Hanford Environmental Report
Dedicated to the Goal of 100% Environmental Compliance

Volume 21, Number 3 - March 12, 1999

From Washington, D.C.:

DOE REVISES RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

DOE is currently revising DOE Order 5820.2A, the Radioactive Waste Manual, to reflect advances in radioactive waste management practices as well as changes within DOE since the existing Order was issued in 1988. The revised DOE Order (Order 435.1) is the result of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) recommendation 94-2. The DNFSB recommended that DOE conduct a complex-wide review to establish the dimension of the low level waste problem, take steps to complete performance assessments including all source terms, and include an Implementation Plan. The scope of the draft Order, Manual and Implementation Plan include management of:

• High-Level Waste Management including Closure of High-Level Waste Tank Systems;
• Transuranic Waste Management including Treatment, Storage, Characterization/Certification to support disposal at the WIPP;
• Radioactive Low-Level Waste Management including Disposal, Performance Assessment Criteria; and
• Radioactive Mixed-Waste to comply with external regulatory requirements.

The requirements of the Manual apply to all new and existing DOE radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities. The requirements must be implemented no later than October 1, 2001. For more information, contact Don Fritz (509/372-2066) with Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford.

From Ecology:

UPDATE OF ECOLOGY RULEMAKING

• Water Quality Triennial Review

  On February 23, Mark Hicks, Ecology's lead on the Triennial Review (TR), gave a presentation to the Water Quality Partnership Committee on the status of the antidegradation and use-based rulemaking activities which are the final pieces of the TR to be completed. Mark discussed the draft antidegradation plan (see article, this edition) and the report of the case studies that Ecology has been conducting over the course of the last several months. He anticipates that the plan will be adopted as a rule by the end of the year. He also indicated that comments on this draft plan must be submitted to Ecology by March 9. Mark stated that once the antidegradation issues are resolved, he will begin activities on the use-base format.

• Toxic Air Pollutants New Source Review

  On January 6, Steve Cross, Ecology's lead on the Toxic Air Pollutant New Source Review rulemaking, posted an updated scoping paper on the Ecology's Internet Homepage at http://www.wa.gov/ecology/ecyhome.html. This version updates two previous scoping papers that were issued in the summer and fall of 1998. Steve has prepared the rule development plan and submitted it to his management for approval. Once he gets management approval of the plan, he will submit the appropriate paperwork to the Code Revisor's Office who will in turn publish the preproposal statement of inquiry in the Washington State Register which officially begins the rulemaking. Kirk Peterson with FDH Environmental Protection and Roger Woodruff with PNNL are the leads for coordinating comments for Hanford. They have submitted comments to Ecology on the scoping documents.

• Dangerous Waste Regulations

  Last month, Ecology submitted the authorization package for the DW rules adopted in December 1993, October 1995, and January 1998, to EPA for its review and comment. EPA has sent Ecology comments on the package, and Ecology is preparing a response. If the response is sufficient to answer EPA's concerns, EPA will then publish its decision in the Federal Register which begins the 45-day public review process.

• Model Toxics Control Act

  On December 16, 1998, Ecology released its preliminary draft MTCA rule for public review and comment. Barry Vedder (Bechtel Hanford Inc.) coordinated comments for the site and submitted them to Ecology on January 22, 1999, which was prior to the comment due date of January 25, 1999. Ecology is currently sorting through the comments and will prepare a responsiveness summary addressing the issues raised in them as well as amending the schedule for future activities on the rulemaking. The Agency will also be contacting commentors to discuss their individual issues and to clarify any areas of disagreement. Once Ecology has contacted the commentors , they will meet with the External Advisory Committee, which is composed of representatives from environmental, business, local government, port districts and other sectors, to present alternatives. Ecology will also be amending the draft rule during the months of April and May to reflect stakeholder and public input.

For more information on the rulemakings, email or call Marsha A_Beery@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.'s Regulatory Interface at (360) 709-0664.

ECOLOGY RELEASES REVISED DRAFT ANTIDEGRADATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

On February 23, Ecology released its revised draft Antidegradation Implementation Plan (AIP). The AIP establishes a structured process for restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the surface waters of the state, and defines conditions under which water quality can and cannot be degraded. The AIP applies to all actions that would contribute to the lowering of surface water quality which are reviewed for compliance with the AIP under state and federal authorities. The AIP includes sections on:

• All known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment requirements;
• Allowance for degradation of high quality water constituents;
• Evaluation of alternatives;
• Determination of overriding public interest
• General permits and control programs conditionally allowed;
• Special protection for Water Quality Preservation Areas; and
• Public and intergovernmental review of antidegradation determinations;

Comments on the revised draft must be received at Ecology by March 9, 1999. For more information, email or call Marsha A_Beery@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.'s Regulatory Interface at (360) 709-0664.

BRIEFLY

• EPA plans to revise its policy on granting penalty reductions for violations found through environmental audits which are voluntarily reported and remedied. The agency intends to publish the changes in the Federal Register by April. EPA has also recently met with representatives of large and small businesses, environmental groups and state regulators to discuss these changes and solicit their input. EPA recently released a background paper which discusses their proposed changes.
• The Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) is beginning a department-wide performance evaluation of hazardous materials transportation programs. This evaluation is being done as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which requires strategic plans from all agencies linking the planning to their budgets. During February and March, DOT will be collecting information on how different modes of transportation are conducted. This information will then be analyzed to see what impact the programs have on compliance. DOT anticipates that the evaluation will be completed by the year 2000.
• EPA recently issued a guidance memorandum asking each regional office to identify any "substantial noncompliance" with active cleanup orders, consent decrees, or agreements at Superfund sites where the cleanup is led by the potentially responsible parties. The memo defines substantial noncompliance as any noncompliance that : "exacerbates releases or threatened releases of a hazardous substance; significantly deviates from the terms of the settlement, order, or agreement; represents a pattern of recalcitrant or chronic violation; and /or is deemed by the region to be substantial for other reasons." The memo asks the regions to identify any site where there has been a substantial noncompliance at anytime on or before October 1, 1997, even if such noncompliance has been corrected since that time. The memo directs the regional office to submit enforcement response plans for such sites to the headquarters office by March 1. EPA indicated that the information will be used to determine the effectiveness of EPA Superfund response actions.