ML20210R150

Recommends That Commission Approve Alternative 1b Re Maximizing Implementation of Requirement in 10CFR61.56(a)(8) of Low Level Waste Land Disposal Rule for Treatment of Hazardous Constituents in Mixed Wastes

ML20210R150
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/05/1986
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
TASK-PICM, TASK-SE SECY-86-142, NUDOCS 8605160100
Download: ML20210R150 (82)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:F r '4 h. ha [&s f'I g . j/ ffay 5,1986 SECY-86-142 POLICY ISSUE (Commission Meeting) For: The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

COMMISSION POLICY OPTIONS ON MIXED RADI0 ACTIVE i AND HAZARDOUS LOW-LEVEL WASTES l Purcose: To enable the Comission to determine the desired regulatory approach to mixed low-level wastes. Category: This paper covers a ma,jor policy matter. Resource estimates, Category 1, preliminary. l Issue: How the disposal of licensed low-level radioactive wastes containing hazardous non-radioactive substances is to be regulated. Summary: Certain radioactive wastes licensed under the Atomic Energy Act also contain chemical or other constituents that would by themselves be classified as hazardous under EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. These wastes have been referred to as " mixed wastes" for which both NRC and EPA have statutory responsibility. As a result of legislative and regulatory inconsistencies between RCRA, as amended, and the Low Level Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) and NRC's low-level radioactive waste disposal regulation (10 CFR Part 61), these mixed wastes may have a significant adverse impact on NRC's overall radioactive waste disposal program. The LLRWPAA establishes deadlines not only for NRC to publish guidance documents for siting and development activities, but also sets forth milestones for new facility l CONTACT: R. MacDougall, NMSS 427-4439 '[dd5/dY'N M'A

f-i r. 4 development with stringent financial penalties on waste generators and potential state government liability for failure to meet these milestones. Unfortunately, these milestones are not consistent with RCRA milestones. established prior to the enactment of LLRWPAA. RCRA establishes deadlines for promulgation by EPA of many rules, but there are no sanctions for -failure to meet these deadlines. EPA is still working, for example, on the development of siting criteria which it plans to provide in 1988 -- after the states and compact regions are required to submit siting plans under LLRWPAA. There are also inconsistencies between NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 rules for commercial LLW land disposal and the statutory requirements of RCRA. Perhaps the most difficult to resolve will be the "no migration" requirement of RCRA, as amended in 1984, and NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 requirements, which provide annual dose limits for disposal site performance to assure that migration of effluents from the site is held to acceptable levels. EPA's recently proposed rule to implement the land disposal restrictions in that Act does not, in the minds of several authors of the legislation, implement the Act's "no migration" standard. In a March 4,1986 letter to EPA Administrator Lee Thomas, these Congressmen and Senators stressed: "The requirement for proof of 'no migration' is to be interpreted literally. As indicated earlier, the intent of the [Act's] i provisions on land disposal prohibitions is to require treatment prior to land disposal unless it can be proven that untreated hazardous wastes or constituents will not migrate from a particular disposal unit." In addition, under the definition of hazardous waste i mixtures in EPA rules, the regulation of mixed wastes could affect a significant number of NRC licensees who generate more than 100 kilograms of hazardous wastes a month. Section 261.3(b)(2) of EPA's rules on identification and i listing of hazardous wastes provides that in the case of a mixture of solid waste and one or more hazardous wastes, i j the mixture becomes a hazardous waste when any waste listed as hazardous is added to the non-hazardous waste. RCRA and i i EPA rules thus affect or have the potential to affect a number of licensee waste management activities. l 1

? o ! Even though RCRA exempts generators producing 100 kilograms or less of hazardous wastes a month, it may not be appropriate to have this exemption applied to most NRC or Agreement State licensees. Because their wastes contain radioactive materials, these licensees generally do not j have the option to send even small quantities of mixed wastes to any disposal facilities other than those licensed under the Atomic Energy Act. Unless these licensees could qualify for other means of disposal, such as incineration or sanitary sewerage disposal under 10 CFR Part 20, it would appear that appropriate controls would be required to I assure that the accumulation of their wastes at a licensed disposal site would not cause or contribute to a violation of RCRA requirements. RCRA may also affect currently operating licensed commercial disposal sites and other licensed facilities that may have disposed of mixed wastes in the past. 1 Section 206 of the RCRA Amendments Act requires the promulgation of standards requiring corrective action "for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any j solid waste management unit at a... disposal facility l seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless of the j time at which such waste was placed in such unit." J In consideration of the policy alternatives identified in this Commission Paper, the staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following policy alternatives: (1) Maximize implementation of requirement in 10 CFR Part 61.56(a)(8) of NRC's LLW land disposal licensing rule for i treatment of hazardous constituents in mixed wastes to I " reduce to the maximum extent practicable the potential hazard from the non-radiological materials," seeking } additional statutory authority if needed to minimize volume l and toxicity of mixed wastes requiring licensed land disposal (Alternative Ib.); (2) Seek legislation j authorizing direct NRC administration of applicable portions of RCRA under rules developed by NRC (adopting EPA rules as appropriate) with suitable requirements for i Agreement States and a definition clarifying exempted mixed waste streams with de minimis concentrations or quantities ? of non-radioactive hazardous constituents (Alternative 1 2b.4.); and (3) Ceek legislation amending the Low-Level j Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 to I i i

s establish a separate timetable for state disposal of mixed wastes as defined above (Alternative 2c.3.). Backaround: The Commission and staff have been working on this issue at various levels of effort since the promulgation of our 10 CFR Part 61 licensing regulation for the land disposal of LLW. NRC and EPA staffs initially explored the possibility of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to resolve the question of how RCRA would be applied to l disposal of LLW containing non-radioactive hazardous waste at licensed sites. Both agency staffs agreed to defer these discussions pending the completion of NRC-sponsored studies to identify the nature and extent of the hazardous waste being disposed of, and to identify options for their environmentally sound management. Both agencies also recognized that an MOV could not clarify the relationship between state agencies authorized to implement their respective programs, and EPA determined that it has no authority under current law to delegate its RCRA responsibilities to another federal agency. Both EPA and NRC then supported an amendment to authorize such delegation to NRC in the legislation that was to become the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. Congress reached no agreement on this issue prior to enactment, but the legislation's sponsors agreed to pursue it further in 1986. Hearings have been held before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and Nuclear Regulation, and before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power. The principal actions the staff has taken to date under its existing statutory authorities to address the di-sposal of non-radioactive hazardous wastes are described in Attachment 1. This Commission Paper and attachments incorporate information provided by EPA staff in a meeting with NRC staff on April 29, 1986. Decision Criteria :

1. Does the alternative provide or help to provide adequate protection to public health and safety and the environment?

2. Does the alternative effectively minimize or eliminate future regulatory uncertainty?

1 I

3. Does the alternative permit or help to assure the development of new low-level waste (LLW) disposal capacity l

within the timetable established under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985?

4. Does the alternative minimize or eliminate the generation of wastes unacceptable for disposal at currently l

operating disposal sites? t

5. Can the alternative be readily implemented at reasonable cost?

Alternatives: The Commission may choose alternatives within one or both of two basic courses of action: 1) alternatives to reduce the volume of mixed waste requiring disposal at NRC or Agreement State licensed sites; 2) alternatives to resolve inconsistencies in the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to mixed waste disposal. Under the l second category of alternatives, several of the options are not mutually exclusive, and the Commission may choose to pursue one or more of these if it chooses to take action to minimize regulatory inconsistencies.

1. Alternatives to Reduce the Volume of Mixed Wastes Requiring Licensed Land Disposal:

i

a. No change from current regulatory practice.

l

b. Maximize implementation of requirement in 10 CFR Part 61.56(a)(8) of NRC's LLW land disposal licensing rule for treatment of hazardous constituents in mixed wastes to " reduce to the maximum extent practicable j

the potential hazard from the non-radiological materials," seeking additional statutory authority if l needed to minimize volume and toxicity of mixed wastes requiring licensed land disposal.

2. Alternatives Concerning Statutory and Regulatory Inconsistencies Applicable tc Mixed Waste Disposal:

a. Accept current situation with dual regulation of licensees under both Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.

il i i -. - -,. -.., - ~ - - - -,..,,., ,.,.c.... . - -, -,. -. - - -,,, - - ~ - - -,

s .S-

b. Act to resolve inconsistencies between RCRA and NRC regulations.

Subalternatives:

1. Seek legislation to exempt NRC-and Agreement State-licensed disposal from RCRA regulation

2. Seek legislation authorizing EPA regulation of mixed waste disposal under delegation from NRC

3. Seek legislation authorizing NRC or Agreement State regulation of mixed waste disposal under delegation from EPA

4. Seek legislation authorizing direct NRC administration of applicable portions of RCRA under rules developed by NRC (adopting EPA rules as appropriate).with suitable requirements for Agreement States and a definition clarifying exempted mixed waste streams with de minimis concentrations or quantities of non-radioactive hazardous constituents.

c. Act to resolve inconsistencies in timetables between RCRA and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).

Subalternatives:

1. Seek revision of LLRWPAA milestones for siting and development of new licensed commercial LLW disposal facilities

2. Seek LLRWPAA amendment to remove mixed wastes as a state disposal responsibility and make them a federal disposal responsibility.

3. Seek LLRWPAA amendment to establish separate timetable for state disposal of mixed wastes.

Discussion: Under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over the disposal of source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of the disposal of hazardous wastes other than source, special nuclear, and byproduct material, which are

s 7-specifically excluded from RCRA regulation under Section 1004(27) of that Act. Certain LLW licensed under the Atomic Energy Act, however, also contains chemical constituents that would by themselves be classified as hazardous under EPA RCRA regulations. These wastes have been referred to as " mixed wastes." Certain types of mixed wastes, such as organic chemical liquids containing tritium and carbon-14, are not now accepted for disposal by the operators of currently operating commercial LLW sites. EPA staff has confirmed NRC staff's understanding that under EPA rules, any mixture of hazardous wastes with other materials is considered a hazardous waste if the mixture contains a listed hazardous substance or exhibits hazardous characteristics under EPA-specified tests. Thus, it is not clear that all LLW containing hazardous material under RCRA is currently being banned from disposal. It is clear, however, that currently operating hazardous waste disposal site operators may not accept mixed wastes because they contain radioactive material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. It is also clear that neither RCRA permitees nor licensed LLW disposal site operators can be forced to accept any wastes they do not wish to accept. Consequently, certain mixed wastes are not currently accepted for disposal by operators of disposal sites, although, as far as the low-level waste component of the mixed waste is concerned, the LLRWPAA assigns responsibility for disposal to the states. To help the Commission prepare for a recent Senate hearing on mixed wastes, the staff sent the attached background paper describing significant mixed waste issues and what could be done about them. (See Attachment 2.) Although the staff was not in a position to recommend specific legislative options, it did recommend that in general, any legislation should:

1) mandate best management techniques to minimize the volume of mixed waste to be disposed of to the maximum extent practicable; and 2) mandate regulation of the substances currently subject to RCRA at licensed LLW disposal sites in the same manner as the regulation of the radioactive materials.

In subsequent NRC staff testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittees on 1 i ---.---.c .-.c r- .n-

o l Nuclear Regulation and Environmental Pollution, the staff > made no specific legislative recommendations, but with the j 4 Commission's approval, suggested that "whatever specific action the Congress does choose to take should: A) minimize the generation of mixed wastes; B) remove any regulatory uncertainty which stands to impede the timely implementation of the Low-Level Waste Amendments Act, and 1 C) resolve questions of multiple and/or conflicting jurisdictions." i i Since that time, the Division of Waste Management staff believes it has improved its understanding of mixed waste issues, but major uncertainties remain. To confirm its current understanding of the issues, the Division staff forwarded a paper to EPA in an attempt to verify applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and associated uncertainties concerning basic questions for AEA licensee compliance with RCRA. Division staff met with EPA staff on i April 29 to verify its understanding, and has incorporated EPA responses into this " basic questions" paper. (See.) [ Note: Attachment 3 also provides RCRA information that may be relevant to the on-site waste disposal issues at the Davis Besse reactor.] I. Basic Elements of the Mixed Waste Problem for Future Development of Licensed Commercial LLW Disposal Sites A. Differences between RCRA Requirements and NRC Rules There is an inconsistency between NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 rules for commercial LLW land disposal and the reouirements of RCRA, as amended. NRC and EPA regulations thus have different disposal requirements reflecting different statutory mandates. These differences are discussed in more detail in Attachment 4, but can be summarized here: )

• NRC rules establish annual dose limits for disposal site performance to assure that migration of effluents at the site boundary is held to acceptable levels.

) 4 RCRA and EPA rules establish a design standard of no migration from any disposal unit (such as a burial trench) within a site. The Solid and Hazardous Waste Amendments of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the i RCRA Amendments Act) prohibits land disposal unless i I

o i

j i

i i the waste is treated to acceptable levels or an applicant for a disposal permit can demonstrate that the "no migration" standard will be met. Once a permitted facility is operating, EPA rules also provide secondary groundwater protection standards in the form of concentration limits of hazardous constituents migrating from a leaking disposal unit, j but these standards are for purposes of detection j monitoring, compliance monitoring, or corrective t action under other EPA RCRA requirements.

• NRC rules are designed to minimize worker exposure to radiation, and allow disposal site operators to rely on generator records concerning the characteristics of wastes presented for disposal.

EPA rules require detailed chemical and physical analysis I of a representative sample of wastes before they can i be disposed of, which entails opening and sampling waste packages at the disposal site. l

• In addition to requirements to minimize worker j

exposures to radiation, NRC rules require licensed LLW l disposal sites to be sited, designed, and operated to eliminate to the extent practicable the need for active post-closure maintenance. EPA rules require i post-closure maintenance and monitoring of waste ] containment systems. i j

• Under NRC rules, commercial land disposal facilities must be sited, designed, and operated based on the assumption that post-closure institutional controls j

will not extend beyond 100 years. EPA rules require a j 30-year post-closure monitoring and maintenance period, which may be extended if there is a potential i for waste migration at harmful levels.

• To assure adequate post-closure institutione1 control of an LLW disposal site, NRC rules require state or federal government ownership of the tite as a condition for licensing of disposal.

EPA rules do not i require state or federal ownership of hazardous waste disposal sites. 4 i i L

i l Because 10 CFR Part 61 permits leachate migration from disposal units so long as radionuclide i concentrations do not cause unacceptable doses at the site boundary, NRC financial assurance requirements, which are still under development, do not cover the I cost of corrective action for intra-site migration. EPA's financial assurance requirements, which are extensive and detailed, do require coverage for corrective action if migration from any disposal unit within the site exceeds the limits in 40 CFR Part 264. Of all the inconsistencies cited above, perhaps the most j difficult to resolve will prove to be the "no migration" requirement under the RCRA Amendments Act. EPA's recent proposed rule to implement the land disposal restrictions in that Act does not, in the minds of several authors of the legislation, implement the Act's "no migration" standard. In a March 4,1986 letter to EPA Administrator Lee Thomas, these Congressmen and Senators stressed: J "The requirement for proof of 'no migration' is to be interpreted literally. The A "the petition demonstration [gency's suggestion that for an exemption from the ban on land disposal] requires a showing that the hazardous constituents in a waste will not migrate to a point of potential human or environmental exposure in concentrations that will harm human health or the environment (51 Fed. Reg. at 1613) totally misses the point of the [Act]. "As indicated earlier, the intent of the [Act's] provisions on land disposal prohibitions is to require treatment prior to land disposal unless it can be proven that untreated hazardous wastes or constituents will not migrate from a particular disposal unit. We l specifically rejected the concept of an acceptable j level of migration because of the scientific uncertainties associated with determining what is an 1 l ' acceptable level.'" i Among others, this letter was signed by Congressman John D. 1 Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce l Committee, and Senator Rcbert T. Stafford, Chairman of-the I i { i 1

i I + j i i ) Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. (See f l.) l

8. Inconsistencies in Timetables Between RCRA and the l

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of l 1985 The implementation of the RCRA Amendments Act is on a } schedule inconsistent with the schedule of the Low-Level i Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). i i The LLRWPAA establishes definite milestones for the completion of specific siting and development activities l for new LLW disposal facilities. The LLRWPAA also provides j stringent sanctions for failure to meet these milestones, j RCRA, as amended, requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a number of rules affecting the identification, j treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Although the RCRA Amendments Act establishes deadlines for the l promulgation of many of these rules, some of the deadlines ] would not permit timely implementation of the LLRWPAA, there are no sanctions for failure to meet the deadlines, j and EPA is still working on the development of rules and i guidance that the statute required some time ago. j i t j Although Section 202 of the 1984 RCRA Amendments Act l l requires the promulgation of rules or guidance on location } 1 criteria for new hazardous waste disposal sites within 24 i i months after enactment, for example, EPA is currently { } planning to provide guidance on siting criteria in March, j 1988 -- after the states and compact regions are required j to submit siting plans under Section 5 of the LLRWPAA. j 1 l Section 201(g) of the RCRA Amendments Act also requires EPA l { to review for purposes of determining whether to prohibit i i land disposal of all listed hazardous wastes remaining from i those specified in the Act for an earlier determination. This section establishes dates by which EPA reviews and determinations are to be completed, beginning with the high 1 vnluma wastes with high intrinsic hazards and working toward wastes with lowest volumes and lowest intrinsic } hazards. In a recent Federal Register notice, EPA said it ) plans to review and make land disposal prohibition l 1 determinations on at least the first third of these wastes j by August 8,'1988, at least the first two-thirds of these i i l l } l i l t t i l

~ ! wastes by June 8, 1989, and'the remaining third by May 8, 1990 -- the latest dates by which the statute requires EPA action. This may not permit timely development of new LLW disposal facilities under the LLWRPAA. That Act provides that currently operating LLW disposal facilities are not required to remain available for disposal of LLW generated in "unsited" states and compact regions after January 31, 1992. In order to have new disposal facilities in operation by then, these unsited states and regions will have to submit " complete" license applications for new facilities by January 1,1990 under Section 5 of the LLRWPAA. II. Potential Impacts on Current Licensed Waste Management Practices Under the strict definition of hazardous waste mixtures in EPA rules, the regulation of mixed wastes could affect a signficant number of NRC licensees. Section 261.3(b)(2) of EPA's rules on identification and listing of hazardous 1 wastes provides that in the case of a mixture of solid I waste and one or more hazardous wastes, the mixture becomes j a hazardous waste when any waste listed as hazardous is added to the non-hazardous waste. Applying the same criterion to radioactive wastes, any addition of any listed hazardous waste would appear to subject the resulting mixture to RCRA regulation. Thus, for example, a rag, wipe, or swab used to clean radioactively contaminated equipment with a listed industrial solvent would appear to become a mixed waste. Accordingly, all licensees using such solvents in the course of routine maintenance of their radioactively contaminated facilities would appear to become generators of mixed wastes. It is important to note here that even though RCRA exempts generators producing 100 kilograms or less of hazardous wastes a month, it may not be appropriate to have this exemption applied to most NRC or Agreement State licensees. Because their wastes contain radioactive materials, these licensees generally do not have the option to send even small quantities of mixed wastes to any disposal facilities other than those licensed under the Atomic Energy Act. Unless these licensees could qualify for other means of disposal, such as incineration or sanitary sewerage

o q , i disposal under 10 CFR Part 20, it would appear that appropriate controls would be required to assure that the accumulation of their wastes at a licensed disposal site would not cause or contribute to a violation of RCPA requirements. Depending on EPA rules and the nature of the wastes, controls may also be needed for sanitary sewerage disposal and other alternatives to land disposal. Section 246 of the RCRA Amendments Act requires EPA to report to Congress on hazardous wastes that are currently excluded from regulation because they pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works, and revise its current j regulations to assure adequate controls. Section 204 j brings under RCRA regulation the burning of any fuel containing used oil or any listed hazardous waste. RCRA and EPA rules thus affect or have the potential to l affect a number of licensee waste management activities. l Under EPA rules, generators are required to report to EPA j if they generate more than 100 kilograms of listed hazardous wastes a month from all sources, regcrdless of whether these wastes are mixed with hazardous materials. RCRA requirements may also affect even a licensee qualifying as a small quantity generator if, for example, j the accumulation of his mixed wastes in an on-site disposal unit causes a RCRA violation. The potentially affected activities are listed below and described in more detail in

1. On-site disposal in surface impoundments i

2. Storage, including holding for decay, both on-site and off-site

3. On-site disposal under 10 CFR Part 20.302

)

4. Releases into sanitary sewerage systems under 10 l

CFR Part 20.303

5. Treatment or disposal by incineration under 10 CFR Part 20.305 l

6. Disposal of materials under general license 1

1 i l

! 4

7. Disposal of high-level wastes III. Potential Impacts from Past Waste Management Practices Finally, RCPA may also affect currently operating licensed commercial disposal sites and other licensed facilities that may have disposed of mixed wastes in the past.

If rags, wipes, swabs, and other low-level wastes are contaminated with EPA-listed chemicals and would constitute mixed waste under the strict definition of hazardous waste in existing EPA rules, currently operating commercial disposal facilities would be required to comply with applicable law and regulations concerning interim status pending the final EPA or state agency permit decision. Section 206 of the RCRA Amendments Act requires the promulgation of standards requiring corrective action "for J all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid waste management unit at a... disposal facility seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless of the time at which such waste was placed in such unit. Lemphasis o addedj." Under Section 233 of the same Act, if the EPA Administrator determines that there is or has been "a release of hazardous waste into the environment" from a i facility under interim status, he may order corrective action or any other response, including "a suspension or revocation of authorization to operate," as he deems necessary to protect human health or the environment. Some on-site migration of hazardous constituents has already been detected at the currently operating disposal facility at Barnwell, South Carolina. A summary of the findings at that site are presented in Attachment 7, a i response to a recent Congressional question. Past disposal of mixed waste may also affect other licensees who have disposed of wastes on-site. Some mixed non-radioactive hazardous constituents have been disposed of on-site with radioactive materials under Section 20.302 of current Commission rules. Although NRC has no statutory authority to require compliance with RCRA as a 1 l l - I

a 9 i pre-condition for the approval of a license, the NRC guidance for this disposal reouires the applicant to acknowledge that he must comply with EPA RCRA requirements. In such cases, the appearance of any hazardous constituent migration would subject the licensee to the same corrective action provisions applicable to commercial LLW disposal sites under current RCRA law. Depending upon how EPA interprets its authorities in any of the instances sited above, past disposal of mixed wastes could also complicate the decommissioning and release for unrestricted use of affected currently operating licensed facilities. Based on the nature and scope of the problem discussed above, Commission policy alternatives can be organized into two basic categories:

1. Alternatives to Reduce the Volume of Mixed Wastes Requiring Licensed Land Disposal

2. Alternatives Concerning Statutory and Regulatory Inconsistencies Affecting Mixed Waste Disposal As noted at the outset of this paper, the Commission may choose to pursue actions in one or both of these categories. Also as noted earlier, some of the alternatives in Category 2. are not mutually exclusive, and the Commission may wish to select one or more of them if it chooses to take actions to resolve current statutory or regulatory inconsistencies.

The alternative approaches in each category are evaluated below:

1. Alternatives to Reduce the Volume of Mixed Wastes Requiring Licensed Land Disposal:

Alt. la: No change from current regulatory practice. 3 PRO:

a. Can be readily implemented with no additicnal expenditure of agency resources.

CON:

a. May not provide adequate protection to public health and safety and the

i, , environment. (May not adequately reduce volume and/or toxicity of hazardous constituents in wastes requiring licensed land disposal.)

b. Does not help to minimize future regulatory uncertainty; does not provide further reduction in licensed wastes or number of licensed generators subject to RCRA.

c. Would not help to assure the development of new low-level waste (LLW) disposal capacity within the timetable established under the LLRWPAA.

New LLW disposal facility siting, design, and development decisions could not confidently be made without applicable RCRA regulatory guidance.

d. Does not minimize or eliminate the generation of wastes unacceptable to existing disposal site operators.

Alt. Ib: Maximize implementation of requirement in 10 CFR Part 61.56(a)(8) of NRC's LLW 1and disposal licensing rule for treatment of hazardous constituents in mixed wastes to " reduce to the maximum extent practicable the potential hazard from the non-radiological materials," seeking additional statutory authority if needed to minimize volume and toxicity of mixed wastes requiring licensed land disposal. PRO:

a. Would help to improve protection of public health and safety and the environment by reducing volume and/or toxicity of hazardous constituents in wastes requiring licensed land disposal.

b. Would help to reduce future regulatory uncertainty by providing

9 further reduction in licensed wastes and/or number of licensed generators subject to RCRA.

c. Helps to minimize generation of wastes unacceptable to currently operating disposal sites.

CON:

a. May not provide maximum practicable reduction in future regulatory l

uncertainty. Any hazardous constituents remaining in treated LLW would remain subject to RCRA.

b. Would not help to assure the development of new low-level waste (LLW) disposal capacity within the timetable established under the LLRWPAA.

New LLW disposal facility siting, design, and development decisions could not confidently be made without applicable RCRA regulatory guidance.

c. May not eliminate wastes unacceptable for disposal at currently operating sites.

2. Alternatives Concerning Statutory and Regulatory Inconsistencies Applicable to Mixed Waste Disposal:

Alt. 2a: Accept current situation with dual regulation of licenseesunderbothAtomicEnergyAct(AEA)and I Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. PRO:

a. May help to improve near-term protection of public health and safety and the environment by increasing number of inspections and likelihood of potential problem detection.

CON:

a. Would not reduce future regulatory uncertainty.

(Would do nothing to

O 4 resolve existing inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA statutory and regulatory requirements.) Would require timely implementation of Alternatives Ib. or Ic. for any reduction in regulatory uncertainty.

b. Under current EPA regulatory development timetable, would not permit the development of new low-level waste (LLW) disposal capacity within the timetable established under the LLRWPAA.

c. Would not minimize or eliminate wastes unacceptable for disposal at currently operating sites.

d. May not provide additional assurance of adequate protection of health and safety and environment in long term if statutory and regulatory inconsistencies cannot be resolved and missing of LLRWPAA milestones results in loss of access to currently operating disposal capacity.

Alt. 2b: Act to resolve inconsistencies between RCRA and NRC regulations. Subalternatives: Subalt. Tb.1: 5eeklegislationtoexempt licensed disposal from RCRA ^ regulation. PRO:

a. Would eliminate

~ future regulatory ..uncartainty concerning inconsistencies between ^ NRC ' rules and RCRA i statutory and regulatory requirpnents. Y A L e-e- s r

o

b. Would permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA.

l I

c. Would permit disposal of wastes currently unacceptable at operating licensed LLW disposal sites.

CON:

a. May not assure adequate protection of t

public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological hazards. Would require, at minimum, timely r implementation of i Alternatives Ib. or Ic. to enhance protection. l 5

b. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional action.

Subalt. 2b.2: Seek legislation authorizing EPA regulation of mixed waste disposal under delegation from NRC. PR0:

a. Would provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological i

hazards.

b. Would help to reduce regulatory uncertainty if delegation could be readily achieved.

9 c. Would permit disposal of mixed wastes currently unacceptable for disposal at operating licensed LLW disposal sites. CON:

a. Would not by itself eliminate future regulatory uncertainty concerning inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA statutory and regulatory recuirements.

b. Would not permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA. Additional rulemaking would probably be required.

c. Would not provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from radiological hazards in near term.

d. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional action.

Subalt. 2b.3: Seek legislation authorizing NRC or Agreement State regulation of mixed waste disposal under delegation from EPA. PRO:

a. Would provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety i

e and the environment from non-radiological hazards.

b. Would reduce some regulatory uncertainty if delegation could be readily achieved.

c. Would permit disposal of mixed wastes currently unacceptable for disposal at operating licensed LLW disposal sites.

CON:

a. Would not by itself eliminate future regulatory uncertainty concerning inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA statutory and regulatory requirements.

b. Would not by itself permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA. Additional rulemaking would probably be required.

c. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional and EPA action.

d. Likely to require significant additional NRC resources.

Subalt. 2b.4: Seek legislation authorizing direct NRC administration of applicable portions of RCRA under

's ,e 22 - rules developed by NRC (adopting EPA rules as appropriate) with suitable requirements for Agreement States and a definition clarifying exempted mixed waste streams with de minimis concentrations or quantities of non-radioactive hazardous constituents. PR0:

a. Would provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological

hazards,

b. Could eliminate or greatly reduce regulatory uncertainty by permitting NRC greater flexibility to resolve inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA requirements under rules developed specifically for application to Atomic 1

Energy Act licensees.

c. Would permit disposal of mixed wastes currently unacceptable for disposal at operating licensed LLW disposal sites.

CON:

a. Would not by itself permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA. Additional rulemaking would probably be required.

. b. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional action.

c. Likely to require significant additional NRC resources.

Alt. 2c~: Act to resolve inconsistencies between RCRA and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). Subalternatives: 4 Subalt. 2c.1: Seek revision of LLRWPAA milestones for siting and development of new licensed commercial LLW disposal facilities. PR0:

a. Would provide additional time to resolve RCRA-related questions concerning timely implementation of LLRWPAA.

CON:

a. Would not by itself provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological

hazards,

b. Would not by itself eliminate regulatory uncertainty concerning inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA requi rements.

c. Would not eliminate wastes currently f

. unacceptable for

disposal,

d. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional action.

Subalt. 2c.2: Seek LLRWPAA amendment to remove mixed wastes as a state disposal responsibility and make them a federal disposal responsibility. PR0:

a. Would permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA.

b. Would permit disposal of mixed wastes currently unacceptable for disposal at operating licensed LLW disposal sites.

CON:

a. Would not by itself provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological hazards.

b. Would not by itself i

eliminate regulatory uncertainty concerning inconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA requirements.

c. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Conaressional action.

t r -. -- -,v,, r ,c, 1---

. Subalt. 2c.3_- Seek LLRWPAA amendment to establish separate timetable for state disposal of mixed wastes PR0:

a. Would permit timely implementation of LLRWPAA for non-mixed LLW, and provide more time for resolution of inconsistencies between RCRA and NRC rules.

CON:

a. Would not by itself provide additional assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological hazards.

b. Would not by itself eliminate regulatory uncertainty concerning i'nconsistencies between NRC rules and RCRA requirements.

c. Would not by itself permit disposal of mixed wastes currently unacceptable for disposal at operating licensed LLW disposal sites.

d. May not be readily implemented; would depend on Congressional action.

. Recommendation: That the Commission: Approve Alternative Ib.: Maximize implementation of requirement in 10 CFR Part 61.56(a)(8) of NRC's LLW land disposal licensing rule for treatment of hazardous constituents in mixed wastes to " reduce to the maximum extent practicable the potential hazard from the non-radiological materials," seeking additional statutory authority if needed to minimize volume and toxicity of mixed wastes requiring licensed land disposal; Approve Alternative 2b.4.: Seek legislation authorizing direct NRC administration of applicable portions of RCRA under rules developed by NRC (adopting EPA rules as appropriate) with suitable requirements for Agreement States and a definition clarifying exempted mixed waste streams with de minimis concentrations or quantities of non-radioactive hazardous constituents; and Approve Alternative 2c.3.: Seek LLRWPAA amendment to establish separate timetable for state disposal of mixed wastes. If the Commission chooses to seek authority for direct NRC administration of RCRA, staff recommends that Congress should also understand that NRC would apply, through appropriate Agreement State requirements, existing EPA 40 CFR 264 Subpart F groundwater protection standards for any compliance monitoring or corrective action needed at currently operating licensed disposal sites. The staff believes that this combination of actions would effectively implement the recommendations in the NRC staff's March 25 testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittees on Nuclear Regulation and i Environmental Pollution. This testimony concluded with the suggestion that "whatever specific action the Congress does choose to take should: A) minimize the generation of mixed wastes; B) remove any regulatory uncertainty which stands to impede the timely implementation of the Low-Level Waste Amendments Act, and C) resolve questions of multiple and/or conflicting jurisdictions."

. Scheduling: Recognizing Congressional interest in this issue, staff requests a meeting with the Commission at its earliest convenience to discuss these recommendations. C'. -h?W!7-k Victor Stello, J W Executive Director for Operations Attachments: 1. Principal Staff Actions to Date 2. Staff Background Paper for Testimony 3. Basic Questions and Answers on Mixed Wastes 4. Differences between NRC Rules and EPA Requirements under RCRA, as Amended 5. Congressional Ltr. to L. Thomas, EPA Administrator 6. Potential Impact of RCRA on Current Licensed Practices 7. Response to Markey Question re: Sampling of Existing Sites This paper will be scheduled for consideration at an Open Meeting during an upcoming agenda session. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time. DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners OGC OPE OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY ,,-9 _a m,_ 9 -y--,y y__r y

4 ATTACHMENT 1

PRINCIPAL NRC STAFF ACTIONS TO DATE ADDRESSING THE DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES MIXED WITH WASTES NOT SUBJECT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT While NRC does not have statutory authority (beyond its general authority under NEPA) to regulate disposal of hazardous substances other than source, byproduct special nuclear material, the Commission feels a strong sense of responsibility in that regard, and the staff has acted accordingly within the limits of its authority. Either directly by NRC or through Agreement States, licensees responsible for currently operating disposal sites are being asked to include sampling for RCRA hazardous substances in their environmental monitoring programs and to develop contingency plans for mitigation in the event that such substances might be present in groundwater in significant concentrations. To protect workers at the disposal site, section 61.56 of NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 low-level waste disposal rule imposes a number of waste characteristic requirements to minimize some non-radiological risks. Among other things, this section includes a requirement that waste containing hazardous, biological, pathogenic, or infectious material be treated to reduce to the maximum extent practicable the potential hazard from the non-radiological materials. The staff believes that these occupational safety measures also contribute to the l protection of public health and safety and the environment from non-radiological hazards. The staff has also addressed hazardous waste disposal requirements in guidance i for on-site subsurface disposal of small quantities of radioactive wastes by academic, medical, and industrial licensees. In this guidance, licensees' applications for such disposal are required to include an acknowledgment of the prohibition on burial of hazardous wastes as defined in EPA regulations. The guidance also requires that radioactive waste containing a hazardous waste component must be disposed of in a manner set out in EPA regulations and in accordance with applicable state and local laws. (See NUREG-1101 Vol. 1,

p. 3.) Staff is also currently working on a revision of its Inspection and Enforcement Notice No. 83-05, " Obtaining Approval for Disposing of Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste -- 10 CFR Section 20.302" for reactor and other facility licensees. This revision will also address requirements for the disposal of radioactive wastes containing hazardous substances under RCRA.

ATTACHMENT 1

. 1 In addition, staff has sponsored studies to identify the nature and extent of i hazardous wastes being disposed of at licensed commercial sites. A draft report on management options for mixed waste disposal has also been issued for comment. These studies and reports are listed below: 1. An Analysis of Low-Level Wastes Identification of Potentially Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes: Draft Report, NUREG/CR-4246 2. An Analysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review of Hazardous Waste Regulations and Identification of Radioactive Mixed Wastes: Final Report, NUREG/CR-4406 3. Document Review Regarding Hazardous Chemical Characteristics of Low-Level Waste: NUREG/CR-4433 4. Management of' Radioactive Mixed Waste in Commercial Low-Level Wastes: Draft Report for Comment, NUREG/CR-4450 NRC staff has initiated independent groundwater sampling of two existing sites as well. Under contract to NRC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory sampled several groundwater monitoring wells and one trench sump at two representative LLW disposal sites in humid climates in 1985. These samples were analyzed for hazardous nonradiological constituents using standard EPA RCRA procedures. This work is documented in two ORNL letter reports and in NUREG-1183, "Non-Radiological Groundwater Quality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites," which is currently in draft. Previously, the NRC Office of Research sponsored sampling from trench sumps and monitoring wells at two other sites, also in humid climates. These analyses included several organic chemicals, some of which appear on EPA's list of hazardous constituents. This work was performed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and by Brookhaven National Laboratory. These studies are documented in NRC NUREG centractor reports and letter reports. Finally, the staff is currently developing guidance under Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) for reviewing petitions to exempt certain waste streams as below NRC regulatory concern. This could remove additional mixed waste streams from required disposal under license. At the staff's recommendation, the Commission has already determined one major mixed waste stream, liquid scintillation counting solutions containing certain concentrations of H-3 or C-14, to be suitable for disposal without regard to its radioactive content. (See 10 CFR Part 20.306, issued in 1981). NRC has also received two petitions for rulemaking. The Edison I

. Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Group (Docket No. PRM-20-15) have jointly petitioned for exempt disposal of nuclear power plant waste oil witnout regard to its radioactive content. A petition from the University of Utah (Docket No. PRM-20-14) asks for exempt disposal of additional biomedical wastes containing H-3 and C-14, and of other wastes containing radionuclides with short half lives. Public comments on these two petitions have been received and are under consideration. Action on these petitions could result in deregulation of the radioactive portion of these mixed wastes. The staff has not identified and evaluated other waste streams that might be suitable for deregulation of radioactive content, however. We agree with the approach of the LLRWPAA that petitioners should identify and propose waste streams for deregulation and bear the primary burden of providing the necessary information and evaluation to enable the Commission to make the required findings. l In addition to past mixed waste-related activities and those currently underway, NRC staff is also currently planning to: l Inform generators of the applicability of RCRA for low-idvel waste disposal. z Develop a strategy for mixed waste management through: Improved manifest practices to provide better traceability Expanded inspection procedures Definition of appropriate management options Increased monitoring at sites Gather more information as required to support the above activities.

• • mw.-

s 's 4 e i ATTACHMENT 2 i 1 5 _._.._.v._m.,

"' ~ . g y,l 2', MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton C. Xammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs FROM: T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Opera tions

SUBJECT:

TESTIMONY ON MIXED WASTE FOR MARCH 25 SENATE HEARING Enclosed is the testimony prepared by NMSS for the March 25 Senate hearing on Mixed Waste, and a background paper elaborating on the key issues. Per a memo to E00 dated March 17, 1986, OCA requested " core testimony" be prepared initially with a "conclusionary portion" to be sent at some later time. As far as NMSS is concerned, the enclosed testimony was complete at the time of this transmittal. ELD has been involved in the development of'the issues set out in the testimony and has been sent a copy of the testimony for review, but they have not had a chance to concur. Changes per ELD will be transmitted to you in the fom of a final draft. It should be noted that the enclosed testimony establishes a position on the mixed waste regulatory issue which represents a significant departure from the position taken by the Commission in testimony given during the deliberations on the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. During those deliberations, the Comission went on record as supporting the transfer of EPA's RCRA pemitting and enforcing authority to NRC for LLW disposal. Based on infomation just recently provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NRC staff have determined that there is more at stake in the regulation of the disposal of mixed wa'ste than the issue of dual jurisdiction between NRC and EPA and the application of Resource Ccnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. Staff have determined that any requirement that links the disposal of LLW to regulation under RCRA is likely to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation of the LLRWPAA. The application of RCRA to LLW disposal will likely negatively impact the schedule for development of new LLW disposal sites, as well the continued operation of existing LLW disposal facilities. As a result of this new information, WM staff have taken the position in the testimony that the best way to resolve the mixed waste problem is to develop ATTACHMENT 2

s . legislation to eliminate mixed Icw-level wastes frem land disposal licensed i under the Atcmic Energy Act, to the extent practicable; to minimize the amount of mixed W1stes requiring disposal through application of quantity reducing management options; and to direct NRC to regulate the chemical component of that irreducible quantity of mixed waste in the same manner as the radioactive l component of LLW. i Also of significance is a draft of an NRC staff report which documents the i results of groundwater samples taken at two LLW disposal sites, one operating and one not operating. The report shows detection of nazardous (RCRA) organic chemicals which have migrated from the LLW trenches. Based on a Congressional request dated March 18, 1986, some portion of the study results are known to Senator Glenn and others. (s: T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated i

STAFF SACK W UND PAPER FOR NRC TESTIMCNY CN MIXE0 LCW-LEVEL WASTES Past Develocments: The applicability of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to LLW disposal has been a concern of the NRC and the EPA for some time. Under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), NRC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the disposal of source, special nuclear and byproduct material. Under RCRA, EPA has jurisdiction over the regulation of the disposal of hazardous wastes other than source, special nuclear, and byproduct material, which are specifically excluded from RCRA regulation. Certain LLW licensed under the Atomic Energy Act, however, also contains chemical constituents that would by J themselves be classified as hazardous under EPA RCRA regulations. These wastes have been referred to as " mixed wastes." Up to the present, the question of RCRA applica'bility over mixed wastes has been viewed as a jurisdictional matter. Both NRC and EPA have maintained that the key to the resolution of the' mixed waste problem rests with a legislative solution that would permit EPA to delegate its RCRA permitting and enforcement responsibilities to NRC. The Commission has indicated to EPA and to Congress 4 that it is willing to assume the responsibility for regulating RCRA substances at licensed LLW disposal facilities, and EPA has indicated in testimony a willingness to delegate this authority to NRC. The practical effect of overlapping RCRA and Atomic Energy Act jurisdictions at currently operating licensed commercial disposal sites to date has been to make mixed wastes into a new orphan waste category. We have been informed that the three existing LLW sites are not accepting mixed waste at this time. We also understand that currently operating hazardous waste disposal site operators may not accept the wastes because they contain radioactive material regulated by NRC. Like the LLW disposal site operators, these operators also can not be forced to accept any waste they do not want to accept. Both the House and the Senate proposed amendments to be included in the LLRWPAA which addressed the mixed waste regulation issue. The Commission is on record as supporting the House version, which provides for RCRA authority delegation to NRC, with some reservations. Staff had taken the position that the proposed Senate arrangement, involving a secuence of actions and findings by EPA and NRC, would be somewnat cumbersome and may not resolve regulatory uncertainties for the disposal of all wastes. Given the information EPA has recently imparted to NRC staff on the evolving RCRA regulations, together with existing

-g. statutory constraints on EPA regulatocy. flexibility, staff do not Oelieve that either of-the two cast legislative proposals will provice a satisfactory solution from the NRC perspective. Recent Information Recuiring Change in past NRC Position: In a March 4, 1936 meeting on mixed waste, EPA staff from the Office of Solid Waste provided information to NRC staff that should be considered by the Commission. This information affects several areas of NRC interest, including the availability of currently operating disposal sites, the timely implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), and current waste management practices by NRC licensees. It appears that the issue is no longer whether EPA or NRC implements RCRA at LLW disposal sites. It is now apoarent that any solution that requires the application of RCRA to LLW disposal developed pursuant to the LLRWPAA is likely to interfere with meeting the goals of that Act. Concerning the impact on currently operating licensed commercial disposal sites, it should be noted that provisions in the 1984 RCRA Amendments authorize the Administrator of EPA to close a site to further receipt of RCRA-regulated substances where hazardous waste constituents have migrated from the disposal unit on the site. Although this migration may still be onsite, it could require cleanup prior to further acceptance of RCRA regulated substances. Even if currently operating sites discontinue all acceptance of mixed wastes in the future, the migration of any wastes from past disposal of RCRA wastes would place the continued availability of these sites in doubt. If such sites could i be required to close to RCRA-regulated substances until even on-site contamination is cleaned up, it may be difficult to justify, from a public perception standpoint, allowing the continued disposal of radioactive material at the site. In this connection, it should be noted that an independent NRC-initiated sampling of grouncwater monitoring wells at two representative LLW disposal sites (one operating and one not operating) has detected the migration of EPA-listed organic constituents from disposal trenches. NRC staff has assessed these releases in a draft staff report and' determined that the releases have not resulted in any exposure to the public. In the same draft report, staff has also evaluated previously collected data from four other LLW disposal sites, two in arid climates. The data on the two arid sites indicated that no migration had been detected, but migration at different levels has been detected at the two other sites. The staff is working to complete the final staff analysis and report for release in about two months. The staff believes

O ! that future health igeacts are unlikely. Modi,fications in the nonitoring programs will be requirec at tne studied sites to accress the identified concerns. Other adverse imoacts on implementation of the Amendments Act would also arise from the application of RCRA to the development of new disposal facilities. Important legislatively-mancated RCRA implementing regulations are not in place at this time. The rule establishing siting criteria for RCRA facilities has yet to be develoced, for example, and may not be in place within the timeframes established by the LLRWPAA for promulgation of NRC guidance or for the states to make facility siting and design decisions. Given the uncertainties resulting from the evolving nature of the RCRA regulations, there could be serious implications for the availability of new LLW capacity if the LLW disposal facilities under development by the state compacts are required to comply with RCRA. EPA staff have said that the RCRA regulations will continue to evolve over the next five years during the i critical period when states are required by LLRWPAA to lock in siting and cesign dects.fons. If states are requirec to design their LLW facilities to meet RCRA for the disposal of the small quantities of mixed waste, the i I uncertainty resulting from attempting to anticipate the RCRA requirements could cause delays in the Congressionally-mandated timetable for development of new licensed discosal capacity. The need to accommodate the non-radioactive characteristics of the mixed wastes currently accounting for less than 3 percent of the total volume of LLW would thus tend to drive the schedule for tne remaining 97 percent, and could hamper the states from meeting Amendments Act milestones for providing new LLW disposal capacity I i In addition to impacts on the timely implementation of the LLRWPAA and the tight timetables for NRC action under that Act, the application of RCRA could also affect current licensee waste management practices. These could include the storage for decay of mixed wastes with short half-life radioactive i material, the provision of financial assurance for on-site disposal by licensees under 10 CFR Part 20.302, and the decommissioning of facilities at which such on-site disposal has been practiced. Thus, as with disposal at currently operating licensed commercial disposal sites, the consequences of past actions could affect future regulatory options if RCRA regulations were applied to disposal uncer 10 CFR Part 20.302. In discussion at the March 4 meeting, the EPA representatives indicated a willingness to support legislation to delegate RCRA authority to NRC in a manner equivalent to the current delegation of RCRA authority to the states. Under this delegation, every RCRA regulatory decision made by NRC, and any NRC-or Agreement State-developed regulatory program would be subject to EPA

aoproval for compatibility. Clearly, c32egation througn EPA in tnis manner would not tesolve the cual regulation question. Staff had consicered recommencing nat Congress make tne celegation cirectly tnrougn legislation, but that position cas changed as a result of the recently-received information acout tne uncertainty tnat would be introduced by tne evolving RCRA regulations, e NRC staff has discussed the uncertainties and likely imcacts on the implementation of the Amencments Act arising from the EPA plans and policies j communicated at the March 4 meeting. EPA staff has agreed with NRC assessment of these impacts. i Staff Rescorse to Recent EDA Information: f Staff review of the imcacts of the recently-received information leads us to believe that the cetter position on mixed waste regulation would focus on eliminating tne discosal of mixed wa*: es at LLW disposal sites. NMSS ELD, CCA, anc EPA staffs have met with Congressional Committee staffs at their recuest and ciscussed nis information. It is the staff's impression that the Congressional Committee staff understand the problem. While NRC staff has not had time to consider all the available options, i following are some of tne possibilities:

1) Legislation giving NRC exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the total hazard without reference to RCRA.

Since NRC would not have time to go througn rulemaking, this would effectively authorize NRC to continue to regulate mixed waste as we nave in the past. In effect, this would legislatively recogni:e tnat for the small amount of material that would be regulated under RCRA, NRC rules for protecting the oublic health and safety from tne radioactive nazards t will provide adequate protection. f

2) Legislation giving EPA exclusive jurisdication to regulate mixed waste as RCRA waste witnout any NRC role.

EPA would thus regulate mixed wastes uncer RCRA as it would. naturally-occurring and accelerator produced material (NARM), which is also currently an EPA RCRA responsibility as we read the law.

3) Legislation to authori:e and direct the develocment of a single facility to i

nandle the disposal of mixed waste. In this regard, either a federal agency could assume acditional responsibility for the mixed waste generated in the i private sector, or incentives could be provided to encourage one state to l assume tne role of hosting such a facility. Due to the snort oeriod of time to i i i l I

d 5-consider the information from EPA, staff f u ot prepared to recommend a preferred 00tiin at snis time. NRC staff recommends that the best legislative course would be to: 1) mandate ces; management techniques to minimize the volume of mixed waste to be disposed of to the maximum extant practicaole; and 2) mandate regulation of the substances currently suoject to RCRA at licensed LLW disposal sites in the same manner as tne regulation of the radioactive materials. .[ l 4 I l l 4

e l t 8 e ,o 4 l l I { t ( ( ( ( ATTACHMENT 3 l i ~- - - _. _.,.. -.

s a BASIC QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF RCRA REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTES (NOTE: EPA staff has reviewed this attachment; their comments of April 29, 1986 have been incorporated.) I. Is It A Hazardous Waste? I A. Applicable Statutory Requirements for Atomic Energy Act licensees

1. Definition (Sections 1004(5) and 1004(27) of RCRA)

2. Identification and Listing (RCRA Section 3001)

3. Listing /Delisting (Section 222 of 1984 Amendments Act)

4. Used Oil (Amendments Act Section 241)

8. Applicable EPA regulations

1. Current Rules

a. 40 CFR 261.3 (definition) and 40 CFR 261.4 (exclusions)

b. 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22 (petitions for exclusion)

2. Rules to be Developed i

1

a. Specified Wastes (Amendments Act Section 222(a))

b. Delisting Procedures (Amendments Act Section 222(a))

c. EP Toxicity (Amendments Act Section 222(a))

j

d. Additional Characteristics (Amendments Act Section 222(a))

e. Management of Used Oil (Amendments Act Section 241)

APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

4 C. Associated Issues 1. When hazardous waste is mixed with non hazardous solid waste, the entire mixture becomes a hazardous waste under Section 261.3(a)(2)(iii). Therefore, an entire LLW disposal container would become RCRA hazardous waste, if only one rag or wipe contained both radioactive waste and RCRA hazardous waste for RCRA substance generators producing greater than 100 kg per month. 2. The simple presence of any hazardous waste, regardless of concentration, in any other waste substance subjects RCRA to the entire waste in which such hazardous waste is found. It should be noted that, for counting purposes, when hazardous waste is mixed with nonhazardous waste, only the portion that is hazardous counts toward the quantity determination for generators. 3. Revisions to the standards for small-quantity generators (40 CFR 262) were promulgated March 24, 1986 (51 FR_ 101 46) II. The Generators Are Covered Under RCRA And EPA Regulations 40 CFR 261.5. Note: Revised standards RCRA, as amended in 1984, 6221, for small-quantity generators were finalized on March 24, 1986 (51 F_R 10146). A. Applicable Statutory Requirements for Atomic Energy Act licensees:

1. RCRA Section 3002 (Requirements Applicable to Generators)

2. Amendments Act Section 221 (Small Quantity Generators)

3. Amendments Act Section 224 (Waste Minimization)

4. Amendments Act Section 246 (Domestic Sewage)

8. Applicable EPA regulations

1. Current Rules

a. 40 CFR 261.5 (small quantity generator requirements) 3

b. 40 CFR 262 (standards for generators)

APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3 L

9 4 2. Rules to be Developed

a. Small Ouantity Generator Standards (Amendments Act Section 221(a)). Standards for Generators Generating less than 100kg of Hazardous Wastes per Month (Amendments Act Section 221(a)).

Standards for generators who generate less than 100 kg of h.w. per month: EPA has no plans to change existing requirements, i.e., the generator may treat or dispose of the waste on-site or ensure delivery to a RCRA facility, a State-approved municipal or industrial solid waste facility, or a waste minimization facility. Generators determine to which generator category they belong prior to shipment of the waste off-site,

b. Waste Minimization Implementation (Amendments Act Section 224(a) and (b)).

NOTE: a, and b: deal with standards from small-quantity generators of hazardous waste (final rules, March 24,1986). These rules are incorporated in 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 270, and 271. C. Associated Issues 1. Under RCRA generator standards, generators determine the quantity of hazardous waste that is generated at the time it is generated, prior to treatment. RCRA 6261.5(d)(2) is intended to avoid, duplicate counting, i.e., at the time the waste is generated and again following treatment. 2. Whether or not a generator qualifies as a small-quantity generator is determined by the quantity at the time the waste is generated. The revised standards distinguish three classes of small-quantity generators: (1) those who generate up to 100 kg/mo. of non-acutely hazardous waste; (2) those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo. of non-acutely hazardous waste; and (3) those who generate acutely hazardous wastes in quantities set forth in 9261.5(e). APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

e b 3. How many EPA-regulated hazardous waste generators are also licensed by NRC or Agreement States? By what general categories can these generators be classified? Answer: EPA has no list of AEA generators, thus we do not know how many EPA-regulated hazardous waste generators are also licensed by NRC or Agreement Statas. EPA is providing to NRC a printout of all l generators who filed under RCRA. Although these are not classified, they could be categorized according to data required in the l notification, such as waste codes, size, and location.

4. If NRC were to require mixed waste licensees to treat their wastes to meet NRC-established requirements beyond the treatment level 4

" determined by the generator to be economically practicable" under Section 224 of the Amendments Act, could EPA find that the requirements of this Section had been met? Answer: Yes. An NRC-established requirement that is more stringent than the RCRA requirement, i.e., a treatment level " determined by the generator to be economically practicable" (HSWA Section 224), would be acceptable to EPA. 5. Revised hazardous waste generator standards were promulgated March 24,1986 (51 FR 1046); no further revisions are contemplated by EPA at this time. Revisions affect 40 CFR 260, 261, 262, 263, 270, and 271.

6. A generator who treated, stored, or disposed of his wastes on-site would also be considered the owner and/or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. A generator who treats, stores, or disposes of waste on-site becomes an owner / operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility under RCRA, unless the generator can qualify for a "small-auantity generetor exemption" or the190,180,

or 270-day exclusion fnr generators who store on-site prior to shipment. Note in FR 3/24/86 (5262.34) that those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo and must transport the waste farther than 200 miles for treatment, storage, or disposal may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 270 days without obtaining a permit or without having interim status, provided the generator complies with standards for those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo. 7. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act would apply to any generator found to be subject to RCRA. Note that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3' 1 r-

o. 6 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) universe is broader than that under RCRA. CERCLA applies to whenever there is an imminent or substantial danger to public health or the environment because of the release of a hazardous substance (CERCLA 6!104, 106, and 107). III. What Are The RCRA Requirements For Storage? A. Applicable Statutory Requirements for Atomic Energy Act licensees:

1. RCRA Section 3004 (Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities)

2. RCRA Section 3005 (Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities)

3. Amendments Act Section 201(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(j) re:

Storage of Waste Prohibited from Land Disposal)

4. Amendments Act Section 247 (new RCRA Section 3019 re: Exposure Information and Health Assessments) applies to storage surface impoundments only.

B. Applicable EPA regulations

1. Current Rules

a. 40 CFR 262.34 (limits on accumulation of wastes)

b. 40 CFR 264 (standards for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities)

c. 40 CFR 265 (interim status standards for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities)

d. 40 CFR 270 (EPA-administered hazardous waste permit program)

2. Rules to be Developed Storage of wastes prohibited from land disposal (Amendments Act Section 201(a) (amending RCRA Section 3004(j))

APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

~ ~ _ ^ C. Associated Issues

1. For licensed ger.erators of mixed wastes who are storing these wast.es on-site for radioactive decay, would EPA consider the need for such storage an " uncontrollable circumstance" for purposes of granting an extension to the 90-day maximum accumulation time provided under 40 CFR 262.34? Could EPA grant an extension greater

-than 30 days to permit licensees holding for decay to continue doing - so without having to seek a ItCRA storage permit? Could EPA grant an exterdion t'o non-generator third parties accepting wastes from generators to hold for decay?' Answer: It is not likely that an extension to the 90, 180, or 270-day accumulation exemption could be justified for generators of mixed waste who store on-site for radioactive decay longer than these periuds of time.

2. In light of the requirement in NRC 10 CFR Part 20.1(c) to maintain occupational radiation exposures and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable, how would EPA apply its Section 264.13 requirements for pre-storage waste sampling and analysis to' licensed LLW storage facility operators?

Answer: RCRA 9264.13 requires sampling and analysis in order to determine proper management of waste. -The question is whether this would pose a problem when radiation is involved. EPA would require safety measures for mixed waste comparable to those that are taken to reduce risks when examining hazardous waste. l

3. When are,the above applicable rules that are under development or l

to be developed currently scheduled to be promulgated? l 1 Answer: No changes in rules concerning " accumulation" or " sampling and analysis" of waste are contemplated at this time.

4. Are we correct in assuming that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act would apply to any storage facility found to oe subject.to RCRA?

Antwer: Yes. CERCLA is not restricted to RCRA facilities; it applies ~tc any storage of hazardous substances. ~ APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

s 6 IV. What Are the RCRA Requirements for New Land Disposal Facilities? NOTE: This question refers to surface impoundments and landfills. All hazardous wastes must be treated to be acceptable for new land disposal facilities. A. Applicable Statutory Requirements for Atomic Energy Act licensees:

1. RCRA Section 3004 (Standards for Owners and Operators of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

2. RCRA Section 3005 (Permits for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities)

3. Amendments Act Section 201(a) (New RCRA Sections 3004(b),(d),(e),(g), and (h) re: prohibition on land disposal)

4. Amendments Act Section 202 (New RCRA Section 3004(o) re: minimum technological requirements)

5. Amendments Act Section 203 (New RCRA Section 3004(o) re:

groundwatermonitoring)

6. Amendments Act Section 247 (new RCRA Section 3019 re: exposure information and health assessments)

B. Applicable EPA regulations

1. Current Rules

a. 40 CFR 264 (standards for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities)

b. 40 CFR 270 (EPA-administered hazardous waste permit program)

2. Rules to be Developed

a. Prohibitions on land disposal of specified wastes (Amendments Act Section 201(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(d)).

Land disposal ban of specific hazardous wastes--see proposal 51 FR 1606 (January 14,1986). Three categories of wastes affected by the land disposal ban are: (1) solvents and dioxins, effective: 11/8/86; (2) California list, effective: 7/8/87; (3) Scheduled APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

r , Wastes, schedule for making land disposal restrictions to be submitted to Congress: 11/8/86. (51 FR 1606 and 1607, attached, for lists of wastes and dates). c. Additional land disposal prohibitions (Amendments Act Section 201(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(g)).

b. Prohibitions on land disposal of solvents and dioxins (Amendments Act Section 201(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(e)). See comments on "a" above.

c. Variances from land disposal prohibitions (Amendments Act Section 201(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(h)).

Variances from land disposal prohibitions: proposed in codification rule, 51 FR 1602 (January 14,1986). Se e also RCRA 53004(d), land disposal prohibitions of specified wastes; 53004(e), solvents and dioxins; and 53004(h) variances from land disposal prohibitions.

e. Minimum technological requirements (Amendments Act Section 202(a) (new RCRA Section 3004(o)). Minimum technological requirements concerning double liners and leachate collection / removal systems:

proposal, 3/28/86; promulgation, 4/87.

f. Ground water monitoring (Amendments Act Section 203 (new RCRA Section 3004(p)).

Interim final, 3/87.

g. Financial responsibility (Amendments Act Section 205 (new RCRA Section 3004(t)) and Section 208 (amending RCRA Section 3004(a) to include corrective action)).

Final rule, 1/89 (requires financial responsibility for corrective action.)

h. Continuing releases (Amendments Act Section 206 (new RCRA Section 3004(u).

Final rule, 9/87; also guidance, 8/87.

1. Corrective action beyond facility boundaries (Amendments Act Section 207 (new RCRA Section 3004(v).

Proposal, March 28, 1986; final rules (two packages), 11/8/86 (double liners), and spring 1987 (corrective action and permitting requirements). A th.ird rule is projected to allow broader use for schedules of compliance for regulated units, proposal, mid-summer 1986. J. New and innovative treatment technologies (Amendments Act Section 214 (new RCRA Section 3005(g)). Within 6 months EPA plans to propose regulations for permitting research facilities. APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

. B. Associated Issues

1. Under what statutory authority is EPA developing regulatory guidance for the siting of new RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities? How will this guidance relate to the location standards in Section 264.18 of current EPA rules? Will they establish location requirements for waivers from the double liner and leachate collection system requirements of the 1985 Amendments Act?

Answer: Guidance for siting new RCRA facilities: Under RCRA 63004(o)(7), EPA is developing guidance pertaining to " vulnerable hydrogeology for landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles." Separate location rules are being developed for new and existing facilities (proposal, 3/88). These will supplement existing standards in 40 CFR 264.18 (Note: guidance is not a rule and also is independent of 40 CFR 264.18.)

2. In light of the requirement in NRC's 10 CFR Part 20.1(c) to maintain occupational radiation exposures and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable, how would EPA apply its Section 264.13 requirements for pre-disposal waste sampling and analysis to licensed LLW treatment and/or disposal facility operators?

Answer: Concerning occupational safety when complying with 40 CFR 264.13 (sampling and analysis), a rule or guidance could be developed, if warranted, to avoid sampling, but consistency in risks posed by hazardous waste must be considered in any revisions. This would require formal Agency review.

3. In general, what showings would an NRC or Agreement State disposal site licensee or license applicant have to make to demonstrate under RCRA Section 3004(o)(2) (Section 202(a) of the 1984 Amendments Act) that his proposed " alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of hazardous constituents into ground water... at least as effectively as such liners and leachate collection systems"?

Answer: EPA has not yet developed guidance to make demonstration for a waiver under RCRA 63004(o)(2), but we are reviewing flow time and quantity for double-liner designs versus demonstration of alternative design by owners / operators on a case-by-case basis. One waiver has been granted, to CECOS in EPA's Region V. APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

. 4. The standard for the levels or methods of treatment under Section 3004(m) is that they "substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized. [ emphasis added]" In EPA's view, does this standard implicitly contemplate some level of migration of hazardous constituents from treated wastes, as distinct from the "no migration" standard for disposal of untreated wastes under the 1984 Amendments Act? Answer: Treatment standards referred to under RCRA 63004(m) concern land treatment only, i.e., treatment on or in the land. This rule requires owners / operators to demonstrate that hazardous constituents in waste can be " completely degraded, transformed, or immobilized in the treatment zone." As long as the hazardous constituent is degraded or transformed, migration is acceptable. Such treatment is inappropriate for radioactive waste.

5. From an EPA regulatory standpoint, what are the differences between the landfill design standard under Section 264.301(a) of existing RCRA rules (requiring a liner to " prevent any migration of wastes... into the adjacent subsurface soil) and the standard under Section 201 of the Amendments Act requiring a showing of "no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit... for as long as the wastes remain hazardous"? Does the subsequent statutory standard supersede the standard in EPA's 1982 regulations? As EPA interprets the statutory standard, could an applicant obtain a permit even if he could not demonstrate that there would be no releases from a disposal unit, so long as he could demonstrate that there would be no detectable migration at any required monitoring point?

Answer: The question asks if the statutory requirements under HSWA 9201 supersede 40 CFR 264.301(a). The statutory requirements for double liners and leachate collection systems supersedes 40 CFR 264.301(a) only for new hazardous waste facilities. Existing facilities are still regulated under 40 CFR 264.301(a), thus existing facilities are not required to retrofit to meet the statutory requirement but any expansion or additional units must be in compliance with the double-liner requirement. EPA believes that most landfill facilities are in compliance with the double-liner requirement because the capacity for a landfill is about 6-12 months. Surface impoundments must be retrofitted by November 1988. APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

l . If an owner / operator complies with the statutory requirement for double li.iers, no demonstration is necessary. An owner / operator who wishes to use a different system must demonstrate under 93004(o)(2) that the system is at least as effective as the double liner /leachate collection system. 6. Under Section 264.301(b) of EPA rules, the standard for an exemption from the liner requirements in paragraph (a) is that the owner or operator must demonstrate that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, "will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents... into the ground water... at any future time." This standard also differs from the 1984 Amendments Act standards, both for disposal methods under Section 201 and waivers from the double liner and leachate collection system re.quirements under Section 202. How will these differences translate 11+.o differences in EPA's approach to alternative disposal systea.s? Answer: See answer to C.5

7. In light of the requirement in NRC 10 CFR Part 20.1(c) to maintain occupational radiation exposures and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable, how would EPA change its requirements for corrective action, if at all, if such corrective action were required at a licensed LLW disposal facility receiving mixed wastes and subject to 40 CFR 264 Subpart F7 Answer:

See answer to IV.B.2.1 for contemplated changes to requirements for corrective action. At this time EPA staff does not know if additional changes would be necessary for mixed waste.

8. Are we correct in assuming that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act would apply to any licensed treatment or disposal facility found to be subject to RCRA?

A.iswer: Yes. CERCLA is not restricted to RCRA facilities; it applies to any storage of hazardous substances. V. What Are the RCRA Requirements for Currently Operating Disposal Sites? A. Applicable Statutory Requirements for Atomic Energy Act licensees

1. RCRA Section 3004 (Standards for Owners and Operators of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities)

APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3 l

. 2. RCRA Section 3005 (Permits for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities)

3. Amendments Act Section 206 (Continuing Releases and Permitted Facilities)

4. Amendments Act Section 211 (Authority for Permit to Construct Hazaraous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities)

5. Amendments Act Section 212 (Permit Life)

6. Amendments Act Section 213 (Interim Status)

I

7. Amendments Act Section 215 (New RCRA Section 3005(j) re: existing surface impoundments)

8. Amendments Act Section 233 (Interim Status Corrective Action Orders)

9. Amendments Act Section 243 (Expansion During Interim Status) 1

10. Amendments Act Section 247 (Exposure Information and Health Assessments)

B. Applicable EPA regulations

1. Current Rules

a. 40 CFR 265 (Interim status standards for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities)

b. 40 CFR 270 (EPA-administered permit program)

2. Rules to be Developed

a. Continuing Releases and Permitted Facilities (Amendments Act Section 206)

4. Authority for Permit to Construct Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities (Amendments Act Section 211)

5. Permit Life (Amendments Act Section 212)

6. Interim Status (Amendments Act Section 213)

APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

's 4 7. Existing Surface Impoundments (Amendments Act Section 215) 4

8. Interim Status Corrective Action Orders (Amendrrents Act Section 233)

9. Expansion During Interim Status (Amendments Act Section 243) i

10. Exposure Information and Health Assessments (Amendments Act l

Section 247) C. Associated Issues

1. Since NRC has not required licensed generators to keep records of the hazardous wastes disposed of on-site under our 10 CFR Part 20.306 and 20.302 rules, how would EPA approach the problem of compliance with applicable recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart E?

Answer: Concerning recordkeeping requirements under the hazardous waste regulations, EPA would require any owners / operators of facilities coming into the system to begin keeping records of their operations and to record as much as they can recollect regarding operations prior to this time.

2. In light of the requirement in NRC 10 CFR Part 20.1(c) to maintain occupational radiation exposures and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable, how would EPA apply its Section 265.13 requirements for waste sampling and analysis to licensed LLW storage or disposal facility operators under interim status?

Answer: The answer is the same as for III.B.2. i

3. In light of the requirement in NRC 10 CFR Part 20.1(c) to maintain occupational radiation exposures and releases of radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable, how would EPA change its requirements for corrective action, if at all, if such corrective action were required at a currently operating LLW disposal facility subject to 40 CFR 2657 Answer:

The answer is the same as for IV.C.7. APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

. 4. Given the information currently available concerning detected migration of hazardous constituents from disposal units at the Barnwell, South Carolina LLW disposal facility, what corrective action, if any, would the site operator be required to take under Section 233 of the Amendments Act? In general, if this facility, or a licensed facility disposing of wastes on-site, were operating under a RCRA permit, what conditions with respect to leechate migration would have to be present for EPA or the delegated state RCRA agency to suspend or revoke authorization to operate under Section 3005(e)? 1 Answer : EPA has developed a guidance on corrective action orders (RCRA Q3008(h) or 9233 of HSWA). Leachate migration is not, in itself, grounds for suspension or revocaticn of a hazardous waste permit. The owner / operator is required to conduct different types of monitoring, define the plume, and take corrective action. Failure to take such action could result in loss of a permit. A related issue, Section 3005(e), concerns certification of compliance with ground-water monitoring standards of 40 CFR Part 26 5. In order to certify, the owner / operator must establish a Part 265 ground-water monitoring well system and take at least one round of 1 samples. The deadline for doing this was November 8, 1985, for existing RCRA units, and 12 months after this date for units brought into the RCRA system.

5. Does EPA have any current information concerning the number and types of generators licensed under the Atomic Energy Act who are or may be disposing of hazardous constituents in surface impoundments?

Has EPA notified any such generators that they may be subject to RCRA, including the requirements of Section 215 of the 1984 Amendments Act? If no such information is available, does EPA have any plans to identify licensed generators who may be disposing of hazardous constituents in surface impoundments? l t Answer: EPA has no list of AEA generators. EPA does have a list of all generators who filed under RCRA, what their wastes are, and whether they have surface impoundments. Owners / operators of surface impoundments containing hazardous waste are required, by Federal statute, to notify EPA or an authorized State. Those who do not notify are subject to enforcement action. i APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3 I i i o, r --,. -. - - -e g----y v------>- v ,--m--,-- ,--g------ ~~a - wv -

i e . 6. Are we correct in assuming that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act would apply to any facility found to be subject to the interim status requirements of RCRA? Answer: See response to question II.C.7 I APRIL 29, 1986 ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4 I

5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NRC 10 CFR PART 61 REGULATIONS AND EPA REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED Under Section 201 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the RCRA Amendments Act, land disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited unless the EPA Administrator determines that i this prohibition is not required to protect human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous, taking into account, among other things, the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal and the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bicaccumulate of the hazardous wastes and their constituents. The standard for protection of human health and the environment from the land disposal of hazardous waste is that, unless the waste meets certain pre-treatment requirements, it must be demonstrated "to a reasonable i degree of certainty that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit as long as the wastes remain hazardous." NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 land disposal rule is not based on a "no migration" requirement. Instead, the performance objective for protection of the general population in Section 61.41 establishes annual dose limits that any member of the public may receive from concentrations of radioactive material that may be released to the general environment in groundwater, air, soil, and by other means. Section 61.41 also requires " reasonable efforts" to " maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable." In discussing disposal facility design requirements related to groundwater, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the rule noted: "NRC staff realize the difficulties in proving that a given design will absolutely prevent or eliminate an occurence (such as 'the contact of waste by percolating or standing water after disposal.'] However, the ~ design should work toward achieving such prevention or elimination, coming as close as practicable. Unfortunately,... many commenters interpreted ATTACHMENT 4 j

l I j < NRC's intention as requiring absolute prevention, which was correctly pointed 4 out by commenters as being impossible to demonstrate." (See NUREG-0945, Vol. 1, p. 5-16.) It should be noted that 40 CFR 264 Supart F of EPA rules establishes a secondary standard that does assume migration of hazardous constituents and sets concentration limits for them. This standard was developed for purposes l of decisions concerning migration detection, compliance monitoring, and i corrective action, however; it applies only after a site has been permitted and migration has been detected. It has no applicability to the initial decision on whether to approve a new disposal facility or expansion of an existing one. i For that initial approval, the applicable standard is a demonstration that j there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit as long as the wastes remain hazardous. Section 202(a) of the RCRA Amendments Act requires that each new landfill and -l each ertension of an existing landfill under RCRA jurisdiction must have two or m re liners and a leachate collection system. NRC 10 CFR Part 61 rules for near-surface disposal of LLW contain no such requirements. In discussing a related point concerning the required performance of the disposal site, the FEIS for 10 CFR 61 stressed: "The accumulation of water in the disposal unit (the bathtub effect) must be avoided. This can normally be accomplished if the i bottom of the disposal unit can drain at least as readily as water can i j infiltrate into the disposal unit through the cover or sides...." EPA's 40 CFR Part 264 rules for land disposal facilities rely on the collection and treatment of leachate during the operation of the disposal facility to minimize environmental hazards. NRC's rules discourage the collection and treatment of leachate in order to minimize radiation exposures of disposal facility workers. Section 61.43 of the NRC rule establishes i performance objectives for protection of individuals during disposal site operations, and requires "every reasonable effort... to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable." l l Section 61.44 of NRC's rule requires new licensed near-surface disposal facilities to be sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to minimize to the extent practicable the need for on going active maintenance after closure of i the site. EPA RCRA rules contain no such performance objective. 4 Section 61.59(b) of NRC's rule requires post-closure institutional control up j to 100 years, and provides that institutional controls may not be relied upon for more than 100 years following transfer of control of the site to the owner. The 100 year maximum provides the basis for facility siting, design, and operation, and the classification of wastes for specific packaging and disposal i ~

s j l requirements. EPA rules require a 30 year post-closure care period that may be i extended for cause. To assure that institutional controls will be maintained for the required period, Section 61.59(a) of NRC's rule provides that " disposal of radioactive waste received from other persons may be permitted only on land owned in fee by the Federal or a State government." EPA rules provide no government ownership requirement for hazardous waste disposal sites. L NRC's rules contain structural stability requirements for waste packages. EPA's 40 CFR Part 264 rules contain no packaging requirements. EPA rules contain extensive and detailed financial assurance requirements for funding of corrective action. These requirements are predicated on a requirement for corrective action to protect groundwater from excessive migration of leachate from an individual disposal unit within a site. NRC financial assurance rules for corrective action are currently under development, but are not predicated on a requirement of no migration from disposal units so long as radioactivity concentrations in effluents do not I cause dose standards to be exceeded at the facility boundary. j I i i i i 4 ) l 1 i

o e } ATTACHMENT 5

i S IN3WH3V11V 2 1 ? g 2. i : :.- }; 71 t.-: e I'. :..:?fs i 4 ,I !-[2,s.. :F:.. 2 I.. e.. i :t

:: : :: j !!!] t i !

-t .2--

2.2 2-

.2::., t:.:::::

, :i 2.

2::_g .2: : e -: ! .2 :

,s:2:

2;-'.2 s t: 52-t T'I[::.. :T,:1 :*i ; -2 2 22: 2: ::: 2;. :i I:

" I. I

. 41 ,1 _i,. -822.t,t[ g4y _: :- 7: 4 4:- 2 2:.t: rir e8.: j:j:- 2-- 2 .;i 2: r 5 :,

.7

, :4 4. ::1.:. f.:

,.3 4: 281:'

12

' ::1J:: . 2 :::.- [e : 2 1 L: :;- $'4 4 j 1. '4 2 - i '. : 2,3. si-E.g : . : :3 8 i 1. . :.t : :r ! - : : :.t.e ,2 2:- .- :=2 5 :: : :-

3..

--s 7: -2. _3 : 2 2 8!:gr-: - 2._12 ;-

:,::.:- :., :g

,2-1

. 4;::

I _5,.. 3 5 2 !:. 8. s i.

:- :t i : t42 g:i s t ;:: g:..-

22.2 2 .2.:-: 2-4

y.

.i 1

4:.,,

r2: -:: tm.- e 1: -:- ts -,:2.s:..._.j 1r:ll: s

2 2.s 23: 2: 52: ::_ 2 2

.:..: sir {.I_;_.gs.2..

is 3-::::-: 2

j :i

t::sje. I t*:

3 t 2.- t. i_

• • -2:

},* - : 3 .* 2:_ I : 7 :. '.5. I:.: 4 :. 1,: 3.. l E ~ E. 6 2f: 2:s

g

, r::,; z

2. 2 2 t j :: r : :s :,. ;

t i t . :ts;; t. 93, h,1 2 .g... . :::e'j.jJi { 1 * - :..: 1._I..g ::::: y _: W E. ..E is. I

I1l%

2-

2. :g.*: _:

I,.12l2x -.!:. -:!:p_:s:::. 2: m g , (-. = 3: 3 11:

3... _ i :. : 4li : 73.:y)5.

m e T-:::,l1:.- : --. r 3 e }1_g: 2-

-f 4

- lat27I:: g:_:

.. 7:::g :: :t 2 :

-r !8 z;-:( .3.: 2 :,. III!I 83j i'.fi 25h,'55j!.j:!g lit U E I I I : l..r. .I.sv i

2.. ),.,: : - ::: :

r .gie,: .t -i 2 : r 4_t : 33._ --

se.[:gr-:_. 2g :: I g: e.l:.:1 5

22 5 - __:g 33:: 2._. 1.:: 3. _:_r. J.21:. - l,.:2...... .i. 1_g 2,3,2- !!2 1:

32,.-{w l.[. 4 Ti

.:: t 1 5 '. I s. E 1 :.s. . 7 :

2..:. 1 : 2 }..*. : _ _: T.

1 Ip W ..._t.:!8.t.r.e .yg,,!,:.t

l.

sc.

t.:

-v . 2.g:_i 2

a _g i 832-'-*5 I ~p

.2

(

5-': 2 -8

):.. 1.2222 J 2. ; r :: t _s : t - :::-1.6 1:.lt :.

82 2.:t:t 1 .s 2 1

...r

.3 1.3 :2 2 :: g :., s 8 ; 2

1. :::2.::

22-2: : I t r: 3 22 : 2

24. 1 i 2:

4 I I

a. ,...e.,. 2 2.. ~ n .a I..., aa v ..a. 1. ,8 34 4 ..g. .. 1.

21.. L.

a.. .ti, 1.,,..... .e..., .. e. l,- ... -.i.- - m.e.e. a..a.a. a.a. 2.. f.... t. . e . a.. j t. .3 S.... - m. 2.. - -e g-

g

:.'

... t 2! -

1. I. 3

'5.Li* 2. t.*.. .I.: E.R. ...,,..e...

2.,.

2. .3. ..a.. 11. ...l. .I s. .I 2 AIL.. 2.. te. ,.2<3. .a 1.8..

a. l. t..E......

.I. 1.... 2 5 a .I 4. ...L.. .3 v

1..I -..

- g: 1 ....el- .1 ......e .12 L.- I

1. t s..[ I E. :

y g 2 t :. l.E * * *, 2;,t* .att:1 ... T.* .,.l.. 11.,. 2.. as.e..L. E

11..

,..,..t.1. 1,.. ..s.3 ..a... T. t. 2 X x

a.....

.o.. ...t u 1 . 8.- 2. es 4 .4 ..,1 .t.... 1 .~ .E. ,1. .T.- 3.- 4.... .. e..,.e a..s 1 t,.... - 1. .8 L. 8..

2..

C. .t .., 1....e.. ... 22. 3 .-.t- ..7 .r.. .1..a.2.[- .38 2.. -.3 s e e..2-

2.... e.

.<.a. ..aL .a e 1*lI*.3 F 7 ' 2 2.,.2. L ', 2.. a -... 2 E*l

• 3
• I. 4 7 * :.2 2 5.5 2

.L. ~. i..F.*

• t *i l m...s..

a.- . t t.., e 1.. .. t.u 1 1.,.. ~, m t.. .,3 a.12... T.a .3 .-.2 L.1 2. - - -..t = -,-. 814. .I. T I 8.

a..,.

2 e....

2. s. -.1 a.

8. g il e. 87 4 .i 18.. -.t

1. m.

.I

2.. t. :. 2 15

.l ' 2.113 84' f $ 1. Y' 4

12.. J 1 1 ".

• • • f*

t 3 T.1 . l.s,. 3.. &.......e.3m. 8.. 7

1..e

2..L,.

.. E .E.. ...... 4.... .1 .7 t 3.. .1...i,

1.. a.

1 .-ei - 54 3 cm 3... 8.. 4. -... 8

4.. i.. -...

.r2...=.. 2 L2.. .4 5 a. .2 ..I.1. 2

a.,. 8.e 3

2...a. . 1 a .a -,. 2 3 L. l ...T. ......e 1 .... 8.. i. a. 2..

1. s -

.t 4,.. F. .e .I. .7 (. 4 a. a...

1.,a.

8....2.. f..t I 8

2...,..

a... s

.h, .. 5...5.a...3 8.2.13- .28-- . :.. 4 2.8. I. te.8 l... 3.1..... .l -1 l f..e.3

3.. I a

4..

- i . 3. T. !J..I-.8.I

a. f 28

.a

2.... -....

27.... a

2. !

s. 14 ...v,.- ..............e. 4 s. 1-8s..,. .et v .at ...2 .l.4 a. 2..

2....

.L I. 2 I l. 1

s. e.

.e 3.. - . 4.. 8 a. 8 .eT.t L - ..L ..L.1 .i. t... 8. 1 !..... ja. .a a. .L 1...m.m-... 2.... u ,..l. .l. ..,...5 8-s.L,. 2..a.. 2 ..,.8,,. ....s. F.2 2.}...

1..

F. ..I 7.. 3 1 t 8L ...3.f34.r :.-2,.E.t : : ! a... l. g : -a. g

e.i.

i. o

2. :.: :

.r .i 2. . 2 2..: 2 si l.

4 i .= .2 4. .e 8 3.. e.- 2 l

2..... 58 -

t, ....s.

1...

T. .3. . e .e . g, .t 6 .c, a.)=. ,2 .4.. . It 1 ...3.e. ...t.t l

t .= .s T. e,. 3... l . l. ~E T tt22% 1*i -st I. . i,t21.4.31 .**T: Tt.t I 1.g ....1. .B.. L,. 8..e.g. 5._.,. t 8..

I.3 6

s e- .-e....a es ..g 4.

1.. e.,.

-t. 1 i 2 s ,.. e.. w 2.. 6. ~ .,,. e. t .e .t 1..f... t,..

t..J.

.gg

. _, 2

.... ~. 4 ,3. T... t. .,1.t 4 ..L,.- t. L J.g. 8 ,s., ....s -.e -T E. -4 J.1. 3. ].

1..* :. t. *

%.. 1...,......L 2 48*

• .--- 3

.6 .e 8 .,.3, '1 1 _i e l : 3 I,. - g. s-g. t.1%: E L' t! e - rT sT3 .L g ,g 2 s.. . 2...,. 1 J s.2 L le ..I..i.L.. -I ..... 6 .a ta.--- B25...-..4.1.1 F1 4.e e. .2 .e };5 .m.t 8

• E,.

1 7 33--[ ..2- -gg. 11. -. g ',* 5 g 4 g - 5 63 i t, t.11.*81 e.1 1

2..=

-81 e 3 m. -....,J.....- 2.1. - t,..,. t.... 1 1.. t. .e.. ,g .,3 ..t. 13 g J., J ~ L 1,.1 .j......t 1.- .t .g g.3. i j i, l ) 24

1.,..

.5 ,- t 3.. e .....L..- 2 .J47.. 3 ..I.T.... !.

1.,

.I.3. 2 e 8 2 t.,.I

s. e. I 15..

i ...-,,.1 i.

1., -,2

-3 41 &2 g.. I. i ts ..t 1.. .2., ..T. i '.t'.,*,- ..r ! ! ! J..g ; y - 2 g '15:2*

- 1 2 2, 4.,.

1

1. 7 5.. E.

t.t ..... -. 2. 4,., 1 3. 4. 1 t... .2 T.. 1 ..I. 8 .t. I... 3.. .. r.... T..,. .1. ...t... .g.1 J,.

• f...I, 8.L 't l I 2 2

-.e. t.. .g

s. i.t 11.

.1.J ...t ',t ; s.. 2 T..'..* -*2

3. 3 Iest.

..t.. 2 t' J.1.. - - 2.t .l.. 3 .-.-$4 8 .8 e L 8b 4.e

3......

S. . e. - 3. ,1. 2. 3~,... ..I.7 a !..f X.4 1. ..-i,,. - 4 ,11,2 1-.l...1.-.... .1 ..2..8-1 1 .i 2..t.- .l,.- 1 8 ..l. .3..- ...,....1 ,t .t . L..L.

1.,. ~...

..t .I -,. e..L.

1...

s.. a .... T...- 1 8.

32.....J.

f.1.. s. a 3.eiBBe 1 t. 2... M.l.. 2. 1-1 2 I. - 1.!..e. 1 s 1 81

11. f. t., !

i..t 8 t ....t. .2 ef .4.,. .t .t.!.-L ..-T.. 1.. .T.2 2.Iet.. .g. t 1.,.,.. ..F.... es,. .l 2-s u .e .g ...g.,. b.-.-, (& 9. t..... j * * =[.= *.,T =b . 8... -.. T..

• E b*

g .e.M- .. -.e.s ..,e v -e. g ..g l .6-. s i I _y

e see F Pose # %.ch esseeysIpeg are tereeststeet wtth the etsemeevy peee**etSee egelmee to.4 deep.get, th, es ot et es, emphas t e se t he faaelly flawed. If EP A reselste dawa che pat h ane lleed la the seas eet elet te, aseor g eted.Ith t e.d disyesel, e.d t he pe poset, these veget es tene ut il endaeht edI, he seereseteIIy fe*2eee*Iaeol fladtage e.d angerts,,, e.,,, goeth g. e,gege., egugg,,ged g., et, gh,e, ogtg th,. he latelftelegt else to 4W end Imt og the orga, meet the et etetee p e lect able. Se enty e few teet ees 4,e, the Ageere set naeledge t he As geflected to tremeceipto of the renf erence teesit tee shoescoetage.I ge, e,,emp, gene. fee esserie, in degeweeleg the

• • et tage en the Itse4, t he st at et ee p t imet able wee e etef elly eeef ace water been teleetet tee peacedue, et page 1669 of the eseeldered. developed af t er eeneett et tne utth yes, end edepted pee **ble, IF4 noges that It peepeces to Igeoge the f eet that af ter pee age **d that t he Agenc y g eold cosy t y wi t h it.

That ee=teegne.te bleeceseelete In flek. The set tenele to appesently e f eetable wee developed with speelfle t eshe sad e speettle te preetode the need se e,t eeef ece wetes et endeede thet see mese detteteneetIng procese in eind. etelag at thee gemene eeer ete.desde, gs,eeer, see of the eheetreelege et the gene doeter bort geleelot ten peacedere to The proteos set lImed in the Jonesey le,1986, peeposet to todireted et pese 5642 whege f P4 states that "It )he seseeps ten of not the procese we contempleted. In f eet, It le e peaceae we h***Seacew* ead teetrepte oestfer peepeettee le revety speelfleetly eclected, in part, betence of the e ter eeeeeelag rage **eeted to the feeld". The Agemey proceeds to seeest thet esteve and ecleatific eneestelat tee of the emetyees Involved. "the meettetilley of dat e and the gemeste meter, of thte e.etyese setelee the see of heaegenesee and teeteeple appresteetten." Theneghout the peepeest, frA refees to the dif fleelty of ebteletag the dote needed to edequetely seeees etene withte the steefreare segetred by the statute fece e.g. il Fed geg. et 1611 Seeb f est e le contested e.4, if eeything, pee,ee thet see e.d et 3601). The estat tee le not to edept e declete esting sef *5et t o rely open er to eetheet e, the ese of ec se.a t t ge

• deltat ead th* ese==pe leae es teedent thesete.ee e seemd pe.eene thet eveetee ennecessery west f ee the asency. Teve meadete with eeepect to tend dispacet dectetene onder the M5v4 d " lel***

it seletI ely ettett e-terweed. This see e ceasetees h 8et

• ale deee the woe of essenee e seeempt sene create Congreestenal docteten.

geestle=eble eeestre to the (Iret f.ete.ge, each er,een ee, eeepeended thesegheet the pee,eest. re, esemp3,, se esygeletag Congeese hee been teltletted by yee end othese fee the the peeposed peeltsee pgecese et pege 1701 et the peeestle, f ra degree et speelfletty thet we lectoded in the 29ue. Somevee, we ettes legletettwe heetbee whleh emptletely peeggedes the ese fled that even with the eatseerdinary degree of operfiletty remelder et tom of est It'le te t bevegete, e,ch se GInees, in that wee teeleded la the ntum, the agemey to determined to igeese essesetas esfdence of "ee etgeotten." new,*,e, etatng eleoe Congreestemel entent med statutory vegelsesent e and to essweetleas ende emellee In the proposet, the agency propeees to In eet see ese appreach to the peebles of heterdee, weete lead Ig= eve se emptlete reogreselenet dtsect s e e.4, to remote despeest. It to heed to tesglme hem we coeld have esse clearly eensletent etsh esseneseo petog seemeptgene, go comeldee esprese,d out totest. set tflegal bors tees to the pet ta tes pgecese, j We theek yee for peer pereenet esteet tee to thle tapectset The f ellege to edept seemertless that ereerstely refleet the metter and treet that the stetsten esmese en ehtch the Agency to eest veeld to tedteettee of the problems that se base with the emberting een be cogeoeted seee yee inteevene. Theating yee In eatle* eeselecery freesween thet go beleg peepeeed. A debate se ed,emee fee peer peoept geply, we wish yee weII with yeeg the me:Its of the eetentIfle endet og the seeespetees thet ge difficult t est. i t ot e e t eight be inteneettag. neuever, each e debete weeld etee be terelevant. The low does met e t t eus yee to ese thts oppeeech eithee to the fleet testance og se the y,ettlee peecese, Seneetely, be Q q Co.el,et lJoha v N. Chefee The propeeed treapoest see e gegegetery pregese to gepgee, e John 9. Stagelg t - e<.. pg.hl b.t. leed 40. -.l., e - 9, led..etes to v 8 a e o

~~ I i i l l l I 1 I W

== Q m .i j 2 e w

W

.: *a \\ 1 s 1 1 a e

• \\

k N< : v s I ,s Q e y ), { '2 a .a % yr s ca.. n.es !,

• s**

N-f \\%9 I N 1: j V I s ~ g.a e = 5 h m 9 f e I

-,. a s a -+ - A.-** 5 43h9 4 A__s ---es a M._.2.__m.A.- ,4-$ a. -ahe, L_ z2-r_mhwn-4pau_.M-a.4 4= _. A 4 .4 .-+J.e a _ m Jh s A,4.=%eC 4 a j t i I f 4, I. J f 4 .L t t' J l i I E L 4 e! 1 d I I f i 5 i 1 4 4 i e I i 1 -t 4 J I a '( .i 1 1 'I i i J I i l I A 4 I f f ( 6 L h .l i e 4 I d I [ 1 h / 1, I t.

1 i 4 1 1 l 1 1 i i i 1 ATTACHMENT 6 i i } r l l I i 1 l

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF RCRA ON CURRENT LICENSED WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES In addition to impacts on the timely development of new licensed commercial LLW disposal under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), and the tight timetables for NRC action under this law, the application of RCRA could also affect current waste management practices by licensed generators. These could include: On-site disposal of wastes in surface impoundments. A number of materials licensees dispose of wastes with small quantities of radioactive material in surface impoundments. Although these effluents meet NRC requirements for radioactivity in effluents released to unrestricted areas under 10 CFR Part 20.106, they may contain constituents considered hazardous under EPA's 40 CFR Part 261 rules for the identification and listing of hazardous wastes. The effluents in the impounded water are treated and released to surface waters, with the non-radioactive effluents meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements under the Clean Water Act. As the staff understands EPA rules, point source discharges under the Clean Water Act are excluded from RCRA regulation under 40 CFR Part 261.4(a). If any hazardous wastes, such as heavy metals, are deposited at the bottom of the impoundment, however, EPA would consider the licensee in violation unless the impoundment met applicable RCRA requirements, including the requirements for double liners and a leachate collection system. EPA officials have informed NRC that some surface impoundments licensed under the Atomic Energy Act contain hazardous constituents that are required to meet RCRA requirements. The staff is currently attempting to clarify this point. The storage for decay of mixed wastes with short half-life radioactive material. EPA 40 CFR Part 262.34 rules generally require a permit for storage of wastes longer than 90 days. If a permit is required, some licensees may have to cease storage for decay pending permit approval and compliance with permit conditions. On-site disposal by licensees under 10 CFR Part 20.302. Under current NRC guidance for academic, medical, and industrial licensees, applicants for such disposal of wastes with non-radioactive hazardous components must ATTACHMENT 6 1

. acknowledge the prohibition on burial of hazardous waste as defined in EPA regulations, and must dispose of radioactive waste containing a hazardous component in a manner set out in EPA regulations and in accordance with applicable state and local laws. Guidance under development for on-site disposal by facility licensees will also address hazardous waste disposal requirements. On-site disposal of contaminated waste oil by reactors may be affected if waste oil is determined to be hazardous by EPA and can not be exempted by NRC at below regulatory concern. Disposal in sanitary sewerage systems. The requirements for such disposal under 10 CFR Part 20.303 of NRC rules concern only radioactive materials, not the non-radioactive constituents so long as the waste mixture is readily soluble. Section 246 of RCRA Amendments Act, however, requires a study of identified or listed hazardous substances that are not regulated under RCRA by reason of the exclusion for mixtures of domestic wastes and other wastes that l pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works. This report is to identify the types, size, and number of generators which dispose of t hazardous substances in this manner. Disposal by incineration. Wastes that could otherwise be incinerated under 4 NRC's 10 CFR Part 20.305 may not meet the requirements of EPA's 40 CFR 264 Subpart 0 for the incineration of any hazardous constituents. Disposal of material under general license. Some byproduct materials under general license, such as those for certain in vitro clinical or laboratory testing under 10 CFR 31.11, may contain or be mixed with hazardous constituents subject to RCRA. The extent of such uses of mixed waste is not known by Division of Waste Management staff at this time. Disposal of high-level wastes. Absent an explicit exemption in the law or EPA regulations, the "no migration" standard and other RCRA requirements would appear to apply to any hazardous constituents, such as heavy metals or soluble corrosion products in spent fuel assemblies, associated with the disposal of high-level wastes and spent fuel and their waste forms. Some licensees may also come under RCRA regulation from future EPA rulemakings, such as those concerning the criteria for identification and listing of hazardous wastes under Section 222 of the RCRA Amendments Act. EPA staff have told NRC staff that RCRA regulations will continue to evolve over the next five years as EPA proceeds with the implementation of the 1984 amendments.

4 0 e i l I l ATTACHMENT 7 l I 1 l l i l l l 1

. #2po taru$% ~ UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t W ASHING TON. O. C. 20S58 i p April 8. 1986 .5 i MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissicner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech j FROM: Carlton Kameree, r or Office of Congres Affairs

SUBJECT:

MARKEY MIXED-WAST TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES TO THE PRE-HEARING QUESTIONS Attached for your information is a copy of the final mixed-waste testimony to be presented before the Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power and the Subcomittee on Comerce, Transportation and Tourism, House Comittee on Energy and Comerce on April 10, 1986. Also attached are the staff responses to Representative Markey's March 25 hearing invitation letter. The above materials have been provided to the Subcomittee. Attachments: As stated cc: E00 SECY OGC OPE y &,.. 4..-. +...

• M L'.y. f,

g -i u. & ;c.. ~ re!v;. tut--- a ... ~ - a :._, y C 'i. f /, f, u. O- / b ATTACHMENT 7

o i f - :- - r 0 N '.l. 4 ' a- ' '. N .t i" : '...: : : '..". " ' '.: - ' '.. ~. ~....:. :.. ....i .d..-- > '. r 'a J .r : s,...,....,. '. -, :. '. - ...... C. [,/ : s.... i .-w 2-4FL:_2..3 .....a a w l i s 2,. r...,;4t*, YE5. NRC [NITIATE] [NCE:ENCENT 5AMPLING CF SEVERAL GROUNDWATER VCNITC::NG WELL5 AND C.*'E 73ENCH 3 CMP A7 7WO REPRESENTATIVE LLW CI5FCSAL S ITE5 !. HUM!: CL: MATE 5. THE5E SAMPL 5 WERE ANALY ED FCR HA APDCUS.'.CNPADICLCGICAL CCN57tTUEN75 USING STANCAno E?A RCRA 770C: URES. THIS WC2< W e' s :ER:C:ME3 BY CA< E!"G" NATIONAL LA50RATCRY CUPING 1935. T':, 5 WC:< :5 :CCUMENTED IN Two CRNL I LETTER 4.:CR75 AND IN NUREG-!!33. CU.:FENTL / !N ORAFT A7 NRC. A i RAFT CF THIS NUREG, CCNTA(N[NG TH: CENL *.ETTER :E:CRTS AS AF:ENDICE5 I5 ENCLCSED. ?3:VIOUSLY, THE NRC OFF!CE OF RE3EARCH 5:Ch5C:E 5AM:L NG ~;CM TRENCH SUMPS AND MON!70 RING WEL'.5 A7 TWC C7HE8 5:7E5. AL50 In dVMID CL(MATES. InE 5 E ANALY SE 3 t hC'.'a:E S E'!E2 AL C30AN IC t l CHEMICALS, 3 CME CF aHICH a* FEAR CN ERA'5 L: 5 7 C.: HA AROCU5 CCN57l7LEN75. 7-!5 WC84 WAS *E8:CRME: 5/ RAC* !C NCRTHWEST i LABCRATCRY,.. N " 5 / 3.2CCKH A'.'EN NA7 tCN AL LA5CR ATCRY. TwE!E !*L : E5

4 ij . i...,4.,,, L... i...

• ::.~

.,, C,,.u c. s; :n (.s; N ;;(.~.'p..... ...g:--..: 'e- .x-y w .-..g .. -.,.j,.....,.. - g .) et...,,,., D 1 1 1

• =

l \\ i

( N..'. : TION il. (CCNTINUE 1 -I- .:-- cy 11 4 [.= ve:, =i. :.,.: : . o..v. :o. r : : : r....- :( :

u. c.,. :..: un

.c=s u: :::~:yv.: c.p w;.e';..eu-s. ..-,J.-, s. , :.<. - - i.. = =. :..st :.,,... n. se .,.:si.s. ....s. ..s.. M A c.. P v L s- ..-,i -....,:.li : r-3 r L, *- - J,.,1 D. -.Y .s r a a. t. m: .. ~

e..m,

.z.- i... :,.c-..s 3 7., - :. m e,. :

e.... C.e.y,i - i. v.

l ANSWER. 1 l l E A:*iwELL. SCU~H CA:C L I'la FIVE GRCLNCWATER MCt:ITCRING WEL' 5 AT THE A AwELL ACILI*Y WERE SAMPLE 0 .'s MAY 1933. LCW CCNCENTRk-*CN5 .: 'hREE HAZARCCUS J/CLATILE CRGANIC CONSTlTUE.'!TS WERE CETECTED AT THIS SITE. NUMERCUS HYCRCCARBCN CCNSTITUENTS A55CCI ATED W

• TH FETRCLEUM 1

^ l

G C "UC *i s W,:..:..:., A L 0 ': ~. :.C'. :. D,

v*.N :. v'e I ' '.'1

e'.HAcR"Cus-b:':

s ..2. 2 s.. l S I,,s. :.l. lH:.. Esuly3 R e n I s u,J..- --. s. .: -IL. si NL..;r.:;.t. s m n ~~ CHLoRoroRM, TETRACHLCRCETHYLENE, %hC T3ICHL.:CETHYLEME, '.'CLATILE CSGANIC CCNSTITUENT5 LISTED IN ~?A REGULAT'O.5 A5 HAZARCCUS ~ CONSTITUENTS, VERE CETECTED. CHLGRC ORM WA5 CETECTED IM ALL SAMPLES I'N CONCENT:AT:0.*5 ANGING ::CM 1 LG/L ( PS) 70 la UG/L WITH AN AVERAGE C NCENT AT*CN IN ALL 5A.'d:L E S C.: 3.4 UG/L. TET:ACHLCRCETHYLE'IE WAS CETECTEC I'. C:!LY CNE SAMPLE AT THE e n 4 4 x

r..:.. T. i. r. N '.:. ( C C iN i '...' U..'

E-:DT:CN L :.* I T CF. '.3 /L. I3ICHifECETkVLENE *lI 2'3 2E'ECTE: ~

t..n.3

e.- 1

o. r,' L.

. :..~ :. :,.-. g.. ! .ngy e..s..: :..;:: : ;i ...= *.-. =' =. ' '. t s p g r.,, c e r. e. r v. e... 4.:,.,; .n : i.-. :. w; c. L.y :. c: ,,c.:.: L g 7.:..u pi :_.: ., g. 6 c. i. ...e s i..v=i,-

uig in

..e -.e e agt,.

-..:. : iy: 4 t 2. .w..- :C :.. v. '. : 'w :. W m' : '2.: ' *. N. t. s .,-.--......1 ,, I. [.,., ..L,. .c:

: :....v.

t..

i. :. t 2-NUME:CUS HYDRCCARECN CCNST!TUENTS ASSCCIATED WITH FETROLEUM

CDUCT3 WERE DETECTED IN LCW CCNCENTRATICNS.

DI-N-0CTYL FHTHALATE, A HAZARDCUS CCNSTITUENT, WAS DETECTED IN A SCUNDARY WELL IN THE CONCENT:A?!CN OF 23 UG/L, TNIS CCNSTITUENT'WAS ALSO IDENTIFIED IN ALL CTHE.: SAMPLES, ALTHOUGH THE CCNCENTRATIONS WERE EELCW THE DETECTICM L:M:7 C: THE ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE. CHRCMIUM, LEAD, TCLUENE, AND XYLENE WE:E AT BAC.< GROUND LEVELS OR BELOW DETECT!CN IN THESE SAMFLES. THE5E GE3ULTS.:CR SAMFLES TAKEN F C.V GPCUNCWATER MCNITORING WELLS INDICATE THAT LIMITED MIGRATICN OF HADA:DOUS NCNRADICLCGICAL CCNSTITUENTS FROM THE WASTE HAS CC~URRED. CF T:-E THREE VCLATILE CRGANIC CONSTITUENTS DETECTED, ONLY CHLORCFCRM WAS DETECTED AT 7"E SITE BOUNDARY WELLS. THE CHLCROFORM CDNCENT ATION AT BCTH THE

JFGRADIENT AND DCWNGRADIENT 3CUNDARY WELL5 WA3 1 UG/L, THE ETECTION LIMIT.

CCNCENTRATICNS C.: HYDRCCARECNS AS50CIATED WITH FET 0LEUM FRCDUCTS DID NOT VAPY 'N THIS MANNER. !N PARTICULAR,

CUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) THE C:NCEjNTRATICN C.:.'I-N-CCTYL :-THAL A.TE W A S A SCVE -E :ETE: 7 : :,' ' :MIT ONLY AT THE UPGRADIENT MCNITCRING DELL, SHE::tELD, :L L t.No t s SEVEN GRCUNDWATER MCNITOR!?'G WELLS AT THE SHEF:IELD SITE WERE SAMPLED IN SEPTEMBER 1985. PREVICUSLY, PCUR WELLS AND ONE TRENCH SUMP WEFE SAMPLED IN JANUARY 1985. SEVERAL HAZARDCUS VOLATILE CRGANIC CCNSTITUENTS WERE DETECTED AT THIS SITE. NUMERCUS HYDACCARECN CCNSTITUENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WERE ALSO DETECTED: THREE CF THESE ARE HAZARDCUS CONSTITUENTS. IHESE PESULTS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN NUEEG-ll83. SEVERAL HAZARDOUS VOLATILE ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS WERE DETECTED (SEE ATTACHED TABLE). CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS WE9E 1,1,1-TRICHLORCETHANE, TETRACHLORCETHYLENE, 1,1-DICHLCROETHANE, CHLOROFORM, BENZENE, AND 1,2-D:CHLCROETHANE. THE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THESE.CCNSTITUENTS IN ALL SAMPLES WERE:

CU~STION 11. (CONTINUED).

, ::. us:--

ave:20E C:NCEt.T:cTIcN D R I s I N G '..;. 7 5 - C:nsttTuENT (UG/t i S :xt:pD fuG/t 4 1,1,1-TRICHLCR0 ETHANE 2500 200 TETRACHLCRCETHYLENE 22C NA 1,1-D I CHLORCETH At:E 220 7 CHLCPCFORM 57 NA EENENE 13 5 1,2-DICHLCRCETHANE 5 5 NUMERCUS HYDROCARBON CONSTITUENTS ASSCCIATED WITH FET:0LEUM .RODUCTS WERE DETECTED IN LOW CONCENTRATICNS: THREE CF THESE ARE HAZARDCUS CCNSTITUENTS. BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) .HTHLATE WAS DETECTED !?! FIVE SAMFLES; THE AVERAGE CCNCENTRATICN IN ALL SAMPLES WAS 18 UG/L. DIETHYL PHTHALATE WAS IDENTI.:IED IN CNE SAMPLE EELCW THE DETECTION LIMIT (10 UG/L). LtxEWISE, DI-N-0CTYL FHTHLATE WAS IDENTIFIED IN CNE SAMPLE EELCW THE DETECTION LIM!T [10 UG/L). ICLUENE, A HAZARDCUS CCNSTITUENT ASSCCIATED WITH LICUID SC:NTILLATION MEDIA AND PET:0LEUM FRCDUCTS, ~CR EXAMPLE, WAS

F.l SIICN 11. (CCNTINUED) ::ENT!:: Er IN.: CUR SAMPLES ALTHCJfH T'E C:NCEN :AT:03 WAI iELCa THE DETECT CN LIMIT OF THE ANALY': CAL TECHNICUE fl UG/L). w0 :.: THESE 5AMPLES WE?E FRCM '.. ELLS AF:iCTED 5Y DISPOSAL :.: INDUSTRIAL WASTE ADJACENT TO THE LLW SITE. XVLENE WA3 f.CT DETECTED IN ANY SAMPLES. CHROMIUM AND LEAD WERE AT 3ACKGPCLND LEVEL 3 CR iELOW DETECTICM lN ALL 5 AMPLE 5. THESE SAMFLES FEPRESENT GRCUNDWATER F:CM WELLS ONSITE AND CF SITE. SEVERAL OF THESE WELL3 ARE AF ECTED BY PREV:CUS DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRI AL WASTE IN AN UNLICENSED SURI L AREA ADJACENT TO THE LLW SITE. HCWEVER, RESULTS FCR 5AMPLES FPCM WELLS AFFARENTLY UNAF:ECTED BY THIS ACTIVITY DO IPDICATE THAT MIG:ATION CF WAZARDCUS f.ONRADIOLOGICAL CCNSTITUENTS.:RCM THE LLW HAS CCCURRED. .;HIS MIGRATICN FOLLOWS A FATTERN SIMILAR TO THE CBSERVED TRITIUM MIGRATION AT THE SITE. IN FARTICULAR, HAZAGDCUS NCNRADIOLOGICAL CCNSTITUENTS WERE DETECTED OFFSITE IN THE TRITIUM FLUME AREA WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY STUDIED BY NRC, [LLino:5 CEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY., U.S. GECLOGICAL SURVEY, AND THE OPERATCR. GROUNDWATER IN THE PLUME APEA DISCHt.PGE5 INTC A NEAF5Y STRIF MINE LAKE. TRITIUM IS NOT DETECTED ABCVE BAC'<GRCUND LiVELS lN THIS LAKE. THESE RESULTS INDICATE 7"AT GROUNDWATER CUAL!?Y AT THE LLW SI E IS NOT AFFECTED BY RELEASES.:RCM THE [LL:NOIS EPA L: CENSED HAZAPDOUS i

CCESTION 11. (CCNTINUED) WA57E DISPOSAL.:ACIL ITY A:JACENT +0 Thi.LL'd S ITE. -ChEVE4, GPCUNCWATER IN THE SITE VICINITY I5 CO'.TAMINATED EY RELEASES.:.:CM THE UNLICENSED INDUST 4!AL WA5TE EURIAL AREA DISCUS 3ED ABCVE. i iAXEY FLA'?, KENTUCKY 'd I:ENCH SUMP 3 AND GRCUNDWATE: MCNITORING WELLS AT THE MAXEY FLATS 1 SITE-MAVE BEEN SAMPLED ::.EVICUSLY SY NATIONAL LABORATORY STAFF FOR flRC RESEARCH F:cJECTs. T: ACE METALS, rNCLUDING LEAD AND CHRCMIUM, HAVE NCT BEEN ANALYZED CR SECAUSE THEY GENERALLY DO NOT'A'FFECT

ADICNUCLICE MIGRATION.

HAZARDOUS NCNRADICLCCICAL. CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN TRENCH LEACHATE HAVE INCLUDED TCLUENE, XYLENE, NAFHTHALENE, CRESOL, PHENGL, CYCLCHEXANOME, DICXANE, TRICHLORCETHANE, AND METHYL ISOBUTYL XETCNE. HAZARDOUS NONRADICLCGICAL CONSTITUENT 3 DETECTED IN MCNITORING WELLS INCLUDED O!OXANE, TCLUENE, XYLENE, DIBUTYL FHTHALATE, Sv:! DINE, NICCT!NE, AND NAPHTHALENE. I l CONCENTRATIONS OF INDIVICUAL CONSTITUENTS WERE t.'CT :E?ORTED.:CR MANY OF THESE CONSTITUENTS BECAUSE THE PURFOSE 0.2 THE RESEARCH PROJECT (GADIONUCLIDE MCBILITY STUDIES) 0.: TEN DID NOT RECUIRE THOSE DATA. CCNCENT:ATICNS IN TRENCH LEACHATE WERE CFTEN HIGH DUE TO THE SATURATED NATURE 0: THE WASTE AND LCCAL GEOCHEMICAL

CLT$I*CN 11. (CONTINUED),- -. e. r. -rcyc. T.u. :. y r a. u : ~ ~

2. : :C.=.~ =.' '. ".".C =." ~. 3.,'. ' i w'.1..~.==...~.u

..i w25 9.5 MG/L T;LUE.'4E (TFENCH 195 I.'. 1979). AVAILA5LE DA?2 .....Ca.._ ..,.. C,,lC. 1.-.... 4a.,.-e ..:a !lG :.., ..y:,, . l u. ..,,s :...

. 4.- A. w.

n_ i: s .. i.. ..c nAS CETECTED IN TRENCH 195 IN 1982. IHESE DATA INDICATE THAT HAZA:CCUS NCNRADICLCGICAL CONSTITUENTS HAVE SEEN RELEASED C CM THE LLW ANC HAVE MIGRATED.:RCM THE TREF!CHES. RECENT DATA INDICATE THAT CCNCENTRAT* CPS HAVE GENERALLY DECPEASED 30TH IN THE TRENCH SUMPS AND IN MCNITCRING WELLS. WES-VALLEY, NEW Yncy IRENCH SUMPS AT THE WEST VALLEY SITE HAVE BEEN SAMPLED BY NATIONAL LABCPATCRY STAFF FOR NRC RESEARCH ~ROJECTS. HAZARCCUS NCNRADIOLOGICAL CONSTITUENTS IDENT!FIED IN T3ENCH LEACHATE INCLUDED TCLUENE, PHENOL, CRESOL, DICXANE, AND.'*AFHTHLENE. AS I ABOVE, SAMPLES.HAVE NOT GENERALLY BEEN ANALY ED :CR TRACE METALS. CONCENTRATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS WERE NOT REPORTED ~0R MANY OF THESE CONSTITUENTS BECAUSE THE FURFCSE C: THE RE5EARCH

0 JECT (CADICNUCLIDE MCBILITY STUDIES) 0FTEN CID NOT RECUIFE THOSE DATA.

CONCENTRATIONS IN TPENCH LEACHATE WERE CFTEN HIGH CUE TO THE SATURATED NATURE C.: THE WASTE AND LCCAL GE0 CHEMICAL t

e.'- l .,U'5TICN 11. (CONT: NUED) -lC- , - 'u. r. - r. e, n._-. ip :. s t ~ : ', T R =..= u^ = = =- ' ~ ' L ;w' =..':. = .. % C.=.'. '. ;.;. ' ' 1. '. '. ' ~ =.. =. '., *. -. ~ ~. a .IACHATE WAS 23 G/L. THE55 DATA :.':CICATE THAT HAZARCCUS NCNRADICLOGICAL CON 5T!TUINTS . Av :. 3 = =..N P..t. e' ; :D ::. r 3 Tu... L L'n' t.;. c rp. :. = e..s c. n L :s C '.". n* *s.. .'.'A. w NONRADIOLOGICAL DATA CN SAMPLES :RCM MCNITORING WELLS HA3 BEEN ASSES 3ED SY NRC STAF.: TC DETE=MINE :.: MIGRATION FRCM THE DISPOSAL UNITS IS OR HAS CCCURRED. HCWEVER, GROUNCWATER MIGRATION CF =ADIONUCLICES HAS GCCURRED.

CUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) CUEST!CN 213. McW :CEs THIS INFCFPATIcN.CCMFCRT WITH :.:C.ECTED PERFCRMANCE OF EACH SITE WHEN CFENED? ANSWER. THE AEC'S AND STATES' EARLY REGULATORY PROGRAMS FOR LLW DISPOSAL CCNCENTRATED ON RADIOLCGICAL PROTECTION, THEPEFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DIRECTLY COMPARE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDIES DISCUSSED ASCVE WITH PROJECTIONS AT INITIAL LICEbSING. HOWEVER, THE GENERAL NATURE CF THESE DATA DCES NOT CCNTRADICT THE LICENSING DECISION THAT LLW CCULD BE DISFCSED OF AT THESE SITES IN A MANNER WHICH WCULD FROTECT FUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, i I NRC's REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR LLW DISFCSAL IS BASED ON PROTECTICM OF FUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ON THE ALARA FRINCIPLE (AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE). 'A E E N C R I G I N A L L Y LICENSED (THESE SITES WERE OPENED SETWEEN 1962 AND 1971), IT WAS PROJECTED THAT RELEASES FRCM THESE SITES WOULD HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT, FURTHERMORE, IT WAS PROJECTED THAT RELEASES WOULD EE KEFT ALARA THROUGH AFPROPRIATE DISPCSAL PRACTICES. IPESE PROJECTIONS WERE BASED ON RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS. SINCE THAT TIME, ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS CF LLW IN GENERAL HAVE IND!CATED THAT RADIOLOGICAL e

i b O CL'ESTION 11. (CONTINUED) HADAGOS 0L'TWEIGH THE "ADARDS DUE'fC NCNRADICLOGICAL C.'.57! UENT5 MIXED WITH THE LLW. AS FRCJECTED, SCME GRCUNDWATER MIGRATIC.'; r:

ADICNUCLIDES HAS BEEN 03SER'/ED AT ALL : CUR C.: THE5E SI ES.

HOWEVER, SCME OF THESE DI5POSAL SITE 3 HAVE ';CT :ERFORMED AS WELL AS OPIGINALLY ANTICIPATED. IN PARTICULAG, WATER MANAGEMENT FROBLEMS AT SCME SITE 5 HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY S!'E-SPECIFIC GECHYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES AND P:CCESSES WHICH WEPE NOT FULLY UNDERSTCCD AT THE TIME OF LICENSING. PCOR CPERATIONAL PRACTICES HAVE ALSC CONTRIBUTED TO THESE PROBLEMS. THESE EXPERIENCES FORM MUCH OF THE DATABASE UFCN WHICH NRC's CU::ENT REGULATIONS FOR LLW DISPCSAL (10 CFR PART 61) AND LLW REGULATCFY GUIDANCE ARE 3ASED. NOTABLY, THE CNE SITE CUT OF THE.: CUR DISCUSSED ABOVE WHICH IS STILL CPERATING, 3ARNWELL, HAS GENERALLY NOT EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS. CURRENT FERFORMANCE 0.: l l THIS SITE IS GENERALLY WITHIN THE RANGE. RCJECTED DURING INITIAL 1 l LICENSING BY THE STATE. SuBSEcusNT Ev;LuATICt.5, SUCH AS NRC'S 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NUREG-0879) PERFCRMED In 1981 HAv: 1 A.: FIRMED ACCEPTABLE S!TE :ER:CRMANCE. i 1}}