PB96-963107
EPA/ESD/R10-96/145
November 1996
EPA Superfund
Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision:
Hanford (100, 200, 300 & 1100 Areas)
(USDOE) Benton County, WA
7/30/1996
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10, HANFORD PROJECT OFFICE
712 Swift Boulevard, Suite 5
Richland, Washington 99352
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
P.O. Box 550
Richland, Washington 99352
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
1315 W. 4th Avenue
Kennewick, Washington 99336-6018
USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site,
Benton County, Washington
Explanation of Significant Difference (BSD)
INTRODUCTION
Site Name and Location
USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington
Lead and Support Agencies
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead regulatory agency on ERDF, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) is lead agency for operation and management of ERDF, and Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the support agency (the Tri-Parties).
Statutory Citation for an ESD
In Section 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), provisions are made for addressing and documenting changes to the selected remedy that
occur after the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. This ESD documents the changes to the selected
remedy in accordance with CERCLA Section 117(c). Additionally, since significant, non-fundamental
changes are being made to the original remedy, documentation procedures specified by the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Section 300.435(c)(2)(i), have
been followed.
i
Need for ESD
The ROD for the ERDF provides for disposal of remediation waste from CERCLA past-practice units.
-------
Because of the similarity of contaminants and waste types, it has become apparent that ERDF disposal
is an option that should be available in evaluating cleanup options for RCRA past-practice operable units
and closing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities CTSDs) at Hanford, as well as for CERCLA past-
practice units. Waste generated during past-practice investigations should also be available for disposal
in the ERDF. In addition, leachate generated at ERDF can be used to help suppress fugitive dust and
aid in waste compaction at ERDF. These changes have the potential to reduce cleanup costs and
administrative paperwork, while maintaining or increasing the level of protection to human health and
the environment.
Administrative Record
This ESD and supporting information is part of the Administrative Record for Hanford Environmental
Restoration Disposal Facility, as required by 40 CFR 300.825(a)(2), and is available to the public at the
following locations:
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (Contains all project documents)
U.S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
Administrative Record Center
2440 Stevens Center
Richland, Washington 99352 (Official Record)
EPA Region 10
Superfund Record Center
1200 Sixth Avenue
Park Place Building, 7th Floor
Seattle, Washington 98101
Washington State Department of Ecology • i
Administrative Record
719 Sleater-Kinney Road SE
Capital Financial Building, Suite 200
Lacey, Washington 98503-1138
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES (Contain limited documentation)
University of Washington
Suzzallo Library
Government Publications Room
Mail Stop FM-25
Seattle, Washington 98195
Gonzaga University
Foley Center
E. 502 Boone
Spokane, Washington 99258
-------
Portland State University
Branford Price Millar Library
Science and Engineering Floor
SW Harrison and Park
P.O. Box 1151
Portland, Oregon 97207
DOE Richland Public Reading Room
Washington State University, Tri-Cities
100 Sprout Road, Room 130
Richland, Washington 993S2
The notice of the availability of the ESD was published in the Hood River News, the Seattle Tunes P/I,
the Spokesman Review-Chronicle, the Tri-City Herald, and the Oregonian.
SITE HISTORY
The DOE's Hanford Site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in July 1989 under CERCLA
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The Hanford Site
was divided and listed as four NPL sites: the 100 Area, the 200 Area, the 300 Area, and the 1100 Area.
In anticipation of the NPL listing, DOE, EPA, and Ecology entered into a Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order (Tri Party Agreement) in May 1989. This agreement established a
procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring response actions at
Hanford.
Restoration of the Hanford Site is expected to result in the generation of wastes requiring further
management. The Tri-Parties recognized the need for a centralized waste facility because of desires
expressed by the public to expeditiously remove waste from the sites located adjacent-to the Columbia
River. The ROD for the ERDF was signed by the Tri-Parties on January 20, 1995. The remedy selected
by the ERDF ROD specifies construction and operation of two disposal cells for Hanford remediation
waste. The two landfill cells must meet RCRA minimum technical requirements (MTRs) for hazardous
waste landfills (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N) and must also provide sufficient leachate storage capacity
to ensure uninterrupted operations.
The ERDF can be used to dispose of waste generated during the cleanup of the 100, 200 and 300 Areas
at the Hanford Site. The 1100 Area ROD, issued in September 1993, specifies that waste generated
during remediation will be disposed of offsite. Treatment as an alternative to ERDF disposal and as a
precondition to ERDF disposal is to be considered in selecting remedies for the individual operable units.
Waste disposed of at ERDF must meet CERCLA Section 121(d) ARAR requirements and satisfy ERDF
Waste Acceptance Criteria (BHI00139, Rev. 2, February 1996). The ERDF Waste Acceptance Criteria
has been approved by the EPA, in consultation with Ecology, and is in the Administrative Record.
The waste acceptance criteria incorporates state and federal regulations as well as DOE Orders. The
criteria limit ERDF waste acceptability primarily in the areas of chemical concentration, radioactivity
level, treatment standards, and waste form. The CERCLA decision document selecting as a remedy the
disposal of the waste into ERDF shall specify treatment requirements. Public input into those decisions
-------
will be sought during public involvement periods for the operable unit cleanup proposals.
The selected ERDF site covers a maximum of 4.1 km2 (1.6 mi2) on the Central Plateau at an elevation
of 195 to 226 m (640 to 740 ft) above mean sea level, approximately in the center of the Hanford Site,
southeast of the 200 West Area and southwest of the 200 East Area. The ERDF will serve as the
receiving and disposal facility for most waste generated from cleanup actions where disposal on the
Central Plateau is the selected remedy and where waste meets ARARs and waste acceptance criteria.
Some waste generated during cleanup (e.g., transuranic waste) and "as generated" wastes (i.e., wastes
generated from a production process rather than as part of site remediation) will not be acceptable for
ERDF disposal and shall be handled elsewhere.
Only waste that originates from CERCLA or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup
actions on the Hanford Site will be placed in the ERDF. The waste is expected to consist of
hazardous/dangerous, radioactive, mixed waste (containing both hazardous/dangerous and radioactive
waste) and minor amounts of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and asbestos waste. The ROD provides
that the mechanism for approving disposal of RCRA past-practice remedial waste into the ERDF will be
determined by the Tri-Parties.
In the ERDF ROD, the Tri-Parties determined that the 100, 200, and 300 Area NPL sites are to be
treated as one site under Section 104(d)(4) of CERCLA, and that therefore a permit would not be
required to transfer waste from these sites to ERDF. In response to the ERDF Proposed Plan, several
members of the public expressed concern that oftsite (i.e., non-Hanford) wastes may be shipped to
Hanford and disposed of in ERDF. In response to these comments, the Tri-Parties clarified that the
ERDF would be used solely for disposal of wastes generated from the Hanford cleanup effort; there was
no intent or authorization for ERDF to receive or manage wastes generated from offsite sources. No
determination has been made to include non Hanford wastes as part of the site under CERCLA Section
104(d)(4). EPA reconfirms this position in this ESD. Thus, the wastes types covered by this ESD are
limited to Hanford cleanup wastes only.
ION OF SIGNIFY
Hanford Cleanup'Waste
Three general types of Hanford cleanup wastes have been identified for which clarification is needed
regarding eligibility for placement in ERDF. These three waste types are:
o Waste generated as a result of site characterization and treatability tests during
investigations at past-practice operable units;
o Waste from decontamination and decommissioning of Hanford surplus facilities;
o Waste generated as a result of cleanup activities at Hanford RCRA sites undergoing
closure.
Further clarification regarding these waste types is presented below.
Investigation-Derived Waste. A variety of wastes have been produced as a result of site characterization
activities associated with the Hanford cleanup effort in the 100, 200 and 300 Areas. Additionally, a
-------
variety of treatability test wastes have been generated from the evaluation of potential cleanup
alternatives. These investigation-derived wastes (IDW) include drilling muds, cuttings from test pit and
well installation; purge water, soil and other materials from collection of samples; residues (e.g., ash,
spent carbon) from testing of treatment technologies; miscellaneous treatability test and investigative
equipment such as piping, tanks, etc.; contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE); and solutions
(aqueous or otherwise) used to decontaminate non-disposable protective clothing and equipment. IDW
is currently being stored in drums at a central area within the operable unit boundaries. Many of these
drums have been stored in this manner since the beginning of the operable unit investigations. With the
exception of liquid-bearing IDW, most of these wastes meet the ERDF waste acceptance criteria. Liquid-
bearing IDW can generally be processed via stabilization, evaporation, or other methods to satisfy the
ERDF waste acceptance criteria.
Disposal options have been evaluated as part of the 100 Area and 300 Area operable unit feasibility
studies. The 100 Area and 300 Area RODs that have been issued specify that the ERDF is the selected
disposal site for waste generated during cleanup activities. IDW generated during investigations of the
operable units is similar in nature and contamination to the remedial action waste. This ESD clarifies
that investigation-derived wastes that have been generated during RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective
Measures Studies or from CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in the 100 and 300 Areas
may be placed in the ERDF provided the waste acceptance criteria are met. This would provide for safe
and environmentally protective disposal of this material. No additional regulatory decision document is
necessary.
Limited evaluations have been completed for operable units within the 200 Area. The 200-ZP-l Record
of Decision does not specifically address IDW disposal. IDW for 200-ZP-l shall be addressed with the
remedial design documentation for that action. The remainder of the IDW stored within the 200 Area
totals approximately 500 cubic yards. This material consists primarily of PPE and drill cuttings from
well installation. The Tri-Parties believe that this waste would be more safely managed by disposing of
the material in ERDF. The IDW shall meet the established waste acceptance criteria for the ERDF prior
to disposal. No additional regulatory decision document is necessary.
Investigation-derived waste generated during future activities will be addressed as part of the "Strategy
for Management of Investigation-Derived Waste". This document is included in Appendix F of the Tri-
Party Agreement. Decisions concerning the disposition of IDW generated as part of future investigations
or treatability studies shall be addressed in future RI/FS and RFI/CMS work plans and CERCLA
proposals and decision documents.
Decontamination and Decommissioning Wastes. On May 22; 1995,. the Department of Energy (DOE)
and the EPA issued a joint nationwide policy pertaining to the decommissioning of DOE facilities under
CERCLA. This policy establishes a framework for conducting such actions, and generally commits to
utilization of the CERCLA process in situations where the building or structure contains a hazardous
substance posing a substantial threat of a release into the environment. The DOE is undertaking a variety
of activities that will be subject to this policy, including the stabilization and transition of several
buildings and structures on the Hanford site. It is anticipated that these decommissioning actions will
generate wastes consisting of radioactively or chemically contaminated construction debris such as
concrete, rebar, steel plate, timbers, etc. Additionally, decommissioning activities may generate waste
streams consisting of materials such as contaminated piping and tanks associated with operations formerly
conducted in the facilities.
-------
Waste resulting from Hanford decommissioning and decontamination activities may be disposed of in
ERDF in accordance with a remedial action ROD or removal action memoranda issued in accordance
with CERCLA and the NCP after an opportunity for public comment, provided that the waste meets the
ERDF waste acceptance criteria.
RCRA Past-Practice and Closure Waste. As stated in the ERDF ROD, "numerous sites that normally
would have been designated CERCLA sites were administratively designated as Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) past-practice sites." The ROD also indicated the Tri-Parties intent to place
such wastes in ERDF, provided that the waste acceptance criteria are met and that the disposal is in
accordance with the legal requirements. The mechanism for accommodating such disposal was to be
determined by EPA, Ecology, and the Department of Energy. The Tri-Parties have determined that such
waste may be placed in the ERDF in accordance with a remedial action ROD or removal action
memoranda issued in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP after an opportunity for public comment,
provided that the waste acceptance criteria are met.
In addition to remediation wastes from RCRA past-practice sites, the ERDF will also be eligible to
receive certain wastes generated during closure activities at inactive RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal units at Hanford. Closure of these units will typically generate wastes consisting of contaminated
soil and structural components such as contaminated concrete, rebar, piping, equipment, etc. In many
instances the TSD units are located within an operable unit which is being addressed under the CERCLA
or RCRA past-practice process, and the TSD closure will result in cleanup wastes that are, for all
practical purposes, indistinguishable from wastes resulting from CERCLA or RCRA past-practice cleanup
activities. These TSD closure wastes may be placed in ERDF in accordance with a remedial action ROD
or removal action memoranda issued in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP after an opportunity for
public comment, provided that the ERDF waste acceptance criteria are satisfied. This determination is
consistent with the approach already being implemented, on a case-by-case basis, at the Hanford site.
For example, contaminated soils from closure of the 300 Area Process Trenches (RCRA TSD units) will
be disposed of in ERDF in accordance with the ROD for the 300 Area CERCLA operable units.
RCRA Authorities Not Affected. Implementation of the decision to place specific RCRA .past-practice or
closure wastes or radioactive, non-RCRA waste from inactive TSDs in ERDF will continue to be done
on a case-by-case basis. A determination under CERCLA to place RCRA waste in the ERDF shall in
no way affect DOE's responsibility to meet the requirements of RCRA, including conditions of the RCRA
permit or closure plans. Approval of the lead regulatory agency is required before waste from any
RCRA past-practice site or TSD may be placed in ERDF.
Under this ESD, the Tri-parties may agree, in accordance with theTri-Party Agreement Action Plan,
Section 5A, to redesignate operable units. However, redesignation is not required.
ERDF Leachate
The ERDF is a double lined landfill meeting RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart N landfill and Subpart F
groundwater monitoring requirements. The ERDF is expected to generate leachate that requires
management within a regulatory framework. The ERDF ROD currently requires sufficient leachate
storage capacity to ensure uninterrupted operations, complying with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N.
Additionally, the ROD states that leachate collected at the landfill will be managed at the 200 Area
Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), located in the 200 East Area, or at another approved facility.
-------
The Tri-Parties have determined that the ERDF leachate may be collected and stored at the ERDF for
use at ERDF, as appropriate. Appropriate uses are limited to dust suppression and waste compaction.
Compaction of the waste is necessary to minimize the potential for subsidence and to support a final
surface cover (See 40 CFR Section 264.310). It may be necessary to add water to the waste in order to
achieve the required compactidn results. Dust suppression is required to prevent wind dispersal of waste
placed in the ERDF (See 40 CFR Subpart 264.301(j)).
The leachate must be sampled prior to use to ensure compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs),
ERDF waste acceptance criteria, and other health based limits (whichever is more restrictive). The
volume of leachate used to suppress dust and compact waste within the landfill must be equal to or less
than the minimum volume of water that otherwise would be necessary for these purposes. The ERDF
will utilize ETF or some other authorized facility for wastewater requiring treatment or exceeding annual
operation needs.
Using leachate within the ERDF trench is not considered a fundamental change from the ROD. The
leachate will be used to meet applicable landfill regulatory requirements. Using leachate within the trench
in this manner is consistent with the nature of the original remedy.
The Tri-Parties believe that the use of leachate in this way would not constitute, a violation of Section
3004(1) of RCRA, as amended. The legislative history of Section 3004(1) only discusses the use of
hazardous waste for road treatment. As long as the leachate is being returned to the landfill from which
it was derived to satisfy other regulatory requirements (minimize subsidence and dust suppression) and
meets LDR, ERDF waste acceptance criteria, and health based limits, the Tri-Parties do not believe it
is being "used for dust suppression" in the sense prohibited by Section 3004(1).
In addition, the use of leachate may not satisfy the requirement of RCRA 3004(c) which specifies that
"the placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in hazardous
waste in any landfill is prohibited". The leachate is classified as hazardous waste due to the RCRA F039
listing (40 CFR Section 261.31(a)). To the extent that Section 3004(c) of RCRA applies to the use of
ERDF leachate for dust suppression and waste compaction, it is being waived pursuant to Section
121(d)(4)(D) of CERCLA.. The Tri-Parties have determined that the placement of water in ERDF is
necessary in order to satisfy applicable RCRA landfill dust suppression and waste compaction
requirements, and that the use of ERDF leachate that meets LDR requirements, ERDF waste acceptance
criteria, and other health based limits (which ever is more restrictive) will attain a standard of
performance that is equivalent to that which would be obtained by the use of water. The Tri-Parties
intend to seek a delisting of the leachate after sufficient data is available to support the determination that
this is a non-hazardous material. Upon delisting of the leachate, the referenced requirement will no
longer apply as the liquid will be classified as non-hazardous.
-------
A summary of the differences between the original remedy and the modified remedies for these items
is shown below:
Original Remedy
Under the current regulatory framework, the
use of the ERDF is limited to wastes
generated from past-practice units on the
Hanford Facility provided the ERDF waste
acceptance criteria are satisfied. Disposal
must be authorized by a CERCLA decision
document (ROD or Action Memorandum).
Modified Remedy
Any Hanford environmental cleanup waste
generated as a result of CERCLA or RCRA
cleanup actions (decontamination and
decommissioning wastes, RCRA past-
practice wastes, IDW) is eligible for disposal
provided it meets tie ERDF waste
acceptance criteria and the appropriate
decision documents are in place.
Additionally, non-process wastes (e.g.,
contaminated soil, debris) generated from
closure of inactive RCRA TSD units may be
placed in ERDF provided that (1) the
closure wastes are sufficiently similar to
CERCLA or RCRA past-practice wastes
placed in ERDF, (2) the ERDF waste
acceptance criteria are satisfied, and (3) the
appropriate CERCLA decision documents
are in place. Revision of the RCRA Permit
and closure plans may be required.
Collect all ERDF leachate for management
at the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility
or other approved facility
Collect all ERDF leachate for use within the
ERDF trench. Leachate in excess of ERDF
use requirements or acceptable contaminant
levels will be sent to ETF or another
approved facility for management.
-------
BASIS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
The rationale for the changes to the original remedy are discussed in this section.
Hanford Cleanup Waste
Making Hanford cleanup waste eligible for ERDF disposal, regardless of whether it comes from a
CERCLA or RCRA past-practice unit or from the closure of an inactive TSD unit will provide a cleanup
option that will be protective and which may be the most cost effective. It will also help ensure a
consistent approach to cleanup of RCRA and CERCLA sites at Hanford. The ERDF is a landfill meeting
RCRA Subpart N landfill and Subpart F groundwater monitoring requirements. Additionally, the ERDF
has strict guidelines, specified in the waste acceptance criteria, which must be met to dispose of any waste
in the facility.
This ESD for the ERDF ROD has been issued to clarify the eligibility of waste generated during cleanup
of the Hanford site. Since decontamination and decommissioning waste, RCRA past-practice waste, and
certain RCRA wastes from inactive TSD facilities associated with Hanford cleanup activities are
sufficiently similar to other Hanford CERCLA remediation waste, the Tri-Parties believe the ERDF
should be considered as a disposal facility for these waste. The ERDF disposal option should be
evaluated along with other cleanup alternatives in accordance with the NCP.
Additionally, investigation-derived waste resulting from RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures
Studies or from CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies and Treatability Studies must be
managed in a more cost efficient and protective manner. The EPA believes that, in order to achieve these
goals, IDW should be disposed in the ERDF (provided that the technical standards of the waste
acceptance criteria are met). This ESD serves as notification of the intent of disposing of currently stored
IDW in ERDF. Investigation- derived waste generated during future activities will be addressed as part
of the "Strategy for Management of Investigation-Derived Waste". This document is currently included
in Appendix F of the Tri-Party Agreement. Decisions concerning the disposition of IDW generated as
part of future investigations or treatability studies shall be addressed in future CERCLA proposals and
decision documents after an opportunity for public comment.
Disposition of ERDF Leachate
The use of ERDF leachate within the trench is protective of human health and the environment. This
method minimizes the need to store and transport liquids over Hanford Site roads to the ETF, thereby
significantly reducing the haul distance and associated operating costs. Further, reuse within the trench
will reduce the processing costs associated with using ETF as well as the need for delivering additional
water to the ERDF site.
Managing leachate for use in the trench is consistent with waste minimization and resource conservation
practices. Using the leachate within the trench returns a waste to a beneficial use, minimizing a waste
stream and associated processing requirements. Additionally, leachate reuse conserves resources by
reducing the clean water volume required for dust suppression.
-------
SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS
Consistent with EPA guidance, the Washington State Department of Ecology reviewed the ESD.
Suggested changes were incorporated into the text. Ecology supports this action and the implementation
of the described changes to the ERDF Record of Decision.
AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The amended remedy is protective of human health and the environment, will comply with Federal and
State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action or attain
a waiver where justified, and is cost effective. The use of leachate in ERDF may not satisfy the
requirement of RCRA Section 3004(c) which specifies that "the placement of bulk or non-containerized
liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in hazardous waste in any landfill is prohibited." To the
extent that Section 3004(c) of RCRA applies to the use of ERDF leachate for dust suppression and waste
compaction, it is being waived pursuant to Section 121(d)(4)(D) of CERCLA. The Tri-Parties have
determined that the placement of water in ERDF is necessary to satisfy applicable RCRA landfill dust
suppression and waste compaction requirements, and that the use of ERDF leachate that meets LDR
requirements, ERDF waste acceptance criteria, and other health based limits (whichever is more
restrictive) will attain a standard of performance that is equivalent to that which would be obtained by
the use of water. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable for this
site. Treatment of cleanup wastes will be addressed in the operable unit decision documents and remedial
action activities. As a consequence, the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element will be
addressed in these future documents rather than in this ESD.
This remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels; therefore,
a review will be conducted within 5 years after commencement of this action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
A public comment period was held from June 3 to July 2, 1996. Public comments were considered prior
to issuing the ESD. All submitted written comments are contained in the Administrative Record for the
ERDF. Responses to the public comments received during the public comment period are included in
the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A) and were considered during the development of this ESD.
10
-------
Signature sheet for the Explanation of Significant Differences to the Record of Decision for the USDOE
Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Remedial Action between the United States
Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Chuck Clarke Date
Regional Administrator, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
11
-------
Signature sheet for the Explanation of Significant Differences to the Record of Decision for the USDOE
Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Remedial Action between the United States
Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Jotort
Manager, Richland Operation
United States Department of Energy
Date
12
-------
Signature sheet for the Explanation of Significant Differences to the Record of Decision for the USDOE
Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Remedial Action between the United States
Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
MikexWUson
Program Manager, Nuclear Waste Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
I. Rib
Date
13
-------
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
U6DOE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DISPOSAL FACILITY
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology) (the agencies) held a public comment period
from June 3, 1996 through July 2, 1996 for interested parties to
comment on the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)
Explanation of Significant Differences.
A responsiveness summary has been prepared for the purpose of
providing the agencies and the public with a summary of citizens
comments and concerns about the site, as raised during the public
comment period, and the agencies1 response to those comments and
concerns.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW. This section briefly
describes the background of the Hanford Site and the ERDF and
outlines the changes to the ERDF Record of Decision (ROD).
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS. This
section provides a brief history of community interest and
concerns regarding the ERDF.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND THE AGENCIES* RESPONSES TO THOSE
COMMENTS* This section summarizes both oral and written comments
submitted to the agencies during the public comment period, and
provides the agencies' responses tp those comments.
IV. REMAINING CONCERNS. This section discusses community
concerns that the agencies should be aware of as they prepare to
undertake operation of the ERDF.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
SITE BACKGROUND
The DOE's Hanford Site was listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in July 1989 under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA). The Hanford Site was divided and listed as four NPL
sites: the 100 Area, the 200 Area, the 300 Area, and the 1100
Area.
In anticipation of the NPL listing, DOE, EPA, and Ecology entered
into a Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri
Party Agreement) in May 1989. This agreement established a
procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing,
and monitoring response actions at Hanford.
-------
Restoration of the Hanford Site is expected to result in the
generation of wastes requiring further management. The
Tri-Parties recognized the need for a centralized waste facility
because of desires expressed by the public to expeditiously
remove waste from the sites located adjacent to the Columbia
River. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the ERDF was signed by
the agencies on January 20, 1995. The remedy selected by the ERDF
ROD specifies construction and operation of two disposal cells
for Hanford remediation waste. The two landfill cells must meet
RCRA minimum technical requirements (MTRs) for hazardous waste
landfills (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N) and must also provide
sufficient leachate storage capacity to ensure uninterrupted
operations.
The ERDF can be used to dispose of waste generated during the
cleanup of the 100, 200 and 300 Areas at the Hanford Site. The
1100 Area ROD, issued in September 1993, specifies that waste
generated during remediation will be disposed of offsite.
Treatment as an alternative to ERDF disposal and as a
precondition to ERDF disposal is to be considered in selecting
remedies for the individual operable units. Waste disposed of at
ERDF must meet ARARs and satisfy ERDF Waste Acceptance Criteria
(BHI 00139, Rev. 2, February 1996). The ERDF Waste Acceptance
Criteria has been approved by the EPA, in consultation with
Ecology, and is in the Administrative Record.
The waste acceptance criteria incorporates state and federal
regulations as well as DOE Orders. The criteria limit ERDF waste
acceptability primarily in the areas of chemical concentration,
radioactivity level, treatment standards, and waste form. The
CERCLA decision document selecting as a remedy the disposal of
the waste into ERDF shall specify treatment requirements. Public
input into those decisions will be sought during 'public
involvement periods for the operable unit cleanup proposals.
The selected ERDF site covers a maximum of 4.1 km2 (1.6 mi2) on
the Central Plateau at an elevation of 195 to 226 m (640 to 740
ft) above mean sea level, approximately in the center of the
Hanford Site, southeast of the 200 West Area and southwest of the
200 East Area. The ERDF will serve as the receiving and disposal
facility for most waste generated from cleanup actions where
disposal on the Central Plateau is the selected remedy and where
waste meets ARARs and waste acceptance criteria. Some waste
generated during cleanup (e.g., transuranic waste) and "as
generated" wastes (i.e., wastes generated from a production
process rather than as a part of site remediation) from active
TSDs will not be acceptable for ERDF disposal and shall be
handled elsewhere.
Only waste that originates from CERCLA or. Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup actions on the Hanford Site will
be placed in the ERDF. The waste is expected to consist of
hazardous/dangerous, radioactive, mixed waste (containing both
-------
hazardous/dangerous and radioactive waste) and minor amounts of
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and asbestos waste. The ROD
provides that the mechanism for approving disposal of RCRA past-
practice remedial waste into the ERDF will be determined by the
agencies.
sununarv
ices betweei
remedv anc
modified remedies for these items is shown below;
-------
Original Remedy
Modified Remedy
Under the current
regulatory framework, the
use of the ERDF is limited
to wastes generated from
past-practice units on the
Hanford Facility provided
the ERDF waste acceptance
criteria are satisfied.
Disposal must be authorized
by a CERCLA decision
document (ROD or Action
Memorandum).
Any Hanford environmental
cleanup waste generated as
a result of CERCLA or RCRA
cleanup actions
(decontamination and
decommissioning wastes,
RCRA past-practice wastes,
and IDW) is eligible for
disposal provided it meets
the ERDF waste acceptance
criteria and the
appropriate decision
documents are in place.
Additionally, non-process
wastes (e.g., contaminated
soil, debris) generated
from closure of inactive
RCRA TSD units may be
placed in .ERDF provided
that (1) the closure wastes
are sufficiently similar to
CERCLA or RCRA past-
practice wastes placed in
ERDF, (2) the ERDF waste
acceptance criteria are
satisfied, and (3) the
appropriate CERCLA decision
documents are in place.
Revision of the RCRA Permit
and closure plans may be
required.
Collect all ERDF leachate
for management at the 200
Area Effluent Treatment
Facility or other approved
facility
Collect all ERDF leachate
for use within the ERDF
trench. Leachate in excess
of ERDF use requirements or
acceptable contaminant
levels will be sent to 200
Area Effluent Treatment
Facility, or another
approved facility for
management.
-------
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS.
Presentations were made to the Hanford Advisory Board and the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indians. The primary
concerns of these groups focused on mitigation of habitat and
facility closure. These concerns were addressed previously
within the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and the
Record of Decision and Responsiveness Summary for the ERDF.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND THE AGENCIES' RESPONSES TO THOSE
COMMENTS.
Written and oral comments received during the public comment are
presented in this section. The person and group affiliation
providing the comment is also identified. Responses follow each
comment or a series of comments.
A. GENERAL
Comment 1. A member of the general public commented that they
support the proposed modified remedy for ERDF, stating that they
believe that the changes reflect a sound technical and cost-
effective resolution for integrating provisions of the numerous
environmental laws. They continued by stating that this action
should be publicized to other states and EPA regions and adopted
at other cleanup sites where appropriate.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The.agencies believe
that changes specified in the BSD offer an effective solution to
the management of waste generated as a result of the cleanup of
the Hanford Site.
Comment 2. A member of the general public made the following
comment:
I believe that the Tri-Parties should require:
Comment 2a. The shrub-steppe habitat be preserved to the
greatest degree possible, with highest priority being given to
the highest quality habitat. This protection should be given
whether this ESD is approved or not.
Response: The ERDF site is composed of a mix of habitat
types, ranging from mature shrub-steppe habitat at the eastern
end, to previously disturbed areas, such as the REDOX lay-down
yard, at the western end. The agencies intend to limit
disturbance during environmental remediation as much as possible,
but we must expect difficult trade-offs between competing
priorities in the future. DOE intends to minimize disturbance to
shrub-steppe habitat to the extent possible by expanding the
disposal facility only as needed.
-------
Comment 2b. The BSD should require early mitigation of the -
habitat destroyed by construction of ERDF and damaged by the
operation of ERDF and intrusion of invader species into the
habitat.
Response: DOE has developed a Mitigation Action Plan for
mitigation of the ERDF in coordination with the Hanford Natural
Resource Trustee Council. Although DOE agrees that concrete
habitat mitigation commitments are necessary, it is difficult to
commit to specific mitigation measures until DOE and Trustees
come to agreement on a site wide mitigation strategy.
Additionally, the final size of the ERDF landfill will depend
entirely on the decisions made at the source operable units in
the future. Because of these uncertainties, the Mitigation
Action Plan will probably be periodically revised and
supplemented as additional engineering and biological data become
available.
As part of the site wide environmental restoration
mitigation strategy, Colorado State University has been
contracted to develop a revegetation plan. The draft plan is
expected in August with final issuance expected in December. The
Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council is involved with the
development of the revegetation plan and is currently reviewing
the annotated outline.
In addition, a Biological Resource Management Plan (BRMaP)
and the Biological Resource Mitigation Strategy (BRMiS) are being
developed. The BRMaP provides the Department of Energy and its
contractors with a consistent approach to protect biological
resources and to monitor, assess, and mitigate impacts from site
development, environmental cleanup and restoration activities, as
well as approaches to better manage total resources. The BRMiS
provides Hanford Site project managers, planners and engineers,
and resource managers with the concepts and information necessary
to implement the requirements and guidance contained in the BRMaP
specific to mitigation at the Hanford Site (via rectification
and/ or compensation).
Comment 2c. If RCRA wastes are allowed into ERDF, that the
cells used for such waste
• be designed to meet the detailed requirements of RCRA
in addition to CERCLA requirements;
• be monitored as required under RCRA as well as CERCLA;
• be closed in accordance with the requirements of both
RCRA and CERCLA;
• have the same post-closure monitoring and response
requirements as RCRA in addition to the CERCLA
requirements. If the wastes do migrate from ERDF in
the ground and endanger groundwater, as I expect they
will, USDOE must be required at that future date to
exhume ERDF and treat the wastes properly.
-------
revegetate only with species and seed-stock native to
the Hanford site. All foreign or invader species must
be prohibited.
Response: In accordance with the Record of Decision, the
ERDF design complies with EPA RCRA Subtitle C and Washington
Department of Ecology requirements for hazardous waste landfills.
The ERDF trench is designed to meet -the RCRA minimum technology
requirements (MTRs) and includes a composite bottom liner and a
leachate collection and recovery system. The ROD specifies that
the closure plans and post closure monitoring for -the ERDF shall
satisfy the substantive portions of RCRA. The requirements for
the surface cover have not yet been developed in detail. At this
time, a RCRA-compliant cover has been selected for the closure of
the ERDF. Prior to selection of a final cover design, the public
will be given the opportunity to comment.
Comment 3. A member of the general public made the following
comments:
Comment 3a. The newspaper release and the BSD package
discussed that "only waste generated during Hanford cleanup is
eligible for disposal in the ERDF". I wanted to voice my
support for this proposal because I believe this to be an
important limitation placed onto ERDF operations to obtain public
support.
Response: Thank you for you comment.
Comment 3b. I would like the Tri-Parties to better clarify
what types of waste will not (be) accepted into ERDF. The BSD on
page 4 discusses that "some waste generated during cleanup (e.g.,
transuranic waste) and 'as generated1 waste (i.e., highly
concentrated wastes present in a for essentially' as generated
from a production process') from active TSDs will not be
acceptable for ERDF disposal and shall be handled elsewhere".
Specifically, I would like clarification on what the Tri-Parties
have in mind pertaining to "as generated" wastes. I am unaware
of any wastes at Hanford that would fit into this category based
upon how EPA uses this term in the Hazardous Waste Identification
proposed rules (see 60 FR 66344 and 61 FR 18780). EPA uses this
term in (the) Federal Register preamble to describe the situation
where a material becomes a waste for the first time. At Hanford,
I don't believe there are any production processes that would
generate highly concentrated wastes.
Response: In general, wastes that could be considered newly
generated or 'as generated' waste produced at Hanford would
include any waste coming from process vessels, vehicle
maintenance, or laboratories (spent reagents, etc.). These
wastes cannot be disposed of in the ERDF and must be sent to
another facility for disposal.
-------
comment 3c. I would like to propose elimination of the public
comment process requirement for a waste to be disposed of at
ERDF. In reading the BSD, it appears that any waste destined for
ERDF must undergo some sort of public comment process. This
process does not seem necessary if the waste acceptance criteria
can be met for the landfill. Since the acceptance criteria
document has underwent public comment, we may be able to
eliminate a redundant process.
Response: The public comment process described within the
ESD is specific to CERCLA cleanup actions. Under CERCLA,
proposals for the selection of a remedy at a site shall be made
available for public comment. Disposal at the ERDF site may be a
part of that remedy.
Comment 3d. I am interested to know how the Tri-Parties
addressed listed waste designation and reuse issues to establish
the ERDF leachate management recommendations. I am in full
support of the proposal contained in the ESD for leachate
management. What I cannot understand is how the Land Disposal
Restrictions will be met while at the same time the ERDF leachate
will be applied to the land. As I understand, the administrative
process of a delisting petition according to the RCRA regulations
is not required based upon an ARAR determination and the ESD will
be used to address any CERCLA delisting paperwork requirements
for single source leachate and/or multi-source leachate. If this
is the case, my understanding is that there would be no Land
Disposal Restrictions to be concerned about.
Response: Although delisting of leachate is anticipated when
sufficient characterization data are available, the agencies are
not taking such action at this time. The leachate will be used
for dust suppression and compaction activities within the trench.
Contaminant limits have been established to manage the leachate
in a protective manner. The Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
limits for waste waters specified in the RCRA regulations are
included in the established leachate limits. If the leachate
concentrations exceed the LDR limits it cannot be used in the
ERDF trench and must be treated at an approved facility.
IV. REMAINING CONCERNS.
Issues and concerns that the agencies were unable to address in
detail during remedial action activities include the following:
• Mitigation - A mitigation action plan was prepared to
address mitigation requirements for the ERDF. The Hanford
Natural Resource Trustees were consulted during development
of this plan. The implementation of this plan is pending
the completion of the Biological Resource Mitigation
Strategy.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LIST OF COMMENTORS
Written Comments:
Gordon J. Rogers
1108 N. Road 36
Pasco, WA 99301
Dirk Dunning
P.O. Box 2356
Gresham, Oregon 97030
Anthony Miskho
514 N. Hawaii PI.
Kennewick, WA 99337
------- |