ML20043G718
| ML20043G718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Reilly W ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043G719 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006210053 | |
| Download: ML20043G718 (1) | |
Text
_-
h b t?_
e sina
-/*A s*.
o -
UNITED STATES t
" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
,i WASHINGTON, D C. 20666
\\.'....
June 8, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable William K. Reilly Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
20460 Dear Mr.
y:
I am responding to1the April 27, 1990 letter from Mr. Richard J.
e Guimond, Director Office of Radiation Programs, to Mr. Robert Bernero Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety-and S a f e g u a rd s'..Mr. Guimond's letter (copy enclosed) addresses certain issues in the Commission's letter regarding Clean Air Act standards that we sent to you on February 12, 1990.
The Commission certainly agrees that, as the Clean Air Act states, our agencies should " minimize duplication of effort and conserve administrative resources in the establithnent, imple-i mentation, and enforcement of emission limitations, standards of-performance. and other requirements and authorities (substantive and procedural) under this Act...."
It is for these reasons that we: requested reconsideration of Subparts I, t
T,.and W.
However, as stated in our February 12, 1990 letter,-
should EPA decide' to proceed with Subparts I, T, and W, we would be obliged to reevaluate NRC's role in implementation and enforcement of-these standards, as provided for in the Memorandum.of Understanding between our two agencies, since we are.not'in a position to commit our limited resources and personnel' to their' implementation.
l During our June 1989 meeting, you and I agreed in concept to E
the establishment of a-task force to explore the resolution of l
the differences which have developed between our two agencies.
..I. spoke to Mr._ Habicht about such an approach earlier this year and plan to submit a proposal to you in this regard in the 4
near future.
In the interim, we trust that you will-continue to reconsider Subparts I, T, and W and find, consistent with EPA's own findings, that these regulations are unnecessary because there is no incremental' health and safety benefit to proceeding with them.
Sincerely, 9006210053 900608 3"'
h PDR COMMS NRCC 7
CORRESPONDENCE PNU di Kenneth M. Carr
\\$0
Enclosure:
As stated l
\\
-