&EPA
Proceedings of the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mixed Waste Workshop
Denver, Colorado
July 19 - 20, 1988
-------
&EPA
Proceedings of the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mixed Waste Workshop
Denver, Colorado
July 19 - 20,1988
-------
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.
-------
11
Acknowledgements
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
proceedings report.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
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 Scar berry, 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
-------
IV
Table of Contents
Page
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
by Alexander Wolfe, EPA 63
The State/Compact Experience Establishing Disposal Capacity for
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 III
EPA Case Studies Panel
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
-------
Table of Contents
Page
SESSION IV
Evolving RCRA Regulations and Tlieir 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
Pace
SESSION VI
Enforcement and Corrective Action
Enforcement at Commercial and Federal Facilities
by Melanie Barger, EPA 125
Compliance at Federal Facilities: An Overview
by Christopher Grundler, EPA 127
Corrective Action: The RCRA/CERCLA Interface
by Bruce Weddle, EPA 131
Federal Facility Interagency Agreements: The DOE Perspective
by Kathleen Taimi, DOE 135
SESSION VII
Emerging Technologies
Alternatives to Lead for Radioactive Waste Management
by M. W. Shupe, DOE 139
Proposed Technologies for Mixed Waste Management
by Nathaniel Miullo, EPA Region VIII 141
-------
Page 1
OPENING REMARKS
Presented by
Alex Wolfe, Section Chief, Penults 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.
-------
Pace 2
-------
Page 3
ERA'S APPROACH TO REGULATION OF MIXED WASTE
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 from Parsons University and an M.BA. from
Xavier 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
-------
Pase 4
uses, the design capacities of those proces-
ses, and some other basic information.
Once the Part 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.
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
-------
Pace 5
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
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.
-------
Pane 6
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.
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.
-------
Session I
MIXED WASTE:
THE RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS
GENERATION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSAL
-------
Page 7
REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER RCRA
Presented by
Robert Scarberry, Section Chief, Characterization and Assessment Branch, EPA
Mr. Scarberry 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.
-------
Paee 8
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, \
includes using the waste as a fuel
an ingredient in a fuel.
• Reclamation.
which
or as
• 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.
-------
Page 9
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 hazar-
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
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.
-------
Pace 10
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
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).
-------
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 yean at EPA. He has primary responsibility
in the Superfund area, Mr. Freedman received an AM. from the University of Chicago and a JJ). 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
-------
Pace 12
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 still 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.
Radipm 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.
-------
Page 13
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS A: No. NARM is distinct from source,
special nuclear, or by-product material.
Q: Is NARM a subset of source, special
nuclear, or by-product material?
-------
Page 14
-------
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 Richland
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.
-------
Pace Ifi
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 #\). 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
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.
-------
Paee 17
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
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.
-------
Generic Nuclear Waste Flowsheet
Waste
Generation
Examples
' Nuclear Material
Processing
• Nuclear Material
Utilization
Interim Waste
Storage
Examples
e Double-Shell Tank
• Calcine Bins
(Solids)
• TRU Storage
Waste
Treatment
Processes
Examples
• Defense Waste
Processing Facility
(vitrification)
• Grout Processing
Facility (LLW)
• WRAP Facility TRU
Waste Certification
Waste
Disposal
Examples
• TUFF Repository
(HLW) r
> WIPP(TRU)
i Saltstone Vaults (SR-
LLW)
i Grout Vaults
(RL-LLW)
TJ
w
10
a
-------
Location* and tola! vjlume> o1 III W through I9B6.
If
y
H-
cr
63
JQ
W
NJ
-------
ORNL DWQ 67- 12474
Localtonj jnd tol.il volumas of .ill cjl^gar'es ol ] HU w.i-.lo through 1986
X
-------
LIQUID LEVEL ANNULUS
GAUGE MONITORING SYSTEM
•
LEAK
DETECTION PIT
GROUND LEVEL
&&ffi&&l&£
SECONDARY
REINFORCED
CONCRETE
CARBON STEEL
•o
co
IQ
n
-------
1 •»• •. ?*"i»L •' -, -
*•*, ..Vi ' >; y t, -';
a.'.':1.-'-'.-'"'' V"' v*."
ttv-.iv'>v>:' rf-*:
.' .". r
^ " x ^ W
* "»1 If* . iJl» 1 •>! , fc "* Pfc *• •*• » ».
;*/ fj*I fi?SPl'^i/p:>* "\ .-'
«S^5 l>?.'v'
SwsSKV.'i '•• . •" '
"TO
PL)
TO
O
-------
. Jfftf»ni:^
•Ifl
•/»»
f
Page 23
::
m$j$l vfc.* ®«€^?'
-^
>^.«;
>V",:
./** A1
><^ - ^
-------
I XHAUSI SI ACK
SEWAGE
TREATMENT I VITRIFICATION
C. L A S S WASH
STOHAGT HUM
SAND FILTCH
WATER & CHEMICAL
WASTE TREATMENT
BULK FRIT A
CHEMICAL STORAGE
SERVICE
BUILDING
OPERATIONS
HUIL DING
ENTRY CONTROL
FACILI1 V
•o
w
-------
HANFORD
DOUBLE-SHELL TANK WASTE DISPOSAL
TANK
LOW ACTIVITY
WAS I L
WASTE
TREATMENT
HIGH ACTIVITY
WAS1E
HOLDING
TANK
HANI OHO
WASTE VITimiCATlON PLANT
GROUT 1REATMENT
FACILITY
VAULT
Gl ASS
CANISTERS
REPOSITORY
x
H"
tr
-a
fj
JO
n
GO
-------
RETRIEVABLY STORED AND NEWLY
GENERATED TRANSURANIC WASTE DISPOSAL
-\l\mf-
STORED
TRANSURANIC
SOLID WASTE
"^
^NV- ,~
&&^^ y^ -»^^ > ^7*
•^ C-sVP-5
\'
-------
Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Facility
^±^^^*-£^^—-^ -
PS
-------
K)
oo
-------
Grouted Waste Disposal Vaults
(With Hanford Protective Barrier)
Sandy Loam
-a ,.Top Soil
Riprap
Stabilized Sandy
Loam Soil
Backfill
Soil
Cold Grout
Cap
Protective
Membrane
Reinforced
Concrete
Vault
Cover Blocks
Gravel
Backfill Soil j
Composite
Liner
Perforated Leachate
Collection Pipe
Not To Scalo
-o
CO
ra
n
-------
Page 30
-------
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
-------
Paee 32
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.
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.
-------
Page 33
Exhibit
Reporting Structure for Defense Low-level
Waste Management Program
Interim Wfete
Operation*
of Energy
Assistant Secretary
Deputy A«»t»tanit Secretary
%
ransportatfon Management *
£"V&u>L.&»)&X$>»i&'0*V •. \rf
Be^sarclKoi Hazarcfous V^ste
«L;^-X ^* ^•|^r^
velopment Division;, Actions
-------
Radioactive Waste Management Plans
Defense Waste Management Plan
Defense Waste and Transportation Management
Implementation Plan
Long-Range Master Plan
for Defense High-Level
Waste Management
- V
K ff"
Long-Range Master Plan
for Defense Transuranic
Waste Management
Defense Low-Level Waste
Management Integrated
Long-Range Plan
ra
n
O'
r—
rr
ii
-------
Sources and Dispositions of Radioactive Waste
Special case
commercial
HLW
TRU
Production reactors
Fuel
processing/
reprocessing
Interim storage
(tanks/bins)
Interim
storage
Near-
surface
disposal
f Facilities planned
or under construction
X
:r
cr
i-
rt
*
-------
Pro-1987
"by-product"
Waste Categories
Remote
handled
Research A \
development \/
U 4 Th
mill tailings
'Other
naturally
occurring"''
Accelerator
produced
Contact
handled
\
\
GTCC
LLW
10 CFR 61
tn
x
cr
H
rr
it
-------
(195-4)
RCRA
(1976)
L
I-
I
T
Mixed Wastes
Radioactive
Hazards
Nonradioactive
Hazards
NARM Except for Mill Tailings
40 CFR 192
Public Law 95
NARM
Mill Tailings
Public Law 95-604 = Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
X
to
10
n
-------
Comparison of Mixed to LLW Volumes
Commercial
a - As reported in 1987 IDB
Buried and Disposed of
b - Estimated in storage
H-
tr
ft
u-
ra
en
-------
Page 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 Hanford.
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 off-site exposure to
any person at any time to 25 millirems/-
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
Page 40
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.
-------
Page 41
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.
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.
-------
Paee 42
-------
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 M.S. 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
in. 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 0.05 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
-------
Pace 44
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
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, (hat
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 millirem 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 millirem 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.
-------
Pace 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
-------
Paee 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.
-------
Session II
DUAL REGULATION OF MIXED WASTES
-------
Page 47
THE NRC 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
dual 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-
-------
Paee 48
nif icant. 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.
-------
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-
-------
Paee 50
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 I,
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.
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-
-------
Page 51
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
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
-------
Page S3
THE STATE EXPERIENCE APPLYING HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULA-
TIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND DEFENSE MIXED WASTE
Presented by
Michael Sattler, Project Coordinator for Rocky Hats 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
-------
Pace 54
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 Flats 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.
However, the Rocky Flats Plant is still
storing hazardous waste on-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
-------
Page 55
using two separate tracking systems. One
of these is the Safeguard Accountability
Network (SAN) which tracks plutonium
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
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
-------
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 1989. 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.
-------
Pace 58
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
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 Weddle] 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.
-------
Page 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 60
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.
Another aspect of technical assistance
is NRC's involvement with case work.
-------
Page 61
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
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
-------
Page 62
related to developmental aspects; addition- different programs: NRC and EPA. These
al NRC assistance is available if States programs have different requirements and
request it. are the result of implementing different
legislation. An understanding of both
As a final point, it should be clear that programs is essential.
mixed waste disposal is regulated by two
-------
Page 63
EPA'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 pre-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.
_ Page 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.
-------
Page 65
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 model 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-
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, S3 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.
-------
Pa BC 66
-------
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, Afton Associates
Mr. Brown was the Associate Staff Director for 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 I, 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
-------
Page 68
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 El Paso in a fairly
isolated area. The City and County of El
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.
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
-------
Pace 69
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 unaffiliated State,
has developed siting legislation which calls
for substantial public involvement, and the
State is in the process of naming various
advisory commissions.
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.
-------
Pass
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
will 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
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.
-------
Page 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 Shacklefbrd, Mixed Waste Coordinator, Permits and State Programs Division, EPA
Mr. 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.
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 198S. 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.
-------
Paoe 72
-------
Session III
EPA CASE STUDIES PANEL
-------
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-gallon 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,
Paee 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 ISO
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:
-------
Pace 75
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-
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
-------
Paee 76
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;
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.
-------
WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Objective
Demonstrate Solidification and Preparation of High-Level
Waste for Permanent Disposal
Authority
Pub. L 96-368, West Valley Demonstration Project Act
Scope
• Solidify Liquid High-Level Waste in a Form Suitable for
Transportation and Disposal
• Develop Containers Suitable for Permanent Disposal
• Transport Solidified Waste to Federal Repository for
Permanent Disposal
• Dispose of Low-Level and Transuranic Waste Produced
• Decontaminate and Decommission Tanks, Facilities. Material,
and Hardware Used
n
s-
-------
WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
GLASS
ADDITIVES
TRANSPORT BOROSILICATE GLASS
TO STORAGE SITE
WASTE SOLIDIFICATION FACILITY
SATURATED CLAY
2 FT THICK CONCRETE VAULT
STEEL TANK
STEEL SAUCER
- GRAVEL
20
T03C
BEL
GHO
SALT
00 OR
"A FT
OW BASALT
OR
GRANITE
HllllllllUw^FH
J^flJUI
IfiHww,
LIQUID HIGH LEVEL WASTE STORAGE
WASTE CANISTERS "
TERMINAL WASTE STORAGE
n
rr
(-••
cr
-------
TANK 8D-2 SLUDGE LAYERING SECTIONAL VIEW
• Supernatant " .
• • /—Interface 1 • •
• / A A
.*-•--••
1318mm (Plates steel) •.•••.:*.•
L_ h n t\ >Mr-'.:-
254mm f
924mm
292mm
Stay Bolts
38mm Steel Rods
0123
fa
Scale in Meters
MMOJ WVIOJ
m
x
cr
h*1
rr
-o
-»
—J
vO
-------
WEST VALLEY CONCEPTUAL
HLW REMOVAL SYSTEM
WASTE TRANSFER LINE
-PUMP PIT
-DISCHARGE PUMP
MOBILIZATION
PUMPS
ROOF FRAMING
INTERNAL GRIDWORK
CARBON STEEL
STORAGE
TANK
CONCRETE
y | VAULT
tn
tr
=tt
1*1
>
STEEL PAN
PERLITE BLOCK
-------
_____ _ Page 81
Exhibit #4
TA3L£ 1— PURSX HIGH-LEY- L SLIDCS SOLIDS CHEMICAL COMPOS ITICH
Component Reference
Fe(OH)3 65,OHO
FePOu 6,351
A1(OH)3 5,852
A1F3 536
Mn02 ",581
CaC03 3.208
U02(OH)2 3,087
Ni(OH)2 1,088
S102 1,263
ZrCOH),, 159(a)
825
Cu(OH)2 375
Zn(OH)2 128
Cr(OH)3 65
Hg(OH)2 23
Fission Products
F.P. hydroxides 1,«»85
R.E. hydroxides 1.U8U
F.P. sulfates 520
Trans i iranics
Mp02 "2
Pu02 37
27
Cm02 °-
Total 97,178
(a) Excludes fission product 2irconiura
-------
Pace R7
TABLE 2— PUREX HIGH-LEVEL SUPERNATANT CHEMICAL C=MOOS---CN Exhibit #5
Compound
NaNo3
NaN02
Na2SOu
NaHCO-j
KN03
Na2C03
NaCH
K2CrOj,
NaCl
Na3PO^
Na2MoOu
Na3B03
CaN03
NaF
Sn(N03)1|
Na2U20?
Si(N03),,
NaTcOj,
RbN03
Na2Te04
A1F3
Fe(N03)3
Na2SeOi,
L1N03
H2C03
Cu(N03)2
Sr(N03)2
Mg(NO,)2
J ™
TOTAL
H20 (by difference)
NOTE: pH - 10.0
Total kg
In Supernatant
602,659
311,326
76,261
42,557
36,271
25.2U9
17,537
5,113
4,681
3,799
691
597
531
503
215
231
230
177
119
82
77
13
15
11 •
9
6
1
2
1,129,038
1,727,161
-------
A. Solution
Compound
7h(N03)j,
Fe(N03)3
A1(N03)3
SM03
Cr(N03)3
Ni(N03)2
NaN03
Na230^
KN03
Na2S103
K2MnOu
Mg(N03)3
NagMoO,,
Nad
Ce(N03)a
Ru(N03)^
Ca(N03)2
C3N03
Ba(N03)2
La(N03)3
Pr(N03)3
Sr(N03)2
Na3POu
B. Solids
Th(N03)u
Insolubles
TABLE 3— THCPEX WASTE CHEMICAL CCMPCSI'ION
Mass (kg) Comaound
11,533 NaTcO^
8,«62 Sra(N03)3
4,175 Zr(H03)J4
2,129 YCNOO-,
1,918 Rh(N03)^
791 Zn(N03)2
480 PdCMO^Jj,
227 U02(NO,)2
180 RbNO,
128 NaTeOu
126 CO(M03)2
122 NapSeOn
57 NaF
54 Eu(N03)3
50 Sn(H03)3
46 Ca(M03)2
43 Pu(NO^)^
42 Gd(N03)3
30 X»(N03)U
28 Cd(M03)2
27 St)(M03)3
22 AgN03
21 In(N03)3
12
TOTAL
H20 (by diff .)
19,421
35
Pace 83
Exhibit #6
» ^ )
12
, 4
12
4 4
1 1
1 1
10
3
6
6
5
3
1
1
i
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.02
43,587
12,663
»Mp, Am, and Cm
-------
o
to
»_
•*-•
X
111
€0
*-•
c
0)
u
c
o
o
I
1
o
O
10-
CHROMIUM LEACH TEST RESULTS
30 H/O
42 M/O
Regulatory Limit
50 w/o
*r*-
I
50
I
100
1
150
1
1
1
300
1
200 250 300 350
Chromium Concentration in Solidified Sample, MG/Kg
*EP TOX Long Cure +TCLP Rapid Cure oTCLP Long Cure
400
n
x
=r
n
oo
-------
ESSENTIAL VARIABLE CONTROL POINTS
Cement
Waste
Weight Out
Weight In
Mixer
Mix Time
Mix Temperature
Disposal
Filled Drum
Weight Out
Smear Survey
Record ID
Waste
Drum
Chemical
Additives
Flow Volume Out
Weight In
Weight Out
Weight In
Weight Out
Weight In
Empty Drum
Weight In
X
ro
n
oo
VSl
00
-------
CSS SYSTEM FUNCTION
Encapsulate Low Level Waste (Class B and C) Into Cement
Contained Within Steel Drums.
The Heart of the System is the High Shear Mixers Which
Encapsulate the Waste Into the Cement, and the Automatic
Drum Handling Equipment Which Moves Caps. Swipes and
Overpacks the Contaminated Drums.
The System is Broken Into Three Sub Systems:
- Waste Encapsulation System
- Cement Storage and Transfer
- Drum Handling System
x
3"
rr
st
vO
-------
WVDP CLASS B/C LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE SUMMARY
Waste Source and Type
Estimated
Volume
Class ( m3 )
Container
Type
Estimated
Number of
Containers
\J
Average
Surface
Dose Rale
(mrem/hr )
Presolidifcation Decon.
Uranyl Nitrate
Vitrification
Secondary Waste
Decontaminated
Supernatant
First Sludge Wash
Second Sludge Wash
Third Sludge Wash
RTS Secondary Waste
Spent Zeolite Slurry
Spent Organic IX Resin
Filler Backwash Slurries
B/C
B/C
21
3,000
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
145
80
32
6
24
390
55 Gal. Drum
7 1 Gal. Drum
7 1 Gal. Drum
71 Gal. Drum
7 1 Gal. Drum
7 1 Gal. Drum
71 Gal. Drum
7 1 Gal. Drum
237
11,080
13,820
710
535
295
115
21
87
1,450
770
750
750
300
300
180
n
x
3-
TJ
M
IQ
n
oo
-------
Pace 88
-------
Page 89
FERNALD: FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
Presented by
Catherine McCord, RCRA Enforcement Branch, EPA Region V
Ms. 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 198S, 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
K.65 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
Paee 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
-------
Page 91
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
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 K.65 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.
-------
Paee 92
-------
Page 93
NUCLEAR SUBMARINE: MIXED WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGE-
MENT
Presented by
Chuck Flippo, Section Chief, EPA Region K
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
-------
Pace 94
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.
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.
-------
Session IV
EVOLVING RCRA REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
-------
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 SO 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 FR, 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 96
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
-------
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.
-------
Page 98
Q: If a facility is under construction or ed waste a year from now, the facility
under contractual obligations before would qualify for interim status. The
the State is authorized to regulate mix- preambles to the May 19,1980, and Novem-
ed waste, could the facility receive ber 19, 1980, regulations talk about what
interim status? "under construction" means, including
contractual obligations; you need to check
A: If a facility is under construction now the specifics to see which facilities can
and the State gets authorized for mix- qualify for interim status.
-------
Page 99
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION, TESTING, AND VERIFICA-
TION: TCLP
Presented by
Gail Hansen, 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 wider 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
-------
Pace 100
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 O.S
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-
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
-------
PaEelOl
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 (ABA), 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 agita-
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
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
-------
Page 102
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 sulf uric
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
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-
ceptabje 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.
-------
. Paee 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 Service 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 Superf und 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 Federal Register. Basi-
cally, the standards prohibit new and ex-
panding units in sensitive environments
unless the owner/operator 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-
-------
Pace 104
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
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/operator 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
-------
Page 105
(3) the unit contains only BOAT 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-
A:
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?
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.
-------
Pace 106
-------
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 Reflation
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
Paee108
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
-------
Page 109
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
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.
-------
Pace 110
-------
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
26S, 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
-------
Pace 112
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.
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 McAlister 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.
-------
Pace 113
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
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.
-------
Pare 114
-------
Session V
EPA CASE STUDIES PANEL
-------
Pace US
CLOSURE AT OAK RIDGE
Presented by
Suzy Riddle, RCRA DOE Coordinator, EPA Region IV
Since 1984, Ms. Riddle has worked for the EPA Region TV 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.
-------
Pace 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.
-------
Pace 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 RI/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 discernable
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.
-------
Page 119
DEVELOPMENT OF A RCRA MIXED WASTE PERMIT
Presented by
Nathaniel Miullo, 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.
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.
-------
Paee120
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
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.
-------
Pace 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 half years. He has a B.S. in 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.
-------
Paeel22
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
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.
-------
Pace 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 Park 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-galIon
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
Page 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, fhe 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 SI 7 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 raf f inate 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.
-------
Session VI
ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
-------
Page 125
ENFORCEMENT AT COMMERCIAL AND FEDERAL FACILITIES
Presented by
Metafile Barger, Chemical Engineer, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, EPA
My. 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
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.
-------
Pace 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 Gvil 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 too 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 put 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.
-------
Page 128
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
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
-------
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 CERCL'A §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.
-------
PaPC 1^0
-------
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 from Parsons University and an M.BA. 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 will 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 IS 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 likely 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
-------
Pace 133
several requirements to ensure that (1) 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
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.
-------
134
-------
Page 135
FEDERAL FACILITY INTERAGENCY 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
Harrington 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 Harrington 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: (1) 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 role.
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.
-------
Pa«tel37
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
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.
-------
Pace 138
-------
Session VII
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
-------
Page 139
ALTERNATIVES TO LEAD FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Presented by
M.W. Shape, Manager, National Low-Level Waste Program Office, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
DOE
Mr. Shape 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
-------
Pace 141
PROPOSED TECHNOLOGIES FOR MIXED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Presented by
Nathaniel Miullo, 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
-------
Paeel42
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
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.
-------
Page 143
------- |