[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57159-57169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22361]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[FRL-7271-3]
RIN 2060-A190


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than 
Radon From Department of Energy Facilities; National Emission Standards 
for Radionuclide Emissions from Federal Facilities Other Than Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Licensees and Not Covered by Subpart H; Final 
Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which regulate the air emissions of 
radionuclides other than radon-222 and radon-220 from facilities owned 
or operated by the Department of Energy (DOE) (Subpart H) and from 
Federal Facilities other than Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
licensees and not covered by Subpart H (Subpart I). These regulations 
require that emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air shall not 
exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to 
receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 millirem per 
year (mrem/yr). Also, for non-DOE federal facilities, emissions of 
iodine shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of 
the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 3 
mrem/yr. Regulated facilities demonstrate compliance with the standard 
by sampling and monitoring radionuclide emissions from all applicable 
point sources. Currently, radionuclide emissions from point sources are 
measured in accordance with the American National Standards 
Institutes's (ANSI) ``Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive Materials 
in Nuclear Facilities,'' ANSI N13.1-1969. In 1999, the American 
National Standards Institute substantively revised ANSI N13.1-1969 and 
renamed it ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive 
Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities,'' ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999. Today's action amends 40 CFR Part 61, subparts H and I to 
require the use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 for all applicable newly 
constructed or modified facilities. Today's action also imposes 
additional inspection requirements on existing facilities subject to 
subparts H and I of 40 CFR Part 61.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 9, 2002. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of October 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin Anderson, Center for Waste 
Management, Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation and 
Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailstop 6608J, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail: 
[email protected] or by phone (202) 564-9385.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 57160]]

Docket

    All documents relevant to this rulemaking have been placed in 
Docket A-94-60 in EPA's Air Docket. The Air Docket is located at 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 20460, in room B-102, Mail Code 6102T and is 
open between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. EPA is also publishing a 
response to comments document (entitled ``Response to Comments: 
Amendment to Radionuclide NESHAPs-40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H and Subpart 
I'' (Docket No. A-94-60, Item V-A-2)), which responds in detail to all 
the public comments that were received on the proposed rule. Copies of 
the response to comments document may be obtained from Eleanor 
Thornton-Jones at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for 
Waste Management, Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation 
and Indoor Air, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; Mail code: 6608J or by e-mail: [email protected] or by 
phone (202) 564-9773.

Incorporation by Reference

    All subject facilities must demonstrate compliance with subparts H 
and I in accordance with the procedures set forth in ANSI/HPS N13.1-
1999, ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive 
Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities' (Docket No. 
A-94-60, Item II-D-3). The Health Physics Society (HPS) approved ANSI/
HPS N13.1-1999 on January 12, 1999, and published it as a supplement to 
the May 1999 Health Physics Society Journal. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. You may obtain a copy of the 
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard from the American National Standards 
Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10036. 
You may inspect a copy at EPA's Air Docket (address above), or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 
700, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents

I. Today's Action
    A. Affected Facilities
    B. Current Requirements
    C. Description of Today's Action
    D. Expected Cost Impacts Associated With Today's Action
II. Background
    A. Regulatory History
    B. Proposed Rule
III. Discussion of Comments
    A. Evaluation of Whether Upgrades Would Lead to More Accurate 
Samples
    B. Cost Information To Upgrade Existing Sources
    C. Accidental Releases
IV. Conclusion
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    E. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA)
    I. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects
    J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. Today's Action

A. Affected Facilities

    This rule applies to operations at any facility owned or operated 
by DOE that emits any radionuclide other than radon-222 and radon-220 
into the air (radionuclide NESHAPs--40 CFR part 61, subpart H) and to 
non-DOE federal facilities (radionuclide NESHAPs--40 CFR part 61, 
subpart I).

B. Current Requirements

    The NESHAPs regulations at 40 CFR part 61, subparts H and I require 
emissions sampling, monitoring and calculations to identify compliance 
with the standard. The standard for both subparts H and I requires that 
emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air shall not exceed those 
amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any 
year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/yr. Also, for non-DOE 
federal facilities, emissions of iodine shall not exceed those amounts 
that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an 
effective dose equivalent of 3 mrem/yr. Under radionuclide NESHAPs, 
major sources are those that have the potential to discharge 
radionuclides into the air in quantities that could cause an effective 
dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 mrem/yr.
    Currently, for major sources, subparts H and I require measurement 
of radionuclide emissions to air in accordance with the guidance 
presented in the ANSI ``Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive 
Materials in Nuclear Facilities,'' ANSI N13.1-1969 (Docket No. A-94-60, 
Item II-D-1). The American National Standards Institute substantively 
revised ANSI N13.1-1969 in 1999, and renamed it ``Sampling and 
Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stacks 
and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities,'' ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 (Docket No. A-
94-60, Item II-D-3).

C. Description of Today's Action

    With today's action, EPA amends 40 CFR part 61, subparts H and I to 
require the use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 in place of the older ANSI 
N13.1-1969 for all applicable newly constructed or modified facilities. 
The principal feature of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 is that it is a 
performance-based standard, rather than a prescriptive standard, as was 
ANSI N13.1-1969. As a performance-based standard, ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 
provides guidance for the design and use of systems for sampling the 
releases of airborne radioactive substances from the ducts and stacks 
of nuclear facilities. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard includes the 
following features:
    [sbull] Criteria for determining suitability of a sampling location 
based on the uniformity of the velocity and contaminant concentration 
profiles,
    [sbull] A criterion for an acceptable level of flow swirl,
    [sbull] A maximum relative level of contaminant at any location 
across the cross section of the stack or duct,
    [sbull] Performance criteria for an acceptable probe,
    [sbull] A numerical criterion on the minimum fraction of aerosol 
particles that penetrate the sampling system from the stack gas to the 
collector or analyzer,
    [sbull] A statement that the number of bends in the sample 
transport line must be minimized,
    [sbull] Periodic checks and maintenance criteria, and
    [sbull] A quality assurance program that covers personnel, 
equipment, and data handling.
    In developing the final rule, EPA considered all information that 
was before the Agency. EPA gave substantial consideration to all the 
public comments (both written and oral) submitted at a public hearing 
and during the comment period on the proposed rule. EPA also sought and 
considered additional information related to several issues raised by 
commenters. EPA has based its regulatory decisions on the information 
obtained and comments received during the rulemaking process. Thus, 
today's final action does three things:
    (1) The final amendment to subpart H and subpart I requires the use 
of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for new sources as defined in 40 
CFR part 61, subpart A. Facilities will be required to use ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 for the reporting period beginning January 1, 2003.

[[Page 57161]]

    (2) The final rule also provides the option of using ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 for existing sources. EPA believes that some existing 
sources not undergoing modification could benefit from upgrades that 
would be necessary to meet the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. In those 
instances, EPA encourages all applicable Federal facilities to make 
such necessary upgrades to meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
    (3) The final rule also includes more stringent inspection 
requirements for facilities that will remain subject to ANSI N13.1-
1969. EPA is amending 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B, Method 114--Test 
Methods for Measuring Radionuclide Emissions from Stationary Sources to 
impose these more stringent inspection requirements. (Both subparts H 
and I require applicable sources to implement the Quality Assurance 
Methods in Appendix B, Method 114 when conducting a quality assurance 
assessment.) These requirements will ensure that existing sampling 
systems are regularly inspected and continue to function as designed. 
The new inspection requirements are based on similar guidelines found 
in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. Incorporating updated requirements into 
Appendix B, Method 114 ensures that key components of the sampling 
systems are inspected at least on an annual basis to prevent 
degradation of sampling systems.
    Significant comments on the proposed rule are discussed in the 
preamble section entitled ``Discussion of Comments.''

D. Expected Cost Impacts Associated With Today's Action

    The Agency estimated the cost impacts resulting from the amendments 
to 40 CFR part 61 subparts H and I being promulgated today. These costs 
derive from (1) Any incremental costs to new facilities from the 
adoption of the newer ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard instead of the older 
ANSI N13.1-1969 standard; (2) costs incurred by existing facilities 
undergoing modification from the upgrading of their sampling systems; 
and (3) the costs incurred by facilities to meet additional inspection 
requirements.
    In general, the cost for new facilities installing a sampling 
system compliant with the newer ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard is the 
same as the cost of installing a system compliant with the older ANSI 
N13.1-1969. Therefore, although DOE estimates that, over the next 5 
years, approximately 50 new sources will be constructed, these 
facilities will face no additional costs associated with the adoption 
of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 as required in today's amendments (Docket No. A-
94-60, Item IV-G-4).
    For those facilities undergoing modification, there will be a cost 
associated with upgrading their sampling systems. As discussed further 
in Section II.B. of this preamble, this cost is estimated at $100,000 
per source. The Department of Defense (DoD) stated that nearly all of 
their existing sources and probably future sources will result in an 
effective dose equivalent below 1% of the standards and therefore are 
not subject to either ANSI standard (Docket No. A-94-60, Item IV-D-2). 
DOE estimates that approximately 10 existing sources over the next five 
years will be upgraded to meet the ANS/HPS N13.1-1999 standard (Docket 
No. A-94-60, Item IV-D-40). Assuming that these 10 sources are modified 
evenly across the 5 years, then the annual cost to install a sampling 
system compliant with the newer ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard will be 2 
x $100,000 totaling $200,000 per year.
    Appendix B, Method 114--Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclide 
Emissions from Stationary Sources has additional inspection 
requirements taken directly from ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. The DOE and DoD 
have estimated that a total of approximately 510 sources will be 
affected by these new inspection requirements at some point during the 
next 5 years (500 existing sources plus the 10 sources assumed to be 
built) (Docket No. A-94-60, Items IV-D-39 and IV-D-40). The State of 
Washington estimated that there would be a one time cost of 
approximately $5,000 per source to implement the new inspection 
requirement and an annual operational cost of $7,000 (Docket No. A-94-
60, Item IV-D-41). Therefore, inspection costs are estimated to be 
$2.55 million as an initial investment with an additional annual 
operating and maintenance cost of $3.57 million.

II. Background

A. Regulatory History

    On October 31, 1989, EPA promulgated 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 (Docket A-94-60, Item II-A-1)). Subpart H of 40 CFR part 61 
defines facilities owned and operated by the DOE as one of the source 
categories subject to a NESHAP. DOE administers many facilities, 
including government-owned/contractor-operated facilities, across the 
country. Some facilities conduct nuclear energy and weapons research 
and development, some enrich uranium and produce plutonium for nuclear 
weapons and reactors, and some process, store and dispose of 
radioactive wastes. As DOE facilities mature and complete their 
mission, some facilities are now faced with decontamination and 
decommissioning.
    In general, certain DOE facilities handle significant amounts of 
radioactive material and can emit radionuclides into the air. Some of 
the DOE facilities emitting radionuclides are on large sites covering 
hundreds of square miles in remote locations. Some of the smaller 
facilities resemble typical industrial facilities and are located in 
suburban areas. DOE facilities emit a wide variety of radionuclides in 
various physical and chemical states. The purpose of subpart H is to 
limit radionuclide emissions (not including radon) from the stacks and 
vents at DOE facilities so that no member of the public receives an 
effective dose equivalent of more than 10 mrem/yr.
    Subpart I sets forth the NESHAP for non-DOE federal facilities 
(excluding NRC licensees). The facilities in this category can emit a 
variety of radionuclides. These radionuclides affect individuals by 
inhalation, ingestion, ground deposition and immersion pathways. The 
purpose of subpart I is to limit radionuclide emissions, including 
iodine, from the stacks and vents at non-DOE federal facilities 
including DoD and other federal research and industrial facilities so 
that no member of the public receives an effective dose equivalent of 
more than 10 mrem/yr. and so that no member of the public receives an 
effective dose equivalent of more than 3 mrem/yr. from exposure to 
emissions of iodine.
    Both subparts H and I require emissions sampling, monitoring and 
calculations to identify compliance with the standard. Section 61.93 of 
subpart H and Sec.  61.107 of subpart I require continuous sampling and 
monitoring of radionuclide emissions at all release points that have a 
potential to discharge radionuclides into the ambient air in amounts 
that could cause an effective dose equivalent in excess of 1% of the 
standard. In evaluating the potential of a release point to discharge 
radionuclides into the air, the estimated radionuclide release rates 
shall be based on the discharge of the effluent stream that would 
result if all pollution control equipment did not exist, but the 
facility's operations were otherwise normal. Subparts H and I currently 
incorporate by reference ANSI N13.1-1969, ``Guide to Sampling Airborne 
Radioactive Materials in Nuclear

[[Page 57162]]

Facilities'' (Docket A-94-60, Item II-D-1). However, in 1999, the 
American National Standards Institute revised ANSI N13.1-1969. The new 
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne 
Radioactive Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear 
Facilities,'' was published as a supplement to the Health Physics 
Journal in May 1999 (Docket A-94-60, Item II-D-3).

B. Proposed Rule

    A proposed amendment to incorporate ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 into 
subparts H and I was published in the May 9, 2000, Federal Register (65 
FR 29934) (Docket No. A-94-60, Item III-A-3). In developing the 
proposal, EPA reviewed the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, conducted a 
comparative analysis of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 with ANSI N13.1-1969, 
assessed the compatibility of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 with subparts H and 
I, held discussions with DOE and members of the ANSI work group, and 
reviewed and analyzed ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 supporting materials. Based 
on this analysis, EPA proposed amendments to require that ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 be used for sampling any newly constructed source and any 
source undergoing a modification that would result in an effective dose 
equivalent to any member of the public greater than 1% of the standard.
    The comment period for the proposed amendment initially lasted 30 
days (from May 9, 2000 to June 9, 2000). EPA also received a request 
for a public hearing, which was held on July 12, 2000. After the public 
hearing, the comment period was extended to August 14, 2000. Upon 
receiving another request for an extension of the comment period, EPA 
extended it to October 6, 2000 (65 FR 21198) (Docket No. A-94-60, Item 
III-A-3). All comments were received before October 6, 2000, and were 
reviewed, analyzed and fully considered in developing the final 
amendment. Detailed responses to comments can be found in ``Response to 
Comments Amendment to Radionuclide NESHAPs (40 CFR part 61), Subpart H 
and Subpart I'' (Docket No. A-94-60, Item V-A-2).

III. Discussion of Comments

    Comments concerning the proposed amendment were received from DOE, 
DoD, members of the ANSI working group, environmental groups, various 
state departments of health and environmental protection, and private 
citizens. The most significant issue raised in the comments was EPA's 
proposal to ``grandfather'' existing sources (that is, not require 
upgrades to existing sampling systems). Aspects of this issue addressed 
in the comments include: whether upgrades would lead to more accurate 
samples, how costs were evaluated, and how the use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-
1999 might affect unplanned releases. These issues are discussed below.
    Several commenters raised issues such as the dose limits 
established in Subparts H and I, and aspects of computer modeling used 
to estimate doses. EPA determined that these issues do not relate to 
sampling procedures or systems and, thus, are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.

A. Evaluation of Whether Upgrades Would Lead to More Accurate Samples

    To address the issue of whether to ``grandfather'' existing 
sources, EPA conducted an analysis of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. 
EPA compared the ANSI N13.1-1969 standard with the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 
standard. The significant differences between the two standards are 
that the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard:
    1. Does not include the requirements for multiple sampling nozzles 
and isokinetic sampling;
    2. Provides performance criteria for selecting between sampling 
locations, as well as specifying methods for measuring velocity 
profiles;
    3. Provides information on where to obtain assistance in designing 
sampling lines; and
    4. Describes a graded approach in the sampling efforts.
    EPA concluded that, ``In practice, both standards will result in 
sampling locations at the same spot. For either standard, if velocity 
profiles are made and a uniform concentration of particles measured, 
there would be no difference in the required sampling location. The 
only difference would be in the number of sample nozzles specified. The 
implications to past and future compliance data generated at DOE 
facilities is minor, in that the changes in sampling location criteria 
between the two standards will not significantly change the 
representativeness of the sample extracted.'' (Docket No. A-94-60, Item 
II-A-3) Therefore, EPA concluded, unless any field data indicated 
otherwise, that upgrading existing sources would not change the 
representativeness of the sample extracted. However, EPA also believed 
that ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 incorporates significant advances in sampling 
and monitoring methodology that have occurred over the last 30 years 
and that its performance-based approach allows greater flexibility 
while still ensuring representative sampling. For new sources, the cost 
of installing systems compliant with ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 are likely to 
be comparable to the cost of installing systems compliant with ANSI 
N13.1-1969 (refer to section B, Cost Information to Upgrade Existing 
Sources for additional information). For these reasons, the Agency 
determined that it was justified and prudent to require use of ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 for new and modified sources.
    Comments on the proposal, including claims that regulatory 
violations or health threats might result from not upgrading existing 
stacks, emphasized the importance of accurately assessing the real 
world implications of changes to sampling systems. Initially, EPA did 
not have actual field data indicating whether the compliance status of 
any existing source is likely to be changed by the adoption of the 
requirement of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. Therefore, EPA solicited field data 
pertaining to the comparative performance of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. EPA 
requested such data and information from the chairperson of the ANSI 
committee that developed the new sampling standard (Docket No. A-94-60, 
Item II-C-3), members of the ANSI committee, DOE, and attendees of the 
July 12, 2000, public hearing (Docket No. A-94-60, Item IV-D-18).
    In response to these requests, DOE provided data that permitted a 
direct comparison of the effect of using ANSI N13.1-1969 versus ANSI/
HPS N13.1-1999 to determine compliance at existing sources. The DOE 
sent data from Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Savannah River Site, 
and Rocky Flats that indicated that for stacks retrofitted with a 
shrouded probe as expected by ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, sampling results 
were similar to those obtained with the use of the multiple nozzle rake 
(required by ANSI N31.1-1969). For example, DOE described the results 
of installing single point sampling systems on over 40 radionuclide air 
emission sources at the Savannah River Site as follows:

    A shrouded probe was installed on these sources as part of 
upgrades done for operational purposes. Both the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 
suggested inventory method and the Appendix D to 40 CFR 61 method 
have been used to evaluate the potential to emit radionuclide 
(PEDE). Therefore, they allow for direct comparison of results using 
the ANSI N13.1-1969 and ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 methodologies. The 
actual measured emissions both before and after the upgrade to 
single point sampling are on the order of 0.00001 mrem/yr. These 
sources are considered major sources which represent a wide range 
and number of DOE sources across its facilities. Based on these 41

[[Page 57163]]

sources, during normal operations, there is no noticeable difference 
in the before and after alpha and beta/gamma data. Therefore, the 
installation of the single point sampling systems did not 
significantly affect the sample results and would not significantly 
affect compliance with Subpart H.'' (Docket No. A-94-60, Item IV-D-
22)

    Another factor EPA considered in determining whether to grandfather 
existing DOE sources was an evaluation of recently reported 
radionuclide emission data from DOE facilities. In accordance with 40 
CFR 61.94, DOE demonstrates compliance with the subpart H NESHAP by 
determining the highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to any member 
of the public at any offsite location where there is a residence, 
school, business, or office. All DOE facilities subject to subpart H 
must annually report such monitoring results. Twenty-seven DOE 
facilities submitted subpart H reports to EPA headquarters for the year 
2000 (these reports are located in Docket No. A-94-60, check the Index 
beginning with section V-B) . None of the reporting facilities were out 
of compliance. Four of these facilities (15%) reported an EDE to the 
nearest maximally exposed individual (MEI) to be greater than 1% of the 
10 mrem/yr standard while 23 facilities (85%) reported a total EDE to 
the nearest MEI to be less than 10% of the 10 mrem/yr standard. Note 
that the highest EDE came from DOE's Fernald facility. Releases from 
this facility were measured at 1 mrem/yr, primarily due to removal or 
processing of a large volume of thorium-bearing waste pit material for 
shipment and off-site disposal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The waste pit area contains approximately 1 million tons of 
radioactive waste from Fernald's uranium production operations. Most 
production-era processing involved extracting uranium from ores, 
resulting in waste with elevated levels of thorium, radium, and 
residual uranium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further understand the compliance and public health implications 
of upgrading (or not upgrading) existing sampling systems, EPA examined 
the Hanford facility 2000 report (Docket No. A-94-60, Item V-B-2). EPA 
picked Hanford for this particular analysis because it is one of DOE's 
largest facilities. The report noted that there were 26 major sources 
at the Hanford site (a source is designated as major when its potential 
maximum emissions after all treatment controls have been hypothetically 
removed can cause the highest potential exposure to be greater than 0.1 
mrem/yr EDE). The reported EDE for the MEI ranged from 7.4 x 
10-13 to 4.5 x 10-2 mrem/yr. Currently, estimated 
doses from emissions sampled under ANSI N13.1-1969 at Hanford are ten 
to thousands of times lower than EPA's dose limits. Therefore, 
upgrading the existing sampling systems to comply with ANSI/HPS N13.1-
1999 would result in detection of releases exceeding EPA's standards 
only if actual emissions were orders of magnitude higher than those 
found by current systems. Available data provide no basis to conclude 
that, in general, there would be any measurable difference in detected 
emissions using ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 as opposed to ANSI N13.1-1969. 
These reported doses confirm EPA's conclusion reached during the 
proposal development that there are likely no detrimental impacts on 
regulatory compliance of DOE facilities or public health from allowing 
existing sampling systems to remain in operation.

B. Cost Information To Upgrade Existing Sources

    Another significant factor that EPA considered in determining 
whether to require all facilities to meet the requirements of ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 was the cost associated with such an effort. EPA received 
cost estimates from both DOE and the ANSI work group (Docket No. A-94-
60, Items IV-D-7 and IV-D-3). The estimated cost to upgrade an existing 
system ranged from $65,000 to $2.5 million per sampling system. Because 
of the widely divergent cost estimates, EPA commissioned a third party 
expert to conduct an independent analysis of the expected cost of 
upgrades that would be necessary to meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. EPA 
contacted Andersen Instruments, Inc., a well-established company 
responsible for the design, construction and placement of the shrouded 
probe at several DOE facilities, to determine the cost of upgrading 
existing sampling systems to meet the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard.\2\ 
The following statement was presented to EPA by Andersen Instruments, 
Inc.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Following the guidance in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, the expected 
method for obtaining a representative sample is the use of a 
properly placed shrouded probe in place of a multi-point sampling 
system.

    ``Any existing sampling system even though it meets the multi-
point criteria of U.S. EPA Method 1 and Appendix A of ANSI/HPS 
N13.1-1999 must, at a minimum, conduct the single-point sampling 
qualification testing [finding a suitable location for placement of 
the shrouded probe]. Andersen Instruments feels this task can be 
accomplished at a cost of $5,000 per stack. Since May 1996, over 45 
sources have been upgraded from the ANSI type isokinetic sample 
probe to a single point sampling probe utilizing the shrouded probe 
technology. The actual cost for installing a shrouded probe and a 
simple sample box with manual flow control was $100,000 per source. 
Andersen Instruments feels this cost is accurate if this cost 
includes labor, engineering and hardware.'' (Docket No. A-94-60, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item IV-C-2)

    If the Agency were to require the approximately 500 existing DOE 
and DoD sources (see Section I.D. of this preamble) to upgrade to the 
newer ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, these costs would be approximately 
$50 million. Given that EPA's analysis demonstrates that, in general, 
there would not be any measurable difference in detected emissions 
using ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 rather than ANSI N13.1-1969, EPA concludes 
that the expected benefit of requiring use of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 at 
all existing sources does not justify the resource expenditures that 
would be required to effect this change.

C. Accidental Releases

    The emissions limitations in subparts H and I apply to all 
releases, whether incident to normal operations or accidental. 
Therefore, EPA examined whether certain facets of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 
could help prevent or reduce accidental releases of radioactivity from 
regulated facilities. A number of commenters suggested that application 
of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 could result in fewer accidental or unplanned 
releases of radionuclides. Oftentimes, accidental releases bypass 
control equipment, as a result, emissions may have particles sizes 
associated with the aerosol upstream of the control equipment, rather 
than that typically encountered downstream of control equipment. These 
larger particles can often be sampled more effectively using the 
shrouded probes encouraged by ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. For these reasons, 
EPA evaluated the potential effects of accidental releases when using 
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
    To begin, EPA sought to characterize unplanned releases. There were 
37 unplanned releases reported in the subpart H reports from 1994-1997 
and 1999. The average dose resulting from these accidental releases was 
0.034 mrem/yr.\3\ Nineteen (51%) unplanned releases were attributed to 
human error. Nine (24%) unplanned releases were considered a result of 
poor inspections. Two (5%) unplanned releases occurred outside of the 
stack and seven (19%)

[[Page 57164]]

unplanned releases were not sufficiently described for classification 
(due to the withholding of sensitive information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Only 1 unplanned release resulted in the dose being greater 
than 10% of the standard but not exceeding the standard. This was a 
tritium release that occurred at the Savannah River Site in 1995. 
Current regulation cites methods for sampling tritium in the non-
particulate form that are the same as discussed in ANSI/HPS N13.1-
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA concluded that utilizing ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 rather than ANSI 
N13.1-1969 would not have reduced the occurrence of accidental releases 
due to human error, nor would it have affected releases occurring 
outside the stack. Furthermore, doses from unplanned releases were so 
low (on average, almost 1000 times lower than the applicable standard) 
that even significant increases in sampled emissions, if found, would 
have had minimal public health impact and would have been unlikely to 
affect radionuclide NESHAPs compliance.
    EPA determined, however, that 24% of unplanned releases may not 
have occurred if more stringent inspection requirements, such as those 
in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, were required by subparts H and I. Properly 
functioning sampling systems--as ensured by regular, rigorous 
inspections--can provide an early indication of an otherwise unapparent 
failure of emissions control equipment or other conditions contributing 
to unplanned releases. EPA therefore imposed only those provisions of 
ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 affecting inspections, but determined that other 
aspects of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 would not affect these kinds of 
unplanned releases. To implement these inspection requirements as part 
of subparts H and I, EPA has amended the Quality Assurance Methods in 
Appendix B, Method 114--Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclides 
Emissions from Stationary Sources to include a table that specifies 
when each component of the sampling system must be inspected. This 
table is based on a similar table found in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.

IV. Conclusion

    EPA determines that any potential improvement in sampling from 
existing sources subject to 40 CFR part 61, subparts H and I, when 
viewed against the substantial cost of upgrading all existing sources 
to meet ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, does not justify imposing such an 
expenditure across the entire Federal complex. EPA acknowledges, 
however, that application of ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 to certain existing 
DOE sources may result in a cost-effective net environmental benefit. 
In those instances, EPA encourages DOE to make the necessary changes to 
further ensure protection of human health and the environment. To 
promote such changes, EPA plans to pursue a Memorandum of Understanding 
with DOE that would aid in identifying sources that should be upgraded 
to meet the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Moreover, EPA has concluded 
that application of more stringent inspection requirements, as set 
forth in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, could potentially result in a significant 
decrease in unplanned releases of radionuclides to the air. Therefore, 
EPA is amending Appendix B of subparts H and I to incorporate such 
improved inspection requirements.
    To conclude, the final amendment to subpart H and subpart I 
requires the use of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for new sources as 
defined in subpart A, including any modified sources that require 
continuous monitoring. For existing sources, ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 can be 
used as a pre-approved alternative methodology as defined in Section 
61.93 of subpart H and Section 61.107 of subpart I. The final rule also 
includes more stringent inspection requirements for ANSI N13.1-1969 
systems in 40 CFR part 61 Appendix B, Method 114--Test Methods for 
Measuring Radionuclide Emissions from Stationary Sources (both subparts 
H and I require implementing the Quality Assurance Methods in Appendix 
B, Method 114 when conducting a quality assurance assessment). These 
requirements will ensure that existing sampling systems, where 
continuous monitoring is required, are regularly inspected and continue 
to function as designed.

V. Regulatory Analyses

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing 
the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are 
defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business 
Administration size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule only imposes requirements on DOE facilities emitting specific 
radionuclides and non DOE federal facilities. This rule will not impose 
any requirements on small entities.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with regulatory requirements. 
Today's action contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments 
or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any 
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector; this 
amendment applies only to facilities owned or operated by DOE and non-
DOE federal facilities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The purpose of this amendment is to place in an existing regulation, 
new sampling and monitoring procedures. Thus this action will not 
impose any new

[[Page 57165]]

information collection burden. The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 61, Subparts B, H, 
I, K, R, T, W) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0191 (EPA 
ICR No. 1101.11).
    Copies of the ICR document may be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail 
at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. Please include 
the ICR and/or OMB number in any correspondence.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

D. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51736 (October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.

    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

E. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    EPA determines that this rule is not subject to Executive Order 
13045. As described above, this action does not constitute an 
economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. 
Further, EPA determines that the matter addressed in this rule, i.e., 
whether to apply ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 as the sampling and monitoring 
standard for Federal radionuclide existing sources, does not involve a 
decision on environmental health or safety risks that may 
disproportionately affect children.

F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255; August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This amendment applies only to 
facilities owned or operated by DOE and non-DOE federal facilities. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments are directly regulated by 
this regulatory action and the nature of these amendments will impose 
no substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes. This rule 
does not affect the emission limits of any facility, nor will it have 
any impact on facility emissions, and therefore will have no impact on 
populations near any regulated facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this rule.

H. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
104-113, Section 12 (d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking is intended 
to increase the use of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999, a consensus standard 
developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Working 
Group. Thus, it is consistent with the goals of the NTTAA.

[[Page 57166]]

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has served as 
administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector 
voluntary standardization system for 80 years, by promoting and 
facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment 
systems and by promoting their integrity.

I. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective 30 days after date of publication 
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Radon, Radionuclides, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR Part 61 as follows:

PART 61--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 61 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 61.18 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (c), and (d) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  61.18  Incorporations by reference.

    The materials listed below are incorporated by reference in the 
corresponding sections noted. These incorporations by reference were 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as 
they exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in 
these materials will be published in the Federal Register. The 
materials are available for inspection at the corresponding address 
noted below, and at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC and the Library (MD-35), 
or at U.S. EPA's Air Docket at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    (a) The following materials are available for purchase from at 
least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959; or University Microfilms 
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
* * * * *
    (c) The following material is available for purchase from the 
American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, 
New York, New York 10036.
    (1) ANSI N13.1-1969, ``Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive 
Materials in Nuclear Facilities.'' IBR approved for 61.93(b)(2)(ii) and 
61.107(b)(2)(ii).
    (2) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of 
Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear 
Facilities,'' IBR approved [insert date 30 days after date of 
publication in Federal Register] for Sec. Sec.  61.93(c); 61.107(d) and 
Method 114, paragraph 2.1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR part 61.
    (d) The following material is available from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, 
telephone (202) 512-1800 or outside of Washington, DC area: 1-866-512-
1800.
* * * * *

Subpart H--[Amended]

    3. Section 61.93 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text, (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i), and by adding paragraphs (c), 
(d), (e), (f) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.93  Emission monitoring and test procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Radionuclides emission rates from existing point sources 
(stacks or vents) shall be measured in accordance with the following 
requirements or with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, 
or other procedures for which EPA has granted prior approval:
    (1) * * *
    (i) Reference Method 2 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
shall be used to determine velocity and volumetric flow rates for 
stacks and large vents.
    (ii) Reference Method 2A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
shall be used to measure flow rates through pipes and small vents.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Reference Method 1 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
shall be used to select monitoring or sampling sites.
* * * * *
    (c) Radionuclide emission rates from new point sources (stacks or 
vents) as defined in subpart A shall be measured in accordance with the 
following requirements, or other procedures for which EPA has granted 
prior approval:
    (1) Effluent flow rate measurements shall be made using the 
following methods:
    (i) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of 
Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear 
Facilities' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  61.18) shall be used 
to determine velocity and volumetric flow rates for stacks and large 
vents.
    (ii) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 shall be used to measure flow rates 
through pipes and small vents.
    (iii) The frequency of the flow rate measurements shall depend upon 
variability of the effluent flow rate. For variable flow rates, 
continuous or frequent flow rate measurements shall be made. For 
relatively constant flow rates only periodic measurements are 
necessary.
    (2) Radionuclide shall be directly monitored or extracted, 
collected and measured using the following methods:
    (i) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 shall be used to select monitoring or 
sampling sites.
    (ii) The effluent stream shall be directly monitored continuously 
with an in-line detector or representative samples of the effluent 
stream shall be withdrawn continuously from the sampling site following 
the guidance presented in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. The requirements for 
continuous sampling are applicable to batch

[[Page 57167]]

processes when the unit is in operation. Periodic sampling (grab 
samples) may be used only with EPA's prior approval. Such approval may 
be granted in cases where continuous sampling is not practical and 
radionuclide emission rates are relatively constant. In such cases, 
grab samples shall be collected with sufficient frequency so as to 
provide a representative sample of the emissions.
    (iii) Radionuclides shall be collected and measured using 
procedures based on the principles of measurement described in appendix 
B, Method 114 of this part. Use of methods based on principles of 
measurement different from those described in appendix B, Method 114 of 
this part must have prior approval from the Administrator. EPA reserves 
the right to approve measurement procedures.
    (iv) A quality assurance program shall be conducted that meets the 
performance requirements described in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
    (d) When it is impractical to measure the effluent flow rate at a 
source in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (c) 
of this section or to monitor or sample an effluent stream at a source 
in accordance with the site selection and sample extraction 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) or (c) of this section, the facility 
owner or operator may use alternative effluent flow rate measurement 
procedures or site selection and sample extraction procedures provided 
that:
    (1) It can be shown that the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or 
(2) or (c) of this section are impractical for the effluent stream.
    (2) The alternative procedure will not significantly underestimate 
the emissions.
    (3) The alternative procedure is fully documented.
    (4) The owner or operator has received prior approval from EPA.
    (e) Radionuclide emission measurements in conformance with the 
requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section shall be made at 
all release points that have a potential to discharge radionuclides 
into the air in quantities that could cause an effective dose 
equivalent in excess of 1% of the standard. All radionuclides that 
could contribute greater than 10% of the potential effective dose 
equivalent for a release point shall be measured. With prior EPA 
approval, DOE may determine these emissions through alternative 
procedures. For other release points that have a potential to release 
radionuclides into the air, periodic confirmatory measurements shall be 
made to verify the low emissions.
    (f) To determine whether a release point is subject to the emission 
measurement requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, it is 
necessary to evaluate the potential for radionuclide emissions for that 
release point. In evaluating the potential of a release point to 
discharge radionuclides into the air for the purposes of this section, 
the estimated radionuclide release rates shall be based on the 
discharge of the effluent stream that would result if all pollution 
control equipment did not exist, but the facilities operations were 
otherwise normal.
    (g) Environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations 
at critical receptor locations may be used as an alternative to air 
dispersion calculations in demonstrating compliance with the standard 
if the owner or operator meets the following criteria:
    (1) The air at the point of measurement shall be continuously 
sampled for collection of radionuclides.
    (2) Those radionuclides released from the facility that are the 
major contributors to the effective dose equivalent must be collected 
and measured as part of the environmental measurement program.
    (3) Radionuclide concentrations that would cause an effective dose 
equivalent of 10% of the standard shall be readily detectable and 
distinguishable from background.
    (4) Net measured radionuclide concentrations shall be compared to 
the concentration levels in Table 2 appendix E of this part to 
determine compliance with the standard. In the case of multiple 
radionuclides being released from a facility, compliance shall be 
demonstrated if the value for all radionuclides is less than the 
concentration level in Table 2 of appendix E of this part, and the sum 
of the fractions that result when each measured concentration value is 
divided by the value in Table 2 of appendix E of this part for each 
radionuclide is less than 1.
    (5) A quality assurance program shall be conducted that meets the 
performance requirements described in appendix B, Method 114 of this 
part.
    (6) Use of environmental measurements to demonstrate compliance 
with the standard is subject to prior approval of EPA. Applications for 
approval shall include a detailed description of the sampling and 
analytical methodology and show how the above criteria will be met.

Subpart I--[Amended]

    4. Section 61.107 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 
introductory text, (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i), and by adding 
paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.107  Emission determination.

* * * * *
    (b) Radionuclide emission rates from existing point sources (stacks 
or vents) shall be measured in accordance with the following 
requirements or within the requirements of paragraph (d) of this 
section, or other procedures for which EPA has granted prior approval:
    (1) * * *
    (i) Reference Method 2 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
shall be used to determine velocity and volumetric flow rates for 
stacks and large vents.
    (ii) Reference Method 2A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
shall be used to measure flow rates through pipes and small vents.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Reference Method 1 of appendix A part 60 of this chapter shall 
be used to select monitoring or sampling sites.
* * * * *
    (d) Radionuclide emission rates from new point sources (stacks or 
vents) as defined in subpart A shall be measured in accordance with the 
following requirements, or other procedures for which EPA has granted 
prior approval:
    (1) Effluent flow rate measurements shall be made using the 
following methods:
    (i) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 ``Sampling and Monitoring Releases of 
Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear 
Facilities'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  61.18) shall be used 
to determine velocity and volumetric flow rates for stacks and large 
vents.
    (ii) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 shall be used to measure flow rates 
through pipes and small vents.
    (iii) The frequency of the flow rate measurements shall depend upon 
variability of the effluent flow rate. For variable flow rates, 
continuous or frequent flow rate measurements shall be made. For 
relatively constant flow rates only periodic measurements are 
necessary.
    (2) Radionuclide shall be directly monitored or extracted, 
collected and measured using the following methods:
    (i) ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 shall be used to select monitoring or 
sampling sites.
    (ii) The effluent stream shall be directly monitored continuously 
with an in-line detector or representative

[[Page 57168]]

samples of the effluent stream shall be withdrawn continuously from the 
sampling site following the guidance presented in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999. 
The requirements for continuous sampling are applicable to batch 
processes when the unit is in operation. Periodic sampling (grab 
samples) may be used only with EPA's prior approval. Such approval may 
be granted in cases where continuous sampling is not practical and 
radionuclide emission rates are relatively constant. In such cases, 
grab samples shall be collected with sufficient frequency so as to 
provide a representative sample of the emissions.
    (iii) Radionuclides shall be collected and measured using 
procedures based on the principles of measurement described in appendix 
B, Method 114 of this part. Use of methods based on principles of 
measurement different from those described in appendix B, Method 114 of 
this part must have prior approval from the Administrator. EPA reserves 
the right to approve measurement procedures.
    (iv) A quality assurance program shall be conducted that meets the 
performance requirements described in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999.
    (e) When it is impractical to measure the effluent flow rate at a 
source in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (d) 
of this section or to monitor or sample an effluent stream at a source 
in accordance with the site selection and sample extraction 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) or (d) of this section, the facility 
owner or operator may use alternative effluent flow rate measurement 
procedures or site selection and sample extraction procedures provided 
that:
    (1) It can be shown that the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or 
(2) or (d) of this section are impractical for the effluent stream.
    (2) The alternative procedure will not significantly underestimate 
the emissions.
    (3) The alternative procedure is fully documented.
    (4) The owner or operator has received prior approval from EPA.
    (f) Radionuclide emission measurements in conformance with the 
requirements of paragraph (b) or (d) of this section shall be made at 
all release points that have a potential to discharge radionuclides 
into the air in quantities that could cause an effective dose 
equivalent in excess of 1% of the standard. All radionuclides that 
could contribute greater than 10% of the potential effective dose 
equivalent for a release point shall be measured. With prior EPA 
approval, DOE may determine these emissions through alternative 
procedures. For other release points that have a potential to release 
radionuclides into the air, periodic confirmatory measurements shall be 
made to verify the low emissions.
    (g) To determine whether a release point is subject to the emission 
measurement requirements of paragraph (b) or (d) of this section, it is 
necessary to evaluate the potential for radionuclide emissions for that 
release point. In evaluating the potential of a release point to 
discharge radionuclides into the air for the purposes of this section, 
the estimated radionuclide release rates shall be based on the 
discharge of the effluent stream that would result if all pollution 
control equipment did not exist, but the facilities operations were 
otherwise normal.
    (h) Environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations 
at critical receptor locations may be used as an alternative to air 
dispersion calculations in demonstrating compliance with the standard 
if the owner or operator meets the following criteria:
    (1) The air at the point of measurement shall be continuously 
sampled for collection of radionuclides.
    (2) Those radionuclides released from the facility that are the 
major contributors to the effective dose equivalent must be collected 
and measured as part of the environmental measurement program.
    (3) Radionuclide concentrations that would cause an effective dose 
equivalent of 10% of the standard shall be readily detectable and 
distinguishable from background.
    (4) Net measured radionuclide concentrations shall be compared to 
the concentration levels in Table 2 of appendix E of this part to 
determine compliance with the standard. In the case of multiple 
radionuclides being released from a facility, compliance shall be 
demonstrated if the value for all radionuclides is less than the 
concentration level in Table 2 of appendix E of this part, and the sum 
of the fractions that result when each measured concentration value is 
divided by the value in Table 2 of appendix E of this part for each 
radionuclide is less than 1.
    (5) A quality assurance program shall be conducted that meets the 
performance requirements described in appendix B, Method 114 of this 
part.
    (6) Use of environmental measurements to demonstrate compliance 
with the standard is subject to prior approval of EPA. Applications for 
approval shall include a detailed description of the sampling and 
analytical methodology and show how the above criteria will be met.

Appendix B to Part 61--[Amended]

    5. Method 114-Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclide Emissions 
from Stationary Sources is amended by:
    a. revising Section 2.1;
    b. redesignating paragraphs 4.7 through 4.10 as 4.8 through 4.11 
and adding new paragraph 4.7;
    c. revising newly designated paragraphs 4.8 through 4.11.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 61--Test Methods

Method 114--Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclide Emissions from 
Stationary Sources

* * * * *

2. Stack Monitoring and Sample Collection Methods

* * * * *
    2.1 Radionuclides as Particulates. The extracted effluent stream is 
passed through a filter media to remove the particulates. The filter 
must have a high efficiency for removal of sub-micron particles. The 
guidance in ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 (section 6.6.2 Filter media) shall be 
followed in using filter media to collect particulates (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  61.18 of this part).
* * * * *

4. Quality Assurance Methods

* * * * *
    4.7 Regular maintenance, calibration and field checks shall be 
performed for each sampling system in use by satisfying the 
requirements found in Table 2: Maintenance, Calibration and Field Check 
Requirements.

     Table 2.--Maintenance, Calibration and Field Check Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Sampling system components             Frequency of activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning of thermal anemometer elements  As required by application.
Inspect pitot tubes for contaminant      At least annually.
 deposits.

[[Page 57169]]

 
Inspect pitot tube systems for leaks...  At least annually.
Inspect sharp-edged nozzles for damage.  At least annually or after
                                          maintenance that could cause
                                          damage.
Check nozzles for alignment, presence    Annually.
 of deposits, or other potentially
 degrading factors.
Check transport lines of HEPA-filtered   Annually.
 applications to determine if cleaning
 is required.
Clean transport lines..................  Visible deposits for HEPA-
                                          filtered applications. Surface
                                          density of 1 g/cm \3\.
Inspect or test the sample transport     At least annually.
 system for leaks.
Check mass flow meters of sampling       At least quarterly.
 systems with a secondary or transfer
 standard.
Inspect rotameters of sampling systems   At the start of each sampling
 for presence of foreign matter.          period.
Check response of stack flow rate        At least quarterly.
 systems.
Calibration of flow meters of sampling   At least annually.
 systems.
Calibration of effluent flow             At least annually.
 measurement devices.
Calibration of timing devices..........  At least annually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.8 Periodic internal and external audits shall be performed to 
monitor compliance with the quality assurance program. These audits 
shall be performed in accordance with written procedures and conducted 
by personnel who do not have responsibility for performing any of the 
operations being audited.
    4.9 A corrective action program shall be established including 
criteria for when corrective action is needed, what corrective actions 
will be taken and who is responsible for taking the corrective action.
    4.10 Periodic reports to responsible management shall be prepared 
on the performance of the emissions measurements program. These reports 
should include assessment of the quality of the data, results of audits 
and description of corrective actions.
    4.11 The quality assurance program should be documented in a 
quality assurance project plan that should address each of the above 
requirements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-22361 Filed 9-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U