ML20128C563
| ML20128C563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/11/1992 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B192 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-046, AC14-2-46, NUDOCS 9302040059 | |
| Download: ML20128C563 (72) | |
Text
- . - . . .
AC l4-1
~g. PDPs
- e nau'%
% UNITED STATES @(
j? s W. .j c
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C 20%5 gy
. ((. .
- I b MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE Oil AT NUCLEAR PCWER REACTORS Enclosed is the updated final rule package on incineration of waste oil at nuclear power plants. The final rule had been completed and sent to your office on October 5, 1990. After the addition of information obtained from licensees with license amendments allowing waste oil incineration, requested by Hugh Thompson, the rule was resubmitted March 21, 1991. Subsequently, the rule was put on hold by the Commission along with all actions responding to below regulatory concern (BRC) petitions. In the SRM of April 15, 1992, responding to SECY-92-045, the Commission directed the staff to again move forward with the waste oil rule and to emphasize that the incineration is to be allowed under pre-existing effluent limits and that the rule does not constitute implementation cf the BRC policy.
Althoyh this action falls. within your rulemaking authority set forth in 10 CFR 1.31(c), the Commission has previously indicated that rulemaking actions on requests for exemptions of specific waste streams shall be subject to Commission approval.
The enclosure contains the rule pack'ge consisting of the following items:
- 1. The Commission paper;
- 2. A Federal Register notice of the final rule (Enclosure 1);
- 5. The Regulatory Analysis (Enclosure 2);
- 4. A draft Congressional letter (Enclosure 3);
L The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Signi#icant Impact (Enclosure 4); and 6 Draf t publi announcement (Enclosure 5).
"ithough the provisions of the final rule are unchanged from the versions sent to your of fice previously, the discussion had to be revised in numerous places to reflect the current situation with respect to recent EPA actions, the status of the BRC policy, and other minor matters. The rule text was changed 9302040059 930129- -
p 2
- to revise both 6 6 20.305 and 20.2004, but not 6.20.1008,-the. implementation paragraph, because of the change in_ organization of revised Part 20. With-respect to EPA actions,. the rule package has been changed to reflect the
-following:
- 1. On September 23, 1991, EPA published a summary of newly collected data-on toxic contaminants in used oil by category of- generator. The publication of this data permitted assessment of the effect-of EPA regulations published March 29, 1990, dealing with tests for toxicity, on the quantity of waste oil likely to be identified as hazt.dous;
- 2. On May 20, 1992, EPA published their final decision on the status of used o.1 destined for disposal; and i
- 3. In general, EPA has mado considerable progress since the proposed rul~e in developiny regulations to control the health and safety impact fromL the toxic constituents of used oil.
In addition, the discussion in a response to comment has been revised to recognize that the industry has been developing decontamination techniques for removing radioactive contaminants, to undetectable levels, allowing shipment offsite for recycle. .
Note: .An additional copy of the package is provided with margin mark ups indicating where changes have been made from the version previously provided to you.
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Administration, State Programs, and Public Affairs have concurred in the updated rule package. The Office of- the. General Counsel has no legal objection. The CRGR had previously daclined to review the rule.
CI &
Er ic S. Beckjor , Director Of(f e of Nuclea Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated
i 3
to revise both 6 s 20.305 and 20,2004, but not 6 20.1008, the implementation paragraph, because of the change in organizatiori of revised Part 20. With respect to EPA acticas, the rule package has been changed to reflect the following:
- 1. On September 23, 1991, EPA published a summary of newly collected data on toxic contaminants in used oil by category of generatcr. The publication of this data permitted assessment of the effect of EPA regulations published March 29, 1990, dealing with tests for toxicity, on the quantity of waste oil likely to be identified as hazardous;
- 2. On May 20, 1992, EPA published their final decision on the status of used oil destined for dispose 1; and
- 3. In general, EPA has made considerable progress since the proposed rule in developing regulations to control the health and safety impact from the toxic constituents of used oil, in addition, the discussion in a response to comment has been revised to recognize that the industry has been developing decontamination techniques for removing radioactive contaminants, to undetec+.able levels, allowing shipment offsite for recycle.
Note: An additional copy of the package is provided with margin mark ups indicating where changes have been made from the version previously provided to you.
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Administration, State Programs, and Public Affairs have concurred in the updated rule package, lhe Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection. Thc CRCR had previously declined to review the rule.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated See next page for Gistribution
- See previous Concurrence ~
Ct* AdG .
OFFC:RPHEB:0RA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* 00 %,. [D DD:
NAME:CMattsen:es RMeck DCool NConanzi f 8 orr s CJi emes Q/(/ /92 92 DATE:08/04/92 08/C4/92 08/05/92 % / ff/92 8/
0FFC:0:
NAME:EB hrd DATE:$ /l /92 -
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
3 to revise both' s 6 20.305 and 20.2004, but not 5 20.1008, the implementation paragraph, because of the change in organization of revised Part 20.. With-respect to EPA actions, the rule package has been changed to reflect the following:
- 1. On Septwber 23, 1991, EPA published a summary of newly collected data on toxic contaminants in used oil by category of generator. The publication-of this data permitted assessment of the effect of EPA --
regulations pub 1'.shed March 29, 1990, dealing with tests for_ toxicity, on the quantity of waste oil likely to be identified as hazardous;
- 2. On May 20, 1992, EPA published their final decision on the status of used oil destined for disposal; and
- 3. In general, EPA has made considerable-progress since the propose.' rule in developing regulations to control the health and safety impact from the toxic constituents of used oil.
In addition, the discussion in a respons': to comment has been revised-to recognize that the industry has been developing decontamination techniques for removing radioactive contaminants, to undetectable levels, allowing shipment
-offsite for recycle.
Note: An additional copy of the package is provided with margin mark ups indicating where changes have been made from the version previously provided-to you.
The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Administration, State Programs, and Public Affairs have' concurred in the updated rule package. The Office of-the General Counsel has ne legal objection. The CRGR had previously declined to review the rule.
i l
l Eric S.'Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear' Regulatory Research l
Enclosure:
As stated L See next page for Distribution OFFC:RPHEB:DRAkRPHEB A R , i DD:DRA D:DRA A:RES -~
NAME:CMattsen:es RMeck D NCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes l DATE: g-/ y /92 r / y /92 1(/f/92 / /92 /- '92 / /92-0FFC:D:RES
.NAME:E8eckjord DATE: / /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
l.
T
- t. f' 4
- DISTRIBUTION:'
- RPHEB R/F - DCool-Cir./Chron EBeckjord
-CJHeltemes-s BMorris (Rm-102)
NCostanzi RMeck CMattsen 4
?
t u
,,' -I e
^ j .!
/En--
- m-- -
- - - , +- ~,. . -
For: The Connissioners From: James M. Taylor -
Executive Director for Operations Subltqt: FINAL RULE, 10 CFR PART 20, " DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY.
INCINERATION" - RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM EDI ON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE AND THE 'lTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a notice of final rulemaking allowing nuclear power _ reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, contaminated waste oils without the need for a specific license amendment.
Backaround: As indicated in the proposed rule and as required in this final rule, the incineration operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits for the total release of radiological effluents. These limits are established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1. Incineration operations will also be subject to any other applicable Federal, State, and locci _
regulations governing any other toxic or. hazardous properties of these materials. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for the disposal of this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.
This rule constitutes a partial granting of PRM-20-15. -The remainder of the petition is denied without prejudice on the-basis of inadequate-information.
This actior falls within established Commission policy as set forth in 10 CFR 1.31(c) which delegates certain rulemaking authority to the Executive' Director for CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen, RES 492-3638
i
~
The Commissioners.- 2 q Operations. However, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum -i dated August 12, 1986, the Commission indicated that . !
rulemakings 'on all' requests for exemptions of- specific' _ waste' y
streams from Commission regulations will be subject to i Commission approval. Although the-petitioners originally ?
requested that radionuclide concentrations be established at- ..
which disposal of waste' oil may be carried out without .
'~
l regard to the radioactive material content,'this action ie limited to allowing onsite incineratior of waste oil under<
existing operating effluent limits determined to be "as_ low:
as is reasonably achievable." Because incineration _of waste.
oil under this final rule would be. simply an additional-process to be included in an existing regulatory framework for effluents, this final rule does not change regulatory.
control over:the release of effluents or the required environmental monitoring that is involved. Therefore, this action is not considered a below regulatory concern rulemaking.
Discussion: The Edisor. 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 establish a concentration of radioactive material in reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal' of these oils without regard to their radioactive material 4 content. On August 29, 1988,- a proposed-rule was published in the ifderal Reaister (53 FR 32914) which indicated the -
Commission's intent to partially grant and partially deny this petition.
The rule applies to all operators of nuclear power plants -
licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. -This-rule allows the onsite incineration of contaminated waste lubricating' oils,-
hydraulic fluids, and other miscellaneous oils without- the ,
need to apply for a specific license amendment as- has been.
previously required under the provisions 'of is 20.302 and -
20.305 or il 20.2002 and 20.2004. The incineration'could be carried out in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler-or incinerator, if available, or in an_ onsite facility-specifically constructed for this-purpose. Under the-prov)sions of the_ rule, resulting effluents will be managed within existing discharge: limits set in individual plant technical specifications. Existing discharge limits have-been established-under Part 20 and Part 50,- Appendix.I.
Although actual. effluents may increase slightly, the. total-
~
amount of. effluents released will not be allowed to exceed-the existing ALARA-based limits established under Appendix lI-and, therefore, the health and safety of. the public will_'be.
adequately protected.
The Commissioners 3 Each licensee will be required to prepare and retain the following types of records in accordance with applicable NRC record retention requirements: (1) a description of equipment, facilities, and procedures that will be used to collect, store, determine the radionuclide content of, and incinerate easte oils and (2) the results of the radiological and other analyses of each htch of waste oil incinerated, which demonstrate that effluents from this operation are maintained at levels below existing plant operating limits established under Part 50,_ Appendix I and 5 50.36a. The information outlined in (1) above will be submitted to the Commission under i 50.71(e) as a change to the FSAR since it represents a change to the information submitted under 9 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 5 50.34a in the original license application. A summary of the changes and a safety evaluation will also be required by i 50.59.
The information outlined in (2) above will be reported under the Commission's existing effluent reporting requirements (950.36a(a)(2)).
In response to the proposed rule, comment letters were received 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. 'Although' nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, most of the remaining commenters were supportive.
The only substantive change that has been made in response to the comments on the proposed rule was to make the definition of the types of oils which cculd be burned somewhat less restrictive. Although the licensees would
< need to be concerned with segregating oils to the extent
, ~
necessary to meet other regulatory requirements related to toxic constituents and to prevent technical problems with the incineration process, it is not necessary to limit the types cf oils burned in order to control radiological-effluents.
Those opposed to the rulemaking did not provide any new information to st.pport their opposition. However, a few questions were raised'concerning potential impacts of the rule that were not fully discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, such as occupational exposures and the potential for contamination of the . auxiliary boiler. These questions have been discussed in the analysis of comments contained in the preamble to the final rule. Additional detail has also been provided concerning_ the potential impacts fro;n toxic constituents. The proposed rule has
The Commissioners 4 referred to EPA's preference for burning of used oil (which-destroys most of the organic toxicants) over land disposal generally, and it was assumed that the toxic impacts of. used oil would be minimized by incineration. _ EPA has not l
specifically analyzed the impacts from burial of waste oil at a LLW disposai facility. However, the staff has reviewed EPA analyses (of a worst case burning scenario) to evaluate the impacts of releases of toxic constituents during burning of used oil onsite at nuclear power plants and concluded that the impacts would be insignificant. Consideration of these various potential impacts has net changed any of the basic conclusions reached by the staff during the development of the proposed rule, including the primary conclusion that this action would not result in a significant impact to the en'ironment.
The staff has reviewed the experience of licensees who have been authorized by technical-specification or license condition to incinerate waste oil onsite. Information concerning this experience is contained in Appendt A to this paper. A discussion concerning the request in the SRM of August 3, 1988, to reconsider PRM-20-15 after the issuance of the BRC policy -is also included in Appendix A.
[sordination: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
ILe_ sources : This rule may have a minor effect on resources in NRR. The effect depends on how many 5 20.302 (or 5 20.2002) license amendments would have been sought which will no longer be -
needed and how many licensees decide to use the incineration option who would not have without this rule. These minor effects on resources cannot be projected but are not anticipated to be significant. Thus,'the present resource allocations contained in the FY 1993-1997 Five-Year Plan need not be adjusted.
Recommendations: That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the final rule revising El 20.305 and-20,2004, as set forth in the draft Fede.ral Reaister notice (Enclosure 1);
- 2. Certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act cf 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b);
- 3. Note that:
1 i
The Commissioners ' 5 -- ;
-a. The rule will be published in;the; Federal _
Reaister-and will be' effec _tive 30-days following_ -
_ publication;.
- b. - The remainder of PRM-20-15 is denied through-this_rulemaking; ,
- c. The revision to il 20.305 and-20,2004 does 'not -
exempt resulting effluents from compliance with -
existing discharge' limits established at each plant in accordance with_ Parts 20 and 50, Appendix ~I;
- d. Nothing in this action will-preclude or . - '
otherwise prejudice further Commission actions on petitions to exempt certain waste streams from requirements--for disposal at low-level .
waste disposal facilities;
}
- e. The- final rule. doe's not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44LU.S.C.
- 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements have been-approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014;
- f. A regulatory analysis has been. prepared by the -
staff and is provided as Enclosure 2;-
g, Appropriate Congressional committees will be informed (Enclosure 3);
- h. The Chief Counsel :for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be-informed of the-certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for.it as. required _by 4
the Regulatory Flexibility Act;
- i. The staff has ~ prepared an. Environmental' Assessment as required by the National -
Environmental Policy Act. of 1969,- as ~ amended,-
and basedlon that Assessment,'has determined-thatlthis rule is not a major Federal action.
,^
significantly affecting the quality _of the human environme:.t, and, therefore, the preparationtofL an Environmental Impact Statement >-is not'-
required. 1The Environmental Assessment 1and Finding of No Significant Impact was published-in the Federal Geoister, as . required by CFR-r-. , - - - - a - - e - -- - - - . - - - - - - - _ - .- - + - - _ - - - - _ . - - _ . _ _ - _ - . - - - _ - . _ . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ - - . - . _ _ - - - - - _ . _
- ~ ,
d, 't LThe' Commissioners: 6 51.35 and 51.119, as: Appendix to the notice of proposed rulemaking (August ? _1988; 53:FRT 32914). Minor modifications nave 1Leen made:to reflect the additional discussion of toxic . ~
impacts in the preamble of the final rule which responded to public comment. The-revised ~
assessment is provided -as. Enclosure 4. Both the-original and revised assessment's concluded that' the incineration of typical waste oils would not result in impacts to the health and safety of the public or the quality of the environment,.
which are substant'. ally different from those:
impacts previously considered during' individual H reactor licensing hearings. The staff has )
reviewed the assessment, considered- the public~
comments and the changes in the text of the 1 final rule, and concluded that the finding of no y significant impact need not be changed; j
- j. The Federal Register! Notice' will be~ distributed ^
by ADM to affected licensees, interested members 2 of the pub!ic, and the-petitioners;-
- k. A public announcement (Enclosure 5) will be-issued when the final rule is published in the Federal Reaister; d
i
'_. 2_
- ~-
ur - >
- ]
,. -i
.. j
- Th$Commissionerse .7
-l
- 1. This-amendment does/not constitute *a:backfit d under-10 CFR"50.109,'andfa~bcckfit analysisiis: ~
1 not requ' red._, -
J q
r James M. Taylor! ?
Executive Director .-
-for Operations j i
Enclosures:
]
- 1. Federal Register Nrtice *
- 2. Regulatory Analy:'.s
- 3. Draft Congressional Letter. ;
- 4. Environmental Assessment and Finding ;
of No Sigr.ificant Impact
- 5. Draft Publ-ic Announcement R Y
a
=
e-I s
._ a_
a 9
= b re uwy -e ta = m --
v- *- -- e
The Commissioners 7
- 1. This amendment does not constitute a:backfit.
under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit analysis is not required.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Reaister Notice 5. Draft Public Announcement
- 2. Regulatory Analysis See next page for Distribution.
- 3. Draft Congressional Letter Note prior concurrences on previous
- 4. Environmental Assessment and finding version.
of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draft Public
- See previous Concurrence CVGY .
0FFC:RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* D6}idRA A . _ '(_ - DD RES NAME:CMattsen:tlb RMeck DCool CJH mes 08/04/92 08/05/92 NCostanzi T/(t/92 Efr f/u is
/92 92 DATE:08/04/92 $/
0FFC: OGC* NRR* NMSS* PA*
NAME: j rd WParler TMurley 'RBernero JFouchard DATE:ao /92 07/30/92 00/06/92 07/31/92 07/17/92 0FFC:SP* AUM* OC* D:EDO EDO NAME:CKammerer PNorry RScroggins HThompson JTaylor DATE:07/31/92 07/28/92 08/05/92 / /92 / /92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Commissioners 6
- 1. This amendment does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit analysis.is not required.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Reaister Notice 5. Draft Public Announcement
- 2. Regulatory Analysis See next page for Distribution.
- 3. Draf t Congressional Letter Note prior concurrences on previous
- 4. Environmental Assessment and Finding version, of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draft Publi 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA[c/*RPHEB:Dee,[RP . DD:DRA D:DRA DD/GIR:RES NAME:CMattsen:tlb RMeck D NCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes DATE: g/q/92 (/ 4/92 /f/92 , / /92 / /92 / /92 0FFC:D:RES OGC pe g.-NRR&k u / NMSS p PA W NAME:EBeckjord RBernero JFouchard WParler y' af*Murley DATE: / /92 7/9/92 /0 /92 f/it/92 7/1/92 0FFC:SP 5 H "' ADM W *** OC 7 g,\.4 - D:EDO- -ED0 NAME:CKammerer PNorry RScroggins HThompson JTaylor DATE: 7/5,/92 '7/21/92 T /5'/92 / /92 / /92 CCFICIAL RECORD COPY N
DISTRIBUTION:
i RPHEB R/F - Cool s Cir./Chron JTaylor, ED0 RScroggins, OC /
PNorry, ADM CKammerer, SP ,
JFouchard, PA-DJff,& [_
DRathbun, CA b R8ernero, NMSS TMurley, NRR :
WParler, OGC !
EBeckjord CJHeltemes L
BMorris l NCostanzi t
RMeck CMattsen I
l
APPENDIX A The NRC staff has surveyed the seven licensees who have received authorization -
for onsite incineration of contaminated waste oil. In late 1990; only one licensee was incinerating contaminated waste oil onsite, although.a _few licensees had used the incineration method in the past._ The data-from these-licensees support the assumption that doses likely to be received by the l public from incineration of waste' oil under this rule would be a .small _
1 fraction of the overall dose limits established under Appendix I of Part 50; '
for example, those licensees with a technical specification change are limited to 0.1 percent of their overall dose limit. - One licensee has burned all of-its waste oil and has no difficulty in meeting this limit. Another licensee 1 that violated this technical specification limit through an administrative- i error was still less than 1 percent of the overall limit. - Another licensee who burned oil under a one time i 20.302 approval estimated that doses did not exceed I rem.
Five licensees who have continuing authority to incinerate waste oil onsite i w re not doing so because of one or more of the following factors-(1) Restrictive State air emission standards governing toxic releases, (2) Authorization from an Agreement State to incinerate the waste oil offsite at a fossil fuel plant,
, (3) Limited use of the auxiliary boiler making its use for waste oil incineration not cost effective, (4) Concern about contaminating the auxiliary systems,-and (5) Successful use of decontamination processes.
With regard to releases of oil as " clean" or nonradioactive, NRR and the Regions have recently become aware of licensees inappropriately using the- _
lower limits of detection (LLO) for effluents (contained in the technical specifications) to classify oil as nonradioactive'. Using effluent LLDs, . _ .
4 licensees have disposed of oil by onsite incineration, shipped oil to _a fossil fuel plant,- or recycled it as industrial used oil. A civil penalty was issuad to a licensee be( ause a waste oil recycler had reconstituted oil _thus concentrating radioactive contaminants to greater than the eff_luent LLD. NRR and the Regions have informed licensees that this application of _the effluent '
'LLD's for the measurement of radioactivity in effluents to air and water, and for the measurement of radioactiv'ity in the environment have been established =
to provide for uniform practice _ in detectinn -capability and1were based _ on '
practical considerations concerning the measurement processes appropriate for-each type of assessment. Effluents are generally measured at the discharge point-(in stacks or pipes) and are generally dispersed prior to reaching. members of the' public. In contrast, environmental contaminants are measu' red directly from'the-environment. The concentrations-of radioactive contaminants _ acceptable in the-environment are much lower, so that more sensitive measurement = techniques:are:
required. Thus, LLD's for environmental measurements have been established 'at lower concentrations than LLD?s for effluent measurements.
1 1
APP'ENDIX'A
4 ji6 *r 9Q> IMAGE EVALUATION /f 44 //z,,e %ea'M[P sp,7/e N+ TEST TARGET (MT-3) x =
x V.% V t, V)+/p *tN' Itk 4 44e g 4 i.o em m ti ?.m M IE =
l.1 L 4! 1.8 u==
I.25 I.4 r 1.6
__ !=
150mm 6"
- e-
?Y e>*py % y e& . 4 +b*h' .
+g o\,/A
- a. o
,y s // /, #
62 NN NN /
gg <{$3
/ 9 ;
s 4+ 1
{- ..$h ,
bbi&;5 , ... ::: cOCDi$eSYNEN -
-- n IJ
.$ /
/
8 ,+ %w 40 NI$>th# IMAGE EVALUATION N
\
'\(' <gfA TEST TARGET (MT-3) g%g/,/ 3'(< ff 4f
~
~
%s# y,9t?' h<%%'k
%N9
!.0 im N ail ~ M
[@ M l =k2 1.I L
_ _ [g 1.25 1.4 r1
== = = \ e =.6 150mm 4
4 6" k
?#
w s%t_
A
^
6k
'3x4
/y 4;fyg, o"eiyg//i, .
a,
+ ,
^
A g$;.,Mg,, E g
'UMV IMAGE EVAL.UATION f <P Qf
\
i'f' <ghe TEST TAPGET (MT-3) k ~
4' ?g 4{ff 3 ,,, Oko Y\\ %
$)y te 4e i.o -
ste $23oMm 2.2 L PJie o
1.1 E AR h23 e_.
l.4 l
! t.6
-l.25 ']'mes !=
m 4 __ 150mm 6" "
4
% '$If $*$','%
d, %p#p 4 x'x ar a .
/ ,v s.sfu. a n;gs jv v,egi ,i 7 , ,,9 l c .pp py 0/ / u. s ,. s
<p L 3
/ c e
s A
' h*Cc.3 , _a . - '- < lid M O b N
~ ~ ' ' '
3.-
M' h t
,v z;d?
+
ef; IMAGE EVAL.UATION j/ f %w .S Q p& 's/'h* TEST TARGET (MT-3) Qj x \; /7 [-/1' $ x/ 9, te
/g .g
' \\ g #@ g;, 4 4$44
%$)
l.0 BW L [3? ijj 2.2
{ 3, kmima I.^ I-lA If,03;S
"==
l.1 e i 1.8 l!'!!=rs il n
1.25 I.4 11 1. 6 e- .
wa km 150mm
- 4 6" -
- 4 e'
&> %4gy ++ sAs 4Qy/>>p y
<!gj,j[4 4 -
,s ..
+-
I f
LLD is not appropria'te, because the oil could'be-released to the environment without dilution. However, NRR and the Regions have accepted the use of the-
, environmental measurement LLDs for detecting -radioactive material in waste -
oil.
The industry has-been pursuing the use of' decontamination techniques for the disposal of oil, but information published by the Electric Power Research Institute suggests that although-decontamination processes were considered cost-effective when the goal was reducing concentrations to below the effluent LLD,- the NRC staff.is uncertain whether it is cost-effective or even-achievable to reduce lovels below the more restrictive environmental.LLDs.
Ths degree to which the recognition of the inappropriateness of the effluent LLD for this application impacts specific licensees and the degree of relief this rule may provide will vary considerably because of differences in quantities and concentrations being generated and differences in applicable State regulations. For example ~, at Vermont Yankee, use of environmental LLDs resulted in the cessation of burning waste oil which had been previously D carried out because the oil was considered " clean" using the effluent LLD. In this-case, State regulations classify used oil as hazardous but in a category for which burning in a boiler is permitted. Using a detection capability equivalent to the environmental LLD caused the waste oil to be reclassified as mixed waste. Although under State regulations, the waste oil could be burned as a mixed waste, it cannot be disposed at a LLW bur'.al facility. Thus, the licensee's disposal options in that State are limi6ed, and without this rule, they would need a license amendment to incinerate their waste oil.
Although it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether incineration will be the best option for many of the licensees, the NRC staff believes it is im)ortant to provide flexibility in the disposal of used oil to the extent possi)le, given the information available. As discussed in the environmental assessment, incineration of oil onsite eliminates risks from transportation and will _likely reduce the storage of oil and the inherent risks of storing a radioactive, toxic, and flammable liquid. However, further relief in the future may be desirable through an exemption or resolution of the mixed waste problem.
When the proposed rule was approved, the Commission requested-that the petition to which this rule responded-(PRM-20-15) be revisited by the NRC staff as a proposal for a BRC exemption after 'he approval of a generic BRC
~
policy. Although there is an indefinite moratorium on BRC policy
' implementation, the NRC staff had reconsidered this petition after completion of the policy. This rule simply provides authorization of a specific process, onsite incineration, for which_ the effluents will be controlled and reported
- under all existing requirements that govern other effluents from the plants.
This rule sets no new limits for releases fro _m regulatory control. The petition does not contain sufficient information to support an exemption for waste oil Further, sufficient information is not currently available to-enable an evaluation of the petitioners' requests. For example, in the case of other disposal options suggested by the petitioners in addition to onsite incineration, the most difficult concern to address would be the impacts from toxic constituents. EPA is still-in the process of developing further l
regulations governing the management of used oil. Evolving EPA regulations 2
APPENDIX A G, ,
7 s
Y tmay prohibit 4some_ disposal: alternatives Jor provide a: basis forJ the _analy~ sis of-z impacts 1from other means:of; disposal:.. Further discussion of other-
~
7
- alternat_ives' appears in Lthe_. regulatory analysis.
Furthermore, staff 1 experience.:with pathway modelingfindicates that in setting y
generic 'imits.for radionuclide concentrations in waste oil for a BRC
. exemption, the limits-would likely be unnecessarily. restrictive because of compounding conservatisms1needed to take into-account. local-conditions at all
. existing and future facilities and the variety of equipment and proceduresL which' could be used. - A site- specific- analysis, which is needed in reporting doses in accordance with existing regulations unchanged by this rule, will-better determine actual- resulting doses. A separate: dose limit applicable to
. incineration of waste oil is not considered necessary, would be arbitrary
-without-further information and analysis, and would be inconsistent lwith the ;
approach' for regulating other effluents from the plants. The NRC staff R believes that, given the existing regulations governing effluents' applicable to nuclear power plants, the approach of this final _ rule is preferable to a specific limit governing waste oil incineration.
i t
i l
l L
[-
L L
L
[ 3 I APPENDIX A-L r .-~ .: - ~- __:______-__.---__- . _ - . _ _ _ _ . ,
1 C (7590-0111 m
NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20-RIN: 3150-AC14:
q Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration.
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-l
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations t'o
- 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 a i
low-level waste disposal' facilities is used more efficiently while maintaining: l releases from operating nuclear power plantsL at-levels which are "as low as-'is:
i 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-j i
power' plant. Any other applicable Federal, State,-or local . requirements that
,. i relate to'the toxic or hazardous ' characteristics.of the waste oil would have ':
-to be satisfied. This rule constitutes a partial granting of a petition for U rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and. Utility _
1 ENCLO3URE 1-b
L
_ 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 [ederal Reaister).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washingtor.,- DC 20555, _
Telephone: (301) 492-3638.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background-The Petition l
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 a
power-reactor-generated-waste oils which would permit disposal of these-oils '1 without regard to their radioactive material content. The Commission i requested comment on the petition in the Federal Register on. September 9,- 1984-
'(49;FR 36653).
The petitioners sugge:ut. that an appropriato basis for establishing a cutoff: level for determining whether specific waste streams.were below regulatory concern would be that.the direct release of the specific waste .
streams to the environment would not result in a dose to an individual' member 2
-ENCLOSURE 1
l i
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 contaminated waste oils generated at licensed nuclear power plants without the need to apply for a specific license amendment. As summarized below, that Federal Register notice also proposed to deny the remaining features of the petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and 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 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 3
ENCLOSURE 1
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.
The Proposed Rule According to the rule, both as proposed and as now being ado?ted, 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 4
ENCLOSURE 1
f 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 1costsf 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 reduce 4.
-l L Note: The proposed rule presented an amendmr. to 9-20.305. Section 20.305 is being replaced by 9.20,2004 as part of the rinal rule establishing :
the new standards for protection against radiation, . published May 21,-1991 (56; :
FR 23360). Thus, this final rule amends both .9 % 20.305 and 20.2004.
A specific feature.of this rule (contained in both 6 20.305(b)(3);and-i 20.2004(b)(3)) is that it. supersedes any existing provisions that may be ;
contained in an individual plant license or technical specific.ation 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, Appendit 1. The rule, in il 20.305(b)(1) and - "
20,2004(b)(1), has been clarified to reflect the requirement to comply; not only with'Part 50, Appendix 1 based effluent limitations but also;to' comply with the Part 20 based effluent limitations contained in applicable licen'se-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 p incineration of waste oil consistent among all licenses, without the need for I.
5 ENCLOSURE.1 i ,
i license amendment en 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 restrictiort 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 "'e same time, the rule does not alter the requirement to comply with total radiological effluent release limits contained in f acility technical specifications since such limits implement the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.
Analysis of Comments In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received comments from 25 organizations and individuals, including State regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, utilities, industry organizations, public interest groups, and other members of the public. Copies of the comments may be examined and copied for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower level), Washington, DC. Nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, fourteen either supported or generally supperted 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 commetters were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few commenters suggested that the cost savings did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or 6 l ENCLOSURE 1
- -----...--..-__m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __
that cost should not bt a consideration at all. One commenter suggested shutting down the nuclear industry or at least not licensing'anylnew 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 Commiseion believes that the impacts of incineration of waste oil are likely to be insignificant. In any case, the rule does not permit the total releases of effluents to exceed existing limits. The rule does not change existing effluent limits (except those restricting the fraction of total effluents from oil incineration for those licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil). The regulatory requirements to assure compliance with these limits continue to apply.. Thus, the rule does not constitute a BRC exemption. The only direct effect of- this rulemaking is to simplify the administrative process associated with the use of one alternative disposal option for one type of waste; namely, the incineration of contaminated waste oil. As to the question concerning the authority to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste, the responsibility of l 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 l
l- diminish State authorities.
l 7
l ENCLOSURE 1 l-
l 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 applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials. However, the Commission recognizes that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials during the incineration process. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete combustion. However, a high percentage of destruction of organics would be expected in any case. Even a very small boiler can achieve 99 to 09.99 percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds.'
. s Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high
' Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted at p. 49180.
8 ENCLOSURE 1
.- . ~. . . .~ .. - ~
Y f:
combustion efficiency in order 1to avoid-maintenance ' problems,_particularly? if f the_ auxiliary boiler.is used.
- Although the Environmental Protection- Agency (EPA) _has decided that'usedi oil destined for-disposal should not_ be listed as- a' hazardous waste,-it-has:
been developing and has made considerable progress-in cempleting regulations _.
- which would control the_ potential hazards-of both- used oil: recycling ando disposal. Some controls are applicable; others are under development. ;ItL 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 contrels will vary.
by State, because States list used oil as a hazardous waste and some'have specific requirements applicable to any incinerator.
At least some categories of used oil may present a significant potential-hazard to public health and the environment. As noted, during the development ,
of this rule, EPA has been in the process of developing regulations pertaining ;
to used oil. Because the EPA regulations had not been comp _leted 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"'
concentrations. More information and discussion on toxic constituents of used-
- oil and potential health and environmental effects can be found in EPA Federal-Register notices (50 FR 1684; January 11, 1985, 50 FR 49164; 50 FR-49212; and 9
ENCLOSURE 1
k f'
150 FR 49258;LNovember 29,[1985, 56 FR 48000;? September 23, 1991, and 57 FR ,
- 21524; May 20, 1992). These documentsb as well as.-the documents cited in-footnotes 2 and 3,- are available .for inspectio'n at: the NRC Public Document ~
Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
. The EPA's original . decision against listing used oil as hazardoust 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 ,
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 conterplated by-this rule. The EPA performed analyses in-support of what it referred to as its. Phase I rule (50 FR 49164; Nove,mber 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 beccuse EPA has. concluded that such oili when burned does not present a significantly greater risk than virgin fuel _ oil (50 FR 1693; January 11, 1985). The EPA analyses consideredLa -number of L potential toxicants' released,from burning used oil and found that those that-
, potentially present: risks.to public ' health and safety were arsenic, s=dmium, chromium, and_ lead. Thus, EPA established specific-concentrations for these 10 ;
ENCLOSURE -
i
,- - -- ,.,y ,
3<
f elements. Of these, lead.was of'niost- concern ^ because high levels Twere found:
L in.some -ofitheT samples. analyzed. . liowever,: lead -in used oil was;1argelyz attributable to contamination of crank-case oilsiwith-leaded gasoline'" blow-:
~
f-by" (50 FR 1699; January 11,'1985). Industrial used oil including: reactor waste oil would not be expected to exceed the spec _ification_for lead except-for some segments of metalworking oils which constitute-a small _ percentage' of reactor oils. Thus, lead would not contribute a significant impact when this -
oil is burned. Threshold toxicants other than lead were not ' considered a _
significant hazard, leaving potential-cancer risks from arsenic, chromium, and cadmium as the most significant ' impact of burning industrial used 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 scenaric where used oil was burned across a large city in various types of boilers. In this scenario,'over 25 million _ gallons of used oil' were assumed to be burned in the study area (nationally well over 1-billion gallons of 7 heating oil' are burned in multiple family _ dwellings' alone).* -The used oil
.was burned in an array of boilers with significantly overlapping of plumes.
_that raised the ambient levels of arsenic, cadmium, and chrcmium. . 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
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste.0il Burning in' Boilers.
and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SW-84-Oll, August 1984.
11 .- .
ENCLOSURE'1
- m. , .
1 .
. population within-5 kilometerstof the center of the urban at ea- toEambientl i
concentrations of- these metals associated withf an- increased cancer risk ofj l1 in.10,000 for chrom. lum, 1.in 50,000 for arsenic,- andil-in 500,000- for ca'dmium.
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 l burned annually. The NRC staff estimates that 1,000-15,000-gallons per year would be burned at any one site under this rule. The circumstances of this incineration would differ greatly from the worst-case urban scenario studied
~
by EPA, resulting in far smaller potential risks than those estimated 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-(5 266.40(c)). In any case, although used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small ~ amounts 'of-i solvents, used oil as generated would generally not be' expected'to exceed the used oil- specification for total halogens in the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.
12 ENCLOSURE.1 a
y - - , - . . . . . - . .. . . - - .
The' burningof virgin oil (i.e., oil which has_not been previously used: ,4 andi thus not contaminated by use) results in some release-of toxicants.
Because the EPA-was evaluating the impacts of burning oil in which a1 fraction 1 of virgin oil was replaced with used 011', the zimpacts' from those- toxicants 2
contained in used oil prior to use were considered inapplicable to setting the-used oil fuel specification. Because in burning used oil in an auxiliary -
boiler or co-located fossil fuel plant under this rule,,the licensee would" also be replacing a fraction of virgin fuel oil, only the incremental; impacts of contaminants resulting from use would be applicable. However, in the case-of an incinerator, all emissions resulting from the burning of used oil, would be an addition to existing emissions. The risks associated with toxicants ,
contained in oil prior to use, while difficult to characterize, have been estimated, and found to be generally less than the risks from contaminants resulting from use, and thus would also not be significant under these-circumstances.
Since the proposed rule was published and this analysis was first developed, EPA has developed new information on contamination levels by major category of used oil. A summary of-this data base was published in the-Federal Register on September 23, 1991-(56 FR 48000), together with-a:
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking concerning used oil: management standards, Based on this recently developed ~information, EPA has. also completed its reconsideration of listing used oil destined for disposal as hazardous waste. EPA found that all used oils oo 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 Commission has reviewed the newer data and.
concluded that it does not change the major conclusions related to the 13 ENCLOSURE-I
~
F-
-environmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil. . InLfact,:the data suggests that :the: level of toxic constituents -in industrialEused oils are-generally . lower than previously assumed f rom the generit 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 1
- 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 Lif 'it Lis used to
"~~
incinerate: contaminated oils. Licensees should-consider the potential fort contamination of any equipment that is used for incineration. Factors'such as 14 . .
ENCLOSURE 1
- concentration-of the radionuclides 1in the oil, comb'usti_on:. efficiency, ande maintaining' minimum off-gas' temperatures williaffect the degree of
.g contamination. :Although contamination o' equipment can:be miriimized, thec -
impact of this contaminat_ ion could partially _' offset.the savings,in waste ~
disposal space and cost achieved through incineration. - As = to the question:of :
establishing an area as a radiation zone, the auxiliary boiler, or other equipment used for incineration of waste oil, would be within an area controlled by the licensee. In no case would incineration be expected to-result in radiation levels requiring additional controls; that'is, no new areas would be established as " radiation areas." '
One commenter argued that a license amendment should continue to be -
required because of the public's right to a hearing _on c.n amendment and-
- because the pu_blic scrutiny and case-by-case staff evaluation would ensure ,
that applicable: requirements are complied with. This commenter also argued I that the license amendment process should continue until more specific-information is available such as a complete charas erization of wastes.
~
Another commenter was also concerned that there would be no assurance thatt
~
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' g
of waste oil onsite, if performed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements -including, in particular, existing effluent limits. Amendment of i-licenses'to authorize this activity is considered unnecessary. :The Commission will use its--authority to inspect and.take enforcement action to ensure 4
compliance with effluent limits as it does its other requirements'. Given this 15 ENCLOSURE 1
~
o . ee approach,,the Commission was ofEthe_ opinion that the-issues presented by the proposed rule would be more appropriately resolved-in::a rulemaking proceeding..
'In accordance with customary NRCL 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 these11ssues-_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 resourcesLand 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 Po' icy Act).
Because most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel,'
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 i
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.: Becausefsome-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,- racycling of-i used oil is getting'more attention by_the industry. Some mecn -os incineration (i.e., use in- the auxiliary boiler) may also result in'a small-increase in. energy recoveryLover- the practice of solidification and burial at'
' EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.
16 ~
-ENCLOSURE.1
_g _- - _;_ . _ __- - _ _ _ - _
j a LLQ disposal facility, which -never involves eventual energy recovery? iThei
- - environmentaliimpacts of either-onsite: incineration'or decontamination-for recycle are very l low. There'appearsLto_be no reason to restrict either d alternative beyond whatever EPA regulations willl be. ~ applicable-in either case;-- !
Excessive storage onsite_ for potential future recycling, however,-involves-- - ;
some risk from fire or leakage. Stor_ age may also require.theTfacility to
~i obtain the_necessary permits under RCRA. ,
One ccmmenter 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 needsuto be monitored for heavy metals to determine whether RCRA (Resource Conservation- 9 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-
- tnese 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 cri savings in low-level waste burial space,.
- and 'one,- the added : flexibility. . One commenter provided information concerning.
the practicality of incineration in general and or using used oil in the 17 ENCLOSURE 1.
. - . _. _ _ - . _-_ _ _.-. _ __ -. . .m 4.'
t startup boiler in particular. tiany_ of the commenters that supported' the rule--
made suggestions for changestor clarifications..
Two commenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil such that synthetic oils and cutting,l penetrating, and some other classes of oils could be incinerated. The commenters also suggested that non-waste oils (suchias 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 off 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 info'rmation-supplied with the petition or the Brookhaven report, " Evaluation'of Potential-Mixed Wastes Containing: Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730)' which was referenced in the proposed ~ rule and the regulatory.
- analysis with regard to quantities and concentrations of waste' oil,- Thus, these types of oil were not specifically considered.- Based on the:surveyL
- information:in these reports, however, these other oils would be expected to.
be--a small percentage of the radioactively contaminated used oil needing dispoul. 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 i
' Copies cf 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, z ~
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy 'is 'available- for . . .
inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120-L Street, NW.
-(Lower Level), Washington,.DC.
18 ENCLOSURE l'
.~ --, -. -. , , -
toxic constituents considered all types of used oils.) The licensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological limits established under 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix l- 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 disposai requirements, but, if the uncontaminated oils are mixed with radioactively contaminated oil, they become part of a mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, therefore, subject to NRC requirements. Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently characterized to determine:
(1) the applicability of any requirements such as EPA or State requirements; (2) the radioactive content (if there could be problems getting representative samples from a resultant mixture); and (3) the technical suitability of the potential mixture for incineration, i.e., compatibility with equipment used, water content, etc.
Within the context of the proposed rule, the word " operation" in the definition of waste oil was intended to include associated maintenance activities. For clarification, the words "and maintenance" have been added to the final rule.
Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration of waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil from-19 ENCLOSURE 1
f
.other plants if the same controls and limits were applied, so thatL 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 ons not off, the reactor site. At the present time, the Commission believes that questions i 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, lwo others, including the pet'itioners, 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 petitirners 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 ccmplete information would be needed for a rulemaking to allow-any of the other alternatives raised by the petitioners. Reconsideration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking. -As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was' ignored, this analysis was considered along with the original . petition, the other public comments, and 20 ENCLOSURE 1
the referenced report = (NUREG/CR-4730). _ The' specific deficiencies of the .
petitioners' comment analysis were_not discussed separately.
One commenter suggested the Commission make-a trial'run,..using contaminated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc designed-to break down toxic chemicals. Although this technology may present an environmentally sound alternative, these matters are outside the scope of the proposed _ rule.
One commenter suggested that only one generic 5 50.59 review should-be required rather than individual site specific reviews for each plant.- Two other commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that the purpose of the 5 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'specif_ic-equipment and procedural alterations attendant -to this process.
The safety of burning waste oil at a reactor site cannot be determined generically, There may be some effect on the safety of_ reactor operation if' incineration is not properly planned. Therefore, it is necessary that' a plant specific determination be made, in accordance with 5 50.59,-to ensure that the specific equipment and procedural changes involved with the incineration will-not adversely affect reactor safety.
The State of Michigan suggested a separate additional _-effluent limit of 1 mrem / year for waste oil incineration.- Another commenter questioned whether the maximum quantity reported _(5000 gal /yr) would conform to the. " proposed dose limit" of 1 mrem /yr to the general public. The State of Texas.. suggested
- that the NRC use available dose assessment computer codes to verify that1this l
" reference dose" (1 mrem / year) will not be exceeded.
As indicated in the proposed rule, there is not enough information to-selec_t a specific radioactivity concentration or dose limit for waste-oil incineration. it is projected that in most, if_ not all cases, effluents' from -
1
-21 ENCLOSURE 1-
~
- - - - +
contaminated waste' oil: incineration:will constitute only a~ smallLfraction of ntotal effluents. However, it is not: considered necessary to establish a-iseparate effluent:-limit for waste oil incineration,: as long as' the- total-
~
amount of radioactivity in the effluents released from the plant',rincludingf.
releases from incineration of waste oil, continues to' conform to existing:
effluent limits established'under 10 CFR Part 50,. Appendix l' 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 vendsr.
Nothing in this rule or in other regulations restricts the licensee from transferring waste oil to an offsite licensed " vendor," i.e., persons authorized to receive these materials. This alternative was not mentioned in the preamble of the proposed rule because at the' time there wasino facility licensed to accept radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal other than LLW disposal facilities.. Two commenters suggested that " site" beidefined 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" disposals.
"Onsite" in normal usage means "within the site boundary."' AL formal definition is considered unnecessary. Presently, the site or site-boundary is' defined in the individual technical specifications for each license. However,--
the rule has limited the incineration'to-the site where.the waste' oil is generated, in part so that any releases of radioactive material would be covered by the effluent limits in the technical specifications established
~
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-
-ENCLOSURE 1
__ s ,
- p ,
~
- compliance with those limits applicabl'eito! releases of effluents toi s: unrestricted areas. : The provision in i 20.305(b)(3) (or-;l;20.2004(b)(3)),
which . states that -!-20.305 (o'r-l 20.2004)- supersedes inconsistent: license;
~
. conditions:or technical specifications, is; primarily. intended to' eliminate-the-j need for amendment of license conditions or technical:specificationsito? <
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 incinerat'o'rs. -
One commenter thought it should be clarifieo 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 j specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely to; -
illustrate the range of options which may be ~ involved, not to limit- th'e-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'byr .
the. reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part 50; The State of New Jersey wanted the effluents'from incineration'to be-
^
reported in the semiannual effluent .eport. Effluents from . incineration are not exempted from effluent repot ting 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 L 23
- ENCLOSURE 1 ,
- A i-provision was;in the proposed rule and_ remains?in the final; rule as'an q Tamendment to- 1.20.305(c). This provi.sion is also_ contained in the e'xisting; 6:20,2007.
Several other clarifications were suggested by-commentebs. One- -i t
commenter suggested clarifying that Appendixil limits be~' met on an annual-t average basis only.
Radiological release limits contained in facility technical' specifications which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix l contain a range of limits including quarterly limits and instantaneous' limits. The-rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation tc comply with the:
L requirements of the Commissicn's regulations and il 20.305(b)(3) and -
20.2004(b)(3) do not supersede the existing limits governing total effluent releases. Accordingly, licensees continue to be required to satisfy the -total -
radiological effluent release limitations set forth in the facility technical specifications.
Another commenter suggested clarification that the rule is'not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to i 50.34a.
1 As noted in the proposed-rule, licensees are required under i 50.71(e)_ _ .
to periodically update their FSAR, and in so doing, submit descriptions of ,
~
equipment and procedures to the extent that there have'been changes to the-:
information previously submitted under 5 50.34(b)(2)(1) and-(b)(3) and 5 1 50.34a. No cost-benefit ~ analysis is required.
Some commenters, including EPA and the State.of Michigan, suggested clarifying other applicable requirements such as:
(1) a RCRA permit may be required for some oils if they-exhibit' -
hazardous characteristics even though, at the present time, used oil as a class is not a listed hazardous substance; 24 ENCLOSURE l'
)
.(
a 1- ;
(2) some_ States do classify used oil'as hazardous;: -
(3) State: requirements-governing any incineration may applyL requiring-3 Jcase-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- -3 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 i 20.305(c) and in i 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 hazardous waste. However, based on EPA's data published in the Federal ,
Register on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 48000), it appears that althorgh.at significant portion of industrial waste _ oil, like that generated ay. nuclear
. power plants, will be identified -as hazardous waste through testing .for-the -
characteristic of toxic _ity, more than half of this industrial waste oil will-not be identified as hazardous. Thus, a portion, but not all,_ of- the-radioactively contaminated waste oil from reactors will be mixed waste. In any given State, it will depend on individual State regulations'. Although the 25 ENCLOSURE 1 g, w - -
m - _ a-
a burden of _ meeting RCRA.or State requirements may increase;the cost of-Lincineration, this alternative would still be- expected to be. of.value.
One commenter objected to the. term " limited" in-reference'to:the
-required changes in the ODCM (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual)- wnich the -
commenter contends are.always extensive.
The Commission recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may involve ,
significant administrativ effort. However, the-changes required in order lto
-account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are relatively limited -
. primarily related to the f act that a new point of' release may .be involved.
Conclusion As indicated in the responses to the comments,'the Commission has ,
decided to adopt the rule-as proposed with minor modifications. Because the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of waste oil while maintaining existing limits on =
plant affluents, the net impact of this action should be positive. For licensees who elect to process waste-oils in thi. fashion, monitoring.and 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. 4 These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications established under i 50.36a. In addition, risks associated with ,
transportation to the. LLW disposal faci}ity or other treatment or disposal
-facility are. eliminated and toxic and fire hazards assoc'iated with storage-would likely be reduced. - It should be noted-that any solid radioactive Tresidues produced in burning the waste oil would, for purposes of- regulation,
'be treated as any other radioactive solid waste.
26 El a 0SUP.E 1.
t 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 f Commission has also considered the public comments and the changes in the text !
i of the final rule, in particular, the public comments. relating to f
environmental matters and the additional discussion of the environmental. L impacts prepared in response to those comments. The environmental assessment j 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 h the conclusion reached in the earlier finding of.no significant impact. The
.j Commission has concluded that this amendment to 10 CFR 20,305 and 20,2004 does ,
1 not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of '
F
. the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is-not required, j .
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), l Washingt'n, DC. -
j
'I t
- j, I
~i L
4 27 . ..
, ENCLOSURE 1
. ~ a. .m., ._ _ .. , - _ _ . _ ., . _,x _,
^
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i
t This final rule does nnt contain a new or amended information collection j requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et L
seq.). Existing requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0014. l 1
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, i Washington, DC, 20555 Telephone (301) 492-3638.
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 l-regulations issued by tne Small Business _ Administration at 13 CFR Part-.121. .
l 28 ENCLOSURE 1
- )
r i
t Backfit Analysis The 14RC 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 :
. a provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).-
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 20 Byproduct material, Criminal- penalty, Licensed material, Nuclear
~
materials, fluclear 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- l t
disposal. ,
for the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the i Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, -
as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the.11RC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.
j Part 20 - S'tandards for Protection Against Radiation-
~
1 TheauthoritycitationforPart20isrevisedtoreadas-followsi a
AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63,'65, 81,.103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Sta't. 930,
[
933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as' amended (42 U.S.C.-2073,.2093,i2095, E
29 Et1 CLOSURE 1- :
!wE -- -r--*wM-p p -+* 4 + - - - p *
- esium*' s-
- W r 3-WWw@e*-m%TTH+mgW"M-T- 'Y wWTF-' M'
2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 584), 5842, 5546).
Section 20.408 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 ',12 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
For the purposes of sec. 233, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
SS 20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a), (b), and (f), 20.104(a) and (b), 20.105(b),
20.106(a),20.201,20.202(a),20.205,20.207,20.301,20.303,20.304,20.305, 20.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1502, 20.1601(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801, 20.1802, 20.1901(a), 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005(b) and (c), 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) and 5 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and SS 20.102,20.103(e),20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206(g) and (h),
- 20.1904(c)(4), 20.1905(c) and (d), 20.2004(b), 20.2005(c), 20.2006(b) - (d),
20.2101 - 20.2103, 20.2104(b) - (d), 20.2105 - 20.2108, and 20.2201 - 20.2207 a
. are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. Section 20.305 is revised to read as follows:
5 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
(a) A licensee may treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration only:
(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in S 20.306; or 30 ENCLOSURE 1
.M (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to 6 20.106(b) or 6 20.302.
(b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the facility, including the effluents from such incineration, conform to the requirements of Appendix 1 to Part 50 of this chapter and the effluent release limits contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil. The licensee shall report any changes or additions to the information supplied under il 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to 6 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.
The licensee shall also follow the procedures of 6 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.301.
(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) flothing 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.
31 Et1 CLOSURE 1
y-
a
- & ?'
h
- 3. Section 20,2004 is revised to read as follows: .
b i 20.2004 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
t (a) A licensee may treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration y
only: ;
(1) As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; or t (2) If the material is in a form and concentration ' jocified in .
5 20.2005; or (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to i 20.2002, ,
(b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally -
as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) __
that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or- .i maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter a 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 ! 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 a'dditions to the-information supplied under il 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated: a with this incineration pursuant to 6 50.71 of th s chapter, as appropriate., ,
The licensee shall also follow the proc dures _of i 50.59 of this chapter withL respect to'such changes to the' facility or procedures.
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste, oils-
- must be disposed ~of as provided by 6 20.2001.
32 __
ENCLOSURE 1.
. - - - 4* .i.-- ---4 w , - - - * * -.--eeom , -, ~2- -- r-- --=y, --w.. w t r. - % 's
(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. - !
i
.i Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of _1992.
.for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.-
i Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
1 i
-i V
i 1
e i
.i q
I 33 ENCLOSUREE1 J--
Reaulatory-Analysis Rule to Amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.20Q1 DISPOSAL 0F WASTE Oil BY INCINERATION
- 1. Statement of the Problem The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to initiate f rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their-radioactive material content. This petition responded to Commission views'as expressed in the Supplementary Information accompanying publication of 10 CFR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (December 27, 1982; 47 FR 57446). In that statement, the Commission c recognized 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 T
limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal-sitesLfor wastes with?
higher levels of radioactivity, and enhance overall site stability of. disposal facilities by reducing the volume of- Class _ A waste. The petitioners suggested that, based on recent Commission decisions, a 1-millirem /yr -individual dose limit would be an appropriate basis for. establishing a cutoff level- for.
definingthose:wastesthatwere"belowhegulatoryconcern." Further, the" petitioners-presented.several examples where combinations of radionuclide1 concentrations and disposal methods for waste oil would satisfy:the 4
1= ,
ENCLOSURE 2
, + +--
9we ,--pc.- , _y
1 millirem /yr dose limit and proposed wording to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect these recommendations.
A response to this petition requires a staff determinat.on of the need for a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of power-reactor-generated, slightly contaminated waste oil by means other than by burial at a licensed disposal site. Among the factors that must be considered in this determination are the following:
(1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reactor _
operator, that limit the release of radioactive materials to the general-environment to ALARA levels.
(2) The existence of Commission regulations which permit the use of alternate waste disposal practices subject to license amendment.
(3) All environmental and safety issues associated with storage on site and transportation of waste oil and impacts from toxic constituents of waste (
oil.
(4) The financial costs and land use requirements associated with disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material contained in typical waste oil.
(5) The authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the release of both radioactive and non-radioactive materials to the environment.
(6) The authority of the EPA, which assumed Federal Radiation Council responsibilities, to develop Presidential guidance for use by other Federal agencies on acceptable levels of radiation exposure for the general public.
2 ENCLOSURE 2
- 2. Qb.iectivg1 f
The rule allows nuclear power reacto'r licensees to incinerate waste oil which has become contaminated from operations associated with nuclear power production. Previously, licensees were af forded the option of obtaining a license amendment to a' low them to incinerate waste oil onsite. Allowing incineration through a rule change versus ccntinuing to do so through the license amendment process will make this alternative disposal method available i
in a more timely manner and-with reduced administrative effort for licensees and the NRC. -
The environmental impact from the incineration of the oil, which contains generally very low concentrations of radionuclides, is insignificant.-
Generally, incineration would be expected to result in significant savings in ,
disposal. costs. -Incineration instead of burial also conserves limited available burial space, reduces risks from the transportation _of waste oil ,
t (radiological and non-radiological), reduces the fire hazard associated with-waste oil storage, and may reduce the impacts from the toxic constituents of waste oil.
- 3. Alternatiysi 1
The petitioners requested that the Commission issue aLregulation--
governing the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil:from'
~
4 i.
nuclear l power, plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations-in waste oili o at-which disposal may'be carried out without regard tonthe radioactive-
~
material content 4of the waste. The' petition suggested an individual exposure 3
ENCLOSURE 2
- -. - . z.- . , ,
l
.i
. value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to base concentration limits. The justificetion proposed was primarily on a "de minimis" basis; that is, simply that this level of risk is too trivial to be of concern. The term "below regulatory concern" (BRC) has sometimes been used intarchangeably with "de minimis"; however, it has also been used in con--
nection with exemptions from specific regulations decided on a cost-benefit basis.
It would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated to a :
sufficiently low level, to be of no regulatory concern, thereby allowing-it to be disposable without regard to its radioactive contamination.- In its-BRC waste policy statement (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839),-the Commission gave some indication of dose levels which might be acceptable for a waste stream specific exemption. Although 1 millirem / year is likely to be acceptable '
(based on the discussion of decision criterion 2 in the staff implementation plan accompanying the NRC policy statement), the petitioners have not supplied -
sufficient information to allow a specific weste stream "below regulatory concern" determination to be made. Also, the Commission has. deferred taking any actions to~ exempt wastes from regulatory control.
In responding to this petition, there were three basic alternative courses of action which could have been taken: . Eto deny the petition, to defer:
action on the petition, or to initiateithe rulemaking process.- The- staff does not believe that a categorical: dismissal of this petition is consistent with either the spirit of Commission policy set forth in 10 CFR Part 61 (and
' reaffirmed in NRC's BRC waste policy statement published on August 29, 1986; >
51 FR 30839) or-the need to ensure effective use of licensed low-level waste' disposal capacity. ,
-)
4
' ENCLOSURE'2
- a. hpe es.-., a 9 .-ae.- 9 _,,,i e,q y y,og 9 -r..,w-,,. g , y. y _,9q g ['
i
-l The staff could-have deferred action oa this specific petition until consideration of a generic rulemaking on BRC waste or until EPA issues standards or guidance on BRC levels of radioactivity. However, neither of these actions are expected to take place in the near term. ,
The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal of waste oil and believes that a rule change should be made. However, in order for the petition to be granted in full, more information and analysis ,
w uld be necessary. For example, a more complete characterization of quantities and concentrations of contaminated waste oil would be needed to make a waste stream specific analysis on which to base specific concentration .
-limits. Also, a determination would have to be made on whether the concentrations of radionuclides possible in the ash from incineration or the -
sludge from recycling would be low enough to allow waste oil-processing at r
unlicensed facilities. Such additional analyses would result in delay and the ;
expenditure of limited resources. The rule will provide the relief requested in the petition commensurate with the information available. The remainder of ,
the petition has been denied without prejudice. ,
Incineration will be allowed without specific license amendment
.providing the licensee maintains compliance with the licensee's operating limits based on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.
Any' other applicable Federal and State statutes would also have to be satisfied. .
This-action by the Commission would not preclude the petitioner from resubmitting a future request to exempt waste Jils or other classes of waste from requirements for disposal at low level waste disposal. facilities.
5 ENCLOSURE 2
-t
- - , ~ + . . _ - . _.-.; , . . . . . _ . . . - - . . 4m ._m 'c.
(Su policy statemtnt,10 Cf R Part 2. Appendix 0, published on August 29, 1986.)
- 4. Lonie_quences This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect several attributes, but only a few significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Ef ficiency." This action allows utilities an alternative for the disposal of waste oil while not allowing any change in the existing limits of radiation exposure to the public. There also would be no significant change in public health nor occupational exposures, if anything, the decreased risk from no longer transporting the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in decreased exposures.
The efficiency results in two ways. First, the utilities will not have to dispose of the waste oil in licensed land burials, but may incinerate it onsite if they so desire, i.e., if it is to their economic advantage to do so.
~
Second, those utilities which want to incinerate the waste oil will not have to apply for a license amendment. Savings could also accrue to both industry and the NRC in their implementation and operation costs as a result of the above. Licensees would only take advantage of thic rule if it was in their best economic interest, i.e., with savin c resulting to them. The NRC will save by issuing the rule as opposed to handling each license amendment sepa-rately.
Information provided by the petitioners and in a Brookhaven National Laboratory Report, " Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, 6
ENCLOSURE 2
i b
Chromium, Used Oil, or Organic Liquids," -(NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987) ,
indicates that,-on average, an operating PWR produces approximately 1000 gallons per year of contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWP. produces [
approximately 3500-5000 gal /yr'. Reported contamination levels are usually in the range of 10 to 10" Ci/ml, although higher levels have been reported.
The principal radioisotopes present in these waste oils include the usual i activation and fission products such as Co-58, Co-60, Mn-54, Cs-134, Cs-137.
Because of restrictions imposed on the disposal of oil wastes in i licensed land burial grounds, oil wastes must be stabilized prior to transport ,
to these sites; sorption and solidification are the prevalent treatment methods. Several plants are storing waste oils on an interim basis pending a decision on ultimate disposal. ;
According to both the BNL report and information provided by the petitioners, solidification of oil wastes effectively doubles _the volume of the waste requiring disposal while sorption can increase waste volumes by as ,
much as a factor of 6.
If directly released to the environment, a typical reactor would, on average, discharge a total of 10" curies of radioactivity per year via the-waste oil pathway.- This quantity is a fraction of typical releases in-liquid effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant' discharge limits. According to_the petitioners, most waste oils could be incinerated without resulting in (conservatively calculated) doses exceeding _1 mrem / year.
2 A more recent-report published by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimated typical volumes _to be 1000 gal /yr higher than-those in NUREG/CR-4730:^
Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group: Nonradiological-Characterization and Environmental Assessment of-BRC Waste,"~ prepared by ,
- Science. Applications International' Corporation _for the Electric Power Research
_ Institute, EPRI NP-5674,~ February 1989.
7 ENCLOSURE 2 "TT9 y- rw w-,ur-gi -e-e' y r mr wr -wpyrrM-r w -w- saw.e-.- we>e.w a rNwr1-=yre--%re N wr w Va T w 1T' "
- r= * #'S-
f In fact, those licensees who have incinerated waste oil under an amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this f rulemaking, the effluents frorr. the incineration of waste oil would be :
t accounted for under existing operating limits contained in Part 50, t
Appendix 1. Thus, the addition of the small quantities of radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should-have a --
negligible impact on public health or environmental quality.
Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will likely be slightly reduced. These include the risks inherent in transportation (radiological and non-radiological), the fire or leakage l
hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the impacts from t toxic constituents depending on the specific equipment and controls used and the status of EPA regulations intended to control these impacts, Before presenting the industry cost estimates, it should be noted that-there is no accurate way to determine the total industry's potential savings,_
^
since each licensee's particular situation is different, and it- is not 'known how many plants will take advantage of the rule.- ]
3 A licensee's implementation costs decrease if it decides to take advantage of the rule, because it saves the cost of having to prepare a ,
license amendment. It is estimated that a typical, uncomplicated technical specification change costs a licensee about $18,000. (This and all-other values are in 1988 dollars.) (Cf. Abstract 2.2.1, " Generic Cost Estimates,"
NVREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.)-
As to operating costs, one' licensee had estimated.that it could save -
somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating-its waste oil,as 8
1 - ENCLOSURE 2' s- am- < , +
w- r v y n y-s-,r+ r w ow w- -m ----m--+g-- - - - - - -
my,-- ---nm--g ya q,e-.
l t I
opposed to burying it. These costs were based upon values of 220 to 825 I
gallcns of waste oil disposal per year, with the ocr gallon. cost being'about
$15.
The solidification method assumed in this estimate was more cost-effective than that used in the original estimates of the petitioners in 1983 in that it involved lower volume increases. The petitioners' estimates of disposal costs saved were $15-30/ gal. The actual cost for an individual [
licensee will depend on the solidification meth,' used, labor rates,~ distance to' the LLW burial ground, and burial fees. The escalating costs of burial including the additions of surcharges could cause significant increases in the -
cost of disposal at a LLW burial facility thus resulting in increases in '
potential savings from incinerating waste oil. If we assume $15/ gal as the minimum amount saved and assume (based on the Brookhaven National Laboratory' report) that an average PWR plant produces about 1000 gallons of slightly; -i contaminated waste oil per year, its corresponding savings would.be at least ;
$15,000 per year ' If an average remaining life of 30 years is assumed, along with a 5 percent annual real discount' rate, a PWR's lifetime savings ,
would be $231,000. If the $18,000 amendment cost savings are included, the
- total savings would be about $250,000 per PWR.
With respect to a BWR, the range _of waste oil produced is estimated at: .,
3500 to 5000 gallons per year, Again, using similar assumptions, the annual savings range' from $52,500 to $75,000, with the discounted. operating lifetime
'The estimates for cost savings in this section assume the volumes-of waste oil generated as estimated in~the Brookhaven report (NUREG/CR-4730).-
~ 0ther data (referenced in- footnote 1) suggest higher typical volumes. .lf: .
-thoseLvolumes are more representative, savings in disposal costs would be-t proportionately greater.
.9
~
ENCLOSURE 2x
'w y y e-- p. --p7mi .y.gs_ g-- re - , ,, , y Myg-w,
savings ranging from 5808,$00 to 51,155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become 5826,500 to $1,173,000 per BWR.
Because of a change in EPA regulations governing the detection of toxic constituents (55 FR 11798; March 29, 1990), a larger portion of waste oil may be classified as hazardous waste and, if radioactively contaminated, as mixed waste. This rule would allow incineration for all waste oils without affecting the applicability of other f aderal, State, or local requirements.
EPA regulations govcening hazardous waste and used oil recycle and disposal ..
are complex and have been undergoing change as this rule was developed. This introduces cost impacts on the various alternatives which the Commission cannot adequately assess.
Again, because of each plant's individual situation, and the fact that this rule is only an option, the estimates of disposal cost savings are only illustrative. With respect to other potential industry operating costs, a licensee will need to provide the f1RC with changes to the Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures whether the licensee makes use of the rule, or applies for a license amendment to incinerate the waste oil; therefore, these costs will be the same in both cases and do not need to be included in this analysis. A key point which cannot be overlooked, however, is that permitting use of this alternative disposal option could conserve limited low-level burial ground space.
This rule will also reduce NRC's potential workload in processing individual requests for specific license amendments to permit incineration.
The estinated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated, technical specification change is $11,000. (Cf. Abstract 5.1, " General Cost Estimates,"
10 ENCLOSURE 2
y
~?
1 NURE0/CR-4627.-Rev. 1, 1989.) Further, as noted above, the NRC is to receive :
9'
-modifications or additions to the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate j the waste oil through use of the rule or a license amendment, Hence the only difference in the NRC's cost is $11,000 saved per licensee under the rule.
- Because the rule allows a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and-risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining l existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action is pos'itiv'e.
t
- 5. Decision Rationsig The Commission has yet to determine what action should be taken in regard to a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes and a decision in this areafis i not expected for some time. However, a decision on a dose criterich need not, be part of this action. A simpler rule change can provide more timely relief from the costs of disposal of contaminated waste oil. The incineration of-waste oil onsite will not add significantly to the environmental impacts of
. reactor operations, may in fact be environmentally preferable, and could-5 result in savings in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB' site capacity. l r
- 6) Imolementation a) ' Schedule for Implementation, The final rule-will be effective-30 days 'ter publication in:the-Egderal Reatster.:
L 11 l.
- ENCLOS'JRE
- 2
. - _ .. , _._._2 .....a _ _ _ _ . . _ __ .._ .
l b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirenients Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic waste exemptions, i
12 ENCLOSURE 't
y L
B t
. r.
-h ORAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER -
f Lear Mr. Chairman:
TPc mecifrri Regulacry Commission has sent to the Office of the federal '
Register for pubitcation the enclosed final amendme:t to the Commission's !
rules in 10 CFR Part 20. The amendment allows nu;1 ear power reactor; licensees- '!
J to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a spec:fic license amendment, These operations will be sub, ject to continued compliance with existing overall plant discharge limits. Thus, this action l does not constitute a "below regulatory concern" action. The intent of the' ;
rule _ is to provide a potentially cost effective and environmentally sound. l i
method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule _was. initiated in response to a petition for rul; making (PRM-20-15) submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.
Sincerely. -
Dennis Rathbun, Director Office' of Congressional; Affairs-
Enclosure:
-As; stated: ,
b
. 1 i-I ENCLOSURE 31 L
v- e- e- ,,= r-~ w t & we a ws---+ -m - 1 r -
- r -
-y + m-em v f-g=,~wv ti- 9e g 4 t v"-^r+ + y 1 i
l i
ENVIR0!iMENTAL ASSES $ MENT A!10 fifJDING'Of NO SIGNiflCANT IMPACT -
t AMENDMENT 10 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 -
Olsp0 SAL Of WASTE Olt BY INCINERATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate contaminated waste oil onsite without
- obtaining the specific approval of the Commission through a license amendment.
3 Environmental Assessment identification of Action 5 Present il 20,305 and 20.2004 forbid the incineration of'any. licensed'
-t material, except that specifically exempted _by li 20.306 and 20.2005, without the specific approval of the Commission. This action' amends--il 20.305 and 20.2004 to allow power reat*,or licensees to-incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without prior approval, it does not . exempt the effluents from this process from the requirements-established under Part 20 and Part 50, in particular, effluent limits and effluent < monitoring"and reporting.
.Need for the Action ,
j TheEdisonElectricInstituteandtheUkilityNuclearWasteManagementGroup l petitioned the CommissionL(PRM-2015, dated July 31,1984) to initiate rule- t making to define a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated waste-1 ENCLOSURE 4' ,
_ __ _ . z. . . __ .~ _. _._ m. __ __.
c h oils that would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their i
radioactive material content. Previously, the only generically approved method of disposal for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involved solidification or immobilization, packaging, and-transportation to and burial at a licensed disposal site. The cost of this type of disposal is significant, while the concentrations of contaminants are quite low.
Several power reactor licensees have requested and been granted amendments to their licenses to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste l
oil. Others have been interested in doing so.
Environmental Impacts of the Action The primary impact of this rulemaking is to reduce the administrative effort involved in the application for and issuance of amendments to power. reactor licenses to allow incineration of waste oil. However, easing.these requirements may result in greater amounts of waste oil being. incine' rated 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"EvaluationofPotentialMixedWkstosContainingLead, Chromium,Used.
011, or Organic liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987). The amounts and:
concentrations vary considerably- from plant to plant and even from year. toi year at a given plant. The' volumes reported were approximately.1000 gal / year 2
ENCLOS0RE4
.=,
i at a PWR and up to 5000 gal / year at a BWR. Since publication of the proposed rule, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has published another report
- estimating annual per reactor production 6t approximately 1000 gallons more than these previous reports, in addition, some. utilities have large quantities in storage on site. Concentrations of radioactive contaminants are typically 10" to 10 4pCi/ml but can be as high as 10- Ci/ml in some cases. Total activity per reactor per year is estimated to average about 10 Ci. The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134,. _
and Cs-137. Others reported include Sr-90, Cd-109, In-65, and Zr-95. It i appears that the bulk of the waste oil generated, in- terms of volume, could be incinerated with resultant individual doses of less than 1 mrem /yr. Licensees 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 liniit, which is generally 15 mrem /yr from radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate forr (in keeping with the guidance contained in Appendix 1 of Part 50), or 15 prem/ year. This action modifies the restriction age. inst incineration without prior approval contained in il 20.305 and 20.2004 to make an exception for waste oil at power reactor sites; however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents from the requirements of Part 20, 5 50.36a, and Appendix l- of Part 50. _These limiting conditions for operation include' dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting requirements. Although this action may slightly increase actual-
' effluents, ine radioactivity in .these effluents must be kept within existing i
'Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group: Nonradiological Characterization and Environmental Assessment of BRC- Waste, Prepared by Science Applications-International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI HP-5674, February.1989.
3
- ENCLOSURE 4.
ro
limits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion. I F
Impacts from the toxic constituents of used oil may be minimized by onsite ]
incineration and in any case the impacts from toxic emissions are estimated to be insignificant. (See discussion under " Alternatives to the. Action.")
Potentially, this action might result in reduced storage of waste oil onsite- a thus reducing the associated fire hazard. Also, risks inherent in transportation will be reduced from those associated with the previously available disposal option of burial at LLW disposal sites, incineration will not require significant quantities of sterials, water, or energy and in some; l cases may involve the recovery of energy, e.g., when the oil -is burned in an --
auxiliary boiler. ,
i Based on these considerations, this action will not result in a 'significant-effect on the quality of the human environment.
-i F
Alternatives to the Action ,
Y J As required by Section-102(2)(E) of NEPA (42- U25.C. 4322(2)(E)), possible alternatives to the action-have been considered. One alternative considered.-
was to defer any action until decisions are made regarding generic BRC-rulemaking. However, in keeping with an ongoing Commission moratorium, action i
on any waste exemption rulemaking has been deferred. it.is' apparent-that the cost to licensees to solidify or immobilize, package,: transport, and. bury ,
contaminated waste oil 'at licensed disposal ~ sites is not justified based on the-very 1imited doses'from incineration and the fact that other environmental
, 4 ENCLOSURE 41
impacts, if anything, will likely be reduced. Wastc oil that is also classified as hazardous waste cannot be sent to low level waste burial grounds but may be a candidate for incineration subject to evolving EPA regulations governing burning of used oil, it is more cost-effective to allow the incineration through rulemaking rather than to continue processing applications for license amendment. For these reasons, this srtion should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.
Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested. However, to allow licensees to use methods other than onsite incineration would require both more complete information and analysis concerning the impacts of using those methods than was submitted by the petitioners, and an flRC decision on a dose criterion for waste oil disposal. Controlled incineration onsite has been demonstrated to be an acceptable technical alternative for disposal of material. Although there is not suf ficient information available to preclude allowing any of the other alternatives in the future, incineration appears to be environmentally preferable to the other proposed alternatives. Although used oil destined for
' disposal is not listed as a Federal hazardous waste, it can contain a significant amount of toxic substances consisting of various organic compounds and metals. Although there may be some environmental impact from the toxic nature of used oil for any disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site is likely to minimize these effects and is preferred by the EPA over land o
disposal generally. Also. EPA is in the process of developing regulations to control the impact of disposal and recycle of uses oil. Even with no particular controls in place, the organic compounds are largely destroyed by the incineration process. As much as half or more of the metals may be 5
EllCLOSURE 4
=i
- . >i released, but, for the quantities and circumstances of oil burned under this rule, concentrations to which the public may-be exposed are not expected to be significant. Incineration at a controlled site assures that the disposal of ;
the ash residue can be controlled appropriately considering both its radio-l logic and toxic constituents. Nationally, any nonradiological environmental .
effect of disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil from nuclear power j
'l' plants would be small compared to that associated with the total quantity of used oil disposed. All power plants in total produce on the order'of 300,000 gallons / year of such used oil. (The EPRI document cited above estimated 50,000-cubic feet / year, or 370,000 gallons per year, generated from all existing plants as well as those under construction.) Nationally,. vehicle q maintenance produces about 700 million gallons / year of usedL oil and industrial ~ ,
use approximately 400 million gallons / year.
i t
i Agencies and Persons Consulted further consultation has been made with the petitioners (PRM-20-15) concerning this action as a resolution of the petition. I i
Consideration has also been given to ongoing EPA activities, the 14 comment- ;
letters received on the petition, and the Brookhaven report, NUREG/CR-4730.
t
[
i 4
P I
6 .
t
.ENCLOSVRE 4L .
, _ _. .._ . _ - _ . . . _ . .m __ __...;...-__
- i Finding of No.Significant' impact
{
l
- 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- !
Thisamendmentto10CFRPart20toallowtheincinerationofslightly-contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees onsite will not have a t
significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an' environmental impact statement is not required. This determination is based 1 on the foregoing environmental assessment performed in accordance with the l procedures and criteria in Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for-Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory functions "
i I
l t
i e
?
t 4
a T
7 T
- . ENCLOSURE 4 ,
a
- - -r- -- ,**>vde- -
.w w rm , c e- r e-~.-*---*--v,--**-. n+ r r- e vi- --e a' W-e-r.d, -- w--- e,--+-- -, ..w .. 4 .w* w
QFAFT PUBLIC ANN 0Vf(CEMEf11 NRC 10 PERMIT ON-SITE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE OILS-I AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to permit the on-site incineration of waste oils used in nuclear plants and contaminated with very small amounts of radioactive materials, ,
Previously, utility operators of nuclear power plants have disposed of contaminated waste oils at low-level radioactive wasto disposal facilities, in a few cases, licenses authorizing operation of the facility.were specifically amended by the NRC staff to permit on-site incineration. ;
3 This action is being taken in partial response to a July 1984 petition for rulemaking submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and the Utility .
Nuclear Waste Management Group. ,
As amended, the regulations will permit the on-site incineration of <
waste oils--petroleum derived or synthstic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids or metalworking oils--
that have been contaminated:with sma11 ' amounts of-radioactive materials in-the -
course of .he operation or maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
l' ENCLOSURE'S 4_7.'_y .
, . -- x, -c,
ru -
r >
i s t
Releases _of;-radioactive. effluents, including those from-waste-oil
~
- incineration,' arc = limited toL "as-low-as-reasonably-achievable" _ levels already specified in Appendir I to Part-50=of the Commissions regulations -lIn addition, a generic-assessment prepared for the' staff shows that the environmental impact:; of waste oil iricineratio'n will be minimal. .
The amendment to Part 20 of the NRC's regulations _will become. effective on (date).
- l .
.=
I 4
2 ENCLOSURE _5-(
$- u _
f C W -2_
PD(A
- M
[ru.$A r i M[( - B i u 4 s,**v***
/
RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation) SECY-92-288 August 18, 1992 For: The Commissioners From: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINAL RULE, 10 CFR PART 20, " DISPOSAL 0F WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION" - RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM EDIS0N ELECTRIC INSTITUTE AND THE UTILITY NUCf. EAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a notice of final rulemaking allowing nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate, onsite, contaminated waste oils without the need '
for a specific license amendment.
Backaround: As indicated in the proposed rule and as required in this final rule, the incineration operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits for the total release of radiological effluents. These limits are established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix !. Incineration operations will also be subject to any other applicable Federal, State, and local ~
regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous properties of these materials. The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for the disposal of this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.
This rule constitutes a partial granting of PRM-20-15. The-remainder of the petition is denied without prejudice on the basis of inadequate information.
This action falls within estaolished Commission policy as set forth in 10 CFR 1.31(c) which delegates certain rulemaking authority to the Executive Director for CONTACT:
Catherine R. Mattsen, RES 492-3638 NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL bRM IS MADE AVAILABLE.
) ,
ht - - +- ~
- 3 97 ____-_ __ _
I:.
r l .,- ;
~The1 Commissioners- 2
- Operations.
- However,~in a Staff Requirements Memorandum- .
dated Augustcl2, 1986, the Commission indicated that '
rulemakings on all requests: for exemptions ;of specific ~ waste streams from Commission regulations will-be' subject-to=
Commission approval. Although,the petitioners originally:
requested that radionuclide concentrations be' established at which disposal of waste oil-may be carried out.without.
regard to the radioactive material content; this action is. '
limited to allowing onsite incineration of . waste' oil under- ,
existing operating effluent limits determined to'.bef"as low =
as is reasonably achievable." - Because incineration of waste ~
oil under this final rule would be simply an additional s process to be included in an existing regulatorysframeworki for effluents, this final rule does not change regulatory.:
control over the release of effluents or .the required environmental monitoring that is involved. Therefore, this action is not considered a below regulatory concern--
rulemaking.
Discussion: 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 g establish a: concentration of radioactive material ini . .
reactor-generated waste oils which would" permit disposal"of; these. oils without regard to their radioactive' material.
content. On. August 29, 1988, a proposed rule was published in the Federal.Reaister (53:FR 32914) whichlindicated the-Commission's intent to partially grant and: partially denyi
~
.i this petition.
The rule applies to all-operators.of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. This rule allows the onsite-incineration of contaminated waste lubricating oils,1 hydraulic fluids, and other miscellaneous oils without tha-need to apply for a specific ~1icense amendment'-as, has been
- previously required under the provisions ofos 9. 20'.302'and 20.3051or i9 20.2002 -and 20.2004. The! incineration could be carried.out'in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler-or incinerator, if available,:or in an onsite facility-specifically constructed for this' purpose. Under the. -
provisions of the rule, resultingieffluents.will be -managed within existing discharge-limits set in. individual plant'
. technical specifications. ~ Existing. discharge limits' have-been established under Part 20 and Part 50,-Appendix I, ,
Although actual . effluents may. increase slightly,:the total amount of effluents released will not'.be allowed-to ' exceed the existing ALARA-based limits established under Appendix I and, therefore, the health and-safety of the public.will-be adequately protected.
r
l 4
The Commissioners 3 Each licensee will be required to prepare and retain the following types of records in accordance with applicable NRC record retention requirements: (1) a description of equipment, facilities, and procedures that will be used to-collect, store, determine the radionuclide content of, and incinerate waste oils and (2) the results of the radiological and other analyses of each batch of waste oil incinerated, which demonstrate that effluents from this operation are maintained at levels ~ below existing plant operating limits established under Part 50, Appendix 1 and 9 50.36a. The information outlined in (1) above will be submitted to the Commission under 9 50.71(e) as a change to the FSAR since it represents-a change to the information submitted under 9 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 6 50.34a in the original license application. A summary of the changes and a safety evaluation will also b'e required by I 50.59.
The information outlined in (2) above will be reported under the Commission's existing effluent reporting requirements (950.36a(a)(2)).
In response to the proposed rule, comment letters were received 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. Although nine of the commenters were opposed to the rule, most of the remaining commenters were supportive.
The only substantive change that has been made in response to the comments on the proposed rule was to make the definition of the types of oils which could_be burned somewhat less restrictive. Although the licensees would need to be concerned with segregating oils to the. extent necessary to meet other regulatory requirements related to toxic constituents and to prevent technical problems with the incineration process, it is not necessary to limit the types of oils burned in order to control radiological ef fl uents .
Those opposed to the rulemaking did not provide any new information to support their opposition. However, a few questions were raised concerning potential impacts of the rule that were not fully discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, such as cccupational exposures and the potential for contamination of the auxiliary boiler. These questions have been discussed in the analysis of comments contained in the preamble to the final rule. Additional detail has also t.een provided concerning the potential impacts from toxic constituents. The proposed rule has
The Commissioners 4 referred to EPA's preference for burning of used oil (which destroys most of the organic toxicants) over land disposal generally, and it was assumed that the toxic impacts of used oil would be minimized by incineration. EPA has not specifically analyzed the impacts from burial of waste oil at a LLW disposal facility, However, the staff has reviewed EPA analyses (of a worst case burning scenario) to evaluate the impacts of releases of toxic constituents during burning of used oil onsite at nuclear power plants and concluded that the impacts would be insignificant. Consideration of these various potential . impacts has not changed any of the basic conclusions reached by the staff during the development of the proposed rule, including the primary conclusion that this action would not result in a significant impact to the environment.
The staff has reviewed the experience of liensees who have been authorized by technical specification license-condition to incinerate waste oil onsite. Information concerning this experience is contained in Appendix A to this paper. A discussion concerning the request in the SRM of August 3, 1988, to reconsider PRM-20-15 after the issuance of the BRC policy is also included in Appendix A.
Coordination: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
Resources: This rule may have a minor effect on resources in NRR. The effect depends on how meny 6 20.302 (or 9 20.2002) license amendments would have been sought which will no longer be needed and how many licensees decide to use the incineration option who would not have without this rule. These minor effects on resources cannot be projected but are not anticipated to be significant. Thus, the present resource-allocations contained in the FY 1993-1997 Five-Year Plan need not be adjusted.
Recommendations: That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the final rule revising 96 20.305 and 20.2004, as set forth in the draft Federal Reaister notice (Enclosure 1);
- 2. Certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b);
- 3. Note that:
.x The Commissioners 5 -I
- a. -The rule will be published in the Federal ,.
Reaister and will be effective 30 days following' publication; .
- b. The remainder of PRM-20-15-is denied through this rulemaking;
- c. The revision' to is 20.305:and- 20.2004 does not exempt resulting effluents from compliance with-existing. discharge limits established at each plant in accordance with Parts 20 and-50, Appendix I;
\
, d. Nothing in this action will preclude or otherwise prejudice further Commission actions '
'on petitions to exempt certain waste streams-from requirements for disposal at low-level waste disposal- facilities;
- e. The . 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-anu 3150-0014,
- f. A regulatory analysis has been prepared 'by the-staff and is provided as Enclosure 2; _ .
- g. Appropriate Congressional committees wil_1 be informed (Enclosure 3);
- h. The Chief Counsel for-~ Advocacy.of the Small-Business Administration-will be-informed 'of the certification regarding economic . impact on small entities and the reasons for it'as required by-the Regulatory Flexibility Act; -
- 1. The staff has prepared an Environmental Assess _ ment as--required by the National Environmental blicy'Act of 1969, as amended, and based on that: Assessment,=has-determined that this_ rule is .not. a major: Federal action significantly affecting the-quality of the human 1 environment, and, therefore, the preparation of an Environmental-Impact Statement is not required. The Environmental-Assessment,and finding of No Significant. Impact was published in.the Federal Reaister, as required by 10 CFR
, -f
L
, The Commissioners l 6L
- 51-.35-and'51.119,;as Appendix'A to,the' notice of-proposed rulemaking (August"29,11988; 53;FR ' /
32914). Minor modifications have b'een made to' >
reflect the: additional discussion of toxic impacts in-tha-)reamble of Lthe final rule which: m' iresponded to pu)lic" comment. -The. revised; assessment it providedias Enclosure? 4.c'Both the original and revised. assessments. concluded.thatt
.the incineration of l typical waste ' oils' would not-- '
result in impacts to the health and safety of1 the public or the quality of;the environment which are substantially1different from those
~
impacts previously considered duringiindividu'ai reactor licensing hearings. -The staff;has: '
reviewed the assessment, considered the public; :
comments and the. changescin the- text of' the:-
final rule, and concluded that'theLfinding:of'no
~
significant impact-need not be changed; 1 -The Federal Register. Notice. will be distributed-by ADM to affected licensees,-interested members
.of the public, and the petitioners;;
- k. A public announcementi(Enclosur'e 5) wil1Lbe - ,
issued when the final rule is: published'in the Federal Braister; 4
9 3
i
_ w , T
.4 The Commissioners 7 3
1.. This amendment does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit analysis is.
not required.
f ~f ~
42:ntss~ 4tu J mes M. Taylor xecutive Director l- for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Regulatory Analysis
- 3. Draft Congressional Letter
- 4. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draft Public Announcement DISTRIBUTIOh:
Commissioners ~
OGC CAA IG OCA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO SECY Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to SECY by.
c.o.b. Wednesday, September 2, 1992.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT August 26, 1992, with an information copy to SECY. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review-and. comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should.be apprised of when comments may_
be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of September 7, 1992. Please refer to the appropriate weekly Commission. Schedule,.when published, for a specific date and time.
l l
y
, ~ APPENDIX A The NRC staff has surveyed the'seven licensees who have received authorization for onsite'. incineration of contaminated waste, oil. In late ~1990, -only one-licensee was incinerating contaminated waste. oil onsite, although atfew-licensees had used the incineration method in the past. The data-from these licensees support the assumption that doses likely to be received by the '
public from incineration of waste oilf under this rule would-be a small-fraction of the overall dose limits established under Appendix 1 of.Part 50.
For example, those licensees with a technical! specification change are limited-to 0.1 percent of their overall dose limit. One licensee has. burned-all of its waste oil and has no difficulty in meeting this limitc Another licensee that violated this technical specification 111mit through an administrative.
error was still less than 1-percent of the overall limit. Another licensee who burned oil under a one time i 20.302 approvhl estimated that doses did not exceed 1 rem.
Five licensees who have continuing authority to incinerate waste oil onsit'e were not doing so because of one or more of the following factors:
(1) Restrictive State- air emission standards governing toxic releases, (2)- Authorization from an Agreement State to incinerate the waste oil offsite at a fossil fuel plant, (3)- Limited use of the auxiliary boiler making its use for; waste oil' incineration not cost effective, (4) Concern about. contaminating the auxi.liary systems, and (5). Successful use of decontamination processes.
With r egard to releases of oil as " clean" or nonradioactive, NRR and.the-Regions have recently become . aware of.-licensees inappropriately._using the _
lower limits of detection (LLD) for effluents (contained in the technical specifications) to classify oil as nonradioactivet Using effluent LLDs, licensees have disposed of oil by' onsite incineration, shipped- oil to' a fossil-fuel p ant, or recycled it:as industrial used oil. 'A civil penalty was_ issued to a licensee-because a waste oil recycler had: reconstituted oil thus-concentrating radioactive contaminants to greater than the effluent LLD. NRR.
and the Regions have informed licensees that this application of the effluent
- LLD's for the measurement of radioactivity in' effluents to-. air and' water, and for the measurement of radioactivity in the environment-have been established to provide -for uniform practice in detection capability and were -based on' practical considerations concerning-the measurement processes appropriateLfor each type of assessment. Effluents are generally measured at the discharge point (in' stacks or pipes) and are generally dispersed prior to reaching members of the public. In~ contrast, environmental contaminants-are measured directly from the environment. . The concentrations of radioactive contaminants. acceptable in the environment are much lower, so that more sensitive measurement' techniques are required. Thus, LLD's for environmental measurements have been established at
. lower concentrations than LLD's for effluent ceasurements.
1 APPENDIX A
4 '. )
- LLD11s not appropriate, _because the oil could be released to the environment without dilution. However,.NRR and'the Regions have accepted the-use of the environmental measurement ~ LLDs for detecting _ radioactive-material-in waste oil.
The industry has been pursuing the use of decontamination techniques _for the disposal of oil, but information published by the- Electric Power Research Institute suggests that although decontamination processes were censidered cost-effective when the. goal was reducing concentrations to below the effluent LLD, the NRC staff is uncertain whether it is cost-effective or even achievable to reduce levels below the more restrictive environmental LLDs,-
The degree to which the recognition of the inappropriateness'of. the effluent LLD for this application impacts specific licensees' and the degree of relief this rule may provide will vary considerably because of differences in quantities and concentrations being generated and' differences -in applicable =
State regulations. For example, at Vermont Yankee, use of enviror. mental LLDs resulted in the cessation of burning waste oil which had been previously carried out because the oil was considered " clean" using the effluent LLD. In this case, State regulations classify used oil as hazardous but in a category for which burning in a boiler is permitted. Using a detection capability equivalent to the environmental LLD caused the waste oil to be reclassified as mixed waste. Although under State regulations, the waste oil could be burned
- as a mixed waste, it cannot be disposed at a LLW burial facility, Thus, the licensee's disposal options in that State are limited, and without this= rule, they would need a license amendment to incinerate their waste oil.
Although it is impossible to predict with any certainty-whether incineration will be the best option. for many of the licensees, the NRC staff believes it-is important to provide flexibility in the disposal of used oil to the' extent
~
possible, given the information available. As discussed in the environmental assessment, incineration of oil onsite eliminates risks from transportation and will'1ikely reduce the storage of oil and the inherent risks of-storing'a radioactive, toxic, and flammable liquid. However, further relief in the future may be desirable through an exemption or resolution of the mixed waste-
. problem.
When the proposed rule was approved, the Commission requested that the petition to which this rule responded (PRM-20-15) be. revisited by the NRC staff'as a proposal for a BRC exemption after the approval-of a generic BRC
-policy. Although there is an indefinite moratorium on-BRC policy implementation, the NRC staff had reconsidered this petition after completion of the policy. This ' rule simply provides authorization of a specific process, onsite incineration, for which the effluents will be controlled- and reported under all existing requirements that govern other effluents'from the plants.
This rule sets no new limits for releases from regulatory control. The petition does not contain sufficient information to support an' exemption for waste oil. Further, sufficient-information is not currently available to
~
enable an evaluation of the- petitioners' requests. For example, in' the case-of other disposal options suggested by the petitioners in addition to onsite incineration, the most difficult concern to address would be the impacts from-toxic constituents. EPA is still in the process of developing further-regulations governing the management of used oil. Evolving EPA regulations 2
E ' APPENDIX A i
1 na . . , . . .. , e n
- _ , _ 4 _ .
~
may< prohibit;some disposal alternatives or provide a basis' for the1 analysis of. .
. impacts from other means of Ldisposal.- Further discussion of other:
alternatives appears .inithe , regulatory- analysis. .j Furthermore~, staffJexperience with pathway modeling indicates that in: setting-
. generic limits for radionuclide concentrationsLin-waste oil for a'BRC exemption,:the limits would likely be; unnecessarily- restrictive- because: of compounding conservatisms needed'to take into account local conditions'at all
- existing and-future 1 facilities and the varietyfof-equipment and procedures which could be.used. . A site _ specific analysis, whichiis- needed in reporting = U doses in accordance with existing regulations _' unchanged by this1 rule,_will- -
)
better determine actualj resulting doses. A-separate dose limit applicable t'o H
incineration of waste 1911 is not considered necessary, would be arbitrary-without further informationfand analysis, and-would be inconsistent:with the-approach for regulating other effluents from the;plantsc The NRC staff believes that, given the existing regulations governing effluents applicable-to nuclear power plants, the approach of this1 final ~ rule is; preferable to' a specific limit governing waste oil incineration.
H I
1 1
i i;
e r
3 APPENDIX A' 4
,,,i ,J~-- , - - , -y v., ,- - , ,__: ,
[7590-01];
I' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 RIN: 3150-AC14 ,
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
I
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is. amending its regulations to '
permit the onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils. generatedLat
~
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 while maintaining -
releases from operating nuclear power plants at levels which are'"as low astis reasonably achievable." Incineratior, of this class of waste must be in full compliance with the Commission's current regulations which restrict th'e release of radioactive materials to the' environment for each operatingLnuclear
, power plant. - Any other~ applicable Federal, . State, or ' local: requirements that:
relate to'the toxic or hazardous characteristics of the waste oil would have to be satisfied. 'This rule constitutes a partial granting of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Flectric Institute and Utility 1
ENCLOSURE 1
l .
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 Reaister).
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 Petition The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group filed a petition for ruler.:aking (PRM-20-15) with the Commission on July 31, 1984, to initiate rulemaking to establish a level of radioactivity in power-reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content. The Commission requested comment on the petition in the Federal Register on September 9,1984 (49 FR 36653).
The petitioners suggested that an appropriate basis for establishing a cutnff level for determining whether specific waste streams were below.
regulatory concern would be that the direct release of the specific waste streams to the environment would not result in a dose to an individual member 2 l ENCLOSURE 1
~
of the general' public greater than 1 mrem /yr. The petitioners _ recommended-that using'a 1 mrem /yr limit, alternative- disposal methods, includi_ng --- ,
(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 anLaiternative disposal method.
On August 29, 1988, the Commission published a proposed rule in;the Federal Register (53 FR 32914) that.would amend its regulations to allow onsite incineration of contaminated waste oils generated at licensed: nuclear power plants without the need to apply for a specific license amendment. . As summarized below, that Federal Register notice also proposed to deny the remaining. features of the petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and 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 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 3
ENCLOSURE 1
4 '
l; 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.
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 tnan burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This approach will preserve the limited capacity of the regional 4
ENCLOSURE 1
licensed waste dispusal sites. reduce the costs of waste disposal ^atclicensed low-level waste burial sites, and eliminate a less desirable wasteiform 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 9 20.305. Section.
20.305 is being replaced by 9 20.2004 as part of the final rule establishing -
the new standards for protection against radiation, published May 21,1991 (56 - '
FR 23360). Thus, this final rule amends both 55 20.305 and 20.2004.
A spectfic feature of this rule (contained.in both 9 20.305(b)(3) and 5 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 1. The rule, in 16.20.305(b)(1)~ and 20.2004(b)(1), has been clarified to reflect the requirement to comply _ not only with'Part 50, Appendix I based effluent limitations but also to-comply with the Part 20 based effluent limitations contained in applicable. license conditions other than effluent limits specific' ally -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 ,
1 eliminated from existing licenses. The rule makes the requirements for incineration of waste oil consistent among all licenses, without'the need for
-5 ENCLOSURE 1
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 1.
Analysis of Comments In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received comments from 25 organizations and individuals, including State regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, utilities, industry organizations, public interest groups, and other members of the public. Copies of the comments may be examined and copied for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Nine of the commenters were .
opposed to the rule, fourteen either supported or generally supported it with some questions or comment. Two others gcVe comments without specifically supporting or opposing the rule.
Most of the commenters opposed to the rulemaking expressed concern about the health effects of increased effluents. Some commenters stated that existing effluents are unacceptable. A few commenters were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few commenters suggested that the cost savings did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or 6
ENCLOSURE 1
-. s 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 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 alternhtive disposal option for one type of waste; namely, the incineration of centaminated 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 L does not diminish the regulatory authority of the NR; nor does this rule- ,
diminish State authorities.
7 ENCLOSURE 1
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 cambined risks of radiation and toxic exposures. f.nother 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 dis- sed of by all nuclear power reactors collectively represents a very small fraction of all used oils disposed of annually. This rule does not relieve the licensee from complying with other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials. However, the Commission recognizes that there is some potential for the release of toxic materials during the incineration process. It is true that in order to achieve complete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate residence times so that all the oil is exposed to sufficient heat and oxygen for complete combustion. However, a high percentage of destruction of organics would be expected in any case. Even a very small boiler can achieve 99 to 99.99 percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated compounds.'
Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high
' Environmental Protection Agency (50 TR 49164; November 29, 1985) noted at p. 49180.
8 ENCLOSURE 1
.[ -
combustion efficiency in order tv avoid maintenance problems, particularly .if -
theauxiliaryboiler$1susedi
-Although the Environmental- Protection Agency:(EPA) has _ decided that used 011' destined for disposal should not be listed as_'a hazardous waste, it; has'-
been developing and has made considerable progress -in completing regulations:
which would control the potential hazards of both,used oil recycling and:
disposal. Some controls are applicable; others-are under development. It will be necessary for licensees to analyze their used ' oil.to determine-if it :
exhibits one of the characteristics of hazardous waste and to determine the- ;
applicability of EPA or. State iequirements. The extent of controls will vary-by State, because States list used oil as a hazardous waste and some-have specific requirements ~ applicable to any incinerator. .
At least some categories of used oil may present.a significant potential-hazard to public health and the environment. = As noted, during the development of this rule, EPA has been in the-process of developing-regulations: pertaining <
to used oil. Because the EPA regulations had not been comp.leted 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, l
-i.e., substances that: produce effects on health only above certain "thresho'1d" o
concentrations. More information and discussion-on to.xic constituents of used.
oil _ and potential health and environmental effects can be found in EPA' Federal-
~
Register notices (50 FR 1684; January ll, 1985, 50 FR 49164;.50 FR 49212; and 9
ENCLOSURE =1.
s er n a _ n > , - - , er
_ t 50 FR 49258; November 29,_1985, 56 FR 48000; September 23,-1991, Land 57 FR_ '
21524; May 20, 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
-m .:n nreposed, the Commission assumed that the impacts from toxic-
- constituents would be' minimized by burning, because burning is_a destructive process that is expected to destroy- a very large fraction of the organic constituents. In responding to the environmental = concerns- raised by. the-public comments,'the Commission has examined analyses rierformed 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 ofi what it referred to as its Phase I rule (50__FR 49164; November P9,1 1985)-
because it was a first step in regulating used oil with fur _ther regulations -
being contemplated- . Based on these- analyses,1 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 bei .i 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 EPAd 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 we.re arsenic, . cadmium, chromium, and lead. Thus,-EPA established specific concentrations for these 10-ENCLOSURE:1 y
y 4
m s
elements. _0f-these, lead was of most concern because high levels were found -
in: some of.the samples analyzed. However, lead in used oil wasilargely attributable to contamination of crank-case. oils with leaded gasoline " blow-by" (50 FR 1699; January 11,.1985). Industrial used oil- including reactor _ -
waste oil would not be expected to exceed the spt ification for lead except for some segments of metalworking oils which constis ite a small percentage of reactor oils. Thus, lead would not contribute a signii' cant impact when this oil is burned. Threshold toxicants other than lead were not considered a-q significant hazard, leaving potential cancer risks ~from arsenic, chromium,'and.
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 1
600 million gallons of used oil were being burned each year in every conceivable circumstance - in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, l and residential sectors. The EPA's analyses included -a worst-case urban t-scenario where used oil was burned across a large city in various types of-
-boilers. In this scenario, over 25 million gallons of used oil were assumed to be burned in the study area (nationally well- over 1 billion gallons of heating oil are burned in multiple family dwellings alone).2 The'used oil was burned in an array of boilers with significant overlapping _ of plumes that-raised the ambient levels of arsenic, cadmium, and chromium. In the worst.
case, it was assumed that the oil contained concentrations of these. metals at' the 90th percentile of the data available at the time of ~the study and that.75 percent of the metals were released. Based on these. assumptions, burning of used oil was estimated to result in exposure of the portion of the PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in Boilers .
and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SU-84-Oll, August 1984. :
11 ENCLOSURE 1 q
l 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 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 (1266.40(c)). In any case, although used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small amounts of solvents, used oil as generated would generally not be expected to exceed the-used oil specification for total halogens in the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.
i 12 EHCLOSURE 1
.,, 1 E
- 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-th_e EPA'was evaluating the impacts of burn _i_ng' 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 1the'-
L used oil fuel specification. Because in burning:used-oil in an auxiliary boiler or co-located fossil fuel plant under this rule, the: licensee would:
also be replacing a fraction of. virgin fuel oil,- only the incremental impacts-of contaminants resulting from use would be applicable. However, in the case-of an incinerator, all emissions resulting from the burning of used oil, would, be an addition to existing emissions. The risks associated with toxicants contained in oil-prior to use, while difficult to characterite, 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),-tog' ether with-ai supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking-concerning used oil'managementL
. standards. Based on this recently developed information, EPA has also completed its reconsideration of listing used oil-destined for . disposal 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!
l' decided not to list used oils destined for disposal'a's hazardous waste (57: FR l-
[ 21524;.May 20, 1992). The Commission has reviewed the newer data and u concluded that i_t does not change the major conclusions related to the J 13 ENCLOSURE 1--
p
L l~
1 l
i I
environmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil, in fact, the data suggests that the level lof toxic constituents;in' industrial used oils are generally lower .than previously assumed from the generic data, Industrial used oils include reactor waste oils, in response to the question of synergism in the combined effects of chemical and radiation exposure, little is presently known about the extent-of synergism of various risk factors. For the most part, regulatory controls are based on overall risks from individual specific toxicants; although, in the -
case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together, it has not been possible to fully account for any hypothesized potential synergism of various sources of risk. However, releases of both radiological constituents and other toxics associated with the incineration of waste oil from nuclear power plants are extremely low and, therefore, could be responsible for only an extremely small part of any potential synergistic effects.
Two commenters raised questions about other potential impacts which had not been discussed in the 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 14 ENCLOSURE 1
i w
- concentration of the' radionuslides -in _the oil,? combustion efficiency, and maintaining minimum off-gas temperatures will' affect the degree of - {.
~
contamination _. . Although contamination of-equipment can be minimized, the impact of this contamination could partially offset the:' savings in waste: 1
-disposal . space'and cost achieved through incineration. As to the-question of ^!
establishing an area as a radiation zone,' the auxiliary boiler, or other equipment-used for incineration of waste oil, would.be within an area controlled by the licensee. In no-case would-incineration be expected _to-result in radiation levels requiring additional . controls; that is, no new areas would be established as -' radiation areas."
~
One commenter argued that a license amendment should continue to be--
required because of the public's right to a hearing onLan amendment and=
because~ the public scrutiny and case-by-case staff evaluation would ensure that applicable requirements are complied with. - This commenter_ also-arguod.
that.the license amendment process should continue until_ more .specifici information is available such as a complete characterization' of wastes.:
Another commenter was also concerned that there would be no assurance thatt technical specifications will be comp 1_ied with,- particularly because normal emissions would be expected to increase as plantsLage.
The potentially affected public has:an'-opportunity for a hearing on a licenso' amendment;for'a nuclear power reactor.. However, the rule,; both as proposed and as now promulgated in. final torm, only permits-the: incineration' of, waste oil onsi.te, 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-1 will-useTitsLauthority to inspect and take enforcement action to ensure-
_ compliance with effluent limits as it does its other requirements. Given:this 15 ENCLOSURE 1
approach, the Commission was of the opinion that the-issues presented by_ the proposed rule would be' more appropriately resolved _ in_ a ruleinaking Eproceeding..
In accordance with customary NRC procedure, the- proposed rule was published 3
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,8 4 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 the1 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. Becauste some
-oils cannot be sent to low-level waste disposal-facilities-and the cost of' 3
-disposing of the other oil that can te :;ent has been escalating, recycling. of L used oil is getting more attention by the industry. Some means of incineration _(i.e., use in the auxiliary boiler) may also result in:a small increase in energy recovery over the practice of solidificatf on and burial at
' EPA (51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.
16:
ENCLOSL'RE 1
~
zg, a :LLW disposal facility,-which never involves eventual energy recovery._ The -
environmentalfimpacts_ of either onsite incineration or decontamination fort :
recycle are very low. Ther', appears to be no reason-to restrict-either-
- alternative beyond whatever EPA' regulations will_ be' applicable in either case?-
Excessive storags 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' s
~
-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 b 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 makris clear that licensees 're 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. Sorne, including the-State of Indiana, noted the smallipublic health and safety and environmental -impacts. Some, including-the-State' of Indiana and the Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, cited the benefits in cost savings or savings in low-level waste burial space, .
and'one, the added flexibility. One commenter provided information concerning the practicality of incineration in general and of using used oil in the 17 ENCLOSVRE 1
--, 'I
- i s
t startup boiler in particular. Many of the commenters that supported the rule i
made suggestions for changes or clarifications. l 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 i 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 l the definition of waste oil in the proposed rule and are included in the j definition in the final rule. It would serve no useful purpose to treat synthetic and petroleum derived used oils differently and require identification and tegregation of these oils. Cutting and penetrating oils,- 1 metalworking oils, etc., were not specifically identified in the information- ]
supplied with the petition or the Brookhaven -eport Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Usec Oil, or Organic Liquids" -
(NUREC/CR-4730)* which was referenced in the prorcsed rule and the regulatory analysis with regard to quantitles and concentrations of waste oil. Thus, these types of oil were not specifically considered. Based on the survey- j q
information in these reports, however, these other oils would be expected to be a small percentage of the radioactively contaminated 6 sed 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 -
i
'Copiis of NUREGs may be-purchased from the Superintendent of 00cuments,- -
U.S. Govrrnment Printing Office, P.0, Box 37082," Washington, DC 20013-7082.- l Copies tre also available from the National- Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,- NW. '
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. ;
18 ENCLOSURE 1 :
__ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _u -_.; . _=_ . . _ - . _ _ . _ .
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 activities. For clarification, the words "and maintenance" have been added to-the final rule.
Two commenters suggested that the rationale for allowing incineration' of waste oil generated onsite would also apply to the incineration of oil .from 19 ENCLOSURE 1
other plants if the same controls and limits were applied, so that a utility would only need ane incinerator to dispose of oil frem its several plants.
While this may be the case, the focus of this rulemaking proceeding has been limited to the onsite inciacration 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 connenter suggested that offsite incineration be allowed with the condition of proper ash disposal. Two others, including the petitioners, suggested the Commission reconsider the other options originally raised in the petition. Another commenter, the State of Texas, simply noted support for other methods of volume reduction. The petitioners also criticized the Commission for vagueness in the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting that their analysis, provided as a comment to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.
The August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32914), federal Register notice presenting the proposed rule, also included an indication of the NRC's intent to deny without prejudice the other alternatives proposed by the petitioners. The primary reason for that denial, as stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in the discussion of the petition in this document, was that more complete information would be needed for a rulemaking to allow any of the other alternatives raised by the petitioners. Reconsideration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking. As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was ignored, this analysis was considered along with the original petition, the other public comments, and 20 ENCLOSURE 1
'l the referenced report (NUREG/CR-4730). The specific deficiencies of the 1 petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately, t One commenter suggested the Commission make a trial run, using contaminated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc designed to break down toxic chemicals. Although this technology may present.an environmentally sound alternative, these matters are outside the scope of the proposed rule.
One commenter suggested that only one generic 5 50.59 review should be required rather than individual site specific reviews for each plant. Two other commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that the purpose of the 6 50.59 review was not to determine if burning of waste oil, in and of itself,
^
constitutes an unreviewed safety question but to review the plant specific equipment and procedural alterations attendant to this process. ,
The safety of burning waste oil at a reactor site cannot be determined generically. There may be some effect on the safety of reactor operation if incineration is not properly planned. Therefore, it is necessary that a plant i specific determination be made, in accordance with 5 50.59, to ensure-that the i specific equipment and procedural changes involved with the incineration will L
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 1 mrem /yr to the general public. . The State of Texas' suggested that the NRC use available dose assessment computer codes to verify that this
" reference dose" (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 21 ENCLOSURE 1.
L .- .
contaminated waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of- 'f total effluents, However, it is not considered necessary to establish a
- f separate effluent limit for waste oil-incineration, as long as.the total :
i amount of radioactivity in the effluents released from the plant,-including :
releases from incineration of waste oil, continues to conform to existing f effluent limits established under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1: and 10 CFR. l Part 20.
A number of commentors 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 l transferring waste oil.to an offsite licensed " vendor," i.e., persons authorized to receive these materials. This alternative was not, mentioned in the preamble of the proposed rule because-at the time there was no facility licensed to accept. radioactively contaminated waste oil for disposal: other !
than LLW disposal facilities. Two commenters suggested that " site"?be defined as the region "within the site boundary,"'and one of these suggested that the- a site boundary be further defined in order to provide consistency i_n the interpretation of "onsite" disposals. {
"0nsite" in normal usage means "within the site boundary."- A formal definition.is considered unnecessary. Presently, tiie site or site boundary is -
defined in the individual technical specifications for each license. However, ;
-the rule has-limited the incineration to the site where the waste oil;is generated, in part-so that any releases of radioactive material would_be- u covered by the effluent' limits in' the technical, specifications established ~ l under Part 20 and Appendix I to Part 50. 'The licensee's decisienton the-
- specific location for incineration will depend'on its ability to demonstrate-
]
22 . .
ENCLOSURE 1:
, = . . ~. --.a .- - . . . . - . = . . = - _ . - a :- . - _. = l
i y
compliance with those limits applicable to releases of effluents to l unrestricted areas. The provision in i 20.305(b)(3)-(or i 20.2004(b)(3)),
which states that 6 20.305 (or i 20.2004) supersedes inconsistent license conditions or technical specifications, is primarily intended to eliminate the j
need for amendment of license conditions or technical specifications to I
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 incineratot- 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 bo'ilers or mobile incinerators if they. are onsite. The use of this type' of equipment at the site of a licensed nuclear reactor would be governed _by- '
the reactor license issued under 10 CFR Part 50.-
The State of New Jersey _ wanted the effluents from incineration to be n 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, l,
The State of Michigan suggested the Commission mention- that other-P '
federal, State, and/or local regulations must be complied with.- This
~
L l
~ 23 ENCLOSURE.1
. __ _ , _ _ . _ . . _ _.-.-_._;._. . ..... a -. ._.u.._ _ ,
4 provision was .in the proposed rule and remains in the final- rule as' an ,j amendment to i 20.305(c). This provision is also contained:inithe existing i 20.2007.
Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters; One' commenter suggested clarifying that Appendix ! limits be met on an annual i average basis only.
Radiological-release limits contained in facility technical- !
specifications which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1 contain a range of limits including quarterly-limits and instantaneous-limits. -The ,
1 rule does not relieve licensees from the obligation to comply with-the -
'i requirements of the Commission's regulations and il 20.305(b)(3) and 20.2004(b)(3) do not supersede the existing limits governing total effluent releases. Accordingly, licensees continue to be required.to satisfy the total-radiological effluent release limitations set forth in the. facility technical
-specifications.
Another commenter suggested clarification that the rule is not intended a to require a- cost _-benefit analysis- pursuan_t to 6._50.34a.
As.noted in the proposed-rule, licensees are required underl6 50.71(e).
to periodically update'their FSAR, and in so doing,; submit descriptions..of 1 equipment and procedures to the extent that there have been changes to the
- information previously submitted underl6 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3)land i 50.34a. -No cost-benefit analysis-is required.
- Some commenters,-including EPA and the; State of Michigan, suggested clarifying other applicable requirements such as:
(1)_a RCRA permit may be required for some. oils if they exhibit-hazardous' characteristics even.though,-at the present time, used oil as a. ,
class is not-a listed hazardous substance; 24- . - .
ENCLOSURE 1- d
,a
(2) some States do c'lassify 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 6 20.305(c) and in 6 20,2007, this rule in no way affects their applicability.
Two commenters were concerned that the potential applicability of RCRA or State requirements would limit the usefulness of the rule.
If waste oil is classified as mixed waste, it presently may not be disposed of at a LLW burial site. This presents licensees with even more of a problem, particularly if the 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 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 pover plants, will be identified as hazardous waste through testing for the characteristic of toxicity, more than half of this industrial waste oil will not be identified as hazardous. Thus, a portion, but not all, of the radioactively contaminated waste oil from reactors will be mixed waste. In any given State, it will depend on individual State regulations. Although the 25 ENCLOSURE 1
- burden of meeting RCRA or State equirements may increase the cost of -
incineration, this alternative would still be expected to be of value.
One commenter objected to the term " limited" in reference to the required changes in the ODCM (Offsite Dose Calculation' Manual) which the l commenter contends are always extensive. -
The Commission recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may involve significant administrative effort. However, the changes required in order to account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are relatively-limited -
primarily related to the fact that a new point of release may be involved, Conclusion !
As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the rule as proposed with minor modifications. Because the5 rule will allow a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost -and risk-effective means of disposing of waste oil while maintaining' existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action should be positive. For-licensees who elect to process waste oils in this fashion,~ monitoring and _;
maintaining records on waste oil disposal activities will be covered-by other existing regulatory requirements set forth in.Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I. ;
l These requirements are implemented primarily through technical specifications ,
established under 150.36a. In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW disposal _ facility or other-treatment 'or dispo' sal:
facility are. eliminated and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely_be_ reduced, :lt should be noted-that any solid ~ radioactive L . -
l- ' residues produced in burning the waste oil would, for purposes __of regulation, l ._ be treated as any other radioactive solid waste. [
i- 26 L ENCLOSUREcl- j
_,,~_.,..._....J,._ ., ;.2 , , , . c,_....mr .. --, . -4 m , o ,
. i j
finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability '
i, The Commission has- reviewed the environmental assessment and finding of l no significant environmental impact published in the Federal Register on:
August 29, 1988 (53 TR 32917-32919) in connection with the proposed rule. The i Commission has also considered the public comments and the changes in the text iI t
- 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 -i the conclusion reached in the earlier finding of no significant impact. The Commission has concluded that this amendment to 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 does, not constitute-a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality'of-the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is -
not required. '
The revised environmental assessment and finding of-no significa'nt ,
impact on whic.h this determination is based are available for inspection' and-g copying at the NRC Public Document Room,'2120 L Street, NW: (Lower Level),. -;
Washington, DC. -i I i j
L .
. 27 h ENCLOSURE-1J v - --
--,,wnn. w ,- aw --.w-.,,,,,Ja - w , -.lu. s--e+,a- e-nwr. -a .-m, ' , - ,, , ~ . 4 -. m s A ~v- e
'I 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.
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. ,
t 28 -
ENCLOSURE'1
~
1 Backfit Analysis l
'1 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 I
required for this final rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). q 1.ist of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 20 2 Byproduct material, Criminal penalty,- Licensed material, fluclear-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 ofl the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization- Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following
-amendments to 10_CFR Part 20. !
t
-Part Standards for Protection Against Radiation 1._ The authority citation for Part 20 is revised-to read as-follows: q
. AUTHORITY: Secs. 53,'63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161,:182, 186, 68 Stat, 930,
- 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42'U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 29 ENCLOSURE-l *
,p --
y- ..wQ- -- mw, f , , , ,,,,?. o.w.- _p,,, m.w,+m_ . , %., .,.,y,c.w.6_ ~u ,....4s ,am.
2111, 2133, .!134, 2201, P232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as' amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. S841, 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),
59 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, 20.1201-21.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1502, 20.1601(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801,20.1802,20.1901(a),20.1902,20.1904,20.1906,20.2001,20.2002,-
20.2003, 20,2004, 20.2005(b) and (c), 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) and 5 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Peb. L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and 99 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206(g) and (h),
20.1904(c)(4),~20.1905(c) and (d), 20.2004(b), 20.2005(c) 20.2006(b) - (ds, 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(o)).
- 2. Section 2').305 is revised to read as follows:
L 9 20.305 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
E (a) A licensee nay treat or dispose of licensed material by incineration.
- only:
L (1)- As authorized by paragraph (b) of this section; Lor L (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in 9-20.306; or 30 L ENCLOSURL 1
, % eU -, 4 ,_ c -. - . .-- -c c,, ---w, ,y--u..,-b-
4 (3) As specifichily approved by the Commission pursuant to 6 20.106(b) or 6 20.302.
(b)(1) Waste oils (petroleum derived or synthetic oils used principally as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids, or metalworking oils) that have been radioactively contaminated in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power reactor licensed under Part 50 of this chapter may be incinerated on the site where generated provided that the total radioactive effluents from the f acility, including the effluents from such -
incineration conform to the requirement: of Appendix 1 to Part 50 of this ,
chapter and the effluent release limits con'ained 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 56 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to 5 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriate.
The licensee shall also follow the procedures of 9 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils _
must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.301.
(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.
31 ENCLOSURE 1
, . y i
- 3. Section 20.2004 is revised to read as follows:
'f 1
i 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 'h (2) If the material is in a form and concentration specified in '
A 20.2005; or <
(3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to i 20.2002.i (b)(1) Wasto 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:1icense ,
i conditions other than effluent limits- specifically related to incineration of waste oi1~. .
The lirensee shall report anyl changes orladditions to the -
information supplied under is 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with.this incineration pursuant to i 50.71 of this- chapter, as appropriate.
. The licensee shall also follow the procedures of 6 50.59 of this chapter with' respect to such changes to the facility or procedures. ,
(2) Solid residues produced in the. process of incinerating; waste oils: -
must be disposed of as provided by?l 20,2001.
l 6
32.
- ENCLOSURE-l'.
e a
--,9 y y w g y-g-g -
w- i* m ep - rw-it e - se3 9-== +WW-v*= e*' 7 -eM "r -W '
- *~ '"'
, 1 l
, (3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil ,
-3 incineration under the terms of this section,and supersede any provision'in an individual plant license or tecimical specification that may be inconsistent. .
1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of- 1992.: , ,
J
'i for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samueld.'Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.-
(,
L L
L' .
p 33_
' v, ENCLOSURE 51,
Reaulato*v Analysis RtthLto Amend 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004 DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY-If4CillERAT10f1 [
- 1. Statement of the Prqblem ,
The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear l Waste fianagement Group petitioned the Commission (PRii-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to' initiate rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power reactor-generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their-radioactive material content. This petition responded to Commission views as .
expressed in the Supplementary Infurmation accompanying publication of fl0 CTR Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" ,
(December 27, 1982; 47 FR 57446). In that statement, the Commission.
recognized that the' establishment of standards for waste for which there is~ no regulatory concern would be-beneficial and would, among other things. reduce #
i disposal and long-term disposal site maintenance: costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the regional.. licensed waste-disposal sites for wastes with
-hiaher-levels of radioactivity, .and enhance overall site stability' of disposal
' facilities by reducing the volume of Class A waste. The petitioners. suggested-that, based on recent Commission decisions, a 1-millirem /yr individual' dose limit would be an appropriate basis for establishing a cutoff level for.
defining those wastes that were "below regulatory concern." Further, thel petitioners presented several examples where combinations of radionuclide-concentrations and' disposal methods for waste oil. would satisfy the 1
ENCLOSVRE 2
. . .. . . . . - - . -- - . - - - - - - - :P
a i
1 miilirem/yr dose limit and proposed wording to revise'10 CFR Part 20 to i
-reflect these recommendations.
A response to this petition requires a staff detertrination of the need' !
for a generic rulemaking to allow disposal of power-reactor-generated, slightly contaminated waste oil by means other than by burial at a licensed _;
disposal site. Among the factors that must be considered in this
{
determination are the following: -
(1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reactor ,
operator, that limit the release of radioactive materials to the general '
environment to Al. ARA levels, (2) The existence of Commission-regulations which permit the use of- j alternate waste disposal. practices subject to license amendment- .
(3) All environmental and safety issues associated with storage on site and transportation of waste oil and impacts from toxic constituents of_ waste' oil.
(4) The financit.1 costs and land use requirementsLassociated with q disposing of the very small quantities of radioactive material' contained in typical waste 011'.
(5) The authority of the . Environmental Protection Agenc/ (EPA)-to-regulate the release of both radioactive and non-radioactive' materials to the:
environment. [
i-p- -(6) The. authority of the EPA, which assumed federal Radiction Council :
i Li responsibilities, to-develop Presidential guidance for use by-other; federal' ;
[l agencies cn acceptable: levels of radiation exposure for' the general public.
t
2
' ENCLOSURE 2
. .....__2.~
- 2. - Qhiectives
{
The rule ellows nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate waste oil. !
which has become contaminated from operations associated with nuclear power !
production. previously, licensees were afforded the option' of obtaining a license amendment to allow them to incinerate waste' oil onsite. Allowing o incineration thrcegh a rule change versus continuing to do so through'the license amendment process will make this alternative disposal method available j in a more timely manner and with reduced administrative. effort for licensees and the NRC. -
The environmental impact from the incineration of the oil, which- ,
contains generally very low concentrations of radionuclides, is 'nsignificant, Generally, incineration would be expected to result in significant savings in: i disposal costs. Incineration instead of-burial also= conserves limited.
4 available burial space, reduces risks from the transportation of waste oil (radiological and non-radiological), reduces the fire hazard associated with.
waste oil storage, and may reduce the impacts from the toxic constituents of waste oil.
i
- 3. Alternatives i~
i: ~
l The petitioners requested t'hatLthe-Commission issue a regulation:
L governing the. disposal of low-level radioactivelyicontaminated' waste oil from - ,
nuclear power-plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste. oil L 'at which disposal.may be carried out without-regard to the radioactive material content'of the waste. The petition suggested an individual exposure h 3' ENCLOSURE 2-L <
~
P f
g
.,i value of 1 mill _irem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to :!
base concentration limits. The justification proposed was primarily on a "de t minimis" basts; that is, simply that this level of risk is too trivial to be r
of concern. The term "below regulatory concern" (BRC) has sometimes been used interchangeably with *de minimis"; nowever, it has also been used in con-.
nection with exemptions from specific regubtions decided.on a cost-benefit basis. ;
it would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated t6 a L sufficiently low level, to be of no regulatory concern, thereby allowing it-.to. _
be disposable without regard to its radioactive contamination. In its.BRC- ,
waste policy statement (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839),.the Commission gave some indication of dose levels which might be acceptable for a was'te stream ,
. specific exemption. Although 1 millirem / year is likely to be acceptable 4.
(based on the discussion of decision criterion 2 in the staff implementation = [
plan accompanying the NRC policy statement), the petitioners have not supplied -;
sufficient information to allow a :pecific waste stream "below regulatory- j concern" determination to be made. Also, the Commission has deferred taking any actions _ to exempt wastes from regulatory.' control.
~
~
in responding to this petition, there were three basic alternative; .
courses of action which could have been taken: _to deny the petition, to defer ,
1 action on the petition',_or to initiate the rulemaking process. The_ staff does not-believe that a categorical dismissal of this petition is consistent with- '
either the spirit of Commission policy set forth in 10 CFR PartL61 (and reaffirmed in_ NRC's BRC waste policy statement published on August:29,- 1986;.
51_ FR 30839).or the need to ensure effective use of licensed low-level waste ;
-disposal-capacity.
4 ENCLOLdE 2:
A r
, ,- - . ~ . - . , , . , , , . . - , . , , , , , . . . , r m ~ . , . . , ,,-nn,,,,,,en... ,m+ -
,,n-.x,.w,,.,.4 .e- ,.nv.,-,,,,,,,,w,-.,,.. -, -,r- .4,-
Y j
The staff could have deferred action on this specific petition unti_1 consideration of a generic rulemaking on BRC waste or until EPA issues ;
i standards or guidance on BRC levels of radioactivity. However, neither of these actions are expected to take place in the near term. !
?
The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal 3 of waste oil and believes that a rule change should be made. However, in order for the petition to be granted in full, more information and analysis would be necessary. For example,-a more complete characterization of quantities and concentrations of contaminated waste oil would be.needed to make a waste stream specific analysis on which to base specific concentration limits. Also, a determination would have to be made on whether the concentrations of radionuclides possible in the ash from ircineration or the sludge from recycling would be low enough to allow waste nil processing at unlicensed facilities. Such additional analyses would result in delay and the expenditure of limited resources. The rule will provide the relief requested in the. petition commensurate with the information available. The remainder of the petition has been denied without prejudice.
incineration will be allowed without specific license _ amendment providing the licensee maintains compliance with the licensee's operating limits based on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix 1.
Any other applicable federal and State statutes would also have to be satisfied.
This action by the Commission would not preclude-the petitioner from
- resubmitting a future request to exempt _ waste _ oils or other classes of waste:
- from requirements for disposal at low level waste disposal facilities.
l L
5 ENCLOSURE 2
(See policy statement,-10 CfR part 2,- Appendix B, published on, August 29 1986.)
- 4. Consecuences This rule, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil-by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect several attributes, but only a few significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." This action allows uti'ities an alternative for the disposal of waste oil while not allowing any change in the existing limits of radiation exposure to the
- public. There also would be no significant change in public' health nor q
occupational exposures. If anything, -the decreased risk from no longer .[,
transporting the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in ;
decreased exposures.
The efficiency results in-two ways. First, the utilities will not have-to dispose of the waste oil in-licensed land bur.ials, but may-incinerate it-f onsite if they so desire. .i.e., if it is to their economic advantage'to do so.
Second, those utilities which want to incinerate the waste oil will not'have - l to apply for a license amendment. Savings could also accrue to both industry and the NRC in their implementation 'and operation costs as a' result of the above. Licensees would only take advantage of this rule if it was in their-- 1
' best economic interest, i.e., -with _ savings resulting to them. - The NRC will:
~
save by issuing the rule as opposed to handling each license-amendment sepa L ,
rately.,
Information provided.by the petitioners _and in a Brookhaven Nationali >
Laboratory Report, ~* Evaluation-of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing-Lead,- .
6
-ENCLOSURE 2.
1
. -_. _ _. __. - . . _ . _ . . . - , ~ _ _ -
j Chromium, Used 011', or Organic' Liquids," (NVREG/CR-4730, January 1987) i indicates that, on-average; an operating PWR produces-approximately 1000 :
gallons per year of contaminated waste oil, and an operating BWR produces approximately 3500-5000 gal /yr'. Reported contamination levels are usually jJ in the range of 10" to 10" Ci/mi, although higher levels have-been reported. .
The principal radioisotopes present in these waste oils include the' usual P
activation and fission products such as Co-58, Co-60, Mn-54, Cs-134, Cs-137. l a
Occause of restrictions imposed on the disposal of oil wastes in -
licensed land burial grounds, oil wastes must be stabilized prior to transport to these sites; sorption and solidification are'the prevalent treatment methods. Several plants are storing waste oils on an interim basis pending a-decision on ultimate disposal.
According to both the BNL report and information provided by the_ l petitioners, solidification of oil wastes effectively doubles the volume of-the waste requiring disposal.while sorption can increase waste volumes by as much as.a factor of 6.
If directly released to the environment, a typical reactor _would,' on -[
average, discharge _a total of 10"' curies of radioactivity per_ year via the: l waste oil pathway. This quantity is a fraction ~of_ typical releases in-liquid y
effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant discharge limits. According to the petitioners, most waste oils could be incineratedL without resulting-in (conservatively calculated) doses exceeding 1 mrom/ year.-
'A more recent report published by Electric Power Research Institute *
(EPRI) estimated typical? volumes- to be 1000 gal /yr higher than those in ~
NUREG/CR-4730: "Below Regulatory Concern Owners. Group: Nonradiological Characterization and Environmental Assessment of BRC Waste,"_ prepared by .
Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute EpR1 NP-5674, February 1989.
7 ENCLOSURE 2
. a- ._ _ .. .2 _
- i. _. _ _ . _ - . _ . . , , _ ,
_ ,. i
In fact, those licensees who have incinerated waste oil'under an amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this rulemaking, the effluents from the incineration of waste oil would be accounted for under existing operating limits contained in Part 50, Appendix 1. Thus, the addition of the small-quantities of radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should have a negligible irtpact on public health or environmental quality. ;
Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will .
likely be slightly reduced. These include the risks inherent in l transportation (radiological and non-radiological), the fire or leakage: I i
hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the impacts from i toxic constituents depending on the specific equipment and controls 'used and the status of EPA regulations intended to control _these impacts.- - U Before presenting the industry cost estimates, it should be noted that
~
there is no accurate way to determine the total industry's-potential _ savings, ,
since each licensee's particular situation is different, and it is not known-
--how many plants will take advantage of the rule.
3 1
A licensee's implementation costs decrease if it decides to.take :
advantage of the. rule, because it saves'the. cost of having to prepare a
~
license. amendment. It is estimated that a typical, uncomplicated technical
- specification change costs a licensee about $18,000. (This and all other j
values are in 1988 dollars.)- (Cf. Abstract 2.2.1, " Generic-Cost-Estimates,"
- NUREG/CR-4627 Rev. 1, 1989.)
As to-operating costs, one licensee had estimated that it could save somewhere between 53,300'and 512,600 per year by incinerating its_ waste _ oi_l: as 8
ENCLOSURE .
9-d- 5 w ,. e +. .
t opposed to burying it.- These costs were based upon values of- 220 to 825 gallons of waste oil disposal per year, with the per gallon cost being about
$15.
The solidification method assumed in this estimate was more cost-effective than that used in the original estimates of the petitioners in 1983 in that it involved lower volume increases. The petitioners' estimates of disposal custs saved were $15-30/ gal. The actual cost for an individual licensee will depend on the solidification method used, labor rates, distance to the LLW burial ground, and burial fees. The escalating -costs of burial including the additions of surcharges could cause significant-increases in the cost of disposal at a LLW burial facility thus resulting in increasos'in potential savings from incinerating waste oil. If we assume $15/ gal as.the minimum amount saved and assume (baseu on the Brookhaven Natioral Laboratory report) that an average PWR plant produces about 1000 gallons;of_ slightly-contaminated waste _ oil per year, its corresponding savings would be at least
$15,000 per year.' If an average remaining life of 30 years'is assumed, along with a 5 percent annual real discount rate, ~a PWR's lifetime savings'
- would be $231,000. If the 518,000 amendment cost savings are-included, the total savings would be about $250,000 per PWR.
With respect to a BWR, the range of waste oil produced i., estimated at 3500 to 5000 gallons per year. Again, using similar assumptions, the annual savings range from $52,500 to $75,000, with the discounted operating lifetime
- The estimates for cost savings-in this section assume the volumes of-waste-oil generated as estimated in;the Brookhaven report (NUREG/CR-4730).-
Other data _(referenced in foot _ note 1) suggest higher typical volumes. 'If
- those volumes-are more representative, savings in disposal costs would be:
proportionately greater.
9 i
ENCLOSURE 2 L
i
a.
savings ranging from $808,500 to 51,155,000. When the implementation cost savings are included, the totals become 5826,500 to $1,173,000 per BWR..
Because of a change in [PA regulations governing'the detection of toxic constituents (55 FR 11798; March 29, 1990), a larger portion of waste. oil may be classified as hazardous waste and, if radioactively contaminated, as mired waste. -This rule would allow incineration for all waste oils without affecting the applicability of other federal, State, or local requirements.
epa regulations governing hazardous waste and used oil recycle and disposal ;
are complex and have been undergoing change as this rule was developed. This- [
introduces cost impacts on the various alternatives which the Commission !
.)
cannot adequately assess.
Again, because of each plant's individual situation, and the fact that >
this rule is only an option, the estimates of disposal cost savings are only illustrative. With respect to other potential industry operating costs, a licensee will need to provide the NRC with changes to the-Offsite Dose.
Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures whether the :
licensee makes use of the rule, or applies for a. license amendment to incinerate the waste oil; therefore, these costs will be the same in both- -
cases and do not need to be included in this analysis. A key point which. _!
icannot be overlooked, however, is that permitting use of this alternative-disposal option could conserve limited low-level burial ground space.
] '
This rule will also reduce flRC's potential workload in-processing individual requests for specific license amendments to permit incinerationk L The estimated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated, technical specification '!
change ls Sil.000. :(Cf. Abstract 5.1, " General Cost Estimates,"
r I
10
. ENCLOSURE 2 ';
J' -
__ ._ ..._ mm . . _ _ a_. . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ .
fWR[G/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.) further, as noted above, the llRC is to receive modifications or additions to the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate the waste oil through use of the rule or a license amendment. llence the only dif ference in the flRC's cost is $11,000 saved per licensee under the rule.
Because the rule allows a licensee to adopt a potentially more cost- and risk-effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining
- existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action is positive.
- 5. [Mrision Ranog h The Commission has yet to determine what action should be taken in regard to a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes and a decision in this area is not ex;,ected for some time, llowever, a decision on a dose criterion need not be part of this action. A simpler rule change can provide more timely relief from the costs of disposal of contaminated waste oil. The incineration of waste oil onsite will not add significantly to the environmental impacts of reactor operations, may in f act be environmentally preferable, and could result in savings in disposal ccsts and preservation of LLWB site capacity.
- 6) Lmpiemenialian a) Schedule for implementation The final rule will be effective 30 days af ter publication in the Federal Reaister.
11 Ef1 CLOSURE 2
.i 1
Lj Relationship to Other Existing ar_ Proposed Requirements -"
b)
- Rule could be superseded by future act* ions on generic waste exemptions. >
f 1
t
, t I
' i e?
I E
e
.)
.i
- u e
g~
12:
ENCLOSURE 2i Q .
,g ,. v u -
% ~
?
. - =
m..h _ _
g- -
c 4
m ,
.e k .
.. s
?;
_m DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l l
The Nuclear Regulaory Commission has-sent tolthe Office-'of the Federal' t
Register for publication the enclosed final : amendment' to the Commission's1 ;
. .l rules in 10 CFR Part 20. The. amendment allows nuclear power reactor' licensees-to incinerate, onsite, slightly contaminated waste oils without the need for a=
specific license amendmant. These operations will_ be: subject toicontinued; compliance with existing overall' plant discharge limits. Thus,-this.act_ ion:
does not constitute a oelow regulatory concern"- actio_n. The-intent of the' t:
rule is to provide a potentially cost-effective >and environmentally soundi method for disposal of this category of waste other than burial-'at-. a licensed-low-level waste ' disposal _ site. This rule was initiated in response to_a .-
petition ft- s, a+1ng (PRM;20-15) submitted by the. Edis'on Electric? Institute i
and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group, ej p Sincerely,-
q Dennis Rathbun, Director . - i Office of Congressional _ Affairs J J
Enclosure:
As stated'
- 1 ENCLOSURE:3 !
_- % . hi
A ;
+3 a
F
-ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTLANDFlhDiHGOF.N0SIGNIFICANTTIMPACTL ]
AMENDMENT 10 10 CFR 20.305 and 20.2004
.DlSP0 SAL OF WAST Y INCINEPATION; l o
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending-its regulations- to allow' power ,
reactor licensees to incinerate contaminatec' waste oil'onsito without: ;
obtaining the specific approval o the Commission through a license amendment. , .
I Environmental Assessment-
' Identification of Action-a Present ii 20.305 and 20.2004 forbid the incineration of any licensed material, except that specifically exempted-by 6 6-'20.306 and 20.-200!y, without t the specific approval of the Commission. This action amends ss 20.305 and .
20.2004 to. allow power reactor licens'ees toLincinerate.slightly contaminated -
waste -ail onsite .<ithout prior ' approval . It does not exempt thel effluents from-this process from the requirements established undersPart 20 and~ Part :50, in particular, effluent limits and effluent monitoring and reporting.'-
Need for the' Action The< Edison Electric' Institute and-the Utility Nuclear! aste W Management Group:
petitioned-the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to 1nitiate: rule-making' to' define a level .of radioactivity in power-reactor-gene' rated ' waste 1
ENCLOSURE _4 e,
4 oils that would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material content. Previously, the only generically approved method of disposal for lcw-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involved solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transportation to and burial at a licensed disposal site, The cost of this type of disposal is significant, while the concentrations of contaminants are quite low, Several power reactor licensees have requested and been granted amendments to their licenses to allow onsite incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil. Others have been interested in doing so.
Environmental Impacts of the Action The primary impact of this rulemaking is to reduce the administrative effort involved in the application for and issuance of amendments to power reactor licenses to allow incineration of waste oil. However, easing these requirements may result in greater amounts of waste oil being incinerated 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" (NUREG/CR-4730, January 1987). The amounts and concentrations vary considerably from plant to plant and even from year to -
year at a given plant. The volumes reported were approximately 1000 gal / year l 2
ENCLOSURE 4
m a
at a PWR and up to 5000 gal / year at a' BWR. Since publication of the- proposed rule,' the Electric- Power .Research ~ Institute (EPRI) has published -another:
report estimating annual per reactor production-at- approximately 1000 8
gallons more than these previous reports, in eddition,-some utilities have large quantities in storage on site. Concentrations of radioactive contaminants are typically 10 to 10" pCi/ml but can be asf high as:10-' Ci/ml in some cases. Total activity per reactor per year is estimated _to average about 10" Ci. The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54,'Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137. Others reported include Sr-90, Cd-109, Zn-65, and Zr-95. It appears that -the bulk of the waste oil generated, in terms of volume, could.be incinerated with resultant individual doses of less than 1 mrem /yr Licensees'- ,
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 rem / year. ;This action' modifies the restriction-against incineration without prior approval contained ~'in 15 20.305 and 20.2004 to make an exception for waste-~ oil at= power reactor-sites; however,'it does not exempt the resulting effluents from-the -
requirements of Part 20, 5 50,36a, and Appendix I of'Part 50, These limiting. .
conditions for opr. ration 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 kept within existing i
'Below Regulatory Concern Owaers Group: Nonradiological Characterization :
L and Environmental Assessment of BRC Waste, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-
.5674, February 1989.
3-ENCLOSURE 4
- 7 'y
F a 1
limits ~ for total dose! from nuclear power plantieffluents.which have been-
- determined to satisfy the "as low-as isl reasonably achievable" criterion, i
i 1q Impacts from the toxic ' constituents of used oil may be minimized by onsite. l
'l
. incineration and in any case the impacts from toxic emissions =are estimated to j be insignificant. (See discussion under " Alternatives to the_ Action.")?
Potentially, this action might result in reduced storage of_-waste oil!onsite -
thus reducing the associated fire hazard. Also, risks inherent in- i transportation will be reduced from those associated with the previously
-I available disposal option of burial at LLW-disposal . sites. Incineration will not require significant quantities of materials, water, orLenergy and in:some-cases may involve the recovery of energy, e.g., when:the oil is burned in an auxiliary boiler.
Based on these considerations, this action will not result in a'significant effect on the-quality of the human enviionment.
Alternatives to'the Action As required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(E)), possible-alternatives to the action have been considered. One alternative considered was to defer-any action until decisions are made regarding generic BRC rulemaking. However, in keeping with an ongoing Commission moratorium, action on any waste exemption rulemaking has been deferred. It_is apparent that_the cost -to' licensees to solidify or immobilize, package, transport, and bury-contaminated waste oil at' licensed disposal sites is not iustified based on the very limited doses from-incineration and the fact that other environmental 4
ENCLOSURE 4-o
t.:
impacts,-ifianything, will'likely bel reduced. ! Waste- oil thatL is ~ alsoi classified as hazardous. waste cannot be sent to low level waste 1 burial: grounds but-may be a candidata for incineration subject to evolving EPA regulations.-
. governing burning-of used oil. It is more cost-effective to allow the" incineratiun through rulemaking rather than. to: continue processingj- 7 applications for license amendment. For:these reasons, this action should be'-
- taken rather than delay. the relief any further.
Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of.what the petitioners originally requested. However, to- allow licensees to use methods -
other than onsite incineration would require both more complete information-
~
and analysis concerning the impacts of-using those methods than was submitted by tho' petitioners, and an NRC-decision on a dose criterion for waste oil.
disposal.
Controlled incineration onsite has-been demonstrated to'be an 4 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 -
1]
preferable to the other= proposed alternatives. Although used' oil destined for disposal is not listed as a federal' hazardous , waste, it can contain a significant amount of toxic s.ubstances. consisting of various organic compounds
-and metals. Although-there may be some environmental impact from the toxic-nature of used oil .for any-disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site is l_ikely to minimize ~these effects and is preferred by the EPA over larid disposal generally. Also, EPA is in the process of developing regulations _to-control _the impact of disposal and recycle-of used oil. Even with no j
particular controls in place, the organic compounds are largely destroyed by l I
4
-the incineration process. As much as half or'more of the metals may be
-y 5
ENCLOSURE 4- 1
, J ,, - ,
-a released,' but,1 for .the-~ quantities. and circumstances of oil ~ burned under- thisi rule, concentrations to_which the'public may be exposed are-not expected to be significant. :Incinerationiat a controlled site assures that1the disposal of
~
-the ash residue.can be c.ont_ rolled appropriately considering both its radio -
logic 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 with-thE total" quantity of'
- used oil disposed. All power plants in total produce on the order of 300,000 gallons / year of such used oil. (The EPRI document cited above
- estimated
-50,000 cubic. feet / year, or 370,000 gallons per year,: generated from-all existing plants as well as those under construction,)- Nationally, vehicle maintenance produces about.700 million gallons / year of used oil- and industrial use approximately 400 million gallons / year.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
~
Further consultation has been made with the petitioners (PRM-2'0-15) 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.;
6 ENCLOSURE 4 1
L. - .-.
.- .5
4 Finding cf No Significant Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that this amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration.of slightly contaminated waste oil by power reactor licensees onsite will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not requir ed. 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,"
0 1
7 ENCLOSURE 4
m u y;
_ D_R.A, R FT PUBLIC ' ANN 00NCEMENT NRC TO PERMIT ON-SITE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE OILS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES' j
~
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations;to permit-I the on-site incineration of waste oils used in nuclearJplants and_ contaminated with- very small amounts of radioactive materials.
~
Previously, utility operators of nuclear power plants: have disposed of:
contaminated waste oils at low-level radioactive waste _ disposal facilities.
In a few cases, ~ licenses authorizing operation of the facility were j specifically amended by the NRC staff to permit on-site incineration. d This. action is-being.taken. in partial response to a July 1984_ petition l for rulemaking submitted by the Edison Electric' Institute and the. Utility g Nuclear-Waste Management Group.
l As amended, the regulations will permit the on-site incineration of.
waste oils--petroleum derived or synthetic -oils.used principally: as lubricants, coolants, hydraulic or insulating fluids or metalworking oils- - !
that have been contaminated with small amounts of radioactive materials tin thei U course'of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
l.
ENCLOSURE 5- !
E l
c
~
lE ,
S e Releases of radioactive:cffluents,_ including those from waste-oil-incineration,-;are limited to "as-low-as-reasonably-achievable" levels 1already _.-
specified in Appendix 1 to.Part.50-of the Commissions regulations.- In:-
- addition,-a generic assessment prepared for the staff shows-that the -
environmental impacts of waste' oil incineration will be minimal. -
l The amendment' to Part 20 of the 11RC's regulations' will- bec'ome effective ,)
n.
- on (date),
s 4
2 EllCLOSUREc5:- ,
L -
/\C. H -L ACTION < 3eckjord. RES
[ %, ' UNITED STATES CyS:- Taylor. Blaha 4
y% 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sniezek McGuire.
-s. ; *E W ASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20555 ThompSonJiattSen
$i' -IN RESPONSE, PLEASE_ DMeyer
- [ November 2, 1992 REFER TO
- M921027 BShelto
% * .V..*
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor ,-
Executive Director for Ope <tions FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF}RM TION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 10:30 A.M., TUESDhY, OCTOBER 27, 1992, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN
- TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
\
I. SECY-92-208 - Final Rule. 10 CFR Part 20. " Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration" - Resnonse to Petition for Rulemaking from Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Manaaement Groun The Commission, by a-5-0*' vote, approved the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 20. The changes in the October 15, 1992, memo to the Secretary and the attached edits to the Regulatory Analysis should be incorporated into the rulemaking package. 'The staff should review the recently enacted Energy Legislation and_ ensure that there is nothing in the rule, the Statements of Consideration, the supporting regulatory analysis, or the environmental assessment, which conflicts with the new law.
The FRN should-be reviewed by the Regulatory Publications Branch, ADM, and forwarded for signature and publication.
-(-Bee) (RES) (SECY Suspense: 11/30/92) 8700086 II. SECY-92-323 - Final Rule on " Licenses and Radiation Safety Reculrements for Irradiators" The Commission, by a 5-0* vote, approved a new Part 36 which establishes safety and licensing requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in irradiators. The-regulations apply to panoramic irradiators and underwater irradiators.-
- Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. .55841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a
" majority vote of the members present." Commissioners-Rogers and Remick were not present when this item was affirmed.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision. Commissioners Rogers and Remick, however, had previously indicated that they would approve this paper and had' they been present they would have affirmed their prior votes.
g gT04 Q g,
a-
,=
J, ,
The Federal Register Notice and-supporting analysis-should be
~ revised to include the editorial changes contained in the attached comments from Commissioners.
The FRN should be reviewed by the Regulatory Pub 1'ications' Branch, ADM, and returned for signature 'diid publication. ~'
(EDo) (RES) (SECY Suspense: 11/30/92) 8800065. '
Attachments:
As stated
\
cci' The Chairman
- Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC PDR - Advance i DCS - P1-24 office Directors, Regions (via E-Mail)
OF, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX) l
.]
4
+ 5 a
-q- 7..
, value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion on which to base concentration'11mits. The justification proposed was- primarily on a "de minimis" ba:;is; that is, simply that this level of risk is too trivial to be of concern. The term "below regulatory concern" (BRC) has sometimes been used interchangeably with "de minimis"; however, it has also been used in con-nection with exemptions from specific regulations decided on a cost-benefit basis.
It would be convenient to declare waste oil, contaminated to a i
sufficiently low level, to be of no regulatory concern, thereby allowing it to be disposable without regard to its radioactive contamination. In its BRC 2 waste policy statement (August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839), the Commission gave-sorN indication of dose levels which might be acceptable for a waste stream specific exemption. Although I millirem / year is likely to be' acceptable (based on the discussion of decision criterion 2 in the staff implementation plan accompanying the NRC policy statement), the petitioners have not supplied sufficient information to allow a specific waste stream *below regulatory concern" determination to be made. Also,. the Commission has deferred taking any' actions to exempt wastes from regulatory control.
In responding to this petition, there were three basic alternative courses of action which could have been taken: to dcny the petition, to defer.
\
action on the petition, or to initiate the rulemaking process. The staff does-l l not believe that a categorical dismissal of this petition is consistent with F- eithe the spirit of Commission policy set forth in 10 CFR Part 61 (and ~
reaffirmed in NRC's BRC waste policy statement published on August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839) or the need to ensure effective use of licensed low-level waste
, disposal capacity. _
+ e pl ekt u reL.e L < W h a m e.:Jed A d raje of a4efe ol/ e, - 3,i' ENCLOSURE 2 i
L . . ,. W; .
l .
' (See policy statement,10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B, published on August 29, 1986.)
- 4. fonseauq_nqn This ruls, which allows utilities the option of disposing of waste oil by onsite incineration, has the potential to affect several attributes,.but only a few significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." This a.ction allows utilities an alternative for the disposal of. waste oil while not r
allowing any change in the existing limits of radiation exposure to the public. There also would be no significant change in r blic health nor occupational exposures. If anything, the decreased risk from no longer transporting the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in decreased exposures.
The efficiency results in two ways. First, the utilities will not have-to dispose of the waste oil in licensed land burials, but may incinerate it onsite if they so desire, i.e., if it is to their economic advantage to do so.
Second, those utilities which want to incinerate the waste oil will not have to apply for a license amendment. Savings could also accrue to both industry and the NRC in their implementation and operation costs as.a result of the:
above. Licensees would only take advantage of this rule if it was in their' best economic interest, i.e., with savings resulting to them. The NRC will save by issuing the rule as opposed to handling each license amendment sepa-rately.
Information provided by the petitioners and in a Brookhaven National Laboratory Report, " Evaluation of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead,
)
6 l ENCLOSURE 2
. (-
[n c, a s4 cc Wek 4 .s ' . sy, c
, In fact, those licensees who have incinerated waste oil vedu .5 amendment to their license have kept these effluents to 0.1 percent of their technical specifications for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this rulemaking, the effluents from the incineration of waste oil would be acccunted for under existing operating limits contained in Sart 50, Appendix 1. Thus, the addition of the small quantities of radioactive material present in waste oil to normal plant effluents should have a negligible impact on public health or environmental quality.
Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will likely be sligntly reduced. These include the risks inherent in transportation (radiological and non-radiological), the fire or leakage hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the impacts from toxic constituents depending on the specific equipment and controls used and the status of EPA regulations intended to. control these impacts.
Before presenting the industry cost estimates, it should be noted that' there is no accurate way to determine the total industry's potential savings, ;
since each licensee's particular situation is different, and it is not known how many plants will takt advantage of the rule.
A licentee's implementation costs decrease if it decides to take advantage of the rule, because it saves the cost of having to prepare a license amendment. It is estimated that a typical, uncomplicated technical specification change costs a licensee about $18,000. (This.and all other ,
values are in 1988 dollars.) (Cf. Abstract 2.2.1, Generic Cost Estimates,"
NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.)
As to operating costs, one licensee had estimated that it could save somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating its waste oil as 8
l ENCLOSURE 2 l
l l