ML20059A436
| ML20059A436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1993 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Oge M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A440 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312300177 | |
| Download: ML20059A436 (4) | |
Text
h p ** " %c g
[
?*
UNITED STATES f3" j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$b f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3 656-0001 af
\\;
e DEC 17 G93 Ms. Margo T.- Oge, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Oge:
Since our last meeting on rescission of Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61, we have decided to pursue a number of actions related to the ongoing discussions between our agencies.
These actions recognize the present situation in which air emissions of radionuclides from NRC-licensed facilities other than nuclear power plants are subject to dual regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency and NRC.
We also hope that the combination of actions will ultimately lead to EPA rescission of Subpart I.
In terms of short term actions, our staffs are aircady cooperating effectively in developing and distributing EPA's guidance to licensees on Subpart I and NRC information on inspections of licensed facilities under the existing requirements in the revised 10 CFR Part 20.
Under your leadership, Al Colli and his staff have already met with my staff to coordinate these actions with the objective of minimizing, to the extent practical, the burdens of dual regulation, while ensuring that our program does not go beyond implementation and enforcement of the requirements in Part 20.
Specifically,.our staf fs are preparing to inform licensees about the current effectiveness of the standards in Subpart I, available guidance that will assist in the implementation of Subpart I, NRC's guidance for implementing the effluent requirements in the revised 10 CFR Part 20, and NRC's inspection program.
The staffs are also developing a newsletter article for NRC licensees and coordinating training for EPA, NRC, and State inspectors.
These efforts should be substantially completed by the end of February 1994.
With respect to longer term actions, we are interested in I
exploring with EPA a participatory process that would assist the Commission and EPA by developing information on the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives related to Subpart I,
in light of the EPA judgment that some changes would be needed to the existing NRC regulatory program to provide the basis for rescission.
We believe that the process would be most effective if it was sponsored jointly by the Commission and EPA.
The j
enclosed summary, which was prepared by Chip Cameron, describes
^
our proposed participatory process.
~_ s i
h 1
\\ e >c, t T
- 6
./-
/
i
/
1
Ms. Margo T.
Oge In ter:s of the schedule for the process, we would hope to complete the process during the first half of 1994.
Pending.a decision on whether to proceed with the participatory process, we propose to hold in abeyance any further discussion of the Memorandum of Understanding that we had been negotiating with respect to Subpart I.
In the near future, I would like to discuss with you the option of convening the participatory process, comments on the process, and EPA's participation in the process.
I look forward to continued cooperation between our staffs on these actions related to implementation and ultimate rescission of Subpart I
and minimization of unnecessary regulatory burden.
Sincerely, QigirdSigce.c Robert M.
Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated s
DEC 1 < 1993 OUTLINE OF A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS ON ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SUBPART I OF. 40 CFR PART 61 4
OBJECTIVES: -
To assist the Commission and EPA in their decisionmaking on the issues associated with rescission of Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 by developing information on the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives, in light of the EPA judgment that some changes would be needed to the the existing NRC regulatory program to provide the basis for rescission.
A participatory process is proposed as the most effeccive way to develop the information necessary for agency decisionmaking because it would provide a forum for the interactive discussion of the 4
issues among the affected interests, including NRC and EPA staff.
The affected external interests have been bystanders to the ongoing negotiations on Subpart I between the Commission and the EPA.
The participatory process would provide an opportunity for them to clearly express their viewpoints on the issues and to provide a factual basis to replace agency speculation on the positions of these outside interests.
The participatory process would be an effective way of eliciting the viewpoints, concerns, and ideas of the affected interests on the issues because it would allow the sharing of information among the various affected interests with the consequent potential' fc: concerns to be addressed, positions to be revised, joint problem-solving to occur, and the relative strength of different positions to be assessed.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:
The broad discussion areas would be the various options for Commission and EPA action in regard to Subpart I given the EPA judgment that some changes would be needed to the existing NRC regulatory program to provide the basis for rescission.
These options would include a constraint rulemaking; i
a limit rulemaking; different configurations of NRC/ EPA enforcement activities; and dual regulation under the existing regulatory framework, if rescission is not possible.
Because of the need to quickly establish NRC and EPA guidance for the implementation of 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 61, respectively, the content of this guidance will not be an issue for discuss)mt in the participatory j
process.
PARTICIPANTS:
The participants would include the major interests affected by the rulemaking
- NRC, EPA, environmental groups, representatives of the Agreement States, representatives of non-Agrooment States, and industry.
The convening strategy would be to identify organizations who would either represent a particular interest or who would nominate a few representatives to represent that interest.
For example, the Organization of Agreement States or the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors would be approached to determine how the State radiaticn programs should be represented.
The issue of State participation would also need to address the state environmental protection agencies in addition to the radiation protection agencies in cases where there was a separation of these functions.
In terms of industry participation, t
we would contact the U.S. Council on Energy Awareness subcommittees b
i
,be..
+
4
~
4 DEC 171993 whose membership includes the types of licensees affected by subpart I, such as medical licensees and fuel cycle facilities.
is anticipated that approximately twelve participants would be It directly invqlved in the discussions (two representatives each'from the NRC and the EPA; two representatives from environmental / citizen organizations; two representatives from Agreement States; two representatives from non-Agreement States; two industry representatives, each from a different category of licensee). It is important to emphasize that there may be a need to increase the size of the group as a result of information gathered during_the convening process.
For example, there may be a need to have the environmental / citizen group category represented by three organizations; there may be a need to include a third category of licensee; or there may be a need to include additional state representatives to accommodate the division of authority between state radiation protection personnel and state environmental protection personnel.
However, the group must be kept small enough to promote an efficient discussion of the issues (for example seventeen to eighteen).
FORMAT:
The format would consist of a series of three meetings in Washington, D.C., involving a facilitator and the same group of-participants.
The first meeting (one day) would be an introductory session and would provide an overview of the issues by the NRC and-EPA; a
discussion of the background
~information; and the introduction of participants.
The second meeting (two days) would be devoted to a major discussion of the issues.
The third meeting (one to two days depending.on the outcome of the second meeting) would be a wrap-up session to summarize the results of the meetings.
EPA PARTICIPATION:
The Commission and the EPA would jointly sponsor and plan the workshop process.
SCliEDULE:
Assuming that the process starts immediately, NRC and EPA should be able to do the necessary background work (procure the facilitator; identify representatives of affected-interests; negotiate on sponsorship,
- format, and identification of major issues) by February 7, 1994.
The convening stage (talk with all major affected interests about participating in the process; prepare Federal Register Notice announcing the process) should be completed by March 8, 1994.
The first meeting would be convened in the beginning of April 1994 and the last meeting concluded at the end of May 1994.
i
+D