington. The NRC has provided to the above parties the enclosed letter dated January 14, 1993, expressing its agranment in principle to the Draft Agreement.
The 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.
The Commission shares your hope.that this matter can soon be brought to a close. The Commission agrees that the Draft Agreement can serve as an example of how interested parties can work together to achieve a rational, consensus-based regulatory 260134 i
9302010042 930115 g ,3 PDR COMMS NRCC p CORRESPONDENCE PDR f 7
-2 -
solutior stm re a sufficient level of protection of the public health . ide environment while eliminating unnecessary dual regulation under the clean Air Act and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, consistent with section 112(d)(9) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Sincerely, 4W j . .b Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman Enclosure As stated I
1