[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 188 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50161-50166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL-5301-1]
RIN 2060-AE39
National Emissions Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From
Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal
Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 1, 1992, EPA proposed to rescind 40 CFR part 61,
subpart I, as it applies to facilities other than commercial nuclear
power reactors licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or
NRC Agreement States. Subsequent to the publication of that proposal,
EPA identified several concerns regarding the Agency's ability to make
the substantive finding concerning the NRC program for these licensees
necessary to support the proposed rescission under Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(9). As contemplated by Section 112(d)(9), EPA initiated
consultations with NRC, and the agencies subsequently agreed on
measures intended to resolve these concerns. EPA is today issuing this
document because NRC has committed to propose a rule to constrain air
emissions from licensees other than nuclear power reactors to a level
which would result in a dose of no more than 10 mrem/year.
This document reaffirms the EPA proposal to rescind subpart I for
NRC and Agreement State licensees other than nuclear power reactors,
describes the expected proposed revisions to the NRC program which
support such rescission, and invites additional comment on the
sufficiency of the revisions of the NRC program to support the finding
required by Section 112(d)(9). EPA is requesting comments only on the
contents of this document and is establishing a 60 day period for
receipt of all additional comments.
DATES: Comments concerning this document must be received by EPA on
[[Page 50162]]
or before November 27, 1995. EPA will hold a public hearing concerning
the matters discussed in this document if a request for such a hearing
is received by October 30, 1995. If such a hearing is requested, EPA
will publish a separate document announcing the time and location of
the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section LE-131, Environmental Protection Agency, Attn:
Air Docket No. A-92-50, Washington, DC 20460. Requests to participate
in the public hearing should be made in writing to the Director,
Criteria and Standards Division, 6602J, Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. Requests to participate in the hearing may also be faxed to EPA
at (202) 233-9629.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanor Thornton, Risk Assessment and
Air Standards Branch, Criteria and Standards Division, 6602J, Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC 20460 (202) 233-9773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket
Docket A-92-50 contains the rulemaking record. The docket is
available for public inspection between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5:30
P.M., Monday through Friday, in room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. The fax number is 202-260-4400.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regulatory History
B. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
C. 1992 Proposal to Rescind Subpart I for Licensees Other Than
Nuclear Power Reactors
II. Events Subsequent to the 1992 Proposal
A. Changes to NRC Regulatory Program After the 1992 Proposal
B. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between EPA and NRC
C. EPA Concerns Regarding Basis for Required Statutory Finding
Under Section 112(d)(9)
D. NRC Proposals and Actions Responsive to EPA Concerns
III. Initial Determination Concerning Sufficiency of NRC Proposals
and Actions to Support Rescission of Subpart I for Licensees Other
Than Nuclear Power Reactors
IV. Request for Comments
I. Background
A. Regulatory History
On October 31, 1989, EPA promulgated National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act to control radionuclide emissions to the ambient air from a
number of different source categories. 54 FR 51654 (December 15, 1989).
Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 covers two groups of facilities: (1)
Facilities licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and its individual Agreement States (``NRC licensed
facilities''), and (2) federal facilities which are not licensed by the
NRC and are not owned or operated by the Department of Energy (``non-
DOE federal facilities''). The first group is quite diverse, and
includes facilities which have received a license to use or possess
nuclear materials such as hospitals, medical research facilities,
radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, laboratories and industrial
facilities, as well as facilities involved in the uranium fuel cycle
(the conversion of uranium ore to electric power) such as uranium
mills, fuel fabrication plants, and nuclear power reactors. EPA
estimates there are over 18,000 such NRC-licensed facilities in the
United States.
The present rulemaking concerns all NRC licensed facilities other
than commercial nuclear power reactors, which are the subject of a
separate rulemaking (60 FR 46206, Sept. 5, 1995). Non-DOE federal
facilities are not affected in any way by the present rulemaking.
Subpart I limits radionuclide emissions from NRC-licensed
facilities to the ambient air to that amount which would cause any
member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose
equivalent (ede) no greater than 10 millirem (mrem), of which no more
than 3 mrem ede may be from radioiodine. These limits were established
pursuant to an EPA policy for section 112 pollutants first announced in
the benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), utilizing the
two-step process outlined in the vinyl chloride decision. Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146, (D.C. Cir. 1987).
When subpart I was originally promulgated in December 1989, EPA
simultaneously granted reconsideration of subpart I based on
information received late in the rulemaking on the subject of
duplicative regulation by NRC and EPA of NRC-licensed facilities and on
the potential negative effects of the standard on nuclear medicine. EPA
established a comment period to receive further information on these
subjects, and granted a 90-day stay of subpart I as permitted by Clean
Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7607 (d) (7)(B). That stay
expired on March 15, 1990, and was subsequently extended on several
occasions. (See 55 FR 10455, March 21, 1990; 55 FR 29205, July 18,
1990; and 55 FR 38057, September 17, 1990).
EPA later stayed subpart I for NRC and Agreement State licensees
other than nuclear power reactors while EPA was collecting additional
information necessary to make a determination under Section 112(d)(9)
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. See 56 FR 18735 (April 24, 1991),
and 40 CFR 61.109(a). However, on September 25, 1992, the D.C. Court of
Appeals issued a decision that EPA had exceeded its authority by
staying subpart I while EPA was collecting information needed to make a
determination under Section 112(d)(9). Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Reilly, 976 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The stay for licensees
other than nuclear power reactors expired before the NRDC decision
could be implemented on November 15, 1992, and subpart I took effect
for these licensees on November 16, 1992. EPA subsequently issued a
notice confirming the effectiveness of subpart I for licensees other
than nuclear power reactors. 59 FR 4228 (January 28, 1994).
B. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
In 1990, Congress enacted legislation comprehensively amending the
Clean Air Act (CAA), which included a section addressing the issue of
regulatory duplication between EPA and NRC. CAA Section 112(d)(9)
provides that, ``No standard for radionuclide emissions from any
category or subcategory of facilities licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (or an Agreement State) is required to be
promulgated under [section 112] if the Administrator determines, by
rule, and after consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
that the regulatory program established by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act for such category or
subcategory provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public
health.'' This provision enables EPA to eliminate duplication of effort
between EPA and NRC in instances where EPA can determine that the NRC
program provides protection of public health equivalent to that
required by the Clean Air Act.
The legislative history of Section 112(d)(9) provides clear
guidance as to what is meant by ``an ample margin of
[[Page 50163]]
safety to protect the public health,'' and what process the
Administrator should follow in making that determination in a
rulemaking proceeding under Section 112(d)(9). The Conference Report
states that the ``ample margin of safety'' finding under Section
112(d)(9) is the same ``ample margin of safety'' that governed the
development of standards promulgated under Section 112 prior to the
1990 amendments. The conferees also made it clear that the process the
Administrator is expected to follow in making any such determination
under Section 112(d)(9) is the process ``required under the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals in NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir
1987)(Vinyl Chloride).'' H.R. Rep. 952, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 339
(1990).
C. 1992 Proposal to Rescind Subpart I for Licensees Other Than Nuclear
Power Reactors
After the adoption of Section 112(d)(9), EPA reviewed the
information available to the Agency, including the information provided
during the Agency's reconsideration of subpart I, to decide whether it
could determine for particular categories of licensees that the NRC
regulatory program protects public health with an ample margin of
safety. EPA's initial analysis focused on two general issues: (1)
Whether the NRC regulatory program in practice results in sufficiently
low doses to protect the public health with an ample margin of safety;
and (2) whether the NRC program is sufficiently comprehensive and
thorough and administered in a manner which will continue to protect
public health in the future.
After reviewing the available information for licensees other than
nuclear power reactors, EPA concluded that it lacked sufficient
information concerning actual emissions from these facilities to make
the substantive determination contemplated by Section 112(d)(9).
Accordingly, EPA undertook an extensive study in order to determine the
doses resulting from radionuclide emissions at these facilities. EPA
surveyed a randomly selected subset of all licensed facilities, as well
as a group of ``targeted'' facilities chosen because of an expectation
that they would have higher emissions. See Background Information
Document, ``NESHAPs Rulemaking on Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
Agreement State Licensees Other Than Nuclear Power Reactors'' EPA430-R-
92-011 (November 1992), included in the docket for this rulemaking.
EPA evaluated the results of its study of NRC and Agreement State
licensees other than nuclear power reactors using the COMPLY computer
program. None of the facilities evaluated appeared to cause a dose
exceeding the 10 mrem/year level established by subpart I. When the
results of the survey were statistically extrapolated to the entire
population of NRC and Agreement State licensees, EPA concluded that
virtually all of the facilities would cause doses to members of the
public which are below 10 mrem/year.
After reviewing the then current NRC regulatory program, and
considering the likely effect of revisions of the NRC program which
were pending at that time and of additional measures which NRC had
agreed to adopt pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA, EPA
proposed to rescind subpart I for NRC and Agreement State licensees
other than nuclear power reactors on December 1, 1992. See 57 FR 56877
(December 1, 1992). It is that pending rulemaking proposal which is the
subject of today's notice inviting supplementary comment.
II. Events Subsequent to the 1992 Proposal
A. Changes to NRC Regulatory Program After the 1992 Proposal
After the Agency published its 1992 proposal to rescind subpart I,
major revisions to NRC's regulations at 10 CFR Part 20 became
effective. The revised rule (effective January 1994) implements 1987
Presidential guidance on occupational radiation protection and the
recommendations of scientific organizations to establish risk-based
limits and a system of dose limitation in accordance with the guidance
published by the International Commission on Radiation Protection
(ICRP). In adopting the risk-based methodology, the NRC reduced the
allowable dose limit for members of the public from 500 mrem/yr ede to
100 mrem/yr ede from all pathways. Of the 100 mrem/yr ede, NRC allows
only 50 mrem/yr ede by the air pathway, according to their Derived Air
Concentration tables, which is then subject to further reduction under
the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) provisions.
Another significant revision of Part 20 codified the ALARA
principle, which previously was only general guidance for NRC licensees
other than nuclear power reactors. All licensees must now conduct
operations in a manner that keeps doses to both workers and members of
the public ``As Low as Reasonably Achievable'' (ALARA). This is defined
to mean:
Making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to
radiation as far below the dose limits in this part as is practical
consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is
undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the
economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the
economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public
health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic
considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and
licensed materials in the public interest.
10 CFR 20.1003, 56 FR 23360, 23392 (May 21, 1991).
B. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between EPA and NRC
In addition to promulgating the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 20,
NRC committed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed on
September 4, 1992 to take several additional actions to implement ALARA
requirements for NRC licensees other than nuclear power reactors. This
MOU was published on December 22, 1992, at 57 FR 60778.
Although the NRC regulatory program contained dose limits that were
higher than those established by subpart I, the actual operation of the
existing NRC program had resulted in lower doses to the public than
those which would be allowed under subpart I. The steps established by
the MOU reflected an expectation by EPA that new mandatory ALARA
requirements would operate to constrain future increases in
radionuclide emissions by NRC licensees which might otherwise be
permissible under the NRC program. Under the provisions of the MOU, NRC
agreed to develop and issue a regulatory guide on the design and
implementation of a radiation protection program to ensure that doses
resulting from effluents from licensed facilities would remain ALARA.
NRC agreed that the guide would describe the types of administrative
programs and objectives which would be considered acceptable in
satisfying the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1101(b), and establish a
specific design goal of 10 mrem/y ede to the maximally exposed
individual for radionuclide air emissions from affected NRC and
Agreement State licensees. NRC finalized Regulatory Guide 8.37, ``ALARA
Levels for Effluents from Materials Facilities,'' in July 1993.
C. EPA Concerns Regarding Basis for Required Statutory Finding Under
Section 112(d)(9)
Based on the record compiled as part of its proposal to rescind
subpart I for NRC licensees other than nuclear power reactors, EPA was
able to conclude that the vast majority of NRC and Agreement State
licensees were in compliance with the 10 mrem/yr standard established
by
[[Page 50164]]
subpart I. However, after reviewing the language of the final
Regulatory Guide issued by NRC pursuant to the September 4, 1992 MOU,
EPA concluded that there was no element in the NRC regulatory program
which expressly required or assured that licensees other than nuclear
power reactors would maintain emissions below the 10 mrem/yr EPA
standard. Thus, it was not possible for the Agency to determine that
radionuclide emissions would consistently and predictably remain below
the EPA standard in the future if EPA were to proceed with rescission,
or that NRC or the individual Agreement States would be in a position
to require a particular licensee who did exceed 10 mrem/yr to reduce
radionuclide emissions.
Another concern regarding the adequacy of the NRC program to
support rescission of subpart I for licensees other than nuclear power
reactors arose as part of an investigation by the General Accounting
Office (GAO) of NRC administration of the Agreement State program.
Licenses for facilities other than nuclear power reactors are often
administered by individual Agreement States rather than by NRC. In a
report entitled ``Nuclear Regulation: Better Criteria and Data Would
Help Ensure Safety of Nuclear Materials,'' the GAO found that ``NRC
lacks criteria and data to evaluate the effectiveness of its two
materials programs [agreement and non-agreement state],'' and that
``For agreement-state programs, NRC does not have specific criteria or
procedures to determine when to suspend or revoke an inadequate or
incompatible program.'' GAO/RCED-93-90 Nuclear Materials Regulation at
3 (April 1993). In subsequent Congressional testimony concerning the
GAO findings, the NRC Commissioners acknowledged that NRC criteria and
procedures should be improved, and stated that NRC was developing new
criteria to assess the adequacy and compatibility of individual
Agreement State programs, and new procedures which would govern
suspension and termination of Agreement State programs.
As contemplated by CAA Section 112(d)(9), EPA and NRC entered into
consultations intended to resolve these concerns. The ALARA program,
which requires NRC licensees to reduce emissions to the extent feasible
below the mandatory ceiling in 10 CFR Part 20, was the principal focus
of subsequent discussions between EPA and NRC. In these discussions,
EPA and NRC discussed various NRC proposals for a rule which would
``constrain'' emissions from NRC licensees other than nuclear power
reactors, either by establishing a rebuttable presumption that
emissions causing a dose exceeding 10 mrem/yr are not ALARA, or by
expressly finding that ALARA requires licensees to maintain emissions
at or below the 10 mrem/yr level. During the course of these
discussions, a new concern also emerged as to whether the NRC policies
on Agreement States which were under development would enable NRC to
require that an ALARA ``constraint level'' be a mandatory element of
compatibility. See letter from Mary D. Nichols, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, July
6, 1994, included in the docket.
On July 22, 1994, NRC proposed a ``constraint level'' rule which
would have required each licensee to develop an ALARA program to
maintain or achieve emissions resulting in a dose at or below 10 mrem/
year or, in the alternative, to ``justify'' a conclusion that emissions
resulting in a dose exceeding 10 mrem/year are ALARA. See letter from
NRC Chairman Ivan Selin to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, July 22,
1994, included in the docket. That correspondence also noted that new
procedures to assure the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement States
were under development, and indicated that NRC would also propose to
require Agreement States to adopt the proposed ``constraint level''
rule as a matter of compatibility.
After reviewing the ``constraint level'' rule proposed by NRC on
July 22, 1994, EPA concluded that the proposed provision permitting
licensees to ``justify'' emissions in excess of 10 mrem/yr left
uncertainty as to whether NRC or an individual Agreement State might
accept or countenance as ALARA emissions resulting in a dose exceeding
10 mrem/year. As a consequence, EPA was concerned that it would still
not be able to determine that future radionuclide emissions from
affected licensees would be consistently and predictably at levels
resulting in a dose below 10 mrem/yr, or that NRC or an individual
Agreement State would be able to compel a licensee to reduce emissions
if the 10 mrem/yr level were exceeded. EPA then advised NRC that EPA
did not consider it prudent to proceed with rescission of subpart I for
NRC licensees other than nuclear power reactors based on a record which
might not adequately support the legal determination required by
Section 112(d)(9).
D. NRC Proposals and Actions Responsive to EPA Concerns
On December 21, 1994, after further considering the concerns
expressed by EPA, NRC proposed a ``constraint'' rule construing ALARA
as requiring each licensee to limit emissions to a level resulting in a
dose no greater than 10 mrem/yr. See letter from NRC Chairman Ivan
Selin to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, December 21, 1994,
included in the docket. Under this proposal, exceeding the ALARA
constraint level would not itself be a violation, but any licensee
exceeding the 10 mrem/yr constraint would be required to report the
exceedance and to take corrective measures to prevent a recurrence. On
March 14, 1995, NRC confirmed that it intended to make the proposed
constraint rule a matter of Division Level 2 compatibility, which
requires each Agreement State to incorporate in its program provisions
at least as stringent as those established by the NRC rule. See letter
from Robert M. Bernero, Director of the NRC Office Of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, to Mary Nichols, EPA Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, March 14, 1995, included in the docket.
NRC has also taken steps which address concerns regarding the
adequacy of criteria and procedures for the Agreement State program.
NRC has published a draft policy statement concerning adequacy and
compatibility criteria, 59 FR 37269 (July 21, 1994), and a draft policy
statement setting forth procedures which permit suspension or
termination of individual Agreement State programs. 59 FR 40059 (August
5, 1994). In the March 14, 1995 letter, NRC assured EPA that the final
policy statement on compatibility criteria would be consistent with the
NRC proposal to make the ALARA ``constraint level'' rule a matter of
Division Level 2 compatibility, and that NRC intends to finalize both
policy statements shortly.
After reviewing the proposed rule described in the December 21,
1994 letter and the additional assurances provided in the March 14,
1995 letter, EPA advised NRC that it had concluded that adoption by NRC
of the proposals and policies set forth in these letters should be
sufficient to resolve the Agency's stated concerns regarding its
ability to make the finding required to support rescission under CAA
Section 112(d)(9). See letter from EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner
to NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, March 31, 1995, included in the docket. In
that correspondence, EPA also stated its intent to publish this notice
requesting
[[Page 50165]]
supplementary comment concerning the proposed rule to rescind subpart I
for NRC licensees other than nuclear power reactors in conjunction with
the publication by NRC of its proposed ALARA constraint rule.
EPA is today issuing this notice because NRC has committed to
propose a rule to constrain air emissions from licensees other than
nuclear power reactors to a level which would result in a dose of no
more than 10 mrem/year. The decision by EPA to reaffirm its proposal to
rescind Subpart I for these facilities is expressly contingent on this
commitment by NRC to propose an ALARA ``constraint level'' rule and on
the stated intention of NRC to require that Agreement States adopt
equivalent provisions. A draft of the proposed ``constraint level''
rule is attached to the December 21, 1994 letter from NRC Chairman
Selin to EPA Administrator Browner, which is included in the public
docket and available upon request. In addition, NRC has advised EPA
that it expects to publish a proposed ``constraint level'' rule shortly
and that this NRC proposal will not differ in any material respect from
the draft rule provided to EPA on December 21, 1994. Therefore, the
initial EPA determination and request for comments set forth below are
based on the December 21, 1994 draft of the NRC proposal.
III. Initial Determination Concerning Sufficiency of NRC Proposals and
Actions to Support Rescission of Subpart I for Licensees Other Than
Nuclear Power Reactors
From the language of section 112(d)(9), it is apparent that where
EPA has already specifically determined what level of emissions must be
achieved to provide an ``ample margin of safety,'' that level is the
benchmark by which EPA must evaluate the adequacy of the NRC program.
EPA specifically found when it promulgated 40 CFR part 61, subpart I,
that 10 mrem/yr would provide the requisite ``ample margin of safety.''
Section 112(d)(9) does not, however, require exact equivalence
between the EPA and NRC programs applicable to a particular category of
licensees before EPA may decline to regulate radionuclide emissions
from that category. Rather, it requires that EPA conclude that
implementation of the NRC program as a whole will achieve substantive
protection of the public health equivalent to or better than that which
would by achieved by enforcement of the EPA standard. Thus, if the NRC
program as a whole will assure that emissions from all affected
licensees remain below the EPA standard, the NRC program may be deemed
to provide an ample margin of safety, regardless of whether this
results from enforcement by NRC of a single numerical standard.
In deciding whether EPA may decline to regulate a particular
category or subcategory of NRC or Agreement State licensees, EPA
construes Section 112(d)(9) as requiring that EPA determine: (1) That
emissions from NRC licensees (or Agreement State licensees when
authority to regulate the licensees has been delegated by NRC) in that
category or subcategory will be consistently and predictably at or
below a level resulting in a dose of 10 mrem/year, and (2) that NRC (or
the Agreement States) can and will require any individual licensee in
that category or subcategory with emissions that cause a dose exceeding
10 mrem/year to reduce the emissions sufficiently that the dose will
not exceed 10 mrem/year.
As explained above, EPA has concluded based on the information
presented to date that radionuclide emissions from licensees other than
nuclear power reactors under the current NRC program are generally well
below the level that would result in a dose exceeding 10 mrem/yr. EPA
experience in administration of subpart I since it became effective has
tended to confirm this conclusion. Out of the thousands of licensees
subject to the standard, only 16 facilities are presently reporting
radionuclide emissions exceeding the EPA standard, and EPA expects that
most of these reported violations will be resolved through EPA approval
of adjustments in the COMPLY methodology for calculating doses.
EPA has concluded that the ALARA constraint rule and the other NRC
proposals and policies described above, when adopted, will support the
requisite determination for rescission under CAA Section 112(d)(9).
Promulgation of the ALARA constraint rule will assure that radionuclide
emissions by the affected licensees will be consistently and
predictably below a level which would result in a dose exceeding 10
mrem/year, and that NRC can require an individual licensee who exceeds
the 10 mrem/yr level to take corrective actions to reduce emissions. By
making the ALARA constraint rule a matter of Division Level 2
compatibility, NRC will assure that those licensees regulated by
individual Agreement States also will be subject to the 10 mrem/yr
constraint level and will be required to report and correct any
exceedances of that level. Finally, the final adoption by NRC of policy
statements establishing specific criteria for adequacy and
compatibility and adopting procedures for suspension or termination of
Agreement State programs will resolve previous concerns regarding the
ability of NRC to act if it determines that an Agreement State program
is inadequate or incompatible.
Based on the above analysis, EPA is today making an initial
determination that, if NRC adopts the proposals and policies described
above, the NRC program will provide an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health under CAA Section 112(d)(9). Based on this
initial determination, EPA is also affirming its proposal to rescind
subpart I for NRC and Agreement State licensees other than nuclear
power reactors, and requesting further comment concerning the
sufficiency of the proposed modifications of the NRC program to provide
an ample margin of safety.
EPA will make a final determination under Section 112(d)(9) when it
takes final action concerning the proposed rescission. EPA intends to
take final action concerning its proposal to rescind subpart I for NRC
and Agreement State licensees other than nuclear power reactors on or
after the date that NRC takes final action on the proposed ALARA
``constraint level'' rule.
IV. Request for Comments
EPA invites additional comments concerning the following questions:
(1) If NRC adopts the proposed ALARA constraint level rule, will
the resultant NRC regulatory program assure that routine radionuclide
emissions from NRC licensees other than nuclear power reactors result
in doses which are consistently and predictably no greater than 10
mrem/year ?
(2) If NRC adopts the proposed ALARA constraint level rule, will
NRC have sufficient authority to require any affected facility with
routine radionuclide emissions at a level which results in a dose
exceeding 10 mrem/yr to reduce its emissions to a level resulting in a
dose no greater than 10 mrem/yr?
(3) If NRC makes the proposed ALARA constraint level rule a matter
of Division Level 2 compatibility, will this assure that each
individual Agreement State establishes an ALARA constraint level for
its licensees which is no greater than 10 mrem/yr, and requires its
licensees to report and correct exceedances of that level?
(4) Are the NRC policies establishing criteria to evaluate the
adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs, and adopting
procedures to permit suspension or termination of Agreement State
programs, sufficient to
[[Page 50166]]
enable NRC to take necessary action if it determines that an Agreement
State program is inadequate or incompatible?
(5) Do these four actions, in addition to other actions taken by
NRC combine to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health?
EPA is not requesting further comments on the nature of current
radionuclide emissions by facilities subject to subpart I, or any other
issue not expressly addressed by this notice or the NRC proposals and
policies on which it is based. EPA does not expect to respond to any
specific comments which are outside the scope of this notice.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Arsenic, Asbestos,
Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous substances, Mercury, Radionuclides,
Radon, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Vinyl
Chloride.
Dated: September 8, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-24111 Filed 9-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
