R^` 9TA}y. a^
^y^ ^eae ^
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
1315 W. 4th Avenue • Kennewick, Washington 99336-6018 •(509) 735-7581
Mr. Joel Hebdon
United States Department of Energy
P.O. Box 550, MSIN: A5-15 AFR t F^ ^ ;,
Richland, Washington 99352
Dear Mr. Hebdon:
Re: Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area
(DOE/RL-96-17, Rev. 4)
Request for Accelerated Review and Approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan
for the 100/300 Area Remaining Sites (DOE/RL-99-58, Rev. 1, Draft A)
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) received your request (USDOE letter 03- 5g q 3cd'
ERD-0065), dated February 26, 2003, for accelerated review and approval of the Sampling and 3q
Analysis Plan for the 100/300 Area Remaining Sites (DOE/RL-99-58, Rev. 1, Draft A). Ecology L,S ^
does not agree to the request for accelerated review. Ecology has been cooperating with the
United States Department of Energy (USDOE) and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to update the Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100
Area (DOE/RL-96-17, Rev. 4). Ecology has three areas of significant concern with respect to
this work plan, as stated below. We are repeating these previously stated ( see dates below)
concerns and request USDOE to develop solutions in consultation with Ecology, EPA, tribal
nations, natural resource trustees, and stakeholders.
Februarv 2001 Amendments to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), WAC 173-340
Ecology's comments on the Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Work Plan
Rev. 4 (July 22, 2002) noted that some of the cleanup numbers had not been updated to include
MTCA B values in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Amendments
effective August 2001. The amendments postdate the identification of applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) in the interim action records of decisions (RODs). USDOE's
response indicated that the amended regulations are not considered ARARs for the 100 Area
interim remedial actions, but that USDOE is completing "informal evaluations ... to determine
if these new cleanup values can be met at the remediation sites." Those "informal evaluations"
have been in progress for well over two years. Ecology contends the "informal evaluations"
Mr. Joel Hebdon
April 8, 2003
were not necessary, and have delayed the incorporation of newly promulgated regulations into
applicable documents for the following reasons:
During a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
remedial action the MTCA requirements apply as ARARs, unless waived in accordance with
40 Code of Federal Regulations 320.430(f)(1)(ii). As outlined in the January 13, 1995,
paper, "Applicable Requirements Under the Model Toxics Control Act Regulations," in
general, the requirements of MTCA that Ecology and EPA have agreed are applicable to
National Priorities List cleanups include WAC 173-340-704 through 706, use of methods A,
B, and C; WAC 173-340-740, soil cleanup standards; and WAC 173-340-745, as appropriate,
soil cleanup standards for industrial sites.
Ecology, EPA, and USDOE recognized that both regulatory agencies would, eventually,
have to be satisfied with all parts of the Hanford cleanup in Article IV Paragraph 17 of the
Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). When writing about the relationship between CERCLA and
corrective action, we agreed:
"the parties intent to integrate DOE's CERCLA response obligations and RCRA
corrective action obligations which relate to the releases of hazardous substances,
hazardous wastes, pollutants, and contaminants...the parties intent that activities
covered by Part Three of this Agreement will achieve compliance with
CERCLA...and [RCRA corrective action]...."
Ecology uses the MTCA regulations to define the substance of corrective action
requirements, that is, to define what is "necessary to protect human health and the
environment" in Washington State. In general, the substantive requirements of MTCA that
should be applied to corrective actions at Hanford include WAC 173-340-700 through -760,
Based on these requirements, the USDOE should suspend any further "informal evaluations" and
include the new MTCA cleanup values in the RD/RA Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis
Technical Basis for Sampling and Analysis (composite sampling)
Ecology has discussed the statistical basis of verification sampling with USDOE dating from a
June 21, 2001, letter from Rick Bond to Douglas Smith. That letter addressed the 105-D and
105-H Reactor below-grade structures and underlying soils; however, the subsequent discussions
have included the 100 Area RD/RA Work Plan. Some previously communicated concerns
• The RD/RA Work Plan treatment of sampling approaches such as focused sampling,
composite sampling, and sampling of overburden/layback piles requires modification.
Ecology has furnished specific technical suggestions on how to implement Ecology and EPA
guidance (which are "to be considered" [TBC] criteria under CERCLA).
• Visual observations around discrete waste forms will be used to identify focused sampling
locations ( DOE/RL-2001-35, Rev. 0, Section 11. 18.104.22.168.2 et seq.); therefore, the RD/RA
Work Plan should specify that geographically-referenced photographs will be included in the
cleanup verification plans (CVPs).
Mr. Joel Hebdon
April 8, 2003
Sampling and Analysis for Biological Characterization
USDOE is required to coordinate necessary assessments, evaluations, investigations, and
planning with Trustees [CERCLA §] 04(b)(2)]. Several of Hanford's Natural Resource Trustees
made comment on the 100 Area RD/RA Work Plan, Rev. 4, Draft A. Reference:
Letter from Larry Goldstein, trustee representative for the state of Washington, to Joel
Hebdon, USDOE, dated October 15, 2002.
Letter from Russell Jim, Environmental Restoration/Waste Management Program
Manager for the Yakama Nation, to Keith Klein, USDOE, dated October 11, 2002.
Letter from Ken Niles, Oregon Office of Energy, to Joel Hebdon, USDOE, dated
October 7, 2002
Those comments suggested the addition of a biological sampling plan to the RD/RA Work Plan.
USDOE's responses to these letters stated, in part, that "responses to your comments will be
provided at a later date, and the appropriate information will be addressed during the next
revision of the document."
Ecology notes that USDOE conducts an extensive environmental surveillance program pursuant
to USDOE Order 5400.1 (REF: Environmental Monitoring Plan United States Department of
Energy Richland Operations Office, DOE/RL-91-50, Rev. 3). Ecology requests that USDOE
integrate its 5400.1 monitoring with the remedial investigation requirements under CERCLA.
USDOE has recently integrated its Atomic Energy Act and CERCLA groundwater monitoring in
the Hanford 200 Area; therefore, we assume that it should be possible (and cost-effective) to
merge biological monitoring in a similar fashion. Please note that DOE Order 450.1 provides for
the "integrated execution" of "compliance with applicable environmental protection
requirements." This integrated execution should merge the similar requirements of DOE Order
5400.1 and CERCLA requirements for ecological risk assessment.
Ecology requests that USDOE address these three issues as follows, and submit a redline-
strikeout revision of the RD/RA Work Plan and Remaining Sites and Burial Ground Sampling
and Analysis Plans (SAPs) to Ecology and EPA for review by July 1, 2003. Our requested
• USDOE should integrate the applicable requirements of the February 2001 Amendments to
MTCA, WAC 173-340, into the RD/RA Work Plan, the Remaining Sites SAP, and the Burial
Grounds SAP (DOE/RL-2001-35, Rev. 0).
USDOE should incorporate two TBC criteria in the RD/RA Work Plan and SAPs: Statistical
Guidance for Ecology Site Managers, Washington Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup
Program, August 1992 (Ecology Publication 92-54), and Guidance on Sampling and Data
Analysis Methods, Washington Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, January
1995 (Ecology Publication 94-49). The desired outcome is consistency between the
statistical terminologies and approaches in the guidance documents and in the SAPs.
Ecology will re-transmit its detailed technical comments under separate cover.
Mr. Joel Hebdon
April 8, 2003
USDOE should add a "tab" for a new appendix to the RD/RA Work Plan, and should list it in
the Table of Contents as "Biological Sampling and Analysis Plan (under development)."
Ecology considers this tab to be a "placeholder" while USDOE completes a data quality
objectives process, including coordination of necessary assessment with Natural Resource
Trustees, and "interested parties dialogue" in accordance with EPA/630/R-95/002F,
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.
Please contact me at (509) 736-3029 if you have any questions.
Un B. Price
Environmental Restoration Project Manager
Nuclear Waste Program
cc: Nick Ceto, EPA
Todd Martin, HAB
Rick Gay, CTUIR
Pat Sobotta, NPT
Russell Jim, YN
Ken Niles, OOE
Tom Zeilman, HNRTC
Administrative Record: 100 Area, 100 Area Burial Grounds