ML20128C383

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Regulatory Documents Comprising Regulatory History of Notice of Final Rulemaking Entitled, Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration Which Amends 10CFR20.Regulatory History Index Encl
ML20128C383
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/29/1993
From: Mattsen C
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20127B192 List:
References
FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-001, AC14-2-1, NUDOCS 9302040004
Download: ML20128C383 (4)
v • d • e


Text

- -

,, .I -

c'

}; y'~

p s , UNITED STATES n n L s' ,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  1. # WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 l

JAN 2 91993 MEMORANDUM FOR : Nuclear Document System Hail Stop Pl-37 FROM: Catherine R. Mattsen, Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch, DRA, RES

SUBJECT:

REGul.ATORY HISTORY (57 FR 57649)

Enclosed for your processing are the regulatory documents comprising the regulatory history of the Notice of Final Rulemaking entitled " Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration" which amended 10 CFR Part 20. This notice was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1992 (57 FR 57649),

(7Aua 2 //u2G<~

Catherine D. Mattsen Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES

Enclosures:

1. Regulatory History Index
2. Regulatory History Documents I

g20 goo 4930129 20 57FR57649 ppg

MEMORANDUM FOR : Nuclear Document System l Mail Stop P1-37 JAN 2 91993 FROM: Catherine R. Mattsen, Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch, DRA, RES

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY (57 FR 57649)

Enclosed for your processing are the regulatory documents comprising the regulatory history of the Notice of Final Rulemaking entitled " Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration" which amended 10 CFR Part 20. This notice was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1992 (57 FR 57649).

Original Signed By:

Catherine R. Mattsen Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch Division of Regulatory Applications, RES Ec.d osures :

1. Regulatory History Index
2. Regulatory History Documents Distribution: [NUDOCS.CRM] (without enclosure 2)

Subj: circ:chron DACool/RPHEB rf RMeck CMattsen

@w fu s /

Offc: RPittB:DRA RPHEB:0RA RPh B;DFA Name: CMattsen RMeck V DACo61 Date: a /y'V93 i /: /93 / [93OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j

. -/\Cl4+2.C

& PDR Regulatory History Index l

Disposal of Waste Oil By Incineration,10-CFR Part 20 RIN 3150-Atl4 (December 7, 1992; 57 FR 57649)-

1. Public comments on proposed rule (August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914), numbers 1-26.
2. Memorandum from David L. Meyer to Catherine R. Mattsen, dated August 25, 1989, comments on preliminary draft of final rule.
3. Memorandum from Brenda Jo. Shelton to David L. Meyer, dated August 30, 1989.
4. Office concurrence request, December 15, 1989, from Eric S. Beckjord to Office Directors and the General Counsel.
5. Office concurrences / comments:

ADM, January 11, 1990, Patricia G. Norry OGC, January 11, 1990, Stuart A. Treby OPA, January 12, 1990, Frank Ingram NRR, January 12, 1990, Frank P. Gillespie NMSS, January 16, 1990, Robert M. Bernero GPA, January 16, 1990, Harold R. Denton

-6. Memorandum from.Eric S. Beckjord to James M. Taylor, dated October 5, 1990.

7. Note from Eric S. Beckjord to Hugh L. -Thompson, Jr., dated March 21, 1991.
8. Memorandum from James.M. Taylor to the Commissioners, dated April 22, 1991, deferral of rule.
9. Office reconcurrence request, July 16, 1992, from C. J..Meltemes,-Jr.

to Office Directors and the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulations.

10. Office concurrences / comments:

OPA, July 17, 1992, Frank L. Ingram, memo ADM, July 28, 1992, Patricia G. Norry, memo SP, July 31, 1992, Carlton Kammerer, memo NMSS, July 31,-1992, Robert M. Bernero, memo NRR, August 6,1992, T.- Murley, concurrence page

s-

.;.. s.

.:l

11. Memorandum from Brenda Jo Shelton to Michael _ T. 'Lesar, dated August 3,.

1992.

12. Memorandum from Eric S. Beckjord to James M. Taylor, dated August'11, 1992, s
13. SECY-92-288, August 18, 1992.
14. Staff requirements memorandum, November 2,1992, from Samuel J. Chilk to James M. Taylor.
15. Memorandum from Bill M. Morris to David L. Meyer, dated November 24, 1992.
16. Federal Register Notice, December 7, 1992, 57 FR 57649, l-l

J u ti u uidtstm .1 )

- gO' AC-14 '/

vHOP03ED PULE _.L

\

ROBERT D. ORIL GOVERNOR $MWDPD yp WCODROW A. MYEllS, JR., M.D., STATE !!EALT11 CoMMISSIONKil:

~

b INDIANA STATE BOAllD OF llEALTil 1330 \\ EST Cll!GAN STREET '88 SEP 26 p 9:30-INDIAN APOLIS, IN 46206 1964 '

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HP2LTH 0FI 4 :.

40061e I?a t.h. @

P _

e' f AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER September 21, 1988

~

Secretary Attention: Docketing and Service' -

Branch Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Thank you for requesting my comments on the proposed Rule for Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration.

My staff and I have carefully reviewed this proposed rule and wish to be listed as in favor of its final adoption. The incineration of these slightly contaminated waste oils would have near " ero" effect on the health and safety of people and the environment.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit our input.

Sin frely,

~

(f,-

T. S. Danielson, J , M.D., M.P.H.

Assistant Commissioner for Health Maintenance p gD92$6l k$- If.

"The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend."

-Disraell

' **3 DOCKET llUMBER l

Ud l

h4L t ] ge wa z% z W .E~4a P%. y :zzars AS. mr a N M N m% ggQ

.Mu.i s 2+-r q%

<% n % Sk Ang'y-c1  % m M 6m N&

4& Ag% 5 b*@N An gn

,M  %.On"  % ~p 4% ni pp t/y M Mfw m%k d%?

44 AAL

.ms z

,u i;f 3a4M / JM# 4 (Q ^^4 % S%.

MZe M&, A AA A t

m% @ . &

aX m A4 4A1 MA c,Le @

MMA m +

.t W' ~ ~

W mi Ely *% iu ,9 yr, 7 j-  ;

ane -9Nuo (g3 ~ ~ _ _

7

g pt -t oo t b

Ecology Task Force a. s Southern California Ecumenical Council Post Office Box 32305, Los Angeles, California 900k OCT 21 P3:27 October 18, 1988 ISc'dh$d NEl.

09Awi i,0%ET NUMBER o i r egulatory Commission Washington DC, 20555  !>!!0,20 SED RULE JL J  %

S3#A 3A.7}/Y

Subject:

53 FR 167:32914, Proposals to A Incineration of Waste Oil Gentlemen:

There has been for some time in the religious community a group of people oedicated to preserving the environment, which we see as the sign of God's creation. Your proposal to allow the burning of waste oil, contaminated with nuclear material, and throwing that nuclear garbage into the air to spread poisonous materials with various half-lives across the land is a sin. Your suggestion that there will only be a slight increase of damage over what you already allow routinely from the plants is small comfort. We want you to +ake charge of the poisoning of the planet and stop-these practices which are only leading to the death of the biosphere.

Your further statement that burning represents a cost advantage over other disposal options adds insult to injury. We already know that there is a lot of money involved in nuclear energy production and that a few people are making fortunes in the waste management business. If.you were really concerned about saving money, you would shut down the whole industry tomorrow or at least you would make sure no more plants are constructed. At this point, with billions of dollars invested, safe disposal of the oil takes precedence over the cost. -

Sin erely y e G. Cohen COnvenor

,a 9

.n . . .

~% % . [ 00$

. STATE OF MICHIGAN. pp I X KliEO

~.i)W C

. JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Govemor -

  • 88 0CT 21.. - M1 :39_

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3500 N. LOGAN .

cp n . .. .

P.O. BOX 30035, LANSING. MICHIGAN 489091 Raj H Wiener, Acting Director jggp* g O:t.g; qur "'

)

October 13, 1988 Secretary 30ClET q' U Q: "" :"SR 1 ' 20

~ ~ ~ * '

- ~' /. I U.S. Nuclear Eegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary:

This letter transmits our comments on proposed rulemaking by--the U.S. Nuclear _

Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning disposal-of waste oil by-incineration,-

as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53,-No. 167, August 29.-1988,-

The proposed rule, in the form of an amendment to 10 CFR 20.305,.would allow- .

for onsite incineration of radioactively contaminated waste-oils by nuclear power plants, provided that "the- total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration must conform to the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50...", which provides for a design obj ective of 15 millirems /yr. to any organ of- an individual in .an unrestricted area.

The l'984 petition by the Edison Electric-Institute, et al proposed that onsite incineration could be performed such that the dose to an individual-member of the general public would be no greater than I millirem /yr.

Further, NRC nuclear plant licensees with existing license amendments allowing incineration of waste oil-have been maintaining effluents at levels:

with projected .off site doses of no more than 15 microrems/yr. , or 1,000 times lower than the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I design objective.

It would seem that' since of f site dose proj ections can be reasonably limited-to less than 1 millirem /yr., or even- 15' microrems/yr.,- it would. be appropriate for the NRC to maintain- the 10 CFR' 50, . Appendix I. design criterion of 15 millirems /yr. for nuclear plants with. waste oil. incinerators, but also require that the incineration effluents. be limited. such that o rnj -- e .,r h ii n ~ % c are no Freata.t then 1 millirem /yr. , which ist. wa11 w i tim t he, reesenably achievabic level of practice.and consonant with the ALARA principle.

-* M

  • 6 a

m -

A

_ . . . . . . = , . . . .. .._ _

+

-Secretary October:13, 1988-

-Page 2 Regarding the nonradiological . aspects of the proposed rule, ve: solicited comments -of the Michigan -Department of Natural Resources, Air _ Quality Division, which are enclosed for your information and-consideration.

Very truly yours, X s' Q~,y

-Lee E. Jager, P.E.', Chief

. Bureau of Environmental-and Occupational Health LEJ/GBT Enclosure c Robert Miller, AQD, DNR James Cleary, LLRWA, PMB L ,

[r i

i

yy y 1., <

g _

= MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT 0F NATURAL RESCURCES S'

s llNTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION -

Mc a

'***l 8 u les 1007 07g93'g ;

iOctober'3L1988i e TO: George Bruchmann, Chief. Division lof' Radiological Health .

Department of Public-Health FROM: Robert Miller.- Chief. Air Quality Division-Department of_ Natural Resources

SUBJECT:

Proposed rule for burning waste oil at nuclear power; plants.

We have reviewed the August 29, 1988 Federal Register regarding exemption of incineration of waste oil generated,at a nuclear power:

plant at the plant site. The following are our comments.

1. They are proposing that-the exemption _would-be allowed if the dose of radiation did not exceed 1 mrem / year. =This'would. result in an increased cancer' risk of 0.1 per_million population.

However, this does not-include any impact from:the emission of heavy metals that this agency considers to be' carcinogenic.

2. Each specific site would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An air use permit application-would need to be obtained' a from the Michigan Air Pollution-Control Commission prior to the

=

installation of any incineration equipment. 1

3. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that-the Environmental Protection Agency exempted waste oil from the -requirements of-hazardous vaste disposal. This is_true in most' cases,-but some waste oils can be a hazardous vaste-if certain^ parameters are exceeded. Onsite disposal of hazardous:vaste(s)-would require approval under the RCRA and state hazardous-vaste rules and regulations. We have no data to cacertain what_the expected

-level of metal contamination would typically be for_a waste oil ~

generated from a nuclear power plant.-

In conclusion, even though the level of: increased risk:from ,

radioactivity may be acceptable, it is not possible to determine whether the total risk from the emission'of all possible~ carcinogens-  ;

would be acceptable.- A full; review for'each specific m e would need 1 tv 'oe <*ane.- Parhaps the IGO'.J.culd sention that other federal, state, j and/or Inc@ cegulations must be complied'with, and chat tt.eir exemption does not override other requirements. a If-you have' questions regarding the above, please contact Dave Ferrier at 373-7085, or myself.-at 373-7029. Thank you for the opportunity-to comment on these proposed rulea.. y ve o $@g* _

. 1

~

RPM:DAF:ja _

.cc: Al Howard, WMD

__=  ;

k{ $f* &O O(

B. ftalph Sylvia s.,,., v.<. e..... , .

njs #

TDst.roi.t mx wi,, o,... %,,..c Mc -

u-dison 4=~ ..

"88; DCT 241P.2 52 _

.:,m, .

t g[r, b",,  ;?o M M r(21',11988-

";y [ $[1_ , j3Fd348/g Nac-88-82%

G ,

^

The Secretary of the Cc mission '

U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccunission- 4 l

Washington, D. C. 20555 '

l Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

References:

1) Fermi 2 IGC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43 q
2) Proposed Rule on Disposal of. Waste Oil by-Incineration, Federal Register Vol. 53, Ib,167,:

dated August 29,1988 (FR Doc. 88-19545):

Subject:

Detroit' Edison's Coments on the Proposed Rule on the -

Disposal of-Waste Oil by Incineration-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed 'to amend its regulations to permit the onsite incineration of..slightly-contaminated.

waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power _ plants without the need to specifically amend existing Part 50 operating licenses. ;ThisL '

4 proposed' action would-help ensure that the -limited capacity of :

-licensed regional low-level waste burial ~ grounds.is used note _;

efficiently while maintaining releases. from operating nuclear power: R plants at levels which are "as-low as is_ reasonably achievable"-as; l required by 10CFR Part 50,' Appendix _I. ' Incineration of this class of.

waste would be carried out in full compliance'with Commission-regulations restricting the _ release of radioactive materials to the - d enviroment that are currently-in force at each operating nuclear power plant. This proposed rule, if prmulgated, would constitute a'- _ ,

partial granting of- a-petition forL rulemaking (PPM-20-15)L submitted by__ - -'

Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

. The Detroit Edison Company supports'this amendment because it offers a .

potentially useful method for the disposal of slightly contaminated waste oils. The resulting effluents would not be exempt from the i cxisting requirements of; Appendix I of Part 50. Fermi 2.Technicalj  ;

Cpx:ifications specify -Limiting Condicio% fot qmation sien incluae dose liniH. fcr Mfluents at nr.2 ceyond the site boundary :.ni the-  ;

- associated nonitoring and reporting requirements. Although this~ 1 action may increase actual effluents,~the radioactivity in these effluents would be accounted'for against the existing limits.which hfh") Q'2{f~; ^

- . - . - -. _ _ =

The Secretary of the Cairnission October 21, 1988 NRC-88-0246 Page 2  ;

l cover total ' dose standards established for Fcrmi 2:which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Based on these considerations, the incineration of slightly-contaminated waste oils would not resolt in a significant increase in l

the risk to the health, safety or well-being of the general public or

, site personnel beyond those alrea3y assumed.

If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Arnold Jaufmana at  !

(313) 586-4213.  !

l Sincerely, f-

{}h . b' cc: Mr. A. B. Davis Mr. R. C. Knop l Mr. W. G. Rogers )

l Mr. J. P. Stang l

l l

l l

l

At RN 00+ -

te ,,.a - State of New Jersey DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 9

. Jorge H. Berkowitz, Ph.D.

Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY -

CN 4t$ -

Trentors N.J. 08625 041$

(609)987 6402 Fax (609)967 6390 2

.g

  • 4 , ,'

T24 P2 :54 Gerald P. Nicholls, Ph.D., Assistant Director Radration Protection QF5 9 ", E 90Cm, '4 October 76p 1988 Secretary 7.'E 7 I Y. 'D -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j);;E{J GUI,0 4 M. O Washington, D.C. 20555 Fsf.3 E1 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

In reference to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule for the disposal of waste oil by incineration published in the Enderal Reaister on August 29,-1988, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of. Nuclear Engineering (BNE) has reviewed the proposed rule and' agrees with the NRC position to amend 10 CFR 20.305 to allow radioactively contaminated waste oils generated at a licensed nuclear power reactor to be incinerated on-site.

l An additional provision that BNE requests-that the NRC l include in this revision of the code is that the'licensec report l the volume of waste oil incinerated and the concentration (s) of

! radionuclide(s) in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (10 CFR 50.36a). The Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report is an important document that the-BNE uses for

! its~ integrated surveillance program of nuclear generating stations in New Jersey.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact l either Ms. Jennifer Moon or Mr. Duncan White of my staff at 609-l 984-2032.

Sincerely,

/ f AY Gerald P. Nicholls, Ph.D.

Assistant Director c: J. Moon, BN%

D. Whi+e, BNE DW:L5

.w -f h New Jersey u an Equal Opportunuy Employer Recycledl' aper

Aa y- t NY

, f 1

f r..w ni4

~

'88 DCT 24 P2:44 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority. ,.....

- 50cn * < 4v ct BPANL1 Lawrence R. Jacobi, Jr. 7703 North Lamar Blvd. Members of the Board General Manager Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78752 Elbert B. Whorbr4 Jr., Ph D., Chairman John E. Shen, oMAe Chan (512)451 5292 Mihon J. Gulberteau. M 0., Secretary James P. Allison Wi!!!am L Fisher, Ph.D.

Jim R. Phillips October 19, 1988

m. m.'."-""*jSE?, qn it ,,2 0 PROF U aJ ~ d pyggjy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the-10 CFR Part 20 proposed rule notice in the August 29, 1988 Federal Register, page 32914. -

The Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority supports the proposed rule which would allow the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants. This rule will help conserve limited low-level waste burial ground space and will allow disposal of waste oils by the w preferred method of incineration.

Sincerely yours, Christine G. Pollard, C.H.P.

Health Physicist CGP/sz cc: L. R- .lacahi . 41r n.E.

uene, d Man;ser p

j,yn(( ,r; y *

  • t yp Al- I V ' LO#i E cor av

.r ~.n,.c Oct 20 -86.

.E Nemetny, sec'y Re IroposedRule-IncineqFon Sec'y---dhC or waste oil in - og 29-88, 'p 3%g1MI 24 P2 :43 i ATT: D^CsLT1..G x S_AVICa 3.tA..Cri Gentlemen - [0Cktiac,' /idlij, l ERAhco Of the four alternatives proposed for disposing of contaminated waste oil, incineration is certainly tne.least oodectionable. l We nave a question and a suggestion: l l

1 - You say a $4R proauces up to 5000 gal /yr of contatinated l oil. Would incinerttion of sucn a volari.e conform to the pro .osed c.ose lirr.it of 1 r.; rem /yr to tae. Seneral public?

2 - I,nclosed, copy of page el fr_r; Scienca 83 magazine, re:

CanadiaMangineer Tom Bart;n's plas:aa 4rc macnine.

At 45,000 F, it creaks up tne molecules of toxic wastes inta a plasma. l wny not give tnis methoc a trial run, using contaminated oil?

'~~

4 DOCKET NUMBER d}

f uc< %

PROPOSED RUL )h 2 o c5m wi

-%QLLO 2 OQ ?f - ?q.

. -[15.'

. lW -

. . , .v.

~* . ..- .-~.

.5 &;:. "_ j ,

=e ,

w . sg c .

kk N *: , ,, w 8( .f- Mg '?'N I  ;

n aN" p, <.M w. @D - .. ,4 4

hh-n.m - -

we i ._.

C .W,',

  • i'

'gp iJ $p *

@ ~

h4 ' .

. . T) i V .

{

j ~ y , c o su y g

{

h&?AQ

! [

J p 1 J. l

-l bb . ~ hn l times called a fourth state of . - than burning, Moreover, their de- l

'n Earth Day,1980, tens of thousands of structive range appears almost lim, lorreh of A 9:ardous waste steekpiledon matter, plasma is a doud of high- i thrre acre site in Elhabeth, NewJer* energy atoms, ions, and electrons. itless. Barton has fed his unit sub-l re, left, raged for Because many of the particles in a taines contaminated with PClis at l s

t 3ever g, exploded.

10 Aours, reatThe ping temperatures plasmaef are charged, it is an ex- levels as high as 65 percent and i ,000 degrees foArenheir and destroy- tremely ef ficient conductor of elec- found no traceable evidence of the ng 6oth waste and warehouse, a6ove, tricity. As much as 99 percent of all chemical after treatment. He has matter in the universe-including also destroyed a wide spectrum of

( -

stars, the aurora borealis, and in- other, toxic fluids including the L Plasma Arc terstellar space-is in a plasma w iquitous carcmogen carbon state. Lightning bolts, fluorescent tetrachloride.

Plasma arc detoxtfication obliter- At a plasma technology sympo-ates wastes t>cyoint our must sensi- lights, and welding arcs are also sium in October 1982, representa-l cive gauge of parts per trillion. As plasmalike. In Barton's machine, tives from 60 industrial companies Tom Harton, the Lanadian enei- toxic waste is fed into the center of tIIe chamber where hich energy concluded that plasma arcs can neer who designed . portable ver. destroy solid, liquif, or gaseous sion of the technique explains, electrons bombard the material, breaking molecular bonds and re- wastes of any kind.Westinghouseis

  • Plasma arc torches provide the working on its own plasma tech-highest destructive energy possi- ducing the substance ro us basic eje-I nique to melt waste steel, and the ble, short of atomic reactors." ments. tvpically carbon. hydrogen, '

oxygen, and chlorine. Potentially U.S. Army is looking hard at Donning protective eye shields, plasma science to destroy obsolete dangerous gases are pumped to a

Barton and three methodical assist. nerve gases.

ants melt through an inch thick second " scrubber" chamber where Barton has just contracted with bolt in seconds. 'This is the plasma - they are neutralized.

NA5A developed plasma arcs 20 the State of New York to beln dean -

stat-T F- says of a glow that shines up Love Canal. where thousands of fiercely esen through the heavily years ago to test the ability of space e m..a len., -pr ennn, . i rnm. vehictes torace the intense heat of ' gallons of toxic leachate have been l

reemry These yo..e: tui arcs con- nAS N :*n g :::nh -d n-phoelv em hae the torch ein i use wacd h; htnides in minms awaiting treatment. 5 n to destrq toxM chemicals?

L Barton's ; ention sends a pow- What's new about 15arton's ap- ._ ,

i Bruce Piasecki is an assistant profe55te ,

erful bolt of dectricity between proach is that the electrodes can i

withstand a sustained plasma; his of hberal studies at Clarkson College of two electrodes. heating the air moJ Technology in Poudam, New York. He ecules inside the two-footlong device treats a cominuous stream has edited Toxic Was.e Controls, a I t hamber to a temperature of of wastes.

book to be published later this yar by Plasma devices can detoxify

-15.000 deesees Fahrenheitarans- Greenwood Press EItnung ihem imo a plasma. Some- chemicals six miilion times faster et .

1 stPrtmta

i i

, 9y ..,

' us '-- *, . . .c

  • e*, .

s .~t 4 L) 3s caRyw

~

[} m m }

f . ~ <

T g f.g*., g. Mfg = - 1 4.- " . m yn+- . w ,p

.w..:.4, p'a i ci j 9

. . 4 temata 11 ' *

, y.) b a "W . .

i s

%% '.tm*

g 4 g5 ', p ,

l J

eMM -4 ^

kN'g% . %y g u, Au%' c<

' /cf .

.a . <

pw,,J y .

(

3 l

. y f G 3-y\ .

}

{

.e

. a

>s i

s,jiMw 2? [}

@ h. .

than burning. Moreover, their de-I

.'n f orth Day,1980, tens of thousands of times called a four th state of st r uctive range appears almost lim-

> !arreh of hasardous uaste stockpiled on matter, plasma is a dood of high.

threc. acre site in Elhabeth, New]er. energy atoms, ions, and electsons. itless. Bat ton has led his unit sub-Because nmy of the p.ntitles in a Luxes wntaminan d with PCBs at e ey, exploded. The fire, left, raged for levels as high as 65 percent and wer 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, reaching temperatures of plasma are charged, it is an ex--

.000 degrees Fahrenhett and destroy. Mi md M found nu ts accable esidence of the ng both waste and warehouse, above. 99 matter in the universe-including also destroyed a wide spectrum of '

stars, the aurora borealis, and in- cther toxic fluids including the Plasma Arc terstellar space-is in a plasn ubiquitous carcinogen carbon state. Lightning bohs, fluorescent tet rachloride.

Plasma atc detoxtfication obliter- At a plasma technology sympo-lights, and wehung arcs are also

~

ates wastes beyomt our most sensi. sium in October 1982, representa.

tise gauge of parts per trillion. As plasmahke. In Barton's machine, tives from 60 industrial companies Tom Barton, the Canadian enci- toxic waste is fed into lhe renter of the chamber where hich-coergy concluded that plasma arcs can neer who designed a portable ser- destroy solid, liquid, or gaseous s on of the technique explains, elyctrons hombard the material, wastes of any kind. We:inghouse is

" Plasma arc torches provide the breakinc molecular hands and_re-ifucmg t he subst ance to ns hasic ele- working on its own plasma tech-highest destructne energy possi- nique to melt waste steel, and the ble, short of atomic reactors." ments. typically carbon hydrogen, du cen, and chlorine. _Porentiath U.S. Army is looking hard at Donning protectite eye shields. plasma science to destroy obsolete Barton and three methodical assist- daygerous gases are pumped to a second " scrubber" chamber where nerve gases.

ants melt through an inch-thick Barton has just contracted with bolt in seconds "This is the plasma they are neutralued.

7X5% developed plasma arcs 20 the; State al New York to help cleaD state." he says of a glow that shines up love Canal, w here thousands of tiercely esen through the heavih scars ago to test the ability of space rehulet w ace r the imense heat of ' gallons of. toxic leachate have been

, m, a len.. -o r m n n,-

g. .. h em L w t he n.n h s ;w i w i cmr-ncmts The.e w..e: tut arcs con "iW W ~~ .7 ::.t -i n-3

-wen .E + n ues m min" s. awaiting treatment.

a m destra u chemicals" What's new about parton's ap- -

Barton's . mention sends a pow- Bruce Piasecki is an cusulant prefes5e erful bolt ot Jectricity between pmach is that the electrodes can

withstand a sustained plasma; his c[ liberal studies at Clarkson Collegr o/

t w o elect r odes. heatingt hepr nml- Technology m Pondam, New York He e'c u le s inside the two7oot-long desice treats a cominuous stream has edued Toxic Waste Controls, a t hamber to a t einpe r at u g_p t of wauet j Plasina d e s ices ca n detoxifv book to be published later this yar by 4 *LOnO deet ers Fahrenhettm t:3iny Greenwood Fren 4 tornung them mio a plasma. Some- chenucah 6 milhon times faster 81 it e rf stlu it n

/Agly t. 10/0-gli=

Texas Departmenta pf@adb9: -

- Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P.-. -1100 West 49th Street Robert A, MacLean, M.D.'  :

Commissioner - ;i a u Deputy Commissioner -

- Austin, Texas 7875fr3p o i

-(512) 458-7111 : 00CE'es

  • i 4 : iW.lProfessional Services

. WNW Hermas L/ Miller ~

Radjation Control Deputy Commissioner -

(512)835-7000 Management and Administration October 14, 1988 30CM.5i;0i2Ti.g&.

'.0 - P - S :.. :2 c ,,

Secretary N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9/)/ _

Washington, D.C.- 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Wo appreciate the opportunity to review and - provide input on the ' Nuclear' Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule on- the disposal of waste oil bye incineration. Staff of the Bureau of Radiation Control have reviewed the -

document and offer the following comments for consideration:

1) In general, we agree-with the _ concept of incineration of waste oil, as long as provisions are made for proper disposal of .the ash and sludge.

We are also in favor of other non-hazardous methods- (with -adequate technical rationales) for reduction of the' volume' of waste' that is - '

required to go to a low-level radioactive' waste site.-

2) .The background information on the proposed -rule indicated that releases to. the environment from the incineration:of waste oil would have_ an inconsequential radiological impact (less than -. one millirem per year). The basis for the impact statement was : unclear. The NRC should develop an- acceptable method for demonstrating that the dose to:.

a member of the general publi.c will: not exceed , the . reference dose.

Currently _ available dose assessment computer codes could be used ' for.

this purpose.

If you have any questions concerning these comments. - please contact.us.

You ruly, 86 7

  • Davia K.-* w-e.,.'"4ef dureau of Radiation' Control ec: Joel 0. Lubenau State Agreements Program

$y - ~ .~

/M /e/- 2. 0//

meDi..n f 20C12T IT.'UER MD October 00, 1988

'ROPOSED E!.E VSP.NMaany. '88 ; OCT 24L Al .

COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS .FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY. . INC. L efy'RE') dud-ON PROPOSED RULE. DISPOSAL 0F WASTE- OIL BY INCINERATIN , g 3 j:IIIVY1 FED. REG. 30914 (AUGUST 09, 1988)

The~NRC in this proposed-rule would omend 10 CFR 20.305- to-allow onsite incinerition or waste oils contominated with slight' amounts or radioactivit/ at DUClear power P20ctor sites.

This proposed rule would elimincte the need to amend the operating licenses or nuclear power roeilities to allow onsite

- incineration, os is now the cose.

OCRE opposes this proposed rule. It would deprive members of the public of their right under Section 1990 or the Atomic Energy Act to o hearing on on operatine license omendment,

,4 embers of the public who may be arrected by the onsite inctneration of waste oils should have the right to porticipate in a heorang on the merits or the proposed action. The

^

hetshtened scrutiny involved in o licens. omendment hearing. os well os that resulting from cose-by-cose starr evoluotion.

serves a useful purpose in assuring that the licensee complies with all opplicable regulatory requirements and that the public heoith and safety will be protected.

OCRE oise is concerned that omending the rule now, prior to o final determination or the 'below regulatory concern' issue, may be o wasted errort and may not serve the best interes's or the public. The drort _ regulatory onalysis states that the l proposed rule may be superceded by future actions on BRC policy. The analysis also identified-determent er action on the petition (PRM-00-15) until analysis of comments on the BRC odvanced notice or proposed rulemaking is completed os on option. The onalysis also noted thot the EPA is considering standards or guidance on BRC levels or doses, It would be for  !

cetter to Owott the development or o complete and comprehensive ERC policy by both EPA and NRC before allowing ey generic rulemoking onsite waste oil incineration.

The proposed rule and drort regulatory analysis identify o number or deficiencies in the petition submitted by the utility group. At the completion of BRC policy de.,topment. the

.- Petitioners should be given the opportunity to. supplement' o r- -ai resubmit their-Petition so os to supply,the needed- information and onolyses, e.g., 'the complete chorocteritation or quontities and concentrations of contaminated ?>6ste. oil'-(drart j regulatory onolysis, p. 4). Absent such specifics, the l

_.,ne-e +_cse evoluotion as is now required throu9h the 14aenEF amensment sr?.w.s should c o ti i 4 .-

l

,  ?

It i s stated that the incineration would either Le :tirried out in the licensee's ouxiliary boiler or in o specially .

Constructed onsite ancinerator. It does not appeo' that j consideration of use or the auxiliary boiler for this purpose .

j hos been sufficiently GXomined. It 15 likely that use of the __

d "' g f- .

weeram , %,,

.. oux11iory-'bo110P for incineration of Contominated Waste -oil-incineration would result in contamination of -- o Port of the olont not otherwise subject to.contomination, 'The' . effects' of I

this operation on the ultimate decommission $ng of'the facility,.

ond -on the Evolume of low level " waste resulting- from'  !

decommissioning, does not.oppear to have-been examined. Nor is -

there on analysis of occupational -rodiotion.: exposure _from, incineration in the auxiliory -boiler, or of, the- costs of  :

establishing the ouxiliary b o i l'e r ' a n d - s u r r o u n d i n g plant creos' '

os a radiotton cone. These roctors need.to be examined- before- 'l snctneration con be said to_have o net. benefit, -l A more comprehensive consideration of CVeroll ' environmental roctors one gools may also work to preclude incineration os the -j eest option. OCRE believes that. recycling (i.e., reprocesssng) ene waste oil moy be the best treatment method. This would conserve our limsted, nonrenewable petroleum- resources. ond would eliminate the release of combustion products to the Symosphere, includin9 those which might exocerbote the j preennouse errect. The development or small-scale, onsito .

recyclin9 processes C.oy be the best way to treet .t b r, . O i l . Until l

Such capabslity is developed, storin9 the oil @rdite, W S 't h )

oppropriate fire Protection and leokoge prevention and ContrQ1 -

measures, should be encouroged. OCRE believes that this is-the envsronmentally preferred option, Since the NRC. odmits. that the proposed rule may result in greater omounts of waste oil-being sneinerated than would' otherwise be the. 00se- (53 FR 32918)- the proposed rule would discourage storage for eventual recyclang. This would be contrary-to the Congressional goal aectorea in the National Environmental Policy Act: to 'enhonce the quality of renewable resources and oprrocch- the maximum.

attosnible recycling or depletable resources,' 42. USC 4 331 (b ) ( 6) , ,

oespectfully submitted, e  ! ,

Ms * .

-5usan L. Hiott OCRE Representotive 3275 MLnson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (016) 255-3159 i

() { pf 'l 0 /*L f " Commonwe:lth Edison

'/!T h XddreOTie~

) One Drst Nabon:t Pin 2a, Chic 8}0, llbho!$

ply to: Post Office Box 767

( ,/ Chica90, I!hnois 60690 i %;-

October 20, 1988

.g g m :25 Of f u . ; .~k , j f'.

i 000th 7 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary G R-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , , ,

Washington DC 20555  ! , EmW .. d,,, , ,l R3 I* ,

w n . . ., ,

,. e

  • 8
  • 8 b e.4$ J 't b I '

Attn Docketing and Ssrvice Branch 63/="g y

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Subject:

Proposed Rule to Permit the Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration 15LEcd. Reg.,_.12_211dugust 29. 1908)

! This presents Commonwealth Edison Company's (Edison) comments on the

{ Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to permit licenses to

! incinerate waste oils slightly contaminated with radioactive materials.

l Edison supports tha proposed rule as far as it goes but suggests that it be j modified to apply its principles to multi-unit licensees.

1

( Edison agrees that, in general, waste oils contain such low levels of radioactive materials that the incineration of such oils would not have any i

significant effect on the public health and saf9ty. Under these conditions,

, no useful purpose appears to be served by requiring individual, site-specific analyses of lucineration under 10CFR 50.59. At most, one generic 50.59 analysis should suffice.

Also, it is not clear that Appendix I to Part 50 should apply, at least not to each individual incineration episode. Appendix I applies to l continuous releases of radionuclides during normal operation. In general, l waste pil burning will be episodic and not continuous. Under those conditions, even if Appendix I does provide suitable effluent limits, those

( limits should not have to be satisfied for each burn but, rather, for the l yearly average effluents just as if the incineration had been levelized over the year. Such averaging would treat incineration releases like the usual, l continuous plant releases to which Appendix I applies.

l Other disposal methods suggested by petitioners Edison Electric l Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (EEI/UNWME) were rejected by the NRC for lack of adequate analysis of the hazardous non-radioactive materials in the oil. This rejection was improper because it is based on too broad a reading of the NRC's jurisdiction. The NRC's jurisdiction is limited to public health, safety and the environment as-affected by the radioactive properties of materials regulated by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act. Once the NRC f1..# that a"v M insal mathod does not p

  • a s: e n t an tutdue radiat1via rin to the public health nnd safety U.L %(* w approve tnat dit posal methoo suhiint_Lv_laCp,prm 21 or such_disE91ALby_Athat agancies respons?ble for regulating the hazardous materials in the contamiaated oils. Therefore, the NRC should reconsider the othe'r disposal methods proposed by EEI/UNWMG and approve any of them which do not present an undue radiologic risk.

'f 6M f [b

. _ _ _ . m . . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

.There is also no reason.why off-site. incineration cannot be approved

-in a manner which addresses the NRC's concerns.' To the extent-that ash residues may contain significant quantitles of radioactive materials or toxic metals, the NRC should condition the approval of' incineration on the disposal of those ashes at a suitable facility.

Finally, the proposed rule unnecessarily restricts the incineration of oil to an incinerator on the -site where it was generated. This restriction places an unnecessary burden on a multi-site utility. -As long as incineration-at a site does not exceed Appendix I limits, it makes no. difference what plant or plants the oil come from. ALARA would still be satisfied. Indeed,-as long as Appendix I is satisfied, the oil need not even come from another facility owned by the same licensee. Therefore, proposed 10CTR20.305(b)(1) should be amended to substitute for the phrase "on the site where generated" the phrase "any reactor site."

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely tous.

7VV\ dA

+-

Henry El Bliss Nuclear Licensing Manager l

l rf 5249K

. .. M

["

O 09 '

auzr srjnvrs urrrrrrrs coM19 ppm po s T O F Fic t B o % 2 9 5 i e HEAUMONT T E K A S ?. 7 7 o 4 A 8t E A C O o E 4 0 9 839 6631 ,}F G it *, ', ,t,,,..

, DOCN,,j%.. h,{ =

October 21, 1988 RBG - 29073-File Code G9.23 ,

1 l

l n . i Secretary of tho' Commission $ y"ve- m ... y3- fd./ '*"/9 M i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '"'"A1d'!d l Washington, D.C. 20444 i:'l_S A. Q fg 3;2pf Attention: Docketing and Service Branch l l l Gentlemen:

l Gulf States Utilities Company (CSU) is pleased to comment-on the Coimnission's proposed rule (53FR32914, dated August 29, 1988)' " Disposal l of Waste 011 by Incineration." GSU supports this proposed rule with the following comments:

1. The third paragraph of the proposed rule, states in part: "This would be done' in practice through a limited modification of.the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) and the semi-annual ' effluent l

reports." The word " limited" should be deleted. The effort required to make any change to the ODCM is of ten extensive.

2. - The changes to Part 20, paragraph 20.305 treatment or disposal by l incineracion and specifically subparagraph 20.305(b)(1) provide for I onsite waste oil incineration but no provisions have been- made to

~

transfer contaminated oil to an offsite_ facility for incineration.

Subparagraph 10CFR20.305(b) (1) should be ' revised to include provisions for onsite incineration and/or transfer of-contaminated oil to an offsite licensed vendor for incineration- and subsequent burial of any residue.

GSU appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Sincerely, f,f.

//

  • J . c.. Hooket l Manager-Liver Bend Overs.ght
j. River Bend Nuclear Group JEB/LA IN/KNC/do j .

ew -1 s -,,-+.au n...a a a s n i. 4 u- - e aa1 n _.m. -

y i

?-

U ts/2_ey W W a v='#% orp c.

10007.E!!!Ji.;PE1

'i;;v:bi" ;;Li a lgln -

.26 .

a J' 4FfH~sif)y L'8Bf 0CTL243 A10:47: g c- ,

),,,0CK,f! m 4' -

#V'@

SR AE* -

,4 -

c .

T b u 4Ak Q

?q L n o1 % Q-kt>{

~ LL Lhalm - .) u_dde e, .

N b[, k h p b _ w :.- d u>ff .

w abn 4 ' mfwu hk M G mWw &

6 ta l a i S n-, G c5 l vh&J & L ,u i s k m s .L 7

~

{ aE n a ., alb[ck &-m

~

a g

m

% a ik si.

Q Y0 $ -

h L k_t v F c

OwT ht .

D.L - .

<\.n

/

s c) 9 ~a o p i g _ _ _

i ._

O'-

N- e 4-- --,% i sM- souw. y -

s- -- 6 - -e --

g g 95 GE Stcckhsidars'l Allibnca AgainstLNuclocr PSwer

P.O. Box.966.e Columbia
MD 21044 e 13011 331 2714' s

Mr

. 0(, A L is.

Wiri:

'88 - OCT 25 L P4 :31 Chairman

-

  • f ICt. . - :s' Mr-Patricia T. Birnie OCKE14's'iT W,iiCE

. 6R ANCH --

{

Board of Advisoes On Formation)

Larry Bogart October 01,-1988 Chuens,Inergy Council -

teo Goodman Secretary, NRC' n,imi,an t; . S . Xuelear Regulatory Commission 5 ^* Washington. DC' 00555.

swy c'*roup Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D.

DOCKETJ!'JMBER DD fi,,Z"'

romment on 53 FR 167:329!! P.0?0 w ilt!LE LR 30 -

Charles Komanoff SbF~K 3A9 /

Komed Ene'sy Assoewws '

Dear-Sir:

Claude Lenehan, OFM Corpora nesponschiy We OPPOSE the proposed NRC approval of allouing on-s' Adv='

incineration of. radioactive unste nil from nuc l ear- pt.

Paul L. Leventhal plants.- '

emdent. Nuclea, - '

cetionnuu*

We believe that there are sa fer unys to 4 t i n p tm e - _ o f Crigsby Morgan-Hubbard radioac t ive uns t e oil, and that incinnration could beinn-

  • *'**d added health risk for the public. Thw suppned ^ost ndvt tage-should not be a cons idera t i on -o f--t he- 'WC iii naking John R. Newell this determination.

Sath iron Works Presdent (Reta e

Public health and safety nre already.hoing prmly served

.[ Wns m M.D. hy the nuciear industr.. Plen e do not f:irt her 'c+aken the Heakh (Mormation - Tu3e5.

Nathan H. Sauberman -

Provessioaat insiaeer MinC"r"Iri jo Somerville, Ph.D. # #

Pesdent. Unen of Amencan Patricia T. Eirnie-and Japanese Prokssionats Agamst Nuclear Omncde Irving Stillman, M.D.

  • Physcians for Social '

Responsibi'4y ,

_ Faith Young -

Inergy People. Inc.

AHasatens ko. ;g;,i.hctum PWposes, Only.

9 a sp \ '( ' * ~ ' ~

\.

- k l IV- 7 = 0 { ()

r#

Nf,,hli i'-

oM

}. D -

WiUh m atn @ i n ) A garfC@VE3 'o m oct 2s e4:26 eenergyatemath f

h. :.A 5H AN 1 October 20, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET imMBER .-.g.

30P03E0JU;E 1, u 2 t3 Re: 53 FR 167: 32914 q prg y f

Dear Sir:

l We strongly oppose the NRC approval of a proposal to allow on-l site incineration of radioactive waste oil from nuclear power l plants. (53 FR 167:32914).

We believe radiation released during normal operation of l nuclear power plants exceeds the public interest, and causes harmful health effects to human and animal / vegetable life. We i believe that incineration would increase radioactive particle i

releases and possibly other hazardous effluents.

Stuch _ publici ty is present'ly being given to the Department of Energy's callous disregard for public health in regard to operations at Hanford, Savannah River and Fernald locations.

l There are also official investigations under way concerning the i' health effects of releases from nuclear power plants. The NRC should not court further public criticism by compromising its regulations on health and safety for the small economic benefit which might be gained by the requesting utility.

Sincerely, fw-(ht.

Patricia Birnie it &

Co-Director 9 ]3 . - -

JQt#> L[uW PQBOK902/ COLUMBIA,MD/210M (301) 381-2714/433-4674

\

M N "7 20/t 3

.mc

' at .

3

. GPU Nuclear Co etion gg gu '88 - OCT 28 P 2 $0 One Upper Pond oed Paippany, New Jmey 07054 201 316-7000 TELEX 130-482 '

gri a . ,  : Wri'er's Direct Dial Number; vatSt : ,

! - Uctober- 27, 1988-C300-88-0473 Secretary -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555. gg ;":"Sc'; g

2.0 .

ATTENTI0'l: Docketing and Service Branch pg 3ayf

Dear Sir or fiadam:

Subject:

GPU tluclear Corporation (GPUN) comments Proposed Rule for Disposal of Haste Oil by Incineration (53 FR 32914) .

GPUN has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed regulat1on as-published in the above noted Federal Register dated August 29, 1988. He offer the following comments which address several issues identified-in that rulemaking.

We support the additional flexibility provided by the proposed rule which would permit the onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils' generated at nuclear power plants. However, 10 CFR 20.305(c) represents an area of concern which may restrict the usefulness of the proposed rule. Several states (such as tjew Jersey), under their individual Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .

(RCRA) programs, classify waste oil as-a hazardous waste. Incineration of-this oil may reautre application for'a Treatment, Storage or Disposal: facility-permit in addition to rigorous administrative, testing and air modeling requirements in order to amend existing air pollution permits. Radioactively contaminated hazardous waste, better known as mixed waste, is expected to be regulated by New Jersey in the latter part of 1989. The mixeJ waste program reauirements_are anticipated to mirror the existing RCRA reouirements, which for incineration may include trial burns for a determination of contaminant-and product of combustion destruction efficiency, ash analysis _and disposal requirements, etc.

p m),

'*[ "#'vi TAM 1

W 7582f/

GPU Nucle &r Corocration is a subsidiary of General Pubhc Utihties Ccrooration

l Related to mixed waste / RCRA / air pollution control issues and the different state progran.reauirements is whether the Commission might consider modify 1ng its 'groposed rule to clarify that incineratinn may occur at the site where generated, at a-common utility-operated site for utilities with multiple.

reactor sites or at a vendor f acility with a radioactive materials license.

. Of course, this suggestion introduces concerns regarding transport of the waste oil to states with less stringent (than New Jersey) programs and related l Department of Transportation snipping reauirements, j We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the prnposed regulations and hope l that these comments assist the Commission when draf ting the final- regulations.

l "s J Jr.

f.L.lSulliva icensing & R ulatory Affairs, director JLS/LK/imi cc: CARIRS - Till & OC 4

e 7582f/

A non s tY l '

JOHN J KEATINEY Serpor %cs Premtsen

=nu: r EDISON ELECTRIC

  • W I N STIT U T E """ "* '" "" """ m om 2a no:47 111119;h Stteet N W.

Wavungtort D C. 20036 3091 '. .

Tel (202) 770 6400  ;[ ,

[

t, October 28, 1988 Samuel J. Chilk, Socrotary '

U. S. lluclear Regulatory Commission [ , "m .;

Wachington, D. C. 20555 ,

, , Jo Attention: Docketing and Sorvico Branch /.

Rot Proposed Rule; Dispocal of Wasto Oil by Incineration (53 Fed. Roo. 32914)

Dear Mr. Chilkt These comments are submitted by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility 11uclear Wasto Management Group (U!iWMG) in response to the abovo-referenced notico. As the IIRC is aware, EEI/UtiWMG petitioned the Commission on July 31, 1984, for a regulation defining a level of radioactivo material in wasto oils that would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive content (RPM-20-15). That petition was submitted in response to views expressed in the Commission's Supplomontary Information Statomont accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61

" Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactivo Waste" (47 Ecsl. Eng. 57446).

The Commission has now responded to the EEI/Ut1WMG petition by publishing the subject rulomaking notico. If adopted, the proposed rule would constituto a partial grant of the EEI/UtWMG petition.

It is unfortunate that, after more than four years, the 11RC has now acted so as to grant only a limited amount of the authority requestod in the petition. In particular, the reasons given by the URC for not granting the petition, in toto, tend to be vague and unspecific. For examplo, at one point the rulemaking notico simply states thatt An of fsito . . .recy,;; lino centor might handle want.o oil for multiple rt.aturs. Thl= cach has not boca adca W 1v incorporatad in the petitirnors' uoso analysis.(33 T_gsl. F319 32914, 32915.)

~

ll D ' -

5 $'

t Mr. Samuel J. Chilk i October 28, 1988 Page 2 In fact, during consideration of the original 1984 petition, EEI/UNWMG addressed this issue in responding to a point raised by a commentor. This responso, however, is onsantially ignored in the NRC notico.

The forogoing notwithstanding, EEI/UNWMG are of the view that the proposed rule is a step in the right direction, and we support its adoption. The following comments are offered to assist in maximizing the usefulness of the regulation.

First, proposed section 20.305(b) (1) serves to define wasto oils as " water immiccible organic hydrocarbons used principally as lubricants or hydraulic fluids...that have boon contaminated in the courso of operation of a nuclear power reactor...." There is no reason, howevor, to excludo synthetic, cutting, penotrat-ing, insulating, and other classes of oil from the category of material which may bo incinerated, provided that the other conditions imposed by the rule (gtgt, complianco with Appendix I to part 50), are mot. Accordingly, to oliminate the possibility for confusion, section 20.305(b) (1) should bo revised in the final rulo to specifically includo within the definition of

" waste oil" Organic or synthetic hydrocarbons used principally._for their lubricating, cooling, por insulatingsproporties or as hydraulic fluids.T.that have becomo contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenancd'of a nuclear power reactor....

Second, as propnsed, section 20.305(b) (1) providos for incineration of waste oil "on the sito where generated."

Similarly, section 2 0.305(b) (3) refers to authorization of "onsito wasto oil incineration." The term "sito," however, is not defined. For purposes of c3arity, the term "sito" should bo specifically defined in the regulation as that region within the "sito boundary;" where "sito boundary" is defined as "that line beyond which the land is neither owned or leased nor otherwise controlled by the licensee." (ECA 21g. Standard Radiolocical Ef fluent Iochnical Specifications fJ2r Boilina Water Reag_ tors, ,

section 1.14 (NUREG-0133, September, 1982).) .

Third, while it is clear from the discussion accompanying the proposed role ac n whnlo, specific references are only.to incinacaLion "carriet; out alther in the 11usnseats existing-anxiliarv _Wilor Drm rLiv raf.or, if avnilablo, or in an ensito-facility specificely constructea for this nurpose." (see $3 Ltd. Egg. J2914, 32936 (emphasis added).) To avoid any con-fusian, che statement of considerations accompanying the promulgation of the final rulo should specifically noto that' l

U- , v

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 28, 1988 Page 3 boilers on the oito other thar. " auxiliary boilers" (o.a. contral station power plant boilers) and mobile incinerators may be utilized.

Fourth, section 20.305(b) (1) providos in part, The licensoo shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under -

section 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to section 50.71 of this chapter, as appro-priato. The licenson shall also follow the proceduros of section 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changos to the facility or procedures.

Similar to the situation discussed in the preceding comment, it is clear from the entiro discussion accompanying the proposed rule, and the proposed rule itself, that the regulation is not intended to impose requirements for cost benefit analysis for incineration equipment, pursuant to section 50.34a. It is -

equally clear that the rulo does not intend that licensees perform analysos u.7 der section 50.59 to determine if the burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutos an unroviewed safety question. It would be helpful, however, if the statement of considerations accompanying promulgation of the final rulo clarified these points. In particular, with respect to section 50.59, the statement should specify that analysis directed at determining whether or not an unroviewed safety. question exists nead only address whether or not sito specific equipment and-procedural alterations present an unroviewed safoty question, and that it need not address the burning of the wasto oil itself.

Subject to the above comments, EEI/UNWMG cncourage the prompt adoption and promulgation of the proposea rule. If you have any questions or if wo may be of further assistanco,.please do not hesitate to call.

Sincercly,

<! TiH44 f.

Jh /Konrney A,_ /denior Vice President JJK/bfm

// t / '/ - t 4/f

%k, he a r Ctant>u n :h

?0 Unx33198 a v s ~ u n'?

anusc:m: . , m* .c

~ mao y? ;f r d' til

'88 DCI 28 P2 ;53 f:

&. , auxepowen '

Cetober 25, 1988 p bdC.E

'lho SecIUtary of the Onntnission o... .

U.S. Ibclear Ibgulatory Ctmmission ,

(/ ig y d, , ,',',,]--5 Washington, DC 20555 ~" ---

ATTDTrICti Docketing and Service Branch g '3FA. S a p / h

Subject:

Disposal of Waste oil by incineration F4pd It11e .

Duke Powr Otmaants

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Ibgister (53FR32914) dated August 29, 1988, the ibclear Bogulatory Ctmnission published for cantnent a proposed rule to amend its regulations to permit the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste '

oils generated at licensed nuclear powr plant without the nee 1 to specifically anmi existing Part 50 opereting licenses.

Duko Powr Ompany has reviewed the subject itRC proposed rule ard, in general, supports the crnmission's pmposal pertaining to the disposal of wasto c,il by incineration. Ilomver, the follcwing points need to be clarified:

1 We proposed rule permits the onsite incineraticn of wanto oil generated at that site. Tte term " site" is not defined. Fbr purposes of clarity, the term " site" should be specifically defined in the regulation.

Duke Powr proposes that the new rule permit the incineration to be within the site boundary. %is will provide consistency in the use of the term "onsite disposal". Se sito boundary is the fenced area of the station.

Using the sito boundary to enccupass the allcwed disposal area will give a mre aansistent definition of what is conshiered onsite and what is considered offsito.

2. We proposed rule only addresses the incineration " carried out either in the 11 cent.ee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purpose".

Duke Powr proposes that the final rule slould permit the use of mobile incinerators.

5. We fN1 rule should specity that the 'ao.39 analysis is to determine wls./ der or not m w;-Wawl safdy g% tion exists in respect to sitr.--speciiic equignent and procedural clanges, not the burning of tie wato oil itself.

ff

s y 5

^

e 5 19 8 Page 2 Very truly Suurs,

<' c' e' '

&k m _.

(1 n. wor It4/349/88

'==

__a __. - __.____a-____ - _ - - -- .

,cs  ;>,s.:; .-

. e: .

.,f9*- r e.

Secretary of tJe Otxumission October 25, 1988 Pago 3 I

tv.c N.A. faltjerford J.S. Erren R.T. Simril C.F. Ian GS-811.03 e.

9

I (( l 8 f- b - 0 2-U

> s -- ~

  1. 'Q 6 fg -

. '7 .

N  ;

MN ,

NUCLEAR MANAGEMINT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL / y,' ,.

1776 Eve Street. IJ W

  • M 300
  • wonngicn DC 20006-206 k.I QCT 33 '1b ,

(?O2) 872d200 g "!d I.

> "1.g g,rl :=: !".WS! .

.loe F. CoMn JMM .> +

YNYNN$Y October 28, 1988 -

'[

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk I uc ear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, DC 20555 00 E SU PROPOSED CULE E OR A o ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

NRC Proposed Rulemaking, " Disposal of Waste Oil by incineration" 53 FR 32914; (August 29,1988)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Management and - '

Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) in response _to the above captioned pro)osed -

rulemaking. NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry t1at i is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear _ power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all_ matters involving generic regulatory )olicyl issues, and on the regulatory aspects-of generic operational and tecinical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility res)onsible for-constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in t1e United '

States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

NUMARC supports the proposed rule that would authorize the disposal of waste oil by incineration. We feel, however. that the following points. of:

clarification should be incorporated in the . final rule, o The discussion of the proposed rul'e states that "the incineration could be carried _out either in the-licensee's existing auxiliary-boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility.

specifically constructed for this purpose." The final ruitt should -

be clarified to state that mobile incinerators aay be used. .

o The typa of waste oil-'that can be incinerated under the proposed -

rule is not specifically defined. As presently stated,. the oil isJ to be " water immiscible: organic hydrocarbons used principally as: .

lubricants and_ hydraulic fluids." .The final rule should be clarified ,

to specify that- >

t

- _ synthetic oils can-be incinerated; cutting, penetrating, and other classes of oils can*be incinerated; and L

Samuel Chilk October 28, 1988 Page 2

- industry does not have to segregate materials that are non-waste oils (solvents, degreasers, grease, diesel fuels, etc.)

from the waste oil to be able to dispose of the waste oil in accordance with this rule. -

o The proposed rule states that the waste oil must have been

" contaminated in the course of operation of a nuclear power reactor."

The proposed rule should be amended to state that oils used in

" maintenance" at the plant can be incinerated.

o if a waste oil segregation program is required to separate organic oils from synthetics and maintenance cutting and penetrating oils from oils generated in operations, consideration should be given to a segregation program similar to the Environmental Protection Agency's for implementation of their hazardous waste burning rule.

In conclusion, we urge the Commission to adopt this rule in a timely manner incor) orating the above modifications so that this disposal option is

! provided wit 1 necessary and appropriate regulatory stability and certainty.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking.

Sincerely,

! Ot Y.M / .

Jo F. Colvin JFC:laf l

i

.w .e--. w - .e- - e , - . -, , -e = w ww

All'f-L b2/

DOCKEijtut'BE3 r)R o s4- ocre4-v /"' ,

so

  1. ' hb SM/h 566 fnz.na>wnf (bve.

ru _ v, e sa maor

'88 0C131 A11:23 x/coula . .s n..

docu.r..

c ua gg,g 48 gl77217t4dM'1 bh4 N3 **

gy, -bu , L> .

  • 20555 s say, w g 2 p a4t / [63 FR I 6'7 ' 3 2.'l i 4 ) Xe Metafa a ac a .ac ou n yms p.,gh ,,fuatgJr. &u cou , hvem& -""" y~ P

,pv du - w Atas* & : .

d $Act esnv Aadtetx< hew . <mab f..' '

, , 9 'b' m>& & d' Yo 4 ;E",'* '"'"

a w ,,,;,

c/w naca/AJ "d

& ;y yam <w an,d cq,j p+1&enA~6 gsi, y,imaxcw.

, _ 77w yaau- a-~< pee sdu.la.6, p-wa' usa y .

suuwsa ksw sim J d .be y%,, /nd Amy 9 % pca w A ,a a .v a 4 2 ,

a. .

du-pudnen

% & xc du waac a, w p p ,

Ancurash<a wsca's han

,cccUtw pularu' .Acarev .4' t el' y,2a.ctwn.ccm.}& ym ":

ap.

,wun y w._

ru p ~m couw pudu adur , As- p ~l- u u c u - t a k %

,,t?tahtc ,/ttest d M d ,

d, J$M4b67@b 2ff.

n-u r~ ,,,,a 2-

i

,my 2  :

Se.s

u. 5. Al. R. C

?.4 Ockber / 9 SP 3 TIw mucAbd ^*<r"~ M 2uP J*'u% f aby.za. t'a-cA A,u .sw' xAe a <to w A a m d l y y/

n/w maze ..nuvuJ n ac-cs y ,

.s .<y ascyu A uruste ,7>wc%w / RAG- A/u . ce<m1-rmd, '

} /o M er 9 :sou9 w . 4 .A 1<

m douu ns<.b d o n to 1 cLY AcuoA- .a f e,t J . O.Jtun.u .uv am'$,E$$$ CAtorx e zL& n an(Juw- m af

<rstecA<uweJ j/wnd4 u-asAaA- hwsuw" -x'de-a ct- .atsy A>v -

af'id& u ,h e m ( w d ^> d an s s -s_w. .

% g}& y zAe D. .C. @ h~,~,-g& f> ;tlu

,Acasa ma s g u. s. cAu , wg spat

>,en & op+ wyh p-

,etcchd ;fn ce

%> e Aca d n&

~ kJ Q %A wL cla ,vp a s b - u.3. cay a' ks M . .

w-my-uay

{ k*{ ET NRC-88-14 WPSC (414)4331590 TELECOPlf R 141414331297 EASYLINK 62091993

! ?.H i!

WISCONSIN PUSUC SERVICE CORPORATION '&

COO North Adams e PO Box 19002 o Green Bay.WI 54307 9002

'88 OCT 31 P12:22 97 MUMBER OD 1

" Til.cJl

. 1in__ p*3 6 (N n, , ,

"O

~0 F8 ~b&y/h ) . ;. n .

October 27, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Comments on Proposed Rule for Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration

References:

1) Federal Register Volume 53, No. 167, " Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration", dated August 29, 1988.

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) has reviewed the proposed rule regarding the disposal of waste oil by incineration as published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (reference 1) and is in general agreement with it.

The proposed rule would allow onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at nuclear power plants, subject to the following two conditions:

(1) the requirements of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50 would not be violated; and (2) any solid residues resulting from incineration must be disposed of in accordance with other applicable NRC regulations. Those conditions would require a revision to the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), a revision to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM), and inclusion of the quantities of radioactive effluents released as a result of incineration in the Sami-Ar.nual Effluent Release Report for the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP). However, these additional requirements are absolved by the resulting economic and environmental benefits.

At present, the only generically approved disposal method for slightly con-taminated waste oil is solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transport to a licensed disposal facility for burial. The proposed rule would provide several benefits, including: reservation of the limited capacity in licensed disposal sites for wastes with higher levels of activity; reduction of f $D Tf(j'

l' Document Control Desk October 27. 1988 Page 2 .

i

. costs currently associated with disposal of waste oils at' licensed disposal -l facilities; and reduction of the present administrative efforts necessary to  !

= acquire a license-amendment to incinerate waste oils onsite. Therefore, due to these economic and environmental benefits, WPSC is in favor of the proposed rule.

Sincerely, f

.4 /E-f p  :

C. R. Steinhardt '

Manager - Nuclear Power t.AS/jms cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC US NRC, Region !!!

i t

6 i

O V' au +9 t.

l-l l

I i

I:

nemt m w

..i...,........ ....,

P

'NYd .; ? *

" 1 53p4, n e s I w m=Q _ _ . ~ , ,

Nuclear Information and Resoured" swr 9iiis'6 142416th Street, N.W., suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036(202)3284 002 Ort :. . . ' ,

00Chlb" >t hy rw.

Nuclear Information and Rosourco Servico comments on NRC Proposed Rulo 10CFR20 Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration 53 Federal Register 167:32914 October 28, 1988 Nuclear Information and Rescurco Service opposes at-reactor incineration of waste oil. It is beneficial to surrounding communitics, and thout down wind and downstream that some operating reactors are not releasing as much radioactivity as their technical specifications allow. That accomplishment on behalf of the reactor operators should not be rowarded with permission to increase the offsito ammissions by allowing wasto oil to be burned onsite.

Citizens living around reactor sites should not be exposed to more radiation than is already being released. Any exposure to radiation increason the risks to the exposed population. Since the application for at-reactor incineration did not give specific information on doses to the public and levole of release to the environment, how does the NRC kncv that levels will be low Lnough to be under the technical specifications for all nuclear plante?

Further, as reactors ago, the amount of radiation routinely released could increace. - - -

There are unansworod questions about the synergistic effects of chemical and radioactivo exposures. Despito EPA's decision to deregulate the oil from hazardous waste regulation, there are chemicals present in the oil. If NRC is claiming that incineration of the oil will$iFm'o of those chemicals, specific temperatures must be maintained throughout the incineration. Some chemicals may not be dotwroyed but volatilized and liberated to the environment via incineration. The health offects of volatilized mixed hazardous and radioactive waste gases have not been adequately studied, estimated, and assessed.

l The ash that will result from incinoration of waste oils will l

likely bo hazardous wasto. If the ash that results currently (in the absence of waste oil) in the boilers, is not hazardous or radioactivo, this adds a now dimension to the wasto problem at reactors, namely disposal of hazardous / radioactive incinerator ash.

fQ\]Ok k '

E8 s., ..,. _ ~ ......-. - .~.

NIRS opponos the current trend toward deregulation of waste and increasing allowable exposures to radiation. By segmenting the

" low-level" waste stream into many different parts, and looking piecemeal at each segment alone, the Commission is attempting to justify deregulation and dispersal of nuclear wasta and radioactivity throughout the environment.

This proposal and the ensui.1g BRC application should be rejected.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and for your serious consideration of our position.

'( \

I

\j^

Diane D' Arr go

! Regulatory oversight Coordinator I

l l

l l

l t

i i

l l

i.

NIRS 53FR 167:32914 Comments pg.2 of 2 l

M ILl-t 0 t]

NC E T %'.! N E. ;p

. v . - , . .. ,1
p. 3
2 o

'(s.5PE5Mif) ,,

/ Q [ Pbftland GeneralBectricConpany C *88 - @ -4 A10 :00 David W. Cockhold Vice President. Nuclear j

ern. _ ~,

aGG. ..

ga j October 31, 1988 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN! Docketing and Service Branch Washington DC 20555 Dear Sirt Comments on Proposed Rulemaking,

" Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration",

Federal Rexister Volume 53. No. 167. Pato_32.9141 August 29, 1988 As the licensed operator of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, we have experience with the contaminated oil disposal issue. At Trojan, the contaminated oil is almost exclusively from the reactor coolant pumps, a prevalent source throughout the industry. Even though our contaminated oil inventory has boon historically low, we are concerned with the potential for the oil to be declared a " mixed waste" and thus limit its disposal via solidification and burial at the Hanford low-level waste disposal site. This has motivated us to ovaluate other disposal options.

Our conclusion is that onsite incineratio:i is the most logical disposal method when considering radiation protection, operational, engineering,-

and economic factors. Thus, wo are in strong agreement with the proposed rulemaking.

To further support. tho tenets of the rulemaking, we note that.:

  • A preliminary review by onsite engineering at Trojan indicates that. modification of the start-up boiler for burning the oil is-feasible and can be accomplished at reasonable cost.
  • The environmental impact is barely perceptible as analysis shows that the offsite dose is decados below the Trojan cumulative doso Technical Specification.11mit which is based on Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Part 50 (10 CFR 50),

Appendix I.

Our own industry survey provides convincing evidence that onsito inciner-ation is a preferred and practical disposal option for plants that have

. _ - gh b ,:, t hDeg.n97204

l Poftland Gonoral BecificCompany Secretary, USNRC October 31, 1988 Ear.e 2 both small and large contaminated oil inventories. If desired, we would be pleased to provide the Commission with the details of our ovaluative studies in support of the proposed rulemaking.

In conclusion, the proposed rulemaking is both logical and practicable.

We urge the comission to finalize the rulemaking in its present form and in doing so help ensure that the limited capacity of low-level waste disposal sites be used efficiently.

Sincerely,

/bV c: Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator. Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. R. C. Barr NRC Resident Inapactor Trojan Nuclear plant l

. n . . . . . a . : ,, m ,

~'Y'"W# E5FA3 +

Entzend Affairs (A.100AE) . '! - -

. Unit:d States Environmsnts Prottetson Washington DC 20460 - Ab< "-

Agency Federal Actives <

Ag ,-

1 OG g P( _1 oi3,,',M

'88 Ert-4 L A9:57 OCT I f 1988

4. r. _ l

< Mr. Samuel J. Chilk DOCht'y.. . #-

Secretary of the Commission ' '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;'

Washington, DC 20555 _.

Attn Docketing and Service Branch  ::

Dear Mr. Chilk In accordance with Section 309 of the' Clean' Air Act, the U.S.

Environmental. Protection Agency has . reviewed the- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory a. I Connaission's proposed- rule f or the Disposal of Waste _011 by Incineration.

(53 FA 32914). We recommend that NRC clarify two matters that relate:to-EPA's programs.

-First, the incineration of waste oil may require a permit under the  !

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-(RCRA). .If.the oil-exhibits a-hazardeus characto istic and is treated by incineration, 40 CFR 264 ,

applies.' If the. waste oil is burned f or energy. recovery, 40 CFR 266; applies. Some states have listed waste oil as a hazardous wastei and .in-thoes states, a RCRA permit to incinerate waste oil must.belobtained by '

NRC's licensees. Further, the ash af ter incineration needs-' to: be-monitored for heavy. metals, such as cadmium and arsenic, to determir-whether the ash is also subject to regulation' under RCRA' because- of a hazardous waste characteristic.

't Second, NRC's licensees must obtain approval f or the release of airborne radionuclides in compliance with the Clean' Air Act._ These- ,

regulations are f ound at 40 CFR 61. The.NRC notice and proposed rule - ' -

should be modified to reflect 'the need f or an- EPA approval to construct or modify the f acility f or the air emissions of radionuclides.'- '

Both of those potential permit issues should be ' discussed in NRC's r Final Notice and Rule. If we may be of.further assistance-to the Commission ataf f, please contact Dr. 'W. Alexander Williams -(382-5909) of :

my staff..

Sincerely, p

.2 ) .

Richard E.'Sanderson  ;

Director-Office of Federal Activitics ~

C" '"

l f

DOCKET NUMBfR p M-PROPOSED RULL a

  • 53W 3M/g A 6-PUBIlCGnm W Buyers Up D Congtron Watch a Critkal Mase D Heahh neqn&YUlsa$th Yn p

. :t2 J;, Novembe@l8,

..,,..p-1908 l

SecretLtt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir / Madam ,

I am writing on behalf of the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen in order to comment on the proposed NRC regulation (53 FR 167:32914-32919) to allow on-site incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed n>Jclear .

power plants.

Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to address a wide range of consumer and environmental issues. Critical Mass is the energy policy arm of Public Citizen.

We are opposed to the proposed regulation,.and believe that utilities should not be granted free license to incinitate-radioactive waste oil. We are especially concerned because of the context in which this. is apparently being considered.

According to the Federal Register.notico cited above, "The commission is currently considering this issue in the context of a potential policy statement that would identify a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes unwarranted" (p. 32916), and elsewhere (p. 32918) "the waste oil l is a potential candidate for being declared a 'below regulatory concern' (BRC) waste." -

We object on procedural grounds to-the proposed regulation.

The issue of whether to declare a BRC policy has not yet been resolved. The proposed regulation would constitute,.however, a.

de facto declaration of radioactive waste oil as a BRC waste -- .

before BRC has even been adopted as a policy. .It is unacceptable, in our opinion, to begin surreptitiously impl'ementing a policy piccomeal before it has been debated and

, adopted as a policy per so. We therefore urge on these lL procedural grounds that, at a mini F A, 'the BRC issue be addressed and resolved in full as a matter of policy before the incineration of waste oil is considered.

Further, because we object on substantive grounds .to the general concept of wastes being declared "below regulatory concern," we object to the proposed regulation on substantive-grcands as well. As we bas s reminded the Commission in the past, 215 Pennsylmnia Ave. SE D Washington, DC 20003 D (202) 540-4996 k~gU A.

Q

- _ . ~ - . - . - . _ - - ~ - - - - - . . __ _ -

i November 18, 1988 paga 2 there is a large body of scientific evidence and much agreement l among scientists that there is no level of radiation exposure ,

which can be considered safe. In light of such evidence, we believe the Commission would be abrogating its responsibility to protect public health and safety if it were to completely exempt any class of radioactive waste from regulatory control.

Even if the scientific evidence did point to a level of radiation exposure below which 'there was no health risk (which it does not), it still would not follow that establishing a category ,

of radioactive waste "below regulatory concern" (BRC) would be an ,

acceptable regulatory policy. Since with such a policy there would be no accounting of where and in what quantity DRC wastes were disposed of, they could literally end up anywhere, andcthe Commission would lose the ability to control the level of cumulative exposure experienced by the public -- which, in public health terms, is what matters. Thus, even if there were a " safe" level of exposure to radiation, a DRC-policy would provide no way to guarantee that such a level would not be exceeded. Given the absence of any real scientific evidence of such a level in the ,

first place, a BRC declaration for radioactive wastes cannot, in our opinion, be justified by an agency entrusted with protecting the public health.

The proposed regulation to allow the incineration of radioactive waste oils is juntified by the NRC on the grounds that the increase of radioactive effluents (and therefore the risks to the environment and to public health) will be slight and I

the benefits to the utilities involved (in terms of disposal costs) and to the Commission (in terms of seved paperwork) will be great. Such reasoning la an example of the irresponsible iden that there exist levels of waste which can be considered "below ,

regulatory concern."

L bn these substantive grounds, as well on the aforementioned procedural grounds, we urge that the Commission reject the proposed regulation.

l l

Sincerely, Scott Saleska Nuclear Waste Policy Analyst Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen

000KET NUMBER hiOPOSED RULE N -- do 4 cuoto

, -- (83FA.327/[J 03HitC g g 27 P2 '*23 SCIENTIF!C ECOLOGY GROUP, INC. crnctOfSE $, $[

" gcA[InkG A M< AHLH k n.+ ' . 1990 ,

Ms. At br-rir $ W . M aan fu; mar bgc ntnry ?cm nsion Offica of Rarujntory liesehron

@mhinacro, R C 4%

-- m m a t.w

Thia Htt er a - f ^ r* rnw m t p liac ,mr R?rulatory Commission (NRC)

Pror4a in11r ;qn: . ord Aucunt 3. 1DP in the l% fora.l Rey. inter, pago 32814, s wen: u + ,. . , - - n.g t he nJi. son .'. W iric instituto and Utility Nuclear

',Om t e " sin w..my . +

up r.npent tng  ;,r nner tar the onsito fncinerAtion of ow :avoj radie 11;" rnothminwien +1.

'"he  ; r l . n t : 4 h .q, imup nc . :iEG ) la the lattest Procearior of r4diortivo unnta in t:he United States and vould llhe to offer commenta and An ordSto on 1he avM ! < bin net hndn t y whwh esdiolacically conteminated oils are r,'U rrent r y t -) l' ' 9t + t .4d f ".i t Ill bf- $h i VClr9~1vw and imner ateo ryh net i ve iile. .

Qti doen uct receive nile (hat are W ard w uwstr n voordAnce u i t b ;0t"pR ';Gl . hew ver, the varst majority

+ hr- 'i;A Nnerated t.y Nurlear Power Pleu;t a arn not hAr.ardous waste, y,q yg tyn i .1 4 v,. teen iherm.!;y i%trxi s I by .;8G a wo Msiy 1988, ]n i ,.. .m t e. n ttw3 '?r; nthenced inciner8 tion at li l in the netton'a only

%)i w a ve r. t ," r ' ' , a inrinerator < t n.rua r"i ll iy avr. i l a b l e . Th+ rrc. cess of 4 .a : , , . I- ,

70. ;r ,,i t h ,r i ten by 'he %Viron! rental
- r -v ~ !
<>n ,cen4 T el-A ) , :.t A t e 37 T"unenne* Div ulon u RSdiological Haslth
t. n l + t a ran w ns dvicton nf Air Ped lotion Control, "EG has prnevar+d in 1; -i2. mi o e r:
  • i :9 o picity tr, proviNA thlJ Mrvt'" in t ill nt t ha liuc j 'ar l' QUAR Plante.

Tw. o u.r r er i . m u t. i ut -i . t J< i , 3ro 1.oinc. o;-t to jrneoas oil:3 for-e;l th+ r mioana o :ispnaal. The firnt procesa involves the removal of isotopic

nnstituenta trom t he oil resulting in the lowering of the total activity to what the proceaeor advertisen as teing releasable- for unrectricted use. SEG dona not uaa this technique because no regulatory baain exist to support this proctica without afecific regulatory agency pproval. The encond method of prcceasing oil involves the " solidification" of the oil and the disposal at a licenaed low-level radioactive waata dinpocal alte of the resultant monolith.

This method increases the volume of rnteriala buried and does not remove the c on r.ateral f.nm the envire,nm nt. Additions 117, the met .f ud a tethod f1'C 'u ath a pr s ' Sing And diupODhl COST la in OKCe33 Of the option tO incinerate.

~

D f()h a P O. Bcm 2530 1560 Bear Ocek Rd. Ook Ridge, Tennence 37R31-9530 (615)481 4229

o -.

l 1

Ms. Catherine R. Mstteen June 1, 1990 ,

Page 2 A

The reoposed rulemaking implien that the only options to on-site incineration are to maintain a atatue quo or wait for the EPA -to establish release -

criteria. SEC's position la t hat the statua quo hne not- heen maintained and an apprcved economical aterosal method is already in une and availablo.

If CEG can provide *seistance t.o the NRC or the petitleners in this matter please contact nit ner Dri Arrwemith or rm.

Sincerely

'/ '

R1 W.M. Hi sher Director Regulatory and Technical Servicea WH/ho RTS-90-030R e

5

-J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20128C383&oldid=2897188"