Waste disposal, closure

Part II of EPA 90 deals with waste disposal, handling and management. The provisions impose duties on the producers of waste to ensure the safe disposal. There are strong licensing powers for local authorities, with continuing responsibilities for licensees to monitor and maintain sites after closure. 

The facility would use a dry scrubber system for emission control, which would eliminate the need for wastewater treatment. Any water from emission control and from decontamination procedures would be treated in the on-site groundwater treatment system. The residual soil and collected ash is assumed to be nonhazardous and can be disposed of in a solid waste disposal facility in compliance with subtitle D of RCRA. In the event that they cannot be delisted due to the presence of metals, the residuals will be managed as part of the closure of Area 2 shown in Figure 16.21 (lead-contaminated soil). 

Finding 5. Stockpile disposal facilities that do not use components of the baseline incineration system, or modified versions of it, lack a means to achieve thermal decontamination of secondary wastes during closure operations. 

The assumed disposal systems for exempt waste and low-hazard waste both involve near-surface disposal, and either type of waste often would be emplaced sufficiently close to the surface that inadvertent intrusion into the waste could occur as a result of normal human activities. However, there are differences in the two types of disposal systems that should be taken into account in developing appropriate scenarios for inadvertent intrusion. Disposal facilities for low-hazard waste frequently include engineered barriers to deter inadvertent intrusion, impenetrable waste forms, or deliberate emplacement of more hazardous wastes at locations where access to the waste during normal human activities would be less likely. Most importantly, as noted previously, current plans call for institutional control to be maintained over hazardous waste disposal sites for a considerable period of time after facility closure, which allows for substantial... 

The use of an acceptable (barely tolerable) risk to classify nonexempt waste can be justified, in part, on the following grounds. Disposal facilities for exempt and low-hazard waste both are located near the ground surface, and many scenarios for inadvertent intrusion into municipal/industrial landfills for nonhazardous waste also would be credible occurrences at disposal sites for low-hazard waste. However, these types of scenarios should be less likely to occur at hazardous waste sites, compared with sites for disposal of nonhazardous waste, given the intention to maintain institutional control and records of past disposal activities for a considerable period of time after closure of hazardous waste sites and the possibility that societal memory of disposal activities will be retained long after institutional control is relinquished. Thus, the risk to future inadvertent intruders at dedicated hazardous waste disposal sites, taking into account the probability that exposures according to postulated scenarios would actually occur, should be comparable to the risk at disposal sites for nonhazardous waste. 

One of the main concerns of any environmental project is the collection of relevant and valid data. These are the data of the type, quantity, and quality that are appropriate and sufficient for the project decisions. The standards for data relevancy and validity stem from the intended use of the data since different uses require different type, quantity, and quality of data. For example, the data requirements for a risk assessment project are drastically different from those of a waste disposal project the requirements for site investigation data are different from these for site closure. 

SOURCE Rob Malone, CMA Task Manager for Closure and Secondary Waste Disposal, Secondary waste background and management criteria by site, Presentation to the committee, August 2, 2006. 

The committee held discussions with representatives of the local CACs (and in Oregon with the CTUIR) to gain local public input and to gauge perceptions on site-specific secondary-waste-related issues. Communications channels were found to be well established and frequently used. The public outreach offices and site leaders at each location appear to be very effective in establishing an atmosphere of transparency and trust with the local public. Because the long-term fate and status of the UMCDF site remains of great interest to them, the CTUIR expressed additional concerns about the transfer of waste across their land as well as the speed of closure of UMCDF operations, which may be impacted by secondary waste disposal. 

BPBGT. 2006a. Operations and Closure Agent-Contaminated Waste Disposal Estimate Summary Report, BGCAPP WP-045, Revision 0, December 28. Richmond, Ky. Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team. 

Demonstrations of Technology for Remediation and Closure of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Waste Disposal Sites U.S. Department of Energy, 1989, ORNL/TM-11286. 

A.45. Before releasing a site from any further control, the regulatory body should carry out an inspection to confirm that any residual activity has been reduced to acceptable levels. For waste disposal facilities, the release from control will be related to the long term safety of the facility as set out in the post-closure safety case. 

---