ML20127B187

Requests Concurrence on Proposed Final Rule to Allow Onsite Incineration of Slightly Contaminated Waste Oil at Nuclear Power Plants

ML20127B187
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/15/1989
From:	Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Bernero R, Murley T, Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20127B192	List: ML20127B187 ML20127B208 ML20127B213 ML20127B231 ML20127C427 ML20128C383 ML20128C439 ML20128C450 ML20128C471 ML20128C477 ML20128C499 ML20128C505 ML20128C514 ML20128C521 ML20128C526 ML20128C538 ML20128C544 ML20128C548 ML20128C561 ML20128C563 ML20128C599
References
FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-030, AC14-2-30, NUDOCS 9001090085
Download: ML20127B187 (49)

Text

'

AC 14 -2.

PDR

+f,r a:6%jo,, UNITED STATES pg

[, c. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ,E WASHINGTON, D, C. 20b%

\,...../

DEC I 5 gggg MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Patricia G. Norry, Director, Office of Administration Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs William C. Parler, General Counsel FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

OFFICE CONCURRENCE REQUEST: FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGNTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE Olt AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Your concurrences are requested in the enclosed final rule which allows power reactor licenscos to incinerate contaminated waste oil onsite without an amendment to their license.

The following is a summary of the request:

1.

Title:

Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration

2. RES Task Leader: C. R. Mattsen

3. Cognizant Individuals: K. Dragonette, NMSS T. Essig, NRR J. Mapes, OGC X. Schneider, GPA/SLITP M. Lesar, ADM

4. Requested Action: Review and concur.

5. Requested completion date: January 12, 1989.

m.__

Ol m io" 2 35 @' j ~

q --

1m p A

UC151999

6.

Background:

This rule was initiated in response to a petition submitted i by 17e Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management -

Group which requested that the Comission define a level of radioactive materials in reactor penerated waste oil which would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. The rule, however, would only allow onsite incineration of waste oli at nuclear power plants under existing effluent control requirements established under Appendix ! to Part 50. The notice of proposed rulemaking (August 29,1988;53FR32914)containedanoticeofdenialof the remainder of the petition without prejudice.

As a result of public comment, one substantive change has been made to the rule. The definition of waste oil has been made more illustrative and somewhat more inclusive. The preamble to the final rule indicates that care would have to be exercised by the licensee in determining which oils are appro;niate for incineration, considering technical constraints and compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. However, from the NRC's standpoint, it was unnecessary to limit the types of oils in order io control radiological impacts.

Staff comments which were solicited informally have been considered and, we believe, appropriately accounted for.

The CRGR has agreed that they need not review this rule.

9 .

L 7- " ,

Eric S. Beckjord, Di e ctor Office of Nuclear Reg latory Research

Enclosure:

Commission Paper 4

D E C 1 5 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert M. Bernero, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Patricia G. Norry, Director, Office of Admiristration Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs ,

William C. Parler, General Counsel FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory a

Research

SUBJECT:

OFFICE CONCURRENCE REQUEST: FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE OIL AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Your concu0rences are requested in the enclosed final rule which allows power-reactor licensees to incinerate contaminated waste oil onsite without an amendment to their license.

The following is a summary of the request:

1.

Title:

Disposal of Waste Oil by incineration-2.- RES Task Leader: C. R. Mattsen

3. Cognizant Individuals: K. Dragonette, NMSS T. Essig, NRR J. Mapes, 000 K. Schneider, GPA/SLITP M. Lesar, ADM 4 Requested Action: Review and concur.

5. Requested completion date: January 12. 1989.

f l

t 2

DEC1s;geg

6.

Background:

This rule was initiated in response to a petition submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group which requested that the Commission define a level of radioactive materials in reactor-generated waste oil which would permit disposal of-such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. The rule, however, would only allow onsite incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants under existing effluent control requirements established under Appendix 1 to Part 50. The notice of proposed rulemaking ( August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914) contained a notice of denial of the remainder of the petition without prejudice.

As a result of public comment, one substantive change has been made to the rule. The definition of waste oil has been made more illustrative and somewhat more inclusive. The preamble to the final rule indicates that care would have to be exercised by the licensee in determining which oils are appropriate for incineration, considering technical constraints and compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. However, from the NRC's standpoint, it was unnecessary to limit the types of oils in order to control radiological impacts.

Staff comments which were solicited informally have been consider 51 and, we believe, appropriately accounted for.

The CRGR has agreed that they need not review this rule.

ORIGINAI. SIGNED By .

Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Commission paper DISTRIBUTION: [MURLEY/BERNER0/NORRY/DENTON/P]

UhEB R/F - 0C001 Circ./Chron. BMorris ZRosztoczy uCMittsen3, TSpeis EBeckjord

• See pcevious concurrences 0FFL:RPHEB:DRA*:RPHEB:DRA*:DD D. . :D <E [ :D:RES  :

NA'1E:CMattsen:dm:DCool :Z Pfbzy:

sz BMorrist :TS .is :EBeckjord :

DATE:11/17/S9 :11/21/89  : \2/tt./89  : (L/lL/89  :

/gry/B9 :p/fy189  :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY C - .- - - - - - - - - _ _

4-For: The Commissioners From: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

FINAL RULE, 10 CFR PART 20 "DISPDSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION" - RESPONSE TO PRM FROM EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE AhD THE UTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP

Purpose:

~ To inform the Commission that the 100 intends to publish a final rule allowing nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment. The incineration operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits, established in accordance with Part 50, Appendix 1. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for disposal for this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule constitutes a partial granting of PRM-20-15; the remainder of -

the petition was previously denied without prejudice on the basis of inadequate information.

This is a negative consent item. This action clearly falls within established Commission policy as set forth in 10 CFR 1.31(a)(3) which delegates ;certain rulemaking authority to the Executive Director for Operations.

However, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 12, 1986, the Commission indicated that rulemaking on all requests for exemptions of specific waste streams from Commission regulations will be subject to Commission approval. Although the petitioners originally requested that radionuclide concentretions be established at which disposal of waste oil may be carried out without regard to the radioactive material content, this action is limited to allowing onsite incineration.

of waste oil under existing operating effluent limits determined to be "t.s-low as is reasonably achievable." Note, since this final rule sets no new limits on releases of radioactive materials, t'nis action would not be affected by the Commission's CONTACT:

C. Mattsen, RES 492-3638 i

__---_i________._______________

The Commissioners 2 new exemption policy. Existing effluent limits will be reviewed by the staff for conformance with the policy as directed by the Commission in an SRM of October 13, 1989.

Discussion: The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Paste Management Group (UNWMG) petitioned the Commission on-July 31, 1984 (PRM 20-15), to initiate rulemaking to define a concentration of radioactive material in reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content. On August 29, 1988, a proposed rule was published which constituted a partial granting / partial denial of this petition.

The rule applies to all operators of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 and allows the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and other miscellaneous oils without the need to apply for a specific license amendment as has been previously required under the provisions of G 20.302 and 5 20.305. The incineration could be carried out in the-licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purpose. Under the provisions of the rule, resulting effluents will be accounted for within existing discharge limits set in individual ~ plant technical specifications,~which have been established under Appendix 1 to Part 50. Although actual effluents may increase slightly, the total amount of effluents released will not be allowed to exceed the Appendix I-ALARA criterion and, therefore, the health and safety of the public will still be adequately protected.

Each licensee will be required to prepare and retain the following types of records in accordance with applicable NRC record retention requirements: (1)adescription'of equipment, facilities, and procedures that will be used to collect, store, determine the radionuclide content of, and .

incinerate waste oils; and (2) the results of the-radiological and other analyses of each batch of waste oil discharged through the disposal system which demonstrate that effluents from this operation are maintained at levels below existing plant operating limits established under Part 50 in Appendix I and 5 50.36a. The first part of the information will be submitted to the Commission under 6 50.71(e) as a change to the:

resents a chan FSAR since under 6 50.34(b) it rep (2)(1) and 3) (b)(ge to theininformation and 5 50.34a the original submitted license application. A summary of the changes and safety evaluation will also be required by 5 50.59. The second part will be reported under existing semiannual effluent reporting-requirements (950.36a(a)(2)).

.e ~

%v

'The Commissioners 3' y

In response to the proposed rule, comment letters were ~ a received from 25 organizations and individuals,. including State- regulatory agencies, the- Environmental Protection 4

Agency, utilities -industry organizations, public -interest- ,

groups, and other members of the'public. Nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, most of the. rest being supportive..

The only substantive change that has been made'in response to the connents on the proposed rule was to make the definition of--

that types of oils which could be burned somewhat less restrictive.- The final rule contains-an: illustrative rather--

than restrictive definition of waste oil. Although:the .

licensees would need-to be concerned with segregating oils.to the extent necessary to meet other regulatory requirements related to toxic constituents and to prevent technical problems with the incineration process, it is not necessary to limit the types of'. oils burned in order to control radiological effluents.~

Those opposed to the rulemaking did not provide any new =

information to support their opposition. However, a few questions were raised concerning potential impacts of the rule ,

which were not fully discussed in the preamble to the: proposed rule, such as occupational exposures and the: potential for.-

contamination of the auxiliary. boiler. These have'been- ,

discussed in the analysis of comments contained in the preamble to the final rule. Consideration of these potential impacts has not changed any' of ths basic conclusions reached; by the-staff during the development of the proposed rule,-

including the primary conclusion,that this action would not result in a significant impact to :the-environment..

Recommendations: That the Commission:-

1. Approve publication.of the rev_ision of 10 CFR'20.305,'as set forth in.the draft Federal Register' notice 41 (Enclosure 1). The ED0 will, sign.the final rule in 10 days.from the date of.this paper unless directed otherwise by the Comission. ,

2. Certify that the rule will not have'a significant economic:

effect on a substantia 1' number of small. entities pursuantf to' the- Regulatory Flexibility Act -of 1980, 5 U.S.C. -:605(b). . -

3. Note.,.

~

a. The rule will be published in the Federal Register an6 will be effective immediately; s

p m-- w. . _ _., u ._ -. - - . - - - - - - - - - < +-

e.

The Comissioners- 4-

'b.- Theremainderofthepetitionwasdenied(August-29, 1988;53FR32914);

c. The revision to i 20.305: does not exempt resulting effluents from compliance with existing discharge limits established at each. plant. in accordance with Part 50, Appendix 1;

d. Nothing in this action will preclude or otherwise prejudice further Comission actions on petitions -

to declare certain waste streams to be "below' regulatory concern;"

e. The final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014;

f. Appropriate Congressional comittees will be informed (Enclosure 3);

g. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the-certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act;

h. The Federr.1 Register' notice will b'e distributed by ADM to affected licensees, interested members of the-public, and the petitioners;

i. The Office of Governmental and Public Affairs concurs that a public announcement is not-needed;

j. A regulatory analysis has been prepared by'the staff and is provided as Enclosure 2;

k. The staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and based on that Assessment, has determined that this rule is not_a major Federal action significantly.affecting the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is' not required.

The Environmental Assessment and Finding of-No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register, as required-by 10 CFR 51.35 and 51.119, as-Appendix A to the notice of proposed rulemaking (August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914) and is provided as O-

e.

4 4

-The Comm i ssi oners -5 Enclosure 4. That assessment concluded that the incintration of-typical waste oils would not result in impacts to the health and-safety of the public or-the quality of _ the environment which are r"bstantially different from those impacts previously considered during -individual reactor licensing hearings. The staff has reviewed that?

assessment, considered the public comments and tlie changes in the text of the final rule,.and-concluded that the finding of no significant impact need not be changed; and

1. This amendnent does not constitute a backfit under, 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit_ analysis is not~

required.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

~

1. Federal Recister Notice

-2. Regulatory Analysis

3. Draft Congressional Letter ,

4. Environmental Assessment and Finding '

of No Significant Impact

6 The Commisuioners 5 Enclosure 4. That assessment concluded that the ,

incineration of typical waste oils would not result l in impacts to the health and safety of.the public or the quality of the environment which are substantially different from those impacts previously considered during individual reactor.

licensing hearings.. .The staff has reviewed that assessment considered the public consents and the 1

changes in the text of the final rule, and concluded that the finding of no significant impact need not ,

be changed; and

1. This amendment does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit analysis is not required.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice-

2. Regulatory- Analysis

3. Draft Congressional Letter 4._ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact DISTRIBUTION: [ DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL /CP]

RPHEB R/F - DCool Circ./Chron.

JNTaylor' PGNorry, ADM HRDenton, GPA .RMBernero, NMSS TEMurley, NRR WCParler, OGC EBeckjord TSpeis BMorris ZRosztoczy CMattsen 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA :RPHE8:DRA :DD:DRA :D:DRA :DD/GI:RES :D:RES :0GC :NRR NAME:CMattsen:dm:DCool :ZRosztoczy:BMorris :15peis :EBeckjord :WCParler :TEMurley.

DATE: / /89  : / /89 : / /89- : / /89  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89 l0FFC:NMSS :GPA :ADM  : ED0  :

-NAME:RMBernero: :HRDenton :PCNorry :JMTaylor :

DATE: /. /89 . / /89 : / /89 : / /89 :

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

& y >

=+ - .

../

[7590-01];

c. c ,

j .

1 q

-I NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION q

-u a

'10 CFR Part 20 RIN: 3150-AC14 1 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration j

q q

AGENCY: Nuclear-Regulatory Comission.;  :

-i ACTION: Final rule.-

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amendingjts regulations;to;  !

permit the onsite incineration of slightly contadinated waste oils generatsd atl licensed nuclear power plants-without the neod to specifically amend existing

' Part 50- operating licenses. . This. action will1 help to ensure: that the limited capacity of licensed reglonal low-level waste. burial grounds is used_more efficiently while maintaining releases from' operating nuclear power plants at:

levels which are "as low'as is reasonably achievab_1_e." . Incineration:of thisi class of waste must be carried out in full compliance'with Commission:

regulations restricting the release of radioactive mater.ials-to the environment that are currently.in force at each operating. nuclear power plant. =This rulei constitutes a' partial granting of a: petition for rulemaking .(PRM-20-15)'

submitted by Edison Electric Institute-and Utili.ty Nuclear Waste Management -

Group.: Other portions.were previously' denied.

y-l'. , -EnclosureII c;

o

-[7590-01h

' EFFECTIVE DATE:- _( insert publication date)'

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301)492-3638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Bac kground On August 29, 1988, the Conruission published in the Federal Register (53 FR 32914) a proposed rule to amend its regulations to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants without the need to apply for a specific license amendment. That Federal Register notice also contained a partial denial of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

According to the rule, both as proposed and as now being' adopted.

- incineration would be carried out under existing effluent limits and record-keeping.and reporting requirements. The rule is-intended to allow.

licensees more flexibility in disposing of waste. oil,'so that the more cost -

and risk-effective means of incineration may be used. This approach will-preservethelimitedcapacityoftherdhiona'llicensedwastedisposalsitesandi reduce the costs of waste disposal at licensed low-level waste burial sites and long-term disposal site maintenance costs. In addition, risks from the toxic L components of waste oil, fire hazards from storage. of oil, and. risks inherent l '.

l 2, ,

Enclosure 1

[7590_-01)

-in transportation may be-somewhat reduced and some recovery of energy may be -

involved.

Analysis of Comments In response to the proposed rule, the Comission received coments from 25 organizations and individuals, including State regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, utilities, industry organizations, public interest groups, and other members of the public. Copies of the coments may be examined and copied for a fee at the Comission's public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, fourteen either supported or generally supported it_with some questions or comment. Two others gave comments'without specifically supporting or opposing the rule.

Most of the commenters opposed to the rulemaking simply expressed concern about the health effects of increased effluents, in some cases stating 'that existing effluents are unacceptable. A few were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few suggested that the-cost-savings did not justify. increasing the amount of effluents or that' cost should not be a consideration at all. One commenter suggested shutting down the

- nuclear industry or at least not licensing any new plants. One was opposed to-the trend of deregulation and increasing allowable exposures. Another specifically warned the Commission not to invite public criticism. One comenter suggested that the Commission would be taking back authority for the disposal of waste from the states. Finally, one commenter was opposed to the concept of "below regulatory concern" (BRC) and opposed this rule as a de facto 3 ,

Enclosure 1

.[7590-O'1]

BRC-regulation which should not precede the debate and adoption of a--BRC::

policy-. -Many of- thesef comments were outside the , scope -oflthe_ rulemaking-and-most were unsupported._. The Comission believesithat the impacts'of incineration of waste oil are likely_to be_ insignificant. In any case, releases of. effluents will not exceed existing-limits. :The rule does noti change existing effluent-limits, and the regulatory requirements to assure:

compliance with these limits will continue-to' apply'. The_ only direct effect of--

lthis rulemaking is to simplify the administrative process associated with the use of one alternative disposal option for one type of waste; namely . the ~

incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil. As-to-the question ~concerning the authority to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste,- the responsibility of the states under the Low Level Radioactive-Waste Policy- Amendments Act of-1985 does not diminish:the regulatory authority of the NRC.

y Some commenters specifically opposed incineration as a disposal' alternative, a number of those citing the,non-radiological risks from the toxici properties ~ of waste oil. One of the commenters who were generally supportive- =

also questioned the impact of potential toxic emissions. Two comrenters were

' concerned about the combined risks of radiation and: toxic exposures, one suggesting that the possible synergistic effects of chemical and radioactive-exposures-had-not been adequately assessed. Thiscommenter.wasalsotconcernedI that unless adequate temperatures were maintained during incineration, some=

chemicals would'not be destroyed but instead would be volatilized and liberated ,

.to the environment.

' The amount of. 011 to be ' disposed of by all nuclear- power reactors collectively represents a very small fraction of all used oils disposed of 1 ' 4<, Enclosure 1

,c

[7590-0131 annually. This rule-does not relieve the licensee from complying with other.

applicable Federal, State, _and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials. However, the Comission recognizes that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials _ during the incineration process. At the same time, typical used oils at nuclear power-plants can be expected to have relatively low ccncentrations of-toxic

~

constituents because highly refined turbine and pump oile are used and because these oils must be changed frequently to minimize wear and avoid costly maintenance. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete combustion. However, a high percentage destruction of organics would be expected in any case. Even a very small boiler can achieve 99 to 99.99 percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds.1 Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high combustion efficiency in order to-avoid maintenance problems, particularly if the auxiliary boiler is used.

Although the EPA exempted used oil as a class from its listing of hazardous materials, it is currently reevaluating used oil by category for possible listing as hazardous. In the interim, some controls are applicable.

It will be necessary for licensees to check used oil for hazardous characteristics and analyze for listed hazardous constituents to determine the applicability of EPA or State requirements. The extent of controls will vary 1 EPA, 50 FR 49164, noted at p. 49180, November 29, 1985.

5 Enclosure 1 g

[7590-01]

by state; some states list used oil as hazardous and some have specific 1 requirements applicable to any incinerator.

I In response to the question of synergism, littleL is presently known about j the extent of synergism of various risk factors. For the most part, regulatory controls are based on overall risks from individual specific toxicants; although, in the case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together.

It has not been possible to fully account for synergism of various sources of risk. However, releases of 'ooth radiological constituents and other toxics associated with the incineration ~of waste oil from nuclear power plants are extremely low and, therefore, could be responsible for only an extremely small-part of potential synergistid effects.

Two commenters raised questions about other potential impacts which had not been discussed in the proposed rule,.specifically, worker exposures. One of these commenters was also concerned with the potential contamination of the auxiliary boiler and the resultant increased wastes to be disposed of at decommissioning as well as the potential cost of establishing the area as a radiation zone.

Occupational exposures would be expected to be very small and no greater than those associated with solidification, transport, and burial of-the waste oil at a low level waste disposal site. As suggested by the commenter, there is some potential for untaminating the auxiliary boiler if it is used to incinerate contaminated oils. Licensees should consider the potential contamination of whatever equipment is used for incineration. The impacts, however, would-be expected to be small, but could partially offset the savings 6, Enclosure 1

~

3> ( ~

+

[7590-01]L

>+

o

.in waste disposa1' space and cost, achieved through . incineration. As to the question of ~ establishing an area as a. radiation zone, the auxiliary boiler 'ori other: equipment used for incineration of waste oil, would-be within an area- ,

. controlled by the licensee in any case. In no case would incineration be:

expected to result in radiation levels requiring additional controls;-that is,-

no new areas would.be established as " radiation areas." ,

v One commenter argued that a license amendment should continue to-be-required because of the public's right to a hearing on an amendment _ and because-

- the'public scrutiny and case-by-case staff evaluation would ensure:that applicable requirements are complied with.- This commenter_also argued th'atlthe:

license-amendment process should continue until more specific information.is available such as a complete characterization of wastes. Another commenter was--

also concerned that there would be no assurance that technical specifications- P will be complied with, particularly because normalJemissions would be expected - ,

to . increase as plants age.

The potentially affected public has an opportunity for a hearing on'ai ,

y  : license amendment for a nuclear' power reactor.~ However,'sinceLthe rule, both as

~

proposed and as now promulgated in final form, only permits the incineration of waste oil onsite, if performed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements including, in'particular, existing effluent limits, amendment of licenses.toi

= authorize this activity is considered unnecessary. The Commission will'use its authority to inspect and take. enforcement action to ensure compliance with these. requirements as it-does its.Other requirements., Given this approach,;the Commission was of the opinion that the issues. presented by the proposed rule would be more appropriately resolved in a rulemaking proceeding. -In accordance 71 ,

Enclosure 1 a_ ,

[7590-01]-

with customary NRC. procedure, the proposed rule was published for comment for the express purpose of.'giving' interested members of the public an opportunity to present their concerns and comments on these issues to the Comission.

One commenter suggested that a more comprehensive environmental analysis-may indicate that incineration is not the best alternative, but possibly onsite reprocessing would be, because it would conserve petroleum resources and eliminate the release of combustion products to the atmosphere. This comenter also suggested that this rule would discourage storage for recycling which the comenter viewed as contrary to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act).

Since most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel,2 recycling would not eliminate the potential for atmospheric emissions. Onsite reprocessing would involve the removal of small amounts of radioactive contamination so that the oil could be reused offsite. Criteria would be needed to establish the concentrations at which reuse offsite would be allowed.

This process may not be economical or have a significant safety advantage.

Excessive storage onsite for potential future recycling involves some risk from fire. Some means of incineration (i.e., use in the auxiliary boiler) may result in a small increase in energy recovery over the present practice of solidification and burial at a LLW burial site, which never involves eventual recovery.

One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash from incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problem of waste 2 EPA, 51 FR 41900, noted at p. 41902, November 19, 1986.

-8, Enclosure 1

'[7590-01).

disposal. - Another wanted it clerified that the ash needs to be monitored for heavy metals to-determine whether RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) requirements apply. Although the ash may be mixed waste, only a small quantity is produced, and, therefore, the ash does not contribute significantly to-the overall problem of mixed wastes. Since the ash is being proouced at the licensee's site, adequate control can be assured. In addition, the rule makes clear that licensees are not relieved from complying with other Federal, State, and local regulations which may be applicable to other toxic or hazardous properties of these materials.

Some of the commenters supporting the proposed rule expressed the rationale for their support, some noting the small public health and safety and environmental impacts, some the benefits in cost savings or savings _in low-level waste burial space, and one the added flexibility. One commenter provided information concerning the practicality of incineration in general and of using the startup boiler in particular. 14any of the commenters that supported the rule made suggestions for changes or clarifications.

Two conmenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil such that synthetic oils and cutting, penetrating, and other classes of oils could be incinerated. The commenters also suggested that non-waste oils (such as solvents, degreasers, grease, diesel fuels, etc.) need not be segregated from waste oils. They also proposed that waste oils used in maintenance be included.

Synthetic oils were inadvertently rather than purposefully lef t out of the definition of waste oil in the proposed rule and are included in the definition 9, ,

Enclosure 1

, [7590-01]

in the final rule. It would serve no useful purpose to treat synthetic and' petroleum derived used oilr, differently arid require identification and segregation of these oils. - Cutting and penetrating oils, metalworking oils, etc. were not specifically identified in the information supplied with the petition or the Brookhaven report (NUREG/CR-4730)3 and were not specifically considered. Based on the survey information in these reports, however, these other oils would be expected to be a small percentage of the radioactively contaminated used oil needing_ disposal. from the perspective of radiological impacts, there is no need to limit the type of used oil which can be incinerated. The lic,ensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological limits and will be responsible for ensuring that the techniques used for determining the radiological contents are adequate.

Accordingly, the rule has been changed to include a broader range of oil types.

The licensee, however, will have to exercise care in determining which oils should be incinerated in the equipment to be used considering both technical constraints and compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and-local regulations.

'Non-waste" oils are not subject to the Commission's disposal requirements, but when mixed with radioactively contaminated oil _ become part of a mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, therefore, subject to NRC.

requirements. Care should-be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils 3 Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents,-U.S.. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service. 5785 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,DC.

10 ' , Enclosure 1

a, / #A - 4 4

,, :v

(" -

' [7590-01]:

o have been sufficiently characterized to'determinef(1): the applicabilit'y::of fany requirements such as EPA =or State requirements,-(2):the radioactive content 2(if- .

there could be problems getting' representative samples from a-resultant:

mixture),_and(3)"thetechnicalacceptabilityofthepotential;mixturefor:

incineration, ,

Within the context of the proposed rule, the word " operation" in the definition of waste oil was intended to include associated maintenance-activities. For clarification, the words "and maintenance" have been added to the final rule. .

a Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration of .

waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil'from :j other plants if the same controls and limits were applied, so that a utility would:only need one incinerator to dispose of oil. from its several plants.

While this may well be the case,- the focus of this rulemaking' proceeding has been limited to the onsite incineration of waste oil- generated on, not'off, the reactor site. At the present time, the. Commission ~is of the opinion that' questions relating to the disposal at the site-of. a particular reactor'of waste oil generated by reactors located at other sites are> better handled on a case-by-case basis.

L_'

Another commenter suggested that'offsite incineration be allowed.with the condition off proper ash disposal. Two others, including the petitioners, ,

suggested the Commission reconsider the other options originally raised in the_-

. petition. Another commenter simply noted support for other methods of. volume reduction. The petitioners also criticized'the Commission for vagueness in the-11, Enclosure 1-

1. -[7590-01]

e reasons given for not granting the petition in toto, suggesting that their ,

analysis, provided as a coment to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.

The August 29, 1988 Federal Register notice (53 FR 32914) presenting the proposed rule, also included d denial without prejudice of the other alternatives proposed by the petitioners. The primary reason for that denial, as stated in the notice, was that more complete information would be needed for a rulemaking to allow any of the other alternatives raised by the petitioners.

Reconsideration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was ignored, this analysis was ennsidere6 olong with the original petition, the other public coments, and the referenced report (HUREG/CR-4730). The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately.

One commenter suggested the Commission make a trial run, using contarninated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc machine designed to break down toxic chemicals. Although this technology may present an environmentally sound alternative, these matters are outside the scope of the proposed rule.

One commenter suggested that only one generic $ 50.59 review should be required rather than individual site specific reviews for each plant. Two

-other commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that the purpose of the 9 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutes an unreviewed safety question but' to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant to this process.

12, Enclosure 1.

.6*

[7590-01]r The safety of burning waste oil at a reactor site etenot be determined .

~

generically. There may be some effect on the safety of reactor operation .if incineration is not properly planned. Theretere, it is necessary that a plant-specific determination be made, in accordance with 6 50.59, to ensure that the specific equipment and procedural changes involved with the incineration will not adversely affe:t reactor safety.

One of the commenters suggested a separate additional effluent limit of 1 millirem / year for waste oil incineration. Another commenter questioned whether the maximum quantity reported (5000 gal /yr) would conform to the

" proposed dose limit" of 1 mrem /yr to the general public. Another suggested.

that the NRC use available dose assessment computer codes to verify that'this

" reference dose" (1 mrem / year) will'not be exceeded. As indicated _in the proposed rule, there is not enough information to select a specific concentration or dose limit for waste oil incineration. It is projected that ,

in most, if not all cases, effluents from waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of total effluents. However,.it is net considered necessary to establish a separate effluent limit for waste oil ,

incineration, as long as total plant effluent releases, including releases from-incineration of waste oil, continue to conform to existing effluent limits <

established under Appendix 1.

A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact, are not needed to satisfy the int ent of the commenter. Two commenters proposed that the rule be =

revised to allow transfer to an offsite licensed vendor. Nothing in.this rule or in other' regulations restricts the licensee from transferring waste-cil to an offsite licensed " vendor," 1.e., persons authorized to receive such materials.

This alternative was not mentioned in the preamble of the proposed rule because 13 Enclosure.1

' [7590-01]

only recently has there been anyone licensed.to accept waste oil-for disposal at other than a LLW burial ground.

Two commenters suggested that " site" be defined as the region "within the site boundary," and one of these suggested that the site boundary be further defined in order to provide consistency in the interpretation of "onsite" disposals. "Onsite" in normal usage means "within -the site boundary." A formal definition is considered unnecessary. Presently, the site or site boundary is defined in the individual technical specifications for each license. However, the rule has-limited the incineration to the site where the wea. M1 is generated in part in order that any releases of radioactive material would be covered by the effluent limits in the technical specifications established under Appendix I to Part 50. The licensee's decision on the specific location for incineration will depend on being able to demonstrate compliance with those limits applicable to releases of effluents to unrestricted areas.

Three commenters wanted the alternative of using mobile incinerators. One commenter thought it should be clarified that options other than those mentioned in the proposed rule would be acceptable including also central I

station power plant boilers. The prearrble to the proposed rule mentioned the options of use of an existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator or an incinerator constructed specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely to illustrate the range of options which may be involved, not-to limit the options. Nothing in the rule would restrict the use of central station power j plant boilers or mobile incinerators if they are onsite. The use of such

14. Enclosure 1

-[7590-01]

equipment at the site of a license'd' nuclear reactor would be. governed by the-

- reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part'50.

One commenter wanted the effluents from incineration to be reported in the -

semiannual effluent report. Effluents from incineration are not exempted from this requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.36at')(2) and therefore will he reported.

One commenter suggested the Commission mention that other Federal, State, and/or local regulations must be complied with. This provision was in the proposed rule and remains in the final rule.

Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters. One was to clarify that Appendix I limits be met on an annual-average basis only.

Appendix I dose objectives are_ expressed in annual doses; no further requirement has been added. Another was to clarify that the rule is not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to i 50.34a. As noted in theproposedrule,licenseeswouldberequiredunder550.71(e)tosubmit descriptions of equipment and procedures to update the FSAR to the extent that there have been changes to the information previously submitted under 0L50,34(b)(2)(1) and (b)(3) and 5 50.34a. No cost-benefit analysis is required.

Some commenters suggested clarifying other applicable requirements such as:

(1) a RCRA permit may be required for some oils if they exhibit hazardous characteristics even though, at the present time, used oil as a class is not a

-listed hazardous substance; (2) some-states do classify used oil as hazardous; (3) state requirements governing any incineration may apply requiring case-by-case review by the state; and (4) EPA may require a permit for 15, Enclosure 1

4 y

[7590-01]. ,

4 radioactive releases under the Clean Air Act. Obviously the situation in each-state may vary. Also, a number of actions are under consideration by EPA and

. the states; thus, requirements are in a. state of flux. The Commission cannot identify all other requirements which may be applicable, but can only . note that such requirements exist and need to be carefully considered. As clearly stated q in 5 20.305(c), this rule in no way affects their applicability.

Two commenters were concerned that the potential applicability' of RCRA or i

state requirements would limit the usefulness of the rule. If waste oil is l classified as mixed waste, it presently may not be disposed of at a LLW burial' site. This presents licensees with even more of a problem, particularly if the ,

quantity of oil stored onsite approaches the quantity limits imposed for fire safety. Although the burden of meeting RCRA or state requirements may increase the cost of incineration, this alternative would still be expected to be of value.

One commenter objected to the term " limited" in reference to the required changes in the ODCM (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual) which he contends are always extensive. The Commission recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may involve significant administrative effort. However, the changes required in order to account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are relatively limited, primarily related to the fact that a new point of release may besinvolved.

16 < , Enclosure 1

,t

[7590-01]'

.1 i

conclusion As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the proposed rule change with some minor n.odifications. Because the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action should be positive. For-licensees who elect to process waste oils in this fashion, monitoring and maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities will be covered by other existing regulatory requirements set forth in Part 50, Appendix 1. These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under G 50.36a. In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW burial site are eliminated and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely be reduced. It should be noted that any solid radioactive residues produced in the incineration process would, for purposes of. regulation, be treated as any other low-level radioactive solid waste.

Effective Date Since the amendment set forth below provides relief from restrictions currently in effect, the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), is making the final rule effective upon publication without the customary 30-day waiting period.

17, Enclosure 1

[7590-01]

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has reviewed the environmental assessment and finding of no-significant environmental impact published in the Federal Register.on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32917-32919) in connection with the proposed rule. On the basis of that review, and after considering the public comments and the changes in the text of the final role and determining that such comments and changes do not affect the conclusion reached in the earlier finding of no significant impact, the Commission has concluded that this amendment to 10 CFR 20.305 is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of-the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspectinn and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014 Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule. That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of. action 18 : , Enclosure 1

[7590-01) r considered by the Comission. The analysis is available for inspcction at th'e NRCPublicDocumentRoom,2120LStreetNW.(LowerLevel),' Washington,DC.. -t Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Catherine R. Mattsen, Office-of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington,-

DC,20555, Telephone (301)492-3638.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule only affects nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore. .that a backfit. analysis is not required for this final rule, because these anendments do not involve any provisionswhichwouldimposebackfitsasdefinedin10CFR50.109(a)(1).

List of. Subjects in 10 CFR Part 20 Byproduct material, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers,

19. , Enclosure 1

[7590-01]

Penalty, Radiation' protection, Reporting.and recordkeeping requirements, Special nuclear material, Source material, Waste treatment and disposal..

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,-

es amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.

Part 20 - Standards For Protection Against Radiation

1. The authority citat.On for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81,103,104,161,' 68 Stat. 930, 93J, 935, 936, 937, 948, as aniended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244,1246(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). ,

Section 20.408 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat.

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C.10155,10161).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);.

6520.101,20.102,20.103'a),(b)and(f),20.104(a)and(b),20.105(b),

20.106(a), 20.201, 20.202(a), 20.205 20,207, 20.301, 20.303, 20.304, and 20.305 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(b));andil 20.102,20.103(e),20.401-20.407,20.408(b),and20.409'are issuedundersec.161(o),68 Stat.950,asamended(42U.S.C.2201(o)).

20, ,

Enclosure 1

'- [7590-01]

2. Section 20.305 is revised to read as follows:

Section 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

(a) A licensee may treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration only:

(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in 5 20.306; or (3) As :pecifically approved by the Commission pursuant to G 20.106(b) or 5 20.302.

(b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraylic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under part 50 of this chapter niay be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, must ccnform to the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50 of this chapter. The licensee.shall raport any changes or additions to the information supplied under $$ 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with tMs incineration pursuant to 5 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate. The licensee shall also follow the procedures of 5 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.

q l'

21, Enclosure 1

(7590-01) l (2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.301.

(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

(c) Nothinginparagraph(b)ofthissectionrelievesthelicenseefrom complying with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.

Dated at Rockville. Paryland this day of 1990.

For toe Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jaines M. Tayloi' Executive Director for Operations 22, Enclosure 1 1

~ ~ ' _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

s

[759001)

(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.301.

(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

(c) tiothing in paragraph (b) of this section relieves the licensee from complying with other applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1990.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION: [ WASTE 01L]

RPTIITR/F - 0C001 Circ./Chron. TEMurley, NRR JMTaylor PGilorry, ADM HRDenton, GPA RMBernero, NMSS EBeckjord TSpeis BMorris ZRosztoczy CMattsen WCParler, OGC

DD/Gl:RES :D:RES :0GC :HRR DFFC:RPHED:DRA :RPHEB:DRA :DD: BRA :D:DRA

ZRosztoczy:BMorris :T5peis :EPeckjord :WCFarler :TEMurley, IIAME:CMattsen:dm:DCool  : / /89_

/ /E,9  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89  : / /89 DATE:

0FFC:NMSS :GPA :ADM :AED0  :

NAME:RMBernero: :HRDenton :PGNorry :JMTaylor :

DATE: / /89 : / /89 : / /89  : / /89 :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 22, ,

Enclosure 1

,' a O

l Regulatory Analysis Rule to Amand 10 CFR 20.305-DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION .

1. Statement of the Problem The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1984) to ,

initiate rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power reactor generated waste oils which would-permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content. This petition responded to Commission views as expressed in the Supplementary Information accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive-Waste" (December 27, 1982; a 47 FR 57446). In that statement, the Commission recognized that the establishment of standards for waste for which there is no regulatory concern would be beneficial and would, among other things, reduce. disposal and long-term disposal site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for wastes lwith higher levels of radioactivity, and enhance overall site stability of disposal facilities by reducing the volume of Class A waste. =The petitioners suggested that, based on recent Commission decisions, a 1-millirem /yr-individual dose-limit would be an appropriate basis for establishing a cutoff level #or defining those wastes that were "below . ,

regulatory concern." Further, the petitioners presented several' examples where combinations of radionuclide concentrations and disposal methods for waste oil would satisfy the 1 millirem /yr dose limit and proposed wording to. revise 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect these recommendations.

1 ENCLOSURE 2

,2.- , 1;-, . .w - ,

A response to this petition requires a staff determination of the need for a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of powr r9 actor generated, slightly contaminated waste oil by means other than by burial at a licensed disposal site. Among the factors which must be considered in this determination are the following:

(1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reactor operator, that limit the release of radioactive materials to the general environment to ALARA icvels.

(2) The existence of Commission regulations which permit the use of alternate waste disposal practices subject to license amendment.

(3) All environmental and safety issues associated with storage on site and transportation of waste oil and impacts from toxic constituents of waste oil.

(4) The financial costs and land use requirements associated with disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material contained in typical waste oil.

(5) The authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the release of both radioactive and non-radioactive materials to the environment.

(6) The authority of the EPA, which assurr.ed Federal Radiation Council responsibilities, to develop Presidential guidance for use by other Federal agencies on acceptable icvels of radiation exposure of the general public.

2. Objectives The rule allows nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate waste oil which has become slightly contaminated from operations associated with nuclear power production. Previously, licensees were afforded-the option 2 ENCLOSURE 2

I of obtaining a license amendment-to allow them to incinerate waste oil

{

onsite. Allowing incineration through a rule change, versus continuing to do so through the license amendment process, will make this alternative-  !

disposal method available in a more timely manner and with reduced administrative effort for licensees and the NRC.

The small environmental impact from the incineration of the oil, which contains low concentrations of radionuclides, is readily balanced by the savings in disposal costs. Incineration instead of burial also conserves limited available burial space, reduces risks from the transportation of ,

waste oil (radiological and non-radiological), reduces the fire hazard associated with waste oil storage, and may reduce the impacts from the toxic constituents of waste oil.

3. Alternatives 1

The petitioners requested that the Commission issue a regulation governing-  ;

the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil f rom >

nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive  !

material content of the waste. This concept of establishing a level of radioactivity or level of radiation exposure below which environmental'  ;

impacts are so small_a_s to be of no regulatory concern is. considered by ,

the Commission to be a valuable addition to the regulatory system.

Regulat.ory staff have been assigned to work with EPA to explore the establishment of a level below which regulatory requirements would cease or be significantly reduced. The petition suggested an individual exposure value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to base concentration limits. The justification proposed was [

.primarily~on a "de minimis" basis; that is, simply that this level of risk is too trivial to be of concern. The term "below regulatory concern" 5 (BRC) has sometimes been used interchangeably with "de minimis"; however, l it is also used in connection with exemptions from specific regulations decided on a cost-benefit basis.

i 3 ENCLOSURE 2-q

~

n,~ , s .

s.,i. ,,n,, ,-,-_,. ~_ _ _ ., ,_., , _ _ . _, _,, _ ,

,'i . . _ ._l'_.

It would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated to a i sufficiently low level, to be of no ragulatory concern, thereby allowing  !

it to be dispossble without regard to its radioactive contamination. In ,

its BRC waste policy statement, the Commission gave some indication of dobe levels which might be acceptable for a waste-stream specific exemption which would be based on cost-benefit considerations. Although  ;

I millirem / year is likely to be acceptable (based on the discussion of decision criterion 2 in the staff implementation plan accompanying the NRC policy statement of August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839), the petitioners have not -;

supplied sufficient information to allow a specific waste stream "below regulatory concern" determination to be made.

r In responding to this petition, there were three basic alternative courses ,

of action which could have been taken: to deny the petition, to defer action on the petition, or to initiate the rulemaking process. The staff does not believe that a categorical dismissal of this petition is  ;

consistent with either the spirit of Commission policy set forth in 10 CFR Part 61 (and reaffirmed in NRC's BRC policy statement published on August 29,'

1986; 51 FR 30839) or the need to ensure offective use of licensed low-level waste disposal capacity..

The staff could have deferred action on this specific' petition until-consideration of a generic rulemaking on BRC waste is completed or until

. EPA issues standards or guidance on BRC levels of radioactivity.

The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal of waste oil and believes that in the spirit of established Commission policy and consistent with the need to use limited burial ground' space as' efficiently as possible, a rule change should'be made. However, in order e for the petition to be granted in full, more information and analysis j would be necessary. For example, a m' ore complete characterization of-quantities and concentrations of contaminated waste oil would.be needed to make a waste stream specific cost-benefit-analysis on which to base

- specific concentration limits. Also, a determination would have to be made on whether the concentrations of_ radionuclides possible.in the~ ash ~

from incineration or the sludge from recycling would be low enough to- ,

4 ENCLOSURE 2  ;

t

+, -.#-w',o , y,,,w-. ,,,- w. ,e ,_~,-w. 4,, m,, _,,,. ,-r,..,,.o_m., v...',e ,,m, _ , , , ms, .'.,w,,,,m.,mm,. w , v ,- y- n - e , ,tw~e, , , .y w y n-%we y-- ,

e , allow waste ull processing at unlicensed facilities. Such additional analyses would result in delay and the expenditure of limited resources.

The rule will provide the relief requested in the petition commensurate with the information available. The remainder of the petition has been denied without prejudice. The rule provides generic approval for the onsite incineration of nuclear reactor waste oils for which the minor ,

environmental impacts are readily balanced by savings in disposal costs  :

and in land use requirements for LLW disposal and reduced impacts from storage onsite and transportation.

Incineration will be allowed without specific license amendment providing the licensee maintains compliance with the licensee's operating limits based on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Any other applicable Federal and State statutes would also have to be satisfied.

This action by the Commission would not preclude the petitioner from resubmitting a future request to declare waste oils or other classes of waste to be "below regulatory concern" pursuant to Commission policy. '

(See policy statement, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix 0, published on August 29, 1986 at 51 FR 30839.)

4. Consequences This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect'several attributes, but only a few significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." This action allows utilities an alternative for the disposal of waste oil while not allowing any change in the existing limits of radiation exposure to the public. There also would be no significant change in public' health' nor occupational exposures. If anything, the decreased risk from'no longer having to transport the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in' decreased exposures.

5 ENCLOSURE 2 ,

e, >

i The officiency results in two ways. First, the utilitier will_not have to dispose of the waste oil in licensed land burials, but may incinerate it onsite if they so desire, i.e., if it is to their economic ad,antage to do so. Second, those utilities which want to incinerate the waste oil will_  ;

not have to apply for a license amendment. Savings will also accrue to' >

both industry and the NRC in their implementation and operation costs as a  ;

result of the above. Licensees would only take advantage of this rule if it was in their best economic interest, i.e., with savings resulting to them. The NRC will save by issuing the rule as-opposed to handling each license amendment separately. +

Information provided by_the petitioners and in a Brookhaven National Laboratory Report, " Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids," (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987) indicates that, on average, an operating PWR produces approximately 1000' gallons per year of slightly contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWR produces approximately 3500-5000 gal /yr. Reported contamination levels ,

are usually-in the range of 10 -5 to 10 ~7 pCi/ml, although higher levels have been reported. The principal radioisotopes present in these waste.

oils irclude the usual activation and fission products such as Co-58, Co-60, Mn-54, Cs-134, Cs-137.

Because of restrictions imposed on-the disposal of oil wastes in licensed

• 1and burial grounds, oil wastes must be stabilized prior to transport to ,

these sites; sorption and solidification are the prevalent treatment methods. Several plants are storing waste oils on an interim basis pending a_ decision on ultimato disposal.

According to both the BNL report and information provided by the petitioners, solidification of oil wastes effectively doubles the volume ,

of waste requiring disposal while sorption _can increase waste volumes by _

as much as a factor of 6.

If directly released to the environment, a typical reactor would, on average, discharge a total of 10 ~4 curies of radioactivity per year via the waste oil pathway.. This quantity is~ a fraction of typical releases in ,

6 ENCLOSURE 2 l

y ,

4 liquid effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant l discharge limits. According.to the petitioners, most waste oils could be incinerated without resulting in (conservatively calculated)' doses  ;

exceeding 1 mrem / year. In fact, those licensees who have been incinerating waste oil under an amendment to their license _have been .]

keeping these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications ,

for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this rulemaking, until further action is taken in declaring certain wastes "below regulatory concern," the effluents from the incineration of waste oil would be accounted for under existing operating limits contained in Part 50, -;

- Appendix 1. Thus, the addition of the small quantities of radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should have a  ;

negligible impact on public health or environmental quality.

Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will likely be slightly reduced. These include the risks inherent in transportation (radiological-and non-radiological), the fire _ hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the impacts from~ toxic, constituents depending on the specific equipment'and controls used.

Before presenting the' industry cost estimates, it should_ be noted that  :

there is no accurate way to determine industry's potential savings, since  ;

each licensee's particular situation is different,_and it.is not known how many plants will take advantage of the rulo.-

A licensee's implementation costs decrease if it decides to take advantage. -

of the rule, as it saves the cost of having to prepare a license amendment. It is estimated that a typical,' uncomplicated technical.

specification costs a licensee about $18,000._ (This and all_other values-are in 1988 dollars.)- (Cf. Abstract 2.2.1, " Generic Cost Estimates,"-

NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.) If an assumed 50 plants decide.to take_ ,

7 ENCLOSURE 2 x .

- . - . , . - . L. -- . ._u_.-L, _-.u__ , .m. .._m , , -

m advantage of this rule, the industry's implementation cost savings would be $900,000.

As to operating costs, one licensee estimates that it can save somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating its waste oil as opposed to burying it. These costs are based upon values of 220 to 825 gallons of waste oil disposal per year, with the per gallon cost being about $15.

If we make use of the above data, and the fact that an average PWR plant produces about 1000 gallons of slightly contaminated. waste oil per year, its corresponding savings would be $15,000 per year. If an' average remaining life of 30 years is assumed, along with a 5 percerit annual real discount rate, a PWR's lifetime savings would be $231,000. If the $18,000-amendment cost savings are included, the total savings approach $250,000 per PWR.

With respect to a BWR, the range of waste oil produced is estimated at 3500 to 5000 gallons per year. Again, using similar assumptions, the annual savings range from $52,500 to $75,000, with the discounted operating lifetime savings ranging from $808,500 to $1,155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become $826,500 to

$1,173,000 per BWR.

If we assume about half of the plants would take advantage of the rule in its first year, there would be 33 PWR's and 17 BWR's' incinerating the waste oil on site. The resulting industry savings would be between $22.3 and $28.1 million ($8.2 million for the'PWR's and $14.1-million to $19.9' million for the.BWR's).

Again, because of each plant's individual situation, and the fact that this' rule is only an option, these estimates are only illustrative. With respect to other potential industry operating costs, a licensee will need-to provide the NRC with changes to the Offsite Dose' Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures whether the licensee makes use of' 8 ENCLOSURE 2 h-

I 1

the rule, or applies fer a license amendment to incinerate the wasth oil, {'

therefore, these costs will be the same in both cases and do not need to be included in this analysis. A key point which cannot be overlooked,  ;

however, is that permitting use of this alternative disposal option could l conserve a significant amount of limited low-level burial ground space.

This rule will also reduce NRC's potential workload in processing individual  :

requests for specific license amendments to permit incineration. The estimated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated, technien1 specification-change is $11,000. (Cf. Abstract 5.1, " Generic Cost Estimates,"

NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.) Further, as noted above, the NRC is to i

receive modifications or additions.to the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans _to incinerate the waste oil through use of the rule or a license amendment. Hence the only difference in-the NRC's cost is $11,000 saved per licensee under the rule. If the assumed 50 plants decide to take advantage of the waste oil incineration within 1. year, NRC's cost  :

savings would be $550,000.

Because the rule allows a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste-while maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact.of this action is positive. .

5. Decision Rationale Since_the Commission has work underway to determine what action should be taken in regard to a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes and a decision in '

this area is not expected in the near future, a decision on a-dose- '

criterion need not be part of this action. A simpler rule change can provide more timely relief from the costs of disposal of slightly contaminated. waste oil at licensed low-level waste burial (LLWB) sites.

The incineration of waste oil onsite will .not add significantly to the environmental impacts of reactor operations, but will result in savings in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB site capacity.

9 ENCLOSURE 2-

- W. e . - - -- e e.r w a ---s - _ _ _ _ - _

x__ _m__--- .__--_._______._.__._.______m__

O

-l

., 1

6) J,mplementation a); $chedule'for Implementation

'l Since this rule relieves a restriction, the final rule is effective as j soon as published, as allowed by Section 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).  ;

i b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic BRC' exemptions. 1 t

I I

10 ENCLOSURE 2l 4

o M 'yT-rp m pe y- e e -- wpMm ,. ,,

DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amendment to the Connission's rules in 10 CFR Part 20. The amendment allDws nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license aruendment. Such operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this waste other than bcrial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site.

This rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated 5

Enclosurs 3

4 s

.a ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINb!NG OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l

1 (As published in the Federal Register, August 29, 1988, 53 FR 32914)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 20.305-j DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY-INCINERATION The Nuclear Regulato.y Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to .

allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil .

onsite without obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a y license amendment.

Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Actien Present $20.305 forb5Js the' incineration of any licensed material, except that. ,

specifically exempted by $20.300, without the specift'c approval of the i Commission. The proposed action would amend $20.305-to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without prior approval .' It would not exempt the effluents from this process from the .

-requirements established under Appendix I to Part 50, in particular, effluent limits and effluent monitoring and reporting.

Need for the Proposed Action The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste. Management Group.. i _

petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to initiate l 1

rulemaking to define-a ~1evel of radioactivity in power-reactor generated waste oils.which would permit disposal of these oils.without regard to'their

= radioactive material content. Currently, the only generically approved method

'of disposal for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power

= plants involves solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transportation-ENCLOSURE 4 1,

g-- r.4 y py . . , .,-.y-g

_ , .r-- , , - + , , ,

,,p ,,w--,, , - , ',-+w ;w-

i.  ;

^

to and burial at a licensed disposal site. The cost of this. type of disposal =

is significant, while the concentrations of contaminants are quite' low _-The waste oil is a potential. candidate for being declared a "below regulatory concern" (BRC) waste. _Although there is an ongoing action te resolve comments on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (December 2, 1986; 51 FR 43367) for a potential generic rule on BRC wastes, a Commission*

decision on a generic =BRC waste rule is not expected in the near future. Also, EPA is considering a l similar standard.

Several power reactor licensees-have requested and been granted amendments to their licenses to allow onsite incineration of slightly-contaminated waste oil.

Others are interested in doing so.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 1

The primary impact of this rulemaking is to reduce the administrative effort '

involved in the application for and issuance of amendments to power reactor licenses to allow incineration of waste oil. However, easing these ,

requirements may result in greater amounts of waste oil being incinerated than-would otherwise be the case. .Thus, the overr.11 impacts of such incineration-must be considered.

Some-information on the quantities _ and concentrations of waste oil generated at ,

nuclear power plants was provided in the petition and in a Brookhaven report

" Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or.

Organic Liqt:;ds" (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987). The amounts and concentrations vary considerably from plant to plant and even from year-to: year at a given--

plant. Generally, the volumes produced are approximately.1,000 gal / year at a 0 PWR and up to 5,000 gal / year at a BWR. .In addition, some utilities have large-quantities in storage on site. Concentrations of radioactive contaminants are.- '

typically 10 to 10' pCi/ml"but can be as.high as 10 pCi/ml in some cases. ~

Total activity per reactor per year is _ generally no greater .than 10 Cf.- -The-dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, _ and Cs-137. Others

. reported include Sr-90, cd-109, In-65,' and Zr-95. It appears that'the bulk of-

~

waste oil generated, in terms of volume, could be incinerated with resultant 23 ENCLOSURE _ 4

.. a. _- _.._.___.m.. . . _ , .,. _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - .- , . , _ _ . ._

individual doses of less than 1 mrem /yr. Licensees with license amendments permitting onsite incineration have been able to dispose of most of their waste oils under a technical specification of 0.1% of the total dose limit, which is generally 15 mrem /yr from radioactive iooine and radioactive material ir, particulate form (in keeping with the guidance contained in Appendix ! of Part 50), or 15 prem/ year. Although waste oil contaminated during reactor operation might eventually be declared "below regulatory concern, this decision is being deferred to the ongoing generic rulemaking on this subject or until a petition following the August 1986 Commission policy is filed. This action modifies the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in S20.305 to make an exception for waste oli at power reactor sites; however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents from the requirements of Appendix ! of Part 50. These limiting condition; for operation include dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting requirements. Although this action may slightly increase actual effluents, the radioactivity in these effluents must be accounted against existing limits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Impacts ffom the toxic constituents of used oil would be minimized by onsite incineration. (See discussion under " Alternatives to the Proposed Action.")

Potentially, the proposed action might result in reduced storage of waste oil onsite thus reducing the associated fire hazard. Also, risks inherent in transportation would be reduced from those associated with the currently available disposal option of burial at LLW disposal sites. Incineration will not require significant quantities of materials, water, or energy and in some cases may involve the recovery of energy, e.g., when the oil is burned in an auxiliary boiler.

Based on these consideratiuns, this action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

3 ENCLOSURE 4 b

1 l

Alternatives to the Proposed Action Ar, required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(E)), possible alternativer, to the prcposed action have been considered. One alternative considered was to defer any action until decisions are made regarding the

< ongoing generic BRC rulemaking. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with Commission policy adopted in '51 FR 30839 (August 29,1986).

Since it is apparent that the cost to licensees to solidify or immobilize,  ;

package, transport, and bury contaminated waste oil at licensed disposal sites is not justified based on the very limited doses from incineration and the fact that other environmental impacts, if anything, will be reduced, and since it is more cost-effective to allow the incineration through rulemaking rather than to continue processing applications for license amendment, this action should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.

Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested. However, methods other than onsite incineration would require more complete information and analysis than was submitted by the petitioners and an NRC decision on a dose criterion for waste oil. Cont' rolled incineration onsite has been demonsttated to be an acceptable technical alternative for disposal of material. Although there is not*

suf ficient information available to preclude allowing any of the other alternatives in the future. incineration appears to be environmentally preferable to the other proposed alternatives. Although used oil is not listed as a Federal hazardous waste, it does contain a significant amount of toxic substances consicting of various organic compounds and metals. Although there may be some environmental impact from the toxic nature of used oil for any disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site minimizes these

• effects and is EPA's preferred method for_used oil disposal. The organic components are essentially destroyed by the incineration process and the metals essentially remain in the ash residue. Incineration at a controlled site assures that the ditposal of the ash residue can be controlled appropriately.

considering both its radiologic and toxic constituents. Nationally, any nonradiological environmental effect of disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil from nuclear power plants would be small compared to that associated 4, ENCLOSURE 4

i with the total quantity of used oil disposed. All power plants in total j produce on the order of 150,000 gallons / year of such used oil; nationally, vehicle maintenance produces about 700 million gallons / year of used oil.

Any other alternative action to this proposed rulemaking would take longer to complete, thus delaying any relief to licensees and other benefits such as savings in land usage for waste disposal.

Agencies and Persons Consulted Further consultation has been made with the petitioners (PRM-20-15) concerning this action as a resolution of the petition.

Consideration has also been given to ongoing EPA activities, the 14 comment letters received on the petition, and the Brookhaven report, NUREG/CR-4730.

Finding of No significant Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that this proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees onsite, if adopted, would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination is based on '

the foregoing environmental assessment performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, " Environmental Protee'. ion Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

5 ENCLOSURE 4