October 23, 2002

Sent via Certified US Mail

C. Stephen Allred, Director
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton, Boise, ID 83706

Warren Bergholz, Jr., Acting Site Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
Idaho Operations Office
850 Energy Drive, MS 1108, Idaho Falls, ID 83401

John Iani
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Av., Seattle, WA 98101

Kwai Chan, Assistant Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Av. (mail code 2460T)
Washington, DC 20460

RE: Petition to Reopen Public Participation Based on Resources Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Rule Due to Failure to Meet Public Notification Requirements for Addition of the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator ("HLLWE") [also known as the New Waste Calciner Evaporator Tank System ("NWCF ETS")] and Tank Farm Tanks to the Volume 14 Part B RCRA Application.

Greetings,

It has come to our attention from a reading of the HWMA/RCRA Work Plan for the INEEL (Revision Date-September 12, 2002, p. A-5) that the NWCF ETS also called the High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE) will be permitted as part of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Idaho Nuclear Technology and Environmental Center (INTEC) Liquid Waste Management System ("ILWMS"). This marks a substantial departure from the current RCRA Part B Application (Docket No. 10HW-1016, 6/29/01) as it was presented to the public for public hearing, and public notice issued (7/26/01).

The existing Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume 14 Part B Application (6/29/01) only included the Process Waste Equipment Evaporator ("PEWE") and the Liquid Effluent Treatment & Disposal evaporator system ("LET&D"). Because the Department of Energy ("DOE") is apparently adding the NWCF ETS, (see HWMA/RCRA Work Plan 9/12/02) the Vol.

This is a formal petition to reopen comments and that DOE provide all information and that Volume 14 Part B RCRA application should be renoticed to include the NWCF ETS with an opportunity for the public, at the earliest opportunity, to review the different Part B application and make comment on the new application. See 40 CFR 124.32 (b)(2)(v) which requires a Part B application to contain a description of the facility and the proposed operations. The pre-application hearing did not contain information about the NWCF ETS.

The public is entitled to know under the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule what DOE is planning at the earliest occasion so that there can be public participation. DOE's sending a series of major revisions to Idaho DEQ which avoid public participation does not meet the purpose or policy of the Rule and is grounds for appeal of the permit. Idaho DEQ and DOE both have the duty to make sure that the permit process complies with due process.

We have brought problem this to your attention earlier through the September 13, 2001 PETITION TO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("EPA") TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ("IDEQ") AS THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ("RCRA") AUTHORITY FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO (40 CFR §§ 271.22 and 271.23). In that document we stated:

"The PEWE Part B Application is a piecemeal submittal to IDEQ which neither contains sufficient information to allow public comment nor for a regulatory agency such as IDEQ to make a decision whether to approve or deny the permit. IDEQ fails to require DOE to submit a complete RCRA application for consideration by the public.

"... No good faith Part B Application for the PEWE/[LET&D/ILWMS has been submitted or shown to the public for its consideration under the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule. The public could not know what the DOE planned with respect to the PEWE and all related facilities. Thus, the public was denied reasonable opportunity for comment. The DOE knew well in advance of the pre-application meeting what its plans for the PEWE and LET&D were and secretly met with the IDEQ to discuss those plans and incorrectly define the PEWE. DOE submits less than complete applications to the IDEQ instead of complete applications. The IDEQ abuses its discretion by not requiring a repository for the information and the public cannot keep abreast of the issues involved in the permit application.

"The LET&D, as of December 2000, was not previously included in the Part B Application for the PEWE.

"The LET&D is an integral functioning part of PEWE operations. The LET&D has only recently been added to the RCRA Part B Application 7/27/01. The first description of the Part B application in December 2000 was only for the "Process Equipment Waste Evaporator system," not for a "liquid waste management system." At the 12/13/2000 pre-application public meeting, the LET&D was described by the DOE as a "reclamation unit" so that the public was misled to believe that no permit would be needed for the LET&D.

"The public notice of the LET&D as an addition to the PEWE was made more than 6 months after the Part B Pre-application Public Hearing Notice for the PEWE. The PEWE was the only facility for which DOE informed the public it was seeking a Part B permit in December 2000. However, the DOE and IDEQ conducted agency discussions regarding the PEWE and LET&D permitting at least six years prior. (See Memorandum regarding 12/20/94 Meeting page 6 -- "Mr. Birrer stated the DOE will submit the AA/BB packages for the Calciner, PEWE System, and the LET&D for DEQ-OPB review during the permitting process. (Attachment XIII).

"Thus, IDEQ allowed DOE to exclude the public from the RCRA public participation requirements until the last possible moment with respect to the LET&D. The public received less than two weeks notice before a June 20, 2001 pre-application meeting that the LET&D had been added to the Part B application. Then on July 27, 2001 the IDEQ sent out a notice that it had received a permit application for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS) from the DOE. The public had never been informed prior to the 6/7/01 DOE notice that the appellation was for what now was described as a much more comprehensive system, i.e., the INTEC Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS).

"Thus, the IDEQ went along with a shift from the PEWE system to a completely new description of the entire liquid waste management system. The public is always the last to know what DOE plans and the IDEQ fails to protect the public participation right under RCRA to know what DOE plans."

"Attorney David McCoy was informed on 5/10/01 by a DOE representative and again by an 8/01/01 letter from Tim Stafford, DOE Environmental Technical Support Division that the DOE intends to add the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE) (also called the New Waste Calciner Facility "(NWCF") Evaporators) to the PEWE Part B Application subsequent to its submittal of the PEWE Part B Application. The DOE presented no such information to the public in its 12/13/2000 or the 6/20/01 pre-application notice or public meeting for the PEWE Part B (now referred to by DOE as the INTEC Liquid Waste Management System.). The addition of the HLLWE to the Part B Application would create a substantially different permit application with additional environmental risks which are kept hidden from the public. IDEQ allows the DOE to continue to use piecemeal, sequential submittals to avoid any overall public scrutiny of what is actually planned for hazardous waste treatment and disposal in Idaho.

"IDEQ is aware that DOE plans to add the High Level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE) at a later date to the RCRA Part B Application but DOE has provided no public notice of that planned addition.

"Rather than instruct DOE to put forth a complete package to the public in a RCRA pre-application notice which also contains the HLLWE, the associated tanks and all other pertinent facilities encompassed by the term, "liquid waste management system," IDEQ instead allows DOE to submit bits and pieces so the public can never have any comprehensive look at an entire system of liquid waste management and the environmental considerations."

The Region 10 EPA did not address this specific problem in its response to the EPA Inspector General. It is yet another example of the problem in that the public only gets bits and pieces of a permit proposal at the whim of DOE.

CPP-604 Tank Farm Tanks

The 9/12/02 RCRA Work Plan also indicates that CPP-604 Tank Farm Tanks will be permitted as part of the Volume 14. These tanks were not included as part of the original RCRA Part B application presented to the public. For reasons stated above, there must be a pre-application hearing to address this substantial change to the Part B application along with the NWCF ETS.

Additionally, DOE's ILWMS RCRA proposed permit and RCRA Work Plan documentation grossly fails to include all the tanks related to the various ILWMS process operations. Moreover, the documentation on tank by tank within the ILWMS to meet RCRA requirements is categorically missing. See Attachment A that shows: Approximately 115 tanks and vessels are connected to the INTEC Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS) that includes the Calciner, High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE), Process Equipment Waste Evaporator (PEWE), Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal (LET&D) as primary feeder or effluent units.

• There are 66 tanks that are feeder/effluent units to the ILWMS that are identified but not fully characterized in the Part B Application or meet RCRA standards.
• There are 87 tanks that do not have full RCRA qualified secondary containment capable of containing the full tank volume, though ten tanks have inadequate "pans" that do not have the capacity to hold the full volume of the tank as required.
• There are 90 tanks that have no known structural certification.
• There is an unknown but significant number of tanks that have already exceeded their design life. This is significant given the extremely corrosive type of waste being processed

The DOE has represented to McCoy since 5/10/01 that the NWCF ETS would be added later as a modification to the Part B RCRA Application. It should be noted that 40 CFR 270.41, which sets forth the causes for modification of permits requires that the alterations or additions to the permitted facility or the information about the facility was not available at the time of the application for the permit. 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(1) and (2). These conditions do not apply to the NWCF ETS (HLLWE) and the Tank Farm Facility because these facilities have been in operation along with the PEWE and the LET&D since approximately 1996 for the HLLWE and much earlier for the Tank Farm Facility. We believe the NWCF ETS operates illegally because it was a new facility and did not meet the legal requirements to achieve interim status.

Our position, in regards to public participation, is that whatever operations and units that will be part of the INEEL Liquid Waste Management Facility must be set forward in advance by the DOE for consideration as a total permit package that the public can review in a timely and procedurally proper manner. This would include any facilities in addition to those cited herein and we would suggest that Idaho DEQ, DOE and EPA review our recent July 2002 Notice of Intent to Sue for the INTEC facilities outlined therein that are also currently functioning facilities which are part of the ILWMS.

This is also notice to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the DOE that because the ILWMS, including, but not limited to the NWCF ETS is an activity which would be present in the floodplain that the requirements of 10 CFR 1021 et seq. including Federal Register notice must be complied with.

Please inform us whether the NWCF ETS and the Tank Farm Facility have already been submitted as Part of the Part B RCRA application by the DOE to the Idaho DEQ and the date that such additional changes were made to the Part B Application.

For more information please contact:

__________________________ date: ____________

David B. McCoy
2940 Redbarn Lane
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
V. 208 542-1449
F. 208 552-0565
E. mccoydb01@msn.com

____________________________ date: _________

Chuck Broscious, Executive Director
Environmental Defense Institute
P.O. Box 220
Troy, Idaho 83871
V. 208-835-6152
F. 208-835-5407
E. edinst@tds.net

cc: via Email
Erik Ringelberg, Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, Inc.
Gregory Fired, EPA Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance
Phil Weihrouch, EPA Office of Inspector General (Sacramento)
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10
Michael Owen, EPA Office of Inspector General (Seattle)

Attachment A

INTEC Liquid Waste Management System Related Tank List

New Waste Calcine Facility, High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator, Process Equipment Waste Evaporator,

Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal Waste Operations

Revision # 7; 10/15/02 HLLWE/ILWMS.tank.7.lst

Note # 1; Wastes are received in the CPP-601 WG/WH tanks from floor and lab drains or transfers from processes in CPP-601, 602, 627, 640, 666, and 684; then transferred to PEWE feed sediment tank VES-WL-132; then to VES-WL-133; or the INTEC Tank Farm Facility. These waste streams are not fully characterized in the Part B Permit Application

Note # 2; The ILWMS system tanks vent to the INTEC Vessel Off-Gas System (VOG) which provides vacuum and filtration for the off-gas from the tanks in the connected facilities. The VOG system flows to the process Atmospheric Protection System (APS) filters, which are located in CPP-649 and from the APS, the off-gas is exhausted to the INTEC Main Stack in CPP-708. The APS is not a RCRA permitted system.

Note # 3; Tank Treatment includes use of chemicals such as aluminum nitrate, sodium hydroxide, nitric acid, calcium nitrate, fluoride, boric acid, and oxalic acid to limit the potential for corrosion, prevent precipitation of solids from the waste solution, and provide for criticality control measures. It is uncertain that these hazardous chemicals are included in the RCRA waste codes.

Note # 4; Tank and secondary containment material noted as Nitronic-50, and Stainless Steel (SS). It must be noted that the pans are not capable of containing the whole volume of the tank, and therefore not compliant with RCRA for full secondary containment. Additionally, there is inadequate information about the sumps having full secondary stainless steel containment with connected welds to the containment pans that drain to the sumps. Nitronic 50 is an austenitic stainless steel, as is Type 304. However, Nitronic 50 has a higher Cr & Ni content and is more corrosion resistant and stronger than say Type 316 austenitic stainless steel. Good choice for a corrosion resistant tank - depending on the corrosive, however only about eighteen of the ninety-two ILWMS tanks are Nitronic-50 or Type 304 stainless steel.. Most stainless steels don't perform very well in hot (>60C) chlorides. The evaporators normal operating temperature is 110 degrees Celsius. The evaporators operating temperatures, highly corrosive waste, plus the age of the tanks make these significant compliance issues not addressed in the RCRA Part B Application. Defense Facility Nuclear Safety Board report October 2, 2001 notes corrosion problems, "An example is the LET&D evaporator, which has a failed bottom cooler in 1 of 2 trains, a possible leak in 1 or more reboiler tubes in 1 of 2 trains, and deterioration of stainless steel off-gas components."

Note # 5; Epoxy secondary containment is a painted on surface coating that does not meet RCRA compliance, not to mention the fact that it is over forty-years old and beyond its design life even as a minimal sealant. Additionally, concrete does not meet RCRA criteria for secondary containment because of its porosity and lack of resistance to corrosives. Therefore, concrete tank vaults, sumps or building walls do not qualify as secondary containment despite DOE's claims to the contrary. Compliant secondary containment by RCRA definition must, in this case, have a stainless steel liner with capacity to hold the entire contents of the tank/vessel.

Note # 6; Design Standards; only the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has any regulatory structural/seismic significance. Additionally, ASME has no relevance with respect to RCRA requirements (i.e. secondary containment or daily access/inspection). Also the ASME standards at the time (1950s) of instillation are not necessarily the same as those currently in place.

Note # 7; The notation that a unit is "In Part B" refers to the INEEL RCRA Part B Permit Application July 2000. All other units "Not In Part B" are not included in the Permit but remain fundamental parts of the PEWE system and illegally not fully characterized.

Note # 8; Approximately 115 tanks and vessels are connected to the INTEC Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS) that includes the Calciner, High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator (HLLWE), Process Equipment Waste Evaporator (PEWE), Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal (LET&D) as primary feeder or effluent units.

• There are 66 tanks that are feeder/effluent units to the ILWMS that are identified but not fully characterized in the Part B Application or meet RCRA standards.
• There are 87 tanks that do not have full RCRA qualified secondary containment capable of containing the full tank volume, though ten tanks have inadequate "pans" that do not have the capacity to hold the full volume of the tank as required.
• There are 90 tanks that have no known structural certification.
• There is an unknown but significant number of tanks that have already exceeded their design life. This is significant given the extremely corrosive type of waste being processed

Note # 9; The service waste lines connecting all the ILWMS related tanks and vessels are not fully characterized in the RCRA Part B Permit Application even though the same secondary containment criteria that applies to tanks also applies to the waste service line piping. In some cases DOE attempts to take credit for stainless steel "troughs" in concrete beds for some pipes, this does not meet full containment for highly pressurized lines using steam as the propellent that a "trough" could not possibly contain.

Note # 10; Tank Design Standards described in INEEL RCRA Part B Permit Application July 2000 (Table D-2 pg 15) for twelve tanks as the following: "Due to the age of these tanks, no documentation exists to confirm standards. Conversation with the vendor indicates the tanks were built to API or ASME Standards." No documentation is offered to verify this vendor claim therefore the "tank design" must be legitimately listed as "unknown," which by itself is enough to disqualify the use of the tank in a RCRA permitted operation.

Note # 11; The Idaho High-Level Waste Environmental Impact Statement shows (page 5-206) that CPP-604 Waste Treatment Building (Process Equipment Waste Evaporator) tanks as a hazard based on "criticality event releasing significant radioactivity to the atmosphere." This would include VES-WL-102, and VES-WL-133, but also likely other sediment tanks related to the HLLWE and the LET&D.

Sources:

1. INEEL Interim Status RCRA Part B Workplan (GZ00-048G)
2. Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation Recovery Act INEEL Work Plan For INEEL;      EPA No. ID4890008952, 6/6/2000, and Revised Work Plan Report dated September 12, 2002.
3. INEEL RCRA Interim Status Document for PEWE, Nov. 25, 1997
4. INEEL RCRA Part B Application Volume 14 Section D 7/2000
5. Facility Assessment of the New Waste Calcining Facility Evaporator Tank System (Rev. 1) November 2000
Department of Energy, INEEL/EXT-2000-1148
6. Voluntary Consent Order Information for Item # 2 for FOIA Request Dated 4/16/201 from D. McCoy, 2/15/02
7. DOE Voluntary Consent Order, Site-Tank-004: Active Hazardous Waste Tanks to be Placed on Part A/B Permit, 6/1/00
8. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Notice of Deficiency, April 12, 2002