[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