ML20205S833
| ML20205S833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1988 |
| From: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E797 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32914, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PRM-20-15 AC14-1-45, NUDOCS 8811110193 | |
| Download: ML20205S833 (7) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
58 mog%,
e UNITED STATES AC14-1 F'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PDE o
g
.,1 uswiuorou. o. c. aosss l
o..
- AUG 2 31988 o
MEMORANDUM FOR: John Philips, Acting Chief Regulatory Publications Branch Division of freedom of Informatior, and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management i
FROM:
Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS:
RESPONSE TO PRM-20-15, PROPOSED RULE AND PARTIAL DENIAL By memorandum dated August 3,1988, the Secretary of the Comission indicated that the Comission has assented, by negative consent, to the actions proposed in SECY-88-198:
the proposed rule on incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants and the dental of the remainder of PRM-20-15.
Please implement the Comission's action by arranging for publication of the enclosed proposed rule in the Federal Register allowing 60 days for public coment and for the dispatch of the partial denial letter to the petitioners.
Also enclosed is a Congressional letter package for transmittal to GPA/CA.
In addition, enclosed are copies of the environmental assessment and finding of
[
no significant impact and the draft regulatory analysis for transmittal to the POR.
t Zlkwk Bill M. Morris, Director [# ) /
c V
Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
Enclosurest i
1.
FR Notice and 5 copies 2.
Letter to Petitioner with enclosure 3.
Congressional Letter Package l
4.
Environmental Assessment l
S.
Draf t Regulatory Analysis
(
6.
Certification Statement
[
r t
0011110193 091104 i
AC\\sI-l PO R.
32914 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.167 / Moriday. Augus! ::9.1908 / l'roposed Rules 4
conskteration can only be given to comm(nts received on or before this l
d te.
Acontssts: hiail written comments to:
Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissmn. Washington. DC. 20555.
Attention: Docks ting and Sersice Branch. Comments may be dehvered to 11555 Rock n ille 1%e. Rocks ille. MD between 7.30 a m. and 415 p m.
weekdays.
Copies of the petition. the rt gulatory analysis, and the environ" 'tal assessme nt and imd'ng of.s sigmficant impact may be esamined and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Docux.cnt Rcm at 171711 Street. NW. Washington. DC FOR FURTHER INFORM ATION CONTACT:
Catherine R. hiattsen. Office of Nude t Regulatory Researr.h. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. W ashington.
DC:055 s Telephone:(301) 492-3m sVPPt.Es INT ARY INFORM ATION:
Background
He Edison FJectric Institute (17.1) and to CFR Part 20 the Utility Nuclear Waste hianagement Group (LNWMC) petitioned the Disposal of Waste Oil by incineration Commission on July 31,1964 (RPM 15) to initiate rulemakmg to define a AGENCY 1 Nuclear Regulatory level of radioactive materials in reactor-Commission.
generated waste oils which would ACTION". Proposed rule, permit di9posal of such oils without reprd to their radioactive material suuuARY:The Nudear RegulatorF content. Currently, the only generically Commission proposes to amend its appros ed mr thod of disposal fur low-regulations to permit the onsite level radioactively contamined oil from incineration of slightl;.un?minao '
nuclear power plants involves waste cils generates at hcensed nuclear solidification or immobilization, power plants without the need to packaging, and transportation to and specifically amend esisting Part 50 burial at a licensed disposal site. De operating licenses.This proposed action petition was submitted in response to would help ensure that the limited Commission views expressed in the capacity of licensed regionallow level Supplementary Information statement waste burial grounds is used more accompanying publicatio.1 of to CFR efficiently while maintaining releases Part 61 "lJcensing Requirements fut frnm operating nuclear power plants at
! and Disposal of Radioactise Waste" levels whlch are "as low as is (cecember 27.1982. 47 FR 37446). In that reasonably achievable as required by sta ement, the Commission espressed its to CFR Part 50. Appendia I. Incineration view s that the establishment of of this class of waste would be carried standojs for waste for which there is out in full compliance with Commission no regul.%ry concern would be regulations restricting the release of beneficial aad would, among other radioactise materials a the environrr.cnt things. reduce disposal and long term that are rurrently in force at each disposal site maintenance costs. hefp operating nuclear power plant. This prese ve the hmited capacity of the pro}'osed rt.lc. if promulgated, would regionallicensed waste disposal sites constitute a partial grantma of a petition for the disposal of wastes with higher fe r rdemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted levels of activity, and enhance escrall by Edison Electric Institute and Utility site stabihty et' disposal fackhtles by Nudear Waste Management Group-reducing the volume of Class A waste Other portior.s of the pe'ition are being That view won further advanccJ when denied.
the Cornmlasion announcc d its intr nt Oats:The comment period expires en (August 29.19M. 51 FR 30839) to October 28.1988. Comments recclsed exped.tlously process pet tions to af ter this date will be considered ilLt is escrupt spearic waste stre.ims from the practical to do so, but assurance of Commission's regulations. Tlie
e n
O Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.167 / Monday. August 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 32715
\\
Commission subsequently published an level burial grounds and the need to use used oils: thus. Incineration is the most Advance Notice of Proposed the limited burial ground space most acceptable method based on Rulemaking. ANPRM.(December 2, efficiently. De Commission is therefore nonradiological considerations. Neither 1986 51 FR 43367) sol citing public proposing to amend its rttulations.
NUREC/CR-4730 nor the information comments on tha broad concepts of Based on information provided by the submitted by the petitioners addressed defining clastes of waste which were petitioners and a Brookhaven Nationat the nonradiological toxic properties of
- below regulatory concern" (BRC).
Laboratory report.
- Evaluation of reactor waste oil; thus, this class of The petition however, predates the Potential Mixed Wastes Containing impacts from other dispos.al methods P' ley Statement and does not include Lead. Chromium. Used Od or Organic cannot be adequately considered, all of the information required for Liquids"(NURFC/CR-4730.6 [anuary
- 2. Concentrations of radionuchdes in expedited evaluation and handling 1987). and experience with the few the ash from incineration and in the under the Policy Statement.ne licensees incinerating waste oil undef sludge from recyclag may be too high to petitioners have chosen not to l' cense amendment, the Commission is exempt an offsite incmerator or a supplement the petition to follow the convinced that, as a class, waste oil recycling center from requiresnents for a guidance provided in the Policy generally ontains such low levels of tr dioactive materials license. As noted Statement.
radioactive contamination that releases lu Consideration 1. the ash residue may in the subject petition, the EE1 and the to the general uvimi mmt fmm Hs alu contain sign' cant quantities of incineration would have an tosic metals.The s issues were not UNWMG suggested that an appropriate basis for establishing a cutof' level for inconsequenus! radiologicalimpact on evaluated by the petitioners.
determining whether specific waste the health and safety of the public, even
- 3. An offsite incinerator or recycling in combination with other routme center might handle waste oil for streams were DRC would be that the reactor emmts. Incinnahon is a direct release of the specific waste multiple reactors.This factor has not streams to the en ironment would not dernonstrated dirposal technology and been adequately incorporated into the result in a dose to an Individual member one (nat can be carried out by licensees peudonn( dose analysis.
of the general public greater than 1 within already established radiation
- 4. Landfall disposal, although more mrem /yr.The perinoners suggested that pmtnuon crunis set fore M to m economical than low.les el wante (U.W)
Part 50. Appendix L nus, by using a 1 mrem /yr limit, attemative maintaining effluents under established burial. requires much of the same disposal methods, including (1) on or processing and band!rng and would thus I
O P I olislt.t incineration. (2) 00 or offsite
",8 result in less cost and nsk savmgs than burial. (3) road stabiliza tion (spraying).
doses from ef'luents that a Mcinnauon.
and (4) recycling. could be cor:sidered is masonably achievable.re "as low as viable attematives to land burial. The Analysis of Comments The other disposal methods pmposed Fourteen comment letters were Staff Implernentation Plan I 'P received on the subject petition (13 from accompanying the Commission's po! icy
,,p,,bl lo radi og calimpac s industry and 1 from a private statement published on August 29.19M lipever, adequate informaUon bas not Mdividual). The fourteerth comroent
($1 FM 30839) suggested that 1 mrem /yr b
bd 'YaIu h
was low enough to facihtate expedited
,'g',3,,e d e sJI methods.
letter consisted of the origmal petitioners' analysis of the other processing of a petition for exemptmg a in a d tion, a number of other spectfic waste stream and that higher considerations litn;t the desi-bility of c mments received by the Comrnission and a levised version of the pention. All doses might be acceptable but could rhese alt'raatives in relation w onsite but one of the commenters supported require more extensive justification, incineration.Some of the more the idea of exemptir:g shahtly However, the policy statement and important of thead considerations are contaminated waste oil frorn the implementation plan dealt with g g7of practica} considerations, requirements for disposal at an ll.W additional criteria which have not been 1.Becaos addressed by the petitioners.
EPA has recently exernpfed waste oil disposal site and most supported the Imm requirements for hazardous waste peUHon M Hs MM.Many spWcah After due consideration of the comt.sented on the excessive cost of pertinent issues involved, the disposal, however, wa ste oil does Commission ha s conclu,ded that la contala a significant amount of toxic disposal at an LLW disposal site relatne responding to this petinen at this constituents.Many of these constituents to tl e health at,d safety and particular tone. it would not be are cotnbustible and thus are destroyed uvimnmutal mpacts of shnnahve appropdate to attempt to make a genede dsring incineratien, but not through disposalmethods. One commenter,
determination as to what level of other proposed disposal methods. The provided a detailed estimate of LL%
radioactive contamination in wate oil remainder of the toxic constituents are disposa) costs for waste oil, Consideration of these comments would conshrute a level whkh is "below metals which remain in the ash residuce contnbuted to the corr. mission's decision regulatory conectn.** The petition did not from incineration. These residaea can be supply either adequate infortnation on
.bpond of M a controlled mu M to prosida some rehef through an which to base the selection of a dose the case of onsite meineration.
alternative disposal method. Ifowes er, a criterion for waste oil or an adequate incineration in industrial bo$rs is few of the comrnenters raised questions basis for evaluating all of the proposed EPA's preferred rnethod of disposal of conceming s me of the specific dispos 4f disposal allematives. The Commisuon mathods and concentration hmits beheves, howes er, that action on the proposed by the petitioners, such as (1)
[*", , p o su'*,m'FM[*',1'**,f jy the concentration of radenuthdes in the Efl/UNWMG petition is warranted in pn,m., om w o%,, oc sludge PMuced during recyr hng m'gh.
view of the very small radiological doses imposed on any member of the sum sm cm.
.s....w. t me be high sn.,.sh that the rec > chng center pubhc from disposal of waste o.l. the N.wal tenan H.4,wms.m uns eu
would need a radioactive matenals potentia) reduction in fire and 19 tic
[*,8]
(.j)sa sj heense;(2) considerstmn should be risks. the inordinate costs of disposing p%, %,,,, s% gn r n p,,g, sw, ghen to multiple sources of a este od weeu antc being handled at one offsite unhconseil of this waste materialin bremed low r
f 4
32916 Feder.1 Regist:r / Vol. 53. No.167 / Monday. At gust 29. 1938 / lYoposed Ruhs incinerator or recycling centen (3) some that will be used to collect, store, been maintaining the contribution from secondary pathway
- might be more determine the radiological components waste oil at 0.1% of the dose limit. or on limiting than these considered by the of, and incinerate waste oils; and (2) the the order of 15 rem /yr.
petitioners' (4) road spraying is results of the radiological and 3ther Section 20 305(b)(3) of the proposed prohibited in some areas because of analyses of each batch of oil discharged rule is included so that a technical environmental considerations of through the disposal system which specification change. constituting a petroleum products alone; and (5) burial demonstrate that einuents from the beense amendment, will not be et a landfill will save low lesel waste facihty. including efauents from this necessary, for examp!e. lf a release burial space but remains a costly operation, are below existmF plant point other than those identified in the citernative. These and other discharge limits established under Part technical specifications is used. nis considerations resulted in the
- 50. Appendis I. as well as i 50.3fia.
prov!sion will also relieve licensees who conclusion that incineration onsite was The first part of this information. the have already received a license th7 only clearly acceptable alternatis e description of equipment and amendment allowing waste oil ct this time. Although thc petitioners procedurts, v ould be submitted to the incineration from requirements in their cddressed these issues in their comment Commission under i 5011(e) as a license that might be more restnctise cnalysis, that analysis was not change to the FSAR since it represents a than is necessary to conform to the sufficient.
change to the informatk a submitted in requirements of Appendis I of Part 50.
Other comments were worthy of note.
the onginal license application under Since no dose critenon is being One commenter discussed means of i 50.34lb)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and I 50.34a.
chosen and the only releases to the reducing the generation of and the The second part, the determination of environrr.ent being allowed by this concentration of contaminants in waste the quantities released. will be reported action are einuents controlled under cil. Although these methods are hkely to under existirg semiannual einuent existing operating limits, this rule does be desirable. it is not necessary for the reporting requirements. In addition, the not strictly const2tute a BRC regulations to deal with these specific requirements of l 50.59 ap ly.nese determination. Rather. it only makes an c:ncepts. Ucensees should have inc de the writing of a sa ety exception to the restriction against Desibility in handhng these wastes as evaluation to assure that the changes do incineration without prior approval long as risks can be kept acceptably not involve an unreviewed safety contair:ed in i 20.305. The decision 1:w. Several commenters favored the question. the submittal of a summary of criteria contained in the DRC policy concept of de m:nimis being applied to the changes and of the safety statement of August 1986 have not been cther waste streams and regulations.
evaluation, and associated explicitly addressed.
The Commission is currently recordkeeping.
Decam the proposed rule would considering this issue in the contest of a As noted, the proposed rule does not allow a licensee to adopt a potentially notential polic statement inat would esempt these einuents from the more cost. and risk effective means of identify a le of radiation risk below operating limits developed under Part d2sposing of this class of waste while which government regulation becomes 50, Appendis 1. The licensees are maintaining existing hmits on plard unwarranted.
truned to demonstrete that all edents. f r c'uding thme resuhing from efnuants. the net impact of this act2on The remaining comments concern should be positive. For each hcensee, d; tails which relate to specific matters the incineration of waste a:1, mset the that arc irrelevant to the proposed einuent dose limi's established under the onetime cost of preparing the cours1 of action; thus, a detailed Appendit I and are thus "as low as is appropriate documentation to support discussion of these specific comraents is reasonably achievable " This would be an incineration operation should be n:t warranted, done in practice through a hmited more than offset by direct first. year The Commission is therefore modification of the offsite dose savings in waste disposal costs. For proposing to grant the petitioner's calculaticn manual (ODCM) and the those licensees who elect to process wa ste oils in this fashion, monitoring request only with respect to ens!!e semiannual eInuent reports.The ODCM.
incineration and to deny the other although not specified in the regulations, and maintaining records on wasta oil options without prejudice at this time.
is a document required in the technical disposal activities would be : overed by specincations established under current regulatory requirements set forth The Proposed Ruta Appendix 1.Section IV. paragraph D and in Part 50 Appendix 1, which are The proposed rule, which would apply i 50 364 which contains the analysl:
implemented pnmanly throagh technical al operators of nuclear power plants methods to calculate offsite doses from specifications estabhshed under ht ensed under to CFR Part 50, would eInvents; the additions to the ODCM i 50 36a. Even if a new incinerator is cl ow the onsite incineration of slightly would be included in the first installed esclusively for this purpose, contaminated waste lubricating oils and semiannual efnuent report following costs could be recovered in a few years.
> ydraulic Ouids generated onsite initiation of incineration. Dis approach in addition, risk associated with
- nthout the need to apply for a snecific for assesalns doses from the efnuents transportation to the U.W burial site are Wense amendment as is presently from the incineration of waste oil has eliminated and totic and fire hat ds r:qubd under the provisions of been used in the case of hcensees who associated with storage would hkely be ll 20.106 and 20 302. The incineration have incinerated waste oil under a redaced.11 should be noted that any could be carried out either in the license amendment. no applicable dose solid radioactive residues produced in licensee's esisting ausiliary boiler or hmit in limiting conditions for the incineration process would, for incinerator. lf as adable, or in an onsite operations, consistent with the design purposes of regulation, be treated as any facdity specifically constructed for this ob}ective in Appendis I of Part 50,is other low. lese { radioactive sohd waste.
purpose. Each licensee would be generally 15 mrem /yr to any organ of an Mnding of No Significant Enstronmental re utred to prepare and retain the individualin an unrestricted area from impact: Ava labihty foi owing types of records ire etw.me radioactis e lodine and radioactis e with apphcable NRC record retention materialin particula'e form. Ucensees The Commission has determined requirements:(1) A complete description with esisting license amendments under the National Environmental Pohr y l
cf equipment, faciht,jes, and procedures allowing incineration of waste oil has e Act of 19m, as amended, and the
(
Federal Register / Vol. 51 No.107 / hionday. August 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules 32917 Commission's regulations in Subpart A Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear are issued under sec.161tol. t>e Stat. 950. as of 10 CFR Part $1 not to prepare an Regulatory Cornmission. Washington, wended (42 U.S C 2anto)k environmental impact statement for this DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-3638.
- 2. Section 20.305 is revised to read as Regulatory Flexibility Certification follows:
cause the nu slon ha nc dd on the basis of an endronmental In accorda9ce with the Regulatory 1 20.305 Treatment or disposal t>y assessment that this proposed rule,if flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. W(bl) 6ncinerauon.
adopted would not be a major Federal the Commission certifies that enis rule (a) No licensee shall treat or dispose action signficantly affecting the quality will not,if promulgated. have a of licensed material by incineration of the human endronment.
significant economic impact i;n a except:
The proposed rule would allow substantial number of small ent ties.
(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of incineration of waste oil at nuclear This proposed rule affects only nuclear this section:
power plar.t sites resultingin very small power plants.The companies that own (2) For materials listed under I m3ce; releases of radionuclides to the these plants do not fall within the scop
- or environment. Total efnuent releases of the definition of "small entitles" set (3) As specifically approved by the frem the plants,includmg those resulung forth in the Regulatory flexibility Act or Commission pursuant io I 0.106(b) or from waste od incineration, will be the Small Business Stre Standards set i 20.302, maintained at or below existing plant out in regulations issued by the Small (b)(1) Waste oils (water immiscible discharge limits determined to be **es Business Administration at 13 CFR Part orpnic hydrocarbons used principally low as is reasonably achievable.
121.
as lubricants or hydraulic fluids) that age f Bacifit Analysis has e been radioactively contaminated in wa te od re b Ir a f
[jl
' 'd*fn,"efunder I
oil, and risks inherent in transportation This amendment to the Commission's eg may be somewhat reduced from those regulations would not impose any new Pd M of Ws @w W associated with the currently avadable requirements on produccon or incinerated on the site where generated I
disposal option of buriq at LL%
utilization facilities;it only allows provided that the total radioactis e l
disposal sites. Incineration will not incineration of waste oils ondte without l
effluents from the facility, including the require sigmficant quantaties of the need for specific approval by licensa efiluenta from such incineration must I'
materials water.or energy and in some amendment.The amendment to 10 CFR cases ma involve the recosery of 20.305 is therefore not a backfit under 10 e of nn to ga reqdnants o,1 energy.T us.no significant impact or.
CFR M.109 and a bacifit analysin la not h];"
0 h'g';t 50 o s c ap r,
, pg y,,,
the environment would result.
- required, additions to the information supplied l
Ust of Subjects to 10 CFR Part 20 under il 5044 and 50,344 of th.a chapter i
l fit d ng of fc t pac en anocied with this incineration i
which this determination is based are Byproduct material. Urensed pubhshed as Appendis A to this material. Nuclear matenals. Nuc! car pursuant to I 50.71 of this chapter. as document and are available for power plants and reactors. Occupational appropriate.The licensee shall also,
inspection and copying at the NetC a sfety and health. Packaging and f 11 w the procedure s of 1. 50.59 cf this Public Document Room.1717 H St eet containers. Penalty. Ra d>ation chapter with respet.t to such changes to NW Washington. DC. Single copics of protection. Reportmg and recordieeping the facility or procedures.
the environmental assessment and requirernents. Special nuclear material.
(2) Solid residues produced in the finding of no significant impact are Source material, Waste treatment and pr cess ofinc!nerating wasta oils most available from Catherine R. hf attsen,
- disposal, be disposed of as provided by $20 301.
(3) The provisions of this section Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research*
For the reasons set out in the US ear Regulatory Commission.
preamble and under the authority of the oNi cf(("d 1
j
}
Atomic Energy Ar.t of1954, as amended' supersede any provision in an inhidual Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the Energy Reorganization Act of19*4.
plant license or technical specification as amended and S U.S C. 553, the NRC that may be inconsistent.
I This proposed rule does not contain a is proposing to adopt the following (c) Nothing in paragtaph (b) of this t'ew or amended information collection amendments to 10 CTR Part 20.
- ction relieves the beenses from requirement subject to the Pat nwork complying with other applicable Reduction Act of 19no (44 U.S C. 3M1 et PART 20-STANDARDS FOR f e, feral. State, and local regulations seg ). Esisting requirements were PROTECTION AGAINST Rt.CIATION i
approged by the Office of Management governing any other toile or hazardous and Ddget approval number 31504011.
- 1. The authority citation for Part :0 property of these materials.
C H
M8 88 IW at Rodsiue. MWand this 19 h day l
Regulatory Aml s,
i Authority Sees 53,61 al. 41 in3,164. toi, of Aagust 174 i
l The Cornmdsdon has prepared a draft GA Stat. 910, en sis. s36. 917. 444, a for the Nudear Regulatory Commiss;on
(
regulatory artOysis for this proposed amended (42 U S C 2073. 2m1. 3% 2111.
9,y, $,,,,3,, g,*
,l rule. Thai ar.alysis esemine the costi 213 3. 2134. 22011. sec s. 201. a s a mended 2a2, i
and benehts of the alternative courses E8 as Stat.1242. as amerided. 1244.1240 (42 t.uruowsuurM Qecons.
of action that the Commisstor.
U S C. %441, 56415a46;.
Appendis A-Erwironmental I
considered in respondmg to the subject For the purposes of sec. 223.E4 Sta. u as Auessment and Finding of No j
etition.1he draf t analysis is avadable amended (42 U.S C wa). Il 2n 101. 201oA Signifit. ant imput 20103 f al. (b) and (f). 20 in4 la) and (li).
or inspection at the NHC Public go 20.H bl. m 1Na t. 20 201. :0 202f al. 2n 2nt Pmposed Amendment to f0 CFH NM mio Document Room. 171711 Street NL,
' 20 301,20 3nt. 20 y4 and m vis are gag n aste Od by Incmcrohon
+
1
% ashington, DC. Single copies of the lisad under see 1 stb.r4 5 tat 94t as draft analysis may be obtained from amended (42 U S C 2'01(b)r a$d ll Jo lo:
1he Nurfear Regulatory Commission Catherine R. Mattaen. Office of Nuclear 20 wie), m ocn.20 407. 20 annN and m 4 n n pmpmtng to amend its rrsulaimne to 4
(
32918 Federal Reglstzr / Vol. 53. No.167 / hfonday August 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 3
allow power reactor licenseer to otherwise be the case.%us. the over&ll incir.ceration. (See discussion under incinerate slightly contaminated waste impacts of such incineration must be "Altematives to the Proposed Action.")
oil onsite without obtaining the specific considered.
Potentially the proposed action might approval of the Commission through a Some irformation on the quantities result in reduced storege of waste ol' license amendment.
and concentrations of waste oil on ite thus reducing the associated fire Environmental Assessment generated at nuclear power plants was harard. Also. risks inherent in pmvided in the petition and in a transportation would be reduced from
/dentification o/ Proposed Attion.
Brookhaven report "Evaluation of those associated with the cerently present i 20.305 forbids the incineration potential Mised Wastes Containing available disposal option of burial at er any licensed material, except that Lesd. Chromium Used Od.or Organic 1.I.W disposal sites. Incineration will not specifically exempted by 6 20.306.
Liquids"(NUREG/CR-4730. January require significant quantitles of without the specific approval of the 1987). The amounts and concentrations materials, water, or energy and in some Commission.The preposed action would vary considerably from plant to plant cases may involve the recovery of cmend i 20.305 to allow power reactor and even from year to year at a given energy e.g., w hen the oil is bumed in an l
licensees to incinerate slightly plant. Generally, the volumes produced musiliary boiler.
+
contaminated waste oil onsite without are approxirt at3!y 1.000 gal / year at a ga,ed on these considerations, this I
prior approval. It would not exempt the pWR and up to 5.000 gal / year at a BWR. action will not result in a significant i
efDuents from this process from the In addition some utilities have large effect on the quahty of the humin requirements established urider quantitles in storage on site.
environment.
Appendis I to patt 50, in particular.
Cocentrations of radicactive Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
Affluent limits and efDuent monitoring contaminants are twically 10to 10
As required by Section 102(2)(E) of and reporting.
pCi/ml but can be as high as 10-* pC1/
NEPA (42 U.S C. 4322t2)tE)). posuble Needfor the ProposedAction. The mi tn some case s. Total activity per alternatives to the proposed action hase i
FAson Electric Institute and the Utihty reactor per year is generally no greate' been considered. One alternath e Nuclear Waste Management Group than 10" C1. ne dominant considered was to defer any action until petitioned the Commission (pRM-20-15.
radionuclides are Mn-54. Co48. CMo, decisions are made regardmg the d:ted July 31.1964) to initiate Cs-134, and Co-137. Others reported rulemaking to define a level of include St-90. Cd-109. Zn-65, and Zr-95' ongoing generic DRC rulemakin.
l{owever, this allemative woul be radioactivity in power. reactor-generated it appears that the bu k of waste oil waste oils which would permit disposal generated. In terms of volume, could be inconsistent with Commission policy adopted in $1 FR M9 MugW 29' cost ci these oils without regard to their incinerated with resultant individual 1966). Since it is apparent that the radioactive cwtttM1 content. Currently.
doses of less than 1 mrem /yr. lJcensees th2 only gc+ utcGy approved method of with license amendments permitting to Iicensen to solidify or innobiih
't 8b'te[w[ n b(
disposal fet tw.el radioactively onsite incineration haye been able to
{#
"p n
contamins'.<d ett from nuclear power dispose of most of their waste oils under plante involves solidification er a technical specification of 0.1% of the dup sa1 situ is n i justified based on th v i
d s fr b. mobilization. packaging. and total dose limit. which is generally 15 i""[nt
(
,nd
,,n on transportation to and burial at a mrem /yr from radioactive iodine and licensed disposal site.The cost of this radioactive materialin particulate form impacts.if anything wit: be reduced.
and since it is more cost effecthe to f
type of disposat is significant while the (in keeping with the guidance contained concentrations of contaminants are in Appendix I of part 50). or 15 prem/
allow the incineration through quite low. The waste oil is a potential year. Although waste oil contaminated rulemaking rather than to continue etndidate for being declared a "below during reactor operation might
[(ng c
s r ic se e
n
,taken regulatory concem"(BRC) waste.
eventually be declared below Although there is an ongoing action to regulatory concern!' this decision is rather than delay the relief any further.
resolve comments on an Advance being defer'ed to the ongoing generic Other alternatives were considered Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rulemaking on this subject or until a which would have granted more of what (December 2.1986; St FR 43367) for a petition following the August 1986 the petitioners origmally requested.
potential generic rule on DRC wastes, a Commission pobey is fded. This action flowever, methods other chan onsite p
Commission decision on a generic BRC modifies the restriction against incineration would require more wsste rule is not expected in the near incineration without prior approval complete information and analpos for l
future. Also. epa is considering a cor.tr.ined in i 20.305 to make an waste oil. Controlled incineration onsite similar st.inderd.
exception for waste oil at power reactor has bCen demonstrated to be an L
Several power reactor licensers have sites; howes er,it does not cuempt the acceptable technical allemath e for requested and been granted resulting efnuents from the requirements disposal of material. Although there is amendments to their bcentes to allow of Appendis I of part 50. These hmiting not sufficient information as al'ab'e to j
cnsite incineration of slightly conditions for operation include dose preclude allowing any of the other r
contaminated waste oil, Others are hmits for elduents and monitonna and alternatives in the future. Incineration t
interested in doing so, reporting requirements. Although this appears to be environmentally
[
Ernironmental/mports of the action may slightly in reuse actual preferable to the other proposed j
Proposed Action. The primary irnpact of efnuents, the radioactivity in these alternathes. Although used oilis not this rulemaking is to reduce the efnuents inust he accounted against listed as a Federal haranious aamie,it cdministrath e effort involved in the existing hmits for total dose from does contain a signifkant amount of appbcation for and issuance of nuch at power plant efnuents which tusic substances consisting of sarinus emendments to pow ce rearInt brenset has e b.+n dArmined lo satisfy the ".as organic compousals und rnetals.
to allow incineration of waste oil.
low as is reasonably achiesable" Although there may be some i
llowes er, easles these requirerr,rnti
- cnterion, ent;runmental impact from the tosic j
may result in g* eater arr.wmts of waste impacts from the 1osic tonstituents of nature of used ud for any dispos.41 j
oil leeing incineasted th. n would un d o.1 woubt be minin.licil by onsite altern.sih c,6m intration at a contmlied l
A l
Y
n-r l
I Federal Register / Vol. 53 No.107 / Mond:y. Au;;ust 29.19M / Proposed Rules 32919 site minimizes these effects and is EITs preferred method for used oil disposal.
The organic components are essentially destroyed by the incineration process and the metals essentially remain in the ash residue, incineration at a controlled site assures that the disposal of the ash residue can be controlled appropriately cnnsidering both its radiologic and toxic constituents. Nationally, any nonradiological environmental efrect 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 150.000 gallons / year of such used oil; nationally.
schicle maintenance produces about 7to million gallons / year of used oil.
Any other alternative action to this prcposed rulemaking would take long-to complete, thus delaying any relief to licensees and other benefits such as savings in land usage for waste disposal.
Acencies and Persons Consulted.
Further consultation has been made with the petitioners (PRM-:0-15) concerning this action as a resolution of the petition.
Consideration has also been given to on3oing EPA actisities, the 14 comment letters received on the petition and the Brookhas en report. NUREG/CR-4730.
Finding of No Sigmficant in~pcct. The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1909, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that this proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil by power y
reactor licensees onsite lf adopted, would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an environmentalimpact at atement is not required. This determination is based on the foregoing enstronmental assessment perforrned in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part St.
- Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic IJcensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
i IFR D.c 64-19MS Fifed &~26-en e 45 am) 1 a.aews coot rsw404s i
._n*
my
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _