ML20205S256
| ML20205S256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1988 |
| From: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Congel F, Harold Denton, Gillespie F NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E797 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32914, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PRM-20-15 AC14-1-23, NUDOCS 8811100308 | |
| Download: ML20205S256 (31) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
AC14-1
,' POR l
F EB 2 41968 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank Congel, Director Division cf Radiation Protection and Energency Preparedness, NRR Frank Gillespie Director Program Managerent, Policy Developn4nt and Analysis Staff, NRR Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs 5tuart Tretsy, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle, OGC M61cclm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decoimissioning, NMSS Donnie H. Grimsley, Director i Division of Rules and Records ARM FROM: Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
DIVISION REVIEW RE0 VEST: PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW OhSITE INCINEFATION OF SLIGHTLY CONT 41.NATED WASTE OIL AT NUCLEAR REACTORS Your assistance is requested in reviewing the enclosed proposed rule which veuld allow reactor licersees to incinerate conteminated waste oil on site i without an amendment to their license.
The following is a sumary of this request:
1.
Title:
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration
- 2. RES Task Leader: C.R. Mattsen
S. Wigginten, ARM 4 Requested Action: Review and coment.
- 5. Requested completion date:
g 9 gggg 0811100300 001104
-15 PDR
4 TL: . o 'Pr
- 2
- 6. Backgrour.d: This proposed rule is in response to a petition submitted by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utilities Waste Managerent Group (UWMG) which requested the Commission to define a level of radioactive materials in reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. Partly because of a separate ongoing action to develep generic "below regulatory concern" criterie and because there is not enough information and analysis to grant the petition in toto at this tire, the more limited scope of the proposed rule was determir.ed, in consultation with the petitioner to be the most expeditious alternative to provide the desired relief from excessive waste oil dispcsal costs.
Bill M. Morris. Director Division of Regulatory Applications Office et Nuclear Regulatory Research 1
l i.
DISTRIBUTION ClkC/CHR0h/RF SUBJ.CSM BMorris KDragonette. HMSS 2Rosztoczy WMeinke NRR RAlexander SWigginton. ARM -
W1. abs i
. CMattsen '
l "N
- FThIB A YI
- RRrf/q/ M :DR A z e t'_
i 0FFC:RPHEB n w :DRA P \: : :
l hAME:CMattsen/lem :WLahs : Rale)[inder:ZRos2 toczy:Eferris : : : >
DATE:'*/ 4/88 : L /i /88 :*1 Aht/88 : t/ir/P8 :)/ /86: : :
r
- - _ , - - - - ,- , . , - . - - . . - - . _ , _ . - - - , , _ , _r-_.--- --- ,, ,
o-
+
Date:
For: The Comissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations Subject Response to a Petition from the Edison Electric Institute -
Utilities Waste Management Group (PRM 20-15, July 31,1984) to modify 10 CFR Part 20 to allow alternatives to low level waste burial for disposal of slightly contaminated waste oils.
Purpose:
To inform the Commission that the EDO intends to grant, in part, the petitioner's request and publish for comment a proposed rule which would allow nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, on site, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment. Such operations would be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits, established in accordance with $50.36a and Part 50, Appendix !.
The intent of the proposed rule is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound method for disposal for this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low level wr.ste disposal site. Since the petitioner's primary objective would be achieved through this action, the remainder of the petition would bedeniedwithoutprejudice.
Category: This is a negative consent item. The action proposed clearly falls within established Commission policy as set forth in
Contact:
C. Mattsen, RES 492-3638
O
, The Commissioners 2 10 CFR 1.40(d) which delegates certain rulemaking authority to the Executive Director for Operations.
Other applicable policies include: (1) Appendix I, 10 CFR Part 50, which provides numerical guidelines for keeping releases of radioactive materials to the environment to levels which are ALARA and (2) 51 FR 30839, dated August 29, 1986, and 51 FR 43367, dated December 2, 1986, which encouraged petitions to declare certain waste streams to De "below regulatory concern."
In the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 12, 1986, the Commission requested it be kept informed of staff actions on all requests for exerrptions of specific waste streams from Commission regulations.
Discussion: The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utilities Waste Management Group (UWG) petitioned the Commission (PRM 20-15, dated July 31,1984) to initiate rulemaking to define a concentration of radioactive material in reactor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. Currently, the only conerically approved method of disposal for low-level, radioactivity contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involves solidification or immobilization, packaging, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. The petition was submitted in response to Commission views expressed in the Supplementary Information statement accompanying publication of 10 CFR 61, (47 FR 57446; December 27, 1982). In that statement, the Commission expressed its view that the establishment of standards for waste for which there is no regulatory concern would be beneficial and would, among other things, (1) reduce disposal and long-term disposal site maintenance costs and (2) help preserve the limited capacity of the regional, licensed ;
. The Commit:sfoners 3 waste disposal sites for the disposal of wastes which had higher levels of activity. That view was further advanced when the Commission announced its intent (51 FR 30839; August, 29,1986) to expeditiously process petitions to exempt specific waste streams from the Commission's regulations. The Commission subsequently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 FR 43367; December 2,1986) soliciting public coments on the broad concept of defining classes of waste which were "below regulatory concern" (BRC).
After due consideration of all the issues involved, the staff has concluded that, in responding to t*.is petition at this particular time it would not be copropriate to attempt to make a generic '
determination as to what level of radioactive contamination in waste oil, or alternatively, what level of radiation exposure of the public, would constitute a level which is "below regulatory concern". This conclusion reflects the need to consider public coments on this issue which were received in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and the ongoing efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify waste streams which are below regulatory concern. ;
The staff believes, however, that action on the EEI petition is warranted in view of the inordinate costs of disposing of this low hazard waste material in licensed low level waste burial grounds and the need to use the limited burial ground space most efficiently. The staff is therefore proposing to amend 10 CFR 20.305 to provide timely relief for affected utilities.
The proposed rule would apply to all operators of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 and would allow the on-site l l incineration of slightly contaminated waste lubricating oils and [
hydraulic fluids without the need to apply for a specific license l amendment as is presently required under the provisitns of {
10 CFR 20.302 and 20.305. Such incineration could be carried out
, t
o The Commissioners 4 eithe.' in the licensee's existing auxiliary process steam supply system t.r in an on-site facility specifically constructed for this purpose. Under the provisions of the proposed rule, each licensee would be required to prepare and have available for inspection the following: (1) a description of equipment, facilities, and procedures, which will be used to collect, store, determine the radionuclide content of, and incinerate waste oils; (2) the results of the chemical, radiometric, and other analyses of each batch of waste' oil charged to the disposal system which demonstrates that effluents from this operation are maintained at levels below existing plant technical specifications established under $50.36a and Part 50, Appendix I.
Within six months, the first part of this information would be submitted to the Commission to the extent that it represents a change to the information submitted under $50.34a in the original lic60se application. The second part will be reported under existing semi-annual effluent reporting requirements.
Since the petitioner is satisfied that this approach provides the desired relief, the staff recommends that the remainder of the petition be denied without prejudice. Comments on the petition raised questions concerning some of the specific disposal alternatives and exemption limits proposed by the petitioner.
Further analysis would be required before the petition could be granted as proposed. This alternative will provide relief more expeditiously and Commission resources could be better spent on resolving the generic BRC issue. '
The staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as. amended, and has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, the preparation of an Environmental i
4 The Commissioners 5 Impact Statement is not required. The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is provided as Enclosure 3.
That assessment concludes that the incineration of typical waste oils would not result in impacts to the health and safety of the public or the quality of the environment which are substantially different from those impacts previously considered during individual reactor licensing hearings.
1 Recommendations: The staff recomends that the Commission:
(1) Approve: publication, for comment, of the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20.305, substantially as set forth in the draft Federal Register notice (Enclosure 1).
This revision would allow on-site incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil at operating nuclear power plants without specific license amendment and constitutes a partial granting of '
PRH 20-15.
(2) Deny: the remainder of the subject petition without prejudice (3) Note: that the proposed revision to $20.305 will not increase existing discharge limits already established at each plant in accordance with
$50.36a and Appendix I of Part 50.
(4) Note: that noth'ng in this action will preclude or otherwise prejudice further Commission actions on petitiou to declare certain waste streams to be "belov regulatory concern". .
(5) Certify: that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
The Commissioners 6 significant economic effect on a substantial ,
number of small entities pursuant to the ;
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. t 605(b). The rule would affect only power reactor licensees. ,
(6) Note: a. The proposed rule contains no new or amended information collection requirement subject to ,
OMB review. Existing requirements were approved by OMB approval No. 3150-0011.
j b. The appropriate Congressional Committees will !
be informed of this action by letter l
substantially as shown in Enclosure 4.
3
- c. That a copy of the Federal Register Notice !
will be dispatched to the petitioner.
- d. That no public announcement is planned in connection with this action. l Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations !
l
Enclosures:
j
- 1. Federal Register Notice j i 2. Draft Regulatory Analysis i
- 3. Environmental Assessment and [
Finding of No Significant :
Impact t
f j 4. Draft Congressional Letter J
[7590-01]'
(DRAFT FED. REG. NOTICE)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMISSION 10 CFR PART 20 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
ACTION: Proposed Rule SUMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to amend its regulations to permit the on-site incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils genarated at licensed nuclear power plants without the need to specifically
-amend existing Part 50 operating licenses. Incintration of this class of waste would be carried out in full compliance with Commission regulations restricting the release of radioactive materials to the environment that are currently in force at each operating nuclear power plant. This proposed action would help ensure that the limited capacity of licensed, regional low-level waste burial grounds is used more efficiently while maintaining releases from operating nuclear power plants at levels which are "as low as reasonably achievable" as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. This proposed rule, if promulgated, would constitute a partial granting of a petition submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group. Other portions of the petition are being denied.
DATE: The comment period expires on .
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except to comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
01/14/88 1 ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01)
Comments may be delivered to Room 1121, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
Copies of the petition, the regulatory analysis, the environmental assessment, and the finding of no significant impact may be examined and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 492-3638.
BACKGROUND: The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utilities Waste Management Group (UWMG) petitioned the Commission (PRM 20-15; dated July 31, 1984) to initiate rulemaking to define a level of radioactive materials in reactor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. Currently, the only generically approved method of disposal for low-level, radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involves solidification or imobilization, packaging, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. The petition was submitted in response to Commission views expressed in the Supplementary Information statement accompanying publication of 10 CFR 61 (47 FR 57446; December 27, 1982). In that statement, the Commistiton expressed its view that the establishment of standards for waste for which there is no regulatory concern would be beneficial and would, among other things, reduce disposal and long-term disposal site maintenance costs and would help preserve the limited capacity of the regional, licensed waste disposal sites for the disposal of wastes which had higher levels of activity. That view was further advanced when the Commission announced its intent (51 FR 30839, dated August 29,1986) to expeditiously process petitions to exempt specific waste streams from the Commission's regulations. The Commission subsequently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 FR 43367, dated December 2, 1986) soliciting public coments on the broad concept of defining classes of waste which were "below regulatory concern" (BRC). -
01/14/88 2 ENCLOSURE 1
, [7590-01]
In the subject petition, the EEI suggested that an appropriate basis for establishing a cut-off level for determining whether specific wastes streams were BRC would be that the direct release of such waste streams to the enviroc.nent would not result in a dose to an individual member of the general public greater than 1 mrem /yr. The petitioners suggested that using a 1 meem/yr limit, alternative disposal methods, including (1) on- or off-site incineration, (2) on- or off-site burial (3) road stabilization (spraying),
and (4) recycling, could be considered viable alternatives to land burial. The Commission's policy statement published in 51 FR 30839 (dated August 29,1986) suggested that 1 mrem /yr was low enough to facilitate expedited processing of a petition for exempting a specific waste stream and that higher doses might be acceptable but could require more extensive justification.
After due consideration of the pertinent issues involved, the Commission has concluded that in responding to this petition at this particular time, it would not be appropriate to attempt to make a generic determination as to what level of radioactive contamination in waste oil, or alternatively, what level of radiation exposure of the public would constitute a level which is "below regulatory concern". This conclusion reflects a recognition both of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authorities in this area and the need to consider public comments received in response to the December 2, 1986, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on this issue.
The Commission believes, however, that prompt action on the EEI petition is warranted in view of the inordinate costs of disposing of this low hazard potential waste material in licensed land burial grounds and the need to use the limited burial ground space most efficiently. The Commission is therefore proposing to amend its regulations accordingly.
Based on information provided by the petitioner and a Brookhaven National Laboratory report (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987), the Commission is convinced that, as a class, waste oil generally contains such low levels of radioactive contamination that releases to the general environment from its incineration would have an inconsequential radiological impact on the health and safety of the public, even in combination with other routine reactor effluents.
01/14/88 3 ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01]
, L Other methods proposed by the petitioner also appear to have acceptably low radiological impac's. However, the Comission also recognizes that the EPA is considering issuing criteria for detemining wastes which are below ;
regulatory concern, and may, in addition, recommend updated Presidential !
guidance to other Federal agencies as to what constitutes acceptable levels of l j radiation exposure for members of the general public. As a practical matter, ,
it appears that until EPA completes its evaluations, on-site incineration is the only disposal alternative available to NRC licensees for this class of waste, which can be approved expeditiously. Incineration is a demonstrated !
disposal technology which appears compatible with emerging EPA regulations and I one which can be carried out by licensees within already established radiation i protection criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1, and individual plant technical specifications. Other considerations which limit the i desirability of other alternatives relative to on-site incineration include:
- 1. Although EPA has recently exempted waste oil from requirements for hazardous waste disposal, waste oil does contain some hazardous constituents which are destroyed during incineration, but not by other proposed disposal methods. [
i 1
- 2. Concentrations in the ash from incineration and in the sludge from recycling may be too high to exempt an off-site incinerator or a recycling center from requirerrents for a radioactive raterials !
license. !
\
- 3. An off-site it.cinerator or recycling center might handle waste oil [
for multiple reactors. !
I 4 Road spraying may cause more undue concern on the part of the public than onsite incineration in spite of its low radiological impact.
- 5. Landfill disposal, although more economical than LLW burial, requires i i much of the same processing and handling and would thus' result in f j less cost savings than incineration.
l 01/14/88 4 ENCLOSURE 1 l l __ - - -- - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ .
- [7590+01]
The Commission is therefore proposing to grant the petitioner's request only with respect to on-site incineration and deny the other options without prejudice at this time.
Analysis of Coments i
Fourteen comments were received on the subject petition (thirteen from industry l and one individual). The last coment letter consisted of the original l comenter's analysis of the other comments received by the Comission and a
[ revised version of the petition. All but one of the commenters supported the '
idea of exempting slightly contaminated waste oil from the requirements for l disposal at a LLW disposal site and most supported the petition in its entirety.
Many specifically comented on the excessive cost of such disposal relative to l the health and safety and environmental impacts of alternative disposal methods. ;
One provided a detailed estimate of LLW disposal costs for waste oil. [
Consideration of these coments contributed to the Commission's decision to provide some relief through an alternative disposal method. However, a few of f l
the comments raised questions concerning some of the specific disposal methods ;
l and concentration limits proposed by the petitioner, such as: the concentration i j
of radionuclides in the sludge produced during recycling might be high enough l that the recycling center would need a ratifoactive materials license; ,
l consideration should be given to multiple sources of waste oil being handled at l one off-site unlicensed incinerator; and some secondary pathways might be more limiting than those considered by the petitioner. These and other considerations resulted in the conclusion that the incineration on site was the only clearly acceptable alternative at this time. !
t i
Other comments worthy of note: one commenter discussed means of reducing the [
generation of and the concentration of contaminants in waste oil. Although l these methods are likely to be desirable, it is not necessary for the l l
regulations to deal with these specific concepts. Licensees should have !
flexibility in handling such wastes as long as risks can be kept acceptably low. Several comenters favored the concept of de minimis being applied to '
other waste streams and regulations. The Comission's views on'this concept !
have been expressed in 51 FR 1092, Jan. 9, 1986, and 51 FR 30839, Aug. 29, 1987. Expanding further resources to analyze details in the coments and other 01/14/88 5 ENCLOSURE 1 l
[7590-01]
considerations which relate to specifics which are irrelevant to the proposed course of action is not warranted. This discussion constitutes the Commission's analysis of comments on this petition and it, together with other portions of this statement of considerations, provides the basis for denial of portions of the petition.
DESCRIPTION: The proposed rule, which would apply to all operators of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, would allow the on-site incineration of slightly contaminated waste lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids generated on-site without the need to apply for a specific license amendment as is presently required under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.106 and 20.302. Such incineration could be carried out either in the licensee's existing auxiliary process steam supply system or in an on-site facility specifically constructed for this purpose. Each licensee would be required to prepare, and have available for inspection, the following: (1) a complete description of equipment, facilities, and procedures which will be used to collect, store, determine the radiological components of, and incinerate waste oils; (2) and the results of the chemical, radiometric, and other analyses of each batch of oil charged to the disposal system which demonstrates that effluents from this operation are below existing plant discharge limits (technical specifications) established under $50.36a and Part 50, Appendix I.
Part 1 of this information, the description of equipment and procedures, would be submitted to the Commission to the extent that it represents a change to the j information submitted in the original license application under $50.34a. The second part, the determination of the quantities released, will be reported under existing semi-annual effluent reporting requirements.
Although the information submitted under $50.34a on effluents is not formally i
required to be part of the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), it generally is included. The proposed requirement to update the information submitted in the original license application under $50.34a is comparable to the requirements of $50.71(e) for updates of the FSAR and would-generally be expected to be done as one action.
As noted, the proposed rule does not exempt these effluents from the technical specifications developed under $50.36a. The licensees are required to 01/14/88 6 ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01) demonstrate that all effluents, including those resulting from the incineration ,
of waste oil, meet the technical specifications on effluent dose limits. This would be done in practice through a limited modification of the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) and the semi-annual effluent reports. The ODCM, although not specified in the regulations, is a document required in the l technical specifications established under $50.36a which contains the analysis methods to calculate offsite doses from effluents. Note, the applicable dose limit, consistent with Appendix I of Part 50, is generally 15 mrem /yr to any '
organ total from radioactive iodine and all radionuclides in particulate ,
form. Licensees with existing license amendments allowing incineration of waste oil have been maintaining the contribution from waste oil at 0.1% of the dose limit, or on the order of 15 prem/yr.
Because the proposed rule would allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action ;
should be positive. For each licensee, the one-time cost of preparing the I appropriate documentation to support an incineration operation should be more ,
than off-set by direct, first year savings in waste disposal charges. For those licensees who elect to process waste oils in this fashion, monitoring and maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities would be covered by {
current regulatory requirements set forth in 53.36a. It should be noted that any solid, radioactive residues produced in the incineration process would, for ;
purposes of regulation, be treated as any other low level, radioactive solid waste, l
j f
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT !
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act '
of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR
- Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The Commission has prepared, j in support of this finding, an environmental assessment which is available for i
01/14/88 7 ENCLOSURE 1 l
[7590 01]
inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (301) 492-3638. ,
REGULATORY ANALYSIS The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis for this proposed rule. That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of action that the Commission considered in responding to the subject petition.
The draft analysis is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC. Single copies of the draft 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.
BACKFIT ANALYSIS This amendment would not impose any new requirements on production or utilization facilities; it only allows incineration of waste oils onsite without the need fer specific approval by license amendment. The amendment is therefore not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 and a backfit analysis is not required.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION Based upon the information available at this stage of the rulemaking proceeding and in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
01/14/88 8 ENCLOSURE 1
I 1
+
[7590-01) l l
l 605(b), the Commission certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have i a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The l proposed rule would affect about 100 nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR i Part 50.
I LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 20 '
l Syproduct material, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power f
plants and reactors Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, l' Penalty, Radiation protection Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, ,
Special nuclear material, Source material, and Waste treatment and disposal.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic f Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as !
amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.
l PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION }
I
- 1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows: !
f AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, [
937, 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201); f secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as anended, 1244, 1246 (42 :
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). I k
for the purpose of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); }
$$20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a),(b) and (f), 20.104(a) and (b), 20.105(h), I 20.106(a),20.201,20.202(a),20.205,20.207,20.301,20.303,20.304,and !
20.305 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(b)); and $$ 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-407, 20.408(b), and 20.409 are ,
issued under sec. 161(o), 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). !
f r
01/14/88 9 ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01] l t
- 2. Section 520.305 is revised to read as follows: l 5 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
La} No licensee shall treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration except for materials listed under i 20.306, (er) as specifically !
approved by the Commission [parssent te) under $$20.106(b) or 20.302 I
[-), or as authorized by paragraph (b) of this section, i
(b) Waste oils (water immiscible, organic hydrocarbons used principally as l
lubricants or hydraulic fluids) that have been contaminated in the course [
of the operation of a nuclear power plant licensed under Part 50 of this chapter I may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the licensee report [
any changes or additions to the information supplied under 6 50.34a associated I with this incineration within six months of commencement of incineration and (
, maintain records of this information until the date of termination of the f license or three years after cessation of incineralion. The effluents resulting l from incineration of waste oils are not excluded from the technical specifications established under i 50.36a that limit the total annual dose to an individual in an unrestricted area and that require semi-annual reportino of effluents. )
i t
Dated at Bethesda, MD this day of 1938. j l
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission f I
[
I t
Victor Stello, Jr.
f Executive Director for Operations j i
~
?
[
01/14/88 10 ENCLOSURE 1 ;
f f
i Regulatory Analysis :
Rule to Amend 10 CFR 20.305 .
DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION l
- 1. Statement of the Problem The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste l Management Group have 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 such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. This petition :
responded to Commission views as expressed in the Supplementary Information accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61, "Licensing i Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste." In that statement, i the Commission recognized that the establishment of standards for waste for which there is no regulatory concern would be beneficial and would, l t
among other things, reduce disposal and long-term disposal site ;
maintenance costs and would help preserve the limited capacity of the l regional, ifcensed waste disposal sites for wastes which had higher levels f of radioactivity. The petitioner suggested that, based on recent [
Commission decisions, a 1-mi111 rem /yr individual dose limit would be an I appropriate basis for establishing a cut-off level for defining those wastes which were "below regulatory concern." Further, the petitioner f presented several examples where combinations of radionuclide concentrations and disposal methods for waste oil would satisfy the [
1 millirem /yr dose limit and proposed wording to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect these recommendations.
~
I t
t l
1 ENCLOSURE 2 [
i i
l A response to this petition requires a staff determination of the need for !
a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of power-reactor generated, slightly !
l contaminated waste oil by means other than by burial at a licensed i disposal site. Among the factors which must be considered in this y
j determination are the following:
1-f (1) The financial costs and land use requirements associated with '
disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material
. contained in typical a ste oil, f i
j (2) Current licensing regiff rements, imposed on each power reactor l d
operator, limiting the release of radioactive materials to the L I
general environment to ALARA levels, f i I
) (3) The existence of Commission regulations which permit the use of alternate waste disposal practices subject to license amendment.
i 1
(4) The authority of the EPA to regulate the release of both )
} radioactive and non-radioactive materials to the environment. {'
(5) The authority of the EPA which assumed Federal Radiation Council f i responsibilities to develop Presidential guidance for use by f 4, other federal agencies on acceptable levels of radiation !
[
] exposure of the general public.
l t
- 2. Objectives I J
The rule, as proposed, would allow nuclear power reactor licensees to
) incinerate waste oil, which has become slightly contaminated from I operations associated with nuclear power production. The small environmental impact from the incineration of the oil, which contains low I
! concentrations of radionuclides, is readily balanced by the savings in [
disposal costs. Incineration instead of burial would also. conserve limited available burial space. Allowing such incineration through a rule change will make this alternative disposal method available in a more t
2 ENCLOSURE 2
_ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ . _ _ _. _ _ - - _ _ _ -... O
timely manner and with reduced administrative effort for licensees and
~
NRC, versus continuing to do so through the licease amendment process.
- 3. Alternatives l 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. This concept of establishing a level of l radioactivity or level of radiation exposure below which environmental impacts are so small as to be of no regulatory concern is considered by the Commission to be a valuable addition to the regulatory system. l Regulatory staf f have been assigned to work with EPA to explore the I establishment of a level below which regulatory requirements would cease f
or be significantly reduced. The petition suggested an individual !
exposure value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to base concentration limits. Thejustificationproposedwas primarily on a "de minimis" basis, that is, simply that this level of risk (
is too trivial to be of concern. The term "below regulatory concern" has !
sometimes been used interchangeably with "de minimis;" however, it is also f used in connection with exemptions from specific regulations decided on a r cost-benefit basis.
It would be convenient to declare this waste oil to be contaminated to a suf ficiently low level that it is of no regulatory concern, thereby i allowing it to be disposable without reDard to its radioactive contamination. In its BRC policy statement, the Commission gave some indication of dose levels which might be acceptable for a waste stream ;
specific exemption which would be based on cost-benefit considerations. <
However, no decision has been made as yet as to whether a single dose [
criterion should be used in lieu of individual waste stream cost-benefit analysis. Although I millirem / year is very likely to be acceptable in any case, the petitioner has not supp) led sufficient information to make a specific waste stream "below regulatory concern" determination. f i
l 3 ENCLOSURE 2 l
- p. !
I h i
In responding to this petition there are three basic alternative courses
[
p of action which could be taken; i.e., to deny the petition, to defer [
l action on the petition, or to initiate the rulemaking process. The staff f
] does not believe that a categorical dismissal of this petition at this i l
time is consistent with either the spirit of Commission policy set forth
{
{ in 10 CFR Part 61 (and reaffirmed in 51 FR 30839), er the need to ensure j effective use of licensed low level waste disposal capacity.
, The staff might elea.t to defer action on this specific petition until i public comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemskirg (51 FR 43367, l Dec. 2, 1986) have been analyzed. That notice solicited comments on the ;
) broad question of classifying certain wastes as being "below regulatory l l concern" (BRC). The staff ecold also elect to defer action pending i issuance by the Environmental Protection Agen:y of standards or guidance I on BRC levels of radioactivity or dose, f l !
] The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal of j waste oil and believes that in the spirit of established Commission policy l
and consistent with the r.eed to use limited burial ground space as }
l efficiently as possible, a rule change should be made. However, in order [
- for the petition to be granted in full, pore 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 I a
stream specific cost-benefit analysis on which to base specific [
concentration limits. Also, a determination wuuld have to be made on [
whether the concentrations of radionuclides possible in the ash from [
incineration or the sludge from recycling wuuld be low enough to allow waste oil processing at unlicensed facilities. Such additional analyses l
would result in delay and the expenditure of limited resources. The i proposed rule would provide the relief requested in the petition commensurate with the information available. The remainder of the j i petition will be denied witho,e ajudice. If the rule, as proposed, is [
made final, generic approval v (
- provided for the on site i
- f 3 incineration of nuclear reactoi ...e oils for which the minor i environmental impacts are readily balanced by savings in disposal costs. !
i
~
f 4 ENCLOSURE 2 I
II ,
l-i i
Irc h 7 tion will be allowed without specific license amendment providing the licensee maintains compliance with the requirements of the licensee's technical specifications, established to satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Any other applicable federal and state statutes would also have to be satisfied, i
l This action by the Commission would not preclude the petitioner from resubmitting a future requast to declare waste oils or other classes of waste to be "below regulatory concern" pursuant to Commission policy (51 l FR 43367).
1
4. Conseguences ,
Information provided by the petitioner and in a Brookhaven National Laboratory Report (N!! REG /CR-4730, January 1987) indicates that on average, I
an operating PWR produces approximately 1,000 gallons per year of slightly contaminated waste oil; BWR's, 3,500-5,000 gal /yr. Reported contamination levels are usually in the range of 10 -5 to 10 ~7 pCi/ml, although higher levels have been reported. The principal radioisotopes present in these waste oils 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 irestment methods. Several plants are storing waste oils on an intet!m basis pending a decision on ultimate disposal.
According to both the BNL report and information provided by the petitioner, solidification of oil wastes effectively doubles the volume of waste requiring disposal while sorption can increase waste volumes by as much as a factor of six.
5 ENCLOSURE 2
If directly released to the environment, a typical reactor would, on average, discharge a total of 10 ~4 curies of radioactivity per year via the waste oil pathway. This quantity is a fraction of typical releases in liquid effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant discharge limits. Most waste oils could be incinerated without resulting ,
in (conservatively calculated) doses exceeding 1 mrem / year. In fact, i those licensees who have been incinerating waste oil under an amendment to their license have been keeping these effluents to 0.1% of their technical specifications for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this rulemaking, until further action is taken in declaring certain wastes "below regulatory concern," the' effluents from the incineration of waste oil would be accounted for under existing technical specifications established under S50.36a and Appendix I. Thus, the addition of the small quantities of radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should have a negligibl.e impact on public health or environmental quality.
By permitting use of less restrictive disposal methods for this waste, savings in the range of $3-$12 million/ year in direct disposal costs ca1 be projected for a mature reactor economy (over 100 reactors). More l importantly, permitting use of alternative disposal options would cor: serve around 100,000 f3 t /yr of limited low-level burial ground space.
Because the proposed rule would allow a licensee to adopt a potentially i
more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of i this action should be positive. For each licensee, the one-time cost of -
preparing the appropriate documentation to support an incineration operation should be more than off-set by direct, first year tavings in waste disposal charges. For those licensees who elect to prc ess waste oils in this fashion, monitoring and rnaintaining records on wute oil disposal act' ities would be covered by current regulatory rest.1mmerits set forth in 50.36a. _
l ;
6 ENCLOSURE 2
1
- 5. Decision Rationale Since the Commission has work underway to determine what action should be taken in regard to a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes and a decision in thia area is_not expected in the near future, a decision on a dose criterion need not be part of this action. A simpler rule change can provide more timely relief from the excessive costs of disposal of '
slightly contaminated waste oil at licensed LLWB sites. The incineration of waste oil on site will not add significantly to the environmental impacts of reactor cperations, but may save several million dollars or more per > ear in disposal costs'and reserve LLWB site capacity.
- 6) Implemen+ation a) Schedule for Implementation The estimate of resources necessary to complete action on this rulemaking is 1.5 staff years (combined RES, NRR, NMSS). 7f ad:pted, this rule should significantly reduce the poter t workload in processing individual requests for specific licent amendments to permit incineration (10 man years total). Since no new requirements are being placed on licensees, the final rule will be effective as soon as published, b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic BRC exemptions.
i 7 ENCLOSURE 2
d 4
i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 20.305 DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL SY INCINERATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil on site without obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a license amendment.
4 4
Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action 1
I l
Present S20.305 forbids the incineration of any licensed material, except that specifically exempted by $20.306, without the specific approval of the Commission. The proposed action would amend $20.305 to allow power reactor i
- licer. sees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil on site without prior ;
approval. It would not exempt the effluents from this process from the 1 ,
requirements astablished undet $50.36a, i.e. the technical specifications for effluent limits and effluent monitoring and reporting, ,
s 01/20/88 1 Enclosure 3 i
Need for the Proposed Action The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group has petitioned the Commission (PRM 20-15, July 31, 1984) to initiate rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in reactor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive material content. Currently, the only generically approved method of disposal for low-level, radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involves solidification or imn,0bilization, packaging, transportation to, and burial at a licensed disposal site. The cost of such disposal is significant, '
while the concentrations of contaminants is quite low. The waste oil is a potential candidate for being declared a "below regulatory concern" (BRC) waste; however, there is an ongoing 1ction to resolve comments on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (51 FR 43367; December 2, 1986) for a potential generic rule on BRC wastes. Also, EPA is considering a similar standard. A '
Commission decision on a generic BRC waste rule is not expected in the near future.
Several power reactor licensees have requested and been granted amendments to their license to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil.
Others are interested in doing so. :
i Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The primary impact of this rulemaking is to reduce the administrative effort involved in the application and issuance of amendments to power reactor ,
l 01/20/88 2 Enclosure 3 ;
i
, - _ . ~ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ,
licenses to allow incineration of waste oil. However, easing these requirements may result in greater amounts of waste oil being incinerated than would otherwise be the case. Thus, the overall impacts of such incineration must be considered.
Some information on the quantities and concentrations of waste oil generated at nuclear power plants has been provided by the EEI petition and in a Brookhaven report "Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chronium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987). The amounts and concentrations vary considerably from plant to plant and even from year to year at a given plant. Generally, the volumes produced are approximately 1,000 gal / year at a PWR and up to 5,000 gal / year at a BWR. Concentrations of
~
radioactive contaminants are typically 10 to 10 pCi/mi but can be as high
.3 as 10 pCi/mi in some cases. Total activity per reactor per year is generally
^
no greater than 10 Ci. The dominant nuciides 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 waste oil generated, in terms of volume, could be 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 I of Part 50), or 15 prem/ year. Most, if not all, waste oil contaminated during reactor operation may eventually be declared "below regulatory concern." However, this decision is being deferred to the ongoing generic rulemaking on this subject. This action modifies the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in $20.305 to make an 01/20/88 3 Enclosure 3
t exception for waste oil at power plant sites, however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents from the technical Specifications established under !
$50.36a. These technical specifications include dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting requirements. Although this action may slightly increase actual effluents, these effluents must be accounted against existing limij.s for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents. Thus, this action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action As required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA (42 USC 4322(2)(E)), possible alternatives to the proposed action have been considered. One alternative considered was to defer any action until decisions are made regarding the ongoing generic BRC rulemaking. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with Commission policy adopted in 51 FR 30839 (August 29, 1986).
Since it is apparent that the cost to licensees to solidify or immobilize, package, transport, and bury such waste oil at licensed disposal sites is not justified based on the very limited doses from incineration and that it is more cost-effective to allow such incineration through rulemaking rather than continue processing applications for license amendment, this action should be taken rather than delay such relief further.
Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioner originally requested. However, methods other than onsite incineration would require more complete analysis than was submitted by the licensee and a decision on a dose criterion. Controlled incineration on site 01/20/88 4 Enclosure 3
l has been demonstrated to be an acceptable technical alternative for disposal of material. Any other alternative action would take longer to complete, thus delaying any relief to licensees.
Agencies and Persons Consulted Further consultation has been made with the petitioner (PRM-15-20) concerning this action as a resolution of the petition.
g Consideration has also been given to ungoing EPA activities, comments received on the petition (14), and to the Brookhaven report, NUREG/CR-4730.
Finding of No significant Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that this proposed amt:ndment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees on site, if adopted, would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that i an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination is based i on the foregoing environmental assessment performed la accordance with the I procedures and criteria in Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
'I 01/20/88 5 Enclosure 3
l O
DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER (TO BE COMPLETED LATER) l l
idated 1 paged Enclosure 4