Hazardous Wastes: Standards and Regulations

Within the confines of the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant are both active and inactive hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. These solid waste management units (SWMUs) are subject to assessment by the US Environmental Protections Agency, as required by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This document is the site-specific RFI plan for Tank 2064-U and contains historical information, operational information, and sampling data for this tank. The potential for release of contamination through the various media and potential receptors is addressed. A sampling and analysis plan is proposed to determine the extent, if any, of contaminant releases to the surrounding environment. Included are health, safety, quality assurance, and quality control procedures to be followed when implementing the sampling plan. 4 figs., 4 tabs.

This 2002 Facility Work Plan (FWP) has been prepared as required by Module VII, Permit Condition VII.U.3 of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, NM4890139088-TSDF (the Permit) (New Mexico Environment Department [NMED], 1999a), and incorporates comments from the NMED received on December 6, 2000 (NMED, 2000a). This February 2002 FWP describes the programmatic facility-wide approach to future investigations at Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) and Areas of Concern (AOC) specified in the Permit. The Permittees are evaluating data from previous investigations of the SWMUs and AOCs against the most recent guidance proposed by the NMED. Based on these data, and completion of the August 2001 sampling requested by the NMED, the Permittees expect that no further sampling will be required and that a request for No Further Action (NFA) at the SWMUs and AOCs will be submitted to the NMED. This FWP addresses the current Permit requirements. It uses the results of previous investigations performed at WIPP and expands the investigations as required by the Permit. As an alternative to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) specified in Module VII of the Permit, current NMED guidance identifies an Accelerated Corrective Action Approach (ACAA) that may be used for any SWMU or AOC (NMED, 1998). This accelerated approach is used to replace the standard RFI Work Plan and Report sequence with a more flexible decision-making approach. The ACAA process allows a facility to exit the schedule of compliance contained in the facility's Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) permit module and proceed on an accelerated time frame. Thus, the ACAA processcan be entered either before or after an RFI Work Plan. According to the NMED's guidance, a facility can prepare an RFI Work Plan or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for any SWMU or AOC (NMED, 1998). Based on this guidance, a SAP constitutes an acceptable alternative to the RFI Work Plan specified in the Permit. The NMED accepted that the Permittees are using the ACAA in a letter dated April 20, 2000.

This Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report (Status Report) was prepared in response to requirements prescribed in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.2A, `Environmental Compliance Issue Coordination`. This Order, canceled in April 1996, required that information on existing and anticipated environmental permitting for DOE facilities be submitted (or updated) annually by October 1 of each calendar year. Although the Order was canceled, the need for this Status Report still remains. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology`s (Ecology) Dangerous Waste Permit Application Requirements (Publication Number 95-402, June 1996), Checklist Section J, calls for current information on existing and anticipated environmental permitting. As specified in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, General Information Portion (DOE/RL-91-28), this Status Report serves as the vehicle for meeting this requirement for the Hanford Facility. This Status Report includes information on all existing and anticipated environmental permitting. Environmental permitting required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, and non-RCRA permitting (solid waste handling, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, Washington State waste discharge, and onsite sewage system) are addressed. Information on RCRA and non-RCRA permitting is included and is current as of July 31, 1996.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is a multifaceted approach to the management of both solid and hazardous waste. The focus of this research is on the RCRA mandated proposed regulations for the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities. This research is an analysis of the interactions among hazardous waste disposal facilities, energy supply technologies and land use issues. This study addresses the impact of RCRA hazardous waste regulations in a descriptive and exploratory manner. A literature and legislative review, interviews and letters of inquiry were synthesized to identify the relationship between RCRA hazardous waste regulations and the siting of selected energy supply technologies. The results of this synthesis were used to determine if and how RCRA influences national land use issues. It was found that the interaction between RCRA and the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities required by energy supply technologies will impact national land use issues. All energy supply technologies reviewed generate hazardous waste. The siting of industrial functions such as energy supply facilities and hazardous waste disposal facilities will influence future development patterns. The micro-level impacts from the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities will produce a ripple effect on land use with successive buffer zones developing around the facilities due to the interactive growth of the land use sectors.

The role of the agency for toxic substances and disease registry under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

/ The US Army manages an extensive program of environmental restoration that is carried out primarily under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which establishes response authority for cleanup of inactive waste sites. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the management and cleanup of hazardous materials at active hazardous waste facilities. Based on the definitions found in these acts, and corresponding promulgated regulations, environmental media contaminated with chemical warfare materiel (CWM) can be regulated as CERCLA "pollutants or contaminants" but do not appear to be regulated either as CERCLA hazardous substances or RCRA hazardous wastes.In those states that have not included CWM as hazardous materials in their RCRA programs, the RCRA requirements for management of hazardous waste would not strictly apply to any of the CWM. The Army has historically implemented procedures requiring that chemical warfare agents be managed as RCRA hazardous waste regardless of the concentration, physical form, or configuration of the agent. Such application of strict hazardous waste requirements to management of potentially nonhazardous CWM can result in remedial costs well out of proportion to potential human health and environmental benefits. Recent development of chronic toxicity values for the CWM has opened the door for development of cleanup and waste management standards for waste streams or media containing small residual amounts of CWM. Implementation of this health-based approach to management of CWM remediation wastes may, in part, help to reduce potentially unnecessary hazardous waste management costs for the nonhazardous CWM.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates waste management activities at hazardous waste management facilities. Whenever a facility becomes subject to regulation under RCRA, the facility owner or operator is required to notify the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of hazardous waste activity and within 30 days submit the initial ``Part A`` portion of an operating permit application [RCRA {section} 3010] to EPA or to the State authorized to operate a hazardous waste management program in lieu of EPA. A facility that has submitted its Part A application is defined as having ``interim status,`` and is subject to the regulations in 40 CFR Part 265. Interim status facilities that contain hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, or land treatment facilities are required by 40 CFR 265 Subpart F to implement a groundwater monitoring program that consists of several phased monitoring activities and is capable of determining the facility`s impact on the quality of ground water in the uppermost aquifer underlying the facility. This information brief is the fourth in a series on the general topic of groundwater monitoring requirements under RCRA at interim status and permitted facilities. This information brief focuses on the last phase of activities, implementation of an Assessment Program, and highlights recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

This paper explores current U.S. law regulating the transboundary shipment and export of hazardous waste, under both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and applicable treaties. The paper attempts to untangle the overlapping strands of domestic law, including statutes, common law and ratified treaties, in the context of current international agreements. In addition, the paper examines the legal remedies provided by the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and its potential use by alien plaintiffs harmed by hazardous waste exported in violation of U.S. law or applicable treaties. The central insight of the paper is that the exemptions provided by RCRA, that were designed to encourage recycling and reuse of certain wastes, have created a loophole that allows many types of toxic waste to be exported without any regulation, data collection, or monitoring. Further, these exempt are exported without any assurance that the wastes will be recycled or reused, or alternatively, disposed of in environmentally responsible manner. Examples of the kinds of wastes that slip through this loophole include: car batteries that contain corrosive acids and lead; and K061 waste from steel manufacturing that may contain high levels of toxic heavy metals and may be exported for use in fertilizer without regulation. In essence, the current regulatory structure provided by RCRA does not ensure that all domestically generated hazardous waste is recycled, reused or disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner once it crosses the border. The paper next looks at the role of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal (Basel). The U.S. is a member of OECD but has not ratified Basel despite the fact that over 120 other counties are parties to the Convention, including Canada, Mexico, and the countries of the European Union. Because current U.S. export practices and regulations are not in compliance with Basel, and OECD rules are less stringent, it is becoming increasingly difficult for those U.S. trading partners who are parties to Basel to comply with the Convention.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) broadened the authorities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by requiring corrective action for releases of hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents at treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. The goal of the corrective action process is to ensure the remediation of hazardous waste and hazardous constituent releases associated with TSD facilities. Under Section 3004(u) of RCRA, operating permits issued to TSD facilities must address corrective actions for all releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from any solid waste management unit (SWMU) regardless of when the waste was placed in such unit. Under RCRA Section 3008(h), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may issue administrative orders to compel corrective action at facilities authorized to operate under RCRA Section 3005(e) (i.e., interim status facilities). The process of implementing the Corrective Action program involves the following, in order of implementation; (1) RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA); (2) RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI); (3) the Corrective Measures Study (CMS); and (4) Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI). The RFA serves to identify and evaluate SWMUs with respect to releases of hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents, and to eliminate from further consideration SWMUs that do not pose a threat to human health or the environment. This Information Brief will discuss issues concerning the RFA process.

Reforming Our Wasteful Hazardous Waste Policy

The effectiveness of landfill‐liner designs is evaluated in terms of the slope, drainage length, and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the lateral drainage layer, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil liner, and the fraction of the area under a synthetic liner where leakage is occurring. The evaluation is performed using Version 1 of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. The effectiveness is quantified by comparing the lateral drainage rate to the vertical percolation rate expressed as percentages of the total inflow. The two multiple‐liner systems specified in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) minimum technology guidance are shown to have different leakage‐detection characteristics. One system detects significant leakage before leakage percolates out of the landfill, whereas the other system detects leakage only after significant leakage percolates out of the landfill. Four other designs were also examined—two with single liners and two with double liners. The two HSWA designs detected leakage at lower synthetic‐liner‐leakage fractions, but all designs with composite liners were nearly equally effective in reducing leakage from landfills.

This quarterly report describes the technical status of activities in the Los Alamos National Laboratory Environmental Restoration (ER) Project. Each activity is identified by an activity data sheet number, a brief title describing the activity or the technical area where the activity is located, and the name of the project leader. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) portion of the facility operating permit requires the submission of a technical progress report on a quarterly basis. This report, submitted to fulfill the permit`s requirement, summarizes the work performed and the results of sampling and analysis in the ER Project. Suspect waste found include: Radionuclides, high explosives, metals, solvents and organics. The data provided in this report have not been validated. These data are considered ``reviewed data.``

This Soil Management Plan applies to all activities conducted under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) that involve soil disturbance and potential management of waste soil. The plan was prepared under the direction of the Y-12 Environmental Compliance Department of the Environment, Safety, and Health Division. Soil disturbances related to maintenance activities, utility and building construction projects, or demolition projects fall within the purview of the plan. This Soil Management Plan represents an integrated, visually oriented, planning and information resource tool for decision making involving excavation or disturbance of soil at Y-12. This Soil Management Plan addresses three primary elements. (1) Regulatory and programmatic requirements for management of soil based on the location of a soil disturbance project and/or the regulatory classification of any contaminants that may be present (Chap. 2). Five general regulatory or programmatic classifications of soil are recognized to be potentially present at Y-12; soil may fall under one or more these classifications: (a) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) pursuant to the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Federal Facilities Agreement; (b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); (c) RCRA 3004(u) solid waste managements units pursuant to the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act of 1984 permit for the ORR; (d) Toxic Substances and Control Act-regulated soil containing polychlorinated biphenyls; and (e) Radiologically contaminated soil regulated under the Atomic Energy Act review process. (2) Information for project planners on current and future planned remedial actions (RAs), as prescribed by CERCLA decision documents (including the scope of the actions and remedial goals), land use controls implemented to support or maintain RAs, RCRA post-closure regulatory requirements for former waste management units, legacy contamination source areas and distribution of contamination in soils, and environmental infrastructure (e.g., caps, monitoring systems, etc.) that is in place or planned in association with RAs. (3) Regulatory considerations and processes for management and disposition of waste soil upon generation, including regulatory drivers, best management practices (BMPs), waste determination protocols, waste acceptance criteria, and existing waste management procedures and BMPs for Y-12. This Soil Management Plan provides information to project planners to better coordinate their activities with other organizations and programs with a vested interest in soil disturbance activities at Y-12. The information allows project managers and maintenance personnel to evaluate and anticipate potential contaminant levels that may be present at a proposed soil disturbance site prior to commencement of activities and allows a more accurate assessment of potential waste management requirements.

The US DOE has prepared an environmental assessment for construction related to the Process Equipment Waste (PEW) and Process Waste Liquid (PWL) Collection System Tasks at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. This report describes and evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action (and alternatives). The purpose of the proposed action would be to ensure that the PEW and PWL collection systems, a series of enclosed process hazardous waste, and radioactive waste lines and associated equipment, would be brought into compliance with applicable State and Federal hazardous waste regulations. This would be accomplished primarily by rerouting the lines to stay within the buildings where the lined floors of the cells and corridors would provide secondary containment. Leak detection would be provided via instrumented collection sumps locate din the cells and corridors. Hazardous waste transfer lines that are routed outside buildings will be constructed using pipe-in-pipe techniques with leak detection instrumentation in the interstitial area. The need for the proposed action was identified when a DOE-sponsored Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance assessment of the ICPP facilities found that singly-contained waste lines ran buried in the soil under some of the original facilities. These lines carried wastes with a pH of less than 2.0, which were hazardous waste according to the RCRA standards. 20 refs., 7 figs., 1 tab.

Under the ``Derived-from`` rule, solid waste that is generated from the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste is itself classified as a hazardous waste. Therefore, residues resulting from treatment, storage or disposal activities including materials such as sludges, ash emission control dusts, leachate, or spill residues are considered hazardous wastes (with certain exceptions discussed below). This provision is based on the premise that any residues from treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste will contain hazardous constituents [40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)]. It should be noted that a December, 1991 court ruling remanded both the ``Mixture`` rule (see ref. 1) and the ``Derived-from`` rule to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the grounds that EPA did not allow for public comment on these rules prior to promulgation. On March 3, 1992 EPA reinstated the rules on an interim basis, and is currently developing a revised regulatory scheme for hazardous waste classification (see ref. 2).