Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-08-22T04:00Z

1
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March
27,
2003
SUBJECT:
Summary
of
Information
Related
to
Clean
Air
Act
Exemptions
for
Radioactive
Mixed
Wastes
TO:
Elaine
Manning
and
Greg
Nizich,

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS)
Emissions
Standards
Division
(
ESD)

FROM:
Robert
Zerbonia,
Research
Triangle
Institute
(
RTI)

I.
Origin
of
the
Mixed
Waste
Exemption
The
origin
of
the
exemption
of
waste
management
units
handling
radioactive
mixed
waste
(
RMW)
from
using
air
emission
controls
under
the
off­
site
waste
and
recovery
operations
(
OSWRO)
and
site
remediation
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
traces
back
to
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
subpart
CC
rules
under
parts
264
and
265
promulgated
on
December
6,
1994.
These
rules
established
air
emission
control
requirements
for
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDF)
tanks,
surface
impoundments,
and
containers
(
see
59
FR
62896).
Specifically,
the
preamble
for
this
rulemaking
states
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
decided
to
defer
application
of
the
RCRA
subpart
CC
standards
to
waste
management
units
used
solely
to
manage
radioactive
mixed
waste
(
see
page
62897,
third
column).
A
rationale
for
the
exemption
is
presented
in
Section
VII.
1.
d
(
see
page
62914,
bottom
first
column).
The
technical
argument
of
unsafe
build­
up
of
hydrogen
gas
in
drums
with
leak­
tight
covers
is
presented.
The
preamble
discussion
concludes
with
the
statement
that
EPA
is
planning
to
further
investigate
methods
for
controlling
organic
emission
from
these
sources
consistent
with
safe
practices
for
handling
radioactive
wastes.

The
proposed
OSWRO
NESHAP
did
not
include
the
radioactive
mixed
waste
exemption.
However,
promulgation
of
the
RCRA
subpart
CC
rules
occurred
during
the
public
comment
period
for
the
proposed
OSWRO
NESHAP.
Because
many
sources
at
hazardous
waste
TSDF
were
expected
to
be
subject
to
both
rules
and
given
the
need
to
avoid
establishing
conflicting
requirements
on
these
sources
under
these
rules,
EPA
made
the
requirements
of
the
RCRA
subpart
CC
rules
and
OSWRO
NESHAP
consistent
(
to
the
fullest
extent
allowable
within
the
authorities
of
RCRA
and
Clean
Air
Act
section
112).
Consequently,
EPA
added
the
radioactive
mixed
waste
exemption
in
the
final
OSWRO
NESHAP
(
promulgated
July
1,
1996)
to
be
2
consistent
with
the
final
RCRA
subpart
CC
rules.
Later,
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
adopted
the
exemption
to
be
consistent
with
the
OSWRO
NESHAP.

II.
Original
RCRA
Air
Rules
Rationale
On
July
22,
1991,
EPA
published
the
proposed
rule
for
"
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage
and
Disposal
Facilities:
Organic
Air
Emissions
Standards
for
Tanks,
Surface
Impoundments,
and
Containers
(
RCRA
Subpart
CC,
56
FR
33491).
The
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
provided
comments
to
EPA
on
October
21,
1991.
(
see
"
Department
of
Energy
Comments
on
Organic
Air
Emissions
Standards
for
Tanks,
surface
Impoundments,
and
containers
at
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage
and
Disposal
Facilities
Proposed
Rule
(
July
22,
1991,
56
FR
33490)"
and
EH­
231
Memorandum
dated
12/
09/
91,
Subject
"
Consolidated
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
Response
to
VOC
Organic
Air
Emissions
Standards
for
Tanks,
Surface
Impoundments,
and
Containers;
Proposed
Rule."
(
See
RCRA
Docket
Item
F­
91­
CESP­
00046.)

The
DOE
provided
detailed
comments
on
issues
of
concern
to
the
Department,
particularly
the
unique
problems
associated
with
the
management
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes.
In
its
comments
DOE
stated
that
the
issue
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
was
"
of
utmost
concern"
because
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
did
not
take
into
consideration
the
unique
problems
associated
with
the
management
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
(
DOE
Comments,
p.
3).
They
state
that
this
type
of
waste
warrants
special
consideration
because
it
poses
unique
hazards
and
handling
difficulties
not
encountered
with
non­
radioactive
hazardous
wastes.
This
issue
was
especially
significant
to
DOE
because
large
quantities
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
are
generated
and
stored
for
future
treatment
and/
or
disposal
at
DOE
facilities.
They
contended
that
if
required
to
comply
with
the
proposed
rule,
DOE
workers
would
face
potential
exposure
to
radiation
as
a
result
of
increased
inspection
and
sampling
of
these
wastes.

Additionally,
DOE
noted
that
the
requirement
for
leak
tight
covers
on
containers
in
the
proposed
rule
would
increase
the
potential
for
explosions
due
to
the
buildup
of
hydrogen
gas
in
drums
and
containers
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes.
(
DOE
Comments,
p.
3)
They
further
stated
that
an
explosion
involving
radioactive
and
hazardous
wastes
would
be
extremely
hazardous
to
personnel
managing
the
drums
and
containers.

Related
communication
and
correspondence
regarding
this
issue
followed
as
the
final
RCRA
rules
were
developed
(
e.
g.,
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
for
Environment,
R.
P.
Berube's
July
13,
1994,
letter
which
discussed
the
concerns
about
the
applicability
of
the
RCRA
rule
to
DOE's
radioactive
mixed
wastes,
and
the
Director
of
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
M.
K.
Shapiro's
September
2,1994,
response;
RCRA
Docket
Items
F­
94­
CESF­
S0001
and
F­
94­
CESF­
S0003,
respectively).

In
the
final
RCRA
Air
Rules,
EPA
decided
to
temporarily
defer
application
of
the
subpart
CC
standards
to
waste
management
units
used
solely
to
manage
radioactive
mixed
wastes
(
59
FR
62897).
The
rationale
for
the
deferral
that
appeared
in
the
preamble
is
as
follows.

 
Section
III.
F.
Relationship
to
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
Standards 
3
 
Radioactive
mixed
wastes
are
wastes
that
contain
radioactive
materials
as
well
as
materials
listed
or
identified
as
hazardous
under
RCRA.
Radioactive
mixed
wastes
must
be
managed
in
accordance
with
RCRA
regulations,
in
addition,
these
wastes
also
are
subject
to
standards
administered
by
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
under
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
and
Nuclear
Waste
Policy
Act
of
1982
that
address
the
safe
handling
and
disposal
of
radioactive
waste. 

 
The
EPA
has
previously
stated
its
general
position
that
the
management
of
radioactive
mixed
waste
at
TSDF
is
subject
to
regulation
under
subtitle
C
of
RCRA
(
51
FR
24504,
July
3,
1986;
53
FR
37045,
September
23,
1988).
In
developing
the
RCRA
standards
applicable
to
radioactive
mixed
wastes,
the
EPA
considers
the
management
practices
required
for
these
wastes
to
avoid
inconsistencies
between
the
EPA's
hazardous
waste
management
requirements
and
the
NRC's
radioactive
waste
management
requirements.
Furthermore,
RCRA
section
1006(
a)
precludes
any
solid
or
hazardous
waste
regulation
by
the
EPA
or
a
State
that
is
 
inconsistent 
with
the
requirements
of
the
Atomic
Energy
Act.
Thus,
in
a
case
where
the
regulatory
requirements
for
radioactive
mixed
waste
are
conflicting,
the
NRC
requirement
takes
precedence
over
the
RCRA
requirement.
Because
of
the
potential
that
air
emission
control
equipment
required
by
the
subpart
CC
standards
promulgated
today
may
conflict
with
certain
radioactive
waste
management
requirements
under
NRC
standards,
the
EPA
has
decided
to
temporarily
defer
application
of
the
subpart
CC
standards
to
tanks,
containers,
and
surface
impoundments
which
are
being
used
solely
to
manage
radioactive
mixed
wastes.
This
deferral
is
discussed
further
in
section
VII.
A.
1.
d
of
this
preamble. 

*****
 
Section
VII.
A.
1.
d.
Radioactive
mixed
wastes.
 

 
As
explained
in
section
III.
F
of
this
preamble,
the
management
of
radioactive
mixed
waste
at
TSDF
is
subject
to
regulation
under
subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
The
EPA
reviewed
the
special
nature
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
with
respect
to
the
air
emission
control
requirements
under
the
final
subpart
CC
standards.
In
certain
cases,
the
air
emission
controls
used
as
the
basis
for
the
subpart
CC
standards
are
not
compatible
with
the
NRC
requirements
for
safe
handling
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes.
For
example,
drums
used
to
store
radioactive
mixed
waste
cannot
be
sealed
with
vapor
leak­
tight
covers
because
of
unacceptable
pressure
buildup
of
hydrogen
gas
to
levels
that
can
potentially
cause
rupture
of
the
drum
or
create
a
potentially
serious
explosion
hazard.
This
generation
of
hydrogen
gas
results
from
the
radiolytic
decomposition
of
organic
materials
(
e.
g.,
plastics)
or
aqueous
solutions
stored
in
the
drums.
Consequently,
a
drum
used
for
storage
of
radioactive
mixed
wastes
must
be
continuously
vented
through
special
filters
in
accordance
with
technical
guidance
issued
by
the
NRC
to
prevent
the
hydrogen
4
concentration
in
the
drum
from
reaching
dangerous
levels.
The
EPA
is
planning
to
further
investigate
methods
for
effective
control
of
organic
emissions
from
waste
management
units
handling
radioactive
mixed
waste
that
are
consistent
with
the
NRC
waste
management
practices. 

III.
Mixed
Waste
Background
Information
Persons
who
generate,
treat,
store
or
dispose
of
mixed
wastes
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
of
1954
(
AEA),
as
amended
and
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
(
SWDA)
as
amended
by
the
RCRA,
and
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA).
The
Federal
agencies
responsible
for
ensuring
compliance
with
the
implementing
regulations
of
these
two
statutes
are
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
and
the
EPA.
In
October
1992,
Congress
enacted
the
Federal
Facilities
Compliance
Act
(
FFCA)
which,
among
other
things,
added
a
definition
of
mixed
waste
to
RCRA.
Mixed
waste
is
defined
in
the
FFCA
as
"
waste
that
contains
both
hazardous
waste
and
source,
special
nuclear,
or
byproduct
material
subject
to
the
Atomic
Energy
Act
of
1954"
(
RCRA
1004(
41),
42
USC
6903(
41)).

Under
the
dual
regulatory
framework
that
exists
for
mixed
waste,
the
EPA
or
authorized
States
regulate
the
hazardous
waste
and
the
NRC,
NRC
agreement
States,
or
the
DOE
regulate
the
radioactive
waste.
The
NRC
generally
regulates
commercial
and
non­
DOE
federal
facilities.
DOE
is
currently
self­
regulating
and
its
orders
apply
to
DOE
sites
and
contractors.
Once
a
waste
is
determined
to
be
a
mixed
waste,
the
waste
handlers
must
comply
with
both
AEA
and
RCRA
statutes
and
regulations.
The
requirements
of
RCRA
and
AEA
are
generally
consistent
and
compatible.
However,
the
provisions
in
Section
1006(
a)
of
RCRA
allow
the
AEA
to
take
precedence
in
the
event
provisions
of
requirements
of
the
two
acts
are
found
to
be
inconsistent.

Almost
all
of
the
commercially
generated
(
non­
DOE)
mixed
waste
is
composed
of
Low­
Level
Radioactive
Waste
(
LLRW)
and
Hazardous
Waste
and
is
called
Low
Level
Mixed
Waste
(
LLMW).
Mixed
low­
level
radioactive
and
hazardous
waste
(
mixed
waste)
is
waste
that
satisfies
the
definition
of
low­
level
radioactive
waste
in
the
Low­
Level
Radioactive
Waste
Policy
Amendments
Act
of
1985
(
LLRWPAA)
and
contains
hazardous
waste
that
either:
1)
is
listed
as
a
hazardous
waste
in
Subpart
D
of
40
CFR
Part
261;
or
2)
causes
the
waste
to
exhibit
any
of
the
hazardous
waste
characteristics
identified
in
Subpart
C
of
40
CFR
Part
261.
Commercially
generated
LLMW
is
produced
in
all
50
states
at
industrial,
hospital,
and
nuclear
power
plant
facilities.
Radioactive
and
hazardous
materials
are
used
in
a
number
of
processes
such
as
medical
diagnostic
testing
and
research,
pharmaceutical
and
biotechnology
development,
pesticide
research,
as
well
as
nuclear
power
plant
operations.
Based
on
the
results
of
a
survey
conducted
by
NRC
&
EPA
(
NUREG/
CR­
5938),
approximately
4,000
m3
of
LLMW
were
generated
in
the
U.
S.
in
1990.
Of
this
amount,
organic
solvents
such
as
chlorofluorocarbons
(
CFC's),
corrosive
organics,
and
waste
oil
made
up
18%,
toxic
metals
made
up
3%.

There
are
three
main
types
of
mixed
waste
being
produced
or
stored
at
DOE
facilities:
Low­
Level,
High
Level,
and
Transuranic.
5
DOE
LLMW
is
generated,
projected
to
be
generated,
or
stored,
at
37
DOE
sites
in
22
states
as
a
result
of
research,
development,
and
production
of
nuclear
weapons.

DOE
High
Level
Waste
(
HLW)
is
radioactive
waste
resulting
from
reprocessing
spent
nuclear
fuel
and
irradiated
targets
from
reactors
and
is
liquid
before
it
is
treated.
Some
of
its
elements
will
remain
radioactive
for
thousands
of
years.
HLW
is
also
a
mixed
waste
because
it
has
highly
corrosive
components
or
has
organics
or
heavy
metals
that
are
regulated
under
RCRA.
DOE
has
about
399,000
m3
of
HLW
stored
in
large
tanks
at
four
locations:
Hanford,
Washington;
Idaho
National
Engineering
Laboratories
(
INEL),
Idaho;
Savannah
River
Site
(
SRS),
South
Carolina;
and
the
West
Valley
Demonstration
Project,
New
York.

DOE
Mixed
Transuranic
Waste
(
MTRU)
is
waste
that
has
a
hazardous
component
and
radioactive
elements
heavier
than
Uranium.
MTRU
is
primarily
generated
from
nuclear
weapons
fabrication,
Plutonium
bearing
reactor
fuel
fabrication,
and
spent
fuel
reprocessing.
MTRU
is
currently
being
treated
and
stored
at
six
DOE
sites:
Hanford,
(
3,000
m3);
INEL
(
38,000
m3);
Los
Alamos
National
Laboratories,
New
Mexico
(
8,000
m3);
Rocky
Flats,
Colorado
(
1,500
m3);
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratories,
Tennessee
(
1,500
m3);
SRS
(
5,000
m3).
(
See
"
About
Mixed
Waste,"
www.
epa.
gov/
radiation/
mixed­
waste/
mw_
pg3.
htm.)

IV.
Generation
of
Hydrogen
Gas
The
generation
of
hydrogen
gas
is
a
result
of
the
radiolytic
decomposition
of
organic
compounds
(
i.
e.,
plastics)
and/
or
aqueous
solutions
within
the
container.
Plastics
are
commonly
used
as
a
barrier
to
alpha
radiation
both
in
handling
operations
and
in
waste
packaging.
Over
time,
the
alpha
particle
causes
the
hydrolysis
of
chemical
bonds
within
the
plastic
material
which
results
in
the
release
of
hydrogen
gas.
Likewise,
hydrolysis
of
aqueous
solutions
will
yield
hydrogen.
Additionally,
radiation
induced
degradation
and
biodegradation
of
organic
low­
exchange
resin
waste,
which
are
also
RMW,
generated
during
water
treatment
at
nuclear
facilities,
can
result
in
the
production
of
gaseous
products
(
i.
e.,
hydrogen
and
carbon
dioxide)
which
can
result
in
pressure
buildup
and
failure
of
the
container.
High
integrity
containers
are
used
as
an
alternative
to
solidification
as
a
means
of
stabilizing
ion­
exchange
resin
wastes
for
disposal.

Because
of
pressure
build­
up
inside
the
container,
a
vent
for
gaseous
compounds
may
be
necessary
to
prevent
failure
of
a
high­
integrity
container
(
i.
e.,
vent
designs
incorporated
into
high
integrity
containers
restrict
the
release
of
radionuclides
from
the
container
into
the
environment
while
allowing
the
gas
to
be
vented).
(
See
P.
L.
Picilo,
Technical
Considerations
for
Highintegrity
Containers
for
Disposal
of
Radioactive
Ion­
Exchange
Reside
Waste,
United
States
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission,
NUREGCR­
3163,
p.
75,
October
1992).

V.
DOE
Container
Requirements
Numerous
DOE
nuclear
facilities
produce
and
store
a
variety
of
RMW,
including
MTRU.
Since
1970,
MTRU
wastes
have
been
packed
in
drums
for
temporary
storage
at
certain
DOE
sites.
Much
of
this
waste
is
ultimately
destined
for
final
disposal/
storage
at
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
6
Plant
(
WIPP),
Carlsbad,
New
Mexico.
In
accordance
with
the
WIPP
Waste
Acceptance
Plan
(
WAP),
wastes
that
are
to
be
shipped
to
the
WIPP
must
be
in
containers
that
are
vented
to
prevent
the
buildup
of
pressure.
The
vents
must
be
filtered
to
ensure
that
no
radioactive
waste
components
are
released.
For
example,
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Permit
for
the
WIPP,
dated
November
25,
2002,
in
section
M1­
1d
Container
Management
Practices,
Page
M1­
8,
states:
"
Because
containers
at
the
WIPP
will
contain
radioactive
waste,
safety
concerns
require
that
containers
be
continuously
vented
to
obviate
the
buildup
of
gases
within
the
container.
These
gases
could
result
from
radiolysis,
which
is
the
breakdown
of
moisture
by
radiation.
The
vents,
which
are
nominally
0.75
in.
(
1.9
centimeters)
in
diameter,
are
generally
installed
on
or
near
the
lids
of
the
containers.
These
vents
are
filtered
so
that
gas
can
escape
while
particulates
are
retained."
In
addition
on
Page
M1­
2
of
the
Permit,
Standard
55­
Gallon
Drums
in
describing
the
requirements
for
the
standard
TRU
mixed
waste
drums,
the
Permit
states:
"
One
or
more
filtered
vents
(
as
described
in
Section
M1­
1d)
will
be
installed
in
the
drum
lid
to
prevent
the
escape
of
any
radioactive
particulates
and
to
eliminate
any
potential
of
pressurization."

In
order
to
comply
with
these
requirements
at
the
Idaho
National
Laboratory
Drum
Vent
Facility,
the
drum
lid
is
punctured
to
release
any
buildup
of
potentially
explosive
hydrogen
gas
and
a
NUCFIL
filter
vent
is
attached.
The
function
of
a
NUCFIL
filter
vent
is
to
retain
radionuclides
inside
a
container
while
allowing
hydrogen
and
other
gases
(
e.
g.,
VOC)
to
pass
through
to
the
atmosphere.
In
particular,
the
carbon
composite
membrane
used
in
the
filter
vent
does
not
inhibit
the
passing
of
VOC's
from
the
container
into
the
atmosphere.
(
See
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
for
Environment,
R.
P.
Berube's
July
13,
1994,
letter
which
discussed
the
concerns
about
the
applicability
of
the
RCRA
rule
to
DOE's
radioactive
mixed
wastes,
RCRA
Docket
Item
F­
94­
CESF­
S0001.)

It
is
also
of
interest
to
note
that
the
WIPP
RCRA
Permit,
in
Sections
N­
1,
2,
and
3
(
and
elsewhere)
acknowledges
the
potential
for
VOC
emissions
from
the
mixed
waste
canisters.
The
permit
requires
a
VOC
monitoring
plan
be
developed
and
VOC
monitored
to
confirm
that
the
annual
average
concentrations
of
VOC
in
the
air
emissions
from
the
Underground
HWDUs
do
not
exceed
the
"
VOC
concentrations
of
concern
(
COC)"
which
are
listed
in
an
attached
table.
The
target
VOC
constituents
(
organic
solvents)
were
selected
because
together
they
represent
approximately
99
percent
of
the
risk
due
to
air
emissions.

Because
it
was
judged
an
unsafe
practice
to
store
RMW
drums
with
tight
covers,
and
because
the
WIPP
WAP
requires
that
containers
be
vented
for
shipment
to
the
WIPP,
the
EPA
determined
that
many
DOE
facilities
may
be
unable
to
meet
the
tight
cover
control
device
criteria
as
specified
in
the
proposed
RCRA
Air
Rules.
In
addition,
the
Agency
was
unable
to
determine,
at
that
time,
if
there
were
any
available
technologies
that
could
be
applied
to
the
RMW
containers
that
would
control
organic
air
emissions
in
a
safe
and
cost
effective
manner
while
also
complying
with
WIPP
and
other
AEA
and
NWPA
requirements.

VI.
Other
Mixed
Waste
Management
Units
The
exemption
for
radioactive
mixed
wastes
in
the
proposed
Site
Remediation
NESHAP
rule
at
7
§
63.7882(
c)(
7)
is
a
broad
based
exemption
that
extends
to
all
site
remediation
materials
regardless
of
the
type
of
treatment
or
management
unit.
This
is
consistent
with
the
OSWRO
NESHAP
and
with
the
RCRA
air
rules
in
Subpart
CC,
in
Parts
264
and
265.
However,
the
RCRA
air
rules
for
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks
in
Subparts
AA
and
BB,
Parts
264
and
265,
do
not
exempt
radioactive
mixed
wastes.

Although
the
available
technical
information
and
data
provide
a
strong
basis
for
extending
the
exemption
to
radioactive
mixed
waste
remediation
material
management
units
such
as
tanks,
surface
impoundments,
and
containers
(
i.
e.,
the
Subpart
CC
units),
it
appears
that
this
is
not
the
case
for
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks
(
i.
e.,
the
Subpart
AA
and
BB
sources).
The
technical
and
safety
concerns
relative
to
tanks
and
containers
are
not
an
issue
with
the
treatment
units
and
equipment
components
that
are
affected
by
the
subpart
AA
and
BB
rules.
There
are
no
incompatible
requirements
as
is
the
case
with
tanks
and
containers.
It
has
also
been
shown
that,
since
going
into
effect
in
1990,
remediation
material
streams
that
are
classified
as
radioactive
mixed
wastes
have
been
subject
to
and
/
or
in
compliance
with
the
Subpart
AA
and
BB
RCRA
air
rules
for
process
vents
and
equipment
leaks.
For
example,
the
Idaho
National
Engineering
and
Environmental
Laboratory
(
INEEL)'
s
Test
Area
North
has
a
groundwater
plume
that
is
contaminated
with
organic
compounds
(
i.
e.,
TCE,
DCE,
and
PCE)
and
radionuclides
(
i.
e.,
strontium­
90,
tritium,
and
cesium­
137).
Based
on
a
CERCLA
record
of
decision
(
ROD),
which
was
issued
in
August
1995,
the
remedy
implemented
included
groundwater
extraction
and
then
treating
the
extracted
groundwater
by
air
stripping
followed
by
vapor
carbon
adsorption
to
control
organic
air
emissions.
This
radioactive
mixed
waste
treatment
system
was
required
to
comply
with
all
applicable
relevant
and
appropriate
regulations
(
ARARs),
that
included
40
CFR
Part
264,
Subpart
AA.

VII.
Current
Situation
!
Information
gathered
and
reviewed
for
the
preparation
of
this
memo
does
not
give
any
indication
that
the
situation
regarding
the
safety
issue
related
to
storage
of
RMW
has
changed
since
EPA
promulgated
the
RCRA
Air
Rules.
The
potentially
conflicting
requirements
for
containers
to
be
vented
under
one
set
of
rules
versus
the
requirements
for
closed,
tight
fitting
covers
under
the
RCRA/
CAA
rules
remains
to
be
resolved.

!
No
available
technologies
have
been
identified
that
could
be
applied
to
the
RMW
containers
that
would
control
organic
air
emissions
in
a
safe
and
cost
effective
manner
while
also
complying
with
WIPP
and
other
AEA
and
NWPA
requirements.
The
MACT
Floor
for
RMW
source
appears
to
be
no
control.

!
Study
could
be
given
to
examine
the
feasibility
of
controlling
organic
air
emission
by
adapting
the
RMW
particulate
filters
to
include
some
form
of
adsorbent
(
e.
g.,
activated
carbon)
to
reduce
organic
air
emissions.
No
such
technology
appears
to
be
in­
use
for
this
particular
situation
currently.
In
addition,
the
feasibility
(
technical
performance
and
cost)
of
venting
the
RMW
container
storage
room
or
building
air
to
a
control
device
also
could
be
examined.
8
!
Containers
meeting
the
RMW
(
e.
g.,
TRIPACT­
II)
specifications
are
required
to
install
filters
to
capture
radiation
in
decay
gases
vented
from
the
container's
contents
over
time.
Although
the
containers
(
and
associated
filters)
do
not
capture
and
control
VOC
during
above­
ground
storage,
it
is
believed
that
the
NRC
requirements
can
provide
sufficient
control
of
VOC
vented
from
mixed
waste
containers
after
disposal.
(
See
attached
RTI
memo
from
Deerhake
and
Zerbonia,
dated
March
27,2003)

!
NRC
siting,
operation,
and
post­
closure
standards
for
waste
storage
and
disposal
are
oriented
toward
protection
from
human
exposure
to
radiation.
Consequently,
it
is
believed
that
those
NRC
regulations
provide
similar
protection
from
exposure
to
volatile
organic
emissions.