Re: 95 Neshaps

["Russ Meyer" <CMEYER@brc1.tdh.texas.gov>]

> Date:          Mon, 6 Feb 95 14:45:56 -0600
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          Ara Tahmassian <ARAT%UCSFVM.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Re: 95 Neshaps

> We (UCSF) were inspected by the EPA for our NESHAPS (both Subpart I & H) last
> August. The final report was issued to us December 28, 1994. We did not have
> any problems with either the inspection or the format. The final report states
> that " the stay expired on November 15, 1992 and recision is awaiting EPA & NRC
> resolving remaining issues. The rule, therefore, has been in effect since Novem
> ber, 1992. on january 28, 1994, EPA issued a notice, 59 FR 4228, confirming tha
> t facilities subject to Subpart I are required to demonstrate compliance..".
> I hope this helps to clarify the current  EPA position.

Mr. Tahmassian,
     At what screening level of Comply did you demonstrate
compliance, and for what radionuclides and quantities thereof did you
have to demonstrate compliance.  Here in Texas we have medical
facilities that have to make a lot of assumptions that aren't found
in EPA guidance( what there is of it) in order to demonstrate
compliance for the 3 mrem limit for I-131.Russ
cmeyer@brc1.tdh.texas.gov
(512)834-6688