ML20128C514
| ML20128C514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/21/1991 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B192 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR57649, RULE-PR-20 AC14-2-038, AC14-2-38, NUDOCS 9302040046 | |
| Download: ML20128C514 (91) | |
Text
- _ _ _
AC.W-2.
h%
?-
~' %
si UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PDR O'$ T o [ W ASHINGToN. D.C. 20555
%, ...../
MAR 211991 NOTE FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards & Operational Support, EDO FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory '
Research
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WASTE OIL AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Enclosed is the revised final rule package on waste oil incineration which I believe responds to your concerns expressed at the meeting of October 25th, between you and my staff.
The issues which you wanted addressed were:
- 1. More information included in the Commission paper concerning whether the experience of licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil onsite demonstrated that the doses resulting from incineration of waste oil are likely to be a small fraction of the overall dose limit.
- 2. Discussion in the Commission paper of the advantages of the approach of the rule over making a separate BRC type limit, either in terms of dose or concentration, for waste oil incineration.
- 3. Changing the paper from a negative consent to a notation vote format.
You were also interested in EPA comments, our reaction to them, and the possibility of obtaining further support from EPA.
When more information was obtained from licensees authorized to incinerate waste oil through the project managers, another concern came to light. It involves the detection ~ capability used to analyze waste oil for contamination and thus the level at which oil would be classified as nonradioactive. NRR end the Regions had become aware of particular licensees' inappropriate use of effluent LLD's (lower limits of detection) for this purpose rather than environmental LLD's and responded to those individual cases. This could cause greater quantities of oil to be classified as contaminated, making the potential relief provided by this rule greater. A discussion of the experience of licensees incinerating waste oil and the use of effluent LLD's has been added to the Commission paper in an appendix.
Also, included in this appendix is a discussion of the advantages of this rule's approach over e separate limit for waste oil. This has been done in the context of an explicit response to the Commission request to review 9302040046 930129 PDR PR 20 57FR57649 PDR
r NAR 21 N91 2
PRM-20-15 (to whic this rule originally responded) after the publication of the BRC policy. Some comments concerning what distinguishes this rule from BRC are also included. The Connission paper has been changed so that it can be sent as a notation vote with the Federal Register notice (FRN) also changed to a SECY sigriature, in regard to EPA comments on the proposed rule, a copy is enclosed for your records. In the analysis of comments in the FRN, the EPA comments are identified.
Since the connents consisted only of clarifying a couple of points with regard to EPA regulations, no further discussion has been added to the Commission paper.
With regard to the first EPA comment concerning regulations that might be applicable under RCRA, the FRN cautions licensees concerning such requirements but declines to enumerate them because of their complexity and evolving nature. Mentioning specifics could open the Connission up to criticism if something were omitted. In regard to the second comment concerning the Clean Air Act requirements, the EPA has recently decided to issue a proposal to rescind subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 as it applies to nuclear power reactors as well as stay the effectiveness of subpart I for nuclear power reactors during the rulemaking process. This intent was expressed in an FRN on February 15, 1991 (enclosed). Since the releases from incineration of waste oil allowed by this rule inust be accounted against existing limits on effluents from nuclear power plants, this rulemaking should not affect EPA's determination that the regulatory program established by NRC for nuclear power plant effluents provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.
Contact has been maintained with EPA to assure that we are current on EPA actions taken to date. Based on the responses above and the status of EP/
activities, the staff believes that no further comment or support from EPA is necessary.
Oes # b Eric S. Bec,j r , Director Of 'ce of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. EPA Comments an Proposed Rule
- 3. Final Rule Package
MAR 211991 NOTE FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards & Operational Support, EDO FROM: Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ~
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO ALLOW ONSITE INCINERATION OF SLIGHTLY CONTAMINATED WAST- OIL AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Enclosed is the revised final rule package on waste oil incineration which !
believe responds to your concerns exprested at the meeting of October 25th, between you and my staff.
The issues which you wanted addressed were:
- 1. More information included in the Commission paper concerning whether the experience of licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil onsite demonstrated that the doses resulting from incineration of waste oil are likely to be a small fraction of the overall dose limit.
- 2. Discussion in the Commission paper of the advantages of the approach of the rule over making a separate BRC type limit, either in terms of dose or concentration, for waste oil incineration.
- 3. Changing the paper from a negative consent to a notation vote format.
You were also interested in EPA comments, our reaction to them, and the possibility of obtaining further support from EPA.
When more information was obtained from licensees authorized to incinerate waste oil through the project managers, another concern came to light. It involves the detection
- capability used to analyze waste oil f or contamination and thus the level at which oil would be classified as nonradioactive. NRR and the Regions had become aware of particular licensees' inappropriate use of effluent LLD's (lower limits of detection) for this purpose rather than environmental LLD's and responded to those individual cases. This could cause greater quantities of oil to be classified as contaminated, making the potential relief provided by this rule greater. A discussion of the experience of licensees incinerating waste oil and the use of effluent LLD's-has been added tu the Commission paper in an appendix.
Also, included in this appendix is a discussion of the advantages of this rule's approach over a separate limit for waste oil. This has been done in the context of an explicit response to the Commission request to review
IU$ 21597 2
1 PRM-20-15 (to which this rule originally responded) after the publication of the BRC policy. Some conments concerning what distinguishes this rule from BRC are also included. The Commission paper has been changed so that it can be sent as a notation vote with the Federal Register notice (FRN) also changed to a SECY signature.
In regard to EPA comments on the proposed rule, a copy is enclosed for your records. In the analysis of comments in the FRN, the EPA comments are identified.
Since the comments consisted only of clarifying a couple of points with regard to EPA regulations, no further discussion has been added to the Commission paper.
With regard to the first EPA cocment concerning regulations that might be applicable under RCRA, the FRN cautions licensees concerning such requirements but declines to enumerate them because of their complexity and evolving nature. Mentioning specifics could open the Concission up to criticism if something were omitted. In regard to the second comment concerning the Clean Air Act requirements, the EPA has recently decided to issue a proposal to rescina subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 as it applies to nuclear power reactors as well as stay the effectiveness of subpart I for nuclear power reactors during the rulemaking process. This intent was expressed in an FRN on February 15, 1991 (enclosed). Since the releases from incineration of waste oil allowed by this rule must be accounted against existing limits on effluents from nuclear power plants, this rulemaking should not affect EPA's determination that the regulatory program established by NRC for nuclear power plant effluents provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.
Contact has been maintained with EPA to assure that we are current on EPA actions taken to date. Based on the responses above and the status of EPA activities, the staff believes that no further comment or support from EPA is necessary.
_0.riginal Signed By:
492 C h c o Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. EPA Comments on Proposed Rule
- 3. Final Rule Package See next page for Distribution CW OFFC:RPHEB:DRA RPHLB:DRA R
-D A DD:DRA [ D:DRA M n DD RES D NAME:CMattsen:dm:lb RMeck D NCostanzi BMorris CJ emes E Jor DATE:1 /r!/91 J ////91 3 /N /91 y/px/91 * / 4 /91 $3 91
") /91 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
MAR 211991 3
DISTRIBUTION HLTHOMPSON/ESBECKJORD RPHEB R/F - 0C001 Cir./Chron EBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris NCostanzi
- RMeck CMattsen m
-.s
<g.
United States External A!! arts (A 100AEi (
-r gg <
Environrnentat Protection Washington DC 2040 - --
Ag:ncy 6 3 F 4 3'I h O Federal Activites ,
6-i h ,
'88 NOV -4 A9 :57 OCT 21 1988 '
. .r . 3 .
. Mr. ' Samuel J. Chilk OUChi ,, ,
Secretary of the Commission " " #
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch .
Dear Mr. Chilk:
In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S.
Environtnental Protection Agency has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission's proposed rule for the Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration (53 FR 32914). We recosnend that NRC clarif y two matters that relate to EPA's programs.
First, the incineration-of waste oil may require a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If the oil exhibits a l
hazardous characteristic and is treated by incineration, 40 CFR 264 applies. If the waste oil is burned f or energy recovery, 40 CFR 266 applies. Some states have listed waste oil as a hazardous waste, and, in those states, a RCRA permit to incinerate waste oil must be obtained by NRC's licensees. Further, the ash af ter incineration needs to be monitored for heavy metals, such as cadmium and arsenic, to determine whether the ash is also subject to regulation under RCRA because of a hazardous waste charsicteristic.
Second, NRC's licensees must obtain approval f or the release of airborne radionuclides in compliance with the Clean Air Act. These regulations are f ound at 40 CFR 61. The NRC notice and proposed rule should be modified to reflect the need for an EPA approval to construct or modif y the f acility f or the air emissions of radionuclides.
Both of these potential permit issues should be discussed in NRC's Final Notice and Rule. If we may be of further assistance to the Commission staf f, please contact Dr. W. Alexander Williams (382-5909) of
! my staff.
Sincerely,,
/
!*'RichardE.Sanderson Director Office of Federal Activities
- 0 0 h Y . " ~ '- ~ ~' ~
l
- Federal Reglater f Vol.'50, No.'32 / Friday. February 15,1991 [ Proposed Rules - 12G339 -
,f g et _
_ support alternative proposals relating to ' ' modifications concerning the definition ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION '
_ spoil disposalinvolving multiple scam of bench control systems, down slope . AGENCY mining operations in steep slope areas and prospecting; the design, M und the construction of diversion construction, certification, inspection 40 CFR PART 61 /?
channels across excess spoil disposal and abandonment of sediment control = g m .3,o3_gj N fills. -
-- - ~ * *
- 2 On August 7,1990, OSM published a- ' ' structures and permanentimpoundment's; the compi lo i of H.itional Emission Stankds for ~
I i notice in the Federal Register soliciting reclamation: the gravity transport of _ Hazardous Air Pollutanta public comments on the Stat.e s spoil on steep slope multiple-seam proposed amendment of June 29,1990,i mining opersuons; the construction of ActNcy: Environmental Protection. j ,
determine whether the modifications ^8'"CY' were no less effecuve than the Fi detal -
diversion channels to divert run+ff from areas above and adjacent to both valley Acmc Ncuce of proposed rule. '.'1
+
i regulations and no less stringent than fills constructed with rock coro chimney '
SMCRA (55 FR 32102-32103).%e public suenasAsm Today EPA proposes to stay ,
drains and durable rock fills;the the effectiveness of subpart I of 40 CFR I comment period closed on September 6 "
1990 (Administrative Record No.WV, construction of under drains in durable part 61, the National Emission ,
rock fills; the construction and Standards forllazardous Air Pollutar',, - 3 -J 850). %e pubtle hearing scheduled for August 27,1990, was not held because maintenance of coal refuse disposal for Radionuclide Emissions (54 FR 51054. Lt no one requested an opportunity to sites; and the slope design requirements December 15,1989) as applied to NRC- :j6 testify, for coal refuse disposal sites, licensed facillues other than nuclear -
Dy letter dated October 11,1990 OSM power reactors,In a future related .
4
-Hl. PuWc Commed Pmmdums ection, EPA intends to propose to )p notified the State that certain proposed revisions contained in its June 29,1990, in accordance with the provisions of rescind subpart I as it is applied to @' '
submission were found to be less 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is reopening the nuclar power reactors and te stay {'
effective than the Federal requirements comment period on West Virginia's subpart I for those facilities during the (Administrauve Record No,WV 854). At revised program amendment to provide pendency of that rulemaking.%ese h the State's request, OSM delayed final the public an opportunity to reconsider actions would supplant for such d rulemaking on its June 29,1990, facillues the stay originally granted by ~ ;d the adequacy of the revblons.
7 s
amendment to allow West Virg, inia an Specifically, OSM is seeking comments the Administrator pursuant to Clean Air #
opportunity to submit revised on the revisions to the State's Surface Act section 307(d)(7)(B),42 U.S.C. K m cadons, Mining Reclamation Regulations, title 7007(d)(7)(B), and subsequently extended on March 15,1990 (55 FR a
,1 On November 16,1990. OSM provided
' 38, Series 2, that were submitted on 10455, March 21,1990), July 122,1990 (55 3 the State comments concerning its proposed steep slope, multiple-seam December 17.1990 (Administrative FR 29205, July 18,1990), and September 4 Record No. WV 857). OSM is seeking 10,1990. (55 FR 3a057, September 17, mining requirements (Administrative comments on whether the revised Record No. WV 654A). %is letter was a 1990)'
follow-up to OSM's initiallasue letter of proposed amendment satisfies the E s y 3
j October 11.1990, and contained applicable program approval criteria of A EjE08sb g y recommendations which,if adopted, 30 CFR 732.15. If approved, the 61 for all NRC-licensed facilities except , '
would make the proposed State rules no amendment willbecome part of the for nuclear power reactors from March +
less effective than the Federal West Virginia permanent regulatory 9,1991 until November 15,1992, or until rj P8 such earlier date that EPA is prepared to e er ated November 30,1990, the make an initial deternunation under
}
Division of Energy acknowledged Written Comment.s receipt of OSM's issue letters of October Written comments should be specific, ncfu e i recon der io u r ,
pertain only to the issues pmposed in section 307(d)(7)(D). Comments e uested t a a ceti y scheduled s m ma ga e c naming the pmposed stay must be for Deccmber 6,1990, to discuss OSM e anau ns in support of the received by EPA on or before February concerns (Administrative Record No, c mmenter a recommendations. 22,1991. A hearing concerning the WV 850). As requested, a meeting was proposal will be held in Washington, DC Comments received after the time held on December 6,1990, The primary on February 25,19911f a request for topic of discussion was OSM's issue indicated under " DATES" or at 1 cations other than the OSM such a hearing is received by February .
letter of November 10,1990. relating to* 21,1991. For the location of the hearing.
multiple-seam mining. Charleston Field Office will not necessarily be considered in the fmal please contact Al Colli at (703) 30k8787, Dy letter dated December 17,1990, West Virginia submitted revisions to its rulemaking or included in the AcontSSES: Comments should be initial program amendment of June 29, Administrative Record. submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section IL131. ..
1990 ( Administrative Record No. WV 11st of Subjects in 30 CIlR I, art M8 Enviromental Protection Agency, Attn:
357). In addition, the State advised OSM that the proposed rules were being Coal mining, Intergovernmental Docket No. A-70-11, Washington. DC submitted to the West Virginia relations, Surface mining. Underground 20460. Requests to participate in the 1.cgislature for approval as final s is. mining. hearing should be made in writing to the and, given the late date, promulgation of Director, Criteria and Standards Dated: Fet ruary 5. wn. Divbion. ANR-400W, Environmental the proposed modifications as emergency regulations would be Carl C. Cbe, protection Agency,401 M Street. SW ,
problematic resulting in confusion und Assirtant Director. Eastern Su;;;wl Center. Washington, DC 20400. Comments and possible complication of the legislative [m Doc. 91-309: Filed 2-14-st: 8.45 aml requests to participate in the hearing rulemaking process. The nevised a m .ccoog m m , may also be faxed to the epa at (703) '
proposed amendment contai s 30 & 6703-s i@ i
6340 . federal Regisk r / Vol. 50, No. 32 / Friday l February 15, L 3ti91 / Proposed Rules : o p*
Fon runTHta euroHM AT60W COMACT frorn any category or subcategory of facibties type of facility affords an ample margin ' _g Environmental Standards licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory , of safety under section 112 of the Clean : (
^Branch Al Colli' Criteria and Standards CornmissioMor Division en Agrewnt sta@s Air Act, EPA win canclude its ,_
(ANR 500W), Office of Radiation ' reqired to be promulgated under this section reconsideration and propose to rescind if the Administrator detrmines,by rule, and a Programs, Environmental Protection subpart I as it applies to that type of after consuttation with the Nuclear t
- Agency, Washington. DC 2010a, (703) . I(egulatory Commission, that the regulatory fac lity* if EPA determines that retention . ~~i mS77, prograrn estataished by the Nuclear of subpart Iis required to afford an !
a itegulatnry Ccmmission pursuant to the ample margin of safety for a particular i
. suePLEMENT ARY INFOnMaTIOsc . Atomic Energy Act for such category or type cf NRC licensee, EPA will conclude subcategory provides an ample margin of the reconsideration by dissolving the A. Dad ground safety to protect the public health- stay and permitting the standard to take On October 31.1969, EPA For certain categories of NftC-licensed effect as it applies to that type of promulgated under section 112 of the facihties EPA is concerned that the facility.
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7412. National information presently avsilable to EPA EPA notes that section112(q)(4)of the Emission Standards forllazardous Air may not be adequate to enable the Clean Air Act Amendments also stays Pollutants (NESilAPe) controllin8 Agency to determine whether or not the the applicability of subpart I as applied radionuclide emissions to the ambient regulatory prugram established by NRC to facilitica engaged in medical research air from several source categories, is sufficient to provide "an ample margin or treatment. This Congressionally including emissions from l.icensees of of safety to protect the public health." as mandated stay will expire in November .
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that term is used in section 112 of the 1992, or at such time that the -
(NRC) and Non-DOE Federal Facilities Clean Air Act. . Administrator makes a determination (subpart I,40 CFR part 01).This rule was At the time that EPA issued its most pursuatit to a rulemalcing under section -
published in the Federal Register on recent stay of subpart 1. EPA anticipated 112(d)(9).
Decernber 15,1989 (54 FR 51654). At the that a review of the comments received npA invites comments concerning the same time as the rule was promulgated, during the comment pen'od for proposed stay of the effectiveness of EPA granted mconsideration of subpart reconsideration would yield sufficient subpart1. and specifically secks I based on information received late in emissions information to enable the the rulemaking on the subject of comment on theissue of whether or not Agency to detennine those NRC- EPA has sufficient substantive duplicative regulation by NRC and EPA licensed facilities (if any) for which and on potential negative effects of the information to make the determination additional regulation under subpart I is concerning NRC-licensed facilities standard on wter medicine. EPA necessary to provkle an ample margin of contemplated by acction 112(d)(9).
established a comment period to receive ' safety.110 wever, after reviewing the further information ou these subjects. Information received during the C. Facilities Not Affected By the -
and also granted a 90-day stay on comment period for reconsideration, Proposed Stay '
subpart I as permitted by Clean Air Act EPA has concluded that there still section 307(d)(7)(B) 42 U.S.C. 1. NuclearPmver Reactors remains a gap in information concerning 7607(d)(7)(B). That stay expired on certain types of NRC-licensed facilities. EPA has mceived sufficient Alarch 15,1990- EPA has also concluded that it is information concerning the health risks '
EPA sub epily extended the stay unlikely that the required information from nuclear power reactors and NRC's 3-of the eHective date of subpart Ion can be obtained solely by soliciting regulatory program widch controls those several occasions, pursuant to the authority provided by section 10(d) of further comments from the affected.
facilities.
risks to make aninitial determinathm under section 112(d)(9) For this category
$(
h the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),5 U.S.C. 705, and section 301(a)
In addition to consultation with the NRC, EPA now believes that it is of NRC-licensed facilities. EPA intends -
to conclud. its reconsideration and ta -
of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C.7G01(a). essentialto specifically require issue a propossl to rescind subpart I as 'p (55 FR1st35, March 21.1990:55 FR -
29205, July 18,1990; and 55 FR 38057, sulunission of additionalinformmtion it applies to such facilities. EPA will also - p September 17,1990). The most recent cf from a representative subset of affected stay the effectiveness of subpart I for Y facilities pursuant to section 114 of the nuclear power reactors during the 9 these stays will expire on h! arch 9,1991. Clean Air Act.Due to tbc time required for individual facilities to compile and pendency of the rulemaking process. g B' Proposed Stay submit the regmredinformation and for ggggfg g
EPA today proposes to stay the EPA to collate andanalyza the data.
' EPA anticipates that it could take until EPA's r.econsideration of subpart I @
covered all categories of facilities 4 effectiveness of subpart I of 40 CFR part November 1902 before EPAhas - subicci to the standard, including B1 for all NRC-lclensed facilitics except - sufficient ininrmatian to make a nuclear power reactors. 'Ihis stay sisd Federal facilities not licensed by NRC determination for these facilities. EPA is and not operated byDOETaon-DOE' f((
[
will not apply to facilities not licensed by the NRC or an agreement state.'Ihis therefore proposing to stay the effectiveness of subpart I for NRC.
Federal facilities"). EPA granted g reconsideration on the Tunitedissues of -. $F partial stay of subpart Iis necessary in licensed facilities other than nuclear duplication nf effort byEPA and NRC '
order to provide the Agency time to (
collect the additionalinformation power reactors until November 15.1992, or until such earlier date that EPA is and potentialnegativeimpacts of the standard on the medical r=m"*y.
y required to make an initial fp prepared to make an initial EPA has concluded that these factors do ik determination pursuant to a new determination under Clean Air Act provision added to section 112 by the not apply to Federal facilities not M 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
section 112(d)(9) and conclude its reconsideratian undersection ..
licensed by NRC.Therefore, the determination concerning the adeqaacy- "
W New sectirm112td){9) provides.
No standard for radionuclide eesiuns 307(d)(7)[B). If EPA determines that the NRC regulatory ptogram for a particular of the NRC re2ulatory program Y
contemplated by the new language in - n k
he 9
M.-
4
Feder:1 Rey,ist:r / Vol so, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 1991 / Proposed Rules 6341 ;
tm Dated Febr ry 12.1w1. soepei ,
section 112(d](9) cannot apply to such 8' 88 "1 facihties. Accordingly, the additional ~ Waliam K Reilly. 0 stay of the effectiveness of subpgtt i Administreer, d W hu '*
- N 8
which EPA is today pmpos,mg wdl not 4 apply to non-DOE federal facilities that
[FK Dot:. Et-37c2 Filed 2-14-01; 8 45 enij
,uma coo, n% . W v'ovoi ~*
7 are not licensed by NRC. Effective --
March 9,1991, subpart I of 40 CFR part ,
et will go into effect as applied to cimarmn nw FEDERA1. EMERGENCY ^ " ""*
- l* * ***
Federal facihties not licensed by NRC MAHAGEMENT AGENCY **'eam om s nem si .e and not operated by DOE. ApptOWnate@ 1] frdeS upstream Of FederalInsurance Administration connuence of TA.y ce e in.
D. Mircellaneous now ._. 't.037 44 CFR Part 67 ,
.1. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no information collection (Docket No, FEMA-7006) C.ht.* Pud" Schauerte, *:
requirements in this proposed rule. As Adminiatrator redercl/nsurance previously discussed, the Agency Proposed Flood Elevation Adminimadog . ,h;l intends to issue section 114 letters to a Determinations IFR Doc. 91-3612 Filed 2-14-9t; 8A5 aml representative sample of facilities and AGENCv: Federal Fmergency suruocoots m s=
the appropriate documents will at that time be submitted to OMIL Management Agency.
Qj
^I
- 2. hecutive Order 12291 Action: Pmposed rule; correction. ,
Under Executive Order 12291 EPA is
SUMMARY
- This document corrects a require <g to jucg g e whether ith,s regulation notice of proposed determinations of Fish and Wildlife Service [t{ ,
is a major rule, and therefore subject base (100-year) flood elevations i, to certain requirements of the Order, The FPA has determined that issuing a previ usly published at 55 FR 48M1 on November 21,1990.This correction 50 CFR Part 17 U1 j .
stay for Subpart I will result in none of mN 10tB-AD52 j 9 the adverse economic effects set forth in notice provides a more accurate jj representation of the Flood Insurance Endangered and Threatened Wildhfe section I of the Order as grounds for finding a regulation to be a " major rule " Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map for and P%nts; Proposed Endangered fl This regulation is not major because the the Unincorporated Areas of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, Status for the Plant Xyrts tennesseensis (Tennessee Yellow-
- J nationwide compliance costs do not meet the $100 million threshold, the ron ruRTNEn INronMarioN CONTACT
regulation does not significantly Will am R. Locke, Acting Chief, Risk AcENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service. [
mcrease pnces or production costs, and Studies Division. Federal Insurance Interior.
the regulation does not cause sigmficant Administration. Fedeial Emergency Action: Proposed rule' adverse effects on domestic competition' Management Agency, Washington, DC t! "
cmployment. Investment, productivity.
SUMMARY
- The Service proposes to list a 2N72, (202) M6-2754.
innovation or competition in foreign plant Xyris tennesseensis(Tennessee markets. sumEMENTARY INFORMATION.The yellow eyed grass), as an endangered
. The Agency has not conducted a Federal Ernergency Management spec es under the authority contained in Regulatoryimpact Analysts (RIA)of this Agency gives notice of the correction to the Fndangered Species Act (Act) of proposed regulation because this action the Notice of Proposed Determinations 1973.as amended.Xyris tennesseensis does not constitute a major rule. of base (t00-year) flood elevations for is currently believed extant at only i, selected locations in the Unincorporated seven sites-five in Tennessee and one C
- 3. Regulatory FlexibilityAna/pis each in Alabama and Georgia. All sites Areas f Kingf sher Canty, Oklahoma, ,
Section 003 of the Regulatory previ usly published at 55 FR 48046 on occupy less than an acre in area. Three .
Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 003. requires November 21,1990, in accordance with populations have beenlost and four of .
EPA to prepare and make available for section 110 of the Flood Disaster the remaining populations have delined comment an " initial regulatory P tection Act of 1973 (Pub. L 93--234), in recent years from habitat flexibility analysis" which describes the 81 Stat. 930, which added section 1363 to modification associated with effect of the proposed rule on small agricultural and silvicultural uses, road business entities, I fowever, see tion the National Flood Insurance Act of.
1968 (title XIII of the ifousing and Urban construction /mamtenance, over-GM(b)of the Act provides that an collecting and succesalon.This proposed . ;
analysis not be required when the head Development Act ofl908 (Pub. L 90-4481),42 USC. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR rule,if made final, will extend the Act's l of an Agency certifies that the rule will protection to Xyris tennesseensis.The not,if promulgated, have a significant Part 07, Service seeks data and comments from economic impact on a substantial the public on this proposed rule.
IJst of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 67 number of small entities.
This proposed rule to stay 40 CFR part Flood insurance. Floodplains.. DATES: Comments from allinterested 61 subpart I. If promulgated. will have parties must be received by April 16, On page 43MU, in the November 21 1991. Public hearing requests must be the effect of easing the burdens 1990 issue of Federal Register, the entry received by Apdl1.1991.
i associated with the provisions of subpart I and for those reasons, I certify for Cimarron River under Kingfisher ADDRESSES: Comments and materials thatthis rule will not have significant County (Unincorporated Areas)in concerning the proposal should be sent economic impact on a substantial Oklahoma,is corrected to read as to the U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service. !
number of small entities. follows 0573 Dopvood View Parkway, Suite A. -
t i
e
rev. 7/30/90.
SECY~ PAPER DISTRIBUTION MEETING POLICY AFFIRMATION SECY-RULEMAKING
[ NOTATION Reviewed by ADJUDICATORY NEGATIVE CONSENT NOTE: Classified: Commissioners (1 each).
INFORMATION OGC (2), SECY (3), Central Files (1)
CLASSIFICATION CHAIRMAN CARR (2) EXECDIRFOROPERATIONS.(3) 3 COMMISSIONER (2) DEPUTYEXECDIRECTORS(2) D COMMISSIONER ROGERS (2) ADMINISTRATION (1) (2)**
COMMISSIONER CURTISS (3) CONTROLLER (3) 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK (3) IRM(3)(4)** M
'SECY (10) (30-80 FORMEETING) AE00(3) 3 DGC(12) NUC MAT SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (5) T INSPECTOR GENERAL (1) NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (17) /7 LSS ADMINISTRATOR (1) NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (17) /7 GOVERNMENTAL &PUBLICAFFAIRS(2) 0FFICEOFCONSOLIDATION(1)
CONGRESSIONALAFFAIRS(2) 0FFICE'0F ENFORCEMENT (1) /
STATEPROGRAMS(2) INVESTIGATIONS (2)-
INTERNATIONALPROGRAMS(2) 0FFICE OF PERSONNEL (1)
PUBLIC AFFAIRS (2) SDBU/CR(1)
DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (1) l REGIONAL OFFICES: (C&RBRANCH,SECY). ACRS-(16)-
RI - KING OF PRUSSIA (2) S' ACNW(6)
RII - ATLANTA (2) 2 ASLBP(2)
RIII - CHICAGO (2)
ASLAP(2)
.RIV - DALLAS (2) J RV - SAN FRAfiCISCO (2)
C
~"~~~~~~~~'~~~
..'IfRu5emaking TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES:
RETURN ORIGINAL T0:
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 PRM FROM EDISON ELECTRIC ,
INSTITUTE AND THE UTILITY 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. The incineration operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing plant discharge limits on total release of radiological effluents, established.-in -_
accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50,. Appendix'I.- The intent of the rule is to provide a potentially cost-effective and environmentally sound method for disposal for this waste stream other than burial at a licensed low-level waste disposal site. 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 established Commission policy as -
set:forth in-10 CFR 1.31(c) which delegates certain rulemaking.
authority to the: Executive Director for Operations. However, in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 12, 1986, the Commission _ indicated that rulemaking on all requests,for_-
exemptions of specific waste streams from Commission ~
regulations wil1.be subject to Commission approval ~. -Although the petitioners originally requested that radionuclide con-.-
centrations be established at which disposal of waste oil may
, be carried out without regard to_the radioactive material. con-L tent, this action is limited to allowing onsite incineration .
of waste oil under existing operating effluent limits determined-
-to be "as_ low as is reasonably achievable." Since-incineration- 4 of waste oil under this final rule would be simply an additional process'to be included in an existing. regulatory framework for--
l effluents, this final rule does-not change regulatory control
%. over the release of effluents'or required environment'al monitoring L CONTACT':
l C. Mattsen, RES 492-3638 e
The Commissioners- 2 t ,
programs. Because no.new exemption for disposal of. waste oil 11s involved, this action is-not considered a below regulatory conevn:
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 define a c.oncentration of radioactive material in 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 which constituted a--
partial granting / partial denial of th.is petition.
The rule applies to all operators of nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR-Part 50 and allows the onsite incinera-tion of contaminated waste-lubricating oils, hydraulic-fluids,.
and other miscellaneous oils without the'need to opply for a specific license amendment as has been~previously required under the provisions of 9 20.1002 (formerly b 20.302)'and 20.1004 (formerly 9 20.305). The incineration could be carried out in the licensee's existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator, if available, or in an onsite facility specif-ically constructed for this purpose. Under the provisions:of the rule, resulting effluents will be accounted.for within existing discharge limits set in-individual plant technical specifications, which have been established under Part 20 and Appendix I to Part 50. 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 1 and, therefore,sthe-health and safety of the-public will still be adequately protected.
Each licensee will be required to pr'epare'and retain the-following types of . records in -accordance with applicable NRC-record retention requirements:-l(1) a description of equip-ment, 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
~
in Appendix 1 and 50.36a. The first'part of the information will be submitted to the Commission under 50.71(e) as.a change to the FSAR since'it-represents a change to the information-submitted under 50.34(b)(2)(i) and (b)(3) and 50.34a in the original ~ license application. A summary'of the changes and safety evaluation-will also be required by's 50.59. The second part will be reported under existing semiannual effluent:
reporting requirements (s 50.36a(a)(2)).
- 3 i
The' Commissioners- 3 ,
In response to the. proposed rule, comment letters were received' '
from 25 organizations'and individuals, including State regulatory-agencies, the Environmental Pro.tection Agency, uti.lities, industry organizations,~public-interest-groups,~and other
- members of the public. Nine (7 the commenters were opposed to the rule, most of the rest being. supportive. 3 The only substantive change that has been made in. response to the comments on the proposed rule was to mak6 the ~ definition- 4 of the types of oils which could be burned somewhat less res-trictive. 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 effluents.
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 which 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 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 from toxic constituents. The proposed rule has 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. However, since EPA-has not analyzed the impacts from burial of waste oil.at a LLW burial ground in particular, the staff-reviewed EPA analyses (of a worst case burning scenario) to evaluate the impacts of-releases of toxic constituents during. burning of used o11 onsite at nuclear power plants and concluded that they would be insignificant. 'Corisideration of these various potential impacts l 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 recently reviewed the experience of licensees who'have been authorized by technical specification-or license ..
, condition to incinerate waste oil;onsite. Information concerning recent_ experience is contained in Appendix A to this paper. A discussion concerning the request in the SRM uf August 3,-1988, to reconsider PRM-20-15 after the issuance uf the BRC. policy L is also included in Appendix A.
Cooedination: The Office of Governmental and Public Affairs has concurred in this paper. The Office of the General Counsel has' reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
i
' f_
4
The Commissioners 4
'Recummendations: That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the final rule revising 10 CFR 20.8'and 20.1004, as set forth in the draf t Federal Register notice, (Enclosure 1);
Note, the amendatory 1anguage of this-rule conformed to revised Part 20 as sent to the-Federal Register February 4, 1991. This language will tie revised as appropriate to conform to the numbering _of Part 20 as published.-
- 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 j The rule will be published in the Federal Register and
~
a.
will be effective immediately;
- b. The remainder of the petition has been denied-through this rulemaking;
- c. The revision to- 20.1004 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 wi_Il preclude or.otherwise-prejudice.
further Commission actions on: petitions to declare certain waste streams to be "below regulatory concern";
- e. The final rule-does not contain~a new or amended ~1nformationi collection requirement subject to the-. Paperwork Reduction
-Act'of 1980'(44 U.S.C. 3501.et seq.). Existing requirements 1 were previously approved by the Office of= Management ~and-Budget approval numbers 3150-0011-and 3150-0014; however, information collection requirements contained in'the new-Part 20 are currently under review;--
- f. Appropriate Congressional committees will be informed R (Enclosure 3); . j a
g.- The Chief' Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will'be informed of the certification-regarding economic impact on small entities end the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act; i
- h. The Federal Register notice will be distributed by ADM to affected lTcensees, interested members of the public, an'd y the petitioners; 4 1
k The Commissioners 5-
~
i.: A public announcement (Enclosure 5)?will be issued when.
the final rule is published in-the Federal Register;
- j. A regulatory analysis has been prepared by the staff.and is provided as Enclosure 2;
~
- k. The staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment as
- required by the National Environmental Policy 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 environment, and, therefore, the. preparation of an-Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Irnpact was published in the- -
Federal Register, as required by 10 CFR 51.35 and 51.119, as Appendix A to the notice of proposed rulemaking (August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914 at 32917). Minor-modifications- '
have been 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 assessments 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 substantially'different from those impacts .
previously considered during individual-reactor licensing hearings. The staff has reviewed the assessment, considered
-the public coments and the changes -in the'. text of: the final rule, and concluded that the finding of no significant -
impact need not be changed;
- 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 Register Notice.
- 2. Regulatory Analysis "
- 3. Draft Congressional Letter 4 Environmental Assessment and finding of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draft Public Announcement-
APPENDIX A The staff has surveyed the seven licensees whoihave-received a'uthorization for '
onsite incineration of contaminated waste oil. At present,-only one licensee is-incinerating contaminated waste oil onsite, although two or three others have done so in the past; The data from these licensees support the assumption that doses likely to be received by the public from incineration of waste oil under this rule would be a small 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 h'as no difficulty in meeting this limit. Another that violated this technical specification limit through an administrative error was still less than 1 percent of the overall limiti Another licensee who burned oil under a one time 6 20.302 approval estimated that doses did not exceed 1 prem.
Five licensees who have continuing authority to incinerate waste oil onsite are not currently 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 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 roard to releases of oil as " clean" or nonradioactive, NRR and the Regions have recently become aware of licensees inappropriately using the lower limitsofdetection(LLD)foreffluents(containeginthetechnical specifications) to classify oil as nonradioactive . Using effluent LLD's, licensees have disposed of oil by onsite incineration, shipping to a fossil fuel plant, or disposal as industrial used oil. In one instance, a few years ago, a civil penalty was issued to a license 9 because a waste oil recycler had reconstituted oil thus concentrating radioactive contaminants to greater than the effluent LLD. NRR and the Regions have begun to inform licensees that this application of the effluent LLD is not appropriate since the oil could be released to the environment without dispersal. NRR and the Regions have',-
however, accepted the use of the environmental measurement LLD s for detecting radioactive material in waste oil.
1 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-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 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 measurements. .
The industry has been pursuing the use of decontamination techniques for the- _
disposal of oil but information put-out by the industry (Electric Power Research
' Institute) suggests that although decontamination processes were considered cost effective when the goal was reducing concentrations to below the effluent LLD, it may not be cost-effective or:even achievable to reduce levels below the more restrictive environmental LLD's.
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, environmental-LLD's resulted in 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 (although-EPA has not classified it as such) 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. As a' mixed waste, however, it cannot be disposed at a LLW burial facility; thus, the licensee's disposal options in that state are greatly limited. Furthermore,- EPA is developing regulations applicable to used oil which will likely impact disposal options.
Although it is impossible to pre <iict with any certainty whether incineration will be the best option for many of the licensees,_the 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 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 a BRC 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 staff as a proposal for a BRC exemption after the approval of a BRC policy. This rule simply provides authorization of a specific process,_onsite incineration, the effluents from which will be controlled and reported under all existing requirements governing other effluents from the plants. This rule sets no new limits for releases from regulatory control. By comparison, a BRC exemption would set new, separate limits applicable to all sites, -The BRC policy has been issued; however, the petition = does not contain suf ficient information to support a BRC exemption for waste oil. Further, sufficient information h-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 currently considering potential approaches to regulating used oil to control impacts from toxic constituents. Future EPA regulations may prohibit some disposal alternatives or provide a basis for the analysis of impacts from other means of disposal. Further dicussion of other aiternatives appears in the regulatory analysis.
2
Even for onsite incineration,'Lin order to set a separate generic BRC limit for waste oil,' consideration of the regulatory separation of effluents to the same pathway as other effluents would be needed. However, the BRC policy. states-that fractionation of: practices is not appropriate when applying the dose-criteria and does not address setting _ separate limits for multiple sources entering the same pathway from the same licensee's site.
Furthermore, the pathway modeling required to set generic concentration limits for a BRC exemption would likely yield unnecessarily restrictive limits because of compounding conservatism needed to take into account local conditions at all existing and future facilities and the variety of equipment and procedures-which could be used. A site specific analysis,- which is needed in reporting doses in accordance with 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 with the approach for regulating other effluents-from the plants. Although the approach of this rule was chosen before the BRC policy was-issued, the staff still beliowes that, given the. existing regulations governing effluents applicable t nuclear power plants, the approach of this-rule is preferable to a BRC limit governing waste oil incineration.
3
"~
[7509'-01]'
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20-RIN: 3150-AC14 ,
,. ]
Disposal of Waste Oil by Incineration 9 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 generated at licensed nuclear power plants without amending existing operating licenses. This action will help to ensure that the limited capacity of licensed regional low-level waste burial grounds is used more effi-ciently while maintaining releases from operat'ing nuclear power plants at levels which are "as low as-.is reasonably achievable." Incineration of this class of waste must-be carried out in full compliance with. Commission regulations which restrict the release of radioactive materials to the -
environment that are currently in force at each operating nuclear power plant. This rule constitutes a partial granting of a petition for rule-making (PRM-20-15) submitted by Edison Electric Institute and Utility-L Nuclear Waste Management Group. The remaining. portions of PRM-20-15 are-L denied without prejudice, j-1 ENCLOSURE 1 1
l~
[7509{01]'
' EFFECTIVE DATE: (insert publication date) ,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Letherine 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 rulemaking' (PRM-20-15) with.the _
Commission on July 31,1984.to initiate ruleniaking to define allevel of' radioactivity in power-reattor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactive material con-tent. 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 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 antindividual' s
member of the general public greater than 1 mrem /yr. The' petitioner recommended that using a 1 mrem /yr limit, alternative disposal methods, 2 ENCLOSURE 1 a
- - .~ - . . . ~ .
-[7509-01]; ;
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. Ali but one of the commenters' supported the idea of exempting slightly contaminated waste oil from the require-' ?
ments for disposal at a low-level waste disposal site and most 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 in the Federal Register (53 FR 32914) a proposed rule to 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 pro' posed 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 avail -
able to evaluate the acceptability of these disposal methods. -'The NRC has not received information during the interim that would alleviate this deficiency. In addition, the proposed rule-indicated a number ~of other-considerations that limit-the desirability of-the other alternatives in l- relation to onsite incineration. These considerat. ions include ---
l I
l 3 ENCLOSURE 1-
-__- m-__m -- ._.___---m_--. - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .-
[7509-01]-
- 1. Some'of the toxic constituents contained.in waste oil would be destroyed through incineration but not through' other proposed: disposal:
methods; 7
- 2. The concentrations of radionuclides in ash or sludge--may be_too-
,high to exempt an offsite incinerator or recycling center from require-ments 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 which were not fully analyzed by the petitioner;:and
- 4. Landfill disposal would result in greater cost and would produce smaller risk savi_ngs 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 summar-ized in this discussion. This completes NRC action on PRM-20-15.
1 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 ot.her than burial at a licensed low-level
. waste disposal site. This approach will preserve the limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites, reduce the costs of_ waste disposal at licensed low-level waste burial sites, and eliminate a less desirable 4 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01]~
waste form at the sites thereby potentially reducing long-term maintenance
- costs'for disposal sites. The rule will reduce fire hazards from storage ;
t of oil and risks-inherent in transportation. =Some recovery of-energy may:
also resultLand risks from the toxic hazards of waste oil _may be reduced._-
Note: the proposed rule presented an amendment to S 20.305 which has'
~
been replaced b'y 6 20.1004 by the major revision of Part 20 published-A specific feature of the rule (contained in S 20.1004(b)(3) of the final rule and S 20.305(b)(3)-_of the propossd rule) supersedes previous provisions in an individua1' plant license or technical specification; that may be inconsistent with this rule. The rule does not exempt "
licensees from the requirement to comply with-applicable Commission regulations. Specifically, licensees must comply with the effluent release-limitations of 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix'I. Section 20.1004(b)(1) ($ 20.305(b)(1) of the proposed rule) has been clarified to-reflect the requirement to comply not only with Part 50, Appendix I-bascJ ef fluent limitations but also to comply with the Part. 20-based ef fluent-limitations contained in applicable license conditions other than effluent limits specifically related to incineration of waste oil, Other restrictions in license conoitions or technical specifications on incineration which are not consistent with the provisions of this rule,:such as for-example,-
provisions which prohibit the onsite incineration of waste oil, will be eliminated from existing licenses. The rule makes;the requirements for 5 ENCLOSURE l-1
[7509-01) l incineration consistent among all licenses, without the need for license amendment on an individual plant basis. In particular, the rule eliminates the need for amendments to identify any new release points or specific sampling methods and removes any license conditions or technical specification restrictions from licensees already authorized to incinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under the rule, such as for example, restrictions that limit effluents from onsite incineration to a specific fraction of total effluent releases. At the same time, the rule does not alter the require-ment to comply with total radiological effluent release limits contained in facility technical specifications since such limits implement the pro-visions 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 agen-cies, the Environmental Protection Agency, utilities, industry organiza-tions, public interest groups, and other members of the public. Copies of the comments may be examined and :opied 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 gave comments without specifically supporting or opposing the rule.
Most of the commenters opposed to the rulemaking simply expressed 6 ENCLOSURE 1
1
[7509-01]
concern about the health effects af increased effluen 4, in some cases stating that existing effluents are unacceptai>le. A few were concerned about the environmental effects of the proposed action. A few suggested that the cost savirgs did not justify increasing the amount of effluents or that cost should not be a consideration at all. One commenter sug-gested 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. A'other specifically warned the Commission not to invite public criticism. One commenter suggested that the Commis-sion 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 regula-tion 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 exist-ing limits. The rule does nct change existing effluent limits (except those restricting the fraction of total effluents from oil incineration for those licensees already authorized to incinerate waste oil), and the regulatory requirements to assure compliance with these limits will con-tinue to apply. The on W direct effect of this rulemaking is to simplify the 3dministrative process associated with the use of one alternative dis-posal option for one type of waste; namely, the incineration of contaminated 7 ENCLOSURE 1 i
[7509-01) waste oil. As to the question concerning the authoHty to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste, the responsibility of the States under the Low Level Radioactive Waste policy Amendments Act of 1985 does not diminish the regulatory authority of the NRC nor does this rule diminish State authorities.
Some commenters specifically opposed incineration as a disposal alternative, a number of those citing the non ra..lological risks from the toxic properties of waste oil. The State of Michigan, who was generally supportive, als' questiohed the impact of potential toxic emissions sug-gesting consideration of the combined risks of radiation and toxic expo-sures. Another commenter suggested that the possible synergistic effects of chemicai nd 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 #rattion of all used oils disposed of annually. This rule does not relieve the licensee from comolying with other anplicable 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 com-plete destruction of the organic constituents of used oil, incineration must be carried out at sufficient temperatures and with appropriate resi-dence times so that all the oil is exposed to cufficient heat and oxygen i
8 ENCLOSURE 1
b (7509-01) for complete combustion. However, a high percentage destruction of organ-ics would be expected in any case. Even a very small boiler can achieve i 99 to 99.99 percent destruction efficiency for hard-to-burn chlorinated f compounds.1 Also, there is considerable incentive for the licensee to maintain high combustion efficiency in order to avoid maintenance problems, particularly if the auxiliary boiler is used.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted used j oil as a class from its listing of hazardous materials, it is currently -
reviewing the problems with used oil and is considering a number of_pos - .
sibic actions to reduce the potential hazards. In the interim .some con-trols are applicable. It will be necessary for licensees to check used #
oil for hazardous characteristics and analyze for listed hazardous con-stituents to determine the applicability of EPA or State requirements.
The extent of controls will vary by State; some States list.used oil '
as hazardous and some have specific requirements applicable to any incinerator.
Overall, used oil is considered a significant potential-hazard to _
public health and the environment. As noted in the environmental assess .
ment 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 ,
I l
-1 Environmental Protection Agency (50 FR 49164; November'29, 1985)-
L noted at p. 49180.
9 ENCLOSURE 1-
[7509-01]. l t
I that produce effects on health vnly above certain " threshold" concentra- j
. teore 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; and 50 FR 49164, 50 FR- I 49212, and 50 FR 49258, November 29,1985). 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.
Tne EPA's decisicn 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 such illegal _
dumping would result in greater environmental harm than industrial burn-ing. When this rule was proposed, the' Commission had assumed that the impacts from toxic constituents would be_ minimized by burning, primarily-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 evalua- ,
tion of environmental impacts of burning waste oil as contemplated by this rule. The EPA performed analyses in. support _of what it referred to as its Phase I rule (50 FR 49164; November 29, 1985) because it was a first step in regulating used oil with further regulations being contem-plated. Based on these analyses, EPA established specifications for-used oil fuel which include concentrations of toxic contaminants 10 ENCLOSURE 1
. __ . _ __._. -____m._._... -. . . _. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _
r
[7509-013-(40 CFR266.40(e)). Used oil fuel which meets these specifications can be ,
burned virtually without restriction because EPA has concluded that such !
oil does not present a significantly greater risk when burned than virgin fuel oil (60 FR 1693; January 11, 1985). The EPA analyses considered a-number of potential toxicants released f rom burning used oil and found that those that potentially present risks to public health and safety >
were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. (Thus,EhAestablished ,
specification concentrations for these elements.) Of these, lead was of most concern because high icvels were found in some of the samples analyzed..
However, lead in used oil Nas largely 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 specification for lead. 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 about the widespread uncontrolled burning of used oil; It was estimated that approximately 600 million gallons of used= oil were l
being burned each year in every conceivable circumstance - in utility.- .
industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors. The EPA's l L .
analyses included a worst-case urban scenario where used' oil was being' 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 11 ENCLOSURE 1 i
r rv =* w- ,,-*-w,-e-
=,i='-e enyy--,vwww-gr-ykiy- y-w,,-, , - - . ,,-.9
..e-- ,w 9py,qs-T' ' ' - -- g -**m- * * ' - ' s 'r7+$" t' 9 99" *TW-"A--'M'
+ ,
'I l[7509-01]
{
area'(of well over 1 billion gallons of heating oil burned in multiple-family dwellings alone)2 in an array of boilers with sig'nificantly over- [
lapping of plumes that raised the ambient-levels of arsenic, cadmiem, and '
chromium. In the worst case, it was assumed that the oil contained con-centrations 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.
Basedontheseassumptions,burningofusedoilwas55timatedtoresult in exposure of the portio'n of the population within 5 kilometers of the- l center of the u'rban area to ambient concentrations of these metals asso-ciated 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. <
1 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. Only 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 potsntial 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 _t'o be- -
-2 PE0Co Environmental, Inc., Risk Assessment of Waste Oil Burning in'.
Boilers and Space Heaters, EPA /530-SW-84-011, August 1984.
12 .EN:LOSURE l'- -
c >
.-.n,- -.---c _,..,...,-w.,,,,..
. _ . , :._,y_,.-- ,,.,.w-, ...,.u mr,-, ,y.w.-.,,.,,,,.,m,,,vo_,cy. m. # - , . , -r,w,--9-w,
(7509-01]
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 to the environment. l In addition to the metals discussed above, the used oil specification l includes a limit of 4000 ppm of total halogens designed to . limit.the halo-genated solvent concentration of oil tiurned 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 (S 266.40(c)).- Although-used oil may be incidentally contaminated with small amounts of solvents, ,
used oil as generated would generally not be expected to exceed the speci-fication for total halogens 1.n the absence of deliberate mixing with hazardous waste.
l The burning of even virgin oil (i.e., oil which has not been- ,
previously used and thus not contaminated by use) results in some release of toxicants. Because the EPA was evaluating the replacenient of a frac- !
tion of virgin oil to be burned with used oil, the impacts from these toxicants were considered inapplicable to setting the used oil fuel-specification. For the use of an auxiliary boiler or fossil fuel plant .
- under this rule, the used oil would also bt replacing a. fraction of virgin-fuel oil, thus only the- impacts of contaminants. resulting f rom- use would be applicable. However, in' the case 'of an incinerator, emissions _ result- .
I ing from the burning of any oil would be an addition to existing-emis--
l
- sions. The risks associated with these other toxicants, while difficult to. characterize, have been estimated to be generally less than the risks -
-13 ENCLOSURE 1.
up'W - ,,mybs- + g wy w +-- q.,.9g 9ey**'r----M-t--M*svar gt:i.ir--MvT-'--gf= D $ '
gyW. Wg 79r ye,
J (7509 01) i discussed above for contaminants resulting from use2 and thus would also t
not be significant under these circumstances. '
The Commission is aware that the EPA is developing new information 1 on contaminatton levels by major category of used oil which may;be avail-able by the time this rule is published. However, that information was not available while this rule-was being formulated. 'The Commission has i
no reason to believe that the newer data will be sufficiently different .
~
to change the major conclusions related to the environmental impacts of burning reactor waste oil.
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, regula-tory controls are based on overall risks from individual specific toxi- ,
cants; although, in the case of radiation, doses from various radionuclides are considered together. It has not been possible to fully account for ,
synergism of various sources of risk. However, releases of both radiologi- ,
, cal constituents and other toxics associated with the incineration of waste-oil from nuclear power plants are extremely low and, therefore, could be i responsible for only an extremely small part of potential synergistic -
effects. 1 Two commenters raised questions about other potential impacts which ;;
had not been discussed in the proposed rule, specifically, worker expo- 9 i -
l- sures. One of these.commenters.was also concerned with the potential contamination of the auxiliary boiler and the resultant increased wastes
-14 ENCLOSURE 1 p
' w. ..u .&.-
[7509-01]
to be disposed of at decommissioning as well as the potential cost of- '[
establishing the area as a radiation zone.
P Occupational exposures would be expected to be very small and no greater than those associated with solidification, transport, and burial 4 of the waste oil at a low-level waste disposal site. As suggested by the I commenter, there is some potential for contaminating the auxiliary boiler !
if it is used to incinerate contaminated oils. Licensees should consider the potential contamination of whatever equipment is used for incinera-tion. Factors such as concentration of the radionuclides in-the oil, combustion efficiency, and maintaining minimum off gas temperatures'will [
affect the degree.of contamination. Although contamination of-equipment p can be minimized, the impact of this contamination could partially offset the savings in waste disposal space and cost achieved through incinera-tion. As to the question of establishing an area as a radiation zone, 3 the auxiliary boiler, or other equipment used for incineration of waste' >
oil, would be within an area controlled by the licensee. In no; case wouldL incineration'be expected to result in radiation levels requiring addi-l tional controls; that is, no new areas would be established-as '_' radiation area One commenter argued that a license amendment should continue to be required because of_the public's right to a hearing on an amendment and.
because the public scrutiny and case-by-case staff evaluation would: ;
ensure that applicable requirements are complied with. This'commenter-i also argued that the license amendment process should continue-until more-15 ENCLOSURE 1:
-i
-ywe77- CW*T-i%-W*b r'* % V+dp u p%wwse i p e -e m i.p,* sit'N-mm w e mw-fW--4-twwew=*+~93- m 1--' F-T-- -- * - =a--*----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - --------"-I
[7509-01] l specific information is available such as a_ complete characterization of-wastes.- Another commenter was also concerned that there would be no 1
assurance that technical specifications will be complied with, particu- !
larly because normal emissions would be expected to increase-as plants age. ;
l
.. .i The potentially affected public has an opportunity for a hearing on a license amendment for a nuclear power reactor, liowever,-the rule, both as proposed and as now promulgated in final form, only permits the incin-erstion of waste oil onsite, if performed in compliance with existing regulatory requirements including, in particular, existing effluent limits. Amendment of licenses to authorize this activity is considered unnecessary. The Commission will use its authority to inspect and take- .
enforcement action to ensure compliance with these requirements as-it (
does its other requirements. Given this approach, the Commission was of the opinion that the issues presented by the proposed rule would be more appropriately resolved in a rulemaking proceeding. .In accordance with-customary NRC procedure, the proposed rule was published for comment for the express purpose of giving interested members of the public an oppor-tunity 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 aliernative,-but possibly onsite reprocessing would be, because it-would conserve petroleum resources and eliminate the release of combustion products to the atmos-phere. This commenter also suggested that this rule would discourage-16 ENCLOSURE;1-4
,. _, ,_..._-m -.a;_. J- -- ,m,,.._~.
.[7500-01) storage for recycling which the commenter viewed as contrary to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). ;
Since most oil which is recycled is used as industrial fuel,3 recycling would not eliminate the potential for atmospheric emissions.
Onsite reprocessing would involve the removal of small amounts of radio-active contamination so that the oil could be reused offsite. Criteria would be needed to establish the concentrations at which reuse offsite -
would be allowed. This process may not be economical or have a signifi-cant safety advantage. . Excessive storage onsite-for potential future recycling involves some risk from fire. Furthermore, some means of incineration (i.e. , use in the auxiliary boiler) may r_esult in a small increase in energy recovery over the present practice of solidification >
and burial at a LLW burial site, which never involves eventual recovery. !
One commenter was concerned with the possibility that the ash.from incineration would be mixed waste which would add to the problem of waste disposal. The EPA recommended that the rule clarify that the ash needs to be monitored for heavy metals to determine whether RCRA (Resource Con-servation and Recovery Act) requirements apply.
3 EPA-(51 FR 41900; November 19, 1986) noted at p. 41902.
17 ENCLOSURE.1
,y +- -iup,u.*ge-e--e. -iw.,yi to 4 y. w..- e wnge,,,, ,r, gagea,, y - g.,- -- g -q - . . .yaa een-. .
9's"*Tw*d-=-nr em = "-e meru*=-"T- e c 4' P-F 9- '
"T4 **-- -'M-**+" i' 'rM-'* f NS ff S P-
_ __._ .m.._, _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
[7509-01] t i
f' Although the ash may be mixed waste, only a small quantity is produced, and, therefore, the ash does not contribute significantly to-the overall problem of mixed wastes. Since the ash is being produced at the licensee's site, adequate control can be assured. In addition, the_ ;
rule makes clear that licensees are not relieved from complying with other Federal, State, and local regulations which may be applicable to'other. '
toxic or hazardous properties of these materials. ;
Some of the commenters supporting the proposed rule expressed the rationale for their support. Some, including the State of Indiana, noted the small public health and safety and environmental impacts. Some, including the State of Indiana and the Texas Low-Level-Radioactive Waste Disposal' Authority, cited the benefits in cost savings or savings in low-level waste burial space, and one the added flexibility._ One commenter
- provided information concerning the practicality of incineration in general
~
and of using the startup boiler in particular. Many of the commenters that supported the rule made suggestions for changes or clarifications.
Two commenters suggested a broader definition of waste oil. such that-synthetic oils and cutting, penetrating, and some other classes of oils could be incinerated. The commenters also suggested that non-waste oils (such as solvents, degreasers, grease, diesel fuels, etc.) need not be ,
segregated from radiologically contaminated waste oils. They also pro-posed that waste oils used in maintenance be included..
l-l~
l Synthetic oils were inadvertently rather than purposefully left.out of the definition of waste oil in the proposed rule and are included in 18 ENCLOSURE 1 l:
'[7509-01]
1 h
'the definition in the final rule
. . It would serve no useful purpose to' treat synthetic and petroleum derived used oils differertly and require ,
identification and segregation of these oils. Cutting and penetrating. ,
oils, metalworking oils, etc., were not specifically identified in the_
information supplied with the petition or the Brookhaven report, "Evalua-tion of Potential Mixed Wastes Containing Lead, Chromium, Used Oil, or-Organic Liquids" (NUREG/CR-4730),4 which was referenced in-the proposed ,
rule and the regulatory analysis with regard to quantities and concentra-tions of waste oil. Thus, these types of oil were-not specifically con-- ;
sidered. Based on the survey information in these reports, howevers-these other oils would be expected to be e small percentage of the. radioactively contaminated used oil needing disposal. From the perspective of radio- '
logical impacts, there is no need to limit.the type of used oil which can be incinerated. (The above discussion on toxic constituents considered all types _of used oils.) The licensee will be required to demonstrate that effluents meet existing radiological-limits established under 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I and wil_1 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.
4 Copies of HUREGs may be purchased from the Superintendent of-Documents, U.S. -Government Printing Of fice, P.O. Box 37082, Washington,-DC' 20013-7082. Copies are also.available from ther National Technical-Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,.
Springfield, VA 22161. A-copy is available for inspection and/o'r
, copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120jl Street, NW._(Lower-L Level), Washington', DC.
19 ENCLOSVRE 1
_.2_ __._;
[7509-01) i Uncontaminated "non-waste" oils are not subject to the Commission's disposal requirements, but when mixed with radioactively contaminated oil become part of a mixture which is radioactively contaminated and, there-fore, subject to NRC requirements. Care should be taken prior to any mixing to ensure that oils have been sufficiently characterized to deter-mine (1) the applicability of any requirements such as EPA or State requirements,(2)theradioactivecontent(iftheredouldbeproblems getting representative samples from a resultant mixture), and (3) the -
technical suitability of the potential mixture for incineration, i.e. ,
compatability 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 other plants if the same controls and limits were applied, se that a utility would only need one incinerator to dispose of oil from its several plants.
While this may be the case, the focus of this rulemaking proceeding has been limited to the onsite incineration of waste oil generated on, not off, the rea for site. At the present time, the Commission is of the opinion that questions relating to the disposal at the site of a particu-lar reactor of waste oil generated by reactors located at other sites are better handled on a case-by-case basis.
20 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01)
Another commenter suggested that offsite incineration be allowed with the condition of proper ash disposal, Two others, including the petitioners, suggested the Cominission reconsider the other options origi-nally raised in the petition. Another commenter, the State of Texas, simply noted support for other methods of volume reduction. The petition-ers also criticized the Commission for vagueness in the reasons given for not granting the petition in its entirety, suggesting that theit analysis, provided as a comment to the notice of receipt of petition, was ignored.
The August 29, 1988 Federal Register notice (53 FR 32914) presenting the proposed rule, also included an indication of the NRC's inten. to deny without prejudice the other alternatives proposed by the petitioners. The p ri ma r- reason for that denial, as stated in the notice of proposed rule-N making 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. Reconsid-eration of these alternatives is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
As to the petitioners' contention that their analysis of comments was ignored, this analysis was considered along with the original petition, the other public comments, and the referenced report (NUREG/CR-4730).
The specific deficiencies of the petitioners' comment analysis were not discussed separately.
One commenter suggested the Commission make a trial run, using contaminated oil, of a new technology, a plasma arc machine designed to break down toxic chemicals, Although this *echnology may present an environmentally sound alternative, these matters are outside the scope of the proposed rule.
21 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01]
One commenter suggested that only one generic S $0.59 review should be required rather than individual site specific reviewc for each plant.
Two other commenters sugoested that the Commission clarify that the pur-pose cf tne S 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 ef fect on the saf ety of reactor op? ration if incineration is not properly planned. Therefore, it is necessary that a plant specific determination be made, in accordance with 6 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 millirem / year for waste oil incineration. Another commenter ques-tioned 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 com-puter 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 delect a specific concentration or dose limit for waste oil incinera-tion. It is projected that in most, if not all cases, effluents from waste oil incineration will constitute only a small fraction of total 22 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01) {
i I
effluents. However, it is not considered necessary to establish a separate ;
effluent limit for wast'e oil incineration, as long as the total amount of the etfluents released from the plant, including releases from incinera-tion of waste oil, continues to (.onform to existing effluent limits established under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1 and Part 20.
i A number of commenters suggested changes that, in fact,.are not i needed to satisfy the intent of the commenter. Two commenters suggested that the rule be revised to allow transfer to an offsite licensed vendor,-
Nothing in this rule or in other regulations restricts-the licensee from transferring waste oil to an of fsite licensed " vendor," 1.e ,. persons authorized to receive these materials. This alternative was not mentioned
?
in the preamble of'the proposed rule because only recently has-there been !
anyone licensed to accept waste oil for disposal at other than a LLW burial ground.
Two commenters suggested that " site" be defined as the region 'within the site boundary," and one of these suggested that the site boundary be-further defined in order to provide consistency in the interpretation of "onsite" disposals.
"Onsite" in normal usage means "within the site boundary." A formal definition is considered-unnecessary. Presently, the site or site bound-my is defined in the individual technical specifications-for each license, However, the rule has limited the incineration to the site whereithe-waste- -
oil is generated in part so that any releases of radioactive material i
23 ENCLOSURE 1 L
-i,
[7509-01) r
~
would be covered by the effluent li7'+s in the technical specifications _l established under-Appendix I to Part 50 and Part 20. Th'e licensee's deci--
sion on the specific location for incineration will depend on being able
- to demonstrate compliance with those limits applicable to releases of-effluents to unrestricted areas. The provision in S 20.1004(b)(3),which ,
states that S 20.1004 supersedes inconsistent license conditions or tech - '!
nical specif' cations, is primarily intended to eliminate the need for amendment of license conditions or technical specifications to identify '
any new release points or specific sampling methods and to remove any restrictions f rom licensees already authorized to_ incinerate oil which would not otherwise be applicable under this_ rule.
Three commenters wanted the alternative of using mobile incinerators.
One commenter thought it should be clarified _that options other than those mentioned in the proposed rule would be acceptable including also central station power plant boilers.
The preamble to the proposed rule mentioned the options of use of -
an existing auxiliary boiler or incinerator or an incinerator constructed-specifically for the purpose of burning waste oil. This was merely-to illustrate the range of options which may be involved, not_to limit the options. Nothing in the rule would restrict the use' of- central station power. plant boilers or mobile incinerators.if they are onsite. The use of such equ.ipment 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 reported in the. semiannual effluent report. Effluents-'from incineration 24 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509 01) are not exempted from this requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) and therefore will be reported.
The State of Michigan suggested the Commission mention that other Federal, State, and/or local regulations must be complied with. .This provision was in the proposed rule and remains in the final rule.
Several other clarifications were suggested by commenters. One commenter suggested clarif'fing that Appendix I limits be met on an annual average basis only. Radiological release limits contained in facility technical specifications which implement 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I contain a range of 'imits including quarterly. limits -
and instantaneout limits. The rule does 'iot relieve licensees from the__
obligation to comply with the requirements of the Commission's reguia-tions and S 20.1004(b)(3) does not superset e the existing limits governing.
total effluent releases. Accordingly licensees continue to be required to satisfy the total radiological ef fluent release limitations set forth in the facility technical specifications.
Another commenter suggested clarification that tne rule is not intended to' require a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to S 50.34a.
As noted in the proposed rule, licensees would be required under S 50.71(e) to submit descriptions of_ equipment and procedures to update the FSAR to the extent that there have been changes.to th_e information previously submitted under S 50.34(b)(2)(1) and (b)(3) and $ 50.34a'. No I
cost-benefit analysis is required.
25~ ENCLOSURE 1
. , _ . a .~ . ._.. __._a_...-___.__
[7509-01]
Some commenters, including EPA and the State of Michigan, suggested clarifying other applicable requirements suci' as: (1) a' RCRA permit may be required for some oils if they exhibit hazardous characteristics even though, at the present time, used oil as a class is not a listed hazardous substance; (2) some States do classify used oil as hazardous; (3) State requirements governing any incineration may apply requiring case-by-case review by the State; and (4) EPA may require a permit for radioactive releases under the Clean Air Act.
Obviously the situation in each State may vary. Also, a number of actions are under consideration by EPA and the States; thus, requiremsats are in a state of flux. The Commission cannot identify all other require-ments which may be applicable, but can only note that these types of requirements exist and need to be carefully considered. As clearly stated in S 20.1007, this rule in no way affects their applicability.
Two ccmmenters 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. Although the burden of meet-ing RCRA or State requirements may increase the cost of incineration, this alternative would still be expected to be of value.
26 ENCLOSURE 1
[7509-01) ,
,b One consenter objected to the term " limited" in reference to the- >
required changes in the ODCM (Offsite Dose Calculation Manual) which the commenter contends are always extensive.
The Commission recognizes that making any change to the ODCM may 1
involve significant administrative effort. However, the changes required in order to account for the effluents from waste oil incineration are- l relatively limited, primarily related to the fact that a new point of release may be involved.
A conforming amendment to the regulations has also been added to the final rule. Because of the wording of the implementation section, 9 20.8 of (revised) Part 20, paragraphs S 20.8(a) and (c) have been amended to allow !
incineration of oil under this rule prior to full' implementation of '
(revised) Part 20.
Conclusion ,
As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has e decided to adopt the proposed rule with some minor modifications. Because ,-
l the rule will allow a licensee to adopt a-potentially more cost- and risk-l
!' effective means of disposing of this class of waste while maintaining i
existing limits on plant effluents,- the net impact of this action should be positive. For licensees who elect to process waste oils in this !fash-ion, monitoring and maintaining records on waste oil disposal ~ activities 27 ENCLOSURE 1
F
[7509-01]
i 1
will be covered by other existing regulatory requirements 1 set forth-in !
Part 50, Appendix I and Part 20. . These requirements are implemented pri- l marily through technical specifications established under S 50.36a. In addition, risks associated with transportation to the LLW burial site are '
eliminated and toxic and fire hazards associated with storage would likely 7 be reduced. It should be noted that any solid radioactive residues pro- -j duced in the incineration process would, for purposes of regulation, be treated as any other radioactive solid waste. }
Effective Date Because the amendment set forth below provides relief from -
restrictions currently in effect, the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), is making the final rule effective upon publication without i the customary 30-day waiting period.
Finding of No significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has reviewed the environment.1 assessment and finding i
- of no significant environmental impact published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1988 (53 FR 32917-32919) in connection with the proposed-rule. It has also considered the public comments and.the changes in the
- l. text of the final rule, in particular, the public. comments relating to-environmental matters and the additional discussion of the environmental l-impacts prepared in response to those comments. The environmental 28 ENCLOSURE 1
, . . , , . . ...,i__..._.-_-..-._s _--_: i_ _~. _____ _________.___ ____ _________J
.. - - .~. . - - - . _ _ - - - . - - _ . - . - . . - -. - - .
[7509-01]
assessment has been somewhat modified consistent with the discussion in this ;
E preamble concerning the environmental impacts of toxic emissions from burning used oil. The Commission has determined that the public comments, the additional consideration of toxic impacts, and the changes made to the text do not affect the conclusion reached in the earlier findinglof no I significant impact. The Commission has concluded that this amendment to ;
10 CFR 20.1004 and the conforming amendments to 10 CFR 20.8(a) and (c) do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. ,
i l
l The revised environmental assessment and-finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.-(Lower Level), Washington,DC.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement l
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 were previously' approved >
by the Of fice of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and L 3150-0014, however, information collection requirements contained in the new Part 20 ore currently under review.
l t
1 29 ENCLOSURE 1-t . ,
. . _ , , , _ - . , ._...,,__.,,,._,.y ,. . . , _ . ~ . , , , , , , - . , - , , , , . , . , , .,_,~..,-w -
_ . . . . ~ , , . , , . . . . , . --
h
[7509-01)
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 avail- }
t able for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. l (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. l Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordante with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of.1980, 5 U.S.C. 1 605(b), the Commission certifies that this' rule does not have a signifi-cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.- This rule.
I only affects nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do ;
i not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth .
l 4
l in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standarris set I <
out-in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
r l'
L
.30 . ENCLOSURE 1 -
[7509-01) i Backfit Analysis h I
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is-not ,
required for this final rule, because these amendments do not_ involve any ;
provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109'a)(1). (
List of Subjects in 10 CFR'Part 20 l
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties,-Licensed matarial, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health. Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Special nuclear material,' Source material, Waste treatment snd disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,-the Energy _ Reorganization Act of-1974, as amenued, and 5 U.S.C, 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting-the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.
Part 20 - Standards For Protection Against Radiation
-1. The authority citation for Part 20. is revised to read'as follows:
P AUTHORITY: -Secs. 53, 63,165, 81, 103, 104,.161, 182, 186, 68 S'at. t 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 31 ENCLOSURE 1 h
y w-N- ,,---e-,~,wn-.-ow-,.~m.,.- ,.-,--,a.,-_.,-,. . . _ . . . , , . ,--,-e-.r-rn,,- . -- . - - - - , - -- --
[7509-01) {
i 2093,2095,2111,2133,2134,.2201,2232,-2236): secs. 201, as' amended, I 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244,.1246_(42 U.S.'C. 5841, 5842, 5546).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), _
l I $$ 20.102, 20.201 - 20.204, 20.206, 20.207, 20,208, 20.301, 20.302, 20.501, 20.502, 20.601(a) and (d), 20.602, 20.603, 20.701~ 20.704,-
20.801, 20.802, 20.901(a), 20.902, 20.904, 20.906, 20.1001, 20.1002, .
20.1003,20.1004,20.1005(b)and(c),20.1006,20.1151-20.1110,20.1201
{
- 20.1206, and 20.1301 are issued under sec. 161b., 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) and $ 20.1106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub.L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a: and $$ 20.102(a)(2) and-(4), 20.204(c),.
20.206(g) and (h), 20.904(c)(4), 20.905(c) and (d), 20.1004(b), 20.1005(c). . .
20.1006(b) - (d), 20.1101 - 20.1103, 20.1104(b) - (d), 20.1105 - 20.1108, and 20.1201 - 20.1207 are issued under-sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.. In 6 20.8, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as follows: )
S 20.8 Implementation-(a) Licensees shall implement the provisions of.this_part on or before January'1, 1993. If a licensee chooses'to implement the provisions of this part prior to January 1, 1993,_the licensee shall.
implement all provisions _of this part not otherwise exempted by paragraph (d) of this section, and shall provide written notification to either the Director of--the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards or the Director of.the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, [
32 ENCLOSURE 1
- TD Vin't**est-- 'WW4e,+m>vt-=--vv.y.,y-nNh -MWarNW* *rMe~tw PW 9Wt-W--eWPr-' W 9 W -m *~M v 4+wr*WN+--P7-4*eM-ec='T--p%n- fr V M w W erw f9 feyTv rg yy e-fw r y- Tw- we1T- v-h y
[7509-01]
as appropriate, that tne licensee is adopting early implementation of this part. Until January 1,1993, or until the licensee notifies the Commission of early implementation of the provisions of this part, compliance will be required with the 10 CFR Part 20 in the Code of Federal Regulations on January 1,1991. liowever, subject to the limitation in S 20.1007 of this part, S 20.1004 of this part may be implemented in place of 520.305of10CFRPart2bof January 1,1991 prior to the full implementation of this part.
- A A A A (c) Any existing license condition or technical specification that is more restrictive than this part, except an existing license condition or technical specification of the type described in S 20.1004(b)(3) of this part, remains in force until there is a technical specification change, license amendment, or license renewal.
A A A A A
- 3. Section 20.1004 is revised to read as follows:
6 20.1004 Treatment or disposal by incineration.
33 E' 23URE 1
[7509-01) l l (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 20.1005; or (3) As specifically approved by the Commission pursuant to S 20.1002.
(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, includ-ing the effluents from such incineration, must 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 SS 50.34 and 50.34a of this chapter associated with this incineration pursuant to S 50.71 of this chapter, as appropriato. The licensee shall also follow the procedures of S 50.59 of this chapter with respect to such changes to the facility or procedures.
34 ENCLOSURE 1
i
[7509-01]
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils must be disposed of as provided by S 20.1001.
(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be
\
inconsistent.
+
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1991.
For the Nuclear Re0ulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission P
35 ENCLOSURE 1
Regulatory Analysis Rule to Amend 10 CFR 20.1004 DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL BY INCINERATION 9
- 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 rulemaking to define a level of radioactivity in power reactor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioac-tive 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 st stement, the Commiscion 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 limited capacity of the regional licensed waste disposal sites for wastes with higher levels of radio-activity, and enhance overall site stability of disposal f acilities 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 appro-priate basis for establishing a cutoff level for defining those wastes that were "below regulatory concern." Further, the petitioners presented several examples 1 ENCLOSURE 2
Y
-L where combinations of-radionuclide. concentrations'and disposal. methods-for 1
waste oil would satisfy the 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' determination of theLneedifor 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 which must be considered-in this determination are the fol- I lowing:
(1) Current licensing requirements, imposed on each power reector 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 onl 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 nil. ,
(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 of the general public.
l-l 2 ENCLOSURE 2 A
9 2.- Objectives 9
The rule _ allows nuclear power reactor licensees to incinerate waste oil
~
which has become contaminated from operatiens' 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 incineratinn through a rule change versus continuing to do so through the license amendment process will make this alternative disposal method available in a more timely manner and with reduced administrative effort for licensees and the NRC.
The environmental impact from the incineration of the oil, which1contains 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 (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. Alternatives The petitioners requested that the Commission issue a regulation- governing the disposal of low-level radioactively contaminated waste oil from nuclear power plants by establishing radionuclide concentrations in waste oil at which disposal may be carried out without regard to the. radioactive material content of the waste. This concept of establishing a level of radioactivity-or level L of radiation exposure below which environmental impacts are so small as-to be 3 ENCLOSURE 2
of no regulatory concern is ccasidered by the Commission to be a: valuable ,
~
addition to the regulatory system; The petition suggested a'n individual expo--
sure value of 1 millirem per year would be an appropriate criterion' on which to base concentration limits.- The justification proposed was primarily on a. 4 "de minimis" basis; that is, simply that this' level of risk 'is too trivial to be of concern. The term "below regulotory 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.
4 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 state-ment, the Commission gave some indication of dose levels which might be. accept-able for a waste stream specific exemption. Although 1 millirem / year is _likely.
to be acceptable (based on the 'tiscussion of decision criterion 2 in the staff - .
implementation plan accompanying the NRC policy statement of August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839), the petitioners have not supplied sufficient information to allow a specific waste stream "below regulatory concern" determination to be made.
In responding to.this petition, there were three basic alternative courses ef action which could have been taken: 'to deny the petition, to defer 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 tet-forth in'10 CFR Part 61 (and reaffirmed in-NRC's BRC waste policy statement published on August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839 and.
its general BRC policy publisher on July 3, 1990; 55 FR 27522) or-the need to L
ensure ef fective use of licensen low-level waste disposal capacity. 4 l
l 4 ENCLOSURE 2 l
l
i The staff could have deferred action on this specific petition until consideration of a generic rulemaking on BRC waste or until EP'A issues standards or guidance on BRC levels of radioactivity.
The staff recognizes the current problems associated with the disposal of waste oil and believes that in the spirit of established Commission policy and consistent with the need to use limited burial ground space as ef ficiently as possible, 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 exam- ;-
ple, a more complete characterization of quantities and concentrations of con- ,
taminated 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 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 50, Appendix I. 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 declare waste oils or other classes of waste to be "below regulatory concern" pursuant to Commission policy. (See policy b
statement, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B, published on August 29, 1986; 51 FR 30839 and 55 FR 27522; July 3, 1990.)
5 ENCtOSURE 2
)
- 4. -Consequences 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 fer significantly. One of those is " Regulatory Efficiency." 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 having to tran' sport the waste oil to licensed land burial sites should result in decreased exposures.
The ef ficiency 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 will 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, 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 BWR produces approximately 6- ENCLOSURE 2
. . _ _ - :_.=_---____-___________ -
H 3500-5000 galiyr . l Reported contamination levels are usually in the range of-10-7toL10-6 pCi/ml,_ although higher levels have been reported. The principal-radioisotopes present in these waste oils include the usual detivation and fission products such as Co-58, Co-60, Mn-54, Cs-134, Cs-137.
Because of restrictions imposed on the disposal of oil wastes in licensed land burial grounds, oil wastes must be stabilized prior to-transport to these
~
sites; sorption and solidification are the prevalent treatment mett.ods. Several plants are storing waste oils on an interim basis pending a decision'on ultimate-
' disposal.
'According to both the BNL report and information pimvided 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 10-4 curies of radioactivity per year via the waste oil pathway. This quantity is a fraction of typical releases in liquid effluents and atmospheric releases allowed under existing plant discharge limits.
According to the petitioners, most waste oils could be incinerated without resulting in (conservatively calculated)-doses exceeding 1 mrem / year. In fact, those licensees who have been incinerating waste oil under an amendment to their license have been keeping these effluents to 0.1 percent of their 1
A recently published Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report; 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
technic.al specifications for total doses from effluents. In addition, under this rulemaking, unless further action is taken in declaring certain wastes "below regulatory concern," the effluents from the incinerat'on 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 _
precent in waste oil'to normal plant effluents should have a negligible impact-on public health or envircnmental quality.
Additionally, other environmental impacts of waste oil disposal will likely be slightly reduced. These include the risks inherent in transportation (radio-logical and non-radiological), the fire hazards associated with storage of waste oil, and possibly the impacts from toxic constituents depending on-the specific.
equipment and controls used.
Before presenting the industry cost estimates, it should-be noted that-there is no accurate way to determine 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.
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," NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.)
If an assumed 50 plants decide to take advantage of this rule, the industry's
-implementation cost savings would be approximately 5900,000.
As to operating costs, one licensee estimated that it could save somewhere between $3,300 and $12,600 per year by incinerating its waste oil as opposed to burying it. These costs were based upon values of 220 to 825 gallons of waste oil disposal per year, with the per galica cost being about $15.'
8 ENCLOSURE 2
l
.l J
)
l The solidification method assumed in this estimate.was more! cost-effective
- than that used in the original estimates of the petitioners inI1983 in thatiit :
-l involved: lower volume increases. 'The petitioners' estimates of disposal costs -
1
- saved'were $15-30/ gal. The actual cost for an individual licensee will depend 'l on the solidification method used, labor rates, distance to the LLW burial-ground, and burial fees. The escalating costs _ of burial including the-additionsofsurchargescouldcausesignificantincreasesinthecostof disposal at a LLW burial facility thus resulting in increases in potential .
, i l savings from incinerating waste oil. If we assume $15/ gal as the minimum I e
amount saved and assume (based on the Brookhaven National- Laboratory report)-
l_ tMt an average PWR plant produces about 1000 gallons of slightly contaminated .
L waste oil per year, its corresponding' savings would be at least $15,000 perLyear.2 If an average remaining life of 30 years is assumed, along with a 5 percent annual
- real discount rate, a PWR's lifetime savings woul_d be $231,000. If the $18,000-l l
amendment cost savings'are included, the total savings would be about $250,000 per PWR.
l 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 1
! savings range from $52,500 to $7_5,000, with the discounted operating =11fetime L ~
l' savings ranging from $808,500 to $1,155,000. When the implementation cost savingsareincluded,thetotalsbecome$826,500to$1I173,000 per BWR.
l l-I L
- 2. The estimates for cost savings-.in this section assume the volumes of waste oil generated as estimated in the Brookhaven report (NUREG/CR-4730).
l; t
Recently available data (referenced in footnote 1) suggest higher-typical vol umes .- If those volumes are more representative, savings in' disposal costs would. be proportionately greater.
I I
9 ENCLOSURE 2-
.-__ ____m______-________-__-_-______---__L-..___-__
a x .
If we assume about half of the plants woult1 take' advantage of the rul_elin--
its first year, there would be 33 PWR's and 17 BWR's incinerating the waste oil on site. The resulting industry savings would be between $22.3 and $28.1-million or more ($8.2 million for the PWR's and $14.1 million to!$19.9 million ,
for the BdR's).
Again,' because-of' each plant's individual situation, and the fact that .
this rule 1s only an option, these estimates are only-illustrative. With respect to other potential' industry operating costs, a licensee will need tc provide the NRC with changes to the Offsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures whether toe 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, uis that permitting use of this alternative disposal option could conserve a significant amount of 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 estimated NRC cost of a typical, uncomplicated, . technical specification change is $11,000. (Cf. Abstract 5.1, " General Cost Estimates," NUREG/CR-4627, Rev. 1, 1989.) Further, as noted above, the NRC is to receive modifications
!- or' additions to the licensee's'0ffsite Dose Calculations Manual and changes in equipment and procedures if the licensee plans to incinerate the waste oil l ..
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. If.the assumed 50.
plants decide to take advantage of the waste oil incineration, NRC's cost savings would be $550,000.
30 ENCLOSURE 2 s
Because the rule allows a license to adopt'a potentially more cost-Land-risk-effective means of' disposing of this class of waste whil$ maintaining existing limits on plant effluents, the net impact of this action 1s-positive.
- 5. Decision Rationale The Commission has yet to determine what action should be taken in regard to a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes and has recently begun a program to build consensus on the generic BRC poldcy before proceeding with new exemptions for waste, however, a decision on a Jose 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 at licensed low-level waste ' burial (LLWB) sites.
The incineration of waste oil onsite will' not add significantly .to the~ environmental-impacts of reactor operations, may in fact be environmentally preferable, and will result in savings in disposal costs and preservation of LLWB site capacity.
- 6) Implementation a) Schedule for Implementation Since this rule relieves a restriction, the final rule.is effective as soon as published, as allowed by Section 553(d)(1) of the Administration Procedure.Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). -1 b) Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements ,
Rule could be superseded by future actions on generic BRC exemptions. :j 11 EtiCLOSURE 2
s n 4
w DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal-Register.for publication the=
enclosed final amendment to'the Commission's rules in 10=CFR Part 20; The amend-- ,
ment allows nuclear power reactor licensees ~to incinerate, onsite, slightly con-taminated waste oils without the.need for a specific license amendment.- Such operations will be subject to continued compliance with existing overall plant?
discharge limits. ._The intent of the' rule is-to provide a.potentially cost effec-
~
tive and environmentally sound method for.disposalfof.this waste lother than
! burial at a' licensed low-level waste disposal site. This rule was.._ initiated in-response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Edison Electric Institute 1 and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group.
Sincerely, Eric 5. Beckjord,: Director ..
41 Office-of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
As' stated
^
ENCLOSURE 3 t
l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AMEN 0 MENT TO 10 CFR 20.1004 DISPOSAL OF WASTE DIL 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.
Environmental Assessment Identification of Action Present S 20.1004 forbids the incineration of any licensed material, except that specifically exempted by S 20.1005, without the specific approval of the Commis-sion. This action amends S 20.1004 to allow power reactor licensees to incinerate slightly contaminated waste oil onsite without prior approval. It does not exempt the effluents from this process from the rec,uirements established under Appendix I to Part 50, in particular, effluent' limits and effluent monitoring and reporting, l
1 ENCLOSURE 4
Need for the Action The Edison Electric Institute and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group petitioned the Commission (PRM-20-15, dated July 31,1984) to initiate rule-making to define a level of radittactivity in power-reactor generated waste oils which would permit disposal of these oils without regard to their radioactiva material content. Previously,theonlygenericallyapprov$dmethodofdisposal ,
for low-level radioactively contaminated oil from nuclear power plants involves -
solidification or immobilization, packaging, and transportation to and burial at a licensed disposal site. The cost of this type of disposal is significant, while the concentrations of contaminants are quite low. ij 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 inc'ineration 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 considerad.
2 ENCLOSURE 4
Some information on the quantities and concentrations of waste oil. generated at nuclear power plants was provided in the petition and in a Bro'okhaven' 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 apprcximately 1000 gal / year at a PWR and'up to 5000 gal / year at a BWR. Since publication of the propos'ed rule, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), has published another report 1 estimating annual per reactor production at 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 10-7 to 10-5 pCi/ml but can be as high as 10-3 pCi/ml-in some cases. . Total activity per reactor per year is estimated to average about 10'4 Ci. .The dominant radionuclides are Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137. Others reported include Sr-90, Cd-109, 2n-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 liisit, which is-generally 15 mrem /yr from radioactive' iodine and radioactive material in particulate form (in keeping with the guidance contained in Appendix I of Part 50), or 15 prem/ year. This action modifies the restriction against incineration without 1
Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group: Nonradiological Characterization and Enviror.inental Ass'essment of BRC Waste, Prepared by Science Applications-International Corporation for the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-5674, February 1989.
- 2. ENCLOSURE 4
= --..- - -. ,- - _ _ . - - - - - - . . - - .
L 1
- prior approval contained in S20.1004 to make an exception forf waste oil at power reactor sites; however, it does not exempt the resulting effluents- from the requirements of S 50.36a and Appendix 1 of Part 50. These limiting conditions for operation include dose limits for effluents and monitoring and reporting-requirements. Although this action may slightly increase actual effluents,.
the radioactivity in these effluents naust ba kept within existing limits for total dose from nuclear power plant effluents which have been determined to satisfy the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.
Impacts from the toxic constituents of used oil 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.") Poten-tially, this action might result in reduced storage of waste oil onsite 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 signi-ficant quantities of materials, water, or energy and in some cases may involve the recovery of energy, e.g. , when the oil is burned in an auxiliary boiler.-
Based on these considerations, this action will not result in a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Alternatises 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 4 ENCLOSURE 4 e
J
was to' defer any action.until decisions' are mr.de regarding generic BRC rule-making. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with' Commission policy _
adopted.in 51 FR 30839 (August 29,1986). Since it-is apparent--that the cost to licensees to solidify or immobilize, package, transport, and bury contaminated waste oil at licensed disposal . sites is not justified based on the very limited doses f rom incineration and the fact _that other environmental impacts, if anything, will like'y be reduced, and since it is more-cost-ef fective to allow the incineration through rulemaking rather than 'to .
continue processing applications for license amendment, this action should be taken rather than delay the relief any further.
Other alternatives were considered which would have granted more of what the petitioners originally requested. However, 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 NRC 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 sufficient information available to preclude allowing any of the_other alternatives in the future, incineration appears to be environmentally preferable to the other proposed alternatives. Although used oil is not listed as a Federal hazardous waste, it does contain a significant amount of toxic substances consisting of various organic compounds and metals. Although there may be some environmental impact from the toxic nature of used oil for any-disposal alternative, incineration at a controlled site is likely to minimize these ef fects and is preferred by the EPA over land disposal generally. The organic compounds are largely destroyed by the incinaration process. As much 5 ENCLOSURE 4
i as' half or?roore .of the metals may be 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 radiologic ~and toxic constituents. -
Nationally, any nonradiological environmental effect of: disposal of radioactively contaminated used oil from nuclear power pla$ts would be small-compared to that associated with the total quantity of used oil disposed.-LAll-t 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-20-15) concerning-this action us a resolution of the petition.
Consideration has also been given to ongoing EPA activities,-the 14Lcomment-letters received on the petition, and the Brookhaven report, NUREG/CR-4730.
6 ' ENCLOSURE 4
- m _ _ _____________._________.________________.___________.__._____________._______._______m_.
i Finding of No Significant Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that this amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 to allow the incineration of clightly 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 state-ment is not required. This determination is based on the foregoing - - -
environmental assessment performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
7 ENCLOSURE 4
a
- DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT :
NRC TO PERMIT ON-SITE INCINERATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE OILS-
-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 had to dispose of-contaminated waste oils at a low-level radioactive waste disp'osal facility unless the license authorizing operation of the facility were specifically amended by the NRC staff to permit on-site incineration.
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, t
i 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 o
contaminated with small amounts of radioactive materials in the course of the operation or maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
1 ENCLOSURE 5 L
Releases of radioactive effluents, including those from waste oil incineration, are limited to "as-low-as-reasonably achievable" levels- already specified in Appendix I to Part 50 of the Commissions regulations. Accordingly,-
they are not subject to consideration under the NRC's "Below Regulatory Concern Policy." In addition, a generic assessment prepared for the staff-shows that.
the environmental impacts of waste oil incineration will be minimal.
The amendment to Part 20 of the NRC's regulations will become effective on (date),
2 ENCLOSURE 5!
The Commissioners 5-
- i. A public announcement (Enclosure 5) will be issued wb'en:
the final rule-is_ published in the Federal Registert <
- j. A regulatory analysis has been prepared by the staff E d is provided as Enclosure _2;
- k. The staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy 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 environinent, 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 Register, as required-by 10 CFR 51.35 and 51.119, as Appendix A to the notice.of. proposed rulemaking ,
(August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914 at-32917). LMinor modifications have been made to reflect the additional discussion of toxic impacts in The preamble of the final rule which responded to psblic comment. The revised assessment _is-provided-as Enclosure 4. Both-the original and revised-assessments 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 substantially different from those impacts-previously considered during individual reactor. licensing-hearings. The staff has reviewed the assessment, considered the public comments and the changes in the text of_the l final rrie, and concluded that the finding of no significant-
- impact need not be changed; I
- 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:
L 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Regulatory Analysis l 3. Draft Congressional Letter
- 4 Environmental Assessment and finding l of No Significant Impact
! 5. Draft Public Announcement f See next page for Distribution *See previous concurrences 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* DD:DRA* D:DRA* -DD/GIRiRES*
NAME:CMattsen:dm RMeck DCool NCostanzi BMorris _CJHeltemes DATE:09/24/90 09/24/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 10/04/90 10/04/90 0FFC:D:RES* OGC* NRR* NMSS* GPA* ADM* EDO
- NAME
- EBeckjord WParler TMurley RBernero HDenton PNorry JTaylor DATE:10/05/90 09/24/90 .04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / /91
. - . :The Commissioners 6 DISTRIBUTION -10 CFR PART 20 CP/MATTSEN RPHEB R/F - Cool Cir./Chron JTaylor, EDO PNorry,-ADM HDenton, GPA RBernero, NMSS TMurley, NRR WParler, OGC.
EBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris NCostanzi ARoecklein RMeck CMattsen
- I l
i-l 4
. - , _ _ . J.
1he Commissioners 5 that this rule it not a major FederalI action signi cantly-
~
affecting the quality of-the human environment, nd, therefore, the preparation of an Environment impact Statement is not required. -The Environme el Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact wa published in the Federal Register,-as required by 10 C .51.35 and-51.119,.
as Appendix A to the notice of pro sed rulemaking (August 29, 1988; 53 FR 32914 at 2917) Minor modifications-have been made to reflect the ditional discussion of toxic impacts in the preambl of'the final rule which-responded to public comme . The revised assessment is provided as Enclosure 4 Both the original and revised assessments concluded hat-the-incineration of typical waste oils would no result in impacts to the health.and s fety of the pub c-or the quality of the environment
~
wh1 are subst tielly different from those impacts.
previ sly co idered during individual reactor licensing hearings, e staff has reviewed the assessment, considered the . lic omments and the changes in the text of the final ru 4, a concluded that the finding of no significant impact eed not e changed;
- 1. This amendment es not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a bac it analysis is not required; and
- m. The amendatory language this rule conforms to revised Part 20 as sent to the Fed 1 Register January 19th but will be revised as appropriatb40 conform to the revised Part 20 as published.
James M. Taylor Executive Director- i for Operaticns
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Regulatory Analysi's
- 3. Draft Congressional Letter
- 4. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draf t Public Announcement cp 5dit See next page for Distributicn~
- See previous concurrences OFFC:RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* DO:DRA* D:DRA* cDD/GIR:RES*
HAME:CMattsen:dm RMeck DCool fiCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes DATE:09/24/90 09/24/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 10/04/90 10/04/90 -j 0FFC:D:RES* OGC* NPR* fiMSS$ GPA* ADM* EDO
] ;
NAME:FBeckjord WParler TMurley- RBernero HDenton PNorry JTaylor ]
OATE:10/05/90 09/24/90 04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90- 01/11/90 / /91 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l q
.g -
p..
4
~
~
r . .
~
The-Commissioners 7 i DISTRIBUTION : 10 CFR PART 20 CP/MATTSEN ;
RPHEB-R/F . . Cool!
--Cir./Chron Jiaylor,'EDO
WParler, OGC EBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris NCostanzi ARoecklein RMeck CMattsen 4
D m
1 +
l.
l.
[
w , y i yg- -
a The Commissioners 5'
.J
/[
, J. A. regulatory analysis has been prepared by he staff and is provided as Enclosure. 2;
- k. Assessment as -
The staffby:the required has prepared an Environmenta) Policy: Act of National Environmenta 1969, as amended, and based on that )ssestment, has-determined that this rule is.not a /jor a Federal. action significantly affecting the qual' y of the human environment, and, therefore, the preparation f an Environmental Impact __-
Statement is not. required. Ty Environmental Assessment-and Finding of No-Significan Impact was published in the-Federal Register, as requir d-by-10 CFR 51.35 and 51.119, ;
as Appendix A to the notip > of proposed rulemaking.
August 29,1988; 53 FR J2914 at- 32917). - Minor modifications h e been made to refigtt the. additional discussion-of-tox'c impacts in the preamble of_the final rule which:
resp ded to public omment. The-revised assessment is
-provid as Enclosu e 4 Both the original'and revised assessme ts conc 1 ed.that the incineration of typical waste oi L wouldjhot result in impacts to-the-health and safety of t e p blic or the quality of .the environment ,
which are su antially different from those impacts-previously ccyn dered_during individual' reactor. licensing hearings. he ff has reviewed the assessment, considered:
the public commen and the changes in the text of the ._ <
final rul., and co uded that the finding of no significant-impact ed not be c nged; and
- 1. This ,endment does not pnstitute a backfit under 10- CFR -
50.1 s, and a backfit a'nalyqis is not required.
s James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Regi. ter Notice
- 2. Regulatory nalysis
- 3. Draft' Con essional Letter '
- 4. Environme tal Assessment' and Finding of No ignificant Impact
- 5. Draft P blic Announcement &
See next age for Distribution
- See pre ious concurrences 0FFC: ppt B:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* DD:DRA* D:DRA* DD/GIR:RES*
NAf1E:Cf ttsen:dm RMeck DCool NCostanzi BMorris CJ He.l tenes -
00 09/24/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 10/04/90 10/04/90 DATE:0/24/)&)
sw , 15 4 n u 0FFC:D:RES* OGC* NRR* fif tS S* GPA* ADM*- E00
- flAtlE
- EBeckjord WParler TMurley RBernero HDenton PNorry JTaylor' DATE:10/05/90 09/24/90 04/20/90- 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 /_' /91-
The Commissioners 6 l .
DISTRIBUTION 10 CFR PART 20 CP/liATTSEN RMIEB~C Cool Cir./Chron JTaylor, ED0 PNorry, ADM HDenton, GPA RBernero, HMSS '
TMurley, NRR WParler, 0GC EBeckjord CJHeltemes Bliorri s llCostanzi ARoecklein Rfteck CMattsen
I 5 The Commissioners determined that this rule is not a raajor F eral action
\significantly affecting the quality of it e human environment, ar4 therefore, the preparation of an F vironmental Impact Stat q nt is not required. The Envir imental Assessment and Finding of flo Significant Impac was published in the federal Reghtgr, as required by CTR 51.35 and 51.119, as fppenifix A thttp notice of oposed rulemaking (August 29, 1980; 53 R 32914 . 32917). liinor modifications have been made t reflect'th aaditional dis'cussion of the final rule which toxic impacts responded in thecomme to public preamtt.eN{he T evised assessment is pro <ided as Enclosure 4 Both the o inal and revised assessments concluded hat the incinera n of typical waste oils would not result in impacts to health and safety of the publ or the quality of the eny rqnment which are substa ially different from those impalc A previously cons cred during individual reactor licen h hearings. Th staff has reviewed the assessment, considered the public c mments and the changes in the text of the final rule and concluded that the finding of no significant impact n'.d not be changed; and
- 1. T .is amendment does not constitute a backfit under 10 CTR 0.109, and a backfit analysis is not required.
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. federal Register flotice
- 2. Ilegulatory Analysis
- 3. Draf t Congressional Letter
- 4. Environmental Assessment and finding of i;o Significant impact
- 5. Draf t Public Annou'ncement See next page for Distribution "See previous concurrences W Mh\ D:DRA* DD/G1R:RES*
Of f C: RPilEB:DR A* RPHEB:DRA* RPil[D :DR A* DD:DRA*
IIAf tE: Cliattsen:dm Rileck DC001 flCostanzi Cliorris CJHeltenes DATE:09/24/00 09/24/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 10/04/90 10/04/00 an ~ y 0FFC:D:RES*
flAtlE:EBeckjord OGCDWParler}i[ilRR* GPA* 1114 S 5
- Arti* EDO y-(Tiiurley RDernero HDenton Pl'orry JTaylor DATE:10/05/90 09/24/90,s(04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / /91 4s\% $
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
a .
l The Commissioners 5 Environmental Assessment and finding of No ylgnificant Impact was published in the Federal _ Regist,er, as required by 10 CFR 51.35 and $1.119, as Appen3Tx to the notice R proposed rulemaking (August 29, 19 ; 53 FR 32914 at 3291Q. Hinor modifications have bimpacts n madeinto reflect the preamble the add tional discussion of toxi of the f 1 rule which respond to public comment.
The revise. 3 essment is pro ded as Enclosure 4. Both the original evised as ssments, concluded that the incineration of t cal w te oils would not result in impacts to the health . safety of the public or the cuality of the enviro e'h which are substantially cifferent from thos impact G reviously considered during individual reacto licensing harings. The staff has reviewed the asy ssment, conside N the public comments and the cFan e in the text of the H qa1 rule, aid concluded t' t the finding of no signiti ant impact need nct be ch ged; and
- 14. This p endment does not constitute a backfit un er 30 ' R 50.109, and a backfit analysis is not required.
- 15. e text of this rule will be combined with the text of the overall revision of Part 20 as appropriate following Commission decision.
James M. Taylor Executive Director
'or 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
- 6. Statement of ED0 Approving Final Rule for Publication See next page for Distribution
- See previous concurrences UA 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA :0RA :00iDRA :0: DRAM : DD:RES
- RPHEB:DRA NAME:CMattsen:dm : RMeck11/ :DC [ :RPF :Q(stanzi :BMorr N : JHeltemes DATE: 1/yl/90 :f/2c/90 :7 /90 O/? /90 :p /h /90 : / /90 bj aba-
- YG :NRR* :NMSS* :GPA* :ADM* :EDO 0FFC:D:Rh :WParl b :lMurley :RMBernero :HRDenton :PGNorry lor i NAME: EBechord :JMTay/90 DATE:A /6~/90 : 7/21/90 :04/20/90 :01/16/9C :05/01/90 :01/11/90 : /
l 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Commissioners 6 ,
DISTRIBUTION. DISPOSAL OF WASTE OIL / CATHY RPfl[B RH - DCool Circ./Chron.
SubjectFile .
JMTaylor, E00 .
PGNorry, ADM HRDenton, GPA -
RMBernero, NMSS _ , , ;
TEMurley, NRR -
WCParler, 0G0 EBeckjord JHeltemes BMorris : .
NCostanzi ARoecklein '
RMeck WLahs CMattson
-)
i Y
'_E s
0 3
- m. e,l -+- ...A.-.-.i. .m:-,.-,- .. . . . . . , . . - . . ~ , . . ~, .. . . . - . -,~,.n.. . - +---n- -, , ,
The Cornmissioners 5 4
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 substantially different from those impacts previously confideredduringindividualreactorlicensinghearings.
Th staff has reviewed that assessment, considered the p lic cormnents and the changes in the text of the final le, and concluded that the finding of,no significant- '
rnpact need not be changed; and
- 14. This amendment dues not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, and a backfit an'o{ysis is not required.
/
/ James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. federal Register Notice
- 2. Regulatory At olysis
- 3. Draft Congre'.sional Letter 4 Environmental Assessment and -inding of No Significant Impact
- 5. Draft Public Announcement
- 6. Statement of EDO Approving ina Rule for Publication DISTRIBUTION. DISPOSAL OF WASTE IL/C TilY RMITR/F - DCool Circ./Chron.
JMTaylor PGNorry, ADM HRDenton, GPA RMBernero, NMSS TEMurley NRR WCParler, 0GC EDeckjord ' '
Jileltemes .
BMorris.
HCostanzi
'RMeck:
Wlahs CMattsen 0FFC:RPHEB:DRA :RPHED:DRA :RPHEB:DRA :DD:DRA :D:DRA- :DD:RES NAME:LMattsen:dm : RMeck :0C001 :NCostanzi :BMorris :JHeltemes.
DATE: / /90 : ./ /90 : / /90 :/ /90 : / /90 : / /90 l
0FFC:D:RES : AD D
- 0GC :NMS$ :GP :ED0 l HAME:EBec kjord :WParler :NRR{Y[y
- TMur e :RMBernero :HRDenton :PGNorry . :JMTaylor DATE: [; /90- : ./ /90 : y/p /90 : I/14/90 :6/\/90 : / /# /90 : / /90.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY L '
[7509-01] l
-(2) Solid residues p'roduced in the process of incinerating waste oils. l must be disposed of as provided by 6 20.1001.
l i
(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil !
incineration under the terms of this section and supersede any provision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be
'~
inconsistent. :
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1991;-
3 i
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission See next page for Distribution
- See previous-concurrences y t%b 0FFC: RPHEB: 0RA* RPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:DRA* DD:DRA*- 0:DRA* DD/GIR:RES*
NAME:CMattsen:dm RMeck DCool NCostanzi BMorris CJHeltemes DATE:09/26/90 09/26/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 -10/04/90 10/04/90 ,
0FFC:D:RES* OGC* NRR* NMSS* GPA* 'ADM* EDO NAME:EBeckjord WParler TMurley RBernero H0enton PNorry JTaylor
-DATE:10/05/90 09/26/90 04/20/90 '01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / - /91 0FFICIAL RECORD. COPY 32- - ENCLOSURE IL
.I
[7509-01) i DISTRIBUTION 10 CfR PART 20 ENCL 1 ,
IfhiEB R71 - Cool Cir./Chron JTaylor, EDO PNorry, ADM HDenton, GPA RBernero, HMSS TMurley, NRR WParler, OGC EBeckjord CJHeltemes ,
BMorris NCostanzi ARoecklein RMeck CMattsen 33 ENCLOS!)RE 1 ,
(2) Solid residues produced in the process of incinerating waste oils nust be disposed of as provided by 6 20.1001.
(3) The provisions of this section authorize onsite waste oil incitieration under the terms of this section and supersede any orovision in an individual plant license or technical specification that may be inconsistent.
Dated at Rockville,' Maryland this day of 1991.
For the fluclear Regulatory Commission.
x Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of.the Commission s
See next page for Distribution
- Seepreviousco$turrences t peyA*
OffC:PPHEB:DRA* RPHEB:0RA' f;PHEB:DRA+ DD:DRA* 0:DRA* DD/GIR:FES*
?!AME:EMa ttsen:dm RMeck DCool tiCostanzi Bliorris CJHeltemes DATE:09/26/90 09/20/90 09/26/90 10/02/90 10/04/90 10/04/90 etyi> +,9 OffC:D:RES* C C C ' + '". < fiMSS
- GPA* ADf1* EDO 11AtiE:EEcckjordUPerler$ctiRR*t1Muriry RBernero liDenton Priorry JTaylor DATE:10/05/90 09/26/96 04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / /91 l n i 'i i Off1CIAL RECORD COPY 32 EtiCLOSURE 1
j b h
[750901] i
. , i DISTRIBUTI0li 10- CFR PART 20 EllCl.1 -
RPliED R/F - Cool Cir./Chron JTaylor, EDO !
Pilorry, ADM l llDenton, GPA l RBernero,liMSS }
Tliurley, liRR WParler. OGC -!
EDeckjord
"~
CJilelternes BMorris
-llCostanzi ARoecklein PJieck CMattsen ;
i i
+
f 1 %
A ..+
j I
l- 1 l-1 33 - EflCLOS'URE .1 o
. . . - - .-..- _ :. - _ - - == -_ ==_:=- -
[7509-01] t (c) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section relieves the licensee from complying with other applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of these materials.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1990, For the Nuclear Reg'ulatory Commission.
Jar M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION: FRN/ DISPOSAL OF WASTE OlL BY..
RPHEB R/F - DCool Subject / Circ./Chron.
JMTaylor PGNor_ry,_ADM HRDenton, GPA RMBernero, NMSS TEMurley, NRR
- WCParler, OGC -
EBeckjord CJHeltemes BMorris NCostanzi. .
RMeck f.
CMattsen
- See previous concurrences Q
OFFC:RP 5: 0RA : RPHEB: DRA, : RPl :DRA :DDNifA :0:DRAMDD:RES:0:R S :
NAME:CMattsen:dm :RMeck
- DC ol :NCostanzi:BMorris :Heltemes :EBec jord:
DATE: i/$/90 : / /2e/90 : 9 /%f /90_ : /"/ 7790 :P/h90 : l'/J /90 : /r/ f/90 :
kFkb(C NRR* NMSS* GPA* ADM* E00 NAME:WParler TMurley RBernero HDenton -PNorry JTaylor DATE:1/24/90~ :04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / /90 7E/er% thenwa 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY by s. naby
" ""8/8d'* 32 Enclosure 1
[7509-01]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1990.
4 for the Nuclear Regulato Commission.
l' ,/
/
\. /
/
/
James M. Taylof Executive Director l.
l for Operations l
DISTRIBUTION: FRN/ DISPOSAL 0F WASTE OIL BY.'.
RPHEB R/F - DCool \
Subject / Circ./Chron. \
JMTaylor \
PGNorry, ADM \
! HRDenton, GPA N RMBernero, NMSS 'N TEMurley, NRR -
WCParler, OGC EBeckjord
'N'NN CJHeltemes -,'
BMorris ~
l NCostanzi l RMeck CMattsen
- See previous concurrences l ek l OFFC:RPHEB:DRA :RPHEB:DRA :RPHEB:DRA :DD:DRA :D:DRA :DD: RES . :D:RES :
NAME:CMattsen:dm :RMeck :DCool- :NCostanzi:'BMorris :Heltemes b EBeckjord:
DATE: 'l /M//90 : / /90. : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / / /90 :
nsJe9At 'a~ /90':\ '
OFFC:0G f NRRA NMSS* GPA* ADM* EDO NAME:WPa 7 TMurley RBernero HDenton PNorry JTaylor
.DATE: 9////90 :04/20/90 01/16/90 05/01/90 01/11/90 / /90 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 1+
l 32 Enclosure 1 l
[7509-01]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1990.
For the liuclear Regulatory Congnission.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION: FRN/ DISPOSAL Of WASTE OIL BY.,
RPilEB R/F - DCool Subject / Circ./Chron.
JMTaylor PGilorry, ADM llRDenton, GPA RMBernero, HMS$
TEMurley, fiRR WCParler, OGC EBeckjord CJileitemes BMorris NCostanzi RMeck CMattsen 0F F C:RPliEB:DRA :RPliEB:DRA :RPilEB:DRA :DD:DRA :D:DRA :DD: PES :D:RES :
NAME:CMettsen:dm :RMeck :DCool :licoctanri:SMorris :heltemes :EBeckjora: '
DATE: / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 :
s NRR bO NMSS'"" GPA f,[ ADM '""
f OffC:0GC EDO NAME:WParler TMurley RBernero HDenton PNorry JTaylor DATE: / /90 :<//2o/90 I/10/90 Y///90 8 /n /90 / /90 OfflCIAL RECORD COPY 27 Enclosure 1
_