ML20128C599

Requests Implementation of Commission Action by Arranging for Publication of Encl Final Rulemaking Package on Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration,Per Commission 921102 Memo

ML20128C599
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/1992
From:	Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20127B192	List: ML20127B187 ML20127B208 ML20127B213 ML20127B231 ML20127C427 ML20128C383 ML20128C439 ML20128C450 ML20128C471 ML20128C477 ML20128C499 ML20128C505 ML20128C514 ML20128C521 ML20128C526 ML20128C538 ML20128C544 ML20128C548 ML20128C561 ML20128C563 ML20128C599
References
FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-049, AC14-2-49, NUDOCS 9302040071
Download: ML20128C599 (130)

Text

r hr C.14 -2_;

,' 4 PDR

~

NOV 2 41992 08 MEMORANDUM FOR: David L. Meyer, Chief, RDFB/ADM FROM: 8111 M. Morris, Director, DRA/RES

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION ACTION: NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING ON DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION AND FINAL ACTION ON PRM-20-15 i

By memorandum dated November 2,1992, the Secretary of the Commission indicated that the Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved publication of the final rule amending 10 CFR Part 20, " Disposal of Waste Oil >

by Incineration," set out in SECY-92-288.

Please implement the Commission's action by arranging for publication of the enclosed final rule in the Federal Reaister. The effective date of. the rule is 30 days after publication.

Enclosed is a marked-up copy of the Federal Register Notice. The changes are as provided to the Secretary in an October 15, 1992 memo and one other change, the addition of a reference to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in keeping with a general directive of the Commission with regard to the new lenislation.

Also enclosed is a Congressional letter package for tranu..ittal to OCA and two copies of the public announcement for transmittal to OPA.

In addition, enclosed are copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact and the regulatory analysis for transmittal to the PDR.

g Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

1. Original FR Notice and two Copies of FR Notice

2. Marked-up Copy of FR Natice

3. Congressional Letter Package

4. Environmental Assessment

5. Regulatory Analysis

6. Two Copies of the Public Announcement Distribution: (Meyer.MEM]

DACool/RPHEB rf Circ /Chron BMMorris FACost azi RAMect

'CMattsen ,

• See attached for previous concurrences. CQ Q O')

Offc: RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA RPHEB:DRA DD:DhA:RES D'RAk RES '

Name: CMattsen:lc* RAMeck* DACool* FACostanzi MMorris Date: 11/16/92 11/16/92 11/16/92 p/ / 7 /92 // //#//92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9302040071 930129 fb'E PDR

$)"S7hS7649 J

~ ' "

g ,

i ~ <

~

is-2 :v

4- ,

~

.S k fif 0

~

, 9, UNITED STATES '

, [M g :, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

' g;  ;* W ASHINGTON, D. C,20556

*9 / JQy2{lgg MEMORANDUM.FOR: DavidL'.Meyer, Chief,RDRB/ADM 1 FROM: -Bill M. liorris, Director, ORA /RES

SUBJECT:

-IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION ACTION: NOTICE OF FINAL" RVLEMAKING ON DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY-INCINERATION AND

-FINAL ACTION ON PRM-20 .

By memorandum dated November 2, 1992,:the Secretary of:the Commission; _

indicated that the Commissions (with all Commissioners agreeing) has' approved.

publication of the final rule amending 10 CFR Parti.20, "Disposa1Lof Waste 011--

by Incineration," set out in SECY-92-288.

Please implement the Commission's action by arranging for publication Lof the-enclosed final rule in the Federal' Reaister. LThe effective date of the1 rule -

-is 30 days after publication.

Enclosed is a' marked-up copy of the Federal Register Notice.J Thelchangesiare as provided.to the Secretary in.an October 15, 1992 memo and one-other change,;

the addition of a reference tc the Energy PolicyLAct'of 1992.in' keeping 1with a: '

general-directive of the Commission with regard to theLnew legislation _ .

Also enclosed is-a Congressional letter pr.ckage-for, transmittal to-OCA and two copies of the public. announcement'for? transmittal to OPA. -

1 In addition, enclosed are copies. of the environmentali assessmentiand: finding ~

cf no significant impact and the regulatory! analysis for transmittal;toythe-PDR.

f*

Bill'M.' Morris, Directo Division of: Regulatory Applicati_ons Office of Nuclear LRegulatory Research :

Enclosures:

p 1. Original FR Notice Land two 7 . : Copies of_FR. Notice-

. 2. : Marked-up Copy of FR Notice

-3. Congressional Letter. Package -

4. Environmental Assessment *

5. Regulatory Analysis ~

6." Two Copies of the Public - -

Announcement'

- < . - . . .. - - , - . . ~ - -

.1

... 1 r

1

-e Enclosure'1 Original FR Notice and Two.

- Copies of FR Notice- ,;

5

?

[,

[ ..

i.

l. ; -

l, -

p r

h\ -

r L l-3- ,

I> ,

- ,~ , , ,',,~ ,

1-9;

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20-RIN: 3150-AC14 Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration -

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ACTION: Final rule.

f

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to permit the onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power l plants without amending existing l operating. licenses.

This-action will help to ensure.that the limited capacity of licensed regional lcw-level" waste disposal facilities is used more efficiently while maintaining releases from operating nuclear power plants at' levels which are "as' low astis

• reasonably achievable." -Incineration of this class- of waste must be in full

. compliance with the Commission's current regulations Lwhich restrict the release of radioactive materials to the environment for each operating nuclea're power plant. Any-other applicable Federal, State, or local. requirements that rel ats to the toxic or hazardous characteristics of the waste oil would have 1

a

' to- be satisfied.= This rule constitutes a partial granting of a' petition for

rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric-Institute and Utility-Nuclear Waste Management Group.- The' remaining portions of PRM-20-15 are

-denied without prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on'(30 days after-publication in the Federal Register).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 'atherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear:

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,.

Telephone: (301) 492-3638.

t 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 establish a-level of radioactivity in- <

power-reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils T without regard to their radioactive material content. The Commission ,

l requested comment on the petition in the Federal Register on September 9,1984 L

(49 FR 36653).

2 L-

.w The petitioners suggested that an appropriate-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 petitioners recommended-that 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 I

(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 commenters 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.

On August 29, 1988, the Commission published a proposed rule in-the Federal Register (53 FR 32914) that would amend its regulations to allow onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at licensed . nuclear power plants without the need to apply for a specific li. cense 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-

-3

.c 3 1 l'

)

the notice of_ proposed rulemaking, adequate information was-not available to.

evaluate the acceptability of.these disposal- methods.

The NRC has not-received information during the interim that would alleviateithis deficiency.

In. addition, the proposedjrule indicated a number of other considerations' that limit the desirability of the other alternatives in relation to onsite1 incineration. These considerations include --

(1) Some_of the. toxic or hazardous constituents contained:in wasteLoill would be destroyed through incineration but not through other proposed-disposal methods; (2) The concentrations of radionuclides inLash or sludge may be too high to exempt an offsite incinerator or recycling center- from the requirement 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 that 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 Ecost 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 inz this discussion.- This completes NRC action on PRM-20-15.

r 4

a 'i The Proposed Rule According to the rule, both as proposed andias now being adopted, incineration of waste oil would be carrieo outc under. existing effluent limits--

and recordkeeping and_ reporting requirements.- The rule.is int l ended to provide a potentially cost-effective and enviro'nmentally 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 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 5-20.305. Section 20.305 is being replaced by 9 20.2004 as part_ of the final-rule establishing:

the new standards for_ protection against radiation, published May 21,1991.(56 FR 23360). Thus~, this final rule amends both"El 20.305 and 20.2004.

A specific feature of this. rule (contained in both- 6 20.305(b)(3)? and .

9 20.2004(b)(3)) is that-it' supersedes any existing _ provisions that-may be.

contained -in an-individual- plant-license or technical specification that may '

be inconsistent with this rule. The rule does not. exempt licensees from the_-

requirement to- comply with other applicable Commission regulations, 'however.

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 5

only with Part 50,- Appendix 1 based effluent limitations'but a' Iso 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. Restrictions in license conditions or technical specifications on-incineration which are.not consistent with the provisions of this _ rule, e.g.,

provisions which prohibit the onsite incineration of waste oil, will be -

eliminated from existing licenses. The rule makes the requirements; for incineration of waste oil consistent among all licenses, without the need for license amendment on an individual _ plant basis. In particular, the rule eliminates the need for amendments to identify any new' release points;or specific sampling methods-and removes any license conditions or technical specification restrictions from licensees already authorized'to it.cinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under the-rule. For example, restrictions that limit effluents from onsite incineration to a specific-fraction of total effluent releases are removed. 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 41.

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 i

6 J

- _ - _ _ _ ___U.______ _ _ _ _ _ , . -w<v

t -.-

2120 L Street, NW- (Lower level). Washington, DC. Nine of the commenters were .

_ opposed to the-rule, fourteen either supported-or generally supp'orted it.with some questions or comment'. Two others gave comments without specifically.

supporting or opposing the rule.

Most of the commentecs opposed to the rulemak.ag expressed concern about_

the health offects of increased effluents. Some commenters stated that existing effluents are unacceptable. A few commenters were concerned abou.t; the environmental effects ofLthe proposed action. A few commenters suggested that the cost savings did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or that cost should not be a consideration at all. One commenter: suggested shutting down the nuclear industry or at least not licensing any_new plants.

One 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 facto 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 frcm oil' incineration for those-licensees already authorized to-incinerate waste oil). The regulatory 7

e-g:

requireme_nts to assure compliance with these limits 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 doec this rule diminish State authorities. The recently enacted Energy Policy _ Act of 1992 ,.

amends the Atomic Energy Act to provide the States with authority to regulate the disposal or off-site incineration of low-level radioactive waste exempted from regulation by the NRC in the future. The Energy Policy Act does not change any authorities with respect to on-site incineration.

Some commenters specifically opposed incineration as.a disposal alternative, a number of those citing the non-radiological risks'from the -

toxic properties of waste oil. The State of Michigan, although generally-supportive, questioned the impact of potential-toxic emissions and s.uggested-consideration of the combined risks of radiation and toxic _ exposures. Another-commenter suggested that the possible synergistic effects-of chemical and

- radioactive exposures had not been adequately assessed. This commenter was also concerned that unless adequate temperatures were maintained during l incineration, some chemicals would not~ be destroyed but instead would become volatilized and liberated to the environment.

The amount of_ oil to' be disposed of t;y all nuclear power reactors-collectively represents a very small' fraction of all used oils disposed of annually.- This rule does not relieve the licensee from complying with other 8 -

l

I

! applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials. However, the Commission recognizes that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials during the incineration process. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete combustion. However, a high percentage of destruction of organics would be expected in any case. Even a very small boiler can achieve 99 to 99.99 per:ent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds.'

Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high combustion efficiency in order to avoid maintenance problems, particularly if the auxiliary boiler is used.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided that used oil should not be listed as a hazardous waste, it has been developing and has made considerable progress in completing regulations which would control the potential hazards of both used oil recycling and disposal. Some controls cre _

applicable; others are being considered. It will be necessary for licensees to analyze their used oil to determine if it exhibits one of the characteristics of hazardous waste and to determine the applicability of EPA or State requirements. The extent of controls will vary by State, because some States list used oil as a hazardous waste and some have specific requirements applicable to any incinerator.

' Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted at p. 49180.

9

i

~

s..

L L At least some categories of _ used oil may:present a 'significan.t potential; hazard to' public: health and' the environment. As noted, during the development of this rule, EPA has been in the processLof developing regulations pertaining to'used oil. Because the EPA regulations had not been completed' prior to Commission's consideration of 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 J

toxicants from used oil fall into two classes: organic compounds and metals.

The potential health effects of the many possible contaminants are varie'd .

Some contaminants are considered carcinogenic; others are threshold-toxicants, i.e., substances that produce effects on health only above certain " threshold" concentrations. Mora 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 t 50 FR 49258; November 29, 1985, 56 FR_48000; September _23, 1991, 57 FR 21524;.

May 20, 1992, and 57 FR 41566; September 10,1992). These documents, as well as the documents cited in footnotes 2 and 3, are avai'iable for inspection at the'NRC Public Document 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 _ burning- as fuel to illegal dumping (such as _ disposal in.

sewers,.directly on the ground, and in landfills)13nd that illegal dumping would. result in greater environmental harm than inaustrial burning. When this' rule was proposed, the Commission assumed that the impacts from toxic 10

4 constituents would be minimized by burning, because burning is a destructive process that is expected to destroy a very large fraction of the 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; Novembe 19,1985) ..

because it was a first step in regulating used 011'with further regdlations 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 ineets these specifications can be N burned virtually without restriction because EPA has concluded that such o1) when burned does not present a significantly greater risk 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,andflead. Thus, EPA estabitshed specific concentrations for these elements. Of these, lead was of most concern because high levcis were 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 rnetalworking 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 11 m

,,, ,, ,,, , , _M y- -- ' " --

4 cadmium as the most significant impact of burning industrial used 011. 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, industris1, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors. The EPA's analyses included a worst-case urban scenario where used oil was burned across a large city in various types of boilers. In this scenario, over 25 million gallons of used oil ware assumed to be burned in the study area (nationally well over 1 billion gallons of hecting oil are burned in multiple family dwellings alone).' The used oil was burned in an array of boilers with significant 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 with an 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 amount of used oil burned annually. The NRC staff estimates that 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

'PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers and Space Heaters EPA /530-SW-84-Oll, August 1984.

12

by EPA, resulting in far smaller potential risks than those estimated for the urban scenario. Because of tha 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 scuario. = Thus these potential risks are not considered a significant-impact on the environment.

In addition to the metals discussed above, the .used oil specification includes a limit of 4000 ppm of total halogens primarily 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 hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste (i ?66.40(c)). In any case, although used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small amounts of-solvents, used oil as generated would generally not be expected to exceed the used oil specification for total halogens in the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.

The burning of virgin oil (i.e., oil which has not been previously used and thus not contaminated by use) results in some release of toxicants.

Because the EPA was evaluating the impacts of burning oil in wh_ich a_ fraction-of virgin oil was replaced with used oil, the impacts from those toxicants contained in used oil prior to use were considered inapplicable to setting-'th'e--

used oil fuel specification. Because in burning 1 sed oil in an auxiliary boiler _or co-located fossil fuel plant under this rule, the licensee would also be replacing a fraction of Virgin fuel oil, only the incremental impacts-13

i 9 of contaminants resulting from use would be applicable. HowcVer, in the case of an incinerator, all emissions resulting from the burning of used oil, would be an addition to existing emissions. The risks associated with toxicants contained in oil prior to use, while difficult to characterize, have been estimated, and found to be generally less than the risks from contaminants resulting from use, and thus would also not be significant under these circumstances.

Since the proposed rule was published and this analysis was 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 on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 48000), together with a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking concerning used oil management standards. Based on this recently developed information, EPA has also completed its reconsideration of listing used oil as hazardous waste. EPA 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 EPA has also just promulgated a final listing decision for used oils that are recycled and a final rule on used oil management standards (57 FR 41566; September 10, 1992), and has concluded that the regulations in place including those just issued adequately protect human health and the environment and that recycled used oil need not be listed as a hazardous waste. 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 toxic constituents in industrial used oils are generally lower than previously 14

.- ., E assumed from the generic data. Industrial used oils include reactor waste t oils.

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 ,

1 based on overall risks .from individual specific toxicants; although, in the case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together.

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

Two commenters raised questions about other potential impacts which had not been discussed in thr; proposed rule; specifically, worker exposures. -One  ;

of these commenters was also concerned with the potential contamination of the: ,

auxiliary boiler and the resultant increased wastes to be_ disposed of at decommissioning as;well as the potential cost of-establishing the area as a radiation zone. ,

Occupational exposures would be expected to be very small and no greater than those associated with solidification,- transport -and burial of'the waste oil at a low-level waste disposal site. As suggested by the'commenter, there is some potential for contaminating the- auxiliary boiler if it is used to 1 incinerate contaminated' oils. licensees should consider the potential for:

contamination of any equipment that is used for incineration. Factors such as concentration of- the radionuclides _ in the oil, combustion efficiency, and 15

. . . . .= . -

. - . - - - - - - - - .. - = . - - - . .a

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 in 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 1 equipment used for incineration of waste-oil, would be within an area

-controlled by the licensee, in no case would incineration be expected to

• result in radiation Molt +iluiring additional controls; that is, no new areas would be establisned:e ' 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 complianco with existing regulatory requirements including, in particular, existing effluent limits. Amendment of<

licenses to authorize this activity is considered unnecessary. The Commission -

will use its authority to inspect and take enforcement.-action to ensure =

compliance with effluent limits as it does its other requirements. Given this 16

- , , - , . . - - - . e - - - -- , . -, . , - -

i approach, the Commission was of the opinion that the issues presented by the-proposed rule would be more appropriately resolved in a rulemaking proceeding.

In accordance with customary NRC procedure, the proposed rule was published for comment for the express purpose of giving interested members of the public '

an opportunity to present their concerns and comments on these issues to the  ;

Commission. i 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 1

commenter also suggested that this rule would discourage storage fot recycling which the commenter viewed as contrary to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act),

Because most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel,' '

i recycling would not eliminate the potential for atmospheric emissions. Onsits-reprocessing would involve the removal of small- amounts of radioactive -

contamination so that the oil could be reused offsite. This option constitutes treatment and recycle rather than disposal. Unless the Commission develops specific exempticas for low concentration oils, decontamination must be completed to-the extent that no radioactivity is detectable using measurement techniques approved for-environmental monitoring. Because some oils cannot be sent to low-level waste disposal facilities and the cost of - ,

disposing of the other oil that can be sent has been escalating, recycling of L

~

used oil is getting more attention by the industry. Some means-of incineration-(i.e., use in the auxiliary boiler) may also -result in a small

' EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19,1986) noted at p. 41902.

17 y- -m --

y ,yr y. - -

w- w s--.c- g- e.%-----,- -.s. , e e. , , er _=m'* .i= -e e a'v '-

4 increase in energy recovery over the practice of solidification and burial at a LLW disposal facility, which never involves eventual energy recovery. The environmental impacts of either onsite incineration or decontamination for recycle are very low. There appears to be 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 or leakage. Storage may also require the facility to obtain the necessary permits under RCRA.

One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash from incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problem 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 of ash is produced when compared to the volume of contaminated oil incinerated.

Therefore, the ash does not contribute significantly to the overall problem of mixed wastes. Because 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 huardous properties of these materials.

Some of the commenters supporting the proposed rule expressed the rationale for their support. Some, including the State of Ir. diana, 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, 18

v and one, the added flexibility. One commenter provided information concerning the practicality of incineration in general and of using used oil in the startup boiler in particular. Many of the commenters that supported the rule  ;

made suggestions for changes or clarifications.

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 ,

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 Copies o'f NURFGs 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.

19

be a small percentage of the radioactively contaminated used oil needing disposal. From the perspective of radiological impacts, there is no need to limit the type of used oil which can be incinerated. (The above discussion on toxic constituents considered all types of used oils.) The licensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological limits established under 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1 and will be responsible for ensuring that the techniques used for determining the radiological contents are adequate. Accordingly, the rule has been changed to include a broader range of oil types. The itcensee, 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, if the uncontaminated oils are mixed with radioactively contaminated oil, they become part of = mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, therefore, subject to ilRC requirements. Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently characterized to determine:

(1) 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 20

activities. For clarification, the words "and maintenance" have been added to the final rule.

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 prcceeding has been limited to the onsite incineration of waste oil generated on, not off, the reactor site. At the present time, the Commission believes that questions relating to the onsite 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 concenter suggested that offsite incineration be allowed with the condition of 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 in the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting that their analysis, provided as a concent to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.

The August 29,1988 (53 FR 32914), Federal Register notice 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 dental, 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 21

other alternatives raised by the petitioners. Reconsideration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking. As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was ignored, this analysis was considered along with the original petition, the other public comments, and the referenced report (liUREG/CR-4730). The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately.

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

One commenter suggested that only one generic l 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 i 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutes an unreviewed safety question but to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant to this process.

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 G 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 mrem / year for waste oil incineration. Another commenter questioned whether the maximum quantity reported (5000 gal /yr) would conform to the " proposed dose limit" of 1 mrem /yr to the general public. The State of Texas suggested 22 1

l '

l 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 radioactivity concentration or dose limit for waste oil incineration, it is projected that in most, if not all cases, effluents from contaminated waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of total eff'uents. However, it is not considered necessary to establish a separate effluent limit for waste oil incineration, as long as the total amount of radioactivity in 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 1 and 10 CFR Part 20.

A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact, are not needed 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 the preamble of the proposed rule because at the time there was no facility licensed to accept radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal other than LLW disposal facilities. Two commenters suggested that " site" be defined as the region "within the site btundary," and one of these suggested that the site boundary be further defined in order to provide consistency in the interpretation of "onsite" disposals.

"Onsite" in normal usage means "within the site boundary." A formal definition is considered unnecessary. Presently, the site or site boundary is 23

defined in the individual technical specifications for each li:ense. 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 Part 20 and Appendix 1 to Part 50. The licensee's decision on the specific location for incineration will depend on its ability to demonstrate compliance with those limits applicable to releases of effluents to unrestricted areas. The provision in i 20.305(b)(3) (or i 20.2004(b)(3)),

which states that i 20.305 (or i 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.

Three commenters suggested 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 specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely to illustrate the range of options which may be involved, not to limit the options. Nothing in the rule would restrict the use of central stati(n power plant boilers or mobile incinerators if they are onsite. The use of this type of equipment at the site of a licensed nuclear reactor would be governed by the reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part 50.

24

The State of New Jersey wanted the effluents from incineration ~to be

< reported in the semiannual- effluent report. Effluents from incineration are- l

(

not exempted from effluent reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR j 50.36a(a)(2) and therefore will be reported.

The State of Michigan suggested the Commission mention that other- l 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 i 20.305(c). This. provision is also contained in the existing.

i20.2007.

Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters. One commenter suggested clarifying that Appendix;! limits be met on an annual average basis only. ,

Radiological release limits contained in-facility. technical 4 specifications ~which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50,-Appendix ! contain a range of limits including quarterly limits and instantaneous limits. The =

rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation to comply with'the j 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 releases.- Accordingly, licensees continue to be required to satisfy the total-radiological effluent release limitations- set forth in the' facilityTtechnical-specifications.

Another commenter suggested clarification that the rule 15 not intended to require a cost-benefit.a'.alysis pursuant to 6. 50.34a.

As noted in the_ prorosed-rule, licensees are required-under l'50.71(c)-

to periodically update their_fSAR, and.in so doing, submit descriptions of equipment and procedures to the extent that there have been changes _to.the-25 x - _ _ , . . _ _ _ _

information previously submitted under i 50.34(b)(2)(1) and (b)(3) and 5 50.34a. No cost-benefit analysis is reautred.

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 is not a listed hazardous substance; (2) some States do classify used oil as hazardous; (3) State requirements governing any incineration may apply requiring case-by-case review by the State; and (4) EPA may require a permit for 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 appitcable but can only note that these types of requirements exist and must be carefully considered. As clearly stated in i 20.305(c) and in 6 20,2007, 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 licensees 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 (57 FR 71524), EPA published a notice of a decision not to list used oil destined /or disposal as 26 1 INI1pE

V .i R

hazardous waste. However, based on EPA's data published in the federal Register on September 23,1991(56FR48000),itappearsthat'although_a significant portion of industrial waste oil, like that generated by nuclear.  ;

power plants, will be identified as hazardous waste through testing for the- t characteristic of toxicity, more than half of this industrial waste oil will not be identified as hazardous. 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 Commissiori recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may involve significant adminis';rative effort. However,'the changes required in order to account for the effluents.from waste oil incineration are relatively Ifmited -- j primarily related to the fact that a new point of release may be involved..

Conclusion As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the rule as proposed with minor modifications. Because the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and *isk- '

effective means of disposing of waste oil 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 27

maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities will be covered by other existing regulatory requirements set forth in Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.

These requirements are impiemented primarily through technical specifications established under 9 50.36a. In addition, risks associated with transportation te ~$a L8.W disposal facility or other treatment or disposal facility are e111.. .ted and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely be reduced, it should be noted that any solid radioactive residuos produced in burning the waste oil would, for purposes of regulation, be treated as any other radioactive solid waste.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has reviewed the environmental assessment and finding of no significant environmental impact pubit:hed in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32917-32919) in connection with the proposed rule. The Commission has also considered the public comments and the changes in the text of the final rule, in particular, the public comments relating to environmental matters and the additional discussion of the environmental impacts prepared in response to those comments. The environmental assessment has been modified to be consistent with the discussion in this preamble concerning the environmental impacts of toxic emissions from burning used oil.

The 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 does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 1

28

i the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is  !

not required.

The revised environmental assessment and finding of no significant-impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, idW, (hwer Level),

Washington, DC.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement a

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.

_ Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule.

That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of action considered by the Commission. .The analysis is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. :(Lower Level); Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-Telephone (301) 492-3638.

29 i

. . - ~ _ . , . _ . . , . . _ . . . - . , _ . . . . . _ _ . ..

Regulatory flexibility Certification in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility. Act of 1980, 5 tl.S.C.

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

Backfit Analysis

, The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, that-a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1)'.

ListofSubjectsin10CFRPart20 Byproduct material, Criminal penal +.y, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and contai.iers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping rer,uirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and -

disposal.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,-the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 30 l'

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following j .

amendments to 10 CT' Part 20 1

Part 20 - Standards for Protection Against Radiation r

1. The authority citation for Part 20 is revised to read as follows: '

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161,-182, 186, 68 Stat. 930,.

933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093,-2095,-  !

2111,2133,2134,2201,2232,2236), secs.201,asamended. 202, 206, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5546). 1 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, '

20.1102, 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,- j 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 5.20.2106(d) is issued under. the Privacy Act. of = 1974,-

Pub. L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552'a i and il 20.102, 20.103(e). 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b),20.409,20.1102(a)(2)and:(4)',-20.1204(c),L20.1206(g)--and(h),.

20.1904(c)(4),20.1905(c)and(d),20.2004(b),20.2005(c),20.2006(b)--(d),  ;

-i 31- .

.,.: . ._ . _ _ , . . . _ _ _ , _ , , . . _ _ . . . __ m

4 20.2101-20.2103,20.2104(b)-(d),20.2105-20.2108,and20.2201-20.2207 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:

i 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

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

(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2) If _the material is in a form and concentration specified in i 20.306; or (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to i 20.106(b)~

or i 20.302.

(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 licensed under Part 50 of this chapter -

may be incinerated on the site where generated prov;ded'that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such-incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix 1 to Part 50 Eof 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 'll 50.34 and 50.34alof this chapter associated.

with this incineration pursuant to i 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.

32-4 mumamens ..--mn

The licen.ee 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 1 must be disposed of as provided by 1 20.301. t (3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite vaste incineration

• under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

(c) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section relieves the licensee from complying with other applicable Federal, State, and-local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.

3. Section 20.2004 is revised to read as follows:

1 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) f this section; or

- (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in.

5 20.2005; or (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to 6 20.2002.

(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 licensed under Part.50 of this chapter l may be-incinerated on-thel site where generated provided that the total g

l 33 <

L L

l-Wgas g ee gy -- - y --- = y

radioactive offluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, 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 infurmation supplied under il 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to i 50.71 of this chapter, as app *,opriata The licensee shall also follow the procedures of 6 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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1992.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

34

.( . p

.c

. i

-f .

i

?

?

t E

'i F

i I

P i

a

. t h

Enclosure 2~ ,

I6+~,

Marked-up Copy of.FR Notice 6

t

.,7 se r

- - p 6

f o 2 eu-u4 yr y m' -

$ Tv1 t- M M

• T'*"d* h-b- -

Wf ~" t * $

m --

3 4:  :

[7590-01)_

j l

- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 RIN: 3150-AC14

+

1 Disposal of Waste 011 by Incineration-AGENCY: Nuclear. Regulatory Commission. - ~i ACTION: Final rule.  ;

SUMMARY

'The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to--

permit the onsite incineration of contaminated' waste oils generated ~at

. licensed nuclear power plants without amending existing. operating licen19s, L This action willl help to-ensure that the. limited capacity of licensed regional. -

-low-level waste l disposal facilities is used moreJefficiently- while maintaining - -

releases;from operating-nuclear power plants at levels =which are4 "as: low as>ist a

reasonably achievable." Incineration of this class 'of waste must be in-full

compliance with the Commission's current regulations which restrict the- :i release of radioactive materials.to the environment;for.each operating-. nuclear; power plant.: Any other applicable Federal, State, orflocal;frequirements? thatl relate'to the: toxic or hazardous characteristics of the waste oillwould-have

.to be satisfied. - This rule constitutes-a-partial granting of a petition _ for"

~

rulemaking (PRM-20-15) . submitted by Edison Electric 1 1nstitute and..Util1ty-

^

1 m

-- ENCLOSURE ? 1:

J - s- . . ., - . . .. a . :  : .. . . . . . - ~ .

o.

e Nuclear Waste Management Group. The remaining portions of PRM-20-15 are denied without prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on (30 days after publication in the Federa1_ Eeaister). ,

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

i 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 establish 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 appropriate 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 2

ENCLOSURE 1

9 cf the general public greater than 1 mrem /yr. The petitioners recommended that 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 commenters 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.

On August 29, 1988, the Commission published a proposed rule in the federal Register (53 FR 32914) that would amend its regulations to allow onsite incineration of contaminated 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 Utliity Nuclear Waste Managemer . Group.

The other alternative disposal methods suggested by the petitioners appear to have acceptably low radiological impacts. ilwever, as indicated in the notice of poposed rulemaking, adequate information was not available to evaluate the acceptability of these disposal methods. The NRC has not received information during the interim that would alleviate this deficiency.

In addition, the proposed rule indicated a number of other considerations that 3 l l

ENCLOSURE 1

1 limit the desirability of the other alternatives in relation to onsite incineration. These consideraticns include --

(1} Some of the toxic or hazardous 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 the requirement for a radioactive materials license; (3) An offsite incine '. tor or recycling center might handle waste oil -

from multiple reactors which could potentially result in higher impacts that were not fully analyzed by the petitioner; and L (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 E

respect to onsite incineration. The NRC denies the remainder of FRM-20 15 without prejudice for the reasons noted in the proposed rule and summarized in this discussion. This completer 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 thari burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This approach will. preserve the limited capacity of the regional 4

ENCLOSURE ' I

licensed waste disposal sites, reduce the costs of waste disposal at licensed low-level waste burial sites, and eliminate a less desirab'e waste form at the sites thereby potentially reducing long-term maintenar ( ts 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 ?0.305. Section 20.305 is being replaced by 9 .C.2004 as part of the final rule establishing the new standards for protection against radiation, published May 21, 1991 (56 ,

FR 23360). Thus, this final rule amends both 19 20.305 and 20.2004.

A specific feature of this rule (contained in both 6 20.305(b)(3) and i 20,2004(b){3)) is that it supersedes any existing provisions that may be contained in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent with this rule. The rule does not exerrt licensees from the requirement to comply with other applicable Commission regulations, however.

Specifically, licensees must comply with tne effluent release limitations of ~

10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1. 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. Restrictions in license mnditions or technical specification: on incineration which are not consistent with the provisicas of this rule, e.g.,

provisions wnich prohibit the onsite incineration of waste oil, will be eliminated from existing licenses. The rule makes the requirements for incineration of waste oil consistent among all licenses, without the need for 5

ENCLOSURE 1

4 l

license amendment on an individual plant basis. In particular, the rule eliminates the need for amendments to identify any new release points or specific 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. For example, restrictions that limit effluents from onsite inc'neration to a specific fraction of total effluent releases are removed. At the same time, the rule l__

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 it with some questions or comment. Two others gave comments without specifically supporting or opposing the rule.

Most of the commenters opposed to the rulemaking expressed concern about the health effects of increased effluents. Some commenters stated that existing effluents are unacceptable. A few commenters were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few commenters suggested that the cost savings did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or 6

ENCLOSURE 1

=.

that cost should nc 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 dereguiation 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 facto 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). The regulatory requirements to assure compliance with these limits 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 cone rning 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. The recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 1992 amends the Atomic Energy Act to provide the States with authority to regulate the disposal or off-site incineration of low-level radioactive waste exempted from regulation by the NRC in the future. The Energy Policy Act does not change any authorities with respect to on-site incineration.

7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s ,

- Some commenters _ specifically opposed incineration as a disposal-

~

alternative, a-number of those citing the non-radiological-risks from the -

toxic properties of waste oil. The State.of Michigan, although generally r

supportive, questioned the impact of potential toxic emissions and suggested-consideration of the combined risks of radiation and toxic exposures. Another.

commenter suggested that the possible synergistic effects of chemical and-radioactive exposures had not been adequately assessed. This commenter was-also concerned that unless adequate temperatures were maintained during-incineration, some chemicals would not be destroyed but instead would become I

volatilized and liberated to the environment.

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 annually. This rule does not relieve the licensee from complying.with other .

applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other-toxic or l- hazardous property of these materials. However,-the Commission recognizes-that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials during'the <

incineration process. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil',. incineration must'be carried out at sufficient temperatures and witt appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed.to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete

~

(- -

L combustion. However, a high percentage of destruction of organics would be . ,

l 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 Also, there is considerable-incentive for the licensee to maintain high i

l

' Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted-

? -at p. 49180.

l l 8 ENCLOSURE 1

,-- ., r ,. --

s 6

combustion efficiency in order to avoid maintenance problems, particularly if the auxiliary boiler is used.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided that used oil [d(+t4eed-fe-44spoM] should not be listed as a hazardous waste, it has been developing and has.made considerable progress in coinpleting regulations which would control the potential hazards of both used oil recycling and disposal. Some controls are applicable; others are Esin53bnsidird (unde development-) . It will be necessary for licensees to analyze their used oil to determine if it exhibits one of the characteristics of hazardous waste and to determine the applicability of EPA or State requirements. The extent of controls will vary by State, because (oM States list used oil as a hazardous waste 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 development of this rule, EPA has been in the process of developing regulations pertaining to used oil. Because the EPA regulations had not been completed prior to Commission's consideration of this rule, the Commission analyzed the potential impacts of releases of toxic material from incineration of waste oil assuming i 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 threshold toxicants, i.e., substances that produce effects ohhealth 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 9

ENCLOS'JRE 1 l

4 50 FR 49258;tNovember 29, 1985, 56 FR 48000; September 23, 1991, and 57 FR 21524; May 20,1992Za~njdI57?FRT4156MplimlB023f92,). - These documents, as well as the documents cited in footnotes 2 and 3, are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document 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 cil to be diverted from industrial burning as fuel to illegal dumping (such as disposal in sewers, directly on the ground, and in landfills) and that illegal dumping would result in great 9r environmental harm than industrial. burning. When this rule was proposed, the Commission assumed that the impacts from toxic constituents would be minimized by burning, because burning is a destructive process that is expected to destroy a very large fraction of the 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 when burned does not present a significantly greater risk 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 specific concentrations for these i

f l

10 ENCLOSURE 1

a L

elements. Of these, lead was of most concern because high levels were 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 011. 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 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 (nationally well over 1 billion gallons of heating oil are burned in multiple family dwellings alone).2 The used oil was burned in an array of boilers with significant 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 2

PEDCo' Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SW-84-Oll, August 1984.

11 ENCLOSURE 1

i population within 5 kilometers;of~the center of the-urban area to ambient concentrations of these _ metals associated withian -increased cancer risk of. ls

'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' ceder of 300,000 gallons of used oil per year or about 0.05 percent of the amount of used oil-burned annually. The NRC staff estimates that 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 for1the 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 l 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 on the environment.

In addition to the metals discussed above,- the used oil 1 specification-includes a limit of 4000 ppm of total halogens primarily 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 hazardous waste because-it

- has-been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste (1266.40(c)). In any. case',

although used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small amounts of -

solvents, used oil as generated would generally not be expected to exceed the used oil specification for total halogens in the absence of deliberate mixing-with hazardous waste.

12 ENCLOSURE 1;

4 i t The burning of virgin oil (i.e., oil which has not been previously used and thus not contaminated by use) results in some release of toxicants.

Because the EPA was evaluating the impacts of burning oil in which a fraction of virgin oil was replaced with used oil, the impacts from those toxicants contained in used oil prior to use were considered inapplicable to setting. the used oil fuel specification. Because in burning used oil in an auxiliary boiler or co-located fossil fuel plant under this rule, the licensee would also be replacing a fraction of virgin fuel oil, only the incremental impacts of contaminants resulting from use would be applicable. However, in the case of an incinerator, all emissions resulting from the burning of used oil, would be an addition to existing emissions. The risks associated with toxicants contained in oil prior to use, while difficult to characterize, have been estimated, and found to be generally less than the risks from contaminants resulting from use, and thus would also not be significant under these circumstances.

Since the proposed rule was published and this analysis was 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 on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 48000), together with a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking concerning used oil management standards. Based on this recently developed information, EPA has also completed its reconsideration of listing used oil [dtstined for dispcsal] as hazardous waste, EPA 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). [$]lpMhii[sl5?jd5Q[jpubiMjf[a(([Gs1 li 4 5 9 M NI 5 N h 3 h 5 s N s 5 N E @ b S 5 555 5 kNI D 6 E U $ 1l E 51 N S Ii5I dl $ i l 13 1

ENCLOSURE 1

4 4

_ _b_er,,t1 0 .- .1992 seand7has_iconcl.

manageme s r s- M R,dl566

. tand~a._d..,,S em s de_o,.

u . _. .t.

?tha

~

~~i ~l! ,

.t,h,e.,m.e. ttr .gul,a. , ,t on _p P l.a._ce _l_..

i_ ud_l.n9_4 l_I __t.h.o_se_i . s s_ued.: u__s a_e_qu_at_el1, ct. ,t._ ._an. R_ro_t..e_1~ h, dh_a.tg.ecyc _l._d.e_.jug et j as,,

ben.. thian ez gy

,__dj_ i,e._l_rpnm_m.,ta_.p,d. a s ..d.j_oQ. __dj._Q,;

igee 2q ,)J~st_ed, ta haziridpuls~sBM The Commission has reviewed the newer data and concluded that it does not change the major conclusions related to the 13A ENCLOSURE 1

envircnmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil. In fact, the data suggests that the level of toxic constituents in industrial used oils are generally lower than previously assumed from the generic data. Industrial used oils include reactor waste oils.

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 the case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together.

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

Two commenters raised questions about other potential impacts which had not been discussed in the prooosed rule; specifically, worker exposures. One -

of these commenters was also concerned with the potential contamination of the auxiliary boiler and the resultant increased wastes to be disposed of at decommissioning as well as the potential cost of establishing the area as a radiation zone.

Occupational exposures would be expected to be very small and no greater than those associated with solidification, transport, and burial of the waste oil at a low-level waste disposal site. As suggested by the commenter, there is some potential for contaminating the auxiliary boiler if it is used to incinerate contaminated oils. Licensees should consider the potential for contamination of any equipment that is used for incineration. Factors such as 14 ENCLOSURE 1

concentration of the radionuclides in the oil, combustion efficiency, and 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 in 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 to 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 limits. Amendment of licenses to authorize this activity is considered unnecessary. The Commission will use its authority to inspect and take enforcement action to ensure compliance with effluent limits as it does its other requirements. Given this 15 ENCLOSURE 1

'4

~*

approach, the Commission was of the opinion- that the _ issues presented by the proposed rule would be more appropriately resolved in a rulemaking proceeding..

In accordance with customary HRC procedure, the: proposed, rule was published-for comment: for the express purpose of giving interested members of the public an opportunity to present their concerns and comments on these-issues to the Commission. 0 One commenter suggested that a more comprehensive environmental analysis may indicate that incineration is.not the best alternative but; possibly, onsite reprocessing would be b^cause it would conserve petroleum resources and -

eliminate the release of combustion products to' the atmosphere. This ccmmenter also suggested that this rule would discourage storage for recycling which the commenter viewed as contrary to NEPA (National Environmental-Policy Act).

Because most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel,'

o 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 -

constitutes treatment and; recycle rather than disposal. - Unless the Commission develops specific exemptions for low concentration oils, decontamination must be completed to the extent that no radioactivity is detectable'using measurement techniques approved for environmental monitoring. Because some-oils cannot be sent to low-level waste disposal facilities and the cost of.

disposing of the other oil that can be sent has been escalating, recycling of used oil is getting more attention-by the industry. Some means of incineration (i.e., use in the auxiliary boiler) may also result in a small iacrease in energy recovery over the practice of solidification and burial at

' EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.

16 ENCLO5URE-l I

m  ;

a LLWdisposal facility,_'which never involves' eventual energy recovery. --The.

environmental impacts of either onsite. incineration or decontamination;for--

recycle are very low. There appears to be no_ reason'to restrict either:

alternative beyond whatever EPA regulations will be applicable inleither case..

Excessive storage onsite for potential future recycling,. however, involves y

some risk from fire or leakage. Storage may-also require the_ facility.to--

obtain the necessary. permits under RCRA.

One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash from-incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problem 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 quant'ity of ash is produced when compared to the volume of contaminated oil incinerated.

Therefore, the ash does not contribute significantly to the overall problem of mixed wastes. Because 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 corrplying with other Federal, State,. and.' local, regulations which may be applicable to other-toxic or hazardous properties of these materials.

Some of the commenters supporting the' proposed rule expressed the l: 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 the practicality of incineration in general and of using used oil in' the

=17 ENCLOSURE l-

e i

startup boiler in particular. Many of the commenters that supported the rule made suggestions for changes or clarifications.

Two commenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil such that synthetic oils and cutting, penetrating, ar d 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 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 servt 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 needing disposal. From the perspective of radiological impacts, there is no need to limit the type of used oil which can be incinerated. (The above discussion on

' 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 l'

toxic constituents considered all types of used oils.) The licensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing. radiological limits established under 10 CFR Part- 20 and Part 50, Appendix ! and will be responsible for ensuring that the techniques used for determining the-radiological contents are adequate. Accordingly, the rule has been changed'to include a broader range of oil. types. The _ licensee, however, will have to exercise care in determining which oils should be incinerated in the equipment to be used considering both technical constraints and compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

Uncontaminated "non-waste" oils are not subject to the Commission's disposal requirements, but, if the uncontaminated oils are mixed with radioactively contaminated oil, they become part of a mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, therefore, subject to NRC requirements. Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently characterized to determine:

(1) 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" have been added to the final rule.

Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration of waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil- from 19 ENCLOSURE 11

i l .

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 believes that questions relating to the onsite 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 of 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 in the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting that their analysis, provided as a comment to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.

The August 29,1988 (53 FR 32914), Federal Register notice 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 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 20 ENCLOSURE 1

4 a

the referenced report (NUREG/CR-4730). The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately, ,

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

One commenter suggested that only one generic 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 S 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutes an unreviewed safety question but to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant to this process.

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 5 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 limitLof 1 mrem / year for waste oil incineration. Another commenter questioned whether the maximum quantity reported (5000 gal /yr) would conform.to the' " proposed dose limit" of 1 mrem /yr to the general public. The State of Texas suggested-that the NRC use available dose assessment computer codes to verify that.this

" reference dose"'(i mrem / year) will not be exceeded.

As indicated in the proposed rule, there is not enough information to select a specific radioactivity concentration or dose limit for waste oil incineration. It is projected that in most, if not all cases, effluents from 21 ENCLOSURE 1

e contaminated waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of totai effluents. However, it is not considered necessary to establish _a separate effluent limit for waste oil incineration, as long as the total amount of radioactivity in 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 1 and 10 CFR Part 20.

A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact, are not needed to satisfy the intent of the commenter. Two commeaters suggested that the rule be revised to allow transfer to an offsite licensed sendor.

Nothing in this rule or in other regulions 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 the preamble of the proposed rule because at the time there was no facility licensed to accept radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal other than LLW disposal f acilities. Two commenters suggested that " site" be defined as the region "within the site boundary," and one of these suggested that the i

site boundary be further defined in order to provide consistency in the interpretation of "onsite" disposals.

"0nsite" in normal usage means "within the site boundar.y." A formal-definition is considered unnecessary. Presently, the site or site boundary is defined in the individual technical specifications for each license. However, the rule has limited the incineration to the site where the 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 I l

under Part 20 and Appendix 1 to Part 50. The licensee's decision on the  !

I specific location for incineration will depend on its ability to demonstrate l 22 ENCLOSURE 1

a ,

compliance withL those limits applicable to releases of-effluents to-- -

unrestricted areas. The- provision in l~ 20.305(b)(3) (or i 20.2004(b)(3)), .

which states that i 20.305 (or 9 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.

Three commenters suggested the alternative of using mobile.iricinerators.

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-specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely to illustrate the range of options which.may be involved, not to limit-the options. Nothing in the rule would restrict the use of central station power plant boilers or mobile incinerators if they-are:onsite. The use of this type of 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 23 ENCLOSURE 1

. _ e4-_ 1yz-,

provision was in the proposed rule and remains in the final rule as an amendment to i 20.305(c). This provision is also contained in the existing i 20.2007.

Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters. One commenter suggested clarifying that Appendix ! 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 I contain a range of limits including quarterly limits and instantar.eous limits. The rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation to comply with 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 releases. Accordingly, licensees continue to be required to satisfy the total radiological effluent release limitations set forth in the facility technical specifications.

Another commenter suggested clarification that the rule is not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to i 50.34a.

As noted in the proposed rule, licensees are required under 6 50.71(e) to periodically update their FSAR, and in so doing, submit descriptions of equipment and procedures to the extent that there have been changes to the information previously submitted under 150.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 9 50.34a. No 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 is not a listed hazardous substance; 24 ENCLOSURE 1

3-

.o (2) someLStates'do classify used oil asihazardous; (3) State-requirements governing any incineration-may; apply requiring- i case-by-case review by the State; and (4) EPA may require a-permit for radioactive releases under the Cleans 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, cequirements are in a state of flux. The Commission canno't identify all other requirements which may be ' applicable but~can only note that these types of requirements exist and must be carefully considered. As clearly stated in 6 20.305(c) and in- 6 20,2007, 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 licensees with even more of a problem, 'particularly if the quant ity of oil stored onsite approaches :the -

quantity limits imposed for fire safety'. On May 20, 1992 (57 FR 21524),: EPA published a notice of a decision not to list used oil destined for disposal as--

hazardous waste. However, based on EPA's data published in the : Federal-t Register on September 23,1991- (56 FR 48000), it appears -that- although a significant portion of industrial waste oil, like that generated by nuclear-power plants', will be-identified as-hazardous waste through: testing for the characteristic of toxicity,"more -than half of this industrial waste oil will-not be identified as hazardous. 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

-25 ENCLOSUREL1-

A 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 te 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 ODCM may involve significant administrative effort. However, the changes required in order to account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are relatively limited -

primarily related to the fact that a new point of release may be involved.

Conclusion As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the rule as proposed with minor modifications. Because the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of waste oil while maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action should be positive. For licensees who elect to process waste oils in this fashion, monitoring and maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities will be covered by other-existing regulatory requirements set forth in Part :0 and Piri 50, Appendix 1.

These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under 150.36a. In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW disposal facility 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 burning the waste oil would, for purposes of regulation, be treated as any other radioactive solid waste.

26 ENCLOSURE 1

w s..

Finding of: No Significant _ Environmental Impact:- - Availability

~

The Commissio_n 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. The Commission has also considered the public comments and the_ changes in the text-of the final rule, in particular, the public comments relating,to environmental matters and the additional discussion of the-environmental q impacts prepared in response to those comments. -The environmental assessment-'

has been modified to be consistent with the discussion in this preamble concerning the environmental impacts of toxic' emissions from burning used oil.

The Commission-bas 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 does  ;

, not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of .

the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is i not required.

- The revised environmental assessment and finding.of no significant.

l impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection and -l' l- copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L- Street, NW. (Lower Level),.

j q

l Washington, DC.

4 y

i i

j l

l' l

27 L ENCLOSURE 1 L

. _ , , ~ . - ---

o-

. Paperwork Reduction'Act Statement  ;

-This final rule does not contain a new-or amended information collection- I 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.

Regulatory Analysis

'I

i. The Commissinn has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule. -l l

j That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of .j l action considered by the Commission. The analysis is 'available for inspection j l l at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, l DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Catherine R. Mattsen,.

1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555 Telephone (301) 492-3638.

1 L Regulatory Flexibility Certification l

l In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5-U.S.C. _

l- 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule .does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule only-affects nuclear power plants.~ The companies that own these plants do not-fall L 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.

L 28 ENCLOSURE 1

' ,., b

• ~, ,

a Backfit= Analysis The NRC' has determined that the backfit rule,110 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 amendments do not involve any' provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

1 List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 20-Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational. safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,- Waste treatment .and '

disposal.

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

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

l- Part 20 - Standards.For Protection'Against Radiation l

i=

1. The authority citation for Part 20 is revised to read as follows!

L AUTHORIT.Y: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, l 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093,f2095,.

29 ENCLOSURE 1 j

I 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),

55 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, 20.1102, 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, 2r 1801, 20.1802, 20.1901(a), 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.cu03, 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 5 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L.93-579, 5 0.S.C. 552a; and 55 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(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. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2. Section 20.30' is revised to read as follows:

5 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

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

(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in 5 20.306; or 30 ENCLOSURE 1

14  ;

l 4 .

]

(3) As specifically approved by the 'smmission pursuant t. I 20,106(b)-

or i 20.302.

a (b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally j i

as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) i that have Deen 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, incit' ding the effluents from such incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix _1 to Part 50 of this.

chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable license i

conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of-  ;

waste oil. The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the  :

wmation supplied under il 50.34 and 50,34a of this chapter associated

~

t i this incineration pursuant to i 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate. I 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 _ incinerating waste oils _

must be dispcsed of as orovided by i 20.301.

(3) The provisions of this section. authorize onsite waste incineratinn--

under the terms of this section and supertede any provision in an individual-  !

plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent,- .

(c) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section relieves the licensee'from  ;

complying with other applicable Federal, State, and . local regulations L

governing any other toxic or hazardeus property of these materials._

L F

l-L E 31- ..

ENCLOSURE'l

o  :

e

3. Section 20.2004 is revised to read as follows:  :

i i 20.2004 Treatment or_ disposal by incinerttion.-  ;

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

(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this-sectioni or- l (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in  ;

6 20.2005; or i (3) As specifically tpproved by the Commission pursuant to i 20.2002.

(b)(1) Waste cils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally a as lubricants, coolant 3, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radion Mvely 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--  :

i radioactive effluents from the facilityi including the effluents from 'such.

incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix ! to Part 50 of this: .q chapter and the effluent relaase 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 i 50.71 o/ this chapter,- as appropriate.;

• The licensee shall also follow the procedurtis 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 incinerating waste oils

• must be disposed of as provided by i 20.2001.-

32

. ENCLOSURE 1

_ N, -

_ . , . . -, --, _ . _._ _ _ . m. . .i _ . .. c ___ _ _ _;__ _ _ . _.

x 1- .

4 e

?

(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil. -

incineration under the terms of this section.and supersede an) provision in an t

individual- plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1992. "i For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i 3

Samuel J.-Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

.t  :

o

,e h'

m H,-

( .- ,

i f

-i t

33 .. .,

ENCLOSURE 1 i-j .- * ..

3

_. s _  ;*

.+ ~ >.:_.- ~

.,..s. M. - 4.s,-.. .- - - .. . . _ - , - . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . , _ , _ _ , , , , , . , _ . . . , , , , ,. _ , . . _ , . .

9 k

N'.

e d

t Enclosure 3 Congressional letter Package 4

r-

~

, / 'o UNITED STATES l' ,m n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{. l WASHINGTON, D C. 20b5$

\ *s e/

The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The fluclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the federal Reaister 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. These operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulato y concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuc'.3ar Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 cc: Representative John J. Rhodes

, t 4

The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Ep.aister 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 r,eed for a specific license amendment. These operations will be subject to contil.ued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 cc: Representative John J. Rhodes I

Distribution: [ CONGRESS.L.ET)

DACool/RPHEB rf Circ /Chron DRathbun, OCA JMTaylor, ED0 I EBeckjord l CHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi RAMeck CMattsen Ofic: RPHED ORA RP RA DDhRES F oo:GIR:RES D 0 o OCA Name: CMattsen:lc RAMeck oACool FCostanti Morris CJHeltames EBeckjord JN ytor Rathbun D:ts: $ /( /92 It / ( 7 /92 lI/ (1/92 /1/7/92 ////7 /92 g p 92 Id /g /92 f92 / /92 OFFICIAL RECORo COPY

. +#po ataug'o.

~, UNITED $TATEs

[*

< g a

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 70%B f

The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the federal Reaister 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. These operations will be subject to continued complianca with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for dispo i of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed '

low-level waste disposal site. This rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 l

cc: Representative Carlos J. Moorhead l

l l

l -

i

. i

• l

~

I The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce i United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Egdg.ral Renister 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. These operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound tnethod for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste dis)osal site. This rule was initiated in response to a petition-for rulemacing (PRM-20-15) submitted by-the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 cc: Representative Carlos J. Moorhead Distribution: [ CONGRESS.LET)

DACool/RPHEB rf Circ /Chron DRathbun, OCA JMTaylor, EDO EBeckjord Cileltemos BMorris FCostanzi RAMeck CMattsen

~ Offe: nPHEB DRA RP f% B RA DD'DiudRES 0 S OD.GIR RES D. D OCA Name: CMattSen-lc

. RAMeck DACool FCostanzl bnis CJHeltemos EBeckjord Jt.' ytor Rathbun 0 te: / /92 81 / / 7 / 9 2 U//7 /92 f f /n /92 il /d /92 # /AY92 H// p /92 , '92 / /92:

OFFICIAL RECORD CO. PY

+usan ef Iog UNITED STATES 8 3.c,< g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g  ; WA$mGTON. D C. 2055$

%,.*..../

The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Reaister for publication the enclosed final amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 20. lhe amendment allows nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment. These operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 cc: Senator Al n K. Simpson

4 9

The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Reaister 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. These operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound-method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. Inis rule was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Wasta Management Group.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Final Amendment /10 CFR Part 20 cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson Distribution: (CONGRESS.LET) l' DACool/RPHEB rf Circ /Chron DRathbun, OCA JMTaylor, EDO EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi l

RAMeck CMattsen Offe: RPHEB ORA gPMEB ORA RPH dilj-B[RA~

oOMRES AqRRES c& oo S o.AG DO DCCA NQmo: CMattsen:lc RAMeck oACool FCostanzi VMria CJF mes EBeckjord J ytor % ten Doto: / /92 /f/[7/92 H/ / 7 /92 0 / h /92 *1'/(( /92 g{/ /92 li//J /92 /- /92 , i92 OFFICAL RECORo COPY i

, ~

f 4  !

?

b r

E t

E

, (* .

T' l

b Enclosure 4  !

t Environmental' Assess' ment

~!

r I (

h i

l s

.J A

l

[

t b

e dav'-F h sfng4- as w.wp -

w gap p -,g h ---e.my } m - v eg.ym#.-- mww',*,, -e. 9 A. p m. hy- e--w.= y-e,-*,- w%,yyy.., p 7 7- v,  %..e yy+,- y.,P

l

)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-AND flNDING Of NO SIGN!flCAN1 IMPACT  !

-1 I

AMENDMENT'TO 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004

]

DISPOSAL OF WASTE Olt BY INCINERATION l The Nuclear 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. ,

Environmental Assessment i

identification of Action -

Present il 20.305 and 20.2004 forbid the incineration of any licensed material except that specifically exempted by ll 20.306-and 20.2005, 'without -

the-specific approval of the Commission. This action amends 'll 20,305 and .

20.2004 to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without prior approval. lit does not exempt the effluents "

from this process from the requirements established under Part 20 and'Part 50, 4 6 particular, effluent limits and effluent _ monitoring and reporting, Need for the Action -

The Edison Electric Institute and-the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group:

petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to initiate ~ rule- _

making to define a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated waste.

oils that would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their

~

V

-.,&, -..-,.,.L.. ...m.- ,#_.,_.m,em ....m... ,,,.m % .,,e... a oun, -

t s

i 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, t 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 th.an would otherwise be the case. Thus, the.overall impacts-of such incineration must be considered.

Some information on the quantities and concentrations of waste oil generated at nuclear power plants was provided in the petition.and in a Brookhaven.

report " Evaluation of Potential Mixeo 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 yearEto year at a given plant. The volumes reported were approximately 1000 gal / year 2

. .= . =.: -.- _ - . - . . - -

at a PWR and up to-5000 gal / year at a BWR. Since publication of ti.e proposed .,

rule, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has published another report estimating annual per reactor production at approximately 1000 8

gallons more than these previous reports. In addition, some utilities have large quantities in storage on site. Concentrations of radioactive >

contaminants are typically 10" to 10 C1/ml but can be as high as 10 yCi/mi in some cases. Total activity per reactor per year is estimated to average about 10" Ci. The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, C0-58, Co-60,-Cs-134, and Cs-137. Others reported include Sr-90, Cd-109, Zn-65, and Zr-95. -It- l i

appears that the bulk of the waste oil generated, in terms of -volume, could be i

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 radioactive-iodine and radioactive material in particulate. form (in keeping with the guidance contained in Appendix ! of Part 50),-or 15 rem / year. This action modifies. ,

the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in il 20.305 and 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 Part 20, 5 50.36a, and Appendix;l 'of Part 50.- These limiting conditions for operation include dose-limits for effluents and monitoring and; reporting requirements. Although this a'ction may slightly-increase actual effluents, the radioactivity in these-effluents must be'kept within existing

'Below Regulatory Concerr Owners- Group: Nonradiological Characterization-and Environmental Assessment BRC Waste Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-5674,; February 1989.

3 ,

e ai ..u,--.,, ~ , , . . , .~..r, . ,- *, . , - - - -

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

limits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Impacts from the toxic constituents of used oil may be minimized by onsite-  !

incineration and in any case the impacts 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 Commission moratorium, action l 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 disposal sites is not .iustified based on 4

. - - . . a.- ,- -, - - - - - . _ . . - -, -

. I the very limited doses from incineration and the fact that other environmental i impacts, if anything, will likely be reduced. Waste oil that is also i

classified as hazardous waste cannot be sent to low level waste burial grounds but may be a candidate fnr incineration subject to evolving EPA regulations governing burning of used oil. It is more cost-effective to allow the h

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.

Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested. However, to allow licensees to use methods other 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 acct:ptable technical alternative for disposal of material. Although there is n7t sufficient information available to preclude allowing any of the other al:ernatives in the future, incineration appears to be environmcatally prtferable to the other proposed alternatives /' hithough 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 impact 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 5

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 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 effect 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 construction.) flationally, vehicle maintenance produces about 700 million gallons / year of used oil and industrial use approximately 400 million gallons / year.

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

Ccnsideration has also been given to ongoing EPA activities, the 14 concent letters received on the petition, and the Brookhaven report, ilVREG/CR-4730, 6

_ _ - _ _ = . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ __

i l

. Finding'of No Significant Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that~ >

this amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly l. 7 contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees onsite will not have a j significant effect on tne quality of the human environment and that an'  !

environmental impact statement is'not required. This determination is-based-on the foregoing environmental assessment performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory--Functions." l 7~

L .

Regulatory Analysis Rule to Amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 -;

3 I

DISPOSAL 0F WASTE Olt BY INCINERAT10ft i i.

1. Sinigment of the Problem The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management-l Group petitioned the Commission (PRM .0-15, dated-July 31, 1984) to initiate' ,

rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power reactor-generated waste  :

- oils which would permit disposal of these' oils-without- regard to their radioactive material content. This petition responied to Commission views as  ;

expressed in the Supplementary information accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part- 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land- Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (December 27, 1982; 47 FR 57446). In that statement, he Commission [

recognized that the establishment of standards for waste-for which there is no- ,.

regulatory concern would be beneficial and would, among other things, . reduce :t disposal and long-term disposal _ site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for wastes with higher levels of radioactivity, and enhance overall site stability of disposal facilities by reducing the volume of Class A waste. -The-petitioners suggested-that, based on recent Commission decisiens, 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

.- ., -w., .~ . -.-e.m _. ,..# ,,, ,, , , , . , , .. , . , . , , y , , ,m.c w . .  %-.. _

es , ,

4 I millirem /yr dose limit and proposed wording to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect these recommendations._

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 (1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reactor operator, 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 r

and transportation of waste oil and impacts from toxic constituents-of waste oil.

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

typical waste oil.

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

(6) The. authority of the EPA, which assumed Federal Radiation Council- ,

responsibilities, to develop Presidential guidance-for use by other. Federal I

agencies on acceptable levels-of radiation exposure for the general-public. -

2 t

rw--,,rw - r,~-c.s -,ne.e .v - - m h---wa v.-,--ev~~- --, s ,t-e " r 4 ,- r- v -- - -~<---mv re -,i- >'A n ~

. I

2. Ob_iectives The rule allows nuclear 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 i 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 disposal costs. Incineration instead of burial also conserves limited available burial space, reduces risks from the transportation of waste oil (radiological and non-radiological), reduces the fire Itazard associated with waste oil storage, and may reduce the impacts from the toxic constituents of waste oil, r

3. Alternatives The petitioners requested that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated. waste oil from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste ~oll at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive -

material content of the waste. The petition suggested an -individual exposure 3

- - . - . - . - _ . - - =.

l

.- J t

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 l 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-nection with exemptions from specific regulations decided on a cost-benefit basis.

It would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated to a sufficiently low level, to be of no regulatory concern, thereby allowing it_ to _

be disposable without regard to its radio u tive contamination. Although 1 mrem / year is likely to be acceptable, the petitioners have not supplied st.fficient 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 potential to reduce the hazards associated with storage of waste oil onsite or the need to ensure effective use of licensed low-level waste l disposal capacity.

The 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 actions are expected to take place in the nsar term.

4

i i

The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal f

of waste oil and believes that a rule change should be made, flowever, in order for the petition to be granted in full, more information and anaiysis would be necessary. For example, a more complete characterization of quantities and concentrations of contaminated waste oil would be needed to l make a waste stream specific analysis on which to base specific concentratior.

limits. Also, a determination would have to be made on whether the  :

concentrations of radionuclides possible in the ash from incineration or the sludge from recycling would be low enough to allow waste oil processing at.

unlicer. sed facilities. Such additional analyses would result in delay and the-  ;

expenditure of limited resources. The rule will provide the relief requerted 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 t

providing the licensee maintains compliance with the licensee's operating I limits based on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.

Any other applicable Federal and State statutes would also have to be i

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 l

from requirements for disposal at low level waste disposal facilities.

4. Conseauencqi i

o This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil '

by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect several attributes, but-5 i

m... _,._m._ _ . _ . , , _ . . . _ _ . . . _, ,..,,.,.._.....r.--

1 '

only a few signifiantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." lhis 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 exposres. if anything, the decreased risk from no longer transporting tb 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, those 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 NRC in their implementation and operation costs as a result of the above. Licensees would only take advantage of this rule if it was in their best economic interest, i.e., with savings resulting to them. The NRC will save by issuing the rule as opposed to handling each license amendment 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, on average, an operating PWR produces approximately 1000 gallons per year of contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWR produces 6

i

-approximately 3500-5000 gal /yr'. Reported contamination levels are usually in the range of 10".to 10*' Ci/m1, 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, Co-60, Mn-54, Cs-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 released to the environment, a typical reactor would, on average, lischarge a total of 10" curies of radioactivity per year via the 1 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. y In fact, thos: licensees who have incinerated waste oil in compliance with a site-specific amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications for total doses _from effluents.

1 ,

'A more recent report published by Electric Power Research Inst _itute

('E PRI) estimated typical volumes to be 1000 gal /yr higher than those in p NUREG/CR-4730: "Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group: Nonradiological +

l Characterization and Environmental Assessment of BRC Waste," prepared by '

, Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric power Research i institute, EPRI-NP-5674, February 1989.

l .7 L

l l~ $

- _ . . _ _ _ , a

-i 4

In addition, under this rulemaking, the effluents from the incineration of j waste oil would be accounted for under existing aperating 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 I

have a negligible impact on public health or environmental quality.

Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will-likely be slightly reduced. These include-the risks inherent in transportation (radiological and non-radiological), the fire or leakage hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the' impacts from j toxic constituents depending on the specific equipment and controls used and the status of EPA regulations intended 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 licer se amendment, it is estimated that a typtcal, 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 somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating its waste oil as-opposed to burying it. These costs were based upon values of 220 to 825 1

gallons of waste oil disposal per year, with the per gallon cost being about:

$15.-

8

~

1 , . . . _ , , . .;._ _ .u . -

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 including 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 National 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 $52,500 to $75,000, with the discounced operating lifetime savings ranging from $808,500 to $1,155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become $826,500 to $1,173,000 per BWR, Because of a change in EPA regulations governing the detection of toxic constituents (55 FR 11798; March 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

. 1 4

j be classified as hazardous waste and, if radioactively contaminated, as mixedf waste. This rule would allow incineration for all waste oils without affecting the applicability of other Federal, State, or local requirements.

EPA regulati>ns governing hazardous waste and used oil recycle and disposal' i

are complex and have been undergoing change as thit rule was developed. This introduces cost impacts on the various alternatives which the Commission- ,

cannot adequately assess.

Again, because of each plant's individual situation, and the fact _that this rule is only an option, the estimates of disposal cost savings _ are only.- ,

illustrative. With respect to othar potential industry operating costs, a licensee will need to provide the NRC with changes to the Offsite Dose-Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures whether the licensee makes use of the rule, or applies for a license amendment to incinerate the waste oil; therefore, these costs will be the same in both '

cases'and do not need to be included in this analysis. A key point which cannot be overlooked, however, is that permitting use of this alternative disposal option could conserve limited low-level burial ground space.

This rule will alto reduce NRC's potential workload in prncessing individual requests for specific license amendments to permit . incineration.

The estimated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated, technical specification change is $11,000. (Cf. Abstract 5.1, " General Cost Estimates,"

NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.) Further, as noted above, the NRC is to receive modifications or additions to the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate the waste oil through use of the rule or a license amendment.- Hence the only difference in the NRC's cost is $11,000 saved per licensee under the rule.

10

~

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

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

5. Decision Rationale-

~

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 savings in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB sito capacity, c

6) Imolementation a) Schedule for Implementation The final rule will be effective 30 days after publication in- the-Federal Reaister. -

b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed-Requirements Rule could be-superseded by future actions on generic waste exemptions, 11

j

.5:

Enclosure 5 Regulatory Analysis:

I l.

Ir

!7 l .-

i. i l-l l .n

,g I.

. (

l 1-s l- . .

Regulatory Analysis Rule to Amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 20,2004 DISPOSAL OF WASTE Oil BY INCINERATION

1. Statement of the Probiga The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management ,

Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to: initiate-rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power _ reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content. This petition responded to Commirsion views as expressed in the Supplementary Information accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (December 27, 1982; 47 FR 57446). In that statement, the Commission recognized that the establishment of stan6ards for waste for which there is no regulatrv concern would be beneficial-and would, among other things, reduce disposa and long-term disposal site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for wastes with higher levels of radioactivity, and enhance overall site stability.of disposal facilities by reducing the volume of Class A waste. The petitioners suggested-that, based on recent Commission decisions, a 1-millirem /yr individual dose limit would be an appropriate basis for establishing a cutoff level 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

I milli: em/yr dose limit and proposed wording to revise 10 CFR Part' 20lto reflect these recommendations.

A response to this petition requires a staff' determination of the need for a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of- power-reactor-g'enerated,-

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 operator, 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 financ'ial costs and land use requirements associated with -

disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material contained in-typical waste oil.

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

(6) The authority of the EPA, which assumed Federal Radiation Council responsibilities, to develop Presidential guidance for use by other Federal-agencies on acceptable levels of radiat on exposure for the general public.

2

. . ~ - - .

i .

.1 ,

2. Qhjectives The rule allows nuclear power reactor _ licensees' to Lincinerate 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 onsito. Allowing-incineration through a-rule change versus continuing to do so through the l 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 cavings in disposal costs. Incineration instead of burial also conserves limited.

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

3. Alternative 1 The petitioners requested that the Commission issue a regulation governing the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil'from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the radioactive .

material content of the waste. The petition suggested an individual exposure 3

6.

value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to base concentration limits. The justification proposed was primarily on -a " del 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- ,

nection with exemptions from specific regulations decided'un a cost-benefit basis.

It would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated to a sufficiently low level, to be.of no regulatory concern, thereby: allowing it to be disposable without regard to its radioactive contamination. Although :

1 mrem /ysar is likely to be acceptable, the petitioners have not supplied sufficient information to allow a specific waste stream "below reclatory-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 tho' 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 potential to reduce the hazards associated with storage of waste :

oil onsite or the need to ensure effective 'use of licensed low-level waste.

disposal capacity.

The staff could have deferred action on this specific petition until '

consideration of a generic rulemaking on.BRC waste or until EPA issues standards or guidance on BRC levels of hadioactivity. However, neither of these actions. are expected to take place in the near term.

4

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 petition to be granted in full, more information and analysis would be necessary. For example, 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 limits. Also, a determination would have to be made on whether the concentrations of radionuclides possible in the ash from incineration or the sludge from recycling would be low enough to 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 20 and 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 j resubmitting a future request to exempt waste oils or other classes of waste from requirements for disposal at low level waste disposal facilities,

4. Consecuences t-This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect several attributes, but 5

L ,

l q

[ .

only a few significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." This action allows utilities an alternative for the disposal of waste oil while not allowing any change in the existing limits of radiation exposure to. the public. There also would be no significant change in public health nor occupational exposures. If anything, the decreased risk from no longer 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, those 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 NRC in their implementation and operation costs as a result of the above. Licensees would only take advantage of this rule if it was in their best economic interest, i.e., with savings resulting to them. The NRC will save by issuing the rule as opposed to handling each license amendment 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, on average, an operating PWR produces approximately 1000 gallons per year of contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWR produces 6

i approximately. 3500-5000. g al /yr' . Reported contamination levels 'are usually1 in the range of 10" to 10" Ci/ml, although1 higher levels have been reported.

The principal radioisotopes present in these waste oils ~ include the usual activation and fission products such as Co-58, Co-60, .Mn-54,_ Cs-134, Cs-137. ,

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

4 If directly released 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 in compliance with a-site-specific amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technicalLspecifications for total doses from effluents.

'A more'recent report published by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)' estimated typical volumes to be 1000 gal /yr higher than those in NUREG/CR-4730:- "Below Regulatory Concern' Owners Group: Nonradiological-Characterization and Environmental Assessment of. BRC Waste," prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Irstitute, EPRI NP-5674, February 1989.

7

. In addition, under this rulemaking, the effluents from the incineration' of waste oil would be accounted for under existing operating-limits contained in-I

- Part 50,-Appendix 1. Thus, the addition of_.the small= quantities of-radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should have a negligible impact on public health or environmental quality.

Additionally, other environmental. impacts of waste oil disposal will' likely be'slightly reduced. These include the risks inherent in transportation- (radiological and non-radiological), the fire or leakage 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 intended 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-somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating .its waste.' oil-as opposed 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 l.

L l

- c

~9 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 including 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 National' 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 $52,500 to $75,000,-with the discounted operating lifetime-savings rarging from $808,500 to $1,155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become $826,500 to $1,173,000 per BWR.

Because of a' change in EPA regulations governing the detection of toxic:

constituents (55 FR 11798; March 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

g be classified as hazardous waste and,-if. radioactively contaminated, 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-tb 'e was developed. This introduces cost impacts.on the various alternative which the Commission-cannot adequately :ssess.

Again, because of each plant's individual situation,- and the fact _that this rule is only an option, the estimates of disposal cost savings are only!

illustrative. With respect to other poteroial industry operating costs, a licensee will need to provide the NRC with changes to the'0ffsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equ'pment and procedures.whether the-licensee makes use of the rule, or applies for a' license amendment to incinerate the waste oil; therefore, these costs will be the same in both-cases and do not need to be included in this analysis. A key point which cannot be overlooked, however, is that permitting use of this alternative disposal option could conserve limited low-level burial ground-space.

This rule will also reduce NRC's potential workload in processing individual requests for specific license amendments to permit incineration.

The estimated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated,. technical specification change is $11,000. (Cf. Abstract 5.1,'" General Cost Estimates,"

NUREG/CR-4627,Rev.-1,1989.) Further,'as noted above, the NRC is to receive modifications or additions to the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculations Manual.

and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate the waste oil through use of the rule or a license amendment. : Hence the only -

difference in the NRC's cost is $11,000 saved per licensee under> the rule.

10

1

.Because the rule allows 'a licensee to adopt a potentially more' cost- and risk-effective means of-disposing-of this. class of waste while maintaining existing limits on plant eff1 vents, the net impact of this' action is positive.

5. Decision Rationale 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 af 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 savings-in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB site capacity.

6) Imolementation a) Schedule for Implementation The final rule will be. effective 30 days after publicationrin the Federal Reaister, b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic waste exemptions.

11

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF'N0 SIGNIFICANT' IMPACT

-AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 20.305 and 20,2004-DISPOSAL 0F WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate contaminated waste oil cnsite without obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a licenseLamendment.

Environmental Assessment Identification of Action PresentLil 20.305 and 20.2004 forbid the incineration of any' licensed =

material, except that specifically exempted byf il 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- ,

waste oil onsite without prior approval. It does not exempt .the effluents

- from this process from the requirements established under Part 20 and Part 50,-

in particular, effluent limits and-effluent. monitoring and reporting.-

Need for the Action .

The Edison Electric Institute and the Ulility Nuclear Waste Management Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15 dated July 31,1984) to initiate rule--

making to define. a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated-waste oils that would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their

radioactive material content.= 'Previously,:the:only generica11y approved b

method of disposal for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involved solidification or-immobilization, packaging,f and

- transportation to and burial at a licensed disposal site. . The cost- of this type of disposal is significant, while thr-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 incineratedithan would otherwise be the case. Thus, the overall impacts of such incineration must be considered. <

Some information on the quantities and concentrations of waste oil generated at nuclear power plants was provided in the petition and in a-Brookhaven- -

~

report " Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, U5ed 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

s h

_L__:_-_ 2_-____ - - -

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-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-in some cases. Total activity per reactor per year is estimated to average about 10" Ci. The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60,- Cs-134, -

and Cs-137. Others reported include.Sr-90, Cd-109, Zn-65, and Zr-95. -It appears that the bulk of the waste oil generated, in terms of volume, could be.

incinerated with resultant individual doses of less than 1 mrem /yr. Licensees. j with license amendments permitting onsite incineration have been able to dispose of most of their waste oils under a technical specificatien of 0.1%jf the total dose limit, which is generally 15 mrem /yr from radioactive iodine o and radioactive material in particulate form (in keeping with the guidance contained in Appendix I of Part 50), or 15 rem / year. This action modifies the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in-Il 20.305 and 20.2004 to make an exception-for waste oil:at power reactor sites; however, it dues not exempt the resulting effluents from the requirements of Part 20, s 50.36a, and Appendix I of:Part 50. These limiting l

conditions for operation include dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting requirements. Although this action may1 slightly increase actual effluents, the radioactivity in these effluents must be kept within existing

'Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group: Nonradiological Characterization and Environmental Assessment of BRC Waste, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for;the-Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-5674,-February 1989, 3

4 ilmits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Impacts from the toxic constituents of used oil may be minimized by onsite incineration and in any case the impacts 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 Commission 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 disposal sites is not justified based on 4

1 4-the'very limited doses from incineration and the' fact that-other environmental >

impacts, if-anything, 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 _

governing burning of used. oil, it is more cost-effective to allow the incineration through rulemaking rather than to continue processing 1 applications for license amendment. For these reasons, this action should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.

Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of-what the' petitioners originally-requested. However, to allow licensees to use methods other 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 thera is 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 impact 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 5

a-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 released,- but, for the quantities and circumstances of oil- burned under this -

rule, concentrations to which the public may be exposed areinot 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. Nationally, any nonradiological environmental effect of disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil' from nuclear power z 1 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, er 370,000 gallons per year, generated from all- )

existing plants as well as those under construction.) Nationally, vehicle maintenance produces about 700 million gallons / year of used oil and industrial use approximately 400 million gallons / year.

Agencies and Persons Consulted  !

1 Further consultation has been made with the petitioners (PRM-20-15): concerning L this action as a resolution of the petition.

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

L 6

l l m i

F.inding of No Significant Impact ~

The Commission has determined under the National- Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10. CFRL Part 51,- that-this amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of:siightly contaminated waste 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 in Part 51, " Environmental ~ Protection Regulations for-Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory. Functions."

n i.

o 7

..1

?

w Enclosure 6 2

Two Copies of the Public Announcement l-t.

r.

['

i

~",:

DRAFT PUBL10~ ANNOUNCEMENT 1

NRC TO PERMIT ON-SITE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED 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 s

-for rulemaking submitted by the-Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

As amended, the regulations will permit the on-site incineration.of waste oils--petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic 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

, ':(

\

Releases of radioactiveTeffluents,; including those from waste-oil incineration,_ are limited to "as-low-as-reasonably-achievable"; levels--alreadyl .

_ specified in Appendix 1- to Part 50 of_ the_ Commissions regulations., ?!n.-

- addition, a generic assessment pre' pared for the-staff'shows that' the.- -

4 j

3 environmental _ impacts'of__ waste oil incineration will be minimal.-

' mj i The amendment to.Part 20 of. the NRC's regulations w'ill become effective

- on-(date).

2

- u p g- . , . ,

DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT NRC TO PERMIT ON-SITE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED 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 Group.

As amended, the regulations.will permit the on-site incineration of f

waste oils--petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants,- hydraulic lor 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

s_.

5

.- 7 #-

Releases of radioactive ~ effluents, including those from waste-oil-inc.ineration, are limited to."as-low-as-reasonably-achievable" levels already-specified in Appendix -I to: Part 50 of the Commissions- regulations. In--

addition, a generic assessment 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-s h

2-

(

_ __ y_.,. - . . _ . . , _ . . _ , , _

. - ~ , _ ___ . .

1.l l

~

{" , ,,

+  :

" ~

E. - --. .. i :PD C

~j Federal ReMeierYSol? 57, N(23E/ hionday, December; 7.1992 / Rules and Regulati:nsi 57649 5 ' ' '

= -

+

rolesses tross operating nuclear power < the comments received en the pe66on

. plants et lowls which cro"es low as is' . contributed to the Commienion decision 4  ;

, . rossonably achievable." Incineration of F to provide some relief through en i n

- this class of weste must be in full , i ahernative disposal method. . .x -

R i compliance with the Commission 1; . . On A 19,1988, the Commission :=

l current regulations which restrict the r ; publi e rule in the 1 relmse of radioactive materials to then rederal (53 FR 32914) that 7 i

environment for each operating nuclest4 ' would amend its regulations to ellow; W power plant. Any other applicable; - ~: onelle incineration of contaminated ' ,

-. Federal, State, or local requireets that 1 weste oils generated et licensed nuclear ?

. rolste to the toxic.or hasardous Power p,lents without the need to apply ;

cherectwistics of the weste oil would for e speciSc license amendment. As t-- .

how to be estisfied.This rule - eummarteed below,that Federal - i

. constitutes a portfel grantina of a s .

Register notice also proposed to deny 1 4 si pWilion for rulernaking (PR54-20-15) ? :- the remaining features of the petition for : Q submitted by Edison Electric Institute - rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by , ~;

and Utility Nuclear Waste' ot

• Edison Electric tastitute and Utility ' O Group.De mmeini por6ons of pRM% Nuclear Weste Menegement Group. ,

20-15 are denied wi prejudies.; ~3The other alternative disposal .

l1 Errectivt Daft: his regulation becomes mehods suggested by es onwt : .

effective on January 6,1993.

• to how accepteWy

\ pon PunmeR NPOMAtt0N 00ertACT; ! .oloSical Impacts. However, as '

indicated in the nouco of proposed v

\ Catherine R. Mettaan.Of8m of Nuclar

\ - Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear rulema%nabedalueminformation adow k enluete the 1 - . w

- Reguletory Commission, Washington, .

ebi o see sy DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3638. g g

" ""**"Y"'8"""* during the laterim that would elleviate i '

v Background , this do6ciency,in addition, the . ..

-- The Prtits,on - #

-. proposed rule indiosted a number of abw cueidwedes bt Hmih The Edison Electric Institute ar.3 the ~ ': desirebility of the other ehernatives in :

Utility Nuclear Weste Man ont:  : voletion to onsite incineration. Dese -

filed a 1 considerations,includo Grouf-20-15)

(PRh withpetition the Commissionfor ru ;oneking  :- (1) Some of the toxic or hAsarddus

- July 31,1964, to initiate rulemaking to ' constituents contained in weste oil establish a newl of radioactivity in : ' would be destroyed th i- power. reactor-generated weste oils . - incineration but not th othw.L which would permit disposal of these s; e oils without regard to their radioactive . . prop)osed m disposal moth (2 The concentrations of -. - ..

meterial content.De Commission v radionuclides in ash or sludge may be "

requested comment on the peution in ; : too high to exempt en offsite incinwetor4

- the Federal Register on September 90 or recycling center from the requirement 1964 (49 FR 36653)c ' ' for a radioactive materiale license;n

.  : De petitioners suggested that en (31 An offsite incinerator or recycling o F  : appropriate basis for establishing e i . conter might handle weste oil from L  : cutoff level for determining whether ' ' multiple reactors which could - ~

l; NUCLEAR REGULATORY specific waste strooms were below . potentially result in hi e impacts thet ! "

p r ' COMMISSION regulatory concern would be that the - were not fully anel 'by the <

! direct release of the speci5c weste . petitioner: and . -

10 CFR Part 20 - streams to the environment would not : >

(4)Landfilldisposalwould req'uirei .

i: - mm atso-Ac14 -

• much of the same prwng and '

rwult of in a does the general publictogruter an individual than 1; member l handling as low.lowl weste b l4 L - Disposal of Weste Oil by incinerstlott : mrom/yr. ne petitioners recommended ' would produm emellw rist and cost A L that using a 1 mrom/yr limit, alternative : : envings than incineration. l. . -

Q AGENCV: Nuclear Reguletory _ Therefom,the NRC is granting the L Commission. _ disp)osal motheds, including-(1 On or offsiteincinerationt - Petitioners

• request only with respect 1o -

ACTiom Final rule.: - 121 On or offsite burial: .. onsite indneration.De NRC denies the -

l ,'

(3) Road stabilisation (spreying); and i fremainder of PRM-20-15 without .- y suemAnV:The Nuclear Reguletory! 14) Recycling, could be considered  ; prejudice for the reasons noted in the~

_ Commission is amending its regulations ' i viable alternatives to land uurial. proposed rule and summarised in this T

to pumit the onsite incinwouon of . x The Commission received fourteen - ~ discussion. Ris completes NRC sction - [,

E3  :

~

contaminated weste oils generated et - comment letters en the peution. All but - L on PRM-20-15c licensed nuclear power plants without . one of the commenters supported the :

amendingexisting peratinglicenses. Ides of ensmpting slightly contaminated - TUroposedNe This action will he to ensure that the- weste oil from the requirernents for . According to the rule lboth as

' limited cepedty of iconsed regional dispoul at a low-lowl weste disposal L ;

' low-lent weste disposal facilium is i site and most commenters supported indneration theofproposed weste oil would andbeas ' now bein

used more offidently while maintelning E petition in its endrwy Considwetion of carried out under existing effluent limits 1

e ,

I, '- '

l l Q'f> -

~

57650 Federal Registir / Vol. 57. No. 235 / Monday, December 7,1992 / Rules and Regulations and recx,rdkeeping and to applicsble under the' rule. For exarnple. (except thoes twtricting the fraction of requirements.N rule is ten ed to astrictions that limit emuents from total ofnuents frorn oil incineradon for provide a potentially cost-effective and onsite ladnerstion to a speci!!c fraction those licensees already avthortred to environmentally sound method for of total effluent relseau an termond. At indnwate waste oil). The regulatory dispoul of this waste stroem other than the uma time, the rule does not alter requirements to suure compliance with Imrial at a licensed low. level waste b requinment to comply with total bse limits conunue to apply.nus, the dispoul site nis approach will radiological ehent plean limits rule does nct consutute a BRC pr=eme b limited capacity of the contained in fedlity 'achraral exemption. The only d! red efract of this regi:nal licensed waste disposal sitw. specifications since such limits rulemaking la to simplify the redum the costs of waste disposal at implement the provisions of to CFR administrsuve procou assadated with licensed low level waste budal alten, part 20 and part 50, append l,x L the une of one ahetnadve disposal and climinata a less desirable wests option for one type of waste; namely, Analysis dComments b indnerstlou of cootaminated waste form at the sites thnby potent ally redudag long.twm maintenance costs in response to the proposed rule.th* oil. As to b quwtlon concoming b for disposal sites. The rule will reduce Commission recolved comments from authodtv to regulate the disposal of fire hazards from storage of oil and riska 25 organisations and individuals. reda*oedlvs waste, the tw ibility of inherent in transportation. Some induding State regulatnry agendes. the the States under the low vel rec:vwy of energy may also result and Radioective Waste Policy Amendments EnvironmentalProtecuan risks from b inzic hasards of waste oil utilities, Agency.

industry organisations. pub lic Act of 1985 does not diminlah b may be reduced. laterwt groupa, and obe members of regulatory authority of b NRC nor does Note:N proposed rule pneented an the public. Copies of the comments may this rule dhminish State authorities. W emendment to 6 20.305. Section 20.305 be examined and copied for a fee at the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of is being nplaced by 5 20.2004 as part of Commisalon's Public Document Rmen 1992 amends the Atomic Energy Act to the Enal rule establishing b new at 2120 L Street. NW (lower Level). provide b States with authority to stadards for protecslon egelnst Washington. DC. Nine of the regulate the disposal or off site radieuon. published May 21,1991 (56 commenters were opposed to the rule, indneration of low lent radioectin FR 23360).ha. this Snal rule amande fourteen either supported or generally - waste exempted from regulation by the both li 20.305 and 20.2004. supported it with some questions or NRC in the future. N Energy Policy A speciSc feature of this rule comment.Two others gave emments Act does net change any autnorities (contained in both $ 20.305(bX3) and without spedfically supporting or with rwped to on.alte incineration. l

$ 20.2004(bX3)!la that it supenedes any opposing the rule. Some commenters specifically cxisting provisions that may be Most of b commenters opposed to opposed indneration as a disposal contained in an individual plant licean the rulemaking exptweed concern about altameuve, a number of thoes citing b or technical speciScauon bt may be the heelth effects of increased effluenta. non-rediological risks from the toxic inconsistant with this rule. De rule Some c=mters stated that exletin8 propaties ol wute oil b State of I dou not exempt !* z from the effluents an -yh!e. A few Michigan, ahhough generally nquirement to comply with othw commenters wws mmad about the supportivo, questioned the impact of 1 applicable twW regulations. environmental oflects of the proposed potential toxlc emissions and suggested <

however. SpeciScally, licensees must action. A few commentwa sugguted consideration of the combined rins of comply with the efDuent release that b cost savings did not justify radiation and toxic exposuru. Another limitattoos of to CFR pan 20 and part increasing the amount of o!!1uents or commenter suggested that the possible 50, appendix 1.b rule. in that cost should not be a considwetion synergisuc effects of chemical and 5 $ 20.S05(bXt) and 20.2004(bX1), han at all.One commentar suggated radioactive exposures had not been been cluifled to reflect b requinment shutting down the nuclear industry or et adequately amassed.%is commenter 12 comply not only with part 50, least not licensing any new plants. One was also concemed that unine adequate t.ppendix I based effluent limitationa . commenter was opposed to the trend of temperaturw was maintained during 1 but also to comply with b part 20 deregulation and inaeasing allowaba* incineration. some chemicals would not based offlueet limitations contained in exposures. Anobt speciScally warned be destroyed but instead would become i applicable license condluons other than . the Commission not to invita public volatilized and liberated to b l emuent limits specifically nlated to citicism.One commenter suggested environment.

Incineratico of waste oil. Restricions la that the Commission would be taking h amount of oil to be disposed of i lic nu conditions or technical back authority for the disposal of waste by all nuclear power reactors specificadons on ladneration which are from the States. Finally, one commentec collectively represents a'very small 3 not canaistent with b provisions of was opposed to b concept o!"below fractico of all used oils disposed of I this rule, e.g . provisions which prohibit regulatory concern" (BRCl and opposed annually.This rule does not relieve the j-b onsite incinasuon of waste oil, will this rule as a de facto DRC regulation licensee from complying with other b2 eliminated from axisting licenses. which should not pacede the debets applicable Federal, State. and local b rule makes the nquirements for and adoption of a BRC policy. regulations governing any other toxic or incineration of waste oil consisteet Many of these comments were outside hazardous p of then materials. j among all limnsee, without the need for the scope of the r%Wg and However. the mission recognizes .;

liccou amendment on an individual reflected views of the commentus.No thet then is some potential for the- s plant basis. In particular, the rule technical data or other supporting - release of toxic metwiels during b  !

sliminates the need for amendments to information was provided.N incineradon process. It is true that la d idtntify any new release points or Commission belines that the impeds of order to achieve complete destrudion of i specific sampling melhorts and removes incineration of waste oil are likely to be b organic cocatituents of used oil. I any license condluons or technical insignificant. In an case.the rule does indneration must be carried out at ' i I

specification restrictions from licensees not permit the tot releasesof af!!uents sufficient temperatures and with alrady au' horned to incinerate oil to exceed existin6limits. The rule does appropriate twidenes times so that all which would not otherwise be net rhange existing ofnuset limita the ou la exposed to rufScient heat and 4

o

Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 57, No. 235 / Monday, Deccmber 7,1902 / aules and Regul:tions 57651 crygen for complete combusuon. 10,1992). These documents, as well as afsnincant bazard, leaving potential However, a high percentage of the documents cited in footnotu 2 and cancer risis from arsenic, chromium, destrucdoo of organics would be 3, are available for inspecuen at the and cedmium as the most significant expected in any case. Even a very small NRC Public Document Room,2120 L impact of burning industrial und oil. In l boiler can achieve 99 to 99.09 percent Street, NW, (Lower level), Washington, proposing its Phase I rule, EPA was destruction ofSciency for hard.to burn DC. concemed at the time about the chlorinated compounds.' Also, there is no EPA's original decision against widespread uncontrolled buming of considerable incentive for the licensee listing used oil as bazardous waste was used oil. it was utimated that to maintain high combustion efficiency approximately 600 million gallons of in order to avoid maintenance pmblem* based on concerns that such a listing used oil were being burned each ynt in would cause used oil to be diverted particularly if b auxiliary boiler is from industrial burning as fuel to illegal every conceivable drcumstance-in used. durnping (such as 'dia salin wwers, utility, irrdustrial, commerdal, Although the Environmental directly on b groun and inland 611s) institutional, and residential sectors.

PrNection Agency (EPA) has dedded and that illegal dumping would result in The EPA's analyses included a worst- 1 that used ou should not be listed u e er environmental harm than case urban scenario where used oil was hazardous waste,it has been developing Qu,atrialburning. When this rule wu across a large dty in various burned .

and has made considarable progrus in propoed, b Commisaba usumd bt types of bollen, in this scenario, over 25 (

compledng regulations which would million gallons of used oil were l control the potential hazards of both the impacts from toxic constituents would be minimlad by burning, assumed to be bumed in the study ane I und oil recyc!!ng and dis .Some beauw burdag is a dutrucun inationall well over 1 billion gallons of I as mntrols are appucable; ws are being bedag off are bumed in muldple conaldered,it will be necessary for that is expected to destro a v I fracdon of the organic co stituents $ family dwellings alone).* The used oil licensees to anal their used oil to was burned in an arny of bolles with responding to the environmental that character sti ofha ous eand cecms "l cma ts e th bli 7, a o(pl

,g j to determine the applicability of EPA or cadmium, ud chromium. In b worst State requirements. The extent of r6d Perb yb EPA wM are a nant to g e case it was assumed that the oil controls will vary by State, because contained concentrations of these '

some States list used oil as a hazardous waste and some have speci6c ddsrda Th EPA

",*('"'I g ,jj M *I wmd mal su metals et b 90th percentile of the data available at b time of b study and guirements applicab e to any in sup rt of what that 7 nt of b metals were kred to as its n s, AN s'ome categories of used oil Phase rule (50 FR 49164; November 29 oj M on f e a rd p bli lYan e .

la us oY1with fu of $xPo8githe b o ,

environment. As noted, during the regulations king contemplated. Based g , ,g ,g g development of this rule EPA has been on these analyses. EPA established concentradons of these metals in the process of developing reguladons speci6 cations for used oil fuel which usoddW d eM mW pertaining to und oil. Becauw b EPA include concentrations of toxic of 1 in 10,000 for chromium,1 in 50'000 ragulations had not been completed contaminets (40 CFR 266.40(e)). Used prior to Commission's consideration of oil fuel which meets these spedfications i d1 6 M' OO b can be burned virtually without cadmium this rule, the Commission analyzed the 333 gg g g, potentialimpacts of releases of toxic restriction because EPA has concluded produce on the order cf 300.000 gallons material from incineration of waste oil that such oil when burned does not of used oil r ynt or about 0.05 assuming r ., particular controls were in Present a signi6cantly greater risk than rcent of a amount of used oil place. virgin fuel oil (50 FR 1693; January I t' furned annually The NRC staff As noted in the environmental 1985) no EPA analyses considend a.

number of potential toxicants releaud estimates that 1,000-15,000 gallons per asussment for this rule, the potential you would k burnd at my me sia toxicants from used oil fallinto two from burnirg used oil and found that entially preunt riska to under this rule.%e circumstances of classes: organic compounds and metals. those that this incineration would differ gnetly The potential health effects of the many Public hea th and safety were arsenic, from the worst-case urban scer.ario possible contaminants are varied. Some cadmlum, chromium, and Md. nus, contaminants are considered EPA established specific concentrations studied by EPA, resulting la far smaller carcinogenic; others are threshold for these eles tats. Of them, lead was of potential risks than those estimated for the urban scenario. Because of the small toxicants, te., substances that produce most concern because high levels were effects on beelth only above certsin found in some of the sam la analyzed. [uantitles of oil thatfmm e greater distancee could be points reWse burned,

" threshold'* concentrations. More However, lead in used of was large!

to receptors, and the distance between informadon and discussion on toxic attributable to contamination of cran - sites, etc., the concentration of toxicants constituents of used oil and potential case oils with leeded gasoline blow-reaching any member of the public, and health and enviror. mental efiscts can be by* (50 FR 1699; January 11,1985). thus the resulting risk, would be found in EPA Federal Register notices industrial used oil including reactor expected to be a very small fraction of (50 FR 1684; January 11,1985,50 FR waste cil would not be expected to tht calculated by EPA for the wont-49164; 50 FR 49212(and 50 FR 49256; exceed the spacffication for les f except can utbu sceub. hus b November 29,1985; 56 FR 48000; for some segments of metalworking oils potential rials are not considered a September 23,1991t 57 FR 21524; May which constitute e small percentage of reactor oils.Thus, lead would not signiScant impact on the environment.

20,1992, and 57 FR 41566; September contribute a significant impact when ,, gy g wronamow Pru.cuan Agm.cHSe FR HM4. this oil la bumed. %reshold toxlCanis Wwe 00 Bundng la Scum and Spm Hmm.

November re. 345) noted at p. 491so. other than leed were not considered a UA/sa-sw-4&en, Ausw m

5'/652 rederal Regleurr / Vol. 67. No. 235 / kWay, December 7,1992 / Rules sad Regulatinna in eddiuon to b usetals d!r d promulpted a flnal lleting decidou for above, the und ou speciacauon impact of thh contuninadon could und oils that are recyded and a final indudes a limit of 4000 ppra of total rule on used oil ananagement standards puually o!!wt the uvings in wate hak> gens primaruy designed to limit the (57 FR 41566; September 10,1992), and disposal space ar d met acAleved halogenated solnot concentsation of od hu concluded ht the regulauons tu through indneration. As to the emedon bumed in pon. industrial tdiwa. Da of establishing an erw u a redistion UA regulauons alsoindode a place induding thow just tasued tone, b auxniary bolln, or other adequately prvted human bulth and rebuttable prwumpdoo that used od b environment and 61 recyded used equipment usedbe forwithin incinwsuon containing more that 1000 ppm total wute tdl, would an ces of halogens is a haurdon waste incem oilneed not to listed as a huardous cmtrolled by the limnaes. In ao can it has toen anluid with halopnated wute. no Commiulon has revkwed would indswet on be expeded to twult the newer data and ounduded that it in ndiauon lents requiring eddluonal haurdous wule ($ 26t40(c)). In any does not change the major condualons case, although und ou tasy be cattols; that is, no new arms would tw inddentally cataminated with naull related to the aceiro'dmental impacts of wtablished as "vedtation arua."

burning roedor wuts oil.19 fad, the One commenter argued that a license armounts os polvents, und oil u dah suggests that the level of toxic genersted would generally not to amendawat abould continue to 14 expected to extmd the used oil constituents in lad ustrial used olk an required because of the public's right to spedflution for idal hakens la b generstly lower than previously assumed from b genwie data. a heartn6 on an amendmest and locauw aboence of delJterste mixing with theyubuc scrutiny and ceaeby case baurdous wasta. industrial used olis include reactor start evaluauan would ensure that waste olla, m taarning of virgin oil (i.e ou applicable re in neponn to the queadon of wah. Thne <=quitunents am complied whk.h hu not t== previously used and synwgism in b combined thets of ===atw also argued that thus not contaminated by um) rwults in chemical and ndistion aposun,11ttle b heenu sawndment should -

P some nlease of toxicants.11.cause the continue untu mon e e is prwently known about the extent of DA was eval the impeds of information is evalla e such as a burning 60in wh synergism of various risk factors. For b complete charactorintion of wastes, a fracnon of virgin most part, regulatcty controls an based oil was replaud with und nu, b Another commenter wee also concerned impeds from those todcants cataloed on oewall sists from individual spedfic that bre would be so aerutance bt toxicants; akhough,in the case of in und ou prior to use were canaidered radiation doses from various techancalspedScouans will be inap bcabfe to witing the und oil twl rsdlonuclides are considered together. It cxroplied with, particadaily inceum e Bcation. Ncauw in burning used has not toen ible to fully account normal emleelone would be upecied to Iin an auallary bollar or co. located for any h) incrun u plants noe.

wised potential N potentially afleded public has an towu fuel plant under this rule, the eynergism of various sources of rl:L licanese would also 14 n opportunity for a bearing on e license fractico of virgin fuel oil, calyplacing the a llowerw. veloww r,f both radiological amendment for e nuclear power toector, inenmentalimpacts of contaminants consutuents and pbr toxica emociated However, the rule, both as propcsed and resuhing from un would la appucabla. nuclear with the incineretion of weste oil from as now p;omulysted in final form, only poww flowerar,in the can of an incinerator, and, thmefore, plants are extremely cmld to twponsibh for low permits the incineradon of waste oil omalle, if performed in comphance with allused of ecnlulons resulting oil, would fmm the be an addition to buming only an extremely small part of any existing ngulatory requimments potential synaglede effects. -

existing emissions. %e risks apodated including,la partlcular, existing Two mmmentws ralud quesdons with todcants cxmtsined in ou prior to oilluent hmits. Amendment oflicanon i use, while difficuh to charsderite, have about other potentialimpacts which had to authorise this activity is considwed  !

teen estimated, and found to 14 not been discuned in the proposed rule; untmanary, b Commission will um specifically, worker exposurw. One of its authoeity to insped and t.ske l generollylaw than the risks from e I

these coanmentws was also concerned enforcanent action in ensur, contaminasts twuhlag from use, and with the potential contamination of the wrapliance with effluent limits as it i

thus would also not be significant under auxi!!ary boiler and the swuhant these circumstances. does its other requirements. Given this increased wasta to be disposed of et approach, the Commission was of the Since the propowd rule was decommissioning as wall as the published and this analysis was first opLnlon tha2 the inun prwented by b developed DA has developed new potential met of establishing the arm as proposed rule would tw anore a radiation anna.

informadon on contamination levels by Oacupational exposurm would to oppropriately twolved in a rulemaking me}orcategory of und oil. A summary proceed!ng. In acconlance with

- cf this data base was puh!!ahed in the expeded to be very than those anociated with small and no greater customary NRC pmcodure. 6 propowd 4 Fedwal Register on September 23,1991 solidification, transpod, and burial of rule was published forcomment for the (56 FR 48000), together with a exprom purpou of giving interested the wute ou at a low. level wute supplementaluotics of proposed dispowl alta. As suggated by the membere of the pubuc an opporturdty to rulemaking concerning used oil present their concmins and comments on '

commentar, there is some potential for ananagement standards. Ilued on th!s contaminating the auxiliary boiler if it la thse issues in b Commission.

row.Oy developed infortcation, DA One commentar suggested that a more has also completed its rou,nsideretton used to indnerate contaminated ous.

Licenwee abould consider the potential may comprehenalve onritonmental indicate that incinerstf on is nce the analysis cflisting und ou as hazardous wasta, DA found that all used oils do not for contamination of any equipment that best alternadye but:posalbly, onsite -l typicahy and frequently mwt the is used for tacineration. Factors such as reproceadng would t>e tocause it would technical criteria for listing a waste as cxmcentration of the radiocuclides in conurve petroleum twources and '

b oil, combustion o!!idancy, and eliminate b reino of combustjan hazarcous waste and has decfded not to maintaining minimum off.ges produds to the atmosphere.This list usal oils destined for disposal as tempwsturn will affect b degrw of commenter also sugguted that th!s rule barart!cus waste (57 FR 21524; May 20, contamination. Alb ,

19921.%e DA has also Just contamination would discourage storage for recycling '

of equipment can 14 imised, the which b commanter vinrod as (

t

+

1,

l'edual Regleter / Vol. 67. No. 235 f Mcedoy, December 7,1992 ' Rulp and Regulations 57653 1 .

contrary to NITA (National home of b cmnmentne supporting required to demonetate bt ofnuents Environmental Policy Ad). the proposed rule esprepad the rnoet emioting ndiological limit Itaceuse most oil which is recycled is reuonate for thir support. Some, established under to Olt part 20 and used as industrial fuel,' recycling would induding b State of indlane, noted b part 50, appandia I and will to r at ehminste the pounual for small pubbe health end selety and responsible for ensuring that the atmospheric eminions. Onsite environmental impads. Some, indniques used for determining da reprocusing would invoin b remont including da Flete of Indiana and the radiological enntents an adequate.

of small amounts of ndioactive Texas low.lavel Radioactive Weste Actordingly, the rule has teen changed contamination so that the oil could be Disporal Authority, c.ited the benefits in to include e broader range of oil types.

reused oilsite. %La option consututes test savings,rgt uvings in low level The licansee, howent, will han to truttnont and recycle rather then wute burdee epace, and one, tM edded ourdse care in detumining which oils disposal. Unless the Commlulon flesibilltv. One entnrranter provided should to indnwated in the equipment dmlops spedhe eumptions for low informstlon conteming the procucality to to used considning both technical concentrauco o!!s. decontatt inntion of Indnerstion in generel and of using constraints and compliance with odint rnust le completed to the saant that no used oil in the startup boiler in EPI ilcable Federal State, and lout radicadivity is detadable using particular. Many of the commenters thet regulations.

musurement tediniques approved for supported the rule made suggestions for Uncontaminated "non wnte" olls an environmental monitoring. Ikcause thenps or clarifications, not sub)ect to the Commlulon's some oils cannce be ant to low 4evel Two commenteers sugneted a brrader dispoul requirements,but,if the weste dispoul fediluu sad b cost of definition of wute oil such that uncontaminated oils are mixed with disposing of 6 othat oil ht can le symhouc elle and cutting, penetating, r*dioecuvely contaminated oil, they sent has been escalating recyc1 tog of and some othw claues of oils could be become part of a mixture which is used oil is ptting more attendon by the incinated.no comrnentere also radioacunly contaminated and, tr.dustry. Some sneens of indneraticm supestod that non-waste (!!s (such as therefore, oubject to NRC requiremonta.

(i e., un in the aualliary baller) may soh ents, degm eers, grease, dinel fuela, Carsi abould be taken prior to any also resuh in a smallinowse in energy etc.) need not tw segregated from mlatng to ensure that oils have been recovery ovw tb practics of ndiologically c.mteminated waste oils. sufficiently charec1wized to detumine:

solidification and buriel et e L.1.W Dey also pmposed that weste olls used (t)The opplicability of any dispool facility, which never involves in rraintenance to included, requinments such u EPA or State eventual enerEy r*cevery. no Synthetic oils were inadvertently requirements; environmentalimpects of elbr onsite rather than purposefully left out of th (2)ne radioscuvo content (if bro indneisuon or downtamination for definition of waste oil in the proposed could 14 problems getting representetive recycle are very low, nero appears to asm lu from a tuultant mixtun); and rule and are included in the definition (3 no technical suitability of the be no reason to restrict elbr attemative in the final rule. It would serve no beyond whateve DPA regulations will useful purpon to treat synthetic and Potential mixture for incinwetion, i.e.,

be applicable in albf cau. Eucaulve petroleum derived used elle differently compeubility with equipment used, storage onsite for potential future wate content, etc.

and require identifiestion and Within the context of de propoud recycling, however, involves some risk segregation of these oils. Cutting and from fire or leakage. Storage rney also rule, the word opereuon in the penetraung olls, metalworking oils, etc.,

require tha facility to oldsin the definition of waste oil was intended to

. wen not specifically identified in the necenary permits under RCRA. include anociated analntenance Information supplied with the tition One commenter was concemed with or the Brookbven report,"Eva ustion acuvidu. N clui,6 cation, b wmds the possibility that b esh imm "and maintenance have been added to incinerstion would be mixed wasta of potenual Mixed 14ed. Chromium, Used Oil, or Organ Wastes Contahtinfc the anal rule.

which would add to the problem of Tm (nmmenkn suguted est b 1.lquids" (NUREC./CR-4730)* which waste disposal. De EPA recommended was refwenced in tb propoud rula and II""'I' I ' 'II""I"8 I"CI""'d " "I that tb rule clarify that the ath needs the latory enelysis with regard io to be monitored for hoevy metals to quan tYes and concentations of warte apply wasuto oil [enereted e incinereuon onalte of oil from w uld also othw plants !! the natae controls and determine whbr RCRA (Resour" e of oil were not limits were applied, so that a utility Conservation and Reconry Act) oil. Thus, these specifically cons t@ red. Based on the would only need one incinerator to requirements apply- ria, Althou h the ash may W mixed surny informauon in 1tbse m(be dis ;ose of oll from its uveral plants, wute, onk a small quantity of uh is hila this may to the case. b locus h " # d't " I f th' I this rulemaking proceeding has been produce,d when compared to the volume n '*[cun)Ynt n u 1 limited to the onsite incinwation of of contaminated oilincinereted I

nerefon tb ash does not contribute "Nh[ 'N*m']h we6le oil g6nusted on, not off, the react r site. At the present time, the significantly to the overall problem of to limit b t e of used oil which can mlued wastes. Because th ash is being g,e lacinwat mmisa n bebm esquuum (The above discussion relatingi the onsite disposal at tb alte produced at the licensee's site, adequate on toalc constituents considered all control can be suured. in addition, the I e Perucular reacter of wute oil types of used oils.) The licensee will be generated by reactors located at other rule makes clear that licensees an not sites are better handled on a case-by.

nliet ed from complying with other acer d Nt1Rtc. may W d M case b als, F ederal, State and local regulations se nsni.odsat w Docuan.nts, u s co was.n, Prtatterso trw r.o. som sma w.wnsion, oc Another commenter suggested diet which may be applicable to other toxic am-ms. cop 6 .r. sine o.nau arom the offsite incineration be allowed with the or bezardous properties of these "*"*"I * *** 8*""*"*" 5"**. s2:s rat tondluon of proper ash disposal.Two materials' "

. .t sMn dedNpNtatUNRC ot ra, neluding b petitiones,

'cPA tst FR 41 son, Novemtur to, posi noemt rubhc Docuswnt Rocen. It to 1. Street. Nw. (tww suggested the Commluton reconsidM es p 41902. taalt waatunstoa, DC the other opuons originally raised h the

l 57654 l'cd:ral Regist:r / Vol. 37, No. 235 / Mo: day, Dec:mkr 7,1992 / Rul:s and Regulations ptition. Another comtnenter, the State Another commentet quotioned whether i 20.305 Ior 6 20 2004) suptsedn of Teus, signply notsi support for othu the madmum quantity reported (5000 inconsistent license conditions or methods of vohime reduccon.De gal /yr) would conform to the " proposed technical spcifications,is primarily ptitioners also critidsed the dose limit" of 1 mremlyr to the general intended to eliminate the need for Commission for vogueness in the public no State of Tuas sugguted amendment of license condidons or tresons gian for not granting the that the NRC use avallable dose technical specifications to identify any ptition in its entirvty, suggesting that amssment computer codes to verify new release points or specific samplirg thalt analysis, provided as e comment to that this " reference dose" (1 mrom/ year) methods and to remove any rutrictions the notice of reuipt of petition, was will not be enseded. from licensees already authortred to I

ignored. As indicated in the proposed rule, indnorste oil which would not The At. gust 29,1968 (53 F R 32914), there is not enough information to select othuwise be applicable under this rule.

l'oderal llegister notir e presenting the a specific redloactivity concentradon or Three commenters suggnttd the l proposed rule. also induded an dose limit for waste oilincinereuon. It alternettve of using mobde indnerators. <

Indication of the NRC's intent to deny le projected that in most,il not all cases. One commenter thought it should 14 ]

without prejudka the other s'tunatives effluents from contaminated waste oil clarified that options other than those proposed by the petitioners. De indnerauon will constitute only a small mentioned in the proposed rule would primary reeson for that riental, as stated fraction of total eIfluents. Ilowever,it is be acceptable including also centrol i in the notice of proposed eubmaking not tonsidered necessary to astablish a station pown plant boilers. j cnd reiterated in the disciissini of the sepuste effluent limit for wute oil The preamble to the proposwl rule < .

petition in this document, was that indneration, as long as the total amount mentioned the options of use of an more complets informouon world t4 of radioactivity in the affluents released edsting sudliary boiler or Indnwetor needed for a rulemaking to allow any of from the plant, including releases fror:: or an incinerator constructed q the othw altunatives reised by the incineration of waste oil, continues to specifically for the purpose Mbuming 1 petitioners. Reconsideration of thne conform to edsting eIlluent limits weste oil. %is was merely to illustaw  ;

alternativu ls outside tne scope of this established under to CFR part 50, the range of options which may be i rulemaking. As to the peutioners' appendix I and 10 CFR part 20. Involved, not to lir.it the options. q contention that their analysis of A number of cornnantwo sugented Nothing in the rule would restrict the ,

comments was ignured, this analysis changes that,in fact, are not needed to use of central station power plant was considered sinna with the original satisfy the intent of the commenter.Two boilers or mobile incinetutors if they are petition, the othe* public comments, commenters suggested that the rule be onsite. The use of thl type of and the referenced report (NtJREG/CR- revised to allow transfer to an offsite equiptnent at the site of a licensed 4730). The specific deficiencies of the licensed vendor, nudear rnctor would 14 govemed by petitioners' comment analysis woro not Nothing in this rule or in other the ructor license issued under to CFR discussed separately, regulations restdcts the lluensee from part 50.

One commenter suggested the transferring waste oil to an offsite The State of New Jersey wanted the Commission make a trial run, tising licensed " vendor," 1.e.. pusono effluents from incineration to 14 contaminated oil, of a new technology, emhorized to receive these materials. reported in the semiannual effluent <

a plasme etc designed to bruk down This altamative was not mentioned in report. Effluents from incinwetion are a todc chemiuls. Although this the preamble of the proposed rule not exempted from effluent reporting i technokgy may pruent an because at the time there was no facility requirernents contained in to CFR ]

environmentally sound attemative, licensed to accept radioactively 50.36ata)(2) and therefore will be these matters are outside the scope of contaminated waste oil for disposal reported.

the proposed rule, other than LLW disposal facilities. Two The State of Michigan suggested the j One commenter suggested that only commenters suggested that " site" be Commission mention that other Federal, ,

one genwie i 50.59 review should be defined as the region "within the site State, and/or local regulations must be q required rather than individual site boundary," and one of these suggested complied with, nis provision was in specific reviews for each plant. Two that the site boundary be further defined the proposed rule and remains in the 1 other commenters suggested that the in order to provide consistency in the final rule as an amendment to Commission darify that the purpose of intuptstation of "onsite" disposals. $ 20.305(c). This provision is also 1 the 5 50 59 review was not to determine "Onsite" in normal usage means contained in the existing $ 20.2007.

If burning of weste oil,in and of itself, "within the site boundary," A formal Sevnst other clarifications wwe ,

constitutes en unreviewed safety definition is considered unnecessary. suggested by commenters.One quntion but to review the plant spw:ific Presently, the site or site boundary is commentw suggested clarifying that i equipment and procedural alterations defined in the individual technical appendix Ilimits be met on an annual ettendant to this process. specifications for each license. evnage baila only.

The safety of burning waste oil at a liowevw, the rule has limited the Radiological release limits contained j reactoi site cannot be determined incineration to the site where the waste in facility technical specifications l Eenerically. Dere may be some effect oil la generated,in part so that any which implement to CFR part 20 and i on the safety of reactor opwation il releases of radioactive material would pan 50, appendix I contain a range of indneration is not properly planned, be covend by the effluent limits in the limits including quarterly limits and '

Thwefoto,it is necessary thst a plant technical sped fications established instantaneous limits.no rule does not specific determination be made,in under part 20 and appendix 1 to part 50. relieve licensees from the obligation to j ectordance with 5 50.59, to ensun that Th6 licensee's decision on the specific comply with the requirements of the the specific equipment and procedural location for incineration will depend on Commission's regulations and changes involved with the incineration its ability to demonstreto compliance il 20.305(b)(3) and 20.2004(b)(3) do not ,

will not adverwly affect reactor safety, with those limits applicable to releases supersede the existing limits governing De State of htIchigan suggested a of afiluents to unrestricted anas. The total efiluent relessn. Accordingly, separate additional effluent limit of 1 provision in i 20.305(b)(3)(or licensus continue to be required to mrem / year for waste oilincineration. $ 20 2004(b)(3)), which states that satisfy the total radiological effluent

)

rederal Register / V:1. S7. No. 235 / Monday. Doc:mbar 7.1992 / Rules and Regulaucus 57655 s

relanu hmitauons set forth in b but not all, of b redit actively addidonal discussloo of b fedhty tachaled spedficadons. contaminated waste oil from twctors environmentalimpacts prepared in Anobt ommenter sugusted wiu 14 mined waste.1n any ginn State, responn to those comments. W darificauon that b rule is not intended it will darend on indivkd al State environmental aumsment bes been to require a cost berafit malysis tryulations. Although the burden of modhd to be cxmstotent with the pursuant to i 50.34 a. meeting RCRA or State requirements discueskm in th prwmble con &rning As noted in the propoud rule, rusy trmou b cost of incinerstloo, b envirmmental tropets of tode licenn.ees are required under 6 50 7)(e) this attemeuw would sullin es;*2ed anissions frum buming used ou. N to priodically update thalt TSAR, and to be of vslue. Commluton has determined that the in so stoing, submit descriptions (4 One exnnmenter ob).ded to the term public comments, the additional equipment a.nd procadurns to the extent *llmited"in refence to the required cxesidersuon of toxic impacts. sad the that there heve been changes to the thanpa in b ODCM,(Offsite Dame c.hanges made to the text do not aflect infortnauon previously submitted under Calculauon Manual) which the the conclusion twched in b uslier i 50.34(b)(2)(1) and (b)(3) and i 50.36a. commentar contend en always finding of no significant impact.N No cost beneSt analysis is required. extensive. Commission has concluded that this Some commentera, including DA Re Commission recognizas that amendmeut to 10 UR 20.505 and and the State of Michigan, suggested making any change to the ODCM meY 20.2004 does not constitute a mebr d fying obr applicabW requirements invoin significant administrative effort. Fedwd acdon s!pincantly eHecung 6 s as: Itowever, the c.hangas toquired to order nuality of the human envimnment, and.

(1) A RGA permit may b required to ao ount for ths effluents from wasts helm. en arvirmmenid frapct for some oils if they nhibit hasardous oilindnatsuon are relauvaly limlied- sidement k nd required.

characteristica even though, at the primarily related to the led that a new De tuviwd environmental present time.uwd oil as a class to not point of relaase may W involved. aneument and findin of no significant

. Impet on which this determinadon is

(

hnardous.

NteN lYy used oil as Condue6aa .

As indicated in the responses to the bewd an arcilable for inspection and (3) State' requirements governing any cornments, the Commission has decided copying et the NRC Public Document to adopt the rule as propoud with Rem. 2120 L Stmt. NW. (leer incinerstion may a L*"l). Washingion. DC.

n State; and minor modifications. Becaun the rule by(.csse miew

4) EPA rosy require by fort$ ply requiring case.

a pennit will allow a licameos to adopt a Papboek Radacnos Act Statemed radioecun reknes undet the Clun Air potentially more cost. and risk. effective mesns of disposing of waste oil while his final rule does not contain a new Act. or nanA-4 (nformation colledion Obv6ously the attuation in tech State maintalntng uisting limits on plant efiluents,the not impet of this action requirement sub)oct to the Paperwork may vary. Also, a number of actions have leen reczntly completed or we ahnuld be posttive. For licensees wbo Reduction Ad of1960(44 U.S.C 3501 under consideration by EPA and the elect to procsas waste oils in this et sq ). F.dsu rguirmnents han been approved the Offus of States. nus, requirements are in a state fashion, monitoring and maintaining Dudget approval of flux. N Commission cannot identify records on weste oil disposal acilvities Managernent will be covered by other odsting numbers 3150-0011 and 315(4014.

all ot%r requirwuents which may be applicable but can only note that these regulatory requirements set forth in Part Regulatory Andysis types of requiremants edst and must be 20 and part 50. A pendix 1. These carefully consided. As clutly stated requiramants are plemented W Commission has prepared e in $ 20.305(c) and in $ 20.2007.this rule primarily through tochalcal regulato analysis on tble rinal rule.

In no way affects their applicability. specifications established under not ans e examines tbs costs and Two commenters won cancemed that $ 50.36a.In addition, risks associated benefits o b shemeOve courses of the potential applicability of RCRA or with transportation to the LLW disposa) action considered by the Commission.

State requirercents would limit the facility or ohr treatment or disposal W analyals is available for inspecuon usefulneu of the rule. f acility an eliminated and todc and fir, at b NRC Public Document Room.

if waste oilis clasalfled as mixed hazards auociated with storage would 2120 L Street NW. (Imer 14vell.

waste. It prwently may not be disposed likely be reduced. It abould be noted Washington, DC Single copies of b of at a Lt.W burial site. nis preunts that any solid radioactin ruldun analysis may be obtained from lkanwes with enn more of a problem. produced in burning the waste oil Catherine R. Matteen. Office of Nuclear particularly !! b quantity of oil etored would, for purposes of reguladon,be Regulatory Researth. U.S. Nuclear onsite approachw the quanuty limits tnoted as any other radioactive solid Regulatory Commisalon. Washington, imposed for fire safety. On May 20.1992 waste. DC. 20555 Telephone (301) 492-3638

' Regulatory Finibility Certification ofa al ro t i d stl d IIDdlD8"IN0 6l ntricant 3

Envirvamentalimpact: Aeallability for dispoul as harardous warte, in acmrdance with the Regulatory However, based on EPA's data The Commission has reviewed b Medbility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(bl.

published in the Federal F#gister on environmental aumament and finding b Commission certifies that this rule September 23.1991156 FR 48000).1t of no significant environmentalimpad does not have a afsnificant economic appears that although a significant published in b Fodetal Register on hnpact on a substantid number of small portion of industrial waste oll,like that August 29.1988 ($3 FR 329t7-32919) in entitles nls rule only affects nuclear pnerated by nuclear power plants, will connection with the proposed rule. ne power tants.De companies that own te identified as batardous wasta Commission has also considered b thou nts do not fall within 6 scope through testing for the characterisuc of public comments and the changes in the ofthe efinition of"small entlues" set todcity, more than half of this test of the final rule, la particular, the forth in the Regulatory Fledbility Act or industrial waste oil will not be public comments relating to the Small Duainwa Staa Standards set identified as batardous, nus, a poruon. environmental rnatters and b out in regulations issued by b Small l

_ __ ___.___ _.-_ _ _ = _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ - - - - _ - _

l 57050 Tedercl Regleter / Vol. 57. No. 235 / Monday. December 7.1992 / Rules and Regulations Business Administadon et 13 CFR part $ 20 305 Treetment w islopout by lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or 121. h*I*"*uon. insulad ' fluids or metalworUng oils)

Backfit Analyste (e) A licensee me trut or dispose of that have been re,dioactively i licanwd material indneration onl contaminated in the courne of the l h NRC has determined that the (1) As authorit by paro6reph (b)y: of operadon or maintenance of a nuclear j hadht rule. to CFR 50109, does not this section; or power ructor licensed uvier past 50 of apply to als final rule and, therefore. (2)If the materialis in a form and this cbpter may be incinerated on the tbt a becifit analysis is not required for concentration specified in $ 20.306; or site where generated provided that the this final rule, because these (3) As spedlically approved by the total radioactive effluente from the amendments do not involve any Commission pursuant to $ 20106(b) or facility. induding the effluents from provisions which would impose backfits i 20.302. *. such incineration, conform to the as defined in to CrH $0.1091eht). (b)(1) Westo oils (petroleum derived requirements of Appendia I to Psit 50 or opthouc oils used prindpolly es of this chapter and the of0uent refuse List of SubNis in to Crt Part 20 lubritante, coolante, hydnube or limits contained in opplicable license Dyproduct meterial. Criminal penalt insulatirig fluids, or enetalworking oils)

Licensed metwial.Nudur meterials, y, that havs been radioactively conditions other than effluent hmite Nuclut power plants and rectors. epedlically related to indnersuon of cantaminated in the course of the weste oil. The licenwe sball report any Occupational ufety and bulth. opwouon or malatenance of a nucleG changes or # 'didons tL the informoden Packaging and contalows.Radi Uon power ructor licensed under part 50 of supphed undu $$ 50.34 and 50=34e of protection. Reporting and recordkeeping this cheptor may be incinerated on the this chapter anodeted with this requirements. Source meterial. Spedal site where genersted provided that the indnersuon pursuant to $ 5031 of this l nuclear meterial. Waste tnetment and total radioscuve effluente from the chapter, as appropriate. The licenwe disposal. facility, including the effluents from

• shallalso follow the procedures of 4

. r'or the reasons set out in the such indneration, conform to the 6 50.59 of thle chapter with repect to "

l preamble and under the authority of the requirements of /.ppendix ! to part 50 such chanBes to the fadhty or l Atomic Enngy Act of 1954, as amended, of this chapter and the affluent reluso procedures.

l the Energy Reorgantution Act of 1974 Ilmits contained in app!! cable license (2) Solid residuos produced in the l as amended, and 5 U.S C 552 and 553, condidons other than effluent limits process of incinerating waste oils must i the NRC is adopting the following spedilcall related to indowstion of '

amendments to 10 CFR part 20. weste oil, b licensee shall report any to (3) disbosed of as of e provisions provided by $ 20.2001.

this secdon changes or addidons to the informadon authorire onsite waste oil incineration P ART 20 - STANDARDS FOR suppued under $$ 50.34 and 50.34e of l PROTECTION AGAJNST RADIATION under the terms of this action and this chapter associated with this supersede any provision in an

1. The authority citadon for part 20 is incineretion pursuant to $ 50.71 of this individual plant license or tachnical l revised to rud as follows; ch Iw as appt priate, specificadon that may 14 inconsistent.

I '

Authorityt Secs. 53,61. 6$. 81.103.104 Defed at Itaciville. Marylead, this iss day

~ 161,182.166,68 Stat. 910,933,935,936, Er, os $ $0 59 f c E er of Dkember 1992.

937. 948. 953,955, as ameoded (42 U.S C d respect to suc"h changn to the facilit or rocedures, For the Nudear llegulatory Commission.

2073.2003,209$.2111,2133,2134,2201, g l

2232,2136). secs. 201, as ameoded. 202,206, (2) h ruiduos produced in the '

28 Stat.1242. as amended, 1244.1248(42 process ofincinerating weste oils must Acong Secretary of the Commission U S C 6641 4 642.SS46). be disposed of as provided by 5 20.301. (FR Doc. 92-29649 Filed 12-4-92, a 45 an l (3) The provisions of this section eum.o coo nemew l 141. Pub. L 07-425. 96 Stat. 2232,2241 (42 euthorize onsite waste incineration -

U S.C 101s5,10181). under the terms of tble section and

~-

l (as.Section 20404 also lesu Tcr the purposes of eac. 233. 6s Stat. 0ss, supersede any provision in an amended (42 U.S C 2273). 65 20101.

ta102,20103 (s) (b), and (O. 20.104 (s) and Individual plant license or technical bl. 2a 105(b). f a106(e). 2a 201. 20 2021s).

specification that sr.a) be inconsistent.

2a20s,20 207. 20.301. 20.303. 2a304, (c) Nothing in paragraph (blef this 20.30s. 2a1102. 241201-2a1204, 20.1206 section relieves the bcenne from 20.120r. ra120s. 3a1301. 2a1302. 201501 complying with other applicable 20.1602, ta1601 (e) and (d). 20.1602. Federal. State, and local regulations ta lso3. 201701. 2at ro4. 2at t01, 201602 governing any other toxic or har.ardous 2rL 1901(a). 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, property of these materials.

20.2001,20 2002.20 2003,20,2004,20 2005

3. Section 20.2004 is tevised Io rrad (b) and (c). 20.2006. 20.2101-20.2110. ,, go13ow,.

20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are lasued '

under sec.161b. 68 Stat. 948, ne amended. $ 20.2004 Trostment or disposal by (42 U.S C 2201(b)) and i 23 2106(d) is natuod incineradon.

{ y,d*[3[g]ejl 20 50 l03 1. Is) A licen'*e me trM1 or di8poS8 of i

2a 401-20 407. 20 40a(b). ta409. 201102(a) liconsed matertal incineretion onl

'(2) and (4), ra1204(c),2a ttoo (g) and (h). . (1) As euthort by paragteph (b)y:f o i 2n 1904(c)(4). 2a 190s (c) and (dt 2a 2004lb), this section; or 20.2005(c). 20.2006 (bHd) 20 2101-20.2103 (2)If the meteria)le in a form and 20 2144 (bHd). 20.2105-20.210s, and concentration specified in i 20 2005: or 20 2201-20.220r are Lasued under sec.181o. (3) As epociScally approved by the 68 Stat. 950, as stoended (42 U.S C 2201(o)). Commission pursuant to 6 20.2002.

2. Secdon 20.305 la tuvised to read as (b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum dwived follows: or synthetic oils used principally as l

l .

i1 --

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