ML20205S591
| ML20205S591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E797 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32914, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PRM-20-15 AC14-1-31, NUDOCS 8811110109 | |
| Download: ML20205S591 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 p a-r/M~ji2 %.
. 7.7 ,
9 AC14-1
!( p s:0jog UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P0ft.
, g D : WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 l
s \,..**/
MR171983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Bill H. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications Mfice of Nuclear Regulatory Retearch -
FROM: Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards ,
SUBJECT:
DIVISION REVIEW REQUEST: PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE OIL AT NUCLEAR REACTORS As requested in your memorandum dated February 24, 1988, we have reviewed the proposed rule package which would allow reactor licensees to incinerate contaminated waste oil on site without an amendment to their license. We do not conceptually disagree with the decision to grant this portion of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) petition and we are happy to see the petition being actively considered. Furthermore, the paper is clearly written and the proposed action now avoids the requirement for specific license amendments contained in earlier versions. However, we have difficulty with the proposed rule and supporting documents. Our major concerns are:
- 1. There is no clear indication of any independent NRC evaluation of the expected doses and other environmental impacts. The referenced Brookhaven study provides an independent look at the waste characteristics but not other aspects of the proposal. The case for relying on 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix !
, evaluations needs to be made. For example, the radionuclides and concentrations should be explicitly compared. Also, a specific method of l
offsite dose calculations, "the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCli)" that licensees are expected to use is mentioned. No indication was included that NRC or the petitioner have used this method to calculate expected doses from i incineration of actual waste oils. Based on discussions with RES staff, no additional documt.nts were filed by the petitioner and none have been generated by RES.
- 2. The Comission saper should better explain what the petitioner requested and those portions t1at are being denied. Such explanation would help clarify pages 4 and 5 particularly. Such discussion would show, for example, that the proposed rule allows potential doses to menters of the public from onsite incineration to exceed the petitior.ed one millirem per year and use the higher values in Appendix 1 if other plant releases allow. Perhaps a percentage limit on the Appendix 1 values should be considered as an option.
0911110109 001104 2 -15 PDR O O o O O
2- I71988
- 3. The Coumission paper and proposed rule notice should explicitly and clearly state that the petition predates the August 29, 1986 Comission Policy Statement and that the technical and procedural aspects of the Policy Statement and accompanying Staff Implementation Plan do not and have not been applied.
Because the EEI petition does not follow the Commission Policy Statement, expedited handling under Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act is also not required. The Comistion reserved approval authority for proposed rules responding to petitions filed in response to the August Policy Statement. The decision criteria in the Statenent are not addressed in the information provided. Only the fact that such proposals will be entertained is useo. ,
l 4 In view of the March 8,1988 Comission paper on the de minimis /below regulatory concern issue, we agree that NRC is not in a position to establish a one millirem dose limit as a generic de minimis dose level for waste disposal.
However, we do not believe the statements in the proposed rule notice concerning EPA's responsibility for action precluding NRC action are consistent with our legal authority to act in the absence of EPA standards and Comission desires for NRC action. The package should be reviewed for consistency with the March 8 Comission paper. The first paragraph on page four of Enclosure 1 is particulary inappropriate in this regard and is in direct conflict with stated Comission policy. Wc also note that EPA's responsibilities are for general environmental standards dealing with below regulatory concern ,
radiological matters, not with deregulation of specific radioactive waste streams.
- 5. Since EPA and States may and some States (e.g., New Jersey) have made waste cil a hazardous waste, language similar to the caveat for the requirements of other authorities for the nonradiological properties now in 10 CFR 20.306(d) should be added to the rule.
- 6. The Comission should be informed that EEI declined to supplement the petition to more fully address the other disposal options and to follow the August Policy Statement. The lack of sufficient information to evaluate impacts should be the primary basis for denial of the remaining portions of the petition. Fairly straightforward arguments can lead to the recomended action.
For example, incineration in industrial boilers is EPA's preferred method for disposal of off specification used oils; consequently, incineration is the most acceptable rethod based on nonradiological considerations. The residues from incineration or burning may contain significant quantities of radioactive or toxic retals and this potential was not evaluated by the petitioner. Onsite incineration by radiation workers under licensee control can address both the radiological and nonradiological hazards of the residues; thus onsite incineration is the recomended action.
. _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _
?'
i Based en Electric Power Research Institute briefings, waste oil is currently being evaluated as a potential waste stream for a new petition. These industry plars will hel) nelify denial without the need for extensive NRC analysis or arguments to slow that the alternative methods are unacceptabic.
- 7. The onsite incineration will provide some relief but we were unaware that EE! had found that it would provide complete relief as claimed in the notice.
- 8. The justification for granting the petitioner's onsite incineration request emphasizes the cost savint? far more than the findirg of acceptable >
health and safety protection. In view of the remand of the backfit rule, the document should be carefully edited with this sensitivity in mind.
We have also indicated some additional minor questions and coninents on the enclosed copy. If you have any questions about our coments, please contact Kitty Dragonette (2-3437).
Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Lcw-Level Waste Management and Decornissioning
Enclosure:
Edited copy i
i f
i i i c
- - - - . - , - - . . - , - , _ . - - - - . . _ - . - . - -., , ..,, ,,,,_