NOTE TO DOCKET

DATE: March 15, 2005

FROM: Ray Clark, Team Leader

Yucca Mountain Standards Project

Radiation Protection Division

TO: Docket OAR-2005-0083

Rulemaking: Revisions to Yucca Mountain Public Health and Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards (40 CFR Part 197)

SUBJECT: Notes from March 15, 2005 meeting with the

> Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the attendees and subject
matter of a meeting between EPA staff and representatives of the Nuclear
Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC), on March 15, 2005, regarding EPA's
response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals partial vacation and
remand of EPA's Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Yucca Mountain, found at 40 CFR Part 197.

The attendees from the NWSC were: Martez Norris, James Spearman, and
Eric Howes. Attendees from EPA (all from the Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air) were Elizabeth Cotsworth, Barnes Johnson, Bonnie Gitlin, and
Ray Clark.

We (EPA) stated that the Agency is moving forward with a rulemaking to
address the Court's ruling that remanded the 10,000-year compliance
period contained in EPA's 2001 Yucca Mountain standards (40 CFR Part
197). The Agency's goal is to issue the proposal in Summer 2005, but no
date has been set for issuing the final rule until it can be seen what
needs to be done in response to the public comments. The proposed and
final rules will be developed with the objectives to make use of the
best science, to be responsive to the Court ruling, to be legally
defensible, and to be protective of human health and safety. We
emphasized that the revised rule is to be focused on responding, in a
reasonable framework, to issues raised by the Court. Finally, we noted
that the existing record for the 2001 rulemaking explored many of the
issues at hand in the Court remand and provides a solid basis to move
forward with revisions to the standards. Since we are using this
established basis, which includes public comments on key issues, we do
not intend to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). We
stressed that we have been responsive to all requests to date for
meetings on Yucca Mountain, and that we will accept and docket any
comments submitted to us regarding the rulemaking.

We described, in general terms, the range of options comprising a
starting point for Agency consideration. These include quantitative
approaches such as retaining the existing 10,000-year standard, with or
without an additional compliance measure at peak dose. A compliance
measure at the time of peak dose could be the same or different from the
existing 15 millirem per year (mrem/yr) limit within 10,000 years. A
qualitative approach was also mentioned as being considered. Other
approaches and ideas were solicited. In response to questions, EPA noted
that it is aware of the schedule that the Department of Energy (DOE) is
trying to meet for a license application and the needs of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to pursue its rulemaking to implement our
standards and is working expeditiously, but that the goals of best
science and establishing a reasonable standard are paramount.

Other issues discussed were:

-   The process for going from proposal to final. Once the proposal is
    issued, a public comment period will be opened. A common time frame
    for public comment on EPA rulemakings is 90 days, but that the
    duration will be decided later by senior Agency management; it could
    be shorter or longer. Comments will be considered in setting the
    final standards and responses will be developed. The final rule will
    then be cleared through EPA and the Office of Management and Budget
    prior to publication.

-   DOE filing a license application prior to EPA final standards. We
    have no comment on how DOE should proceed, that is more properly
    left to DOE and NRC.

-   Hearings on the proposed amendments. Nothing on hearings has been
    decided at this time.

-   Legislation to replace the remanded portions of Part 197. EPA is not
    pursuing legislation, but rather a rulemaking to establish
    protective and defensible standards. NWSC stated that it has
    interest in pursuing a legislative option.

-   EPA consistency with the findings and recommendations of the
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS). EPA believes that we carefully
    considered the NAS findings and recommendations and exercised
    appropriate discretion that combined technical and policy
    considerations in light of the recommendations. However, of course,
    the Court determined otherwise and that is where we need to start
    the new rulemaking.