ML23153A017

PR-020 - 53FR32914 - Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration

ML23153A017
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1988
From:	Hoyle J NRC/SECY
To:
References
53FR32914, PR-020
Download: ML23153A017 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 08/29/1988 PR-020 - 53FR32914 - DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION PR-020 53FR32914 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAXING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-020 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:

DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

53FR32914 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

08/29/88 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/28/88 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

26 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 57FR57649 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 12/07/92 NOTES ON EDO SIGNED PROPOSED RULE. FINAL RULE ALSO PARTIALLY GRANTED PRM-20 STATUS

-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE AND UTILITY NUCLEAR F RULE WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP.

FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAXING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-020 RULE TITLE:

DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 88-198 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 92-288 PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

08/03/88 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

08/19/88 FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

11/02/92 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

12/01/92 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: CATHERINE R. MATTSEN CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: NLS-139 PHONE: 492-3638 MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-020 (53FR32914)

DATE DATE OF DOCKETED DOCUMENT

~

08/19/88 09/26/88 10/21/88 10/21/88 10/21/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 10/25/88 08/19/88 09/21/88 10/17/88 10/18/88 10/13/88 10/24/88 10/21/88 10/26/88 10/19/88 10/20/88 10/14/88 10/20/88 10/20/88 10/21/88 10/20/88 10/21/88 In the Matter of DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH (T. S. DANIELSON, JR., M.D., M.P.H.) (

COMMENT OF D. SALTZMAN (

2)

1)

COMMENT OF ECOLOGY TASK FORCE (ALBERT G. COHEN) (

COMMENT OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (LEE E. JAGER, P.E., CHIEF BUREAU) (

4)

COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON (B. RALPH SYLVIA) (

COMMENT OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY (GERALD P. NICHOLLS, PH.D.) (

6)

COMMENT OF TEXAS L-L RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL (CHRISTINE G. POLLARD, C.H.P.) (

7)

COMMENT OF ECOLOGY/ALERT (E. NEMETHY, SEC'Y) (

COMMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DAVID K. LACKER, CHIEF BUREAU OF) (

9)

COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT) (

10)

5)

8)

3)

COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (HENRYU E. BLISS) (

11)

COMMENT OF GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY (J.E. BOOKER) (

12)

COMMENT OF MARY BYE (

13)

COMMENT OF GESTOCKHOLDERS' ALLIANCE AGAINST NUC PWR (PATRICIA T. BIRNIE) (

14)

DOCKET NO. PR-020 (53FR32914)

DATE DOCKETED 10/25/88 10/28/88 10/28/88 10/28/88 10/28/88 10/31/88 10/31/88 10/31/88 11/04/88 11/04/88 11/21/88 06/27/90 12/01/92 DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/20/88 10/27/88 10/28/88 10/25/88 10/28/88 10/24/88 10/27/88 10/28/88 10/31/88 10/31/88 11/18/88 06/01/90 12/01/92 COMMENT OF MARYLAND NUCLEAR SAFETY COALITION (PATRICIA BIRNIE) (

15)

COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR (J. L.SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR) (

16)

COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (JOHN J. KEARNEY, SENIOR V.P) (

17)

COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B. TUCKER) (

18)

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (JOE F. COLVIN) (

19)

COMMENT OF ELSIE MEYER BOTHLING (

20)

COMMENT OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION (C. R. STEINHARDT, MANAGER) (

21)

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE (DIANE D'ARRIGO) (

22)

COMMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (DAVID W. CROCKFIELD, V. P., NUCLEAR) (

23)

COMMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (RICHARD E. SANDERSON, DIRECTOR) (

24)

COMMENT OF PUBLIC CITIZEN (SCOTT SALESKA) (

COMMENT OF SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP, INC.

(W. M. HIPSHER) (

26)

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

25)

(;(;KL 1 ED USNRC

[7590-01]

'92 DEC -1 P4 :01 Fr*,c Ur

• o1JCV Ii, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 RIN:

3150-AC14 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

,* -/',/*, V

. * / IC f

SUMMARY

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

This action will help to ensure that the limited capacity of licensed regional low-level waste disposal facilities is used more efficiently v1hile maintaining releases from operating nuclear power plants at levels which are "as low as is reasonably achievable."

Incineration of this class of waste must be in full compliance with the Commission's current regulations which restrict the release of radioactive materials to the environment for each operating nuclear power plant.

Any other applicable Federal, State, or local requirements that relate to the toxic or hazardous characteristics of the waste oil would have 1

-;;f, t'l-11 \\q~

~?*

51 FR s1l!f 'I

to be satisfied. This rule constitutes a partial granting of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

The remaining portions of PRM-20-15 are denied without prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This regulation becomes effective on (30 days after publication in the Federal Register).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:

(301) 492-3638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Pet it ion The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group filed a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) with the Commission on July 31, 1984, to initiate rulemaking to establish a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content.

The Commission requested comment on the petition in the Federal Register on September 9, 1984 (49 FR 36653).

2

The petitioners suggested that an appropriate basis for establishing a cutoff level for determining whether specific waste streams were below regulatory concern would be that the direct release of the specific waste streams to the environment would not result in a dose to an individual member of the general public greater than 1 mrem/yr.

The petitioners recommended that using a 1 mrem/yr limit, alternative disposal methods, including --

(1) On-or offsite incineration; (2) On-or offsite burial; (3) Road stabilization (spraying); and (4) Recycling, could be considered viable alternatives to land burial.

The Commission received fourteen comment letters on the petition. All but one of the commenters supported the idea of exempting slightly contaminated waste oil from the requirements for disposal at a low-level waste disposal site and most commenters supported the petition in its entirety.

Consideration of the comments received on the petition contributed to the Commission decision to provide some relief through an alternative disposal method.

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

As summarized below, that Federal Register notice also proposed to deny the remaining features of the petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

The other alternative disposal methods suggested by the petitioners appear to have acceptably low radiological impacts.

However, as indicated in 3

the notice of proposed rulemaking, adequate information was not available to evaluate the acceptability of these disposal methods.

The NRC has not received information during the interim that would alleviate this deficiency.

In addition, the proposed rule indicated a number of other considerations that limit the desirability of the other alternatives in relation to onsite incineration. These considerations include --

(1) Some of the toxic or hazardous constituents contained in waste oil would be destroyed through incineration but not through other proposed disposal methods; (2) The concentrations of radionuclides in ash or sludge may be too high to exempt an offsite incinerator or recycling center from the requirement for a radioactive materials license; (3) An offsite incinerator or recycling center might handle waste oil from multiple reactors which could potentially result in higher impacts that were not fully analyzed by the petitioner; and (4) Landfill disposal would require much of the same processing and handling as low-level waste burial and would produce smaller risk and cost savings than incineration.

Therefore, the NRC is granting the petitioners' request only with respect to onsite incineration. The NRC denies the remainder of PRM-20-15 without prejudice for the reasons noted in the proposed rule and summarized in this discussion. This completes NRC action on PRM-20-15.

4

The Proposed Rule According to the rule, both as proposed and as now being adopted, incineration of waste oil would be carried out under existing effluent limits and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The rule is intended to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for disposal of this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This approach will preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites, reduce the costs of waste disposal at licensed low-level waste burial sites, and eliminate a less desirable waste form at the sites thereby potentially reducing long-term maintenance costs for disposal sites. The rule will reduce fire hazards from storage of oil and risks inherent in transportation.

Some recovery of energy may also result and risks from the toxic hazards of waste oil may be reduced.

Note:

The proposed rule presented an amendment to § 20.305. Section 20.305 is being replaced by § 20.2004 as part of the final rule establishing the new standards for protection against radiation, published May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360).

Thus, this final rule amends both §§ 20.305 and 20.2004.

A specific feature of this rule (contained in both § 20.305(b)(3) and

§ 20.2004(b)(3)) is that it supersedes any existing provisions that may be contained in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent with this rule.

The rule does not exempt licensees from the requirement to comply with other applicable Commission regulations, however.

Specifically, licensees must comply with the effluent release limitations of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I.

The rule, in §§ 20.305(b)(l) and 20.2004(b)(l), has been clarified to reflect the requirement to comply not 5

only with Part 50, Appendix I based effluent limitations but also to comply with the Part 20 based effluent limitations contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil. Restrictions in license conditions or technical specifications on incineration which are not consistent with the provisions of this rule, e.g.,

provisions which prohibit the onsite incineration of waste oil, will be eliminated from existing licenses. The rule makes the requirements for incineration of waste oil consistent among all licenses, without the need for license amendment on an individual plant basis.

In particular, the rule eliminates the need for amendments to identify any new release points or specific sampling methods and removes any license conditions or technical specification restrictions from licensees already authorized to incinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under the rule.

For example, restrictions that limit effluents from onsite incineration to a specific fraction of total effluent releases are removed.

At the same time, the rule does not alter the requirement to comply with total radiological effluent release limits contained in facility technical specifications since such limits implement the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I.

Analysis of Comments In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received comments from 25 organizations and individuals, including State regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, utilities, industry organizations, public interest groups, and other members of the public.

Copies of the comments may be examined and copied for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room at 6

--- -- -~ ---

2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, fourteen either supported or generally supported it with some questions or comment.

Two others gave comments without specifically supporting or opposing the rule.

Most of the commenters opposed to the rulemaking expressed concern about the health effects of increased effluents.

Some commenters stated that existing effluents are unacceptable. A few commenters were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few commenters suggested that the cost savings did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or that cost should not be a consideration at all.

One commenter suggested shutting down the nuclear industry or at least not licensing any new plants.

One commenter was opposed to the trend of deregulation and increasing allowable exposures. Another specifically warned the Commission not to invite public criticism.

One commenter suggested that the Commission would be taking back authority for the disposal of waste from the States. Finally, one commenter was opposed to the concept of "below regulatory concern" (BRC) and opposed this rule as a de facto BRC regulation which should not precede the debate and adoption of a BRC policy.

Many of these comments were outside the scope of the rulemaking and reflected views of the commenters.

No technical data or other supporting information was provided.

The Commission believes that the impacts of incineration of waste oil are likely to be insignificant.

In any case, the rule does not permit the total releases of effluents to exceed existing limits. The rule does not change existing effluent limits (except those restricting the fraction of total effluents from oil incineration for those licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil). The regulatory 7

requirements to assure compliance with these limits continue to apply.

Thus, the rule does not constitute a BRC exemption.

The only direct effect of this rulemaking is to simplify the administrative process associated with the use of one alternative disposal option for one type of waste; namely, the incineration of contaminated waste oil.

As to the question concerning the authority to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste, the responsibility of the States under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 does not diminish the regulatory authority of the NRC nor does this rule diminish State authorities. The recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 1992 amends the Atomic Energy Act to provide the States with authority to regulate the disposal or off-site incineration of low-level radioactive waste exempted from regulation by the NRC in the future.

The Energy Policy Act does not change any authorities with respect to on-site incineration.

Some commenters specifically opposed incineration as a disposal alternative, a number of those citing the non-radiological risks from the toxic properties of waste oil. The State of Michigan, although generally supportive, questioned the impact of potential toxic emissions and suggested consideration of the combined risks of radiation and toxic exposures.

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

The amount of oil to be disposed of by all nuclear power reactors collectively represents a very small fraction of all used oils disposed of annually.

This rule does not relieve the licensee from complying with other 8

applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.

However, the Commission recognizes that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials during the incineration process. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete combustion.

However, a high percentage of destruction of organics would be fl expected in any case.

Even a very small boiler can achieve 99 to 99.99 percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds. 1 Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high combustion efficiency in order to avoid maintenance problems, particularly if the auxiliary boiler is used.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided that used oil should not be listed as a hazardous waste, it has been developing and has made considerable progress in completing regulations which would control the 9

potential hazards of both used oil recycling and disposal.

Some controls are applicable; others are being considered.

It will be necessary for licensees to analyze their used oil to determine if it exhibits one of the characteristics of hazardous waste and to determine the applicability of EPA or State requirements.

The extent of controls will vary by State, because some States list used oil as a hazardous waste and some have specific requirements applicable to any incinerator.

1Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted at p. 49180.

9

At least some categories of used oil may present a significant potential hazard to public health and the environment.

As noted, during the development of this rule, EPA has been in the process of developing regulations pertaining to used oil. Because the EPA regulations had not been completed prior to Commission's consideration of this rule, the Commission analyzed the potential impacts of releases of toxic material from incineration of waste oil assuming no particular controls were in place.

As noted in the environmental assessment for this rule, the potential toxicants from used oil fall into two classes: organic compounds and metals.

The potential health effects of the many possible contaminants are varied.

Some contaminants are considered carcinogenic; others are threshold toxicants, i.e., substances that produce effects on health only above certain "threshold 11 concentrations.

More information and discussion on toxic constituents of used oil and potential health and environmental effects can be found in EPA Federal Register notices (50 FR 1684; January 11, 1985, 50 FR 49164; 50 FR 49212; and 50 FR 49258; November 29, 1985, 56 FR 48000; September 23, 1991, 57 FR 21524; May 20, 1992, and 57 FR 41566; September 10, 1992). These documents, as well as the documents cited in footnotes 2 and 3, are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

The EPA's original decision against listing used oil as hazardous waste was based on concerns that such a listing would cause used oil to be diverted from industrial burning as fuel to illegal dumping (such as disposal in sewers, directly on the ground, and in landfills) and that illegal dumping would result in greater environmental harm than industrial burning.

When this rule was proposed, the Commission assumed that the impacts from toxic 10

constituents would be minimized by burning, because burning is a destructive process that is expected to destroy a very large fraction of the organic constituents.

In responding to the environmental concerns raised by the public comments, the Commission has examined analyses performed by the EPA which are relevant to the evaluation of environmental impacts of burning waste oil as contemplated by this rule.

The EPA performed analyses in support of what it referred to as its Phase I rule (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) because it was a first step in regulating used oil with further regulations being contemplated.

Based on these analyses, EPA established specifications for used oil fuel which include concentrations of toxic contaminants (40 CFR 266.40(e)).

Used oil fuel which meets these specifications can be burned virtually without restriction because EPA has concluded that such oil when burned does not present a significantly greater risk than virgin fuel oil (50 FR 1693; January 11, 1985).

The EPA analyses considered a number of potential toxicants released from burning used oil and found that those that potentially present risks to public health and safety were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Thus, EPA established specific concentrations for these elements.

Of these, lead was of most concern because high levels were found in some of the samples analyzed.

However, lead in used oil was largely attributable to contamination of crank-case oils with leaded gasoline 11 blow-by11 (50 FR 1699; January 11, 1985).

Industrial used oil including reactor waste oil would not be expected to exceed the specification for lead except for some segments of metalworking oils which constitute a small percentage of reactor oils. Thus, lead would not contribute a significant impact when this oil is burned.

Threshold toxicants other than lead were not considered a significant hazard, leaving potential cancer risks from arsenic, chromium, and 11

cadmium as the most significant impact of burning industrial used oil.

In proposing its Phase I rule, EPA was concerned at the time about the widespread uncontrolled burning of used oil. It was estimated that approximately 600 million gallons of used oil were being burned each year in every conceivable circumstance - in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors. The EPA's analyses included a worst-case urban scenario where used oil was burned across a large city in various types of boilers.

In this scenario, over 25 million gallons of used oii were assumed to be burned in the study area (nationally well over 1 billion gallons of heating oil are burned in multiple family dwellings alone).

2 The used oil was burned in an array of boilers with significant overlapping of plumes that raised the ambient levels of arsenic, cadmium, and chromium.

In the worst case, it was assumed that the oil contained concentrations of these metals at the 90th percentile of the data available at the time of the study and that 75 percent of the metals were released.

Based on these assumptions, burning of used oil was estimated to result in exposure of the portion of the population within 5 kilometers of the center of the urban area to ambient concentrations of these metals associated with an increased cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 for chromium, 1 in 50,000 for arsenic, and 1 in 500,000 for cadmium.

All nuclear power plants together produce on the order of 300,000 gallons of used oil per year or about 0.05 percent of the amount of used oil burned annually.

The NRC staff estimates that 1,000-15,000 gallons per year would be burned at any one site under this rule.

The circumstances of this incineration would differ greatly from the worst-case urban scenario studied 2PEDC0 Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers and Space Heaters, EPA/530-SW-84-011, August 1984.

12

I by EPA, resulting in far smaller potential risks than those estimated for the urban scenario. Because of the small quantities of oil that could be burned, the greater distances from release points to receptors, and the distance between sites, etc., the concentration of toxicants reaching any member of the public, and thus the resulting risk, would be expected to be a very small fraction of *that calculated by EPA for the worst-case urban scenario. Thus these potential risks are not considered a significant impact on the environment.

In addition to the metals discussed above, the used oil specification includes a limit of 4000 ppm of total halogens primarily designed to limit the halogenated solvent concentration of oil burned in non-industrial boilers.

The EPA regulations also include a rebuttable presumption that used oil containing more that 1000 ppm total halogens is a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste (§ 266.40(c)).

In any case, although used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small amounts of solvents, used oil as generated would generally not be expected to exceed the used oil specification for total halogens in the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.

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

Because the EPA was evaluating the impacts of burning oil in which a fraction of virgin oil was replaced with used oil, the impacts from those toxicants contained in used oil prior to use were considered inapplicable to setting the used oil fuel specification. Because in burning used oil in an auxiliary boiler or co-located fossil fuel plant under this rule, the licensee would also be replacing a fraction of virgin fuel oil, only the incremental impacts 13

of contaminants resulting from use would be applicable.

However, in the case of an incinerator, all emissions resulting from the burning of used oil, would be an addition to existing emissions.

The risks associated with toxicants contained in oil prior to use, while difficult to characterize, have been estimated, and found to be generally less than the risks from contaminants resulting from use, and thus would also not be significant under these circumstances.

Since the proposed rule was published and this analysis was first developed, EPA has developed new information on contamination levels by major category of used oil. A summary of this data base was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 48000), together with a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking concerning used oil management standards.

Based on this recently developed information, EPA has also completed its reconsideration of listing used oil as hazardous waste.

EPA found that all used oils do not typically and frequently meet the technical criteria for listing a waste as hazardous waste and has decided not to list used oils destined for disposal as hazardous waste (57 FR 21524; May 20, 1992).

The EPA has also just promulgated a final listing decision for used oils that are recycled and a final rule on used oil management standards (57 FR 41566; September 10, 1992}, and has concluded that the regulations in place including those just issued adequately protect human health and the environment and that recycled used oil need not be listed as a hazardous waste.

The Commission has reviewed the newer data and concluded that it does not change the major conclusions related to the environmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil.

In fact, the data suggests that the level of toxic constituents in industrial used oils are generally lower than previously 14

L __

assumed from the generic data.

Industrial used oils include reactor waste oils.

In response to the question of synergism in the combined effects of chemical and radiation exposure, little is presently known about the extent of synergism of various risk factors.

For the most part, regulatory controls are based on overall risks from individual specific toxicants; although, in the case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together.

It has not been possible to fully account for any hypothesized potential synergism of various sources of risk.

However, releases of both radiological constituents and other toxics associated with the incineration of waste oil from nuclear power plants are extremely low and, therefore, could be responsible for only an extremely small part of any potential synergistic effects.

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

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

Occupational exposures would be expected to be very small and no greater than those associated with solidification, transport, and burial of the waste oil at a low-level waste disposal site.

As suggested by the commenter, there is some potential for contaminating the auxiliary boiler if it is used to incinerate contaminated oils. Licensees should consider the potential for contamination of any equipment that is used for incineration.

Factors such as concentration of the radionuclides in the oil, combustion efficiency, and 15

maintaining minimum off-gas temperatures will affect the degree of contamination. Although contamination of equipment can be minimized, the impact of this contamination could partially offset the savings in waste disposal space and cost achieved through incineration.

As to the question of establishing an area as a radiation zone, the auxiliary boiler, or other equipment used for incineration of waste oil, would be within an area controlled by the licensee.

In no case would incineration be expected to result in radiation levels requiring additional controls; that is, no new 4I areas would be established as "radiation areas.

11 One commenter argued that a license amendment should continue to be required because of the public's right to a hearing on an amendment and because the public scrutiny and case-by-case staff evaluation would ensure that applicable requirements are complied with.

This commenter also argued that the license amendment process should continue until more specific information is available such as a complete characterization of wastes.

Another commenter was also concerned that there would be no assurance that technical specifications will be complied with, particularly because normal emissions would be expected to increase as plants age.

The potentially affected public has an opportunity for a hearing on a license amendment for a nuclear power reactor.

However, the rule, both as proposed and as now promulgated in final form, only permits the incineration of waste oil onsite, if performed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements including, in particular, existing effluent limits. Amendment of licenses to authorize this activity is considered unnecessary.

The Commission will use its authority to inspect and take enforcement action to ensure compliance with effluent limits as it does its other requirements.

Given this 16

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

In accordance with customary NRC procedure, the proposed rule was published for comment for the express purpose of giving interested members of the public an opportunity to present their concerns and comments on these issues to the Commission.

One commenter suggested that a more comprehensive environmental analysis may indicate that incineration is not the best alternative but; possibly, onsite reprocessing would be because it would conserve petroleum resources and eliminate the release of combustion products to the atmosphere.

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

Because most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel, 3

recycling would not eliminate the potential for atmospheric emissions. Onsite reprocessing would involve the removal of small amounts of radioactive contamination so that the oil could be reused offsite. This option constitutes treatment and recycle rather than disposal. Unless the Commission develops specific exemptions for low concentration oils, decontamination must be completed to the extent that no radioactivity is detectable using measurement techniques approved for environmental monitoring.

Because some oils cannot be sent to low-level waste disposal facilities and the cost of disposing of the other oil that can be sent has been escalating, recycling of used oil is getting more attention by the industry.

Some means of incineration (i.e., use in the auxiliary boiler) may also result in a small 3EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.

17

increase in energy recovery over the practice of solidification and burial at a LLW disposal facility, which never involves eventual energy recovery.

The environmental impacts of either onsite incineration or decontamination for recycle are very low.

There appears to be no reason to restrict either alternative beyond whatever EPA regulations will be applicable in either case.

Excessive storage onsite for potential future recycling, however, involves some risk from fire or leakage. Storage may also require the facility to obtain the necessary permits under RCRA.

One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash from incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problem of waste disposal.

The EPA recommended that the rule clarify that the ash needs to be monitored for heavy metals to determine whether RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) requirements apply.

Although the ash may be mixed waste, only a small quantity of ash is produced when compared to the volume of contaminated oil incinerated.

Therefore, the ash does not contribute significantly to the overall problem of mixed wastes. Because the ash is being produced at the licensee's site, adequate control can be assured.

In addition, the rule makes clear that licensees are not relieved from complying with other Federal, State, and local regulations which may be applicable to other toxic or hazardous properties of these materials.

Some of the commenters supporting the proposed rule expressed the rationale for their support.

Some, including the State of Indiana, noted the small public health and safety and environmental impacts.

Some, including the State of Indiana and the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, cited the benefits in cost savings or savings in low-level waste burial space, 18

and one, the added flexibility.

One commenter provided information concerning the practicality of incineration in general and of using used oil in the startup boiler in particular.

Many of the commenters that supported the rule made suggestions for changes or clarifications.

Two commenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil such that synthetic oils and cutting, penetrating, and some other classes of oils could be incinerated. The commenters also suggested that non-waste oils (such as solvents, degreasers, grease, diesel fuels, etc.) need not be segregated from radiologically contaminated waste oils. They also proposed that waste oils used in maintenance be included.

Synthetic oils were inadvertently rather than purposefully left out of the definition of waste oil in the proposed rule and are included in the definition in the final rule. It would serve no useful purpose to treat synthetic and petroleum derived used oils differently and require identification and segregation of these oils. Cutting and penetrating oils, metalworking oils, etc., were not specifically identified in the information supplied with the petition or the Brookhaven report, "Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730) 4 which was referenced in the proposed rule and the regulatory analysis with regard to quantities and concentrations of waste oil. Thus, these types of oil were not specifically considered.

Based on the survey information in these reports, however, these other oils would be expected to 4Copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.

Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

A copy is available for inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

19

be a small percentage of the radioactively contaminated used oil needing disposal.

From the perspective of radiological impacts, there is no need to limit the type of used oil which can be incinerated.

(The above discussion on toxic constituents considered all types of used oils.) The licensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological limits established under 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I and will be responsible for ensuring that the techniques used for determining the radiological contents are adequate.

Accordingly, the rule has been changed to include a broader range of oil types.

The licensee, however, will have to exercise care in determining which oils should be incinerated in the equipment to be used considering both technical constraints and compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

Uncontaminated "non-waste" oils are not subject to the Commission's disposal requirements, but, if the uncontaminated oils are mixed with radioactively contaminated oil, they become part of a mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, therefore, subject to NRC requirements.

Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently characterized to determine:

(1) the applicability of any requirements such as EPA or State requirements; (2) the radioactive content (if there could be problems getting representative samples from a resultant mixture); and (3) the technical suitability of the potential mixture for incineration, i.e., compatibility with equipment used, water content, etc.

Within the context of the proposed rule, the word "operation" in the definition of waste oil was intended to include associated maintenance 20

activities.

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

Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration of waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil from other plants if the same controls and limits were applied, so that a utility would only need one incinerator to dispose of oil from its several plants.

While this may be the case, the focus of this rulemaking proceeding has been limited to the onsite incineration of waste oil generated on, not off, the reactor site. At the present time, the Commission believes that questions relating to the onsite disposal at the site of a particular reactor of waste oil generated by reactors located at other sites are better handled on a case-by-case basis.

Another commenter suggested that offsite incineration be allowed with the condition of proper ash disposal.

Two others, including the petitioners, suggested the Commission reconsider the other options originally raised in the petition. Another commenter, the State of Texas, simply noted support for other methods of volume reduction.

The petitioners also criticized the Commission for vagueness in the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting that their analysis, provided as a comment to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.

The August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32914), Federal Register notice presenting the proposed rule, also included an indication of the NRC's intent to deny without prejudice the other alternatives proposed by the petitioners. The primary reason for that denial, as stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking-and reiterated in the discussion of the petition in this document, was that more complete information would be needed for a rulemaking to allow any of the 21

other alternatives raised by the petitioners. Reconsideration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was ignored, this analysis was considered along with the original petition, the other public comments, and the referenced report (NUREG/CR-4730).

The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately.

One commenter suggested the Commission make a trial run, using contaminated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc designed to break down toxic chemicals.

Although this technology may present an environmentally sound alternative, these matters are outside the scope of the proposed rule.

One commenter suggested that only one generic § 50.59 review should be required rather than individual site specific reviews for each plant.

Two other commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that the purpose of the

§ 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutes an unreviewed safety question but to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant to this process.

9 The safety of burning waste oil at a reactor site cannot be determined generically. There may be some effect on the safety of reactor operation if incineration is not properly planned. Therefore, it is necessary that a plant specific determination be made, in accordance with § 50.59, to ensure that the specific equipment and procedural changes involved with the incineration will not adversely affect reactor safety.

The State of Michigan suggested a separate additional effluent limit of I mrem/year for waste oil incineration. Another commenter questioned whether the maximum quantity reported (5000 gal/yr) would conform to the "proposed dose limit" of I mrem/yr to the general public.

The State of Texas suggested 22

that the NRC use available dose assessment computer codes to verify that this "reference dose" (1 mrem/year) will not be exceeded.

As indicated in the proposed rule, there is not enough information to select a specific radioactivity concentration or dose limit for waste oil incineration.

It is projected that in most~ if not all cases, effluents from contaminated waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of total effluents. However, it is not considered necessary to establish a separate effluent limit for waste oil incineration, as long as the total amount of radioactivity in the effluents released from the plant, including releases from incineration of waste oil, continues to conform to existing effluent limits established under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and 10 CFR Part 20.

A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact, are not needed to satisfy the intent of the commenter.

Two commenters suggested that the rule be revised to allow transfer to an offsite licensed vendor.

Nothing in this rule or in other regulations restricts the licensee from transferring waste oil to an offsite licensed "vendor, 11 i.e., persons authorized to receive these materials. This alternative was not mentioned in the preamble of the proposed rule because at the time there was no facility licensed to accept radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal other than LLW disposal facilities.

Two commenters suggested that 11 site" be defined as the region "within the site boundary," and one of these suggested that the site boundary be further defined in order to provide consistency in the interpretation of "onsite 11 disposals.

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

Presently, the site or site boundary is 23

defined in the individual technical specifications for each license. However, the rule has limited the incineration to the site where the waste oil is generated, in part so that any releases of radioactive material would be covered by the effluent limits in the technical specifications established under Part 20 and Appendix I to Part 50.

The licensee's decision on the specific location for incineration will depend on its ability to demonstrate compliance with those limits applicable to releases of effluents to unrestricted areas.

The provision in § 20.305(b)(3) (or§ 20.2004(b)(3)),

which states that § 20.305 (or§ 20.2004) supersedes inconsistent license conditions or technical specifications, i.s primarily intended to eliminate the need for amendment of license conditions or technical specifications to identify any new release points or specific sampling methods and to remove any restrictions from licensees already authorized to incinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under this rule.

Three commenters suggested the alternative of using mobile incinerators.

One commenter thought it should be clarified that options other than those mentioned in the proposed rule would be acceptable including also central station power plant boilers.

The preamble to the proposed rule mentioned the options of use of an existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator or an incinerator constructed specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely to illustrate the range of options which may be involved, not to limit the options.

Nothing in the rule would restrict the use of central station power plant boilers or mobile incinerators if they are onsite.

The use of this type of equipment at the site of a licensed nuclear reactor would be governed by the reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part 50.

24

The State of New Jersey wanted the effluents from incineration to be reported in the semiannual effluent report.

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

The State of Michigan suggested the Commission mention that other Federal, State, and/or local regulations must be complied with. This provision was in the proposed rule and remains in the final rule as an amendment to § 20.305(c). This provision is also contained in the existing

§ 20.2007.

Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters.

One commenter suggested clarifying that Appendix I limits be met on an annual average basis only.

Radiological release limits contained in facility technical specifications which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I contain a range of limits including quarterly limits and instantaneous limits.

The rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation to comply with the requirements of the Commission's regulations and §§ 20.305(b)(3) and 20.2004(b)(3) do not supersede the existing limits governing total effluent releases. Accordingly, licensees continue to be required to satisfy the total radiological effluent release limitations set forth in the facility technical specifications.

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

As noted in the proposed rule, licensees are required under§ 50.71(e) to periodically update their FSAR, and in so doing, submit descriptions of equipment and procedures to the extent that there have been changes to the 25

information previously submitted under§ 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and

§ 50.34a.

No cost-benefit analysis is required.

Some commenters, including EPA and the State of Michigan, suggested clarifying other applicable requirements such as:

(1) a RCRA permit may be required for some oils if they exhibit hazardous characteristics even though, at the present time, used oil as a class is not a listed hazardous substance; (2) some States do classify used oil as hazardous; (3) State requirements governing any incineration may apply requiring case-by-case review by the State; and (4) EPA may require a permit for radioactive releases under the Clean Air Act.

Obviously the situation in each State may vary. Also, a number of actions have been recently completed or are under consideration by EPA and the States. Thus, requirements are in a state of flux.

The Commission cannot identify all other requirements which may be applicable but can only note that these types of requirements exist and must be carefully considered.

As clearly stated in § 20.305(c) and in § 20.2007, this rule in no way affects their applicability.

Two commenters were concerned that the potential applicability of RCRA or State requirements would limit the usefulness of the rule.

If waste oil is classified as mixed waste, it presently may not be disposed of at a LLW burial site. This presents licensees with even more of a problem, particularly if the quantity of oil stored onsite approaches the quantity limits imposed for fire safety.

On May 20, 1992 (57 FR 21524), EPA published a notice of a decision not to list used oil destined for disposal as 26

hazardous waste.

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

In any given State, it will depend on individual State regulations. Although the burden of meeting RCRA or State requirements may increase the cost of incineration, this alternative would still be expected to be of value.

One commenter objected to the term "limited 11 in reference to the.

required changes in the ODCM (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual) which the commenter contends are always extensive.

The Commission recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may involve significant administrative effort. However, the changes required in order to account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are relatively limited -

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

Conclusion As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the rule as proposed with minor modifications.

Because the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost-and risk-effective means of disposing of waste oil while maintaining existing li~its on plant effluents, the net impact of this action should be positive.

For licensees who elect to process waste oils in this fashion, monitoring and 27

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

These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under § 50.36a.

In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW disposal facility or other treatment or disposal facility are eliminated and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely be reduced.

It should be noted that any solid radioactive residues produced in burning the waste oil would, for purposes of regulation, be treated as any other radioactive solid waste.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

Availability The Commission has reviewed the environmental assessment and finding of no significant environmental impact published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32917-32919) in connection with the proposed rule.

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

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

The Commission has determined that the public comments, the additional consideration of toxic impacts, and the changes made to the text do not affect the conclusion reached in the earlier finding of no significant impact.

The Commission has concluded that this amendment to 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 28

I

\\

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

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

Washington, DC.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014.

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

That analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternative courses of action considered by the Commission.

The analysis is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555 Telephone (301) 492-3638.

29

L~

l l

f Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

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

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

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 197~,

30

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

Part 20 - Standards For Protection Against Radiation

1.

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

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, e

933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.

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

Section 20.408 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).

For the purposes of sec. 233, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),

§§ 20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a), (b), and (f), 20.104(a) and (b), 20.105(b),

20.106(a), 20.201, 20.202(a), 20.205, 20.207, 20.301, 20.303, 20.304, 20.305, 20.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1502, 20.160l(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801, 20.1802, 20.190l(a), 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005(b) and (c), 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) and § 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and §§ 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408{b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206(9) and (h),

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

31

i:,..

I

,j

(..

20.2101 - 20.2103, 20.2104(b) - (d), 20.2105 - 20.2108, and 20.2201 - 20.2207 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

Section 20.305 is revised to read as follows:

§ 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

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

(1)

As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2)

If the material is in a form and concentration specified in

§ 20.306; or (3)

As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to § 20.106{b) or§ 20.302.

(b)(l) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50 of this chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil. The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under§§ 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to § 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.

32

L_

The licensee shall also follow the procedures of§ 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.

(2} Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by § 20.301.

(3} The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

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

3.

Section 20.2004 is revised to read as follows:

§ 20.2004 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

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

(1)

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

§ 20.2005; or (3} As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to § 20.2002.

(b}(l) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total 33

radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50 of this chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil. The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under §§ 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to § 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.

The licensee shall also follow the procedures of§ 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.

(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by§ 20.2001.

(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this /.f! day of,OecU/v~ 1992.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jo Ac ecretary of the Commission

rv,cKEr NUMBER 8 Ao Pt, POSED RULE_ r:::.L __

- ~~~

(58FR3~9flf)

SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP, INC.

June 1, 1990 Ms. Catherine R. Mattsen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Regulatory Research Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Ms. Mattsen:

Thia letter is in reference to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Proposed Rule published August 29, 1988 in the Federal Register, page 32814, concerning the petition by the Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group requesting allowance for the onsite incineration of low-level radiologically contaminated oil.

The Scientific Ecology Group.

Inc.

(SEG) is the largest processor of radioactive waste in the United States and would like to offer comments and an update on the available methods by which radiologically contaminated oils are currently being processed for disposal.

SEG receives and incinerates radioactive oils.

SEG does not receive oils that are hazardous waste in accordance with 40CFR 261, however, the vast majority of the oils generated by Nuclear Power Plants are not hazardous waste.

Radioactive oils have been thermally destructed by SKG since May 1988. In December

1989, SEG commenced incineration of oil in the nation's only radioactive materials incinerator commercially available.

The process of incineration of the oils, by

SEG, is authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State of Tennessee Division of Radiological Health and the Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control SEG has processed in excess of 20,000 gallons of radioactive oils and has sufficient capacity to provide this service to all of the Nuclear Power Plants Two other options, not utilized at SEG, are being used to process oils for either release or disposal. The first process involves the removal of isotopic constituents from the oil resulting in the lowering of the total activity to what the processor advertises as being releasable for unrestricted use. SEG does not use this technique because no regulatory basis exist to support this practice without specific regulatory agency pproval.

The second method of processing oil involves the "solidification" of the oil and the disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal site of the resultant monolith.

This method increases the volume of materials buried and does not remove the organic material from the environment. Additionally, the cost of this method from both a processing and disposal cost is in excess of the option to incinerate.

FEB 13 1991 P.O. Box 2530 1560 Bear Creek Rd.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-2530 (615) 481-0222

1

• _I

Ms. Catherine R. Mattsen June 1, 1990 Page 2 The proposed rulemaking implies that the only options to on-site incineration are to maintain a status quo or wait for the EPA to establish release criteria. SEG's position is that the status quo has not been maintained and an approved economical disposal method is already in use and available.

If SEG can provide assistance to the NRC or the petitioners in this matter please contact either Bud Arrowsmith or me.

Sincerely

!~~

Director Regulatory and Technical Services WH/ho RTS-90-030R

Buyers Up D Congress Watch D Critical Mass D Health ReseattgSG Secretary u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn : Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir/Madam:

0 A :AS

~,Jigation Group P,r V Novembe~ rf19, 1988 I am writing on behalf of the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen in order to comment on the proposed NRC regulation (53 FR 167:32914-32919) to allow on-site incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants.

Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to address a wide range of consumer and environmental issues.

Critical Mass is the energy policy arm of Public Citizen.

We are opposed to the proposed regulation, and believe that utilities should not be granted free license to incinerate radioactive waste oil.

We are especially concerned because of the context in which this is apparently being considered.

According to the Federal Register notice cited above, "The Commission is currently considering this issue in the context of a potential policy statement that would identify a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes unwar ranted" (p. 32916), and elsewhere (p. 32918) "the waste oil is a potential candidate for being decl ared a 'below regulatory concern ' ( BRC) waste. "

We object on procedural grounds to the proposed regulation.

The issue of whether to declare a BRC policy has not yet been resolved.

The proposed regulation would constitute, however, a de facto declaration of radioactive waste oil as a BRC waste --

befor e BRC has even been adopted as a policy.

It is unacceptable, in our opinion, to begin surreptitiously implementing a policy piecemeal bef ore it has been debated and adopted as a policy per se.

We therefore urge on these pr-ocedural grounds that, at a minimum, the BRC issue be addressed and resolved in full a s a matter of policy before the incineration of waste oil is considered.

Further, because we object on substantive grounds to the general concept of wastes being declared "below regulatory concern, " we object to the proposed regulation on substantive grounds as well.

As we have reminded the Commission i n t he past, 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE D Washington, DC 20003 D (202) 546-4996

-~**

CJ. S. NUCLEAR UGUI. A tORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & Sr:RVICE SECTION OFFICE OF Tl-IE SE~RET ARY OF THE COMMIS!:.!ON Dorl'r1 nr

• st' cs Postm r!I Oat

/ 0 7 Cop, * ~ ce,vn-l

/.

Add ' I ( pi (,.,..,

I.3 *----

tt.z:;--1>.s..,___, __

'-1::J..., M4 ITS~--

November 18, 1988 Page 2 there is a large body of scientific evidence and much agreement among scientists that there is no level of radiation exposure which can be considered safe.

In light of such evidence, we believe the Commission would be abrogating its responsibility to protect public health and safety if it were to completely exempt any class of radioactive waste from regulatory control.

Even if the scientific evidence did point to a level of radiation exposure below which there was no health risk (which it does not), it still would not follow that establishing a category of radioactive waste "below regulatory concern" {BRC) would be an acceptable regulatory policy.

Since with such a policy there would be no accounting of where and in what quantity BRC wastes were disposed of, they could literally end up anywhere, and the Commission would lose the ability to control the level of cumulative exposure experienced by the public -- which, in public health terms, is what matters.

Thus, even if there were a 11 safe 11 level of exposure to radiation, a BRC policy would provide no way to guarantee that such a level would not be exceeded.

Given the absence of any real scientific evidence of such a level in the first place, a BRC declaration for radioactive wastes cannot, in our opinion, be justified by an agency entrusted with protecting the public health.

The proposed regulation to allow the incineration of radioactive waste oils is justified by the NRC on the grounds that the increase of radioactive effluents {and therefore the risks to the environment and to public health) will be slight and the benefits to the utilities involved {in terms of disposal costs) and to the Commission (in terms of saved paperwork) will be great.

Such reasoning is an example of the irresponsible idea that there exist levels of waste which can be considered "below regulatory concern."

On these substantive grounds, as well on the aforementioned procedural grounds, we urge that the Commission reject the proposed regulation.

Sincerely, e-:::=::

Nuclear Waste Policy Analyst Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen

United States Environmental Protection Agency External Affairs (A-1 00AE)

Washington DC 20460 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Federal Activities

'88 NOV -4 A 9 :57 OCT I l008 F~ IC uOCKf" I,

Bl<ANL-1-1 In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule for the Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration (53 FR 32914).

We recommend that NRC clarify two matters that relate to EPA's programs.

First, the incineration of waste oil may require a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

If the oil exhibits a hazardous characteristic and is treated by incineration, 40 CFR 264 applies.

If the waste oil is burned for energy recovery, 40 CFR 266_

applies.

Some states have listed waste oil as a hazardous waste, and, in those states, a RCRA permit to incinerate waste oil must be obtained by NRC's licensees. Further, the ash after incineration needs to be monitored for heavy metals, such as cadmium and arsenic, to determine whether the ash is also subject to regulation under RCRA because of a hazardous waste characteristic.

Second, NRC's licensees must obtain approval for the release of airborne radionuclides in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

These regulations are found at 40 CFR 61.

The NRC notice and proposed rule should be modified to reflect the need for an EPA approval to construct or modify the facility for the air emissions of radionuclides.

Both of these potential permit issues should be discussed in NRC's Final Notice and Rule.

If we may be of further assistance to the Commission staff, please contact Dr. w. Alexander Williams (382-5909) of my staff.

Richard E. Sanderson Director Office of Federal Activities

.J. S. NUCLEAR RtGl..llATORY COMMISSIO~

OOCKHING & SER.VICE SECTION OfflCE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies R*ceived A.dd' I Copies Reproduced -=-----

~*;I Distribution.J<._::z:::~~-----

- Pb/<. ______

DOCKET NUMBER p PROPOSED RULE1~~

~ 0

',u)

~F 3~9IJ/

IC: iE Paflayj~ Ekmc David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear

• aa NOV -4 A10 :QQ Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch Washington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

October 31, 1988 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50- 344 License NPF-1 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking, "Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration..,

Federal Reg"ster Volume 53, No. 167 1 Page 32,914; August 29, 1988 As the licensed operator of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, we have xperience with the contaminated oil disposal issue.

At Trojan, the contaminated oil is almost exclusively from the reactor coolant pumps, a prevalent source throughout the industry.

Even though our contaminated oil inventory has been historically low, we are concerned with the potential for the oil to be declared a "mixed waste" and thus imit its disposal via solidification and burial at the Hanford low-level waste disposal site. This has motivated us to evaluate other disposal options.

our conclusion is that onsite incineration is the most logical disposal method when considering radiation protec ion, operational, engineering, and economic factors.

Thus, we are in strong agreement with the proposed rulemaking.

To further support the tenets of the rulemaking, we note that:

• A preliminary review by onsite engineering at Trojan indicates that modification of the start-up boiler for burning the o 1 is feasible and can be accomplished at reasonable cost.

• The environmental mpact is barely perceptible as analysis shows that the offsite dose is decades below the Trojan cumulative dose Technical Specificat'on limit which is based on Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50),

Appendix I.

our own industry survey provides convincing evidence that onsite inciner-ation is a preferred and practical disposal option for plans that have

~ov - s 19 Ack owledged y card..............,..,_,_,

121 S.W Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204

1,...

00cKE'.

OFF, OF Tl!:

opics..:er Add' ! Cc

.r,--~f _

L

... p,oaur J _..3_ _

,, r,bution.JL.:z;):;>.!,,

~,;,'-----

Portland General Electric Qxrc)any Secretary, USNRC October 31, 1988 Page 2 both small and large contaminated oil inventories. If desired, we would be pleased to provide the Commission with the details of our evaluative studies in support of the proposed rulemaking.

In conclusion, the proposed rulemaking is both logical and practicable.

We urge the Commission to finalize the rulemaking in its present form and in doing so help ensure that the limited capacity of low-level waste disposal sites be used efficiently.

c:

Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kr. R. C. Barr NRC Resident Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plant Sincerely,

1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-0002 Nuclear Information and Resource Service Comments on NRC Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration 53 Federal Register 167:32914 October 28, 1988 Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposes at-reactor incineration of waste oil. It is beneficial to surrounding communities, and those down wind and downstream that some operating reactors are not releasing as much radioactivity as their technical specifications allow. That accomplishment on behalf of the reactor operators should not be rewarded with permission to increase the offsite emmissions by allowing waste oil to be burned onsite.

Citizens living around reactor sites should not be exposed to more radiation than is already being released. Any exposure to radiation increases the risks to the exposed population. Since the application for at-reactor incineration did not give specific information on doses to the public and levels of release to the environment, how does the NRC know that levels will be low enough to be under the technical specifications for all nuclear plants?

Further, as reactors age, the amount of radiation routinely released could increase.

There are unanswered questions about the synergistic effects of chemical and radioactive exposures. Despite EPA's decision to deregulate the oil from hazardous waste regulation, there are chemicals present in the oil.

f NRC is claiming t hat incineration of the oil wilf A m~ of those chemicals, specific temperatures must be maintained throughout the incineration. Some chemicals may not be destroyed but volatilized and liberated to the environment via incineration. The health effect s of volatilized mixed hazardous and radioactive waste gases have not been adequately studied, estimated, and assessed.

The ash that will result from incineration of waste oils will likely be hazardous waste. If the ash that results currently (in the absence of waste oil) in the boilers, is not hazardous or radioactive, this adds a new dimension to the waste problem at reactors, namely disposal of hazardous/radioactive incinerator ash.

lcknowledged b card....

pg 1 of 2........

dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.

J. S. Nllil c

• R RfGfft TORY COM ISSI

' G & ~&RVICE SECTION

• C THE SECRET ARV ir't COMf-,WSlO

~umenl St hstic C.

NIRS opposes the current trend toward deregulation of waste and increasing allowable exposures to radiation. By segmenting the "low-level" waste stream into many different parts, and looking piecemeal at each segment alone, the Commission is attempting to justify deregulation and dispersal of nuclear waste and radioactivity throughout the environment.

This proposal and the ensuing BRC application should be rejected.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and for your serious consideration of our position.

Diane D'Arr go Regulatory Oversight Coordinator NIRS 53FR 167:32914 Comments pg.2 of 2

WPSC[414l433-1598 TELECDPI ER (4141 433-1 297 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 600 North Adams

• P.O. Box 19002

• Green Bay, WI 54307-9002 DOC ET NUMBER PR

~

PRO OSED RUL~c=-L d:) c October 27, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555 Gentlemen:

Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant

\\_3Ff<. :,a--y/9}

NRC-88-14@

EASYLINK 62891993 f.' OC. K[i i:.:

u~j~.t-.,_

'88 OCT 31 Pl2 :22 Comments on Proposed Rule for Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration

References:

1) Federal Register Volume 53, No. 167, "Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration", dated August 29, 1988.

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) has reviewed the proposed rule regarding the disposal of waste oil by incineration as published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (reference 1) and is in general agreement with it.

The proposed rule would allow onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at nuclear power plants, subject to the following two conditions:

(1) the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 would not be violated; and (2) any solid residues resulting from incineration must be disposed of in accordance with other applicable NRC regulations.

Those conditions would require a revision to the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR ), a revision to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and inclusion of the quantities of radioactive effluents released as a result of incineration in the Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report for the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP).

However, these additional requirements are absolved by the resulting economic and environmental benefits.

At present, the only generically approved disposal method for slightly con-taminated waste oil is solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transport to a licensed disposal facility for burial.

The proposed rule would provide several benefits, including:

reservation of the limited capacity in licensed disposal sites for wastes with higher levels of activity; reduction of 1

I I~

Acknow1 dg d t v ard.....,......,,.,,... _.....,.~

NO\\,Sl'v*.'W0-. :I,.. !O

,\\~ ll!I: ~:: 31 l

l -

J. ! :)

NO\\D1'> 1Jl,\\.fl-

'l> S 1-*,1.J)l)OG t,IC)ISSIWWO),._iolv II, ~ :iij 'l1-ffl)ON *s*

Document Control Desk October 27, 1988 Page 2 costs currently associated with disposal of waste oils at licensed disposal faci lities; and reduction of the present administrative efforts necessary to acquire a license amendment to incinerate waste oils onsite. Therefore, due to these economic and environmental benefits, WPSC is in favor of the proposed rule.

Sincerely,

) Ill-;( r C. R. Steinhardt Manager - Nuclear Power LAS/jms cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC US NRC, Region III

DOCKET NU BER PR o

PROPO ED RU~

,=;e_ 3,;2,c;/~

J 3

&J. s. NUC E,..

(";I I OOC!'F.TING & _ c.. v or.FICt OF T ( ;ECRlTA RY or THI: COMt,1 Is~ ION Document S :is:ics Postmark Date

/ 0 _- DL-8"°" f Copies Recci vcd

_j_ ___ _

Add' I Copies Re,ro ; H d

-3 Special Distribution _,q__~

.3;; _J!?...J:::ue_

M& 7""r s 1::: ~

~~

5~

U..5. N.1<.e.

J..4 0 c-f-tJ.-b.eA I C/ 3 f

Joe F. Colvln NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street. N.W

• Suite 300

• Washington. OC 20006-2496 (202) 872-1280 DOCKETING&

ERVICEBRAN SECY-NRC Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer October 28, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch ib DOCKET NUMBER PR

.., O PROPOSED RULE ~

..,_;;e;,-...

___..._ \\_;)

-.3}=/( 3~ 9/'j/

SUBJECT:

NRC Proposed Rulemaking, "Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration" 53 FR 32914; (August 29, 1988)

Dear Mr. Chil k:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) in response to the above-captioned proposed rulemaking.

NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues, and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC.

In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

NUMARC supports the proposed rule that would authorize the disposal of waste oil by incineration.

We feel, however, that the following points of clarification should be incorporated in the final rule.

o The discussion of the proposed rule states that "the incineration could be carried out either in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purpose." The final rule should be clarified to state that mobile incinerators may be used.

o The type of waste oil that can be incinerated under the proposed rule is not specifically defined.

As presently stated, the oil is to be "water immiscible organic hydroq1rbons used principally as lubricants and hydraulic fluids." The final rule should be clarifi ed to specify that:

synthetic oils can be incinerated; cutting, penetrating, and other classes of oils can be incinerated; and

• ri I

<1 1988

,....,,........ ~:;;-~;;;;,;:.-

"'* s. NUCLEAR RFG!JLA TORY CO.A.IM:ss,o 00CKETING & SERVICE SECT/a OFFICE OF TH::: SECR[TAt:,'f OF THE COMM / S.: ION Postmark Date

---/::/, <:)

Copies Received

/

... dd' I Copies Rcprr-d:i, ~ ! 3 6-,.i o;.,,;b,tion --l{:z-6 s

~ -

~~

~

Samuel Chilk October 28, 1988 Page 2 industry does not have to segregate materials that are non-waste oils (solvents, degreasers, grease, diesel fuels, etc.)

from the waste oil to be able to dispose of the waste oil in accordance with this rule.

o The proposed rule states that the waste oil must have been "contaminated in the course of operation of a nuclear power reactor."

The proposed rule should be amended to state that oils used ir.

"maintenance" at the plant can be incinerated.

o If a waste oil segregation program is required to separate organic oils from synthetics and maintenance cutting and penetrating oils from oils generated in operations, consideration should be given to a segregation program similar to the Environmental Protection Agency's for implementation of their hazardous waste burning rule.

In conclusion, we urge the Commission to adopt this rule in a timely manner incorporating the above modifications so that this disposal option is provided with necessary and appropriate regulatory stability and certainty.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking.

Sincerely,

{J{ ':j.. ~

'-""L-...

F. Colvin JFC:laf

I I

HAL B. Tucker Duke Power Company P.Q Box 33198 Charlotte, N.C. 28242 Vice President Nuclear Production (704)3 73-4531 ei DUKE POWER i

V V

"88 OCT 28 P 2 :53 October 25, 1988 OFF!_.:,,-

OOCf\\L. 1ii

.r.

• • 1 r

!,.*:.. J_,

.. 7" r*JUMBC:R PR The Secretacy of the Conmission U.S. Nuclear IEgul.atory O:mni.ssion wa.shington, OC 20555 ATI'mTICN:

Ibcketing and Service Branch r OSED RULE

.,;i.. O

~31=1<. ~~ 9, v SUbject:

Disposal of waste Oil by incineration P:tq,osed Rule Duke Paer O:mrents

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (53FR32914) dated August 29, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory O::mnission published for ccmnent a proposed rule to aneid its regulations to penni t the onsi te incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear ~r plant without the need to specifically anend existing Part 50 operating licenses.

Duke P~r Cl::mpan;y has reviewed the subject NRC proposed rule and, in general, supports the cxmnission's prq:,osal pertaining to the disposal of waste oil by incineration. However, the following points need to be clarified:

1.

2.

'1he proposed rule pe.nnits the onsite incineratian of waste oil generated at that site.

The term "site" is not defined. Fbr purposes of clarity, the tenn "site" soould be specifically defined in the regulation.

Duke Pao.er proposes that the na1 rule pennit the incineration to be within the site boundary.

'lllis will provide caisistency in the use of the tenn "onsite disposal".

'1he site boundary is the fenced area of the station.

Using the site bounmuy to encatpaSS the allowed disposal area will give a :rrore consistent definition of what is considered onsite and what is considered offsite.

'!he proposed rule only addresses the incineration "carried out either in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if avail.able, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purp:>se".

Duke Pao.er proposes that the final rule should pennit the use of mcbile incinerators.

3.

'!he final rule soould specify that the 50.59 analysis is to detennine whether or not an unreviewed safety question exists in respect to site-specific equiplent and procedural changes, not the burning of the waste oil itself.

NOV - 1 1988

~cKnowteaged by card. * * * * * * * * *

• 1,9. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY coMMI s DOCKETING &. 5f 0

R 1 C= Sf.Ci 10 o m,::E OF Hit Sf(1'(*1i!l.'1 Of Tl-it COMMl~S\\0.'

Docketirg and Se?.Vice Branch October 25, 1988 Page 2 Very tnlly yours, I'M/349/88

Secretacy of the Commission October 25, 1988 Page 3 bxc:

N.A. Rutherford J. S. W:rrren R.T. Simril C.F. Ian GS-811.03

JOHN J. KEARNEY, Senior Vice President EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE The association of electric companies "88 OCT 28 A 8 :47 111119th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-3691 Tel: (202) 778-6400 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch October 28, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULF,,,, _!J]_.

{;23:,Re 3;;1.9 /'y.

Re: Proposed Rule: Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration (53 Fed. Reg. 32914)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) in response to the above-referenced notice.

As the NRC is aware, EEI/UNWMG petitioned the Commission on July 31, 1984, for a regulation defining a level of radioactive material i n waste oil s that would permit disposal of such oils without regard to their radioactive content (RPM-20-15).

That petition was submitted in response to views expressed in the Commission's Supplementary Information Statement accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61 "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (47 Fed. Reg. 57446).

The Commission has now responded to the EEI/UNWMG petition by publishing the subject rulemaking notice.

If adopted, the proposed rule would constitute a partial grant of the EEI/UNWMG petition.

It is unfortunate that, after more than four years, the NRC has now acted so as to grant only a limited amount of the authority requested in the petition.

In particular, the reasons given by the NRC for not granti ng the petition, in toto, tend to be vague and unspecific.

For example, at one point the rulemaking notice simply states that:

An offsite... recycling center might handle waste oil for multiple reactors.

This fact has not been adequately incorporated in the petitioners' dose analysis.(53 Fed. Reg. 32914, 32915.)

NOV - 1 1988 Acknow1edged by card.**********., _...,

D.S. NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSIO DOCKETING I'. SERVICE SECTION OFFICE o: WE :.~CRH RY OF THE (0 1M. ISSIO,~

Postmar~ i.) re JI,~ b Cor,;., *.. I~,,~

/

Acl"'I t:c**

__3 Special D I 1bulio<1

.li...~b.S, p A-t-MA.rr.. ~ e-AJ

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 28, 1988 Page 2 In fact, during consideration of the original 1984 petition, EEI/UNWMG addressed this issue in responding to a point raised by a commentor.

This response, however, is essentially ignored in the NRC notice.

The foregoing notwithstanding, EEI/UNWMG are of the view that the proposed rule is a step in the right direction, and we support its adoption.

The following comments are offered to assist in maximizing the useful ness of the regulation.

First, proposed section 20.305(b) (1) serves to define waste oils as "water immiscible organic hydrocarbons used principally as lubricants or hydraulic fluids *** that have been contaminated in the course of operation of a nucl ear power reactor.**. "

There is no reason, however, to exclude synthetic, cutting, penetrat-ing, insulating, and other classes of oil from the category of material which may be incinerated, provided that the other conditions imposed by the rule (!!..:...9.:., compliance with Appendix I to Part 50), are met.

Accordingly, to eliminate the possibility for confusion, section 20.305(b) (1) should be revised in the final rul e to specifically include within the definition of "waste oil" Organic or synthetic hydrocarbons used principally for their lubricating, cooling, or insulating properties or as hydraulic fluids *** that have become contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor.**.

Second, as proposed, section 20.305(b) (1) provides for incineration of waste oil "on the site where generated."

Similarly, section 20.305(b) (3) refers to authorization of "onsite waste oil incineration."

The term "site," however, is not defined.

For purposes of clarity, the term "site" should be specifically defined in the regul ation as that region within the "site boundary;" where "site boundary" is defined as "that line beyond which the land is neither owned or leased nor otherwise controlled by the licensee."

(See~ - Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Boiling Water Reactors, section 1.14 (NUREG-0133, September, 1982).)

Third, while it is clear from the discussion accompanying the proposed rule as a whole, specific references are only to incineration "carried out either in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purpose."

(See 53 Fed. Reg. 32914, 32916 {emphasis added).)

To avoid any con-fusion, the statement of considerations accompanying the promulgation of the final rule should specifically note that

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 28, 1988 Page 3 boilers on the site other than "auxiliary boilers" (~ central station power plant boilers) and mobile incinerators may be utilized.

Fourth, section 20.305(b) (1) provides in part, The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under section 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to section 50.71 of this chapter, as appro-priate.

The licensee shall also follow the procedures of section 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.

Similar to the situation discussed in the preceding comment, it is clear from the entire discussion accompanying the proposed rule, and the proposed rule itself, that the regulation is not intended to impose requirements for cost benefit analysis for incineration equipment, pursuant to section 50.34a.

It is equally clear that the rule does not intend that licensees perform analyses under section 50.59 to determine if the burning of waste oil, in and of itself, constitutes an unreviewed safety question.

It would be helpful, however, if the statement of considerations accompanying promulgation of the final rule clarified these points.

In particular, with respect to section 50.59, the statement should specify that analysis directed at determining whether or not an unreviewed safety question exists need only address whether or not site specific equipment and procedural alterations present an unreviewed safety question, and that it need not address the burning of the waste oil itself.

Subject to the above comments, EEI/UNWMG encourage the prompt adoption and promulgation of the proposed rule.

If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

~

Kearney Vice President JJK/bfm

Nuclear 0~ Ki.. Tr l.' )!'fr~

'88 OCT 28 P 2 :59 (9

GPU Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond. Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 1JFF :c**

Writer's Direct Dial Number:

01;Cf-:i._

• 1~:*

GrJ,,\\L October 27, 1988 C300-88-0473 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) comments Proposed Rule for Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration (53 FR 32914)

GPUN has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed regulation as published in the above noted Federal Register dated August 29, 1988.

We offer the following comments which address several issues identified in that rulemaking.

We support the additional flexibility provided by the proposed rule which would permit the onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at nuclear power plants.

However, 10 CFR 20.305(c) represents an area of concern which may restrict the usefulness of the proposed rule.

Several states (such as New Jersey), under their individual Reso11rce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs, classify waste oil as a hazardous waste.

Incineration of this oil may require application for a Treatment, Storage or Disposal facility permit in addition to rigorous administrative, testing and air m9deling requirements in order to amend existing air pollution permits.

Radioactively contaminated hazardous waste, better known as mixed waste, is expected to be regulated by New Jersey in the latter part of 1989.

The mixed waste program requirements are anticipated to mirror the existing RCRA requirements, which for incineration may include trial burns for a determination of contaminant and product of combustion destruction efficiency, ash analysis and disposal requirements, etc.

7582f/

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

D.S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION 00CKfTING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SfrR[T '.P.Y OF THE CO,\\V,11ss10N Pos tma,L O.i te

/0-~7-~

I Spc, I.), r i..u ir-n j) l> i!. -

'--5

-f?:i:: b...s.,.

&ur~t::-'\\J

Related to mixed waste/RCRA/ air pollution control issues and the different state program reauirements is whether the Commission might consider modifying its proposPd rule to clarify that incineration may occur at the site where generated, at a common utility-operated site for utilities with multiple reactor sites or at a vendor facility with a radioactive materials license.

Of course, this suggestion introduces concerns regarding transport of the waste oil to states with less stringent (than New Jersey) programs and related Department of Transportation shipping requirements.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations and hope that these comments assist the Commission when drafting the final regulations.

JLS/LK/lml cc:

CARIRS - TMI & OC 7582f/

~~~~r.

icensing1

~~~~ulatory Affairs, Director

e energy alternativeB Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

53 FR 167: 32914

Dear Sir:

October 20, 1988 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE We strongly oppose the NRC approval of a proposal to allow on-site incineration of radioactive waste oil from nuclear power plants. (53 FR 167:32914),

We believe radiation released during normal operation of nuclear power plants exceeds the public interest, and causes harmful health effects to human and animal/vegetable life.

We believe that incineration would increase radioactive particle releases and possibly other hazardous effluents.

Much publicity is presently being given to the Department of Energy's callous disregard for public heal th in regard to operations at Hanford, Savannah River and Fernald locations.

There are also official investigations under way concerning the health effects of releases from nuclear power plants.

The NRC should not court further public criticism by compromising its regulations on health and safety for the small economic benefit which might be gained by the requesting utility.

Sincerely,

~~v;.-a~~

Patricia Birnie Co-Director

'J - 1 1988 Aeknowledged by ca rd *********,

P.Q illX 902/COLillvIBIA,MD/2100 (30D 381-2714/ 433-4674

0.5. NUCLEAR

.GULATO Y COMMISSION DOCKET1r-1G & SERVICE SECT ION OFF*~f c; THE SECRETARY 0~ P-:E COMMISSION Postmat~ n-. 1e IO -~ o- &-I Copi'?S.{~re ',:*I I

Add'I C* *,

~,..

u*ed

-3

-~---

8.__x:_ """"r-__

/VJ t!f.1::]: ___

GE Stockholders' Alliance Against Nuclear Power Chairman Patricia T. Birnie Board of Advisors (In Formation)

Larry Bogart Citizens Energy Council Leo Goodman (1910-1982)

Split Atom Study Croup P,O.Box 966

• Columbia, MD 21044 t !3011 38 1-2714 Secretary, NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

• aa OCT 25 P 4 :31 October 21, 1988 A

Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D.

W Vice President Solar Lobby Commen on 53 FR 167:32914 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPO$t.u fWLE(~

O wJ c_~F/<3-7-9!;)

Charles Komanoff Komanoff Energy Associates

Dear Sir:

Claude Lenehan, OFM Corporate Responsibility Advisor We OPPOSE the proposed RC' incineration of radioactive plants.

approval of allowing on-site was e oil from nuclear power Paul L. Leventhal President. Nuclear Control Institute We believe that here are safer ways to dj spose of GrigsbyMorgan-Hubbard radioactive was e oil, and that incinera ion woul be an Writerand added heal h risk for the public.

The supposed ost a Energy Consultant tage should not be a consideration of thP NRC in making John R. Newell this de ermination.

the van-Bath Iron Works President (Ret.)

Public A

M1les H. Robinson, M.D. b. th Citizens for

)

e health and safe y are already being poorly served nuclear industry.

Please do not further weaken he Health Information rules,

Nathan H. Sauberman Profession.ii Engineer (Ret.)

John Somerville, Ph.D.

President, Union of American and Japanese Professionals Against Nuclear Omnicide Irving Stillman, M.D.

Physicians for Social Responsibility Faith Young Energy People, Inc.

Affiliations for Identification Purpo5es, only.

Sinc-Prelv, o~r'i§~

Pa ricia T. Birnie ov - 1 1988

.J. S. NUCLEAR t:FGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICI: OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Slalistics Poslm rk o~te Copies Recc1 ved

/_ () -;2 I

Adi* 1 ropie R..,

.:J __

'ipee1 I r. lr1

• • i~n

~

r-MA rr ----~ '----

~~ LI ':b ~

!.._ 3f ~ a I 89 o-f u

I($),~ I t:g"6 DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE

.,;i,.o

.!::i;)~F~ 3 :Lf 11/-

113 OCT 24 AlO :47

'D.-LQA_J-e._~1/2-1 !~

G-fp-o--µ-

I~ ~f~

~

-:f-<, ') I,..

It__,. 'N Q_ ~ I,> ~

"" - i.. te ffY1 "y ~

~ G.. cL....H

~

~-J: I I

~~ n I. ~::tJ ~~~

we

~

~

""-1.R

~ Aa.-CL a.:t. ~ ~in-.-, ~

Ch_,

w'-(_ cJ..tv-J- ~

,L~ ~J~f.iv'Js, J...J

&J~,

~.J' ~

ilJ ~L(_ ~, #

t,J...._

..J-a...,...J ~,~

0<l I._J "I, ~ ~+--

~,l-..i

'-4_\\l ( ~~.

~L I'\\-_

,., T 7 1988

. NUCLEAR REGUL TORY COMMISSIOS DOCKET ING & S~RVI CE St CT ION OFFICE C'F THf. SECRET ARY OF THt COMMI~ ION stmark Date l 'I r_, * ~ R<, roduced pec,al Dis ribution ~

~

(1_

- ~T"~~S,,-,-_----rA-, -~

POST OFFI CE BOX 2951, BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704 AREAC ODE409 838 6631

~

l

'd G_FJ-_!~

::,1*::1; !v *;,i:. tl 'J \\(.\\

OOC L BH t.NC,...

Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20444 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) is Commission's proposed rule (53FR32914, dated of Waste Oil by Incineration."

GSU supports following comments:

October 21, 1988 RBG -

29073 File Code G9.23 pleased to comment on the August 29, 1988)

"Disposal this proposed rule with the

1.

The third paragraph of the proposed rule, states in part:

"This would be done in practice through a limited modification of the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) and the semi-annual effluent reports."

The word "limited" should be deleted.

The effort required to make any change to the ODCM is often extensive.

2.

The changes to Part 20, paragraph 20.305 treatment or disposal by incineration and specifically subparagraph 20.305(b)(l) provide for onsite waste oil incineration but no provisions have been made to transfer contaminated oil to an offsite facility for incineration.

Subparagraph 10CFR20.305(b)(l) should be revised to include provisions for onsite incineration and/or transfer of contaminated oil to an offsite licensed vendor for incineration and subsequent burial of any residue.

GSU appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

JEB/LA~}~HW/KNC/do Sincerely,

/f-~

J.E. Booker Manager-River Bend Oversight River Bend Nuclear Group OCT 2 7 1988

I.I: NUCLEAR REGIJI A TORY COMMISSIO.*

OOCKETING & t:~RVICE SECTION OFFrG C;: *, ;..;* ::ECRETARY OF H0f((.IMMISSION D,,-::.,..~,,,nl Stat isl ics Postmark Q;-tc

/ 0 -: ~, - tr_

Copie~ ~er. **

• I

.t.dr:l'~.~,,:;*"* q.z.-rnduced _

_.3 Special D-,t ribution g_~ b..S/

_ -j? bll/ /h,4--rr5s N__ _

Commonwealth Edison One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois Address Reply to: Post Office Bo~ 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

October 20, 1988 OCT 24 1\\11 :25 DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE ( _

o t~ 1

\\_ S3 Fli.. 3.z I I,?/

Subject:

Proposed Rule to Permit the Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration (53 Fed. Reg. 32914, August 29, 1988)

This presents Commonwealth Edison Company's (Edison) comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to permit licenses to incinerate waste oils slightly contaminated with radioactive materials.

Edison supports the proposed rule as far as it goes but suggests that it be modified to apply its principles to multi-unit licensees.

Edison agrees that, in general, waste oils contain such low levels of radioactive materials that the incineration of such oils would not have any significant effect on the public health and safety.

Under these conditions, no useful purpose appears to be served by requiring individual, site-specific analyses of incineration under 10CFR 50.59.

At most, one generic 50.59 analysis should suffice.

Also, it is not clear that Appendix I to Part 50 should apply, at least not to each individual incineration episode.

Appendix I applies to continuous releases of radionuclides during normal operation.

In general, waste oil burning will be episodic and not continuous.

Under those conditions, even if Appendix I does provide suitable effluent limits, those limits should not have to be satisfied for each burn but, rather, for the yearly average effluents just as if the incineration had been levelized over the year.

Such averaging would treat incineration releases like the usual, continuous plant releases to which Appendix I applies.

Other disposal methods suggested by petitioners Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (EEI/UNWME) were rejected by the NRC for lack of adequate analysis of the hazardous non-radioactive materials in the oil.

This rejection was improper because it is based on too broad a reading of the NRC's jurisdiction.

The NRC's jurisdiction is limited to public health, safety and the environment as affected by the radioactive properties of materials regulated by the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act.

Once the NRC finds that any disposal method does not present an undue radiation risk to the public health and safety the NRC can approve that disposal method subject to.the aru?roval _Qf___such disposal Qy_Q_the r QID}ncies responsible for regulating the hazardous materials in the contaminated oils.

Therefore, the NRC should reconsider the other disposal methods proposed by EEI/UNWMG and approve any of them which do not present a n undue radiologic risk.

O. S. NUClEAR REGULA TORY COMMI SSI DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OfFICE Of TH~ SECRET ARY OF THE COMM n ION Postmar D11te j ()-;zJ-rf Copies re:*.-¢~

/

Adel' I Co*,

,. t1

-3

• • I Di tribution

/<.::z:b..S J

'¥~~~

2 -

There is also no reason why off-site incineration cannot be approved in a manner which addresses the NRC's concerns.

To the extent that ash residues may contain significant quantities of radioactive materials or toxic metals, the NRC should condition the approval of incineration on the disposal of those ashes at a suitable facility.

Finally, the pToposed rule unnecessarily restricts the incineration of oil to an incinerator on the site where it was generated.

This restriction places an unnecessary burden on a multi-site utility.

As long as incineration at a site does not exceed Appendix I limits, it makes no difference what plant or plants the oil come from.

ALARA would still be satisfied.

Indeed, as long as Appendix I is satisfied, the oil need not even come from another facility owned by the same licensee.

Therefore, proposed 10CFR20.305(b)(l) should be amended to substitute for the phrase "on the site where generated" the phrase "any reactor site."

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely Yours

~f~

Nuclear Licensing Manager rf 5249K

Octab r 20, 1988 DOCKET N:.!MBER

?ROPOSED RULE COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPO SIBLE ENERGY, INC.

ON PROPOSED RULE, DISPOSAL OF WAS E 01 BV INCINERAT FED. REG. 3291

<AUGUST 29, 1988) h NRC int is proposed rul would amend 10 CFR 20.305 to allow onsit incin ration of waste oils contaminated it slight amounts or odioactivity at nuclear pow r r ea tor s*tes.

This proposed rul e would eliminot the need o

omen t e op rating liAenses or nuclear powe racilities to 0110 onsite incineration, as is no he case.

OCRE opposes ~his propos d rul.

It would deprive members of h

public or their right under Sc ion 189a oF the Atomic Energy Act to a hearing on an operating licens omendm nt.

M b rs or the public ho may be arrect d bY the on ite

• ncineration or waste oils should have the i9ht to participate in a hearing on the merits or the proposed action.

Te hi ht ned scrutiny involved in o lie nse amendment ear ing. os w 11 a that resulting from case-by-case starf e valuation erve a useful pu pose in assuring tat t e licensee compli s ith all applicab r egulatory r equirem nt and that the public health and sarety will be protect OCRE also i concerned tho amending the rule now, prior to a

final determination or the "below regulatory concern*

issue, may b a wasted errort and may nots ve th best interes s of the public.

Th draft regu atory analysi

~tote-tat the proposed rule may b

superc ded by future actions on BR policy.

h analysis also iden iried deferment or action on th P tition CPRM-20-15 ) until analysis or comments on t e

BR advanced notice or proposed rulemoking i

comp e ed as an op ion.

Th analy i a so no ed that the EPA i

consider*ng standards o guidance on BRC le v els or doses.

It would be Fa better to a ait the dev lapment of a compl te and comprehensive BRC policy bY both EPA and NRC beFor allow*ng bY generic rul making onsite waste oil incin ration.

The proposed rule and drort regulatory analysi identi y o

number or derici nci sin the pet tion submit ed by th e utility group.

t t e completion or BR policy deve opmen t e petitioners should be g *ven tke opportunity to

-upplem nt a

resubmit their petition so a to upply t e needed inror ation and

analyses, e,g,,

" the complete charocteri::a ion o

quantities and concen rations of co tominated waste oil* (draft regulatory

analysis, P.

4).

A sent such sp ciFics, the cos -by-cos evaluation as is now r quired through the license a endment roes shou d continue, It i tat d that the i n in ation would either be ca ~ied out in t e licensee' auxiliary boile or

• n a

specially construct don it incine ator.

I does not ap ear that consideration or use or th au ilia y boiler for

_hi purpose ho: b n

ufricientl y exom

• ned.

It is likely th t use or the Acknowledg d by card,. ?.~!...2 7 1988 J

• S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMI DOCKETING 3 S'."~VICE SECTIOH OFflCE Of THF SECRETAl)'

OF THE COMMISSION Document Stati$lics Postmark Oii.te Copie*

(:* I\\

• Add' I r-, *.,,

~

Special 0, nL

• i-.111 fl :X:-b ~ __

r::>JL,.Jv14-r

auxiliary boiler for incineration of contaminated waste oil incineration would result in contamination of a

part of the plant not otherwise subject to contamination.

The effects of this operation on the ultimate decommissioning of the facility, and on the volume of low level waste resulting from decommissioning, does not appear to have been examined, Nor is there an analysis of occupational radiation exposure from incineration in the auxiliary

boiler, or of the costs of establishing the auxiliary boiler and surrounding plant areas as a radiation zone, These factors need to be examined before incineration can be said to have a net benefit, A more comprehensive consideration of overall environmental factors and goals may also work to preclude incineration as the best option, OCRE believes that recycling (i.e., reprocessing) the waste oil may be the best treatment method.

This would conserve our

limited, nonrenewable petroleum resources and would eliminate the release of combustion products to the atmosphere, including those which might exacerbate the

~reenhouse effect, The development of small-scale, onsite recycling processes may be the best way to treat the oil, Until such capability is developed, storing the oil

onsite, with appropriate fire protection and leakage prevention and control measures, should be encouraged, OCRE believes that this is the environmentally preferred option, Since the NRC admits that the proposed rule may result in greater amounts of waste oil being incinerated than would otherwise be the case (53 FR 32918), the proposed rule would discourage storage for eventual recycling, This would be contrary to the congressional goal declared in the National Environmental Policy Act: to

• enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.*

42 USC 4-331 (b) (b;..

Respectfully submitted, suscrn L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 2-5-5-31-58

Texas Department~fJi1laktJl9 (j)

Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Commissioner 1100 West 49th Street Robert A. Maclean, M.D.

Austin Texas 78756-3VfJ I L

[. "

Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 OCKE°, 111 l,1,

• r ~ 1r;f Professional Services Radiatio n Co ntrol (512) 835-7000 I._Nl}"I Hermas L. Miller Deputy Commissioner Management and Administration October 14, 1988 DOCKET i uMBER

iROPO ED RULF Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide input on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule on the disposal of waste oil by incineration.

Staff of the Bureau of Radiation Control have reviewed the document and offer the following comments for consideration:

1)

In general, we agree with the concept of incineration of waste oil, as long as provisions are made for proper disposal of the ash and sludge.

We are also in favor of other non-hazardous methods (with adequate technical rationales) for reduction of the volume of waste that is required to go to a low-level radioactive waste site.

2)

The background information on the proposed rule indicated that releases to the environment from the incineration of waste oil would have an inconsequential radiological impact (less than one millirem per year).

The basis for the impact statement was unclear.

The NRC should develop an acceptable method for demonstrating that the dose to a member of the general public will not exceed the reference dose.

Currently available dose assessment computer codes could be used for this purpose.

If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact us.

David K. Lacker, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control cc:

Joel o. Lubenau State Agreements Program A

.s. u LE REGU{ATORY co~

00CKETING & SERVICE S.CT OFFICE OF THf t'"RET '

oi: THI-. co~,,.Hss,o.

Postmark D t.*

/O -~ J--rr

(

Add't C, ~

..3

, 1 o*

ro

/J..;z:-b ~

_b,t_ t- -'Y1"1-:,-Y-G=,v

ECOLOGY/I--~--- 'l BOX 621 BLO0MSBU~G 17A1~

E Ner" ethy,

ec ' y Sec'y -

RC ATT: DOC TI~G & S~RVICE BRA CH Gentlemen -

Oct 20 - 88 Re:

r oposed of waste oil FR - Aug 29-88, p 3-Ml f.JcT 24 P2 ;43 Of the four alternatives proposed f or disposing of contaminated waste oil, incineration is certainly t he least objecti onable.

We have a question and a suggestion:

1 - You say a BWR produces up to 5000 gal/yr of contaminated oil.

ould incineration of such a volume co nform to the proposed dose limit of 1 mrem/yr to tne general public?

2 - Enclosed, copy of page 81 fr um Science 83 magazine, re:

Canadiar,kngineer Tom Barton ' s plas na arc machine.

At 45,000°F, it breaks up the molecules of toxic wastes into a plasma.

Why not give this method a trial run, using contaminated oil?

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULy-Y O ;,,'";)

el-=91<.. ~..2!.!J;I*

S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICf OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Documen1 S1111is/ics

')ostn111rk Oare Copic1 ~t'<'o,.,ed Add',I Co;,i

/ c, -~ -.n-_

l

_, -4, *d

..3 Ss>.c,a/ Orstr,buJ,'.011 R...:z:. ?::> S.;

~.s

~

In Earth Day, 1980, tens of thousands of arrels of hazardous waste stockpiled on thr e-aae site in Eli.z.abeth, New er-ey, explode. T e &r-e, t, rage for ver JO hours, reaching temperatures of

,000 degrees Fahrenheit and destroy-ng both waste and warehouse, above.

Plasma Arc*

a

~ wastes eyonc our most sensi-cive gauge of parts per trillion. As Tom Barton the Canadian en i-

~-ho designed a portable ver-sion of the technique explains,

• • Plasma arc torches provide the highest destructive energy possi-ble, short of atomic reactors."

Donning protective eye shields, Barton and three methodical assist-ants melt through an inch-thick bolt in seconds. "This is the plasma state," he says of a glow that shines fiercely even through the heavily tinted lens. "Of course, I com-pletely enclose the torch when I use it to destroy toxic chemicals."

Barton's invention sends a pow-erful bolt of electricity between two electrodes, heating the air mol-ecules inside the two-foot-Tong chamber to a temperature_ of 1_5,000 degrees Fahr~'!.~i~_,_~r~n_i-forming them i:110 a plasma. Some-SlPTnrnER times called a fourth state of matter, plasma is a cloud of high-energy atoms, ions, and electrons.

Because many of the particles in a plasma are charged, it is an ex-tremely efficient conductor of elec-tricity. As much as 99 percent of all matter in the universe-including stars, the aurora borealis, and in-terstellar space~is in a plasma state. Lightning bolts, fluorescent lights, and welding arcs are also plasmalike. In Barton's machine, toxic waste is fed into the center of t e c amber where high-energy electrons bombard the material, breaking molecular bonds and re-ducing the substance to its basic ele-ments, typically carbon, hydrogen, oxvgen, and chlorine. Potent,ally da..:'1gerous gases are pumped to a second "scrubber" chamber where they are neutralized.

• NASA developed plasma arcs 20 years ago to test the ability of space vehicles to face the intense heat of reentry. These powerful arcs con-sumed their electr6des in minutes.

What's new about Barton's ap-proach is that the electrodes can withstand a sustained plasma; his device treats a continuous stream of wastes.

Plasma devices can detoxify chemicals six million times faster

.0 0 "

~

than burning. Moreover, their de-structive range appears almost lim-itless. Barton has fed his unit sub-tances contaminated with PCBs at levels as high as 65 percent and found no traceable evidence of the chemical after treatment. He has also destroyed a wide spectrum of other toxic fluids including the ubiquitous carcinogen carbon tetrachloride.

At a plasma technology sympo-sium in October 1982, representa-tives from 60 industrial companies concluded that plasma arcs can destroy solid, liquid, or gaseous wastes of any kind. Westinghouse is working on its own plasma tech-nique to melt waste steel, and the U.S. Army is looking hard at plasma science to destroy obsolete nerve gases.

Barton has just contracted with tht; State of New York to help clean up Love Canal, where thousands of "gallons vf..toxic leachate have been collected in storage tanks and are awaiting treatment.

[ID Bruce Piasecki is an assistant professor of liberal studies at Clarkson College of Technology in Potsdam, New York. He has edited Toxic Waste Controls, a book to be published later this year by Greenwood Press.

81

• aa OCT 24 P 2 :44 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Au!JlQrity* _, _t.1 ' ".,

OOCK[i i;, i.r, r.:. 1 V Cf RMt,;

Lawrence R. Jacobi, Jr.

General Manager October 19, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 7703 North Lamar Blvd.

Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78752 (512) 451-5292 Members of the Board Elbert B. Whorton, Jr., Ph.D., Chairman John E. Simek, C.H.P., Vice Chairman Milton J. Guiberteau, M.D., Secretary James P. Allison William L. Fisher, Ph.D.

Jim R. Phillips OOCl<ET NUMBER PR

.;2-o PROPOSEll RULE ~z,p,e, ~.,2,,/;j)

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 10 CFR Part 20 proposed rule notice in the August 29, 1988 Federal Register, page 32914.

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority supports the proposed rule which would allow the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants.

This rule will help conserve limited low-level waste burial ground space and will allow disposal of waste oils by the preferred method of incineration.

CGP/sz cc:

L. R. Jacobi, Jr., P.E.

General Manager Sincerely yours, c~.Ykt~

Christine G. Pollard, C.H.P.

Health Physicist

~knowledgcd hv,.

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMI SSIOII-OOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stalist ics Postmark Date j _O -.,l u - ¢:{

Copies P.ec:~.vr,d

/ -----

Add' I Copi:: <

~ r1 r.r,.,c-lured Special Distribution

_/<.. _

_'":I::.b..._s:_':7-------

f> Z> a, - ~fi-b-& ""'--"'e..Lf-----

Jorge H. Berkowitz, Ph.D.

Director Secretary State of New Jersey DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CN415

)

t-'..

Trenton, N.J. 08625-0415 (609) 987-6402 Fax (609) 987-6390 "88 OCT 24 P 2 :54 Gerald P. Nicholls, Ph.D., Assistant Director Radiation Protection DP 1.**

DOCKi. i 1

• , l["f October 16 ~L '1.988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing

Dear Sir:

In reference to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule for the disposal of waste oil by incineration published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (BNE) has reviewed the proposed rule and agrees with the NRC position to amend 10 CFR 20.305 to allow radioactively contaminated waste oils generated at a licensed nuclear power reactor to be incinerated on-site.

An additional provision that BNE requests that the NRC include in this revision of the code is that the licensee report the volume of waste oil incinerated and the concentration(s) of radionuclide(s) in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (10 CFR 50.36a).

The Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report is an important document that the BNE uses for its integrated surveillance program of nuclear generating stations in New Jersey.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact either Ms. Jennifer Moon or Mr. Duncan White of my staff at 609-984-2032.

c:

J. Moon, BNE D. White, BNE DW:L5 Sincerely,

~/?~

Gerald P. Nicholls, Ph.D.

Assistant Director o ~ 1 2 7 198S Aaknowledgod br ~ard.......,,.,.,..,.., *.,_ **

9 1 New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper

0. S. NUCLEAR RfGUI. 6-lORY COMMISSIOl'i DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE S~CRET A.RY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies Recci v~d Add' I ((')p.. s Re*Jro..l 1(" 0 d --"'"""-----

Detroit Edison B. Ralph Sylvia Senior Vice President 6400 North D1x1e Highway Newport, M1ch1gan 48166 (313) 586-4150 The Secretary of the Camnission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

• aa OCT 24 P 2 :52 Attention:

Docketing and service Branch

References:

1)

Fermi 2 SUbject:

NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

2)

Proposed Rule on Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration, Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 167, dated August 29, 1988 (FR Doc. 88-19545)

Detroit Edison's Comrrents on the Proposed Rule on the Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration The Nuclear Regul atory Cormnission has proposed to anem its regulations to permit the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants without the need to specifically anend existing Part 50 operating licenses. This proposed action would help ensure that the limited capacity of licensed regional low-level waste burial grounds is used rrore efficiently while maintaining releases from operating nuclear power plants at levels which are "as l ow as is reasonably achievable" as requi red by 10CFR Part 50, Appemix I. Incineration of this class of waste would be carried out in full compliance with Camnission regul ations restricting the release of ra:iioactive materials to the environment that are currently in force at each operating nuclear power plant. This proposed rule, if pranulgated, would constitute a partial granting of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.

The Detroit Edison Company supports this anendnent because it offers a potentially useful method for the disposal of slightly contaminated waste oils. The resulting effluents would not be exenpt. from the existing requi rements of Appemix I of Part 50. Fermi 2 Technical Specifications specify Limiting Conditions for ~ration which include dose limits for effluents at and beyom the site boundary and the associated rronitoring and reporting requirements. Although this action may increase actual effluents, the ra:iioactivity in these effluents would be accounted for against the existing limits which A n WI

" "v";i~

_OCT 2 7 19.8)

G.I. NUCH6.R P.-=r.111 ti. T"!lY <"O~MISSIOJI DOCKHING

~ r "IC:f C.TJON OFFIC( ("'

I

" T RY OF Tr1E u.. ~ li.S,ON Postmark t, Copies R : 1 *J

Add' I Copi*

~

cial D1 i

1

/tJ -~~ -f-tf I

-..3 (l::1:-Z>~,.P:t:>A::

---

'-L~L..L-- ~A}

.. - ---- - - ----- - - -----------------------------~

The Secretary of the Canrnission October 21, 1988 NRC-88-0246 Page 2 cover total dose standards established for Fermi 2 which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Based on these considerations, the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils would not result in a significant increase in the risk to the health, safety or well-being of the general public or site personnel beyorrl those alrea:ly asstmled.

If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Arnold Jaufmann at (313) 586-4213.

cc:

Mr. A. B. Davis Mr. R. c. Knop Mr. W. G. Rogers Mr. J. F. Stang

STATE OF MICHIGAN (Qt 'fiLC u,,. GP JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH *aa OCT 21 All :39 Secretary 3500 N. LOGAN P.O. BOX 30035, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 Raj M Wiener, Acting Director October 13, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

• Jf '- /

DOCKi.. T f'i\\1-il, ~

Attention :

Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary:

Z-1 This letter transmits our comments on proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning disposal of waste oil by incineration, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 167, August 29, 1988.

The proposed rule, in the form of an amendment to 10 CFR 20.305, would allow for onsite incineration of radioactively contaminated waste oils by nuclear power

plants, provided that "the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration must conform to the requirements of Appendix I

to Part 50... ",

which provides for a design objective of 15 millirems/yr.

to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area.

The 1984 petition by the Edison Electric Institute, et al proposed that onsite incineration could be performed such that the dose to an individual member of the general public would be no greater than 1 millirem/yr.

Further, NRC nuclear plant licensees with existing license amendments allowing incineration of waste oil have been maintaining effluents at levels with projected offsite doses of no more than 15 microrems/yr., or 1,000 times lower than the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I design objective.

It would seem that since offsite dose projections can be reasonably limited to less than 1

millirem/yr.,

or even 15 microrems/yr.,

it would be appropriate for the NRC to maintain the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I desig~

criterion of 15 millirems/yr. for nuclear plants with waste oil incinerators, but also require that the incineration effluents be limited such that projected offsite doses are no greater than l millirem/yr., which is well within the reasonably achievable level of practice and consonant wjth the ALARA principle.

PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I;

1.9. filUCLE'AR REGUlATO Y COMMISSION 00CKETING & SE VICE SECT 0 OFFICE or: T~ *

• r RY o,. me D,c*

s1 r Postm rk Da*e Copies Rec Add' I Coprcs R 16-,.f'-ff I

...3

_fl_~ I::, s Pb/l,-bl t:Lb:t:s ~

Secretary October 13, 1988 Page 2 Regarding the nonradiological aspects of the proposed rule, we solicited comments of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division, which are enclosed for your information and consideration.

LEJ/GBT Enclosure c:

Robert Miller, AQD, DNR James Cleary, LLRWA, DMB Very truly yours, L~~

Lee E. Jager, P.E., Chief Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION

., _JR E CE I V E J'A1~11,ga1J D~ artme,,t

_D,,

. of Public Health October 3, 1988 OCT 07 198B UUncAU o**.

OCCUP.~ r,0rJ ~~ViiiQNrv1ENTAL &

• l nL h"*A/ 'fH

• - -*

• DR!-J TO:

George Bruchmann, Chief, Division of Radiological Health, Department of Public Health FROM:

Robert Miller, Chief, Air Quality Division Department of Natural Resources

SUBJECT:

Proposed rule for burning waste oil at nuclear power pl ants We have reviewed the August 29, 1988, Federal Register regarding exemption of incineration of waste oil generated at a nuclear power plant at the plant site.

The following are our comments.

1.

They are proposing that the exemption would be allowed i f the dose of radiation did not exceed 1 mrem/year.

This would result in an increased cancer risk of 0.1 per million population.

However, this does not include any impact from the emission of heavy metals that this agency considers to be carcinogenic.

2.

Each specific site would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

An air use permit application would need to be obtained from the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission prior to the installation of any incineration equipment.

3.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that the Environmental Protection Agency exempted waste oil from the requirements of hazardous waste disposal.

This is true in most cases, but some waste oils can be a hazardous waste if certain parameters are exceeded.

Onsite disposal of hazardous waste(s) would require approval under the RCRA and state hazardous waste rules and regulations.

We have no data to ascertain what the expected level of metal contamination would typically be for a waste oil generated from a nuclear power plant.

In conclusion, even though the level of increased risk from radioactivity may be acceptable, it is not possible to determine whether the total risk from the emission of all possible carcinogens would be acceptable.

A full review for each specific case would need to be done.

Perhaps the NRC should mention that other federal, state, and/or local regulations must be complied with, and that their exemption does not override other requirements.

If you have questions regarding the above, please contact Dave Ferrier at 373-7085, or myself at 373-7029.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules.

RPM:DAF:ja cc:

Al Howard, WMD

Ecology Task Force.OJ::-.ir*-@

Southern California Ecumenical Council Post Office Box 32305, Los Angeles, California 900~

OCT 21 p 3 :27 October 18, 1988 Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC, 20555 DOCKET NUMBER P OPOSED RULE 0

~3~<J?__i)

Subject:

53 FR 167:32914, Proposals to Allow Incineration of Waste Oil Gentlemen:

There has been for some time in the religious community a group of people dedicated to preserving the environment, which we see as the sign of God's creation.

Your proposal to allow the burning of waste oil, contaminated with nuclear material, and throwing that nuclear garbage into the air to spread poisonous materials with various half-lives across the land is a sin.

Your suggestion that there will only be a slight increase of damage over what you already allow routinely from the plants is small comfort.

We want you to take charge of the poisoning of the planet and stop these practices which are only leading to the death of the biosphere.

Your further statement that burning represents a cost advantage over other disposal options adds insult to injury.

We already know that there is a lot of money involved in nuclear energy production and that a few people are making fortunes in the waste management business.

If you were really concerned about saving money, you would shut down the whole industry tomorrow or at least you would make sure no more plants are constructed. At this point, with billions of dollars invested, safe disposal of the oil takes precedence over the cost.

convenor

5. NUCt E."-:-1 lW3lll AlORY COMMISSION DOCK£Tl!G ~ S(RVICE SECTION orw~ -::)f -;HE scrnETARY Of HIE COMMISSION ostmark Dale

/ o_ -, Ii-It' r_

opitis Receive J

{

dd' I (t;oios REp

, *~

..3 peci11I Distribufon /<.:r:: C>.$;I _

r 1.::>~ ; -tvJ A-&-1:: S-e.-~

OCT 2 7 1988

la. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtSSICII DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION Off ICE OF THE 5ECRET ARV 0t THE COMMISSION Oocur:ionl S1a1isliC1 Postma,* o.,le

~

--::l'l -:...ttr -

Copies ll~cei., :1

{

Add' I c.,ri~s ~"JDrQdoc:ed J I Di ribution ~

_...~~ __.-M 4.:6: r..s e.n

ROBERT D. ORR, GOVERNOR WOODROW A. MYERS, J R., M.D., STATE HEALTH COMMISSiq_N ~ ~ -i:

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH 1330 WEST MICHIGAN STREET P.O. BOX 1964 I

• aa SEP 26 DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE dl_ 0

~,

53 FI<. 3.

2.91!,J' (!)

30 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206-1964 INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Se ptember 21, 1 988 Secretary Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Thank you for requesting my comments on the proposed Rule for Disposal of waste Oil by Incineration.

My staff and I have carefully reviewed this proposed rule and wish to be listed as in favor of its final adoption.

The incineration of these slightly contaminated waste oils would have near "zero" effect on the health and safety of people and the e'Iivironment.

,e We appreciate the opportunity T. s. Danielson, J;., M.D., M.P.H.

Assistant commissioner for Health Maintenance SEP 2 7 1988 Acknowledged by card................... -.*;;;Ii

" The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend."

--Disraeli

~.I. NU(tlAR RECULAfORY COMMI~~

DOCltUINO & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARV, OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistiu Postmark Date Copies Received Add' I Copies Reproduced

,1_

5

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULy tR d?._ 0

~,=, 3.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

[7590-01]

C ~py to Sec~

• Original sent n~

Office of the Paderal R for publiwlcm

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations to permit the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants without th'e need to specifically amend existing -Part 50 operating licenses.

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 is reasonably achievable 11 as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

Incineration 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 rule, if promulgated, woulJ ~onstitute a partial granting of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) 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 ----------------

OCT 28 1988 Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration can only be given 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.

Comments may be delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

1

[7590-01]

Copies of the petition, the regulatory analysis, and the,,environmental assessment and 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

9 The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) petitioned the Commission on July 31, 1984 (PRM-20-15) to initiate rulemaking to define a 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 immobilization, packaging, and 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 Part 61 11 Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste 11 (December 27, 1982; 47 FR 57446).

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, reduce disposal and long-term disposal site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for the disposal of wastes with higher levels of activity, and enhance overall site stability of disposal facilities by reducing the volume of Class A waste.

That view was further advanced when the Commission announced its intent (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839) to expeditiously process petitions to exempt specific waste streams from the Commission 1 s regulations.

The Commission subsequently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPRM, (December 2, 1986; 2

[7590-01]

51 FR 43367) soliciting public comments on the broad concept of defining classes of waste which were 11below regulatory concern 11 (BRC).

The petition, however, predates the Policy Statement and does not include all of the information required for expedited evaluation and handling under the Policy Statement.

The petitioners have chosen not to supplement the petition to follow the guidance provided in the Policy Statement.

In the subject petition, the EE! and the UNWMG suggested that an appropriate basis for establishing a cutoff level for determining whether specific waste streams were BRC would be that the direct release of the specific waste streams to the environment would not result in a dose to an individual member of the general public greater than 1 mrem/yr.

The petitioners suggested that using a 1 mrem/yr limit, alternative disposal methods, including (1) on-or offsite incineration, (2) on-or offsite burial, (3) road stabilization (spraying), and (4) recycling, could be considered viable alternatives to land burial.

The Staff Implementation Plan accompanying the Commission's policy statement published on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839) 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. However, the policy statement and implementation plan dealt with additional criteria which have not been addressed by the petitioners.

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 would constitute a level which is "below regulatory concern.

11 The petition did not supply either adequate information on which to base the selection of a dose criterion for waste oil or an adequate basis for evaluating all of the proposed disposal alternatives.

The Commission believes, however, that action on the EEI/UNWMG petition is warranted in view of the very small radiological doses imposed on any member of the public from disposal of waste oil, the potential reduction in fire and toxic risks, the inordinate costs of disposing of this waste material 3

[7590-01]

in licensed low_Jevel waste burial grounds, and the need to use the limited burial ground space most efficiently. The Commission is therefore proposing to amend its regulations.

Based on information provided by the petitioners and a Brookhaven National Laboratory report, 11Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids 11 (NUREG/CR-4730, 1 January 1987), and experience with the few licensees incinerating waste oil under license amendment, the Commission is convinced that, as a class, waste oil generally contains such low levels of radioactive contamination that releases to the ijeneral 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.

Incineration is a demonstrated disposal technology and one that can be carried out by licensees within already established radiation protection criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Thus, by maintaining effluents under established limiting conditions for operation, the licensees will continue to maintain doses from effluents that are 11as low as is reasonably achievable.

11 The other disposal methods proposed by the petitioners also appear to have acceptably low radiological impacts.

However, adequate information has not been supplied to evaluate the acceptability of these disposal methods.

In addition, a number of other considerations limit the desirability of these alternatives in relation to onsite incineration.

Some of the more important of these considerations are the following:

1.

Because of practical considerations, EPA has recently exempted waste oil from requirements for hazardous waste disposal; however, waste oil does contain a significant amount of toxic constituents.

Many of 1copies of NUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.

Copies are also.available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

A copy is also available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.

4

[7590-01]

these constituents are combustible and thus are destroyed during incineration, but not through other proposed disposal methods.

The remainder of the toxic constituents are metals which remain in the ash residues from incineration.

These residues can be disposed of in a controlled manner in the case of onsite incineration.

Incineration in industrial boilers is EPA 1s preferred method of disposal of used oils; thus, incineration is the most acceptable method based on nonradiological considerations.

Neither NUREG/CR-4730 nor the information submitted by the petitioners addressed the nonradiological toxic properties of reactor waste oil; thus, this class of impacts from other disposal methods cannot be adequately considered.

2.

Concentrations of radionuclides in the ash from incineration and in the sludge from recycling may be too high to exempt an offsite incinerator or a recycling center from requirements for a radioactive materials license.

As noted in Consideration 1, the ash residue may also iontain significant quantities of toxic metals.

These issues were not evaluated by the petitioners.

3.

An offsite incinerator or recycling center might handle waste oil for multiple reactors.

This factor has not been adequately incorporated into the petitioners* dose analysis.

4.

Landfill disposal, although more economical than low-level waste (LLW) burial, requires much of the same processing and handling and would thus result in less cost and risk savings than incineration.

Analysis of Comments Fourteen comment letters were received on the subject petition (13 from industry and 1 from a private individual).

The fourteenth comment letter consisted of the original petitioners* analysis of the other comments received by the Commission 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 disposal at an LLW disposal site and most supported the 5

petition in its entirety.

Many specifically commented on the excessive cost of disposal at an LLW disposal site relative to the health and safety and environmental impacts of alternative disposal methods.

One commenter provided a detailed estimate of LLW disposal costs for waste oil.

Consideration of these comments contributed to the Commission 1s decision to provide some relief through an alternative disposal method.

However, a few of the commenters raised questions concerning some of the specific disposal methods and concentration limits proposed by the petitioners, such as (1) the concentration of radionuclides in the sludge produced during recycling might be high enough that the recycling center would need a radioactive materials license; (2) consideration should be given to multiple sources of waste oil being handled at one offsite unlicensed incinerator or recycling center; (3) some secondary pathways might be more limiting than those considered by the petitioners; (4) road spraying is prohibited in some areas because of environmental considerations of petroleum products alone; and (5) burial at a landfill will save low-level waste burial space but remains a costly alternative.

These and other considerations resulted in the conclusion that incineration onsite was the only clearly acceptable alternative at this time.

Although the petitioners addressed these issues in their comment analysis, that analysis was not sufficient.

Other comments were worthy of note.

One commenter discussed means of reducing the generation of and the concentration of contaminants in waste oil. Although these methods are likely to be desirable, it is not necessary for the regulations to deal with these specific concepts.

Licensees should have flexibility in handling these wastes as long as risks can be kept acceptably low.

Several commenters favored the concept of de m1nimis being applied to other waste streams and regulations.

The Commission is currently considering this issue in the context of a potential policy statement that would identify a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes unwarranted.

The remaining comments concern details which relate to specific matters that are irrelevant to the proposed course of action; thus, a detailed discussion of these specific comments is not warranted.

6

[7590-01]

The Commission is therefore proposing to grant the petitioner 1s request only with respect to onsite incineration and to deny the other options without prejudice at this time.

The Proposed Rule The proposed rule, which would apply to all operators of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, would allow the onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids generated onsite without the need to apply for a specific license amendment as is presently required under the provisions of §§20.106 and 20.302.

The incineration could be carried out either in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specifically constructed for this purpose.

Each licensee would be required to prepare and retain the following types of records ih accordance with applicable NRC record retention requirements:

(1) a complete description of equipment, facilities, and procedures that will be used to collect, store, determine the radiological components of, and incinerate waste oils; and (2) the results of the radiological and other analyses of each batch of oil discharged through the disposal system which demonstrate that effluents from the facility, including effluents from this operation, are below existing plant discharge limits established under Part 50, Appendix I, as well as §50.36a.

The first part of this information, the description of equipment and procedures, would be submitted to the Commission under §50.71(e) as a change to the FSAR since it represents a change to the information submitted in the original license application under §50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and §50.34a.

The second part, the determination of the quantities released, will be reported under existing semiannual effluent reporting requirements.

In addition, the requirements of §50.59 apply.

These include the writing of a safety evaluation to assure that the changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question, the submittal of a summary of the changes and of the safety evaluation, and associated recordkeeping.

7

[7590-01]

As noted, the proposed rule does not exempt these effluents from the operating limits developed under Part 50, Appendix I.

The licensees are required to demonstrate that all effluents, including those resulting from the incineration of waste oil, meet the effluent dose limits established under Appendix I and are thus 11as low as is reasonably achievable.

11 This would be done in practice through a limited modification of the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) and the semiannual effluent reports.

The ODCM, although not specified in the regulations, is a document required in the technical specifications established under Appendix I,Section IV, paragraph Band §50.36a which contains the analysis methods to calculate offsite doses from effluents; the additions to the ODCM would be included in the first semiannual effluent report following initiation of incineration.

This approach for assessing doses from the effluents from the incineration of waste oil has been used in the case of licensees who have incinerated waste oil under a license amendment.

The applicable dose limit in limiting conditions for operations, consistent with the design objective in Appendix I of Part 50, is generally 15 mrem/yr to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area from radioactive iodine and radioactive material 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 µrem/yr.

Section 20.305(b)(3) of the proposed rule is included so that a technical specification change, constituting a license amendment, will not be necessary, for example, if a release point other than those identified in the technical specifications is used.

This provision will also relieve licensees who have already received a license amendment allowing waste oil incineration from requirements in their license that might be more restrictive than is necessary to conform to the requirements of Appendix I of Part SO.

Since no dose criterion is being chosen and the only releases to the environment being allowed by this action are effluents controlled under existing operating limits, this rule does not strictly constitute a BRC determination.

Rather, it only makes an exception to the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in §20.305.

The decision 8

[7590-01]

criteria contained in the BRC policy statement of August 1986 have not been explicitly addressed.

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 onetime cost of preparing the appropriate documentation to support an incineration operation should be more than offset by direct first-year savings in waste disposal costs.

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 Part 50, Appendix I, which are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under

§50.36a.

Even if a new incinerator is installed exclusively for this purpose, costs could be recovered in a few years.

In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW burial site are eliminated and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely be reduced. It should be noted that any solid radioactive residues produced in the incineration process would, for purposes of regulation, be treated as any other low-level radioactive solid waste.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

Availability 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 not to prepare an environmental impact statement for this proposed amendment to 10 CFR 20.305 because the Commission has concluded on the basis of an environmental assessment that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The proposed rule would allow incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plant sites resulting in very small releases of radionuclides to the environment.

Total effluent releases from the plants, including those resulting from waste oil incineration, will be maintained at or below existing plant discharge 9

[7590-01]

limits determined to be 11as low as is reasonably achievable.

11 Potentially, risks from toxic components in waste oil, fire hazards from storage of oil, and risks inherent in transportation may be somewhat reduced from those associated with the currently available disposal option of burial at LLW disposal sites.

Incineration will not require significant quantities of materials, water, or energy and in some cases may involve the recovery of energy.

Thus, no significant impact on the environment would result.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are published as Appendix A to this document and are available for 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 Commiss.ion, (301) 492-3638.

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 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.

10

[7590-01]

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b))

the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only nuclear power plants.

The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of 11 small entities 11 set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis This amendment to the Commission's regulations would not impose any new requirements on production or utilization facilities; it only allows incineration of waste oils onsite without the need for specific approval by license amendment.

The amendment to 10 CFR 20.305 is therefore not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 and a backfit analysis is not required.

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

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

11

[7590-01]

Part 20 - Standards For Protection Against Radiation

1.

The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

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);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

For the purposes 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(b),

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.

220l(b)); and§§ 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), and 20.409 are issued under sec. 161(0), 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

Section §20.305 is revised to read as follows:

§ 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.

(a) No licensee shall treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration except:

(1)

As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; (2) For materials listed under §20.306; or (3} As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to §20.106(b) or

§20.302.

(b)(l) Waste oils (water immiscible organic hydrocarbons used principally as lubricants or hydraulic fluids) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the 12

~-----------------------------

[7590-01]

effluents from such incineration, must conform to the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50 of this chapter.

The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under §§50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to §50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.

The licensee shall also follow the procedures of §50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.

(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by §20.301.

(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.

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

Dated at Rockville, Maryl_and this ~ay o~-

, _,,,, / 1988.

I r_

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Executive Director for Operations.

13

.t APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 20.305 DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION

[7590-01]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a license amendment.

Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action Present §20.305 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 licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without prior approval.

It would not exempt the effluents from this process from the requirements established under Appendix I to Part 50, in particular, effluent limits and effluent monitoring and reporting.

Need for the Proposed Action The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31, 1984) to initiate rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content.

Currently, the only generically approved method of disposal for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involves solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transportation 14 7

j

[7590-01]

to and burial at a licensed disposal site.

The cost of this type of disposal is significant, while the concentrations of contaminants are quite low.

The waste oil is a potential candidate for being declared a 11below regulatory concern 11 (BRC) waste.

Although there is an ongoing action to resolve comments on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rul~making (December 2, 1986; 51 FR 43367) for a potential generic rule on BRC wastes, a Commission decision on a generic BRC waste rule is not expected in the near future.

Also, EPA is considering a similar standard.

Several power reactor licensees have requested and been granted amendments to their licenses to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil.

Others are interested in doing so.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The primary impact of this rulemaking is to reduce the administrative effort involved in the-application for and issuance of amendments to power reactor licenses to allow incineration of waste oil.

However, easing these requirements may result in greater amounts of waste oil being incinerated than would otherwise be the case.

Thus, the overall impacts of such incineration must be considered.

Some information on the quantities and concentrations of waste oil generated at nuclear power plants was provided in the petition and in a Brookhaven report "Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids 11 (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.

In addition, some utilities have large quantities in storage on site.

Concentrations of radioactive contaminants are

_7

_5

_3 typically 10 to 10

µCi/ml but can be as high as 10

µCi/ml in some cases.

_4 Total activity per reactor per year is generally no greater than 10 Ci.

The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137.

Others reported include Sr-90, Cd-109, Zn-65, and Zr-95.

It appears that the bulk of waste oil generated, in terms of volume, could be incinerated with resultant 15

I_

[7590-01]

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 µrem/year.

Although waste oil contaminated during reactor operation might eventually be declared 11 below regulatory concern;' this decision is being deferred to the ongoing generic rulemaking on this subject or until a petition following the August 1986 Commission policy is filed.

This action modifies the restriction against incineration without prior approval contained in §20.305 to make an exception for waste oil at power reactor sites; however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents from the requirements of Appendix I of Part 50.

These limiting conditions for operation include dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting requirements.

Although this action may slightly increase actual effluents, the radioactivity in these effluents must be accounted against existing limits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.

Impacts from the toxic constituents of used oil would be minimized by onsite incineration.

(See discussion under 11Alternatives to the Proposed Action.")

Potentially, the proposed action might result in reduced storage of waste oil onsite thus reducing the associated fire hazard.

Also, risks inherent in transportation would be reduced from those associated with the currently available disposal option of burial at LLW disposal sites.

Incineration will not require significant quantities of materials, water, or energy and in some cases may involve the recovery of energy, e.g., when the oil is burned in an auxiliary boiler.

Based on these considerations, t~is action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

16

[7590-01]

Alternatives to-the Proposed Action As required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 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 contaminated waste oil at licensed disposal sites is not justified based on the very limited doses from incineration and t~e fact that other environmental impacts, if anything, will be reduced, and since it is more cost-effective to allow the incineration through rulemaking rather than to continue processing applications for license amendment, this action should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.

Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested.

However, methods other than onsite incineration would require more complete information and analysis than was submitted by the petitioners and an NRC decision on a dose criterion for waste oil.

Controlled incineration onsite has been demonstrated to be an acceptable technical alternative for disposal of material.

Although there is not sufficient information available to preclude allowing any of the other alternatives in the future, incineration appears to be environmentally preferable to the other proposed alternatives.

Although used oil is not listed as a Federal hazardous waste, it does contain a significant amount of toxic substances consisting of various organic compounds and metals.

Although there may be some environmental impact from the toxic nature of used oil for any disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site minimizes these effects and is EPA 1s 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 considering both its radiologic and toxic constituents.

Nationally, any nonradiological environmental effect of disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil from nuclear power plants would be small compared to that associated 17 7

[7590-01]

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, vehicle maintenance produces about 700 million gallons/year of used oil.

Any other alternative action to this proposed rulemaking would take longer to complete, thus delaying any relief to licensees and other benefits such as savings in land usage for waste disposal.

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

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

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 amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees onsite, if adopted, would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.

This determination is based on the foregoing environmental assessment performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

11 18