April 18, 2002
C. Stephen Allred, Director
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID83706-1255
Sent via Email to: SALLRED@DEQ.STATE.ID.US
Charles McCollum, Administrator
EPA Office of Inspector General
Sacramento Audit Office
801 “I” St #264
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sent via Email to:
mccollum.charles@epa.gov
Darryl Early, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID83706-1255
Sent via Email to: DEARLY@DEQ.STATE.ID.US
Brian Monson
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID83706-1255
Sent via Email to: BMONSON@DEQ.STATE.ID.US
RE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF INEEL TANK FARM
CLOSURE ISSUES
Dear Sirs,
Attached is a computer
document regarding tank farm closure which was taken off the internal DOE INEEL
Internet and furnished to McCoy by a concerned INEEL employee. The original MS
Word version is included as Attachment A for validation. The document addresses problems, some of
which are briefly described below, and then the problems appear to be
deliberately word crafted in order to “resolve,” disguise or hide technical or
legal issues from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) as the
regulator. Additionally, we have
enclosed, as Attachment B, the 2/02
Natural Resource Defense Council Complaint in US Federal Court for the
State of Idaho. This complaint asks the court to make a determination on the
fundamental issue of DOE’s legal right to unilaterally change the
classification of radioactive waste in alleged violation of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 10101).
The Environmental
Defense Institute and McCoy are making a formal request for an investigation by
EPA and IDEQ into (1) tank closure issues presented in this document and (2)
what appears to be a calculated effort by the Department of Energy (DOE) to
mislead IDEQ about closure issues related to the Tank Farm Closure and the
INTEC Tank Farm Facility Incidental Waste Study Final (90% Final). While we lack these specific external
document(s) that the comments refer to, it seems that the comments are designed
to throw IDEQ off the track of numerous issues. This document will provide IDEQ an opportunity to look at tank
farm closure information from DOE, which may have been subsequently provided to
IDEQ, from another perspective. Idaho
needs more than “slick” and devious answers for the problems listed below in
order for the Department of Energy to protect the human environment.
Grouting comments-
the attached internal INEEL document indicates comments in numerous sections
that grouting cannot be appropriately accomplished because (1) the tanks sit on
a sand bed; (2) grouting under the tanks will be necessary, but the grouting of
the non-RCRA compliant concrete tank vault containment structures will float
the tanks and bend and distort the tank bottoms so that the grouting may bend
or break the wastes grouted inside the tanks so that the waste will not be
immobilized; and (3) there will not be any homogenous mixture formed within the
tanks between the grout and the wastes; (4) the side panels and side walls and
floors of the vaults are contaminated with radioactive and mixed (RCRA) wastes;
(5) Vessel Offgas Systems (VOG) problems are avoided as “outside the scope of this
study”; (6) nine out of eleven tanks do not meet seismic criteria. The report
shows that mixing of the grout and the tank sediments will not occur. The displacement grout will simply “roll
over” the solids, leaving potential HLW, (TRU), or > class C Low Level Waste
at the tank bottoms which is not immobilized.
Comments indicate that adequate hydraulic studies have not been
performed.
One comment states “
SINCE THE NEW GROUT IN THE VAULT WILL NOT TRAVEL UNDER THE TANKS AND 9 OF THEM
SIT ON SAND, WILL THIS BE A PROBLEM WHEN THE REGULATORS SEE IT OR SHOULD WE SAY
RIGHT NOW THAT THE SAND WILL BE CONTAINED BY THE GROUT AND THE OLD FLOOR AND
THEREFORE ANY WASTE OR LEAKAGE WILL BE CONTAINED. OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.”
Another commenter states, “The grout will roll over the solids.” Another
commenter states, “The grout will
not encase the solids, they will sandwich them between the grout and the bottom
of the tank. Underneath the tank is
sand. Under the sand is the existing
tank vault. The vault has been proven
to leak from the infiltration of rainwater.” The clear indication of these comments is that Idaho will not be
protected by grouting from the High Level Waste contained in the tanks.
Numerous comments
address problems which exist respecting how to “wash down” the tanks, i.e.,
removal of solids from the tanks by the use of a “mixing pump”. No backup plan exists for solids removals
from the tanks in case the mixing pump plan doesn’t work. The mixing pump will not likely be
sufficient to remove a significant fraction of the potential solids. There is no backup for solids removal from
the tanks in case the mixing pump plan doesn’t work. The mixing pump will not
likely be sufficient to remove a significant
fraction of the potential solids
and the mixing pump design has not been established. One commenter states in part, “This clean/wash/rinse activity
will have little or no effect on the chemical composition of the solids since
they are insoluble even in 2-3 molar nitric acid. This activity may or may not physically move the solids inside
the tank or remove them from the tank.
This clean/wash/rinse activity may also have little effect on the liquid
SBW [Sodium Bearing Waste] held interstitially by the solids depending on the
turbulence involved.”
The lack of a mixing pump design comment is
resolved by stating that “Establishing the actual agitation and mixing
effectiveness is beyond the scope of this study.”
Commenters state that
double containment should be required
by IDEQ. The existing concrete
vaults do not qualify with the double containment required by RCRA.
A reference in the
document was deliberately deleted to avoid the problems about 30,000 gallon
tanks which sit on a gravel bed. Any
liquid that might accumulate on top of the grout is handled as “being beyond
the scope of work for this study.” None
of the tanks initially passed a seismic analysis and analyses have not been
performed. Corrosion rates may be well
beyond design value for INTEC liquid waste storage tanks.
Comments in the
document also disclose that the grout will not commingle/mix with the tank
heels and therefore will not meet any of the EPA Land Disposal Regulations
applicable to this waste even for deep geologic burial (i.e. WIPP/WAC)
Contaminated vaults-
“unknown leaks.” Contaminated soils from transfer line leaks may be radioactive
mixed waste. There may be existing
bedrock contamination from the transfer line leaks having migrated to the
perched water below ICPP.
No Compliance with
DOE Order 435.1-- according to attached document, requirements for TRU
waste cannot be met or may be “impractical” in the context of HLW facility
closure. Sodium Bearing Waste (SBW) is
not to be called “HLW.” A statement
that “the TFF (Tank Farm Facility) CURRENTLY contains HLW” ...conflicts with
the official position of the HLW program that we no longer have any liquid HLW
at the Chem Plant.”
Several comments
address the inadequate characterization of the heels (tank sediments) which
contain high concentrations of transuranics. Plutonium and other waste levels
are greater than the land disposal requirements for Class C Low-level Waste
(CCLLW). [Also, see NRDC Complaint that alleges 2 to 20 times increased
nuclides in high-level waste in the tank heels due to settlement in the heels.
(p. 19)]. One commenter states, “Class C chemical compositions might be
difficult to achieve; Class C physical performance parameters most likely would
be impossible to achieve especially in-tank and demonstrated/proved in tank ...
I suggest that since [DOE Order] 435.1 is still in the draft form that a strong
message be sent from Idaho that it is unworkable, that it is overkill, that it
will just cause another requirements logjam.”
Another commenter states “... DOE Headquarters staff working on Order
435.1 were advised that strict adherence to the requirements for TRU waste
disposal (e.g., compliance with 40 CFR191) may be impractical in the context of
HLW facility closure ...” Another
commenter states, “There is a fair chance that the heel residues will be TRU
waste after cleaning. Does this change
any of the disposition plans? This is
not dealt with through-out the document.”
There is lack of RCRA
compliant tanks to recycle process liquids before 2012. Shielding requirements have not been calculated
but were only estimated based on the old tank farm and similar facilities. Bias may be present in vacuum sampling of
RCRA organics.
The above are some of
the obvious issues contained in this document which IDEQ should require DOE to
clearly address instead of playing deceptive word games to deflect honest
concerns with the future health and safety of Idaho. We agree with the words of one commenter (concerned about
sampling problems) who stated, “Don’t we care about what we are leaving rather than
proving our past history?”
We would appreciate
your respective agencies looking into this matter and informing us of your
findings and notification of all Tank Closure Plans. Please add this request for an investigation and the attached
computer documents as comments to tank closure proceedings in process.
Sincerely,
Chuck Broscious, Executive Director
Environmental Defense Institute
P. O. Box 220
Troy, ID 83871-0220
208-835-6152
David B. McCoy
2940 Redbarn Lane
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
208 -542-1449
cc: sent via Email:
Dirk Kempthorne, Governor
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10
Katherine Thompson, EPA/OIG
Attachment A: Tank Farm Closure
document (Tank Farm Leak)
Attachment B: NRDC v. USDOE Complaint (435.1 Complaint final); 435.1 Brief 5-21-00; 435.1 Reply Brief)