ML20128C526
| ML20128C526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1992 |
| From: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Bernero R, Gillespie F, Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B192 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-040, AC14-2-40, NUDOCS 9302040050 | |
| Download: ML20128C526 (74) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A C W - 2.
i 3
- asav g
i' '
P[ n UNITED STATES Off0 E
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
c, '
[
WASHINGTON. D C 20Sf4
%, e.. * /
JUL 101992 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank P. Gillespie, Director Program Management, Policy Development & Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel for Licensing and Regulations Office of the General Counsel Carlton C. Kammerer, Director Office of State Programs Joseph J. Fouchard, Director Office of Public Affairs FROM:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director for Generic Issues and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE Oll AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS The purpose of this memorandum is to obtain reconcurrence in the final rule allowing incineration of waste oil onsite at nuclear power plants.
This final rule has been previously concurred in by your offices, but has recently been updated after being held in abeyance because of a moratorium on actions responding to petitions for "below regulatory concern" exemptions. Although the provisions of the rule are unchanged since your previous concurrence, much time has passed since these were obtained and updating of the discussion in various parts of the package were required.
1.
Titig:
" Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration" t
2.
RLS Task Leader: -Catherine R. Mattsen, DRA/RES i
(492-3638) 1 3.
Coonizant Individuals: NRR: Steve Klementowicz NMSS: Nick Orlando SP: Kathy Schneider L
9302040050 930129 PDR PR 20 57FR37649 PDR
i JUL 101992 2
i 4.
Reouested Action:
Review and concur 5.
Reauested Comoletion Date: July 29, 1992 6.
Eltkataund:
This rule was initiated in response to a petition submitted by 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.
This final rule, however, would only allow onsite incineration of waste oil at power plants under existing effluent control requirements established under Appendix 1 to Part 50 and under Part 20.
In spite of this, because the rule responded to a "below regulatory concern" petition, it was placed on hold along with other actions related to implementation of the BRC policy in April of last year.
By SRM dated April 15, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with this rulemaking. As noted in the transmittal memo to EDO, the package has been updated with respect to a number of actions by EPA and to reflect the continued moratorium on the BRC policy.
A copy of the package with margin marking indicating areas that have been revised is provided for convenience in review.
7.
This rule will have an insignificant effect on resources.
A copy of this concurrence package has been forwarded to the Office of the Controller for coordination of resource issues per the E00 memorandum of June 14, 1991.
M.c C.
Heltemes r., Deputy Director Generic I ues and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Memo Beckjord to Taylor "C:
R. M. Scroggins
- ga"%g?+%
0i y
UNITED STATES
- 3. W / i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
[
W ASHtNGTON, D C. 206%
y..w.**f MEMORAliDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Of fice of fluclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FitlAL RULE TO ALLOW OllSITE It1ClfiERAT10!1 0F SLIGHTLY C0flTAMitlATED WASTE Oil AT 110 CLEAR POWER REACTORS Enclosed is the updated final rule package on incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants. The final rule had been completed and sent to your office on October 5, 1990.
After the addition of information-obtained from licensees with license amendments allowing waste oil incineration, requested by Hugh Thompson, the rule was resubmitted March 21, 1991.
Subsequently, the rule was put on hold by the Commission along with all actions responding to below regulatory concern (BRC) petitions, in the SRM of April 15, 1992, responding to SECY-92-045, the Commission directed the staff to again move forward with the waste oil rule and to emphasize that the incineration is to be allowed under pre-existing effluent limits and that the rule does not constitute implementation of the BRC policy.
Although this action falls within your rulemaking authority set forth in 10 CFR 1.31 (c), the Commission has previously indicated that rulemaking actions on requests for exemptions of specific waste streams shall be subject to Commission approval.
The enclosure contains the rule package consisting of the following items:
1.
The Commission paper; 2.
A Federal Register notice of the final rule (Enclosure 1);
3.
The Regulatory Analysis (Enclosure 2);
4.
A draft Congressional letter (Enclosure 3);
5.
The Enviror, mental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (Enclosure 4); and 6.
Draf t public announcement (Enclosure 5).
Although the provislocs of the final rule are unchanged from the versions sent to your office previously, the discussion had to be revised in numerous placas to reflect the current situation with respect to recent EPA actions, the status of ths BRC policy, and other minor matters.
The rule text was changed
2 l
to revise both il 20.305 and 20.2004,: but not i 20.1008, the implementation paragraph, because of the change in organization of revised Part 20. With respect to EPA actions, the rule package has been changed to reflect the following*
1.
On September 23, 1991. EPA published a summary of newly collected data on toxic contaminants in used-oil by category of generator. The publication of this data permitted assessment of the effect of EPA regulations-published March _29, 1990, dealing with tests for toxicity, on the quantity of waste oil likely to be identified as hazardous; 2.
On May 20, 1992, EPA published a new delisting decision for'used oil destined for disposal; and 3.
In general, EPA has made considerable progress since the proposed rulec in developing regulations to control the health and safety impact from the toxic constituents'of used oil.
In addition, the discussion in a response to comment has been revised to recognize that the industry has been developing decontamination techniques for removing radioactive contaminants, to undetectable levels, allowing shipment offsite for recycle.
Note:
An additional copy of_the package is provided with margin mark ups indicating where changes have been made from the version previously provided to you.
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety. and
. Safeguards, Administration, State Programs, and Public Affairs have concurred in the updated rule package.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
The CRGR had previously declined to review the rule.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
As stated'
- t
-w.c
-m 4-...
..-..<u E
i.-.
m.
.. m.
- _ _ _ __. - m 3
to revise both 66 20.305 and 20.2004, but not i 20.1008, the implementation paragraph, because of the change in organization of revised Part 20.
With respect to EPA actions, the rule package has been changed to reflect the
. following:
1.
On September 23, 1991 EPA published a summary of newly collected data on toxic contaminants in used oil by category of generator.
The publication of this data permitted assessment of the effect of EPA regulations published March 29, 1990, dealing with tests for toxicity, on the quantity of waste oil likely to be identified as hazardous; 2.
On May 20, 1992, EPA published a new delisting decision for used oil destined for disposal; and
)
3.
In general, EPA has made considerable progress _since the proposed rule-
'j in developing regulations to control the health and safety impact from the toxic constituents of used oil.
In addition, the discussion in a response to comment has been revised to recognize that the industry has been developing decontamination techniques for-
_ i removing radioactive contaminants, to undetectable levels, allowing shipment offsite for recycle.
Note:. An additional upy of the packagm is provided with margin mark ups indicating where c'enges have been made from the version previously provided r
to you.
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Administration, State Programs, and Public Affairs have concurred l
in the updated rule package.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
The CRGR had previously declined to review the rule.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director
~
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
As stated See next page for Distribution
. 0ffC:RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA DD:DRA D:DRA DD:RES i
NAME:CMattsen:es RMeck DCool NCostanzi' BMorris CJHeltemes DATE:
/ /92
/ /92-
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 0FFC:0:RES NAME:EBeckjord DATE:
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY w
y-y
,w-,
e-.,
---,,,nn,n.
,,a
,-..n._
__..,_.__L._-__.__-_______L-__._i_
.~
4 D151f11BUT10N:
RPHEB R/F - DCool Cir,/Chron EBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris (Rm-102)
NCostanzi RMeck CMattsen
- 1 i
I Ear:
The Commissioners Etag:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub.iect:
-FINAL RULE. 10 CFR PART 20, " DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION" - RESPONSE TO PRM FROM EDIS0N ELECTRIC INSTITUTE AND THE UTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP Purnose:
To obtain Commission approval of a notice of final rulemaking allowing nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment.
Backaround:
As indicated in the proposed rule and as required in this final rule, the incineration operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits on total release of radiological effluents, established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20-and Part 50, Appendix-1.
It will also be subject to any other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous-property of these materials. 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 ;s denied without prejudice on the basis of inadequ?te information.
This action falls within established Commission policy as set forth in 10 CFR 1.31(c) 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 CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen, RES 492-3638 4
e.e-
The Commissioners 2
f 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 concentrations 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 i
existing operating effluent limits determined to be "as low as is reasonably achievable." Since incineration of waste oil under this final rule would be simply an additional process to be included in an existing regulatory framework for effluents, this final rule does not change-regulatory control over the release of effluents or the required environmental monitoring that is involved.
Therefore, this action is not considered a below regulatory concern-rulemaking.
Discussion:
The Edison Electric Institute-(EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste 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 A
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 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 prov_isions of it 20.302 and 20.305 or il 20.2002 and 20.2004.- 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 i
individual plant. technical specifications, which have been -
1 established under Part 20 and Appendix 1 to Part 50.
A_1though actual effluents may increase slightly, the. total amount of effluents released will not be allowed to exceed the existing ALARA-based limits established under Appendix I and, therefore, the health and safety'of the public will still be adequately protected.
Eachlicense~ewillberequiredto-prepareandretainths following types of records in accordance with applicable NRC record retention requirements:
(1) a description of I
I 1
The Commissioners 3
I i
equipment, facilities, and procedures that will be used to collect. store, determine the radionuciide content of, and incinerate waste oils; and (2) the results of the radiological and other analyses of each batch of waste oil incinerated which demonstrate that effluents from this -
operation are maintained at levels below existing plant operating limits established under Part 50 in Appendix I and 6 50.36a.
The first part of the information will be submitted to the Commission under i 50.71(e) as a change to the FSAR since it represents a change to the information submitted under i 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 6 50.34a.in the original license application. A summary of the changes and safety evaluation will also be required by 6 50.59.
The second part will be_ reported under existing effluent reporting requirements (i 50.36a(a)(2)).
In response to the proposed rule, comment letters were received 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.
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 comments on the proposed rule was to make the definition of-the types of oils which could_be burned somewhat less restrictive.
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 ef fluent s.
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. Additional detail has also been provided concerning the potential impacts from toxic constituents.
The proposed rule has referred to EPA's preference for burning of used oil (which destroys most of the organic toxicants) over land disposal generally, and it was assumed that the toxic impacts of used oil would be minimized by incineration.
However, since EPA has not
The Commissioners 4
analyzed the impacts from burial of waste oil at a LLW burial ground in particular, the staff reviewed EPA analyses (of a worst case burning scenario) to evaluate the impacts of releases of toxic constituents during burning of used oil onsite at nuclear power plants and concluded that they would be insignificant.
Consideration of these various potential impacts has not changed any of the basic conclusions reached Dy 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.
The staff has reviewed the experience ~ of licensees who have been authorized by technical specification or license condition to incinerate waste oil onsite.
Information concerning such. experience is contained in Appendix A to -
this paper. A discussion concerning the request in_the SRM of August 3,1988, to reconsider PRM-20-15 after the issuance of the BRC policy is 'also' included in Appendix A.
fA0.r_dination:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
Resources:
This rule may have a minor effect on resources-in NRR depending on how many i 20.302 (or 6:20.2002) license amendments would have been sought which will no longer be needed and how many licensees decide to use the incineration option who would not have without this rule.
These minor effects on resources cannot be projected but are not anticipated to be significant.
Thus, the present resource allocations contained in the FY 1993-1997 Five -Year Plan need not be adjusted.
Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
" Approve the final rule revising 10 CFR 20.305 and 20,2004, as set forth in the draft Federal Re.gj.tt.g.t notice (Enclosure 1);
2.
Certify that-this final rule will not< have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory _ Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b);
3.
Note that:
a.
The rule will be published -in the Federal Reaister and will be effective upon publication in accordance with 6 553(d)(1) of the-Administrative Procedure Act;
h The Commissioners 5
b.
The remainder of the petition has been denied through this rulemaking; c.
The revision _ to il 20.305 and '20.2004 does not exempt resulting effluents from compliance with -
existing discharge limits established at each plant in accordance with Parts 20 and 50, Appendix 1; d.
Nothing in this action will preclude or otherwise prejudice further Commission actions on petitions to exempt certain waste streams from requirements. for. disposal ~ at low level waste burial grounds.
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.
Existing requirements have been; 3501 et seq.)he Office of. Management and Budget approved by t approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014; f.
Appropriate Congressional conmittees 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 Federal Reaister notice will be distributed-by ADM to affected licensees, interested members of the public, and the petitioners; i.
A public announcement (Enclosure 5) will be issued when the final rule is published in the Federal Reaister; 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 1 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, the preparation of-
The Commissioners 6
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The Environmental Assessment and finding of No Significant impact was published in the Federal Reg 111er, 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 at 32917).
Minor modifications have been made to reflect the additional discussion of toxic impacts in the areamble of the final rule which responded to pualic comment. The revised assessment is provided as Enclosure 4.
Both the original and revised assessments concluded that the incineration 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 substantially different from those impacts previously considered during individual reactor licensing hearings.
The staff has reviewed the assessment, considered the public comments and the changes in the text of the final rule, and concluded that the finding of no significant impact need not be changed; 1.
This amendment dees 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 5.
Draft Public Announcement
The' Commissioners 6
5 an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The Environmental Assessment and 1
Finding of No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Reaister, 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 at 32917). Minor modifications have been made to reflect the additional discussion of toxic impacts in the areamble of the final rule which responded to pu)1ic comment. -The revised assessment is provided as Enclosure-4.
Both the original and revised assessments concluded that the incineration of ty)ical waste oils would not result in impacts to t1e health and safety of the aublic or the quality of the environment whici are substantially different from those impacts previously considered during-individual reactor licensing hearings. The staff has reviewed the assessment, considered the public comments and the changes in the text of the final rule, and concluded that the finding of no' significant impact need not be changed; 1.
This amendment does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit analysis is not required.
James H. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Reaister Notice 5.
Draft Public Announcement 2.
Regulatory Analysis See next page for Distribution.
3.
Draft Congressional-Letter Note prior concurrences on previous 4.
Environnental Assessment and Finding version.
of No Significant Impact 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA DD:DRA D:DRA DD/GIR:RES NAME:CMattsen:tib RMeck DCool NCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes DATE:
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
- / /92
/ /92 0FFC:D:RES OGC NRR NMSS PA NAME:EBeckjord WParler TMurley RBernero JFouchard DATE:
/ i92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/. /92 0FFC:SP ADM OC EDO NAME:CKammerer PNorry RScroggins JTaylur.
DATE:
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92
/ /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
+--1P'
+
wwo aamam
__m_m______m-__-_-.-_-_-___.a_m______am-_,______-
a
The Commissioners 7.
DISTRIBUTION:
Cool
' RPHEB R/F Cir./Chron~
l JTaylor, EDO RScroggins, OC PNorry, ADM CKammerer, SP JFouchard, PA DRathbun, CA-i RBernero, NMSS TMurley, NRR WParler, 0GC EBeckjord CJHeltemes-t BMorris NCostanzi RMeck CMattsen f
R
+
w g
v
-s-ee w
N,-
--->,N-s u
v n
a
~e-,--
- +,---
~
a-w-
APPENDIX A The staff has~ surveyed the seven licensees who have received authorization for onsite incineration of contaminated waste 011. At the time, in late 1990, oniy one licensee was incinerating contaminated waste. oil onsite, although two or three others had done so in the past.
The data from these licensees support the assumption that doses likely to be received by the public from incineration of waste oil under this rule would be a small fraction of the overall dose limits established under Appendix 1 of Part 50.
For example, those licensees with a technical specification change are-limited to 0.1 percent of their overall dose limit. -One licensee has burned all of its waste oil and has no difficulty in meeting this limit.
Another that violated this technical specification limit through an administrative error was still less than 1 percent of the overall limit. Another licensee who burned oil under a one time f. 20.302 approval estimated that doses did not exceed 1 vrem.
Five licensees who have continuing authority to incinerate waste oil onsite were not doing so because of one or more of the following factors:
(1) restrictive State dir emission standards governing toxic releases, (2) authorization from an Agreement-State to incinerate the waste oil.at a fossil fuel plant, (3) limited use of the auxiliary boiler making iti use for waste oil incineration not cost effective, (4) concern about contaminating the auxiliary systems,-and (5) successt'ul use of de m tamination processes.
1 APPENDIX A y,.=..
,e
_,n~,.-
.%-,.~-h__
a _ ". _ _,
-u wmm---
m m m-
- =
.... m
+
-,wwe-e--m<-+-
l With regard to releases of oil as " clean" or nonradioactive, liRR and the Regions have recently become aware of licensees inappropriately using the lower limits of detection (LLD) for effluents (contained in the technical specifications) to classify oil as ncnradioactive'.
Using effluent LLD's, licensees have disposed of oil by onsite incineration, shipped oil to a fossil fuel plant, or recycled it as industrial used oil.
In one instance, a few years ago, a civil penalty was issued to a licensee because a waste oil recycler had reconstituted oil thus concentrating radioactive contaminants to greater than the effluent LLD.
liRR and the Regions ha;e been informing licensees that this application of the effluent LLD is not appropriate since the oil could be released to the environment without dispersal, flRR and the Regions have, however, accepted the use of the environmental measurement LLD's for detecting radioactive material in waste oil.
The industry has been pursuing the use of decontamination techniques for the disposal of oil but information put out by the industry (Electric Power Research Institute) suggests that although decontamination processes were considered cost-effective when the goal was reducing concentrations to below the effluent LLD, it is uncertain whether it is cost-effective or even achievable to reduce levels below the more restrictive environmental LLD's.
'LLD's for the measurement of radioactivity in effluents to air and water, and for the measurement of radioactivity in the environment have been established to provide for uniform practice in detection capability and were based on practical considerations concerning the measurement processes appropriate for each type of assessment. Effluents are generally measured at the discharge point (in stacks or pipes) and are generally dispersed prior to reaching members of the public.
In contrast, environmental contaminants are measured directly from the environment.
The concentrations of radioactive contaminants acceptable in the environment are much lower, so that more sensitive measurement techniques are required.
Thus, LLD's for environmental measurements have been established at lower concentrations than LLD's for effluent measurements.
2 APPEtlDIX A
The degree to which the recognition of the inappropriateness of the effluent LLD for this application impacts specific licensees and the degree of relief this rule may provide will vary considerably because of differences in quantities and concentrations being generated and differences in applicable State regulations.
For example, et Vermont Yankee, use of environmental LLD's resulted in cessation of burning waste oil which had been previously carried out becauce the oil was considered " clean" using the effluent LLn.
In this case, State regulations classify used oil as hazardous but in a category for which burning in a boiler is permitted.
Using a detection capability equivalent to the environmental LLD caused the waste oil to be reclassified as mixed waste. As a mixed wast e, however, it cannot be disposed at a LLW burial f acility; thus, the licensee's disposal options in that state are limited.
In addition, EPA is developing regulations applicable to used oil which will likely impact disposal options.
Although it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether incineration will be the best option for many of the licensees, the staff believes it is important to provide flexibility in the disposal of used oil to the extent possible given the information availabic. As discussed in the environmental assessment, incineration of oil onsite eliminates risks from transportation and will likely reduce the storage of oil and the inherent risks of storing a radioactive, toxic, and flammable liquid. However, further relief in the future may be desirable through an exemption or resolution of the mixed waste problem.
3 APPENDIX A
When the proposed rule was approved, the Commission requested that the petition to which this rule responded (PRM-20-15) be revisited by the staff as a proposal for a BRC exemption af ter the approval of a generic BRC policy.
Although use of the policy has been placed in indefinite moratorium, the staff had reconsidered this petition af ter completion of the policy.
This rule simply provides authorization of a specific process, onsite incineration, the effluents from which will be controlled and reported under all existing requirements governing other effluents from the plants, This rule sets no new limits for releases from regulatory control.
By comparison, a BRC exemption 9
would set new, separate limits applicable to all sites. The petition dcas not contain sufficient information to support an exemption for waste oil, s
Further, sufficient information is not currently available to enable an evaluation of the petitioners' requests.
For example, in the case of other disposal options suggested by the petitioners in addition to onsite incineration, the most difficult concern to address would be the impacts from toxic constituents.
EPA is still in the process of developing regulations governing used oil.
Evolving EPA regulations may prohibit some disposal alternatives or provide a basis for the analysis of impacts from other means of disposal.
Further discussion of other alternatives appears in the regulatory analysis.
Even for onsite incineration, in order to set a separate generic limit for waste oil, consideration of the regulatory separation of effluents to the same pathway as other effluents would be needed.
4 APPENDIX A
/
Furthermore, the pathway modeling required to set generic concentration-limits for a BRC exemption would likely yield unnecessarily restrictive limits because of compounding conservatism.needed to take into account local conditions at all existing and future facilities and the. variety of equipment--
and procedures which could be used. A site specific analysis, which is needed in reporting doses in accordance with this rule, will-better determine actual resulting doses. - A separate dose limit applicable to incineration of waste.
oil is not considered-necessary, would be arbitrary without furthar information and analysis, and would be inconsi: tent with the approach for regulating other effluents from the plants. The staff-believes that, given the existing regulations governing effluents applicable to nuclear-power 1
plants, the approach of this rule is preferable to a specific limit governing waste oil incineration, i
l i
i q
t
\\
)
a i
4
)
5 APPENDIX A 4
r
([7509-01]l l
.i q
4
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 RIN:
3150-AC14 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration-AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to permit the onsite incineration.7 contaminated waste oils generated at-licensed nuclear power plants without amending existing operating-licenses, This action will help to ensure that the limited capacity of : licensed regional low-level waste burial grounds is used more efficiently-while maintaining-
- releases from 9perating nuclear power plants at levels which are "as low as is-reasonably achievable."
Incineration of this class of waste must.be' carried out in full compliance with Commission regulations which-restrict-the release of radioactive materials to the environment that are currently in force at.
each operating nucleer power plant and any other Federal, Stat (, or local requirements related_ to the toxic _ or hazardous characteristics of the waste oil.
This rule constitutes a partial granting of a petition for _rulemaking (PRH-20-15) submitted by Edisan-Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste-1 ENCLOSURE 1 i
1
. i
. u
b
- [7504-01]
Management Group.
The remaining portions of PRM-20-15 are denied-without.-
prejudice.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(insert publication date)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen, 0ffice ~.of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC-20555, Telephone:
(301) 492-3638.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background-The Petition The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group filed a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) with the Commission on ' 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.
The Commission requested.
comment on the petition in the. Federal Register on September 9, 1984 (49 FR 36653).
The petitioners suggested that an appropriat'e basis-for-. establishing a cutoff level. for determining whether specific waste streams were below regulatory concern would be-that-the direct release of the specific waste streams to the environment would not result-in a dose to an individual member of the general public greater than 1 mrem /yr.
The' petitioner recommended that 2
ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01]
using a 1 mrem /yr limit, alternative disposal methods, including (1) on-or offsite incineration, (2) on-or _offsite burial, (3) road stabilization (spraying), and (4) recycling, could be considered viable alternatives to land burial.
The Commission received fourteen comment letters on the petition.
All but one of the commenters supported the idea of exempting slightly contaminated waste oil from the requirements for disposal at a low-level waste disposal site and most supported the petition in its entirety.
Consideration of the comments received on the petition contributed to the Commission decision to provide some relief through an alternative disposal method.
i On August 29, 1988, the Commission published in the Federal Register (53 FR 32914) a proposed rule to_ amer.d its regulations to allow onsite incineration of contamintted waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants without the need to apply for a specific license amendment.
As summarized below, that Federal Register notice also proposed to deny the remaining features of the petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.
The other alternative disposal methods suggested by the petitioners appear to have acceptably low radiological impacts.
However, as indicated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, adequate information was not available to evaluate the acceptability of these disposal methods.
The NRC has not reccived information during the interim that would alleviate this deficiency.
In addition, the proposed rule indicated a number of other considerations that limit the desirability of the other alternatives in relation to onsite incineration.
These considerations include --
3 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01]
1.
Some of the toxic constituents contained in waste oil-would be.
destroyed through incineration but not through other proposed disposal methods; 2.
The concentrations of radionuclides in ash or sludge may be too high to exempt an offsite incinerator or recycling center from requirements for a radioactive materials license; 3.
An offsite incinerator or recycling center might handle waste oil from multiple reactors which could potentially result in higher impacts which were not fully analyzed by the petitioner; and
~
4.
Landfill disposal would require much of the same processing and handling as low-level waste burial and would produce smaller risk and cost savings than incineration.
Therefore, the NRC is granting the petitioners' request only with respect to onsite incineration.
The NRC denies the remainder of PRM-20-15 without prejudice for the reasons noted in the proposed rule and summarized in this discussion.
This completes NRC action on PRM-20-15.
The Proposed Rule According to the rule, both as proposed and as now being adopted, incineration of waste oil would be carried out under existing effluent limits and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The rule is intended to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This approach will preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites, reduce the costs of waste disposal at licensed low-level waste burial sites, and eliminate a less desirable waste form at the 4
ENCLOSURE 1
~ _. _
-(7509-01]_
sites-thereby.potentially reducing long-term maintenance costs for disposal sites.
The rule will-reduce fire hazards from storage of oil and risks inherent in transportation.
Some recovery of energy _may also result.and-_ risks-from the toxic hazards of waste-oil may be reduced.
Note:
the proposed rule presented an amendment to i 20.305.- Section-20.305 is being replaced by 9 20.2004 by the major revision of Part 20 published May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360).
Thus, this final rule amends;both il 20.305 and 20,2004.
A specific feature of the rule (contained in i 20.305(b)(3) as well as in i 20.2004(b)(3) of the final rule) supersedes previous provisions in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent with this rule.
The rule does not exempt licensees from-the requir_ement to -
comply with applicable' Commission regulations.
Specifically, licensees _must-comply with the effluent release limitations of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I.
The rule, in Il 20.305(b)(1) and 20.2004(b)(1), has been.
clarified to reflect the requirement to comply: not only with.Part 50,.
Appendix I-based effluent limitations but also to comply with the Part 20--
based effluent limitations contained in applicable license conditions 'other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil.
Other-restrictions in license conditions or technical specifications on -incineration which are not consistent with the provisions of this. rule,--such as for example,-provisions which prohibit the onsite incineration of waste oil, will be eliminated from existing licenses.
The rule makes the requirements for-incineration consistent among all licenses, without the need for license amendment on an individual plant basis.
In particular, the rule eliminates'-
5 ENCLOSURE 1
(7509_-01);
- the need for. amendments to. identify any_ new release points:or. specificL sampling methods and ' removes any license conditions'or technical specification-
- restrictions from licensees ~ already authorized to-incinerate oil which would-
- not otherwise be. applicable under the rule, such as for example,~ restrictions-that limit effluents from onsite incineration to _a specific fraction of total effluent releases. At the same time, the rule does not alter the requirement:
to comply with total. radiological effluent release limits contained--in facility technical specifications since such limits implement the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.
Analysis of Comments In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received comments' 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 comments may be examined and copied-for a fee at the Commission'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 itLwith some questions or comment.
Two others gave comments without specifically.
supporting or-opposing the rule.
Most of the coma. enters opposed to the rulemaking simply expressed concern about the ' health ef fects 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 6
ENCLOSURE 1 T'-
v i w
-T-m
.--a
[7509-01]
not be a consideration at all. One commenter suggested shutting down the nuclear industry or at least not licensing any new plants.
One commenter was opposed to the trend of deregulation and increasing allowable exposures.
Another specifically warned the Commission not to invite public criticism.
One commenter 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 f acto BRC regulation which should not precede the debate and adoption of a BRC policy.
Many of these comments were outside the scope of the rulemaking and reflected views of the commenters.
No technical data or other supporting information was provided. The Commission believes that the impacts of incineration of waste oil are likely to be insignificant.
In any case, the rule does not permit the total releases of effluents to exceed existing limits.
The rule does not change existing effluent limits (except those restricting the fraction of total effluents from oil incineration for those licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil), and the regulatory requirements to assure compliance with these liraits will continue to apply.
Thus, the rule does not-constitute a BRC exemption.
The only direct effect of this 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 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 nor does this rule diminish State authorities.
7 ENCLOSURE 1 i
[7509-01)
Some commenters specifically opposed incineration.as a disposals
~
i alternative, a number of those citing the 'non' radiological risks. fromLthe.
toxic properties!of waste oil.
The State of Michigan, who was-generally-supportive, also questioned the impact of potential toxic emissions _ suggesting:
consideration of the combined risks of radiation and toxic exposures. - Another -
commenter suggested that the possible synergistic effects of-chemical and-a radioactive exposures had not been adequately: assessed. This commenter was; also concerred that unless adequate' temperatures'were maintained during incineration, some chemicals would-not be destroyed but instead would become.
volatilized and liberated to the environment.
l-The amount of oil' to be disposed of by all nuclear power: reactors.
collectively represents a very small fraction of all used oils disposed of 1
annually. This rule does not relieve the licensee from complying with other-l applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.
However, the Commission recognizes-l L
that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials 'during the.
l incineration process.
It is true that in order.to achieve: complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be L
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 wou'id be expected in any case.
Even a very small boiler can achieve.99 to 99.99 L
percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds.'
L l
Also, ~there is considerable incentive for the licen:ee to maintain high l-l combustion efficiency in order to avoid maintenance problems, particularly if 1
' Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted at p. 49180.
8 ENCLOSURE-1 I
t-
[7509-Ol]l the. auxiliary boiler is-used.; Although the Environmental Protecti_on Agency (EPA)' exempted used oil destined for disposale as a: class from its listing of
~
hazardous materials, it has been developing andThas made considerable progress in completing regulations which would control-the' potential hazards-of both used oil ~ recycling and disposal.
Some controls are ' applicable; others-are-under development.
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 by State; some States list used oil as hazardous and some have specific requirements applicable to any-incinerator.
At least some categories of used oil may present a significant potential hazard to public health and the environment. As noted, during the developmenti of this rule, EPA har been in the process of developing regulations pertaining.
to used oil.
Because these were yet to be completed during Commission-considerations pertaining to this rule, the Commission analyzed the potential impacts of releases of toxic material from incineration of waste oil assuming; no particular controls were in place.
As noted'in the environmental assessment'for this rule, the. potential _
toxicants from used oil fall into two classes:
organic compounds and metals.
The potential health effects of the many possible contaminants-are varied.
Some contaminants are considered carcinogenic; others-are thresh _old. toxicants, 3
1.e., substances that produce effects un health only above certain " threshold" concentrations.
More information and-discussion on toxic constituents:of used
~ oil and potential health and environmental effects can be found in EPA Federal Register notices (50 FR 1684, January 11,-1985; 50 FR 49164, 50 FR 49212, and 50 FR 49258, November-29, 1985; 56 FR 48000, September 23, 1991;-and 57 FR 9
ENCLOSVRE l-
((7509.01)!
~
21524,-May 20, 1992).
These documents, as well-as'the documents-cited in footnotes 2 and 3, are available for inspection at the NRC: Public Documentl Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
The EPA's original decision against listing used oil as hazardous-waste was based on concerns that such a listing would cause used oil to be-diverted-from industrial burnin3 as fuel to illegal dumping (such as disposal in-sewers, directly on the ground, and in landfills) and that such illegal dumping would result in greater environmental harm than industrial burning.
When this rule was proposed, the Commission had assumed th u the impacts from toxic constituents would be minimized by burning, primarily because burning is a destructive process that-is expected to destroy a.very large fraction of the -
1 organic constituents.
In responding to the environmental concerns raised.by the public comments, the-Commission has examined analyses performed by the EPA which are relevant to the evaluation of environmental impacts of burning waste oil as contemplated by this rule. The EPA performed analyses in support of what it referred to as its Phase I rule (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) because it was a first step in regulating used-oil with further regulations being contemplated. Based on these analyses, EPA established specifications for used oil fuel which include concentrations of toxic contaminants (40 CFR 266.40(e)).
Used oil fuel which meets these specifications' can be
+
burned virtually without restriction because EPA has concluded that such oil does not present a significantly greate risk when burned than virgin fuel ; oil (50 FR 1693; January 11,1985).
The EPA analyses considered a number of potential toxicants released from burning used oil and found that those that.
potentially present risks to public health and safety were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead.
(Thus, EPA established specification concentrations for these elements.)
Of these, lead was of most concern because high levels were 10 ENCLOSURE 1-
[7509-01]'
ifound in: some of_ the samples analyzed. - However,. lead in used oil was largely y
attributable to contamination of crank-case oils with leaded gasoline " blow-by".(50 FR 1699; January ll, 1935),- Industrial used ' oil including reactor-waste oil would not be expected to exceed the specification for _ lead except for some segments of metalworking oils which constitute a'small percentage of-reactor oils.
Thus, lead would not contribute a significant_ impact when this oil is burned. Threshold toxicants other than lead-were not-considered a significant hazard, leaving potential cancer risks from arsenic, chromium, and-cadmium as the most-significant impact of burning industrial used oil.
In proposing its Phase I rule, EPA was concerned at the time about the widespread-uncontrolled burning of used oil.
It was estimated that-approximately 600 million gallons of used oil were being burned each year in every conceivable circumstance - in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors.
The EPA's analyses included a. worst-case. urban scenario where used oil was being burned.across a large city in various types of.
boilers.
In this scenario, over 25 million gallons of used oil were assumed:
to be burned in the study area (of well over 1 billion gallons of-heating oil burned in multiple family dwellings alone)" in an array of boilers with significantly overlapping of plumes that raised the ambient levels' of arsenic, _
cadmium, and-chromium. --In the worst case, it was assumed that the oil' contained concentrations of these metals at the 90th percentile of the! data available at the time of the study and that 75_ percent of the metals were released.
Based on these assumptions, burning _of used oil was estimated to-result in exposure of the portion of the population within 5 kilometers of the center of the urban area to ambient concentrations'of these' metals associated'
'PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SW-84-Oll, August 1984.
11 ENCLOSURE 1
.,v
[7509-01]
found in some of the samples analyzed. However, lead in used oil was largely attributable to contamination of crank-case oils with leaded gasoline " blow-by" (50 FR 1699; January 11, 1985).
Industrial used oil including reactor waste oil would not be expected to exceed the specification for lead except for some segments of metalworking oils which constitute a small percentage of reactor oils.
Thus, lead would not contribute a significant impact when this oil is burned.
Threshold toxicants other than lead were not considered a significant hazard, leaving potential cancer risks from arsenic, chromium, and cadmium as the most significant impact of burning industrial used oil.
In proposing its Phase I rule, EPA was concerned at the time about the widespread uncontrolled burning of used oil.
It was estimated that approximately 600 million gallons of used oil were being burned each year in every conceivable circumstance - in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors.
The EPA's analyses included a worst-case urban scenario where used oil was being burned across a large city in various types of boilers.
In this scenario, over 25 million gallons of used oil were assumed to be burned in the study area (of well over 1 billion gallons of heating oil burned in multiple family dwellings alone)' in an array of boilers with significantly overlapping of plumes that raised the ambient levels of arsenic, cadmium, and chromium. -In the worst case, it was assumed that the oil contained concentrations of these metais at the 90th percentile of the data available at the time of the study and that 75 percent of the metals were released.
Based on these assumptions, burning of used oil was estimated to result in exposure of the portion of the population within 5 kilometers of the center of the urban area to ambient concentrations of these metals associated
'PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SW-84-Oll, August 1984.
11 1
ENCLOSURE 1 l
-[7509-01](
with-en increased cancer risk of 1-in 10,000 for chromium,_1 in 50,000-for-arsenic, and 1 in 500,000 for-cadmium.
- All nuclear power plants together produce on the-order of 300,000 gallons of used oil per year _ or about 0.05 percent of the amountr f used oil o
burned annually.
Only 1,000-15,000 gallons per year would be burned at.any one site under this rule.
The circumstances of this incineration would differ greatly from the worst-case urban scenario studied by EPA,-~resulting-in far smaller potential risks than those estimated for the urban scenario..Because=
of the small quantities of oil that could be burned, the greater distances from release points to receptors, and the distance between sites, etc., the.
concentration of toxicants reaching any member of the' public, and thus the resulting risk, would be expected to be a very small fraction of that calculated by EPA for the worst-case urban scenario.
Thus these potential risks are not considered a significant impact to the environn.ent.
In addition to the metals discussed above, the used 011' specification includes a limit of 4000 ppm of total halogens designed to limit the
.halogenated solvent concentration of oil burned in-non-industrial boilers.
The EPA regulations also include a rebuttable presumption that used oil containing more that 1000 ppm total halogens is a huardous waste because it has been mixed-with halogenated hazardous waste (s 266.40(c)). Although used oil may cidentally contaminated with small amounts of-solvents, used 011 as geners ould generally not be expected to exceed the specification for total ha-os in the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.
12 ENCLOSURE 1 s
1 1.
(7509-01)
The burning of_even virgin oil (i._e., oilLwhich_has.not been previ6uslyf used.and tnus not_ contaminated by use) resultssin_some release of toxicants; Because the' EPA was evaluating the replacement-of_a-fraction of virgin oll'to.
be burned with used. oil, the impacts from these toxicants were considered.
-inapplicable to setting the used oil fuel specification.
For the use of'an-auxiliary boiler or fossil fuel plant under this rule,_ the used oil would also-be replacing a fraction of virgin fuel oil, thus only the impacts off contaminants resulting from use would be applicable.
However, in the case:of an incinerator, emissions resulting from the burning: of any oilLwould be an-addition to existing emissions.
The risks associated with these other toxicants, while difficult to characterize, have been estimated to be.
generally less than the risks discussed above for contaminants resulting-from---
use and thus would also not b'e significant under these circumstances, Since the proposed _ rule was published and this analysisfwas first developed, EPA has developed new information on contamination levels by major category of used oil. A summary of this data base was published in the Federal Register, September 23, 1991, together_with a supplemental notice of.
proposed rulemaking concerning used oil management standards (56 FR 48000).
Based on the recently developed information, EPA has also completed the reconsideration of listing used o;l destined for disposal as hazardous waste.
EPA has found that all used oils do not typically:and frequently meet the technical criteria-for listing a waste as hazardous waste and has decided not to list used oils destined for disposal as hazardous waste.(57 FR 21524;;
May 20, 1992). The Commission has reviewed the newer data and concluded that it does not change the major conclusions related to the environmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil.
In fact, the data suggests that the_ level of 13 ENCLOSVRE-I
[7509-01]
toxic constituents in industrial used oils are generally lower than previously assumed from the generic data.
In response to the question of synergism in the combined effects of chemical and radiation exposure, little is presently known about 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 ue 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 both radiological constituents ard other toxt:
I 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 synergistic 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.
7 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 contaminating the auxiliary boiler if it is used to incinerate contaminated oils.
Licensees should consider the potential contamination of whatever equipment is used for incineration Factors such as concentration of the radionuclides in the oil, combustion efficiency, and 14 ENCLOSURE 1
i
[7509-01),
maintaining minimum off-gas temperatures will affect-the degree-of:
contamination. -Although contamination of~ equipment can be minimized, the impact of this contamination _could partially offset the savings in1 waste-disposal space and cost achieved through incineration.. As' to_ the question of establishing an area as a radiation zone, the auxiliary boiler, or other equipment used for incineration of waste oil, would.be within an area-controlled by the licensee.
In no case would incineration be expected 1 result in radiation levels requiring additional controls;- that is, no new areas would be established as " radiation areas."
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 that the 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 will be complied with, particularly because normal emissions would be expected to increase as plants age.
The potentially affected public has an opportunity for a hearing on a license amendment for a nuclear power reactor.
However, the 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-limita. Amendment of licenses to authorize this activity is considerec unnecessary. The Commission-t will use its authority to inspect and take enforcement action to ensure compliance with these requirements as it does its other requirements. Given 15 ENCLOSURE 1
'[7509-01)-
ithis approach, the.Commis,; ion wastof the opinion that the. issuesL presented by:
~
the proposedirule wouldlbe'more appropriately resolved in_a' rulemaking proceeding.
In accordance with customary NRC procedure, the-proposed: rule was-:
published for comment-for the express purpose of-g_iving interested members ofs the public an opportunity to present their concerns and comments on:these-issues to the Commission.
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 commenter also suggested that this rule would' discourage storage for recycling which the commenter viewed as contrary to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act).
Since most oil which is recycled is-used as industrial-fuel,' 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. This option L
constitutes treatment and recycle rather than disposal per se. Unless the-Commission develops specific exemptions for low concentration oils, 1
I decontamination must be completed to the extent that no radioacti_vity is detectable using measurement techniques approved for environmental monitoring.
l Because some oils cannot be sent to low-level waste burial and the cost of l
disposing that oil that can has ~been escalating, this option is getting more attention by the industry.
Some means of incineration (i.e., use in the l_
' EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.
16 ENCLOSURE 1 l
l
'[7509-01]-
auxiliary boiler) may also result in a small increase in energy recovery over
-the practice of solidification and burial at a LLW burial site,:which never involves eventual recovery. The environmental impacts of either onsite incineration or decontamination for recycle are very low.
There appearsl o be t
no-reason to restrict either alternative beyond whatever EPA regulations-will.
be applicable in either case.- Excessive storage onsite for potential' future recycling, however, involves some risk from fire.
One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash from incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problam of waste disposal.
The EPA recommended that the rule clarify 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 produced 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 hazarocus properties of these materials.
Some of the commenttrs supporting the proposed rule expressed the rationale for-their support.
Some, including the State of Indiana, noted the small public health and safety and environmental impacts.
Some, including the
~
State of Indiana and the Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, cited the benefits in cost savings or savings in low-level waste burial space, and one the added flexibility.
One commenter provided information concerning 17 ENCLOSURE 1
-[7509-01)
-the practicality of incineration in-general and of usingithe~ startup boiler in
?
~
-particular.= Many~ of.the commenters that supported the rule made suggestions J
' for changes or clarifications. -
f Two commenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil such that-synthetic oils and cutting, penetrating, and some 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-radiologically contaminated waste oils.
They also proposed that waste oils i
used in maintenance be included.
Synthetic oils were inadvertently rather than purposefully left out of the definition of waste oil in the proposed rule and are included in the.
definition in the' final rule.
It would serve no useful purpose.to treat synthetic and petroleum derived used. oils. differently and 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, " Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead,' Chromium, Used Oil,.or Organic Liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730),' which was referenced in the proposed rule.and the regulatory analysis with regard to quantities and concentrations of waste oil.
Thus, these types of oil 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'
~
' 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, 5285 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.
18 ENCLOSURE 1 1-
d
-[7509-01]
l needing disposal.
From-the: perspective of_radiologicalLimpacts,;there is no-need to limit the type of used oil which can be incinerated. '(The above 1
- discussion on toxic-constituents considered 'alli types 'of _used oil.s.) :The' licensee.wi.ll be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological limits established under 10 CFR Part 20 and.Part 50, Appendix;l and'will be responsible for ensuring that the: techniques used for determining!
the radiological contents are adequate. Accordingly, the rule has beenL 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.
Uncontaminated "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,-
s subject to NRC requirements.
Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently-characterized to determine-(l) the applicability of'any requirements such as EPA or-State requirements, (2) the radioactive content (if there could be problems -getting representative samples from a resultant mixture), and '(3) the technical suitability. of the potential mixture for incineration, i.e., compatibility with equipment used, water content, etc.
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" i. ave been added to-the final rule.
19 ENCLOSURE 1-
[7509-01)
Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration of waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil from 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 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.
Another commenter suggested that offsite incineration be allowed with the condition af proper ash disposal.
Two others, including the petitioners, suggested the Commission reconsider the other options originally raised in the petition.
Another commenter, the State of Texas, simply noted support for other methods of volume reduction.
The petitioners also criticized the Commission for vagueness ia the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting thet their analysis, provided as a comment 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 an indication of the NRC's intent to deny without prejudice the other alternatives proposed by the petitioners. The primary reason for that denial, as stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in the discussion of the petition in this document, 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 20 ENCLOSURE 1
!(7509-01) alternatives;is'outside the scope of'this rulemaking. As to the petitioners' contention that'their-analysis of comments was--ignored,.this analysis was
. considered along with the_ original petition, the other public' comments,' and:
the referenced ?eport (NUREG/CR-4730).
The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately, z
~
One commenter suggested the Commission make a trial run, using contaminated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc machine designed-to break-down toxic chemicals.
Alti.augh 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 5 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:
6 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of-itself, cc.istitutes an unreviewed safety question but to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant _ to this process.
The safety of burning waste oil at'a reactor site cannot be determined generically. There may-be some effect on the.' safety of reactor operation if incineration is not properly planned. - Therefore, 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 affect reactor safety.
The State of Michigan suggested.a separate additional effluent limit of 1 millirem / year for waste oil incineration.
Another commenter questioned l
21 ENCLOSURE 1
'[7509-01) whether the' maximum quantity reported (5000; gal /yr) would conform to the
" proposed dose _ limit"?of 1 mrem /yr to the general public.
The Stat (of Texas 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 wa'ste-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.
4
~However, it is not considered necessary to establish a separate effluent limit for waste oil incineration, as long as the total amount of the effluents released from the plant, including releases from incineration of waste oil, continues to conform to existing effluent limits established under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and Part 20.-
'l A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact, are not needed i
to satisfy the intent of'the'commenter.
Two commenters suggested 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 oil to an-offsite licensed !' vendor," i.e.,- persons:
authorized to receive these materials. This alternative was not mentioned in i
the preamble of the proposed rule because at the; time there was not a-facility a
licensed to accept radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal other than LLW burial grounds.
Two commenters suggested that=" site" be defined as the' region "within.
l the site boundary," and one of these suggested that the site boundary be 22
-ENCLOSURE 1 l
(7509_-01]
I
.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 a
defined in the individual technical specifications for:each license. However, the rule has limited the incineration to the ' site where.the waste oil is--
generated in part so that any releases of radioactive material would be.
covered by the effluent limits in the technical specifications established =
under Appendix 1 to Part 50 and Part 20. 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.
The provision in 120.305(b)(3) (or 1 20.2004(b)(3)),-
which states that 5 20.305 (or s 20.2004) supersedes inconsistent-license conditions or technical specifications, is primarily intended to_ eliminate the need for amendment of license conditions or technical specifications to identify any new release points or specific sampling methods and-to remove any restrictions from licensees already authorized to incinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under this rule.
e 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 station power plant boilers.
The preamble to the proposed rule mentioned the options of use of an existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator or an incinerator constructed 23-ENCLOSURE'1
.l
~
[7509-01) specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil.
This was merely to l
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 plant boilers cr mobile incinerators if they are onsite.
The use of such equipment at the site of a licensed nuclear reactor would be governed by the reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part 50.
The State of New Jersey wanted the effluents from incineration to be reported in the semiannual effluent report.
Effluents from incineration are not exempted from effluent reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) and therefore will be reported.
The State of Michigan 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 as an amendment to 5 20.305(c) and the existing i 20.2007.
Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters.
One commenter suggested clarifying that Appendix I limits be met on an annual average basis only.
Radiological release limits contained in facility technical specifications which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1 contain a range of limits including quarterly limits and instantaneous limits.
The rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation to comply wi+h the requirements of the Commission's regulations and il 20.305(b)(3) and 20.2004(b)(3) do not supersede the existing limits governing total effluent 24 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01) releases. Accordingly, licensees continue to be required to satisfy the total j
radiological effluent release limitations set forth in the f acility technical specifications.
Another commenter ;uggested clarification that the rule is not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to 6 50.34a.
As noted in the proposed rule, licensees would be required under 6 50.7)(e) to submit descriptions of equipment and procedures to update the FSAR to the extent that there have been changes to the information previously submitted under i 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 6 50.34a.
flo cost-benefit analysis is required.
Some commenters, including EPA and the State of Michigan, 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 i not a listed hazarduus 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 radioactive releases under the Clean Air Act.
Obviously the situation in each State may vary. Also, a number of actions have been recently completed or 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 these types of requirements exist and need to be carefully considered.
25 EtlCLOSURE 1
[7500-01)
. As clearly stated i' l 20.305(c)_ and-in existing i 29.2007, this rule in no way affects their applicability.
Two commenters were concerned that the potential applicability of RCRA or State requirements would limit the usefulness of the rule.
If waste oil is classified as mixed waste, it presently may not be disposed of at a LLW burial site.
This presents licens0es with even~more of-a-problem, particularly if the quantity of oil stored onsite approaches the quantity limits imposed for fire-safety. On May 20, 1992, EPAJpublished a notice of a decision (57 FR 21524) not to list usedioil destined for disposal as hazardous waste.
However, based on EPA's data published in the federal Register on September 23, 1991-(56 FR 48000), it appears that a significant portion of industrial waste oil such as is generated by nuclear power plants.
will be identified as hazardous waste through testing for the characteristic-of toxicity, but half.or more will not. Thus, a portion, but not all, of the radioactively contaminated waste oil from reactors will be mixed waste.~
In any given State, it will depend on individual State regulations. 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 the commenter contends are always extensive.
The Commission. recognizes that making any change to the 00CM may involve significant administrative effort.
However, the changes required in order to 26 ENCLOSURE l'
=
P
~J r-(7509-01)-
j account for the effluents from waste oil ~ incineration are ielatively limited, primarily.related to the fact that a new point of release may be involved.-
1 Conclusion 1
As indicated in trie responses to the comments, the Commission has.
decided to adopt the proposed rule with some minor modifications; - 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 l
maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities will be covered by other existing regulatory requirements set furth in Part 50, Appendix I and Part 20.
These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under i 50.36a.
In addition, risks associated'with transportation to the LLW burial site or other treatment or disposal facility 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 radioastive sclid waste.-
Effective Date Because the amendment set forth below provides relief from' restrictions curreni.ly in effect, the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),. is making 27 ENCLOSURE 1 wv.,,.
- -si
.c.E--,-.mm
.-aw_,
,'.m-
~..m.
..--w.1-%.---
-.., -__,----,_.-.._,-.rm.,:,_._
,.cs.-
wre
(7509-01)
=the final ruls effective upon publication without the customary 30-day = waiting
- period, 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.
lt has also considered the public comments and the changes in the text of the final rule, in particular, die public comments relating to environmental inatters and the additional discussion of the environmental impacts _ prepared in response to those comments.
The environniental assessment has been somewhat s
m]dified consistent with the discussion in this preamble concerning the environmental impacts-of toxic emissions from burning used oil..The
. i Commission has determined that the public comments, the additional consideration of toxic impacts, and the changes made:to the---text _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-and 20.2004 do not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the qualityfof the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is:
not required, o
i l-The revised environmental assessm;:nt and finding of no significant ~
h impact on which this determination is based are availaoie for inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW._ (Lower Level),
Wasnington, DC.
28 EMLOSURE 1:
tDM-er w
- err,
,e, w,y-are-wwn,ww,,,,
,,,-,,wr,
,,gw,,mm.
.,,,__,,,,,,,,,,,,, _,,, - -g
,g.,,
g,.
,,y,,g,-
,+,cyw
- g
-_y
..9%,-g
.,g.
w.
y-gg -
7 _. _ -_ _.. _._.
r (7509-01)
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement' t
i l
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 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014 i
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule.
1 That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of-action considered by the Commission.
The analysis is available-for inspection-at the flRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street llW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Catherine,R. Mattsen, Office of fluclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555 Telephone (301) 492-3638.
Regulatory Flexibility Certifiestion in accordance with the Regulatory flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this'ruls does not have a significant econornic 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.
1.
29 ENCLOSURE h u
. ~..
A
[7509-01)
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 omendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 20 Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear powcr plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Repo. ting 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 Er.ergy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 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 citation for Part 20 is revised to read as follows:
30 ENCLOSURE 1 E
I
[7509-01]
AUTHOR 11Y:
Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, i
933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5546).
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. 233, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
il 20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a), (b), and (f), 20.104(a) and (b), 20.105(b),
20.106(a),20.201,20.202(a),20.205,20,207,20.301,20.303,20.304,20.305,
- ?0.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1502, 20.1601(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801, 20.1802, 20.1901(a), 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005(b) and (c), 20,2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) and 6 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub.L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and il 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.120A(c), 20.1206(g) and (h),
20.1904(c)(4), 20.1905(c) and (d), 20.2004(b), 20.2005(c), 20.2006(b) - (d),
20.2101 - 20.2103, 20.2104(b) - (d), 20.2105 - 20.2108, and 20.2201 - 20.2207 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
Section 20.305 is revised to read as follows:
620.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
(a) A licensee may treat or dispose of iicensed material by incineration only:
31 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01)
(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2)
If the material is in a form and concentration specified in s 20.306; or (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to 6 20.106(b) or 6 20.302.
s )(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally o
as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic 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 may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the ef fluents fr.a such incineration, must conform to the requirements of Appendix 1 to Part 50 of this chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil.
The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under il 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to 6 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.
The licensee shall also follow the procedures of i 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes-to the facility or procedures.
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incincrating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.301.
(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.
32 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01)
(c) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section relieves the licensee from i
l complying with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulation:
l governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.
3.
Section 20.2004 is revised to read as follows:
6 20.2004 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 i 20.2005; er (3) As specifically approved by 'he Commission pursuant to 5 20.2002.
r (b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licenscd under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, must conform to the requirements of Appendix 1 to Part 50 of this chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable ' license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of 33 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01) waste oil.
The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under il 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to % 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.
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.2001.
(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.
[.'ated at Rockville, liaryland this day of 1992.
I for the Nuclear Regulatary Commission, m
.r E
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission s
34 ENCLOSURE 1 Y.
Reaulatory Analysis-fhtle to Amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 DISPOSAL 0f WASTE DIL BY INCINERATION 1.
Statement of the Problenj i
The Edison Electric' Institute and the Utility. Nuclear Waste Management.
Group petitioned the Connission (PRM-2015, 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 i
radioactive material content.
This petition responded to Commission views as expressed in the Supplemeritory Information accompanying publication-of 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (December 27, 1982; 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 thin'gs, reduce disposal and.long-term disposal site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for wastes with I
higher levels of radioa6tivity, and enhance overall site stability of dispotal-facilities by reducing the volume-of Class A waste. The petitioners suggested that, based on recent Ccmmission decisions, a 1-millirem /yr individual" dose -
limit would be 'an appropriate basis' for. establishing a cutoff level for.
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
'ENCLOSVRE.2 A.
i.
2
i r
1 millirem /yr-dose limit and proposed wording to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect these reconrendations.
{
A response to this petition requires a staff determination of the need for a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of power-reactor-generated, slightly contaminated waste oil by means other than by burial at a licensed disposal-site. Among the factors that must be considered in this determination are the following:
(1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reactor operatcr, that limit the release of radioactive materials to the general-environment to ALARA levels.
(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 associatad with disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material contained in f
typical waste oil, (5) The authority-of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to S
regulate the release of both radioactive and non-radioactive materials to the environment, (6) The authority of the EPA, which assumed-Federal Radiation Council responsibilities, to develop Presidential guidance for use by other Federal:
agencies on acceptable levels of radiation exposure' of the general'public, 2
i ENCLOSURE 2 4
..~.-.-:.- -.
a a.=.-
2.
Qb.iectives The rule allows ruclear power reactor licensees to-incinerate waste oil which has become contaminated from_ operations associated with nuclear power production.
Previously, licensees were afforded the option 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 environmental impact from the incineration of the-oil, which contains generally very low concentrations of radionuclides, is insignificant.
Generally incineration would be expected to result in significant savings in disposa1' costs, incineration instead of burial also conserves limited available burial space, reduces risks from the t'ransportation of waste oil l-(radiological and non-radiological), reduces the fire hazard associated with L
waste oil storage, and may reduce the impacts from the toxic constituents of-waste oil.
3.
Alternatives l
l l
4 The petitioners requested that the Commission issue a regulation
_ governing the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants by establisning radionuclide concentrations in waste oil-at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive L
material content of the waste.
The petition suggested an individual exposure l
3 ENCLOSURE 2 l
l^
.4
i i
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" (BRC) has sometimes been used interchangeably with "de minimis"; however, it has also-been used in con-1 nection with exemptions frem specific r-1ations decided on a cost-benefit basis.
It would be convenient to declare waste. oil, contaminated to a l
l sufficiently low level, to be of no regulatory concern, thereby allowing it to..
be disposable without regard to its radioactive contamination.
In its BRC waste policy statement (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839), the Commission gave some indication of dose levels which might be acceptable for a waste stream specific exemption.
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).
The petitioners have not supplied sufficient information to allow a specific waste stream "below regulatory concern" determination to be made.
Also, the Commission has deferred taking any actions to exempt wastes' from regulatory control, 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 PRC waste policy statement published on August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839) or the need to ensure effective use of licensed low-level waste disposal capacity.
4 ENCLOSURE 2 n w -e. - ve-,,
, er %.,wm-
..---..i..
.u
-,=-+-..---=-.e e
m.--.-
-*e,-
- e
lhe staff could have deferred action on this specific petition until consideration of a generic rulemaking on BRC waste or until EPA issues standards or guidance on BRC levels of radioactivity.
However, neither of these e ' ions are expected to take place in the near term.
The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal of waste oil and believes that a rule change should be made.
However, in order for the petit;on to be granted in full, more information and analysis would be necessary.
For exarrple, a more complete characterization of quantities and concentrations of contaminated waste oil would be needed to make a waste stream specific analysis on which to base specific concentration limit;. 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 allow waste oil 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, 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 exempt waste oils or other classes of waste from requirements for disposal at low level waste burial grounds.
(See policy statement, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B, published on August 29, 1986.)
5 ENCLOSURE 2
l 4.
(qnseqyem n This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil by onsite inciner, tion, has the potential to affect several attributes, but only a few significantly.
One of those is "Regulato,'y 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 transporting the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in decreased exposures.
The efficiency results in two ways, first, the utilities 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 advantage to do so.
Second, thosa utilities which want to incinerate the waste oil will not have to apply for a license amendment.
Savings could also accrue to both industry and the flRC 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 sepa-rately.
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, en average, an operating PWR produces approximately 1000 gallons por year of contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWR produces 6
ENCLOSURE 2 l
.~____.-__.___.-_-m_
I
approximately 3500-5000 gal /yr'.
Reported contamination levels are usually in the range of 10" to 10" pCi/ml, although higher levels have been reported.
The principal radioisotopes present in these waste oils include the usual activation and fission products such as Co-58, 00-60, Mn-54, CL-134, Cs-137.
Because of restrictions imposed on the disposal of oil wastes in licensed land 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 ultimate disposal.
According to both the BNL report and information provided by the petitioners, solidification of oil wastes effectively doubles the volume of the waste requiring disposal while sorption can increase waste volumes by as much as a factor of 6.
If directly reieased to the environment, a typical reactor would, on average, discharge a total of 10" curies of radioactivity per year via the waste oil pathway.
This quantity is a fraction of typical releases in liquid effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant 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 incinerated waste oil under an amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications for total doses from effluents, in addition, under this
'A more recent report published by Electric Power P.esearch Institute (EPRI) estimated typical _ volumes to be 1000 gal /yr higher than those in NUREG/CR-4730:
"Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group:
Nonraciological Characterization and Environmental Assessment of BRC Waste," prepared by Science Applications International Corporation f or the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-5674, February 1989.
7 ENCLOSURE 2 l
1
rulemaking, 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 ris.ks 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 and the status of EPA regulations intent ed to control these impacts.
Before presenting the industry cost estimates, it should be noted that there is no accurate way to determine the total 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 rule.
A licensee's implementation costs decrease if it decides to take advantage of the rule, because it saves the cost of having to prepare a license amendment.
It is estimated that a typical, uncomplicated technical specification change 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.)
As to operating costs, one licensee had estimated that it could save 5
somewhere betwetn 53,300 and $12,500 per year by incinerating its waste oil as oppe ed to burying it. These costs were based upon values of 220 to 825 gallons of waste oil disposal per year, with the per gallon cost being about
$15, 8
ENCLOSURE 2
-The solidification method assumed in this estimate was more cost-effective than that used in the original estimates of the petitioners in 1983 in that it involved lower volume increases.
The petitioners' estimates of disposal costs saved were $15-30/ gal.
The actual cost for an individual licensee will depend on the solidification method used, labor rates, distance ~
{
to the LLW burial ground, and burial fees.
The escalating costs of burial ir.cluding the additions of surcharges could cause significant increases in_the cost of disposal at a LLW burial facility thus resulting in increases in potential savings from incinerating waste oil.
If we assume $15/ gal as _ the minimum amount saved and assume (based on the Brookhaven flational Laboratory report) that an average PWR plant produces about 1000 gallons of slightly contaminated waste oil per year, its corresponding savings would be at least
$15,000 per year.' If an average remaining life of 30 years is assumed, along with a 5 percent 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 would be about $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 552,500 to $75,000, with the discounted operating lifetime savings ranging from 5808,500 to $1.155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become $826,500 to $1,173,000-per BWR.
Because of a change in EPA regulations governing.the detection of toxic constituents (55 FR 11798; fiarch 29, 1990), a larger portion of waste oil may_
'The_ estimates for cost savings in this section assume the-volumes of-waste oil _ generated as estimated in the Brookhaven report (NUREG/CR-4730).
Other data (referenced in footnote 1) suggest higher typical volumes, if-those volumes are more representative, savings in disposal costs would be proportionately greater.
9 ENCLOSURE 2
be classified as hazardous waste and if radioactively con _taminated as mixed waste. This' rule would allow incineration for all waste oils without affecting the applicability of other Federal, State, or local requirements.
epa regulations governing hazardous waste and used oil recycle and disposal are complex and have been undergoing change as this rule was developed. -This
)
introduces cost impacts on the various alternatives which the Commission cannot adequately assess.
Again, berause of each plant's individual situation, and the fact that this rule is only an option, the estimates of disposal cost savings are only I
illustrativa.
W!th respect to other potential industry operating costs, a licensee will need to provide the liRC with changes to the Offsite Dose Calculations thwal :nd changes in equipment and procedures whether the licensee makes o.+
/ the rule, or applies for a license amendment to L
incinerate T h
,A
)1l; therefore, these costs will be the same in both cases and do a e wd to be included in this analysis.
A key point which i
cannot be cytrioded, however, is that permitting use of this alternative disposal opt ton coc.ld conserve limited low-level burial ground space.
This nile inll also reduce NRC's potential workload in processing I
indnidua'i rotme115 for specific license amendments to permit incineration.
Thf estimated ppm 'ost of a typical, uncomplicated, technical specification ch,39e is $1.1,00)
(Cf. Abstract 5.1, " General Cost Estimates,"
NtSYG/CR-462!, to. 1, 1989.)
Further, as noted above, the NRC is to receive m aifications editions to the licensee's Offsite Oose Calculations Manual 1.
and changes in eq. pment cnd procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate-the waste oil traengh use of the rule or a license amendment.
Hence the only Jifference in t he f1RC's cost it $11,000 saved per licensee under the rule, 10-ENCLOSURE 2 1
=
Because the rule allows a license to adopt a potentially more cost-and-risk-effective means of disposing of this class.of waste while maintaining.
existing limits-on plant ef fluents, the not impact of this action is positive.
5.
Decision Rationala The Commission has yet 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 for some time.
However, 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 contaminated waste oil.
The incineration of waste oil onsite will not add significantly to the environmental impacts of reactor operations, may in fact be environmentally preferable, and could result in savingr in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB site capacity.
6)
Implementation a)
Schedule for implementation Since this rule relieves a restriction, the final rule is effective as soon as published, as allowed __by Section.553(d)(1) of the Administration Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
b)
Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements-Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic waste exemptions.
11
' ENCLOSURE 2
i DRAFT C0f1GRESS10fiAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed final amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 20.
The amendment allows nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment.
Such operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits.
Thus, this action do,s.st constitute a "below regulatory concern" action.
The intent ef tt:e rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this waste other than burial 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 ENCLOSURE 3
EtiVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-AtlD FlflD!flG Of fl0 SIGlif flCANT IMPACT l
Af!ENDMENT TO 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 DISPOSAL OF WASTE O!L BY If1CINERAT10f1 The fluclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate contaminated waste oil onsite without obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a license amendment.
E Environmental Assessment identification of Action Present il 20.305 and 20.2004 forbid the incineration of any licensed material, except that specifically exempted by is 20.306 and 20.2005, without the specific approval of the Commission.
This action amends.Il 20.305 and 20.2004 to allow power-reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated l
waste oil onsite without prior approval.
It does not exempt the effluents from this process from the requirements established under Appendix l-to Part-L l -
50, in particular, effl0ent limits and effluent monitoring and reporting.
I L
Need for the Action 1
l
- The Edison Electric institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group
_ petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984)'toinitiaterule-
-making to define a_ level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated' waste 1
ENCLOSVRE 4 i
l oils that would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content.
Previously, the only generically approved method of disposal for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involved solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transportation 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.
Several power reactor licensees have requested and been granted amendments to their licenses to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil.
Others have been interested in doing so.
Environmental Impacts of the Action 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 overall impacts of cach 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 Liquids" (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.
The volumes reported were approximately 1000 gal / year 2
ENCLOSURE 4
i at a PWR and up to 5000 gal / year at a BWR.
Since publication of the proposed rule, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), has published another report' estimating annual per reactor production at approximately 1000 gallons more than these previous reports.
In addition, some utilities have l
large quantities in storage on site.
Concentrations of radioactive contaminants are typically 10" to 10
Ci/ml but can be as high as 10
Ci/ml j
in some cases.
Total activity per reactor per year is estimated to average about.10 C1.
The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, C0-58, C0-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137.
Others reported incl _ude Sr-90, Cd-109, 2n-65, and Zr-95.
It appears that the bulk of the waste oil generated, in terms of ~ volume, could be l
incinerated with resultant 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 radioactivo iodine and radioactive material in particulate form (in keeping with the guidance i
contained in Appendix 1 of Part 50), or 15 rem / year. This action modifies the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in s 20,2004 to make an exception for waste oil at power reactor sites; however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents from the requirements. of i 50.36a and Appendix 1 of Part 50.
These limiting conditions 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 kept within existing limits for total dose from nuclear
'Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group:
Nonradiological Character'ization and Environmental-Assessment of BRC Waste, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-5674, February 1989.
3 ENCLOSURE 4 A a a - a u n a.
u.
, m.
i power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion, impacts fram the toxic constituents of used oil may be minimized by onsite incineration and in any case the inpacts from toxic emissions are estimated to be insignificant.
(See discussion under " Alternatives to the Action.")
Potentially, this action might result in reduced storage of waste oil onsite thus reducing the associated fire hazard.
Also, risks inherent in transportation will be reduced from those associated with the previously 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 considerations, this action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Alternatives to the Action As required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(E)), possible alternatives to the action have been considered. One alternative considered was to defer any action until decisions are made regarding generic BRC rulemaking.
However, in keeping with an ongoing Coraission moratorium, action on any waste exemption rulemaking has been deferred.
It is apparent that the cost to licensees to solidify or immobilize, package, transport, and bury contaminated waste oil at licensed disposa'l sites is not justified based on the very limited doses from incineration and the fact that other environmental 4
ENCLOSURE 4
impacts, if ariything, will likely be reduced.
Waste oil that is also classified as hazardous waste cannot be sent to low level waste burial grounds but may be a candidate for incineration subject to evolving EPA regulations governg burning of used oil.
It is more cost-effective to allow the-incineration through rulemaking rather than to continue processing applications for license amendment.
For these reasons, this action should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.
p Other alternatives were considered w: Mh would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested.
However, to allow licensees to use methods utnu than onsite incineration would require both more complete information and analysis concerning the impacts of using those methods than was submitted by the petitioners, and an NRC decision on a dose criterion for waste oil' disposal.
Controlled incineration onsite has been demonstrated to be an acceptable technical alternative for disposal of material.
Although-there is l.
not sufficient 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 destined for disposal is not listed as a Federal hazardous waste, it can contain a significant amount of toxic substances consisting of various organic compounds and metals. Although there may be some environmental impato from the toxic nature of used oil for any disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site is likely to minimize these effects and is preferred by the EPA over land disposal generally.
Also, EPA is in the process of developing regulations to control the impact of disposal and recycle of used oil.
Even with no particular controls in place, the organic compounds are largely destroyed by the incineration process.
As-much as half or more of the metals may be 5
ENCLOSURE 4 4
-...\\.-,..
.m.
.._,.-_.w.
m
.m,~,..~.,.'.,-..
..l m.,
..-4
I released, but, for the quantities and circumstances of oil burned under this rule, concentrations to which the public may be exposed are not expected to be significant.
Incineration at a controlled site assures that the disposal of the ash residue can be controlled appropriately considering both its radio-logic and toxic constituents.
flationally, any nonradiological environmental ef fect of disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil from nuclear power plants would be small compared to that associated with the total quantity of used oil disposed. All power plants in total produce on the order of 300,000 gallons / year of such used oil.
(The EPRI document cited above estimated 50,000 cubic feet / year, or 370,000 gallons per year, generated from all existing plants as well as those under corstructior.)
flationally, vehicle maintenance produces about 700 million gallons / year of used oil and industrial use approximately 400 million gallons / year.
Agencies and Persors 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.
6 EllCLOSURE 4
Finding of No Sionificant 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 amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly contaminated vaste oil by power reactor licensees onsite will 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 il Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations f' Domestic Licensing and Re'ated Regulatory Functions."
F 7
ENCLOSURE 4
l DRAFT PUBLIC ANN 0UNCEMENT tlRC TO PERMIT ON-SITE lilCINERATION OF C0tiTAMItlATED WASTE OILS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to permit the on-site incineration of waste oils used in nuclear plants and contaminated with very small amounts of radioactive materials.
Previously, utility operators of nuclear power plants have disposed of contaminated waste oils at low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. In a few cases, licenses authorizing operation of the facility were specifically amended by the NRC staff to permit on-site incineration.
This action is being taken in partial response to a July 1984 petition for rulemaking submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility
~
Nuclear Waste Management Grcup.
As amer.ded, the regulations will permit the on-site incineration of waste oils petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydr aulic or insulating fluids or metalworking oils--
that have been contaminated with small amounts of radioactive materials in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
1 ENCLOSURE 5
)
Releases of radioactive. effluents, including those from waste-oil-incine' ration,- are limiteci to "as-low-as-reasonably-achievable" levels already-specified in Appendix ! to Part 50 of-the Commissions reg.ations,. In addition, a generic arsessment prepared for the staff shows that the environmental ~ impacts of waste oil incineration will be-minimal.
The amendment to Part 20 of the NRC's regulations will become effective on (date).
9
=
D 2
ENCLOSURE 5 m.
6 m.
.