July 8, 2002

 

Sent via Certified US Mail and  Sent via Email to: chan.kwai@epamail.gov

 

Kwai Chan                              

Assistant Inspector General

Office of Inspector General

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Av. (Mail Code 2460T)

Washington, DC 20460

 

 

Dear Mr. Chan,

 

            As you know, EPA Region 10 announced in the Federal Register (7/1/02) its final ruling that grants the State of Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) permanent RCRA enforcement authorization. Region 10 also sent a letter (WCM-122) on the same day to Petitioners Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free (KYNF), Environmental Defense Institute (EDI), and David McCoy (collectively “Petitioners”) without the attachments A and B.  Given that EPA’s Office of Inspector General is continuing to investigate Petitioners allegations of violation of environmental law and non-enforcement by both IDEQ and EPA Region 10, we feel compelled to respond to Regional Administrator L.J. Iani’s letter. 

            Many of the same issues and concerns were raised in Petitioners’ 4/2/02 Rebuttal to EPA Region 10.  The reason for that is that neither the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) nor the EPA dealt with those issues in true, accurate and complete fashion in their Responses. For the most part IDEQ and EPA still refuse to address the same issues and concerns in a fashion that can explain the operation of numerous hazardous waste management facilities at the Idaho Nuclear Technology Center (INTEC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for over a decade without RCRA permits with imminent and substantial endangerment of the public health and the environment.^[1] 

            It is common for a bureaucratic agency such as IDEQ or EPA to attempt to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing or malfeasance in failing to comply with the law.  The purpose of obtaining RCRA permits is to protect the public and the environment.  IDEQ has failed to timely call in RCRA Part B applications, force closure of non-compliant operations and EPA has failed to exert oversight of IDEQ to make sure Part B applications are called in or that closures occur.  Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal operations that continue at INEEL without permits and claims of interim status for numerous INTEC facilities have been and are legally unjustifiable.

            EPA makes numerous statements in its 7/1/02 letter which, in substance, confirm several allegations of Petitioners.  EPA nevertheless chooses to continue to draw the conclusion that IDEQ is competent to continue to manage the Hazardous Waste Management program in Idaho.  EPA issues Federal Register approval for IDEQ in spite of the fact that it cannot resolve the concerns and issues raised by Petitioners regarding IDEQ lack of permitting and lack of EPA oversight.  EPA issued the Federal Register approval while it set forth new responses (discussed below) to Petitioners before EPA allowed Petitioners to respond. 

            EPA could better serve the public by an open admission of the historic and ongoing shortcomings of EPA and IDEQ, their failure to call for RCRA Part B applications, failure to demand stand down during the lack of RCRA permits for extremely dangerous hazardous waste operations, and the use of improper facilities to process the types of wastes that are being processed.  EPA refuses to discuss or admit the fact that the INTEC facilities processing hazardous waste have been and are sending RCRA hazardous wastes to other RCRA nonpermitted facilities.  EPA and IDEQ prefer instead to allow the public to be exposed to the toxic wastes from illegally operating hazardous waste facilities. 

            When Petitioners ask,  “Where are the permits?” EPA and IDEQ pretend that interim status is a substitute for a permit ^[2] although RCRA requires permitted facilities during their operational lifetimes. ^[3]   Interim status operations have continued for longer periods than permitted operations could have continued. ^[4]  42 U.S.C. §6925 reflects Congressional intent to limit interim status operations.  One only has to read the Rebuttal submitted by Petitioners to realize the large number of legal and factual issues which the EPA has refused to acknowledge or address in its 7/1/02 letter or EPA’s earlier Response.

            EPA admits that Petitioners were correct about the Howell memorandum, which involved a tank system unrelated to the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE). The memorandum provided no legal basis for EPA’s claim of interim status for the HLLWE.  The Howell memorandum (Attachment H- EPA 3/20/02 Response) was the sole basis upon which EPA relied in its Response to Petitioner’s to assert that the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE) was “in existence” as a legal basis for claiming interim status for the HLLWE.^[5]  The prerequisite for obtaining interim status was that the facility had to be “in existence” by July 3, 1986.  40 CFR 270.2 .^[6] 

            Now, three months later, giving Petitioners no opportunity for reply prior to the Federal Register decision, EPA makes a new argument that the HLLWE was a “replacement unit” for the Waste Calcining Facility (“WCF”) evaporator located in building CPP-633.  The HLLWE is part of a different facility, the New Waste Calcining Facility (“NWCF”) located in building CPP-659 which is hundreds of feet to the north. 

            This new IDEQ/EPA attempt to justify the lack of a permit for the HLLWE trumps even the absurdity of the argument based on the Howell memorandum.  EPA now ignores the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations that a facility, to be replaced, must have interim status when the change takes place.

 

class=Section2>

            In this incorrect argument to show HLLWE interim status based on replacement, EPA states that “the Director can approve addition of new units at a facility to increase the capacity of a process already in operation at the facility.” EPA ignores the legal fact that 40 CFR 270.72(a) only addresses and allows changes for a facility which has obtained interim status. Without a Part A that has been approved by the permitting authority, no interim status exists for a facility.  Interim status did not exist for the WCF-114 facility when the HLLWE unit was claimed to be a replacement for the WCF-114 evaporator.  EPA presents no evidence that the 1988 Part A Application submittal for the WCF-114 evaporator was ever complete or approved so as to provide interim status for the WCF-114 evaporator.  The WCF-114 evaporator was also nonoperational in 1987, according to the EPA.  (7/1/02 EPA letter, p.2, fn.1).

            The mere submission by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) of a Part A application which did not receive approval does/did not confer interim status on the WCF-114 evaporator. EPA has presented no legal authority to substantiate the claim that interim status could be gained for the HLLWE as a replacement for the WCF-114 evaporator which had not received Part A approval and thus lacked interim status.^[7]

            EPA argues that in 1990, the DOE submitted a Part A application for the ETS (HLLWE) as a replacement for the existing WCF-114 evaporator.^[8]  In 1990, at the time of the RCRA Part A submission for the HLLWE, the WCF-114 did not have interim status because there still had been no approval of a Part A application for the WCF-114.  Section 270.72(a)(2) does not allow for additions of new units to facilities which are not in compliance with RCRA.  Nevertheless, EPA apparently now is asserting that facilities, such as the WCF-114,  which lack interim status and do not submit timely Part B applications, are somehow eligible for replacement. 

            In 1988 and in 1990, the HLLWE could not legitimately be considered as a replacement for the WCF-114 evaporator which had not obtained interim status because WCF-114 lacked an approved Part A.  Even if EPA wants to continue the argument, which has no basis in law, that the HLLWE was an interim facility, the HLLWE was still required to submit a RCRA Part B application to obtain a permit.  The HLLWE never has submitted a RCRA Part B application within the necessary deadline established by Congress, or at any time.

            In order for a final determination to be made as to whether a RCRA permit will issue for a facility such as the HLLWE, a RCRA Part B Application must have been submitted for consideration within the statutory time line. The HLLWE failed to qualify for interim status after 1992 because no RCRA Part B application was filed for the HLLWE upon which to make a final determination.  The final permit or final denial of an application was to have been issued by 1992 for interim status facilities. 42 U.S.C. §6925 (c)(2)(B).

            EPA Region 10 interprets 40 CFR 270.1(a)(3)(b) to mean that interim status can be treated as a permit until final determination of a Part B application.  EPA Region 10 tries to use this as a justification for an indefinite period of operations for hazardous waste management units at INEEL.  However, there is no authority in 40 CFR 270.1 or elsewhere that the final determination can be extended past the Congressionally mandated date of November 8, 1992.  EPA’s interpretation of Section 270.1 would defeat the statutory purpose of RCRA that hazardous waste management facilities require RCRA permits.  EPA’s interpretation is also counter to the language of Section 270.1(c) requiring owners and operators of hazardous waste management units to have permits during the active life of the unit.  Moreover, the language of 40 CFR 124.2 and 270.2 explicitly provide that interim status is not a permit. EPA’s interpretation of unlimited time for operation under interim status makes no sense when viewed from the perspective that a permitted operation cannot exceed 10 years without a comprehensive review and renewal process to ensure all current operations comply with current regulations.  42 U.S.C. §6925 is preemptive of EPA’s self serving interpretation of interim status. ^[9]

            The EPA has not shown that compliance with the other sections of 40 CFR 270.72 was met for the HLLWE as a replacement for the WCF-114:

$                      EPA did not consider whether increases in design capacity were approved by the Director for reasons listed in Section 270.72(a)(2)(i) and (ii) [lack of available treatment storage or capacity at other hazardous waste management facilities, or the change is necessary to comply with a Federal, State or local requirement.

$                      EPA did not consider whether changes in the processes for treatment, storage, or disposal in relation to the necessity to prevent a threat to human health and the environment or to comply with Federal,  State or local law.  40 CFR 270.72(a)(3)(i) and (ii). 

$                      EPA did not consider whether the amount of reconstruction costs for the HLLWE in comparison to the costs for the WCF-114 exceeded 50% of the capital costs for the WCF-114.

$                      The 3/19/91 letter of Richard P. Donovan, Director of the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality to Mr. Wilmot, U.S. DOE, approving the RCRA Part A application does not even reference 40 CFR 270.72, much less make the findings required under that section.

$                      The 1990 Part A Application does not reference replacement under 40 CFR 270.72, nor does the document make the findings necessary for replacement under that section. 

 

             EPA’s replacement argument for the HLLWE does not explain the failure of IDEQ and EPA to require DOE to obtain a RCRA permit for the HLLWE.  EPA has not provided, under the 1986 mixed waste rule, the 1988 Clarification Notice, or any other rule, any extension date for a regulatory change or a replacement facility that differs from the Congressionally mandated November 8, 1992 deadline for submission of a RCRA Part B for facilities that became subject to the 1986 mixed waste rule.  40 CFR 270.10 (e)(4) provides that any owner or operator of a hazardous waste management facility must submit a Part B permit application in accordance with the dates specified in 40 CFR 270.73.  See, 40 CFR 270.73(g) giving the termination date of November 8, 1992 for interim status for any facility (other than a land disposal facility) that has not submitted a Part B.  The failure of DOE to furnish in full any information by a Part B application was grounds for termination of interim status claimed for the HLLWE. 40 CFR 270.10(e)(5).  Thus, after November 8, 1992, interim status no longer existed for the HLLWE because no RCRA Part B application was filed for the HLLWE.

            IDEQ/EPA’s interim status argument for the HLLWE based on being a replacement for the WCF-114, is also questionable for other reasons:

            1.)  The HLLWE is a unit in the New Waste Calcining Facility (“NWCF”- in building CPP-659), which needed a RCRA permit as a different facility from the Waste Calcining Facility (“WCF”).  The WCF-114 evaporator was in a different facility located in a different building complex (CPP-633) from the HLLWE (located in CPP-659). The NWCF never obtained a RCRA permit after decades of operations because it could not comply with RCRA or Clean Air Act Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements.

            2.)  The HLLWE was only a proposed facility and DOE failed to include the HLLWE as part of the October 1991 Part B Application Volume 6 which stated:  “This permit application addresses all units within the confines of the NWCF that appear on the current version of the INEL Part A permit Application, with the exceptions of the HEPA Filter Leaching Facility, the High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator, and the Evaporator Tank System.”  “CPP-659 NWCF Evaporator (proposed) 5,400 gal/day.” (Emphasis supplied). 

            3.)  The HLLWE was not part of or associated with any process located at the Waste Calcining Facility (CPP-633) where the WCF-114 evaporator was located.  The HLLWE was configured and associated with a very different number of tanks, fractionators and an incinerator (the Calciner) at the New Waste Calcine Facility (NWCF).  Construction for the HLLWE did not begin until 1993 and operation did not begin until 1996. 

            4.) The November 1988 DOE Workplan to Revise the RCRA Part B Permit Application for the INEEL, p. 5, Table 1, listed the HLLWE  “to be added” as a “new unit.” The 1988 Workplan categorized the HLLWE as a new facility rather than an interim status facility. 

            5.)  Currently, DOE is claiming that a Modification will be made to the INEEL Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS) permit for the HLLWE.  If the HLLWE constitutes a modification now, why was it not also considered to be a modification to the NWCF in 1993?  No modification was ever applied for by DOE for the NWCF and the addition of the HLLWE.  So the issue is raised: why wasn’t the HLLWE considered a Modification to the NWCF when and where it was built, and why have the regulators allowed HLLWE and other NWCF operations to continue for seven years without requiring an application for a Modification?  Why does  EPA continue to ignore IDEQ’s failure to call in the application?  In light of the fact that the HLLWE is purportedly a modification to the NWCF or the ILWMS, the claim that it was a replacement for the WCF-114 evaporator is a failure in permitting logic.  (Petitioners allege that the HLLWE is a new facility and must have a full RCRA permit.)

 

            Idaho DEQ has recognized, given lip service to, but not enforced the provision that RCRA facilities are prohibited from discharging RCRA wastes to nonpermitted facilities.  The minutes of the March 2 and 3, 1998 RCRA Quarterly Meeting between IDEQ and DOE state (p.3) for the ICPP/LET&D/PEW/NWCF: “It was also stated that the DEQ will not grant a permit for units (such as the HLWE) that discharge to a non-permittable facility.” (Emphasis supplied). 

            The HLLWE sends mixed radioactive/hazardous RCRA waste to other nonpermitted INEEL facilities at INTEC that include: the Process Waste Equipment Evaporator (“PEWE”) and the Liquid Effluent and Disposal Facility (“LET&D”), the Tank Farm Facility, the Service Waste Water System, and the Percolation Ponds.  The wastes are transfered by piping that is not RCRA compliant.  The HLLWE sent liquid waste to the New Waste Calcine Facility incinerator which is currently in stand-down mode.  The NWCF Calciner, which is a high-level nuclear waste incinerator, never obtained a RCRA permit.  Interim status does not constitute a permit and hazardous waste management facilities are required to have permits during their operational lifetimes.^[10] 

            EPA continues to ignore Petitioner’s legal issue that the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule and the Flood plains/Wetlands requirements of 10 CFR 1022 require the DOE to give early notice (including Federal Register notice under 10 CFR 1022 et seq.) and opportunity for the public to participate in the proposed action for the HLLWE.  Although all proposed actions at INTEC lie within the 100-year floodplain 10 CFR 1022 requirements are ignored with impunity by DOE, IDEQ and EPA.

            EPA ignores the lack of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concerns raised by Petitioners and the lack of comprehensive environmental statement to consider the numerous facilities that are being reconfigured, the alternatives, cost comparisons, etc. 

            EPA admits that Petitioners were correct that the Attachment for the Liquid Effluent Treatment & Disposal (“LET&D”) facility was a request for funding and not an appropriation.  DOE/IDEQ/EPA thus had no legal basis to claim that contractual obligations for interim status purposes existed for the LET&D.  The letter of EPA Region 10 Chief Feigner to DOE Hanford did not address or apply to the INEEL facility.  Nor did the letter resolve the problem that the LET&D did not have all the prerequisite state and federal permits in hand by July 3, 1986. (See fn. 6 above).  Budget commitments were not the only requirement that were missing for the LET&D.  The DOE did not obtain a Permit to Construct an Air Pollution Facility (PTC) from the State of Idaho until 1999!  Contractual commitments or continuous onsite physical construction are in addition to the requirement to have all state and federal permits.  (See fn. 6 above).  EPA’s comment that the LET&D “is on the permit track at this time” is a gloss over the fact that EPA/IDEQ allowed operation of the LET&D without any legal basis for interim status and without a permit.  The HLLWE evaporator was likewise operated without a legal basis for interim status. 

            EPA’s 7/1/02 letter claims that “The approved [TAN] closure plan called for the removal and proper management of all hazardous waste in TAN 726 and 726A to achieve clean closure of the units.  The waste was treated and the units decontaminated.”  However EPA continues to provide no specific documentation that the 26,000+ gallons of radioactive and chromium contaminated wastes were processed in a RCRA permitted and compliant treatment facility.  EPA has demonstrably failed to credibly answer the Petitioners’ fundamental query as to the whether disposition of the TAN waste was treated and disposed pursuant to RCRA regulations.   Additionally, the attachment to EPA’s 7/1/02 letter to Plaintiffs has no index, has repetitive  attachment numbers/letters, and no indication as to the origin citation of many attachments, thus making any reasonable use of the attachments or logical means of locating specific information contained in the +500 pages therein problematic if not nearly impossible.

            EPA admits Petitioners are correct that the 1992 Consent Order (addressing a two year old 1990 Notice of Noncompliance), could not confer interim status upon the LET&D.  Considering that for the same reasons that the Consent Order could not confer legal status on the LET&D, EPA nevertheless remains silent about the fact that the Consent Order also did not confer interim status on the HLLWE.  EPA is attempting to minimize the fact that DOE, EPA and the Idaho DEQ simply chose to illegally operate these new hazardous waste facilities without RCRA permits.     EPA claimed with respect to Attachment J (3/20/02 Response regarding #10) that “As part of the risk assessment that was performed by DOE on the emissions from the NWCF, work was performed to identify chemicals and the concentration of these chemicals that made up the waste to be introduced into the NWCF at the point of generation.” Now EPA tells Petitioners that Attachment J was only cited for a table “as projected chemical contaminant concentrations at the point of generation.”  In its current 7/1/02 letter, EPA is trying again to obfuscate the fact raised by Petitioners that DOE did not have adequate data based on real time sampling for emissions coming out of the Calciner.  Petitioners addressed the lack of ability to monitor the actual real time emissions from the Calciner. 

            EPA is avoiding the issue that IDEQ/EPA and DOE allowed hazardous waste operations dumping carcinogens, mutagenic and disease causing toxic waste without adequate sampling prior to the operations of the NWCF Calciner.  EPA tries to blur the issue by claiming Petitioners were referring to Attachment J.  Petitioners were referring to the fact that the DOE didn’t know what was coming out the Main Stack at the NWCF because they had no ability to sample the emissions due to “the technical challenge posed in collecting emissions data...”

            EPA continues to duck the legal and factual issue that under IDEQ the NWCF Calciner was knowingly allowed to burn inorganic wastes, emitting highly toxic heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and others into the public breathing space. 

            EPA states that response number 10 explained the history of the Calciner and the DOE conclusion that the unit was subject to 40 CFR part 265 standards as a thermal treatment unit. EPA stated it did not question “the integrity of the data.”  This statement and the IDEQ and DOE position are indicative of the collusive and apparent criminal conduct of EPA, IDEQ and DOE in knowingly operating a high level nuclear waste incinerator at a standard that was not protective of public health and safety.^[11]

            The EPA statement that it did not examine the integrity of the data indicates that EPA is attempting to whitewash its role as a co-conspirator in the illegal operation of the NWCF Calciner.  In 1990, the DOE, IDEQ and EPA all knew that the Calciner, as a fluidized bed device, was an incinerator, not a miscellaneous treatment unit, which had to comply with 40 CFR Subpart 264/265 Subpart O (rather than Subpart X) as set forth by 55 FR 17370 (April 27,1990). (See Exhibit 4 to August 8, 2000 Petitioners’ Request for EPA and DOE Inspector General to Investigate IDEQ, EPA Region 10 and the DOE, etc.).  By letter of 2/20/91, the EPA RCRA Permits Section Sikorski informed the IDEQ Hazardous Waste Compliance Supervisor that the Calciner “at a minimum will be expected to meet the requirements under Part 270 and Part 264 Subpart O” and that “satisfaction of these requirements is demonstrated through performance of a trial burn and subsequent operation under strictly controlled operating conditions (e.g. maximum/minimum temperatures)...”  (See Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 4 to August 8, 2000 Petitioners’ Request for EPA and DOE Inspector General to Investigate IDEQ, EPA Region 10 and the DOE, etc.).   Thus, EPA and IDEQ allowed the Calciner to run under the wrong standards.  A successful trial burn was never conducted prior to the commencement of operations. 

            For EPA to make the statement that it did not question the integrity of the data makes it appear as if EPA has committed a regulatory breach of the most formidable variety in failing to perform its oversight duties of the Idaho DEQ.  EPA allowed DEQ and DOE to operate the Calciner releasing high level radionuclides and heavy metals into the surrounding communities.  The EPA allowed this to occur without any of the prior waste characterization, emissions testing, safety analyses or trial burn required by law.  EPA allowed this to go on for over a decade and knew during the period of its operations that the Calciner could not qualify for a RCRA permit.  In fact, the Calciner could not obtain a RCRA permit and was shut down after Petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to Sue if operations continued.  EPA/IDEQ have clearly victimized the community with their lack of oversight and enforcement for the NWCF Calciner operations. 

            EPA presently continues what appears to be a similar pattern of denying  the community  accountable oversight for other INTEC facilities.  EPA is knowingly allowing the operation of the Process Equipment Waste Evaporator (PEWE), the Liquid Effluent Treatment & Disposal Facility (LET&D), and the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE) without permits and with full knowledge that these facilities are improperly processing organic chemicals which are going out the Main INTEC Stack without treatment. 

            Petitioners alleged that just as the NWCF Calciner improperly processed heavy metals, so now the PEWE, the LET&D and the HLLWE also have been and are processing organic wastes by evaporation and fractionation, which are incorrect processes for the organic wastes.  Although EPA in its 3/20/02 Response (p.15) claims that the PEWE and the LET&D constitute proper treatment by evaporation of the numerous waste codes, this fact is disputed by the 4/12/02 INEEL Volume 14 Notice of Deficiency (NOD) (at p. 5).  The NOD states:

“Given that 28 EPA hazardous waste numbers are listed in the Part A application for the ILWMS input feed stream, evaporation and fractionation will not be the correct treatment for each constituent.  Since DOE is considering both treatments as pre-treatment activities, demonstrate actions currently being planned to ensure the waste will be treated with the correct treatment method to meet requirements pertaining to Land Disposal Restriction (LDRs), IDAPA 58.01.05.011 [40 CFR §268].” 

 

            Apparently, the NOD is in agreement with Petitioners.  Petitioners reiterate that the wrong processes of evaporation and fractionation have been and are currently being used without these facilities having obtained RCRA permits.  As stated before by Petitioners, and now EPA apparently also agrees (see above), the LET&D did not qualify for interim status.  The HLLWE does not qualify for interim status. 

            The issue remains that hazardous RCRA waste is being processed at INEEL by nonpermitted operations which are using improper processes to process the hazardous wastes. Moreover, as Petitioners charged, the emissions are not adequately monitored nor is the public protected from those emissions by adequate controls.  The NOD (p.9) states: “Clarify if there is a sampling capability to determine the organic emission exited through the INTEC main stack sump.  Having the ability to determine the organic emission exited through the INTEC main stack sump, the DOE would be able to measure the total organic emissions from all affected process vents at the ILWMS [INTEC Liquid Waste Management System].”  The fact that these illegal improper operations have continued without prior or current knowledge of what the emissions are and without correction or stand down is deplorable and civilly and criminally actionable under RCRA, even assuming the facilities operate under interim status (which they do not). 

            EPA’s 7/1/02 letter (p. 3) fails again to address Petitioners issues that as evaporators, the HLLWE, PEWE, and LET&D feed do not meet the RCRA treatment standards specified for the list of 29 hazardous waste constituents in 40 CFR 268.40. (See, Attachment A below).  EPA claims that “This [INTEC LWMS] does not contain underlying constituents, 2-nitropropane [See, Waste Code U-171 in Attachment A below]... requiring combustion.” This is categorically incorrect and dishonest for EPA to make such an indefensible claim.^[12] 

            EPA and IDEQ fail to provide a credible explanation why the RCRA characteristic ignitable waste code (D001) is conspicuously missing from the HLLWE waste code list yet is present in the High-level Waste Tank Farm list that provides the feed for the HLLWE.    Other processing units such as the PEWE downstream from the HLLWE also have the D001 code listed.  The presence of ignitable waste in the evaporators is a significant explosion hazard that even DOE has identified and thus imposes strict temperature controls on the operations.  The NOD indicates this problem with respect to the LET&D and the HLLWE.  The NOD (p.5) states:

“Page C-7, 1^st paragraph, indicates that the characteristic of ignitability (D001) is not received into the ETS [HLLWE] and LET&D systems.  Describe how the characteristic of ignitability (D001) is rendered from the waste stream before entering the ETS and LET&D system.”

            Moreover, of the total 128 hazardous waste evaporator throughput constituents, 86 are listed hazardous air pollutants in the 42 U.S.C. §7412 list of pollutants covered under the Clean Air Act Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emission standards with which standards DOE has made no effort to comply. Additionally, discharge of the evaporator “overheads” containing these pollutants with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (even after the ongoing illegal dilution in the service waste system) to INTEC percolation ponds is prohibited.

            The numerous concerns and unknowns expressed in the 4/12/02 NOD regarding other systems related to the PEWE and LET&D, tanks and piping equipment (often lacking secondary containment and the ability to be inspected due to high radiation fields), which have operated for years without meeting RCRA requirements and without RCRA permits, only underscores the central issue raised by Petitioners: The safety of the public has been unprotected by the actions of IDEQ, EPA, and DOE in the operation of the nonpermitted INTEC hazardous waste facilities. 

            Petitioners believe that the expression of concerns in the NOD are welcome as a starting point, but are long overdue from the IDEQ as a regulator.  There is no reason why the community should have to, in the past or now, bear the health effects of toxic emissions if the regulators would properly discharge the hazardous waste laws.

            We look forward to an audit  response from your team.  If you have any questions about these issues please feel free to contact us.  This letter only addresses issues in the 7/01/02 EPA letter and is not intended as a comprehensive restatement of the issues Petitioners have raised in earlier submittals. 

 

Respectfully,

 

__________________________ Date ____________          

David B. McCoy

2940 Redbarn Lane

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

(208) 542-1449

E-mail: dmccoy01@earthlink.net

 

_________________________ Date _____________

Chuck Broscious

Executive Director

Environmental Defense Institute

P.O. Box 220

Troy, ID  83871

208-835-6152 V

208-835-5407 F

E-mail: edinst@tds.net

 

_______________________________ Date _______________

Erik Ringelberg

Executive Director

Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free

P.O. Box 4838

Jackson, WY  83001

307-732-2040 V

307-732-0129 F

 

CC: Sent via Email

Katherine Thompson/OIG/USEPA/US@EPA

Carolyn Copper/OIG/USEPA/US@EPA,

Charles McCollum/OIG/USEPA/US@EPA,

Dan Cox/OIG/USEPA/US@EPA,

Michael Owen/R10/USEPA/US@EPA,

kynf@yellowstonenuclearfree.org

Eileen PM McMahon/OIG/USEPA/US@EPA

Greg Fried/OECA/US@EPA

Brian Monson/IDEQ/STATE@ID.US

Jeff Hunt/R10/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                            Attachment A

 

HLLWE Hazardous Waste Constituents Requiring Carbon Absorption, Chemical Oxidation, Wet Air Oxidation or Combustion Treatment

 to meet RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR 268.40

Regardless of Concentration Levels

 

 

 

class=Section3>

Waste Code

Common Name of Waste

Waste Code

Common Name of Waste

 

P005

Allyl alcohol

U113

Ethyl arylate

 

P027

3-Chforopropionitrile

U116

Ethylene thiourea

 

P028

Benzyl chloride

U122

Formaldehyde

 

P031

Cyanogen

U123

Formic acid

 

P075

Nicotine and salts

U125

Furfural

 

P105

Sodium azide

U133

Hydrazine

 

P116

Thiosemicarbazide

U135

Hydrogen Sulfide

 

U007

Acrylamide

U147

Maleic anhydride

 

U008

Acylonitrile

U154

Methanol

 

U014

Auramine

U171

2-Nitropropane

 

U020

Benzenesulfonyl

U182

Paraldchyde

 

U055

Cumene

U191

2-Picoline

 

U056

Cyclohexane

U201

Resorcinol

 

U103

Dimethyl sulfate

U218

Thioacetamide

 

U108

1,4-Dioxanc

U219

Thiourea

 

U328

o-Toluidine

 

 

 

class=Section4>

            As evaporators, the HLLWE, PEWE, and LET&D feed do not meet the RCRA treatment standards specified for the above list of 29 hazardous waste throughput constituents in 40 CFR 268.40.  Also of the total 128 hazardous waste evaporator throughput constituents, 86 are hazardous air pollutants listed in 42 USC 7412 list of pollutants covered under the Clean Air Act MACT emission standards that DOE has made no attempt to comply with.  Additionally, discharge of the evaporator “overheads” containing these pollutants (even after illegal dilution) to INTEC percolation ponds is prohibited.

 

 

Sources of Organics to HLLWE Feed

 

            1. INTEC Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Raffinate in High-level Tank Farm

            2. Analytic Laboratories

            3. Radioactive Liquid Waste Management System

$                                  Annual decontamination of evaporator with oxalic acid

$                                  Floor and Cell washings (EDTA)

$                                  NWCF Decontamination Shop

$                                  Tank Farm valve box cleanings

            4. CPP-666 FAST

$                                  Spent Nuclear Fuel Pool Water Filter Back-flush Waste

            5. CPP-637 Laboratories

$                                  Trybutyl phosphate

$                                  Dodecane

$                                  Crown ethers

$                                  Octanol

$                                  Other specialized chemicals

            6. Maintenance Services

$                                  Organic based cleaning solutions

 

References:   

1. HWMA/RCRA Part A Application for INEEL Volume 1 Book 1 (EPA form 8700-23), January 2000, DOE/ID-10213.

2. Carlson Memo TLC-07-94 page 6; DOE/ID-10544, October 1996; HLLWE waste codes D001 (Ignitable) and D002 (Corrosive) require deactivation in see 40 CFR 268.40.

3. DOE/ID-1544, October 1996, pages 14 to 17 for listing of Tank Farm Waste codes, and 42 USC 7412 list of Hazardous Air Pollutants.