Proceedings of the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mixed Waste Workshop

Denver, Colorado
My 19 - 20, 1988

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
   Hw
  &EPA
•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
 IV
Proceedings of the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mixed Waste Workshop

Denver, Colorado
July 19 - 20,1988
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

-------


-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                               Preface
    Realizing the need for more communication between regulatory agencies
on the subject of mixed (hazardous and radioactive) waste, U.S. EPA organized
a Mixed Waste Workshop.  This Workshop, held at the Embassy Suites Hotel
in Denver,  Colorado, on July 19-20, 1988, brought together many of the
interested parties.   Representatives of the  U.S. Energy  Department,  U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, several Regional and State agencies, private
organizations, and U.S. EPA spent the two days exchanging information and
setting an agenda for a future workshop.

    This proceedings report summarizes the presentations given over the two
days.  Limited editorial  license  has been taken  with the  presentations  that
follow which have been  reviewed by the presenters for  technical accuracy.

-------
                                                                      II
                    Acknowledgements
I
I
I
I
I
I
    EPA, and in particular the Office of Solid  Waste, Permits and
State Program Division, would like to thank all who participated in                   •
the Mixed Waste Workshop.  EPA also expresses its appreciation to all                   •
of the presenters, whose input to the Workshop made it all the more
valuable.   Finally,  EPA  acknowledges  its  appreciation  of  ICF
Incorporated, who helped organize the Workshop and  produced this                   fl
proceedings report.                                                       .        •
                                                                                I

                                                                                I

-------
                                                                              Ill
                              Table of Contents
Opening Remarks
   by Alexander Wolfe, EPA 	     1

EPA's Approach to Regulation of Mixed Waste
   by Bruce Weddle, EPA  	     3



                                    SESSION I

                Mixed Waste: The Radioactive and Hazardous Components  —
                         Generation, Management, and Disposal


Regulation of Hazardous Waste  Under RCRA
   by Robert Scarberry, EPA	     7

Regulation of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator
Produced Radioactive Material (NARM) Under  RCRA
   by Joe Freedman, EPA  	'	     11

DOE Management of High-Level and Transuranic Wastes
   by Douglas Smith, DOE	     15

DOE Management of Low-Level and NARM Mixed Waste
   by M.W. Shupe, DOE	     31

Commercial Low-Level Waste
   by Daniel Martin, NRC	     39

Below Regulatory Concern Wastes - Identification and  Implications
for Mixed Waste Management
   by Timothy Johnson, NRC	     43



                                    SESSION II

                           Dual Regulation of Mixed Wastes


The NRC Approach  to Dual Regulation of Mixed Waste:  Status of
NRC Activities
   by Daniel Martin, NRC	     47

-------
                              Table of Contents
                                                                                          I



                                                      	*         I



                                                                                          I


                                                                             Page         I

DOE Compliance with RCRA
   by Leah Dever, DOE	     49         •

The State Experience Applying Hazardous Waste Regulations  to
Commercial and Defense Mixed Waste                                                        _
   by Michael Sattler, State of Colorado	     53         •

Status of EPA Activities
   by Betty Shackleford, EPA  	     57         •

NRC's Agreement State Program
   by Kathleen N. Schneider, NRC  	     59

EPA's Authorized State Program                                                             I
   by Alexander Wolfe, EPA  	     63

The State/Compact Experience  Establishing Disposal Capacity for                               I
Low-Level Radioactive Waste:  Issues and Update                                             ™
   by Holmes Brown, Afton Associates	     67

Implications of  Dual Regulation of Mixed Waste for States and                                 |
Compacts Meeting the  Milestones Established by the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act                                                    —
   by Betty Shackleford, EPA  	     71         •
                                    SESSION HI


                               EPA Case Studies Panel
                                                                                          I


                                                                                          I
West Valley Demonstration Project: Implications of Testing
Requirements and Waste Treatment                                                          «
   by Paul A. Giardina, EPA Region  II                                                      •
   and Shawn W. Googins, EPA Region II  	     73         —


Fernald:  Federal Facility Compliance                                                        •
   by Catherine McCord, EPA Region V  	     89         |


Nuclear Submarine:  Mixed Waste Generation and Management                                  _
   by Charles Flippo, EPA Region IX 	     93         •
                                                                                          I

                                                                                          I

                                                                                          I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              Table of Contents




                                                                            Paee

                                   SESSION IV

                       Evolving RCRA Regulations and Their Impact


RCRA Permitting Impacts
   by Frank McAlister, EPA  	     95

Hazardous Waste Characterization, Testing, and Verification:  TCLP
   by Gail Hansen, EPA  .	     99

Location Standards Update
   by L. Kent Anderson, EPA  	     103.

Land Ban:  Its Impact on Mixed Waste
   by Rhonda Craig, EPA  	     107

Subpart X Applicability to Mixed Waste Units
   by L. Kent Anderson, EPA  .	."....     Ill



                                    SESSION V

                               EPA Case Studies Panel


Closure at Oak Ridge
   by Suzy Riddle, EPA Region IV  	     115

Mixed Waste Ground-Water Contamination Issues
   by Martin Hestmark, EPA Region VIII 	     117

Development of a RCRA Mixed Waste Permit
   by Nathaniel Miullo, EPA Region XIII 	     119

Implementation of a Consent Order and Compliance Agreement at INEL:
Progress Report
   by Wayne Pierre, EPA Region X	     121

Weldon Springs:  Mixed Waste and Disposal Problems
   by Daniel Wheeler, EPA Region VII  	     123

-------
                                                                               VI
                              Table of Contents
                                    SESSION VI

                           Enforcement and Corrective Action
Enforcement at Commercial and Federal Facilities
   by Melanie Barger, EPA  	
                                                                             Page
Compliance at Federal Facilities: An Overview
   by Christopher Grundler, EPA	,
Corrective Action:  The RCRA/CERCLA Interface
   by Bruce Weddle, EPA  	
Federal Facility Interagency Agreements:  The DOE Perspective
   by Kathleen Taimi, DOE	
125


127


131


135
                                    SESSION VII

                                Emerging Technologies
Alternatives to Lead for Radioactive Waste Management
   by M W. Shupe, DOE 	
Proposed Technologies for Mixed Waste Management
   by Nathaniel Miullo, EPA Region VIII  	
139


141
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page  1

OPENING REMARKS

Presented by

Alex Wolfe, Section Chief, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

Mr. Wolfe is currently the Section Chief of the Implementation Program ofEPA's State Programs Branch,  He
has a B.S. in Biology and Geography and an M.S. in Environmental Planning,
    EPA planned this workshop for a num-
ber of months.  We solicited input from
EPA Regions and States before creating
the agenda in order to ensure  that  the
topics and issues covered in this workshop
address ongoing concerns. More important,
the topics of this workshop were chosen to
provide some basic information on current
activities and selected case studies in areas
of  broad  interest.   The  topics  include
RCRA regulatory issues, the NRC regula-
tory perspective,  DOE management  of
mixed  waste,  State authorization,  and
selected case  studies.   Our  hope is  that
EPA Regions and States and other partici-
pating Federal Agencies and Departments
will take  the opportunity  during  this
workshop to raise  issues and to resolve
them, or at least  initiate  the process  of
resolution. There is no guarantee that this
workshop will solve every problem; we do
hope, however, that it will get solutions
underway.

   While  dual regulation is not the  most
efficient approach for the management of
mixed waste, it is working. There has been
quite a bit of  dialogue between NRC and
EPA about the regulation of mixed waste
and  our  consensus  is that it is working.
Also, our hope is that this workshop will
provide the opportunity to develop a posi-
tive  understanding of all of our missions;
after all, different regulatory bodies have
different  approaches   and   mandates.
Through this process we  hope an ongoing
framework for future cooperation can be
established. The cooperation and interest
of all participants in the workshop is ap-
preciated.

-------
Page  2
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 ERA'S APPROACH TO REGULATION OF MIXED WASTE

 Presented by
                                         i
 Brace Weddle, Director, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

 Mr. Weddle joined EPA in 1970 and has been with the Office of Solid Waste since that time. As Director of
 the Permits and State Programs Division, Mr. Weddle has primary responsibility for many RCRA regulatory
programs. Mr. Weddle has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Parsons University and an M.BA. from
Xarier University.
    Historically, there has been much con-
fusion about what  constitutes a  mixed
waste, whether  RCRA applies  to  mixed
wastes, and if it does, just how it applies.
This confusion comes from the exclusion
in RCRA which states that source, special
nuclear,  and by-product material are not
covered by the definition  of  solid  waste.
If something is not a solid waste it cannot
be a hazardous waste. There were seeming-
ly years  of debate about whether or not
mixed waste was subject to RCRA  at all.
This was resolved on July 3, 1986, by EPA
in a Federal Register notice.  The  notice
states that the RCRA  exclusion for source,
special nuclear, and  by-product material
applies only to the radioactive portion of
mixed waste, and  the hazardous compon-
ent is covered as hazardous waste.  Legal-
ly, RCRA only applies to the chemical part
of the waste, but in reality the waste can-
not be separated into components.  DOE
clarified the application of RCRA to its
waste by defining by-product  material on
May 1, 1987.

    Given that mixed waste has been de-
fined, at least from a legal sense, the re-
sult is dual regulation, and in some cases
it means  more than dual.  It means States,
EPA,  and perhaps  NRC and DOE may all
be involved in an  individual situation.

    The regulated community can be classi-
fied into  two groups.  The first group is
made up  of generators and transporters.
The second group is  made up of facility
owners and operators. RCRA applicability
is  fairly  straight forward  with  regard  to
generators.   They  have  to figure  out
whether they have  a  hazardous waste or
not, and if they do, they need to submit a
notification form, which is a way of get-
ting an EPA identification number.  The
facility must use a hazardous waste mani-
fest form  anytime it ships the waste off-
site.   It must send the waste  to an  ap-
proved hazardous waste facility; it must
verify that the waste arrived at the facili-
ty through  the use of  a  manifest  form;
and it may  treat  and store the waste on-
site for up to 90 days without a permit as
long as the waste was  generated on-site.
If the facility stores  the  waste for more
than 90 days it  needs a permit.  This  is
fairly straight forward, although in look-
ing at the mixed waste universe  it  could
mean  20,000 or more  new handlers  being
brought into the  hazardous  waste system
as generators figure out if they have ra-
dioactive mixed  waste.  Right  now, it  is
likely that those  people that have mixed
waste do not know  they have it, and they
do not know the RCRA  policy.  This  is
one of the problems that EPA will have to
address over the next few years.

   The other group in the regulated com-
munity is  made up of treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDFs), which are
subject to  much more complicated regula-
tion.  In general a facility  owner or opera-
tor has to get an identification number by
notifying  EPA;   then  the facility must
submit the first part of the  two-part per-
mit application.  Part A of the application
includes a description  of the  waste the
facility handles, the treatment processes it

-------
 uses, the design capacities of those proces-
 ses, and  some  other  basic  information.
 Once the Fart A has been submitted or
 filed, the facility basically has obtained
 interim status, which is necessary in order
 to continue operating  until the permit is
 issued.  The only other condition for in-
 terim status is that the facility must be in
 existence on the date that it becomes regu-
 lated. If a facility does not have interim
 status, it cannot handle hazardous waste
 until it  has a permit. The States and EPA
 know that issuing a  permit is a long  pro-
 cess both  in terms of time and expense;
 therefore, facilities  have an incentive to
 obtain interim status.

    Once a facility has interim status, it
 must comply with the rules and regulations
 under 40 CFR Part 265  of  the  RCRA
 regulations  or it  must comply with  the
 State's interim status  regulations.   It is
 helpful  to remember that the Federal  reg-
 ulations in 40 CFR Part 265 are analogous
 to the State's counterpart in  authorized
 States and that 40 CFR Part 264 is analo-
 gous to State permit regulations in author-
 ized States.

    RCRA was passed with the  intent  that
 it be implemented by the States,  not by
 EPA. Under  RCRA, EPA can authorize
 States to run  the program instead  of  the
 EPA. The test for authorization is, among
 other things,  that a State must have a
 program that is  at  least as  stringent as
 EPA's.  In addition, RCRA explicitly al-
 lows States to be more stringent than  the
 Federal program.  The result is that there
 may be as many as 56 different  sets of
 regulations defining mixed waste (i.e., 50
 States and 6 territories).  All of the autho-
 rized State  programs will  be at least as
stringent as EPA, but they all might be
slightly different in how they regulate
 mixed waste.   Some States will  regulate
 mixed waste much like they regulate haz-
ardous waste.  Other States  may  have a
special set of regulations for mixed waste.
This is envisioned by RCRA and encour-
 aged  in the  statute; therefore, it is  this
complication that must be addressed when
 implementing  a mixed waste program  for
 hazardous and radioactive  waste.
	Page  4

    The July 3,1986, notice which defined
 mixed waste and  how the definition  ap-
 plied, also began the process for States to
 obtain  authorization  to  run  the  mixed
 waste program. When the notice was  is-
 sued,  41  States were  authorized for  the
 hazardous  waste  program, and now  44
 States have been authorized.  Under EPA
 regulations. States have  a set  period  of
 time to pick up Federal program changes,
 including  the  program for mixed waste.
 To date, four States, Colorado, Washington,
 Tennessee, and South Carolina, have picked
 up the change that was announced in the
 July 3, 1986, notice and  those  States are
 now authorized for the mixed waste pro-
 gram.  In  these four States, the  States'
 hazardous waste regulations apply to haz-
 ardous waste which includes mixed waste.
 There are 12 States and territories where
 EPA administers  the Federal  hazardous.
 waste program, and in those States, EPA's
 regulations apply  to mixed waste.  In the
 other 40 States and territories mixed waste
 is not currently a hazardous  waste under
 Federal  law.  These 40 jurisdictions are
 States that  are authorized  for the  base
 RCRA program but have not yet become
 authorized  for  the mixed waste program.
 EPA is going to publish a Federal Register
 notice in  the next month that covers when
 the waste in those States will become sub-
 ject to the  hazardous waste program.

    Presently, mixed waste is regulated as
 a hazardous waste in the four authorized
 States, plus the 12 States  where EPA runs
 the hazardous waste  program.  In  the  re-
 maining 40 jurisdictions, mixed waste is
 not subject to RCRA, but State laws may
 apply to mixed waste. For example, if the
 State  of  New  York has  its own set of
 regulations governing mixed waste,  even
 though the  State is not authorized by EPA,
 then any facility must  comply with the
 State laws.  So, even  in the case of mixed
 waste the States are the primary implemen-
 tors of the program.

    Dual regulation has been an issue for
 several years. At a Congressional oversight
 hearing  three  years ago,  DOE,  NRC,  and
 EPA all stated that EPA did not need to be
 directly involved in the implementation of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a  mixed  waste  program.   Instead,  EPA
could authorize NRC or DOE to implement
EPA's regulations directly.  Many environ-
mental groups and a number of States were
distressed about the  suggestion of using
dual regulation.  However,  Congress made
it clear that it  wanted EPA and RCRA
directly involved in the implementation of
the mixed waste program, which Congress
knew meant dual regulation.   Congress
understood dual regulation would involve
problems with potential duplication, ineffi-
ciency, delays, and increased costs for the
regulated  community.  Congress has made
it clear that it  expects  EPA,  NRC, and
DOE  to make dual regulation  work, and
that is  what these  agencies  have  been
doing.

    It  is important to accept that both EPA
and the  States  will  be  involved  in the
regulation of mixed waste, and to find the
most  efficient   way  to  implement  dual
regulation.  NRC can communicate  with
its regulated community  better than EPA
can. Consequently, EPA and NRC devel-
oped a joint guidance, using NRC's  local
distribution  network,  defining a mixed
waste and determining how  the hazardous
waste definition applies to the community
regulated  by NRC.  The  guidance seemed
to be particularly well  suited for those
who do not know RCRA but who generate
radioactive waste.

    NRC and EPA have also issued siting
guidelines for the disposal  of mixed low-
level  radioactive waste.   These address
issues such as how EPA's location criteria
apply to mixed waste, how to meet EPA's
standards  for locating sites, and how those
standards  relate to  NRC's  siting criteria.
This document was  directed toward the
individuals  who must comply  with the
regulations.  One other joint guidance was
issued which covers the design approach to
commercial facilities.

    It  is  important  for  the agencies  to
figure out how to communicate with the
regulated  community, and  how to  com-
municate  among themselves.  No  one in
the regulated community is going to un-
derstand either program or both programs
	Page  5

 as  well as they understand  the  program
 they  have already  been  regulated under;
 therefore, we must explain the programs
 to them.  EPA has already faced problems
 in  dealing with many different  jurisdic-
 tions on RCRA issues, yet  these problems
 will be compounded  in  the  mixed waste
 area.  In some States there  will be  two
 completely different agencies or two sepa-
 rate arms of the same agency dealing with
 mixed waste.  This makes communication
 even more difficult.  The agencies  still
 need to reach  the  goal  set by Congress:
 avoid unnecessary  duplication of  effort
 and unnecessary expense.  It will be  dif-
 ficult to  implement dual regulation, but
 the regulatory agencies share this common
 goal.
 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 Q: We  have a small quantity of a listed
    waste in part of an otherwise non-haz-
    ardous waste stream.  Is there anything
    we can do, other than delisting, to get
    out of the system?

 A: In the short-term, the answer is no  —
    you  would have to  delist.  We may
    change the delisting procedure, which
    would require a formal rulemaking, in
    the future, but that would be  years
    from now.  You could try to segregate
    that listed waste from the waste stream
    by changing the process design.
 Q: Does the State of Ohio have to accept
    EPA's delisting decision?

 A: Since delisting is a way to get put of
    the system, States have the  option of
    accepting delisting decisions  or  not.
    As a practical matter, because delisting
    is so involved and very time  and re-
    source intensive, EPA would probably
    not go  forth on a delisting petition
    without a State's agreement beforehand.
    Thus, the State is the final  arbiter in
    that it can accept or reject the decision
    regarding the delisting petition.

-------
Q:  Nebraska is a State designing a mixed
    waste facility.  We will, of course, need.
    a RCRA permit.   However,  you are
    required to have  the  permit  prior to
    starting  construction.   Does  this re-
    quirement  only apply to the  mixed
    waste cell or the entire facility?

A:  Nebraska is  an authorized State  and
    would be the permitting  authority in
    this case; the answer, then, lies in your
    State.   If  EPA were  the permitting
    authority,  you  could  go  ahead  and
    construct the low-level site  but  you
    could  not  begin the  construction of
    those parts that are related to hazar-
    dous  waste units  until you  had the
    permit.

    [Joined  by  Kathleen  N. Schneider,
    NRC] A license can be granted under
    10 CFR  Part 61 or a State regulation
    stipulating that no mixed waste can be
    received until the RCRA permit is in
    place. However, since Nebraska is an
    Agreement State,  the  State authority
    would decide.
Q: What about training for RCRA inspec-
   tors?  As  a program director, I am
   reluctant to send personnel off to in-
   spect radioactive waste facilities with-
   out  proper training.  Before EPA re-
   quires us to do radiological inspections,
   it will have to provide us with train-
   ing.
	Page  6

 A: Training is certainly important.  One
    of the things about RCRA, though, is
    that it is not necessary for the RCRA
    person to do the inspections. You can
    negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement
    so that people in the radioactive waste
    program will do the inspections.  You
    might need  to  send two  people, one
    trained in RCRA and one in radiation,
    or establish a cross training program or
    more formal cooperation.
 Q: How will we go about implementing a
    cleanup of ground water that contains
    radioactive  material?  Radionuclides
    are not considered a hazardous waste
    under RCRA.

 A: This issue has been raised before, par-
    ticularly from Region IV.  One idea is.
    that we can implement a cleanup under
    the authority of the omnibus provision
    of RCRA (§3005(i)) in order to protect
    human health and the environment. We
    do not have a good answer today, but
    it  is an issue which we will address
    soon.  That  Superfund is able to deal
    with radionuclides and not RCRA leads
    us to think  that  perhaps we can use
    Superfund authorities.  It  is a really
    good question, and we have to  figure
    it out.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
                 Session I
               MIXED WASTE:
THE RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS
   GENERATION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSAL

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1
 I
 1
 1
J
                                                                              Page  7

 REGULATION OF  HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER  RCRA

 Presented by

 Robert Scarberry, Section Chief, Characterization and Assessment Branch, EPA

Mr. Scarbeny is the Chief of the Listing Section in the Office of Solid Waste. He has been with OSW for four
years and was a consultant to EPA and DOE prior to 1984. He has a B.S. in Biology from West Virginia
 University and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh.
    Defining a  hazardous  waste  under
RCRA first requires an understanding of
the definition  of a solid waste because
hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste.
A solid waste  is any  discarded  material
that has not been  excluded by  40 CFR
261.4 or  delisted pursuant  to  40 CFR
260.30.   The definition of  discarded  is
broad and includes  anything abandoned,
disposed of, burned  or  incinerated, or
accumulated, stored, or  treated  (but not
recycled)  prior  to  being  disposed  of,
burned, or incinerated. The definition of
solid  waste  also  includes  materials con-
sidered inherently waste-like. To date, six
wastes that  contain  dioxins have been
designated inherently waste-like.

    Many  materials have been  exempted
from the solid waste definition.  Examples
of  these include wastes regulated under
the Atomic  Energy Act,  irrigation  return
flows,  domestic  sewage, and  industrial
wastewater discharges subject to regulation
under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Note that this last exemption applies only
to  point source discharges;  therefore, a
unit that manages, stores, or treats  one of
these wastewaters may be subject to RCRA.

    In addition, secondary materials  that
are recycled may be defined as solid waste.
When the definition of  solid  waste  was
revised in 1984, EPA determined it had the
authority to regulate certain materials that
were recycled, as well as materials accumu-
lated, stored, or treated  before recycling.
There has been considerable controversy
surrounding this decision and subsequent
litigation.   Last  summer an   important
court decision (American Mining Congress
v.  EPA) ruled against  EPA's authority to
regulate  certain  recyclable  wastes.   In
January 1988, EPA's proposed interpreta-
tion of the  court's decision  included a
narrow definition  of  what  was  lost in
terms  of  authority  to regulate recycled
waste.  It is likely there will be  further
litigation  surrounding  this  issue.  Any
information presented today regarding the
designation of recyclable materials will be
according to the  RCRA regulations prior
to  the  1987 court decision.

    It is complicated to determine whether
or not  recycled materials are solid wastes.
First,  you must  determine  whether the
waste is a secondary material; if so, what
type and  whether  or  not the secondary
material is hazardous.  EPA only regulates
solid wastes that  are recycled if they are
hazardous wastes.  Remember, a recycled
waste  must  be both solid  and hazardous
to  be subject to RCRA regulation.  Also,
different types of recycling are regulated
in different  ways;  therefore, it is impor-
tant to know how  and for what  purpose
the material is being recycled.  Finally, if
the material  is reclaimed, you must know
the ultimate fate of the material in order
to  determine whether  or not it is a solid
waste.   For  example,  a chemical that is
recovered and reused as an effective sub-
stitute  for a commercial chemical  product
may qualify for  an exemption from  the
definition of solid waste  under 40 CFR
261.2(e).   However, if this product is a
material that will be applied to the soil or
burned as a fuel,  EPA may  decide that
this is  a  form of disposal  and that  it has
the authority to regulate the material as a
solid waste.

-------
    There are several  types of  secondary
materials:

*   Spent materials, which are materials
    that have become contaminated through
    their use and cannot be used or reused
    without some type of reclamation.

•   Sludges, which  are  any residuals that
    result from  the treatment  of  air  or
    water.  This broad definition includes
    residues such as ion exchange resins
    that are used to remove ionic particles
    from waste-water.

•   By-products, which are materials that
    are not one of the primary products of
    a production process and not solely or
    separately produced by the production
    process,  such as distillation bottoms.

•   Scrap metal, including bits and pieces
    of metal parts such  as bars, turnings,
    rods* sheets, wire, or metal pieces that
    may be combined with bolts or  solder-
    ing such as radiators, automobiles, and
    railroad cars.

*   Commercial  chemical  products  when
    they  are discarded.  The commercial
    chemical products  that can be secon-
    dary materials includes those listed in
    40 CFR 261.33 or products that exhibit
    a hazardous characteristic. The regula-
    tory  definition  includes not only the
    commercial  chemical  product  when
    disposed of, but also off-specification
    products, containers or inner  liners,
    and  spill residues of these products.

Recycling activities have been placed into
four basic groups:

•   Use  constituting  disposal,  which in-
    cludes application to the land of waste
    itself, or use to produce products that
    are placed on the land.

•   Burning for  energy recovery,  which
    includes using the waste as a fuel or as
    an ingredient in a  fuel.

•   Reclamation.
	Pace  8

 •  Speculative accumulation, which occurs
    when there is no feasible method for
    recycling the material or when a recyc-
    ler fails to use more than 75 percent of
    the waste during the calendar year.

    The combination of the type of secon-
 dary material  and  the type of recycling
 determines how a waste will be regulated.
 For example, with sludges and by-products
 it makes a difference whether the waste is
 a listed waste or whether the waste ex-
 hibits a hazardous characteristic. Sludges
 and by-products that only exhibit  a char-
 acteristic are not considered a solid waste
 when they are  reclaimed.   Commercial
 chemical products also are not considered
 a solid waste when they are reclaimed. In
 addition,,  commercial  chemical products
 can be held speculatively without being a
 solid waste.  However, when used in other.
 recycling activities these secondary  materi-
 als are considered solid waste and, there-
 fore,  may be  hazardous  depending on
 whether they exhibit a characteristic or
 are listed.

    Of course there are exceptions to these
 regulatory guidelines.  For example,  if it
 can be shown that the materials are being
 used or reused as ingredients and  are not
 being reclaimed prior to being used or
 reused as ingredients, then it would not be
 a solid waste.  Another exception is if the
 waste is  being  used as an effective  sub-
 stitute for a commercial chemical product.
 An example of  this would be if  a spent
 acid was used as a neutralizing agent in a
 wastewater treatment process and it is  used
 directly (i.e., without first being reclaimed).
 These exemptions apply unless the ultimate
 fate is disposal,  use as a fuel, speculative
 accumulation, or if the material is inher-
 ently waste-like.   To qualify  for  these
 exemptions there is a  burden of proof
 requirement.

    Once you have  established  that a ma-
 terial is a solid waste, you can then deter-
 mine if it is a hazardous waste. A hazar-
 dous waste must be a  solid waste that is
 not excluded from regulation and is either
 listed as a hazardous waste or exhibits one
 of  the  four  hazardous characteristics.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ft

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There is a "mixture" rule which states that
if a solid waste is mixed with a hazardous
waste,  the  result is a hazardous  waste.
Also, there is a "derived from" rule which
states that if a material  is derived from
the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
hazardous waste,  then  that material is a
hazardous waste.  An application of the
derived from rule is that if a listed bazar-
dous  waste  is  burned, the ash  is a listed
hazardous waste.

    A solid waste  becomes a listed  hazar-
dous  waste as soon as it meets  the  listing
description.  A solid waste  becomes a char-
acteristic hazardous  waste as soon as  it
exhibits a characteristic.  A  mixture be-
comes a hazardous waste as soon as a haz-
ardous waste is mixed with a solid waste,
and a derived  from waste becomes a haz-
ardous waste as  soon as it  is  generated.
Listed wastes remain hazardous until the
waste is delisted; characteristic hazardous
waste is no longer designated as hazardous
once it stops exhibiting the characteristic.

    To determine if  a waste exhibits haz-
ardous characteristics a generator can use
the statutory definitions and/or standard
test methods.  However, the waste does not
have  to be tested; a  generator can use his
knowledge of the waste, its properties, and
how the waste is  generated  to  determine
whether or not it exhibits a characteristic.

   The four characteristics are:

•  Ignitability, which is defined by flash
   point for liquids; also, EPA  has adopt-
   ed Department of Transportation (DOT)
   definitions for  ignitable compressed
   gases and oxidizers.

•  Corrosivity, which is based on pH (< 2
   or > 12.S) and the rate of corrosion for
   steel (> 1/4 in/yr).

•  Reactivity, which is defined by. eight
   different criteria.  Seven of  these cri-
   teria are descriptive, such  as "reacts
   violently  with  waste, forms potentially
   explosive mixtures with water, or gen-
   erates toxic fumes or vapors when
   mixed with water."   The other is the
	Page  9

    DOT definition  for Class A and  B
    explosives.

 •  Extraction  Procedure  (EP)  toxicity,
    which is designed to determine wheth-
    er or not a waste would pose a problem
    through  the leaching of toxic constit-
    uents into the ground  water.  For this
    characteristic a leach test is performed
    on the waste, and if the concentration
    in the leachate exceeds one  of the regu-
    latory levels, then the waste is EP toxic.
    Currently there are regulatory levels
    for eight toxic  metals and six pesti-
    cides.  EPA  is in the process of adding
    38 organic chemicals to this list and a
    new leach test has been developed.

    With regard to listing a waste as hazar-
 dous, the most important criterion used is
 the presence of 40 CFR Part 261, Appen-
 dix VIII, constituents.  This appendix lists
 over 300 toxic  or hazardous constituents.
 A waste may be listed for containing one
 or  more of these compounds', but EPA also
 considers  the nature of the toxicity, its
 concentration in the waste, whether or not
 these constituents are capable of migrating
 from the waste, the potential for  misman-
 agement  of  the waste, as well as docu-
 mented damage incidents, the volume of
 waste generated, persistance, mobility and
 bioaccumulative effects of the toxicant.
 There also is a group of wastes designated
 as  acute hazardous waste.  These  wastes
 typically  have  relatively immediate or
 acute  effects.

    Listed wastes have been divided into
 three  categories.   The first  category  is
 waste  from  non-specific sources.   This
 includes waste  from generic sources, such
 as  spent solvents, which can be generated
 by any industry. The second category is
 waste  from specific  sources,  generally
 identifying  a particular process or manu-
 facturing segment.  An example would be
 distillation  bottoms  from the  production
 of  carbon tetrachloride. EPA  has concen-
 trated  its listings of wastes from specific
 sources on organic chemical manufactur-
 ing processes, because it feels the EP toxi-
 city characteristic would bring many of
 the inorganic chemicals under regulation.

-------
EPA's efforts have  also concentrated on
the manufacturing, rather than on the use,
of chemicals.  The third category of listed
waste  consists  of  commercial  chemical
products.  Specifically, over 200 commer-
cial chemical products have been listed on
the U-list which is based on toxicity, and
there are over  100  on the P-list which
includes chemicals having acute toxic pro-
perties.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Will the relisting effort currently un-
   der  way  cure some  of the problems
   associated with the mixture rule? And,
   will relisting allow dilution?

A: The idea  of relisting  is that  there
   would  be a  concentration  threshold
   established  for all  toxicants  in the
   waste, below which a waste would not
   be considered a listed waste.   We had
   planned to propose relisting as a self-
   implementing program.   The  fate of
   relisting,  however, is uncertain.   We
   have examined the idea  of amending
   the derived from rule and the mixture
	Pace  10

 rule in lieu of relisting, but there has been
 no resolution.   I think any  rule changes
 will take a couple of years to complete.
 Q: Is  EPA modifying the definition  of
    hazardous waste so that contaminated
    soil will not be considered hazardous?

 A: There  is a strategy  paper being pre-
    pared in this area, but no conclusions
    have been reached.
 Q: Some scintillation cocktails below regu-
    latory concern (BRC) are being incin-
    erated.  Do those incinerators require
    a RCRA permit?

 A: This is a complex question for which
    I need more information to answer. If
    the scintillation  cocktail is a  listed
    hazardous  waste or  mixed  with one,
    and if the cocktail is not normally a
    component of commercial fuels  (e.g.,
    toluene), then  it  would  have to  be
    burned in a permitted incinerator (or
    in one which has interim status).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
	Pace 11

REGULATION  OF  NATURALLY  OCCURRING  AND  ACCELERATOR
PRODUCED  RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (NARM)  UNDER  RCRA

Presented by

Joe Freedman, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, EPA

Mr. Freedman has been dealing with mixed waste issues for several years at EPA, He has primary responsibility
in the Superfimd area.  Mr. Freedman received an AJB. from the University of Chicago and a JD. from the
University of Michigan.
   Radioactive mixed waste is a mixture
that includes both an Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) regulated material, which is source,
special nuclear, and by-product materials,
and  a  RCRA hazardous waste.  Unless a
radioactive waste contains a RCRA hazard-
ous waste it is not a mixed waste.  It is
often difficult, particularly in the remedial
context, to prove a waste is a listed waste
unless  the source is known.  Therefore, it
is  not  always easy to identify a  mixed
waste.   RCRA §1006 states  that RCRA
does not .apply  to  wastes except to  the
extent  that its  application is not  incon-
sistent with the purpose  of the  Atomic
Energy Act. DOE took the position, based
on this particular provision, that the Atom-
ic Energy Program was fully exempt from
RCRA. In essence, DOE argued any provi-
sion of RCRA would be inconsistent with
the Atomic Energy Act. After some litiga-
tion, in particular, the LEAF vs. Depart-
ment of Energy case, and an  opinion from
DOE's Office of Legal Counsel, DOE aban-
doned its position that a blanket exemption
applied.

   Atomic Energy Act radioactive waste
is defined in §11 of the Act. This waste
is defined as source material, which  are
uranium,  thorium,  and  ores containing
those elements  in  sufficient  quantities;
special nuclear material, which  are  plu-
tonium and enriched uranium;  and  by-
product material, which is defined in AEA
as  material which is made radioactive by
exposure to the  radiation  incident in  the
process of producing or  utilizing special
nuclear material.
   DOE has had difficulty with the defi-
nition of by-product material, in particu-
lar, whether the definition should include
only radionuclides or whether it should
include a broader matrix. DOE originally
proposed a rule which defined by-products
to include not only radionuclides, but also
most high-level  waste streams and  the
material that must be  associated with the
radionuclide incident to the production of
the material. However, this definition was
not well-received, primarily because of the
conventional scientific view  that by-pro-
duct material  includes  only the  actual
radionuclides.  In a May 1, 1987 Federal
Register notice, DOE  defined by-product
material as any radioactive material, ex-
cept special nuclear material,  yielded in
or made radioactive by exposure to radia-
tion  incident to the process of producing
or utilizing special nuclear material. The
term radioactive material refers only to
the radioactive nuclides that are dispersed
or suspended in the waste substance.

   According to this definition, virtually
all by-product material,  except uranium
and  thorium mill tailings, is present in a
mixture, because the radioactive nuclides
are not present by themselves.  However,
a mixture is not a mixed waste unless the
radioactive material is mixed with  a haz-
ardous waste.   From  a  legal standpoint,
only the non-radioactive  component of the
waste is subject to RCRA. Thus, the mix-
ture must contain a waste which is inde-
pendently subject  to  RCRA in order to
bring the matrix into the Subtitle C pro-
gram.  This means that a waste that  is

-------
 source, special nuclear, or by-product ma-
 terial, and is  a listed  waste or exhibits a
 characteristic, will not be subject to RCRA
 (again, only the  non-nuclear  material  is
 subject to RCRA),  For example, radioac-
 tive chromium that fails  the  EP toxicity
 test is not subject to the hazardous waste
 regime of RCRA. Section  1006 of RCRA
 can stil! be used to waive requirements
 which are inconsistent with  the Atomic
 Energy Act;  however, to  date  no  such
 waivers have been granted.

    Naturally  occurring  or  accelerator
 produced  radioactive  materials (NARM)
 are not covered by the Atomic Energy Act
 and have  no special status under RCRA.
 NARM waste  is not subject to the §1006
 exemption for AEA waste because it is not
 regulated  by  AEA; however,  NARM  is
 neither listed RCRA hazardous waste, nor
 does it display a  hazardous characteristic
 (radioactivity  is  not a RCRA hazardous
 characteristic). Thus, NARM is  not cur-
 rently specifically regulated under Subtitle
 C  of  RCRA.   However,  like  any other
 material, if NARM is mixed  with haz-
 ardous waste then the entire mixture is a
 hazardous waste.  NARM is a  solid waste
 and is subject to Subtitle D of RCRA, like
any other solid waste.

    NARM is  not  in  any special  waste
category and a NARM waste  would only
 be eligible for a  special exemption  from
RCRA if  the  waste fit under one of the
other  special waste categories.  The special
 waste category most likely to include some
NARM waste is the mining waste category
which contains waste from the extraction,
benefication,  or  processing of  ores  and
minerals.

    The Agency  is currently  making  an
effort to impose regulations on  the disposal
of NARM waste.   This is due to the fact
that NARM may be of similar radioactive
concentration  as  low-level AEA  wastes.
The larger sources of NARM are the natu-
rally  occurring radionuclides, principally
radium, and the two major types, discrete
sources and  diffuse sources.
	Page 12

    Radium 226 has been a primary con-
 cern for  the Agency because of its long
 half life, its inclination to concentrate in
 bones, and the fact that it emits energetic
 alpha particles and  gamma and  X-rays.
 Most of the accelerator produced radionu-
 clides are used in medicine for research
 and have relatively short half lives.

    To  summarize NARM  regulation:
 NARM is subject  to Subtitle D regulation
 for  solid  waste.   Some States  regulate
 NARM as  low-level waste, while  other
 States don't regulate  it at all.  In fact, a
 number of low-level waste disposal facili-
 ties will  not  accept NARM waste, and
 much of the NARM waste is being stored
 until further  guidance can be obtained
 concerning proper disposal.  As an impend-
 ing  Agency rulemaking will  point  out,
 there have been a number of hazardous
 incidents related  to the improper storage
 and disposal of NARM waste.

    EPA is considering regulating NARM
 waste under the Toxic  Substances Control
 Act (TSCA).  EPA's draft proposal would
 require  that  NARM  in  concentrations
 above 2 nanocuries per gram be disposed
 of in Atomic Energy Act licensed facilit-
 ies.   The proposal in  its  current form
 would exclude smoke detectors, and watch-
 es and clocks using radioluminescent paint.
 The Agency decided not to pursue RCRA
 Subtitle C regulation of NARM  because
 some of  RCRA's statutory requirements
 are  not appropriate  for the disposal of
 NARM waste.  The draft proposed NARM
 regulations would require that  the waste
 be properly classified before disposal, that
 transport be accompanied  by a shipping
 manifest, that the waste go to  a facility
 either licensed under the Atomic Energy
 Act such as NRC facilities or facilities
 authorized by  the AEA, namely DOE fac-
 ilities, and that the  process and disposal
 facilities keep a  copy  of the radioactive
 material shipment manifest. It should be
 emphasized that this is a draft regulation
 which EPA  expects to  propose soon  and
 which will then be subject  to public com-
 ment before final promulgation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
•       	(	Paee 13
         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS                     A: No.  NARM  is distinct from source,
•                                                       special nuclear, or by-product material.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
         Q: Is NARM a subset of source, special
            nuclear, or by-product material?
I

-------
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
I
I
	Page 15

DOE MANAGEMENT OF  HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC WASTES

Presented by

Doug Smith, High-Level Waste R&D Program, DOE

Mr. Smith is currently the Chief of the Programs Branch in the Waste Management Division at DOE's Richlaad
Field Office. He has a B.S. in Physics and an M.S. in Nuclear Engineering.
   The following describes a general over-
view of the DOE high-level and  transur-
anic (TRU) material generation and man-
agement program. The defense high-level
waste and TRU  waste  management pro-
gram comes under the Assistant Secretary
of Defense Programs  in the Office  of
Defense Waste and Transportation Manage-
ment. This office, jointly with the Opera-
tion  Projects Division and the Waste Re-
search and Development Division, sponsors
activities  or promotes programs  for  the
development of technologies and operation
of facilities or construction of new facili-
ties to handle government waste, as well
as other activities.

   The DOE  Waste Management Plan,
issued in 1983, identifies programmatically
what DOE is expected to do and how to
go about it relative to high-level and TRU
waste.

   Three  definitions come  out of DOE
internal directives  or  orders, which  are
what DOE uses to establish requirements
and  delegate responsibilities within  the
Department.  The high-level waste defini-
tion addresses the reprocessing of nuclear
fuel, the liquid waste associated with that
reprocessing, and any other solid  waste:

•  High-level waste:  the highly radioac-
   tive waste material  that results from
   the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel,
   including liquid waste produced direct-
   ly in reprocessing and any solid waste
   derived from  the liquid,  that contains
   a combination of transuranic waste and
   fission products in concentrations re-
   quiring permanent isolation.
The  definition of  transuranic waste  is
similar  to .the  EPA definition,  and the
definition of mixed waste is being devel-
oped by both DOE  and  EPA working to-
gether:

•  Transuranic Waste  (TRU):   without
   regard to source or form, waste that is
   contaminated with alpha-emitting tran-
   suranium radionuclides with half-lives
   greater than 20 years and  concentra-
   tions greater than 100 nCi/g at the time
   of assay.

•  Mixed Waste:   waste containing both
   radioactive and hazardous components
   as defined by  the Atomic Energy Act
   and  RCRA, respectively.

   The  Defense Waste Management Plan
established that the Department would end
its interim waste storage and work on the
disposal  program.   The Defense Waste
Management Plan identifies activities for
the  management  of  waste,  identifies
sources  and generation of the  waste, and
stipulates  plans for  disposal of both  the
high-level and transuranic portions of the
wastes.  The Waste Management Plan is a
foundation which lays out what should be
done, but it is the Program Implementation
Plan that is used as a more descriptive tool
to establish what the Department is doing
to treat high-level,  transuranic, and  low-
level waste.  This plan is an implementa-
tion vehicle for the Defense Waste Manage-
ment Plan and it  is revised on an  annual
basis.  In fact, the revision of the  1987
plan is expected to be completed this sum-
mer.

-------
    There are several particular aspects of
 the  waste  management  flow  sheet  (see
 Exhibit #1).  The first aspect of manage-
 ment is waste generation, which involves
 the products  of  operations in DOE reac-
 tors, or using the radiation products.  An
 example of this  would be the plutonium
 generated  from  the  operation of DOE
 reactors.  This management area also in-
 volves nuclear material utilization, which
 is the fabrication and the work associated
 with converting plutonium into its useful
 form.  Three main centers perform DOE
 high-level waste  generation activities  (see
 Exhibit #2). These are the Savannah River
 plant in South Carolina,  which generates
 sludges, alkaline liquids, and salt cake; the
 National Engineering Lab in Idaho, which
 generates calcined material or acid type
 liquid; and  the Hanford  Reservation  site
 in Washington, which generates sludges,
 alkaline  liquids,  salt  cake,  and  slurry.
 Transuranic waste is generated at a slightly
 greater number of sites because it is in-
 volved in other parts of the complete DOE
 production and utilization cycle (see  Ex-
 hibit #3).

   On an annual basis,  the  Agency per-
forms an inventory to account for all the
 waste materials that  are  being produced
and stored.  In addition,  the  Agency pro-
jects what the waste will be converted into,
in terms of waste volumes. This informa-
tion is being collected using an integrated
data base, and is currently being  revised
and reviewed so that it can be issued later
in 1988.  Again, this is a DOE-wide inven-
tory of waste volumes, locations, and pro-
jected quantities to be disposed of in the
future.

   The next  major aspect  of  the DOE
waste  management  flow sheet involves
interim waste storage activities (refer to
Exhibit #1).  The Department runs a large
number of complicated and sophisticated
facilities. Double shell tanks are used for
interim storage, and for the retention  and
monitoring of high-level waste (see Exhibit
#4).  Tanks of this type are present at both
the Savannah River Plant  and the Hanford
Reservation site.  The tanks are designed
with sophisticated detection and monitoring
	Page 16

 systems and controlled ventilation systems
 in order to provide surveillance capabili-
 ties.  In Idaho, a high-level waste calcine
 is generated through chemical processing,
 and module bins are used for the retention,
 monitoring, and control  of calcine  (see
 Exhibit #5).  Transuranic waste  is stored
 in containers on an asphalt pad  (see Ex-
 hibit #6).   Plywood sheets are  placed be-
 tween the layer of containers to retain the
 alignment  or  balance  of the container
 array. A barrier is  placed over the top of
 the  array and  held in  place with sand.
 These are retrievable storage modules  that
 are  part of a  simple but  effective waste
 treatment process.

    Currently, at the Savannah  River  site,
 a plant that produces borosilicate glass is
 in  the final  stages of  construction  (see
 Exhibit #7).  Borosilicate  glass is a waste
 form that the Department has found ac-
 ceptable  for  long  term stability.    This
 facility, which is targeted  to be operation-
 al in 1990, will convert high-level liquid
 waste from the Savannah River facility
 into a glass form that will be suitable for
 repository-type storage.  The waste disposal
 form that has been selected for the high-
 level waste at the  Hanford site is  also
 borosilicate glass (see Exhibit #8).  In the
 process of obtaining the feed for  the Han-
 ford facility, the high-level waste will be
 pre-treated to provide a  low-activity waste
 stream suitable for  disposal in  engineered
 vaults near the surface  and a smaller vol-
 ume  of feed to be  made into borosilicate
 glass which is stored in a repository.

    Another disposal activity is the prepa-
 ration of suitable packages for the disposal
 of transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation
 Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility  (see Exhibit #9).
 The disposal process consists of retrieving
 the drums from the pad, and then process-
 ing  the contents through  a suitably engi-
 neered facility  resulting  in  a  certified
 waste package  that would  ultimately be
 sent to the WIPP facility.  This  process not
 only retrieves waste from  the pad but can
 also  handle newly  generated transuranic
 waste.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
   A new Waste Receiving and Processing
(WRAP) Facility is under construction in
the State of New Mexico for the disposal
of DOE's transuranic waste (see  Exhibit
#10).

   Near-surface disposal of low-level waste
in a grout matrix is being developed  by
DOE.  One such facility  is the salt-stone
vault at the Savannah River Plant; another
is the grout vault at the  Hanford site,
which has a similar function but a slightly
different design (see Exhibits #11 and 12).
The salt stone vault is at grade level, while
the Hanford  facility is below grade level,
consistent with RCRA requirements for
	Page 17

 disposal facilities.  The facilities have leak
 detection  and monitoring  built  into the
 design concept. Neither of these facilities
 is in operation yet, but they should begin
 accepting  waste in 1988.

    Through the use of internal directives
 and the revision of orders, DOE is quickly
 acknowledging and implementing guidance
 within  the Department on the subject of
 dual regulation.  The Department is com-
 mitted to comply with Federal, State, and
 local regulations applicable to high-level
 waste and TRU waste.  Dual regulation
 will be addressed later in this meeting, so
 I will not  discuss it further at this time.

-------










oJ
G)



"m
"K o
(^ Q_
> ^
5

^™ ^ >
^
O
1 1
LL.
CD
£3


Waste
Treatment
Processes
^M ' '
O
u
.£
0)
c
V
•M
TO at
>cn
2
• M» ^^
^ ^^
_c
s







c
o
+*t ^^
n 2
5g
5

5
^ **
o 1
"«> «-<*»
o S
a. ?£ &
«A
o
i ^^^
a
1 E
 C^
H^>vn_
• • •
^
.*i ca
l^ls
[Examples
C*^"_™ ^^ ^
^^^^ •!• «T
*S 2-^ 2'J
1




V
«-

1
Pace 18 I
•

>>
*
3
fD
«»
««
*

fc
ie
«
^ ^^

>ij
'a
»
3§
tex
r~
*.-:
»_»
•€
:<
}Q
•««
f

= .. §* xir
•5 .2
^ LA ^*.u
V)
O
a
X
LU
re ;* ram
CU G) & M
^^™ *>^^^ « __,
i* *^ ^j«»^»

• 0













- nj
^ ^^
1
Exhibit il B
1


I


1

1

1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I

1


1

•
m
i

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
    Page 19
    Exhibit «2
s
o
I
5
o
f

£

"I

3
o
•B
S
It
e

-------
     20
Exhibit  »3
      *»
      u
      rt
      c
      £

      I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
   I
   I
   I
   I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
   Paee 21
'•   Exhibit *4

-------
 Paee 22
ExMhit «5
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pase 23

-------
Paee 24

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
   C/D
   o
   CL
   CO
    LLJ
cc
o
    -J

    LLJ
    LLJ

    CO
    D
    O
    Q
                                                                   Page 25
                                                                  Exhibit 48

-------
                                                              Paee 26
                                                              exhibit #9
                                           Q
    0
LU
    LU
    O
0<

^5
    00
§H
LJ
    CC
    LU
    LU
    O
                                             O
I


I


I
 I


 I


 I

-------
II
1
i
t
I
t
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I)
I
fT3
cc:
 o
 1—
o.
•o
 c

 en
 c
">
o:
 o
 a:
                      ••/
                            fie-*?
                     .  3Vt^
                     LS*7
                                              Pa Be 27
                                              Exhibit
                     /  /s it ~;Vp;
                     i mm

-------
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
Paee 29
Exhibit #12

-------
Pass 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
f
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page  31

DOE MANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL AND  NARM MIXED WASTE

Presented by

M. W. Shupe, Manager, National Low-Level Waste Program Office, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
DOE

Mr.  Shupe is currently the program manager for DOE's National Low-Level Waste Program.  Before joining
INEL, Mr. Shupe was at Hanford in the environmental and waste management areas. .Before that he was a
licensing engineer with NRC and a staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
   The following will cover what nuclear
waste (i.e., low-level and naturally occurr-
ing or  accelerator  produced  radioactive
material (NARM) waste) is and where it is
found, as well as DOE's policy and waste
management practices and interim status.
Historically, the low-level waste manage-
ment program has been responsible to the
technology side of DOE (see Exhibit #1).
Recently, this  waste program has  been
working directly with  the  Headquarters
Operations Projects Division. The defense
low-level  waste  management  integrated
long-range plan is the part of the overall
Defense Waste Management Plan that di-
rectly addresses the waste disposal of the
radioactive waste component (see Exhibit
#2).  DOE is about to issue a long-range
plan that will describe the procedures DOE
plans on using to implement the new mixed
waste requirements.

   DOE has information on  the sources
and disposition of radioactive mixed waste
(see Exhibit #3). The sources of this waste
include production reactors, test reactors,
a number of Navy vessels  that generate
waste,  as well as  weapons manufacturers,
which generate low-level waste along with
the  high-level  and  transuranic  waste.
Traditionally  low-level waste has  been
disposed of directly to near-surface facili-
ties;  however, now that mixed waste has
been defined, the waste that  falls under
this definition is being stored until mixed
waste permitted facilities  are developed.

   DOE has the ability  to accept commer-
cial  waste in conjunction with research
and  development contracts.   Therefore,
small amounts of special case wastes are
found at DOE facilities, and Congress is
interested in making sure these wastes are
disposed of properly.

   From 1954 to 1976, DOE regulated both
low-level waste  and hazardous waste, as
well  as what has now been defined as
mixed waste.  From 1976  to 1987,  DOE
regulated low-level and mixed waste while
EPA took over the regulation of hazardous
waste. In 1987,  the  mixed  waste (by-pro-
duct) rulemaking was passed; this cleared
up  the  uncertainties surrounding mixed
waste, and  resulted  in  dual  regulation.
Since then, DOE has become committed to
implementing the new requirements in a
cost  effective and timely way.

   The  wastes  previously  regulated  by
DOE include mixed wastes such as high-
level waste, transuranic waste, and low-
level waste (see  Exhibit #4).

   Specifically,  10  CFR Part 61 divides
wastes into three different Classes:   A, B,
and  C.  However, DOE does not recognize
this classification system and requires each
of its field offices to take action appropri-
ate to the low-level  waste class when they
implement the DOE orders.  Spent fuel is
regulated differently depending on how it
is treated and what  spendable attributes it
has.   For example, spent fuel for research
and  development purposes can only be
treated as high-level, transuranic, or regu-
lar waste.

   Some major differences exist between
commercial  and  defense wastes.   When

-------
commercial facilities use lead .and lead
shielding they consider  the lead shielding
non-hazardous.  Prior to  1970, DOE  was
the only generator of waste from plutoni-
um; however, now some commercial sites
have significant  amounts of  transuranic
contaminated waste.  Presently, DOE facil-
ities  generate large  volumes  of  sodium
nitrate waste, while no commercial facili-
ties generate this type of waste.

    Mixed wastes and NARM are regulated
as radioactive hazards under  the  Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and non-
radioactive hazards  are regulated under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 as amended (see Exhibit #5).
Public Law  99-240  was  the  Low-Level
Waste Policy Act, in which the capability
for commercial disposal of low-level waste
was set to be developed  by 1993.  In 1987,
DOE  passed the  by-product  rulemaking.
DOE  Order  5820.2A, which  deals  with
DOE's activities,  is in  final  draft form.
DOE also has a long-range integrated low-
level waste program plan in draft.

   DOE policy regarding radioactive and
mixed waste is that it be  managed in ac-
cordance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local environmental, safety, and health
laws and regulations. This is a  complex
situation due to the number of State and
local laws.   Each field  office must deal
with the regional, State,  and local entities,
to ensure that all  requirements are identi-
fied and satisfied. This includes require-
ments from Chapter Three of the Order, as
well as CERCLA  and RCRA.
	Page 32

    Efforts to develop an integrated data
 base, which  would include mixed  waste,
 have been accelerated.  At this time,  in-
 formation from  the  sites  is collected in
 reports to EPA.

    DOE  low-level waste  is  stored  and
 disposed  of  at  approximately six  major
 sites across the country, and DOE estimates
 the  mixed waste quantities for low-level
 waste are roughly 25  percent or 25,000  m3;
 however, the quantity could be as  low as
 5 percent (see Exhibit #6).

    The new DOE  order will cause some
 changes under interim status. Mixed waste
 must be  identified in great  detail,  and
 these wastes  need to be segregated as soon
 as possible.

    There have been major  shifts in  DOE's
 approach to  waste management.  Now,
 before disposal of mixed wastes, all of the
 aspects of the waste  must be identified,
 and performance assessments must be con-
 ducted  and then  matched against the per-
 formance requirements.  DOE has become
 much more involved in looking  at waste
 content.  DOE Order 5820  provides policy
 and guidance, while the low-level waste
 management  program  provides clarification
 and guidance on technology.  These  are
 necessary steps in achieving environmental
 compliance.  It is clear that DOE is com-
 mitted  to environmental compliance, and
 it will take further steps and foster cooper-
 ation to develop  a  unified program.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I

-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
I
                                                  Pace 33
                                                  Exhibit #1
 Reporting  Structure  for Defense  Low-level
         Waste  Management Program
                          -Sacretarj
                           of Energy
                       Assistant Secretary
                    Deputy Assistant Secretary

                    :VX.<>'.i\*s
                     v       "-    s.*!>svs 5 \^

                  ^-teG&te&K 0«ftn^
                             -aste Research   Hazardous Waste
                             •    -   ' -
                            -eloprnent Division   Aotlorw Division
Interim Wast*
-«

-------


(0
c
03
CL
^
C
0)
0)
D)
03
03

0)
U)
i

-is '
x \x ^^ !S
"^^ , %^^^| CO ^» '%^ ^
^H  Exhibit
1 3^
' I *- C
% C CO
v,. 6 « ff
i^^^t ^ p i
Jvj 8 S §
i^" § S J
«.«/ *• K
:v « 2
c^f Q

Si?
i- 3 
|||
CO CO o
-»«««*£; "pf^^3 <^[ O) CA 2
CO 4) O
!-*
r.
• _ Il_
'>. 5 5 g
a js s
S"* o) 
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 1
 i
 I
 I
 I
 I
 f
 I
 I
 I
0>
                                                                    Page 35
                                                                    Exhibit

-------
                                      Paee  36
                                      Exhibit
CHW
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 f
 I
 1
 1
 1
  I
  1
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I

-------
                                                                                         Paee 37
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
 'Srf'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
  Exhibit #5
00
0>
«^
o
"u
 o
o
jg
•o
 (0
oc
 0)
 O)
o
(0
 I
in
O)

 to
 3
O.

-------
  (0
  o
  E
 0)
 X
 c
 o
 a

 o
O
                                                               Paee 38
                                                               Exhibit =*6
                                                   S o
                                                   £5* «
                                                   § i i
£
3
Om
o>
   9
                                                         tn
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1
 1
 I
 t
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 ^»
 I
	Pace 39

COMMERCIAL  LOW-LEVEL WASTE

Presented by

Dan Martin, Senior Project Manager, NRC

Mr. Martin is a Senior Project Manager in the Office of Nuclear Materials, Safety, and Standards at NRC  He
is responsible for coordination and management of programs regarding mixed waste and the decommissioning of
nuclear facilities.  Mr. Martin has a B.S. in Physics from the University of Maryland and a graduate level
education in Nuclear Engineering.
    The following will provide an overview
of commercial low-level waste generation,
management,  and  disposal,  as  well  as
discuss what types of low-level wastes are
generated by  industry, who generates it,
where it  is  disposed of,  and  how  it is
regulated.

    Currently,  there  are  around 24,000
material licensees, of which one-third are
NRC licensees and two-thirds are Agree-
ment State licensees,  not all of whom gen-
erate waste. A significant number of these
licensees are  possessors of  sealed sources
and sealed devices, which do not leak, and
upon end of  use are turned back to the
manufacturer or to  another licensee.   At
this time  there are 110  power reactor
licensees that are licensed to operate and
are the principle generators of low-level
waste. There  are also 69 research and test
reactors. These reactors are not big waste
generators.

    At this time a little less than two mil-
lion cubic feet of low-level waste are gen-
erated per year. This amount is 30 percent
less  than it  was four years  ago.   This
reduction is mainly  anticipation  of  the
effects of the  Low-Level  Waste Policy
Amendments Act and the arrangements for
Compacts,  which came into existence in
1984.  At that time, people thought that
their  ability  to dispose  of  radioactive
material would  be terminated.

    NRC requires that low-level waste be
classified as either A, B, or C waste. Class
A  waste is the  least radioactive and the
least dangerous. Of all the waste generat-
ed this class of waste accounts for at least
90 to 95 percent of total waste by volume,
but that is only a few  percent of total
waste by activity. Most of the waste ac-
tivity is  in Class C; this waste  accounts
for less than one percent by volume of all
waste that  is generated.

   The sources of mixed waste that have
been  identified  so  far are principally
wastes containing organic  liquids.   These
wastes might be created either through the
use of scintillation fluids or by perform-
ing cleaning, degreasing, or decontamina-
tion activities.   Lead-containing  mixed
waste is  primarily from disposal  of con-
taminated shielding. Chromium-containing
mixed waste is also generated.  Chrome is
a major  component of stainless steel  and
stainless  steel  is a primary component of
nuclear reactor recirculation piping. Some
of the chrome in the  piping dissolves in
the water.  Chrome may also be added to
the water intentionally for the purpose of
inhibiting  corrosion.   If  this chrome is
present in  sufficient quantities, the waste
will fail  the EP toxicity test. Mixed waste
may also include mercury.

    Presently,  NRC estimates 60.000 cubic
feet of mixed waste are generated per year.
This accounts  for less than  3 percent of all
low-level waste by volume and less than
0.002  percent  of  the hazardous  waste
generated.   These are estimates  of  the
upper  bounds, and it is probable that the
actual amount of mixed waste generated is
substantially less.

-------
    There is a body of regulation in place
for  the  management of  low-level waste.
Specifically, 10 CFR Parts 20, 61, and  71
of NRC's regulations govern the low-level
waste community.  Part 20 provides stan-
dards that govern the amount of radioac-
tivity that can be released to the environ-
ment and what controls must be in place
to protect workers from radiation exposure.
There is also a requirement in both Part  20
and Part 61 stipulating that manifests  be
used for  waste transfers, and that the low-
level waste be  transferred  to a licensed
facility.  Part  61  governs the disposal  of
low-level waste and requires that waste  be
classified and  then put  into the correct
form for disposal. These requirements ap-
ply to waste generators not disposal opera-
tors. Part 71 governs the transportation  of
radioactive materials,  including  mixed
waste.

    As part of NRC's low-level waste man-
agement,   NRC has a program for com-
pliance which involves routine inspections.
Different facilities  are inspected at dif-
ferent  frequencies, and in  fact, reactors
have resident inspectors  that are on-site
full time.   NRC  also has a  method for
tracking  allegations and issues.  Further-
more, the Agency responds to every allega-
tion in some way.

   There are three operating sites for low-
level waste disposal.  Three other sites have
already closed  and several  new sites are
being planned.  The  Washington site is co-
located with the DOE facilities at Hanf ord.

   Part 61  has four principle performance
objectives  for  protection  when low-level
waste is  disposed of.  Underlying  these
performance objectives is  a set of detailed
technical requirements.  The first perfor-
mance objective limits of f-site exposure to
any person at any time to 25 mill irems/-
year to the whole body and 75 millirems/-
year to the thyroid.  These limits are con-
sistent with EPA's standards for fuel cycle
facilities. The second objective was devel-
oped because low-level waste is buried and
remains in the ground forever.  Therefore,
NRC insists that protection  is provided
against the possibility of an inadvertent
intruder at some time in the future.  The
classification system in combination with
the special requirements for burial of Class
C  waste provides  this protection.  These
requirements were devised  in order  to
prevent an  inadvertent  intruder  from
receiving more than 500 millrems/year if
he were to occupy the  site and use it at
some time after a 100-year period of in-
stitutional control following closure.  The
third  performance  objective  is  worker
protection, which is routine for any NRC
licensing action.  Finally, the fourth per-
formance objective is for long-term stabili-
ty of disposal facilities.

   In the licensing scheme for a person to
run a facility, a performance assessment
will be  done at the time of licensing and
the licensee will have to demonstrate com-
pliance  with the dose limits in the Part 61
regulations.  That will be based  on  site-
specific knowledge.  In addition,  the  site
characteristics  must enable modeling  of
the transport of radioactive material.  The
facility must provide a buffer zone around
the low-level  waste disposal  units.  The
facility must also provide operational and
environmental    monitoring    so   that
continuing evaluation can  be done, and
when necessary, intervention can be taken
to eliminate transport off-site. The prob-
lem  of inadvertent  intruders has been
limited  by the waste classification system.
The more dangerous wastes are classified
as C wastes and must be stabilized before
disposal and buried  at a depth  of  five
meters  or greater, or  else have  an engi-
neered barrier  for protection.

   There  are  several key differences be-
tween NRC and EPA regarding low-level
waste disposal. NRC requires government
ownership  and post-closure  institutional
control  for  low-level waste disposal sites.
Government ownership is tied to the  re-
quirement  that either a State or Federal
entity commit ahead of time to accept title
to the site and  to undertake responsibility
for institutional control for  a  100-year
period.  This will occur when the licensee
has  terminated operation  and  properly
closed the site.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
f
I
I
I
I
1
I
I

-------
I
 I
 i
 I
 I
 1
 I
 I
 i
 I
 i
 I
 I
 i
 I
 i
 i
 t
 i
   NRC prohibits the disposal of liquid
waste of any kind or in any form.  We are
not sure to what extent this prohibition is
inconsistent with EPA requirements. NRC
also  considers isolation provided  by  the
waste  form when  conducting  licensing
performance assessments. NRC has a five-
year  standard  post-closure   monitoring
period.  However, this is not really com-
parable to EPA's 30-year post-closure mon-
itoring  period.   EPA  requires synthetic
double bottom liners with  leak detection
and  leachate collection systems at some
facilities.  NRC  has no comparable  re-
quirements, because the NRC  regulations
in Part 61  are driven by a philosophy to
minimize waste contact with water.
     •	Page 41

   These differences possibly stem from
the fact that radioactivity and radiation
are existent everywhere. Radiation cannot
be totally confined as hazardous waste can
be. Since radiation cannot be totally con-
fined, NRC has developed protection re-
quirements for  workers based on proximi-
ty to the  radioactive material.   Another
reason  for  differences in NRC and EPA
regulations is that NRC has fewer disposal
sites than EPA.   This impacts  the way
NRC deals with its licensees, particularly
in that NRC is  able to have a higher level
of communication than EPA. One other
reason  for differences in the NRC  and
EPA programs  is that these two  Agencies
have separate authorizing legislation  and
are driven by  different legislative man-
dates.

-------
Page 42
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
f
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
e
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
   •	Page  43

 BELOW  REGULATORY CONCERN  WASTES - IDENTIFICATION AND
 IMPLICATIONS  FOR MIXED WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Presented by

 Timothy Johnson, Special Projects Division, NRC

 Mr, Johnson is currently a section leader for the Special Projects Division for low-level waste management at
 NRC, and is responsible for mixed waste, financial assurance, decommissioning and waste classification. Mr.
 Johnson has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and an MS. in Nuclear Engineering.
   The "below regulatory concern" waste
concept has frequently been mentioned in
relation to resolving  mixed waste issues.
Below regulatory concern (BRC) waste is
waste that has sufficiently small quantities
of radionuclides so that the waste may be
disposed of without regard to its radiation
hazard.

   The term, below  regulatory  concern
waste, is often confused with the term de
minimis waste.  De minimis waste implies
a  trivial  radiation hazard  on disposal,
without regard to cost or technology. The
intent of  the below  regulatory  concern
concept is to define a category of waste
for which there will be an  evaluation of
costs against benefits and current technol-
ogy, and thus, is different from de mini-
mis waste.

   The below regulatory concern concept
is  intended to apply only to the radioac-
tive component.  If these wastes have a
toxic  or hazardous component, then the
wastes must be disposed of in a manner
consistent  with the applicable regulations.
However,  this waste can  be disposed  of
without regard  to its radioactive content.

   An example of a BRC waste originates
from  a rulemaking in 1981 involving ani-
mal carcasses and liquid scintillation cock-
tail waste.  It was determined  that  these
wastes could be disposed of without regard
to  their radioactivity.  Animal carcasses
and  scintillation  fluids  are  generated
primarily   by  the  biomedical  research
community.  Nuclear materials are used in
is. vivo testing which results in  laboratory
animal waste containing nuclear materials.
Scintillation fluids are derived from an
assay technique that allows the researcher
to get a very sensitive concentration value
for  some organic compounds  that would
otherwise be very difficult to assay. Reg-
ulation 10 CFR 20.306 states that scintilla-
tion fluids and animal  carcasses that are
limited to tritium and  carbon-14 content
of less than  O.OS microcuries per gram can
be disposed  of without regard to the ra-
dioactivity.

   NRC  evaluated the total quantity of
material  in  the  country  that would  be
involved  with the BRC definition.  The
total quantity  amounted to about 8 curies
of total activity, and therefore, no envi-
ronmental hazard is  created  by treating
waste in this way. The scintillation fluids
primarily  contain  toluene and  xylene,
which are  hazardous  materials  under
RCRA, and  no relief is  given by the regu-
lations that  deal with the  hazardous com-
ponent. Currently, scintillation fluids are
primarily disposed of by incineration.

   This practice has substantially cut down
on the wastes that potentially fall under
the   definition of  mixed  waste.   NRC
expects about three percent  of the  total
low-level waste potentially to fall into the
mixed waste category,  and most of that
three percent is organic liquid waste, such
as  scintillation  cocktails.   Since  these
wastes fall under this exemption and can
be disposed of through incineration, it has
greatly reduced  the amount of waste that
many generators would otherwise have to

-------
store and eventually dispose of in a mixed
waste disposal facility.

    Obviously, the  BRC concept has the
potential for reducing some of the mixed
waste problem, and it is a very interesting
issue raised  by  industry,  as  well as  by
Congress. In the Low-Level Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985, Congress asked
the Commission  to  prepare standards and
procedures by which NRC could evaluate
a  petition for BRC waste streams in  an
expeditious  manner.  In response  to this
request, NRC has been involved in a  num-
ber of different  areas.  In July 1986,  NRC
published a  users  guide  for  a pathway
analysis  model,  which could be used for
determining the dose impacts for candidate
BRC waste streams.  In August 1986,  NRC
published a policy statement in the Federal
Register regarding rulemaking petitions for
evaluating  BRC  waste.   That statement
presented some criteria which would enable
NRC to act expeditiously on petitions for
BRC candidate waste streams. In  Decem-
ber 1986, NRC published an advance notice
of  proposed  rulemaking  in the Federal
Register  that dealt with the  question  of
developing a  generic  rule, rather  than
addressing  waste  on a  waste-stream-by-
waste-stream basis.  NRC is interested in
public comment  regarding the  practicality
of establishing a generic rule that would
apply over a wide band of waste streams.

   NRC's August  1986 policy statement
addresses a number of disposal  alternatives
that could be used for BRC waste. These
alternatives  might  involve  on-site incin-
eration, disposal in a sanitary landfill, or
disposal in a hazardous waste  facility.  A
candidate for expeditious review would be
a waste stream that had a broad applicabil-
ity over a number of waste generators.  If
a  single  waste  generator  had  a  unique
waste that he wanted to propose to  NRC
as a BRC waste  stream, it  could  still  be
proposed to  NRC as a proposed licensing
action  under  10 CFR  20.302, but  NRC
would  not guarantee expeditious  review.
Lastly, the policy is to put the burden  on
the waste generators to identify candidate
waste streams to NRC  using  a  technical
rationale, and providing support on why
	Page44

 this is  a  good candidate for BRC waste.
 The implementation of this would primari-
 ly involve submittal of petitions for rule-
 making to NRC.   These petitions would
 include all of the  necessary information
 for  NRC  to  make its evaluation.   The
 implementation plan also involves some
 rulemaking procedures for accomplishing
 this. The most important part of the NRC
 policy  statement was  probably  the iden-
 tification  of  14 criteria for identifying
 whether a candidate waste stream should
 undergo expeditious review.  These criter-
 ia involve four  primary areas:   general
 criteria, criteria that involve dose impacts,
 characterization of the waste source term,
 and also the implementation of a program
 to  guarantee  that  the waste is actually
 BRC waste and that these wastes will be
 disposed of properly.

    The general criteria involve, first, that
 there   be  no  significant  environmental
 impact. NRC would ensure this by prepa-
 ration  of an environmental assessment or
 environmental impact statement (EIS) in
 accordance with National Environmental
 Policy  Act (NEPA) requirements (the need
 for  an  EIS would  disqualify the  petition
 for  expedited handling).  Second, NRC
 would  want a BRC candidate to have a
 substantial benefit to  society.   In other
 words,  if  NRC is  going to  evaluate and
 find that a certain  waste stream should be
 a BRC waste, it would want to see sub-
 stantial benefits and cost reductions to the
 industry while at the same time maintain-
 ing  NRC environmental objectives.

    The dose impact criteria involve, first,
 that individual doses should be very small,
 for  example,  in  the  millircm per  year
 range.  This is consistent with  EPA's pro-
 posed low-level waste standard, which they
 expect  to publish later this year.  In this
 standard  EPA is addressing  dose impacts
 for  BRC  waste  and  is setting  levels  at
 approximately four mill irem per year  as
 individual dose objectives for these wastes.
 Second, the collective dosage should be
 small.  In other words, the doses  to all
 groups of people should be kept low. Last,
 there should be no significant  consequen-
 ces  from  an accidental release.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                                                   45
    Regarding the  waste source term, it
 should be usable on a national  scale. For
 an expeditious review, NRC wants a broad
 applicability  of   the   candidate  waste
 streams.  The waste should be able to be
 characterized and it should be possible to
 adequately  identify the variability of a
 licensee's waste  and  between  different
 generators'  waste.  These data  should be
 based on actual waste sampling and assays.
 For  an expeditious review, NRC would
 also expect  that a candidate waste stream
 would not have  a nominal  potential  for
 recycling.   If a  candidate waste  stream
 was proposed that  did have potential  for
 recycling it would  complicate the review,
 because it would  require NRC to evaluate
 a whole series of other pathways by which
 a dose to the public might occur.

   Regarding implementation of the pro-
 gram, NRC is looking for  waste  streams
 for which there would be  a feasible pro-
 gram for demonstrating compliance. This
 program would require no license for  the
 recipient of the waste and there could be
 no  regulatory  obstacles in shipping or
 disposing of the  waste.   For example, a
 regulatory obstacle might be the case where
 DOT regulations  require specific labeling
or placard provisions, and  thus, would be
 inconsistent  with  the  objective  of  no
 needed regulatory control.

   The second activity that NRC has been
involved with is  the preparation of a
pathway analysis code that could  be used
as a tool for evaluating  the acceptability
of a candidate waste stream. NRC several
years ago prepared such a tool, and in 1986
this  tool was put into a PC format and
made available to the public. Therefore,
if industry chooses to look at the candidate
waste stream it can use this code in order
to assess what they  want  to propose to
NRC. The code includes the capability to
look at a number of alternative disposal
methods, such as sanitary landfill disposal,
disposal in hazardous  waste sites,  on-site
disposal, incineration, and so forth. It also
addresses a number of scenarios  for which
the public could get dose impacts. These
would  involve doses from  processing of
waste, doses from transporting waste, and
doses from the actual disposal operations.
In addition,  dose impacts  that  may  be
incurred by the public following disposal
through ground-water  intrusion into the
disposal facility are also considered.

   The last activity that NRC  has been
involved in is the generic rulemaking. An
advance notice of proposed  rulemaking
was issued in which NRC requested com-
ments from the public on the  efficacy of
developing a generic limit for  BRC waste.
NRC has received a number of comments;
however, the comments were fairly mixed
in their nature,  and  there  was no firm
indication  of  the direction  that  NRC
should take. The Commission  has  become
very interested in this area.   They are
interested in it not only from the disposal
point of view, but also over a broad licens-
ing area.   Because of  this interest, the
Commission instructed the staff to prepare,
by the  end of September 1988, a  policy
statement dealing with BRC issues over a
wide range of  licensing issues.  This could
include identifying what kinds of materials
NRC  should  be licensing,  if there are
certain  use and  possession  requirements
that  could be  exempted because of  small
quantities of activity, and transportation.
NRC  needs a  uniform base on  which to
evaluate  all   of the   BRC   questions,
involving  licensing,   use,  possession,
transportation, and disposal  issues.

   When this  policy statement is  written
there may be  rulemaking activities that
follow.  Industry is obviously  very inter-
ested in the BRC questions.  The Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) has a very
large  study intended  to identify  some
candidate waste streams, as well as provide
the technical rationale of why  these waste
streams would be acceptable  as  a BRC
waste.  This effort is nearly completed and
NRC  expects   that the  Edison  Electric
Institute  will   petition   NRC  for  the
evaluation of eight candidate waste streams
in four separate petitions or  EPRI may
combine them into one petition. The waste
streams they  are looking  at are  com-
pactable trash, waste oil,  contaminated
soils, and grit  blasting.  Some of  the de-
contamination work that has been done on

-------
                                                                              Page 46
 large components uses a grit blasting pro-
 cess,  and the grit from this  process is  a
 potential candidate.   The  ion exchange
 resins from  the secondary side of pres-
 surized water reactors are also BRC can-
 didates.   Of these  waste streams, several
 have  the potential  for affecting  mixed
 waste. The first is waste oils.  Some States
 list waste oils as  hazardous  waste.  Ob-
 viously if the waste oil gets approved as a
 BRC  waste it could help generators with
 the disposal of that material.  Grit  blast-
 ing may  also be a  candidate, primarily
 because the grit blasting technique removes
 some  of  the base  metals  in  the  large
 components that are being decontaminated.
 Some of these components contain stainless
 steel, which  contains chromium, and  the
 waste that is  generated  could potentially
 fail the EP toxicity  test.

   Obviously, the BRC waste issue is one
 that  applies directly to mixed waste, and
if approvals  of candidate waste streams
are  granted,  there  will  be  a reduced
amount  of mixed  waste that  will need
disposal.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: What is  the current capacity for dis-
   posal of  low-level radioactive waste?

A: In terms of commercial facilities, no
   one is accepting mixed waste; thus, all
   generators have to store mixed  waste
   on-site.    For  low-level  radioactive
   waste, there are three facilities accept-
   ing waste that have the combined ca-
   pacity to take us into the 21st century.
   The Compact  process, however,  is af-
   fecting the operations of these  three
   sites, and two have indicated they will
   close in  1992.

Q: If radioactive waste is being incinerat-
   ed where does the radiation go?  And
   if, in fact, there are radioactive emis-
   sions, is  this a form of dilution?

A: In  terms of  scintillation fluids and
   animal carcasses,  the tritium and car-
   bon-14 are released as effluents.  We
   studied the impact of emissions when
   addressing the BRC question. The total
   emissions for all scintillation fluids and
   animal carcasses, over  a year, would be
   eight curies.   By way of example,  a
   boiling water reactor  releases 1,000 to
   10,000 curies  of tritium a year  by  it-
   self,  and the  impacts are  considered
   part of the safety analysis.  Thus, we
   believe,  the dose impacts are  probably
   immeasurable.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I	
I
I
I
                             Session II
|                DUAL REGULATION OF MIXED WASTES
I
I
I
I
  •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                                            Page 47

THE  NBC  APPROACH TO  DUAL REGULATION  OF MIXED  WASTE:
STATUS OF NRC ACTIVITIES

Presented by

Dan Martin, Senior Project Manager, NRC

Mr. Martin is a Senior Project Manager in the Office of Nuclear Materials, Safety, and Standards at NRC, He
is responsible for coordination and management of programs regarding mixed waste and the decommissioning of
nuclear facilities.  Mr. Martin has a B.S. in Physics from the University of Maryland and graduate level education
in  Nuclear Engineering.
   In  198S, when Congress was debating
the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste  Amendments  Act,  Congress  asked
NRC for its view of dual  regulation and
NRC suggested that the situation be avoid-
ed. Despite this, Congress chose to require
dua! regulation of mixed waste.

   Since the  passage  of the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Amendments, NRC and
EPA have committed themselves to making
dual regulation effective.  Both  agencies
have already, and will continue to, put a
significant amount of effort into resolving
the difficulties of dual  regulation.

   NRC and EPA have been working  to-
gether to identify and  solve the problems
related to dual regulation of mixed  waste.
At this point some progress has been made
but the agencies are not sure  that they
have covered all of the problems, and they
expect to continue resolving issues as they
come to their attention.

   The agencies have identified some of
the .significant problems inherent in dual
regulation:

•  Defining mixed waste;

•  Siting mixed waste  disposal  facilities;

*  Reconciling NRC and EPA  design  re-
   quirements for mixed  waste  disposal
   units;

»  Resolving the difficulties of simultane-
   ous licensing and permitting processes,
   making the process more uniform, and
   exploring  the possibility of  using the
   same application document;

•  Resolving the inconsistencies and prob-
   lems in the area of sampling and test-
   ing; and

•  Simplifying the inspection and enforce-
   ment that will be carried out by both
   NRC and  EPA  under dual regulation.

   To date, EPA  and  NRC have  issued
guidance on the first three issues: defining
mixed waste,  siting mixed waste disposal
facilities,  and  developing  a conceptual
design approach. The design requirements
agreed  upon  by  NRC and EPA may not
allow for the most economical design, but
they will work.

   In attempting to streamline the  licens-
ing and permitting process, the agencies
have tried to track or  evaluate the com-
patability  of NRC  and EPA licensing and
permitting requirements  and to develop
some dual  guidance in that area.  However,
this effort has been given low priority for
two reasons. The first is that three or four
States are  expected to try and put a mixed
waste disposal unit in  place.  Several of
these States are Agreement States,  which
means they  will develop the regulations
and it would be inefficient for the Federal
agencies  to  attempt to streamline State
programs.   The other reason is that the
agencies believe problems in  the area of
sampling and testing, and in the area of
inspection and enforcement are more sig-

-------
                                                                            Pa«e 48
nif leant. Thus, due to resource constraints,
these two areas have been given a higher
priority than licensing and permitting.

   NRC believes there has been a great
deal of cooperation  with EPA and  it is
hopeful for the future. The agencies  hope
to issue guidance in sampling and testing
and then deal with the issue of inspection
and enforcement.

   To date nothing has been found in the
EPA or NRC  regulations that cannot  be
handled by dual regulation.  Not one re-
quirement or regulation  has  been identi-
fied  which cannot be met simultaneously
under both NRC and  EPA requirements.
In summary, the agencies are continuing
their efforts to make dual regulation work.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: From a design perspective, what  are
   EPA and the NRC looking for at facil-
   ities, and how does the joint guidance
   document address this?

A: Part 61 has a secondary set of techni-
   cal requirements that  underlie  the
   performance objectives.  One require-
   ment has to do with the minimization
   of water contacting waste.  One way to
   meet this requirement is  to have  the
   facility in a free-draining geological
   setting  with a cap  over  the  unit to
   prevent water from reaching the waste.
   On the other hand, EPA has a require-
   ment  for  a double  liner, to  prevent
   waste  from leaching into the  ground.
   You can meet these two requirements
   if  you place the  double  liner  and
   leachate collection system above ground,
   that is", above the  free-draining soil.
   We think this  will work as was stated
   in the  joint guidance document.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page  49

DOE COMPLIANCE  WITH RCRA

Presented by

Leah Dever, Environmental Compliance Division, DOE

Ms. Dever is an Environmental Protection Specialist in DOE's Environmental Compliance Division. Ms. Dever
is the principal coordinator for three DOE offices.
   To provide an understanding of  the
Department of Energy's  (DOE's) compli-
ance with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), this discussion will
include a brief history of DOE's actions
concerning mixed waste, an update on the
status of DOE's compliance .with RCRA,
and  a summary  of  DOE's  activities  in
implementing the mixed waste or by-pro-
duct rulemaking.  In addition, some of the
regulatory  issues  relating  to mixed waste
that  are  important to DOE will be  high-
lighted.

   When RCRA was passed in  1976, and
followed by its implementing regulations
in 1980,  it was DOE's  interpretation that
RCRA did not apply to its activities con-
ducted  under  the  Atomic  Energy  Act
(AEA).  This interpretation was based on
RCRA §1006(a), which  is commonly called
the inconsistency clause.   This section
states that RCRA applies except to  the
extent that such application of regulations
is not inconsistent with the  requirements
of the Atomic Energy  Act (AEA).  Based
on this section, DOE took the position that
its activities under AEA were exempt.

   In 1982, DOE issued  an order which
established a Departmental program that
was substantively the same as the RCRA
program. While this program had the same
technical requirements as RCRA, DOE did
not require its facilities to obtain RCRA
permits or meet the administrative require-
ments of RCRA.

   In February 1984, DOE and  EPA sign-
ed  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding
(MOU) stating that the DOE program was
comparable to  EPA's RCRA   program.
Shortly thereafter, DOE was taken to court
by  the  Legal Environmental  Assistance
Foundation  (LEAF)  for   violations  of
RCRA at the Y-12  Plant  in  Tennessee.
The district court  ruled that RCRA was
applicable to the hazardous chemical waste
at the AEA facility;  however,  the court
did not address radioactive mixed waste.
DOE decided not to litigate the issue fur-
ther and  began  to implement  the court
decision across the department.  Because
radioactive mixed waste was not addressed
by the court, DOE  decided to address the
extent of RCRA's applicability to radioac-
tive mixed waste by clarifying the defini-
tion of by-product  material  through  a
rulemaking.  The purpose of the  by-pro-
duct rulemaking  was simply to define the
extent of  RCRA applicability to radioac-
tive mixed waste, not to redefine the term
by-product material.   In November 1985,
DOE  proposed its  by-product  rule based
on  the  definition  of solid waste under
RCRA §1004 which excludes source, spe-
cial  nuclear,  and  by-product  materials.
The definition of by-product materials is
process based. That is, by-product mater-
ial is material made radioactive as part of
the processing of source or special nuclear
material. This definition is different from
the definitions  for  source and  special
nuclear material, which identify specific
substances such as  uranium, thorium, and
Plutonium.

    In mid-1986, DOE's Office of Environ-
ment, Safety and Health initiated a policy
review of the proposed by-product rule-
making.   DOE  internally  believed the
review was necessary, and also the Depart-
ment  took this action as a result  of the
large  number of comments it was receiv-

-------
 ing on the proposed rulemaking.  In addi-
 tion,  DOE  and EPA conducted  a mixed
 energy waste study, called the MEWS study.

    In late  December 1986, DOE  decided
 not to adopt the proposed by-product rule-
 making of  November 1985.  On  May  1,
 1987, the final interpretive rule was pub-
 lished.  This rule clearly subjects all of
 DOE's radioactive mixed waste to joint
 regulation under both the AEA and RCRA.
 The rule further  recognizes that,  if there
 is an inconsistency between the two laws,
 the AEA will take precedence.

    DOE has over 40 facilities that gener-
 ate radioactive mixed waste; over 25 of
 these facilities are treatment, storage, and
 disposal facilities under RCRA; there are
 over 300 treatment, storage, and disposal
 (TSD)  units that are subject to  RCRA
 permitting, closure, or post-closure permits.
 DOE must keep track of all of these units.

   The years of uncertainty, from 1980 to
 1987,  have contributed  to the many com-
pliance  problems  across the Department.
One tool that has been valuable to DOE in
correcting its  compliance  problems  and
ensuring compliance with  RCRA  at these
facilities has been Federal Facilities Com-
pliance Agreements, Consent Orders, and/or
Settlement Agreements.  The most helpful
agreements have been those which involve
both the States and EPA. For example, at
the Feed Materials Production Center, in
Fernald, Ohio, DOE has an Agreement with
EPA to cover RCRA, CERCLA, and Clean
Air Act issues.  At the Rocky Flats Plant,
DOE has a  RCRA/CERCLA Compliance
Agreement with both the State  and EPA.
At  the Hanford Site, DOE has a  RCRA
Compliance Agreement and Consent Order
with the State of Washington; at Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories Site 300, DOE has
a Settlement Agreement with California; at
the  Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
DOE has a Consent Order and Compliance
Agreement under  RCRA §3008(h); and at
the Savannah River Plant DOE has a num-
ber of  Settlement Agreements  with the
State  of South Carolina to help correct
RCRA violations and compliance problems.
	Page 50

    Most of DOE's efforts in the area of
 RCRA  compliance  have come  from the
 environmental side of the Department, and
 I would like to discuss some of the activi-
 ties DOE has undertaken to implement the
 mixed waste (by-product) rulemaking across
 the Department.  One of the  most impor-
 tant activities  that DOE has undertaken
 has been the frequent and open communi-
 cation with EPA and the States, not only
 at  the Headquarters level, but also at the
 field and Operations Office  levels.  The
 open dialogue  about RCRA and  mixed
 waste has helped both  the regulators and
 the regulated community better understand
 DOE's  facilities and their waste manage-
 ment practices.

    Following the May 1, 1987, by-product
 rulemaking, DOE established a mixed waste
 working group.  This group is made up of
 a regulatory issues sub-group and an opera-
 tional  sub-group,  which is  managed by
 Defense Programs.  These  groups meet
 periodically to identify and work on issues
 together.

    When  the by-product rulemaking was
 published on May 1, 1987, one of the im-
 mediate concerns was how to submit RCRA
 Part A permit  applications.   DOE  recom-
 mended to all  its field offices that  they
 identify all radioactive mixed waste  TSD
 units and  submit  Part  A  applications  as
 soon  as possible.  Many of  the facilities
 completed  this  last  year; however, some
 facilities are still identifying units. Also,
 DOE hopes to  issue an  order in late-Sep-
 tember which will establish internal DOE
 procedures  and  responsibilities  under
 RCRA.  The purpose of this order is not
 to re-write RCRA, but to express how DOE
 will internally operate under RCRA.

    DOE has also been sharing with its
 field offices many of the memoranda that
 come from EPA. One of these was a  very
 good memorandum issued last year by EPA
 describing the  States' role and EPA's role
 in  regulating mixed waste.   Also, DOE
 worked with EPA to provide comments on
 the clarification notice that is expected to
 appear in the Federal Register in the next
 month  or month and a  half, which clari-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fies again the roles of the States and EPA.
DOE recently sent to its field offices an
EPA memorandum discussing  the use of
RCRA §3008(h) orders and  post-closure
permits for corrective action.  In addition,
it  sent the memorandum on the hammer
dates  for  newly regulated treatment and
storage units.

   Additionally,  DOE  is working  with
EPA on a MOU  regarding the management
of radioactive mixed waste.  This was a
result of the working group and will not
be a binding agreement, but is intended to
serve  as guidance for EPA  Regions and
States.

   An example  of successful coordination
was the shipment of  mixed  waste to the
Nevada Test Site. It  took the cooperation
of several States, EPA Regions, EPA Head-
quarters, DOE operation offices, and DOE
Headquarters, and several months of work
to  ensure  that the Nevada Test Site had
interim status under RCRA, and thus, was
	Page 51

 allowed  to receive specific  radioactive
 mixed waste.

    Some of DOE's major concerns include
 regulation of  lead and lead shielding un-
 der RCRA, and also the use of Subpart X
 of 40 CFR Part 264 for permitting some
 of the very unique waste management units
 whose special conditions are not considered
 in the current RCRA regulations.

     Also, DOE has concerns about how to
 permit  the Waste  Isolation  Pilot   Plant
 (WIPP) and is actively working with EPA
 to address these issues.  In addition, DOE
 needs to understand better how the ham-
 mer dates apply to radioactive mixed waste
 units, and is concerned about the implica-
 tion  of land  disposal restriction rules to
 mixed waste.   Finally, DOE is concerned
 about the integration of the CERCLA and
 RCRA §3004(u) requirements for cleanup,
 and believes that in order to avoid duplica-
 tion everyone must work together to inte-
 grate these requirements.

-------
Paee 52

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page S3

THE STATE EXPERIENCE APPLYING HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULA-
TIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND  DEFENSE MIXED WASTE

Presented by

Michael Sattler, Project Coordinator for Rocky Flats Plant, State of Colorado

Mr. Sattler is a Public Health Engineer with the Colorado Department of Health (CDH).  He has a B.S. in
Chemistry and Petroleum Refining Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines.
   States have a different perspective on
the issue of mixed waste. This paper will
relate some  of the  experiences that the
State of Colorado has had in dealing with
mixed waste and hazardous waste issues at
commercial and defense facilities.

   Four specific areas of the mixed waste
issue that were identified in Colorado are:

•  Identification of hazardous and mixed
   wastes,

•  The  waste analysis plan required by
   RCRA,

•  Container storage areas, and

•  Tanks which may not be in compliance
   with RCRA.

   In 1984 Colorado became the seventh
State to be authorized by RCRA.  In  early
198S,  EPA requested that  Rocky  Flats
submit their Part B permit application for
hazardous waste. An inspection was done
later that  year and  it was found  that in
the area of  low-level  mixed waste the
facility was far from meeting RCRA tech-
nical requirements; however, in the area of
high-level (Transuranic or "TRU") wastes,
many of the RCRA requirements were met.
Rocky Flats indicated they had over 600
streams of mixed wastes when in fact they
had over 2,000 streams of low-level mixed
waste.

   When the Part B application for Rocky
Flats was  submitted in  1985,  it did not
include any of the mixed waste that was
produced at  that plant.   The Colorado
Department of Health (CDH)  decided  to
deny the permit due to this omission. This
action helped to force the issue of low-
level mixed waste regulation under RCRA.

   The Compliance  Agreement that was
signed  by the Colorado Department  of
Health, EPA, and DOE, in July 1986, did
several things.  First, it recognized  that
the hazardous portion of low-level mixed
waste was regulated under RCRA. Second,
it allowed the State of Colorado to become
authorized for mixed waste.

   In November 1986, the State of Colora-
do became the first State to be authorized
for mixed waste, and in November 1986,
EPA received a second Part B  application
from Rocky Flats, which addressed all  of
the hazardous and low-level mixed waste
issues.

   In September  1987,  CDH and EPA
issued a notice of deficiency for the per-
mit application.  In December  1987, DOE
revised its Part B application.  Currently,
EPA and the State expect a notice of com-
pletion and a draft permit to  be done  at
the end of 1988.

   Two major inspections have been con-
ducted at  the  site, one in 1987 and the
other in  June 1988.  These  inspections
identified  some remaining problems.  The
first problem  is the identification of haz-
ardous and mixed waste.  In  particular,
DOE tends to be excessive in its definition
of mixed waste.  Another problem relates
to the  permit application.  The Part  A
application that was submitted in Novem-
ber 1986 for Rocky Flats contains all  of

-------
 the units that the Colorado Department of
 Health considers to have interim status.
 In the application  that was  submitted in
 December 1987, the facility added units to
 the  application that did not  previously
 have interim status.  This is not the way
 RCRA was intended to work. Once a Part
 A application has been submitted, a facili-
 ty must have justification  and  rationale
 for  amending that application  and  the
 State or EPA must approve any addition
 or changes to interim status.  This has been
 a difficult  issue,  because  facilities  are
 continually  amending their applications
 and  it is difficult to determine what  has
 interim status and what does not

   Another related issue is the regulation
of the appropriate units.  All facilities and
generators need to determine if their facil-
 ities could be exempted from RCRA regu-
lation.  For example, there is a provision
in RCRA  for elementary neutralization
units which  would exempt  a  tank that
neutralizes acid.  Inspectors should deter-
mine if  a facility  or  if  particular units
can  be exempt from  RCRA regulation.
On the other hand,  inspectors also need to
verify that all of the units that fall under
RCRA are included in the Part A applica-
tion.   In order to  improve  regulation at
DOE facilities, interim status needs to be
clearly defined and accepted by the State,
EPA, and DOE.

   Another important issue is that facili-
ties  should  identify future needs  when
waste processes are being identified. The
Rocky Fiats Site, like similar facilities, is
having problems finding a place to dispose
of low-level waste.  The Nevada  Test Site
will  accept low-level waste in some forms,
but it could take up to two years before
they start accepting additional  low-level
waste.  Since it may be two years before
waste  can be shipped off-site,  facilities
may have to request more storage space.
In order to avoid  this complication,  the
facilities need to plan ahead and determine
their exact treatment and storage capabili-
ties for low-level mixed waste.  Hazardous
waste does not face the same kind of prob-
lems as  mixed waste, because it can be
shipped  to existing, permanent  facilities.
	Page 54

 However,  the  Rocky  Flats Plant  is  still
 storing hazardous  waste pn-site for  two
 years.  Many facilities fail to realize the
 significance of  proper hazardous  waste
 management at both hazardous and low-
 level waste facilities.

    The  waste analysis plan  has  been a
 sensitive issue between the CDH  and the
 Rocky Flats Plant.  In order to understand
 this issue  it is important to  realize  that
 there is a  difference between a generator
 waste analysis plan and a treatment, stor-
 age, or disposal facility's waste  analysis
 plan.  A generator simply has to identify
 and document the  existence of the hazar-
 dous waste.  A treatment, storage, or dis-
 posal  facility's waste analysis plan  must
 include all of the information necessary to
 treat,  store,  and dispose of the hazardous
 waste.   This  means  that  incompatible
 wastes should be kept separate, that wastes
 with high  pH should be stored in suitable
 tanks, and that radioactive analyses are
 necessary  to properly treat or store the
 waste.

    The radioactive analysis is important
 so that inspectors can verify that the waste
 is being stored in  the appropriate storage
 area. The  waste storage areas are segregat-
 ed into hazardous, low-level,  and  TRU
 waste storage areas. If there is no indica-
 tion of the radioactivity level in the waste
 analysis plan,  there  is  no  way  for the
 inspector to determine whether or not the
 waste is being stored  properly.

    In addition, a radioactive analysis could
 help avoid the problem of alpha-hydrolysis.
 This is the process whereby  an  alpha-H
 hydrogen radical is combined with chlorine
 from  a hazardous  waste, forming hydro-
 chloric acid.  This  acid eats into the drums
 and the waste contaminates  the  soil.  A
 simple gross  alpha radioactive  analysis
 would improve the  management of radioac-
 tive waste.  Although the plant performs
 radioactive analyses internally, they do not
 make  these analyses available  to the regu-
 lators who need to know this information.

    Another waste  management deficiency
 at the Rocky Flats facility is the result of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
using two separate tracking systems. One
of  these is  the Safeguard  Accountability
Network (SAN) which tracks  plutpnium
throughout  the entire network.  This sys-
tem has not been integrated at all with
the system  that tracks purely  hazardous
waste.  An  example of the problems this
leads to is that there is no  way to  tell if
waste analysis has been done on the low-
level waste.

    The third area of concern is the con-
tainer storage areas.  Specifically for mix-
ed  waste, it was interesting to note that
for containment areas you need secondary
containment that  is  able  to  contain  10
percent of all the containers in the area.
You can only use two-inch berms because
of criticality concerns so instead of  know-
ing how many drums you have and design-
ing a berm  around it, you are  set with a
two-inch berm and then you have to back-
calculate to see how many barrels you can
put into the area.

    RCRA requires weekly inspections  of
waste storage areas. Due to concerns about
the physical safety of the inspectors sound
alarms are used to monitor the alpha activ-
ity  in the TRU waste storage area. The
alarm boxes, which are outside the storage
area, are now checked on  a weekly basis.

    Inspectors found  that  in some areas
where waste was being solidified, the waste
was unacceptable because it contained free
liquids.  If a box  is  filled with a free
liquid, and thus fails the test for solids, it
will be put in  a drum and stored  by a
loading area without any secondary con-
tainment.      Inspectors   insisted   that
secondary containment be  provided for
any waste rejected from the usual storage
area because it failed the  test  for  solids.
Another point on this issue is that if waste
is  rejected  and returned  to the  90-day
storage area it may be necessary to store it
there  for longer  than 90 days.  This is
another example of the need to make pro-
visions for potential future situations.

    The fourth area of concern is the tank
compliance  with  RCRA.    Colorado has
recently adopted the secondary containment
	Page 55

 rules for tanks.  Sometimes buildings are
 used for secondary  containment.   This,
 however, undermines  the purpose  of the
 regulations because if a tank leaks, the
 workers in the building may be exposed to
 the leak. Rocky Flats had tanks on grates
 on the mezzanine level of a building, and
 workers would be  exposed  to any  leaks.
 The Department is still trying to determine
 how  to  deal with  this issue through the
 permit.  We are considering requiring auto-
 matic shut-offs and high-level switches on
 the tanks and  ancillary equipment.

    Inspectors  found  open  manholes on
 tanks at Rocky Flats.   They determined
 that  some  of them  were  open because
 workers were checking the tank volume by
 looking  in the open manholes because the
 sight gauges did not work. Another prob-
 lem with  the  tanks  was the appropriate
 use of automatic shut-off valves.  In one
 case  the automatic  shut-off  valve was
 connected to the line feeding into the tank
 in such a way that  when the high-level
 switch came on the valve would  shut off.
 However, the shut-off valve did not con-
 nect to the manual  feed to the tank.  Thus,
 when a  sump was used to manually pump
 water into the tank, the automatic valve
 did not  shut off the manual feed, and the
 tank overflowed. These specific examples
 indicate the importance of inspecting all
 of the units that are going to be permitted.

    DOE has made significant progress in
 bringing outside regulation into its facili-
 ties.  DOE has implemented an outstand-
 ing waste minimization program at Rocky
 Flats and they are examining innovative
 treatment technologies.  EPA, DOE, and
 the States need to  work together and de-
 termine what  is technically  correct.  Re-
 quirements should be met, not because they
 are in the regulations, but because it makes
 technical sense to  meet  them.  The result
 will be a safer environment.

-------
Page 56

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 57

STATUS  OF EPA ACTIVITIES

Presented by

Betty Shackleford, Mixed Waste Coordinator, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

Ms. Shackleford joined EPA's Office of Solid Waste in 1986 and is the Mixed Waste Coordinator within the
Permits and State Programs Division.  She has an M.S. in Microbiology from Howard University.
    EPA hopes to issue a Federal Register
notice within the  next four  to six weeks.
This  notice  is  being issued because  of
confusion  in the  regulated  community.
Treatment, storage, and disposal  facility
(TSDF) operators that handle mixed waste
are unclear  about  whether they  need  to
submit  a Part A permit application.  The
confusion about whether  or  not  interim
status is available to mixed  waste TSDFs
exists because this issue was not originally
addressed in  the July 3, 1986, clarification
notice.   The new notice will explain  to
operators of mixed waste  facilities  in
unauthorized States  how  to  qualify for
interim status. The notice will also explain
the deadlines for facilities in those States
that have EPA base program authorization,
but do not have mixed waste authorization.
In this  case,  interim status will be avail-
able in  accordance with  State law. While
RCRA typically allows six months to ob-
tain interim status, the States may  be more
stringent. EPA is  currently working with
NRC  to develop a  vehicle to ensure  that
this notice goes directly to  the NRC licen-
sees in unauthorized States.

    The regulated community has expressed
a tremendous  amount of  concern about
waste testing and verification, particularly
about doing  chemical analysis on  a waste
that contains  a  radioactive  constituent.
This concern has come from both the com-
mercial sector and Federal sector.

    In the next few months EPA, in  con-
junction with  NRC, will  be developing
guidance on specific RCRA requirements.
EPA is  planning to use  two studies  that
are being conducted by  public  utilities.
These studies are attempting to determine
what the scope of the mixed waste universe
looks  like.  EPA will compare the data
from these studies with data obtained from
the States. As a requirement for authori-
zation, States must  delineate their  mixed
waste universe.  EPA is not as concerned
about the actual volume of mixed waste
being generated, which is likely to be small
when compared  to other hazardous waste
volumes, as it is about the magnitude of
handlers that are impacted by  this mixed
waste clarification.   The Regions and the
authorized  States  may  be  faced  with
reviewing  thousands  of  RCRA  permit
applications. Thus, EPA is trying to get a
handle on the magnitude of the task that
lies ahead.

   EPA and NRC are also exploring the
feasibility of developing guidance on stor-
age.  This is a significant issue, especially
since  currently  no  commercial  disposal
facility has been  permitted   for  mixed
waste. EPA hopes to develop some sort of
storage guidance; however, this work has
been delayed by work on permitting  and
licensing.

   EPA  plans  to hold a  second  mixed
waste workshop in fiscal year  19S9. This
workshop will be geared to the public, and
will hopefully involve many of the same
people who participated in the  first work-
shop.   EPA wants to encourage everyone
to be active participants, as they develop
regulations in the mixed waste area.

-------
 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 Q:  When are the States* authorization ap-
    plications  for  regulating mixed  waste
    generators and TSDFs due?

 A:  State representatives argue  that they
    always  had the  authority to regulate
    mixed  waste,  since  they  had  the
    authority to regulate radionuclides and
    the  authority  to regulate  hazardous
    waste.   They also thought  that their
    authorized State programs did include
    authority to control  mixed waste.  EPA
    reassessed its decision and determined
    that it did not review State authority
    to regulate mixed waste when it ini-
    tially approved State programs. There-
    fore, the July 3, 1986, Federal Register
    notice was  issued requiring States to
    come in and  modify their  programs.
    In spite of the fact that you may have
    State laws in place  to regulate mixed
    waste facilities, there is still the need
    to obtain mixed waste State authoriza-
    tion.

    The date for facilities to submit permit
    applications in States which have base
    program authorization  but not mixed
    waste authorization hinges on when the
    State receives mixed waste authoriza-
    tion.  The regulated community gen-
    erally will have six months  from that
    date to get in its Part A permit appli-
    cations  for  interim status,  although
    some States may have  more stringent
    requirements.
Q: Is lead shielding a hazardous waste?

A: We are  in the process of revising the
   joint guidance on the definition of the
	Page  58

 mixed waste, which was issued in Jan-
 uary 1987.  That guidance  will state
 EPA's position on lead.  The guidance
 will say that lead used as shielding will
 not be considered  a hazardous waste,
 while lead being disposed of,  to  the
 extent that it exhibits a characteristic,
 is a hazardous waste. EPA would rec-
 ommend that the management of either
 shielding or lead intentionally disposed
 of take place in a  mixed waste unit.

 Whether  lead  is really providing  a
 shielding function when the source is
 being disposed of is a tough question.
 We aren't clear on this.  What happens,
 for example, when lead is used  as
 shielding (even  as shielding to protect
 people near the disposal site) and then
 outlives its usefulness?

 [Joined by Bruce WeddleJ  I think a
 parallel with pesticides is appropriate
 here. When you use a pesticide it is not
 a hazardous waste.   When you dispose
 of it on land it is a hazardous waste.
 Thus you need to consider its intended
 use.  If you are using lead  containers
 for shielding  it  is  not a  hazardous
 waste, but if you were discarding those
 same lead containers, it would be. It is
 a very funny  result.   The Agency's
 recommendation is that you handle lead
 shielding as hazardous waste in order
 to protect the environment.  The prob-
 lem is that RCRA  was developed in
 1980 to deal with hazardous waste, not
 mixed waste. In a sense, we are trying
 to fit mixed waste into a program that
 exists,  and it  creates  these peculiar
 issues.  So you have to create an answer
 to the issue that makes some sense.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Pace 59

NRC'S AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

Presented by

Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Health Physicist, NRC

Ms. Schneider is currently responsible for technical and regulatory aspects of low-level waste management and
transportation in the Agreement State Program. Ms, Schneider has a B.S. in Physics and an M.S. in Nuclear
Engineering Sciences.
    NRC's Agreement State Program is in
the Office of  Governmental  and Public
Affairs and reports directly to the  NRC
Commissioners. The Agreement State Pro-
gram began in  1959 with enactment of
§274  of  the  Atomic Energy  Act.   This
section was an initiative by the States to
become  involved  in  the  regulation  of
atomic energy.  The interests of the States
are taken into account through the estab-
lishment of a cooperative program.   The
legislation provides mechanisms for trans-
fer of certain  NRC authority, it provides
for coordination of development of stan-
dards, and it reserves certain areas to the
NRC for regulation.  The Act was modi-
fied in 1978, requiring NRC to review the
Agreement State  programs periodically,
and it was modified again in 1980, giving
NRC authorization to reassert its authority
under certain conditions.

    The incentive to become an Agreement
State came from promotion of the program
by  NRC, as  well as the States'  rights
philosophy that was prevalent  in the early
1960s.   Interest in the program was in-
creased by the activities of the Southern
State Energy Board, and  by the Western
Interstate  Nuclear  Board,  and  by the
availability of  Department  of Health,
Education, and Welfare category funds.

    In order to become an Agreement State
NRC requires  a letter  from  the Governor
to the NRC Chairman  certifying both the
State's desire  to  assume  the  regulatory
responsibility  and the existence  of  an
adequate program  to protect public health
and safety.
   NRC's criteria  for  the program are
published as a policy statement for the
States that are entering into an agreement.
NRC  expects  Agreement States  to  have
comprehensive radiation control standards,
a  licensing  program, an inspection  and
enforcement program, adequate  numbers
of trained personnel, provisions  for  fair
and impartial administration, and arrange-
ments for discontinuing NRC's jurisdiction.
It  should be  emphasized  that  once an
agreement is in place the State  becomes
the regulatory authority in those areas
covered  by  the agreement and  NRC no
longer retains jurisdiction.  NRC  provides
additional criteria for States that regulate
uranium or thorium milling and mill  tail-
ings.  In addition, it is possible to develop
an agreement solely for the regulation of
the disposal of low-level waste.

   There are several advantages for States
in the  Agreement  State  program.   The
Agreement State has the ability to develop
a comprehensive radiation  program  that
regulates all sources of radiation. This is
in contrast to NRC whose regulatory pow-
er is limited, and does not extend  to things
such as NARM, X-rays, or lasers.  Further-
more,  becoming  an  Agreement  State  is
consistent with State interest in regulating
the nuclear industry.  Agreement States
will enhance the  core of  knowledgeable
people at the State level.  Also an Agree-
ment  State will in many cases,  create a
single regulatory agency  for all users, and
licensing decisions made by the State will
more  accurately reflect local conditions.

-------
    However,  a few  disadvantages  arise
 from the Agreement State program.  NRC
 does  not  transfer  funds,  therefore, the
 States must fund  their  own programs.
 Some licensees, such as mixed waste units,
 will  have  to  deal with more than one
 regulatory group.   Furthermore,  the pro-
 gram requires coordination between NRC
 and the States, and costs are  incurred by
 NRC for program operation and oversight.

    Before a State can enter into an agree-
 ment, NRC  must find the State's  program
 to be compatible with NRC provisions and
 adequate  to protect public  health  and
 safety.  NRC must publish the staff posi-
 tion policy  paper  for four  weeks in the
 Federal Register.

    NRC is authorized and  directed to
 cooperate  with States in  formulation of
 radiation standards. In addition, NRC is
 authorized to  provide training and assis-
 tance for  States.  NRC also enforces cer-
 tain  requirements  of §2740(o) for mill
 programs and additional criteria for States
 solely regulating low-level  waste  disposal
 sites.   A complete  version of the imple-
 menting regulations can be  found in 10
 CFR Part 150.

    Even after an agreement is signed with
 a  State,  NRC retains  jurisdiction over
 Federal agencies, such as EPA or the De-
 partment of Defense, yet NRC does not
 have  jurisdiction over  DOE.  NRC  also
 retains jurisdiction over reactors, exports
 and imports, disposal in motion, high-level
 waste,  consumer   products,   significant
 amounts of special nuclear material (SNM),
offshore waters, and certain aspects of mill
 tailings.

    The agreement document contains the
effective date of transfer, a commitment
 by both NRC and the State to best efforts
at compatibility, and  an  indication of
 those areas in which NRC retains authori-
 ty,  such as  common defense security for
SNM.   Furthermore, the agreement has
 provisions on  reciprocity, recognition of
 licenses, termination, and specific condi-
 tions  pertaining to mill tailings.
	Page  6Q

    Presently, 29 States are NRC Agreement
 States and of those 29 States, only Utah
 and Iowa do not have authority to regulate
 low-level waste  disposal facilities.  The
 Agreement  States are regulating a little
 over 60 percent of the material licenses in
 the country; there are approximately 16,000
 Agreement   State  licenses  compared  to
 approximately 8,000 NRC licenses.

    NRC operates a very active post-agree-
 ment program.  NRC works on a routine
 daily basis to exchange information. NRC
 provides  a  technical assistance  program,
 provides  training, and  conducts  on-site
 reviews as required by the  legislation.

    Some  of  the  exchange of information
 is  published in  collaboration with  the
 Council  of  Radiation  Control  Program
 Directors and includes statistics on licens-
 ing  as well  as other data.

    NRC  has developed  requirements and
 agreements   for  reporting   unusual and
 abnormal occurrences in Agreement States.
 NRC receives  and reviews a copy of  all
 licenses  issued  by  an  Agreement State.
 NRC also receives copies  of all  sealed-
 source  and  device  evaluations, and  GL
 licenses, which are mostly for consumer
 products  or  for gauges that are used in
 industry. Another aspect of the exchange
 of information is an annual meeting of all
 Agreement States.

    NRC  has an active, routine  technical
 assistance program.  There are five NRC
 Regional Offices and each  has a Regional
 State Agreements Officer.   These people
 handle routine correspondence and become
 involved  in case work,  licensing policy,
 inspection practices and interpretation of
 the  regulations.   All draft  regulations
 promulgated by  the  Agreement  State are
 reviewed for compatibility.  If the regula-
 tions are not compatible, the NRC remains
 involved  until  the  situation is resolved.
 The State must modify its regulations until
 they are  compatible with  NRC,  or NRC
 retains jurisdiction in this  area.
                                              is
    Another aspect of technical assistance
    NRC's  involvement with  case work.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
When  necessary, NRC  conducts  on-site
assistance, which involves both inspection
license  evaluations  and  special studies.
Regional  Offices work with other  major
offices  within NRC in order  to  access
additional expertise  if needed. An  exam-
ple of this is the active cooperation with
the Division of Waste Management.  NRC
trains approximately 250 State Radiation
Control personnel each year. Section 274(j)
requires NRC to perform periodic reviews
of the Agreement State programs in order
to ensure that the States maintain adequacy
and compatibility.  The reviews are con-
ducted by the Regional Offices with assis-
tance from Headquarters.   This allows
NRC to review a State program like Cali-
fornia's, which  has  approximately 2,000
material  licenses, in  approximately six
staff weeks  (two people working for three
weeks).

    These program reviews follow the NRC
guide for evaluation,  which includes  an
examination of the legislation and regula-
tions, the organization  of the program, the
management and administration, the qual-
ifications of  personnel, and the State's
ability to conduct inspections.  NRC ac-
tually accompanies the State inspectors in
order to determine  whether or not they
are knowledgeable in enforcing their regu-
lations.   In  addition, NRC examines the
licensing and compliance programs. The
indicators of State performance are cate-
gorized  by their relative importance. The
review concludes with summary discussions
between NRC and State management offi-
cials, and  a letter is sent to the State man-
agement.  If major  problems are found,
NRC will not concede  compatibility until
a State response is received and evaluated.
NRC will  go to the next highest authority
in order to resolve the problem. The result
of the review procedure has been a very
good  relationship between NRC and the
Agreement States.

    NRC does not provide funding  to the
States.  NRC charges a licensing fee and
encourages  the  States  to do  the  same.
Presently, 24  out of  the  29  Agreement
States have  fees  for their  licensing and
compliance programs. This results in over
	Page  61

 75 percent of the material licensees paying
 fees to either  NRC or the States.  NRC
 provides model legislation concerning this
 in the suggested  legislation that is pro-
 duced by  the  Suggested State  Legislation
 Council.

    Past experience shows that States gen-
 erally conduct effective radiation control
 programs.   Over 90 percent of  NRC in-
 dicators are met and when major program
 deficiencies are  found,  assistance and
 training are provided  from within NRC.

    The greatest difficulty for the  States
 has  been  maintaining an  adequate  staff.
 Yet, one of the strengths of the State pro-
 grams is that staff are highly trained and
 conduct more  frequent inspections than
 NRC.

    The  key elements for  an  effective
 program are a qualified  staff, low turn-
 overs, requests for advice, systematic fea-
 tures,  a comprehensive and unified pro-
 gram  covering all sources of radiation,
 high program visibility, a capable program
 director,  and  support from  middle and
 upper management.

    In  order to obtain a low-level  waste
 permit, NRC expects Agreement States or
 those States who are going to seek Agree-
 ment State authority to maintain a program
 with appropriate  legislation, regulations,
 procedures,  and technical capabilities for
 low-level waste facilities.  NRC will review
 the program for adequacy before licensing
 the  low-level  waste facilities.  However,
 NRC  will  not duplicate an  Agreement
 State's review.  Therefore, in an Agreement
 State that is authorized under §274(b) of
 the Atomic Energy Act, license applications
 for low-level waste facilities will go to the
 State,  not  NRC.

    NRC has issued guidance to the techni-
 cal  assistance  program in the  low-level
 waste  area.  This guidance has been sent
 to all  States and Compacts including both
 Agreement  and  non-Agreement   States.
 NRC  technical assistance is  limited  to
 topics such as design, licensing, and  opera-
 tions.   DOE provides  technical assistance

-------
related to developmental aspects; addition-
al NRC  assistance is  available if States
request it

   As a final point, it should be clear that
mixed waste disposal is regulated by two
	Pace  62

 different programs:  NRC and EPA. These
 programs have different requirements and
 are the  result of implementing different
 legislation.   An  understanding of  both
 programs is essential.
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Pace 63

ERA'S AUTHORIZED STATE PROGRAM

Presented by

Alex Wolfe, Section Chief, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

Mr. Wolfe Is currently the Chief of the Implementation Section of EPA's State Programs Branch. He has a B.S.
in Biology and Geography and an M.S. in Environmental Planning.
    The following presentation will focus
on  the statutory and regulatory program
requirements for State authorization.  This
will include a  review of  Clusters,  i.e.,
groupings of regulations which  establish
deadlines for States to adopt the regulatory
program changes.  Additional issues that
will be addressed are the July 3, 1986,
Federal Register notice. State authorization
for mixed  waste, and interim status re-
quirements.

    RCRA  provides  basic  statutory and
regulatory requirements for State authori-
zation. The State program must  be equiv-
alent to and consistent with the  EPA pro-
gram.  Additionally, State  programs may
be  more, but not less, stringent  than the
EPA program. Therefore, as EPA promul-
gates  regulations, the  States must incor-
porate these regulations — with the excep-
tion of regulations that EPA specifically
identifies as optional.

    An authorized State must provide pub-
lic  notice and hearings, provide  adequate
enforcement, and allow public availability
of information. A complete list of regula-
tory requirements related  to  application
for State authorization can be  found in
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 271.  An
important objective of State authorization
is that once authorized, State's carry out
the program  in  lieu of EPA.   However,
EPA maintains an oversight role and pro-
vides funding through RCRA grants.. EPA
currently provides between $60 and  $65
million to the Regions, which then under-
take further disbursement to the  States.
Disbursement  is based  on  a model that
takes  into account the amount of hazar-
dous waste generated; the number of treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities; and
the population,  in any given State.

   The State Consolidated RCRA Authori-
zation Guidance  Manual (SCRAM) is a
guidance document which includes a gen-
eral  background, an explanation of what
a State must submit in its initial applica-
tion for the RCRA base program, and how
a State  can  carry  out program revisions.
A State that is currently unauthorized must
go through a more extensive process than
those   States   which    already   have
authorization. The manual also includes a
list of  appendices called State Program
Advisories.  These Advisories provide the
States with information about how  EPA's
program has  been  modified and how the
States can maintain consistency and equiv-
alency with  EPA.

   The  Hazardous   and   Solid   Waste
Amendments  of 1984 (HSWA) made a sig-
nificant impact on RCRA. Prior to HSWA,
EPA program changes were only effective
in the unauthorized States. Under HSWA,
elements of the Federal RCRA program
that are implemented pursuant to HSWA
become immediately effective in both the
authorized and unauthorized  States.   In
many cases, the 1984 amendments are more
stringent than the programs implemented
in States with base RCRA programs.  In
these cases EPA has the enforcement  role
for those requirements and will maintain
this  role until  the States incorporate the
requirements of  HSWA.   Base program
refers to those  requirements that are im-
posed pursuant to  the statutory authority
that was in place prior to the enactment of

-------
 HSWA. Therefore, the base program con-
 sists of prc-HSWA requirements.

    HSWA  initiated  the  promulgation of
 many  new regulations.  Therefore, to fa-
 cilitate State authorization, EPA divided
 the Federal rules into Clusters containing
 all the regulations  promulgated  over  a
 specified period of time. The clusters are
 divided into two groups:  non-HSWA Clus-
 ters, and HSWA Clusters.  The non-HSWA
 Clusters are annual groupings of the regu-
 lations promulgated  under  pre-HSWA
 authority. There are two multi-year HSWA
 Clusters.   HSWA  Cluster  I  includes all
 HSWA requirements promulgated between
 November  8,  1984,  and  June  30, 1987.
 HSWA Cluster  II  includes all HSWA re-
 quirements  promulgated  between  July  1,
 1987, and  June  30, 1990.  After June 1990,
 HSWA and  non-HSWA provisions  will be
 combined  in annual Clusters.

   The Federal  regulations  require  the
 States  to incorporate these changes by the
 Cluster deadline and to apply for authori-
 zation  within a certain  timeframe after
 the Cluster ends.  Some States have inter-
 nal requirements to present their rules to
 the legislature  for approval.  However,
 there is no EPA requirement for this. This
 grouping provides the States  with  the op-
 portunity  to adopt  the  entire group of
 regulations at one time rather than indivi-
dually.

   HSWA Cluster I  has  been adopted in
only one State,  Georgia.  HSWA  Cluster I
covers  the requirements in the July 15,
 1985, codification rule  which includes  a
 series of provisions such as minimum tech-
 nology  requirements for  land  disposal
 facilities,  RD&D  permits,  burning  and
 blending of hazardous waste, prohibition
 of liquids  in  landfills, and  surface  im-
 poundment retrofitting.  In addition,  this
Cluster includes HSWA corrective  action
 requirements,  which  are  often  a  major
stumbling block  due to  the amount of
 resources  required  for  implementation.
Mixed  waste is  included  in non-HSWA
Cluster III,  which covers the time period
 from July 1, 1986, to June 30, 1987.
	Paee 64

    The July 3, 1986, mixed waste Federal
 Register notice, has two major implications.
 The first implication  is that in order to
 maintain existing authorization, States must
 have the authority to regulate the hazard-
 ous components of radioactive mixed waste.
 The notice defines mixed waste as a waste
 that contains hazardous waste subject to
 RCRA and radioactive waste subject to the
 Atomic Energy Act  States are given one
 year to enact a regulatory change of this
 type,  and two  years  to enact  statutory
 changes that may  be required.  Thus,
 authorized  States are  now  required to
 revise their programs  to  include  mixed
 waste  by July 1, 1988. Unauthorized States
 applying after July  3, 1987, must include
 mixed waste in their initial applications.
 The second implication is that no State can
 receive authorization for HSWA corrective
 action until it obtains authorization for
 mixed wastes.  EPA is strictly enforcing
 this requirement.

    After the close of the non-HSWA Clus-
 ter III time period, States have 60 days to
 submit their applications for authorization
 for the regulations in the Cluster. There-
 fore, the 40 States that are not  currently
 authorized  for  mixed  waste  are in  the
 process of making regulatory or statutory
 changes as necessary.

    In order to apply for base RCRA auth-
 orization, a  State, using the  SCRAM for
 guidance,  initiates  the  application with
 what is essentially a transmittal from the
 Governor's  office stating  the desire  for
 the RCRA  program. The application in-
 cludes a  Program Description which ex-
 plains the State program. The application
 also includes the Attorney General's State-
 ment  which is probably one of the most
 important parts of the State's application.
 This Statement certifies that the  State's
 statutes and regulations are consistent and
 equivalent with EPA program requirements.
 There is a model in  SCRAM that provides
 a series of requirements for certification.
 Another element of the application is  a
 Memorandum of Agreement.  The State and
 Region  develop  this  agreement jointly.
 This agreement  delineates the  roles and
 responsibilities of both the State and EPA.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The final elements of the application are
for the State to demonstrate public partici-
pation and to supply complete copies of all
its statutes and regulations.

    In  order for States with  base  RCRA
authorization  to revise their  programs to
include mixed  wastes, they  follow  four
steps that are explained in the  State Pro-
gram Advisory.  This advisory  delineates
time frames in which States  must attain
mixed  waste  authorization;  it  provides
basic information about what a State needs
to submit; it explains the availability of
interim status; and it reviews the "inconsis-
tency provision" of §1006 of RCRA.

   In  order to satisfy the authorization
requirements,  the application should  be
completed  with  the  following  points in
mind.  The Attorney General's  Statement
is a simple certification that the State has
the necessary  authority  to regulate  the
hazardous components of mixed waste as
hazardous  waste.   Chapter  3.3  of  the
SCRAM, "Identification and  Listing," in-
cludes  a mode!  of the area the Attorney
General should certify. The key elements
of the Program Description section are how
the mixed waste program will  be  imple-
mented and enforced, a  description  of
resources and costs, provisions for a health
physics individual either on staff or acces-
sible, and a description of security clear-
	Page  65

 ances if they exist. The statutes and regu-
 lations that are required with the applica-
 tion  must demonstrate that the State has
 the appropriate authority. The Memoran-
 dum  of Agreement should clearly outline
 which office or department will undertake
 the responsibilities for administering the
 program. For example, it is possible for a
 State to divide responsibilities among dif-
 ferent  segments of its hazardous  waste
 program, or for separate offices to run the
 hazardous waste  and  mixed  waste pro-
 grams.

    At present 44 States are authorized for
 the base RCRA program.  Of these, four
 States,  Washington, Colorado, South Caro-
 lina,  and Tennessee, have been authorized
 for mixed  waste.   The  forty remaining
 authorized States are  preparing to obtain
 mixed waste authorization. There are also
 12 unauthorized States and  territories in
 which EPA administers the Federal RCRA
 program; in those States RCRA is applic-
 able  to mixed waste.

    The interim status clarification notice
 should  be published  next month.   [The
 notice  was published  on September  23,
 1988, 53 FR 37045.)  This notice will make
 clear the deadlines  for interim  status in
 authorized  States and the  deadlines  in
 unauthorized  States  once  they  obtain
 authorization for mixed waste.

-------
Page 66
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page  67

THE   STATE/COMPACT   EXPERIENCE  ESTABLISHING  DISPOSAL
CAPACITY  FOR LOW-LEVEL  RADIOACTIVE  WASTE:  ISSUES AND
UPDATE

Presented by

Holmes Brown, Director, State and Federal Programs, Alton Associates

Mr. Brown was the Associate Staff Director far Energy and Environment at the National Governors' Association
between 1979-86. Since 1980, Mr. Brown has been involved in the negotiation of Regional Compacts.  Currently,
he is a consultant to State governments on low-level radioactive waste facilities and hazardous waste issues.
   In order to give an overview of the
efforts  by States  and Compacts to deal
with low-level  radioactive wastes,  I will
review  the background  of  the  Federal
legislation, including the  timetables that
were established in 1985.  I will then up-
date the status of site development, and
major issues, including mixed waste, that
currently confront the States and Regions.

   Presently low-level waste  is  handled
very differently  from  hazardous  waste.
Until  1980,  radioactive  and  hazardous
materials  were dealt with equivalently.
But in  1980, a Federal  law  was passed
requiring  all States  to provide  low-level
waste disposal capacity for all  low-level
waste  generated   within   their  borders.
Before 1980, three commercial sites han-
dled low-level radioactive waste; they were
located  in South  Carolina, Nevada, and
Washington,  and   all   are   currently
operating.  The Federal legislation passed
in 1980 relieved these three States of the
prospect of indefinite  responsibility  to
accept low-level waste. It also encouraged
States to form  Compacts, because it was
estimated  that six to eight sites would be
sufficient to handle the nation's low-level
radioactive waste. Therefore, it was not
necessary for each State to provide a waste
site.  The  legislation  allowed Compacts to
exercise exclusionary authority over waste
generated  outside their borders beginning
in 1986. Thus, it was envisioned that after
1986 the  operating sites  would  only  be
required to  take waste from within their
own Compact areas.
   In 1984 it became evident that no new
sites would be operating by the 1986 dead-
line.    Therefore,  in  1985,  amendments
were  adopted which  extended by  seven
years,  to  1993,  the time period during
which   States could   utilize  the  three
operating  sites.   These amendments also
created a series of milestones with penal-
ties:

•  1986 —  States must either join a Com-
   pact or indicate that they will build
   their own low-level waste sites.

•  1988 - Compacts or unaffiliated States
   must submit  siting plans as described
   in the Federal legislation;

•  1990 - Compacts or unaffiliated States
   are required to submit license applica-
   tions to NRC, or alternatively, submit
   Governors'  certifications  indicating
   that the States  are prepared to take
   responsibility for their own waste after
   the 1993 deadline.

•  1992 - All Compacts or  unaffiliated
   States must submit new license applica-
   tions.

   On January 1, 1993, the final deadline
is  reached, and  the three operating sites
will  be allowed to refuse waste from out-
side their regional boundaries. In addition,
two of the three operating sites, in South
Carolina and Nevada, have indicated they
will  cease  operation  in  1993.  Successor

-------
 sites are being planned in North Carolina
 and Colorado.

    The following section  will review the
 progress of the  Compacts and States in
 meeting the Federal milestones.

    The Northwest Compact Region has an
 operating facility in Hanford, Washington,
 which plans to continue  operating after
 1993. However, following  this deadline, it
 will only accept waste from within its own
 Region.

    The operating site in Beatty, Nevada,
 which serves the Rocky Mountain Region,
 is scheduled to close in  1993.  Colorado
 has been selected as the host State and is
 evaluating a  site  near  Grand Junction.
 Plans already exist to open a radium waste
 facility at this site and  the State  is ex-
 amining the possibility of accepting low-
 level waste at this site as well.  The Rocky
 Mountain Region generates a very small
 amount of  low-level waste;  therefore it
 must be determined whether this site would
 be economically viable.

   The Southwestern Compact is currently
 composed of California and Arizona. The
 two Dakotas are eligible to join this Com-
 pact, but have not acted yet. California is
 the most advanced State in the country in
 terms of site development  It has selected
a  site,  completed   site characterization
 work, and is expected to submit  a  license
application for a low-level  waste  site in
 the next few  years.  It is interesting to
 note that California had  selected three
sites for  characterization work, and all
three sites showed interest in being select-
ed.

   Texas  is going to build its own waste
site as an unaffiliated State.  Their pri-
mary location is near £1 Paso in a  fairly
isolated area.  The City and County of £1
Paso, however,  have slowed down the Tex-
as program through litigation. The matter
has now been settled in the Supreme Court
and Texas intends to begin site characteri-
zation work soon. Texas is also  planning
to construct a facility for  mixed waste in
addition to a facility for low-level waste.
	Page68

    The  Central Compact  extends from
 Arkansas up through Oklahoma and Neb-
 raska.  Nebraska has been selected as the
 host State, and a site operator is currently
 conducting investigations to find a com-
 munity that is willing to accept a low-level
 waste site.  The State does not want to
 place the site in a community that  objects
 to  it.  Some communities have expressed
 an interest in serving as a host community.
 The site  developer is  planning  to select
 three sites from the 10 to 13 potential sites,
 and  site  characterization  work will  be
 carried out at these three sites. The States
 in  this Compact have contributed approxi-
 mately 10 million  dollars for the initial
 development costs.  In addition, the League
 of  Women Voters of Nebraska is working
 with the site developer on public participa-
 tion.

    The Central Midwest Compact is com-
 posed of  Kentucky and Illinois.   Illinois
 generates  the majority of  the waste  and
 has been selected as the host State.  Illinois
 law allows a community to reject the waste
 facility based  on technical issues.  How-
 ever, the Illinois authority is committed to
 selecting  a site in a community  that is
 willing to accept the facility, and thus far,
 several communities have volunteered. The
 Illinois plan includes a number of incen-
 tives, and the  program is extremely well
 funded.

    The  Midwest  Compact has selected
 Michigan as the host State. Michigan has
 adopted siting  legislation, established a
 low-level waste authority, and is beginning
 to  work on site selection criteria.   As in
 other Compacts, the Compact Commission
 is  contributing a  substantial  amount of
 money toward  the initial construction cost
 of $50 million.

    The Southeast Compact has an  operat-
 ing facility  at  Barnwell, South  Carolina,
 which is scheduled to close in 1993.  North
 Carolina has been selected as the successor
 host  State.  North  Carolina has adopted
 siting legislation, established  a  low-level
 waste authority, and formed a number of
 advisory  commissions  and boards.   The
 Southeast Compact Commission is assisting
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in the  financing  of the facility.   North
Carolina has begun work on siting criteria
and  is looking for a location.  In addition.
North Carolina has  initiated  changes in
the Southeast Compact in order to make it
more difficult for successor host States to
withdraw from  the Compact.  The  States
of the Compact have adopted these changes
and  will  submit them  to  Congress  as an
amendment to the Compact

   The  Appalachian  Compact includes
Pennsylvania,  West  Virginia,  Delaware,
and  Maryland. Pennsylvania, which is the
host State,  has  developed  siting criteria
and  technology selection criteria.    The
State issued an RFP to solicit a site opera-
tor;  however, it included  some liability
provisions that  prevented any  response.
The  State has recently revised  the RFP
indicating the State will cover some of the
pre-development costs and explaining the
presumption that site operators would have
to refute health and property claims within
three miles  of the site.

   The Northeast Compact, made  up of
New  Jersey  and Connecticut, has  desig-
nated both  States as host States, but has
not yet determined how responsibility will
be divided.  Both States might operate low-
level waste sites, or one might  build  a
hazardous waste facility and the other a
low-level waste facility, or one State  might
operate a low-level  waste  facility  while
the  other operates  a treatment facility.
The two States have begun working on site
selection criteria and on technical criteria.

   New York  is  operating   as  an  un-
affiliated State.   It has developed  siting
legislation,  established  a low-level  waste
authority, formed a number of boards, and
has done preliminary screening of accept-
able  sites. The State is hoping  to meet the
1993 deadline for opening a site.

   Massachusetts, as an unaf f iliated State,
has developed siting legislation which calls
for substantial public involvement, and the
State is in the process of naming various
advisory commissions.
	Page 69

    Vermont generates a small amount of
 waste and is currently deliberating wheth-
 er  it should  proceed to build a site or
 whether it  should  attempt  to compact or
 contract with other States.  Vermont is
 also exploring the possibility of using the
 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant as
 a disposal site.

    Maine is in a similar situation.  It has
 adopted siting legislation  and  formed a
 low-level waste authority.   Yet, given the
 amount of waste it generates, it is debating
 whether it should build a facility or join
 with another State.

    New Hampshire and Rhode Island have
 both decided that  they  generate  so little
 waste they  intend  to contract their waste
 out to  someone  else, or to reduce their
 waste to an insignificant amount.

    Out of all of the concerns States have
 in  the  low-level waste field, siting  is ob-
 viously the  most pressing.  Most States are
 at least in the initial stages of looking for
 a location.  It is interesting that so many
 States  are  avoiding the use of  eminent
 domain and are  attempting to find com-
 munities that  are  willing  to accept low-
 level waste facilities. The States are doing
 this through  public education, in  which
 they demonstrate  the health and  safety
 features of  the  facilities.   This is then
 coupled with substantial incentives and a
 degree  of  community  control over  the
 facilities.

    Another   major  issue  for  States  is
 technology selection. The shallow landfill
 is no longer a politcal option, and there are
 a number of alternative technologies that
 must be  examined.  A large  number of
 people in the technical community involved
 with low-level waste believe that the price
 of  public acceptance may mean that some
 of  the  facilities  are over-engineered  and
 some of the technology that is being  in-
 sisted on by both State legislation and the
 public  is not really necessary.

    Another concern involves EPA low-level
 waste standards which have been discussed
 for several  years  but are  still pending.

-------
 Naturally occurring and accelerator prod-
 uced material (NARM) is also an issue that
 needs  to be  addressed.   The  standards
 require NARM to go to Atomic Energy
 Act-licensed facilities.  Not all States are
 willing to accept that material into their
 Regional or State  facilities, thus creating
 a problem as to the disposal of this type of
 waste.

    States are also  concerned  about  the
 number and costs of facilities.  Currently,
 12 to 14 low-level waste sites are in some
 stage of planning.  Yet, there has been a
 40  percent reduction in commercial  low-
 level waste  generation  since 1980.   This
 wilt result in many sites with a relatively
 small volume of waste.  Questions have
 arisen as to whether the current national
 plan is economically sound, environmental-
 ly sound, and in general whether it repre-
 sents good policy.

    Finally, the issue of dual regulation of
 mixed waste raises significant concerns. In
 the abstract, Federal authorities have taken
the two sets of regulations — EPA's and
NRC's -- that were developed independent-
ly in order  to deal  with different waste
streams and  have  combined  them  and
attempted to resolve the incompatibilities.
Many States feel  that this has not been
done completely.   States  are more  con-
cerned about  what  will occur when  the
program is  actually  implemented in  the
field. Enforcement involves not just a mix
of two Federal agencies, but combinations
	Page 70

 of State  and Federal authority  in cases
 where EPA or NRC has delegated programs
 to State agencies.   This results in many
 entities being involved in regulating mixed
 waste, and a number of States believe that
 the program has not been developed ade-
 quately.

    As an aid to the audience in tracking
 State progress a timeline has been develop-
 ed in conjunction  with  the  States  and
 Regions. It lists ten major tasks required to
 bring a low-level waste  site on line.  This
 timeline extends from  1987 to  1995  and
 includes each Compact and each unaf f iliat-
 ed State.   It delineates when  they  will
 complete each task and will be included as
 part  of the meeting record.
 QUESTIONS   AND ANSWERS

 Q: Are  there any plans  in  the Compacts
    for the treatment of mixed waste?

 A: I do not think that most  States have
    gotten that far in their planning. Cur-
    rently, most States are concentrating on
    the siting of their low-level waste fa-
    cilities, and I do not believe many have
    begun to think of how or what alterna-
    tives  there  are to treat mixed  waste.
    There may also be a hope that because
   _ there is so little mixed waste generated,
    only a few sites will have to  accept
    mixed waste and, thus, go  through the
    dual licensing process.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Pane 71

IMPLICATIONS  OF  DUAL  REGULATION  OF  MIXED  WASTE  FOR
STATES AND COMPACTS MEETING THE MILESTONES ESTABLISHED
BY THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE  WASTE  POLICY  AMENDMENTS
ACT

Presented by

Betty Shackleford, Mixed Waste Coordinator, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

Ms. Shackleford joined EPA's Office of Solid Waste in 1986 and is the Mixed Waste Coordinator within the
Permits and State Programs Division.  She has an MS, in Microbiology from Howard University.
   States currently in the RCRA permit-
ting program must now factor mixed waste
regulation into the milestones established
by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1985.  While the Act
does not directly address the mixed waste
issue, it has been determined that mixed
waste is simply a subset of low-level radio-
active  waste, and  therefore, States and
Compacts whose current provisions address
low-level radioactive waste disposal exclu-
sively must include mixed waste disposal.

   As a result, EPA anticipates in the very
near future that when  States  site new
facilities they will give greater considera-
tion  to RCRA requirements for  siting
hazardous waste disposal facilities.  At
least  two  States  and  their  respective
Compacts  have  indicated that they will
make provisions for mixed waste disposal:
Texas and Nebraska.  These States must
obtain  a final RCRA permit prior to be-
ginning construction on mixed waste dis-
posal units.

   EPA is frequently charged with taking
five years to write a RCRA permit; how-
ever, Region X  indicates it  can  have one
done in twenty-four months. Therefore, if
States plan to site mixed waste units, and
the State anticipates accepting mixed waste
by January 1993, which is the established
milestone, the owner/operator should pre-
pare a RCRA permit application as soon as
possible.  .

   A  related issue is a conceptual design
document EPA issued in conjunction with
NRC.  This document has been subject to
extensive scrutiny, not only by DOE, con-
sultants,  and others,  but also by the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences.  The  result
essentially has been concern that the de-
sign  will result  in  increased  radiation
exposure.  However,  the point should  be
made that this was a  joint guidance docu-
ment,  and that NRC determined the con-
ceptual design was consistent with their
requirements for radioactive waste manage-
ment.  Further concerns relate to the over-
lap of regulations and fear that  the result
may be  duplicative regulation  which af-
fords  no  increased environmental benefit.
EPA and its technical staff believe there
is enough flexibility  in the EPA proposal
to address such concerns.

   In conclusion. Agency contacts  are
identified in both the joint guidance docu-
ments for siting  and land  disposal.  EPA
has kept an inventory of the  extent  of
inquiries that have been addressed to these
particular individuals.  To date, few in-
quiries have been made. Therefore, EPA
believes no further work on these jointly
issued documents  is warranted.

-------
Pa*e 72
                I

-------
I
I	
I
I
I
g                             Session III
|                      EPA CASE STUDIES PANEL
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I     	
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
I
f
 I
 I
I
 I
	Page  73

WEST VALLEY  DEMONSTRATION  PROJECT:    IMPLICATIONS  OF
TESTING REQUIREMENTS AND WASTE TREATMENT

Presented by

Paul A. Giardina, Regional Radiation Representative, EPA Region II
Shawn W. Googins, Health Physicist, EPA Region II

Mr. Giardina is currently the Regional Radiation Representative, Prior to joining EPA he worked for four years
in State government in New Jersey as the first Director of the State's hazardous waste cleanup program; he has
been with EPA for 10 years. Mr. Giardina has a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Michigan,
and an M.S. from the New York University Institute of Environmental Medicine.

Mr Googins, the Regional Mixed Waste Coordinator, is a Commissioned Officer of the U.S. Public Health Service
detailed to the Region II office. Prior to joining EPA he was a health physicist at the National Institutes of
Health.  He was with EPA for two years. Mr. Googins has a B.S. in Physics from Dickinson College and an
M.S.  in Radiation Science/Health Physics from Georgetown University.
   The following will  review the radio-
logical implications of the current RCRA
philosophy  with regard  to testing  and
treatment of wastes which are both hazar-
dous and  radioactive.

   With the advent of multi-regulation of
mixed  wastes  by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency (EPA),  and State agencies,
consideration must  be given to the result-
ing increased  radiation exposure to those
workers conducting sampling, analysis, and
treatment of  the  waste  material.  Such
concerns,  which are obvious to radiation
protection professionals,  may not be  im-
mediately apparent to professionals deal-
ing solely with the chemical hazard of a
material.  Although the West Valley Dem-
onstration Project (WVDP) is involved with
the testing and treatment of high-level and
transuranic  wastes  (HLW and  TRU),  the
concern for potential radiation exposure of
personnel is also present  during the han-
dling of  waste which is considered "low-
level" or low specific activity (LSA) waste.
It  is important to develop a  balance  be-
tween  the need for  exhaustive chemical
testing  and maintaining radiation exposures
as low  as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
   The WVDP is a project for the purpose
of demonstrating a solidification technique
to be used for preparing HLW for disposal
(See Exhibit #1).  This  project   is  being
conducted under a Congressional Mandate
(PL 96-368, 94 Stat.  1347, 42 USC 202la)
signed by President Jimmy Carter on Octo-
ber 1,  1980.

   The Department of Energy (DOE) was
directed by the WVDP Act to (1) solidify
approximately 600,000 gallons (2 million
liters) of HLW stored in two underground
tanks at  the  Western New York Nuclear
Fuel Services Center,  (2)  decontaminate
and decommission the facilities, and (3)
dispose of the  low-level waste  that  was
created by the project.  Processing of the
HLW  will result in the production of 300
borosilicate  glass  logs (destined for the
HLW repository) and approximately 15,000
55-galion drums of cement matrix low-level
waste (see Exhibit #2).

   The radioactive waste at the WVDP  is
the result of a commercial spent nuclear
fuel  reprocessing operation conducted by
Nuclear  Fuels  Services (NFS).    These
wastes consist  of fission  products  and
solids from the dissolution of spent nuclear
fuel and  the  extraction of  the remaining,
useable, fissile material. The material  is

-------
 distributed in the tanks in an upper liquid
 "layer"  of supernatant, and a lower two-
 phase "sludge" material  (see Exhibits  #3
 and 3a).  The total radioactivity  at the
 WVDP  is approximately  32 million curies
 (Ci).

    The waste in the tanks has been deter-
 mined to be characteristically hazardous
 due to  the presence of chromium in both
 the supernatant and the actual sludge (see
 Exhibits #4,5,6).   Selenium, barium and
 mercury are  also present in the material,
 but  not at  concentrations which  are  of
 concern.  Numerous questions have been
 raised regarding the adequacy of sampling
 of the sludge material in the HLW tanks
 because of the multi-phased distribution
 of the sludge material. However, an argu-
 ment can be made that previous knowledge
 of the spent  fuel constituents themselves,
 in combination with a limited number of
 samples, is   sufficient  to  determine  its
 toxicity given the high potential for work-
 er radiation exposure during sampling. In
 addition, the  level of containment isolation
 and monitoring required  for HLW exceeds
 RCRA requirements for hazardous waste
 storage  by many orders of magnitude.

   Due  to   the  high  concentration  of
 radioactive  material  in  the  supernatant
 and  sludge,  sampling  of  this  material
 arouses  serious concerns regarding  worker
 safety and radiation exposure during the
operation. Unlike chemical hazards, which
can  be  mitigated  largely by  the  use  of
protective clothing and respiratory protec-
tion,  hazards  associated with  ionizing
radiation cannot be controlled by the use
of protective clothing.  This is due to the
fact that ionizing radiation  (e.g.,  x-rays,
 gamma rays and neutrons) easily penetrates
 protective clothing and exposes the worker.
The  only exposure  reduction principles
available are time, distance, and shielding.
 Each of these  reduction  methods may
 complicate  sampling and analysis  proce-
dures.  For example, in the use of shield-
 ing, so much additional radiation exposure
 may result  during  the  installation and
setup of the shielding that the net collec-
 tive  dose savings  is lost.  As will be seen,
	Page 74

 worker protection and sampling design is
 very expensive.

    Radiation exposure rates at the top of
 the  tank  structure at the WVDP and  the
 samples removed  for analysis can easily
 range from several mR to in excess of  150
 R per hour. A worker  in such a position
 could exceed  his or her quarterly dose
 equivalent limit of 1.25 rem (or three rem
 maximum limit) in less than one minute of
 sampling activity if unprotected.  It is
 obvious that  an extensive  sampling  pro-
 gram to classify this material would entail
 substantial  radiation exposure.    In  the
 sampling campaign conducted by the DOE
 at the WVDP HLW tanks, a total of three
 samples of  the  PUREX HLW sludge  (165
 grams total, 20 R per hour at one inch),
 four PUREX supernatant samples (750 ml
 each at 150 R per hour at  one inch) and
 two THOREX liquid waste samples were
 taken.   The  cost for  the  nine samples,
 including analysis, was  approximately one
 million  dollars ($150,000 for equipment
 fabrication, $300,000  labor  and  sample
 transfer,  $250,000 lab  cost, $200.000  en-
 gineering and project management).  The
 resulting radiation exposures for all sam-
 ples  were kept below approximately  100
 person-millirem but at a high cost.

    A small  10-gram sample  of  washed
 sludge removed from the shielded "hot cell"
 for  transfer  to the chemical  analytical
 laboratory  resulted  in radiation exposure
 rates of approximately  10 R per hour. It
 is needless to  say  that this sample  was
 promptly returned to the shielded hot cell.

    Sampling  and analysis  of the sludge
 and  supernatant by  standard  methods
 specified in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendices
 I  through  III,  which are acceptable for
 sampling  or   characterizing   hazardous
 waste, are seriously inadequate for worker
 protection  and safety.    Development of
 guidelines  for  acceptance  of alternative
 techniques for all mixed wastes, both HLW
 and LLW, is needed with respect to radia-
 tion  safety.   Procedures which specify
 absolute  limits on sample volume or  time
 consuming  analysis  should  be  avoided.
 Note that 40  CFR Part 261  states:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
    Prior to final sampling or analysis
    method selection the analyst should
    consult the specific section or me-
    thod described in SW-846 for addi-
    tional guidance on which of the
    approved  methods should be  em-
    ployed for a specific sample analy-
    sis situation.

    Unfortunately,  no guidance  is given
for analysis of radioactive samples.   In-
dividuals should also  keep in mind  that
Appendix IV of 40 CFR Part 261, "Radio-
active Waste  Test Methods," is  currently
reserved.  EPA must consider the develop-
ment of these test methods in relation to
the mixed waste question.

    The implications of test requirements
are also an  important consideration  for
radioactive  wastes  which  are considered
low-level.  The  15,000 drums  of  superna-
tant and  sludge washes  solidified  in a
cement matrix at the  WVDP have the po-
tential to produce high radiation exposure
of workers.  To reduce exposure problems,
DOE chose to perform  test runs on various
mixes of non-radioactive simulated super-
natant and solidification media.  The EP
toxicity of this waste  was  of  concern be-
cause of DOE's plans  for on-site disposal
of  this material (see  Exhibit  #7).   The
WVDP proposed a process  control system
to control the solidification mixture below
the level considered EP toxic (see Exhibit
#8).  DOE's advocacy of process control
versus routine testing of the waste reduces
a worker's collective dose  equivalent due
to exposure to the drums which exhibit
exposure rates which range from approxi-
mately 0.5 to  0.8 per hour  at contact (see
Exhibits #9 and #9a).

    However, EPA has  no current uniform
guidance regarding the acceptability of
process control or what the Agency would
consider an acceptable representative sam-
pling frequency in light of radiation ex-
posure. Such questions appear to be ad-
dressed on a case-by-case basis.  The de-
velopment of  such guidance is critical so
that cleanup and immobilization of  HLW
and TRU waste may proceed  at DOE fa-
	Page  75

 cilities where the integrity of HLW storage
 tanks  is in question.

    The  WVDP has since performed test
 runs using  actual  supernatant and  addi-
 tional  matrix   ingredients  (i.e.,  sodium
 silicate and  calcium  nitrate)  which have
 resulted in  an  order  of magnitude reduc-
 tion  in  chromium teachability.   These
 results, in combination with process con-
 trol, appear to provide adequate assurances
 regarding the  acceptability  of the final
 waste  form.

    These remarks should not be interpret-
 ed as an  indication that  EPA believes
 chemical testing is unnecessary, or always
 results in  increased  radiation exposures.
 An NRC Information Notice was issued on
 May 14,  1988  (In No.  88-08), Chemical
 Reaction with  Radioactive Waste Solidifi-
 cation Agents.   The subject of this notice
 was a situation in which condensate de-
 mineralizer  evaporator  bottoms  from
 radioactive laundry  waste water and hot
 shower discharge  were mixed with a pro-
 prietary  (Chem  Nuclear Services  Inc.)
 defoaming and solidification agent.  The
 materials were chemically incompatible;
 the  mixture  reached  a temperature  in
 excess of 240° F, boiled, and overflowed
 the  liner in which the waste was  being
 solidified.   The  resulting exposure rate
 from the low-level waste overflow, which
 had to be chipped away, was 3000 mR per
 hour (3  R  per hour).   Further chemical
 testing by CNSI determined that a laundry
 detergent reacted  violently with the solid-
 ification media.

    Prior chemical testing  of the  waste
 stream may  have prevented  this incident
 and the  resulting radiation exposure dur-
 ing  cleanup. Although the treatment (vol-
 ume reduction by evaporation)  was pri-
 marily responsible for  the occurrence be-
 cause  the concentration of the detergent
 in the waste stream  was increased many
 fold by evaporation, the importance  of
 testing a specific portion of a waste stream
 is evident here. This incident should also
 be a reminder that treatment for reduction
 of volume, or a given hazard, may increase
 the  hazard  of another constituent of the

-------
 waste.  For example, treatment of mixed       3.
 waste  containing  fissile material (special
 nuclear material) has the potential to bring
 together a critical mass of material which
 may  result in  an  uncontrolled  nuclear
 reaction producing  severe plant  damage
 and radiation exposures which are lethal.       4.
 Treatment of low radioactive concentration
 mixed wastes may result in the production
 of  high  concentration radioactivity.  Al-
 though the goal of reducing the chemical
 hazard has been  fulfilled, the  potential       5.
 radiological hazard of  the  material  has
 been seriously increased.

    In closing, the  following issues regard-       6.
 ing treatment and testing of mixed wastes
 need to be addressed:

 1.  Establish a  balance  between  testing
    requirements and "approved"  methods
    for sampling and radiation exposure;

2.  Avoid  chemical  incompatibility  of
    wastes and solidification media;
	Page  76

 Advocate sound process control  pro-
 cedures  over  routine  practices,  and
 develop guidance with regard to accep-
 tance and process control in statistical
 testing;

 Weigh the real necessity of exhaustive
 and routine testing of HLW for hazar-
 dous constituents given the superior
 isolation required for such materials;

 Determine the waste characteristics and
 classifications  prior  to generation  to
 reduce the need for testing; and

 Establish cooperation between the NRC,
 EPA, and States to factor in problems
 relating  to  radiological and  chemical
 sampling and treatment which creates
 a  hazard rather than reduces it.
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 77
TION PROJECT A
^
OC
h-
(7)
O
LU
Q
LU
_l
^
^
I—

LU
5
"CD
CD
1
O)
if
15
0
"5
CO
Q.
CD
Q-
c
CO
.0
"5
O
"5
CO
£
"5
"J/5
> 1
5 e
8 Q
5"
o



CO
CO
0
Q.
f^j
• «^v
O
CD
CO
CD
CL
2
CD
CO
5



emonstration Project Act
0
"co
"co
CD
§
00
CO
09
1
CO
o>

^** —
•~ ^J
o £*
"5
<

u.
2
15
£
'5
CO
E
0
LL
CO
£
lf\
VJ
CO
CD
_J
1
g>
•o
'3
a
LJ

**••
"o

Q- •
o
CO

-

"co
en
o
Q.
CO
b
"O
c
CO
O
S
O
Q.
(0
C
CO
h.





or Permanent Disposal
**—
Suitable
CD
c
'co
"c
0
O
Q.
o
"CD
CD
Q
•



Federal Repository for
o
•*-*
CD
to
CO
•o
**—
"5
CO
o
Q.
(0
C
CO
w
h-
•



•ansuranic Waste Produced
sion Tanks, Facilities, Material. |
p-
tr
p-
ft


CO

0
Q.
CO
b
•4—
CD
E
CD
Q.




h_
h-
CO
"CD
CD
1
o
CD
(0
O
a.
CO
b
•




Decomm
c
CO
o
"3
2
o
o
CD
O
•





CD
CO
CD
CO
CO
TJ
C
CO





-------
Paee 78
Exhibit  #2











1-
«ff



0
£
§1
0 0


EIOW_ BASAtT |


O
3
>


GRANITE 1

C *
=


J
•^^
MB
J

^=


1 -- —

\
WASTE CANIS

       w
       Ul
       (/>

       5
       GC
       Ul
       §
       ae
       I
       Ul
       Ul

       til
       I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
f
I
I
I
I

-------
1
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 i
 i
 I
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
Page 79
Exhibit

-------
                I
Page 80

-------
1
1
1
1
1

1
w
1
1

1

i
i
I
^W;
1
1

1

•
*
1
1
1



TASLS 1—PUREX HIGH-LEVEL SL'-DCS

Ccmoonent

Fe(OH)3
FePOjj
A1(OH)3
A1F3
Mn02
CaC03
U02(OH)2
Ni(OH)2
S10?
C
Zr(OH)u
MgC03
Cu(OH)2
Zn(OH)2
Cr(OH>3
Hg(OH)2
Fission Products
F.P. hydroxides
R.E. hydroxides
F.P. sul fates
Trans ur anics

Np02
Pu02
Atn02
CraOj
Total
(a) Excludes fission product zirconium




Page 81
Exhibit #4
SOLIDS CHEMICAL COMPOS IT ICM

Reference (k?)

65', QUO
6,351
5,852
536 . .
U.581
3,208
3,087
1,088
1,263
159(a)
825
375
128
65
23

1,185
1.U8U
520
•
U2
37
27
0.3
97,178





-------
:ASLE  2—  PUREX HIGH-LEVEL SUPERNATANT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

                                    Total kg

         Compound                 In Supernatant
                                      602,659

                                      311,326

                                       76,261

                                       42,557

                                       36,274
                                                              Page 82

                                                              Exhibit #5
NaN02



NaHCO-
         NaCH
         NaCl
         NaF
         Ma2U2°7



         NaTcO,,
         Na2TeOj,

         A1F,
         Cu(N03)2

         Sr(N03)2

         Mg(N03)2

         TOTAL

         H20  (by difference)

         NOTE:  pH -  10.0
                              17,537

                               5,113
                               3,799

                                 691

                                 597

                                 534

                                 503

                                 245

                                 231

                                 230

                                 177

                                 119

                                  82

                                  77

                                  43

                                  15

                                  14

                                    9

                                    6

                                    4

                                    2
                            1,129,038

                            1,727,164
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

-------
1
1


1
1

1

I
i
I

i

t
i
I

i

I
i

i

i

i
i


TABLE 3--7HCRSX WASTE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

A. Solution
Ccaoound Mass (kg) Compound
Th(N03),, 11,633 NaTcO,,
Fe(NO,)3 8,462 SraCNO-,),
A1(N03)3 4.H5 ZP(K03J|,
KN03 2,129 X(N03)3
Cr(NQ3)3 1,918 RMNOOj,
Ni(H03)2 791 . Zn(M03)2
Na»03 227 U02(N03)2
KN03 128 NaTeOj,
Na2Si03 126 Co(N03>2
KjMnOj, 122 Na2SeO,,
Mg(N03)3 57 MaF
Sa2MoOj, 54 Eu(N03)3
NaCl . 50 SnCNO,),
Nd(NO,), 46 Cu(NO,)o
3 3 -uv«w3y2
Ce(N03)!j 43 ?u(N05)5
Ru(N03)jj 42 Gd(NO,),
CaCNO,}-, . 30 X*(N07)U
J c. J H
CsNO, 28 Cd(NO,},
j j 2
Ba(NO,}5 27 Sb(MO,)-j
J £ j j
La(N03>3 22 AgNOj
Pr(N03>3 21 In(N03)3
Sr(N03>2 16 Pm(N03>2
Ma3POJ4 12
TOTAL
H20 (by diff.)
B. Solids
Th(N03)jj 19,421
Insolubles 35

*Np, Am, and Cm




Paae 83

Exhibit #6

'• 5 )
12
12
r ,
1 1
10
3
5
6
5
3
1
1
1
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.02

43,587
12,663

* V







-------



0

o
* ^"O *

CO + s '
H
D
CO
cc ***
1-
co
LJJ
i
0 1
< s
LU
^•H



D
o 1
•cc i
X o
O |
O)
0)
cr




»

*0
* O
•

•f *
**












— o
o
r— tf5
CO
O)
X.
o o
-o 2
cT
1
CO
o w
-s ?
I
o
CO-
o
-o .S
V^l ^B
S
09
o I
— vo o
i- C
o
o
g
o -g
*" I
o
o
""u>



i i ~
IT) O « O
"1/OW 'iOBJjxg u; uonBj;uaouoo tun|iuoJMO



Paee 84


Exhibit »7
O
O
O)
§
a
0
°
2
0
*&
CO
cr
0.
o





O
o
o
f*
o
0
H
Q.

*




1
1

1
I

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

^.
^B
I

1
1
.
•
™


1
I
1
1

-------
1
I
I ^
I

1
• ^
1 I
CL
»^^
0
• lit
LU
> s
• 1
I >
§^»
<
H
• LU
. (/)
1 
LU
1

•
>•
•















)
15 g
O^^
	 >
£•—
.t:


2
03


"c
0

O



•*-*
D
O
O)
'5

"D
O
 *
s ^
LL 5


O
O)
*5
5





-



H»
••
••
^
^
3)
^B
D
>















L
C
>
•^
^
.










f
O
r
••
^
•B
•
•>
=
"" C










*
4
•
C
-»i
.1
c
'c
'
\

>






,-


*
^
3
) J
— ^
- J
3) i
D '<
S ;
\v
>
0)
p
X
I









••)
•*
^
•^
•B
3)
*••
D
>
>

5
•>
^
3
>
m

1
••
0
0
5
i
O
••

Pase 85
Exhibit #8








•5 » S
oS-o
Is ^
E
CO



-------
Paee

c


o
0>
o















O
SYSTEM FUNCT
en
CO
o
o
£
+*+
O

T3
C
CO
CD
CO
(/)
CO
Q
^
*- to
|l

- ^
• Encapsulate Low Lev<
Contained Within Stee





o
•g « "2
2 ^ °3
^^^ ^^J
^•K (^B> t/J
""5 u*
CO < Q.
^B »^B
O Q) J
X £ CO

"O CO*
CO CO cO
5 *-• o
CO g  


-------
1


I
1L ««5S
^^^ o»S «2^
^^^^^^^^ CO BJ CC £

^^^^^L ^^^^m tt> !" £
> ^
LU 2
1 V^
^v • **^^
^^ ^k
I> CO
Ouj
1 o ^
""•x. ^
1— — ^^^
fin ^
= COUJ
f oo >
^^ ^^L^ t
• ^
ITT Q
°<
I Q-
•I ^^ ^^
^T ^^
'I ^ or
-^<»o|
•o — *"
4) O
— " u. c
E^!S
= £ c
(fl 3 0
UJZO
CM O
^
N.

CO CD
CM O_
H •
E E

c «
•2 >t
o
3 3
Q 0
"J5 "5
a o

10 ^
to rw
1«-
w ^n
~ ^ ^
UJ
«A
a
O
^ o
CM O
0
co"
O 0
•X. «N.
£0 CO

1
c
(9
O
O
0
CO
Trt
to
o
o
O o — ^J
C CO  v >» /S 3
•C « * « fc "" 40
« * 1 5 & - *
3* S» i! «
||| 1 1 ||
5 -o co 1 N .6 ,g
_ o ^ « "E *c ^
i t> £ W Q. Q. S
u. co H- co w 
-------
Page 88
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 89

FERNALD:  FEDERAL  FACILITY COMPLIANCE

Presented by

Catherine McCord, RCRA Enforcement Branch, EPA Region V

Mr. McCord has been working for three years in the RCRA and CERCLA programs in the area of RCRA
enforcement She is currently a CERCLA remedial action project manager.  She has a B.S. In Zoology and an
M.S. in Environmental Science,
   In order to demonstrate the impact of
a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
between  DOE and EPA,  the  compliance
activities at the Fernald  facility will be
discussed in detail.  In 1985, EPA issued a
Notice of Violation to DOE for violations
of environmental regulations at the Fer-
nald facility. In July 1986, EPA and DOE
signed a  two-party agreement known as a
Federal  Facility  Compliance  Agreement.
This  agreement  was to  address several
environmental concerns at  the facility such
as a  repackaging project for thorium con-
tained in silos and bins at  the facility, air
compliance  issues related to  the RCRA
facility, and problems with ongoing viola-
tions.  This agreement also  initiated  a
remedial   investigation/feasibility  study
(RI/FS).

   Implementation   of  this   agreement
brought up the issue of whether RCRA or
CERCLA applies to either  certain substan-
ces or constituents at facilities that are
involved   with mixed  waste.   When  the
Federal  Facility  Compliance  Agreement
was  developed  for  this  site,  there  was
concern that RCRA may not have authori-
ty over all of the  existing  contaminants
including mixed  waste.   Therefore,  the
remedial  investigation is being conducted
under CERCLA §104 because the CERCLA
hazardous substances list includes radionu-
clides and RCRA does not directly regulate
radionuclides.  This particular compliance
agreement does not cite RCRA corrective
action authorities for the RI/FS; however,
most of  the more recent  agreements  cite
both RCRA and CERCLA authorities.
   The conditions at the Fernald facility
have involved the U.S. Government in two
lawsuits brought by the State of Ohio, as
well as a class action suit involving resi-
dents within a  five-mile radius  of the
facility.  This pressure instigated an at-
tempt to improve compliance at the facili-
ty.  The State Attorney General proposed
a three-way agreement be made involving
EPA, DOE, and  the  State of Ohio that
would essentially replace the Federal Fa-
cility Compliance Agreement.  However,
the U.S. Government  may not be able to
sign a consent decree without a legal ac-
tion.  Therefore,  unless the  U.S. Govern-
ment files  a lawsuit,  the proposed three-
way agreement may not be possible.

   The Fernald material production center
is located in a rural area approximately 20
miles outside Cincinnati and is close to
the Indiana-Kentucky border. The facility
is surrounded primarily by farmland with
some suburban  and  rural housing.   In
addition, there are a few small industrial
facilities located just downgradient of the
facility.  Of these,  several are currently
undergoing their own RI/FS's under State
oversight.

   The Fernald facility was first built in
the 1950s, yet much of the construction has
been done more recently. The actual prod-
uction area is only 12 percent of the total
area owned by DOE.  Currently, several
units at the facility fall under the jurisdic-
tion of  RCRA.   They  include container
and tank storage units, a landfill, an incin-
erator, and a barium  chloride  treatment
unit.  The facility is currently closing the

-------
 landfill, the incinerator, and the barium
 chloride treatment unit.

    Ohio EPA is not currently authorized
 for  the  RCRA program, yet State laws
 pertaining to closure are in effect. There-
 fore, in order to implement a closure plan,
 DOE must get approval  from  both the
 Regional  EPA  Office, which implements
 the Federal RCRA program, and the State
 EPA Office, which  administer  the  State
 hazardous waste program.

    U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA are preparing
 an approval for an interim closure of the
 landfill.   This  would involve some inter-
 mediate  capping and the  final  closure
 would  be delayed until the  CERCLA or
 RCRA decision has been issued and a final
 remedy for the site has been selected.

   The production facility is located at
 the middle of the property and within this
 production area a series of plants feed into
 each other. A  series of waste pits which
 have been used for disposal  are  located
 adjacent to the northwest side of the pro-
 duction area, and an  old landfill is located
 north of the production area.  There are
 two disposal areas southwest of the produc-
 tion area.  The older of the two  contains
 fly  ash  and unknown waste while the
 newer area contains  only fly ash.

   The plant is similar to a typical metal-
 working facility with a chemical plant and
 foundry operation.  The facility performs
chemical extraction and then pours metals
into models and shapes  it into required
specifications.   A  brief  description  of
several  of the units and  several recent
projects will be used to elaborate on the
current status of the facility.

   Four silos, located in the waste pit area,
contain waste left over from the  Manhat-
tan Project.  Two of the silos are stable;
however, the other two silos, known as the
K65 silos, are currently undergoing interim
corrective  action measures because  ques-
tions have been raised about  their struc-
 tural integrity.  The silos contain materials
that give off a significant amount of ra-
don.  Therefore, in  order  to  address the
	Page  90

 problem, earth  has  been mounded to the
 top edge of  the silos.   These  measures
 should stabilize the  silos  until  a final
 remedy  has been selected as a result of a
 RCRA decision.

    A radon treatment system is connected
 to two of the silos and is run when access
 to the silos is required. Recently, pressure
 and temperature monitors were installed to
 monitor the interior of the silos. In addi-
 tion, remote  camera work  was done  last
 summer.

    The  facility operates a biodenitrifica-
 tion  treatment  impoundment  which  is
 currently out of service due to a problem
 with liner installation. The impoundment
 has been drained and cleaned and a new
 liner is going to be installed  over  the old
 one.   While  the impoundment is  out of
 service,  two  large  temporary  tanks are
 being  used. These will be decommissioned
 once the impoundment is fixed.

    One  of the  waste pits, waste pit four,
 is RCRA regulated. This has been cover-
 ed  and  is dry,  yet several  of the other
 waste  pits are open.

    All of the disposal areas were recently
 studied  as  part of site characterization
 work.  The information resulting from this
 work will be used to support the RI/FS.

    The facility is undertaking  the expan-
 sion of its capacity  to handle storm water
 runoff from the production area. Current
 capacity was determined to be insufficient,
 therefore, another retention basin is being
 developed and will almost double the capa-
 city.

    One  of  the  projects addressed in  the
 Federal  Facility Compliance Agreement is
 the repackaging of  the  thorium stored at
 the facility.  The facility was  designated
 as a thorium repository and approximately
 30,000 drums are on-site and need to be
 repackaged  into containers  that  can be
 shipped.

    Several  waste problems at the  facility
 have not yet  been addressed.  The  facility
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
has several large mounds of contaminated
soil that have accumulated from spills or
construction  projects.  Soil that exhibits
from 200 to 500 picocuries  of activity has
been  stored  in  boxes.  In addition, the
facility has no  methods for dealing with
scrap materials.

   Two  areas  have  been  identified  as
potential  sites where contamination has
travelled outside the facility.  A five-foot
sewer line runs underground, through other
properties, and discharges directly into the
Great Miami River, which is a large river.
The  other identified area  is a seasonal
creek called Patty's Run.  There is concern
that  surface  runoff and  other discharges
from  the waste  pit  area entered  Patty's
Run.  For most  of  the season the creek is
dry, yet this is a recharge area, and there-
fore, it is possible ground water has been
contaminated. Uranium has been found in
off-site wells and  devices  have been in-
stalled to monitor water levels underneath
the creek.

   The facility has just spent seven  months
installing wells for the RI/FS.  The addi-
tion of the new  wells will result in a total
	Page 91

 of 150 wells, both on-site and off-site, that
 will be used for  the monitoring  program
 and will  be sampled routinely  as part of
 the investigation.

    The facility is focusing on completing
 the interim measures for the stabilization
 of the K65 silos,  installing the remaining
 94 ground-water  monitoring wells,  com-
 pleting a soil radiation survey, obtaining
 the results  of a  U.S. EPA review of his-
 torical  and aerial photos  of the  site, re-
 placing the liner in the biodenitrification
 impoundment, and installing  the  storm
 water retention basin that has been devel-
 oped.   Farther into the  future  the site
 expects to complete the RI/FS and initiate
 interim closure for the one RCRA waste
 pit at the facility.

    The facility is waiting for the selected
 remedy  from  the  RCRA  decision  and
 would like to know where the contaminat-
 ed material will go and what the cleanup
 standards for mixed waste will be.   It is
 specifically interested in what will be done
 with  the carbon filters  from ground-water
 treatment that contain both organics and
 radionuclides.

-------
Paae 92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
                 II
                 \\
                 II
                 II
                 II
                II

-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 93

NUCLEAR SUBMARINE:  MIXED WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGE-
MENT

Presented by

Chuck Flippo, Section Chief, EPA Region IX

Mr. Flippo has been with EPA for 11 years and in the RCRA program for 7 years.  He holds a BA, degree in
Political Science and a Masters degree  in Public Administration.
    In order to highlight difficulties en-
countered in dealing with  mixed waste
generated by naval operations, a specific
episode involving the Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard will be explained in detail.

    Hawaii, included in EPA's Region IX,
is not a RCRA-authorized  State,  which
means the Region has direct responsibility
for implementing the RCRA program there.
Consequently,  Region  IX has  authority
over the Naval Shipyard in the Naval Base.
The shipyard is the largest  generator of
hazardous waste in the Naval Base, and it
has its own RCRA hazardous waste storage
area. The shipyard also generates radioac-
tive waste and has its own radioactive
waste storage area,  which, until recently,
has not involved EPA.

    EPA Region IX was recently contacted
by the naval base.  It was explained that
some mixed  waste had been generated at
this facility (about two years ago), and the
Navy was inquiring as to how to dispose
of mixed waste.  Neither the radioactive
waste site nor the RCRA  hazardous waste
site  wanted  to accept the mixed  waste;
finally, it was decided that the radioactive
storage unit would accept  it — temporarily.

    According to the Navy, mixed waste is
not  normally generated  at  this  facility.
The usual procedure is  to  separate the
waste and ship  each component to its ap-
propriate storage  unit.  In this case, the
mixed  waste was  mistakenly solidified
before separation; as a result, three drums
of  solidified  potassium  chromate  with
small amounts of  cobalt 60 were created.
  . EPA and  the  facility have begun to
examine the implications for the RCRA
program of  storing mixed  waste at the
radioactive facility. As a short term solu-
tion, the RCRA hazardous waste facility
added the  nuclear waste site to its RCRA
Part A permit application.   The nuclear
waste site will be given interim status and
will be allowed to store mixed waste.

   EPA's  Regional Office  attempted to
determine  if there would be a continuing
mixed  waste problem at Pearl Harbor.
EPA has had a good working relationship
with  the  Naval  Facilities   Engineering
Command, which  does most of the  envi-
ronmental work for the Navy in the Paci-
fic  area; however, it  was very difficult
for  EPA to get any information about the
mixed waste.  All  information had  to be
cleared by Navy Headquarters in Washing-
ton, D.C.

   Several issues  must be  resolved  con-
cerning  Department  of Defense (DOD)-
generated  mixed  waste.  EPA needs to
know what DOD is going to do with this
waste in the short term and if any effort
is being made to find a long-term solution.

   In order to continue storing the mixed
waste at the radioactive storage unit, the
Navy must obtain a RCRA permit for this
unit.  The unit is  already included in the
Part A permit application and, therefore,
is part of  the interim status facility that
will  be  addressed  by the 1992 deadline.
The facility  must submit a  Part B permit
application by November 1988 in order to
retain its  interim  status.   At this  point

-------
EPA still has not determined how includ-
ing the nuclear waste unit as part of the
hazardous waste facility will  affect the
Part B  permit  application.   The  facility
must go through the  long process of pre-
paring a Part B, even though the long-term
solution actually may be to move the waste
to a different site.  EPA is faced with a
troublesome situation in that it must begin
work on a permit for a mixed waste facili-
ty; later it must conduct an annual inspec-
tion of  the radioactive waste site (as it is
a Federal facility)  and take into account
all of the special safety concerns related to
mixed  waste.  Before  long-term solutions
have been found,  the Regional staff is
reluctant to become directly involved with
the mixed waste.
	Page 94

    The major concern is what will result
 if it is discovered that similar occurrences
 take place at other facilities. Moreover, it
 will be difficult to determine what kinds
 of waste DOD facilities are generating, or
 what  the  facilities are doing with  their
 waste, if  everything  must  be cleared
 through  Washington.    Regulating  these
 facilities will be slow and inefficient  if
 information gathering  letters under the
 authority  of RCRA §3007 must  go to the
 Navy  facility, then to  Navy Headquarters,
 then  to  EPA  Headquarters, and back  to
 the  EPA Region Office.   At this  point,
 EPA needs to ascertain if similar problems
 are occurring  at other facilities  and EPA
 Headquarters  needs  to become  involved
 with DOD and begin resolving these issues.
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
i
l
i
I
i
i
i
i
n
ii
n
n

-------
I
I	
I
I
I
                            Session IV
I           EVOLVING RCRA REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page  95

RCRA  PERMITTING IMPACTS

Presented by

Frank McAlister, Section Chief, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA

Mr. McAlister is Chief of the Permit Policy Section of EPA's Office of Solid Waste.  He holds an M.S. in
Environmental Engineering and is involved in numerous policy and regulatory efforts for the RCRA permit
program*
   The changes  to  the RCRA program
discussed in this morning's session  will be
implemented, for the most  part, through
the RCRA permitting process. Such chan-
ges include  the location standards,  stan-
dards for miscellaneous units (in Subpart
X), management  of  the toxicity charac-
teristic wastes,  and many of the land ban
provisions.

   RCRA statutory  provisions state  that
the treatment, storage, or disposal of  haz-
ardous waste requires a permit. There are
very few exceptions  to this, the most im-
portant one  being an exception under the
generator accumulation provision — known
as the 90-day  rule.  This states that  gen-
erators are allowed to treat or store hazar-
dous  wastes, as long  as  the wastes are
contained in tanks or containers, for up to
90 days without a permit   It is intended
that the waste  would be accumulated for
treatment and  then  be shipped  off-site.
Mixed wastes present a problem because in
many cases  there is  nowhere to ship the
waste. However, if  facilities were avail-
able, this exception  would  allow a mixed
waste  generator  to  avoid  entering  the
RCRA permitting program.

   Other main exceptions to the permitting
requirement are for  wastewater treatment
units, elementary neutralization units, and
Superfund and RCRA §7003  cleanup ac-
tions  (i.e., responses  to  immediate  threats
to human health  and the  environment).
There  are  a few additional  permitting
exemptions which  we won't discuss today
since  they are fairly narrow. Outside of
such specified  cases, a hazardous waste
generator who keeps waste on-site for more
than 90 days must obtain a RCRA permit.

   For  most facilities, the first  step in
obtaining a RCRA permit is to gain inter-
im status.  Interim status is a temporary
measure that  allows continued operation
while a RCRA permit is being  processed.
To qualify  for  interim  status  a  facility
must pass three  basic tests.

   The first test is the "in existence test."
A  facility  must be in existence  on  the
effective date of the requirements  that
first subject  it to the  RCRA program.
This would  be  satisfied  if either  (1) a
facility was in operation  on the date the
rule  takes  effect,  or  (2) a facility was
under construction at that time.

   The second test is the submission of a
Part A  form within six months from the
time of promulgation of regulations to the
time that they become effective. The third
test is the submission of a Section  3010
notification form,  although this require-
ment  is  normally  waived because it con-
tains  information similar  to  that in the
Part A  form.

   Certain  basic  ground  rules must be
followed once  interim status  is  gained.
The main requirement is that the  facility
must comply with 40 CFR Part 265 stan-
dards.   These are technical  standards and
are self  implementing, as opposed to per-
mitting standards in Part 264,  which re-
quire a permit writer to interpret standards
on a site-specific basis.

-------
    Under interim status, facility changes
 can be made according to the following
 guidelines:

 *   The acceptance of  new  waste  at  the
    site is allowed  upon submission of a
    revised Part A form to EPA  or to the
    authorized State;

 *   A facility can increase  its design capa-
    city by submitting  a  revised Part A
    form and an explanation of the change
    for approval by EPA or the authorized
    State;  and

 *   A change in the processes  of storage,
    treatment, or disposal requires submis-
    sion of a revised Part  A  form and an
    explanation of the change for approval
    by EPA or the authorized State.

    Under interim status,  one  overriding
constraint on facility changes is the "re-
construction limit." This limit states that
cumulative changes during interim status
cannot exceed  50 percent of the capital
cost of a  comparable new facility.  This
limit has caused problems in some cases by
constraining facility   improvements  or
limiting changes that are beyond the con-
trol of the interim status facility  owner or
operator.  An example of this is  an inter-
im  status  facility with  mixed waste units
that are not included on the  Part A form.
When EPA or the authorized  State defines
mixed waste, the facility will need to add
these mixed waste units  to the Part A
form.   It is possible,  however, that an
addition   of  this size  could exceed  the
reconstruction limit.  The  facility would,
therefore, be unable to operate legally until
it obtained a permit for those units that
would exceed  the  reconstruction  limit.
This is just one example  where  EPA  be-
lieves that interim status facilities should
not be constrained when responding to new
Federal or State requirements.

    EPA proposed the "Christmas tree rule"
(52 ER 30570, August 14,  1987)  last year
to address this problem; it would increase
the flexibility of interim  status  facilities
to make  such changes.   This rule would
allow facilities to exceed  the reconstruc-
	Page!  9$

 tion limit if there are new Federal, State,
 or local requirements that  bring facility
 units into the system.  In addition, the
 reconstruction limit  would not  apply  to
 corrective action or  to closure activities.
 This rule is expected to  become final in
 the fall of  1988.

    RCRA  interim  status  facilities  are
 required to meet specific deadlines. One
 deadline is  that land disposal  facilities
 must certify compliance with ground-wa-
 ter monitoring and financial responsibility
 requirements within one year of becoming
 subject to RCRA.  At that  time, a Part B
 permit  application must also be submitted.
 Another deadline is that storage and treat-
 ment facilities that had interim  status on
 November  8, 1984, must  submit  Part  B
 applications by  November 8,  1988.   In
 response to  questions  regarding the applic-
 ability  of this provision to mixed waste
 units, EPA  has stated in a policy that the
 Part  B  form  need  not include units that
 were not considered to have interim status
 in 1984.  Therefore, any unit added since
 1984, such as a mixed waste unit, does not
 have to be included  on the Part B form
 until the permitting  agency requests this
 information.

    One more deadline related to  RCRA
 permits is that EPA and authorized States
 are to have completed issuance of all stor-
 age and treatment permits by November 8,
 1992.  Again, any units added after 1984
 do not  have to be  included in those per-
 mits. However, while the permitting agen-
 cy has  the  discretion  to issue partial per-
 mits, it may decide to issue a permit  in-
 cluding all  units of the facility in order to
 avoid going through the permitting action
 twice.

    The RCRA permit that is required  in
 the 44  authorized States  is issued in two
 parts.  The first part is the  base permit
 that  is  issued  by  the authorized State,
 which addresses the technical standards in
 Part 264.   The second part is the  HSWA
 permit  issued by EPA. In order for a State
 to issue  a  HSWA  permit, it  must have
 HSWA  authorization.  At  this time only
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
                                                                             Page 97
one State, Georgia, has HSWA authoriza-
tion.

   The HSWA permit typically  includes
corrective  action,  minimum  technology
requirements, and land disposal restrictions
provisions. If a State is unauthorized, EPA
would issue  one permit  that  covers both
the base  permit  and  the  HSWA permit
provisions.   A State  may  also require a
permit under its own laws; however, this
is separate  from  the RCRA permitting
program. Several additional standards that
are currently  being  developed  will be
implemented through the  HSWA  permit,
such  as location standards and  air emis-
sions  standards.

   The EPA permitting process begins with
public notice of the draft permit.  This is
followed  by a  45-day  public  comment
period, and a public hearing, if requested.
The  final decision is then made on the
permit.  This decision can  be  appealed  to
the EPA Administrator or the  State Direc-
tor.   In most cases,  the  State permitting
procedures are similar to those above, but
may include additional public involvement
activities in some cases.

   EPA is in the process of developing
improvements in the  permitting program.
One of these improvements is the permit
modification rule, which was proposed a
year ago and which should be promulgated
in two months.  In  the past, the permit has
constrained  facilities  from making neces-
sary improvements, limited their ability to
respond to changing  waste streams,  and
otherwise constrained adjustments in facil-
ity operations.  .The permit modification
rule  will  provide more  flexibility,  will
encourage improvements, and will allow
newly regulated  wastes,  such as mixed
waste, to continue to  be  stored or treated
at a facility while it is awaiting a permit
modification.  In addition, improvements
to the permit process for  mobile treatment
units  were proposed  last year  and should
be final  this fall.   These modifications
will address  issues that  arise  because of
the mobile nature of these units (i.e., units
may travel from site to site, or revisit the
same  site at  a later time).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: We talked  about different  hammer
   dates.  We have a Subpart X  facility
   managing non-mixed  waste.  What is
   the hammer date for the Part B?  Is it
   a  year after the Subpart  X rule was
   issued or is it November 8, 1988?

   [Joined by Kent Anderson, EPA] For
   a treatment and storage facility, if you
   had interim status as of November 8,
   1984, you have until November 8,1988,
   to get your Part  B permit in; otherwise
   there is a possibility,of loss of interim
   status for that facility in  1992.
Q: The June 1987 MTU proposed regula-
   tion discussed  the idea of exempting
   "low-risk" treatment processes.  What is
   the status of this?

A: We received a number of comments on
   that provision.  However, the discussion
   of those  "low-risk" treatment processes
   in the preamble was not a formal pro-
   posal.  Therefore, we  would have  to
   propose those options formally before
   we could make a regulatory  change.
   We are looking at this  issue  now, in-
   cluding the legal implications of allow-
   ing the use of such technologies without
   a permit, and we may address it in the
   preamble to the final MTU rule.
Q: Is the Christmas tree rule optional for
   States to adopt?

A: Yes, it's optional for States to  adopt
   since the rule is considered to be less
   stringent.   However, there are  some
   provisions in the rule that are pursuant
   to HSWA, so we have identified each
   regulatory   provision  in  the  rule as
   being either HSWA or non-HSWA.  For
   the HSWA provisions, EPA will imple-
   ment that part of the program even in
   authorized  States.   An  example  of  a
   possible  HSWA  action  would be the
   addition of  a new unit during interim
   status to perform corrective action.

-------
Q:  If a facility is under construction or
    under contractual obligations  before
    the State is authorized to regulate mix-
    ed  waste,  could  the  facility receive
    interim status?

A:  If a facility is under construction now
    and the State gets authorized for mix-
	Page  98

 ed waste  a  year from now,  the  facility
 would  qualify for interim status.   The
 preambles to the May 19,1980, and Novem-
 ber 19,  1980, regulations talk about what
 "under  construction"   means,  including
 contractual obligations; you need to check
 the specifics to see which facilities can
 qualify  for interim status.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 99

HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION, TESTING, AND VERIFICA-
TION:  TCLP

Presented by

Gail Hanseii, Environmental Health Scientist, Characterization and Assessment Division, EPA

Ms. Hansen, an environmental health  scientist with the Characterization and Assessment Division, develops
methods to assess toxicant mobility under various disposal scenarios. Before joining EPA in 1985, she was an
analytical chemist with a private consulting firm.
    Waste  that contains both  hazardous
waste and radioactive waste is known as
mixed waste.  The radioactive component
is subject to the  Atomic Energy Act; the
hazardous  component is  subject  to the
Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
(RCRA).  Due to the evolving nature of
the RCRA hazardous waste  identification
regulations,  the universe of what  is con-
sidered hazardous waste is  also evolving.
One area where this is particularly rele-
vant is the RCRA Toxicity Characteristic.
On June 13,  1986, EPA proposed to  expand
the Toxicity Characteristic  by  adding an
additional 38 organic constituents  and by
introducing  a  new  leaching  test  — the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP).  This paper will discuss the pro-
posed TCLP and  its  potential  impact on
mixed waste.

    Section 3001 of RCRA requires EPA to
identify wastes that would cause a hazard
to human health  and the environment if
improperly managed.  EPA has identified
these wastes in two ways:  (1) through the
hazardous waste  listing program,  and (2)
through the hazardous waste characteristic
program.

    In order to list  a waste  as hazardous,
EPA  must  conduct a  detailed industry
study  to determine  the composition  of
hazardous waste constituents. The  process
for listing a hazardous waste is very  re-
source intensive.    Generally, a  specific
waste (for  example,  distillation  bottoms
from a particular commercial process) is
listed as hazardous.   A  listed waste is
considered  a  hazardous waste, unless de-
listed — an  equally resource-intensive pro-
cess.

   A characteristic waste exhibits proper-
ties that identify it as hazardous.  In or-
der to determine  if a  waste exhibits  a
hazardous  property,   EPA  develops   a
plausible   mismanagement   scenario  by
which harm might occur.  To this extent,
the characteristic program is predicated on
a presumption of improper  waste manage-
ment. Usually, EPA develops a test method
to simulate  a  mismanagement  scenario.
Also,  EPA develops quantitative models to
identify hazardous levels. The characteris-
tic program is self-implementing.

   During  the early 1980s,  EPA relied on
the extraction procedure toxicity charac-
teristic  (EPTC)  to determine  if a  waste
exhibited hazardous characteristics.  The
EPTC was  designed  to identify a  waste
which poses a hazard  due to its potential
to leach  out significant concentrations of
toxic  species.  The test entails the use of
an extraction procedure (i.e., SW-846 Meth-
od 1310), which yields a liquid extract that
is analyzed for eight metals,  four pesti-
cides, and  two  herbicides.  Hazard levels
are used in conjunction with the EPTC to
account for dilution and attenuation that
are expected to occur during the migration
of a leachate to the ground water.

   When the EPTC was promulgated, the
Agency noted several areas for improving
the test.  EPA suggested that the test could
be improved by (1) establishing additional

-------
 standards for organic toxicants, including
 hazard levels; (2) modifying the leach test
 to address the additional organics; and (3)
 correcting  other   operational  problems.
 Since the EPTC's promulgation, mathemat-
 ical models  have  been developed  to the
 point where  site-specific dilution-attenua-
 tion  calculations  may be  developed  to
 replace  the  generic  dilution-attenuation
 level that  is employed under the EPTC
 scheme.

    In 1984, Congress amended RCRA with
 the  Hazardous  and Solid  Waste Amend-
 ments (HSWA).  HSWA  directed EPA to
 ensure  a more  accurate   prediction  of
 leaching potential  and to identify addi-
 tional characteristics, including indicators
 of  toxicity.   Subsequently, on June 13,
 1986, EPA proposed to improve the EPTC
 by the addition of 38 organic toxicants, by
 establishing regulatory levels for these 38
 organics, by revising  toxicant  specific
 dilution-attenuation calculations,  and by
 introducing a second generation leach test,
 the Toxicity Characteristic  Leaching Pro-
 cedure  (TCLP, Method 1311).   Although
 the Toxicity  Characteristic (TC) has yet to
 be promulgated, Method  1311 was propos-
 ed and promulgated for use in the Land
 Disposal Restrictions (LDR) rule.

   Method 1311 is procedurally similar to
 Method 1310. For wastes containing great-
 er than 0.5 percent solids, the liquid phase
 is separated from the solid phase by filtra-
 tion.  For wastes containing less than 0.5
 percent solids, such as liquid wastes, the
 waste is defined as the Method  1311 ex-
 tract  In both  methods,  particle size of
 the solid phase  is  reduced, and a batch
extraction of the solid phase is performed
 using a 20:1  liquid:solid  ratio.  Following
an 18-hour agitation period, the  liquid is
separated from the solid by filtration.  If
the  phases are compatible, a combination
of the initial liquid and final extracts is
analyzed. If the phases are incompatible,
they  are analyzed  separately.   Unlike
Method  1310, Method  1311 addresses or-
ganics including volatiles.  Method  1311
also  requires a dual leaching fluid, uses a
glass fiber-filtration system, relies on  tum-
bling as a means of agitation, and man-
	Pace 100

 dates particle size reduction. Method 1311
 also differs from  Method  1310 in many
 other minor ways (e.g., it limits filtration
 time).

    As a result of these differences, Meth-
 od 1311 is a more simplified test and  is
 generally  easier to run.   Also,  it is less
 time consuming to conduct and is  more
 reproducible.

    Comments  were  received  on Method
 1311 both when it was proposed for the
 TC and when it was proposed and promul-
 gated for  use in the LDR rule.  An issue
 of particular concern to the commenters
 regarded the difference between grinding
 or milling the sample, which is required
 under Method  1311, and  the use of the
 Structural Integrity Procedure (SIP), which
 is required under Method  1310. 'Grinding
 is more predictive of weathering processes,
 such as freeze/thaw and wet/dry, whereas
 the SIP simulates  the  presence  of heavy
 equipment by applying hammer-like blows
 to the  waste.  The presence of heavy  e-
 quipment may impact stabilized monolithic
 wastes, especially mixed waste, which are
 often stabilized to achieve a form resistant
 to water permeation and leaching.  A re-
 duction in  particle  size  could  increase
 surface  area,  resulting in  an  increased
 potential for leaching.  In addition, many
 comments were received on Method 131 Ts
 mandatory particle size reduction process.
 EPA has  recently issued  a new  proposal
 regarding Method 1311's particle size re-
 duction requirement  (May 24, 1988).  Com-
 menters argued that stabilized wastes were
 not likely to be physically degraded in a
 landfill and such wastes should not under-
 go particle size reduction.

    They suggested that we reinstate the
 SIP.  However, some  materials that retain-
 ed their  integrity after  testing with the
 SIP, when placed  in the glass bottle and
 tumbled for 18 hours, caused the bottle to
 break.  Subsequently, a stainless steel cage
 insert  was  developed  to  prevent bottle
 breakage.  While evaluating this cage, the
 Agency found that well-solidified  wastes
 maintained  their  integrity  in  the  cage
 where those  wastes that were less solidified
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
broke down into smaller pieces. EPA is in
the  process  of correlating  this  data to
further evaluate the effect. The exceptions
to the cage  include  encapsulated  wastes,
and  wastes to be tested for volatiles. These
wastes will still have to be ground because
we are concerned about encapsulates which
will corrode (such as metal battery cases),
and  because we do not know how to adapt
the cage to fit the Zero Headspace  Extrac-
tor (ZHE) for volatiles.

   Certainly, this rule will impact mixed
wastes. Virtually all industries, including
those regulated under the Atomic  Energy
Act  (AEA), will be impacted by the rule if
only to revisit waste characterization and
to determine that the rule will not cause
the waste to be considered hazardous.

   First,  it  may prove difficult  to take a
representative sample of an heterogeneous
waste.  Therefore, it could be useful to
take multiple representative samples, fol-
lowing  a well  developed sampling plan,
and  perform  a statistical evaluation de-
signed to determine  the outcome  with  a
certain degree  of confidence (e.g., a 90
percent confidence interval).

   Second,  the  potential for exposure to
radioactive materials is problematic. How-
ever, there  are precautions  which may
reduce the potential  for exposure.

   Method 1311 is designed to reduce the
potential  for exposure to radioactive ma-
terials.  For example, Method  1311 elimi-
nates titration because the extraction fluid
is added all at once.  The test is relatively
quick because it uses a  glass fiber filter,
which is associated with a high filtration
rate.  Method  1311 employs a rotary agi la-
ter,  negating  the  use of a blade  stirrer,
thus, eliminating the potential for a jam-
med  extractor.

   NRC has suggested that waste  genera-
tors  may attempt waste characterization
without  testing, in  an  effort to  reduce
potential  for occupational exposure. Spe-
cifically, 40 CFR 262.11  allows determina-
tions of hazardousness  based on  use or
knowledge of  a waste.   In  this  case,  a
	Page 101

 waste may be declared hazardous without
 testing.

    Generally, industries conducting sam-
 pling  and testing of mixed waste should
 consider the use of a pre-screen for deter-
 mining the total amount of the constituents
 available for leaching with Method 1311.
 In addition, the following considerations
 may  be useful for reducing the potential
 for exposure: (1) use of disposable samp-
 ling  and testing  equipment;  (2)  use of
 dedicated laboratory space for testing; (3)
 screening for  radioactivity  both  in the
 field  and in the laboratory; (4)  use of
 smaller sample sizes; (5) diluting the waste
 before testing; (6) use of protective shield-
 ing and clothing when necessary; and (7)
 reading  the  recent  literature to discover
 innovative approaches to testing and sam-
 pling  radioactive materials.

    Research at the  Oak  Ridge National
 Laboratory (ORNL),  which  has  handled
 mixed waste for many years, confirms that
 it  is  useful  both  to dispose of sampling
 and  testing  equipment,  and to dedicate
 laboratory space to  test radioactive mate-
 rials.

    Sample dilution reduces radioactivity
 prior to analysis. This option is limited to
 aqueous samples. It is important, however,
 to ensure that the sample is not diluted to
 cause the concentration of the analyte to
 go below the detection limit of the analy-
 tical  instrument.

    EPA is considering other modifications
 to the TC, including those to handle oily
 wastes.   EPA's  original  rationale  for se-
 lecting the  glass fiber filter was to solve
 the filtration  problem  caused by  liquid
 wastes that do not readily filter (e.g., oily
 wastes).  Although  Method 1311's glass
 fibers are better  in this regard than the
 type  used for method 1310, there are still
 filtration problems.  EPA is investigating
 alternative means of filtration.  The most
 promising alternative seems to be a stain-
 less  steel filter,  which  shows  a  high
 through-put  and has a pore structure simi-
 lar in nature to soil.  This change would

-------
 have a potential impact on all industries,
 including those regulated under the AEA.

    EPA hopes to develop complimentary
 leaching tests to Methods  1310 and 1311.
 The  complimentary  methods  would  be
 useful for site-specific testing.   Methods
 1310 and 1311 are definitional tests used
 to determine if a particular waste should
 be  regulated  as  a RCRA waste.  These
 methods are simulations of a co-disposal
 scenario (i.e.,  municipal waste and  indus-
 trial  waste).  They are  not intended for
 site-specific use, although  they have been
 used  for this purpose.

    EPA is working to develop Method 1312
 which simulates the leaching of  contami-
 nated soils.  The test is identical to Method
 1311, except that is uses a different leach-
 ing fluid. By using a mixture of sulfuric
 and nitric  acids  as  the leaching  fluid.
 Method 1312 simulates the leaching of acid
 rain.  EPA  is gearing up to evaluate the
 method.

    EPA also plans to develop a predictive
 test for  mining wastes, such as sulfuric
 and nitrogen containing wastes, which have
 the potential to create an acidic  leachate.
 This test will compensate for the potential
 of method 1311 to underestimate the poten-
 tial for leaching.

    Although EPA has years of experience
 in  working with hazardous  wastes, the
 Agency's experience with  mixed waste  is
limited.  EPA's studies of mixed waste are
just beginning. The Agency looks to other
 interested parties for input to cope better
 with  mixed waste testing  and  sampling.
issues.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: In the assumptions built into the TCLP,
   are you accounting for a wide range of
   rainfalls? I am permitting facilities in
	Page 102

    Nevada and feel that  the  regulations
    have back-east bias concerning rainfalls
    and transpiration rates.

 A: Both  the  EP  and TC were  designed
    with the co-disposal scenario in mind.
    This assumes that hazardous waste will
    be disposed of in a  municipal landfill.
    We have  used average values  in the
    modeling  work used to determine ac-
    ceptable levels.  However, the Agency
    is moving toward site-specific leaching
    tests,  which would  help  in your case.
    Such leaching  tests, however, are under
    development.

 Q: Since  exposure to  radiation  during
    sampling is "real doses to real people,"
    I am  wondering  how flexible EPA is
    in its requirement for  sample size.

 A: We need to explore  this.  We thought a
    100-gram  size  would be  the minimum
    to guarantee  representativeness.  But
    we appreciate  your concerns  as to the
    safety of  those  doing  the  inspections.
    Perhaps we need to look at more sam-
    ples of smaller size.
 Q: Is there going to be any  guidance on
    what constitutes a representative sam-
    ple?

 A: We are currently working on guidance
    now.  I am not  sure when it is going
    to come out.  We have been working on
    the issue for the last five years.
 Q: There  has  been some talk at EPA of
    requiring the testing of hazardous waste
    rather  than allowing the generator to
    rely on  his knowledge of  the  waste.
    What is the status of this?

 A: As  far as I know it is still in the talk-
    ing stages.  I do not  know that we can
    require testing given the shortage of
    laboratory  capacity.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
I
 I
 I
I
	Page 103

LOCATION  STANDARDS UPDATE

Presented by

Kent Anderson, Special Assistant, Waste Management Division, EPA

Mr. Anderson is currently a Special Assistant in EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch. He has
been with EPA  and the Public Health Sendee for a combined total of 21 years, Mr. Anderson has an M.S. in
Engineering.
    By way of  background, as  early  as
1978, five location standards were propos-
ed  by EPA.  However, these were not fi-
nalized, because the Agency lacked suffi-
cient data.  The five locations  included
wetlands, coastal areas,  critical  habitats,
aquifer recharge zones, and buffer zones.
In  1981,  two location standards were-pro-
mulgated.  One  standard was for seismic
zones —  it applied to new  facilities; the
other standard was for  floodplains —  it
applied to both new and existing facilities.
The standards are  published in  40 CFR
264.18.  In 1985, EPA published a Phase I
location  guidance,  which identified five
broad criteria for  acceptable  locations.
Four locations were  based on standards
established  prior to  the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendment  (HSWA) of 1984.
In  response to HSWA,  EPA published  a
vulnerable hydrogeology guidance in July
1986. In June 1987, EPA and the Nuclear
Regulatory  Commission  (NRC) published
a  joint  guidance  document  containing
siting criteria.

    The soon-to-be-proposed standards are
mandated  by  HSWA  §3004(o)(7),  which
commissioned  the  Agency  to  establish
regulations and  criteria  regarding accep-
table locations for new and  existing treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities  as
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.   The standards cover  all
media (i.e.,  surface water, ground water,
soil, and air) and designate certain settings
as environmentally sensitive. The underly-
ing  objective  behind the  proposal is  to
prevent catastrophic high impact failures
that are difficult to predict and remediate.
Initial estimates suggest that the proposed
standards may decrease Superfund capital
costs by  80 percent and annual operating
and maintenance costs by 54 percent.

   EPA  sought  to address sensitive loca-
tions  where  current RCRA  design  and
operating standards  are 'not satisfactorily
protective.   The  standards account for
sensitivity of   the  environment,  media
specific   requirements,  and  population
proximity.  In  terms  of stringency, the
standards apply a continuum  of  response
statements, which varies according to the
unit's status (i.e., new, existing, or expand-
ing unit).  The continuum also accounts
for variations in unit type (i.e., land based
or non-land  based).   The  standards are
closely related  to closure  and corrective
action requirements.

   The  standards are  being published
under 40 CFR  Part  264, Subpart T.  The
rule will be  effective 180  days after its
publication in the FederaJ Register. Basi-
cally, the standards  prohibit new and ex-
panding  units  in sensitive environments
unless the owner/oper.ator  shows that the
unit meets a technical demonstration. In
some  cases,  the proposal   outright  bans
facilities from  locating  or expanding at
sensitive environments. For example, new
facilities may not locate  in  wetlands or in
floodplains.  Existing units  in sensitive
locations must provide a technical demon-
stration if they are to continue to operate.

   Should a  facility be required to close,
the facility owner/operator and the permit
writer would consider  the following tech-

-------
 nical factors  before selecting closure op-
 tions:  (1) the hazard of the selected option
 in terms of its risk and cross-media impact,
 (2) the complexity of  the  waste, (3) the
 magnitude of residual  risks, (4) technical
 practicality of the closure option, (5) prob-
 ability of future releases from the facility,
 and (6) the  ease of response to any future
 releases that may occur.

    The standards will  apply at different
 times depending on the unit's status.  The
 standards will apply to active RCRA units
 at permit issuance, reissuance, revision, or
 modification.  The standards will apply to
 interim status units when an enforcement
 order is issued under §3008(h), or during
 closure plan approval or post-closure per-
 mitting.   The standards apply  to  units
 undergoing  corrective  action during the
 RFA, RFI, or at the decision of remedy.

    The proposal establishes standards for
 the following locations: (1) adverse hydro-
 geologic and geologic settings (§264.403),
 including seismic zones, flood plains, and
 salt domes; (2) unstable terrain (§264.404),
 i.e., karst terrain and areas susceptible to
 mass  movement;  (3)  wetlands  (§264.405),
 which considers ecological resources; (4)
 buffer zones (§264.406),  including catastro-
 phic air releases and ground water; and
(5) complex  hydrogeologic areas (§264.410).
The Agency is establishing location stan-
dards for these settings, because they pre-
sent a threat in terms of unpredictability
of  high impact events.  Such  events are
associated with long-term liability,  high
remedial costs, and potential for resource
contamination and  loss.

    Adverse  hvdrogeologic  and  geologic
settings.  In seismic zones, the rule would
prohibit new or expanding units.  Existing
standards for salt domes would be applic-
able.   In  100-year floodplains, new and
expanding units would be prohibited.  New
and expanding non-land based units  (e.g.,
tanks) are banned from 100-year flood-
plains,  unless they  can demonstrate the
ability to sustain washouts.  Existing units
in 100-year  floodplains must close, unless
they can demonstrate an ability to  with-
stand washouts.  Existing land-based units
	PageJ_Q4_

 in river, coastal, or lake historic migration
 zones must close according to §264.121.

    Unstable terrain.  In areas susceptible
 to mass movement there would  be  a ban
 on new and expanding units. In this sett-
 ing, existing units must close unless they
 make a structural demonstration.  In karst
 terrain, new  units  are prohibited  unless
 the  owner/opera tor demonstrates (1) the
 ability to characterize and monitor ground
 water for  land-based  units, and (2) the
 ability to  prevent  subsidence.    Existing
 units must  meet these two demonstrations.

    Wetlands.  The proposal bans new land
 based units in and adjacent to all wetlands.
 It would ban expansions in and adjacent
 to wetlands unless the owner/operator can
 demonstrate long-term unit  integrity and
 provide ecological protection for the wet-
 lands.   Also,  the  owner/operator  must
 receive a permit  from the Corps of Engi-
 neers, which  meets the Clean Water Act
 guidelines set forth at §404(b)(l) and §10,
 where applicable.  The proposal  would
 require  closure  for  existing  land-based
 units  unless the  owner/operator demon-
 strates long-term unit integrity and ecologi-
 cal protection for the wetlands.

    Buffer  zones.  The proposal requires
 that  units meet a required demonstration.
 Existing units must meet the same demon-
 stration or apply additional design and
 operating controls.

    Media specific requirements for ground
 water. In complex hydrogeology areas, the
 proposal  bans new units  that  cannot be
 characterized or  monitored.  Also,  new
 units would be banned if corrective action
 is infeasible.   Under some  circumstances
 new  units may  be constructed.   However,
 this requires performance of a demonstra-
 tion.  Existing units must  be closed unless
 the same demonstration is performed. In
 resource valuable areas (e.g., near Class  I
 ground-water aquifers), new units  would
 be banned, unless: (1) the owner/operator
 provides extended  care, (2) the owner/-
 operator  demonstrates  that there  is no
 threat to ground  water or that corrective
 action can be implemented effectively, and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(3)  the  unit contains only BDAT treated
waste.  Existing units must be closed im-
mediately unless they meet similar condi-
tions.  Also, existing units in non-Class I
vulnerable ground-water areas must pro-
vide extended care.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: We have a mixed waste  disposal site in
   karst formation that is attempting to
   install a ground-water monitoring sys-
	Page 105

    tern.  You say  that the location stan-
    dards apply  to interim  status units
    during closure or post-closure permitt-
    ing.  If  the facility does not meet the
    location standards, will that prohibit it
    from anything other than removal?

 A: There  are several factors  that  the
    Agency  must evaluate when determin-
    ing what closure options are  available
    to the facility.  However, the location
    standards do not  necessarily require
    that the waste be removed at closure.

-------
Page 106

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                                                              Page 107
LAND BAN:   ITS IMPACT ON MIXED WASTE
Presented by

Rhonda Craig, Environmental Protection Specialist, Characterization and Assessment Division, EPA

Ms. Craig an Environmental Protection Specialist, has been working in the Office of Solid Waste's Regulation
Development Section of the Land Disposal Restriction Branch for three years.  Prior to that she worked in EPA'S
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
  . There are several hazardous wastes that
are regulated under the land disposal re-
strictions that could also be constituents
of concern in a mixed waste stream.  The
Land Disposal Restrictions Program is very
complex.  Because time for this presenta-
tion  is limited, I will only be able to dis-
cuss  some of  the main provisions of  the
program, such as what waste streams  are
involved, what the effective dates are,
what are the  key provisions, and how to
get more information about  the program.

   The land disposal restrictions are being
promulgated  in response to the Hazardous
and  Solid  Waste  Amendments of 1984.
This legislation  sets  out,   among  other
things, statutory hammer dates on which
land disposal  of certain wastes is prohib-
ited.

   For wastes that are restricted from land
disposal, the  Amendments require EPA to
set levels or  methods of treatment which
will  substantially  diminish  the   waste's
toxicity or which will reduce the likelihood
that  the waste  will migrate.  After  the
effective dates, restricted wastes which do
not meet the  treatment standards (or  are
otherwise exempt) are prohibited from land
disposal.

   Land disposal is defined  as placement
of waste  in  landfills,  surface impound-
ments,  land  treatment facilities, injection
wells, waste piles, salt domes, underground
mines,  caves,  concrete vaults, or bunkers.
Effective November 8,  1986,  the  statute
prohibits land disposal of certain dioxin-
containing wastes and certain spent solvent
wastes.  EPA promulgated treatment stan-
dards for  these wastes on  November  7,
1986. Effective July 7,  1987, the statute
prohibits  land disposal  of  those wastes
collectively referred to as the  California
list.  EPA promulgated treatment standards
for  some  of  these wastes on  that  date,
while the  statutory prohibitions went into
effect for the rest of the  California list.

   The  California list includes free  cya-
nides, corrosives, hazardous waste  mixed
with PCBs, and certain metals (i.e., arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,
thallium and  selenium).   It also includes
the halogenated organic compounds listed
in Appendix III of 40 CFR Part 268.  The
California list is made up of liquid waste
as defined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test
with the exception of one group, the halo-
genated organic compounds  (HOCs).  Dif-
ferent standards were set for dilute liquid
wastes, liquid HOCs, and  solid HOCs.

   Section 3004(g) of RCRA required the
Agency to set a schedule for making  land
disposal restriction decisions for all listed
hazardous wastes.  The schedule is arrang-
ed so that'those wastes that have a  high
intrinsic hazard or high volume are regu-
lated first.  Treatment standards and  "soft
hammer"  requirements for the first  one-
third of the schedule became effective on
August 8, 1988. [The final  rule was  pub-
lished in  the  Federal Register  on August
17 (53 FR 31138).]  The second one-third
of the schedule will  be  promulgated  in
1989, and by 1990,  all scheduled  wastes
will  be subject to the land disposal restric-
tions.

-------
    The November 7, 1986, final rule not
 only  set  treatment  standards for  spent
 solvents and certain  dioxins,  it also estab-
 lished the regulatory framework  for the
 entire program. Briefly, some of  the key
 provisions of the program are procedures
 for variances from the treatment standard,
 procedures for granting national variances
 from the  effective dates due  to  insuffi-
 cient capacity, procedures  for granting
 case-by-case  extensions of the effective
 date, and procedures for  evaluating peti-
 tions that demonstrate that continued land
 disposal of a particular  waste is protective
 of  human health and  the  environment.
 The program has additional provisions that
 exempt hazardous waste treatment in sur-
 face  impoundments  under certain condi-
 tions, that regulate storage of wastes that
 are subject to restrictions, and that  provide
 procedures for testing and recordkeeping.

    One of the key parts of the land dis-
 posal restrictions program is the establish-
 ment of treatment standards  based on the
 performance  of  the best  demonstrated
 available  technology (BOAT).  Restricted
 wastes must  be treated  to meet the treat-
 ment standards before  they may  be land
 disposed.

    In order  to  establish  treatment  stan-
dards, the  Agency  sets  up  treatability
 groups and then identifies BOAT for that
 treatability group.   The  treatment  stan-
dards may  be expressed as  a specified
 technology  (e.g., incineration), as  total
concentration in  the  waste, or as a con-
centration in the waste  extract (i.e.,  using
 the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Pro-
cedure (TCLP)).

    I will  now discuss in a bit more detail
the key provisions of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program. There are four types
of variances  or extensions provided under
the Land  Disposal Restrictions Program.
The first, a  variance from the treatment
standard,  was established to account for
wastes that are significantly different from
 the wastes evaluated by EPA in establish-
 ing treatability groups.  A petitioner must
make  a  demonstration that  his waste
stream cannot be treated by the applicable
	;	Page 108

 treatment  standard.   The  second is the
 national capacity variance that extends the
 effective date of the land disposal restric-
 tions.   EPA grants  a capacity variance
 when  it has been determined  there is a
 lack of capacity for alternative  treatment,
 storage or  disposal on a nationwide basis.
 The variance extends the effective date for
 up to two years or until capacity is found.
 The third  variance that  is available is a
 case-by-case extension of  the  effective
 date. The  petitioner  must make a showing
 that, due   to  circumstances  beyond  his
 control, protective  alternative  treatment
 capacity is unavailable.   The  petitioner
 must also show that he has entered a bind-
 ing contract to provide treatment capacity
 for the entire waste stream after the vari-
 ance has expired.  The fourth variance is
 one based  on a  demonstration  that, to a
 reasonable  degree of certainty,  there-will
 be no migration of the hazardous constitu-
 ents for as long as the waste remains haz-
 ardous.

    Another key  provision of  the  Land
 Disposal Restriction  Program is the treat-
 ment in surface  impoundment exemption.
 Wastes that are otherwise prohibited from
 land disposal may be treated  in surface
 impoundments under certain conditions.
 Treatment must occur in the impoundment,
 and if the treatment residual  meets  the
 applicable  treatment standards, it  may
 remain in  the surface impoundment in-
 definitely.  If  the treatment residual does
 not meet the applicable treatment standards
 it  may  only  remain in  the  surface im-
 poundment for up to one year; after one
 year the treatment  residual  must be re-
 moved and treated to meet the  applicable
 treatment standard. The surface impound-
 ment must meet the minimum technology
 requirements of a double liner, a leachate
 collection   system,  and  a  ground-water
 monitoring system.

    The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
 establishes  certain   storage   provisions.
 Storage of restricted waste is  prohibited
 except when storage is solely for the pur-
 pose of accumulating sufficient quantities
 of waste  to facilitate proper  treatment,
 recovery, or disposal.  If a facility stores
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a restricted waste for more than one year
and an enforcement action is taken,  the
owner/operator bears the burden of proof
that the storage is for the sole purpose of
accumulating sufficient quantities to treat.

    Generators may store hazardous waste
for 90  days or  less without a  permit or
interim status,  and this  may be extended
for 30 days by the Regional Administra-
tor.

    The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
establishes  certain  waste  analysis  and
recordkeeping requirements.  It is up to
the generator to determine if he is manag-
ing a hazardous waste restricted under the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program.  The
generator may test the  waste or  waste
extract, or may use his knowledge of  the
waste, if supporting documentation is kept
in his on-site files.

   The recordkeeping requirements of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Program reflect
EPA's philosophy of tracking waste from
generation to disposal.  Generators, storage
	Page 109

 facilities,  treatment  facilities, and  land
 disposal facilities each  have specific re-
 sponsibilities under the program; however,
 the  land  disposal facility  is  ultimately
 responsible for  ensuring that only wastes
 that meet the treatment standards are land
 disposed.

    These are only the bare bones of the
 Land Disposal Restrictions Program. More
 information is available from EPA in three
 guidance booklets available  through the
 RCRA Hotline (1-800-424-9346). The staff
 of the Land Disposal  Restrictions Branch
 at EPA Headquarters (202-382-4770) are
 available to answer more specific questions.
 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 Q:  Are you going to prepare a model jus-
    tification  so that we who are imple-
    menting  the land  ban  can  evaluate
    justifications of  storage for  over one
    year?

 A:  As far as  I know, there is nothing be-
    ing prepared right now. I will,  how-
    ever, take  this suggestion back to Head-
    quarters.

-------
Page 110

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
	Page 111

SUBPART X APPLICABILITY TO MIXED WASTE  UNITS

Presented by

Kent Anderson, Special Assistant, Waste Management Division, EPA

Mr. Anderson is currently a Special Assistant in EPA's Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch.  He has
been with EPA and the Public Health Service for a combined total of 21 years.  Mr. Anderson has an M.S. in
Engineering.
    Under  RCRA, EPA  has  promulgated
specific  standards  for  various types of
treatment,  storage, and  disposal facilities
(TSDFs). These are contained in  40 CFR
Parts 264 and  265.   However, there are
certain activities  that were allowed under
the interim status standards,  40 CFR Part
265, for  which there were no analogous
standards to allow the facility to  be per-
mitted.  There are also other  activities, as
well as future  conceivable activities for
which  EPA had no permitting standards.
Therefore,  EPA wanted to promulgate a
general rule that would apply to all facili-
ties not covered by other specific permitt-
ing standards.

   The result was Subpart X of Part 264.
Subpart X applies  to treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities for which there are
no other  specific  standards. This Subpart
addresses miscellaneous  units,  which are
defined as  those TSDFs  that are not land-
fills, land  treatment units,  surface im-
poundments, waste piles, containers, tanks,
units regulated as incinerators, boilers or
furnaces, or units regulated as underground
injection wells by the Clean  Drinking
Water Act in 40 CFR Part 146.

   Subpart  X  was published as  a  final
rule December  10, 1987, under 40 CFR
264.600.   Normally under RCRA, EPA
develops  design and operating standards;
in other situations, EPA develops technical
performance standards,  such as incinera-
tion standards  or containment standards.
When developing  Subpart  X,  EPA incor-
porated all the above types of standards
within the  rule as well as some facility-
specific risk assessments.  However, for
the most part the rule consists of perfor-
mance standards. The rule is supposed to
be a catch-all rule; it is supposed to cover
things that EPA currently knows about, as
well as future  activities that  may occur.
EPA  thought this was  necessary because
when someone develops a new  technology,
EPA must go through the whole rulemak-
ing process to develop a method for  per-
mitting, and this takes years. So, the Sub-
part X rule must be very general and  able
to encompass all types of facilities.   The
rule is primarily a set of environmental
performance standards which  address ad-
verse impacts on human health and the en-
vironment in ground water or  sub-surface
water  environments,  surface water, wet-
lands, soil, and air.

    In  using  this permitting  mechanism,
the applicant is going to have  to develop
the proposed design  and operating  stan-
dards of the facility.  The applicant  may
incorporate  containment standards or de-
sign and operating standards that apply to
permitted units that are  similar to the
applicant's facility.   The applicant  will
need to include specifications for the loca-
tion of the  facility, design, construction,
operation, monitoring,  maintenance,  and
closure.  Furthermore, if it is a land dis-
posal unit, the  applicant also will need to
include a description of all the post-closure
care requirements. Once the applicant has
developed all this for the facility, a  pre-
liminary facility  assessment  is  done to
determine if the facility  will  have  any
impact on the environmental media which
EPA addresses  in this particular rule. If

-------
 this preliminary assessment indicates that
 one or more medium could be impacted by
 this particular facility, then the owner/-
 operator will  have to  do  a more detailed
 analysis using the  environmental perform'
 ance factors.  When a  detailed assessment
 has been done, and has shown that there
 will be no adverse  impact on human health
 and the environment, the  applicant can
 submit his preliminary application with all
 the supporting data to  the Agency for
 consideration  of the permit. This  is dif-
 ferent from the  specific standards, for
 example, for a landfill design in which the
 Agency has already made its determination
 that if you put in liners and follow specif-
 ications the facility will be protective of
 human  health and environment.   In the
 Subpart X rule, all of the  burden  is on the
 applicant to provide  sufficient  data to
 support all  of the design and operating
 decisions related to the facility.

    There are several examples of miscel-
 laneous units  that may  be applicable to
 mixed  waste considerations.  The first is
 geologic repositories. As long as the geolo-
 gic repository is not an underground injec-
 tion well that is regulated under the Clean
 Water Act,  it  could obtain a Subpart X
 permit.  Subpart X includes the placement
 of  hazardous  containerized waste in a
 geologic  repository, which  is defined to
 include salt mines, caves, and domes. Also,
 in relation to  mixed waste, this rule will
 allow the permitting of certain chemical,
 physical, or biological  treatment units for
 which there are no specific standards. For
 example certain types of thermal treatment
 units do not meet any EPA definitions.
These types of facilities could be permitted
 under Subpart X.  In these cases the facili-
ties would  probably draw upon many of
the specific standards  for incinerators.

    Various Subpart X standards could also
be incorporated into the design and opera-
 tion of units that are regulated under other
 Subparts.  For example, if landfill stand-
 ards do not adequately address all of the
activities at a landfill unit,  it is possible
 to rely  upon environmental performance
standards under Subpart  X to account for
 those  unusual activities  at  the  facility.
	Page 112

 This has  been done  at  many facilities
 seeking permits for the open burning and
 open detonation of reactive waste.  In the
 commercial sector many of these wastes are
 detonated in surface impoundments. Cur-
 rent surface impoundment standards, such
 as  requirements for  double  liners and
 leachate  detection  systems,  will  apply.
 However,  because these standards do not
 address some  of  the human health or en-
 vironmental  concerns  which  are  raised
 when waste is detonated in  the  surface
 impoundment, the permitting of these units
 will  rely  upon  some  of the  Subpart  X
 performance standards.  Similarly a land-
 fill  permit could appropriate certain Sub-
 part X provisions in order to handle the
 special conditions that may be created by
 mixed waste.

    The Subpart  X rule became effective
 on January 11, 1988; however, unlike many
 rules, it did not mandate  a date by which
 facilities must be permitted. It is up to the
 Regions to call  in the permits with  the
 exception of  those that are subject to the
 loss of interim status provisions.  Mixed
 waste facilities are not affected by the loss
 of interim status deadline.

    At  this time none of the States  are
 authorized to implement Subpart X, there-
 fore until the States  become  authorized,
 all permits under Subpart X will be issued
 by EPA Regional Offices.
 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 Q: The Subpart X preamble said it was a
    non-HSWA provision and did not apply
    to those  States that were authorized,
    but only to non-authorized States. Now
    you say  that  none of  the  States are
    authorized to  implement Subpart  X.
    Can you  explain?

 A: I think Frank McAIister clarified this
    in a conference call with the Regions.
    Although Subpart X is not a  HSWA
    provision,  we are using other  RCRA
    provisions so that we can issues permits
    under Subpart X in both authorized
    and non-authorized States immediately.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
   In the case of authorized States,  the
   States will have to obtain authorization
   for Subpart X before they can issue
   Subpart X  permits.
Q: It seems that we will need to do some
   kind of environmental impact analysis
   to apply for a Subpart X permit.  Pre-
   sumably there would be  a data  base
   containing information on the existing
   environment allowing us to compare
	Page 113

    specific impacts on the environment.
    What data exists?

 A: We  do not specify how detailed the
    data has to be  to make a showing of
    impact.   I  agree, we  do not provide
    much information for you  to go by.
    However, we are preparing three guid-
    ance documents, one to be issued this
    fall, that would help you to determine
    the  environmental impact. Since each
    permit application must be site speci-
    fic, all environmental impact analyses
    must be specific to your site.

-------
Page 114

-------
       Session V
EPA CASE STUDIES PANEL

-------

-------
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
               	Page 115

CLOSURE AT OAK  RIDGE

Presented by

Suzy Riddle, RCRA DOE Coordinator, EPA Region IV

Since 1984, Ms. Riddle has worked for the EPA Region IV Permitting Section.  During the last two years, she
has been the Oak Ridge facility RCRA Coordinator.  She has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Tennessee
Technological University.
    This paper discusses the different clo-
sure activities and the magnitude of those
activities  at  the Department of Energy's
Oak Ridge (Oak Ridge) facility. It should
be  noted  that while some mixed  waste
disposal units are closing  at Oak Ridge,
the facility will remain in operation.

    The Oak Ridge complex is large. It is
comprised of three separate facilities:  (1)
the Y-12 Weapons Plant; (2) the  Oak Ridge
Gaseous Diffusion Plant; and (3) the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Pre-
sently, there are 12 mixed waste land based
RCRA units going through RCRA closure.
The land units range in type from surface
impoundments to landfills to a quarry.  At
the quarry, DOE has proposed  to use un-
derwater cameras to assist in implementing
closure. The units intended for  closure are
in one of two phases of closure. At some
units, materials  are  being stabilized and
caps are ready to be put in place. At other
units, the  in-house  closure plan  is still
being reviewed for approval. It is estimat-
ed that Oak Ridge will need over 1 million
cubic yards of dirt to cap the units target-
ed for closure.

    A closure unit of particular interest is
a solid  waste burial  area  on the ORNL
facility.  This area is referred  to as Solid
Waste Storage Area #6 (SWSA6). This unit
was opened  in  1969 as a  shallow land
disposal burial unit for low-level radioac-
tive and chemical waste.  Until May of
1986, RCRA-type waste was disposed of in
unlined trenches and auger holes at this
unit.  Presently, pure  radiological type
waste is disposed of in SWSA6.  Over the
years, SWSA6 has received wastes compris-
ed  of radioactive,  chemical,  biological,
asbestos, and explosive type materials. The
packaging of the waste has varied from no
containerization  to  plastic  bags to steel
drums. The auger holes, as opposed to the
unlined trenches, were used to dispose of
small waste packages. Upon disposal, these
packages  required  immediate  shielding,
because of radioactivity being released at
the container surface.

   Only ten acres at SWSA6 are closing
pursuant to RCRA  standards.  However,
closure  at  SWSA6 presents  a number of
problems.    Some  of these  problems are
technological in  nature, while others are
related to process.

   One problem  relates to  subsidence at
the trenches.  To reduce  subsidence EPA
may require that DOE minimize the liquid
volume in  the  waste.   This  could be
achieved by grouting and compacting the
trenches. Unfortunately, there are several
drawbacks to the  use of grout and compac-
tion. First, compaction of  the waste within
the unit may accelerate a release of con-
taminants to ground water if the contain-
ers rupture or  the material escapes some
other way.  Second, the process of injecting
the grout is potentially dangerous.  The
process involves  injecting grout into ap-
proximately five  well heads  drilled into
the trenches no more than  IS feet below
grade.  Assuming things go  as planned,
grout would flow by gravity into the injec-
tion ports over  a  two* to four-hour period.
Unfortunately, there are documented cases
of  the  proposed  grout failing to  bond.

-------
                                                                             Paw 116
(DOE is proposing to use a polyacrylimide
grout.) Should this happen at SWSA6, the
acrylimide, which is toxic, would be inject-
ed directly  into the  ground-water  table.
The  grout, however, may be useful, since
demonstrations suggest that grout is resis-
tant  to microbiological degradation.  EPA
has not reached a decision regarding the
use of grout.  If the Agency  decides that
the grout will be used, ground-water moni-
toring which is required, will be increased.

    The  closure  and  corrective  action
program at the facility is unique.  DOE is
doing field trial studies within the SWSA6
area.  These studies are designated as the
test  area  of  remedial  action  (TARA).
TARA is a grouping of 19 trenches in the
SWSA6  area that are  hydrogeologically
separated from the rest of the SWSA6 area.
These trenches contain strictly low-level
radioactive waste with no RCRA hazardous
waste in them.  DOE thought it was best
to go ahead and  perform grouting and
dynamic compaction on  these  trenches.
Unfortunately, the UIC permit will delay
this, which may affect the time  scale for
closure of the RCRA units.

   Implementation of the interim correc-
tive measure will commence no later than
November 8, 1988, in order  to  meet the
Congressionally  mandated deadline  for
closure activities. This should be complet-
ed within 180 days.  This interim correc-
tive measure will remain in place until the
implementation of final closure (i.e., the
stabilization of the trenches  is complete).
DOE approximates this to be 37 months.
As with all the closure plans that we have
worked  on at the DOE Oak Ridge facility
in the  past, we  have had quite a bit of
negotiation on the closure schedule.  The
rapport  with DOE  and the State  is very
good.

-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
	Page 117

MIXED  WASTE  GROUND-WATER  CONTAMINATION ISSUES

Presented by

Martin Hestmark, Rocky Flats Permit Writer, EPA Region VIII

Mr. Hestmark Is the Evaluation Permit Writer for Low-Level, Transuranic and Mixed Waste at the Rocky Flats
Plant and is coordinator of the CERCLA RJ/FS reports.  He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and is currently
working towards an M.S. in Environmental Engineering,
    This address will not be able to cover
all of the issues regarding mixed waste.  It
is drawn from specific experiences at the
Rocky Flats Plant, with the hope that this
will help permitting groups and permittees
who are facing the same difficulties  that
Rocky Flats  recently faced.  These  dif-
ficult issues are the result of the size of
these  facilities, the age of these facilities,
the variety of wastes  produced, and the
large  quantities of waste produced.

   The first issue is one of compliance,
and is the result of the  November  1986
Part B application that was submitted by
Rocky Flats.  In the Part B application the
facility proposed a  point  of compliance
that was downgradient to the entire facili-
ty. This is not as required  in the regula-
tions, and EPA decided that the proposed
point of compliance was inappropriate for
the situation  at the facility. There were
upsides and  downsides to  the proposed
point of compliance.  From the facility's
point  of  view, having the point of com-
pliance circumscribe the  entire facility
dictates the level of ground-water monitor-
ing required.  However,  in light of the
fact that many of the ground-water moni-
toring wells  are not  contaminated, the
proposed point of compliance could allow
significant environmental  contamination
before detecting a plume.   Although the
facility thought it was being environmen-
tally protective by using a point of com-
pliance which circumscribed all regulated
units, the facility is going  to have  some
problems.   The problems are the result of
the facility being so large and so old  that
it will be  difficult for the facility to de-
termine whether contaminants  which are
downgradient of a regulated unit are ac-
tually  the  result  of that regulated  unit.
The  contamination  at  Rocky Flats or at
similar facilities,  is such that it would be
difficult to determine  the  actual  waste
unit  from which the contamination origi-
nated.

   In  conjunction  with  the compliance
issues,  the size of  the facility and the
inadequate knowledge of past activities
regarding waste disposal activities at the
facility, required  the placement of a great
quantity of ground-water monitoring wells.
The compliance agreement at the site also
required that the Part B permit application
be submitted at a rather  optimistic  date.
The  ground-water  wells  in place  were
meant  to be in compliance with the data
requirements for  the Part B permit appli-
cation  and -interim  status  requirements.
The  result has been that the wells had to
be placed quickly, and thus, it was  more
expensive than it otherwise could  have
been.  Due  to  the fact that the facility
was facing tight deadlines when it placed
the wells, it is still dealing with the issue
of the adequacy of the ground-water mon-
itoring wells.'  In general, two-inch  wells
were placed instead of six-inch wells, and
as a  result dry wells may be more preva-
lent.

   Another problem area that has been a
result of the compliance issue is the deter-
mination of background. The problems in
this  area are not only due to the RCRA
permit process, but are also due to correc-
tive  action and remedial  action processes

-------
 at the facility.  The problems arise from
 the fact that the facility is large; it con-
 sists of  approximately 500 acres for the
 plant,  and approximately 6,000 acres for
 the buffer  zone.  The background  wells
 that were proposed by the facility are on
 the plant site. Contamination is pervasive
 on the plant site; therefore, the facility has
 the problem of determining whether the
 facility background wells are truly  back-
 ground wells.  This problem is not as sig-
 nificant for organic determination as it is
 for metals, major  ions, and  radioactive
 constituents. The determination of  back-
 ground for plutonium, americium, cesium,
 and selenium is not  a trivial matter.

   Another problem associated  with the
 placement of background wells has  to do
 with the detection limits that have  been
 proposed and instituted at the facility for
 radioactive determination.  It is very dif-
 ficult for us in the Region to get a handle
 on  what background is  for  radioactive
 constituents when the 95% confidence level
 is indistinguishable  from or of the same
 order of magnitude  as the analysis  itself.
 Therefore,  the determination of elevation
 with respect to background  is extremely
 difficult; especially for making the determ-
 ination of radiation-based  isotope ratios.

   Another issue  presently  facing  the
 facility with respect to ground-water con-
 tamination is the determination of hydro-
geology.  This issue  is also related to the
size of the facility.  In the West,  it is
 generally dry, and there has been concern
 about the uppermost aquifer. This concern
 involves the determination of the upper-
 most aquifer, the  degree  of  connection
 between the alluvial  system and the bed-
rock, and the degree of connection between
 the  alluvial system and the surface  water
systems.
	Page 118

    One final ground-water issue involves
 the  characterization  of  solid waste man-
 agement units (SWMUs), which may be an
 extremely dangerous  process.  Rocky Flats
 has  some sites that are trenches of very
 hazardous material,  and  EPA, Colorado
 Department of Environmental Health, and
 DOE are cautiously approaching the char-
 acterization of these  SWMUs. These agen-
 cies do not want to expose people to inor-
 dinate  risks.  Therefore, they must deter-
 mine how to address and characterize  a
 serious ground-water contamination prob-
 lem, without exposing workers or the gen-
 eral population to excess risk. Rocky Flats
 has  another site which is a plutonium site
 that has yet to be characterized.

    These are the major present and past
 issues at the Rocky Flats Plant, there are
 also some significant issues for the near
 term future. The first near  term problem
.is how to address corrective action at  a
 permitted RCRA facility that has ground-
 water contamination from hazardous waste
 that is not  associated with  a  discernible
 unit.  If the past history of the disposal
 practices at  the facility are sketchy, and
 the  facility  has been around for  a long
 time,  fluids which  have a  tendency  to
 travel may not be associated  with a discer-
 nable unit.  In this case it is unclear how
 to fulfill corrective  action  requirements.
 In  that same light it is unclear  how to
 address corrective action of purely radio-
 active waste at a RCRA facility that has
 not  been listed on the National Priorities
 List (NPL).  Finally  it is going to be ex-
 tremely important to figure out  how to
 marry the RCRA/HSWA portion of correc-
 tive action to the CERCLA/SARA portion.
 It is important to do this in  a way that
 will be administratively and technically
 consistent, and which will also afford the
 same level  of protection  to the environ-
 ment.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
U

-------
	Page 119

DEVELOPMENT OF A RCRA  MIXED  WASTE  PERMIT

Presented by

Nathaniel Mlullo, Project Coordinator, EPA Region VIII

Mr. Miutto is the project coordinator for RCRA and CERCLA activities at the Rocky Flats plant. He has a B.S.
in Mechanical Engineering/ Marine Engineering from the State University of New York Maritime College.
    This paper  outlines  permitting  and
compliance issues  at Federal  facilities.
There are  many pending  issues regarding
the permitting of mixed  waste facilities.
There are also many issues regarding how
these facilities will comply with RCRA
regulations.  Some of these issues will be
addressed by  future EPA and NRC guid-
ance.  Other issues will be left to the Re-
gions and  facility  representatives to re-
solve.

    Basically,  all of the  issues discussed
below revolve around a central question
concerning  EPA's role under RCRA in
regulating  mixed waste.  The first issue
concerns the reporting of radioactive levels
of mixed waste to EPA. More specifically,
should RCRA permits require facilities to
report these levels?  The answer is emphat-
ically yes!  Facility management decisions
are based on radioactive compound levels,
and so knowing these radioactive levels-is
crucial.  Since I am most  familiar with
Rocky Flats, I will use it as an  example.
Most  waste at Rocky Flats is currently
analyzed  according  to  activity  levels.
Because  facilities perform this analysis
anyway, it would  be relatively  easy to
report these levels to EPA.  The  informa-
tion is useful to the Agency.

    The second issue concerns corrective
action scenarios, and follows  from  the
above  issue.  Should corrective actions or
corrective measures address the radioactive
component  as well as the hazardous com-
ponent of mixed waste? The common sense
answer is yes.  I think that in practice it
will be impossible to separate the waste, so
the corrective action designed must account
for both types of hazards.

   The third issue relates  to  exposure
assessments and the overlap between radio-
active and hazardous waste exposure levels.
Should risk factors for a post-closure care
plan or CERCLA remedial action address
both hazardous and radioactive compon-
ents?  Generally,  yes.   In this  regard, I
have found it is useful for our hazardous
waste staff to interface with the Office of
Radiation Programs to  identify the best
technical resolution.

   Compartmentalization,  both  from  a
technical expertise aspect and from one of
national security,  poses problems for the
regulation (i.e., permitting and compliance
monitoring)  of  mixed  waste facilities.
Basically, Compartmentalization involves
sources of waste that are kept distinct at
the facility and/or the generation of waste
at one point  without complete knowledge
of the  ultimate fate of that  waste. There
are distinctions  made  based  on  need-to-
know criteria at  DOE  sites,  which con-
tribute to the separation of activities.  For
example, one project at  a  facility may
generate hazardous waste which is dispos-
ed of with radioactive waste generated by
another party at the same facility. Because
of Compartmentalization, the  two parties
may never be aware of this  disposal prob-
lem. To its credit,  Rocky Flats is consider-
ing the implementation of a waste manage-
ment consolidation program to  get away
from Compartmentalization.   Also, cross-
training is useful  for reducing the prob-
lems associated with Compartmentalization.

-------
    National security poses another prob-
 lem for permitting, compliance, and moni-
 toring of mixed waste at Federal facilities.
 More  specifically,  the  requirement  for
 obtaining a Q clearance to enter some areas
 at DOE  facilities interrupts both permit-
 ting and compliance monitoring activities.
 Sometimes these activities may be delayed
 for  nine to ten months, while permitting
 and compliance monitoring personnel wait
 for clearance.  It is in no one's interest to
 have such lengthy delays.  The  problem,
 however, is not insurmountable.   In fact,
 some facilities have been willing to provide
 access to non-security cleared inspectors.
 This practice may not be able to continue.
 Because facilities are likely to require a Q
 clearance, offices should be certain that a
 number of personnel are security  cleared,
 and should plan schedules in any negotiat-
 ed agreements to consider Q clearances and
 delays in access.

    I have found a few things helpful when
 dealing with  permitting and compliance
 monitoring. First, it is useful when inspec-
 ting a facility  to photograph  the  facility.
These  photographs may be  compared  to
earlier ones which are maintained in acces-
sible files.  The comparison is often a good
starting point for discussing facility man-
agement.  Second, when developing permit
related and compliance schedules it is best
to reach  realistic agreements (i.e., mile-
stones).   Third, environmental  program
staff should make themselves familiar with
the complex activities that occur at the
	PaeellO

 facility.  Fourth, environmental program
 staff should bring outside experts into the
 process to provide support.  Fifth, permit
 writers must  be cognizant  of Hazardous
 and  Solid  Waste  Amendments (HSWA)
 requirements  (e.g.,  minimum  technology
 requirements  and  land disposal restric-
 tions).  Sixth, permit writers must spend
 some time figuring  out how to move for-
 ward with the corrective action process.
 A useful  model may be the CERCLA pro-
 gram; we may be better off simulating the
 CERCLA  process  (in  a common sense,
 technically appropriate manner) until we
 have a  final program in RCRA. Seventh,
 permit  writers  should  require, through
 permits, that facilities implement periodic
 technical upgrades for state-of-the-art and
 new  machinery and  improvements  (for
 example, every four years).   Such  a re-
 quirement may be made under the omnibus
 provision. Also, remote control monitoring,
 site assessment,  and remediation will  be
 more prevalent at mixed waste facilities as
 technology in robotics and  computer con-
 trol progresses, thus, removing the human
 risk factor.

    Generally, it is  not difficult for the
 facility owner/operators, States, Regions,
 and Headquarters to work  together.  The
 result is always positive. In the future, all
 parties should strive to communicate ef-
 fectively with one another  so that permit-
 ting issues and compliance problems can be
 solved  to everyone's benefit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 121

IMPLEMENTATION   OF  A  CONSENT  ORDER   AND  COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT AT INEL:   PROGRESS  REPORT

Presented by

Wayne Pierre, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA Region X

Mr. Pierre is a Senior RCRA Compliance Officer for EPA Region X. Before working for Region X, Mr. Pierre
worked for EPA Region II for eight and one hay years. He has a B.S. m Chemistry.
   The Idaho National Engineering Labor-
atory (INEL)  is  located in Idaho  Falls,
Idaho, which is in the southeastern portion
of the State. It has been in operation since
the 1950s.  The facility is  approximately
890 square miles.  The area immediately
surrounding the facility is mainly desert or
agricultural land, which is  irrigated from
ground-water resources.  Population within
25 miles of the site is less than 100,000
people. The work force at INEL is approx-
imately 10,000 people.

   Five major program activities are con-
ducted at  INEL.  First, INEL provides
irradiation services  for laboratories and
universities.  This work is conducted at
the facility's Test Reactor Area (TRA).
Second, uranium  is recovered from  spent
fuels  and naval reactors. These activities
are conducted at  the chemical  processing
plant.   Third, an experimental  breeder
reactor  is  operated  at  the ARDOT test
facility.  Fourth,  solid transuranic (TRU)
waste and  mixed  waste are stored at the
facility's radioactive waste management
complex.   Fifth,  submarine reactors are
decontaminated at the naval reactors facil-
ity.

   Because of the size of the facility, most
individual units are far enough apart to be
considered  separate plants.  It is useful to
look at the plants as distinct units, a dis-
tinction particularly  useful for  corrective
action. Each unit is  hundreds of acres in
size.

  - In July 1987, EPA and  DOE finalized
a  consent  order   compliance   agreement
(COCA) under RCRA §3008(h).  Because
the U.S. Geologic Survey (the Survey) was
extensively involved in field activities at
INEL, the Survey signed the consent order
as a third party.  This allows the Survey
to provide services related to the COCA to
both DOE and EPA.  The State of Idaho,
which was not authorized under RCRA at
the time the COCA was finalized, was not
a signatory.  The  State does actively  par-
ticipate in all activities under the COCA,
and  EPA  hopes that the State  will be a
signatory  to an interagency  negotiation
currently  under discussion.

   Development of the COCA began in
January 1986.  Its development  followed
EPA's  receipt  of  DOE's response to two
information requests.  One request related
to identification of solid  waste manage-
ment units (SWMUs).  The other related to
loss of interim status (LOIS).

   Although responses to the information
requests varied based  on how EPA stated
questions, they indicated  that  approxi-
mately 15 units were incorrectly classified
and  thus,  operated as non-regulated  land
disposal units.  Basically, the Region has
decided to consider a mixed waste disposal
unit to be a  hazardous waste disposal unit
as of the  time hazardous waste is placed
in the  unit.  Based on this interpretation,
INEL  operates 27  land disposal units,
which  are currently regulated.   Also, re-
sponses to the information requests  sug-
gested  that  INEL  had failed  to certify,
based on the LOIS provision, any of their
land disposal units.

-------
    The COCA is broken into three general
 areas. The first area concerns the regula-
 tory requirements for land  disposal units
 (i.e., that land disposal units have closure
 plans and ground-water monitoring).  Be-
 cause  it  is  unrealistic  to  monitor the
 ground water at 27 units, EPA proposed a
 modified version of the Hazardous Rank-
 ing Score  (HRS) system  to  assess release
 potential  from the  units.  Under the pro-
 posal, ground-water monitoring plans must
 be developed for the four highest priority
 land disposal units.  Following approval of
 the plans, they must be implemented. The
 proposal contains a  reprioritization clause,
 which basically  requires that information
 must  be updated and made available to
 EPA so that it can be factored into future
 decisions.  Currently, there are 12 ground-
 water monitoring plans in-house. Three of
 these  plans are almost ready for  imple-
 mentation; the others are still under review
 by EPA contractors.

   The second area of the  COCA relates
 to the identification of potential releases
 from SWMUs. At INEL, there are approx-
 imately 328  SWMUs, excluding the land
 disposal units.  The modified HRS system
 is being  used to  monitor  the  facility's
 SWMUs.

   The last area of the COCA  relates to
 corrective action. In the past, waste prac-
 tices, as far as we know, involved the TRA
and the  chemical processing plant; these
 practices produce a good deal of chromium.
The sources of the chromium are debatable.
Apparently, the facility between 1950 and
 1970 disposed cooling water and blowdowns
into percolation ponds. These ponds repre-
sent about 12,500 kilograms  of hexavalent
chromium. After that period, an injection
well was used in this  area.   The average
concentration is approximately two parts
per billion.

   Contaminants were also  discovered in
three  ponds.   Approximately 120 samples
	Page 122

 were taken from the  ponds.  The ponds
 represent a radioactive source, as the fol-
 lowing  radioactive measurements  were
 recorded from pond sediments:  cesium-
 137,  22,000  picocuries/gram; cobalt-60,
 21,000 picocuries/gram; and chromium-51,
 25,000 picocuries/gram.  The study of the
 ponds should be completed next month and
 at that time we will have a better  under-
 standing of what this means for the perch-
 ed water zone and the regional aquifer. At
 this time we have not  initiated any feasi-
 bility study or corrective measures study
 of options for removal of the radioactive
 materials.

    Following implementation of the  COCA,
 two additional hazardous constituent re-
 leases have been  identified.  The  first
 release is located at the radioactive waste
 management complex, which is difficult to
 study because it consists of a plutonium
 release  combined  with  several  organic
 chemicals (about 84,000 gallons of organic
 waste were disposed of at the waste man-
 agement complex subservice disposal area).
 This release will be further investigated at
 a future date. The second release is locat-
 ed  at the test area  facility.  A two-stage
 interim  measure  plan  is in  place to begin
 remediating this area.  In order to identify
 the source of this contamination, sampling
 will be conducted during the coming year
 (although we suspect one injection  well in
 operation prior to 1980).

    The  COCA has  been effective in ad-
 dressing hazardous constituent releases at
 INEL and  at achieving compliance for
 regulated   land   disposal  units.    The
 RCRA/CERCLA integration still remains
 a problem  in   that  the  terms   of  the
 RFI/CMS are not equivalent to those of a
 RI/FS.  The greatest obstacle to bringing
 INEL into  compliance is that of  insuffi-
 cient EPA  resources.  It  has been  the ex-
 perience of Region X that the EPA budget
 models underestimate the resource needs
 for  a facility the size of INEL.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
	Page 123

WELDON  SPRINGS:  MIXED WASTE AND  DISPOSAL PROBLEMS
                          >

Presented by

Dan Wheeler, State Coordinator, EPA Region VII

Mr. Wheeler has been with EPA for 16 years and is currently the RCRA State Coordinator for the State of
Missouri.  In this capacity, he is responsible for State authorization and implementation activities in Missouri.
He has a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Paik College and is a registered P.E. in the State of Illinois.
    Weldon Springs, currently  owned  by
DOE, is located about 30 miles outside St.
Louis, Missouri.  Originally, the facility
comprised more than 17,000 acres.  Since
the early 1940s, the facility has been used
to  produce  various hazardous materials.
The following is a historical account of
hazardous waste activities at the  facility.

    During  World  War  II,  the  Weldon
Springs Ordnance Plant was the production
site for 1,000,000 pounds of TNT  per day.
Most of the chemicals (e.g., toluene, sulfur,
nitric acid, fuel oil) used to produce TNT
are hazardous;  of  course,  TNT  itself  is
quite hazardous.  The plant had a bit of a
checkered career.   Production stopped at
the site in 1944. The plant  was closed and
decontaminated by the contractor who had
operated the facility. After 1946, the plant
was reopened and  operated  for  a short
time.   It was  closed again  after some
people were killed at the site.  The Depart-
ment of the Army decontaminated the site
again.

    Following  the  war,  the  government
dispersed  15,000 acres  of the property.
Approximately 6,900  acres were sold to
the Bush Wildlife Preserve. Eight thousand
acres  were sold  to the University of Mis-
souri  for an agricultural research station,
which is now the Weldon Springs  Wildlife
Area.  The St. Charles County School Dis-
trict  purchased 40 acres,  where a high
school is now located. Ownership of the
remaining 2,000 acres was transferred to
the General Services  Administration, but
later  reverted to the Department of the
Army who then gave custodianship to the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Before
the AEC assumed custody, the Army decon-
taminated the facility.  During this decon-
tamination,  the  Army discovered  four
underground waste lines.

   The AEC transferred a production line
from  the  north side of St. Louis to the
facility  and opened the Weldon Springs
Chemical  Plant.  From 1957 to  1966, the
plant  processed uranium.   In  1966, the
plant  was closed.  In 1967, the AEC trans-
ferred custody  of the  property, with the
exception of a few acres (i.e., the raffinate
pits),  back to the Army.

   At the time of the Vietnam War, the
Army decided  to  manufacture  pesticides
(i.e..  Agent  Orange) at  Weldon Springs.
Prior  to production, they spent $3 million
to clean  up  the  facility.   In 1969, they
reversed  their decision to  produce pesti-
cides  at  the facility.   Since the cleanup,
there  has  been virtually no activity at the
facility.  There has been no production at
the facility  since 1966.

   In 1971,  the Army transferred custody
of approximately  50 acres, including the
raff inate  pits, back to  the  AEC.  In 1972,
the St. Charles County  Water District pur-
chased the well field at the facility.  The
field is on the banks of the Missouri river.
There is a drinking water plant at the well
field.  The Department of  Energy (DOE),
which was the  successor of the AEC, ac-
cepted custody of the remainder of the
property.

-------
    During the 30-year period the facility
 was in use,  waste disposal  activities at
 Weldon Springs included filling in lagoons
 and replacing them  with  a sewage treat-
 ment plant.  Much of the waste from the
 TNT production  was  buried  in  under-
 ground lines. The uranium plant was built
 on  top  of this.  A substantial  portion of
 the hazardous waste produced at the facili-
 ty was  dumped into a quarry adjacent to
 a slew  (i.e., a Missouri  river  backwater).
 For example,  drums  of  thorium  were
 thrown into the quarry  in  1959. In  1961,
 a dismantled uranium plant (the one on the
 north  side of  St. Louis,  which Weldon
 Springs replaced)  was  thrown into the
 quarry  in its entirety (1.5  million cubic
 feet of  waste).  In  1965, thorium from the
 Granite City Arsenal was dumped into the
 quarry.  This may have been recovered.
 In  1966, some drummed and undrummed
 thorium waste was thrown into the quarry.
 During  the 1968 cleanup activities at the
 facility, some TNT and  150,000 cubic feet
 of uranium and thorium waste went into
 the quarry.  More  recently, the Air Force
 disposed of some barium sulfate residues
 in the quarry.  Periodically, the  quarry
 filled with water and the waste was below
 the water table.  In 1985, several 55-gallon
drums of radioactive waste were discover-
ed at the reserve training area; these were
 warehoused at the chemical plant. During
 a recent inventory of the property,  some
 4,000 containers,  storing  approximately
 5,000 gallons of liquid (2,500 cubic feet of
 waste) were discovered.  Some of the liquid
 is hazardous and will be regulated under
RCRA  if taken off the  site  (this is  a
Superfund-lead site).

    Although no known contamination has
been discovered at the  well field, the St.
Charles County Water District is concerned
about potential contamination. Monitoring
wells have been drilled and are continu-
ously monitored.

    The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) coordinated with DOE for a num-
 ber of  years to reach an  agreement for
cleaning up Weldon Springs.  Such an
	Pace 124

 agreement was  reached  in 1985.  Since
 then, EPA, DOE, the  Army, contractors,
 State and  local  governments, and citizen
 groups have been involved in negotiations
 to  implement a cleanup program.   DOE
 had a contractor prepare an environmental
 impact statement (EIS) under NEPA.  DOE
 must still  develop  a  Record of  Decision
 explaining what action they intend to take
 to  clean  up the property.   Because the
 cleanup is regulated under the Comprehen-
 sive Environmental Cleanup and Recovery
 Act (CERCLA), EPA must also develop a
 Record of Decision. This is scheduled for
 completion in April 1991.  Upon comple-
 tion, the Weldon Springs Site  Remedial
 Action Plan (WSSRAP) will be implement-
 ed.  In the meantime, DOE has proposed to
 go forward with approximately 20 projects,
 which will cost $17 million.  These projects
 include  the  removal of  uncontaminated
 buildings. Already, the cleanup process has
 taken 14 years and cost $540 million.

    The  proposed  WSSRAP breaks the
 cleanup into operable units as follows: (1)
 restoration  of ground water  under the
 chemical plant; (2) remedial action in the
 quarry,  which  is  considered a  separate
 location; (3) remedial action in  the  slew
 (this follows cleanup at the quarry, because
 the  contaminants in the quarry keep leak-
 ing into the  slew); (4) remedial action on
 the  Army reserve  property; (5)  remedial
 action at slightly contaminated buildings
 and raffinate pits; (6) water treatment and
 raffinate stabilization; and (7)  demolition
 of  uncontaminated  buildings,  some of
 which may  be  contaminated with  PCBs
 and asbestos (e.g., power plant),  which may
 then be regulated under the Clean Air Act
 and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

    Studies estimate that there are 780,000
 cubic yards  of  waste at the site.   Upon
 decontamination,  the  waste may be dis-
 posed of in a disposal cell, or sent to New
 Mexico.  The disposal cell is the preferred
 option. However, there is no good solution.
 Clearly,  the experience at Weldon Springs
 demonstrates the necessity for pre-planning.
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I     	
I
I
I
                            Session VI
I              ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r

-------
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
	Page 125

ENFORCEMENT AT COMMERCIAL AND FEDERAL FACILITIES

Presented by

Melanle Barger, Chemical Engineer, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, EPA

Ms. Barger received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.  She is with
the RCRA Enforcement Division of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE).
    Basically, there are three main types of
enforcement activities: (1) inspections and
information gathering, (2) compliance, and
(3) corrective action.  The following paper
will discuss all three areas, while focusing
on  enforcement  actions  for  corrective
action at commercial facilities.

    Under §3007 of the Resource Conser-
vation and  Recovery  Act (RCRA), EPA
has the authority to inspect facilities and
to  obtain  the necessary information to
enforce the Act.  Section 3013 of RCRA
provides EPA  with the authority to gather
information and to conduct the first step
of  corrective  action.  More specifically,
§3013 provides for monitoring, testing, and
analysis at hazardous waste facilities where
there  is a substantial threat of a release or
a substantial threat to human health and
the environment.

    Under  §3008(a) of  RCRA,  EPA has
authority to determine the compliance of
any person who is subject to RCRA Sub-
title C.  Under this authority, EPA  may
issue  compliance  orders  to (or at Federal
facilities, establish compliance agreements
with) persons  who have violated or are in
violation of RCRA Subtitle C.  Section
3008(a) carries with it a provision to assess
a penalty, which at a maximum may reach
$25,000 per day of noncompliance for each
violation.

    The objective  of corrective action is to
identify and clean up releases of hazardous
waste and/or  hazardous constituents  that
threaten human health and the environ-
ment.  Corrective action may  also be un-
dertaken to prevent or minimize the threat
to human health and the environment from
the presence of a hazardous waste.

   There  is  a   menu  of  enforcement
authorities for corrective action. In order
to decide which authority to use, EPA must
look at site-specific and release-specific
information.   The  following  paragraphs
discuss the different types of authorities
and when these authorities may be  used.

   First, it is appropriate to initiate cor-
rective action under §3004(u) for releases
of hazardous waste or hazardous constit-
uents at facilities going through permitting
procedures.  Section  3004(u) may be used
in conjunction with CERCLA authorities
to clean up the hazardous waste portion of
mixed  waste.  It  is  possible that this
authority, in conjunction with CERCLA
authorities, may even  be used to address
releases of  a hazardous  substance (e.g.,
waste containing radionuclides).

   Second, under §3008(h) EPA may issue
corrective action  orders  to facilities that
have, had, or should  have had interim
status  (i.e.,  subject  to  §3005(e».   This
authority  may also be used at a facility
that in the future will enter the permitting
process. "To use this authority, EPA must
demonstrate that there is a release of haz-
ardous waste or hazardous constituents
from the  facility and  that corrective ac-
tion or other action is necessary to protect
human health or the environment. Usual-
ly there is a survivability clause written
into the §3008(h) order so that the  provi-
sions in  the  order  are adopted  into the
permit when  the  facility changes  from
interim status to being fully permitted.

-------
    Third,  §7003  may be  used  to support
 corrective action. Section 7003 orders may
 be issued if there may be an imminent and
 substantial endangerment to human health
 or the environment as a result of the han-
 dling, storage, treatment, transportation,
 or disposal of solid or hazardous  waste.
 Section 7003 can also provide for the re-
 straint of  a party  from  those aforemen-
 tioned activities which  are  posing the
 threat. Any party violating an order tak-
 en under §7003 may be subject to a civil
 penalty of  $5,000 per day.

   Fourth,  §3013 may be used to address
 the presence  or  release  of a  hazardous
 waste that may present a substantial en-
 dangerment to human health or the en-
 vironment.  The authority may  be used on
 a present owner/operator or the most re-
 cent previous owner/operator of a facility
 or site.   Section 3013 carries a maximum
 civil penalty of $5,000 per day for non-
 compliance  of an order issued  under this
 authority. Notably, this authority provides
 EPA  with   the option to perform  work
 itself  and  then  later seek cost recovery.
This option could be exercised if the Agen-
 cy felt that a RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI) was needed up front.

   Section  104 of CERCLA may be used
 to address any release or substantial threat
of release  into the environment.   This
 section  covers hazardous substances, as
 well as any pollutant or contaminant which
 may present an imminent and substantial
danger to public health or welfare.  Under
this authority EPA may  take  or require
removal, remedial, or response actions that
	Page 126

 are consistent with the National Contingen-
 cy Plan,  as  necessary to protect human
 health or the environment. EPA may seek
 reimbursement of response costs under §107
 of CERCLA.

    Section 106 of CERCLA may be used
 to address a release or threat of release
 that may present an imminent and sub-
 stantial endangerment to human health or
 the  environment.   Under this authority,
 EPA may take abatement or other action
 including the issuance of orders to genera-
 tors, transporters, or owner/operators as
 may be necessary to protect human health
 or the environment. EPA may seek reim-
 bursement of response costs under §107 of
 CERCLA.

    More than one authority may be used
 in issuing a corrective action  order.  In
 the  case of mixed waste, it may  be par-
 ticularly  useful  to use  more  than  one
 authority.  In addition to the aforemen-
 tioned authorities, a State may use one of
 its own  authorities to support corrective
 action.

    The   RCRA   Enforcement   Division
 recognizes that  due  to  dual  regulation
 radioactive  mixed waste poses a special
 enforcement concern,  particularly with
 regard to corrective action and other re-
 medial actions.  While OWPE is just start-
 ing  to look at these issues, it hopes to use
 Superfund experience to gain  insight into
 developing  solutions to  these  problems.
 Also, OWPE believes  that DOE and NRC
 experience will provide  useful examples
 for developing solutions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
t
I
1
	Page 127

COMPLIANCE AT FEDERAL FACILITIES:   AN OVERVIEW

Presented by

Chris Grundler, Director, Federal Facilities Task Force, EPA

Mr. Grundler is the Director of the Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Office at EPA. In June
1987, EPA established the Federal Facilities Task Force, which Mr. Grundler was assigned to lead.  The Task
Force recently became a permanent office. Mr. Grundler received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the
University of Michigan,
    The hazardous waste program is prob-
ably one  of  EPA's most  scrutinized pro-
grams.  Depending on your point of view,
it is too lax on enforcement or is top eager
to carry out the letter and  the spirit  of
the law.   Recently,  the  public and  the
regulated community have scrutinized EPA
about the status of compliance and cleanup
activities  at Federal facilities.   More spe-
cifically,  they suggest there is  a lack  of
uniformity between the regulation of pri-
vate-party facilities and Federal facilities.
The Agency is trying to develop  a uniform
approach to regulating private-party facili-
ties and Federal facilities.  Also, EPA is
trying to  get the attention  of  Congress,
Federal  facility management,   and  the
public about  what problems the Agency
faces  in carrying out the  hazardous waste
program at these institutions.

    First, Federal facilities, unlike private-
parties, cannot generate  revenues to pay
for the considerable cost  of coming into
compliance and cleaning up known releases.
These facilities are subject to the Congres-
sional  budgetary process, which  is both
lengthy and cumbersome.  For example, the
FY 1990 budget  is  currently being .final-
ized.  Therefore, a  facility must estimate
two years  in advance  what will be  its
compliance and cleanup costs. Because of
this difference, EPA must use a different
approach with Federal facility management
than with private facility management.

   Second, EPA  finds that an obstacle to
improving  Federal  facility compliance is
the unwillingness of government lawyers
to take any risks. Somewhat unfortunate-
ly,  there is no loophole too small for a
government lawyer.  For this reason, dis-
cussions  become  bogged  down by  legal
negotiations.

   Third, Federal facilities are concerned
that EPA may wish to take an enforcement
action under RCRA,  after  the Federal
facility has made a commitment to EPA
to cleanup.   Rightfully, the  facilities are
hesitant to commit large amounts of money
in the face  of uncertainty.

   Fourth,  at  Federal  facilities EPA  is
sometimes dealing with constituents  that
are not well understood.  Certainly in the
case of mixed waste  at  Department of
Defense (DOD) facilities,  EPA  finds a lot
of materials with  which  the  Agency  is
unfamiliar.  Fortunately, under Superfund,
Federal agencies  are lead agencies; there-
fore, they must clean up these constituents.

   Fifth,  the size of a Federal facility is
much  larger than  the size  of  a  typical
industrial facility.  Because of  the size of
these facilities, the various units  may be
regulated by several statutes. Meshing the
statutes contributes to  the  confusion.

   Sixth,  the people trying  to sort these
problems out are  subject to outside politi-
cal pressure. For instance, Congress applies
a lot  of pressure by conducting hearings
and inspections.

   Forty-two percent  of  Federal land
disposal facilities are in serious non-com-
pliance.   The  Agency has  initiated  16
actions  against   outstanding   violators.

-------
These have been  pending for over two
years. There are 32 Federal facilities on
the final National Priorities List  (NPL),
and 30 will be proposed for the NPL at a
later  date.  This  fall 30  to  40  Federal
facilities will be placed on a special facili-
ty update.  All told, the NPL docket con-
tains  over  1,000 sites at Federal facilities.
Ten percent of these will warrant listing
on the NPL.  The Agency anticipates that
by FY 1990 over 200 Federal facilities will
be listed on the NPL.

    Congress  recently  passed legislation
aimed at improving compliance and clean-
up at Federal facilities.  In addition, new
legislation  was  introduced,  during this
session, to  send Federal prosecutors  to
facilities that are not in compliance and/or
are not  adequately cleaning up  known
releases.

   Simultaneously, EPA is trying to devel-
op a uniform approach to improving com-
pliance.  Recently, the Agency established
a Task Force to  serve as a focal point for
these  Federal  facility issues.  The Task
Force  has  two major objectives:  (1)  to
accelerate actions at individual facilities,
and (2) to  build a strong, consistent  na-
tional compliance program.

   The Task  Force is focusing  on  the
following projects:  (1) developing enforce-
able agreements at  individual installations
and at Federal facility NPL sites,  (2) set-
ting up dockets and updating docket mater-
ials for CERCLA Section 120, (3) develop-
ing effective  Congressional  and  inter-
Agency relations, and (4) visiting Federal
facilities to  understand their activities
(there are 300 Federal RCRA facilities).

   The Task Force believes  that  unifor-
mity,  compliance,  and  cleanup may  be
improved  by implementing an approach
under  CERCLA Section 120.  This  ap-
proach would include negotiations between
agencies  to  integrate  the  RCRA  and
CERCLA requirements into one blueprint
for cleaning up the facility under a Super-
fund  umbrella.  Using this approach, an
operating  permit would  be issued.  The
permit would include an action plan, which
	Page 128

 would  include  the  conditions  set forth
 under the approach.  The benefits of the
 approach are that (1) a facility need com-
 ply with only one regulatory agenda, (2)
 facility  management is assured of a com-
 mitment from both the State and EPA to
 be involved and  review documents in a
 timely manner, and (3) there is a reduction
 in uncertainty about future actions.  This
 approach requires coordination between the
 State and EPA, and between RCRA and
 CERCLA.

    EPA has been marketing this approach
 to Federal agencies for the last year.  Only
 recently, agencies began  buying the ap-
 proach.  One reason may be that the ap-
 proach worked  successfully  when it was
 implemented at the  Twin  Cities  Army
 Ammunition Plant in the State of Min-
 nesota.

    The  Department of Energy (DOE) was
 the first agency with which EPA negotiat-
 ed an  agreement, to  implement the  ap-
 proach.  The agreement was reached de-
 spite  intervention from  other agencies.
 DOE  recognized  the  advantages  to this
 approach,  which  is to the  Department's
 credit. Following the agreement, relations
 between EPA  and DOE have  markedly
 improved.   Ten days after  the EPA-DOE
 agreement was  arranged, DOD  agreed  to
 implement the  same approach.

    Basically, the agreements that  EPA
 reached with DOE and DOD are similar.
 The conditions  of the agreements  are  as
 follows: (1) EPA and the State have juris-
 diction during the RI/FS phase, (2) RCRA
 and CERCLA statutes are integrated with-
 in the  permit, (3)  a dispute  resolution
 system (to be further  refined) is included
 in the permit, (4) DOE and DOD agree to
 an enforceability clause that outlines pro-
 cedures to obtain funding  for compliance
 measures and cleanup activities, and (5)
 funding penalties are  stipulated.

    Basically, States are concerned  about
 what authority they will retain at a facili-
 ty following, an agreement.  For example,
 States want to know how they will enforce
 the  agreement.   EPA  understands  the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
                                                                             Page 129
States' concerns but does not expect this to
be a problem because the Agency intends
to involve the State in the process of im-
plementing the agreement at each site.

   States may also be concerned about the
division of responsibility  at sites.  For
example,  the  State of  Washington  was
concerned about dividing lead responsibili-
ties at the Hanford facility.  A basically
simple arrangement was reached between
the State  and EPA.  It allows the State to
take the lead for the operating units, while
EPA will take  the lead for corrective ac-
tion.  EPA expects that the State of Wash-
ington will provide significant input on
corrective action.

   EPA wants to assure the States that
although a site is listed on the NPL it may
still  be  regulated  by  the States  under
RCRA. Also, the Agency wants to provide
States  with reimbursement for Superfund
oversight  costs.

   In conclusion, EPA is anxious to have
a uniform approach to regulating Federal
facilities  and private-party facilities.  In
addition,  EPA wants to establish that the
Agency has an arms-length  relationship
with other Federal agencies. EPA believes
that  this  is beneficial to  both  EPA  and
other Federal agencies.  Certainly, it im-
proves the credibility of all parties. The
Agency is very optimistic that the ap-
proach, which EPA agreed to with DOD
and DOE, will provide uniformity and this
arms-length relationship. Now the Agency
hopes  that site-specific permits  can  be
signed quickly to put  the agreement in
place.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: Is the language that is- currently used
   in the  model Inter-Agency Agreement
   set in concrete, or will States have the
   discretion to change the  language  for
   individual agreements?

A: We do  not want EPA or  DOE people,
   for example, to tinker with the  lan-
   guage in  the agreements.  We see no
   need for site-specific dispute resolution
   clauses, etc., to be rewritten.  If either
   side opens up these agreements it  may
   lead  to renegotiation, which we want
   to avoid.  However, I want to point out
   that the language in the agreement  can
   be modified  to meet  individual State
   concerns.  The model agreement shows
   in brackets  areas where site-specific
   information is to be included. We want
   States involved in the process, but we
   do not want renegotiations between the
   Federal agencies.

Q: How does a  CERCLA §120 agreement,
   which   includes  provisions to cover
   RCRA, affect the States' enforcement
   authorities?   Would the  §120 dispute
   resolution clause  cover disputes under
   RCRA too?

A: We need to distinguish between clean-
   up agreements and enforcement agree-
   ments.  RCRA compliance issues should
   be separate  from cleanup  agreements
   reached  under  the model language.
   The  States,  however,  will  make  the
   final decision about disputes regarding
   RCRA sites, while CERCLA sites will
   be under  the jurisdiction of EPA.  Of
   course, under CERCLA §121, the States
   have the right to contest EPA's decision
   regarding a  Superfund cleanup.

-------
Pace 130
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1
 i
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
	Page 131

CORRECTIVE ACTION:   THE RCRA/CERCLA INTERFACE

Presented by

Bruce Weddle, Director, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA

Mr. Weddle joined EPA in 1970 and has been with the Office of Solid Waste since that time. As Director of
the Permits and State Programs Division, Mr. Weddle has primary responsibility for many RCRA regulatory
programs.  Mr. Weddle has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering pom Parsons University and an MJLA. from Xavier
University.
    EPA will  soon propose  a corrective
action rule that addresses  releases  from
not  only  hazardous  waste  management
units,  but  also  solid waste management
units (SWMUs).  The proposed regulation,
which will be promulgated under authori-
ty of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous
and Solid   Waste  Amendments  of  1984
(HSWA), will  in essence be  a counterpart
to the Agency's CERCLA program.   The
proposal should  appear  in  the Federal
Register by November or December of this
year.  Initial  internal EPA  response has
been positive.  The following discussion of
EPA's corrective action proposal touches
on  the relationship between  the Agency's
RCRA and CERCLA programs.   The dis-
cussion is divided into the following sec-
tions:  (1) an overview of the HSWA cor-
rective action requirements; (2) a descrip-
tion of the regulated community; (3) an
analysis of the proposed corrective action
rule; and (4) a summary  of  EPA's objec-
tives for the RCRA corrective action pro-
gram.

    Section 3004(u) of RCRA, as amended
by  HSWA,  requires  that every facility
permit  contain  provisions   that address
releases from  both hazardous waste and
solid waste management units.  Simplisti-
cally, all of the land  within the  fence
bordering  a facility is considered  to be
part of the  facility and subject to correc-
tive action  requirements. The owner/oper-
ator of a facility is responsible for correc-
tive action  for releases from all units at
the facility. Releases under the corrective
action program  include  those to ground
water, surface water, air, and soil.   The
corrective action requirements  apply  to
both permitted facilities and interim status
facilities.  Closing a facility  does not re-
lieve an  owner/operator from  corrective
action responsibility.

   Section 3008(h) of RCRA, as amended
by HSWA, gives EPA greater  enforcement
authority.  For example, under §3008(h)
EPA can order  a facility to take remedial
action. Such enforcement authority is now
applicable before a  permit is  written (i.e.,
it is applicable  at interim status and clos-
ing facilities).  Presumably, the authority
will affect  the  economics  of  facility
operations.

   EPA estimates that 3,500 to 4,000 inter-
im  status facilities  wilt  be  required  to
conduct corrective  action  at some  units.
The number of SWMUs at these facilities
range from none to hundreds. On average
there are  15 to  20 SWMUs at these facili-
ties. This means that potentially there are
80,000 SWMUs  that must be  investigated
for corrective action.  While the cost  of
inspecting an individual unit is not high,
the remedial action costs will be very high.

    Both the corrective action rule and the
preamble are very lengthy. The preamble
provides great  detail about the rule and
addresses some  of the more difficult ques-
tions that arise as one tries  to apply the
authority. The Agency wants to point out
that basically the rule provides a frame-
work for consistent implementation of the
corrective action program, while the actual
implementation will be done by the States
through guidance and  common  sense. Of

-------
 course, the Agency anticipates that the
 rulemaking package will probably generate
 a lot of controversy.

    In many fundamental ways the correc-
 tive action rule and  the  process for im-
 plementing corrective action mirror the
 CERCLA program. The Agency can com-
 pel facility owner/operators  to undertake
 intermediate  steps  to correct  releases.
 However, the corrective action rule gener-
 ally requires the following steps for iden-
 tifying and undertaking corrective action:
 (1)  conduct a  RCRA Facility Assessment
 (RFA), (2) conduct a RCRA  Facility In-
 vestigation (RFI), (3) conduct a Corrective
 Measures Study (CMS), (4) select a remedy,
 and (5) implement the remedy.

    An RFA is a paper review that is con-
 ducted by a  contractor,  State, or  EPA.
 Generally, an  RFA includes a review of
 facility files and a visual site inspection.
 Occasionally, an RFA includes sampling.
 An  RFA is essentially an inventory of a
 facility's SWMUs.

    The RFI is conducted by the facility
 owner/operator with oversight and direc-
 tion from the State and EPA. The RFI  is
 intended to characterize  the nature and
 extent of the  environmental problems at
 the  facility by inspecting units to identify
 which, if any, require a CMS. In order to
conduct the RFI, considerable testing and
sampling procedures  must be completed.
For example, wells must be drilled near or
at  the units to  determine if there have
been releases to ground water. Then, sam-
pling must be  done at the wells to deter-
mine if any toxic  constituents have mi-
grated to the aquifer  and, if so, what are
the  constituent concentrations.

    Generally,  a  CMS is conducted if the
RFI determines that certain  action levels
have been exceeded. There are other fac-
tors that  trigger a  CMS.  These particular
 factors are listed in the proposal.

    In most cases, remedy selection is done
 by the State or EPA based on the informa-
 tion provided in the CMS.  Generally, the
 remedy is expected to (1) provide protec-
	Page 132

  tion for human health and the environment
  and  (2)  meet media  cleanup standards.
  Such standards are contained in the cur-
  rent draft proposal. The process for selec-
  ting a remedy assumes a risk range, which
  is based on a number of site-specific fac-
  tors.  For instance, where ground water is
  likely to be used as drinking water by a
  number of people, it may be necessary to
  require a relatively conservative risk level.
  A less conservative risk level may be more
  appropriate where ground water is already
  contaminated.  The bounds  of  the risk
  range may be exceeded for extreme site-
  specific factors.  The remedy must assure
  that the risk level is achieved at the point
  of compliance.

     The points of compliance vary  across
  media.   The point of  compliance  for
 , ground water is generally throughout the
  contaminant plume. For soils, compliance
  with the  cleanup standard must be achiev-
  ed where direct contact  may occur.  For
  surface water, the point of compliance is
  where the release enters  that surface wa-
  ter.  The point of compliance  for  air is
  the location of the most exposed indivi-
  dual.

     Due to technological constraints it may
  be impossible to  achieve a cleanup level
  within the risk range  prescribed by the
  rule.  Basically, the Agency is  interested
  in assuring the selection of a remedy that
  makes sense both for the environment and
  public health with regard to the particular
  facility.   Of course,  the remedy  should
  also address the source of contamination.

     The process of remedy selection in-
  cludes public involvement.  Such involve-
  ment may arise from public comment on a
  permit modification, which is likeiy to be
  necessary at  this  point.  However, there
  are other opportunities for  public involve-
  ment, which are outlined in the proposal's
  section on public involvement.

     Most  commonly, the design and  imple-
  mentation of the remedy are conducted by
  the facility owner/operator. In some cases,
  the design is already  completed at  this
  point in  the process. The permit includes
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
f
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
I
several requirements to ensure that (I) the
remedy  is  implemented, (2) the Agency
oversees the implementation of the remedy,
and (3) sufficient information is provided
to the Agency to verify that the remedy is
implemented on  schedule  and  that the
remedy works.

   EPA  wants to work  effectively with
the States to ensure successful implementa-
tion  of  the  program.   Currently, only
Georgia is authorized for corrective action.
By the end of the year, EPA expects that
almost a  dozen States will be authorized
for corrective action.  In  12 months,  20
States should  be  authorized  for the pro-
gram. Some States have their own correc-
tive action  authorities. In those cases, the
	Pace 133

 Regions are working with the States  to
 avoid duplication.

    The Agency does not want to create a
 major paper program where  the process
 gets in the way of  cleanup.  Rather, the
 intent of the rule is to provide the flexi-
 bility to allow remedies, whether they are
 interim, intermediate, or final, to  be im-
 plemented quickly. EPA will solicit public
 comment on the flexibility of the rule.

    Finally, the Agency wants  the program
 to achieve a balance between quick action
 and sufficient study. EPA would appre-
 ciate comment on the proposal's likelihood
 of achieving this objective.

-------
Page 134
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
f

-------
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
I
i
t
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
	Page 135

FEDERAL FACILITY INTER AGENCY AGREEMENTS:
THE  DOE PERSPECTIVE

Presented by

Kitty TaimI, Director, Environmental Compliance Division, DOE

Currently a Director at DOE, Ms. Taimi previously worked in the Superfund program at EPA, the enforcement
division of EPA's Region TV office, the Public Health Department of the State of Tennessee, and the Water
Control Board in the State of Virginia.  She holds a graduate degree in Environmental Engineering.
    In a  1985 policy statement, Secretary
Herrington committed to conduct the De-
partment  of  Energy's  operations in  an
environmentally safe and  sound manner
and in compliance with the letter and the
spirit of laws and regulations. In keeping
with this policy, he created the Office of
Environment, Safety and  Health.   The
Environmental Compliance Division is a
part of this office.

    Secretary Herrington began three major
initiatives.  First, he consolidated the en-
vironmental, safety,  and health people at
DOE  Headquarters into one  office and
raised the head of the Office  to the  level
of Assistant Secretary. That person direct-
ly advises the Under Secretary on environ-
mental, safety, and health  issues.

    Second, DOE initiated an environmen-
tal survey, which is a one time baseline
no-fault environmental  evaluation of the
major DOE  facilities.   The  survey was
designed to  (1)  provide the  Department
with a complete picture of its environmen-
tal problems, and (2) serve as a basis for
prioritizing  its problems so that they may
be dealt with in a sensible  manner.  Most
of the surveys have been  completed and
the preliminary  prioritization report has
been prepared for Departmental review.

    Third,  DOE  undertook  a  technical
safety appraisal program.  The concept of
this program is similar to that of the en-
vironmental  survey.   However,  this pro-
gram provides a complete technical safety
appraisal of each facility.  These apprai-
sals are well over half completed.

   Generally, the Office of Environment,
Safety and Health  has strengthened  the
environmental, safety, and health programs
at DOE. The Office  does two  things: (1)
it provides DOE line management in Head-
quarters program offices and  Operations
Offices with  environmental and  safety
guidance and technical assistance, and (2)
it provides  independent oversight of DOE
environmental, safety, and health activities.

   The Environmental  Compliance  Divi-
sion, within the Office of Environment,
Safety and  Health, is responsible for tech-
nical assistance on environmental compli-
ance matters as well as oversight.   The
Department regulates  itself   internally
through orders.  Within DOE's directives
system, there  is  an order that requires
facilities and Operations Offices to raise
significant  environmental compliance is-
sues  to the  Environmental  Compliance
Division. This Division is responsible for
coordinating and  managing the resolution
of significant environmental  compliance
issues at the  Headquarters level through
coordination with the Operations Offices
and facilities.   It is organized such that
there  is a  person who  works  on a  daily
basis with each Operations Office.

   The Compliance Division is expected to
help  facilitate the resolution of environ-
mental  compliance  issues and to  ensure
that other  organizations within DOE are
informed about  the resolution of issues.

-------
 To this end, the Division tries to improve
 the communications and coordination sys-
 tem within the Department.   Also,  the
 Division is responsible for  following up
 the environmental survey findings.  The
 Division assists Operations  and program
 offices in developing compliance strategies
 and negotiating compliance agreements.
 The Division,  with  the Operations and
 program offices, coordinates the develop-
 ment of long-range  environmental plans
 for each facility. This is a relatively new
 effort  which  will result  in the  Depart-
 ment's development of long-range environ-
 mental  plans for every facility.   Lastly,
 the Division advises the Guidance Division
 within  the Department  on site-specific
 issues.

    The Division primarily focuses on the
 following areas: (l)RCRA implementation
 and compliance, (2) SARA implementation
 and compliance, (3) site-specific compliance
 agreements, and (4)  follow-up to the en-
 vironmental survey.

   This office is responsible for establish-
 ing policies and guidance related to com-
 pliance agreements.   Also,  the Division
 coordinates Headquarters review and con-
 currence on  all compliance agreements,
 consent orders, settlement agreements, etc.

   To date, DOE has  signed 33 agreements.
 Twenty of these agreements are with States
 and  13 are with EPA.  Of these agree-
 ments,  the one for the Rocky Flats facility
 is  a three-party agreement.  Twenty-nine
of these agreements  have been  executed
since Secretary  Herrington  initiated his
efforts in late 1985.  The major emphasis
of the  negotiations  and  the agreements
 have been RCRA compliance, RCRA cor-
 rective  action,  and  CERCLA  remedial
action  work.   Sixteen  of the agreements
address CERCLA and  RCRA compliance
activities.

   Top DOE management have testified to
Congress more than once that the Depart-
ment is willing to  enter  into enforceable
compliance agreements. In fact, the first
 Federal facility compliance agreement that
 included RCRA enforceability  language
	Page 136

 was the Rocky Flats compliance agreement
 in July 1986, between DOE, EPA, and the
 State of Colorado.  The  second Federal
 facility compliance agreement that includ-
 ed RCRA enforceability language was the
 Idaho National Energy Laboratory (INEL)
 consent order and compliance agreement
 that was executed in July 1987.  Based on
 these two agreements, EPA developed mod-
 el  enforceability language,  which was
 issued to the Regions last January.

    DOE prefers three-party  agreements
 that are comprehensive and can deal with
 RCRA  and CERCLA  issues. The Depart-
 ment especially prefers three-party  agree-
 ments if there is a split in authority be-
 tween the State and EPA on inactive units.
 Basically,  DOE wants both regulators to
 reach agreement on the technical plan and
 the schedule.  Such an agreement provides
 assurance  that all parties are aware  of
 their commitments. DOE seeks three-party
 agreements for RCRA/CERCLA interface
 (RCRA corrective  action, and  CERCLA
 remedial action), particularly at National
 Priorities List (NPL) sites.

    DOE has negotiated with EPA  to de-
 velop model  provisions  for  compliance
 agreements. Basically, DOE and EPA tried
 to resolve policy issues at the Headquarters
 level in order  to  facilitate  site-specific
 negotiations.   Both DOE and EPA have
 always  intended  that  during site-specific
 negotiations,  these  agreements will  be
 modified to include the State rote.

    Currently,  several Federal  facility
 agreements are  being negotiated  under
 CERCLA  §120.  These agreements often
 overlap with RCRA. The Lawrence Liver-
 more National Laboratory agreement has
 been under negotiation for quite some time.
 Currently, the site is final on  the NPL.
 Because this  agreement  only  deals with
 CERCLA issues, negotiations are relatively
 simple. The Hanford  facility was recently
 proposed on the NPL.  This agreement has
 been under negotiation for about  a year;
 it involves both  RCRA and CERCLA is-
 sues. The Monticello  Vicinity Properties
 is on the NPL and and Mill Site is  expect-
 ed  to be  proposed on the NPL this fall.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
i
t
I
I
I
i
t
i
I
i
i

-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Mound Plant, which expects to be listed on
the NPL, is a little ahead of the game; the
facility has already initiated discussions
with  the  Region and the State  to talk
about a CERCLA §120 agreement.  The
Rocky Flats facility,  which has  had a
compliance agreement in place for a couple
of years, will probably be listed as  a final
site on the NPL this fall. DOE has already
begun initial discussions to incorporate the
SARA requirements into that agreement.
Also, INEL's consent order and compliance
agreement (COCA) needs to be updated to
accommodate SARA requirements, because
DOE expects that the facility will be listed
on the NPL this fall.  Finally, there  has
been discussion with the Regions and  the
States about some kind of agreement on the
St. Louis Airport sites, which are expected
to be  listed on the NPL this fall.

   The situation at the Portsmouth facili-
ty in Ohio demonstrates the need for three-
party  agreements.  Ohio is not authorized
	Page 137

 for  the base RCRA program.  The State,
 however, does have its own environmental
 statutes. Based on Ohio's own regulations,
 the  State has given DOE a draft order on
 consent for corrective action at  the  site.
 EPA Region V has also given DOE a  cor-
 rective action order under RCRA for sig-
 nature.  The two  orders are technically
 somewhat different. DOE does not believe
 that it can meet both sets of commitments.
 Therefore, the Department has been trying
 very hard to get the three parties into one
 room to reach a three-party agreement.

    In conclusion, DOE recognizes that the
 Department's  facilities have  many com-
 pliance problems and plans to work hard
 to correct these problems. The Department
 cannot fix everything at once, nor can  it
 change things  without a lot  of dialogue
 with the parties concerned.  DOE looks
 forward to  working with EPA, the  States,
 and NRC  to deal with all  of  its waste
 problems.

-------
Paw 138
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
f
1
I
I
I
I

-------
1
I    - — -
I
I
I
                             Session VII
I
|                    EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
I
I
II
II
 E
 V
 I
 I
 I

-------
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
1
  I
  I
  1
  I
  I
  I
  1
  I
  I
  *•**
  I
  I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
	Paee139

ALTERNATIVES TO LEAD FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Presented by

M.W. Sbupe, Manager, National Low-Level Waste Program Office, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
DOE

Mr. Shupe is currently the program manager for DOE's National Low-Level Waste Program.  Before joining
INEL, Mr. Shupe was at Hanford in the environmental and waste management areas. Before that he was a
licensing engineer with NRC and a staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
   DOE's policy on the  interim manage-
ment of lead was articulated in a memo-
randum signed  by the Assistant Secretary
on November 17,1986. The policy contains
certain  criteria for the  management  of
lead.  The  Idaho  National  Engineering
Laboratory (INEL)  anticipated the estab-
lishment of  criteria, and developed a fa-
cility lead management program that con-
forms to the national criteria. Below is a
brief discussion of INEL's lead manage-
ment program, which also provides a  good
description of the national plan. A review
of INEL's program  is  useful for  under-
standing the implications  of DOE's nation-
al policy.

   The  basic objective  of INEL's  lead
management program is  to minimize and
control  the  use of  lead at  the facility.
First, the program  requires  that INEL
inventory the lead that exists at the facili-
ty. Inventories conducted recently indicate
there is  as  much  as 550,000 pounds  of
contaminated excess lead at INEL. Based
on this  estimate, INEL plans to  build a
new  storage  facility to contain this excess
lead  until decontamination processes are
perfected. Second, the program requires
that INEL  implement measures to reduce
the facility's reliance on lead.  Whenever
possible, INEL substitutes steel for lead as
a shielding device.  (Under some circum-
stances, steel in the form of steel shot is
preferable  to lead because it can  be cast
around  an  existing obstacle.)  If it is im-
possible to substitute steel  for  lead, the
lead is coated with a strippable coating to
prevent its entire contamination.  Also, a
lead usage purchase justification procedure
has been initiated at INEL.  This creates
paperwork which goes high up for signa-
ture. In conjunction with the justification
procedure,  INEL put steel  in the facility
stores so that every time someone asks for
lead they get steel.  INEL has  begun to
decontaminate the contaminated lead at the
facility. INEL has looked at a freon de-
contamination process, but it did not work
well; currently, a bench-scale lead refining
method is  being evaluated, and  it does
work,  at  least on the  bench scale, and
produces verifiable clean "buttons."  INEL
is looking to install a 10-ton per day capa-
city decontamination   process  by  1989.
Lastly,  INEL plans  to  recycle the lead
which has been decontaminated by placing
it in its lead bank.

-------
Page 140
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
t
t

-------
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
t
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
l
t
i
	Page 141

PROPOSED  TECHNOLOGIES FOR MIXED WASTE  MANAGEMENT

Presented by

Nathaniel Mlullo, Project Coordinator, EPA Region VIII

Mr, Miullo is the project coordinator for RCRA and CERCLA activities at the Rocky Flats plant. He has a B.S.
in Mechanical Engineering/Marine Engineering from the State University of New York Maritime College.
   Clearly, the most efficient mixed waste
management technology is waste minimiza-
tion.  While obvious, we need to ask:  How
do we get to that point? First, owner/oper-
ators  have to identify what their facility
or plant  does.   The regulatory burden has
gone  a long way in forcing owner/opera-
tors to consider what wastes their facilities
generate.  If they had known earlier, they
probably would have stopped generating
hazardous waste a long time ago.

   Moreover, all technologies are "applic-
able technologies" for waste  minimization.
At complex mixed waste facilities you can
find any and every combination of waste
minimization technology.   EPA  likes to
categorize  technologies  into  five  areas:
physical, chemical, biological, thermal, and
fixation  (i.e.,  stabilization).  For mixed
waste we are  looking at many  kinds of
physical  treatment in combination  with
chemical, thermal, and stabilization.  No-
body gets real excited about sedimentation,
flocculation, precipitation, infiltration, etc.,
but everybody  wants  to hear the latest
mixed waste "buzz-ologies."  However, we
need  to learn  about these more common
technologies because, for the most  part,
before we handle the mixed waste we have
to deal  with the hazardous part of  this
waste, and the  best way  to  handle this is
to reduce the waste volume. This reduc-
tion is done using all of the classical treat-
ment  technologies, such as the ones  men-
tioned above.

   Some of the most used  "buzz-ologies"
involve  thermal  treatment: incineration,
pyrolysis, furnaces, fluid beds, molten glass
salt beds, plasma torches, etc.  Most of
these technologies are aimed at volume
reduction.

   Regarding stabilization, we have lime-
based pozzolans, cement pozzolans, custom
grouting, asphalt basins, micro-encapsula-
tion (i.e., thermal plastic), and vitrification,
which everyone is talking about.  I hear
some people are having success with vitrif-
ication, but it seems expensive.

   I think that we should try to realize
that  there is a lot of incineration going on
around the world. It seems to  be working.
It  is accepted everywhere, not just in a
few places in the United States. There are
good success stories in Los Alamos Nation-
al  Laboratory and in the Idaho National
Energy Laboratory (INEL). These technol-
ogies are  acceptable, they have  worked,
and we should try to support the use of in-
cineration of mixed waste — maybe not as
the  ultimate  resolution,  but as  a step
towards  volume  reduction.   Of  course,
there are still ash and emission problems.
Incineration will be accepted by everyone
if  we  can  come  up with a real-time,  in-
stack continuous radiation monitor.

   The most realistic  proposed  technolo-
gies  include a variety  of processes aimed
at  reclamation and recycling.  Basically,
you want  to get rid of the hazardous por-
tion  of the mixed waste and  concentrate
or  reduce  the volume  of the  radioactive
portion while stabilizing it.

   For corrective action, there is a ground-
water problem.  It is being dealt with by
custom grouting and  other methods  for
stabilization  of  soils.   Also, ionization

-------
columns for radiation problems in ground
water seem to be widely accepted.

   The message  is  that  there  is really
nothing new under the sun for hazardous
waste management. We know how to man-
age these problems, but most methods are
expensive.  In the next couple of years, I
think,  there will be a real push toward
proven incineration  technologies —  par-
ticularly  from EPA.   We  will also  make
technological advancements in  the area of
remote control equipment  such as robotic
drilling wells, process controls, and com-
puterized monitoring equipment These
	Page 142

 things  may appear  expensive  at  first
 glance, but in the long run, they will en-
 able the removal of the human risk factor
 and save dollars  in  liability claims and
 lives.

    Industry should keep its eyes on EPA's
 Superfund Innovative Technologies  Eval-
 uation (SITE) program for future develop-
 ment of accepted and approved  remedia-
 tion technologies.  I also think it is impor-
 tant for us to communicate and let people
 know which technologies are working and
 why; in this way, we can increase the pool
 of available technologies.
 I
 1
 I
 1
 I
 1
 I
 1
 I
 I
 t
I
 I
 f
 I
 f
 I
f
r

-------
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 143

-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I

-------