February 28 , 2003
Sent via Certified U.S. Mail
J. P. Suarez
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20004
John Iani
Regional Administrator, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Brian C. Monson
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1255
Greetings,
PETITION TO EPA:
1) TO REOPEN TITLE V AIR PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S (DOE) IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY (INEEL) AND
2)TO INVESTIGATE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UNDER REPORTING OF INEEL EMISSIONS, FAILURE TO LIST WASTE CODES AND FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (MACT) CONTROLS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
This petition is a description of the under-reporting as known to Petitioners from our examination and comparison of numerous documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests. The DOE has internal reports which list amounts of hazardous wastes far in excess of what the DOE reports externally to regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. DOE instead furnishes the regulators different data showing less emissions and volumes of wastes so that the DOE can be viewed by the regulators as remaining under the threshold levels which would require the installation of emission controls mandated by the Clean Air Act. It is also significant that, although applications for hazardous waste permits have been filed, no federal hazardous waste permit has been issued for the decades long operation of the incinerators, evaporators, tank systems and other equipment used to process the radioactive and toxic wastes at the INEEL.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a January 29, 2003 response to a Petition of Environmental Defense Institute (EDI) and David B. McCoy (filed 10/31/01). The OECA response determined that under section 112(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined by 40 CFR § 63.2. The INEEL has a potential to emit in excess of 10 tons per year hydrochloric acid. According to the OECA, because INEEL is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), INEEL has an obligation to: 1) revise its Title V permit and 2) to resubmit its application to the State of Idaho.
In light of the EPA determination that INEEL is a major source for HAPs and that this has not been taken into account in the public hearings we believe the public is entitled to a reopening for an additional public hearing and comment period to respond to the implications of this finding by the EPA. Reopening of the Title V Clean Air Act Permit is particularly appropriate given that the DOE has categorically stated in other documents that it is not a major source of hazardous air pollutants.
DOE appears to be engaging in a pattern of deliberate under reporting of hazardous air emissions and falsification of documents to avoid application of the Clean Air Act's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards at INEEL. (40 CFR 63.112) The public has a right to demand full disclosure by DOE and full applicability of MACT standards to protect the public from poisoning by the dangerous emissions at the INEEL.
The amounts for hazardous emissions listed in INEEL internal documents show gross inconsistencies when the document contents are compared with EPA records. For instance, the INEEL Air Emission Report for 1999 (1) shows benzene emissions at 56 pounds per year (lb/yr), methyl ketone at 42 lb/yr, trichloroethane 1,1,1 at 1,060 lb/yr, and hydroflouric acid at 2,000 lb/yr. However, the amount reported to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (1/9/03) (2) show "none reported" for these same toxic chemicals for 1999. Also see Attachment # 1 KYNF letter.
Discrepancies exist related to INEEL claims to minimal off-site waste processing. DOE reported in its EPA's Biennial Reporting that 13.8 tons of off-site hazardous waste were received at INEEL (3) EPA/OECA (1/29/03) response to Petitioners finding claims, based on DOE information provided to OECA, that INEEL only "received less than 262 pounds of off-site materials containing hazardous waste subject to the Subpart DD standards over the last three years." (See footnote # 5) There is a clear conflict here where EPA's Biennial Reporting System shows 13.8 tons (27,600 lbs) received at INEEL as off-site hazardous waste. (4) This exceeds the 2,205 pound exemption allowed in Subpart DD of 40 CFR63.680(d). Again, it appears that DOE is not telling EPA, as the regulator, or the public, the whole truth. (See Attachment #1 which is included herein in its entirety by reference). The EPA/OECA letter to Petitioners only acknowledges the incomplete data provided to OECA by the DOE. (5)
Also, the INEEL internal 1999 Air Emission Report shows total volatile organic compounds (VOC) at 36,417 kg/yr and total HAP at 69,439 kg/yr. However, the emissions reported to EPA for 1999 were 24,046 kg/yr (53,014 lb). EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (excluding Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds) shows INEEL emissions for 2000 at 23,190 kg/yr (51,125 lb). See footnote #2. This represents considerable apparent under reporting to EPA as the regulator when INEEL internal reports show significantly greater emissions. Petitioners believe the EPA should compel DOE to explain these obvious discrepancies.
The DOE claimed in its March 2001 Application for a Title V Operating Permit for the INEEL (INEEL/EXT-2000-01610, p. I-23), "As of this writing, the facility is minor for HAPs with an estimated emission total of 3.19E+00." The 1999 Air Emission Inventory for the INEEL (see footnote # 1) revealed significant total emissions of 156,238 lbs/year for HAPs and VOCs that are far in excess of the limits triggering applicability of MACT requirements under the Clean Air Act. The total amounts of HAPs and VOCs in the 1999 Air Emission Inventory grossly exceed the Clean Air Act threshold values. (See Table 1 below). Notably, hydrochloric acid emissions are listed at 7 tons/yr or 14,000 lbs/yr in the 1999 Inventory. However, investigation by the EPA OECA forced DOE to divulge over ten thousand pounds per year of hydrochloric acid.
Further, the 1995 INEEL PEIS (6) shows that when the HAPs are added up on a percentage basis, the HAPs are 345% over the allowable regulatory limits.
DOE and EPA have failed to observe the legal requirements with respect to delisting waste codes at INEEL. DOE has failed to explain why approximately 100 RCRA hazardous waste codes have been dropped when these waste codes were on the INEEL RCRA Part A application. See Table 3 below. No petition to delist the 100~ waste codes has been filed with EPA or the DEQ. Delisting waste codes requires a formal process including opportunity for public notice and comment.
DOE further does not explain how four hundred and four (404) different RCRA waste codes which are present during the debris processing of used HEPA filters disappeared from the waste codes for the INEEL Liquid Waste Management System which includes evaporators, fractionators, tank systems, service waste water system and percolation ponds. See Table 3 below.
In light of the bad faith exhibited by the DOE in the Title V application process, the failure to properly explain waste codes processed and the fact that DOE has failed to comply with the Clean Air Act and its MACT emission controls, we demand that the Public Hearing and Public Comment Process periods be reopened.
Petitioners also request that the EPA make a thorough investigation of the issues regarding waste codes and the ongoing failure of the DOE to implement MACT controls.
Table 1 below compares and quantifies the actual INEEL documented emissions of RCRA controlled Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and shows the extent of the RCRA violations as a percentage of the RCRA federal standard. Table 2 below shows the comparison between actual INEEL emissions with the Clean Air Act (CAA) controlled Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) standards, and the percentage by which INEEL exceeds the CAA standards.
Table 1
|
Comparison of INEEL Emissions to RCRA Standards f |
| 1995 a
Max. Hourly kg/hr |
1995 a
Annual
Average kg/yr |
1996 b Max. Hourly kg/hr | 1996 b
Annual Average kg/yr |
1997 b
Max. Hourly kg/hr |
1997 b
Annual Average kg/yr |
1999 g
Actual | |
| Total INEEL Organic Toxic Emissions | 97.6 | 4,317 | 59 | 16,000 | 37 | 27,000 | 36,417 |
| RCRA c
Total Organic Standard not to be Exceeded |
1.4 | 2,800 | 1.4 | 2,800 | 1.4 | 2,800 | 2,800 |
| INEEL Exceeded RCRA Standard As % of RCRA Standard | 6,971 | 154 | 4,214 | 571 | 2,642 | 964 | 1300 |
|
Comparison of INEEL Emissions to Clean Air Act (CAA) Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Standards f |
| 1995 a
Max. Hourly kg/hr |
1995 a
Annual
Average kg/yr |
1996 b Max. Hourly kg/hr | 1996 b
Annual Average kg/yr |
1997 b
Max. Hourly kg/hr |
1997 b
Annual Average kg/yr |
1999 g
Actual Annual kg/yr | |
| Total INEEL HAP d Emissions | ***Not Available | 10,447 | Not Avail. | Not Avail. | Not Avail. | 27,000 | 69,439 |
| CAA e
HAP Standard. not to be exceeded |
Not Available | 25,000 | Not Avail. | 25,000 | Not Avail. | 25,000 | 25,000 |
| INEEL
Emissions
Exceeding
Standards
As % of
CAA HAP Std. |
Not Available | 41.8 | Not Avail. | Not Avail. | Not Avail. | 108 | 278 |
| Notes for Tables 1 and 2 above:
a. DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 1995, Volume 1, Appendix B, Table 4.7-1, p 4.7-5. Total organics is derived by adding listed organics. Total hazardous Air pollutants (HAP) is derived by adding the list of HAPs in Table 4.7-1; the table also shows benzene emissions at 16 kg/hr which alone exceeds RCRA standard of 1.4 kg/hr. Table 4.7-2 Comparison of baseline ambient air concentration of HAP with the regulations shows collectively the HAP exceed, as a percentage of the standard by 345%. b. INEEL Final September 2002 High-level Waste Environmental Impact Statement, Table 4-1I page 4-34 lists Actual Site wide Volatile Organic Compounds emissions. c. Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 264.1032(a) and 265.1032(a). Standards for Process Vents; applies to fractionators, and evaporators. "Reduce total organic emissions for all affected process vents at the facility below 1.4 kg/hr (3 lb/hr) AND 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr..." Contaminate units in the CFR's are Mg/yr = million grams/year. 1000 kg/yr = 1 Mg/yr. d. 1995 PEIS (see #a above), Table 4.7-1 total of all Hazardous Air Pollutants. There are dozens of other regulated hazardous air pollutants emitted based on RCRA Permit Application Waste Codes, however data available only allows this incomplete summary. The PEIS states at page 4.7-4 "The INEEL is considered a major source, because facility-wide emissions of specific regulated air contaminates exceeded 227 metric tons (250 tons) per year." e. Clean Air Act 40 CFR 63.112. Major Source: "Section 112(a)(1) of the Act defines a major source as: any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential - to - emit considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons per year (TPY) or more of any [hazardous air pollutant] HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP." [ FR 57574 10/26/99 final ruling] "The term 'major source' is defined in 40 CFR part 63, Subpart A- General Provisions, and includes the requirement for considering emissions and the potential for emissions from co-located sources when determining major source status. Therefore, the major source determination must be based on facility-wide emissions." [FR 75756 10/26/99] f. *** "Not available" refers to the data in the above table that is incomplete because the information gained through Freedom of Information Act and the State of Idaho's Public Information Requests are incomplete, however partially released data show significant violation of federal and state environmental laws. g. Air Emission Inventory for the INEEL - 1999 Emission Report, USDOE Idaho Operations, May 2000, DOE/ID-10788. Table 1 lists summary of emissions greater than 5 pounds at INEEL for 1999 VOC at 80,300 pounds; and at a conversion of 2.205 pounds per kilogram = 36,417.23 kg. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) is derived from Table 1 as the sum of the listed HAPs, and again using the same conversion from pounds to kilograms for constancy with the units in the regulations. |
Table 3
INEEL INTEC Liquid Waste Management System (ILWMS)
Hazardous Waste Code Summary
| HEPA Leacha | CPP Tank Farm b | PEWE b | LET&D b | HLLWEd | Calciner c | |
| Total RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes | 404 | 128 | 128 | 127 | 127 | 128 |
| Total Hazardous
Air Pollutants (HAP) |
>86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 |
| Total RCRA Very
Hazardous Waste
"F" Codes (See Table 4 below) |
22 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Sources for above Table 3:
a. RCRA Part A Permit Application, Volume 1, Book 1, Revision 13 3/95 DOE/ID-10213 Acronyms: PEWE Process Equipment Waste Evaporator (CPP-604) |
Additionally, the routine co-mingling of liquid waste from the various processing units into the ICPP Tank Farm and related high-level tanks, makes a compelling case that all the ILWMS operations must have the same Waste Codes and from a regulatory compliance perspective, the same emission control systems under 40 CFR 63 et seq.
Table 4
List of "F" Hazardous Waste Codes for INTEC CPP-659 NWCF
HEPA Filter Leaching System
|
F001 - Spent Halogenated Solvents ( list of six) (see page 11 below) F002 - Spent Halogenated Solvents ( list of nine) F003 - Spent Non-Halogenated Solvents ( list of six) F004 - Spent Non-Halogenated Solvents ( list of three) F005 - Spent Non-Halogenated Solvents ( list of eight) F006 - Waste Water Treatment Sludges F007 - Spent Cyanide F008 - Plating Bath residues with Cyanides F009 - Spent Striping Baths with Cyanides F010 - Quenching Baths with Cyanides F011 - Spent Cyanide Solutions F012 - Quenching Water with Cyanides F019 - Waste Water Treatment Sludges F020 - Wastes from manufacturing tri- or tetrachlorophenol F021 - Wastes from manufacturing of pentachlorophenol F022 - Wastes from manufacturing of terta, penta, or hexachlorobenzenes F023 - Wastes from manufacturing of tri, or tetrachlorophenols F024 - Process wastes from reactor clean out F026 - Wastes from manufacturing tetra, penta, or hexachlorobenzene F027 - Discarded tri, tetra, or pentachlorophenol F028 - Residues resulting from incineration or thermal treatment of soil contaminated (six codes) F039 - Leachate liquids References for Above Table 4 |
ILWMS 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
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
F001 Spent Halogenated Solvents
U328 o-Toluidine
F002 Spent Halogenated Solvents
F003& 5 Non-Hallogenated Solvents
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.
F001 The following spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: Tetrachloroethylene,
trichlorethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride and chlorinated
fluorocarbons; all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing, before use, a
total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these
spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. F002 The following spent halogenated solvents: Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane, and 1,1,2, trichloroethane; all spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F004, and F005; and
still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. F003 The following spent non-halogenated solvents: Xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene,
ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; all spent
solvent mixtures/ blends containing, before use, only the above spent non- halogenated
solvents; and all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, one or more of the above
non-halogenated solvents, and a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one or more of
those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of
these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. F004 The following spent non-halogenated solvents: cresols, cresylic acid, and nitrobenzene; all spent
solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of
one or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, and
F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. F005 The following spent non-halogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide,
isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane; all spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of ten percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, or F004;
and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures. 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 not attempt to comply with. Additionally,
discharge of the evaporator "overheads" containing these pollutants (even after illegal dilution) to
INTEC percolation ponds is prohibited. CONCLUSION 1. The CAA Title V application should be reopened for public hearing and comment. 2. EPA should investigate: A. The discrepancies in the DOE reporting of hazardous emissions; B. The failure of DOE to properly list waste codes: C. The failure of DOE to petition for delisting of waste codes, and; D. The failure of DOE to implement MACT emission controls in compliance with the
Clean Air Act. Sincerely, __________________ and Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, Inc. ____________________ David B. McCoy Attachments Attachment # 1 KEEP YELLOWSTONE NUCLEAR FREE P. O. BOX 4838 JACKSON, WY 83001 307-732-2040
www.yellowstonenuclearfree.com Christina Colt (WCM-128) Re: INEEL HAPs reported vs. Hazardous Waste Actually Generated Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free (KYNF) has been actively involved in assessing the actual
and potential air emissions from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). In the process of our investigation of INEEL's reported air releases, KYNF discovered
that there were numerous inconsistencies in their reports, and that these errors appear to be a part
of a pattern and process of systematic underreporting of radioactive and hazardous waste air
emissions. This underreporting is important because the quantities of radioactive and hazardous
chemicals released by INEEL are used for regulatory thresholds for Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT), and used to assess the potential impact of DOE activities on downwind
communities and the environment.
Radioactive Materials NESHAPS
As a part of that investigation, KYNF identified in 2000, that the most recent reports for
radioactive air contaminants (1998 NESHAP) were grossly underreported for Tritium (H3) and
Iodine (I129) from one order of magnitude to five orders of magnitude, respectively. These errors
resulted in the doses to the public being underreported from an order of magnitude to 4x,
respectively. The notice of these errors was provided to DOE by myself, yet the DOE failed to
provide attribution to the EPA and falsely identified that it was discovered in an "audit"
(December 1, 2000 letter from INEEL to EPA Region 10, Anita Frankel: Notifications of changes
TS-ETSD-00-228; and, December 14, 2000 Letter from Bechtel's Ron Guymon to DOE's
Theresa Perkins, CCN-15337). Hazardous Chemical NESHAPS
F001 through F005 Hazardous Waste Code Descriptions from EPA's Website
Chuck Broscious, EDI Executive Director
on behalf of
Environmental Defense Institute, Inc.
Troy, Idaho 83871-0220
V 208-836-6152
F 208-835-5407
edinst@tds.net
Box 4838
Jackson, WY 83001
V 307-732-2040
F 307-732-0129
2940 Redbarn Lane
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
V 208-542-1449
F 208-552-0565
Kwai Chan, EPA/OIG. WDC
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region X
C. Stephen Allred, ID Department of Environmental Quality
Darrel Early, ID Deputy Attorney General
Gregory Fried, EPA/OECA
Michael Owen, EPA/OIG
Office of Waste and Chemicals Management Solid Waste & Toxics Unit
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4016
Fax (206) 553-8509
Lezlie Aller
Gowen Field
Idaho Emergency Response Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-3401
(208) 334-3263
Fax (208) 334-3267
In 2001, KYNF identified that numerous hazardous waste volumes appeared incorrectly calculated in the 1998 Idaho [Hazardous Waste] Generator Report documentation (IGR), under-reporting waste volumes to the State of Idaho. The INEEL contractor, Bechtel, subsequently claimed that the volumes were corrected, although no errata have been provided.
Following the identification of the IGR underreporting, KYNF reviewed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data for INEEL. These reported TRI values for air contaminants were several orders of magnitude smaller than the same IGR chemicals DOE reported to the state of Idaho for the same time periods (see examples below). The concentrations of chemicals reported in the TRI that were Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) were all low enough for the site to appear to be below quantity thresholds for a major source (HAP-MACT), in direct contradiction to the DOE IGR reporting.
KYNF brought these discrepancies to the attention of Ms. C. Colt of Region X USEPA by phone, and with several individuals with DOE-ID and the contractor, Bechtel, in individual phone conversations/conferences from 2001 to 2002. This matter was the subject of intensive Freedom of Information Act searches (FOIA).
FOIA-KYNF began its examination of major source status by assessing the release of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (KYNF Request 18 05/07/01, Appealed 10/17/02 Partial response DOE Idaho [OM-CO-01-128]; KYNF Request 19 05/11/01; KYNF Request 20 08/13/01; KYNF Request 26 10/04/01; and KYNF Request 30 5/14/02 [attached].
DOE-ID and Bechtel were unable to identify the specific volumes/mass of air contaminants that were vented from the various hazardous and radioactive waste evaporators at INTEC (FOIA response July 25, 2002 DOE-ID 02-061, attached). When I finally received a response from Bechtel, the only actual concentrations of contaminants were available from the (limited) tank sampling itself (FOIA response August 12, 2002 DOE-ID 01-102. Even that documentation showed that at least one tank was not directly sampled due to plugging of the sample ports (VES-NCD-129).
When questioned further, all DOE and Bechtel commentors stated that the IGR weights were in fact accurate. This was despite my stated concern that the weights reported in the IGR appeared to be weights of water and contaminants, rather than weights of hazardous waste. This concern was rejected and a mass balance of hazardous chemicals was stated as not being available, as the weights as stated in the report were "all accurate".
State Title V Permit-
The specific subject of MACT compliance due to major source characterization was also raised with Mr. C. Ramsdell in a comment regarding the INEEL Title V permit (See attached letter). Mr Ramsdell has never responded to these questions.
KYNF is providing the following summary table as an example of a facility where the IGR documentation shows specific levels of HAP's. The facility is the INTEC complex, which contains among other operations, the calciner, the PEWE, LET&D and HLW evaporators (a.k.a. ILMWS). For illustration, the PEWE, LET&D and HLW evaporators are used to directly evaporate radioactive and hazardous waste to the air.
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Evaporators-
These evaporators, and their associated Tank Farm, are reported as receiving, storing, and "treating" by means of evaporation of radioactive and hazardous waste. While no comparable source of data appears to exist for the volume/mass of radioactive waste produced by these operations, the quantities of hazardous waste stored and "treated" are available in the (1997-2001) Idaho Generator Reports and the DOE's "Cross-reference reports".
HAPs reported waste codes identified for the PEWE, LET&D and HLW evaporators include the following: D004 Arsenic, D006 Cadmium, D007 Chromium, D008 Lead, D009 Mercury, U134 Hydrogen Fluoride, F002 Halogenated Solvents, F003 Non-Halogenated Solvents (Inc. Xylene).
1997-2001 Idaho Generator Reports: In millions of pounds of hazardous waste.
| Year | IGR Generated | IGR Remaining | IGR Treated (Evaporated)+ | TRI Reported (all stacks) |
| 2001 | 8.7 M | 4.2 M | 12 M | NA |
| 2000 | 4.9 M | 1.4 M | 6.4 M | 0.045 |
| 1999 | 3.6 M | 14.1 M | 2.4 M | 0.053 |
| 1998 | 5.2 M | 14.2 M | 3.5 M | 0.044 |
| 1997 | 4.9 M | 15.4 M | 7.0 M | 0.088 |
| Total to air | 31.3 M* | 0.23 M |
Notes:
+It is unclear why the amounts remaining + generated - treated do not add up cumulatively from year to year.
*Does not apparently include the calciner according to contractor notes.
Quantities Generated-
In spite of repeated affirmations in its public documentation that the INEEL is an "area source" or otherwise not a "major source", affirmations supported by its TRI reports, INEEL has already been defined in EPA documentation as a major source.
An AIRS/AFS query completed on 08/01/01 showed that it was classified as a major source at that time (see attachment). This classification had occurred in spite of the DOE's apparent withholding of the HCL data from the EPA (see OECA response to Broscious). INEEL was also cited as a "major source in the EPA's Facility Registry System in 05/14/02 (see attachment). Finally, the TRI Envirofacts report identifies specific HAPs for the 1990 to 2000 period, but apparently ignoresother reportable chemicals, specifically VOCs and some heavy metals including cadmium and chromium.
KYNF asked DOE and their contractors how much hazardous waste was produced by the PEWE and LET&D in a public meeting, the DOE stated that these facilities had no air emissions of any regulated chemicals and that the facilities simply reduced volume. (See attached: September 19th, 2001 Letter from KYNF to DOE and State of Idaho). Neither the DOE, nor the State of Idaho rebutted the assertion that the facilities did not produce hazardous waste.
It is clear that this waste is being generated in vast quantities, far above MACT thresholds, and far above what is reported to the public. If the errors were accidental, there should be an equal chance of over-reporting. However, this has not occurred. This pattern of omission and apparent deceit must be stopped immediately.
KYNF requests a formal investigation of the DOE's and contractors reporting under Sections 311, 312, and 313 of EPCRA, as well as the reporting under Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (and any other NESHAPS provisions). KYNF further requests that the Agency comply with Section 325 of EPCRA if the laws have not been complied with, including civil, administrative, and criminal penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this law.
It is clear that any pending or existing permits that relate to Clean Air Act provisions, such as the ILMWS must be immediately reviewed for compliance under the major source status.
Erik Ringelberg,
Executive Director,
1. TRI Chemical list: http://www.epa.gov/tri/chemical/index.htm#chemlist
2. Changes to the TRI reporting list over time:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/chemical/chemlistchanges02.pdf
3. INTEC Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, Analytical Laboratories Department, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC Volatile Organics by GC/MS, August 3, 2000. In spite of the sampling problems, the only data available to substantiate VOC releases come from VES-NCD 123/9: this sampling showed Total Organic Carbon (TOC) levels of 741 ug/ml in 02/05/01, 217 ug/ml in 02/15/01, 124 ug/ml in 03/30/01, 202 ug/ml in 04/18/01, 106 ug/ml in 05/25/01, 582 ug/ml in 10/13/02, dropping to 460 ug/ml in 10/31/02.
4. December 1, 2000 letter from INEEL to EPA Region 10, Anita Frankel: Notifications of changes TS-ETSD-00-228;
5. December 14, 2000 Letter from Bechtel's Ron Guymon to DOE's Theresa Perkins, CCN-15337)
6. 1998 Idaho [Hazardous Waste] Generator Report documentation (IGR)
7. (1997-2001) Idaho Generator Reports and the DOE's "Cross-reference reports".
SARA, Title III
SECTION 313: TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING.
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 requires EPA to establish an inventory of routine toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities. Facilities subject to this reporting requirement are required to complete a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form (Form R) for specified chemicals. The form must be submitted to EPA and those state officials designated by the governor annually on July 1. These reports should reflect releases during the preceding calendar year.
The name, location and type of business; Off-site locations to which the facility transfers toxic chemicals in waste for recycling, energy recovery, treatment or disposal; Whether the chemical is manufactured (including importation), processed, or otherwise used and the general categories of use of the chemical; An estimate (in ranges) of the maximum amounts of the toxic chemical present at the facility at any time during the preceding year; Quantity of the chemical entering each medium--air, land, and water--annually; Waste treatment/disposal methods and efficiency of methods for each waste stream; Source reduction and recycling activities; and, A certification by senior facility official that the report is complete and accurate.
POLLUTION PREVENTION LAW.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 has significantly expanded the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). It requires collection of mandatory information on source reduction, recycling, and treatment beginning with the 1991 reporting year. The new requirements include reporting of the following information:
· Amounts released or disposed on-site or off-site, the quantities from the previous year, the quantities anticipated for the next two years;
· Amounts recycled on-site and sent off-site for recycling, the quantities from the previous year, the quantities anticipated for the next two year;
· Amounts treated on-site and sent off-site for treatment, the quantities from the previous year, and the quantities anticipated for the next two years;
· Amounts used for energy recovery on-site and sent off-site, quantities from the previous year, and the quantities anticipated for the next two years;
· Types of source reduction practices implemented and the techniques used to identify those practices;
· Methods of recycling used on-site;
· Production ratio or activity index to track changes in the level of economic activity at a facility; and,
· Amount of releases resulting from one-time events not associated with production processes.
SARA TITLE III PENALTIES.
Section 325 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act addresses the penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this law. Civil and administrative penalties ranging up to $10,000-$75,000 per violation or per day per violation can be assessed to facilities that fail to comply with the emergency planning (section 302), emergency notification (section 304), Community Right-to-Know (sections 311 and 312), toxic chemical release (section 313), and trade secret (sections 322 and 323) reporting requirements.
Criminal penalties up to $50,000 or five years in prison may also be given to any person who knowingly and willfully fails to provide emergency release notification. Penalties of not more than $20,000 and/or up to one year in prison may be given to any person who knowingly and willfully discloses any information entitled to protection as a trade secret. In addition, section 326 allows citizens to initiate civil actions against EPA, state emergency response commissions, and/or the owner or operator of a facility for failure to meet the requirements of the emergency planning and Community Right-to-Know provisions. A state emergency response commission, local emergency planning committee, state or local government may institute actions against facility owner/operators for failure to comply with Title III requirements. In addition, states may sue EPA for failure to provide trade secret information.
Contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline at (800) 424-9346, or (703) 412-9810, or TDD (800) 535-7672. Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, Eastern Time
Attachment # 2
USEPA Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division of Office of Compliance, M.S. Alushin, Director letter to R. Russell, USDOE/ID dated 6/4/02.
Attachment # 3
Petitioner's Initiatives to Regulators Related to Alleged INEEL Environmental Violations
Revision # 4 February, 2003
( Signed by EDI, KYNF, and McCoy)
August 8, 2000 (EDI on behalf of KYNF and McCoy)
(EDI, KYNF, and McCoy)
(EDI on behalf of KYNF and McCoy)
September 29, 2000; (EDI)
(EDI and McCoy)
September 15, 2001; ( EDI and McCoy)
October 31, 2001; (EDI and McCoy)
January 11, 2002; (McCoy)
January 16, 2002; (EDI)
May 28, 2002; (EDI and McCoy)
(EDI, KYNF, and McCoy)
1. Air Emission Inventory for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, 1999 Emission Report , Table 1, page vi, May 2000, DOE/ID-10788, USDOE Idaho
Operations Office.
2. Toxic Release Inventory, Envirofacts Report, page 3 - 7, 1/9/03, EPA Envirofacts
Warehouse -TSI, reporting through 2000, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Website. TRI Chemical list: http://www.epa.gov/tri/chemical/index.htm#chemlist
3. EPA Biennial Reporting System, BRS Facility Summary for INEEL, reporting year
1997, EPA Website (http:\\oaspub.epa.gov).
4. USEPA Biennial Reporting System, BRS Facility Summary, EPA Website Home Page,
Envirofacts, Warehouse, (http://www.epa.gov/tri/chemical/chemlistchanges02.pdf)
5. USEPA Office of Compliance letter by M.L. Alushin to C. Broscious, Environmental
Defense Institute 1/29/03, page 3.
6. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, App. B, pp. 4.7-7 through 4.7-8, April 1995,
USDOE, DOE/EIS-020203-F.