National Emissions Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities Not Covered by Subpart H

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