EPA Update:NESHAP Subpart W ActivitiesReid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection AgencyRadiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460Meeting with NMA – 29 October 20092Overview•Status of Subpart W Review Activities•Status of Settlement Agreement•Communications Plan•Outreach3Status of Subpart W Review Activities•Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA isobligated to review, and possibly revise Subpart W•A workgroup has been established•Members from across the Agency•Represent ORIA, OGC, ORD, OSWER, OECA,OPEI, OW, Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10•Workplan, Communications Plan, AnalyticBlueprint have been completed, basically, howare we going to approach the task4Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We are conducting historical research on the riskassessment work originally done in support of the1989 standard•We have begun a survey of existing technologies•Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurancehas sent information request letters to numerousuranium recovery facilities•We have also requested that ISL facilities provideradon flux data from their evaporation ponds5Status of Subpart W Review Activities•EPA thanks those participating facilities•Data being received from ISL facilities•Waiting for all results from the 90 day monitoringperiod, including background data•Analyses will begin after all data received, includinglooking for deposition trends6Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We are researching if Method 115 continues to becurrent, or whether other methods could beemployed for monitoring and analysis of radon flux•We are planning to work with all stakeholders inreviewing/revising the standards•The Agency continues to believe that conventionaltailings piles, certain evaporation ponds from ISLoperations, and heap leach piles, are subject to therequirements of Subpart W•We base our decision on a review of existingregulatory language7Status of Settlement Agreement•Agreement tentatively reached with ColoradoCitizens Against Toxic Waste (CCAT) and WildEarth Guardians•EPA failure to review/revise Subpart W within timelimits specified in Clean Air Act Amendments•Agreement reached, EPA requested comment (74FR 45851), 4 September 2009•Terms predominantly communication/outreach innature•Comments received, being reviewed by Office ofGeneral Council8Communications Plan•EPA is committed to maintaining an open andtransparent rulemaking process•Objectives:•Inform stakeholders of potential changes in EPA’s SubpartW requirements•Give stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback•Audiences:•Mining companies/NMA•Offices/Regions within EPA•States•Other Federal Agencies:NRC, DOE, BLM, others•Tribes9Communications Plan•Strategies:•Develop clear, compelling messages and materials toexplain the potential amendments to Subpart W•Educate stakeholders by using communications tools toprovide easy-access to information•Work with stakeholder representatives and EPA regionalstaff to identify additional audiences and methods ofdissemination•Communicate a timely and consistent message tostakeholders (Industry, Public, Tribes, States, othergovernment agencies)10Outreach•Holding stakeholder meetingsto inform and receive input•Canon City, CO – June 2009•Denver, CO – July, 2009•Rapid City, SD – October 2009•Washington, DC – October 2009•Gallup, NM – November 2009•Blanding, UT – Spring 2010•Establishing a dedicated web siteto act as an informationoutlet•National webinar planned for early 2010•Establishing quarterly conferencecalls to answer stakeholderquestions11•Thank you for your attention