ML20214K178
| ML20214K178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-86-142B, NUDOCS 8608180259 | |
| Download: ML20214K178 (60) | |
Text
_ _
pOgj?
p na,
u d'
POLICY ISSUE July 9, 1986 SECY-86-142B (Notation Vote)
For:
The Comissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF POLICY OPTIONS ON MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE AND HAZARD 0US WASTE DISPOSAL
Purpose:
To respond to the portion of the staff requirements memorandum dated June 5,1986, which requested NRC staff to meet with EPA staff to: (1) address whether fundamental inconsistencies exist between the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and 10 CFR Part 61 that cannot be resolved technically and (2) determine if the options proposed in SECY-86-142 could be revised to obtain EPA agreement on a course of action to resolve the technical and legal mixed waste issues.
Background:
In SECY-86-142 the staff made three reconnendations for the Commission's approval:
1.
Maximize implementation of NRC's requirements on reduction of potential hazard from non-radiological materials.
Seek additional statutory authority, if required, to minimize volume and toxicity of mixed waste.
2.
Seek legislation authorizing NRC administration of applicable portions of RCRA under rules developed by NRC, adopting EPA's rules as appropriate.
3.
Seek a LLRWPAA amendment to establish a separate timetable for state disposal of mixed waste.
Following the discussion of SECY-86-142 during the May 21 Comission briefing on Mixed Waste, the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) requested the Office of the General
Contact:
Malcolm R. Knapp, NMSS 42-74433
$918@254}
cI0ff.
l h
1
. Counsel to advise whether NRC has the authority to prohibit temporarily the disposal of mixed waste and to require treatment to reduce the volume and toxicity of mixed waste requiring licensed disposal. The staff responded that NRC does have such authority, and recommended that the Commission endorse the recommendation Ib of SECY-86-142 to minimize the volume and toxicity of mixed wastes, recognizing that additional statutory authority is not needed, and that in addressing this recommendation, the staff should consider the advisability of a temporary ban on land disposal of mixed waste.
The SRM also directed the staff to address the following questions and corcerns:
1.
Do fundamental inconsistencies exist between the RCRA and 10 CFR Part 61 requirements which simply cannot be resolved technically?
2.
Identify conditions under which RCRA permits some migration of hazardous wastes from land disposal facilities, and the options, such as pretreatment and liners that could bring low-level waste burial sites into compliance with the RCRA.
3.
Meet with EPA to obtain the above information and then revise the staff's proposed options to obtain agreement [with EPA] on a course of action to resolve technical and legal issues.
4.
Assess EPA's ability to accelerate the development and promulgation of mixed waste standards.
Discussion:
In response to the Commission's request, the staff has met with EPA staff thirteen (13) times on various aspects of the mixed waste issue since the May 21 Commission briefing. Three meetings focused the issues and
- briefed EPA staff about low-level radioactive waste and 10 CFR Part 61. The remaining ten meetings were working sessions on specific mixed waste topics. The topics discussed in the Working Sessions are listed in Enclosure 1 and included all differences originally identified in SECY-86-142 as well as additional potential differences identified during subsequent NRC/ EPA meetings. Enclosure 2 provides the minutes of the ten working sessions, including agreements reached and additional actions required. Based on these meetings, it appears that EPA no longer wants to pursue legislation to eliminate dual NRC and EPA
, jurisdiction over mixed waste disposal. Accordingly, the ten NRC and EPA technical staff working sessions focused on whether the differences between the RCRA requirements and Part 61 could be resolved without the need for legislation, and if not, what specific legislation might be required.
It is recognized that this approach will not resolve the issue of " dual regulation".
Response To item 1 From the technical staff's current understanding, we have not identified instances where conformance with the requirements of one agency places a person in noncompliance with the other agency's requirements.
That is, the working sessions have not yet identified any inconsistencies between the existing laws and regulations that would require Congressional action for resolution. However, there may be cases, such as implementation of corrective action programs, where the practices required by one agency would be questioned by the other agency as to technical correctness. We are still reviewing this to identify and examine any such instances. Further, the results of these technical staff level meetings have yet to be accepted by policy or legal staff or by upper management of either agency.
While dual regulatory control appears technically achievable under existing law, it may be complex and burdensome for both regulatory agencies and licensees.
It may also inhibit the ability of state authorities to develop new LLW disposal capacity under the timetable set forth in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) because of the complexity. Also, although we have not analyzed costs, our impression is that this dual approach is more costly but may provide a wider margin of protection than either agency's requirements if implemented alone.
Response To Item 2 The EPA staff has indicated that under Section 3004(d) of RCRA, untreated waste may only be disposed of if it can be demonstrated that the waste constituents will not migrate for as long as the waste remains hazardous. For treated hazardous wastes, EPA's minimum technology requirements require designs to prevent migration of hazardous constituents during the
,m-,
~
a
. active life of the disposal facility, which may be 30 to 40 years. RCRA permits some migration of treated hazardous waste constitutents after closure of disposal facilities meeting minimum technology requirements, but the amounts permitted have not been established for all substances.
RCRA allows exemptions to EPA's design standards based on operational practices, alternative designs, and location characteristics. However, to date, EPA has not yet developed either guidance for such alternatives or methods for determining " equivalent perfo rmance".
Response To Item 3 As discussed in SECY-86-142A, the staff recommends that the Commission endorse recommendation Ib of SECY-86-142 to minimize the volume and toxicity of mixed wastes, recognizing that additional statutory authority is not needed, and that in addressing this recommendation, the staff should consider the advisability of a temporary ban on land disposal of mixed waste.
The staff has moved rapidly to meet with EPA on the mixed waste questions. Review of final technical staff proposals by policy and legal staff and by upper management of both agencies will be necessary before the NRC staff can make further recommendations to the Commission regarding the ability of both agencies to reach a common approach for resolving differences.
Response To Item 4 EPA staff considers it impractical to accelerate the development and promulgation of mixed waste standards, primarily due to EPA's resource limitations and the time it takes to promulgate rules. With respect to the areas of most uncertainty discussed in SECY-86-142 (siting criteria and identification of additienal hazardous materials), EPA technical staff considers that future RCRA siting criteria are very likely to be consistent with present and currently anticipated RCRA siting requirements. However, no such assurance could be made for new substances which could be listed as hazardous in the future.
. As discussed above, NRC and EPA staff efforts are now focusing on how the differences between the RCRA and Part 61 can be resolved without the need for legislation, while continuing to identify what specific legislation, if any, may be required. The staffs have agreed to develop joint regulatory guidance on mixed waste for the industry and public.
The staff intends to bring this to a conclusion in time to support legislation, if necessary, for the next session of Congress, specifically, by September 30, 1986.
Interagency endorsement of joint guidance and conclusions on the need for legislation will require careful attention by both staffs and could require a meeting between the Chairman and the Administrator at a later date.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
NOTE that while an administrative solution to the mixed waste problem may appear technically achievable, policy, legal, and upper management reviews have not yet taken place.
FURTHER NOTE that continuation of dual regulation is likely to be technically and procedurally complex and can be avoided only by legislation.
ENDORSE the staff's approach of attempting to resolve the differences between the RCRA and 10 CFR Part 61 with EPA prior to proposing any specific legislation.
' V./'
Vic/uk
$ -?.
tor Stello,'Jr. /
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Schedule of NRC/ EPA Staff Working Sessions on Mixed Wastes (1986) 2.
Notes from NRC/ EPA Staff Working Sessions
. Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, July 24, 1986.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Thursday, July 17, 1986, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (ELD)
OI OCA OZA OPA EDO ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECf
e S
e ENCLOSURE 1
SCHEDULE OF NRC/ EPA STAFF INTERACTIONS ON MIXED WA5TES (1986)
TOPIC DATE TIME PLACE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS 1.
Assessment of Need 5/30/86 PM EPA /WS for NRC/ EPA Inter-action 2.
Procedural Details 6/10/86 PM EPA /WS for NRC/ EPA Inter-action 3.
Briefing to EPA on 6/13/86 AM EPA /WIC 5 Low-Level Waste and 10 CFR Part 61 WORKING SESSIONS COMPARING RCRA REQUIREhENTS AND 10 CFR PART 61 4.
Definition of Mixed 6/16/86 AM EPA /WS 2126 Waste 5.
Landfill Design 6/16/86 PM EPA /WS 2126 Standards 6.
Land Disposal 6/17/86 AM EPA /WS 3908 Restrictions 7.
Tanks and 6/20/86 AM EPA /WS 2126 Containers 8.
Manifests 6/20/86 PM EPA /WS 2126 9.
Burning and 6/23/86 AM EPA /WS 3908 Blending
f 8
S ENCLOSURE 2
Based on the topics identified in Enclosure 1 (Items 4-13), NRC staff prepared preliminary outlines, tables and quest. ions prior to convening with EPA staff. Enclosure 2 provides both pre-liminary notes and notes from staff working sessions as recorded by NRC staff. To verify the accuracy of working session notes, NRC and EPA staff representatives read and signed the final versions presented in this enclosure.
l ENCLOSURE 2
c w
4 i
JUN 2 31966 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File b
FROM:
Sher Bahadur, WMLU Division of Waste Management i
Michael F. Weber, WMGT N
Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
NOTES FROM MEETING WITH EPA STAFF ABOUT MIXED WASTE PURPOSE:
To agree on a process for resolving differences in NRC cnd EPA requirements.
DATE:
Friday, May 30, 1986 TIME:
1:30 pm LOCATION:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall 7
401 M. Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 4
PARTICIPANTS: Malcolm Knapp, NRC Robert Browning, NRC Robert MacDougall, NRC Sher Bahadur, NRC Michael Weber, NRC Bruce Weddle, EPA Jack Lehman, EPA
SUMMARY
After briefly reviewing the 'new organization of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA and NRC staff discussed the following items:
1.
Development of a Federal Register Notice by EPA to discuss State regulation of radioactive mixed waste.
EPA will send NRC a draft copy during the week of 6/2/86.
2.
Development of coninon and consistent comparisons. of EPA and NRC requirements for hazardous waste and LLW management and disposal.
Staff from both agencies will meet to prepare the comparisons.
EPA indicated that they would contact NRC on 6/2/86 to provide a list of EPA staff contacts in such areas as siting criteria, hazardous waste definition, design requirements, and pemitting.
ze tsou
'o, UNITED STATES l'
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, e.g e
WAzHING TON. D. C. 20S$5 o
?
5.,,
s
,/
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Sher Bahadur Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOTES FROM MEETING WITH EPA STAFF ABOUT MIXE0 WASTE PURPOSE:
To establish procedural details for NRC/ EPA interactions and to identify topics for future discussions DATE:
Tuesday, June 10, 1986 TIME:
2:00 PM LOCATION:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall 401 M Street SW Washington, D.C.
PARTICIPANTS: Mal Knapp, NRC Bob Tonetti, EPA Sher Bahadur, NRC Denise Hawkins, EPA Mike Weber, NRC Burnell Vincent, EPA Angela Wilkes. EPA
SUMMARY
The NRC/ EPA technical staff discussed the following items:
1.
Mal Knapp presented a brief historical perspective of the mixed waste issue; distributed the copies of the Comission Paper on Mixed Waste (SECY-86-142); focused on directions given by the Commission during May 21, 1986, Commission' Briefing; summarized agreements reached in a May 20 NRC/ EPA meeting; and brought to EPA's attention the contents of the NRC Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 5, 1986.
- 2., EPA indicated a need to have NRC present an o'verview of 10 CFR Part 61 in order to allow the EPA staff to gain a quick familiarity with LLW and NRC's regulations. applicable to LLW. NRC promised such a presentation in the near future.
w w
--w-
/
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
wasHmGTON. O. C. 20555 s
p MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Sher Bahadur Low-level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
NOTES FROM JUNE 13 BRIEFING TO EPA STAFF BY NRC PURPOSE:
To provide EPA with an overview of low-level waste and 10 CFR Part 61 as applicable to mixed waste.
DATE:
Friday, June 13, 1986.
TIME:
9:00 AM LOCATION:
Washington Information Center Conference Room No. 5 SPEAKER:
Kitty Dragonette, NRC/WMLU 427-4300
SUMMARY
The spectrum of generators and types of LLW were emphasized.
The systems approach embodied in Part 61, the performance objectives, and the basis for the radioactive waste classification scheme was presented.
Sher Bahadur Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management e
o NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 16, 1986 TIME:
9:00 a.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WS 2126 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Definition of Mixed Waste PURPOSE:
Develop a' working definition of Mixed Waste.
identification of Mixed Wastes for NRC licensees.This definition may aid in the STAFF OBSERVATIONS EPA staff presently intends to modify existing listings in 40 CFR Part 261 o
Subpart D to provide concentration-based limits as threshold concentrations below which wastes would not be considered listed hazardous The minimum time required to f-- ':te thj: t :k is estimated by wastes.
EPA staff members to be two years.
'o9 b nAA* sme -f we muig '4,,,
y Future identifications of, Mixed Waste would consider the list of o
concentration-based hazardous wastes.
Wastes with concentrations below the concentration thresholds would only be considered hazardous if they exhibited any of the characteristics in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.
Discussions concerning scintillation vials led to EPA staff's o
interpretation of the definition of hazardous waste. According to EPA staff, the toluene used in scintillation vials is considered a spent solvent because once used, the toluene is contaminated and cannot be re-used without treatment. The toluene is, therefore, a hazardous waste.
Other examples of the interpretation of the hazardous waste definition are as follows:
if a " virgin solvent" is applied to a rag in order to clean-up a spill of tritiated water, the rag is not considered to be a spent solvent.
The rag may be considered hazardous waste if it exhibits any of the characteristics identified in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C.
i if a rag is used to absorb spilled solvent, the rag is considered to contain a spent solvent and is, therefore, hazardous waste.
Attachment EPA /NRC WORKING SESSION ON THE DEFINITION OF MIXED WASTE ATTENDEES LIST NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Burnell W. Vincent EPA /OSW/WMD 382-4658 Jim Tesoriero NRC/WMGT 427-4466 Alan Corson EPA / CAD 382-4770 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /DSW 382-2229 Matthew A. Straus EPA /OSW 475-8551 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 l
PREumtMY NeTe5 Fet *GEFWtfwJ cf mast) Wwra" WonWD Sd60M DEFINITION OF MIXED WASTES (DRAFT - 6/12/86)
Background
Certain low-level radioactive wastes licensed by PPC under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) also contain non-radiolcgical chemical and other constituents that would by themselves be considered hazardous wastes under EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
Such wastes are referred to as " Low-level Radioactive and Hazardous Mixed Wastes" or " Mixed Waste." Under regulatory programs, both NRC and EPA have reculatory authority for current ensuring that such wastes are managed in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, 'as amended (LLRWPA), defines low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as' ralficactive waste tha't is not'cIassified as high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as defined in section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (i.e., uranium and thorium tailings and waste).
NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 govern the land disposal of LLW.
EPA defines hazardous waste (HW) in 40 CFR Part 261.3 as essentially solid waste that either exhibits one of the hazardous characteristics listed in Subpart C of Part 261, has been listed in Subpart D of Part 261, or has been mixed with a hazardous waste listed in Subpart D.
EPA's regulations include numerous exclusions from both the definitions of solic waste ard hazardous waste.
Significant to the evaluation of Mixed Waste, EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Part 261.4(a)(4) provide an exclusion from the definition. of solid waste for " source, special nuclear, and by~ product material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
2011 g seq."
EPA's regulations also provide that mixtures of hazardous and solid wastes may be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste if they meet certain conditions.
For example, Part 261.3(a)(2)(iii) stipulates that a mixture of solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart 0 solely because it exhibits one of the characteristics in Subpart C would not be a hazardous waste if the resultant mixture no longer exhibits any characteristic identified in Subpart C.
In contrast, other mixtures of solid wastes and hazardous wastes listed in Subpart 0 are considered hazardous waste, unless they have been excluded through provisions of Part 260.20 or 260.22 or through the prevision for certain constituents discharged through wastewater treatment plants regulated under Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act.
g, DEF N m eo @ {oun k 4//o /ss h iMi g h)oTES port, " O g F, ult W O F GTA-g T M 'A EI) W h5T 6 "
r.=
'rf =_ disca 4,4 dd.N u% :
0 % ~k u m.c a; n
- r y
A.% w% -p;t pm tk q L ~-
e<-<< egL % ~
psLirel.. J M e ks, y
@ rad Je%k ditQ l
% k" u p,%+ sewn dis M 4 f 40z f +q ue..
1 O Ac't,
& *ErrigL n% }lNr, N.
S.wca., sputa no.lo<, e b pLd'
&*h y
MM
=
JM*J g A A+=le-M -f I> s+, <c. AJ cAs v.sc. un asq.),
R& sl o$2 -lo in-1 L M in h y
felkniya
.ht4.ers at u mA. 0~ %.
s yd a p J tu e4Fh go, Pul li u vs
( 1. e., bl<ak ky) %$ M p
q p pt.,g Iiy*r etc Sasu rcet ;4 ;< e.
l J % m d u u p)p.g ya 1.-
se-Mdc m.+;f,a l
D G s.d cullw,e aei).
vu J. % y a.
p L
&g;n su\\b'e <A,
Im ;+ ts acc,4TJ KfseN t
V
C 0 L.sb NhtTF N.
Dire =d4(
c~,,o-IEwy v= raw W $
W lW C'14410 g4 AM1 MAkh%t,
] Q c.t.90:48
@ Oss4 D h e % ( N * #
Moou v54. oh NI- *~ S
$I s
' M ds4 v442. be r a*8-M s
n M
p,k h dut4 4 CFo zo)
@ w a % $ %. p,. L. L. f e-J%u pa v.,wI, -f
\\
M*A edad. i
'r M
f
( poa.\\ --G usal aa, a, kfd %
(M E ha-A f k*)
,gn unti A.-~ k 4 'm "* f
+.,. x a u.u w alle.b 4 c~.A % ( Vo and 9 a -4 ugsA
.h4 mA pi-9 kA f,ed.
%,4
- C4.
4 y I 4cTaJa-P (Fuan
@) w..t -f. A g E, g 8cl - 9+-#
2
, A a a A u ~ ~ %m;:,.f % 4 -
\\
baddia.,4 4./ d c.24 % (Fo 24) w-
$ W L +% ine $ a %,) %%.2 f ut &; 22 s em u. us r~,
i Fo(, Fe 22., Fo 13, Fo24, 2 Fo 2. l.
A - - -~ '
~ ~ ~ ~
(cod'J)
~
e f/06M&" /kekc1;f W W Wl!N M
- LAMO, kno (2) W MAWiM Aws-
- st Ir w eo p,,c.
M*'f Mtemot, Weo To Mewr A-ner.,
43 Cnotinsutt iM Fant, g.
NWI4t-14 N4 T~ LtCT330 N AW Inenrun.y m uor sw, ese g
gyg
}l-k%. &TC N's Y' M, Vets, F~o1.1, Fa 23, Fo to, a Fo 29
( [24 (. 2. (c)(c) a 9
e l
i
~
7'
'b*
b ew ere.3.p-Efae.tJk7r G//4/:L ThuMissex tjorE.
crJ DEFINirad of,
m.WASTirg rs #8 d J soli,L. W u te ?
- w
[
t+A r.wr 9 EI d*ur
,f ubd hosekeld JseTe, ;<ct.LtI rs
+4a.
hets hit war % k ha y e.)ta,' tad, t'*a$ > d=<A, W, dispoul, red
~ ce.g. eclu - k.w/ Ad),.<,oul ? Mk ute. is aq ~~% ndad U<et % yssy.,
4, y,.
y, L s ;% a44.s u qe M1) duut s um
,.wir
~L n.l%
L k & IJs cycl.b s
n su- @,ut-L ~ A 1bL. kmHasu, my a
cwa, orsw *l*r%, c=~f@, pahic @h A kj-" it w "*}
(h24I.+(L)0b.
4 No A d f hg rl k Es k
-foll.A,ch h 4
M is ref-ud h y c;l n [dhhw:
,s L k%.l 965_._
Nr A
. w_
.L e n s,,e
%ww verr
- h /ais ahc',wde,iacIvh.
a4.J. yw,
?
c /2c,i.+(ge)).
9.
YWh
+
n & sw^6, A A m
.), u
.vn
+
kwa:
Mk s i ta..
Cf261.4CL)CO) g b M'
. @.af nt L
tt % a p.
g g as J p s rA ~J 4w.by ~r* 4 '*- =_ > g, b-y
..,,,;aaij ~w-_& ? @w,+.+(WC00XA-Q) wo
[S,,.b Q >s!.vAdd k
@ c % ta m +; 4 s p 2J y %.
l.1% ss:
1 g f & Ik kg A L2k' i% s ol haecpp/di &
&/
La 4 A 4+;, u s_,
bharst.)M h/O [Nd } =f a s2. Cele
- W'
@ ck cm) s%, y -bk y k.
s44fIp w. I A 6 J.g J.
Aarg,-
irt s.s @,
@ Eh k y A1 y %. s. sex.%
y q & l s. n L.:3~. t. A w,;3 %
1 r,m ),@,
S w c a p AJ h
- Mr
'(
(AluAysAig _t & c,4 > q x.
i M.s @,
s L*s m s.y psi y u rd, @ w y$x l Ar A.eg./ 4%
litu) 14 O A C A M M 4, 4 p 4 4 g N.
4.\\% arg~ ;3 n I<he *im ~J.
4w p, log kw f4 /c.44 /4 /J-
-(wu.,ste s. /M L /aw /d % ~2.
>w
-M,wp-K-W4, s
Q
%ti sf Ih ~0~ k lediv%;3 Morf, s s w dulm t %,~,tsk l & n-bga.,
'up
, m <
D i,tak +-stau n t-u s
- u. x. a ta k.
e * ~ f a it,. 4.7,
c w... u..,. -
7 l s
'Desserw,_g f4=ueM4cr 2_.
t co[)
b IT is A eAutruc
.A A
t,un ear w *ww-mar [N+4 littnd in Suhp + 'b s.Isl ke e *+
f p*y rat >;L;ts M + c.
~..c -a r
~
cau.ht-J,
/
d y /,y svs;6tc
,,c it<ze&mr w.y cA u.,J,,u ke
~
<dat$d i S.tp tc-S LT n+
m xr w s-y e.uo wwr
~ Au b cWF % w 94a w a gg W@ IN
~1 4 P M T.h
(+~e HAc Nor saw evewam ay or w,mue soet-40.2o e 2G O. 21)
(fp4l,3(..)(z:))
v N O d-w **T is siy/A relial ~ J.
a A
l u t a d
- 4 W d Ii d in f64g D h -/fu.
Ng 4 ynd-c~
k~Ah th& %.s;g, Vrc.
caw codiGb W4e Y il N)
N Nys)
A e,4 az#s 4oz. - s,A 2e7 a.) y A cle~ u Ad
).
y al m &Il ;. clzeau.~2c4c~))
G ) s i. s 4 k. 8 ;s-sa>aA A c~k klubId, 4ekhch+im, - Ml-A.jk A u<t f
.I, d ay us4 he s,A a+=J A k u nin 4Adi4gN N b */ "'
T>e5=,s.n.s
,,a bw., d anc m
ccJL)
L a.<: g a J<.9 f m dsg <y M g m & 4
~;5 c k a f n...s L, %
sk m
fy 9 nd o<,y, <
ddd ~A -1 /A+5 g,,, ggh,.
g
- CT) %~L l*d - % + b,p du,L %,2-a-A,4 e~
/4 *j
,ot.1 f
d.<- ~t sea L x o,,,,t g.g,j _ t 2 4/~ d ** W g A,C.</;42 M.J-
" P-%k syt, T $ " "&, c u.,a.,l Jua)
- y w $ s d.s.,.af e a a,t 4
~>% A hs.
Whals k h L y u - te.%.J
~f-h8<.) [alof, sui.9 %, %
t
~
.y
'** / ^ / 'dw /45 % g g,rg 4 usoL$.
N.
V rs ;+
- a. s.ld A y
-L1 4. k W s k.
aty A.S y
k,, aa 4a.,>. % ~y <t9. yiI.~ % ~1.,~ w c+I u,
(<a*AM G.+ not lutelg g/d (*-
)
- 2 u
g v
k-wha kals.:<% V.$$J
@ if.t
+ sv4; #
f %.
w, ambt i idg c. a l
(.0 ia ind. ca.e e.
G li tJ ia E.AM D, w~ti, c ht.,'y.
l w'b. 1N k As d b -
- sd M -k
. % \\;M u ssg!
i
,m
..t
[ a s 0.s o
[sso.n s.
T>, N w- %
k<.
6 U.c1 % A Cf""GD l
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 16, 1986 TIME:
1 p.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WS 2126 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Landfill Design Standards PURPOSE Compare NRC design requirements for shallow land burial with EPA design requirements for landfills. Emphasis was placed on discussing the applicability of the double-liner exemption to NRC LLW facilities that might accept mixed wastes. Future EPA guidance or standards (including respective timetables) were identified.
NRC STAFF OBSERVATIONS No inconsistencies were identified between NRC and EPA design requirements o
for land disposal sites and landfills, respectively.
EPA has not developed guidance or a demonstration methodology to waiver to o
i the double-liner requirement. EPA has no plans to develop this guidance because of limited resources. NRC staff could take the initiative for developing doubled ener exemption guidance. Waivers from EPA's double-liner requirement may be granted on a site-specific basis.
EPA is developing guidance on volatile emissions from and biotic intrusion o
into landfills.
I EPA has developed draft guidance on construction quality assurance.
o John Herman (0RD; FTS 684-7836) was identified as the EPA contact for this
Section3004(0). These requirements will be mandatory for all designs with no provisions for exemptions. These regulations should be proposed in the Fall of 1986 and finalized by May 8, 1987. However, comparable alternatives may be accepted under EPA regulations (e.g., unsaturated zone monitoring as suggested by NRC).
EPA considers that final covers are the major engineered measures to o
protect human health and the environment. Covers to new hazardous waste disposal sites should have low slopes on the order of 1:10 (V:H).
In addition, these covers generally consist of at least 2 feet of compacted earth material with a hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to IE-7cm/s, a flexible membrane (synthetic) liner, and a drainage layer above the synthetic liner.
1
.-.v.---.-
, ~. _ _
,,_-..---,,-..,e
Attachment EPA /NRC STAFF WORKING SESSION ON LANDFILL DESIGN STANDARDS LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Burnell Vincent EPA /OSW 382-4658 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /OSW 382-2231 Jim Tesoriero NRC/WMGT 427-4466 Les Otte EPA /OSW 382-4654 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 Rob MacDougall NRC/WMPC 427-4439 Julia Bussey EPA /0SW 382-4661
COMPARISON OF NRC AND EPA DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SHALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF WASTES NRC (10 CFR Part 61)
EPA (40 CFR Part 264) 1.1 Site design features must be directed towards 1.1 The owner / operator must close the facility in Iong-term isolation and avoidance of the need for a manner that minimizes the need for further continued active maintenance after site closure maintenance [6264.lll(a)].
[661.51(a)(1)].
1.2 The disposal site design and operation 1.2 The owner / operator must close the facility in must be compatible with the disposal site closure a manner that controls, minimizes, or eliminates, to and stabilization plan and lead to disposal site the extent necessary, to prevent threats to human closure that provides reasonable assurance that health and the environment, nost-closure escape of the )erformance objectives of Subpart C will be hazardous waste, hazardous v "It constituents, met :561.51(a)(2)].
leachate, contaminated rainf>ss, or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface l.3 The disposal site must be designed to water or to the atmosphere [6264.lll(b)].
complement and improve, where appropriate, the ability of the disposal site's natural 1.3 The owner / operator must install two or more characteristics to assure that the performance liners and a leachate collection system above and objectives of Subpart C will be met [661.51(a)(3)].
between liners. The liners and leachate collection i
systems must protect human health and the environment. The top liner must t,e designed.
I 1.4 The applicant's proposed disposal site, constructed, and operated to prevent the afgration disposal design, land disposal facility operations, of any constituent into such liner during the period disposal site closure, and post-closure institutional the facility remains in operation, including any i
control must be adequate to protect the public health post-closure monitoring period. The lower liner i
and safety in that they provide reasonable assurance shall be designed, operated, and constructed to that the general population will be protected from prevent the migration of any constituent through releases of radioactivity as specified in the the liner during the same period. An acceptable performance objective in 661.41 [661.23(b)].
design of the lower liner would be at least 3 feet of earthen materials with a permeability of no more than IE-7 cm/s [6264.301(c)*].
- EPA's Final Codification Rule, July 15, 1985 R
o
$3 Leo f${U b
b o Ab d86/06/10 DESIGN COMPARISON
t a
NRC EPA 1.8 Waste must have structural stability.
1.9 The leachate collection system must be A structurally stable waste form will generally constructed of materials that are cho ically maintain its physical dimensions and its form, resistant to the waste managed in the landfill and under the expected disposal conditions such as the leachate expected to be generated weight of overburden and compaction equipment.
[6264.301(a)(2)(1)(A)].
the presence of moisture, and microbial activity.
and internal factors such as radiation effects and 1.10 The leachate collection system must be chemical changes. Structural stability can be constructed of materials that are of sufficient provided by the waste form itself, processing the strength and thickness to prevent collapse under waste to a stable form, or placing the waste in the pressure exerted by overlying wastes, waste a disposal container or structure that provides cover materials, and by any equipment used at the stability after disposal [661.56(b)(1)].
Iandfill [$264.301(a)(2)(1)(B)].
1.11 The leachate collection system must be designed and operated te function without clogging through the scheduled closure of the landfill
[6264.301(a)(2)(ii)].
i l
i i
t DESIGN COMPARIS0N 86/06/10 3
NRC EPA 3.
Surface features must direct surface water 3.1 The owner / operator must design, construct, drainage away from disposal units at velocities operate, and maintain a run-on control system and gradient which will not result in e-9sion capable or preventing flow onto the active portion that will re the future [ quire ongoing active maintei*nce in of the landfill during peak discharge from at least 661.51(a)(5);.
a 25-year storm [6264.301(c)].
3.2 The owner / operator must design, construct, operate, and maintain a run-off management system to collect and control at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm
[6264.301(d)].
3.3 Collection and holding facilities associated with run-on and run-of f control systems must be emptied or otherwise managed expeditiously af ter storms to maintain the design capacity of the system [6264.301(e)].
e t
4 DESIGN COMPARISON 86/06/10
o NRC EPA 5.1 Waste must not be readily capable of 5.
Facilities must be designed, constructed, detonation or of explosive decomposition or maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility reaction at normal pressures and tem)eratures, of a fire, explosion, or any upplanned sudden or or of explosive reaction with water 561.56(a)(4)].
non-sudden release of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water 5.2 Waste must not be pyrophoric. Pyrophoric which could threaten human health or the materials contained in waste shall be treated, environment [6264.31].
prepared, and packaged to be non-flammable
[561.56(a)(6)].
O e
DESIGN COMPARISON 86/06/10
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSIONS DATE:
June 17, 1986 TIME:
9 a.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WM 3908 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Land Disposal Restrictions PURPOSE Discuss EPA land disposal restrictions as they apply to Mixed Wastes. The meeting was principally convened for NRC to gather information.
SUMMARY
OF EPA'S APPROACH TO LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS In response to comments from Congress and the public, EPA reconsidered its ap-proach to land disposal restrictions which was published in the Federal Register in January 1986. EPA is currently considering a best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) approach to treatment requirements for hazardous wastes prior to land disposal. EPA is attempting to identify appropriate treatment technologies for wastes, including alternative forms of waste (e.g.,
liquid solvents, tank bottoms, sludges). Different treatment standards may be developed for different forms of the same hazardous waste. Treatment standards may require " treatment trains," which are a sequences of treatment techniques.
EPA will prescribe treatment methods (BDAT) and/or treatment levels for hazardous wastes in the RCRA regulations. EPA is allowed under RCRA to delay application of the land disposal restrictions by up to 2 years on a national basis, and up to two 1-year periods on a generator-specific basis.
If land disposal of a hazardous waste is banned, that waste can only be stored long enough to accumulate a sufficient quantity to allow economically feasible treatment. EPA is also in the process of preparing a comparable risk assessment, which considers releases of hazardous constituents into various environmental media. EPA intends to include examples of the types of demonstrations that could qualify for exemption from the BDAT treatment requirements, which may be granted if "no migration" of the hazardous constituents could be demonstrated for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
NRC QUESTIONS 1.
How will the "no migration" provision be implemented in "real world" situ-ations? Please explain the provision. Are engineered barriers considered in the "no migration" exemptions to treatment standards?
2.
What treatment technologies aoply to organic solvents, lead, chromates, and chlorinated pesticides?
3.
If lead and chromium are fixated and immobilized in Portland cement, would this treatment method be consistent with EPA's BDATS currently under
ACTION ITEMS o
NRC is investigating bichazardous waste in conjunction with other mixed waste activities.
Rob MacDougall will contact Dan Martin, both of NRC, in regard to CERCLA o
liability for mixed wastes. Based on NRC staff discussions, NRC may re-quest a meeting with EPA on this topic.
THE AB0VE NOTES WHICH INCLUDE OBSERVATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND AB0VE ACTION ITEMS WERE AGREED TO BY:
gg j
NRC REPRESENTATIVE EPA REPRESENTATIVE h gyp [p
Attachment EPA /NRC STAFF WORKING SESSION ON LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS LIST OF ATTENDEES l
NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4170 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Jim Tesoriero NRC/WMGT 427-4466 Rob MacDougall NRC/WMPC 427-4439 Alan Corson EPA / CAD 382-4770 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /DSW 382-2229 Burnell W. Vincent EPA /0SW/WMD 382-4658 Jacqui Sales EPA /0SW/WMD 382-4770 James Berlow EPA /0SW/WMED 382-7917 Jon Greenberg EPA /OSW/WMD 382-5742 Mal Knapp NRC/WMLU 427-4433 l
l
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 20, 1986 TIME:
11:30 a.m.
LOCATION OF MEETING:
EPA /WS 2126 j
ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Tanks and Containers PURPOSE Discuss EPA's regulations for tanks and containers for hazardous wastes.
OVERVIEW o
EPA anticipates publishing regulatiens for tanks used for storage by June 30, 1986 under court order. The philosophy embedded in the dame fegulations is that tanks will leak and, therefore, secondary containment with leak detection is appropriate.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS Discussion centered on tanks since new regulations on tanks are being o
promulgated. NRC staff will review guidance on containers.
o There are three classes of tanks: above-ground, in-ground and underground.
If the bottom of the tank cannot be inspected, then the tank is in-ground o
or underground.
EPA's new regulations for hazardous waste tanks provide performance o
standards in addition to design standards.
o New key feature: secondary containment and leak detection system.
~
Secondary containment is accomplished via:
o (1) double-wall tanks; (2) concrete vaults; and (3) liner systems.
EPA staff anticipates that groundwater monitoring may not qualify as a o
leak detection system.
No upper time limit for the storage of hazardous wastes. However, as long o
as hazardous wastes are stored, an active permit is required.
High integrity containers (HICs) are probably not tanks because they are o
used as containers and then included in the land disposal facility.
-~
Attachment EPA /NRC STAFF WORKING SESSION ON TANKS / CONTAINERS ATTENDEES LIST NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Jim Tesoriero NRC/WMGT 427-4466 Mike Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Derek Widmayer NRC/WMEG 427-4787 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Bob April EPA /OSW 382-7917 Burnell Vir. cent EPA /OSW/WMD 382-4658 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /0SW 382-2229 s
_.-,-..-__.-,-y
_.-t,---
y y
-,. ---,y
,.y,-w-,,
l 1
. y.
d,,_,
cp 1 m ra a4~,- Jw.., c.,.
-S.
~
' &T'Y
. ed * :,< 'h
- t.
\\.,
WLlM\\
Y'
~
- 6. s
.i; Jf 7....
(,Summr I, 4 o cFit. A a-2c,+)
Qg$ y,
' 4 v.
,,r M k s M o.;
~i.._jl,"
y.
- s CoNTA14525
- i L.;
l.
Cowmens Acume wsr er 14 6eoo Ceuomw w
gau4c.co su a SasseeJ MANhlF4.
So iT" Compties iJ,7w IvirA%g7 "I"
stFQusA p e*G ZIA. l'I l],
l I
i C u.wesetasms, / cot.sn: win rd.
O ~
C"*m** '
=
1.ar t.i a e r FM. w r u e.a m ?
NW W
OE NhDE d cyt,.
g,4 yy p ypt m my i
hd f*
Cm4#A Tsotr sJ 47# TWr igegyp y g,,,
g, y, ygg-,hgsgsq af::
N ' Cd'd " 8 6 D MW ff Me7 IM 44 i,e pg {
g Pum.c 7e De m.e om.c A-G6TMm '.s Asstig l% INMsd.gg ?
(M44TMaug TETTI ?
54MC Af.
PL 'l ?
Cows ecetA Tw e4:
Da4a o47w p,c,a,7r
- M86 AW E 'T BF kEFT CWEB TD W FXTEVF Y
/.AC72cAgtr 20t. l'71(4h, i
DcP,mtw # ' ca.ecc o " S' a
AsL :
FA V Aws T T%#8t3 A*d41' O f" n//ED A*f0 M4sf 4f.m inA wwK WT
- d.F16%75' /eFTh(ET Aa)6
- 1. M k!" (
2G4.1"73 h e:04mtg Tb tm/LSM Ca'I"
/24h4F88(U" 9 % d6 S /EE#6t. bMM T l
l we (,4/
i 4 y,.*
- hh,."
t
,, s. e 94-U*.< n -
\\
- N.h. m ;-:r -
il 8.
c,..
m...s z
e.
- rr m n r <<
v
,,o a.,..
j if x 4 A pw.ms p,,,.q
- i..,4- [,[c6+. no ].
s.
5 9
.L upa,4tr serres ( w /4 84wu) r*f v'r or *ws.~ wr we cm A unt as sr a s m ee on casus ar e.rw drawest #
[ 2G4.17 G')
{ f 2G+.177 N,].
- 6*'enMC luem.s vara ory
- ?
eN Tetr a in w n.ast,n ?
\\D T M a'$
TT Hy u s~f flr PLhtte on Ano un"ACMt0 c-wsu.
Tus,- Mc*wf can.ine M
.na emeau m e nrunom
' {[ac,$: N? G)]."
(see 42 @)
ii.
- Dem, g ~.c w u.i,
<r e pm,
~7
,t.-
g,,
7
< ~~m-a 37ar mau m eia A-rstaMas W4str 72n+r s.s IM wnvAw v'N y om nur as pA rouA.
A %+rtd y ox C=~sWA C t'e ft, %,
- l-MM /M/*s*WeM f> TT
{ firs 9. I'1] (e)},
Cs % @ ),
Mswat W
- fjt7EM,
(.W T4,Nyjgt ENyr, M C.lu A%dr ds-ofta.fm,,,,4gp
~
I w = s*rr 4-. % a rr u,-
W#
o,,,,,,,, %
C'-**f[f2 4 +.1 gg },
\\
5><.
i t;n;- ;.s '
/e 4 'b--
m, &
- c. ~h?
s 6 *'d~.e s
dee w-ag?
m c,/tulea l
e G
We Apo conAloems" Wonx.i46 session MA hw g
..W W?.,
fA12~f".%y
, SC/0fh7~ [
/
/.-
V!ANks //csr/~
E ActfA.rf' JM=z& J7?ggn&T2&, Ad e
ass u,,-sr-<a a.,0 s p
+
... rya <e aryre.
. Euv. nQ oe
- ma <.a ce,rme ?
- Lo~ce on u sin s.
f L
kudopw4~,<. Lp,<~less
.~fs... n~e sef 4
& & 4 /e b itt d e, &
de a p<es d.
2Y /wed,
/~<.
mr/ Le oy&L/e uiK w n /e [z m.m2 a
- wsre/JJan s, weh, afd/G k-4.
Gn. / O + 4 %,,< ~ lg
%</lyA< ms+ as
- ge a%
p e.
q(<cpcde d ks -b ((< cue 4 ava Rik y.
Tc~ band l
ccyc~ m.
Em. iu 6)]
....e 1
- /s L e b f e N e hub &
ZuswerNA,-oes;/Ibon-LSlNs / h
.?.._-
E.
e c.iu a c.- x J ~p n ~).5~mstesn
+6sh i
->ve/.4da 4~k. _. C~cefg i
yms_91.4,J4e._s,e he amas
_se u;l:12 t
l NCcMbmetG Wr6TO - hyk msk y ss( d wd epf ic,
g
'o<.fers v@e c.w h
M tb
/. b<
),'cl.- W
{rewosj (d.17 i O
WMb.
[2(M.1%
lt swear $G bhh w ssl Fctc p
Foz),F'ozzz,
es 3
FoL3, Fo26 F o z. l.
R9,< es str4 3
Lo kl uh' I :, (=> n d ca k ~
l& s e> <- splls.
l d>
- ee em 9
- e en n.6
.e
.m.wgw i
e*
46ee l
Q
- o +
. - - -. = = -
...e.-
= -
4,e..
\\
g.V ;..d 4 ttc,.< v d
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 20, 1986 TIME:
1 p.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WS 2126 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Manifests PURPOSE To identify inconsistencies between EPA and NRC regulations on respective manifest systems.
SUMMARY
OF DISCUSSION NRC and EPA manifest requirements were discussed and no inconsistencies were found. However, some differences were noted.
i STAFF OBSERVATIONS o
NRC manifest system does not specifically require identification of haz-ardous wastes which are regulated by EPA. Similarly, EPA's manifests do not require the level of detail regarding radioactivity.
o EPA inquired about importing / exporting of low-level radioactive wastes, if any, and manifesting requirements for these wastes, o
EPA inquired about NRC manifests for low-level radioactive wastes that are treated rather than disposed of, o
EPA was concerned about the complications of state implementation of mixed waste manifests. NRC staff acknowledged this concern and agreed that any development of manifests for mixed wastes should be coordinated with states.
i ACTION ITEMS Derek Widmayer (NRC) will provide Carolyn Barley (EPA) with completed man-o ifests by June 30, 1986.
o NRC staff will provide EPA staff with a respcase to questions regarding manifests for low-level wastes that are treated rather than disposed of by July 30, 1986.
4 o
EPA will review NRC's manifest and forward comments on the comparison of the manifest to NRC by July 30, 1986.
i I
Attachment EPA /NRC STAFF WORKING SESSION ON MAN!FESTS ATTENDEES LIST NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Burnell Vincent EPA /OSW/WMD 382-4658 Alan Corson EPA /OSW 382-4770 Carolyn Barley EPA /0SW 382-2217 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /OSW 382-2229 Derek Widmayer NRC/WMEG 427-4787 Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 dim Tesoriero NRC/hNGT 427-4466 i
)
l
-r
,,,--.,y
,c-, --- -
ya
,-m
..m--e----e-
---y-
-e&m--
-%~------e
O e
MANIFEST COMPARISON NRC (10 CFR)
EPA (40 CFR) 1.
Manifest Contents 1.
Manifest Contents Shipments of radioactive waste to a licensed land disposal facility must be accompanied by a The following information is required for a com-pleted manifest:
manifest which includes:
- name of generator
- name, address, and telephone number of person generating waste
- company name
- name, address, and telephone number or name
- EPA 1.0. number of generator and transporter
- transporter name and EPA hazardous waste identification number of the person transporting the waste to the land
- number and type of containers disposal facility
- total quantity
- a physical description of the waste
- receivers name and address
- volume of the waste
- EPA 1.D. number of receiver
- radionuclide identity and quantity
- special handling instruction
- total radioactivity
- generator certification
- the principal chemical form
- acknowledgement of receipt (transporters)
- specify solidification agent
- discrepancy information (TSD)
- identification of waste containing more than
-wastedescription[9262 Appendix]
0.1% chelating agents and the weight % of the chelating agent estimated
- class of waste
- total quantity of radionuclides 11-3, C-14, Tc-99, b3hh
=
and I-129 must be shown
- certification by generator that materials are h { (1l t
y, properly packaged, labeled, classified, marked, and g
t-labeled [570.311(b),(c)]
mv g D
T @@3 P $
.-E 3.
4 NAf;IfEST C0f4PARISON 1
6 86/Of./I?
L
4 4
.)
NRC j
~
- acknowledge receipt of the waste from the generator
-EPA within one week of receipt by returning a signed copy j
of the manifest i
- prepare a new manifest that meets the requirements of 20.311(b) and (c).
- forward a copy of the new manifest to the disposal site operator or waste collector at the time of i
shipment.
form of a signed copy of the manifestObtain acknowledgement of receipt in the i
- include the new manifest with the shipment
- retain copies of new manifests and original manifests J
i
[620.311(f)]
4 Land disposal facility 4;
Manifest procedures are:
_ Treatment Storage or Disposal owner /operatnr Manifest procedures for a land disposal facility are:
- acknowledge receipt of waste within one week of receipt by returning signed manifest to shipper
- sign manifest to certify that hazardous waste
- maintain copies of the manifest covered by manifest was received
- notify shipper if any part of shipment has not arrived
- note discrepancies in manifest within 60 days [6?O.311(g))
- give transporter one copy
- send generator copy within 30 days
- retain a copy of manifest for three years
[l264.71]
5.
Discrepancy between manifest and waste received 5.'
Any shipment or part for which acknowledgement of Discrepancy between waste contents and manifest
}
receipt was not received within the times set forth If the owner / operator of a TSO facility dis-i I
covers a discrepancy he must:
MANIFEST COMPARISON l
3 I
116 / 0 6/
1 ?
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 23, 1986 TIME:
9:00 a.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WM 3908 J
ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Burning and Blending of Hazardous Waste i
PURPOSE Discuss NRC staff interpretations of EPA's existing regulations regarding burning and blending of hazardous wastes and to identify anticipated changes to EPA's regulations.
EPA'S APPROACH TO BURNING AND BLENDING EPA does not, currently regulate boilers and industrial furnaces.
o Depending on waste and facility characteristics, legitimate energy o
recovery threshold values are determined by EPA to be 5,000 - 8,000 BTU /lb. Burning hazardous wastes with energy values below 5,000 BTU /lb is considered incineration, not energy recovery, There are two phases to EPA promulgation of burning regulations in o
response to HSWA of 1984:
PHASE I:
Administrativestandardsonnonjechnicalissueswerepublishedinthe Federal Register on November 24, 1985 which stated that hazardous wastes are not allowed to be burned in non-industrial.fr :;ei..
PHASE II:
Permit standards for boiler and industrial furnace operators which are similar to those for incinerators, will be completed by January 1987.
l Three important items in new regulations are:
a) set destruction / removal efficiencies for principal organic hazardous constituents (P0HC):99.99% for most P0HCs 99.9999% for dioxin containing wastes.
b) less stringent limits for HCL emissions.
(risk-based rathe'r than technology-based standard)
l EPA indicated that combustion facilities have little difficulty satisfying o
the Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for P0HCs. However, attainment of the DREs does not necessarily indicate elimination of high emission rates of products of incomplete combustion (PICS). For this reason, EPA is developing new guidance to encourage permit writers to use carbon monoxide as a surrogate monitoring parameter to detect combustion upsets which could result in PIC releases. EPA intends to release this guidance by the end of 1986.
ACTION ITEMS Bob Holloway (EPA) provided Mike Weber (NRC) with letters addressing EPA o
decisions on boiler variances.
Bob Holloway provided Mike Weber with EPA Permit Writers Guidance Manual o
about Subpart 0 of 40 CFR Part 264.
NRC staff will review above documents and direct questions to o
Robin Anderson by August 31, 1986.
THE AB0VE NOTES WHICH INCLUDE OBSERVATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND ACTION ITEMS WERE AGREED TO BY:
NRC REPRESENTATIVES EPA REPRESENTATIVES b
]
sn
EIA/NRC STAFF SESSION ON BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME
- AFFILIATION PHONE Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Jim Tescriero NRC/WMGT 427-4406 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /OSW 382-2229 Burnell Vincent EPA /0SW/WMD 382-4658 Robert Holloway EPA /OSW 382-7936 h
f
\\
g g
p.,..
c
_-w-v,
1%t.EMut%"*V Abits Fert.
o h
esonate Aue SwA/ DIN <r CF MsA% f 3 wue,ac, MzArtoovt WesfE ' kloci4&
Sess M c /<a. l< d., _ a 3 ;/e-(/a.o. u. - n) r (i) c., a t.ud da < ; < <s, n
<w-s.-
t.
ii, ><; y e brJ y
St ~
c s,.<s-
<-i.ds~A Wer, an., n,p r s,
myw
}
n.t m + k def.k
( % L * ;
[ ua.m.
ni< e s:
J.,
i u,
,,n,:z./ i.u L h4 4 x
.t.a,,,.+ n~J s, ~ e.
, JJ puu, - r,*s om i,.li f du,'y al k c,6Trn,J,., w -J w.
c~sy m y+~d; Ly.l ~~g n (~" mr/a s);
0MA J ~-i c.,, ci).~,p cm
,. ) caef
4 b ~ /
J
- p
.a
,a u 95*, W $ladr, e AtM o,
y
> @ AniN4' lit a[ p,la a f nur yhda~ b y
n ulw
~,. a ?
= @ 4.- A M f
- f p v e d o -
(&c,,nt)) 4 i//ah.k ca,cikd. s ?
Y M WW siss % I s w 7h-s*12)tirr A*C be,4a 44ca a c s,- e
-w
.----_*----g-m------
-.,w---we---
--y-------------n---,
c--
y--m----vrep--
r
,--mgm w
8 i
(+) x.id & ~+ ca./.-
4a f n -v ha sm.J s eA i M m,J a fx,..nca)~aa) fa su
- -aiA e
[ {est.. so c$.
(C x,A 7A: atnL 4 - ~'C d-y 4
~f,nd,~s AJ ir.iri rah r.a t'r A !"# [{2r>+. mei a)].
~L a
$0 0
65 emn.
16hJdy% af /n+-.
k ia l J fys~l cA w ar,y A.r A ch)7
.,y,
(*) %4we
- k. c a O i n u n. a u,a,
g + &
ra u * <% a p-em s
f ? 24+. m Efzc,t. sta. c.)].
Is
%ts"wa/ A4sil:t Ac/g, -
3 Mis i,aut p-T tJ 5.L,p-y-sw ?
(7.)
- Pcilc, a,.<. alat.) -f 4,.J;;gzl
,,,,,at, f,,4.A su nJ wa-e alkaa/t </ fia-in:,.$
y
@ M c-8, e
,.. A ~1a 'A /
L{20+ max 6].
i fnVMa$' Yt'r$a yMYentt.am.Stlt shNC 'l ?
l 1
l
.w 3i3 D
fcseirz b t,..A g
<,I!!.ep.:t; (4 co /J J &,:. at-at w4 at ya
(# M -fr.J 1, 4 m c s.w-Tyb s
(p 4Ataite */ c~koT= y* h'$
I p3 all-n A 1.l~i A
,p1tj, A.
n L d* 4 ~
\\
@.1A 9,y4 6 C[m.+m8 cJ-g.y,c (s
Lit.
~nA.i 4tr Hu m a;A J & La M sk &I~<M L ~l~ ch h {
Qo) aw, y.$J. ca L% [ht,+.ssw0
\\
(,p R % ~ ' u ;~ 1 h +~ it ' a k k { 9 3
(.) gg h w w s LJg (9 w4;.:-) Id
- e s.v., w m l
- . M%~ ; -
(e)" ~
M * %n) /Decat4 m f c4I.
gf'u+.s+da8 n
CitT>t:4 F~*L hlWW YW*
L e!, d a f e, _ 9d i-eO desty, w A c1 p
>\\ M
- E.
edk exusA eksfk li~'.h Gt44 *a*S a
(i3.)
L c M
w rdj k ^~
- J. ;-cM p pc $ i (N c kA
, M b (.ii., d b deda' ca.J4 p velany =
c2$i'- U; CO eL w;r
- ed=<. 4-A 4da,,,p:,,,f%
c~L.<R c~e @
3
(* b cYg Qa l k wTo.
J enkest a iss;.s;
- 0) %A *h k I.. *2
).
a..Yl
- % -4 le Is,9, R %
w e,&.j-le t 5,
y
%. 9eg w ~ti. $ ) <<., a cy., g *g3.)
N
). elac j l<st 4
. i ia q e.
, M4 t c.J4I. [E20f.1 +73 g
s k
2 N
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION OATE:
June 23, 1986 TIME:
1:00 p.m.
LOCATION OF MEETING:
EPA /WM 3908 s
ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
Ground-water Standards PURPOSE Discuss NRC staff's questions about existing EPA ground-water protection standards in Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 264, changes to these regulations under consideration by EPA, and the development of guidance relevant to ground-water protection at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites.
OVERVIEW eht ^
- k vpp e A W f d 7WI F n a m
EPA provide' an iverview f the current projects regarding 40 CFR Part 264 d
Subpart F (ground-water rotection) regulations. Present activities include:
(1) development af 0 ; f t guidance on identifying transport pathways for hazardous consti(tuents/a:nd on establishing multip(le p
/
facilitief with sepemene uste management units; 2) changes to :r..~ "a
.sen, Appendix VIII de grourtu-vater monitoring programs to require monitori for those Appendix VIII constituents that can be analyzed (ANPRM should beng only released in 1 month) andreo provide 1 VIII constituents monitored in grourd: ater--M: re4Jcing the number of Appendix otection programs' based on production volumes, toxicity and mot flity PRl1 should be released in Surrener s
1987); and.(1) consideration of alte rnativ s to the statistical test required in Subpart' / for detecting contamina tion (i.e., Cochran's approximation to the
'Behrens-Fisher Student's T-test).
(
g
,f g s
Following the overview, EPA answered the following questions from NRC staff:
1.
What is the status of changes to Appendix VIII constituen'ts relevant to ground-water tonitor,ing programs?
EPA is consiEering reducing the number of Appendix VIII constituents as
's described above in activity number 2 and adding constittents that are 4 routinely monitored at CERCLA sites, such as-sodium, calcium, and stytysium. The revised list may be named Appendix IX for the ground-water
- y prMeetion programs to distinguish it from the complete Appendix VIII list in 40 CFR Part 261.
Has EPA dev) loped guidance f$r owners / operators to " delist" Appendix VIII 2.
constituents on a sit?-sp!cific basis?
B
.._.m,
EPA staff present at the meeting did not know the prese.nt status of this document, but encouraged NRC staff to contact Ken Jennings (EPA Project Manager for the development of the guidance document).
7.
What alternatives is EPA considering to Cochran's approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Student's T-test?
EPA intends to publish an ANPRM proposing consideration of alternative statistical techniques for analysis of ground-water monitoring data. EPA staff provided a draft copy of the Federal Register Notice. The EPA contact person on the statistical techniques is Jim Craig.
8.
Will the Time-of-Travel location standard (hydrogeologic vulnerability criterion) be incorporated into the Subpart F regulations?
EPA staff deferred answering the question to the NRC/ EPA Work Session on Location Standards.
9.
How is EPA implementingjcorrective actions in response to off-site releasesthroughgrounfater?
EPA staff suggested that NRC staff contact Dave Fagan. Questions about site closure due to off-site releases are being addressed through the development of the RFA/RFI.
10.
How are engineered barriers considered in demonstrating compliance with the ground-water protection standard in corrective action programs?
EPA staff was unsure how to consider engineered barriers in assessing corrective action programs at this time. EPA will address consideration of enginecred barriers in the Corrective Measures Guidance.
ACTION ITEMS EPA staff provided Mike Weber with Federal Register citations for recent o
changes to EPA's corrective action regulations in response to HSWA.
Mike Weber received OAG (RCRA Groundwater Task Force) report from EPA o
staff on June 23, 1986.
THE AB0VE NOTES WHICH INCLUDE OBSERVATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND ACTION ITEMS WERE AGREED TO BY:
4 /?.7 /F4 NRC REPRESENTATIVE:
EPAREPRESENTATIVE:;
[.
,jg
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 24, 1986 TIME:
1:30 p.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WIC 9 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
General Facility Standards Closure / Post-Closure Waste Analysis PURPOSE closure / post-closure and waste analysis. Identify inconsistencies between OBSERVATIONS FROM CLOSURE / POST-CLOSURE STANDARDS WORKING SESSI EPA staff stated that new regulations were published on May 2,1986 in the o
Federal Register. Major issues addressed relevant to closure include:
Clarified detailed closure plan requirements.
Third party cost estimatesjcertification of cic=:
M=
closure and post-closure performance by an independent professional engineer.
Additional requirement that post-closure plans be developed for storage facilities that close as disposal facilities because post-closure plans are not developed before closure occurs for this type of facility.
l EPA plans in FY 1987 to develop new regulations concerning the relationship between corrective action, closure, post-closure activity.
EPA has not developed guidance on how to modify the duration of the post-closure core period.
Corrective actions for groundwater contamination automatically extends the duration of the post-closure core period until after the termination of the corrective action program. The corrective action program terminates when the site complies with the groundwater protection standard for three consecutive years with1ut active maintenance (e.g., pumping and treatment).
are imposed after the end of the post-closure c[ ore period. EP EPA staff indicated that the effectiveness of deed restrictions may be limited.
EPA STAFF:
inspected and the :aanifests. EPA only looks for obvious inconsistencies be i
5.
hRC STAFF:
What constitutes a waste ins facilities [under Section 264.13 (a) (4)pection program at hazardous waste
]?
EPA STAFF:
See guidance manual on waste analysis.
6.
NRC STAFF:
waste analysis plans" under 264.13(b)?What criteria are used to det EPA STAFF: Described in guidance manual.
7.
NRC STAFF:
assess whether releases of hazardous wastes constitut health?" [Section 264.15 with respect to releases o(a)] What limits are placed on the " environment" 264.31]
f hazardous constituents? (SeealsoSection EPA STAFF:
Check with EPA pemitting staff about general characteristics.
8.
NRC STAFF:
in permits? Are site inspection requirements under Section 264.15 listed adequacy of these inspection procedures?What review criteria have bee EPA STAFF:
Again, discuss with EPA pemitting staff.
9.
NRC STAFF:
Would this include groundwater corrective actions?What remedia EPA STAFF: Discuss with EPA permitting staff.
ACTION ITEMS FROM WASTE ANALYSIS WORK SESSION NRC staff will decide on the need for additional meetings.
o EPA staff will provide Mike Weber (NRC) with a minimum of 10 copies of o
" Waste Analysis Plans: A Guidance Manual" by July 10, 1986.
THE AB0VE NOTES, WHICH INCLUDE OBSERVATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND AGREED TO BY:
Art 0.L<.
e /z7 /%
NRC REPRESENTATIVE EPA REPRESENTATIVE (GC-p m/ @o d - hw-}
6[9[%
Qgg
%,y w @( u % as)ciala
Attachment NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION ON GENERAL FACILITY STANDAR LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME
' AFFILIATION PHONE Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Jim Tesoriero NRC/WMGT 427-4466 Paul Friedman OSW/ EPA 382-4796 Burnell Vincent OSW/WMD 382-4658 Alan Corson OSW/CAO 382-4770 Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Carole J. Ansheles OSW/PSPD 382-4761 Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 e
i l
NOTES FROM NRC/ EPA WORKING SESSION DATE:
June 25, 1986 TIME:
9 a.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WIC 12 ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet TOPIC:
General Facility Standards Financial Assurance PURPOSE:
Identify inconsistencies between NRC and EPA regulations concerning financial assurance programs, crA FM auw dopo v2 sio r v, c-W r ci c-e " * ' ' m ^' E I faa. Ass w act STAFF OBSERVATIONS Hantu ry 1 N.t u p a c/ (c e *
- Implementation of financial assurance programs by NRC licensees might o
improve if NRC's regulations were modified to conform to the level of specificity and clarity of EPA's regulations.
o Major difference:
EPA requires third-party liability insurance; NRC does
- not, In comparing EPA /NRC financial assurance mechanisms for o
closure / post-closure; the following similarities and differences were noted:
EPA mechanisms:
1)
Trust Fund (TF) 2 Surety Bond (SB) 3 Letter of Credit (LC) 4 Insurance (I) 5 Financial Test (FT) 6)
Parent Company Guarantee (PCG)
NRC allows for all of the above, excluding Parent Company Guarantees (PCGs).
In addition, NRC allows the following mechanisms:
~nM S1 N-gc.MosMS n+rt_i_
1)
EscrowAccount(EA) 2)
Cash Deposit (CD) g r,& et roenaytcitto 3 G2-r cer s.o 3)
Certificate of Deposit 4)
Other financial mechanisms proposed by licensees that are accepted by NRC staff.
Attachment EPA /NRC STAFF WORKING SESSION ON GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Mary Jo Seeman NRC/WMPC 427-4647 Carole Ansheles EPA /OSW 382-4761 Burnell W. Vincent OSW/WMD 382-4658 4
-w s
~.. ~
NRC/ EPA STAFF WORKING SESSION ON LOCATION STANDARDS 1
DATE:
June 25, 1986 TIME:
1 p.m.
LOCATION:
EPA /WIC 12 ATTENDEES:
See attached list TOPIC:
Location Standards PURPOSE Discuss NRC and EPA site location standards to identify inconsistencies, if i
any, and gain knowledge of future EPA activities.
OBSERVATIONS o
No inconsistencies were identified between current NRC and EPA regulations and anticipated future EPAQriterig g
o EPA staff intends to propose location standards by September 1987 and finalize them by September 1988. However, HSWA does not provide a statutory deadline for this standard.
An EPA working group, fomed to develop location guidance is completing o
i
" Criteria for Identifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology." EPA intends to release this document via a notice in the Federal Register by the end of Summer 1986.
EPA is proposing criteria for treatment, storage and disposal sites as o
follows: for disposal sites, time of travel should be on the order of 100 years; for treatment and storage sites, time of travel should be long enough to allow implementation of a feasible corrective action program (EPA prefers less than 100 years for treatment and storage sites).
o Several states are currently considering engineered alternatives to land disposal which are similar to those being considered for LLW disposal.
EPA is considering whether location standards could be less stringent for such facilities. NRC staff and EPA staff agreed that location standards would be more stringent for disposal sites than for storage sites.
New location standards would probably be included in Subpart 8 of 40 CFR o
Part 264.
o EPA staff observed that NRC requirements ban disposal in the saturated zone, unless diffusion is the dominant mechanism for contaminant transport in groundwater.
s.
Attachment EPA /NRC WORKING SESSION ON LOCATION STANDARDS LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Tony Huffert NRC/WMLU 427-4474 Joseph M. Abe NRC/WMLU 427-4489 Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Burnell Vincent OSW/WMD 382-4658 Glen Galen OSW/WMD 382-4678 Lucinda S. Watson EPA /OSW 382-2228 (late)
Arthur Day OSW/WMD 382-4680 (tak) l I
4 CDMPARISON Of LOCATION STANDARDS NRCs STANDARDS (10 CFR PART 61)
EPAs ANT'CIPATfD STANDARDS (40 CFR PART ?64)*
I 1.
The disposal site shall be capable of 1.1 being characterized, modeled, analyzed, The disposal site shall be capable of being and monitored [661.50(a)(?)].
fully characterized [Anticipatedl.
Applicant must:
- delineate groundwater flow paths.
- determine groundwater velocities, and
- characterize geotechnical properties in support of site design.
1.?
The disposal site shall be capable of being monitored [ Anticipated).
i Honitoring system must be able to:
4
- characterize the rate and direction of py groundwater flow in the uppermost aquifer, ct((h 21 ji
- describe groundwater pathways for hazardous constituents.
-determinebackgroundgroundwaterquality,andf
- detect groundwater contamination promptly; or g f
2; The site must be located in a "zero recharge" zone. g<7
- Based on " Permit Writers' Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste'l.and Storay and Disposal facilities " Phase I (fcbruary 1985) Criteria for Location Acceptability and Phase II (November 1985) Criteria for Evaluating a Vulnera f
Hydrogeology.
- ]$
j3 Location Standard Comparison l
MfW
t NRC EPA 3.1 Areas must be avoided where 3.1 tectonic processes such as faulting, folding, The geologic setting of disposal sites must provide:
4 seismic activity, or vulcanism may affect j
the ability of the disposal site to meet
- a stable foundation for engineered l
the performance objectives or preclude containment structures.
defensible modeling and prediction of long-
- isolation from natural or human-i term impacts [661.50(a)(9)].
induced events that would affect the performance of engineered 3.2 Areas must be avoided where surface containment structures, and g:ologic processes such as mass wasting,
- freedom from the need for active erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering maintenance of the containment may affect the ability of the disposal site structures after closure.
to meet the performance objectives or (e.g., flood-prone areas, seismic / volcanic impact preclude defensible modeling and prediction zones, landslide / subsidence-prone areas, unstable of long-term impacts [661.50(a)(10)).
soils)[ Anticipated'.
3.2 3.3 Disposal sites should not be located in The site must be located enre than 700 feet from a fault that has been active during the areas with natural resources which, if exploited.
Holocene fl264.18(a)l.
i I
would result in failure to meet the performance cbjectives [661.50(a)(4)].
3.4 The disposal site should be selected so that projected population growth and future developments are not likely to affect the ability I
cf the disposal facility to meet the performance I
cbjectives (e.g., site has to be at least 2 km from the nearest population center) [561.50(a)(3)].
I 3.5 The disposal site must not be located j
whrre nearby facilities or activities could adversely impact the site's performance or t
]
significant mask environmental nonitoring [661.50(a)(ll)].
j Location Standard Comparison 3
MrW l
-