View Document Here - Hanford Site

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE INITIAL DRAFT PERMIT
FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF
DANGEROUS WASTE
,
R ^
'q
A,^^ ^
l
^w,
0U3M3

THIS PAGE iMTENTIONALL.Y
LEFT BLANK
^ ^

1.0
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 18, 1992
HANFORD FACILITY-WIDE DRAFT PERMIT
PASCO, WASHINGTON
[Hearing Announcer] "As Toby had stated, this is the first in a series of three public
hearings that Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 are conducting
throughout the State of Washington. Tonight's hearing is in Pasco on February 18, 1992,
tomorrow night's hearing will be in Spokane, and Thursday night we will have a hearing in
Seattle. And to reiterate one more time, the ground rules for the hearing: First we have a
list of six individuals who have signed up to speak, and they will be called to speak in the
order that they signed up to speak in. And when the individual comes to this microphone up
here to speak, we request that they state their name and their address, and if they are
representing a particular organization or company we would like them to state that as well.
And, another ground rule is please keep your comments to a reasonable minimum, however
we are not putting a time limit on this. In addition we request that there is no additional
background noise from the audience while the individuals are speaking. As Toby also stated
the public comment period began January 15th, we are midway through the public comment
period and the conclusion is March lst. The permit is projected to be issued on March 15th.
And what we would like to do now is I will start to call the names of the individuals to come
-1-

-c^
up and give their public comment period. One additional remark, I'd like to reiterate that
Toby had addressed: All of the public comments that are stated here tonight are entered into
the public record and in response to the summary, and each of these comments both verbally
here tonight and in our other public hearings, and also the written public comments that we
are receiving and will be receiving through March 1st will be considered in issuing the final
permit on March 15th. The first individual to make a public comment tonight is Phillip
Pleasant."
[Phillip Pleasant] "My name is Phil Pleasant and I live in Yakima, 701 South 7th
Avenue. As you know, Yakima County is right next to this county, and according to a
national survey, out of 100 counties surveyed for employment for minority people, Yakima
ranked 97th. Several years ago I had an opportunity to be a part of a movement to create a
Superfund to clean up the environment, and we lobbied in our community pretty heavy for
this to happen. And for this to come about, we were promised some opportunities and some
inclusions. As you can see, I am the only minority, particularly black people, here. Now
vvhat we're tailang- about is 30 bil'.ion -dollars over a per: d of 25 years. What we're talking
---- --- --about-folkc is money, We're talking about iobs for my sons, my grandsons, and I don't see
that as being an opportunity as it has came down the pipe so far. Now when the language
came out from Congress it said that I, as a minority, was to receive opportunity in the
business area in the training and all those areas were to be included in the Superfund
Cleanup. Now as we come down the pike, and I look at where I'm at in my community, we
don't have those national and international companies Battelle, Fluor, Westinghouse and all
-2-

of those coming to us, doing like they agreed with Congress that they would do. They said
that they would provide to us black folk and other minority groups training monies, monies
to our universities and college that was historically black, so we could be participating and
involved in this. As of yet, it hasn't happened. So I would request this state not to issue not
one permit for this project to go any further until the contractors who have gotten my trust
used my vote to get to this stage, fulfill their commitment, and make some effort to utilize
black universities and other minority institutions to involve us in this gigantic effort to clean
up our environment, so we also can have a future. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Also, this is no reflection on the comments that were just
made, but when you are getting up here and using the microphone we are requesting that you
either stand back from it or speak into it, because they're having some comments that some
of the, uh, use of the microphone tonight has been a little loud, so we want to address that.
The next individual to speak is Jim Rasmussen."
1.2 [Jim Rasmussen] "Good evening. My name is James Rasmussen, I am representing
the Department of Energy, and am here tonight to present its position on the Hanford
Dangerous Waste Permit. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak this evening. The
Department of Energy recognizes the need for the regulatory oversight of the treatment,
storage and disposal of dangerous wastes on the Hanford site. We also embrace the concept
of a site-wide dangerous waste permit. We believe the permit is essential to maintain public
confidence in the protection of health and the environment and the work we do at Hanford.
-3-

We will do all we can to work with Ecology to ensure that the terms of the permit are met.
The Department of Energy has several concerns about the permit. Because of the complexity
of the issues involved, we have asked Ecology for a 30 day extension to the public comment
period in order to adequately address these concerns. The Department of Energy will submit
comments in writing at the end of the public comment period. We hope Ecology will
consider our comments carefully before finalizing the permit. We support a site-wide permit
r,
that meets four criteria which we ask you to apply in extending the permit to the Hanford
( ,•-r
`..-„ site. First, the permit must establish a level of control that is appropriate for regulatory
.; oversight. Second, the permit must be consistent with other permits Ecology has issued.
C"Y)
Third, it must be consistent with the provisions and expectations of the Tri-Party Agreement.
And fourth, it must promote the efficient and cost effective management of the waste. We
believotttat-ifthepermit meets Ihese fourtests Yt-witl be a permit that will serve the site, and
more importantly, the public wealth. We believe that the draft permit in its present form is
an opening statement. In a dialogue between our agencies and other interested parties, the
permit poses a broad range of technical and practical issues. It will take effort on the part of
both agencies to resolve these issues in a manner which satisfies both the intent of the
regulations and the public. However, we believe that working together we can achieve a
permit which will serve to protect health and the environment and fulfill the expectations of
the citizens of the State of Washington. Again, thank you for allowing me to speak this
evening."
[Hearing Announcer] "Hank McGuire."
-4-

1• 3 [Hank McGuire] "Good evening. My name is Hank McGuire, I live at 142 Hillview
Drive in Richland, Washington. I have been a citizen of the Tri-Cities for 17 years. I am
currently the Director of the Westinghouse--I am currently the Director of Restoration and
Remediation with the Westinghouse Hanford Company. And I'd like just to make a few
brief comments concerning the permit. I will be in fact brief. I do appreciate the
opportunity to share some general comments with you on this, on this uh permit applica... of
this permit being issued. Westinghouse Hanford Company, like our Department of Energy
customers, recognizes the need for regulatory oversight of the treatment, storage, and
disposal of waste on the Hanford site. The public must have confidence in the cleanup
activities that are underway at Hanford and the site-wide permit is a key part of achieving
that goal. I want to make it clear from the start that Westinghouse Hanford Company will
cooperate with the Washington State Department of Ecology to the fullest in achieving a
permit which provides appropriate levels of regulatory oversight through its cost effective
management of Hanford's cleanup activities. However, we feel a successful permit should
meet the following criteria: Does the permit establish the appropriate level of regulatory
oversight? Does the permit meet the provisions and expectations of the Tri-Party
Agreement? Is efficient management of the waste promoted by this permit? Are the
provisions of the permit cost effective? Is there a consistency between the Hanford Facility
Dangerous Waste Permit and other dangerous waste permits issued by Ecology? And are the
permit conditions well founded in the regulations? We believe each provision of the permit
should be weighed against these considerations. This will ensure that the needs of the public
are met, while at the same time allowing the cleanup of the Hanford site to continue in a
-5-

swift, safe, and cost effective manner. Detailed written comments on the draft are being
prepared and will be submitted to the office of Ecology prior to the end of public comment.
Our comments will focus on how well we believe the draft permit measures up to the criteria
I talked about. We ask you to review our comments and give them your full consideration
and again, we thank you for allowing us to speak at this hearing."
[Hearing Announcer] "Dan Handelman."
1.4 [Dan Handelman] "Hi. My name is Dan Handelman, I am from Portland, Oregon.
My address there is 4635 North Congress Ave., and the zip's 97217. I also work with a
group called Flying Focus Video Collective. I do not represent them, however. I feel that
testimony like this is very important to not only people in the area around Hanford and up in
Seattle and in Spokane, but all the way up and down the Columbia River Gorge, and as a
person involved in media, I feel that there has not been enough advertising--I don't, although
this room is packed tonight I don't think that there has been enough advertising to the people
whose lives this is going to affect in its bioregion, and this is a consistent problem with all--
all the testimonies that have gone on about the site at Hanford. And it affects all of our lives
and the entire, everything from, from up in British Columbia all the way down to California,
I'm sure if there was some kind of accident with these nuclear wastes. So I really think that
some more money should be spent on advertising public hearings, and less money should be
diverted from the funds to producing more nuclear weapons, which is really what some of
the funds that are targeted for cleanup are being moved into producing new plutonium for
-6-

:-r,
175r^
nuclear weapons. And I think that if Complex 21 or any other production of nuclear •
weapons is going to be on at Hanford while. you're cleaning up, it's very similar to using a
toilet that's backed up or using a toilet when you know that your septic tank is already full,
and think it's time to stop doing any new production of any kind at Hanford. Uh, and just,
and the permit should include a phrase, for words to the effect that no new wastes should be
generated until the waste that's already there is dealt with. Thank you very much."
[Hearing Announcer] "Bill Bires."
1.5 [Bill Bires] "My name is Bill Bires and I live in Portland, Oregon, and I'm an
Oregonian who is rankled because of the short shrift that we seem to be getting from all of
the people involved in this permit process. We don't seem to be recognized as being a part
of it when we share the Columbia River and the river is certainly a key element in to be
considered in the cleanup process. I come in front of you with a unique set of experiences.
I was at a place called Cap Desert Rock, Nevada in 1951, during a series of atomic tests
called Buster Jangle. And I watched six nuclear detonations, and I've dealt with the Atomic
Energy Commission and with the Veterans Administration and with the Defense Nuclear
Agency and with the Department of the Army and with any number of federal agencies
charged with the responsibility of seeing that adequate records were kept and that the safety
of the public was a primary concern. I must say to you that that is not the case. In my
case, the records were destroyed in a mysterious fire at the Personnel Records Center in St.
Louis, Missouri in 1973, and the Department of Arm..., uh, the Veterans Administration
-7-

denied my--even my existence. The Reynolds Electric Company, which was in charge of
keeping the records at Desert Rock at that time can find no records. The dosimeter badges
that were collected from the soldiers that were used in the tests came up missing--nobody
k;^ows where the dosimeters were. And the dosimeters registered gamma radiation only, not
alpha or beta radiation. So, I really would like to urge you people to be extremely cautious
in your permitting process and in implementing and policing the permit, because I feel that
you people have spent 40, over 40 years out there, and there's waste out there by your
admission that you don't what it is, or where it is. And then you come to us, the same
_^.
-;,3;-- --- people-that created thiswasre, and say, '-Ivo..,, we're going to clean it up for you. We spent
billions and billions of dollars generating that mess out there, and we're going to spend
billions and billions of dollars cleaning it up.' And the same people that generated the mess
are going to be cleaning up the mess. And I find myself in one hell of a position because I
know that this mess has to be handled, it has to be cleaned up. I have six children and ten
grandchildren that live in Oregon, and they're all exposed or going to be exposed or run the
risk of being exposed, and I don't want that to happen. And I urge you to be cautious, and I
urge you not to be niggardly in your funding efforts--that the--I don't want to hear that when
you go back to Washington for money to clean this mess up that there isn't any money in the
budget available for this. Because this should be, in my opinion, the primary concern of our
government today. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Paige Knight."
-8-

1, 6 [Paige Knight] "My name is Paige Knight and I reside at 2285 Southeast Cypress,
Portland, Oregon. I was asked earlier this evening who am I and where am I from, and who
do I, uh, who do I represent? I represent a group, but I'm actually here for myself, I'm here
for my children, I'm here for my future grandchildren if I have any, I'm here for the
hundreds of students I've taught over the last few years who are scared to death of what's
going on in this world today, including, you know the types of illnesses that are generated by
nuclear waste and toxic wastes of all sorts. I represent Mother Earth, if you will, being sort
of esoteric but I love this planet, and I see this planet being destroyed, I see new plans being
made to maybe go to the moon if we destroy this, then we can at least live on another planet
and, you know, maybe destroy that and just keep moving on from planet to planet is maybe
the dream, I'm not sure. So I represent all of these concepts and all of these people, and I
represent myself because I really care. One of the things that I want to say loud and clear
and I've said this before, and I'll say it again, we need to start having hearings in Portland,
because we are directly affected by what's happening up here. I travelled up here with two
friends today just to come and do this, to say my peace, but I want a hearing in Portland. I
went to a Vancouver meeting that was supposed to be talking and planning for the Hanford
cleanup and we were not allowed to talk about this particular issue, that was for some other
time. I was mislead by some of the literature I found in the public, so I am here tonight to
say, Portland needs a hearing too. That's number one. I have a question that's sort of the
theme of what I want to say tonight. This question demands an answer, and I don't think
that I got a full answer in some of the questioning I did earlier. Can the public, really and
truly, stop the issuance process--the permit process? I have my doubts, but I'm going to
-9-

c..,
Inc,
,,.^..
wait for an answer to that question, maybe I'll get it at the end of this hearing. You state
very clearly in your public comment announcement that the first dangerous waste permit is
scheduled to be issued to the USDOE, Westinghouse, and Battelle Laboratory on
March 15th. We have been given 45 days to comment on this permit, yet you state in your
brochures that your review process for cleaning up hazardous and radioactive waste takes
ft ^F3 of tnveSt b2tiL'Fs and an?^y-si^ b^fi?r^^ ^it ;s-E?fel 1y zh}i! ^^ufl ^r- ... 3pp.r^vv°..^'!. f:,r
operation. You're giving the public 45 days to address, and I quote from your own
literature, 'issues, actions and decisions before any permit is issued or any major
r`modification is made to an existing permit.' This appears to be to be a sham, a hoax. You
47`
say to us that you want to work with us, the public, and yet I wonder if you have any
intention of listening to us when you have scheduled your responsive summary to public
comment from March l6th--the day after the permit is supposed to be issued. That doesn't
make any sense to me. And I'm quoting this out of literature that I've received from you.
Okay, I ask you again, can the public stop the issuance of this permit? I have many
questions left unanswered by your fact sheets and booklets that I have tried to study to the
best of my ability. 'What exactly are the strict federal and state requirements that USDOE,
Westinghouse and Battelle have to abide by if issued this permit? Who defines the strict
requirements? Who defines the allowable levels that will in all likelihood be released in the
waste disposal process? What are the standards, how are they determined? Who monitors
and enforces the different phases of waste regulation?' I note here, and I said it earlier
tonight--that Westinghouse seems to warrant strict frequent monitoring when we remember or
take note of the fact that there are 12 lawsuits pending courts across the country right now
-io-

ecause Westinghouse put out defective nuclear generators or reactors? And you assure me,
in your Hanford Cleanup Plan booklet many times, that public safety is a primary concern.
Who will pay penalties for non-compliance? Right now I think that the people in the country
are paying penalties for non-compliance and lack of really true regulation when you take a
look at what's happening down in Los Alamos, when you take a look at what's happening in
Savannah River, Georgia, when you listen to what's happening to people in the Trinity area
down near Texas and New Mexico. I also note that in your fact sheets you never mention
E7-"
C";
'^tl findings, only what you're doing or plan to do. As I went through the fact sheets again
r,-.
:_-• today, there was no mention of the different levels of what you'd found-just that you had
found some things and this is what you planned to do. I haven't heard the facts of what it is-
-what levels you've found. And in the reading that I've done in past issues like this, the
facts are always underplayed. And everybody can have a certain quota of radiation that's all
safe--who determined how safe that is? In my book radiation is not a safe thing when it
comes to nuclear radiation. If you are allowing 280 million gallons of untreated charges to
flow into Crib U-17, uranium oxide, not a benevolent substance, and 84 million gallons of
untreated waste from the plutonium finishing plant to flow straight into Crib Z-20, in this
year 1992, how can we the public trust you to have our safety at heart in this permit
process? I have no reason to believe or trust you when in the past and possibly now in the
present you have let loose incredibly dangerous levels of radiation and tests that are a test
and an experiment on the earth, on animals, on our atmosphere, and those things are
documented and on us. You have a 40 year history so far of negligence and secrecy. Now I
would like to really believe that the tone has changed with all of these governmental
-11-

agencies. I would really like to know that there is some hope--that things are going to be
done differently now. But I'm not going to be an instant believer--there's too much at stake.
It seems that you have ignored the effects of radiation and pollution and all of the things that
.
are haY } ^} ^„pnino yn here on the. downwind people, the downnver people--who is ultimately
Y b Y
..^.^ .,.. ..._ -.,..
responsible for the damage to the people? Any time anybody has tried to sue for damages
because of health effects that some doctors can relate directly to radiation, the people have
had a very hard time and very few people win any of those suits. I am opposed also to
taking wastes somewhere else. We have had too many accidents on the river, we've had
accidents in the ocean, we've had accidents in the highways, of transportation of nuclear
waste. And that is a real threat to us as well. And I sort of believe that if we made it here,
we've got to keep it here. Why spread the wealth of nuclear or radioactivity all over the rest
-of the-countr•y-? You-lmow it's almost as-if there were a plar, to mutate people , because
that's eventually what's going to happen. And I say that with some humor, I'm not totally
paranoid, but I'm real distrustful. One last comment--I heard talk tonight about cost
efficiency. What I'm real concerned about is health efficiency. I am concerned about the
health of the planet, I am concerned about my health, I am concerned about your health. I
think that we really need to take these things into consideration and look, as Bill said, very
cautiously at the whole permitting process. And somehow your image has to come under
scrutiny and you have to have a congruent image to go with those words, and we need more
facts out there. You're not giving us two facts in the little fact sheets that you handed out to
make us feel like we're all part of this public process. So might I go back to my original
question: Could we, as people, really stop this permit process, when you've already
-12-

projected that you're going to have this permit in effect on March 15th? And we get our
comments on March 16th? It's like give me a break! And that's what I have to say. Thank
you."
process."
[Hearing Announcer.] "Thank you. That concludes the formal public hearing
pubhevl.duc ^ . . .. .. ..
-13-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

2.0
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 19, 1992
HANFORD FACILITY-WIDE DRAFT PERMIT
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
[Hearing Announcer] "Let the record show that it is approximately 7:45 p.m.,
Wednesday, February 19th, and we are in Spokane at Cavanaugh's at the Park public hearing
on the proposed Hanford site-wide hazardous waste permit. As I said earlier, we ask you to
fill out cards and those of you who checked the cards, we will call your names first. When
we have, when I've gone through those and we have three of them, then anyone else who
wants to comment, I'll ask you to come up here and identify yourself and make your
comments. In fact, all of you I would like to come up here so we can be sure and record
you, I want to make sure that you have an opportunity to say what you want to say and that
you have a, that we are able to record you. It doesn't look like we're going to have a great
many people testifying tonight, but if you would, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk on,
forever, summarize your comments, in order to allow others who might want to testify to be
able to do so. So, with that I'd like to begin. The first one to sign up was Bill Nettleton.
The other thing I wanted to say was that--feel free as you are testifying to ask questions, but
during this formal comment time we won't be able to answer those questions, but we do
-1-

appreciate questions because then they become a part of the record and we will be answering
them as part of the responsiveness summary."
-- 2 . 1 -- [Bill Nettleton]--"I-am Bill Nettleton and I have a mentally retarded daughter, Nancy.
^- :
Nancy has an older brother, two years older than she is now, and he is now a practicing
physician in Minneapolis. We had Nancy home, we knew she was mentally retarded at
birth. We kept Nancy home 13 years, and at the end of 13 years she went in and out of
seizures for 18 hours straight one weekend. And I started back checking about that time,
and I found out that we had a physician doctor come in from the University of Washington
and check Nancy out, and he said it wasn't hereditary. But he said it was due to heat, light,
.
I 'll
7.i7, and aIu
".
a
+cn
7,
electricity;
or r'dtation. S8 I-stasted back ehecking, and she was bvrn
Hanford down there blew a tremendous amount of radioactive iodine into the air. And since
that time, well before that time and since that time I've found out that we in Spokane here
are in a line of winds and storms and streams and that, that travel above Spokane up into
British Columbia, and right now I wouldn't be surprised but what Chernobyl isn't putting
some back down on us in a return address. But we decided that she needed to be
institutionalized and so now she is a permanent resident at Lakeland Village. Now at this
time, when they first started Lakeland Village for the mentally retarded, there were 1400
residents out there, and now they have that down to 233. They put all the rest of them out
in society. Now my question is, I know Nancy is retarded, she has that problem, but my
question is, how can we avoid having other small people, or children, or even adults with
-2-

this case? And so that's why I am so excited and so disturbed about the Hanford deal down
there. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Thank you. Next is Lynne Stembridge."
2.2 [Lynne Stembridge] "Thanks Jerry. For the record, my name is Lynne Stembridge,
and I'm the Executive Director of the Hanford Education Action League, which is a citizens'
watchdog organization that's located here in Spokane. Most of my comments are not terribly
technical. But I have several very sharp criticisms to make about the public comment
process that has been developed around this site-wide permit. I had a call Saturday morning
at home from a HEAL member who is a physician here in Spokane, who had gone to the
Crosby Library at Gonzaga with the specific purpose of reviewing this permit to draft
comments to deliver here tonight. He spent three hours with the library staff and they
couldn't locate the document. Now I know for a fact that the document is there because we
had a staff person who has spent days there reviewing this. But somewhere between the time
that Todd Martin was there and Saturday morning, whoever was in charge at Gonzaga
couldn't lay their hands on this when a member of the public came in to fmd it. Now, it's
simply ridiculous for you and expect cogent comments from the public if the documents are
not available in the information repositories. Certainly the ideal is to have them in public
libraries, far and away. But if in fact the information repository is going to remain at
Gonzaga, then I would suggest that it go on the agenda that every time all of you are here in
Spokane, that somebody goes to Gonzaga and requests a document and find out how
-3-

«a
E:7-,
unorganized they are over there. It's very very low on their priority list. And I just don't
see any way that this process is going to be meaningful for the public or for you unless there
is some way to address this current state of confusion that exists at that library. My other
comment, and this is one that I've shared with Toby before is that a 45 day comment period
on a document that's four feet thick and this technical is just beyond the pail. It needs to be
at least 60 days. Ideally would be 90, but I understand that there are all kinds of other time
restraints as well and I would really urge that it become 60 days for comment period. The
other thing that I'd like to urge is that, that you come and do these workshops first. Maybe
`°`'' have Ecology staff located here in Spokane present this information with one staff person.
^^-
And then come back with your whole crowd to take comments. Because it puts people right
up against the wall, and it's very intimidating to walk in, pick up a stack of paper, and try to
stand up at a microphone and make comments that are meaningful and that the public feels
good about saying. So I'd really urge you to rethink this whole process. I mean if we've
got seven years to work through this on permits, there's certainly a lot of time and room to
revamp the format. But the way this is, clearly just, it isn't going to be satisfactory at all. I
mean, give you fair warning on that. We also have some real questions about whether or not
the state is ready for the task this permit presents. If your funding is adequate, if your
staffing is adequate, if there is the political will within state government and the Department
of Ecology to enforce the provisions of this permit. Because however tight the regulations
are, if they're not enforced they're worthless, and certainly there is an article in the Tri-City
I€erald-from Iast-Eriday-about problems at the ta:^k iarms. The Department of Energy
spokesman, I mean went to Secretary of Energy's Daily Operations Briefing said they are
-4-

expecting regulatory enforcement for these violations. But, the DOE senior rep at the.tank
farm said that State Department of Ecology seemed to be pretty pleased, and they're not
threatening us with enforcement action. This is very troubling that the Department of
Energy knows they've been caught out, they know they ought to be in regulatory
enforcement, and yet the Department of Ecology gives every appearance that they're pulling
their punches and hedging their bets and they're not being tough with the Department of
Energy. And I would really urge you to keep in mind that actions speak much louder than
words, and if you're going to retain the confidence and the support of the citizens of
Washington, you're going to have to--it's time for the rubber to meet the road, and it's time
to play hardball with these folks and make them comply. And if that means fine them, and
if that means make them mad, then by God it's time! Long past time. There are some--we
had some general concerns about the language within the permit--it uses terms like 'risk' and
'periodic assessments' and they're not defined what constitutes risk, what constitutes a
periodic assessment. Questions about adequate laboratory and process controls including
appropriate quality assurance procedures. Given what we know about the state of their
laboratory analysis program right now, we would recommend that the language in that
particular section be stronger. And lastly, the fact that this permit takes precedence over this
Tri-Party Agreement is the good news and the bad news. I understand that it's good news in
terms of enforceability. But it could be very bad news in terms of the public because, in all
these reams of paper that are going to be generated, it's entirely possible that there will be
something within that permit paperwork that does not convey the intent of the Tri-Party
Agreement. And the Tri-Party Agreement for all its faults is at least somewhat accessible to
-5-

'..J
^..f
the general public. I don't perceive this permit process as being anywhere near as public-
friendly. And we have a concern about just the energy it's going to take to watch and make
sure that somebody somewhere doesn't miss either intentionally or inadvertently something
that ends up being very different from the Tri-Party Agreement. And I think with that I'll
close. You'll get our usual technical document, but that's the gist of it."
[Hearing Announcer] "Next is Stephen Kosnac."
A} 2.3 [Stephen Kosnac] "I've had my say, thank you. No--I think they've heard me, and
0, ^
let them look into my records."
[Hearing Announcer] "Okay. That concludes the list of people who signed up to
testify. I would like to now to open up for anyone else who wishes to provide comments.
And again, I ask you to come up here and identify yourself please."
2.4 [Leon Sproule] "My name is Leon Sproule. I didn't come prepared to really
comment all about the permit and I think a lot of it has been kind of addressed, but the heel.
A member of public is really overwhelmed in trying to keep track of all of the various
aspects; all of the various permits and discussions and the, just learning all of the definitions
about what's there--it's a full time job. I have a full time job. I would devote full time to
this if I had it, but . don't.- I'-ve got-to-feed-my-kids-too. And I rPwlly st.^uggle on how, and
I think these people do too, on how the citizens can feel like they're getting a good deal.
-6-

And not just a good deal in that yes, this stuff that's been plaguing us for forty-some odd
years, 50 years, whatever, basically which was a government, either the AC or the
Department of Energy, or whatever particular umbrella--basically run wild. I've tried to
keep up with some of the Department of Energy hearings as well, and I, I really get
overwhelmed in trying to get through all of them. But basically, my feeling is, this whole
business of the nuclear weapons program was sold to the American people as a means of
providing a degree of protection. There are those of us that didn't necessarily agree that we
needed that degree of protection--but in essence what has been the result is that our own
government has done us a great disservice. Maybe it wasn't intentional, and maybe the
scientists really were as stupid as it appears at times to just--'Well, let's just let it go and see
if anybody notices'--I mean this is the kind of stuff that we continually understand is taking
place at Hanford. You know, I've kind of gone to a couple of the Department of Ecology's-
-Washington Department of Ecology's hearings, and I basically have a pretty good feeling
that the people that are involved are good people. I mean we're all just people. And I don't
really want to criticize any of your efforts. The fact is I'd like to see them move right
along. I'd like to know that this process was reaching some point of conclusion. I don't like
the dates of 2018, I'd like to see it as miraculously vanishing from the planet about 1992.
But it's not going to happen that way. It's not going to be a miracle, it's going to be a
struggle. And I'll participate and I'll work with you as best I can in this struggle. But I
really don't know how people can keep up--keep their hand involved and provide the kind of
feedback that a lot of people feel is necessary. When I talked to the Department of Energy,
I kind of stressed that I didn't trust them. I don't really have that same feeling about my
-7-

own state government. I really don't trust the Department of Energy at all as far as ever
coming f'orward and Tealiy addressing all of the things that are there. This particular permit
process the views explain, really deals with 62 of the sites which they have agreed to let you
deal with. No arguing about it--however well you deal with those 62 sites, there is one heck
of a lot of stuff there that you don't even get have any say because that comes under the
CERCLA law or whatever else, or it's a defense production mechanism that hasn't been
declared as being a waste site yet, or whatever else of the rules and regulations are, you
don't get to say one word about what goes on there. It's still the Department of Energy
running rampant over the people of Washington. Now, I don't know how the Department of
Ecology can improve that situation, I don't know how the Department of Ecology can
effectively enforce decisions on the superpower of the federal government. I do not
anticipate that the State of Washington will secede from the Union and will throw out the
feds _I_don'I anticipatethat_happening, There are times though, that I really think it'd be
necessary to throw out all of the people that had anything to do with what went on there at
Hanford. Now, the Department of Energy people, the Westinghouse, the Battelles, the GEs-
-I don't know, there's probably a list of defense contractors who had their fingers in the pie
since 1942 or whenever it started that's a long, long list. And a lot of those people did know
what they were contributing to--they did know that they were pumping radioactive waste into
the groundwater, having no idea where it went. They did know that they were just pumping
stuff out into the ground and letting it blow in the wind. They did know this--and these
contractors are still there today, still having their hand out, still putting their hand in my
pocket--taking my dollar whether it comes from me in the U.S. federal tax, or whether it
-8-

comes from state taxes, or whether it just comes from the increased cost of me doing .
business and living in this state. These people still have their hands in my pocket, and I
don't know how the people of this state can deal with or even get a handle on getting ahold
of some of this. If it was a small Superfund site, like our Colbert Landfill here north of
town, the government put considerable effort in dragging in Keytronics and various other
people that contributed into that waste process extracting funds from them. How many of
the stockholders of GE and Westinghouse and whatever, have had their life savings to go
back and pay for what the damage that they did to the State of Washington and the people of
the State of Washington? None. I never anticipate that the stockholders of these defense
contractors will ever see any impact. They're going to be right there, participating with the
Department of Energy, the Department of Ecology, cleaning up the same problems that they
created. And I don't have a good feeling about it. So, I guess that's about all I got to say
that's relevant. Other than, like I said, I would--I want to see this process go, and I will
help if I can. As a member of the public, see it gets on its way to conclusion, because it
needs to conclude. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Anyone else who would like to testify?"
2.5 [Walter Bentley] "My name is Walter Bentley. I've been around since '44 in the
area, though I have been gone for a few years. The concerns I have are actually several
about this permit. What did it cost to write all of this documentation? How many dollars?
How much has been cleaned up as a result of this to date, for those dollars? The question
-9-

..,^
c-:..
Cr'
that's really asked is cleanup--it's a misnomer. Hanford has a lot of radioactive material. It
is the radioactive dump of the world. It will continue to be dumped on, by the federal, be it
nuclear reactors from submarines. So we're going to clean up. My personal opinion is, in
five years, by whatever measure you'd like to say--roentgen, curies, rads, rems--that number
will be 20 percent higher in five years than it is right now, even if we knew the number,
which we don't. In regard to this permit, it's a lawyer's dream. It is vague, and you can
interpret any way you like, and they're all correct. It's a bit of--how would you call it?--
fuzzy, I'm not sure--fuzzy writing, maybe that's the best term that I can say. And fuzzy
writing has its useful purposes. You get agreement fast. Nobody's quite sure what they
agreed to, when it comes down the road five to ten years from now, or when there is a
dispute. And it certainly will have lots of lawyers making a few bucks out of this, if it ever
should even get into court, which I suppose there will be efforts at that. And then they'll say
'what did we mean?' There's a total lack of numbers. One of the things that I was asked
earlier about to include in this, and I should do it now--the permit for the waste vitrification.
Is t ' .ee^e r
include
fh:nL ...... , and .,. f6. ,... is .
It should ;stipu.at,c^n that would only treat Hanford wa. . a.
a
personal opinion, you can disagree, that Hanford should not be the dumping grounds for the
world's radioactive material. Although I suspect it will be. Every nuclear facility in the
U. S. ; and there's lots of them, has a-little pool out -beside -their facility. And what do they
store in this pool of water? Nuclear fuel rods, spent fuel rods that are no longer of any
value. Where are they going to put them? Well, the Nevada Governor says not Yucca
Flats. WIPP is a salt mine. Ideal, except for one thing. If you've read the news lately,
they discovered water down there. What does water and salt do? Mixes in a good fine job
-10-

of corrosion. So these nice neat containers that they are designing, well, maybe in a couple
hundred years will probably corrode through. And they will distribute the nuclide material
to some degree. How much, I don't know. One of the other things about this agreement--
hopefully I'm not going on too long--I should go on probably for a while--that's really
missing out of it, is recordkeeping. What about recordkeeping? They haven't had any
recordkeeping out there that's useful in the last 20 years--30 years--since 1944. At least that
I'm aware of. And there seems to be a lot of it missing. Who knows. What is this
agreement doing to create recordkeeping? I have some suggestions. And certainly, you may
don't have to take them seriously. This agreement, and we'll start with that one. Every
document coming out of there should be on a word processor, and available in diskette form
that can be run on anybody's home computer. This allows you to "search for key words."
And eventually you can put all these diskettes together, and that pile of books in probably
half this room will probably fit on a nice little round disk, they'll go for a hundred bucks a
copy, that make available to the libraries. Then you could search through wads of it. If
your to, aim is to figure out this. Also with this permit, there is no cross-referencing. I
mean, now where do you go to find this law, in what document and where? Also very
poorly written in this, is or I've noticed there are changes. Why weren't the changes just
incorporated? This is a simple task in word processing. Don't say line 15 of such was
changed to read "systems or systems valuation." They are poorly organized, in my opinion.
No table of contents, no summary. No, the contents are there, but they seem to be, you
know, here's a fragment here and a fragment there and they don't follow any logical sense at
times, at least in my quick perusal. And I haven't had, only with a half hour to look at these
-11-

things. Also, this pile of documentation. Lots of drawings and details how to put up a light
____ standard_L mPan, what value is this? But more importantly is, all these documents, you're
giving a permit. Let's give a cost summary. That's required for the--I believe in your
document, in the example, for this vitrification plant. It's, I haven't seen the summary. On
top of that, you should be asking that all documents, and I don't know if it's in the permit,
because I haven't got time to try and figure out in all the segments. Every time they make a
change in all the details will you be getting a copy of it? Or in 10 years from now will these
copies suddenly begin disappearing, if they ever existed? We don't know where are the
radioactive dumps is, because the records seem to be disappearing and nobody made copies.
So anyway, this is an area documentation should be getting records. In terms of Hanford as
a ^__ .:__ __
a'mp I m ctppose., to bu'rlding a vitr•^„1w«oII p,14,1L or issuing a permit now. They can't
design it, and I'm going to tell you in a personal opinion--the Department of Energy has
never built anything that cost over a couple million bucks on time or within budget. Most of
them will be five, twice the time it takes and most of them are twice the budget, sometimes
five times. If they tell you five billion, they're really telling you ten billion and it will be
three years late. And part of it is, is they aren't managing, 'cause they don't even have
records. And are you managing? In private industry, if you look at most industries, if they
don't have adequate records, how do they manage? Do you call them poor managers if they
have no adequate records to make decisions? I can only ask the question about the state. Do
you have adequate records to make management decisions? If I'm going on too long, please
shut me up. One of the things that I would like to see at the next meeting. I want you to
bring a computer terminal. I want you to have dial in on that phone and tell me what the
-12-

adioactive count is off-site and on-site at 10 different locations. You want to know why.
The safety is for the people on-site. But who cares about the people off-site? Within the
next five years, or ten years. I'd say within five years, there is going to be more radioactive
releases. And I don't want to depend on the University of British Columbia to tell me,
'Yep, there's been some radioactive releases off-site.' And you're going to say, 'But the
DOE didn't tell us.' What's it gonna cost? A few small computers with plug-ins at probably
ten grand apiece and that's buying the high-priced versions that can operate real time
unattended. Maybe $100,000 for 10 or 15 of them. And who's going to be notified? So it
should be in the hands of not DOE, for monitoring. So you'll find out there's lots of other
releases going on. But you should be having the records to yourself or maybe could be
operated be operated by a public group separate. Because when the next release comes
through, I'm not so sure you can suppress it. Now they may use the power of secrecy. The
DOE and I suspect they will--'Oh, nothing's coming off this site.' And you prove that there
is stuff coming off of it. Off of their records, or off of your records? And that's the price
of maybe a couple of your high powered engineers for one-year's worth of work. So, what
about the public? There are going to be more radioactive releases. There wasn't available
back in the 1959, and I was around just right on hill, less than 10 miles Silo mountain, less
than 10 miles from where those releases occurred. Probably 10 or 15. I suffered from a
thyroid. But where are, but nobody knew because nobody had any monitoring separate than
the DOE. So that's perhaps a bit there you may not want to, but that's what I would expect
to show you have some technical confidence and some separate skill measurement. Rather
than 90 days from now, 'oh yeah, we discovered in our sample we sent to the lab there was
-13-

some radioactive release.' Questions in terms of storage. You've got all this high
radioactve-tnater'sa'-out- th°-rP-=^^e-1!^-bovegrousd Derfect. You say perfect? I'm not so
sure. Most of you people haven't heard about terrorists in this world. How hard is it to
'wob,' deliver some sort of an explosive that will scatter a lot of that radioactive material
into the air? I mean nice terrorists threatening weapon. I mean how well protected are
they? And a fence around it doesn't do the job if somebody is halfway determined. And
I'm not going to tell you how, because you can go down and ask a couple drunks and you
probably do a better job than I could. And it that was the intent. I don't like seeing it
stored above ground, you're asking for somebody to distribute some of that in the air. Who
benefits out of this agreement? Right at the moment is I see a lot of people pushing
paperwork. It's a giant expensive welfare program. We're spending 1.5 billion at the thing,
15,000 people. That works out to somewhere around $70,000 per employee, but they're not
getting all of that. I realize. But you've got some nice, high paid $30,000 a year help. So
it's an expense welfare program. It's not doing any good. I would like to see also, maybe
the Department of Ecology should be directing, that the emphasis at Hanford be directed
more towards environmental expertise as Battelle has suggested. And also use of alternate
energy, soiar energy. it may come as a surprise or maybe not as a surprise, but the total
budget for alternate energy is .25 billion dollars, for solar and whatnot, and has been for the
last five years. Actually that we used less than that for the last 10 years. So if there is one
of a pork barrel project, it should be spent on that area, and not so much on cleaning it up
and creating a mass bureaucracy. And my concern is that maybe the state's becoming a part
of that bureaucracy. But this is my opinion. And hopefully someday you'll put numbers in
-14-

^--_
Cr
these reports with penalties spelled out in dollars. The other alternative in cleanup is I'm
suggesting that the next nuclear project be it the nuclear flux or the superbreed or reactor and
whatnot--we should encourage it, since it's safe to be built in Washington D.C., and we
should be shipping our radioactive waste so they can process it there. It's safe. I want you
to hear that. I want some witnesses you, Department of Ecology, could come and hear these
people say it's safe and use that same technology. Say, why can't we ship it, and they can
process it there and dispose of it there? But it most of it's going to be disposed all over the
countryside here one of these days anyway, and I suspect, and they'll say 'who, me?' Small
-point-; no;-I-won't do that-one,--Yeal:-,- serve a-lunch here, the staLe's got the money. It's
spending more on this for 100 bucks and making such a big deal out of it. We can invite
some of the homeless, instead of the $30,000 a year welfare programs. I'll run that's what
this really is. You're going to say we'll lose jobs--we don't need those jobs, and if they're
an expert they can be developing this alternate energy. For those of you who don't know it,
why hasn't there been a nuclear power plant built in the last 15 years? Plain old economics.
They've spent 40 billion dollars on nuclear research over the last 10 years. You know what
it's accomplished? Nuclear electricity costs about 12 cents a kilowatt hour. They've spent
maybe a day in, in the last 10 years on wind, solar, whatever you have versions of it, and
you know what they've accomplished? It's cheaper to produce by wind, and almost solar
photovo takes, certainly some of the other methods, than it does with nuclear power. Right
now it's cheaper to save power than it is to build a new plant, but that's another material. If
they spent 20 billion dollars on these other methods--and it could be done at Hanford--there's
670 square miles there. Now they have accomplished with as low budget efficiencies of
-15-

probably better than 20 to 30 percent of the system. But 670 square miles will produce the
same amount of power as 200 nuclear power plants, and that's only with 10 percent
efficiency. And they have achieved in the research 20 and 30 percent. We don't need
control of nuclear power--that's why it's if you talk to Ralph Nader of that nature in there.
So we shouldn't be permitting any new nuclear projects. Even PG&E and Southern Edison
aren't buying any nuclear projects. They knew the technology is here, and even with the
squandering of a certain amount of money, it'll be cheaper if we use other methods. They're
less dangerous to the environment--if we care about the environment. They don't care, they
care about, and a lot of this is about pocketbooks. Not mine! That's why I'm asking for the
^r'; lunch. I think I've talked too much probably as it is. So I will yield the floor to probably
people that have differing opinions, and yes I believe there is hope out there. Yes, there has
to be a change in emphasis. And that's really, I'm not totally negative about it, but I am
positive that they can happen and you, Department of Ecology, through your permitting,
redirect the efforts of Hanford. And one of it is, is don't build a vitrification plant until all
the plans--and also I would like to see with that all the plans are available for public
inspection at least for three months before building anything. The other question that will be
brought up is Department of Energy--nowhere in the plans and whatnot does conservation of
energy show up. Where is the energy conservation? Does anybody care? Twelve years ago
they did. That's when we only had 20 percent oil and 30 percent of our oil was imported.
Now we don't have an oil shortage, so we import 50 percent. We're making progress, but I
won't get into some of the--that gets into political areas and outside of this. I can makes lots
of comments on where are we really headed. But right now it is with these permits is, let's
-16-

get the recordkeeping. Let's redirect the emphasis at Hanford, not into more nuclear, but
into things that are practical and will help get this economy going. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Who would like to be next?"
2.6 [Marlene Gayle] "I'm Marlene Gayle. I don't live in the State of Washington, I live
less than three miles over the border in the State of Idaho. And, I'm as much a downwinder
as those of you who live in this state. I'm really troubled by what I hear, and what I hear is
a lack of faith in our government. We have departments of health and welfare, departments
of environmental quality, to test the water, to test the air. Where is this testing going? It
certainly isn't protecting us. We have a tiny medical waste burner at Kootenai Medical
Center in Couer d'Alene, and when they burn, the children in the daycare center are not
allowed out on the playground because of the fallout from the stack. Now this is a tiny
medical waste burner. This isn't even nuclear waste. I think our government is not
protecting us, it's not doing anything. It's spending a hell of a lot of our tax dollars. And I
understand there are plans to build a medical waste burner less than three miles across your
border in Idaho. We've been fighting it for a couple of weeks now. Why is the Pacific
Inland Northwest being made a dumping ground for the United States that they want to ship
medical waste from the East Coast to bum? Right on the outskirts of Spokane? I guess
we've got to find someplace else to move. Maybe we should move up to the Yukon or
British Columbia or Alaska. I don't even know if that's safe. If Hanford downwind is
getting up to British Columbia, where do we go? We don't need war in this country, we're
-17-

doing a good job of destroying ourselves. And our government is doing a good job of it and
they're not letting the people know about it. We don't find out until years later that there
has been a puff of, green puff or whatever you want to call it, into the air. And our kids are
-Aying-ofs.ancer,-and where does that leave the world for_ mylcids andmy grandkids? In a
pretty sad state. That's all I have to say."
[Hearing Announcer] "Who would like to be next? Is there anyone who would like
c^.
C,Tp
rT`i
^.Y )
to provide comments?" [Mumbling] "Okay, come on up."
2.7 [Virginia Newell] "I am Virginia Newell and I'm really overwhelmed by all the
__ -- things that people have said, and I'm overwhelmed by the lack of preparation I had. All my
college training didn't prepare me for any of the things, although I've had two years of
college chemistry, lots of science, and I read as much as I can. And yet, when on Sunday
I'm notified that there's going to be a hearing on Wednesday, and then the material is in a
private library, how can I possibly do much than just come and listen and be shocked by
what I'm hearing you have planned for us. I was thinking just the expense of renting this,
this place, I wish that could be included. Rather I wish it could be excluded. Because we
have really fine college auditoriums that I'm sure, in Spokane public ones, that you could
use: I'rr 3ur€ -Uhere's got to be a better way than to wait until it's so far along. What
disturbed me in the ad in the paper it said, if I understood correctly, that the permit would be
issued . . .
-18-

[Member of Audience] "March 15."
[Virginia Newell] "Now why do you ask us at this late time and not prepare us? It
doesn't seem like you really, any of you, fulfilling the thing that you're supposed to do.
Please couldn't you improve your ways so that the public really felt like you wanted our
comments? You'll have to help us to inform us as you go along, you'll have to gain our
trust again. Because right now I don't see how, as the one man said, as much as he wants to
help to see this mess cleaned up, and that he was willing--and I'm willing too. And I think
everyone here wants to work together to help you clean it up, but please be more open with
us. Thank you."
[Hearing Announcer] "Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment? If not, I want to
thank everyone who came tonight, who asked the question ..."
M.be"uz.da
-19-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

3.0
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 20, 1992
HANFORD FACILITY-WIDE DRAFT PERMIT
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
[Hearing Announcer] "I'd like to state for the record now that this is the
Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hearing on the Hanford Federal Facility site-wide trap permit. It is Thursday, February
20, 1992, and we're at the Stouffer Madison Hotel in Seattle, Washington. As tonight's
hearing officer, I'm Mary Getchell with the Washington State Department of Ecology.
I'd like to reiterate one more time the rules for the public hearing. Only three rules that
exist for the public hearing this evening, one is please come up and state your name,
your address, and if you do represent a particular organization, we would appreciate your
stating that also. Your name will be called in the order that we've received your card.
We have approximately 17 cards and that takes me into rule number two and that is we
are requesting that each individual keeps their comments to a maximum of ten minutes
and after we go through the 17 individuals, if you have more comments, that opportunity
exists for your to come up again and spend as long as you would like, we'll stay here
until your comments are entered into the record of decision. All of the comments
received here tonight will be put into the responsiveness summary in issuing a final
1

pe^ ^reY:^ICt1l3-I --- '- -iv[I - ^ ' be^nsidered irvisst;ing the frnai permit. First individuai
- .^- ---- __---- - itnt-aFivai[ -
,^-
,
OC-1
,::1 ;
is Michael Cardwell."
3.1 [Michael Cardwell] "Good evening. My name is Michael Cardwell, I live at
1420 17th Street SE, Auburn, Washington, on the Muckleshoot Reservation and I am
here representing Native Americans. My concerns of this process is I'm unsure whether
RCRA has the final, if the cleanup of Hanford should be directed by RCRA as RCRA
is designed for hazardous waste generators, and what we're looking at here is a unique
situation of looking at past practices made by Department of Defense, primarily under
the ManhattattProiect and-aasuch-and I see a lot of limitations in the RCn". enablization
stating that you are financially liable for 30 years after closure, etc., etc., etc., and you
are also allowed to continue operation if you submit a I believe it's a Schedule A under
RCRA and then promise to submit a B schedule which is what is on the back of the table
there. My concerns primarily are is this a manageable situation. Or is this an attempt
to appease an angry public by setting up a organization with the explicit reason to fail.
My thoughts here is we've got some very talented individuals over at the Department of
Ecology who have really worked wonders trying putting this process together but I'm
unsure if their going to be around at the Department of Ecology to watch the
implementation of it throughout. Who knows, they may end up being hired away from
Department of Ecology the private sector, they may be hired by a whatever, my thoughts
are a better organization to manage the cleanup of Hanford would be the Yakima Nation
since the Hanford site is in the usual and accustomed places of the Yakima Nation and
-2-

ci^
Lr
Hanford has several holy sites for these Native Americans. These Native Americans
have been documented to have been in the area for at least 16,000 years and I've got it
on good authority that they plan on being there for at least 16,000 more. My thoughts
on this are that the Department the Federal Department of Environmental Protection
would be better suited to bring in the Yakima Indian Nation to be a part of this process
for you we know that they will be there and they will monitor this project religiously and
as a sovereign nation they can certainly they are outside the boundaries of the RCRA
limitations where one federal entity or one state entity can't sue another state entity for
liabilities and damages. I mean we've had this discussion earlier about bills and
committees and the like and my fear is that we're going to end up with an unmanageable
process and a project that will overwhelm the Washington State Department of Ecology
to a point where they may be forced to shift full-time equivalent positions away from
transportation or non-point source pollution programs in order to manage this monster
in the desert so my fear is two-fold. Number one, the state of Washington's Department
of Ecology who still have yet to attain final authorization for all of RCRA was chosen
to manage this project, and two, I'm not really sure that RCRA is the right legislation
to mandate this federal cleanup and three, who is the deep pockets here to pay for this
cleanup. We were told that it is perhaps the Department of Energy and the contractors,
well I submit to you that the mission of Hanford changes with the economic conditions
of the nation, will Hanford become the high level federal waste repository? Well, we
already know that it's accepting Department of Defense waste, i.e., used reactors from
submarines. Will it accept fuel rods through PUREX? We don't know. So those are
-3-

my concerns. I, as a Native person, I personally and my people collectively, have heard
a lot of noble words from well-meaning people and we've signed a lot of agreements in
the past. What we have here before us is a contract for not only that covers not only the
past,but thefuture. I see RCRA as a 30-year limitationon financial_responsibility over
closure. Well we all can agree that most of the waste that are trying to be cleaned up
here have been closed for some time so when does this quote closure begin and who is
responsible? And then we have heard that the Department of Ecology has had difficulty
fining those perpetrators so I would suggest that we go back to the Tri-Party Agreement
level and bring in the Yakima Nation. I suggest that the Department of Energy as well
as the Environmental Protection Agency train the Yakima Nation to bring them on board
for they have a sacred trust down in the Central Basin. They will be there once these
fine individuals have moved on and they will continue to reside in that area and I
certainly hope that the mission of the Hanford Reservation is up for bid, I mean, I just
heardthat there is a nlant going down there too for incineration._ L'm not sure if that's
the best way to manage waste and I thank you."_
[Hearing Officer]: "I would like to state something that I did not state up front.
^Pn*fhn^ - .,. ....,. nf .,. ti^^ ,.,, ;h5ifiave w... not participatel in a Depariment of Ecology or EPA public
hearing before, the public hearing poruon is just that. We are hearing what you're
stating and we will respond to it at a later time before issuing the final permit. The
individuals here tonight with Ecology and EPA ask questions during your hearing
presentatio_nbuttheyrannotrespondduring-the hearing-portion. Just in case you have
-4-

not participated in this before. The next individual is Kerry Canfield."
3.2 [Kerry Canfield] "My name is Kerry Canfield, I'm a concerned private citizen.
I'll be general and brief. It is my understanding that the vitrification plant does not
comprise the sum total waste treatment facility that's proposed. Evidently, the grout
facility is part of this. I don't see the justification for allowing an operation to actually
begin under interim status. If it's possible, the permit may simply be denied after
whatever damage has already been done. In terms of determining whether waste is
hazardous or not, I cannot see how a massive volume of hazardous waste of any sort can
be conceived of as having no or insignificant environmental impact. Under the
December 23, 1991, agreement between the state of Washington and the U.S.
Department of Energy which was signed without granting the opportunity for public
comment, the Department of Energy will be allowed to dump 210 million gallons of
untreated wastes into the 300 area process trench, a procedure for which the Department
of Energy has no state or federal permits. This will allowed to proceed despite the fact
that the public was promised in the 1989 Hanford Tri-Party Cleanup Agreement that such
waste discharge would cease in December 1991. Not only that, the Department of
Energy evidently diverted ten and a half million dollars of cleanup money to some other
purpose. In view of this disregard for law and procedure, and in view of the fact that
Hanford is already the most contaminated land area in the Western Hemisphere, does not
make sense to me that the Department of Ecology allow the Department of Energy and
it's subcontractor or subcontractors permission to one, increase the level of contamination
-5-

-_
I^L;1
( -i
with radioactive and other hazardous wastes not only from around the U.S. but possibly
from around the world as well, and two, to proceed with the construction of a facility
comprising only the final stage of a multi-stage processing plant train whose total design
is not yet even complete. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "I would like to state again that when you come up I would
appreciate your stating both your name and your address and if you are representing an
organization. George Chaloner?"
_ `cv--J.
J
-,-• [George Chaloner] "Thank you. My name is George Chaloner. I live at 6517
7th Avenue NW in Seattle, and I too will be very brief. I represent myself, I'm
concerned about what we're doing here. I'm not up to all the details but I think the last
person that just spoke showed some of the concerns that some of us have. I want to talk
- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - just-:ngeneYI terms. I'm a7 years old and I found out last year just kind of what kind
of an extent my federal government has been lying to me all my life. And what's going
on over at Hanford is a perfect example. My entire lifetime, this place has been putting
out this garbage with engineers and people that don't have any respect or knowledge of
what any respect for the environment or knowledge of what we're doing. And certainly
absolute disregard for our future generations. I'm going to be out of here, I'm passing
through, I'll be gone in a 100 years and everybody in this room will be gone in a 100
years but this planet isn't ours to destroy and we've done a real good job of it in the last
lifetime. And I am outraged, I'm absolutely outraged and I think that everyone of us as
-6-

citizens should be. I think the work that the state people are doing here is commendable
but they obviously do not have the power that they should have. I've got some hope for
people that live here in this state that they have a little more connection with what we're
talking about here. Certainly federal people should too but they don't seem to. The past
record of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy is so abysmal
that I think and again talking in general terms I think we should throw them the hell out
of our state. Just ban the agency completely. There are other people and other agencies
and other groups that could handle this process if we get in there but we cannot continue
to allow the Department of Energy to continue to pollute this earth."
[Hearing Officer]: "Jay Grigner? Crigner? K-R-I-D-N-E-R? Gerald Pollet?"
3.4 [Gerald Pollet] "My name is Gerald Pollet, I'm testifying on behalf of Heart of
America Northwest, a citizens group representing 16,000 concerned citizens in the State
of Washington and I want to start by saying unfortunately, after all the rhetoric has been
cleared, this permit is likely to still allow Hanford to become the world's high level
nuclear waste dump. And the public has said over and over again we are not willing to
accept all the world's high level nuclear wastes, all the Department of Energy's wastes
from the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, from the Savannah River Plant, from the
Oakridge Plant, from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, to all come to Hanford and yet this
permit would seemingly allow it. And this permit would allow Hanford to be turned into
an above-ground burial ground for high level nuclear waste. The wastes in Hanford's
-7-

^ `y
.--
c=r-:
.^°
tanks represent two-thirds of all of our nuclear defense waste. And ten percent of all of
that radioactivity will end up buried in shallow pits at Hanford if we allow the grout
plant to be built and it ought to be part of this permit process. You can't build the plant
that creates the waste and then say but later on we'll talk about the grout itself and
turning Hanford into a burial ground. What's going on out at Hanford today? I think
this is the necessary starting point. We'd didn't hear presentation about that tonight. We
have high level nuclear waste tanks that are leaking as we speak, the most deadly brew
ever created by mankind. There are five separate laws that require the U.S. Department
of Energy to report suspected leaks of high level nuclear waste to the state and EPA, yet
even after Congress scolded the Department of Energy for not reporting hundreds of
thousands of gallons leaked from tank 105A, even after Hanford engineer reported that
430,000 gallons of high level nuclPar waste have leaked from tank 106C, the state and
EPA have taken no action against the U.S. Department of Energy. As we speak, the
State Department of Ecology is allowing at least one billion gallons of untreated liquid
wastes to be poured into Hanford soil without permits. State law says very clearly no
permit no discharge period. You can't pour ten gallons of water mixed with a little tiny
bit of hazardous waste into the Metro sewer without being fined. But we've given the
U.S. Department of Energy permission to our abillion gall_ons of wastes without
permits during 1992 and without treatment. Cribs for disposing of those wastes have
-been-bufft ai Hanford-Since 1983-when it was illegal to build a crib without a RCRA
permits, cribs have been built and Ecology has never done anything. If Ecology was
even informed about the cribs being built. A highly contaminated lab that is definitely
-8-

subject to RCRA that has areas within it that are so highly contaminated that 90 percent
of individuals exposed to surfaces in the lab for one hour would die of acute radiation
poisoning. That 325 lab has an annex being built onto it in violation of RCRA as we
speak. There are vast areas at Hanford that are burial ground already. Given that we're
pouring more waste into the ground as we speak, why, how can we possibly, how can
we possibly say we're not going to have a permit condition that simply says as long as
you are out of compliance at Hanford for groundwater monitoring, for not having your
permits, for illegal storage of radioactive and hazardous wastes, we will not allow you
to bring into Hanford one iota of the Department of Energy's nuclear and hazardous
waste from other plants. How can we not do that? The governor of this state has stated
repeatedly that he opposes those shipments of additional wastes coming in here but the
State of Colorado and the State of Idaho, and now the State of Tennessee, they've all
imposed permit conditions that say you can only store this much mixed radioactive and
hazardous waste at those facilities and you can't bring in any more. Why don't we have
that in this permit? We need to delete specifically for the record sections 1E17 and
sections 2.N, the latter section, believe it or not, talks about accepting quote waste from
a foreign source unquote at Hanford. We're talking about probably making Hanford into
the world's high level nuclear waste dump and it will be allowed under this permit. In
the explanation for that section, it simply says quote self-explanatory. Well, it is self-
explanatory and we better delete it. While all this is going on how many inspections
have occurred at Hanford under RCRA in the past two years since the signing of the
Hanford Cleanup Agreement? We've asked for those records from the Department of
-9-

Ecology state law gives you ten days to respond. We are now at 50 days after requesting
those records and we don't have them. If Ecology is unaware of leaks from high level
nuclear wastetanks oL430,000 gallons,-nf-pipes that are laid in the middle of the night
for chemical sewer lines, of cribs being opened like crib U17 from the Uranium Oxide
Plant without a RCRA permit in a contaminated area, then how are we going to ensure
that the conditions of this permit are actually enforced. The only way we're going to do
that is by charging the U.S. Department of Energy and Westinghouse the full costs of
a beefed-up inspection force. But there's nothing in this permit about charging U.S.
DOE a penny. And we find that outrageous, it's time for the Department of Energy to
pay the full costs of a beefed-up inspection team at Hanford for the state and for EPA
and it's time to say we're not going to rely on the good grace of the Department of
Energy to give us grants for Toby Michelena's program. Grants aren't going to allow
you to enforce and inspect at Hanford. We need to be able to inspect off-site labs,
where's the money going to come from, where's the authority to inspect their off-site
:abs. A,.d when we 5nd a violation you have to be able to shut it down, not be told that
you signed an agreement called the Hanford Cleanup Tri-Party Agreement in 1989 that
says you will submit it to dispute resolution that will take from here until the moon turns
blue for you to be able to shut down something that's a clear violation of this permit.
This permit and your regulations must take precedence over that agreement and
especially must take precedence over the so-called dispute resolution let's work it out
provisions. This is a permit to the biggest polluter known in the United States. It's time
to stop saying we'll sit and negotiate when you find known violations of your permits,
-10-

your construction standards, etc., being given the message trap up, obviously, we've
already said and I hope that you took some notes on this, we want waste management
priorities in this permit. Reduce recycle, why in the world is the Department of Energy
dumping 210 million gallons into that 2-300 area process trench that was mentioned
earlier, because they are diluting hazardous wastes try to get below the threshold levels.
If they were required to reduce and recycle and use closed loops for coolants, you
wouldn't have 200 million gallons being dumped this year. Finally, I'm going to close
and say now is the time for an Environmental Impact Statement considering whether or
not Hanford becomes an above-ground burial ground. We've been promised for two
years a site wide environmental impact statement and it is simply bass-akwards to say
we're going to give the permit and start construction of plant number one that costs 1.7
billion dollars that's tied to plant number two, the pretreatment plant that costs 2 billion
dollars and a grout plant that will turn a large area of Hanford into a radioactive burial
ground for high level nuclear waste containing 20 million curies of radioactivity in grout.
Unless we do an EIS now. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "David Allison?"
3.5 [David Allison] "Great, I get to follow Gerry. My name's Dave Allison and I'm
an attorney, I work as a consultant with part of Heart of America Northwest. A couple
of points I would speak to are points that Gerry at least touched on. One of them is the
overhead of the Hanford Permit Strategy. I know it wasn't intentional but did anybody
-11-

else l)ut me not[ce-that it looked :ike $wi3$ cheese?- And tl^ir we were waung a b out it,
it may not be swiss cheese, perhaps it's a good document that was put up on the board
and DOE did what they usually did and took out a 357 and blew holes in it. Big enough
to haul foreign nuclear waste into Hanford. It's really not acceptable and one of the
problems that we see right now that we've heard from people when we've gone out to
the other meetings is that and I was going to save this point until the conclusion but it's
so important I want to mention it now. There have to be more opportunities for public
participation and public input into this. Into this permit process. The explanation is a
very difficult explanation to make. I think the Department of Ecology people are
working very hard to make it understandable but it is incredibly complex, part of the
reason it's complex is because the process has been imposed on Ecology and EPA and
the regulator, it's convoluted. It's inappropriate. But Gerry said at the conclusion it's
what we've got to look to. it's sort of like the fairy tale that somebody has to stand up
at some point and say yea, that's all very interesting, DOE has done this and
Westinghouse Hanford has done that and this is all very amazing and these are very big
documents so they must be very important documents, their very heavy, their very
difficult to understand and therefore they must be filled with wisdom. But that's the
same thing that the Emperor was dressed in. And this plan is a demonstration as hard
as they try, you just cannot create really usable clothes out of the whole cloth of
imagination and good intention. And right now we're stuck with the situation where the
900 pound gorilla of DOE, the same people, and you have missed this when Gerry said
it. The same people who are being regulated, that's DOE and Westinghouse, their the
-12-

ar+p
ones who with line item money are funding the regulators and the enforcers. Now, I
don't know about anybody else but doesn't it seem a little bit strange that we even take
the process seriously. These are people that are in negotiations. I think Toby said for
three years they have been negotiating on some of these permits. For three years they
have been negotiating on permits behind closed doors with the people that determine
whether or not they are going to get funded next year. Hey, I was in the legislature back
in Indiana. I know how much strength comes from controlling the purse strings. How
much strength comes from paying the money out, not just spending it, not just receiving
it. Westinghouse gets power from getting all this money and boy they work hard
effectively in making sure that little contractors, the entrepreneurs that come up with the
new ideas and new ways of thinking aren't getting the money because they want to keep
things going just the way things are. And they've got a good partner in it and their
partner is the Department of Energy and those people control the regulators. They
control the enforcers. What a deal! The last major phase project which staged stop
points was WPPSS. We need additional review time to consult on the SEPA
nonsignificance finding on the hazardous waste management. That's one of the packages
that's back there, I don't know if anybody even picked it up, but there's a bunch of
documents back there. One of those documents says that there is a finding of no
significance here on permitting of hazardous waste management activities at the Hanford
facility. Now one of the things their relying on that is a seven-year old document, this
nuclear waste this defense waste EIS they are talking about, that's seven years old. At
that time, they were talking about DOE reassuring everybody don't worry folks, there's
-13-

aa`,
c...,,
nothing in those tanks that's going to explode. We know all about it. It's taken them
seven years to understand how little they understand and it hasn't taken the citizens that
long to understand that they never understood in the first place. And yet, they are going
to use that document to justify not doing an EIS, it just doesn't make sense and it, this
isn't complicated. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to figure out that a lot of this
stuff just doesn't make sense. It doesn't go from A to B to C to D and end up where
any kind of rational logical person wants to be. The one point that I think, I'm a lawyer,
I have to say something legal. We were talking earlier about the interim status. Well
__--there's_this one secticm, 42USCA 6925 E 3 B, and that says and I'm sure the folks from
EPA are aware of it and the people from Ecology, it says that interim status will last for
a year after ce.-tain thiligs occur. Now I want everybody to think for just a moment
though how you get interim status on a project that you didn't start until after the law
took effect. How do you work your way into interim status, I mean how do you get
grand-fathered in to something that you started after the regulations and the laws took
effect? You're a 900 pound gorilla and you say that's the way we want it. That's the
only-way you-

esponsibility requirements. Not that they've been waived, not that they have gone in
under the Tri-Party Agreement, and modify the Tri-Party Agreement saying okay, well
you were supposed to do this monitoring and you didn't get the monitoring done, so
we'll simply change the agreement and say you didn't really have to get that monitoring
done after all so now you're in compliance. That folks, is a lie. That's lying to the
public when if that's the way that we reach compliance. So from what we understand,
they don't qualify for interim status. Now, there are all kinds of ways that you can make
rules and regulations work to take care of the people that are doing the funding. But the
people of the State of Washington and the people of the entire Northwestern United
States and the people of the world are entitled to have the regulators and the enforcement
agencies regulate and enforce the law as it's written so if RCRA says you don't dump
it if you don't have a permit, the citizens thinks that means you don't dump it if you
don't have a permit. If it says, CERCLA for example, says you don't dump stuff in a
Superfund site, the public thinks that means you don't dump stuff, water, anything, in
a Superfund site. That's what the public thinks it is. If in fact, EPA, Ecology, DOE,
Westinghouse Hanford believe that it should be changed, that the law should be changed,
then they should do maybe what Westinghouse Hanford has been doing in Washington,
D.C., on this Federal Facilities Compliance Act that they were talking about up here,
and that it go back to D.C. and lobby to change the law. And I promise you, that's
where the Hanford folks are, they're in there working right now with Senators Johnson
and Wallack trying to, Senator Johnson I'm not sure about the other senator, to gut the
most critical provisions of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act and their doing this at
-15-

...,
c^-z
_thc behest of lobb-yists heing paid with some of that same money that's coming out of
those same tills that's being used in a pittance to pay for the Department of Ecology and
EPA enforcement and monitoring. I started out talking about the questions with the
nonsignificance. Now, I just want you to assume for a minute that you are a farmer and
you're relying on that you are relying on water to do your crops along the Columbia.
Now, in this permit, it says there's 1.3 million gallons a day being drawn from the
Columbia for these facilities. Now, if you were a farmer that was about ready to have
to shut down because of the modifications in the river flow, would you consider that
something that's of significance? Do you think they ought to have to come out and talk
ta you and iisten t0you about that itind of a-perniit? This pa^Kagc is filled with those
kinds of things. It's because of all the questions that are there. Not because of the
answers that we try to get, but because of the questions that have yet to find, that there
needs to be more time, that this system needs to be put back in the direction that I think
that Congress intended it to be and that is with the public saying this is where you start,
this is what you do, and this is how you finish, and we're going to be there watching you
until it's done."
[Hearing Officer]: "Marcus Ward?"
3.6 [Marcus Ward] "Hi, I'm Marcus Ward. 4250 West Lake Sammamish Parkway
NE in Redmond, and I'm just here on my behalf because I'm concerned and disturbed.
To start, I feel sorry for the Washington State Department of Ecology, the word puppet
-16-

.^
{.1
comes to mind after hearing what's been presented here tonight. I feel that more so now
than ever the Department of Energy, Westinghouse Hanford Company, and the Pacific
Northwest Laboratories are just reaching a pinnacle in abuse and blatant disregard for
the best wishes and interests of the people of the State of Washington. They continue
in the same manner to jeopardize our future welfare without regard. And in doing so,
they are not really establishing any sort of a track record which I as a citizen or you as
citizens, or the state government, or any of its agencies, should even consider good to
warrant our consent to say yes this permit which says now that you done the building and
='. everything's great, this permit should be allowed to go through. The attitude that I get
znr;: from the DOE is one of complacency, almost a snobby air, maybe an untouchable sort
Or ^
of thing about it, and I don't think that to right now, and I'll say it for the record, I'm
against the permit now and I think it should be held up and stopped and until the state
can be given more authority and a bigger fist and a bigger club to go in without any sort
of financial prejudices or influences, to go in and regulate Hanford and Westinghouse and
all the contractors and get that permit drawn up by state citizens, state agencies, groups
and government, that it just can't happen and it shouldn't happen, and if it does happen,
I fear for the future that the state of Washington has been someone slapped in the face
by the federal government. I realize popular sovereignty really isn't a popular thought
with the government these days, federal government, and I do fear that in the very, very
long run, that this may set some sort of precedent for federal abuse of state power and
the-whole concept that we support the federal government in hopes that they will do
what's good for the common welfare for the people of the United States and it may be
-17-

c..^
:-r<
`.^'as hir^gton state for the next ten years and in another 20 years, it may be United States
that feels this problem and to go even further, it's this sort of thing which causes a
separation of states and unions and thank you for your time."
[Hearing Officer]: "Bryan Flint?"
3-7 [Bryan Flint] "My name is Bryan Flint, my address is 1305 4th Avenue, Seattle,
98101, and I'm here with part of Heart of America Northwest. Recently, there has been
a lot of debate about the usefulness of the Nuclear Waste Advisory Council which has
been set up and is paid for by the state of Washington. I myself testified before a
committee at the House on this issue asking for the Council to be kept and revised and
I want to bring this back to what Dave Allison about the purse strings being held by the
Department of Energy for Ecology and that hampering their ability to do their work...."
TAPE ONE, SIDE ONE ENDS
[Hearing Officer]: "James Witus?"
3.8 [James Witus] "Good evening, my name is James Witus, I reside at 31500 First
Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington. As I listen to the speakers tonight, I'm
skeptical on both sides for those envisioning the process completed all the vitrification
modules buried deep beneath the ground and the problem gone away not a chance. This
is something that we're going to endure for quite a while even if the plan is adopted and
-18-

-r-:
^• ,
a procedure and process goes through. It's a sobering reality that we face that even if
we clean it up it's still there somewhere. I tend to be a person who is always looking
for sort of a Pollyanna solution in this case, I'm keeping to form. Down the road about
four miles, we have a company called the Boeing Corporation. For those of you who
subscribe to Aviation Week in Space Technology, they've discussed the new nuclear-
powered engine to power rockets off to God knows where. But a side note to that
development, is that the nuclear powered engine will increase the efficiency of
vitrification. Additionally, the National Aerospace Plane Project which has been on
again off again on again as this project has seemingly inundated by endless discussions
of feasibilities and practicalities and desirabilities. If this National Aerospace Plane could
be feasibly developed, the Pollyanna solution would be to take the vitrified modules, load
them up aboard a B-52, and ship them out on some commercial rocket. It's Pollyanny,
it's rose-colored glasses, it's Buck Rogers, but it's 1992 today and by the time the state
Department of Ecology and the Department of Energy get around to doing their thing,
we'll be into the 21st Century. It's time to think sort of a modern way. Many of us are
in the cold war mode ourselves in the way we approach solutions to problems. These
are very futuristic and the people who develop these ideas will solve the problem beyond
any burial underneath the ground where the problem will still exist. It's Pollyanna yes,
it's Buck Rogers, yes, but it's possible. I offer that as a theoretical alternative from the
greatest resource that we have here in the State of Washington, the Boeing Corporation
of which I'm not employed. I used to work on their equipment. It is sort of a Jonathan
Swifty proposal, Jonathan Swift wrote a modest proposal one time back in the 1800s.
-19-

I see on a comment note aside from the solution that I wackily propose but is actually
feasible because even with all the current systems and proposals stated, it's still there on
Mother Earth and down the line, Yucca Flats and given what I know about materials and
engineering, it's just a time bomb waiting to go off like tank 1083-14, whatever they are.
I see as Mr. Cardwell stated a jurisdictional problem. We have a state Department of
Ecology government negotiating with another government agency and it's difficult for
-----the-governtrettt-to say-tathe government do-it our way when they're the same people.
cr,
• That issue has been brought up as a matter of sort of a closed loop of influence. That
•ea^Y
r^...
the DOE, the state has no right to pursue or direct the DOE because their both
government agencies. Mr. Cardwell's suggestion of the Yakima Indian Tribe beginning
a management project or at least bring their opinion, hopefully not in the legal forum,
but it seems to me that we're somehow headed that way. God forbid, because the
---- -- --- -- ----Iegalists-cangetahold of-itand talk about it and it still would not get solved. That's
my point. -^ven as stated, if it pursued, when it's all said and done as Mr. umm, the
gentleman from Heart of America Northwest, when we want to see it done, when it's
done as proposed and as they say, it's not done. There's a lyric in a Greg Brown song,
after it's all said and done, some more is said and done. Currently, as we speak,
Voyager is millions of miles beyond Pluto. Feasibility, it's Pollyanna, I'm the first to
admit it, but also, the situation, the solution as currently devised, is worse than
-- ------- ---- ----------Poll-yartna.- It'$Pollvanna because it savs it's
. -°-- -----it
-1 - ° going to solve it and it won't and it doesn't
because the problem will exist. On short of sites in Hanford, the top scientists in
Hanford, rendering this material totally harmless, short of that, the next best thing we
-20-

can do is pursue a National Aerospace Plan and its applications. Now, that is Pollyanna,
I would hope that the scientists at Hanford involved in research can render this material
harmless and win a Nobel Prize in Physics, Peace, Literature, whatever you want, and
all the acclaim that goes with it. Nuclear materials are actually used in our hospitals to
help in the treatment of cancer. If this waste could be somehow converted into a pro-
health material that could be used in the treatment of cancers or other treatments, then
I would suggest and charge those at Hanford with the task of converting this material into
a beneficial material so now I've talked Pollyanna and I've talked reality, but the reality
of converting this waste into beneficial materials, I'm not a physicist, but if we just stick
it in the ground and let it continue to build up, it won't be any better so I would hope
that primarily invest all of our money into Hanford in storage and hopefully conversion
to some beneficial effect. Short of that, Pollyanna. Thanks very much."
[Hearing Officer]: "Barry Bede? Number 11? The numbers increase as the
maybe turned into a yes so there are 19 now."
3.9 [Barry Bede] "Thank you very much. I'm Barry Bede, the regional director of
Governmental Affairs for U.S. Ecology, the operator of the commercial low level
radioactive waste facility in the Hanford Reservation. We have severe questions about
our inclusion in this permit and we have developed extensive written contents which we
are going to submit to the Department of Ecology. Those comments are going to
question the process, the lack of justification which is presented in the permit, the
-21-

C F f
[t^
notification problems which were demonstrated in the development of this permit, the
lack of communication between EPA, WDOE, and our company, also specifically on the
EPA RCRA facility assessment which has been pointed out to have certain inaccuracies
and based on hearsay information. Certainly, we look forward to your response to our
written comments which will be forwarded to you in the near future. Thank you."
[_Hearing Officerl_: "Liz Moses?"
..
!?=l 3.10 [Liz Moses] "Hi, my name is Liz Moses, I represent the Washington Toxics
^ r.
y^.
u `+
Coalition, we reside at 4516 University Avenue NE, Seattle, 98105. I would like to state
for the records that during the workshop portion of this evening, it was stated that this
permit includes waste minimization requirements but does not include the Washington
State's Waste Minimization hierarchy and associated regs and the Department of Ecology
does not have the authority to include or imply this hierarchy to the Hanford Permit.
--- This is e °Y^ ^Pciall-p disconcertan bo-in liboht of Chemi..al (1:heml-Waste Ma,naoPmPnt Inr 's
- J - / b.......... ^.,...
fiiing of a ^^^vi for an incinerator to bum mixed radioactive and hazardous waste on the
Hanford reservation. Chemical (Chem) Waste is also planning on building a analytical
laboratory that's going to be analyzing Hanford's waste samples. I'm especially
concerned with this omission because it was stated during the workshop that the
incinerator nermit wili - not be associated in anyway with the Tri-Party Cleanup
Agreement or Hanford's TSD permit even though Chem Waste plans to burn Hanford's
radioactive wastr, a t°chnology that will disperse radioactivity rather than contain it
-22-

which I believe is a violation of the cardinal principle in radioactive waste treatment.
I would like to see the hierarchy for waste management priorities to be incorporated into
the Hanford's TSD permit and specifically have this hierarchy apply to the programs and
methods that address the reduction of volume and toxicity of dangerous waste. I also
have to say that I think it's absolutely criminal that a site wide EIS has not been done for
this permit, in my opinion, before no shovel should even touch the ground before an EIS
is done. That's the first thing, not an afterthought. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "Mia Boyle? She must have left. Robert Taylor?"
3•11 [Robert Taylor] "Hello, my name is Robert Taylor. I live at 133 25th Avenue
East, here in Seattle. I'm here as a private citizen, a concerned citizen, and the more
I hear, appalled citizen, angry citizen. The presentation tonight was I think rather
byzantine effort, the first half of it was spent explaining the permitting process, not really
explaining what was being permitted. Then we get around to that and I don't hear
anything about the grout plant or the pretreatment plant or the cost or what alternatives
have been looked at. I hear that basically we don't have a current EIS for this which to
me sounds criminal. I, that map showing Hanford, they left out the 1,400, what do you
call them, past practice sites. That map looked very simple and clean, what does it look
like when you include those 1,400 sites? This is something, we're talking about
something here that's going to have ramifications beyond the foreseeable future and to,
you know, hold three workshops and have a 45-day public comment period is also
-23-

c-,-
criminal. Where's the public voice in this? And I understand that Vancouver,
Washington, and Portland, and all the places along the Columbia are going to be affected
by what goes on at Hanford but workshops have only been held in Spokane, Pasco, and
- Seattle. - I--woultf Yublicly-request--that more workshops- he held and th a t th e° com^:°n,
period, the public comment period, be extended considering the magnitude of this issue
and the fact that we're talking about basically irreversible decisions, I mean that when
you start work on billion dollar projects, it's a little hard to put on hold to those. You
know, I hear that the grout plant's going to, that construction's going to start before the
permit's granted. And do you mean to tell me that if somebody's decides halfway
through, that while we can't grant this permit as it stands, you're going to say, oops,
sorry, we'll stop doing it. [Applause] I mean, come on, let's be realistic, this, we need
to do a reality check here folks. Personally, I would like to see Washington State follow
in 3ine with :daho; Cclorado, and Tennes°.,ee, and say be strict with permits and let's stop
importing nuclear waste. I know as a citizen living here in Seattle, the thought of
nuclear waste being transported through my city that's come from Pacific Rim Nations
------ -- ---- and elsewhere, I mean, I have nothing at all against these nations but I do have a lot
against the way our record of handling nuclear waste in this country and I sure as hell
don't want it going through the streets of my city. You know, you talked about training
of workers on-site at Hanford, what about training of the people who transport the waste?
What about the whole issue of transportation? And it's been said before and I'll say it
again, you know, DOE is in charge of the project and it's in charge of regulating itself,
so it would seem and they're the nation's number one polluter, once again, I say it's time.
-24-

for a reality check, that is not acceptable to me as a citizen and I vote folks. Thank
you. "
[Hearing Officer]: "Sally Pangborn?"
3.12 [Sally Pangborn] "My name is Sally Pangbom and I live at 221 35th Avenue E.
I'm representing myself. I'm a grandmother, you know, I want up here and cry, really
cry, because I now living with me my wonderful grandson who is age 23. He just
graduated from college and he did his senior thesis on the irresponsibility of government
and business in the disposal of nuclear waste. He got an A- on it and he dedicated it to
me. I have eight grandchildren, four just two out of college, two getting out this year
and then four little ones. And I lived through a lot as far as my whole life, I was bom
just before, a week before World War I broke out. And my daughter was born just
before World War II broke out, and then my youngest son was bom just before the
Korean War. And then my daughter's child, first child, was born just before the
Vietnam War, and then since our republican administrators, we've have Grenada and
Panama and Desert Storm. And in that time, you know, I know, I was a history teacher
and I know that our government, that we haven't always known what our government
was going, but when I was growing up, I really trust my government. I believed what
they said and I believed that they were working for everybody's welfare, and now, now,
I don't trust my government at all. The Department of Energy, can you imagine the
Department of Energy is involved in making nuclear bombs, you know, that's the big
-25-

{-.
cx
deal for them, because they can get all kinds of money, you know. That's where the
profits are and I don't trust them to clean up, I don't trust them to ciean up at all. This
pretreatment plant that we haven't talked about tonight is going to cost two billion dollars
and Westinghouse is in charge of that. Two billion! And I heard that we haven't
brought in the real experts, why would we let the fox watch the chicken house. I'm all
for getting rid of them, absolutely getting rid of those guys [applause]. I want to get rid
of the Department of Energy, why don't we call it Department of War and two,
somethTng else that really scared metonTght, ts W,icn wc ia ku, about the PUREX Plant.
I am so scared that because there's no explanation of what's going to happen there, that
the Department of Energy's going to make more bombs, and they got a bill right in the
senate right now, they want to go into more nuclear power plants and what are they
going to do with the plutonium rods? You know, are they going to make more bombs
with those plutonium rods? Why should we go into nuclear power really, when we don't
know what to do with the waste? And it seems to me that in the last three years, that
profit is number one priority. It isn't what's good for our people, for the people who
are coming, and the stakes are so high, nobody has talked about this waste being around
for millions or billions of years, you know, nobody mentions that. We can't sort of
think we can do something with it and it's going to be safe but in my lifetime everything
has changed, everything has changed, and I feel at this point very, very confused. How
are we going to educate people enough, you know, it's so complex that I agree with our
last speaker, we can't have just a few hearings, it is so complex, and I want to bring in
some real experts, I don't care if we have to go all around the world. I met a young
-26-

^:.
banker who was responsible, he worked for a New York bank lending Korea enough
money to build ten or 13 nuclear power plants. And now we have to bring that stuff
- -back hereandprocess-it? - 'Fhoseplutonium rodS? -I-didR't-iave u1e hea:1 to tell him look
what you've done, you know, look what you've done. He was so proud of what he had
done for the Korean people, to get those loans through for them, and now it isn't only
Korea, but it's a whole bunch of Pacific Rim countries. You know, we have created the,
our war-minded people have created a terrible problem for us and we've got to have the
time and we have to have the opportunity to educate the people so they need what the
consequences are. We have grown a whole bunch of people who thinks the bottom line
r^>
° is profit and our bottom line has to be a safe world to live in. And I do want to thank
^..,
you people, I think we're all in the same boat, we all want a world for our children and
grandchildren, we all want a future and I hope we can have one. I'm a Pollyanna too,
I always think tomorrow's going to be better and I sometimes laugh, I think when I'm
going down for the third time, and water is coming in my nose and mouth, I am still
going to be saying tomorrow will be better."
[Hearing Officer]: "Mark Bloome?"
3.13 [Mark Bloome] "My name is Mark Bloome, my address is 4751 West Rufner,
Seattle 98199, I'm a part of Heart of America Northwest. I'd like to emphasis our
support of the commentary of David Allison and Gerald Pollet and I would like to
emphasize the extreme importance we feel that the permitting requirements should force
-27-

--- --- --------- the-Depart;nent-of EnerQy--to pay for regulatory nnfrom a
r__^
the Department of
.^,^.
Ecology. Just the same as an independent judiciary is important for justice, an
independent Department of Ecology is important for just enforcement of the rules and
rebt?t3lipngloprorectthP rr,ennlr nf_thic atate,The Denartme_.nt of Fne.rgy's headquarters
is a long distance from the State of Washington and the people in the beltway quite
frankly I don't think care about what happens to us way out here where it rains a lot.
It is only through the empowerment of ourselves and the empowerment of agencies such
as yours through independence and through your own strength and through the citizens'
rF ' strength that we'll have any chance of having an effective Hanford cleanup. It would be
rr-+
a shame and it is a real potentiation that wad of money would go towards cleaning up of
Hanford. Without an independent enforcement and without citizen attentiveness, that
money like so many of the other DOE projects, will be totally wasted in plants that don't
work and enforcements that can't happen because those who control the purse strings
control the world. Thank you very much."
[Hearing Officer]: "Sharon Bloome?"
3.14___-_ ISharon Bl_oome]--- "I'm-Sharon- Bloome.,- I'm nrecident of HP11 of America
Northwest and I'm here to testify for Heart of America and for myself as a citizen.
First, I agree with everything my husband said, but I want to go on the record as
objective to Carrie Sikorski from EPA that left at 9:15. I sat here in this hearing, I
listened to your presentation, I listened to her's, she is supposed to be here for public
-28-

comment, this is public hearing time, she left. What was she doing here in the first
place? My day began at 5:15 this morning, I'm tired too. I would like to also object
to this concept of the vitrification plant permit being permitted under the umbrella permit
which is the statewide RCRA permit in phase I specific permit. This is a 1.2 billion
dollar project. I used to be vice president of a business opportunities corporation and as
I look at this, I'm not sure whose opportunity we're talking about here. My
understanding in the process is that the wastes that are now existing in the tanks have to
come out of the tanks, go into a pretreatment plant, 20 percent of that radioactive waste
goes into grout and approximately 80 percent goes into the vitrification plant. This
pretreatment plant, number one, is not permitted, is not designed, is still in the concept
stages, and if it does not work, then the building of this vitrification plant is for nothing.
There is nothing to feed into the vitrification plant if the pretreatment does not work.
I also understand that there's going to be one central processing core in the vitrification
plant, which means that if this breaks down, the entire vit plant stops. I also understand
that there is a possibility that in the processing in the vit plant, there could be, this
material could explode and I would like to know what precautions are being taken in case
of an explosion. I understand that Westinghouse hired someone as a subcontractor to
look at some possibilities for the pretreatment plant. All three of the choices are over
two billion dollars. It's a lot of money, it's more than I have in petty cash. I understand
there is a 300,000 dollar alternative out there. Three hundred million. It's a lot less
money, still more than I have in petty cash. I don't understand why we have to build
plants that are in the billions of dollars. The vitrification plant construction beginning
-29-

efore the pretreatment plant does not make sense. I am a fiscally responsible human
being but this is fiscally irresponsible. I am objecting to it. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "Fred Miller?"
3.15 [Fred Miller] "My name is Fred Miller, my address is 3224-1/2 Morse Avenue
South, Seattle, Washington 98144. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of
my daughter who as is the case with me, will be paying for the Hanford cleanup for the
' rest of her life. I'm hope I'm not speaking on behalf of her daughter. I look at the
° Hanford cleanup, I look at the environmental impact statement that's not being written,
4.1 \
I look at a small number of people in a small room who are being asked for input that
= seems to-bequtte-afterthe-fact and F'm-scared.-3 wantto-endorse, as-eth er ^y'ci^yie have,
the comments of the two attorneys from Heart of America Northwest and add a few
items which I hope won't be too duplicative. First, I wonder about current and future
production of nuclear materials. I don't see specific address of the issue of interim
status. I'm quite certain that anyone who wants to believe it can say well, we've got the
PUREX plant there, whatever we do with it in the future is just ongoing work. It would
be possible for the Department of Energy to continue to work at the PUREX and other
facilities out there even to create new projects out there and disguise them as they have
often disguised things in the past, they are masters in the art of bureaucratic camouflage.
So that they don't need to be included in a permitting process. I would like to see
specific language dealing with what triggers the needs for permitting, exactly what can
-30-

they start doing out there, what production which of course they will justify as necessary
for national defense or even necessary for the cleanup, exactly what can they do without
having violated the language of the permit. And, again, with importation of waste, what
say will citizens have in proposed and in to be proposed importation of waste for disposal
or for processing or for storage at the Hanford. I would like to see the permit
specifically prohibit any importation of waste from outside of Hanford unless and until
a program-specific permit is prepared and approved. Who pay for it? The permit
process is open-ended. The Department of Energy can quite simply wage a war of
attrition, certainly our current administration has shown its expertise at that. Wage a war
of attrition against the State Department of Ecology unless fees adequate to cover
Ecology's cost come from the federal budget. Public hearings, the Department of
Ecology should have, does have the responsibility for getting the word out, citizens
groups have been shouldering a lot of that responsibility out of necessity, they have other
work to do. Public attendance is part of a public hearing. I think the Department of
Ecology should budget money for making sure that rooms much larger than this are filled
with people. It's hard work, I've done a lot of work getting people to come to rooms
late at night for what are inherently boring proceedings. The money is out there, the
Department of Ecology is short of funds, but the Department of Energy doesn't seem to
be. It should be the job of the Department of Ecology to make sure that there is a lot
of high quality citizen input and I'm curious also about the mention that you made of
hearings quote periodically over the next five to seven years. What's the period? Is that
a period of time or at certain levels of accomplishment or every time the Columbia
-31-

eceives another thousand curies from Hanford? There's a long history of citizen input
playing a major role in many ways, the decisive role in Washington State's decisions on
nuclear waste. It's been a very positive thing and I think it should be, I'm certain it
--- -- -- - -- --- ----must-be encouraged. Thepollur.er, ?he-I)epa.*?ment of-Er.ergy,-should be assessPA fm,
c°t't
^.
not only to cover the costs of the Department of Ecology's bureaucrats and technicians,
but also to cover the costs of educating the citizens of Washington State whose input it
essential if this decision making process is to be democratic and not simply bureaucratic.
Public schools currently teach Washington students about marine ecology, forest ecology,
etc. They also need to be taught a curriculum dealing with the ecology and physics of
the Hanford Iteservation. I have had dealin¢s with numerous environmental imvact _
statements, I cannot imagine how the transportation of materials to and from the Hanford
site can. be exempted from a permitting process. I simply fail to see how getting the
material there is not germane to the operations. I'm also very nervous about language
talking about the economical or most practical means of proceeding. Enough said on
Viat__An umbrellais-a -devlce to keep penple from getting soaked. This permit is not
an umbrella. It allows a large number of people to get soaked, it is more like an aerosol,
a device which keeps a small number of people from being exposed to the light of day.
Thank you. "
[Hearing Officer]: "James Brennan?"
3.16 [James Brennan] "Hi, my name is Jim Brennan and I live 7349 18th NW,
-32-

t t
Seattle, 98117. I'm here on my own behalf, I represent myself. I came down to•find
out whether the Department of Ecology was good or just lucky and I'm really not to
sure, to be very honest. The first thing I'd like to speak to is I see a determination of
nonsignificance, I believe one of the gentlemen brought up, in regards to the closing of
183H solar evaporation basins. I've seen better DNS's put out by small housing
developments, quite bluntly, that can be taken away and have less significant adverse
impact. I'm surprised that the level of quality of what was put out was, you know, it
basically says that the groundwater will go to the ground and evaporate and I find that
to be inadequate and I'm surprised that no EIS that's put out based upon that because a
long term impacts are significant and adverse to the environment. Its the state of
Washington's 197 says you go through the checklist and you correctly and I find it to be
poor. Secondly, it's a draft permit, it's sort of like being a little bit pregnant. It's either
permitted or it isn't. We're here to make a decision on a permit that's going to effect
how the state of Washington does business down the Columbia River for the next 100
years. And we've got 45 days to comment. I think that's inadequate, I find the number
of public hearings to be poor, while I understand Spokane has an impact, I'm surprised
one isn't held in Vancouver, one isn't held in Astoria as concerned people down in the
fishing regions who are economically affected, I'm surprised one isn't held in Olympia.
It's a political year. Thirdly, I think we're going too fast for something that going to
have some significant, long-term adverse impacts to the state. As I said, when you start
with a clearing grade permit where the guy back there in the set of plans do not drive
trucks over the 24 inch export water lines it says one of two things, number one they
-33-

3'17
can't support vehicles running across them because their inadequately constructed less
than any other city street here in the city of Seattle and you're going to get a permit for
that and we're starting down a process which is irreversible. When you bury 1.2 billion
dollars into something, it's not something that you're going to walk away from and I
would urge the state to get some backbone and wait a couple years until you have a
significant amount of information which is adequate to deal with the issue and that you're
sure the technology out there or not going to harm the environment and the people
downstream for many years to come. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "That concludes the last individual signed up to speak this
evening during the public comment period. As I stated on the onset, the opportunity
exists to come back up and take as long as you want to comply with what you would like
to have entered into the record of decision. Is there anyone that has not spoken or
anyone that would like to add to their comments this evening? George Wilson."
[Hearing Officer]: "George Wilson."
[George Wilson] "Hi, my name is George Wilson, I'm at 2249 NE 46th,
Seattle, Washington, 98105, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen.
I just want to make a couple of comments. I believe that once we construct these large
facilities such as the vitrification plant, the preprocessing plant and the grout facilities,
that after they've taken this waste, processed it, then of course they will have to be
-34-

decommissioned, hopefully that's going to be part of the whole environmental impact
statement that goes along with these plants because I believe that anytime you put high
level nuclear waste through a processing plant or in high level nuclear waste storage
tanks, then those facilities then become basically high level nuclear waste. I don't think
anybody's commented on that whole period. That's concerns me, what is going to
happen to these facilities? A major portion of the facilities that are out there have, such
as PUREX Plant, the Plutonium Finishing Plant, all the facilities in the 200 west area
200 east area have processed materials to produce nuclear weapons. Nothing has been
said on the permits or the environmental impact statements on those past practices or
what will happen in the future. I'm very concerned with what's going to happen, no one
has talked about the future of the nuclear reactors, in fact, I believe there are nine of
them and what is going to happen to those. Those are some major concerns of mine and
I hope that they are addressed in future meetings and just to reiterate, 45 days is not
enough time to comment on a national problem. This is one site out of 17 we have to
deal with this site, it's in our state, we signed agreements that the Department of Energy
is chewing away at slowly and we have to deal with that over the next 50, 100 years, just
dealing with the waste, the waste will be here for hundreds of thousands to billions of
years. Definitely not enough period of time to comment, we need more statewide public
hearings, we need funding for the Department of Ecology, we need funding for the
nuclear waste advisory council, because that will be our only public forum to come out
and deal with nuclear waste issues. If this Nuclear Waste Advisory Council is killed,
the only forum we have is the Tri-Party Agreement forums to deal with nuclear waste
-35-

`^.
,r
issues and the way I've seen the Tri-Party Agreement meetings, they are dealing with
only specific issues on the Tri-Party Agreement. Please, let's get the funds there, the
Nuclear Waste Advisory Council is developed for public participation, public
involvement, we need to say that they should be here and my last comment is why did
the EPA walk out, that is bad! Please, let's make sure our public officials who we all
end up paying for in taxes are here to represent us for a full meeting, a three-hour
meeting that was commented in the very beginning. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "Is there anyone who would like to speak? Kim Henn."
3• 18 [Kim Henn] "Hi, my name is Kim Henn, I live at 2050-1/2 NW 61st Street in
Seattle. I filled out a card when I got here and my name was called and I was asked if
I wanted to speak and I said no, mostly because I'm very overwhelmed by most of this
and I'm pretty new to most of this whole entire proceeding. I answered an ad a few
weeks ago in the paper, I'm a student, and I answered an ad for a fund-raising position
to help in the cause that you've been hearing about all evening and I kind of lied on my
application, I like to state for the record right here because I was asked what my
priorities were for applying for the job and I didn't really lie, just sort of mixed up the
numbers and I wrote number one was because I was really interested in this cause and
number two I don't remember, and number three I put the money. And really when I
went and applied, number one was the money, but I knew they didn't want to hear that
probably being a typical employer, but I found them to be anything but and my priorities
-36-

have changed and I've only worked there one week and the reason I'm really up here is
because most of what I'm feeling has come to feel has been expressed here already but
I do want to speak for all of the elderly people and people that live far away from Seattle
who I've talked with personally on the telephone in this past week who are very
concerned about this. They're shocked, they're horrified, they very much want to be
more involved in this process. They're not even aware that they could be involved in
this process because there is not a whole lot of publicity about it. I've been talking to
people at my school, none of them know anything about this. I've not seen a great deal
covered by the media. And I admit to being somewhat uninformed myself and I don't
think it's because I don't care, I think it's because the issue is shoved to the back, I
mean, only at certain times does it make the front page and I'm really surprised by what
I've found out in this past week, that that is the case, so I just want to state that there is
a lot of people besides myself and the people in this room that I know are concerned
about this. There needs to be more time to discuss this, you can't just make this sort of
decision. The thing that keeps coming through my mind when I hear about all this, and
I, you know, I'm sure maybe some other people's too, and it's been stated here already
in some terms, but to me, this is like offering a day care permit to a convicted child
molester so that's all I have to say. Thank you very much."
[Hearing Officer]: "Is there anyone else that would ... Robert May."
3.19 [Robert May] "My name is Robert May, I live at 3110 Harris Place South,
-37-

Seattle, Washington 98144. I represent myself, my children, a lot of my friends, some
people I'm not at liberty to give out right now, maybe the next time I come up. I
hesitated to speak because I hate standing in front of people and talking. I wanted to
comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. If I'm understanding this correct,
environmental impact statement is a process to determine the practicality of a project.
If it's not practical, it won't be allowed. No new, having no environmental impact
statement because an environmental impact statement exists that's seven years old on a
defined DOD project which apparently reflects not telling us that there is a lot of
radioactive waste being poured into the ground seems as ludicrous as a permit process
to permit something that shouldn't be and a regulatory process that doesn't, is not able
to regulate the people it's designed to regulate. We don't go after another environmental
impact statement to look at. What we're going to do in the future instead of what we are
going to do is what we plan to do based upon a DOD assessment, we're being stupid.
We're being very stupid. Fallout from that, and I like the word fallout, is probably
going to be buried with the rest of the waste much like the DOD EIS probably should
be and I haven't looked at that in full, just in brief. I have another problem but I
brought it up already. I'm having a lot of trouble conceiving that's somebody's
conceived of a vitrification plant from beginning to end including wired diagrams,
flowcharts, civil engineering structures, pictures, storage bins, plant name, without
having it designed. We have a word for that where I come from, but I'll let the bull tell
you where he left it. It would be nice that if we didn't do this piecemeal, that of an
umbrella permit is permitted, it's really making sure that the problem is covered. It
-38-

t^t
doesn't seem like the problem is covered here. It seems like DOD, DOD excuse me,
I meant DOE, is that the same thing? DOE is trying to put one over on us and we're
going to try to fall for it. I don't think so."
[Hearing Officer]: "Would anybody else like to speak? David Fidler."
3.20 [David Fidler] "Thank you, my name is David Fidler, my address is 3806 E.
McGilvra Street, three points, the first one I do believe we need more time to discuss
this. Second, an EIS statement seems a pre-requisite for any sort of future plants or
permitting. Three, I hear tonight what seems to be the state having a problem having
any power to deal with the federal government. I hear it over and over again. I don't
know if the Department of Ecology is the one to blame, I don't know if they have the
scope to deal with the federal government. If that's the case, I think as citizens we need
to find the forum to empower the state to deal with the federal government on a rational
basis. Lastly, I think that we can take an example from New Zealand who did not sink
as a result of stonewalling the United States government. Thank you."
[Hearing Officer]: "Would anybody else like to speak. Anybody else like to
speak who hasn't spoken yet? Alright, would anybody else like to speak that has spoken
previously?"
[Person from audience]: "Real quick, it doesn't have to be on the record. I think
-39-

for the folks who are here who are going through this process for the first time, I think
it really valuable..."
[Hearing Officer]: "This is Dave Allison."
-3'2I -- - ji3ave Ailisonj: "I'm sorry. I think it's really important to recognize that there
are a lot of projects that are going on across the United States and really all through the
world, there are very few places where there is any effort or any attempt at all made to
incorporate the public's concerns and the public comment. It's a lot easier to do
everything behind closed doors and so really I think it's important more than just for me
to express the appreciation of Heart of America that the process continues and we'll keep
fighting, we'll keep working to try and make it better but I think also important for the
people who have just come through this process for the first time to recognize that there
probably are no really evil people involved in what we're doing up here. We've got a
lot of people that are trying to do a lot of the right things and trying to figure out how
to do it, given what they've been handed and we've got to keep that in mind that we all
are as I think probably our elder told us best tonight, we are all looking at trying to make
a world that our children and our grandchildren into the 7th generation can live in and
these folks up front who sat here and you could see them taicing notes-and you could see
them paying attention to what was being said that they are part of that process and I think
that we all really need to reinforce from time to time the respect we have for the work
that they are trying to do too."
-40-

[Hearing Officer]: "Would anybody else like to speak? Gerry Pollet?"
3.22 [Gerald Pollet] "Thanks. I have some very quick points for the official record
while the record's open starting with Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Permit
conditions. We would like to see a reduction in the allowable expected accident free
release of radiation from the plant which is now estimated in the support documents to
be 11 curies of radiation a year, accident free, that's nearly as much as was released in
Three-Mile Island which was 15 to 25 curies and yet we're going to allow this plant to
release that every year on their accident free conditions and we don't know what's going
to be released from the pretreatment plant and grout plant and other facilities at Hanford
that are yet to be permitted so we need to look at the cumulative releases as well which
is a good reason for doing an EIS. On item I believe it is section roman numeral 2.V
mapping of underground piping, we'd like to ask that you include a specific conditions
requiring identification of when pipes were laid, what authorization existed for laying
those pipes, particularly all pipes should be identified that were laid that are in RCRA
facilities associated with RCRA facilities or handle RCRA wastes which were laid since
the passage of RCRA and what authorization existed for laying those pipes, specify what
notification to the state of Washington was given for laying those pipes, specify the
engineering analysis supporting those pipes, and specify whether those pipes replace any
other pipe, vault, crib, etc. On the reporting of releases, items 1.E 15.C and 1.E 16,
need to add requirements that all unusual occurrence reports and off-normal occurrence
reports are given to the Department of Ecology faster than two weeks. If something
-41-

^^.
n^p
merits an unusual occurrence report, if it's serious enough to be sent to the daily
operation brief to the Secretary of Energy in Washington, D.C., this permit should make
..nlfi. I think i t'.^. rPrt.atnly says 15
sure that you see it in 24 fiours, not-two-weeks. Act^,.a..^, ......^ .. .
days. And so there ought to be written reports to the state for all unusual occurrences,
off-normal occurrences, and for all releases that also require a verbal report to the state.
Public participation, it's simply not really addressed here in saying that compliance with
the Tri-Party Agreement past practice action public participation requirements will be
deemed compliance with RCRA public participation requirements here is totally
inadequate. The Tri-Party Agreement has no public participation provisions that allow
-^a the public to comment in a timely manner on the record at hearings relating to these
CY)
permits and it's nonsecretor to refer to it and you need a separate public participation
section in here. Lastly, we need to bar dilution, dilution isn't the solution to pollution,
learned that I think in the 60's, and therefore we need very specific requirements in this
Ll.....ate -^^-1:....:dn
permtttiamng the use of any nuinber one-re^:yclao.^ Wa«.^ or ..yl,..,^ or number two
non-dangerous waste liquids from being combined or discharged into hazardous waste
discharge sewers or cribs or other discharge points. That is a waste minimization
priority and it is theoretically state law whether or not the regs reflect it at this time, but
you do have the authority to bar for instance, the discharge into the 300 area process
trench Superfund site sanitary sewer water. You have the authority to bar non-closed
loop recyclable liquids from being discharged with hazardous wastes and if you ended
those discharges, they would no longer be able to say that their monitoring levels showed
that the RCRA hazardous waste analyses showed that they were below threshold levels.
-42-

When you add 200 million gallons of liquid to a sewer and only sample at the end of the
sewer, you may end up below the threshold level, but and we talked to you folks before
about this and we thought that you were making some headway in requiring those
sampling and analyses to occur at the process, not at the end of the sewer, so before
dilution. That's the major points that we had and I just want to say I thought that some
of people who came here tonight had really wonderful, heartfelt testimony, some people
really showed that they put some work into their testimony, and those of you who sat
through it as well as those of you from Ecology who sat through it, I think you all did
really fabulous job. It's really nice having heard some of the people who wanted to kill
the Nuclear Waste Advisory Council, which someone mentioned earlier, having heard
some of those people say well no one cares about this issue anymore, to hear the people
who came tonight is really, really great. Thanks."
[Hearing Officer]: "Would. Sharon Bloome."
3.23 [Sharon Bloome] "What I want to talk about is the reported six million dollar
public relations budget that Westinghouse Hanford has. I don't understand why they
have a six million dollar budget when you folks don't have enough money to go do
oversight. I don't know how this should be solved, maybe if they have six million for
public relation, you need six million. It should be equal dollars. Public participation,
there's no money to advertise meetings, there's no meaningful workshops. I don't
understand why they have six millon dollars, I don't know how they're getting it but I
-43-

;_.:.
^-r ;
know it's my tax dollars that are paying for it and I don't like it."
[Hearing Officer]: "Would anybody else like to comment? Alright, that
concludes the public hearing portion of this evening's meeting."
AA
_.*.T_

El
2/27/92
4.0
HANFORD FACILITY WIDE DRAFT PERMIT
VANCOUVER, WA PUBLIC MEETING
♦ General conditions:
what apply to
define process
- what cover applicable to...
♦ Citizen presented Ecology staff members with toilet paper to record
public comments.
- concern over recording
- Columbia River- our people don't get opportunity to have comments
recorded like Seattle, Spokane and Tri-Cities
- short notice on Vancouver meeting
- waste of taxpayer dollars
- look more into future
- feel like second class citizen
- people on river affected the most
- now on, make it known that hearings be conducted here, preferably
White Salmon
Technical- HOA (Heart of America) has implied that start of VIT and
GROUT plants - are they being issued as final permit? Will they allow
the start of construction?
- no EIS - has one been done?
- HOA information- permit granted prior to EIS, cited foreign VIT
technology
- HOA data- air emissions - over 60 years a small 3 mile island
radioactive release-
- will air emission standards be stricter?
Grout treatment (HOA)
- accusation of accusing USDOE-RL
will hi-level go to grout?
- Permit will allow them (USDOE) to begin building plant, begin
construction?
- radioactivity consideration:
low versus high-level?
- therefore their (HOA) statement is accurate - no regulations as
far as amount of radiation? therefore hi-level will go
to grout .....
- grout: concerns reference mixed chemical wastes 30 years from now
------- similar to waste tank concerns; not knowing what's in grout
wastes

Lab problems - no staff
- you're assuring me that samples will be analyzed. Information
from HEAL (Hanford Education Action League) is that there's a
major backlog of samples to be analyzed now.
-- - will all material going into grout be tested?
- do you feel capable of judging/analyzing these samples .....
time .....
HOA data: believe permit should stop USDOE from importing waste to
Hanford
- why isn't this in there?
- it seems we are setting ourselves up for becoming the waste dump
for the world.
- waste Hanford currently receives is all low level?
- Have you heard whether Hanford will be receiving fuel rods?
.^^
^^^° ♦ Just because it's straight out of regulations, doesn't mean you can't
bar the waste from coming in?
will you be looking at language--State--to insert specifically
,-f--;, into Permit?
you say regulations won't allow you to ship in outside waste - if
^-, not allowed - where does it go?
MRS/Yakima: Yakimas' have been snowballed- decided they would do
things without telling people - same thing happening here - having
a meeting - not telling people - nobody here. Yakimas'--same at
reservation. What really is happening? Matter of great
importance is not going to people. Any tie between MRS & Hanford?
- Yakima members sign form allowing all defense waste for MRS
- if MRS constructed on reservation would Ecology have any
regulatory over MRS - as its on reservation.
- State/Tribal relationship depends on enforcement of RCRA
State laws only enforced by tribe generally
- Yakima's are told Yucca mountain being prepared, I'm hearing
mountain is still being contested - they don't want anything done
on Yucca - where's assurance that this storage will only be
temporary. Issues like this should be brought to people - I don't
like to see this happening to other people - Umatilla's are
starting to wake up- things happen before people know what's going
on - concern for future generations - I don't want to see what's
happened to Navajo's happen here. I'm concerned about river - if
you contaminate river, you contaminate the whole West Coast.
♦ Public comment: Puppet Government-
Dangerous Waste Specialist - what's going on at Tribal council
with tribal people

^
♦ Permit - documents have called for making Hanford Site service MRS -
Permit can bar making Hanford into MRS for all defense wastes - Nevada
shut defense waste shipments into state down with RCRA. Ft. St. Vrain
truck was reported driving into Hanford last month -- was reported from
Hanford employee/worker
- need to know what wastes are moved around
- they (USDOE) have not been following requirements
under Permit, USDOE will be enforcing/policing/inspecting
themselves--information is that Ecology's budget will be cut to
shreds and they won't be able to inspect.
♦ Time and budget is stretched beyond your ( Ecology's) abilities
will fees be larger - enough to cover costs?
^^ ♦ Will fees be so high that corners will be cut?
--^^"^ - - - - Who's charging fees to? will they (USDOE) cut corners?
^, - Last week in Pasco - the Permit fees-inspections-all- will be
o^.^
r^.
announced?occurring?
that's USDOE telling you that inspections are
Does Ecology have ultimate power over USDOE? Can USDOE say this
isn't working for us -did it?
♦ In reality USDOE does - they challenge shut down - how deal within
Permit? If shut down...dispute resolution? Define process.
♦ What if process takes a long time? How long will process take? You
(Ecology) has power to shut down if threat- (health) is imminent? Who
defines imminent threat? Is concern 30 years from now? Is thyroid
cancer? What is imminent threat? Would the risk of cancer from
radioactivity be imminent? From past practice I gather that imminent
threat--relationship to cleanup activities; building new units, shutting
down is a hard task for the regulator.
In response to comments: include that authorization of RCRA, state
law, TPA take precedent over (dispute resolution) authorization to
immediate enforce
- USDOE still has right to appeal via dispute resolution? Pollution
Control Hearings Board?
USDOE is getting an extra 6 months of dispute resolution before
Ecology can enforce.
♦ Define appeal process/ define violation occurrences, responses - appeal
process.
- why Program manager decision time left open -- no limit?

♦ Why doesn't Permit crackdown on liquid effluent to soil? Doesn't seem
-`--=liti.°.-w.°.cte-r.°.duct2^n.-rPrvrl_ine^o a'ld c]-Qcwdln0p onwaste.
,^_.. -• - -- -
- will water quality permit undergo public hearing process?
♦ RCRA permit is logical place - systematic level - say you will go
upstream, measure upstream - not down stream.
- what about mixed zones?
- Water Quality: 1 stream, 1 person at a time: RCRA umbrella can
tell USDOE to do all monitoring.
♦ Where decide to have the meeting?
- when? notice? why not hearing?
- concern to open Permit up for - biggest Permit legal action - as
- - - this meeting gives appearance of a hearing.
- it's important to involve public.
- extension- Vit Plant/EIS and SEPA comments viewed as will not be
considered
ri,a - HOA: issue limited per: for site preparation- groutpretreatment-
Need to be addressed in EIS
^.^.. - you all talk about making $3 billion decision, look at Defense
Waste EIS, not look at explosive potential in tanks
- information scheduled on VIT - French Performance - rev. go on an
French Performance - technology - this is not addressed in EIS -
need to look at alternative technology.
. _ ,
iCE iPpaCts ncEG . . . , . .
- E- £ £ ?£K @fl - a t .
'- ----- --`-7---`-bi9G::'.'aat---L^-i -
.
rep'rLing of releases: verbal
reporting - do you require a written report?
- Department wide regulations re: releases - will that turn up
performance?
- Who asked for regulators?
- regulations out for public review?

0
5.0
Hanford Facility Wide Draft Permit
White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
• Permit covers state, corporate & federal industries of site
. • US Ecology fit in Permit--define
• Advantage of one Permit? Isn't it easier to issue separate permits to
facilities/corporations (i.e. US Ecology)
• Site authorization on separate units within facility - how Ecology doing
one Permit for array of different units. What authority has allowed
Ecology to do this?
• Who made this decision?
• Doesn't this stretch state authority--putting permit in one lump? All
of this highly contaminated area into one Permit?
• How does taking this approach (one umbrella Permit) protect public
better? Looks like USDOE, WHC, & PNL don't have to meet time
increments. . . . You're satisfying state requirements.
• Permit still doesn't have a comprehensive impact study - no EIS - the
public doesn't know the impact of Permit - material - is perfect example
of why public isn't being told process - SEPA - determination of
nonsignificance- using old EIS as foundation for Permit. It does not
give confidence to anyone (public).
• This (SEPA) is trash - doesn't tell public a thing based on hypothesis -
no place for doing vit. How doing permit for constructing plant that
you don't know technology for? We want to know, public wants to know.
• Vit technology not proven.
• You (Ecology, USDOE and EPA) don't have pretreat technology in place.
• Give example of what's outside of it (Vit....tech.)
• WPPSS - can't afford another design, can't show where it's worked. Vit
is risk to public health and welfare risk, so WHC can manage it - if one
melter goes down - whole system must be shut down. Backup plan for
holding wastestream EIS does not add.
• Pretreatment technology not ready/developed to feed plant (Vit.)
• Concern: will go out for public comment without 30 day public notice
that is required for a hearing, etc. The number of public attending
public meetings and hearings on this issue has gone down because not

White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
2
enough notice. Regardless of public comment USDOE and TPA going ahead
with what USDOE and TPA want to do - feeling that (like on Vit.)--from
Ecology--no one is listening to the public.
• Nobody here. This is the smallest turn out for a public meeting ever in
White Salmon. We need sufficient notice.
• Citizen presented Columbia River water, saying the Columbia River water
snirit would be a witness of what we do and-say at the meeting tonight.
If we lie, the spirit will take the form of bad karma to any of us and
our future generations.
^M, • Tri-Cities - is not the only area affected by Hanford.
"" = • ---Change-s -ha-ve -been-made in the-TPA.-- The -public said-no.---ine changes
were made anyway.
• Vit. Plant - affects far-reaching - not just Tri-Cities
. Weigh White Salmon comments equal to Tri-Cities•comments.
What happens at Hanford affects the Columbia River and that
affects White Salmon's livelihood.
• Don't want Permit issued when Hanford is receiving off site waste
Waste will come from Iran now (to Hanford)
"
"^ilnmaYin^-r^aczor oomFarrmenc -c al gtr to Hanrord, are transported
to Richland at night now.
• Yucca Mountain says they don't want waste transported.
. Hope you take position of "no" to transporting waste - like people said
in referendum
• Ecology fight for us with us - tell them "no" do not transport waste.
• Public Meeting in Vancouver: didn't know about it, was told Ecology
doesn't advertise in Oregon.
• Columbia River contamination could spread if more waste sent to
Hanford - do not pollute Columbia River
Why is state allowing Hanford to bring in more waste
- It's legal--by what standards?
• Power generator/medical wastes - foreign - what prevents that from
coming to Hanford
State can't regulate US Ecology?

•
White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
3
• Working with Department Of Health--What is the relationship between
Ecology & DOH?
• If bathtub overflowing - don't use mop, don't send more waste to
Hanford - it's overflowing.
• Under no case - no limitation on access required to regulators to go
into Hanford - if USDOE balks - conduct a major public hearing.
• Give us a clear, simple statement of how much Columbia River water drawn
to go into Hanford daily -water pumped out of Columbia and number on
water pumped back into Columbia - dilution to pollution to drop below
threshold level
• Why USDOE/WHC not required to treat water before returning it to
Columbia River?
• What is the ambient water temperature going back to river?
• Water amount and temperature would be included in EIS
• Permits to pollute - sanctioning their right to pollute the environment
Vit. Plant pipe dreams - we don't believe it - this stuff is
b.s. - the plans are not sensible, rational
- taxpayers are going to pay for another boondoggle approach
• Grout: EIS, constituents of chemicals, how can you talk about, Grout
Facility going in the last quarter of 1992 without knowing answers to
these questions?
- Is there a Permit to build them (Grout Facility)
- How long does interim status last?
- What's time on interim status?
- Doesn't this strike you as something public should be outraged
about?
- Grouts are pyramids of Washington
- Umbrella Permit doesn't mean anything because they can go ahead
without you and we (public) mean even less
• What's Ecology's role in interim status decision?
• Interim status is a lie permanent status is a deception
- Want system: design, recognition of solution--discuss with public
- If Hanford is not permitted--shut it down! Ecology start

.^:
White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
4
exercising authorization citizens gave you
- Put facility on interim status, shut down, regulators watch -
onsite - return issue to public comment - interim permanent
- System --- toward goal of Hanford cleanup
- Washington State and USDOE lobby in D.C. on opposite sides of
fence--are they trying to work cooperatively with the TPA?
- Permitting status: USDOE old data, old EIS's - doesn't give
__
S41LJ1 r __«i
61^1.1 V11
Is it dollars?: why are we playing those games?
^^ - This is frustration: ---: to extent not --- by USDOE and WHC.
+a=a
r:Ta Decision in final Permit will be displeasing.
Who gets response summary and who reads?
Concern: that meeting is not being recorded
- Who made decision not to record
. Perhaps NWAC came on officially reporting on Permit, etc. - Public
comment - may be more beneficial inn process
. Roger Nichols, WHC: no dollars in cleanup - bad attitude when you're
sugar daddy: look at whole spectrum before run and add create a
solution: Permit is big bandaid
- Advertise to big companies: and get EPA and Ecology and us
(public) all together
- ---. --- breakthrough in news and out: who benefits: same
multinational
- Dump into ground: we're sitting here - we need to get together.
Is PNL the best:
- It's the same players: it's a revolving door: Lawrence &
Chemical Waste: Incinerator
- When are we going to wake up?
- I like living in valley - but I'm not going to stay because I know
Hanford's going to have big problems (affect us here)
- Not confident WHC and PNL ever come up with solution - don't get
it!
Let*c 1^^ti at whar wc^lrr onrl
-- o_'.

White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
5
- I can't say this place will be safe!
Paul Day - EPA - (509) 376-6623
Steve Wisness - USDOE - (509) 376-6798
Dave Jansen - Ecology - (206) 438-7021
• Permit difficult to read
- Inspections: visual -
- Looking for dead and dying animals - animals 1X/year.
- Permit is an experiment
- What's after trial burn?
- All references to regulatory ---, radionuclides delete - what's
that mean?
• River inspections should be 1X/week or 1X/month: ridiculous for less
• Make Permit issues more user friendly
• You're going to Permit anyway, so why river comment?
• There hasn't been and EIS on thi9?
• Define DNS on Vit.
- Why none?
• Do ---- determine DNS?
• Want cumulative EIS on Permit
- Proposed submitted for --- EIS insufficient for action of such
significance
• GAO needs to do study on the Permit process - feed this B like
bureaucrats run it, you --- take heat and we get took - public needs to
be involved.
• Tri-Party in Vancouver add(ed)
• Fear that people will get to --- to op. under interim status.
• Will Permit fix the illegal dumping, etc.
- Rubber stamp
• When TPA ---: requests are granted
• Permit --- takes f1-- from USDOE?
- Can you say I do things to ---minimization to --- to prevent waste
from coming into Hanford.
• Making money ---/non-paid ---. should be weighed 100 to 1

White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
6
. (Social conscious make points.) Want to feel that we are making a
difference to have our concerns-answered. Want-=== ine-etings-video taped
- live here for wholesome place, we feel that Hanford has impacted our
future.
- We're concerned about planet: We want to hear that you care about
planet too!
- Lack of faith: You're doing something: in --- - some auth.: do
(Xz
we have time left to make this work?
---' ^----- no °^^ ^^* paid off --- USDOE and WHC: I? whether your care
c.:,:
^^•' meetincB.
about our health and ---
Need passion and caring - we don't have time to come to all these
^• Meetings with Hanford issues with Ecology - fight with self that Ecology
is trying their hardest - look forward to seeing you: in seeing that
you're for real because you're younger.
Not about you're personalty - you do represent government:
government in this country sucks - you do represent hope that ---
activists and Ecology can work on this together.
- Concerns about plant earth: and future generations and concern
for degradation is fit. BS is further up the line:
• DOE budget funds regulations - Ecology and EPA
Public let that happen
Stop system allows dollars to control policy
• Hood River News --- get news releases ---- - give news releases
• Oregon division: involvement: ODOE
• Oregon Health monitors river
• DEQ - ODOE loan
• R.: monitor, H2O samples aerial monitor
• Make USDOE take aerial, sat. photos
- Have --- public trust some cos. to monitor Hanford
• Agencies that allowed this (wastes) to occur: failings of discharge
permits
Credibility probs. with agency

White Salmon Public Meeting
March 10, 1992
7
• Ph. to agencies - mail list: sendings on meetings to
• Monitoring Richland: Thousands of people in Richland daily 6
month/year: if something happens are we going to know that something
happens, during cleanup process. It's like stirring up soup pot.
Things could leak into river (during cleanup) ---. Ecology needs to
monitor/inspect river
. Estuary Program: What pos. of Ecology --- funds to study river
(Needs answers: - specifically dollars on river studies)
- H20 ---: Ecology needs to be involved
Mike Rochwell
Cindi Debruler
• Reg's: Clean Air Act?

= T'-HES PAGE iNTtNiiONALI`d
LEFT BLANK

6.0 ..1AN 21 199G
17 Jan 9Q
CHARLES R. "CHUCK" NORRIS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

0
l
^
^
^i
^
I
^
^ r
i
N M
n n n
.
b
r
..:^'.
^_.

_
^AtY _ R!"6ION d I i
``^i6S PA^E Itv t Er41 10 ., ^-
LEFT BLANK

8.0
Washington State Department
of Ecology
ATTN; Me. Mary Getchell
P. 0. Box 47651
Olympia, Washington 98504-7651
SUBJECT: Proposed Sitewide Dangerous/Mixed- )
Waste Permit For Hanford Cleanup
Ms. Getchell:
lb/llc
January it, 1992
HC 01, Box #2$
Wasco, Oregon 97065
Pursuant to the above subject, appended are my comments.
I am,
Sincprely,
v

8.1
_8-._2_ _
wr..
^a-
("Y?
The proposed Sitewide Dangerous/Mixed-Waste permit(s) for
Hanford cleanup should insure thFt:
o ^Onl^ Dan^-erous and Mixed-Wastes resulting from
^8n3'ord+s historical mission is treated, stored,
and/or disposed of on the Site and,
o Those TSD strategies/methods sanctioned by State
__------auth-o2`ity - :^ii
-i -r'@Bi#1t -iii'a --.Site with wl^ii _••"^_ yuutlc Liieetuil ,^L
and safety and environmental risk enual to, or less
than, that which existed prior to the onset of the
Manhatten Project at Hanford.
---------------------

e
^,e^L,te
9.0
flk4 wt a st At-o^ vlok GL^ cl
l,A4;twtc.,c -S;N4.0.^ co
pz,L^ ^-^-
^,^ O, . . 7ZLctt /tecv,^
*A Ct,.Oo Lj 40^ 7tt^
:..,^ ^ . ^^ . ._ . .. ^ .,,.. . . r.: ... ! , ^.... . ^°"`•^-...^`. . ^^
,
rU^N.- weAXe coooLe ^ o

-7t)
:A,
cl^ .
I/ fA o^2e ,^Uv W^ ^ho t 5-^
y 6uooL 77k5 IX erl4q"^ -ffk^
^ Gf4A cj
c^x
-- - - i v ^i
Ann Loylr
1324 'A'N.401h
MaIIN, WA W103

10.1
10.2
10.0
0157-6-9-2
^y ^bfC CO^I^IP^f Cou^d
o '04ere
'^Kr YjOIrCP O^ 7 K^l ^C ^^^K'IPK7
(//s /Yl/s /PQ'd ^1 y lS^l^ q Z^`ie
Yy/^e ^ rl9 `Jas Q.
C^j^^lce 7v r^ar7laare ct
^o /r to "^a/^ abouf "^^F
/iytP add 64( ^
,t^P^/Z^. xl` 74
^f'J D^ o^i 4ll CD ^,°rl^ D ^{
u/ifl r^eed ^llrI ^,e r.o^^
Co^^^^ fs co wn,
Al ZZ62 i,^c101'e
Col•^^x6^a /^Pr au r
-7i1e
a`ld^ef a^r/^sG^
^ D
/,yJ ^c^il/cQ

10.3
Cl^lv/o^ ^rl9^Ic° ^2^45 -or c^'^v ^ .
zoew l^fl^ ^^i° Vel Q!!^ C/^T///PCY
ei1 D,v 'S&^ A//Z as /q^^iUa^/^
leve/s 07' C'orr7`a;^,V6 7%,qz` w ///
be relea,se d r,^ z*e olj^s sa
^racess ? ^
10.4 ^^o (v(^! acc P^^6`^°
10.5
^
`(
611L°I-S (5--fl
f/v e e^iI^l?rs
p)/l/ 6e ased z`d sez` fXe,5 e-

CF_,G
10 . 6
10.7
10.8
^.:
G!// !S( ^4ll^ic°s B7^ Z^^7e
fyPP O ^ 45, ewrrelw`/ ^.s.^rllv
o^ ^QtP^-^^Q/y^^s
/14qre l^/^i^ 7^l1 e
co^z^Wed
^!`Il`reqz^^d G^/Q^^rjfo Zr`!e
soll /^9^P t`iMl Zreatlc^,^sc^
q^eo l(- al^wi^ 7r,^
/.f^I^ e`/tl'l4 f ^ s`!
h^9^y - rQo'r6Q t/ve !^/^sy^
in z`o t-e C^^6ia r
4 y^,^°
, u.,
;P, o, a&x9/-?
^nyen, ^y ^^^DS
-f•F/ , l^

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

92-RP8-004
Ms. Dana A. Rasmussen
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Mr. Chuck Clarke, Director
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Clarke and Ms. Rasmussen:
Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
P.O. Box 550
Richland. Washington 99352
11.0
Fcc 1 2 1Gg_
HANFORD FACILITY DANGEROUS WASTE PERMIT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD
The DOE Richland Field Office ( RL) hereby requests a 30 day extension of the
public comment period on the draft Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit,
issued on January 15, 1992, beyond the 45 days specified in the regulations in
accordance with WAC 173-303-840(6)(b).
The regulation at WAC,173-303-840(6)(a) requires permit applicants to
'.. raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and factual grounds supporting
their position, including all supporting material, by the close of the public
comment period ... ". RL believes that the extraordinary length of the draft
permit and the complexity of the issues raised therein warrant additional
review time and an extended public comment period in order for RL to fulfill
its duties under this section of the regulations. RL raised many concerns
during the months preceding the issuance of this draft permit. These matters
have not yet been fully addressed by the regulatory agencies. For instance,
while reviewing the draft permit, RL discovered that some issues on which it
was believed that acceptable resolution had been reached with the regulatory
agencies were in fact not resolved in the permit. In addition, some new
issues have been identified in the draft permit.
Further, the Department of Energy Headquarters has requested an opportunity to
review and comment on some of these complex issues, and ipput from other
U.S. Government entities (such as the Department of Justice) may also be
required. Soliciting, receiving, and forwarding this input will require more
time than the 45 days originally allotted for this process.
FEB 1 g ^^o

,tarke and Ms. Rasmussen -2- FEB ' 1 2 ggp
,XPB-004
Finally, RL realizes that there is strong public interest in this permit
action. RL welcomes the opportunity for citizens to comment on the draft
permit and believes that additional time is necessary to allow members of the
public to research the items that are addressed in the draft permit and to be
able to comment on them in a timely manner.
If you have any questions regarding our request, please feel free to contact
me or Mr. C. E. Clark of RL on (509) 376-9333.
cc: D. B. Jansen, Ecology
R. F. Smith, EPA
P. T. Day, EPA
T. M. Anderson, WHC
R. E. Lerch, WHC
T. B. Veneziano, WHC
H. E.. McGuire, WHC
W. R. Wiley, PNL
T. D. Chikalla, PNL
R. T. French, KEN
W. L. Mc°ader, HEHE
Sincerely,
ohn D. Wagoner
Manager

El
February 12, 1992
David Jensen
Hanford Project Manager
Washington Dept. of Ecology
Nuclear and Mixed Waste
Olympia, WA 98504
Dear Mr. Jensen:
12.0
t tt3 16 ML
DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Oregon appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Permit for the Hanford Facility. The
February 6 Permit briefing in Salem by Toby Michelina, Joe Stohr,
Mary Getchell and Dave Nylander was very helpful. Your
Department's continued cooperation with Oregon on Hanford issues
is valued.
We have a good working relationship with Washington Ecology. That
relationship is productive for both states. Oregon is eager to
continue work with Washington, USDOE and Native American tribes
to assure Hanford cleanup.
We commend Washington Ecology on the innovative approach to
Hanford cleanup via this Permit. Cleanup of hazardous wastes at
Hanford is a formidable problem. The Federal hazardous waste
regulations did not foresee such a large, diverse and complex
cleanup. It is critical that Ecology, US Department of Energy
and US Environmental Protection Agency be flexible and creative
with the Permit process. That is the only way the complex issues
at Hanford can be resolved.
our technical comments, primarily on vadose zone monitoring and
leak detection, are attached. The comments also include
editorial remarks, and a note about public access to this
document. Several other issues concern us.
The Permit is difficult to read. Efforts should be
made to make the document more "reader friendly."
Summaries of attachments would support this
effort. The document also needs clarification in BARBARAROBERlS
several areas. Of grave concern to Oregon are: Governor
- the Hanford Waste Vitrification Project
(HWVP) construction schedule, and
- adequate funding for Tri-Party Agreement
milestones.
625 Marion Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378J1040
FAX (503) 373-7806
Toll-Free 1-800-221-803

The Tri-Party Agreement calls for HWVP construction start by
April 1992. A Subpart X must be issued before construction
begins. Washington Ecology does not now have the authority
to issue the Subpart X Permit. USEPA will not issue the
Permit because they intend to delegate the authority to
Washington. USEPA must give priority to the Subpart X
authority transfer. They must resolve the permit issue to
support the HWVP schedule.
Paragraph 139 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent order requires DOE-RL, with the assistance of
Ecology and EPA, to determine funding levels needed to
support each fiscal year's work. USDOE Headquarters has not
given Washington or Oregon timely Activity Data Sheets which
show the actual level of spending for critical cleanup
activities. USDOE must provide this information to allow
meaningful states' input into the formulation of USDOE's
budget.
.Si2n.`ereiv S r
1a^' ^L
David A. Stewart-Smith, Administrator
Nuclear Safety & Energy Facilities Division

C^:.
^.-:.
OREGON COMMENTS ON
DRAFT TREATMENT, STORAGE,
AND DISPOSAL PERMIT
HANFORD FACILITY
FEBRUARY 1992

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

4
I
fja
^-^
^^•^
12.1 COMMENT:
12.2
12.3
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
COMMENTS ON DRAFT TREATMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL PERMIT
We are concerned about funding for Hanford cleanup. USDOE must
request the funds necessary to meet the milestones of the Tri-
Party Agreement ( and its revisions) on schedule. States must
have timely access to activity data sheets for review and
response. The data sheets must show the actual level of spending
for critical cleanup activities. This should be stated in the
Dcr.n; t
^vuiENT:
The Permit Fact Sheet states that Ecology does not yet have
authority to issue the Subpart X permit for the HWVP. EPA does
not plan to issue a RCRA permit for the Site. While it is not
certain if this will cause a delay in the construction start
scheduled for April 1992, this problem should be resolved as
quickly as possible. Construction of the HWVP must remain on
schedule.
COMMENT:
There is a vadose monitoring well system at the single shell tank
farms in the 200 Areas of the Hanford Reservation. Its purpose
is to help determine if leaks are occurring and to track the
movement of previous leaks. These wells have monitored
radioactivity levels of leaks that have occurred since 1956. From
these data, the movement and location of the waste fluids are
inferred.
The unsaturated (above the water table) "dry-well" monitors used
around the underground high-level storage tanks differ from more
common ground water monitoring wells. They do not sample fluids
in the soils around the tanks. They measure moisture content and
radioactivity levels of nuclear waste that has leaked into the
soil.
The 1990 Tiger Team Assessment found that:
...The current system for vadose (unsaturated) surveillance
around the single-shell tanks (SSTs) consists of outdated
drywell logging techniques that are limited in their
effectiveness...

...Only recently has the tank farm surveillance group
recognized that "the neutron probe is not effective in
determining the moisture content of the vadose zone..." and
"there is overwhelming evidence that the neutron probe
design may not be correct for boreholes that have been
constructed in the Tank Farm area" ( TT 03769). Apparently,
the neutron probe is still being used in external drywells
as in situ moisture analysis, but for "investigative
purposes" only. Borehole effects totally mask any in-situ
measurements from the vadose zone. In fact, WHC Geosciences
officially recommended the tool be discontinued....(I-GW-
43).
...The prototype system is reported to be scheduled for SST
use to provide baseline information during FY 1991; however,
"lj funding has not yet been allocated. Further efforts to
^.` improve the vadose zone logging program have been delayed by
° resource limitations...
...It was found that "for WHC to meet Federal and State
environmental regulations and DOE orders, a viable vadose
zone surveillance program must be implemented" ( TT 03769)...
---- -------These isssues-raise--concer-ns--about-ultimate-leaked-waste disposal:
-the outdated vadose monitoring system in the SST farms
-the lack of funding for a workable geophysical logging system
-the failure of USDOE to aggressively pursue a comprehensive
site-wide vadose monitoring plan.
A comprehensive vadose monitoring system is needed for these
reasons:
1. A monitoring network will show the actual locations, rather
than estimations, of the plumes caused by leaks. USDOE said that
the plumes are not closer than 115 feet above the water table.
These statements are based on data from the outdated well-logging
systems used in the single-shell tank farms. In fact, the
locations and movement of the waste plumes from as many as 66
leaking tanks are not known.
Appropriate geophysical logging equipment is commercially
available. Combined with a comprehensive site-wide vadose
monitoring plan, the right equipment could locate leaked waste.
USDOE may be correct in their assumptions about plume locations.
They must, however, demonstrate this conclusively with the best
available technology. If they are incorrect, it could mean there
is movement of high-level radioactive and chemical wastes to the
Columbia River.
Delay of the vadose zone monitoring plan will seriously
impede many areas of cleanup, such as of volatile organics.
Without a comprehensive data base and an acceptable sampling
record, "Leave or Retrieve" decisions will be difficult or
impossible for scientists and the public to accept.

11
12.4
2. A comprehensive site-wide vadose monitoring plan could help
determine the degree of mobility that cesium, strontium, and
other radionuclides have in Hanford soils. This would add
credible data to the theory that cesium and strontium adsorb onto
the sands and clays of the Hanford soils, and would not reach the
river. Once the high-level waste reaches the ground water, the
time of travel to the Columbia River could be less than 100
years. This is a major concern for Washington and Oregon.
A weakness of ground water model predictions is the lack of
credible retardation coefficients. A site-wide vadose monitoring
system would give valuable data about retardation of hazardous
constituents in the soils. This is an opportunity to get
meaningful data on nuclear and chemical wastes movement.
3. Good data on the vadose zone characterization are essential
to gain acceptance of the engineered barrier and in-place
stabilization concepts being developed by USDOE.
4. Site-wide vadose zone monitoring combined with site-wide
ground water monitoring is necessary for comprehensive cleanup.
COMMENT:
An estimated three thousand wells were drilled at Hanford before
1989. Most of these wells were drilled with technology that is
unacceptable by present environment standards. Long-range plans
for proper abandonment of these wells should be addressed in the
site-wide ground water plan and permit process. These wells can
allow interaquifer communication and transfer of contaminants.
Improper sealing and deterioration of well seals can allow faster
movement of contaminants from the vadose zone to the water table.
Long-range plans should rank environmentally-sensitive areas.
12 . 5 COMMENT:
The Facility-Wide Waste Analysis Plan must be submitted by May
31, 1992. There should be staffing requirements for the lowlevel
and mixed waste laboratories. These requirements should
ensure that the right expertise will be available for the types
-- and- qua-ntit'res of af\alyses needed for compliance.
12.6
COMMENT:
There are three emergency response plans in effect for the Site
from Westinghouse, USDOE and Pacific Northwest Laboratory. This
is a difficult and cumbersome arrangement for quality assurance
and effectiveness. Problems will arise if responsibilities onsite
shift or a company leaves. There should be only one
emergency response plan for the Site.

12,7
COMMENT:
The General Inspection Plan specifies that area inspections shall
take place every six months or yearly, according to the schedule
in II.O.2.a. of the Permit. The Permit also states that Ecology
----- ---and-EPA--shal3--be notified in advance. USDOE and its contractors
should expect that the regulators will continue to make random
inspections. Ecology needs free access to areas on the Site for
compliance oversight.
y
c-r-;
12.8
10 In
ic.iv
12.11
12.12
COMMENT:
Acronyms are used
text. It would be
section for quick
COMMENT:
often after their initial introduction in the
helpful to place them in the definitions
reference.
Include a list of facilities covered by the Permit. Indicate
their status, i.e., interim, closure, etc.
COMMF.NT •
Copies of the Attachments are currently available by request.
brief summaries of the Attachments, included in the main
document, would help people select the Attachments they want.
Individuals could also choose to receive only the summaries.
COMMENT:
Page 3, I.A.2: " . ..These units/areas are identified in attachment
xx of the Permit." From the list of Attachments, it appears that
3 and 4 should replace "xx".
COMMENT:
Documents sent to Portland State University library for public
comment were hard to find. Documents need to be clearly marked
t0alert ^ibY'^lrV _ta^^.__-^to13_shoi3ld-direr.t. the lihrarianc to
display documents in clear view. Title strips on the spine of
-the -binders -wouiti also .*.elp peopie locate documents on the
-^ -'
r^i..c 1 ^Gj •

0
13.0
^(J-^l.ri ,,^-OrL ^2.^" • [^-- ^C Ce-^ a^
Po 6-o^c ^ ^ 6s 1
,'C (^,-, A. _-^- L//
ti Lc.L cc nl I
t(_ )i1
-TkL- . 13 i 19 9 '?-.
q t^r6;L- ?
^2 ,Q.r_.^^e, -r,.e_c^^ ^4-^•^ C.o-t,^.^,rn,G^.r.^.^
a r^ dl U4L^tt S ulmoyn,, Lua^^ . ^4 ca..nu
e.^^n ^d a.V-a^u ^#"
^PAtc
e,^2.a na ^. ^t^ ^ aQ
CLQ.as- ^^ `I-^ ^-^ri,^s^ rna.^-con, ^a-Oto uQcQ
-to 411 &

CL-l.\.1.^..L+^-^^^ ^,Il. ^^^1'^^•LJIZ.C^ ^^IiI:^.L4 (^L_ .
13.1 1) dkAL(-C-IA n1,
a"-axx,t.ncE.np^s rE-^La4.cfk Gn. Ak.
^-^
13.2 f U7c lnls CE^Q^ ^((^' ^1 Q ^^
13.3 W-iho wZu lYltrrL(i-&r P-^QLEd
^f..
4 Lv-^e- rt ^'r ^Q ^^v>,,^^-v^Q... `^- J^ u n cQ ^ncQS '
^ ^^'t3.5 3^ Cd- Ar l^OYI'- ^^ I)C.Q
^EX-^^- . . L^
,t.
13.7
6 ^D) `^(101.4r ^^.C.Q 7 ^lllJ^ L(^
^^ -{./L.^B'U11.^ lJ h
-t.9-
J-tu, -r^ -P^ ,^ I ^ -^^. .^^. - t^
C^ a^- . '^ ^^e^rru^
^,^ ^,^v^+ ru,ri.^ ^-h.c,^ ^c 1^..^ .
a, ^ ^ rn c^r2^ Yu:c^ a z
afw
^a-
-1l',a,n.L. ytr^ .
. ...: .. . .. .^.:..^^:^ .,
.... ^... ..,. .. .. . . . . . . . . .
n. tiAA '^s41.^o.,

Ad0k Washington State
^ Department of Transportation
D strict 5
2809 Rudk.n Road. Union Gap
P0 Box 12560
vakima. Washington 969092560
(509) 575-2510
February 18, 1992
Department of Ecology
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Attention: Mr. David Jansen
Hanford Project Manager
14.0
Determination of
Nonsignificance
SEPA Environmental Checklist
Hanford Facility, 183-H Solar
Evaporation Basins !c The
Hanford Waste Vitrification
Plant (HWVP)
F^^1
Duane Berentson
Secre'ar7 bi Transportanon
We have reviewed the environmental documents for the proposed project for
permitting of Hazardous Waste Management activities at the Hanford Facility.
For the 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins, an inactive dangerous waste
management facility and the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP).
These proposals are located within the Hanford reservation and should not
impact or affect the state transportation facilities in the area.
We do not any further comments to provide. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on this project.
RLL
Very truly yours,
RICHARD L. LARSON, P.E.
District Administrator
^^^--
By: George Hilainger, P.E.
Dist. Planning & Traffic Engineer
199?

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

2065838500
SENT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE : 2-24-92 ; 5:03PM : COMMUNICATIONS (o4)- 206 459 68584 1
^.,
CONFII)B.W17AL
15.0
PE.RIQDiS (ONE
SEATIT.E OFFfCE FACSIMILE
MAIN SWITCHBO : (206) 583-8888
FACSIMII.E NL7MBR (206) 583-8500
FACSIMILE PROBLtMS: (206) 583-8575
PRIVIIP.GED
THIS FACSIMU.E CONTAINS CONFIDENIZAL, PRI'VlLEGED INFORMA'1'[ON IIVTENDED ONLY FOR THE
IIvDri'IDUAL OR ENTTI'T TO WHOM IT 18 ADDRE ED. DO NOT READ, COPY OR DISSET•iIIVATE TEIIS
L'VlOSI[ATION UNLESS YOU ARE THE ADDRESSEE OR THE FERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEIIVERiNG IT).
IF YOU HAVE RECEiVED'1ffiSCI)NrnfUNICRriODUDI OR; PU AT
(n6)583•8375, AND RETURN THE ORIGEVAL MESS^LGE TO F•ERKIltiS COIR (1201 TE1ntD AVENUE, 40TH
lIAOR, SEA11'lE, WASHINGTON, 98101-3099) V/A TEM POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
ADDRESSEE ^^•'^^
(Fi7U7 OR
4 EL
aNmrvtnawT
FROM 1`4t DataosK.i
q Fax Center Confirm Receipt
Pages (Including Cover Sheet)
Instnictions
9
Return to SCes t!.' P;"G tI-
NAna
Time Transmission Began
Time Completed
Sent By
NOT SENT (ezplanation):
COMMUNICATIONS /
DK[8 2 "x
DIREGT DIAL
FAXNO^^`^Lt-M
Phone Number
Client Number
C-6
Ex7. FLOOR
Time Recfipt Ovnfirmed Per Page
Machine Total

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

^ FEB 2 7 1992
PERKINS COIE
VIA FACSIMILE
A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1201 THI RD ASEFiE -10TH FLOOR • SEQTLE 'X 15HI%GT05 98101 3099 • (206) 583-8888
February 24, 1992
L1 Dan Duncan
07^ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
^. Hazardous Waste Division,
Iy3
Federal Facilities Section
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Comments on Hanford Draft Cleanup Permit
Dear Mr. Duncan:
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation
of this morning. I am writing on behalf of U. S. Ecology to
request an extension of time for U. S. Ecology's comments on
the draft Hanford RCRA cleanup permit.
U. S. Ecology requests an extension of the comment period
for three reasons. First, our law firm first became actively
involved in this matter on February 14, 1992 and must review
numerous background documents before being able to assist in
providing meaningful comments. Secondly, the Draft RCRA
Facility Assessment Report for U. S. Ecology was not made
available until the public hearings of February 18-20, 1992.
Finally, several of the issues we intend to address are
complex because the activities of U. S. Ecology facility are
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Washington Department of Social and Health Services, and
because U. S. Ecology is not a permittee under the draft
permit.
10990 t-000 ( /SL92os60.067J
TELEIL 32-0319 PERKINS SEA • FACSIMILE (206) 583-8500
ANCHORAGE • BELLEVCE • LOS ANGELES • PORTL.SND • SPOKANE • WASHINGTON. D.C.

Dan Duncan
February 25, 1992
Page 2
Please call me at 583-8885 as soon as you have a decision
regarding the request for an extension of time for comments or
--- ---- for amceting: We appreciate your time and attention in this
matter.
Ver _truly yours,
^_s ; ^l.^C ^^ ^C^7C•,^U
^..._
w.^ avid Dabroski
DD:sab
cc: Toby Mitchellina
Barry Bede
109901-0OOI/SL920560.0671 2/25/92

tv
aNl tlT^F'tKK1N5 GUIt JtAI1Lt ; Y-Z4-0Z - D•U4F'M . WMMUN1GA11UNJ kM4),
r:a rAcssxu.s
PERKINS OOIE
A Lao PNTnaxmn InCLUDao Pwn,atonAL CoWourpMS
1201 TnuD Avcnvl. 40TH FLow • StNTTU. WA.nuroTOM 98101•5099 •(206) 583•8888
Toby Mitcbellina
Department of Ecoloqy
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WR 98804
February 24, 1992
all Comments on Eanford Draft Cleanup Yermit
Dear Xr. Mitchellinat
I an writing on behalf of U. S. Eooloqy to request an
extension of time for D. a. Ecology's comments on the draft
Manford RCRA cleanup permit.
LVV YBa uu4010 L
U. S. Eooloqy raquests an extension of the comment period
for three reasons. First, our law firm first became actively
involved in this matter on February 14, 1992 and must review
numerous background documents before being able to assist in
providing meaningful comments. Secondly, the Draft RCRA
Facility Assessment Report for U. S. Ecology was not made
available until the public hearings of February 1i-30, 1992.
Finally, several of the issues we intend to address are
complex because the activities O. S. Eeoloqy facility are
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
lUaishingtolL A^rtmentof-So4lal-and-Raalth Servica s and
because O. B. Ecology is•not a permittee under the draft
permit.
wroI-0ooLrnnosw134
TncX 32•00 P.ann. s.a • FOAM.., (20) sss-esoo
Ancnoucs • BauwM • Loo Ancnn • PoMrune • sroc^rt • WifBmora6 D.C.

StNT BY:PERKINS COIE SEATTLE ; 2-24-92 ; 5:UhPM ; CUMMUNICAIluNa k44 » cuD 4a4 oo:,o.* o
Toby Mitchellina
--- iobrlas] s+, li°a20
Page 2
ploass call as at 583-8885 as soon as you have a decision
ragarding the request for an extension of time for oomments or
for a meating. We appreciate your time and attention in this
matter.
DDSSab
ca: Dan Duncan
sarry Heds
4w^et.M>sIJ20M.OQ
V truly yours,
avid Dabroski

16.0
Washington State Dept of Ecology
P.O. Box 47651
Olympia, WA 98504-7651
Attn: Mary Getchell
Clay & Dixie Gatchel
11516 155th Avenue S.E.
Renton, Washington 98059
Subj: Citizen Comment-Sitewide Draft Permit for Hanford
Cleanup (Due by 03/01/92)
Dear Ms Getchell:
February 19, 1992
Despite the $6 million of our tax dollars being used for public
information programs to enhance Hanford's image, we remain
skeptical. We have tried to keep an open mind regarding Hanford
because we recognize the need for alternative sources of power to
fossil fuels if our country is to be economically strong. However,
after "45 years of secrecy", we feel that the nuclear pushers have
not only "suckered" the American public but also sold us down the
river for generations to come.
4r However, we support all your efforts to reform and get your act
together because there is no viable alternative. We will also lean
on Congress to fund adequately the effort as long as our tax
dollars are controlled tightly and spent wisely. The more we read
of the deplorable situation at Hanford, the more pessimistic we
become that an adequate cleanup or safe waste management program is
possible. We are also dissatisfied with the past performance of the
present players: U.S. Department of Energy and the Westinghouse
Hanford Company. We don't know anything about the Battelle-Pacific
Northwest Laboratory. However, as concerned citizens, we will be
alert to any indications that those in charge are not following
Energy Secretary James D. Watkin's edict to the letter: (1) open
and forthright with regulators and the public; (2) compliance with
all applicable state and federal environmental regulations; (3)
first priorities must be public safety and the environment.
16.2
We support a moratorium on all waste- generating activity until a
safe and sane waste management and transportation disposal program
is in place. In addition, we are adamantly opposed to Washington
State being used as the hazardous waste dump for the world.
Good Luck!
Sincerely,
^j 'G%
Clay 6 Dixie Gatch 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFF SLANK

'- - ' FEEf-28-'92 08:23 ID: DOH RAD PROTECTION TEL N0:206-753-1496 13134 P01
1%.U
_.mmow
TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL !
DitiW'r'f
R,I/,ffor
^^++ lrofref/or
FROM THE
DIV SION OF RADIATION PROTECTION ^
DATE: Z Z ua^ NUMBER OF PAGES: COVER +
PLEASE DELIVER TO: 1OWN 1l'1,,-kPfCE ^o^^K STQN^y
FROM: 1:171C
NSTRUCTIONS: 7L^^1D G'OOsy ^S ^N r14L5
YJ /4JEE> y^7G>'/{ / ,^c^i%E
OUR TELECOPIER NUMBERS ARE,
OLYMPIA: (206) 753-1496 RICHLAND: (509) 454-2030
SEATTLE: (206) 464-7081 SPOKANE: (509) 456-2997
e4, /
/

^-,
FEB-28-'92 08:23 ID: D01-i kRD PROTECTION TEL N0:206-753-1496 13134 P02
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Environmental Health Programs
Division of Radiation Protection
'Vol Narda Pierce
Deba_rtmant of Eaolow
FROn: °riu aiagio
Department of Health
February 25, 1992
E0E,7ECTs CO)O[S11T9 ON TEE DE&7T DaNqEROIIS w718TE PER1[IT FOE Sal1TORD
Attached are comments on the draft dangerous waste permit for
Hanford that have been compiled by department staff. Your draft
permit represents a good solid effort in regulating dangerous
wastes at Hanfordj however, it is critical that the radioactive
component, while not regulated by your agency, is at least
assessed. Such assessment assures that the management of hazardous
wastes does not neglect the public health aspects of the
radioactive portion of those wastes. By including the Department
of Health in a support role in the permit, both of our legislative
mandates can be not, and the public should feel more confident in
the state•s ability to protect than.
--- ---- ---S^-ym-haiva-any-queatiens-plsase gi.e :.s a ;^1l.

FEB-28-'92 08:24 ID: DOH fL7D PROTECTION TEL N0:206-753-149b
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PERMIT FOR THE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF DANGEROUS
WASTES AT HANFORD
By
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
wix rn^
17•19 We complement the Department of Ecology on its efforts to begin to regulate wastes at
Hanford. The Department of Health supports these efforts, recognizing that pmmitdng the
treatment, storage and disposal of dangerous wastes at Hanford is a oompka and unique
undutaldng.
This permit is intcnded to te8ulate hazardous wastea, includirq; the hanrdous portion of mixed
wastes. Sb±ce the AtomicEner¢y Act of 1954 proldblts states from ttgttladtt8 tmdi0acdve wrstes
from defense facilities (unless there is an agreement with tiro fedeial8overamant similar to the
state's agreement with the Nuoleat Regulatory Commission to do so). the permitting of these
wastes must take into consideration the radioacdve portion of the wastes, without actually
regulating than, This is eomplicated even further In that, in most clsa, the sadieac8vity is
much more %azardous' than those wastes falling under the re8uiatoty designation of
'hazardous'.
The public does not appear to diffetentiate between the two types of wastes. Virtually all
comments in public meetings and hcarin8s held by the Department of HeoloQy or the Department
of Energy center around radioactivity, not lead, asbatos, carbon tetraddoride, eto.
Sinoe the management of hamrdous wastes at Hanford cannot exclude the radioactive portion
of such wastes, we believe it is essential tlwt the Department of Health, as the state's radiation
control agency (RCW 70.98), play a key role in this mantgemeut. Health would not be an equal
'permitter' with Ecology, but rather, a•adviaor• in a support mie to Ecology to ensure that,
when hazardous waste Is managed, the eadios,qive portion of such waste Is mansjed safely and
in a manner consistent with the Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protxtion (WAC 246), to
ensure the protection of the public health.
is no question of Ecology as the lead a;atcy In this effost, with Sealdt as a suppoztdn8
agency. However, both agencies are essential for the adequate regulation of mixed waste.

Gb-GO- DC 190; c4 lu• ^ r, rnu, G^. iUn
Febraaty 23, 1992
Ttp 2
17.1 1. Aee 3. line 20 and 21 . The statematt that 'permit conditions would pre-empt any
conflicting attachmenW is too braad, and could oonf$Ct with other federal or ttata
atatutet. The attachments should be thoroughly examined and conflicts worked out
Individually to avoid coaflietln; with other spttutes.
,-..,
Sthro?gh U . The definition of 'danSerou wasta' needs further
, explanation. Although RCW 70.105 includes mixed wastes, WAC 173-303 Implicitly
' _aenet
excludes the radioactive portion. It should be clarified that the permit is for the
hazardous portion of the mixed wastes, but that the radioactive portion of the waste must
at least be addressed to casure it's safe management.
17.3 3. Peae 11. (jnes 26 thnxi4n 31 . The definition of a'rekase' conflicts with later uses;
later releases include radioactivity; this desinidott does not.
i^`^_^ j7^t""•' j^1: +7 . •• peparhment of Booloyy should, In the permtt,
recoQtdze the security toquirrmatts of Hanford.
p,Qt2% 'Immediate ItgXdq,go . This section Mould reoo6aize the Dr,partmpit of
Community Development's statutory authority for all emerSeacy planning (RCW 38.10),
and the Depattmatt of Health's statutory authority for radioactivity (RCW 70.98). The
permit should not ootttra0itx the 1991 MOU baween DCD, Iiealth, HooloeY and USUOB
for notifications of such releaoea. The permit, at cutr=tly wtittea, J&eoreq that
aSrocment.
17 .6 6. bn 20. lines 38 throuQh 44 . It should be clarified that quantities of radioactivity are
not roe:asured in 'pounds' or 'pinb'.
17.7 7. P,oe 21- ino 7 t_houh 14 . The Department of Aealth't Diinldet Wate[ ProSram
authority should be cJted to digerentiate from BooloSy's. DCD's statutory authotity
aftould also be cited ham
17.8
S. bet^jlitUa 4 througti 9. The l.n^e in the 'Other Noncomplianca' secdoa is
enA dwdA .ir ^: t;t^«f^d.
17.9 9' bS23•lines24^'uh 49 . Health and DCD slwttld be added to this notifitation list
for applicable arees, as noted previously in theae oommenta.

17. 10
^^i^ c0- JC VOc./ Wfl ^RV^C..^ll... ^CL IRJ.CCA'!JJ-lYJV ..^J'. .^^
February 23, 1992
Page 3
10.
Ha1
Ecology dUSBfo^r notifications. The language should be changed W^
recognize other a8reemeirts and authorities.
17.11 11. Paee 27 and 28, secti,•n II.s . This section must recognize DCD's statutory role as the
central state authority for eme:Yency planning.
^• 12. pag^28 lines 40 t.hroqY^ . If the draft Facility Wide Waete Analysis Plan Lwludes a
17 .12
rad"ative component, Health should also be iacluded for review and apptoval to ensure
compatibility with radiation and public health reBulaHoas and goals.
17.13 13. Pagr, 34. line 40-41 . If the plan includes radioactivity, a copy should be provided to
'-> Health a1w.
6?:.:
17.14 14. paeeB. ;i n0y . If the records of monitoring inctude radioactivity, then Hexlth, having
authority,for radiation monitoring (RCW 70.98), should be included.
15 15. pya 44 line 38 h=8b aee 45, line 14 . If this roquiiement is intended to include
radioactivity, visual inspeotions are insufficient to determine its presence. If radioactivity
is not lnclude.d, it should be explicitly excluded.
17.16 16. pBQe_,4S line 1&20 . •Authorized representatives• should be deiined. If the Inspections
include any sites that are radioactive, ther Health needs to be inctuded. Dosimetry for
Ecology staff should be provided Health, as we do for other state aeeaalea. Ecology
staff shouW be included In the statt't worker exposure records (RCW 70.98).
17.17 17. paee 47, secerm II.U . If dangerous waste lines include radioactive lines, It should be
stated explicitly. Healtll should also be imcluded for Information distribution if
radioactive lines are Included.
17.18
MW
Attachments were not available for review, so site specific canments could not be addreAted
adequately. Care must be tai=, thesefose, to avoid any conttadictiona of other statutory
authority (state or federal), which may apply under other programs In state Sovernmeot.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

18.0
Mary Getchell
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47651
Olympia, WA 98504-7651
206-459-6862
Mary Getchell:
February 25, 1992
This is a written comment regarding the sitewide draft permit
for Hanford cleanup.
I don't pretend to understand all the technical issues
involved with the clean-up. There maybe some justification in the
snail's pace the Dept of Energy is taking. Since the DOE should
have been cognosced of their activities for the last fifty years,
I doubt they have done 180 degree turn. I do know there has been
talk of federal funds allocated to Hanford clean-up being used for
other (pro-nuclear) activities.
I also receive the Hanford U ate . The table on page three
(volume 3/2 January 1992) describing the schedule for treating or
eliminating some of the major waste streams, does not fill one with
a lot of confidence i.e. limit discharge to 160 gallons per minute
of plutonium ?!?
I just hope our State Department of Ecology as a "partner"
with the DOE can keep the money and attitude on the clean-up at
Hanford.
There are many generations of Washingtonians, Americans,
people, and other species depending on you.
Please keep my name on your Hanford list.
1620 Sunset Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
S. ncer
Mike Conlan B.S., D.D.S., M.H.A.
pc
DOE, Richland
Congressman McDermott
State Senator Talmadge

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

`
r,;
,
Q
D-(2t1
rl^
19 .1 LL
19.2
19.0
^^^--
UA-u-e-e-^ li-eA
0-16A -^-^-
1 'c^ v
^..Q^_
a-vl-VtA8 H t'1t4^
Le- tQQOtQ^
^
19.3 ^ ^^yKaµ^ 4 ^ ^,(^^
&A
::T, U-)OckLl^) c-,c.(::^^
^,'0096 .m[IeePape,

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

-r.
EEB 27 1991
20.0
Mary Getchell
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47651
Olympia, WA 98504-7651
February 25, 1992
Dear M. Getchell:
-^- ----- This letter is my comment on the Sitewide Draft Permit For Hanford
Cleanup Public Notice.
r^..
n-,
Genrally, it seems most of the permits are fairly routine. I am
20.1 concerned, however, with the UE&C Catalytic Inc. permit (GCC-PL-009).
_ I am wondering if this is a permit for either radioactive or
17' hazardous waste incinerators at Hanford?
I know the Department of Energy is considering putting both types
20.2 of incinerators at Hanford. I would be against granting either
permit at Hanford. Actually, I am also against permiting an
incinerator at Lind. Incinerators have proven to be environmentally
unsafe. In the Hanford area, I feel, we have enough problems
without granting an opportunity to pollute the air.
Actually, it would be nice to offer the public an opportunity
20.3 to comment upon this topic before granting a permit. It would
also be nice to have an Environmental Impact Statement before
the permit is granted. Actually, in a meeting about a year ago,
the Department of Energy did agree to an Environmental Impact
Statement before beginning the process to build an incinerator
at Hanford. Perhaps they have forgotten their statement. I
think the Department of Ecology should hold them to their statement.
20.4
I am concerned also about allowing more core drilling for wells
at Hanford. It seems this process would affect the groundwater.
So, I would be against drilling for more wells and granting permits
for new wells.
Thank you for allowing public comment on this issue.
Sincerely,
c?at Q(l^^
tricia A. Herbert
P.O. Box 95966
.Seattle, WA 98145

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

15099436655
E H- 2 T- 9 2 T H U 1 6: 3 2
To: Mary Getchell
99 S. Sound
Lacey, WA 98504
(206) 459-6862
(206) 459-6859 fax
From: Ana R. Sherwood
1008 Marshall
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 946-3520
Date: February 27, 1992
T H E M A I L
21.0
C E N T E R P . 01
Attached is a comment I wish to submit on condition II.U of the Hanford Draft
Permit for the Treatment, Storage and Disposal of Dangerous Waste. Thank you.

F..F.B-: 27 - 9 2 T H U 1 6 7 S 2 T H E M q I L C E N T E R P _ 0 2
Condition XI.U of the Hanford Draft Permit for the Treatment, Storage
11nd Disposal of Dangerous Waste requires that comprehensive maps showing
the surveyed Yocati«n of all act:.va, fnarYiva and abandonQd buried
pipelines that currently handle or have at any time handled dangerous
waste be provided.
This permit requirement is Without regulatory basis.
The Washington State Dangerous Waste regulations require that facilities
nive, as part of thoir operating recorQ, diagrams showing the location
of pipelines carrying dangerous waste. Hanford complies with this
requirement. Engineering drawings exist that contain the required
information. In addition to this axisting set of drawings, the Tri-
,PArty Agreement has, as part of its components, a requirement that each
dividual Treatment, Storaga and Disposal ( TSD) unit within Hanford
obtaln a"Part B Permit." Maps of dangerous waste piping associated
vith each 'fSD unit must accompany the applications for the individual
coo rmits. And remediation efforts will provide information on the
,`:location of the inactive and abandoned lines. Therefore, a second set
not maps showing the active, inactive and abandoned buried pipelines will
be provided.
Cr)
Now the Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), through the
Hanford Permit, is requiring a third set of drawings which will contain
the same information. This is a third, redun ant set of maps.
Providing this third, redundant set of maps will be yerv expensive.
Estimates for these maps run in the mi 1io s . Taxpayers are being
required to spend this money for something that will not provid any
additional safety or health benefit.
---Gftmn-the regu-l-atory-response to obiections due to cost is 'Ecology does
not concern itself with dost.' Well as a taxpayer, - I t.hink Ecology
---should--consider cost. It's one thing to put human health and the
environment before cost considsrations, but its-another--thiny--to-imposa
frivolous requirements on a facility when the taxpayer has to pay for
something that is not required. Think about what you are getting at the
cost of several million dollars. A duplicate set (twice over) of maps
-----t}Sat are r&t req',:ired by th2 danaerouB waste regulations. Frankly, this
example of careless spending would be just irritating, if it wasn't so
distressing. Everyday , the newspapers have stories of families going
homeless, of the raising level of young children living in poverty, of
the elderly in need of care, eto.. These are all areas where our tax
dollars could do some good, but instead we are being asked to spend
millions on superfluous maps. How can we justify this?
We need to be responsible in the use of our tax dollars. Condition II.U
of the Hanford Permit is not required by the dangerous waste
regulations. Including Condition II.U in the Hanford Sitewide Permit
will- rasult-_in_ irreeponsible government spending at a time when the
-- -goYernae.^.ti !+h^uid be much more caution with the taxpayer's money.

tHEAL
22.0
Hanford Education
Action League
Comments of the Hanford Education Action League on the Draft Permit for the
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
by
of Dangerous Wastes at Hanford
Todd Martin
Staff Researcher, Hanford Education Action League
The sitewide permit appears to be a,step toward the regulatory
authority which the state needs to adequately oversee activities at
Hanford. Oversight is crucial in ensuring that environmental restoration,
waste minimization, and waste activities are taking place as
prescribed by the TPA, environmental statutes, and, in the future, the
permit. While HEAL has some concerns about the permit, we applaud the state
in its pursuit of a true regulatory stronghold at Hanford.
Enforcement of the permit is going to take an immense amount of time,
resources, and vigilance. Tracking permit compliance is a job the state
regulators must not underestimate. Reviewing permit applications and
writing permits for the specific treatment, storage, and disposal sites is
going to take an enormous effort in and of itself. This does not even
speak to the effort involved in enforcing the permits. Is the state.ready
for the task the permit presents? Is the staff adequate, both in terms of
the number• of employees and the expertise of those employees? What
measures are being taken to insure that the state will have the ability to
identify and enforce any noncompliance with the permit?
Enforcement activity up to this point has been all but nonexistent.
The recent violations in the tank farms which were uncovered by
Westinghouse audits are a good example. While Westinghouse initially
expected an enforcement action from the state, it appears that enforcement
will not take place. If the state is not able or willing to follow througn
on the provisions of the permit the public's confidence and support will be
lost. It is the state's responsibility to ensure that the regulatory
structure to enforce this permit is in place. The citizens of the
northwest deserve nothing less.
-- - We remain discouraged andconcerned about t he information repository
system. In Spokane (Crosby library) many of the documents arrive late, 22.3
putting strain on already brief comment periods. Another issue is the
location within the library of the documents. Most of the library's staff
do not know where they are (or• even of their existence). To compound this,
the documents are placed in a corner• of an alcove off of the reference
room, not labeled. These are just a few of the problems with the
repositories. These concernsL are not new.
For the general public, the situation is tantamount to not even havrng
the doc-iments in the library. The parties pursue solutions to the
repository problems in order for the public to comment adequately and, as a
result, for the cleanup to move forward in an efficient, sound manner.
The permit is full of references to state and federal laws and
regulations. This is necessary if true oversight and accountability are 22,4
ever to be realities at Hanford. In seeking public comment the state
answer the question, "Is the public equipped to comment effectively on this
permit?" This question leads to another question, "What lengths does the
state need to go to in terms of equipping the public for comment?" The
public, its ability often underestimated, has shown, time and again, that
1720 N. Ash • Spokane, Washington 99205 •(509) 326-3370 • FAX (509) 326-2932 - ®
22.1
22.2

it can get itself up to speed and offer timely, informed comments on almost
any issue, regardless of technical content.
What must be provided by government and regulators are the avenues, or
with which the public can inform itself. In this case, the means
would be information containing a brief description of each of the
references in the permit. Along with the description would be information
on where the public could obtain access, for review purposes, to the
i^eferenced laws and regulations.
It may be that the references in the general permit are the same ones
which will be referenced in the specific permits over the next three to
r!=; five years. If this is the case, a round of workshops briefing the public
on each reference should be conducted.
As it stands now, the public's hands are tied. Even if folks can deal
with the volume and technical data found in the permit, they are
confronted with procedures and provisions which do not have descriptions or
names, only numbers. Members of the public cannot be expected to give
:7-
Cr)
comments
where to
on a
find
number that
information
represents they know not what. If they know
regarding that number, the government, the
public, the process, and the end product are all served.
The volume and technical data presented in tbo permit lead also to
concerris as to t he length of the comment period. Because of the
extensiveness of this permit, HEAL requests that the comment period for
this as well as the subsequent, related treatment, storage, and disposal
unit permits, be extended to of sixty days.
The relationship of the permit to the TPA is a concern. The TpA is a
document that is accessible to the public. By accessible we a
document that the public feels comfortable with, in terms of understanding
and comprehensioh. The permit, on the other hand, is not a particularly
accessible document. The volume of the permit and its technical
information make it a difficult document to get an understanding of.
A hefty, technical document the public is not that familiar with takes
precedence over a document that, by and large, the public understands and
has confidence in. Concern on the part of the public is understandable.
To deal with these concerns the state should convey to the public
specifically how the two documents relate and how the provisions of the TPA
will be carried out under the permit.
22.5
22.6
22.7

0 .
II.D., p. 28: It is not clear exactly what will be contained in the
Facility Wide Waste Analysis Plan. Will this have any effect on any part 22.8
of the TPp? If so, what will that effect be?
How will any land use plan or land use planning process be integrated
into the activities pertaining to the permit? 22.9
1I.J.1.h., p. 41: What constitutes a "independent registered
professional engineer"? 22.10
II.L.2., p. 41: Who determines what "adequate laboratory and process
controls including appropriate quality assurance procedures" are? 22.11
DOE is having difficulties complying with the laws and regulations
that are currently imposed on their laboratories. Because of these
difficulties many of DOE/WHC's sampling and analysis efforts, and our tax
dollars, go to waste. DOE has a problem and has not shown the willingness
to try and solve it. It has purposely violated the Tri-Party Agreement in
refusing, at least to this point, to build a new lab facility as prescribed
in the Tri-Party Agreement. Without adequate lab capabilities cleanup come
to a halt. Will this permit, and the state regulators, prevent that from
happening?
II.U., p. 47: What level of quality assurance will be expected in
these maps? Who determines that quality assurance and how will it be 22.12
enforced? Why won't the contain any information as to the suspected
condition of the pipes?
II.W.1., p. 48: What is the definition of "information necessary"?
Consider the following scenario: DOE has to obtain a permit for an activity
for which the "information necessary" includes the waste characterization
of a tank. DOE is putting forth its "best effort" to characterize the
tank, but due to lack of funding and poor lab capabilities, the tank will
not be characterized for several years. In this case, would DOE be able to
avoid applying for the permit?
Attachment 9, p. 2C-3, line 34: What is the definition of "risk"?
Attachment 9, p. 2C-4, line 1S: What is the definition of "period:c 22.14
assessments"?
Attachment 9, p. 2C-5, section 2C5.3.1.1: This section states that if
contractors don't develop and implement QA programs during design and
construction they can demonstrate that the unit complies before use.
Demonstrating that a unit complies after it has been built is backward.
What is the course of action if a unit is built and is then determined to
be in noncompliance?
Chapter 3, Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant
Throughout this section are references to the Double Shell Tank 22.15
System. What does this system consist of? HWVP will be operated to process
22.13

-$-x;sti^g-and future DST System waste. What "future" wastes are included
here?
Several treatment systems for liquid wastes produced during the
vitrification process are written about but the final disposal solution is
not r•evealed. The title of one of the systems, Nonradioactive Liquid Waste
Collection, Treatment, and Disposal System, implies that the waste is
disposed of through this system, but it is not addressed in the text.
Other liquid treatment systems are included in this section but where the
waste will ultimately end up is not divulged. It is important to know how
of is going to be created by trying to clean up the existing
The "reference feed" dealt with in analyzing the effects of the waste
is the Neutralized Current Acid Waste. Analysis of this kind of waste
first is logical since it is planned to be the first to be vitrified.
X_ However, the NCAW is less complex and very different than the other wastes
to be vitrified. The prevailing belief is that the NCAW will be less
troublesome than the other waste streams, this should be made clear.
Why is there no mention of either pretreatment systems or tank
retrieval systems in the HWVP Permit compliance schedule
(Table 1)? The vitrification plant depends on these questionable
technologies, they cannot logically be separated.
-dn closing, I::ould like to reiterate HERL's support for the
permitting of the Hanford site. DOE has been allowed to disobey
environmental laws and shun oversight for too long. Recent actions
have shown that DOE is not fully committed to the TPA. Further authority
to regulate cleanup is necessary; this permit is a step in that direction.
With diligence the state can now put itself in a position to further
ensure, for the citizens of the northwest, the cleanup of the Hanford site.

Dear Mary Getchell:
23.0
r'ebruary 27, iyq[
syz5 .:ast Liberty,
Spokane, vin.
)y2u7
. -•r19 2/g9^
I have strong concerns ::bout the .ermittin^.- of the naz-
23.1 srdous :raste at ;lanford. i snoke to some of my worries at the S;ocane Hearing.
Most importantly, I forgot to address my desire to limit tiie amount of waste to
that which is produced in our State, to be ;;rocessed here. Washington state has
already borne a heavy burden of hazardous waste generated on site, a no additional
waste snould be imported . I greatly fear tne dangers, expense ^Z rationale
tnat would encourage the trans;orting of such material, u processing it here.
My next concern is that only the vitrification plant at South Carolina, as
23.2 far as I know, is operating in the United States. I would like time, several
years, to assess the safety & expense of that plant before allowing another to
be built. It would see,m at the present that we cannot afford sucn facilities y
such expense; perhaps we must stop creating hazardous waste until tne tecnnology
to store it is safe.
Longer time frames are needed for us to review materials, & please ut them
23.3 in the Spokane (City & County) Libraries. Public Documents belong in Public
Libraries. Again, I wish the Meetings could be held in Public Buildings, that
should be free to use. I resent spending Money for expensive Hotel meeting
rooms, we do not want to be fed at these meetings, or drink coffee, just get
on with the agenda.
In spite of being critical of the plan, I still nave great confidence
that we can all work to gether to make Hanford a safer place.
Very truly,
_A^_
/
I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

^
/
n
March 13, 1992
Mary Gatohell
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O Box 47651
Olympia, WA 99504-7651
FAX 206/ 493-2976
Dear Ms. Getchelit
CONFEDERATED TRIBES
of the
Z'G111110e04M& 96diam r'2eaaccw^e^
P.O. Box 839
PENDLETON, OREGON 97801
Area code 503 Phone 278-3449 FAX 276-3317
24.0
RE: Submission of Comments on Site Wide Draft Permit
EnWpfmenW
PWfNnp/
wpnu Proatea,
Propiam
Attached please find the comments of the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation ( CTUIR) on Washington state's
Department of Ecology Site Wide Draft Permit for Hanford Cleanup.
Sta!f contact person is J.R. Wilkinson, Hanford Projects
Coordinator, Environmental Planning and Rights Protection
Program, CTUIR Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 638,
Pendleton, OR, 97801. His phone number is 206/ 276-3449.
sincerely,
YA^
Michael J. Farrow
Director of Natural Resources
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
REATY JUNE Y, 1e5a + CAYUBE, UMATILLA AND WALLA WALLA TR19H8

^°T: PNd7L RE._,^^.r°. S,Q32763317 PPGE 2
-- CONFEDER?TFD TRTSEB OF THE tNATIL•LA INDIAN RESLRVAT3'ON --
COIOtE1tT8 ON WASHINGTON BTATB' B DEP711tT1[ENT OP ECOLOGY
BIT1-RIDS P=R1[IT
POX TSS DEYARTIIElIT OF A1/EROY' B
H71NlORD 11VCi.E11R A'BBRV7ITION
1
r
^r-
C7;
lN7'ROI^UCTjD^Y
The Treaty of 1855 reserved for the Confederated Tribes of
Umatilla Indian Reservation ( CTUIR) the,
"exclusive right of taking fish in the streams
running through and borderi.ng said reservation is
hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other
usiia.i and accue'somea' stations in common with
citizens of the United 8tatss, and of erecting
suitable buildings for curing the same; the
privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries
and pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in
common with citisens, is also secured to them."
the
Lands ceded to the federal government by this treaty includes the
site now occupied by the Department of Energy's ( DOE) Hanford
Nuclear Reservation. Hence, the CTUIR have treaty reserved
rights--at the-Hanf^ Reservation, of which, the DOE are the
federal agency in a fiduciary position.
The permitting of the following three facilities by
Department of Ecology and the U.B. Environmental Protection
Agency, signatories to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement/TPA) along with DOE,
represents movement towards addressing the various cleanup
operations proposed by DOE. This permit for the 616 Non-
Radioactive Danqerous Waste Storage Facility, the 183-H Solar
Evaporation Basins, and the vitrification Plant, inherently poise
different issues.
Comments addressing each facility are not highly technical in
detail, [i.e., oommentin whether the current design of the
kitritigatiQn!Y-?^ant (v^t) off-gas treatment system will
adequately protect the air shed], but rather are larger issues
not addressed by the p_ermit. Currently, the CTUIR lack the
technical staffinq to adequately review plans in detail for
protection of treaty-reserved rights to the ceded lands.
General comments, trailed by specific issues about each of the
facilities, are as follows.
---p^ i

;.s
MqR.13 '92 16:59 DEPT.NRTL RESOUR 5032763317 PAGE 3
QprdWftaNtl Tlba of the Umatltla Indlan RwrvMbn
COmmirKt on BMMWIN PemtB
MYOh 1s,19i!
h'rfm. .My,NT.S'
On page 10 of 102 in the Permit, the term "indapendent" is
24.1 defined relative to "engineer, expert," or "inspector." The
CTUIR request that when independent consultants are required the
tribes shall be given the first opportunity to provide this
service. This request is based on the CTUIR's treaty reserved
rights to their coded lands and would provide the necessary basis
for independent verification of cleanup operations.
Additionally, this action would provide staffing enhancement for
oversight capabilities at Hanford.
3n page 17 of 102, the term "reasonable" is used in reference to
24.2 °Duty to Mitigate." The permittee "sha11 take all reasonable
= stepi to miniMiae releases to the environment," and, "reasonabSe
.r, (measures) to prevent adverse impa cta on human health and the
environment." This is vague working, especially given the nature
of what is being defined. what, or where, are the mechanisms to
define what reasonable actually is?
on page 26 of 102, 8ection II.A.2.1., the CTUIR requast that
24.3 notification also be provided to tribal police and fire
departments (503/ 278-0550) to allow for an assessment of needed
_ actions to protect CTUIR tribal lands, tribal resources, and
tribal members.
Protection of the groundwater and the Columbia River is paramount
24.4 to the CTUIR. Section II.F., "Facility Wide Groundwater
Monitoring," outlines several actions related to groundwater.
The cultural basis of the tribes rests with the natural resources
of the environment, one of which is water. Thus, the CTUIR
request the tribes be allowed to independently monitor actions
taken in regards to groundwater monitoring. This activity would
allow the tribes to assess whether actions taken or planned will
adequately protect tribal resouroes and treaty-reserved rights to
the fisheries of the Columbia River.
24.5
Several sections deal with records (i.e., page 37, Section
iI.I.). Yet, there appears to be no mention of where the records
will be located or their availability for review by the tribes or
members of the general public.
24.6 In 8ection II.N., page 43, the CTUXR request advanoed
notification of shipments coming to Hanford of dangerous waste
generated off-site. Due to the sovereign nation status of the
CTUIR, their fire and police departments are the principle agency
involved with incidents should it occur on tribal lands.
pap 2

24 . 7
r ,J
P. 13 ' 92 17: 00 DEPT. NATL RESOlJ2 5032763317 PAGE 4
ConNCwtlW TfION of lM UmWlpe Indlan ftNrv"tlon
COfMme" on 60FWIfN ftrmN
MMoh 1s, tiYa
on the page is section 11.0., "General Inspection
Requirements." Because of the ceded lands issue, the CTUIR
request that inspections of any facility at Hanford include a
CTUIR representative, especiall y given the nature of and the area
of visual inspections. The national security of the CTUIR rests
with proteotin the natural resources of their ceded lands.
Thus, this aot^on would allow for independent verification of
inspections and an assessment from a tribal perspective.
g 4ilestone M-12-07
:omments submitted based on "616 ponrad.toaotive Dangerous Waste
o'torags Facility Dangerous Waste Permit App1lcatton", October
1991,_DO81RL-69-03, Revision Z. "This is an active storage unit
Sr dangerous wastes which are shipped to off-site commercial
treatment or disqosal tacilities."
Concerns expressed with the 616 are directed towards adequate
CTUXR emergency preparedness and properly designed containment
systems to protect Hanford's groundwater and the Columbia River.
Again, an adequate review of plans for consistency in protecting
CTUIR resouroee cannot be submitted due to a lack of personnel.
Given that "(ajpproximateiy 18 times a year, dependiny on the
rate of waste accumulation, ... (oontainers wl11 1 be transported
to a permitted TsD tacility.• The CTUIR currently lack the first
responder equipment and personnel to protect the natural
resources of the tribes in the event of a major transportation
incident. Due to the sovereign nation status of the CTVZR, the
CTUIR's police and fire departments are the lead agency in the
event of a oross-CTUIR lands incident.
The potential this facility represents, Zg an accident were to
-- of7'C.Sr, is quit: high qivsn the wiaa variety of hazardous
materials to be stored. In the event of a catastrophic accident,
are the containment designs capable of protecting the groundwater
and the surrounding environment?
'4'hi=- zoncern ie -heigh'senea due to presence of a fault
line in
Gable Mountain. Will the building specifications be adequnte to
withstand a worst-case scenario? Additionally, when reviewing a
map of shallow earthquakes in the Hanford region, a concentration
can be found in the Cold Creek Valley. This issues should be
rectified before completion of the facility.
pqp 3

10
24 . 9
MAR. 13 '92 17:01 DEPT.NRTL RESOIJR 5032763317 PAGE 5
OonNtlKWd Trlba of the umpina Indian Ruxvsion
Commenp on 8IWWI06 PermM
MvWi 19, 1p0!
Il [7/I7/n nll^nnnd 9^fnj7 n/[Yla/[r
.i-n OcIL..wa r. r.vrcurHijcirv a.g.7ijYA-1
^omments based on "RCRA Closure axperience with Radioactive Mixed
Vaste 183-9 Solar Basins at the Hanford Site," WHC-SA-0705-FP,
January 1990.
I was unable to locate the appropriate document to allow for
adequate review so comments are based on the above mentioned
work.
t,. one missing point in the paper was the lack of radiological data.
As quoted, "(r]outine wastes consisted of uranium and technetium-
99," yet the waste material was categorized as "low-level,
nontransuranic radioactive waste." What justification is there
for this characterization? How can independent verification be
sought?
The 100-H area also has a Chromium plume under it. What plans
are there to prevent exacerbating the plume's movement to the
Coiumbia River? Will the activities associated with closure have
any influence on the plume?
10 MFDMD 1!',J.STIf' DITIRIFIC•_4TjONPI.,_4N_T ( viT)
ilestone M-20-01
Documents reviewed were "Tank Waste Disposal Program
Redefinition'" WHC-EP-0475, Revision 0, and, "Hanford Facility
Agreement and consent Order Quarterly Progress Report for the
Period 8nding December 31, 1991," DOE/RL-92-2. For brevity I
will use TWO and QPR, respectively, when rsferring to a document.
The previous two facilities represent reiatively straightforward
issues and concerns. However, the Vit P lant does not fali in
this categ ory. Here the concerns have to do with the overall
program direction of dealing with the tanks' wastes. several key
pairats amargm, saeE:with a la:.k :.f ^::-.`ilioation for moving
ahead. Along with the Vit Plant are the attendant disposal
issues, the "Grout" facility and the glass loqs resulting from
the vitrification process. What happens to the glass loqs if the
HLW repository is not open by the time the Vit plant is
operational?
The same concerns expressed about the 616 facility apply to the
Vit and grout/glass logs process. Will the facilities be
sufficiently designed to ensure the safe operation of the
facilities in case of an earthqu ake. Additionally, does the
grout facility have the potential to change groundwater flow
patterns?
page 4

*;
MRR.13 '92 17:01 DEPT.NRTL RESOUR 5032763317 PAGE 6
Cw,:. fpOutl Trl6n of thM umaa0la IndUn Awervabn
oomm.a on 111110o-ww. vormh
FiYOD,a. IWt
On page 2-4 of the 4pR, it states that "(r)esolution of the
environmental compliance and investigatton of alternative
pretreatment process and facility options, as well as other waste
feed options for the 1lNSrP, are continuing In support of the tank
waste ^reatment program."
The question arises, why license a facility when so many variable
and doubts may surface between the licensing of said plant and
the actual operation of it? In other words, would it not be
wiser to license each incremental step (i.e., the pretreatment
process) allowing for the flexibility of alternative critical
paths? For example, the TWD states on page 6-9 that the "r,{sk
assessment model showed TRpM process development 1s on the
critical path for the program and, as a result, tntroduces a risk
of program delay."
Why license the and facility when the steps to get the waste from
the tanks through pretreatment and to the plant have not been
established? Alternatives in pretreatment facilities should be
debated, then license that facility and initiate a tank-topretreatment
and back-to-tank operation cycle to ensure that the
wastes can be adequately pretreated in a safe manner.
On vein, I have been unable to identify the
justification for reduced consideration of alternative methods,
such as calcining, in-situ vitl'1 fication ,,-or-plasmaar63-f»rnwnw;
Further, the research and development side of disposal issues
appears lacking. what efforts are being made at enhancing
cuttinq-edge technology and research? Thus, more basic analysis
of a wide range of alternative technologies and those yet
identified should be done prior to making the Vit Plant a "done
dea1.N
CDNCI ^s^ON
-- The, Eif+-and-1-91-H--Easins -bot-h -rapresen&-ttraightforward
operations and should be permitted. However, the Vit P lant is
not as clear of a permitting process and as such should not be
licensed. Rather, the incremental steps to that possible end
facility could be licensed to ensure that each step to final
disposal of the tank waste is safely completed.
-Ths_ oonaerns - =xp=aased abcut tho Vit TlanC ^cis^ invaive the
att:npant disposal facilities, the Grout facility and the g lass
logs. concerns expressed are the lack of sound justification for
disregarding other alternatives, the non-homogenous nature of the
tank wastes and the low level of supporting laboratory analysis,
-_-and the unclear manner in which prs-treatment will occur. e
pApe 6

5032763317
MRR.13 '92 16:58 LEPT.NRTL RESOUR 5032763317
DATE:
s^
...
Vr:
^ '.
^.... ^
.
t
^^.
March 13, 1992
CONFEDERATED TRIBES
Of t`,.
^^r.a4^ Aowod^4it /Zad,^^ua^saz
Sax as
PENDLETON, OREGON 87601
Aree Cod! 64 Phone 27&3449/3447
TELEFAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
DEPARn1zXT OF 'XATL'RALRESOL.`RCES
Admialstratfon & Enriroamental Plannia;
t •
TRAASMISSION '1'O: , Mary Getchell, Ecology
TRAxST'IISSION FROM:
C.T.U.i.R.I=AX X (^43) 256-3317
A'iJI..BER OF PAGES (Ineludin= this shmet): 7
a•R. Wilkinson, Hanford Projects Coord inator
PRGE 1
N0=ES= Hello Mary. I hope you are doing ve11 with your tssponses.
Enjoy!!
IF TRAA'SMtSSION IS LMP.A.DA,8L3~..1'I:EASB PHONM (503)276-3449/3447
D[PAR7MENT
NAT"R4 REGOU
R EATY JUNE I. lsbb ♦ CAYUSE. UMATILLA A N D WALL A WALLA TRI-B E
.. . . ... DEPMTMENra

- TH!S-PAGE RITENTiOIYALLY
LEFT BLANK

25.0 VOLUME 1 OF 3
HANFORD SITE COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT PERMIT FOR THE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL OF DANGEROUS WASTE
FOR THE HANFORD FACILITY
SUBMITTED
MARCH 16,1992

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 1 of 223
Q3/16/92
HANFORD SITE COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT PERMIT FOR THE TREATMENT, STORA6E, AND DISPOSAL OF
DANGEROUS WASTE FOR THE HANFORD FACILITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), and
Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) are submitting joint comments on the Draft
Permit for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste for the
Hanford Facility (Draft Permit) proposed by the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Department) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
These comments are extensive and detailed, but they are guided by five clear
principles that arise from governing law and considerations of fairness and
_4-- practicality. The principles applied to the Draft Permit are as follows:
1. The permit must be consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and
:-r Consent Order (FFACO) [also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)]. The
FFACO (or TPA) is the governing document for all cleanup and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC 6901 at seq.) permitting
at the Hanford Site. It is an agreement that binds the Department, the
Agency, and the DOE, and must prevail over contradictory provisions in the
Draft Permit.
920312.1605.E5
2. Each requirement must be based on clear regulatory authority. The
applicable federal and state regulations are comprehensive and complex. These
regulations cannot be changed by the permit conditions and cannot be exceeded
except where it has been demonstrated that it is necessary to protect human
health or the environment. The permit must be consistent and within the
bounds of the existing regulations.
3. The permit must not reach beyond an appropriate level of control.
The-Agency-and the-Department should nat-attempt-to-'micromanage' the Hanford
Site. The Department has proposed permit conditions that place the Department
in the position to manage rather than regulate the subject matter of the
permit. The DOE and the contractors must retain flexibility to comply with
_the-permit-effi_cientl,y,_without_seeking regulatory approval for every small
change in operations. To do otherwise is to impose a level of regulatory
control that far exceeds that of private facilities.
4. The permit must be consistent with other RCRA permits issued in
Washington State. Any permit necessarily contains some site-specific
requirements, but the general provisions that must be in all RCRA permits
issued by Washington State should not discriminate against the Hanford
Facility compared to private facilities.
5. The permit must be cost effective. The permit should not impose more
costly methods to meet a regulatory requirement when another management
practice can do so more efficiently.
In applying these fundamental principles, many areas were found where the
Draft Permit was wanting. The Draft Permit contains copious irrelevant

920S12.t60S.Es
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 2 of 223
03/16/92
material. Many important issues remain to be resolved, including the
applicability of the Permit to areas of the Hanford Site outside waste
management units, the application of regulations for an off-site hazardous
waste manifest system to on-site movements, the Department's attempt to
exercise jurisdiction over radioactive materials, and authority for and the
scope of corrective action under the permit. Of particular concern is that
the Draft Permit contains provisions that are inconsistent with the FFACO,
whiFh -is--the gaverni-Pg dsuument- far all cleanup and RCRA permitting at the
Hanford Site. It is ironic that the Department exerted so much effort to
secure the enforceability of the FFACO, but now seeks to impose a permit on
the DOE and its contractors that is contrary in many respects to the scheme
created by the FFACO.
The enclosed comments are detailed because even seemingly small provisions can
have a major impact on future operations. For example, the Draft Permit
con tain s a proposal_that ever -change__frgm_the_blueprinte for a Was+e
management unit be submitted to the Department for a 7-day reviewperiod
before construction can continue. This is a clear use of inappropriate
micromanagement. As an illustration, on a complex project like the Hanford
Waste Vitrification Plant, which will have thousands of small changes during
construction, this provision would make it impossible for the plant to open in
1999 as scheduled. In addition, this level of review is never required of
private parties.
The DOE, WHC, and PNL look forward to working with the Agency and the
Department to revise the Draft Permit so that the Permit fits the principles
used in our review; allows efficient operation; and finally, allows completion
of the cleanup milestones at the Hanford Site. We remain committed to safe
operation and prompt and efficient cleanup of the Hanford Site.

920312.1537.COM
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 3 of 223
03/16/92
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GENERAL COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
COMMENTS ON PAGES 1 THROUGH 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
COMMENTS ON PART I - STANDARD CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
COMMENTS ON PART II - GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
COMMENTS ON PART III - UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
COMMENTS ON PART IV - CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PAST PRACTICE .... ... 187
ATTACHMENTS
A Westinghouse Hanford Company Contract with the U.S. Department of Energy
B Pacific Northwest Laboratory Contract with the U.S. Department of Energy
C U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant EPA I.D. No. TX4890110527
D U.S. Army Fort Wainwright EPA I.D. No. AK6210022426
[Permit, Comment Response, Attachment 12, Fact Sheet]
E In the Matter of: Velsicol Chemical Corporation Permit No. TND061314803
F Chemical Processors, Inc. (Georgetown Facility) Permit No. WAD000812909
G Texaco Refining and Marketing Puget Sound Plant Permit No. WAD009276197
H Shell Oil Company Permit No. WAD009275082
I Chem-Security Systems,Inc. Perm-il-No. ORD089452353
[Permit, Comments]
J Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. Permit No. ID0073114654
K Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. (Kent Facility) Permit No. WAD067548966
L Occidental Chemical Corporation Permit No. WAD009242314
M Soi1 Cleanup/Remediation at the Hanford Site
N Hanford Facility Legal Description

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 4 of 223
03/16/92
ATTACHMENTS (cont)
0 Independent Registered Professional Engineer, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response ( OSWER) Directive 9483.00-1
P 22 Cal. Admin. Code § 66265.222, 66270.16
Q 17 Fla. Admin. Code Ann. § 4.050
R U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Model RCRA Permit
S Letter--E.A. Bracken to D.L. Duncan, 6/10/91
C .1 .
r^y
T In the Matter of: Hoechst Celanese
RCRA Permit No. SCD097631691
Corporation
^ ^.
U Hanford Facilit.v Continaencv Plan
" - Y QualttY --Assurance--Pro4 ram•Re^ irement-s
(ANSI/ASQC-E4)
€or-Env#ronmenta}-Pr ogra-mi
9msu.1537.c0r
W General Regulation 80-7 of the Local Air Pollution Control Agency
X Procedure Descriptions
Y Letter--T.L. Nord to R.W. Brown, 8/9/91
Z Letter--E.A. Bracken to T.L. Nord 10/10/91
AA Letter--T.L. Nord to P. Day 11/18/91
BB In the Matter of: Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
RCRA Appeal No. 87=12 (Nay 27, i988)
CC in the Matter of: BP Chemicals America, Inc.
RCRA Appeal No. 89-4 (August 20, 1991)

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 5 of 223
03/16/92
HANFORD SITE COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT PERMIT FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF
DANGEROUS WASTE FOR THE HANFORD FACILITY
GENERAL COMMENTS
This document contains the joint comments representing mutual and individual
concerns of, and prepared by, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland
Field Office (DOE-RL), Westinghouse Hanford Company ( WHC), and Pacific
Northwest Laboratory ( PNL) (hereinafter termed the commenters) on the Draft
Permit for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste for the
r:,J Hanford Facility (Draft Permit) issued for public review on January 15, 1992.
The comments on the Draft Permit are submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (the Agency) and the Washington State Department of Ecology
(the Department) to be formally entered into the Administrative Record. The
comments are organized using the same heading, page, and line numbering system
as the Draft Permit, and address each permit condition in sequence. Each
comment is divided into two major parts: (1) Comment/Action, a statement of
the comment and the action proposed to satisfactorily address the comment; and
(2) Justification, a discussion of the rationale upon which the comment/action
is based. Supporting information is provided in the Comment Attachments.
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation., no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the Department and the Agency might
respond by deciding to retain the full condition or address some but not all
of the commenters' concerns, the commenters also have provided specific
comments on the conditions with recommended language to correct other problems
in the condition. Regardless of how the Department and the Agency address the
commenters' principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive
their objection to the inclusion of the full condition or any overbroad
portion thereof in the Draft Permit.
COMMENT CRITERIA
The majority of comments have been made based on one or more of the following
criteria.
1. Regulatory Authority
25.1 he permit condition should be narrowly-tailored and well founded on the
2gulatory requirements and authorities. The omnibus provisions should be
used only sparingly with ample justification. The Fact Sheet issued with the
Draft Permit must contain a justification well-founded in protection of human
health and the environment when a departure from the regulations is made. The
Permit should not be used as a means of making regulatory changes without
going through statutory rulemaking processes.
920372. u27.GC

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 6 of 223
03/16/92
2. Appropriate Level of Control
25.2 The permit condition should not go beyond what is considered to be an
appropriate level of regulatory control (i.e., micromanagement). This level
of control generally has been defined as that necessary to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations and requirements. A management practice or
voluntary activity should not be unnecessarily incorporated into the Permit,
thus making any change in the practice or activity subject to Department
approval and any deviation a potential violation of the Permit. Such
straight-jacketing of facility operation adds greatly to cost and delay. To
apply this criterion, commenters reviewed and incorporated previously approved
provisions and conditions from a number of final status hazardous waste
:.^ permits from inside and outside the state of Washington. In preparing
comments, it was assumed that the Hanford Facility Permit would be treated in
a comparable and nondiscriminatory manner.
Statewide Consistency of Regulatory Requirements
he-permit-condition-should-be-consistent-with permit conditions found in
_ther state of Washington permits. While it is recognized that the Permit
must be tailored to the Hanford Facility, the condition should be consistently
implemented statewide, and not applied in a discriminatory manner to the
Hanford Facility. The Hanford Facility Permit should not be establishing
conditions not previously required.
25.4 4. Consistency with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO)
The permit condition must be consistent with the express provisions and mutual
expectations of the FFACO. The FFACO, which is a legally binding Federal
Facilities Agreement and Consent Order among the DOE-RL, the Department, and
the Agency, must prevail over any directly conflicting language in the Draft
Permit. The Draft Permit should complement the FFACO so that the overriding
goal of the integration of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.) and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (42 USC 9601 et seq.)
activities can be achieved. The permit condition must not place the DOE-RL,
through its own actions, or those of its contractors, in a position where the
condition of the Permit can only be met by a violation of the FFACO
requirement.
25.5 5. Management Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness
The permit condition should minimize impact on management efficiency and cost
effectiveness. When two management practices have the same ability to protect
human health and the environment, efficiency and cost effectiveness should be
___a_ ideterminina factor.
920313.7040.G[

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 7 of 223
03/16/92
PERMITTING ISSUES
Based on these criteria, several major permitting issues remain contentious.
If these issues are not satisfactorily resolved before Permit issuance, the
scheduled April 1992 start of site preparation activities for the Hanford
Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) might be in jeopardy (if an expansion of
capacity under interim status is not granted), and there is an extreme
likelihood of lengthy legal entanglements.
25.6 fhe commenters believe there are two overriding issues that pervade the Draft
lermit. First is the relationship of the FFACO to the Draft Permit. This is
perhaps the central issue between the Department and the commenters. As noted
in the detailed comments, giving precedence to the Permit would disrupt the
carefully negotiated arrangement of the parties for cleanup of the Hanford
Site and, by circumventing the FFACO, enable the Department to unilaterally
reprioritize the Hanford cleanup.
The following issues logically are subsets of this overriding issue:
25.7 1. Relationship Between the FFACO and the Permit
2. Permitting Approach
3. RCRA/CERCLA Integration
4. Corrective Action Provisions in the Permit.
The second overriding issue is characterized in the comments as "Appropriate
Level of Control" and "Micromanagement", regarding permit conditions not
supported by regulatory authority. It is clear from the Draft Permit that the
Department has proposed numerous permit conditions that usurp management
responsibilities of the DOE rather than regulate as appropriate for a RCRA
permit. The Department is apparently relying on its so-called "omnibus
authority" under WAC 173-303, although in most instances no legal authority
has been cited. Another example is the Department's effort, in the absence of
legal authority, to leave open the door for state regulation of radioactive
waste. This approach is pervasive throughout the Draft Permit. The following
issues are subsets of this overriding issue:
1. Regulatory Agency Authority
2. Designation of Permittee
3. Jurisdiction Over Radioactive Materials
4. On-Site Waste Movement
5. Mapping and Marking of Underground Pipelines
6. Design and Construction Impact
7. Incorporation of Documents
8. Facility-Wide Requirements.
Relationship of the FFACO to the Draft Permit
?' 198 1. Relationship Between the FFACO and the Permit. The commenters object to
the Draft Permit condition that stipulates, with limited exception, that the
Draft Permit conditions supersede the FFACO. It is inconsistent with the
current state of the law with regard to RCRA/CERCLA integration as reflected
in United States v. Colorado , 33 E.R.C. 1585 ( D. Colo. Aug. 4, 1991) where it
920313.1041.6C

.^p
25 . 8
920313.11041.ec
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 8 of 223
03/16/92
was held that CERCLA's bar against pre-enforcement review deprived the federal
courts of jurisdiction over a state hazardous waste enforcement action.
The Draft Permit conflicts with the FFACO because the Draft Permit attempts to
include under corrective action many activities that are addressed under the
FFACO. The FFACO is a legally binding Federal Facilities Agreement and
Consent Order among the DOE-RL, the Department, and the Agency that lays out
the manner in which the overall Hanford Site cleanup will be conducted. There
is no question regarding the enforceability of the FFACO. Paragraph 30 of the
FFACO expressly states that "[i]n the event DOE or Ecology fails to comply
with the RCRA portions of this Agreement, the other Party may initiate
judicial enforcement of this Agreement." Any inconsistencies between the
permit condition and the FFACO must be resolved in favor of the FFACO. There
is no reason why the FFACO and the Draft Permit cannot complement and be
consistent with each other. To do otherwise will adversely affect the
integration of the cleanup program.
Thorg i s no doubt that the FFACO is an enforceable agreement among the Agency,
the Department, and the DOE. The Department specifically asked for, and
received from the United States Department of Justice, confirmation that the
FFACO was a "binding and enforceable" agreement superior to a consent decree
in terms of achieving cleanup of the Hanford Site [letter from Donald A. Carr,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Christine Gregoire, Director, Department
of Ecology, February 26, 1989, (Attachment A to FFACO)].
Paragraph 30 of the FFACO expressly states the obvious: that the FFACO binds
both the DOE and the Department and is not a one-way document. It is ironic
that the Department exerted such efforts to secure the enforceability of the
FFACO, but now seeks to impose a permit on the DOE and its contractors that is
contrary in many respects to the scheme created by the FFACO. This obviously
would place the DOE and its contractors in an untenable position.
The FFACO and the Draft Permit should be consistent and complementary
documents that work together to accomplish cleanup in the most efficient,
cost-effective manner, and in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. in the event of a conflict, the FFACO must prevail. Corrective
action activities that are addressed under the FFACO should not be subject to
the Permit except for incorporation of selected corrective action final
decisions.
2. Permitting Approach. The Hanford Facility contains approximately
60 treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) units. Approximately half of
_these_units_will_be_permitted-under final-status. Because-alT -of -the
TSD units cannot be permitted simultaneously, the FFACO specifies that the
initial Hanford Facility Permit will be issued for less than the entire
Hanford Facility, and that the Permit will grow as additional TSD units are
added over the next several years. However, rather than follow this approach,
the Department has issued an initial Draft Permit for the entire Hanford
Facility using an approach that extends additional costly regulations over
areas of the Hanford Facility located between the final status TSD units in
addition to the TS"u units themselves. This is inconsistent with the interim
status permitting requirements in effect at the rest of the Hanford Facility.

25 9
25.10
9203+2. 15rr.mc
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 9 of 223
03/16/92
The Department's approach does not follow the FFACO, nor is there authority
for such action in the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations.
3. RCRA/CERCLA Integration. These two statutes and their implementing
regulations have different cleanup standards and documentation schemes. At
the Hanford Site, there are several examples of waste sites covered by the
RCRA that are within sites covered by the CERCLA. The CERCLA sites will be
cleaned to standards that are negotiated, and that protect human health and
the environment. It does not make good financial or regulatory sense to have
small "islands" cleaned up to a different set of standards. The FFACO should
control the development of standards for all areas and the Permit should not
establish inconsistent criteria.
4. Corrective Action Provisions in the Permit. The commenters object to
Part IV of the Draft Permit in its entirety on several different grounds.
First, the Department presently lacks delegated authority under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984 [42 USC 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924,
6925, 6926, 6930, 6935, 6937, 6939, 6991, and 6993] to impose corrective
action requirements. The Agency, not the Department, should be responsible
for issuing and enforcing RCRA corrective action [42 U.S.C. § 6926(g)].
Second, Part IV attempts to create a corrective action scheme that is parallel
to, and inconsistent with, the FFACO that controls the corrective action
process and designates the Agency as responsible for administering corrective
action. Third, the state lacks authority, independent of RCRA and the FFACO,
to impose any corrective action on the Hanford Site. Part IV conditions
erroneously name the Department Director and the Agency Administrator as the
decision making and enforcement authorities. Corrective action provisions
should be issued and enforced only by the Administrator.
In addition to improperly establishing permit conditions for work governed by
the FFACO, the conditions in Part IV impose additional detailed requirements
on the Permittee for corrective action at the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) and US Ecology, Incorporated (US Ecology) sites. The BPA, as an
independent subdivision of a cabinet-level federal department (the DOE),
should be considered an independent owner of the Midway Substation and
Community in accordance with the Agency's published guidance. Corrective
action at this location should not be made a part of this Permit. No solid
waste management units (SWMUs) have been identified at the BPA facilities on
Hanford Site land used but not owned by the BPA. It is premature to include
corrective action provisions in the Permit for these sites. There are
significant issues associated with the listing of US Ecology under the Permit,
including Washington State responsibility as landlord to US Ecology and the
effect of the US Ecology site's status as a licensed commercial low-level
waste disposal site, regulated by the State of Washington Department of
Health. The Fact Sheet indicates the US Ecology site is expected to be
remediated pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) of 1991
(WAC 173-340) and no action is currently required. Until there is resolution
of these issues and other actions are taken, it is premature to include the
US Ecology site in the Permit. It is far too early to include the detailed
corrective action provisions that would be applied at these and other
locations under Part IV of the Permit. The currently proposed corrective
action provisions generally appear to be unworkable, in many cases are

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 10 of 223
03/16/92
unauthorized by regulation, and should be discussed and negotiated with all
affected parties.
And, because the Department's only justification for including these lands is
federal ownership, the contractors cannot be considered owners or operators
and should be entirely excluded from Part IV.
Permit Conditions not Supported by Regulatory Authority
I. Regulatory Agency Authority. The Draft Permit on Page 6 specifies which
25•11 )ermit conditions are enforced by the Department, the Agency, or jointly. The
:ommenters contend that the Draft Permit condition fails to accurately
identify which conditions in the Draft Permit are based on the Washington
State RCRA-authorized program, are included in the Draft Permit as Washington
-=f State-only requirements, or are included in the Draft Permit based on the
Agency's authority under the HSWA. The distinction in the source of
a* ° enforcement authority is crucial to the Permittee. It is important that the
Permittee and outside commentors be able to identify the regulatory authority
for a particular condition and the agency with the power to enforce that
condition. It is especially important to the Permittee because the Permit
will govern the relations between the Permittee and the regulatory agencies
for up to a 10-year period.
Hazardous waste management is an extensively regulated activity and there are
numerous detailed regulations covering most aspects of treatment, storage, and
disposal. Meaningful evaluations and worthwhile comments can be prepared only
after examining the underlying regulatory authority for a particular permit
condition. Significant in that determination is whether the authority is
derived from RCRA, HSWA, the Washington State authorized program, or is
administered jointly. Each of these regulatory programs provides differing
types of authority for the individual agency involved.
The Draft Permit identifies state-only provisions and jointly-administered
provisions. H-owever, the Draft Permit fails to identify any Ag ency-only
provisions despite the fact that not all of the latest RCRA rules are part of
the Washington State authorized program.
The regulatory authority for a permit condition is important because it has
significant ramifications in the permit review process. If the Permittee is
faced with a condition and wishes to appeal, the Permittee must determine the
proper review body, and the procedural requirements of that body must be
-- -followed=--Tfie-administrative-revi-ew-€orurr-forAgencyrconGitions differs from
the review forum for the Department. The procedural requirements in terms of
pleading, and the timing for submittal of motions, briefs, and supporting
--documentation-are-different in each case.--At presen's;-the Permittee does not
have a way to determine the appropriate forum for review with confidence and
legal certainty.
vmsu. 1sn.cc
The review procedures emphasize the absolute necessity for identifying the
authority for each permit condition. If the authority for a permit condition
in the final permit is not identified properly, a party challenging the permit

25.12
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 11 of 223
03/16/92
condition would have to prepare for two wholly different administrative and
judicial review procedures.
For these reasons, identification of the regulatory authority and the
responsible agency is imperative. Neither the Draft Permit nor the Fact Sheet
provides the necessary complete and accurate identifications. The commenters
formally request that the responsible agency for every condition in the Permit
be identified and the Table on Page 6 be appropriately modified. Only in this
way can the Permittee protect its rights in the permitting process. If the
identifications are not provided, the Permittee will be significantly
prejudiced by the permit process and will not be provided with the minimal
procedural safeguards guaranteed by the law.
Similar comments were made by commentors and prospective permittees in other
permit review processes. The final permits in these cases were modified by
the regulatory agencies appropriately in response to these comments.
Another way in which the Permit and Fact Sheet fail to acknowledge the correct
source of authority is by abuse of the "omnibus" authority in WAC 173-303-800
and WAC 173-303-390. Although rarely identified in the Fact Sheet, it is
clear from the many deviations from the regulations and prior permits that the
Department has asserted omnibus authority pervasively, usually without any
justification as to why additional regulation is "necessary to protect human
health and the environment." The omnibus clause does not give the Department
unfettered discretion to rewrite its own regulations. Interpreting identical
language in 42 U.S.C. § 6924(a), the Administrator has held that
jI}he-regulations themselves are generally sufficient to protect
human health and the environment. It is reasonable to presume that
they do so in any given case unless there have been material changes
(e.g., in technology) after the regulations were promulgated or
other special circumstances exist. Qtherisdse. the omnibus orovision
Refer to Chemical Waste Management, RCRA Appeal No. 87-12 (May 27, 1988)
(emphasis added) (Comment Attachment BB). Thus, where the Department or the
Agency uses its omnibus authority, it must acknowledge the fact and articulate
a reason why the existing regulations are inadequate to protect human health
or the environment. For example, the EPA's omnibus authority has been used
and upheld where proposed regulations or generally applicable guidance
documents filled a gap or interpreted the existing regulations. A general
desire to "improve" the existing regulations is insufficient; so is a
conclusory assertion that the Hanford Facility is a"special case". Numerous
specific comments that follow point out where the Department has deviated from
the regulations without a justification based on protecting human health and
the environment. Omnibus authority should be used sparingly and only when it
can be justified as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
2. Designation of the Permittee. The Draft Permit identifies the DOE-RL and
two of its contractors as equal permittees with no distinction of
27.GC

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 12 of 223
03/16/92
responsibility except by geographical areas on the Hanford Facility. This
approach ignores the differences among the DOE-RL and its contractors and the
role of the DOE-RL defined in the FFACO. Pursuant to its responsibilities
under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (42 USC 2011, et seq.), the DOE-RL
is responsible for overall management and operation of the Hanford Site,
- - #nclud#ng-palicy;-programmatic fundi-ng,--sc,ieduling de^isiuns, and general
oversight. The contractors are responsible for certain day-to-day activities
such as waste analysis, waste handling, monitoring, container labeling,
__personnel training, and recordkeeping. Likewise, the specific
responsibilities and charters of each contractor are different in more ways
than they are similar (Comment Attachments A and B).
= The Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) further defines and
limits contractor management authority and responsibility. The contractors do
not-have-uniiateral authority to make controlling decisions that affect the
^. i overall management of the Hanford Facility. The contractors are without
contractual or legal authority to set, control, provide or require the funding
actions, budgetary actions, and functions associated with overall management
and control of the Hanford Facility.
The commenters contend that the Permit should be issued to the
"U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility" and that the contractors should
not be identified as permittees. This is the approach that was followed by
the state of Texas and the EPA at the DOE Pantex Plant (Comment Attachment C),
and the Agency in the U.S. Department of the Army Fort Wainwright Permit
(Comment Attachment D). This approach will be consistent with the terms and
conditions of the FFACO, which establishes a clear-cut line of authority over
the Hanforu Faci-iity. Additionally, it avoids mischaracterizing the nature of
the responsibilities of the parties, and it will avoid unnecessary confusion
as contractors at the Hanford Facility change over time. Moreover, it will
eliminate the current dilemma posed by the permit with its separate, parallel
appeal procedures for the DOE-RL and the contractors, and the resultant
oossibility of inconsistent appeal decisions.
3. Jurisdiction Over Radioactive Materials. In the Draft Permit, the
25.13 Department is attempting to assert regulatory authority over the radioactive
source, special nuclear, and byproduct material components of mixed waste.
- The Department's position is in conflict with the requirements of federal law
as defined by the AEA and further supported by legal decisions and Agency
policy.
The inappropriateness of any State effort to assert authority over radioactive
materials is dictated by: the exclusion of source, special nuclear and
byproduct materials from the definition of solid waste set forth at
RCRA § 1004; the overriding and preemptive AEA; RCRA § 1006(a) (the
inconsistency provision); DOE's Byproduct Rule (10 CFR part 962); the EPA
----------Notice Regarding-St$t-e Authoi'ization (51 Fed. Reg. 24,504, July 3, 1986); the
EPA Notice on Clarification of Interim Status Qualification Requirements for
the Hazardous Components of Radioactive Mixed Waste (53 Fed. Reg. 37,045,
Sept. 23, 1988); the State's recognition of possible preemption in its
Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976, RCW 70.105.109; and the FFACO.
uasu.

25.14
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 13 of 223
03/16/92
This subject was evaluated previously and formally addressed in the
negotiations to the FFACO. The resolution incorporated into the FFACO
recognizes the distinction between hazardous waste subject to the RCRA and
radioactive waste subject to the AEA.
The commenters contend that the FFACO and federal law must be followed. By
federal law, the DOE-RL must retain jurisdiction over the source, special
nuclear, and byproduct material components of mixed waste in accordance with
the AEA.
4. On-Site Waste Movement. The Department contends that waste moved from one
)oint to another on the Hanford Facility should meet the same requirements
imposed for shipping waste off-site. This would require additional sampling
and analysis of the waste, which is unjustified and not required in the
regulations. These sampling requirements would place an additional burden on
analytical laboratories and take away from the ability of the laboratories to
perform needed analysis to support cleanup activities. These requirements
would slow the cleanup process with no gain in safety or improvement in waste
handling. In addition, the Department proposes to regulate an on-site waste
tracking system that is already in place on the Hanford Site. The
Department's attempt to control this system has no regulatory basis and would
create additional administrative costs that are unwarranted and provide no
improvement in safety.
The commenters contend there is no valid administrative, technical, or
regulatory reason for imposing this type of requirement. The commenters
recognize that all wastes moved, on-site or off-site, need to be properly
managed. The DOE-RL has an effective waste management and inventory control
system in place for all waste shipped and received by TSD units. The
Department has not established the need for regulatory oversight in this
regard.
5. Mapping and Marking of Underground Pipelines. To allegedly enhance
25.15 personnel safety, the Department is requiring the mapping and marking of "all
dangerous waste underground pipelines and ancillary equipment, including
active, inactive and abandoned pipelines which, at any time, contain or
contained dangerous waste which are located outside of fenced, security
areas." The commenters contend the excavation permit procedures now in place
are proven to provide the needed protection of human health, safety, and the
environment and that no additional requirements should be imposed by the
Permit. The system requires that drawings showing the locations of pipe
routes be studied before any excavation is allowed. The Department also wants
the Permittee to survey the locations of all these items, and more, within
24 months. The commenters contend this will be impossible to achieve because
it would require excavating every pipeline to verify its location. Each
location would have to be surveyed so it could be mapped. The cost would be
exorbitant with no improvement in safety.
2 6. Design and Construction Impact. Some of the permit conditions that the
Department would impose could bring design and construction projects to a
standstill. For example, as now written, the Draft Permit requires
Engineering Change Notices to be submitted to Ecology 7 days before continuing
construction affected by the change. Thus, even a small change can cause
920312.1527.GC

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 14 of 223
03/16/92
significant cost and schedule delays. This also puts the Department in a
position of being the design and construction manager. There is no clear
regulatory authority to require or suggest this level of project management by
the Department. This approach will have an immediate impact on the
construction of the HWVP, which can be expected to have several routine
construction changes per day and several thousand changes over the life of the
project. With the Department's proposed Permit in place, it will be virtually
impossible to construct HWVP in a timely manner and it will dramatically
increase costs. Such costs will unnecessarily take away from the cleanup
effort.
17; The commenters contend that micromanagement of construction projects through
C=a, the Permit is unreasonable and unjustified under the regulations. A moderate
approach to normal regulatory agency oversight of construction projects
through the Permit is warranted. This will ensure that projects are not
unduly delayed and will be completed on schedule and within budget, and in
compliance with technical regulatory standards and criteria.
i7
7. Incorporation of Documents. The commenters do not object to the inclusion
of documentation that was prepared specifically for inclusion as permit
conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related compliance requirements, such
as unit-specific TSD waste analysis plans and contingency plans. Such plans
are important to operations and the commenters have provided them. But the
wholesale incorporation of site-wide documents raises both practical
management issues and substantive issues regarding the scope of the Permit.
As the Draft Permit is now written, any document referenced by the Permit
becomes a part of the Permit. Any changes to these documents will be
subjected to the permit modification process whether it is appropriate or not.
Many changes would require a minimum of 30 days notice before the changes
could be implemented and the authorization of changes could take 6 months or
longer. The Draft Permit,- as now written.would denv-t.he Permittee the
flexibility to change plans concerning responses to safety concerns or
nandangerous-wastg coneerns; such as those-invoiving radionuclides, over which
the Department has no authority.
Throughout the Draft Permit, the Agency and the Department have taken
--- --- de-ser-ipttve infor-mati-on-and-documentation-pr€vioscsly provided by the DDE-RL
(often background or nonpermit-related activities) and turned this material
into enforceable permit conditions by including the material as attachments to
the Permit. Many of the documents included in permit applications were
submitted as information with no intent that the documents would be included
as permit conditions. The commenters do not object to the inclusion of
documentation that was prepared specifically for inclusion as permit
conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related compliance requirements, such
as unit-specific TSD waste analysis plans and contingency plans.
The inclusion of many of the plans, specifications, and information has
--- ---- r4su1-ted-t.n..a-Draft-Perr;it-that-€ontains provisions that are far more detailed
and stringent than -the -speci-fic - regulations-they-are- inte.n.ded-to address. The
provisions thus mistakenly could be construed to cover facility operations not
directly related to regulated activities and that are not subject to dangerous
waste regulations. Many of the documents identified have very little to do
920313.1041.0C

920312.1527.GC
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 15 of 223
03/16/92
with dangerous waste and should be excluded. This exclusion will allow the
Permittee to retain the flexibility to change such documents as needed, and to
provide for site safety and operational efficiency. The exclusion also will
reduce the number of items subject to the permit modification process,
allowing the Department more time to focus on regulatory oversight activities.
The inclusion of the descriptive information, plans, and documentation fails
to recognize that the information was not prepared for permit-related or
compliance purposes but was in fact prepared to document and provide
technical, professional, managerial, and corporate guidance and procedures.
The regulatory agencies should recognize that the purpose of this information
was to disseminate overall management information and technical guidance
desired for site-wide practice. The information was designed to be internal
management and planning tools used to establish goals and objectives for
government working relationships. These documents were often prepared as
living documents, capable and intended to be updated and revised freely to
reflect current changes in personnel and respond to site needs on a current
basis. The information was not created for use as permit conditions and was
never envisioned to be adopted wholesale into a final status permit.
The commenters recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to
incorporate sections of permit applications. However, the provisions
incorporated must be sufficiently narrow and not overbroad [Refer to In the
Matter of Velsicol Chemical Corooration Permit No. TND-061-314-803,
RCRA Appeal No. 83-6 (Comment Attachment E)]. The commenters object to the
wholesale inclusion of Part A and Part B permit applications. In the event
the Agency and the Department nevertheless decide to retain full attachments,
the commenters have provided specific comments on the attachments. In
providing these specific comments, the commenters do not waive their objection
to the inclusion of the full attachments or any overbroad portion thereof in
the permit.
It is not appropriate for all parts of all documents referenced in the Draft
Permit to be subject to the modification requirements imposed by the Permit.
The commenters have committed to giving the Department on-site access to the
most recent versions of all documents referenced in the Draft Permit that
would fulfill the Department's need of keeping informed of changes. The Draft
Permit attachments containing sections of descriptive documentation and
information that should not be incorporated into the final Permit are:
Attachment 1--Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, May 1989
(as amended)
Attachment 6--Facility-Wide Contingency Plan
Attachment 7--Facility-Wide Preparedness and Prevention Plan
Attachment 8--Facility-Wide Personnel Training Plan
Attachment 9--Facility-Wide Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
Attachment 10--Purgewater Management Plan

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 16 of 223
03/16/92
Attachment 11--Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria
for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990
Attachment 12--Facility-Wide Inspection Plan
Attachment 13--616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility Part A and
Part B Permit Application
Attachment 14--616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Shipping Lists
Attachment 15--616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Facility Description of
Procedures
r 1 Attachment 21--Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant Part A and Part B Permit
Application
^--
Attachment 22--UE&C-Catalytic Inc., Environmental Protection Plan, Hanford
Waste Vitrification Project ( GCC-PL-009)
Attachment 23--List of Organizations Referenced in Part B Permit Applications
and Closure Plans
25.18
B. Facility-Wide Requirements. The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued
under WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the activities at "final status
TSD facilities". At this time, there are only two TSD units identified in the
Draft Permit, the 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility
(616 NRDWSF) and the HWVP, that the Department has determined to have had the
necessary information submitted for issuance of a "final facility permit".
The scope of this permit, in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations,
must be limited to these TSD units. There is no regulatory authority for a
"hybrid approach" or an "umbrella approach" that purports to include interim
status activities under the final status standards or that purports to
regulate activities not related to the final status treatment, storage, or
disposal of dangerous waste. The Permit must be explicit in the scope of
coverage; this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the criteria
for receiving final status. This is consistent with the FFACO, which
references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) as the federal authority to issue a permit in
this manner. Specifically, paragraph 25 of the FFACO states that the Action
"e;tatl=isks-the o.erall plen to conduct RCRA permitting" and lists the
TSD units and groups "which are subject to permitting and closure under this
Agreement." Paragraph 26 directs the DOE to "comply with RCRA Permit
requirements for TSO Units specifically identified for permitting or closure
by the Action Plan . . " Paragraph 6.2 of the Action Plan acknowledges that
--- all TSD un-its--and groups can be permitted simultaneously, so "Ecology and
-the-€PA-will-issue-the-initial-permit-for--less-than-the-entire-Hanford
Site. .. Any units that are not included in the initial permit will
normally be incorporated through a permit modification." The Action Plan is
an integral part of the FFACO. The Department's over-inclusive approach is
therefore contrary to these express provisions of the FFACO and fails to
follow the federal authority cited by the FFACO, 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4).
Moreover, there is no authority for the Department's approach in its Dangerous
Waste Regulations.
9zozl2.lsz7.Gc

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 17 of 223
03/16/92
Based on the FFACO, which references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), the commenters
recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to incorporate
- ----- seet5oes of unit-spgcific permit applications. For example, the commenters do
not object to the inclusion of documentation that was prepared specifically
for inclusion as permit conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related
compliance requirements, such as the unit-specific waste analysis plans and
contingency plans. However, the Department has gone far beyond such specific
use of plans prepared for TSD units.
Throughout the Draft Permit, the Department has taken descriptive information
and documentation and turned this material into enforceable permit conditions
by including the material as attachments to the Draft Permit. Many of the
c,: documents included in the Hanford Facility and unit-specific permit
applications were included for information with no intent that the documents
be included as permit conditions or altered beyond their intended purposes.
The wholesale inclusion of these permit application plans, specifications, and
information has resulted in a Draft Permit that contains provisions that are
far more detailed and stringent than the specific regulations the material is
intended to address. These documents, if incorporated, will be unnecessarily
subject to the permit modification process, thus adversely impacting the
management efficiency of the Permittee and the regulators.
920312.1527.Gc
Because of a sincere commitment by the DOE-RL to initiate site preparation for
the HWVP on schedule, the DOE-RL consented to provide several permit
application submittals despite a firm belief that the argument requiring the
submittals were of questionable merit, and not well-founded in the
regulations. These include the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan
(Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Preparedness and
Prevention Plan (Attachment 7 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility
Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan ( Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford
Facility Inspection Plan (Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit) and the Hanford
Facility Waste Analysis Plan (to be provided at a later date). However,
because the Department has chosen to go beyond what had been previously
discussed and has attempted to impose numerous additional conditions that
would be very difficult and expensive to comply with, the commenters cannot
agree and must insist that the Permit be founded solely on the authorities
contained in the regulations.
Other permit applicants in the Northwest who have been through Part B
permitting processes recently have achieved agreement with the Agency and
affected states to delete nonessential information from their permit
applications and to attach to their permits only those sections of plans and
information required under the regulations. These permits include:
Chemical Processors, Inc. Page 5, no Part B permit application;
No. WAD000812909 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment F)
Texaco Refining and Marketing Page 6, no Part B permit application;
No. WAD009276197 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment G)

I^J
r,^t
'.r
..,._
,^^
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Shell Oil Company
No. WAD009275082
Chem-Security Systems, Inc.
No. 0RD089452353
E.n.virosafe -ServIces-a€-:aiaho,---Ir.c.--
No. IDD073114654
------ Van Waters-& Rogers, -inc.
No. WAD067548966
Page 6, no Part B permit
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment H)
Page 9, no Part B permit
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment I)
18 of 223
03/16/92
application;
application;
Page 8, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment J)
Page 5-6, no Part B permit
application; sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment K)
The attachments found in these permits are often copies of the relevant pages
from management plans or directly pertinent descriptive information submitted
in their Part A and Part B permit applications. The commenters are proposing
that the same approach be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner to the Hanford
Facility Permit.
The commenters request that they be given the opportunity to meet with the
Department and the Agency to craft appropriate permit conditions that comply
with the regulations and to identify and include the specific information
necessary to prescribe compliance with these regulations. This approach will
avoid excessive detail, ambiguity, and the inclusion of overbroad,
nonessential information. The commenters will work with the Department and
the Agency to identify and provide the relevant information for the Permit.
The commenters cannot agree to include facility-wide plans in the Permit
because there is no regulatory basis for doing so and because the Department
---is=puit#ng siieh i^formatid.n. to uses-for which the information was not
originally intended. If the DOE-RL chooses to institute facility-wide
management policies or procedures to guide and assist in the development and
coordination of unit-specific plans as a management tool, that is appropriate.
However, there is no regulatory basis for incorporating facility-wide plans,
including those portions of the plans that do not pertain to final status
TSD units, into the Permit.
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation, no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
----inclusi9nof the-condition-.-Because the agencies may respond by deciding to
retain the full condition or address some but not all of the commenters'
concerns, the commenters have provided specific comments on individual
contested conditions with recommended language to correct other problems in
the condition. Regardless of how the agencies address the commenters'
principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive their
objections to the_-inclusion-ofthe-full-conditi-on 9rJany-o-verbroadportion
thereof in the Permit.
9msI2.1527.ee

920312.1527.GC
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
19 of 223
03/16/92
Specific and more detailed comments relating to the previously cited issues
and to other concerns are contained in the pages that follow.

920312.152n.cC
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
This page intentionally left blank..
20 of 223
03/16/92

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 21 of 223
03/16/92
COMMENTS ON PAGES 1 THROUGH 12
Condition: Title Page
Page, lines: Page 1, lines 28-37
Comment/Action: Delete references to Westinghouse Hanford Company and Pacific
•')rthwest Laboratory. Reword to read as follows:
25•19 U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility
920312.1531-1
Justification: Issuing the Permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford
Facility" will avoid mischaracterizing the nature of responsibilities under
the law and the confusion of the DOE-RL and contractor responsibilities in the
Permit. A similar action was taken by the state of Texas and the EPA in
issuing a RCRA permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant" (Comment
Attachment Q. This also is the approach taken by the Agency and the State of
Alaska in issuing a RCRA permit to the "U.S. Army Fort Wainwright" ( Comment
Attachment D). Also refer to the state of Alaska and EPA Joint Response to
Public Comments Numbers 3, 29, 52, and 54 (Comment Attachment D). Refer to
comments to Draft Permit provisions on Page 3, lines 6-17, and Draft Permit
condition I.A.2 on Page 13, lines 26-29.
As written, this provision inaccurately portrays the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL as
equal permittees with no distinction of responsibility. This approach does
not acknowledge the functional differences between the DOE-RL and its
contractors. The DOE-RL, as a federal entity, and owner of the facility, is
responsible for overall management and operation of the Hanford Facility,
including policy, programmatic funding, scheduling decisions, and general
oversight. The contractors are responsible for certain day-to-day activities
such as waste analysis, waste handling, monitoring, container labeling,
personnel training, and recordkeeping. The land, structures, and appurtances
are the property of the United States. The contractors have no right, nor can
the contractors be obliged to exercise any control, over these publicly owned
properties than is granted to them by their contracts. Pertinent portions of
the DOE-RL contracts with WHC and PNL are attached ( Comment Attachments A
and B). The commenters reserve the right to provide additional documentation
to include documents referenced in the contracts, which will clarify
responsibilities between the DDE-RL and WHC and between the DOE-RL and PNL
under these contracts.
In comments pertaining to permit condition I.A.2 in the Fact Sheet, the
Department expressly recognized that the contractors' responsibilities should
be limited on both a functional and geographical basis to the 'day-to-day
operations at certain units'. ( The Department also incorrectly designated the
contractor responsibilities by geographical areas. Refer to comments to Draft
Permit Page 7, lines 23-24 and 26-27, Attachments 3 and 4.) This functional
division of responsibilities has not been recognized in the Draft Permit
itself.
In the event that the Department and the Agency nevertheless decide to retain
WHC and PNL as Permittees, specific comments have been provided on the
distinction of responsibilities among the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL by function and

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 22 of 223
03/16/92
by TSD unit. In providing these specific comments, the commenters do not
waive their obJections to a permit listing the contractors as Permittees.
Condition: Title Page
Page, lines: Page 1, line 40
25.20 Comment/Action: Replace "1997" with "2002".
Justification: The standard term for a RCRA final status permit issued by the
state of Washington is 10 years [Reference: Texaco Refining and Marketing
Permit No. WAD009276197 ( Comment Attachment G); Shell Oil Company Permit
No. WAD009275082 ( Comment Attachment H); Van Waters & Rogers Permit
No. WAD067548966 ( Comment Attachment K); and Occidental Chemical Corporation
Permit No. WAD009242314 ( Comment Attachment L)]. The Fort Wainwright Alaska
Permit No. AK6210022426 ( Comment Attachment 0), the only federal facility RCRA
Co permit issued in.EPA Region 10, is also for a period of 10 years. There is no
Justification for setting a 5-year expiration date on this Permit; in fact,
the HWVP milestones incorporated as conditions of the Permit in Attachment 5
of the Draft Permit occur after 1997. Given the intense regulatory oversight
the Hanford Facility receives under the FFACO and will receive under this
permit, there is no need for an early permit renewal. On the other hand,
there is a need to provide the Permittee some measure of stability and
certainty in the regulatory environment. With 25 individual TSD units being
oermitted durina the same time period, imposing an additional requirement to
reapply and reissue this Permit is inefficient and unrealistic. The
permitting process is very costly. The time, personnel, and dollars could be
_ much__better used_in cleanup activities on the Hanford Facility.
Condition: Table of Contents
25,21 Page, lines: Page 2, line 26
Comment/Action: Delete entire line: "Chapter 2 183-H Solar Evaporation
Basins.....57"
Justification: The 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins is an interim status unit.
The 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins will close under Interim Status as provided
by the FFACO. The WAC 173-303-805(7)(b)(iv) authorizes closure under interim
status. No legal basis or rationale is given in the Fact Sheet for including
the 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins Closure Plan in this final status Permit.
Refer -to complete comments to-this CTosure Pian that refer to Draft Permit
condition 111.2, Page 57.
_ cendit_ion;_-------- _ Introduction
25.22 Page, lines: Page 3, lines 6-17
Comment/Action: This paragraph asserts that the Permit is issued to WHC and
PNL along with the DOE-RL to "operate a dangerous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facility located at the Hanford Facility". This paragraph must
be corrected to delete the reference to WHC and PNL and to properly indicate
that the "U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility" is the Permittee.
920312.1531-1
Justification: This provision mischaracterizes the legal nature of contractor
responsibilities and will result in management inefficiencies because it

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 23 of 223
03/16/92
inaccurately portrays the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL as equal permittees with no
distinction of responsibilities. (Even when read together with Draft Permit
condition I.A.2, Page 13, lines 26-29, the Draft Permit only recognizes a
distinction of contractor responsibility by geographical areas.) This
approach ignores the functional differences among the DOE-RL and its
contractors. The DOE-RL is responsible for overall management and operation
of the Hanford Facility, Including policy, programmatic funding, scheduling
decisions, and general oversight. The contractors, limited by the terms of
their contracts and by law, are responsible for certain day-to-day activities
such as waste analysis, waste handling, monitoring, container labeling,
personnel training, and recordkeeping.
r; In the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations, "operator" is defined as the
person responsible for the overall operation of a facility ( WAC 173-303-040).
Neither WHC nor PNL are responsible for the overall operation of either the
Hanford Facility or any individual TSD unit within the Hanford Facility. The
DOE-RL, the Department, and the Agency have previously agreed in the FFACO
that the DOE-RL owns and operates the Hanford Facility. The contractors have
more limited and specific roles under their contracts with the DOE-RL and may
not be identified as responsible for all activities, such as corrective
action, on the Hanford Facility.
25.23
920312.1531-1
In the Fact Sheet, in comments pertaining to Draft Permit condition I.A.2, the
Department has recognized that the contractors' responsibility should be
limited on both a functional and geographic basis to the "day-to-day
operations at certain units." However, the Department incorrectly designated
the contractor responsibilities by geographical areas. Refer to comments to
Draft Permit Page 7, lines 23-24 and 26-27, Attachments 3 and 4. In many
cases, a unit for which a contractor might have responsibilities is located in
areas of the Hanford Facility for which the contractor has no other
responsibilities.
Issuing the permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility" will
avoid mischaracterizing the nature of responsibilities under the law. A
similar action was taken by the state of Texas and the EPA in issuing a RCRA
final status permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant" ( Comment
Attachment Q. Also, refer to comments to Draft Permit provision on Page 1,
lines 28-37 ( Title Page) and Draft Permit condition I.A.2. on Page 13,
lines 26-29. Also, refer to the Agency permitting approach for Fort
Wa-inwright-AlaskaP-ermft No, pK6210022426 ( Con:^ent Attachment D).
-ondition:
)age, lines:
.:omment/Action:
change here and
appears.
Justification:
U.S. Department
Introduction
Page 3, lines 15-16
Change word "Permittees" to read "Permittee". Make this
elsewhere throughout the Permit where the word "permittees"
This reflects the only appropriate Permittee, the
of Energy-Hanford Facility.

25.24
9:o3I2.1531-1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 24 of 223
03/16/92
,.ondition: Introduction
Page, lines: Page 3, line 20-21
Comment/Action: Modify the sentence to read:
When the Permit and the attachments (except the FFACO, Attachment 1)
conflict, the wording of the Permit will prevail.
Justification: The FFACO is included as Attachment I because some of its
terms are incorporated, but it must not be overridden by including it as an
-attachment--tQthe Pe-rmi-t.-The -commenters object It the llraft_Permi-t condition
that stipulates, with limited exception, that the Draft Permit conditions
supersede the FFACO. It is inconsistent with the current state of the law
with regard to RCRA/CERCLA integration as reflected in United States
v. Colorado , 33 E.R.C. 1585 (D. Colo. Aug. 4, 1991) where it was held that
CERCLA's bar against pre-enforcement review deprived the federal courts of
jurisdiction over a state hazardous waste enforcement action.
The Draft Permit conflicts with the FFACO because the Draft Permit attempts to
include under corrective action many activities that are addressed under the
FFACO. The FFACO is a legally binding Federal Facilities Agreement and
Consent Order among the DOE-RL, the Department, and the Agency that lays out
the manner in which the overall Hanford Site cleanup will be conducted. There
is no question regarding the enforceability of the FFACO. Paragraph 30 of the
FFACO expressly states that "[i]n the event DOE or Ecology fails to comply
with the RCRA portions of this Agreement, the other Party may initiate
judicial enforcement of this Agreement." Any inconsistencies between the
permit condition and the FFACO must be resolved in favor of the FFACO. There
is no reason why the FFACO and the Draft Permit cannot complement and be
consistent with each other. To do otherwise will adversely affect the
integration of the cleanup program.
There'is no doubt that the FFACO is an enforceable agreement among the Agency,
the Department, and the DOE. The Department specifically asked for, and
received from the United States Department of Justice, confirmation that the
FFACO was a "binding and enforceable" agreement superior to a consent decree
in terms of achieving cleanup of the Hanford Site [letter from Donald A. Carr,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Christine Gregoire, Director, Department
of Ecology, February 26, 1989, (Attachment A to FFACO)].
Paragraph 30 of the FFACO expressly states the obvious: that the FFACO binds
both the DOE and the Department and is not a one-way document. It is ironic
that the Department exerted such efforts to secure the enforceability of the
FFACO, but now seeks to impose a permit on the DOE and its contractors that is
contrary in many respects to the scheme created by the FFACO. This obviously
would place the DOE and its contractors in an untenable position.
The FFACO and the Draft Permit should be consistent and complementary
documents that work together to accomplish cleanup in the most efficient,
cost-effective manner, and in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. In the event of a conflict, the FFACO must prevail. Corrective
action activities that are addressed under the FFACO should not be subject to
the permit except for incorporation of selected corrective action final
decisions.

^...,^
v°?
25.25
25.26
920312.7537-+
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 25 of 223
03/16/92
The current language also is clearly unacceptable, because it presents the
possibility that to comply with the Permit, the DOE-RL would have to violate
the FFACO, possibly subjecting the DOE-RL to stipulated penalties. The
permitting approach followed by the Agency in the Fort Wainwright Alaska
Permit No. AK6210022426 (Comment Attachment D), the only federal facility RCRA
permit issued in the Agency's Region 10, gives precedence to a federal
facility agreement, when negotiated. The same position must be taken at the
Hanford Facility.
Condition: Introduction
Page, lines: Page 3, lines
Comment/Action: Rewrite the paragraph 26-31
to read as follows:
Applicable state and federal regulations are those applicable
requirements of WAC 173-303 that are in effect on the date that the
Permit is issued and any self-implementing statutory provisions and
related regulations that, according to the requirements of HSWA,
automatically are applicable to the Permittee's hazardous waste
management activities, notwithstanding the conditions of this
Permit, and that are legally applicable to the activities of the
U.S. Department of Energy pursuant to the RCRA.
Justification: The Draft Permit language is written in a manner that leaves
doubt as to which regulations the regulators consider applicable to this
Permit. According to WAC 173-303-806(3), effective state regulations for
final facility permits are described as proposed above. Additional language
has been provided to account for self-implementing HSWA provisions. Also, in
this section of WAC 173-303 is a statement that any other changes to the final
facility permit will be in accordance with the permit modification
requirements of WAC 173-303-830. Additionally, RCRA contains several
provisions that delimit the extent of authority of a state agency in areas
such as regulation of radionuclides, assessment of penalties, etc. These are
requirements of federal law that cannot be overridden by permit language.
Condition: Introduction
Page, lines: Page 3, lines 33-43
Comment/Action: Restart the public comment period after February 7, 1992.
lustification:__Thas_Draft Permit -refer-s to-and -appears to incorporate at
least one document that was not published and was not available for public
comment until after February 7, 1992. The Administrative Record could not
have been complete until that time, if at all.
The Permit must be based on the Administrative Record as required by
WAC 173-303-840. The Draft Permit at Page 41, lines 28 and 29 requires that
closure plans under the permit be written to comply with the Department's
Nuclear and Mixed Waste Management Program's policy entitled Soil
Cleanup/Reuediation at the Hanford Site (Comment Attachment M). This document
was not part of the Administrative Record until after February 7, 1992. The
reference to a document outside the Administrative Record does not meet the
requirements for public comment under WAC 173-303-840.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 26 of 223
03/16/92
Additionally, the inclusion of this Department program policy document in this
Draft Permit is procedurally flawed and impermissible for the reasons stated
in comments to Draft Permit condition II.K, Page 41, lines 24-29.
Condition: Introduction
25.27 Page, lines: Page 3, lines 46
Comment/Action: Delete the word "considered" and substitute "designated in
this permit as"
Justification: This change will make this provision consistent with Page 3,
line 50 of the Draft Permit. This change adds certainty to the
enforcement/appeal process and makes the Permit consistent with other
Washington State permits [Refer to Shell Oil Permit No. WAD009275082 (Comment
T1 Attachment H)].
r;-r
Condition: Introduction
2!P,°28 Page, lines: Page 4, lines 1-3
^7' Comment/Action: Delete the words, "WAC 173-303-845, except that USDOE shall
follow•.
Justification: This Draft Permit provision highlights the legal and
procedural tangle that results from the multiple permittee approach. The
contractors are not signatories to the FFACO. The procedures therein are not
applicable to the contractors. Therefore, the Draft Permit sets up a parallel
appeal procedure in which the DOE-RL uses the FFACO dispute resolution
procedures while the contractors (if they are permittees) must appeal to the
Pollution Control Hearing Board pursuant to WAC 173-303-845. Neither the
------ --Draff Permit--nor -ths-€act 3tieet address the iegai issue of how to make
decisions in one forum binding on other permittees not a party to the dispute.
It is illogical to have different standards of performance for different
permitteer.-- Tire-confusion is unnecessary and the legal complication is
avoided if the U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility is the single
permittee.
Irrtlre-event that tfoe-Department and tbe-Ageneynevertheless clecide t-D-retain
WHC and PNL as permittees, specific comments have been provided to make permit
changes applicable to all permittees.- In providing-these specific comments,
the commenters do not waive their objection to a permit listing the
contractors as permittees.
Condition: Introduction
25.29 Page, lines: Page 4, line 13
:omment/Action: Add the following sentence:
9aes1:_u31 -1
Any challenges to Agency enforced or jointly enforced conditions
shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure of
Article XV of the FFACO.
Justification: The Draft Permit specifies the procedure for appealing
Department-authorized permit conditions, but not permit conditions that are

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 27 of 223
03/16/92
enforced solely by the Agency or jointly by the Agency and Department. Such a
provision is needed and should specify that the agreed dispute resolution
procedure in the FFACO should be followed.
Condition: Introduction
25.30 Page, lines: Page 4, lines 25-26
Comment/Action: Add the following sentence to Draft Permit Page 4, line 26
and in Draft Permit condition I.A:
The permit conditions and attachments incorporated into Part I of
the Permit are enforceable conditions only at final status
treatment, storage, or disposal ( TSD) units on the Hanford Facility.
Justification: There is no regulatory authority for a "hybrid approach" or an
"umbrella approach" that purports to include interim status activities under
the final status standards or that purports to regulate activities not subject
to the final status TSD standards. The Permit must be explicit in the scope
of coverage; this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the
criteria for receiving final status. The scope of a dangerous waste permit
issued under WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the activities at "final status
TSD facilities". At this time there are only two TSD units identified in the
Draft Permit that the Department has determined to have had the necessary
information submitted for issuance of a "final facility permit". The scope of
this Permit, in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations, must be
limited to these TSD units.
The FFACO specifies in the Action Plan at Paragraph 6.2 that the Department
and the Agency will issue the initial Permit for less than the entire
facility. This Permit will grow into a single permit for the entire Hanford
Facility. The procedure envisioned and agreed to in the FFACO is the
permitting procedure that must be followed here, and is the permitting
procedure authorized by federal authority [40 CFR 270.1(c)(4)].
Condition: Introduction
25.31 Page, lines: Page 4, lines 28-36
Comment/Action: Delete the words "are intended to act as 'umbrella' permit
conditions for the Hanford Facility, i.e., these conditions are broad in
nature and" on lines 30-32.
920312.1531-i
Add the words: "pertain to more than one final status unit though they,"
after the word "which" on line 34.
Delete the word "operating" on line 35, and substitute the words "final
status".
Delete the words "(i.e., transportation, training, contingency planning,
etc.)."

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 28 of 223
03/16/92
Also, add the following sentence in the Draft Permit provision here and in
Draft Permit condition II. at Page 25, line 3:
The permit conditions and attachments incorporated into Part II of
the Permit are enforceable conditions only at final status TSD units
on the Hanford Facility.
Justification: The term 'umbrella' and the concepts associated with it in the
Introduction at Page 4 under Part II, General Facility Conditions, are beyond
the scope of final status permitting authority. There is no regulatory
authority for a 'hybrid approach' or an 'umbrella approach' that purports to
include interim status activities under the final status standards or that
pqrp,rtS__tq reguTate_activitiet-nqt_subject-t_o_the final status TSD standards.
The Permit must be explicit in the scope of coverage; this scope must be
limited to the TSD units that meet the criteria for receiving final status.
^ The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued under WAC 173-303-806(1) is to
regulate the activities at "final status TSD facilities". At this time there
are only two TSD units identified in the Draft Permit that the Department has
determined to have had the necessary information submitted for issuance of a
"final facility permit'. The scope of this Permit, in accordance with the
Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations, must be limited to these TSD units.
The FFACO specifies in the Action Plan at Paragraph 6.2 that the Department
and the Aa_ency will issue the initial permit for less than the entire
facility. This permit will grow into a single permit for the entire Hanford
Facility. The procedure envisioned and agreed to in the FFACO is the
permitting procedure authorized by federal authority [40 CFR 270.1(c)(4)] and
is logical, appropriate, and is the permitting procedure that must be followed
here.
Condition: Introduction
25.32 Page, line: Page 4, lines 45-49; Page 5, lines 1-5
Comment/Action: Restate as follows:
vaa;u.is3r1
Part IV, Corrective Action, contains those Permit requirements that
apply to the identification of Solid Waste Management Units ( SWMUs)
on the Hanford Site and the conduct of investigations and
remediations at such SWMUs. Part IV consists of two sections. The
first section deals with those SWMUs that are located on the DOE-RL
managed portions of the Hanford Site and are classified as RCRA Past
Practice units. These and any future SWMUs found on the DOE-RL
managed areas are, or will be, included in the FFACO and assigned to
operable units. The processes and procedures to be followed, and
the schedules of compliance for investigation and subsequent
remediation, will be contained in the FFACO. The selected
corrective and interim measures for those SWMUs assigned as RCRA
Past Practice units, which excludes TSD units, will be contained in
the first section of Part IV of this Permit. The second section of
Part iiF-cons9sts-of those SWNUs^that--are-not-lacated on-the D"uE-RL
managed areas of the Hanford Site. These SWMUs will undergo '
investigations and remediations, as necessary, in accordance with
the requirements and schedules identified in this Permit.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 29 of 223
03/16/92
Just-if-icat-ipn.--All contaminat.ion on lands managed by the DOE-RL will be
addressed, through the FFACO, regardless of whether it is assigned as a RCRA
or CERCLA Past Practice operable unit. To ensure consistency with the FFACO,
the permit must reference the FFACO for these activities. Currently all
identified SWMUs contained within the DOE-RL managed areas of the Hanford Site
are addressed within the FFACO, or are in the process of being added.
Operable units to manage these SWMUs and any future SWMUs already have been
established within all the DOE-RL managed areas. This includes the 600 Area
and the North Slope area, as well as the 100, 200, 300, 400, and 1100
operating areas. In addition to SWMUs, the operable units contain any other
known sites where contamination might possibly exist, including one time
releases and waste units exempted as SWMUs. Refer to comments on specific
conditions of Part IV for further justification of the above restatement.
Condition: Introduction
25.33 Page, lines: Page 6, lines 4-53
Comment/Action: Insert the table heading as "Table 1" after line 4. Insert a
new subject in Table 1 for those permit conditions that the Department has not
been authorized to administer and for which the Agency has sole jurisdiction.
For example, all the corrective action provisions contained in Part IV of this
Draft Permit would fall within this category. Delete those Draft Permit
conditions that are listed but not found in the Draft Permit [IV.G.3, IV.G.4,
IV.L.3.a] and those references to section names that imply those complete
sections are within an enforcement category [I.E., I.E.10, IV.B., IV.C.,
IV.F., IV.H.1, IV.I., IV.K., IV.L., IV.M., IY.N., IV.O., IV.P., II.L.3.,
II.A.]. Modify the Table to reflect the conditions in the Permit as finally
issued after consideration of all public comments.
Justification: The Department cannot enforce a program that it has not been
delegated-the authority to-administer: -Because-the Department has not been
delegated complete HSWA authority, there are conditions that will be Agencyonly
authority. The Department also cannot violate the lead regulatory agency
provisions of the FFACO.
Condition: List of Attachments
25.34 Page, lines: Page 7, lines 5, 14-16
Comment/Action: Delete "(to include all attachments)" on line S. Delete
"These incorporated attachments are enforceable conditions of the Permit, as
modified by the specific Permit condition." on lines 14-16.
920312.1531-t
Justification: The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued under
WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the activities at "final status
TSD facilities". At this time, there are only two TSD units identified in the
Draft Permit, the 616 NRDWSF and the HWVP, that the Department has determined
to have had the necessary information submitted for issuance of a"final
facility permit". The scope of this permit, in accordance with the Dangerous
Waste Regulations, must be limited to these TSD units. There is no regulatory
authority for a"hybrid approach" or an "umbrella approach" that purports to
include interim status activities under the final status standards or that
purports to regulate activities not related to the final status treatment,
storage, or disposal of dangerous waste. The Permit must be explicit in the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 30 of 223
03/16/92
scope of coverage; this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the
criteria for receiving final status. This is consistent with the FFACO, which
references 40CFR_270.1jc)( 4)asthefederal authority to issue a permit in
this manner. Specifically, paragraph 25 of the FFACO states that the Action
Plan "establishes the overall plan to conduct RCRA permitting" and lists the
TSD units and groups "which are subject to permitting and closure under this
Agreement." Paragraph 26 directs DOE to "comply with RCRA Permit requirements
for TSD Units specifically identified for permitting or closure by the Action
Plan . " Paragraph 6.2 of the Action Plan acknowledges that not all TSD
- -- ----- - -un#ts--and grau!ps can--be- permitted - simul-taneeusly ; so "Ecology and the EPA wi l l
issue the initial permit for less than the entire Hanford Site. .. Any
units that are not included in the initial permit will normally be
incorporated through a permit modification." The Action Plan is an integral
part of the FFACO. The Department's over-inclusive approach is therefore
contrary to these express provisions of the FFACO and fails to follow the
federal authority cited by the FFACO, 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4). Moreover, there is
- : - - - ne-aat'hos^i,.`3 -€or--the Department's approach in its Dangerous Waste Regulations.
^ -^-.
Based on the FFACO, which references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), the commenters
recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to incorporate
sections of unit-specific permit applications. For example, the commenters do
not object to the inclusion of documentation that was prepared specifically
for inclusion as permit conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related
compliance requirements, such as the unit-specific waste analysis plans and
contingency plans. However, the Department has gone far beyond such specific
use of plans prepared for TSD facilities.
9zosu.1531-i
Throughout the Draft Permit, the Department has taken descriptive information
and documentation and turned this material into enforceable permit conditions
by including the material as attachments to the Draft Permit. Many of the
documents included in the Hanford Facility and unit-specific permit
applications were included for information with no intent that the documents
be included as permit conditions or altered beyond their intended purposes.
The wholesale inclusion of these permit application plans, specifications, and
information has resulted in a Draft Permit that contains provisions that are
#ar more aetaiied and stringent than the specific regulations the material is
intended toaddress. Thesedocuments, if incorporated, will be unnecessarily
subject to the permit modification process, thus adversely impacting the
management efficiency of the Permittee and the regulators.
Because of a sincere commitment by the DOE-RL to initiate site preparation for
the HWVP on schedule, the DOE-RL consented to provide several permit
application submittals despite a firm belief that the argument requiring the
submittals were of questionable merit, and not well-founded in the
regulations. These include the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan
(Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Preparedness and
Prevention Plan (Attachment 7 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility
Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan ( Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford
Facility Inspection Plan (Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit) and the Hanford
Facility-Waste-Analysis-Plan-(to-be-prov-ided-at-a-later-date). However,
because the Department has chosen to go beyond what had been previously
discussed and has attempted to impose numerous additional conditions that

920312.1531-i
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 31 of 223
03/16/92
would be very difficult and expensive to comply with, the commenters cannot
agree and must insist that the Permit be founded solely on the authorities
contained in the regulations.
Other permit applicants in the Northwest who have been through Part B
permitting processes recently have achieved agreement with the Agency and
affected states to delete nonessential information from their permit
applications and to attach to their permits only those sections of plans and
information required under the regulations. These permits include:
Chemical Processors, Inc. Page 5, no Part B permit application;
No. WAD000812909 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment F)
Texaco Refining and Marketing Page 6, no Part 8 permit application;
No. WAD009276197 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment 6)
Shell Oil Company Page 6, no Part B permit application;
No. WAD009275082 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment H)
Chem-Security Systems, Inc. Page 9, no Part B permit application;
No. 0RD089452353 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment I)
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. Page 8, no Part B permit application;
No. IDD073114654 sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment J)
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. Page 5-6, no Part B permit
No. WAD067548966 application; sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment K)
The attachments found in these permits are often copies of the relevant pages
from management plans or directly pertinent descriptive information submitted
in their Part A and Part B permit applications. The commenters are proposing
that the same approach be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner to the Hanford
Facility Permit.
The commenters request that they be given the opportunity to meet with the
Department and the Agency to craft appropriate permit conditions that comply
with the regulations and to identify and include the specific information
necessary to prescribe compliance with these regulations. This approach will
avoid excessive detail, ambiguity, and the inclusion of overbroad,
nonessential information. The commenters will work with the Department and
the Agency to identify and provide the relevant information for the Permit.
The commenters cannot agree to include facility-wide plans in the Permit
because there is no regulatory basis for doing so and because the Department
is putting such information to uses for which the information was not
originally intended. If the DOE-RL chooses to institute facility-wide
management policies or procedures to guide and assist in the development and
coordination of unit-specific plans as a management tool, that is appropriate.

i..l;./
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 32 of 223
03/16/92
However, there is no regulatory basis for incorporating facility-wide plans,
including those portions of the plans that do not pertain to final status
TSD units, into the Permit.
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation, no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the agencies may respond by deciding to
retain the full condition or address some but not all of the commenters'
--- -concerns,-
provided specific- ammen-ts on-individual
contested conditions with recommended language to correct other proble-s in
the condition. Regardless of how the agencies address the commenters'
principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive their
objections to the inclusion of the full condition or any overbroad portion
thereof in the Permit.
Condition: List of Attachments
5.35 Page, lines: Page 7, lines 23-24
` ' CommentiAction:--Delete--"Attachment 3-iFestin-y,iouse Hanfurd Co'pany
Units/Areas of Responsibility" from this provision and delete Attachment 3 in
its entirety from the Permit.
Justification: For the reasons stated in comments to Page 1, lines 28-37
(Title Page); Page 3, lines 6-17 (Introduction); and Page 13, lines 26-29
(Standard Conditions I.A.2), WHC should not be identified as a permittee;
therefore this attachment is unnecessary. If WHC is identified in the Permit,
--th_i-s-pr4vision must be-modified by-the deletion of the word "/Areas" following
the word "Units" on line 23. Without this modification, and the modification
proposed to Attachment 3 (below), permit inaccuracies and confusion
surrounding contractor responsibiiities wiiY-result in management
inefficiencies on the Hanford Facility. The WHC has day-to-day management
responsibilities only for the following TSD units: 242-A Evaporator, Grout
Treatment Facility, T Plant Treatment Tank, 241-Z Treatment Tank, B Plant,
222-S LaboratoryComplexTreatment and Storage Tanks and Storage Area,
204-AR Waste Unloading Station, PUREX Plant, Hanford Waste Vitrification
Plant, 242-A Evaporator/PUREX Plant Condensate Treatment Facility, Double-
Shell Tank System, PUREX Storage Tunnels, TRUSAF, Hanford Central Waste
Complex--Radioactive Mixed Waste Storage Facility and the Waste Receiving and
Processing Facility, Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, Low-Level Burial
Grounds, Maintenance and Storage Facility, Hanford Patrol Academy Demolition
Site, 616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility, and the 600 Area
Purgewater Storage and Treatment Facility.
oMTt2.7531-i
If the contractors are retained as permittees, Attachment 3 must be changed to
delete words "/Areas" in the heading and to delete the following:
"100 Areas (100-B, C, D, OR, F, H, K, and N)
200 East and West Areas
400 Area
600 Area
1100 Area

f.,.,
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 33 of 223
03/16/92
North Slope
183-H Solar Evaporation Basins".
This change retains in the Permit Attachment 3 only, the final status
TSD units over which WHC exercises day-to-day management responsibility.
In the event that the Department and the Agency decide to retain WHC as a
permittee, specific comments have been provided on the distinction of
responsibility between the DOE-RL and WHC by function and by TSD unit. In
providing these specific comments, the commenters do not waive their objection
to a permit listing the.contractors as permittees.
c.^ Condition: List of Attachments
; 25.36 Page, lines: Page 7, lines 26-27
Comment/Action: Delete "Attachment 4 Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Units/Areas of Responsibility" from this provision and delete Attachment 4 in
its entirety from the Draft Permit.
25.37
920312.1531-1
Justification: For the reasons stated in the comment to Page 1, lines 28-37
(Title Page); Page 3, lines 6-17 (Introduction); and Page 13, lines 26-29
(Standard Conditions I.A.2), PNL should not be identified as a permittee;
therefore this attachment is unnecessary. If PNL is identified in the Permit,
this provision must be modified by the deletion of the word "/Areas" following
the word "Units" on line 26. Without this modification, and the modification
proposed to Attachment 4 (below), permit inaccuracies and confusion
surrounding contractor responsibilities will result in management
inefficiencies on the Hanford Facility. The PNL has day-to-day management
responsibilities only for the following TSD units: 305-B Storage Unit,
325/3100 Waste Treatment Unit, Thermal Treatment Test Facilities,
Physical/Chemical Treatment Test Facilities, and Biological Treatment Test
Facilities., All of these units currently are under interim status.
If the contractors are retained as permittees, Attachment 4 must be changed to
delete words "/Areas" in the heading. Also delete "300 Areas", as PNL does
not have management responsibility for,the 300 Area. The TSD units over which
PNL exercises management responsibility might be added when the TSD units
achieve final status.
In the event that the Department and the Agency decide to retain PNL as a
permittee, specific comments have been provided on the distinction of
responsibility between the DOE-RL and PNL by function and by TSD unit. In
providing these specific comments, the commenters do not waive their objection
to a permit listing the contractors as permittees.
Condition: List of Attachments
Page, lines: Page 7, lines 31-37 and 44
Comment/Action: Delete the following attachments:
Attachment 6 Facility-Wide Contingency Plan
Attachment 3 Facility-Wide Preparedness and Prevention Plan
Attachment 8 Facility-Wide Personnel Training Plan

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 34 of 223
03/16/92
Attachment 9 Facility-Wide Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
- - - ^ ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A t t a C h n-ie n t 112 FaC iiity-Wide 1rlSpett41 9n Pian.
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment justification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit List of Attachments, Page 7, lines 5 and 14-16.
Condition: List of Attachments
25.38 Page, lines: Page 7, line 39
Comment/Action: Delete "Attachment 10 Purgewater Management Plan".
Justification: There is no regulatory basis to include the Purgewater
Management Plan in this Permit. The Purgewater Management Plan has been
developed pursuant to the FFACO and incorporated into Appendix F of the FFACO.
^ Future modifications to the Purgewater Management Plan will be addressed by
mechanisms provided in the FFACO.
.-;-; Condition: List of Attachments
°^5•39 Page, lines: Page 7, lines 41-42
^y^ent/Action; Delete 'Attachment 11 Policy on Remediation of Existing
Wells and Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990."
Justification: Attachment 11, "Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and
Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990," is a policy document, and
--__---------15-t99-no!lspESifjc_fgr effgetivg eeerati0ndl compliance, and should not be
----- --- --- fncl uded - as - a- permit- cend! t-+.en-. ---Tbe--"Rol i cy -on--Remedi a*.+. on of Exi st+, ng Wel 1 s
and Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990" cannot be consistently
applied, and will cause duplicate wells to be constructed for CERCLA and RCRA
applications, where it would otherwise be unnecessary. The "Policy on
Remediation of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA,
June 1990," as currently written, does not assure that specified well
remediation activities will meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) for both
RCRA and CERCLA programs. Refer to comments on Draft Permit condition
II.F.3.b, Page 35, line 43.
Condition: List of Attachments
25.40 Page, lines: Page 8, lines 4-20
Comment/Action: Delete the following attachments:
9zos12.1531-t
Attachment 16 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins Part A Application and
the Closure/Postclosure Plan
----lttachnent 17 --- ---Decoam#s-sioni-ng-Work-Pl-aff"Concrete-Sampiing -
183-H Solar Evaporation Basins" ( DWP-H-080-00001)
8-26-91, Rev. A-3
Attachment 18 Decommissioning Work Plan "Core Drill Sampling -
183-H Solar Evaporation Basins ( Phase I)"
(DWP-H-080-00005) 2-8-81, Rev. A-1
Attachment 19 "183-H Solar Evaporation Basins Vadose Zone Sampling
Plan" ( WHC-SD-EN-AP-056) 6-25-91, Rev. 0"
Attachment 20 Decommissioning Work Plan "Berm Removal for
183-H Solar Evaporation Basins" ( DWP-H-026-00008)
1-16-91, Rev. A-0".

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 35 of 223
Q3/16/92
Justification: These attachments all pertain to a TSD unit for which final
status is not being requested. The 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins will close
under Interim Status in accordance with provisions in the FFACO. The
WAC 173-303-805(7)(b)(iv) authorizes closure under interim status. No legal
basis or rationale is given in the Fact Sheet for including the 183-H Solar
Evaporation Basins Interim Status Closure Plan in a final status Permit.
Refer to complete comments to the Closure Plan that refer to Draft Permit
condition 111.2. on Page 57.
Condition: List of Attachments
25.41 Page, lines: Page 8, lines 25-26
Comment/Action: Delete "Attachment 22 UE&C-Catalytic Inc., Environmental
Protection Plan, Hanford Waste Vitrification Project (6CC-PL-009)" from the
Permit.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis for inclusion of this plan. This
plan was given to the Department to provide an understanding of the way
construction will be conducted. The plan was not intended to become part of
tfiw Permit. This plan voluntarily exceeds the requirements of WAC 173-303 as
a form of good business practice; however, circumstances might dictate
deviations from this plan that will still be within the WAC 173-303
regulations. There is no regulatory basis to require that such a plan be
included in a TSD permit and thereby subject the plan to the Department's
modification process. The Permit should, at most, require construction be
conducted within the bounds of WAC 173-303 regulations instead of this plan.
This provision also goes beyond the appropriate level of regulatory control.
Condition: List of Attachments
25.42 Page, lines: Page 8, line 28-29
Comment/Action: Delete "Attachment 23 List of Organizations Referenced in
Part B Permit Applications and Closure Plans".
920312.1531-I
Justification: This attachment sets out management organizations at the
Hanford Facility. It is entirely within the discretion of the DOE-RL and its
contractors to structure and to change their organizations as they deeia
necessary. There is no authority to include these organizations within the
Permit and thereby to subject management organizational changes to Department
and Agency approval. In any case, this attachment is not referenced anywhere
else in the Draft Permit. Furthermore, this provision implies that interim
status closure plans are intended to be included in the Permit. This is not
appropriate in a final status Permit. Refer to complete comments on this
issue referring to Draft Permit condition 111.2. on Page 57. This is clearly
a case where the Department has exceeded an appropriate level of regulatory
control.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERNIT 36 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: Definitions
2 5.43 Page, lines: Page 9, lines 7-9, 13-15
ColUfent%ActTd1T: Deiei:e-ttne-words_"any ofw-irr iines-07 ana-13s '(a)_through
(j)" in line 08, and "(a) through ( 1)" in lines 13 and 14. Add words:
for Administrator, Agency, Dangerous Waste, Department, Director,
Facility, and Permit,
in lines 08 and 13-14.
Justification: These lines specify that certain definitions supersede any
definition of the same term in the FFACO or in relevant regulations. The only
definitions that should supplement those in the FFACO or regulations are the
definitions of Administrator, Agency, Dangerous Waste, Department, Director,
Facility, and Permit. The FFACO is a binding agreement among the DOE-RL, the
Department, and the Agency. As such, the FFACO must prevail over any directly
conflicting language in the Permit that is sought to be imposed by one party.
C-P' Condition: Definitions (Best Efforts)
25.44 Page, lines: Page 9, lines 39-45
Comment/Action: Delete the definition of "Best Efforts" in its entirety.
-----------Justification: As stated in the Draft Permit, the definition on Page 9 is
only applicable to Part IV of the Draft Permit. The term "best efforts"
appears once in Part IV of the Draft Permit at condition IV.B.2., on Page 83,
line 44. The text refers to "...Permittees' best efforts, pursuant to
Paragraph 106 of the FFACO...". It is clear that "Best Efforts" is governed
by Paragraph 106 of the FFACO, which does not comport with the definition in
this permit condition. If there is a need to provide further clarification as
to the meaning of these words as used in the FFACO, then a definition should
be considered for inclusion in the FFACO. To define in the permit a term used
in the_context_of the_FFACO is Inappropriate.
Condition: Definitions [Contractor(s)]
25.45 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete.
Justification: This provision serves no purpose in a permit issued to the
_- ---- ---owner/opera_tors-U.$.--Department-of Fnargv-IlanfnrA Facility.
Condition: Definitions ( Dangerous Waste)
25.46 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 10-11
Comment/Action: Add words "the hazardous component of" before the word
"mixed". Add the following sentence to the end of the definition:
920312.1531-i
Dangerous waste does not include the source, special nuclear, and
by-product material components of mixed waste.
Justifi_cati_on

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 37 of 223
03/16/92
in accordance with RCRA Section 6905(a), 10 CFR Part 962, and EPA's Notice
Regarding State Authorization to Regulate the Hazardous Components of
Radioactive Mixed Wastes under RCRA, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,504 (July 3, 1986); also
refer to RCW 70.105.109 ( Department might regulate mixed wastes "to the extent
it is not preempted by federal law").
The AEA vests the DOE with the responsibility to assure the development,
utilization and control of atomic energy for military and for all other
purposes vital to the common defense and security. ( 42 U.S.C. § 2012(a)). The
AEA also provides that The processing and utilization of source, byproduct,
and special nuclear material must be regulated in the national interest and in
order to provide for the common defense and security and to protect the health
and safety of the public. ( 42 U.S.C. 2012(d). In accordance with the AEA,
the DOE and its predecessor agencies have developed a comprehensive program
,,r_; for the regulation of source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials in both
r4= product and waste forms.
^-^-,
- In 1976, Congress enacted the RCRA, a comprehensive cradle-to-grave management
scheme, administered by the EPA and authorized states, for the generation,
treatment, disposal, and recycling of hazardous waste. The scope of the RCRA
program is delineated by the definitions of "solid waste" and "hazardous
waste". The RCRA 1004(5) defines the term "hazardous waste" as a subset
within the universe of "solid wastes", which are defined in Section 1004(27).
920312.1531-i
The definition of "solid waste" in RCRA expressly excludes "source, special
nuclear, or byproduct materials" as defined by the AEA. Those excluded
materials are regulated under the AEA either by the DOE or the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Because the materials are not solid wastes, the
materials cannot be hazardous wastes because all hazardous wastes must first
meet the definition of a solid waste.
In 1987, the DOE, after consultation with the EPA and other interested
parties, issued a Final Interpretive Rule (10 CFR Part 962) regarding the
definition of "byproduct material" set forth in Section 11(e)(1) of the AEA
(May 1, 1987, 52 FR 15937) for purposes of RCRA applicability. Under the
rule, the AEA term "byproduct material" means:
any radioactive material yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the
radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear
material.
The Final Rule clarifies the DOE's obligation under RCRA as applied to
"radioactive mixed waste" i.e., those radioactive waste substances that are
also "hazardous" within the meaning of RCRA. The Final Rule states that "the
words 'any radioactive material' as used in the term 'byproduct', refer only
to the actual radionuclides dispersed or suspended in the waste substance.
The nonradioactive hazardous component of the waste will be subject to
regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act." The principle
effect of the Final Rule is that handlers of radioactive mixed wastes, such as
the DOE, are subject to dual regulations; the handler must comply with both
the requirements of the AEA for the radioactive component and RCRA regulations
for the management of the nonradioactive hazardous waste component.

92D712.1531-1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 38 of 223
03/16/92
?he-Preamb?e to the-DOE's-May-1, I-987-byproduct rule recognizes that the DOE
is the federal agency responsible for authoritatively construing the
requirements of the AEA, as that Act applies to DOE facilities.
... it seems apparent that RCRA was Intended to have some applicability to
materials that were already regulated under the AEA. Section 1006(a) of RCRA,
specifies that as to 'any activity or substance' subject to the AEA, RCRA
regulation must yield, but only to the extent of inconsistent requirements of
the AEA. The archetypal substances that can fairly be described as "subject
to" the AEA are substances containing source, special nuclear and byproduct
material, to which the AEA expressly Is directed." (52 FR at Col. 1,
page 15940).
The preamble explains the effect of language of RCRA and AEA as follows:
Read together, DOE believes that the definitional exclusion and the language
of section 1006(a) are correctly understood to provide for the regulation
under RCRA of all hazardous waste, including waste that is also radioactive.
RCRA does not apply to the radioactive component of such a waste however, if
it is source special nuclear or byproduct material. Instead, the AEA applies
to that radioactive component. Finally, if the application of both regulatory
schemes proves conflicting in specific instances, RCRA yields to the AEA.
(emphasis added) (Id. at Col. 2, para 1).
In addition the preamble states:
While DOE does not anticipate that adoption of today's final rule will lead to
frequent cases of 'inconsistency', section 1006(a) provides critical assurance
that the iarpleaientation of the final rule will create no impedinent to the
maintenance of protection of radiological hazards as well as DOE's
accomp)isJtnsn_t of fts_olher statutory responsibilities under the AEA.
(emphasis added). (Id. at Col. 2, Para 2).
The DOE's byproduct rule therefore appropriately recognizes the dual AEA/RCRA
regulation of mixed waste while preserving the exclusion of the source,
special nuclear, and byproduct component of the waste from regulation under
RCRA, and also recognizes the supremacy of AEA authority in the event of a
conflict. This approach has been most recently confirmed by the Agency's
Clarification Notice of September 23, 1988, entitled Clarification of Interim
Status Qualification Requirements for the Hazardous Components of Radioactive
Mixed Waste, 53 Fed. Reg. 37,045. In the September 23, 1988 Notice, the EPA
committed to a strategy of minimizing the impact of RCRA regulations by
developing an approach for joint regulation of radioactive mixed waste "that
will affect program implementation in the least burdensome manner
practicable." In terms of the inconsistency issue, the EPA recognized that
"implementation of the dual regulatory program for radioactive mixed waste
management might result in instances where compliance with both sets of
regulations is not only infeasible but undesirable." In cases where there was
an actual inconsistency, the EPA acknowledged that the AEA would take
precedence, and the inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 39 of 223
03/16/92
The FFACO likewise contemplates that the DOE, not the Department, will have
authority over radioactive waste pursuant to the AEA. The FFACO at Article V
defines mixed waste as follows:
Radioactive Mixed Waste" or "Mixed Waste" are wastes that contains both
hazardous waste subject to RCRA, as amended, and radioactive waste subject to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Under Article I, Jurisdiction, the parties agreed that the state of Washington
would regulate the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste pursuant to the state HWMA and regulations governing the management of
hazardous wastes ( WAC 173-303). As explained previously, RCRA excludes
source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials from its definition of solid
(and therefore hazardous) wastes. Article I further states that "nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed to require DOE to take any action pursuant
to RCRA which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended" (FFACO, Art. I, 1 5). The DOE's authority to regulate
radioactive materials was therefore clearly preserved in the FFACO. The FFACO
provides for CERCLA removal actions at certain operable units. Radioactive
materials fall within CERCLA's definition of hazardous substance. This does
not, however, bestow any authority on the Department to regulate radioactive
materials as a hazardous waste under the RCRA permit.
Therefore, any assertion by the Department that the source, special nuclear,
or byproduct component of a mixed waste is subject to regulation under RCRA or
the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations is inconsistent with and
preempted by federal law as well as being inconsistent with the FFACO. It
also would be outside the scope of activities that can be subject to
regulation at a federal facility pursuant to Section 6001 of RCRA
(42 U.S.C. 6961). To ensure the issue does not result in future
misunderstanding, the definition must be modified as proposed herein.
Condition: Definitions (Days)
25.47 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 13-14
Comment/Action: Delete definition of "Days". Specify that the FFACO
definition is incorporated.
Justification: This term is defined in Article V of the FFACO. The FFACO
definition was agreed to by the parties and is controlling.
Condition: Definitions (Facility)
25.48 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 27-32
Comment/Action: Delete this definition and replace with the facility
description included in WAC 173-303-040, which defines "facility" as
920312.1531-1
all contiguous land, and structures, other appurtances, and improvements on
the land used for recycling, reusing, reclaiming, transferring, storing,
treating, or disposing of dangerous waste.

;^-..
-a^=--
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
And add the following language:
The Facility excludes portions of the Hanford Site north and east of
the Columbia River, the Bonneville Power Administration Midway Site,
lands leased by the Washington Public Power Supply System, lands
leased by the state of Washington, and lands on the Hanford Site
that are used but not owned by the BPA.
-The Facility-is-a-single site-for-purposes-of conditions regarding
off-site or on-site waste handling. For purposes of Section 3004(u)
of RCRA only, the term facility also includes the lands leased by
the Washington Public Power Supply System, the 1,000 acres leased by
the state of Washington, and lands used but not owned by the BPA.
The legal description of the facility is set forth in Attachment 2
to this permit.
40 of 223
03/16/92
In addition, at Attachment 2 to the Draft Permit, delete all pages currently
in the Draft Permit and substitute the facility description in Comment
---Attachment N,
Justification: This rewording.will make the definition in the Permit the same
as that set forth in the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The
-- ---- ----definitien in the Draft Permit is confusing. The WAC 173-303-040 definition
is clear.
As currently drafted, the definition includes all Hanford Site land including
that not used by the DOE-RL for TSD purposes, land leased to others, and
noncontiguous DOE-RL land across the Columbia River. As thereafter used
throughout the Permit, the term results in operating permit conditions being
applied to areas where the DOE-RL has no authority to control the acts of
others. The Department and the Agency have no authority to Impose such
conditions to these areas under the Permit. Furthermore, the conditions
conflict with the FFACO. The revised definition distinguishes between the
operating facility and contiguous land that is not managed by the DOE-RL but
might be subject to § 3004(u) of RCRA and also excludes for all purposes,
noncontiguous land across the Columbia River from the Hanford Facility (this
land is commonly referred to as the North Slope) and the BPA-owned Midway
Site. Refer to comments to Draft Permit conditions I.A.1.b, IV P.1, and
IV r".3.
Condition: Definitions [Fenced Security Area(s)]
25.49 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 37-39
Comment/Action: Replace definition of "Fenced Security Area(s)" with
definition of Controlled Access Area by using WAC 173-303-310(2)(c):
An artificial or natural barrier, or combination of both, which
completely surrounds the active portion of the facility, with a
to control access through gates or other entrances to the
active portion of the facility at all tiaes.
Justification: It is not clear what the purpose is in providing this
--- -tiefliri-ti-osr. ---lf -it is intended to list all the fenced areas on the Hanford
9T0712.1531-i

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 41 of 223
03/16/92
Site, the list is incomplete; among others, the 400 Area is missing. However,
a complete list could be very long. Implementing this definition would result
in the inefficient use of resources. It is better to define the purpose or
criteria for the fence. Refer to comments pertaining to Draft Permit
condition II.M, Page 43, lines 14-20 of the Draft Permit.
Condition: Definitions (Independent)
25.50 Page, lines: Page 10, lines 45-49; Page 11, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Change the definition of the term "independent" to mean "an
individual who is not employed by the Permittee". Also, add a sentence that
says that "Multiple certifications by the same engineer will not nullify the
engineer's independent status."
Justification: Neither state nor federal regulations specifically define the
term "independent". However, the WAC requirements for certification by an
independent, registered professional engineer appear to be identical to the
federal RCRA regulations [WAC 173-303-640(3)(a) and 40 CFR 264.192(a)]. In
the preamble to the Hazardous Waste regulation promulgated by the EPA in July
1986, an explanation is provided at 51 FR 25422 as to what the EPA intended by
the use of the term: EPA analyzed the issue of whether the assessment
-required in 204.191 shoutd-PsE conducted by-a qualified registered professional
engineer and whether the registered professional engineer could be employed by
the owner/operator. The Agency believes that the one-time assessment should
be made by a person who does not have a conflict or appearance of a conflict
of interest. Accordingly, the word independent has been added to the final
rule to clarify that ew les of the owner/operator cannot make the
assessment.
Subsequent directives issued by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) are consistent with this explanation (Comment Attachment 0).
The OSWER Policy Directive 9483.00-1 states in part, Because the regulations
require the engineer to be independent, he/she cannot be employed by the tank
system owner or operator, in order to avoid a conflict of interest or the
appearance of such a conflict....
Therefore, the regulations provide no authority to exclude the broad
categories of persons that this Draft Permit purports to exclude. Certainly,
the incorporation of a 24-month "cleansing" period is completely arbitrary.
The expansive definition of 'independent' proposed in the Draft Permit is not
based on any law or regulation, is contrary to general practice, and is
without 3ustification. Its effect would be to impose an additional costly
layer of bureaucracy upon Hanford Facility activities and appears to exhibit
discriminatory treatment of the federal government.
Condition: Definitions (New definition)
51 Page, lines: Page 11, lines 9+
Comment/Action: Add definition of mixed waste:
920312.1531-i
"Mixed waste" is waste containing hazardous or dangerous components,
regulated by the United States Resource Conservation and Recovery

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 42 of 223
03/16/92
Act and the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act,
respectively; and containing radioactive components regulated by the
United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Justification: The term is used at Page 10, line 10 of the Draft Permit and
must be defined. The definition proposed is consistent with the definition in
Article V., Paragraph 21.S. of the FFACO.
Condition: Definitions (Permittees)
15.52 Page, lines: Page 11, lines 17-19
Comment/Action: Delete this definition. Substitute:
^-1a
The term 'Permittee" means the U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford
Facility."
Cr;
Justification: This change conforms with comments to permit provision Page 1,
lines 28-37 ( Title Page); Page 3, lines 6-17 ( Introduction); and Page 13,
lines 26-29 ( Standard Conditions).
Condition: Definitions ( Registered Professional Engineer)
25. 53 Page, lines: Page 11, lines 21-24
- -Comment/Aet9on: -Dwel-ete-tir#s- definition.
Justification: This definition is unrealistic and imposes requirements not
otherwise applicable on a federal enclave. The definition of a registered
professional engineer should at the very least be expanded to include those
engineers_registered_in_anoth_er state that has a reciprocal registration
certification to the state of Washington. The term "Re g istered Professional
Engineer" or "Licensed Professional Engineer" is not defined in WAC 173-303,
and nothing therein indicates that it is limited to a person registered or
licensed in the state of Washington.
The Department's Solid and Hazardous Waste Program has agreed to clarify this
fiequirec,ert in this year's amendment cycle to the Dangerous Waste Regulations.
It is likely they will clarify the rules to include professional engineers
from other states with a reciprocal registration certification.
- Many engineers at the Hanford Facility are registered in other states and have
not in the past been required to register in Washington State, because the
engineers work on a federal enclave. Further, major construction projects
like the HWVP obviously will be bid on a nationwide basis. The construction
engineer with the most experience in such facilities might not be registered
in the state of Washington.
9Ma.15at-i
The requirement that a registered engineer stamp and sign a document appears
in a variety of forms throughout the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations.
For example, the closure provision requires certification of closure by an
independent registered professional engineer, WAC 173-303-610(6) . When new
tanks are installed or the integrity of an existing tank system is assessed,
certification by an independent, qualified registered professional engineer is
required, WAC 173-303-640(2)(3). When submitting a Part B permit application,

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 43 of 223
03/16/92
certain technical data and engineering studies must be certified by a
registered professional engineer, WAC 173-303-806(4). The regulations do not
indicate that an engineer satisfies the "registration" requirement only if the
engineer is registered in Washington State.
A regulation does not require registration by the engineer in Washington State
unless it expressly states so. By way of contrast, the Washington State
regulations for planning, design, and construction of urban arterials require
that work funded by the state be supervised by a professional engineer
registered in the State of Washington , WAC 479-16-015 ( emphasis added).
(Other states have clearly specified that an engineer must be registered in a
particular state when registratiori in that state is required. In California,
the environmental regulations state that the certifying engineer must be
registered in California [22 Cal. Admin. Code § 66265.222, 66270.16 ( Comment
Attachment-P)]-- The Florida-regulations-have simiTar specifications
"-' [17 Fla. Admin. Code Ann. § 4.050 ( Comment Attachment Q)]. Because the
regulation does not specify that registration must be in Washington State, the
Department is imposing an additional requirement by requiring registration in
Washington State as part of this Permit.
Condition: Definitions ( Release)
25.54 Page, lines: Page 11, lines 26-31
-- - Co^^:^^ert-;Action: Delete definition of "release" at lines 26 to 31.
- Substitute:
The term 'release' means any nonpermitted discharge as discharge is
defined in WAC 173-303-040.
Justification: There is no justification for a definition of 'release' that
goes beyond the meaning of the word as used in WAC 173-303. The definition
proposed in the Draft Permit is confusing as well as arbitrary. The term
'release' is defined in WAC 173-303 as an action verb without regard to object
or subject. Furthermore, containers that meet the definition of 'empty' in
accordance with WAC 173-303-160 should not be considered as releases. Only
residues in nonempty or nonrinsed containers should be considered when
determining waste quantities; nonetheless, while nonempty abandoned containers
might constitute disposal, this does not equate to release. Refer to
WAC 173-303-160(1) and WAC 173-303-040. Furthermore, clarification must be
made to exclude 'permitted releases' from this definition. As the term
'release' is used in the Draft Permit, there is no provision that excludes
permitted releases from, for example, immediate reporting.
Condition: Definitions ( Reasonable Times)
25.55 Page, lines: Page 11, lines 33-36
Comment/Action: Delete definition of "Reasonable Times" in its entirety.
920312.1531-1
Justification: Article XXXVII, paragraph 105, of the FFACO specifies that
Agency and Department representatives shall have authority to enter the
Hanford Site at all reasonable times. This FFACO provision must be read to
give some logical meaning to the term 'reasonable'. Because treatment or
storage always is taking place at some TSD unit at the Hanford Facility, the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 44 of 223
03/16/92
Draft Permit definition essentially defines reasonable times as all times.
This is inconsistent with and exceeds any notion of what would actually
constitute reasonable times.
--}f there---is-a need-to-provide clarification of the meaning of the words
"Rgasenable TAme," as used i" the FFACO, tlsen adef+.nition should be
considered for inclusion in the FFACO. To define, in the permit, a term used
in the context of the FFACO is inappropriate.
Condition: Definition (Unsound)
56 Paaa;-lines; Page 12, lines 4-5
Comment/Action: Delete the entire provision pertaining to "unsound".
a.ai2.i531-1
Justification: The definition for 'unsound' is unreasonable and has no basis
in the regulations. The definition is not correct and does not comport with
good engineering standards. Furthermore, the definition is incomplete and
does not take into account all conditions relative to either sound or unsound
wells. In addition, this requirement is in direct conflict with the "Policy
on Remediation of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA",
June 1990, at Draft Permit Attachment 11. That Policy states that wells not
constructed in accordance with WAC 173-160 may be considered to provide
useable samples. Therefore, wells that are not drilled in accordance with
WAC 173-160 are not necessarily deemed unsound. Refer to Draft Permit
condition II.F.2.f., Page 35, lines 19-20.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 45 of 223
03/16/92
COMMENTS ON PART I - STANDARD CONDITIONS
I.A. EFFECT OF PERMIT
Condition: I.A.1.a.
25.57 Page, lines: Page 13, lines 7-14
Comment/Action: Insert "or by the FFACO" between "WAC 173-303" and "and" on
line 12 of the condition. Insert the following language at the end of
condition 1.A.1.a:
The provisions of this Permit apply only to those TSD units that
have been incorporated into Part III of this Permit. Other
TSD units currently operating under interim status shall continue
under interim status until a final permit for the TSD unit is
incorporated into Part III through a permit modification.
Compliance with this Permit constitutes compliance, for purposes of
enforcement, with the HWMA, Chapter 70.105 RCW, and Subtitle C of
'•' RCRA as amended by HSWA, for the dangerous waste activities
° identified and included in this Permit, except for any selfimplementing
provisions and related regulations provided by HSWA.
Justification: The proposed change to add "or by the FFACO" is made to
reflect the fact that as a consent order, the FFACO might authorize certain
activities to be performed pursuant to compliance schedules contained within
the FFACO and provide a timetable for compliance with the requirements of
WAC 173-303 or RCRA. The second proposed change will clarify the intent of
the Permit as stated in the Fact Sheet, and will make clear that activities
"authorized by . . WAC 173-303" refer to interim status facilities. This
action is consistent with the FFACO, which states at Section 6.2 of the Action
Plan (p. 6-2) that Since all of the TSD groups/units cannot be permitted
simultaneously, Ecology and the EPA will issue the initial permit for less
than the entire facility. The last sentence in the proposed language is
standard language included in other Agency permits [e.g., Fort Wainwright,
No. AK6210022426, at I.A. (Comment Attachment D); EPA Model RCRA Permit
(Comment Attachment Rjj. This language provides the Permittee with the
necessary assurance that if the Permittee follows the Permit for the
activities specifically included within the Permit, the Permittee will not be
Drce s. c.. .. •
--- uvvJc.... uv n..nn cn^v^^.cmm^u.
Condition: I.A.1.b.
25.58 Page, lines: Page 13, lines 16-24
Comment/Action: Change line 21 to read as follows:
920312.1534-1
1) Lands controlled but not owned by the BPA
Add a new line:
3) Lands leased by the Washington Public Power Supply System.
Justification: The change to line 21 is made to reflect the fact that BPAowned
lands, i.e., the Midway Substation and Community, should not be included

V ."J
F725
:2_
Cr°;
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 46 of 223
03/16/92
in the facility legal description for any reason becau:^e the Agency has
recognized as a matter ofstatutory interpretation that major subunits of
federal agencies are considered independent and their individual land holdings
should not be considered contiguous owned land. This is consistent with the
Agency statement of interpretation at 52 Federal Register p. 7723 (March 5,
1986). Additional details on this point are contained in a letter from
E. A. Bracken, DOE-RL, to D. L. Duncan, EPA, dated June 10, 1991 (Comment
Attachment S), which describes in detail the separate ownership of the Midway
Site by 8PA as well as the independence of the SPA as a major subunit of the
DOE. Refer also to the comment on condition IV.P.1, Page 94, line 2, of the
Draft Permit. The addition of item 3 (lands leased by the Washington Public
Power Supply System^ is made to clarify that it is not the intent of this
Permit to set operacing conditions on the lands leased by the Washington
Public Power and Supply System from the DOE on the Hanford Site.
Condition:
59 Page, lines:
Comment/Action:
I.A.2.
Page 13, lines 26-29
Delete this condition and delete Attachments 3 and 4.
Justification: Issuing the Permit to "U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford
Facility" will avoid mischaracterizing the nature of responsibilities under
the law and the confusion of the DOE-RL and contractor responsibilities in the
peraiit. A similar action was taken by the state of Texas and the EPA in
issuing a RCRA permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant" (Comment
Attachment Q. Refer to comments on Draft Permit provisions on Page 1,
lines 28-37 (Title Page); Page 3, lines 6-17 (Introduction); and Page 7,
lines 23-24 and 26-27.
As written, this provision inaccurately portrays the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL as
equal permittees with no distinction of responsibility. This approach does
not acknowledge the functional differences between the DOE-RL and its
contractors. The DOE-RL is responsible_for-oyerall_-mana_gement and operation
of the Hanford Facility, including policy, programmatic funding, scheduling
--deefstons-,- and generai oversight. The contractors are responsible for certain
darv-to-da_v acti-^ctt-tes3uch_es waste-anal^,vsis, waste handling, monitoring,
container labeling, personnel training, and recordkeeping. Were WHC and PNL
to be identified in the Permit, it would be necessary to rephrase this
condition to state "WHC shall be responsible, subject to the oversight of
DOE-RL, for complying only with day-to-day management responsibilities of
those permit conditions, including Standard and General conditions, that apply
to those units of the facility identified in Attachment 3 "WHC Units of
Responsibility", which have been incorporated into Part III of this Permit."
The PNL shall be responsible, subject to the oversight of DOE-RL, for
complying only with day-to-day management responsibilities of those permit
conditions, including Standard and General Conditions, that apply to the units
of the facility identified in Attachment 4, "PNL Units of Responsibility",
which have been incorporated into Part III of this Permit."
nos12.11534-1
In comments pertaining to this permit condition in the Fact Sheet, the
Department expressly recognized that the contractors' responsibilities should
be limited on both a functional and geographical basis to the "day-to-day
operations at certain units." (The Department also incorrectly designated the

- --------- -
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 47 of 223
03/16/92
contractor responsibilities by areas. Refer to comments to Draft Permit
provision Page 7, lines 23-24 and 26-27, Attachments 3 and 4.) The functional
division of responsibilities must be recognized in the Permit itself. This
would be necessary to clarify the division of responsibility of the DOE-RL,
PNL, and WHC.
Attachments 3 and 4 also should be deleted for the same reasons stated above;
but if the attachments are to be included, the attachments will require
modification as well, because as written in the Draft Permit, they improperly
identify broad areas of the site that do not correspond with the actual
racnnncihilitiae nf the rnmmonfore
- ................. . ....... ... ....,. .....................
= If the WHC is retained as a permittee, Attachment 3 must be changed to delete
cnrr words "/Areas" in the Attachment heading and to delete the following:
p
-:;-r---
_
-- " inn e.... .. 11nn o r^ n^
a vv n^CaD avv-p b v
200 East and West Areas
400 Area
600 Area
1100 Area
ne, vn F, H, K. and N)
North
183-H
Slope
Solar Evaporation Basins".
This change retains in the permit Attachment 3 only, the final status
TSD units over which WHC exercises management responsibility.
If PNL is retained as a permittee, Attachment 4 must be changed to delete
words "/Areas" in the Attachment heading and to delete 0300 Areas". The
TSD units over which PNL exercises management responsibility might be added
when these TSD units achieve final status.
In the event that the Department and the Agency decide to retain WHC and PNL
as permittees, specific comments have been provided on the distinction of
responsibility among the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL by function and by TSD unit. In
providing these specific comments, the commenters do not waive their objection
to a permit listing the contractors as permittees.
Condition: I.A.3. Coordination with the FFACO
25.60 Page, lines: Page 13, lines 31-41
Comment/Action: Add an additional sentence to condition I.A.3 that states:
920372.1534-I
Units that shall be closed under interim status are excluded from
the permit incorporation process described in this section.
Justification: Those TSD units that are being closed under interim status
should not be a part of the final status permit. In accordance with the
FFACO, those units that are not seeking a final status permit will be closed
in accordance with the FFACO under interim status and a separate closure plan
approval will be issued outside of the final status permit. Handling interim
status closure plan review and approval independently of the final status
permit process also will allow for more efficient paperwork for these closures
and will prevent the final status permit from becoming unduly large and

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 48 of 223
03/16/92
complex. It also will allow changes to be processed to closure plans in a
more reasonable and expeditious manner without having to amend the final
st-atus permi-t--€or-every-su^r^ltange.--This-appr'ach will enhance management
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Hanford Site cleanup. Maintaining the
separation of closure plans for these interim status facilities also will
avoid the ambiguity that would result from imposing final status provisions of
this permit upon an interim status TSD unit.
Condition: I.A.4. Incorporation of the FFACO
25.61 Page, lines: Page 13, lines 43-49
Page 14, lines 1-4
Comment/Action: Replace Draft Permit condition I.A.4 with the following:
.....J
The DOE-RL shall comply with all enforceable milestone schedules,
contained within the FFACO dealing with RCRA final status permitting
(as specified in Attachment 5), which are hereby incorporated by
reference into this Permit in their entirety. This Permit is
eT intended to be consistent with the framework established by the
FFACO, as amended. However, should a direct conflict occur between
language of this Permit and specific language of the FFACO, as
amended, the language of the FFACO shall prevail.
Further, modify Attachment 5 by deleting the words 'interim and" in the first
line and deleting the following interim status milestones: M-20-03, M-20-04,
M-20-07, M-20-09, M-20-10, M-20-13, 14-20-14,• M-20-15, M-20-18, M-20-19,
M-20-25, M-20-26, M-20-27, M-20-28, 14-20-31, M-20-32, M-20-33, M-20-34,
M-20-35, M-20-36, M-20-37, M-20-38, M-20-39, M-20-40, and M-20-41.
Justification: This change is intended to clarify the incorporation of the
RCRA authorities of the FFACO, and make clear that CERCLA authorities are not
incorporated in it, as explained in the Fact Sheet. It also specifies that
the FFACO, which is a binding agreement and consent order among the DOE-RL,
the Department, and the Agency, will prevail over any directly conflicting
language in the Permit, which is imposed by one party to that agreement. The
current language is clearly unacceptable, because it presents the possibility
---------- that--to comply with the Permit, the DOE-RL would have to violate the FFACO.
Furthermore, this change is consistent with action taken on the Fort
Wainwright Alaska hazardous waste permit issued by the Agency (Region 10)
omnent Ai:tachment D9. The EPk: in response p--
- --- - - - •
to Comment No. 68 on the
u.S. Army Fort Wainwright Permit (No. AK6210022426) ( Comment Attachment D),
deleted language that would have made the provisions of the permit prevail if
-- ------ it-xas- in-confiict with the CERCLA Sectton 120 Federal Facility Agreement for
the facility.
The changes to Attachment 5 must be made to remove milestones pertaining to
interim status TSD units. The Department has no authority to regulate interim
status TSD units under the final status permit.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 49 of 223
03/16/92
I.C. Permit Actions
Condition: I.C.I. Modification, Revocation, Reissuance, or
Termination
25.62 Page, lines: Page 14, lines 16-24
Comment/Action: Add the following language to the end of this condition:
Before any such action the parties will use the Dispute Resolution
Procedure of Article VIII or XV of the FFACO, as appropriate.
Justification: Articles VIII and XV and Paragraph 28 of the FFACO require the
Dispute Resolution Procedure to be used before the Permit can be modified,
revoked or terminated by the Department. This language is binding on the
Department, Agency, and the DOE-RL; the contractors also should be protected
':•^ by it, because the contractors are required to comply with the FFACO.
ret :i
Condition: I.C.3.a.
25.63 Page, lines: Page 14, lines 37-48
Comment/Action: Delete the language in this Draft Permit comment and replace
it with the following:
920312.7534-1
Except as provided otherwise by specific language in this Permit,
the permit modification procedures of WAC 173-303-830 shall ap p ly to
any modification or change in design or operation of this facility
or any modification or change in dangerous waste management
practices covered by this Permit.
Justification: The condition as stated in the Draft Permit presumes that,
except as otherwise provided by specific language in the Permit or a
determination by the Department, any modification is a Class 3 Permit
Modification. This is a "throwback" to the old "major/minor" dichotomy
formerly used, and is contrary to the provisions of WAC 173-303-830, which
establishes a three-tier system and identifies particular actions as falling
into different classes. The WAC 173-303-830 provision was similarly
incorporated by reference in the Chempro Permit, No. WAD000812909, at I.C.
(Comment Attachment F). There is no Justification for treating actions that
would otherwise be Class 1 Modifications at any other facility in the state of
Washington as presumptively Class 3 modifications at the Hanford Facility.
In addition, the last sentence of the Draft Permit condition contradicts the
first phrase and should be deleted even if the rest of the paragraph is
retained. Attachments are a part of the Permit and may for good reason
necessitate different modification procedures. For example, if an emergency
exercise reveals a flaw in a contingency plan, one would not want that flaw to
remain uncorrected while the Permittee goes through the lengthy Class 3
modification process. Refer to WAC 173-303-350(5) ( requiring imoediate
amendment of the contingency plan in certain circumstances).

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 50 of 223
03/16/92
:ondition: I.C.3.b.
25.64 Page, lines: Page 15, lines 1-9
:omment/Action: (1) On line 1 delete the words "For past practice actions
taken" and replace with "For selection of corrective actions". (2) Delete the
entire last sentence of condition I.C.3.b.
Justification: The term "For selection of corrective actions" is proposed to
------------ be-subgtituted fbr-"Fbr past practice actions taken" in line 1 of the Draft
Permit condition to avoid confusion over the meaning of the term "past
practice" and clarify that only RCRA corrective action decisions will be
incorporated into this Permit. The CERCLA remedial actions, which also are
referred-to as past practice actions in the FFACO. will not become
I L_rD incorporated into this permit.
r..^
The purpose of the FFACO is to provide an integrated program for site
remediation. The mechanisms established by the FFACO will be used to modify
plans and schedules and to resolve all past practice issues including
corrective action decisions. The detailed mechanisms for conducting these
^ activities are set forth in the FFACO. This Permit need only reference the
^Y= ffACO-giraceSS aRdindiCate that the corrective action selection process
identified in the FFACO constitutes the means for incorporating the corrective
action decisions into the permit. The FFACO process will continue to control
modifications to those decisions and their schedules of compliance. The first
sentence of the condition sufficiently carries out this function. The second
sentence creates unnecessary ambiguity and should be deleted.
Coliditi$n. 1.V.3.{..
25.65 Page, lines: Page 15, line 11
Comment/Action: Delete the words "past practice actions" and replace with
"corrective actions" in line 11.
Justification: The term "corrective action" is the appropriate language for
the Permit because it is the terminology applicable to RCRA activities. The
term "past practice" was developed in the FFACO and covers units not subject
to RCRA corrective action.
I.D. SEVERABILITY
Condition: I.D.2. Final Resolution
25.66 Page, lines: Page 15, line 40
Comment/Action: Delete the period and add at the end of the sentence on this
line•
vms12.1sx-i
or unless the FFACO authorizes an alternative action.
-Justificat-ion:--The-f€ACO--might-include--compli-ance--schedules for certain
interim status activities and the FFACO would continue to be In effect during
any stay of a permit condition. This change would clarify the intent of this
paragraph.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 51 of 223
03/16/92
I.E. DUTIES AND REOUIREMENTS
Condition: I.E.I. Duty to Comply
Page. lines: Page 16, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Replace lines 1 to 3 as follows:
Any permit noncompliance other than noncompliance authorized by an
emergency permit constitutes a violation of Chapter 70.105 RCW
and>or RCRA, as amended, whichever is aooiicable. and is grounds
for...
Justification: This condition erroneously suggests that any permit
,97; noncompliance (except those authorized by emergency permit pursuant to
:.1 WAC 173-303-804 or 40 CFR 270) is automatically a violation of federal and
state law. Many of the permit conditions are "state-only" requirements or
=_f Agency-only HSWA requirements. Thus, only the relevant state or federal law
would apply, but not both.
Condition: I.E.I.
25.67 Page, lines: Page 16, line 5
:omment/Action: In line 5 delete the word "and/or" from the phrase "and/or
denial of a permit renewal application" and replace with the words "or for".
Justification: This condition fails to reflect the requirements of the
Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations, and appears to enlarge state
enforcement authority beyond that specified in the regulations. Line 5 is
inconsistent with the express language of WAC 173-303-810(2) which states:
Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation and is grounds for
enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the term "and/or" is ambiguous, confusing, and does not add to
the protection of human health or the environment.
Condition: I.E.I.
25.68 Page, lines: Pages 15-16
Comment/Action: Add a new Section I.E.1.a., reading as follows:
920312.1534-1
Notwithstanding any provision of this Permit, nothing in this Permit
shall require any action that is inconsistent with the requirements
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The FFACO, Article I,
paragraph 5, shall govern any assertions of inconsistency with the
Atomic Energy Act. Similarly, nothing in this Permit shall require
any Physically Inconsistent Action as defined and governed by
Article XXIV, paragraphs 79 and 80, of the FFACO.
Justification: Condition I.E.1 erroneously assumes the Department has
authority to regulate radioactive source, special nuclear, and byproduct
material. Condition I.E.1 is inconsistent with the FFACO. Section 1006(a) of
the RCRA specifies that nothing in the Act shall be construed to apply to, or

:-^
25=.69
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 52 of 223
03/16/92
to authorize any state to regulate, any activity or substance that is subject
to the AEA except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not
inconsistent with the requirements of such Act (42 USCA 6905). Paragraph 5 of
the FFAI.U specifically provides that the DOE shall not be required to take
actions that are inconsistent with the AEA and sets out a procedure for
resolving such inconsistencies.
Paragraphs 79 and 80 of the FFACO set out the Agency's and the Department's
intent and ^r^^^dure procedure to avoid regulatory actions that are "Physically
Actions." The addition of condition I.E.1.a to the Permit would
recognize, preserve, and be consistent with these applicable provisions of the
FFACO. ( Refer to comment on definition of Dangerous Waste condition on
Pages 10-11 in the Draft Permit.)
Comment/Action: Insert a new Section I.E.1.b. reading as follows:
Before taking any action based on the Permittee's noncompliance with
any provision of this Permit, the Department shall give the
Permittee notice pursuant to Paragraph28 of the FFACO. If
necessary, the Dispute Resolution Procedure of Article VIII of the
FFACO (or Article XV for Agency or jointly-enforced conditions)
shall beinvoked and completed before any enforcement action or
other adverse action by the Department or Agency.
rlustifi:ation: Condition I.E.1 is inconsistent with the FFACO. The FFACO
identifies the process to be used to resolve permit noncompliances and the
- Permit-is-spectficatly -identifiEd in the FFACO as a document that will use the
- ^nechantsms-agreed-upon-therein.
The proposed new condition I.E.1.b. is required for consistency with
paragraph 28 of the FFACO, which clearly states the procedure to be followed.
Paragraph 28, in relevant part states: "If Ecology determines that DOE is
violating any RCRA Permit or interim status requirement or other applicable
requirement... Any dispute...shall be subject to Article VIII (Resolution of
Disputes)."
In the event cWHC and l PNL remain named as permittees, because the DOE-RL is
r^spcns-ible-l or- c(^imp lTHl^e ^-i1.h-a-ll-l,onditions of this Permit, the FFACO
provision should be applicable regardless of whether a contractor is
responsible for a violation. If the Department could proceed immediately
against a contractor, this would circumvent Paragraph 28 and deprive the
DOE-RL of the opportunity to resolve the alleged violation under FFACO
procedures. Also refer to FFACO paragraph 131, in which the Department
reserves the right to bring enforcement against the contractors, but only for
matters outside the scope of the FFACO, or if the DOE-RL fails to comply with
the FFACO. Because this Permit is called for by the FFACO, any enforcement
hereunder is subject to the FFACO dispute provision.
Lastly, using the FFACO dispute resolution provision is likely to be much more
cost effective and efficient.

25.70
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 53 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.2. Compliance Not Constituting Defense
Page, lines: Page 16, lines 8-19
Comment/Action: Add a Section I.E.2.a. as follows:
Compliance with the terms of this Permit constitutes a defense to
any action alleging failure to comply with the applicable standards
for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities in 40 CFR 264, Subtitle C of RCRA and
WAC 173-303.
Justification: This condition fails to state that compliance with this Permit
__ __does constitute.compliance with the portions of the regulations upon which
^. this permit is based. The above addition is consistent with 40 CFR 270.4(a),
^'mm which provides that compliance with the terms of the permit constitutes
compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA. This addition is standard language in
other EPA and Department permits [e.g., Chem-Security Systems, Inc.
No. 0RD089452353, at I.F.2 ( Comment Attachment I); Envirosafe,
•r= No. IDD070745917, at I.F.2 ( Comment Attachment J; Occidental Petroleum,
^e. No. WAD009242314, at.I.F.2 (Comment Attachment L)]. Because the Permit spells
out the actions necessary to comply with the underlying standards, the
Permittee must be able to rely on compliance with the Permit at least to that
extent.
Condition: I.E.3. Duty to Reapply
25-71 Page, lines: Page 16, lines 21-28
Comment/Action: Delete the words ", or if the Permittees are required to
initiate or continue postclosure care,". Place a period after the words
"obtain a new Permit", and delete the remainder of the sentence.
Justification: This condition does not accurately reflect the requirements of
RCRA Subtitle C or WAC 173-303 as to when a duty to reapply arises. The
condition adds several critical phrases that impose unjustified additional
requirements to the provisions of WAC 173-303-810(3) and 40 CFR 270.30(b),
which states the following:
-Duty to reappl-,y: ---If--the per,ri-tter-W-shes-to- cofitinre in activi`sy regulated by
the permit after its expiration date, the pernittee must apply for and obtain
a new permit.
The Draft Permit condition should be modified to reflect the requirements of
WAC 173-303-810(3) and 40 CFR 270.30(b). The language in the Draft Permit is
not consistent with the regulatory requirements.
Condition: I.E.7. Proper Operation and Maintenance
25.72 Page, lines: Page 17, line 10-23
Comment/Action: Insert after •adequate funding" on line 17 the following
words:
920312.7531-I
(except to the extent that the unavailability of appropriated funds
might be raised as a defense under paragraph 143 of the FFACO).

25
f:1
r,^•1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 54 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: This condition does not recognize the DOE-RL's right under the
FFACO to raise the defense that proper operation and maintenance could not be
_--achieved-because-of-a-tack of appropriated funds. The DOE-RL cannot violate
the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 USC 665). The Draft Permit does
not recognize that the DOE-RL might raise as a defense that proper operation
or maintenance was not possible because of the unavailability of appropriated
funds. The FFACO preserves the DOE-RL's right to raise this defense and the
Department's right to dispute it.
Condition: I.E.8.
73 Page, lines: Page 17,
Coament/Action: (1) Replace the
"within a reasonable time."
Duty to Provide Information
lines 25-35
word "immediately" on line 34 with the words
( 2) Insert at the beginning of both sentences in these conditions: "Subject to
Article XLV of the FFACO,".
Justification: (1) This provision revises and arbitrarily redefines the
nature of the duty to provide information applicable to the Permittee under
the RCRA Subtitle C and WAC 173-303. As written, the condition is contrary to
the terms of the FFACO with no Justification. The condition also exceeds the
time element provisions of WAC.173-303-810(9) without regulatory basis. The
permrt ianguage should-be-brought in line with WAC 173-303-810(9), from which
this permit condition is drawn. No time frame is specified in the
regulations. It is unrealistic to require immediate delivery of all records
[e.g., no copy machine available at the TSD unit(s) in question; records could
be located at another location; etc.] to the Director or the Administrator.
(2) The FFACO has provisions dealing with special limits on inspection and
entry that recognize the particular Hanford Facility safety and security
requirements- and--tl;e-presence of classified information. The Draft Permit
condition does not take these limits into account.
Condition: I.E.9. Inspection and Entry
25.74 Page, lines: Page 17, lines 37-41
Coawent/Action: Insert at the beginning of this sentence: "Subject to
_===_Artitles XXnVI1 and-XiV of the fFACD,".- 1)eiete word 'ldentification" on
line 41. Substitutewords:
vxosu. ux• i
upon the presentation of credentials, and other documents as may be
required by law
Justification: This condition, as written, conflicts with the terms of the
FFACO. This condition arbitrarily changes the nature of the duty to allow
inspectian and-entry under the "epartment's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The
FFACO has provisions dealing with special limits on inspection and entry that
recognize the particular Hanford Facility safety and security requirements and
the presence of classified information. The current standard condition does
not take these limits into account. The phrase "and other documents as might
be required by law" is necessary because of security restrictions at the
Hanford Facility, and is common in other RCRA permits. The regulators cannot

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 55 of 223
03/16/92
arbitrarily decide that Department or Agency identification constitutes
"proper credentials" for access. There are other federal laws, such as the
AEA that are applicable to entry into areas of the Hanford Facility. The
federal rule providing authority for this condition, 40 CFR 270.30(i),
authorizes entry "upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may
be required by law".
Condition: I.E.9.a.
25.75 Page, lines: Page 17, lines 43-47
Comment/Action: Change this condition to properly reflect the rule at
40 CFR 270.30(i)(1). Replace the Draft Permit text with the following words:
25.76
I_
920372.1534-1
Enter, at reasonable times, upon the Permittee's premises where a
regulated unit or activity is located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of the Permit.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition is ambiguously worded and
furthermore attempts to incorporate condition I.E.9.c concerning "inspection".
This language is confusing and appears to provide for inspection at times and
places beyond the scope of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The
proposed language accurately reflects the provisions in WAC 173-303-810. It
must be recognized that there are some areas and activities pertaining to
national security concerns that are still subject to classification
requirements. For example, certain Hanford Site security and defense plans
are classified. The DOE-RL has a statutory obligation to protect classified
materials. There are also safety concerns from unnecessary exposure to
radiation and the DOE-RL's responsibilities for radiological protection under
the AEA. The rule as written at WAC 173-303-810(10) takes into consideration
the proper scope of inspection and entry.
Condition:
Page, lines:
Comment/Action:
I.E.9.c.
Page 18, lines 4-7
Replace the condition with the following language:
Inspect at reasonable times any units, equipment ( including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
regulated )r required under the Permit.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition arbitrarily changes the nature of
the duty to allow inspection and entry under the Department's Dangerous Waste
Regulations. The phrase "any portion of the facility" could be misconstrued
or taken out of context and could be interpreted as authorizing access to
portions of the Hanford Site that are not subject to this permit. The
proposed language provides a clear and more accurate reflection of the
regulation.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 56 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.9.d.
25.77 Page,_]_1nes:Page 18, lines 9-12
Comment/Action: Replace the condition text with the following:
Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by Chapter 173-303 WAC,
any substances or parameters at any location.
Add the following language immediately after this sentence:
Sampling and monitoring of all mixed waste shall be in conformance
with the DOE-RL requirements as well as other applicable
requirements.
Justification: This condition in the Draft Permit could be read to provide
the Department with authority to sample or monitor for matters outside the
scope of this permit. The condition fails to require compliance with the
r DOE-RL requirements associated with materials that have a radioactive
° component.__ The proposed l-anguage-accuratelyreflprtc ____ the^ _ nature ..___.., of the duties
under WAC 173-303. Additionally, as mixed waste is regulated under both RCRA
and AEA provisions, the Permittee's program to control radiation hazards might
be applicable to samples taken by the regulatory authorities.
Condition: I.E.10.a.
--25.78 Paa9i_linea: ------ ----- Pa^ye 18, iines 1`o-i8
Comment/Action: ( 1) Replace the first sentence of condition I.E.10.a. with
the following:
Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall
be representative of the monitored activity.
^2)- Replace the w^i"ds-in line 19 "those specified in", with the words "in
accordance with".
-__{3-)-Replace the-words in the last sentence, lines 21-22 "shall be as specified
in Test Methods for Evaluatina Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods SW-846 ,
as amended", with the words "shall be consistent with the procedures for
selecting analytical methods".
no..z. ;ss:-:
Justification: This condition might be interpreted as enlarging and changing
the nature of the duty to sample or-moniS9r_under RCRA Subt.itle C and
WAC 153-303. The proposed replacement-language_for Gonenent_c1-}-accurately
reflects the wording of WAC 173-303-810(11)(b). The proposea language for
Comment ( 2) accurately reflects the wording of WAC 173-303-110 and 40 CFR 261.
Expressly specifying the use of methods in WAC 173-303-110 and SW-846
unjustifiably imposes requirements not specified in the regulations, which
state that these methods "may be used". The condition also fails to recognize
that the DOE-RL must follow AEA radiological protection requirements to
protect employees and the public from exposure to radiation. Flexibility is
necessary to ensure that advances in analytical technology and radiological
protection can be efficiently implemented.

`•i
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 57 of 223
03/16/92
The decision in the Matter of: Hoechst Celanese Corporation RCRA Permit,
No. SCD 097631691, RCRA Appeal No. 87-13, EPA, February 28, 1989, supports
this proposal (Comment Attachment T). The EPA recognized certain deficiencies
in SW-846 and made clear that the specific analytical methods set forth in
that document are not mandatory for groundwater monitoring: for the monitoring
of Appendix IX constituents (refer to 52 Fed. Reg. 25945, July 9, 1987); for
the monitoring of Appendix VIII constituents (refer to 51 Fed. Reg. 26,633,
July 24, 1986). The regulations refer to SW-846 as "guidance" with respect to
its use for hazardous waste identification [refer to 40 CFR 261, Appendix II
(P1)]. No scientific or regulatory justification has been advanced by the
Department to support this requirement. The SW-846 should not be made
mandatory here.
Condition: I.E.10.b.
25.79 Page, lines: Page 18, lines 25-35
Comment/Action: Replace condition I.E.10.b with the following:
F; The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and all original
strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of all reports required by this Permit, and records of all
data used to complete the application for this Permit, for a period
of at least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement,
N^A/.N* I.N 9AI.1 SI9^\I.I.
Ir.'IVIY, VI 4`II/IIFY41V11•
Justification: This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and appears to enlarge
recordkeeping duties of the Permittee beyond that specified in the
regulations. The proposed language accurately reflects the requirements of
WAC 173-303-810(11). Increasing the recordkeeping requirements beyond those
specified in the regulations will only serve to escalate costs by requiring
additional storage space and personnel to manage record storage activities.
The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis' for permit
conditions, provides none for this extended records retention period.
:ondition: I.E.10.c.
25.80 31age, lines: Page 18, lines 37-45
:omment/action: Delete this condition.
920312.1534-1
Justification: This condition fails to reflect the requirements of the
Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and appears to enlarge recordkeeping
duties of the Permittee beyond that specified in the regulations. The
proposed language provided by the commenters in condition I.E.10.b accurately
reflects the requirements of WAC 173-303-810(11)(c). Increasing the
recordkeeping requirement beyond those specified in the regulations will only
serve to escalate costs by requiring additional storage space and personnel
for record storage activities. The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief
summary of the basis" for permit conditions, provides none for this extended
records retention period. There is no regulatory basis for requiring storage
of unit-specific records in a central location. It is inefficient,

25.81
-^-.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 58 of 223
03/16/92
duplicative, adds unnecessary expense, and might lead to errors or
inaccuracies in the records.
Condition: I.E.10.d.
Page, lines: Page 18, lines 47-49
Page 19, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete the phrase "to three (3) years beyond the conclusion
of the enforcement action" in this condition at Page 19, lines 1-3.
Justtf#zat#on:--Thts-condition-enlarges-the recordkeeping duties of the
9ermittee beyond that specified in the regulations. The specified time period
in I.E.10.d is not reflected in WAC 173-303-380(3)(b). Increasing the
recordkeeping requirements beyond those specified in the regulations will only
serve to escalate costs by requiring additional record storage. The Fact
Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions, provides none for this extended records retention period.
Condition: I.E.10.e.
25.82 Page, lines: Page 19, lines 5-13
Comment/action: Replace the language in condition I.E.10.e with the
following:
Records of -monit9ring infor_mation-shal_l_include:
(i) The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
(ii) The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
(iii) The date(s) analyses were performed;
(iv) The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
(v) The analytical techniques or methods used; and
(vi) The results of such analyses.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and appears to enlarge
--recorrlkeeping aluties-of the-Permittee beyond th°4 specified in the
regulations. The proposed replacement language accurately reflects the
requirements of WAC 173-303-810(11)(d) and eliminates the confusing language
of the Draft Permit condition as written. Increasing the recordkeeping
requirement beyond those specified in the regulations will only serve to
escalate costs by requiring additional unwarranted requirements. The Fact
Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions, provides none for this increase in the details required above that
seecified in the regulations.
Condition: I.E.11. Reporting Planned Changes
25.83 Page, lines: Page 19, lines 15-21
Cowient/action: Replace condition I.E.11 and I.E.12 with following:
vmau.ux-1
The Permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as
_posslble-of-any-j^Ianned physical -al:craticnscr add#tions to the
permitted unit. For a new TSO unit and for a unit being modified,

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 59 of 223
03/16/92
the Permittee may not treat, store, or dispose of dangerous waste in
the new or modified portion of the unit until:
(i) The Permittee has submitted to the Department by certified mail
or hand delivery a letter signed by the Permittee and a registered
professional engineer stating that the unit has been constructed or
modified in compliance with the Permit; and either
(ii) The department has inspected the modified or newly constructed
unit and finds it is in compliance with the conditions of the
permit; or
(iii) If within 15 days of the date of submission of the letter, the
Permittee has not received notice from the Department of its intent to
inspect, prior inspection is waived, and the Permittee may commence
treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous waste.
Justification: The proposed language accurately reflects the requirements of
WAC 173-303-810(14). The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of
the basis" for permit conditions, provides no Justification for this increase
in the details required above that specified in the regulations.
The Department has, in this condition, imposed requirements more stringent
than their own regulations require. The WAC regulations are already more
stringent than the federal regulations. At the same time, the Department has
made their own action items more lenient than the regulations. [Refer to
WAC 173-303-810(14)]. These regulations indicate that if the Department does
not give notice of its intent to inspect within 15 days of submission, prior
inspection is waived, and the Permittee may commence treatment, storage, or
disposal of dangerous waste. This differs from the Draft Permit, which not
only allows the Department 30 days from receipt to respond, but does not
indicate that if they do not respond, then prior inspection is waived.
Further, the Draft Permit states a requirement for the letter to be signed by
an independent registered professional engineer. The regulations only require
the engineer to be registered, not independent. This provision is contrary to
other EPA and Department permits, e.g., Texaco, No. WAD009276197, at I.F.12
( Comment Attachment G).
Additionally, the Agency and the Department have gone beyond requirements of
WAC 173-303-810(14)(a)(ii) by requiring the Permittee to secure written
assurance that the unit is in compliance. Although written documentation
might be deemed appropriate by the Permittee to establish concurrence, such
documentation is not required by regulation. Yet the Department asserts in
its Fact Sheet that this condition is a "standard permit condition and is
self-explanatory".
Condition: I.E.12. Certification of Construction or Modification
25.84 Page, lines: Page 19, 25-48
Page 20, lines 1-4
Comment/action: Delete this condition in its entirety. It more appropriately
belongs at Draft Permit condition I.E.11. to be consistent with the
regulation.
920312.1534-I
Justification: Refer to ,]ustification for comments on Draft Permit condition
I.E.11.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 60 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.12.a.
25.85 Page, lines: Page 19, lines 25-47
Comment/Action: Delete this provision in accordance with the preceding
comment.
Justification: Refer to dustification for comments on Draft Permit condition
I.E.11.
Condition: I.E.12.b.
25.86 Page, lines: Page 20, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
,:. _.
r.^ Justification: The Department has arbitrarily and unjustifiably added a
requirement not required under RCRA Subtitle C or WAC 173-303 to certify
(under penalty of law) that construction be performed in compliance with
(Department) approved plans. The reporting requirements the Permittee must
comply with are described in the commenters proposed language on the comment
for condition I.E.11.
The Agency and the Department have gone beyond the requirements of
---WA£-173-303=810(14){ajj1 i)--by tequiring the Permittee to secure written
assurance that a unit is in compliance. Although written documentation might
be deemed appropriate by the Permittee to establish concurrence, such
documentation is not required by regulation. No regulatory basis for
exceeding_the-requirements- of WAC 173-303 is provided. Yet the Department
asserts in its Fact Sheet that this condition is a "standard permit condition
and is self explanatory".
The WAC 173-303-010(4) states that a purpose of the Dangerous Waste
Regulations is to establish the "... design ... requirements for dangerous
and extremely hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities."
-ihe-TS93-units at-the Hanford Facility and eisewhere are routinely built in
accordance with requirements that are as stated, established by WAC 173-303.
The regulations do not require certification of each minor component of a new
or modified TSD unit on an "as-built" basis. Instead, the TSD unit's
suitability to•safely manage dangerous waste is assured through inspection by
the contractor, the operator, and the Department and/or Agency in accordance
with the appropriate requirements. The Department has no technical
Justification that substantiates that the condition is necessary, above and
beyond the procedures and systems already in place, to protect human health
and the environment.
:ondition: I.E.13. Anticipated Noncompliance
25.87 Page, lines: Page 20, lines 5-15
:omment/action: Replace the condition I.E.13 with the following:
sms^2.^sx-^
The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Department of any
planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that might
result in noncompliance with permit requirements. For a new unit,
the Permittee may not treat, store, or dispose of dangerous waste;
and for-a unit being modified, the Permittee may not treat, store,

^^-
,a^
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
or dispose of dangerous waste in the modified portion of the unit
except as provided in WAC 173-303-830(4).
61 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and appears to enlarge
notification duties of the Permittee beyond that specified in the regulations.
The commenters proposed language on the Draft Permit condition that accurately
reflects the requirements of WAC 173-303-810(14)(b). Increasing the
notification requirements beyond those specified in the regulations by
requiring additional reporting is unwarranted. The regulations do not state
30 days advance notice. The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary
of the basis" for permit conditions, provides no Justification for this
increase in the details required above that specified in the regulations.
Condition: I.E.14. Transfer of
25.88 Page, lines: Page 20, lines 17-25
Comment/action: Replace the condition I.E.14
Permits
with the following:
The Permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to
the Department. The Department may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the Permit to change the name of the
Permittee and incorporate such other requirements as might be
necessary.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and arbitrarily and
unjustifiably enlarges the duties of the Permittee related to transfer beyond
that specified in the regulations. The commenters proposed language
accurately reflects the requirements of WAC 173-303-810(14)(c). Increasing
the requirement beyond the notice requirement specified in the regulations by
requiring prior modification, revocation, or reissuance is unwarranted. The
regulations state that such actions might be required. The Fact Sheet, which
_______ is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit conditions, provides
no Justification for this increase in the details required above that
specified in the regulations. The Department has no technical ,)ustification
that substantiates that the condition is necessary, above and beyond the
procedures and systems already in place, to protect human health and the
environment.
Condition: I.E.15. Immediate Reporting
25.89 Page, lines: Page 20, lines 27-36
Comment/Action: Replace condition I.E.15 in its entirety with the following:
920312.1534-1
I.E.15. Immediate Reporting
The Permittee shall verbally report to the Director and the
Administrator any noncompliance with the Permit that might endanger
human health or the environment. Any such information shall be
reported to the Director as soon as the Permittee become aware of
the circumstances of the noncompliance, and shall be reported to the
Administrator within 24 hours after the Permittee becomes aware of

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 62 of 223
03/16/92
the circumstances of the noncompliance. The immediate verbal report
shall contain all the information needed to determine the nature and
extent of any potential threat to human health and the environment,
including the following:
I.E.15.a. Information concerning the releases of any dangerous
waste that might endanger public drinking water supplies.
r:,1
I.E.15.b. For releases of dangerous wastes that occur in an area
not within the definition of environment, immediate reporting shall
be required whenever the Contingency Plan(s) are implemented. For
purposes of this condition, Contingency plan(s) shall mean any
contingency plan identified in Part II or Part III of this Permit.
r:xx ^-^
^••
I.E.15.c. Information concerning the release or unpermitted
discharge of any dangerous waste or of a fire or explosion at a
permitted unit that might potentially threaten human health or the
environment outside the permitted unit. The description of the
occurrence and its cause shall include any information necessary to
fully evaluate the situation and to develop an appropriate course of
action. The report shall specifically include:
i. Name, address, and telephone number of owner or operator;
ii. Name, address, and telephone number of the facility and unit at
that facility;
iii. Date, time, and type of incident;
iv. Name and quantity of material(s) involved;
v. The extent of injuries, if any;
vi. An assessment of actual or potential hazard to the environment and
human health, where this is applicable;
vii. Estimated quantity of released material that resulted from the
--incident;-and,
viii. Actions that have been undertaken to mitigate the occurrence.
Justification: The Department has arbitrarily and unjustifiably added
reporting requirements not required under RCRA SubtitleCor-WAC-173-303,
First, the Draft Permit condition is based on WAC 173-303-145, which deals
with spill reporting. The replacement language is based on the "immediate
reporting• requirement applicable to TSD permits contained in
- - - - -- - -WAC -1a3-303-81-0(:4i{f},--and--thi-s--language -should -be- used- iftstead-.- It conforms
to the language in other Agency and Department permits [Fort Wainwrig_ht,
Yo.- AK-6210022426; at-I.S.1 (Comment Attachment 0); Chempro, No. WAD 00812909,
at I.B. (Comment Attachment F) (simply incorporates -810); Texaco,
No. WAD 009276197, at I.F.15 ( Comment Attachment G); Chem Security Systems,
----- ------No.-ORD-089 452 353,-at I-.L'.-{ 'iVnimeni. Attachment I)]. The WAC 173-303-145, in
contrast, purports to apply to everyone in the state including any ordinary
citizen. This condition is not appropriate as a permit condition.
samu.is3a-1
Second, even if WAC 173-303-145 is applicable as a permit condition, it is in
the process of being revised. The new version should be published as a
proposed amendment shortly. The proposed amendment recognizes that the former
(current) spill reporting requirement was much too stringent ( WSR 92-03-127).
The commenters proposed language is consistent with the proposed amendment.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 63 of 223
.03/16/92
The new version requires immediate verbal reporting only for spills greater
than 100 pounds or the reportable quantity, whichever is less. It also
requires immediate reporting for discharges to surface water regardless of
quantity, and spills that pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Spills to containment greater than 55 gallons require reporting within
24 hours. The current Draft Permit condition is much more stringent than
necessary and would result in the unnecessary reporting of routine small
spills, such as tipping over a gallon of paint. Therefore, even if the
Department is authorized to include reporting under WAC 173-303-145 in a
permit, which the commenters do not concede, the revised version will provide
ample protection without these undue burdens.
` Third, the Draft Permit condition requires the reporting of a release of any
'-f radioactive substance. While commenters agree with the importance of
''. reporting releases of radionuclides, and have committed to do so in accordance
Cr:
with CERCLA requirements, there is no authority to require it under a RCRA
permit. The Department asserts in the Fact Sheet that radionuclides are
identified in the Agency's spill table as a"hazardous substance," and that
hazardous substances identified in the Agency's spill table require reporting
under WAC 173-303-145. However, the term "hazardous substances" is defined in
WAC 173-303-040 nd by reference to the Agency's spill table, but as any
material, product, etc. that exhibits any of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics described in WAC 173-303-090, - 101, -102 or -103.
Thus, "hazardous substance" for purposes of the Department's Dangerous Waste
Regulations is not as broad as the CERCLA or NTCA definition of hazardous
substances, but relates to the dangerous waste characteristics described in
the regulation. Because solely radioactive materials are not described in
those sections, and indeed are excluded from RCRA regulation [refer to
42 U.S.C. § 6905(a), 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4)], reporting of releases of radioactive
substances is not required under the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations.
This reporting also is not required under the NTCA because it is not
applicable to the Hanford Site, at least for the areas on the National
Priorities List ( NPL), which encompass all the major waste handling sites.
Refer to 42 U.S.C. § 9620(a)(4).
Condition: I.E.16. Written Reporting
25.90 Page, lines: Page 22, lines 5-18
Comment/Action: Delete condition I.E.16.
920312.1534-1
Justification: - The Departmerrt has arbitrariiY and vnjustffiabTy added this
written reporting requirement that is not required under RCRA Subtitle C or
WAC 173-303. The commenters' proposed language on Draft Permit conditions
I.E.15 a. to c. accurately states the wording of WAC 173-303-810(14)(f).
Increasing the requirement beyond the notice requirement specified in the
regulations by requiring prior modification, revocation, or reissuance is
unjustified and unwarranted. The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief
summary of the basis" for permit conditions, provides no justification for
this increase in the details required above that specified in the regulations.
The regulations under which this Permit is enforceable do not give the
Department the right to set a 15 day time requirement for written reporting of
noncompliances on the Hanford Facility.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 64 of 223
03/16/92
I.E.17. Manifest Discrepancy Report
Condition: I.E.17.a.
25.91 Page, lines: Page 22, lines 22-28
Comment/Action: ( 1) Replace condition I.E.17 with the following:
Upon discovering a significant discrepancy, the owner or operator
mest attem;.t to reconcile the discrepancy with the waste generating
unit or transporter. If the discrepancy is not resolved within
15 days after receiving the waste, the owner or operator must
immediately submit to the Department a letter describing the
discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest
or shipping paper at issue.
CJ
-'; (2) Include the definition of "significant discrepancy" either in the
definitions section on or near Page 11 at Line 10 of the permit using
exact words of WAC 173-303-370(4)(a) as follows:
the
cg,
10e312.1534-1
Manifest discrepancies.
Manifest discrepancies are significant discrepancies between the
quantity or type of dangerous waste designated on the manifest or
shipping paper and the quantity or type of dangerous waste a
facilit.y_actually receives.- Significant-discr$pancie3-ias-qJantity
are variations greater than 10 percent in weight for bulk quantities
(e.g., tanker trucks, railroad tank cars, etc.), or any variations
in piece count for nonbulk quantities ( i.e., any missing container
or package would be a significant discrepancy). Significant
discrepancies in type are obvious physical or chemical differences
that can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis (e.g., waste
solvent substituted for waste acid).
Justification: The Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulation, and arbitrarily and
unjustifiably enlarges the duties of the Permittee related to manifest
discrepancy reporting. The commenters' proposed language accurately reflects
-the req0#rciients=6f'iiAE-i33=ag3=170i4)-M_and-ja)s respect-iveiy, The Faet
Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions, provides no justification for the change in language and increase
in the details required above that specified in the regulations. The
provision also fails to recogniie that the discrepancy reporting requirements
of WAC 173-303-370 do not apply to facilities that do not accept waste from
off-site sources. The inclusion of the definition or definition reference for
'significant discrepancy' makes the permit more complete. The use of the
eaact-aanguage -of -the -regul ati m-reduees-tha-li Rel i hood of mi s i nterpretati on
-and--disagreement-over-anyy differences between the-permit and the regulation.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 65 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.17.b.
25.92 Page, lines: Page 22, lines 30-38
:omnent/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations, and arbitrarily and
unjustifiably enlarges the duties of the Permittee related to manifest
discrepancy reporting. The requirements of WAC 173-303-370(4) are improperly
applied to the permit through this condition. This condition, and a related
one found on page 45 of the Draft Permit ( Condition II.P), is unprecedented in
applying the requirements of WAC 173-303-370(4) to on-site movement and/or
transfers of regulated waste.
The commenters do not agree that on-site waste movement requires a manifest or
its equivalent under WAC 173-303-040 (definition of 'on-site'), -180, and
-370(1). The Hanford Facility is a single facility and waste is transported
from the point of generation to TSD units along roads that are owned by the
DOE and are not public right-of-ways. Likewise, the statement in the Fact
Sheet that the size of the facility somehow justifies treating it differently
is unsupported by anything in the record. However, commenters recognize the
need to have procedures to ensure that waste is properly managed and to have
an effective inventory control system in place. The inventory control system
has provisions to reconcile discrepancies in the records of waste moved
on-site. The Department has no technical Justification to substantiate that
the Draft Permit condition is necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
--- --The--fermittee-har adeqnate internal-systems in piace to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. The Fact Sheet (Page 8) stated that the
basis for this permit condition was the potential long transport distances at
the Hanford Facility. However, many transfers will be for distances that are
no greater than the distances that exist at other RCRA permitted facilities in
the Northwest [e.g., Chem-Security Systems, Inc. (Comment Attachment I);
Chem-Pro ( Comment Attachment F); Texaco (Comment Attachment G); Shell ( Comment
Attachment H); etc.].
The WAC 173-303-370(1) specifically states that discrepancy reporting
requirements are applied only to owners and operators that receive waste from
off-site sources. Preparation of a manifest discrepancy report for wastes
moved on-site will in no way add to the protection of human health or the
environment. The Department does not have the regulatory authority to impose
this requirement. The Department has no technical justification that
substantiates that the condition is necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
----Also; refgrYto-t-omment-3ustification-statement to Condition iI.P.
920312.1534-1

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 66 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.18. Unmanifested Waste Report
Page, lines: Page 22, lines 40-49
Page 23, lines 1-2
Comment/Action: Delete this condition and replace with the following:
Regulatedwaste_received_from off-site_sources withnut a manifest
will be reported in accordance with WAC 173-303-390(1). Such waste
may be handled in accordance with WAC 173-303-370(5)(c).
Justification: This Draft Permit condition goes far beyond the requirements
of the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations by arbitrarily enlarging the
duties of the Permittee. By failing to limit the condition to waste shipments
received from off-site, this condition improperly infers that on-site movement
of dangerous waste will be subject to manifesting. A requirement for
manifesting on-site shipments of regulated waste would create additional
workload, increase costs, increase delays for administrative processing of
paperwork, etc., with no added protection to human health or the environment.
There is no precedent or need to impose such a condition. The WAC 173-303-370
specifically limits the use of manifests to off-site shipments. The
WAC 173-303-390(1)-requirement-ap¢lies to-off-site-shipme.n.*.s.
It is inappropriate to require this level of control and documentation when
the shipment begins and ends within a controlled area and is not conducted on
a public roadway. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations specifically exempt from manifesting on-site shipments of
hazardous waste. The WAC 173-303-180 also specifies that manifests for
shipping hazardous waste only apply to shipments from off-site. The
subjective determination by the permit writers that the Hanford Site is to be
treated differently just. because it covers a large land area is an abuse of
discretion. Furthermore, the Draft Permit condition improperly restricts the
Permittee from-using its professionaljudgment_in dealing with any such
shipment.
--- -- The-WAG I73-303m370(3){t) prcvides for the management of-waste where the
conditional acceptance of unmanifested waste is more protective of human
health and the environment than to return it to the off-site generator. There
is no justifiable reason why the Permittee should not be entitled to handle
such waste in accordance with this regulation.
91su.1sx-1
The Fact Sheet contains no reasonable explanation or ,iustification for
applying the provision to on-site shipments. The Fact Sheet narrative is
totally unsupported by anything in the record. However, the commenters
recognize the need to have procedures to ensure that wastes are properly
managed and do have an effective inventory control system in place. The
inventory control system has provisions to reconcile discrepancies in the
records of waste moved on-site. Also refer to Justification statement to
comment on Draft Permit condition I.E.17.

J
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 67 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: I.E.19. Other Noncompliance
25.94 Page, lines: Page 23, lines 4-12
Comment/Action: Replace Draft Permit condition with the following:
Other noncompliance. The Permittee shall report all instances
of noncompliance not reported under (d), (e), and (f) of
WAC 173-303-810(14), at the time monitoring reports are submitted.
Justification: The commenters proposed language for Draft Permit condition
I.E.15.c. accurately states the wording of WAC 173-303-810(14)(f) for the
basis for reporting "other compliance". Expanding this to include reporting
of all instances of noncompliance not otherwise required elsewhere in the
Permit could be misconstrued.
The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions, provides no justification for this increase in the details
required above that specified in the regulations. The statement that this is
a standard permit condition and is self-explanatory is incorrect. The
regulations under which this permit is enforceable do not give the regulators
the right to require such reporting.
Condition: I.F. SIGNATORY REOUIREMENT
15 Page, lines: Page 24, lines 11-16
Comment/Action: Delete the words "and certified" from line 15 so as to more
accurately reflect the language of WAC 173-303-810(12).
Justification: The Draft Permit languag e is written in such a manner that it
might be construed as adding a requireme nt to certify documents not required
under RCRA Subtitle C or WAC 173-303. The commenters proposed language
clarifies the scope of this requirement and maintains the context found in the
ra _._...,.... he proposed language will require those documents to be
certified that require certification by the regulations and allow other
documents to be submitted in uncertified form.
Information that is not authored by the Permittee or its contractors is
frequently provided to the Department at their request as a courtesy.
Information is sometimes provided in draft form that is not ready for
signature. It is inappropriate to ask for certification of reference material
or material that has not been through the full approval and review cycles.
Condition: I.G. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
25.96 Page, lines: Page 24, line 23
Comment/Action: Add the following language to Condition I.G. as follows:
9zo313.1307-1
Notwithstanding any provision of this Permit, all requirements of
the AEA, and all Executive Orders concerning the handling of
unclassified controlled nuclear information, restricted data, and
national security information, including "need to know"
requirements, shall be applicable to any access to information or
facilities covered under the provisions of this Permit. The Agency
and the Department reserve their right to seek to otherwise obtain

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 66 of 223
03/16/92
access to such information or facilities when it is denied, in
accordance with applicable law.
The Permittee may assert on its own behalf or on behalf of a
contractor, subcontractor or consultant, a business confidentiality
claim or privilege covering all or any part of the information
requested by this Permit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604, and state
law. Analytical data shall not be claimed as business confidential.
The Permittee is not required to provide legally privileged
information. At the time any information is furnished that is
claimed to be business confidential, the Permittee, Agency, and the
Department shall afford it the maximum protection allowed by law.
CO If no claim of business confidentiality accompanies the information,
it may be made available to the public without further notice.
aV
In the alternative, add the following to page 24, line 23. after the words
...HSWA provisions":
or Article XLV of the FFACO."
Justification: This condition should be made consistent with the FFACO
Article XLV - CLASSIFIED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. The FFACO recognizes
that in addition to normal proprietary information, the Hanford Facility also
deals with classified or confidential information that also should be
recognized in the Permit.
Condition: I.H. DOCUMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT FACILITY SITE
25.97 Page, lines: Page 24, lines 25-44
- Coement/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect the requirement in
WAC 173-303. The condition should read as follows:
9zm12-15sc-1
The Permittee shall maintain at the facility until closure is
completed and certified by an independent registered engineer, the
following documents and amendments, revisions, and modifications to
these documents:
1. This Permit and all attachments; and
2. The facility operating record.
Justification: The proposed language more accurately reflects the regulatory
requl're0lent^ Tfiere TSlio 1`egu3 -ttory-$asf3-foi`i"equii'infJTnaintenance of the
records identified in this condition for 10 years after completion of
postclosure care or corrective action for the facility. The requirement that
rec;.^s be retained for 10 years after postclosure will provide no benefit to
human health or the environment and will only serve to escalate costs by
requiring storage space and personnel for record storage. The condition
requirement to keep the dangerous waste part B permit application for more
thin 3 years is unfounded. The WAC 173-303-806(9) specifies that permit
application information shall be kept for a period of at least 3 years from
the date the application is signed. Additionally, the requirement to keep the

vzmu.ux-i
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 69 of 223
03/16/92
closure plan is redundant. The WAC 173-303-610(3)(a) states that "the
approved closure plan will become a condition of any persit". Closure plans
for final status units should be incorporated into the Permit in accordance
with this regulation.
The Fact Sheet, which is to provide "a brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions, provides none for this permit condition. When a"standard permit
condition' is modified so that requirements at one facility differ from those
at other permitted facilities within the state [e.g., Chempro (Comment
Attachment F)], those modifications should be explained in the Fact Sheet.
No regulatory basis for the requirement that a"qualified hydrogeologist,
experienced in hazardous waste management" certify the end of postclosure care
or corrective action has been provided. No criteria are given for determining
if a hydrogeologist is qualified to perform such a certification. The state
of Washington has no registration program for hydrogeologists. No guidance is
provided as to what level of experience would be required for a hydrogeologist
to be considered "experienced in hazardous waste management." The
certification statement that would be required has not been provided. It is
not clear what would be required or what would actually be certified. As
stated previously, the Fact Sheet does not identify the source of this
requirement. The WAC 173-303-840(2)(f)(iii)(C) states that, when applicable,
the fact sheet will provide N[a] brief sunmary of the basis for the Draft
Permit conditions including supporting references." The
WAC 173-303-840(2)(f)(iii)(C) is clearly applicable in this instance, but no
reason for this certification requirement is given.

-.
^..:_.1
r'iwa
C5`:
^._
1Mat2.t!?MI
CONMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERNIT 70 of 223
03/16/92
This page intentionally left blank.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 71 of 223
Q3/16/92
COMMENTS ON PART II - GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS
Condition: II.A. FACILITY WIDE CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY
PROCEDURES
Page, lines: Page 25, line 4 to Page 27, line 45
25.98 Comment/Action: Delete the existing Draft Permit condition II.A and all its
subparts in their entirety. Delete the Facility-Wide Contingency Plan
(Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit). Incorporate the revised Hanford Facility
Contingency Plan (Comment Attachment U) as an appendix into the 616 NRDWSF
Contingency Plan and the HWVP Contingency Plan.
Justification: The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued under
=yx WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the activities at "final status
TSD facilities". At this time, there are only two TSD units identified in the
Draft Permit, the 616 NRDWSF and the HWVP, that the Department has determined
to have had the necessary information submitted for issuance of a"final
facility permit'. The scope of this permit, in accordance with the Dangerous
Waste Regulations, must be limited to these TSD units. There is no regulatory
authority for a"hybrid approach" or an 'umbrella'approach" that purports to
include interim status activities under the final status standards or that
purports to regulate activities not related to the final status treatment,
storage, or disposal of dangerous waste. The Permit must be explicit in the
scope of coverage; this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the
-criteria-for receiving finai-status. This is consistent with the FFACO, which
references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) as the federal authority to issue a permit in
this manner. Specifically, paragraph 25 of the FFACO states that the Action
Plan "establishes the overall plan to conduct RCRA permitting' and lists the
TO units and groups "which are subject to permitting and closure under this
Agreement.' Paragraph 26 directs the DOE to "comply with RCRA Permit
requirements for TSD Units specifically identified for permitting or closure
by the Act-ion-P-l-an :-.-. '--Paragraph 6:3-0`the-Actiofi-Pian acknowledges that
not all TSD units and groups can be permitted simultaneously, so "Ecology and
the EPA will issue the initial permit for less than the entire Hanford
Site. . . Any units that are not included in the initial permit will
normally be incorporated through a permit modification." The Action Plan is
an integral part of the FFACO. The Department's over-inclusive approach is
therefore contrary to these express provisions of the FFACO and fails to
follow the federal authority cited by the FFACO, 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4).
Moreover, there is no authority for the Department's approach in its Dangerous
Waste Regulations.
920312.1539-II
Based on the FFACO, which references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), the commenters
recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to incorporate
sections of unit-specific permit applications. For example, the commenters do
not object to the inclusion of documentation that was prepared specifically
for inclusion as permit conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related
compliance requirements, such as the unit-specific waste analysis plans and
contingency plans. However, the Department has gone far beyond such specific
use of plans prepared for TSD facilities.
Throughout the Draft Permit, the Department has taken descriptive information
and documentation and turned this material into enforceable permit conditions

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 72 of 223
03/16/92
by including the material as attachments to the Draft Permit. Many of the
documents included in the Hanford Facility and unit-specific permit
applications were included for information with no intent that the documents
be included as permit conditions or altered beyond their intended purposes.
The wholesale inclusion of these permit application plans, specifications, and
information has resulted in a Draft Permit that contains provisions that are
far more detailed and stringent than the specific regulations the material is
intended to address. These documents, if incorporated, will be unnecessarily
subject to the permit modification process, thus adversely impacting the
management efficiency of the Permittee and the regulators.
Because of a sincere comnitment by the DOE-RL to initiate site preparation for
the HWVP on schedule, the DOE-RL consented to p rovide several permit
_r-,- application s"ittals-despite a fi; belief t h at the argument requiring the
submittals were_of questionable merit, and not well-founded in the
regulations. These lnclude the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan
c3, (Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Preparedness and
-__Prevention_ Plan (Attachment 7 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility
Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Quality
U Assurance/Quality Control Plan (Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford
Facility_Inspectioa-P-lan-(Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit) and the Hanford
Fad]ity Waste Analvcis ,_._ Plan .._.. (to be provided at a later date). However,
because the Department has chosen to_go beyond what had been_previously
discussed and has attempted to impose numerous additional conditions that
would be very difficult and expensive to comply with, the commenters cannot
agree and must insist that the Permit be founded solely on the authorities
contained in the regulations.
Other permit applicants in the Northwest who have been through Part B
permitting processes recently have achieved agreement with the Agency and
affected states to delete nonessential information from their permit
applications and to attach to their permits only those sections of plans and
information required under the regulations. These permits include:
Chemical Processors, Inc.
No.-iiAD000832909----------
Texaco Refining and Marketing
11o4MAO009276197-_
Jhe11 Di1- ^^^}^11y- --
__^T+-
N"v. wA^u"vv"a275882-----
--Lhem-Securit,v_Sya-tems; inc,
No. 0RD089452353
raua.1ssr-u
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.
No. IDD073114654
Page 5z no Part-B permit application:
sections of pians only.
(Coament Attachment F)
Page 6, no Part B permit application;
sectien: of plans only.
(Comment Attachment G)
- Page6, n' Part B permit application;
sectionsof pians only.
(tomsent Attachment H)
- -Page -9, -no--P&rt B-permii -appl i ca*_ i o.n.;,
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment I)
Page 8, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment J)

4•^
...miy
1.._e.i
25.99
920312.1539-11
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
No. WAD067548966
The attachments found in these pe,
from management plans or directly
in their Part A and Part B permit
that the same approach be applied
Facility Permit.
73 of 223
. 93/16/92
Page 5-6, no Part 8 permit
application; sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment K)
rmits are often copies of the relevant pages
pertinent descriptive information submitted
applications. The commenters are proposing
in a nondiscriminatory manner to the Hanford
The commenters request that they be given the opportunity to meet with the
Department and the Agency to craft appropriate permit conditions that comply
with the regulations and to identify and include the specific information
necessary to prescribe compliance with these regulations. This approach will
avoid excessive detail, ambiguity, and the inclusion of overbroad,
nonessential information. The commenters will work with the Department and
the Agency to identify and provide the relevant information for the Permit.
The commenters cannot agree to include facility-wide plans in the Permit
because there is no regulatory basis for doing so and because the Department
-is-putting such-i-n i`ormatian trr uses-for which the information was not
originally intended. If the DOE-RL chooses to institute facility-wide
management policies or procedures to guide and assist in the development and
coordination of unit-specific plans as a management tool, that is appropriate.
However, there is no regulatory basis for incorporating facility-wide plans,
including those portions of the plans that do not pertain to final status
TSD units, into the Permit.
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation, no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the agencies may respond by deciding to
retain the full condition or address some but not all of the commenters'
concerns, the commenters have provided specific comments on individual
contested conditions with recommended language to correct other problems in
the condition. Regardless of how the agencies address the commenters'
principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive their
objections to the inclusion of the full condition or any overbroad portion
thereof in the Permit.
Condition: II.A.1.
Page, lines: Page 25, lines 6-8
Comment/Action: Replace this condition with the following language:
The Permittee shall immediately carry out the provisions of the
Hanford Facility Contingency Plan pursuant to WAC 173-303-360(2),
whenever there is a release of dangerous waste or dangerous waste
constituents, or other circumstance related to the regulated units,
that threatens or could threaten human health or the environment.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 74 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The WAC 173-303-360(2) contains all the provisions necessary
to ensure compliance in response to emergencies. The proposed language is
consistent with other permits issued by the Department [Texaco, WAD009276197,
Condition 11.1.1 (Comment Attachment G); Shell, WAD009275082, Condition 11.1.1
(Comment Attachment H)]. Hanford Facility personnel are.trained and qualified
to appropriately respond to all incidents involving releases of dangerous
waste, including situations that constitute emergencies. Emergency
soor_dinator_s_arg_thoroughly familiar with the contingency plan and have the
authority to commit resources to carry out the plan. There is no
Justification for_applying__additional restrictions beyond what has been
required in other Department-issued permits. The WAC 173-303-350(5) states
several circumstances requiring immediate amendment of the contingency plan.
The Permittee should not be denied the necessary flexibility to comply with
J this requirement by an exertion of unnecessary regulatory control. By
referencing the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan in its entirety and imposing
additional restrictions as conditions, the Department has narrowed the
Permittee's ability to respond to emergencies. Changes to such prescriptive
,. -c o1lditinne r/nuld rsnuira flae* 9 modifications in accordance with
^.: WAC 173-303-830, Appendix I, which entails submission of a modification
request. The proposed language precludes placing the Permittee in the
posjtion_of_chnosimg_between violating a condition of the Permit and
compromising the optimum utility of the contingency plan.
It is important to recognize that TSD units that are operating under interim
status must not be subject to final facility standards. As stated in
40 CFR 270.1(c)(4): EPA may issue or deny a permit for one or more units at a
facility without simultaneously issuing or denying a permit to all of the
units at the facility. The interim status of any unit for which a permit has
not been issued or denied is not affected by the issuance or denial of a
permit to any other unit at the facility. In accordance with the FFACO Action
Plan at Section 6.2, federal authority exists to issue a permit in this
manner. A failure to acknowledge this provision by the Department does not
extend authority to circumvent the regulation by applying final status
standards to interim status units. The Agency has authority to issue permits
__-for less than an entire facility in accordance with federal regulations. The
Department cannot interpret either federal or state regulations to give them
authority to improvise the permitting regulations in a manner inconsistent
with the established approach. Refer to related comment for Draft Permit
condition II.A.2.a.
Condition: II.A.2.
25.100 Page, lines: Page 25, lines 10-11
Coament/Action: Delete this condition.
9aaau.1ssv-ir
Justification: For the reasons stated in the comment for Draft Permit
condition II.A.1, it is inappropriate to restrict the Permittee's ability to
respond to emergencies by imposing an unnecessary level of regulatory control.
These unnecessary modifications are inconsistent with other Department-issued
permits and preclude optimum response capabilities. If any contingency plan
is to be referenced by this condition, it should be the revised Hanford
Facility Contingency Plan that has been submitted with these comments.

25. 101
920I12.1539-11
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 75 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.A.2.a.
Page, lines: Page 25, lines 13-26
Comment/Action: Replace this condition with the following language:
The Permittee shall comply with the requirements of
WAC 173-303-350(3), and -360(1), concerning the emergency
coordinator.
Justification: The proposed language more accurately reflects the flexibility
required by regulation. The WAC 173-303-360(1) states there must be at least
one employee either on the facility premises or on call with the
responsibility for coordinating all emergency response measures. The
WAC 173-303-350(3)(d) requires keeping a current list of persons qualified to
act as the emergency coordinator. Stated at -350(3)(d): Where more than one
person is listed, one must be named as primary emergency coordinator, and
others must be listed in the order in which they will assume responsibility as
alternates. The Department exercises an inappropriate level of control by
designating responsibility within the Permittee's organization. This level of
control is inconsistent with other permits issued by the Department [Texaco,
WAD009276197, Condition 11.1.4 (Comment Attachment G); Shell, WAD009275082,
Condition 11.1.4 (Comment Attachment H)].
Furthermore, the Department has exercised an inappropriate level of regulatory
control by referencing unit-specific contingency procedures. Final facility
standards cannot be extended to TSD units that are still operating under
interim status. Although these TSD units are still required to meet the
requirements of WAC 173-303-350 pursuant to WAC 173-303-400(3)(a)(i), there is
no regulatory authority for translating these requirements into permit
conditions before incorporation of the TSD unit into the permit. The TSD
units that are operating under interim status must not be subject to final
facility standards; the Department has no legal authority to take such action.
The 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) states EPA may issue or deny a permit for one or more
units at a facility without simultaneously issuing or denying a permit to all
of the units at the facility. The interim status of any unit for which a
permit has not been issued or denied 1s not affected by the issuance or denial
of a permit to any other unit at the facility. This reference is addressed in
the fFA^ Act-ton olan-at--Sectionb.-2,- as the federal authority to issue a
permit in this manner. A failure to acknowledge this provision by the
Department does not extend authority to circumvent the regulation by applying
final status standards to interim status TSD units. The Agency has authority
to issue permits for less than an entire facility in accordance with federal
regulations. The Department cannot interpret either federal or state
regulations to give them authority to improvise the permitting regulations in
a manner inconsistent with the established approach.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 76 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.A.2.b.
25.102 Page, lines: Page 25, lines 28-30
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This condition has been arbitrarily drafted to require that
the contingency plan be implemented for any damaged waste received at any
TSD unit. Such a requirement is inconsistent with regulatory requirements.
The WAC 173-303-350(3)(b) states the requirement for a description of the
actions which shall be taken In the event that'a dangerous waste shipment,
which Is damaged or otherwise presents a hazard to the public health and the
environment, arrives at the facility, and Is not acceptable to the owner or
operator, but cannot be transported, pursuant to the requirements of
MAC 173-303-370(5). The WAC 173-303-370 is applicable to dangerous waste
received from off-site sources. The WAC 173-303-370(5)(a)(iii) clearly
^ indicates that decisions concerning damaged shipments arriving from off-site
are made by the owner or operator, not predetermined by an inappropriate level
of regulatory control. The implementation of the contingency plan for every
-^: ---- dzmaged Container unnecessarily expends resources and undermines the intent of
a plan developed for emergency situations. Hanford Facility personnel are
trained to recognize the difference between a minor incident requiring a
cleanup response and an emergency situation requiring the implementation of
the contingency plan. There is no Justification for applying this level of
regulatory control.
Condition: II.A.2.c.
25.103 Page, lines: Page 25, line 32
Camient/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-350 requires all TSD facilities to have a
contingency plan, and WAC 173-303-806(4)(a)(vii) requires that the plan be
submitted as part of the permit application. Nowhere in WAC 173-303 is it
required that a specific set of emergency procedures be submitted or that
specific procedures must become part of the permit or attachments. Limitation
of the Permittee's ability to respond to incident-specific conditions through
inclusion of specific emergency response procedure documents (other than the
specific procedures given in WAC 173-303-360) is an actual threat to the
health and safety of site workers and to the environment. This approach also
violates the spirit of the regulations as given in WAC 173-303-350(1).
Condition: II.A.2.d.
25.104 Page, lines: Page 25, lines 34-45
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Refer to comments to Draft Permit
conditions II.A.1. and II.A.2.b.
weBta.TSWu
Justification: This condition arbitrarily defines how and what incidents will
be deemed emergencies for purposes of deciding whether to implement the
contingency plan. The emargency coordinator responding to an incident must
determine whether an emergency is in progress based on the specific scenario.
Compliance with WAC 173-303-360(2)(k) can be accomplished by incorporating the
proposed language in the comment to Draft Permit condition II.A.1. The
condition as drafted establishes a gauge for incident classification based on

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 77 of 223
03/16/92
the level of protection used by personnel. This approach ignores
WAC 173-303-350, which states that the contingency plan is for use in
emergencies or sudden or nonsudden releases which threaten the public health
and the environment. Compliance with this condition will result in management
inefficiency and will undermine the intent of the contingency plan. Spills
are often mitigated and cleaned up in protective clothing as a standard
precaution. Other permits issued by the Department are void of the arbitrary
designations found in this condition [Texaco, WAD009276197, Condition 11.1.4
(Comment Attachment G); Shell, WAD009275082, Condition 11.1.4 (Comment
Attachment H)].
Condition: II.A.2.e.
25.105 Page, lines: Page 25, lines 47-48
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
25.106
25.107
Justification: The contingency plan is designed to be flexible. Unnecessary
regulatory control is inappropriate and undermines the Permittee's ability to
make necessary changes to the plan.
Condition: II.A.2.f.
Page, lines: Page 26, lines 1-2
Comment/Action: Insert after the word "shall", the words "if appropriate"
Justification: It is inappropriate for a permit to specify the exact
emergency response procedures to be taken for every incident. This plan was
written to address emergencies generally. As a result, it might not be
appropriate to limit the plan for every type of incident, such as "Determine
type of hazardous materials involved [through] use of senses (sight, smell,
touch)". The Draft Permit condition appears to make all such measures
mandatory for every incident. Use of these senses for assessment might be
inadvisable in some circumstances, such as for chemicals with low odor
thresholds or during threat of explosion.
Condition: . II.A.2.g.
Page, lines: Page 26, lines
-Comment/Action:- Delete this condit.ion,
condition II.A.1.
4-5
Refer to comment for Draft Permit
Justification: The prcposed language in the comment to Draft Permit condition
II.A.1 includes by reference to WAC 173-303-360(2) the requirement to activate
internal facility alarms or communication systems, where applicable. To
-sfirply-re3u#re-act#vaticn-of a-fi-re-alarm--for-all-sitr:ati-ons-is-4nappropriate.
A fire alarm is not an isolation measure ( as are the other bullet listings)
but a warning. Activation of a fire alarm might not always be appropriate,
-------- -- -which could place-the Permittee in the position of violating the Permit even
though sounding the alarm is inappropriate.
^'= a.a.N-::

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 78 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.A.2.i.
25.13$- Pagep lin'vs: Page 26, iirie i7-22
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Refer to comment for Draft Permit
condition II.A.1.
Justification: This condition is unnecessary, because the proposed language
adequately addresses all phases of emergency response, including reference to
WE 173-303-360(2)(g).
Condition: II.A.2.j.
25.109 Page, lines: Page 26, line 24-27
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
^-,
Justification: Incorporation of entire chapters of these documents is
,^l unnecessary and constitutes inappropriate regulatory control. The
:s. incorporation of excessive information pertaining to emergency response as
permit conditions serves only to reduce the flexibility needed in the plan to
protect human health and the environment. Refer to related comment for Draft
Condition II.A.1.
Condition: II.A.2.k.
25.110 Page, lines: Page 26, lines 29-36
Comaient/Action: Delete this section.
Justification: Refer to comment for Draft Condition II.A.2.3. These
------- -- -docuaents-are-required--to-pr4vide-an-emergency-response plan for all Hanford
Facility activities and have been generated to fulfill a number of diverse
regulatory requirements by the De partment, the Agency, and other jurisdictions
as well as DOE Orders and internal policies. It isj inappropriate n
for much of
.__.. i. ^iis infoatiVn ^n^ toYFlncory^oratedaiperAit-iondlt
!onsa
Condition: II.A.2.1.
25.111 Page, lines: Page 26, lines 38-50 and Page Z7} lines 1-11
Coaaent/Action: Delete this condition.
ju_sf#ficiiion:-_Tbe-proposed-ianguage in the comment for Draft Permit
--^ond#-_!on-lI.A-.a-lncgr$orates the requirement to notify pursuant to
WAC 173-303-360(2)(d) without the unnecessary and counterproductive mandate
that this call be initiated from a specific location. A permit condition
should not dictate which Hanford Facility office will initiate calls to
appropriate- authorities. - Although this approach is consistent with the
gement practice currently employed for reporting such releases, this
conditlon--#s inappropriate:--Pernii; condit#m that have ramifications
concerning protection of human health and the environment ought not be
narrowly defined to prohibit necessary flexibility.
1011312.1ssv-il
Furthermore, this condition fails to clarify that the notification requirement
in the course of an emergency is limited to incidents involving dangerous
waste or dangerous waste constituents. The condition assumes that 'affected
county emergency oanagearent' constitutes and encompasses all •appropriate

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 79 of 223
03/.16/92
local authorities" as required by WAC 173-303-360(2)(d)(i). There is no "onscene
coordinator for the southeastern Washington area of the National
Response Center" as stated in the condition. The National Response Center is
a toll-free number that is the same number for the entire United States. The
excessive level of regulatory authority asserted in the contingency plan
conditions in this Draft Permit is counterproductive and restricts the
Permittee's ability to protect human health and the environment. This level
of control is inconsistent with other permits issued in the state of
Washington and EPA Region 10.
Also in Draft Permit condition II.A.2.1, the Department specifically requests
information concerning units in lieu of the WAC 173-303-360(2) requirement for
information for the facility. Because in the event of an emergency, the
".r Department must be notified in accordance with WAC 173-303-360(2)(d)(ii), the
Department will be able to solicit such information concerning the event at
that time. Regardless, there is no regulatory authority for requiring as a
permit condition this information from TSD units still operating under interim
status. The information will be provided concerning emergencies at TSD units
operating under interim status, but the information will be provided pursuant
to the WAC 173-303-400 requirements for interim status facilities.
Condition: II.A.2.m.
12 Page, lines: Page 27, lines 13-34
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Refer to comment for Draft Permit
condition II.A.2.1.
Justification: The proposed language in the comment for Draft Permit
condition II.A.a incorporates the requirement to submit a written report
pursuant to WAC 173-303-360(2)(k). There is no regulatory authority for
requiring as a permit condition this information from TSD units still
operating under interim status. The information will be provided concerning
emergencies at interim status TSD units, but the information will be provided
pursuant to the WAC 173-303-400 requirements for interim status facilities.
Condition: II.B. FACILITY WIDE PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
25.113 Page, lines: Page 27, lines 47-50 through Page 28, lines 1-12
Comment/Action: Delete condition II.B and all its subparts in their entirety.
Delete the Facility-Wide Preparedness and Prevention Plan (Attachment 7 of the
Draft Permit).
920312.1539-11
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment Justification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit condition II.A.
In the case of the Hanford Facility Preparedness and Prevention Plan,
WAC 173-303-340 does not contain any requirements to develop or maintain a
preparedness and prevention plan. The WAC 173-303-340 does contain
requirements for having emergency equipment, access to communications or
alarms, aisle space, and arrangements with local authorities. Requirements
for preparedness and prevention must not be overly prescriptive; excessive
regulatory control limits the Permittee's ability to maintain effective
preparedness and prevention capabilities. Hanford Facility personnel are

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 80 of 223
03/16/92
trained and qualified to maintain equipment in accordance with
WAC 173-303-340. There is no regulatory basis for imposing conditions beyond
what is required of other facilities. The proposed language is consistent
with language in other Department-issued permits [Chemical Processors,
WAD000812909, Condition 11.8.2 (Comment Attachment F)J.
Condition: II.B.1., 11.8.2.
25.114 Page, lines: Page 27, lines 49-50; Page 28, lines 1-12
Comment/Action: Delete Condition II.B.1 through II.B.2.b. The security and
inspection provisions of the preparedness and prevention plan should remain
unmodified by permit conditions.
;^.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-340 does not contain any requirements to
develop or maintain a preparedness and prevention plan. The WAC 173-303-340
does contain requirements for having emergency equipment, access to
communications or alarms, aisle space, and arrangements with local
ry-) authorities. Requirements for preparedness and prevention must not be overly
prescriptive; excessive regulatory control limits the Permittee's ability to
maintain effective preparedness and prevention capabilities. Hanford Facility
personnel are trained and qualified to maintain equipment in accordance with
WAC 173-303-340. There is no regulatory basis for imposing conditions beyond
what is required of other facilities. Refer to related comments for Draft
Permit condition II.M (for security provisions) and Draft Permit condition
11.0. (for inspections) for commenters' responses to permit conditions
affecting the preparedness and prevention plan.
Condition: II.C. FACILITY WIDE PERSONNEL TRAINING
25.115 Page, lines: Page 28, lines 14-36
Comment/Action: Delete Condition II.C and all its subparts in their entirety.
Delete all references to a Facility Wide Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the
Draft Permit).
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment justification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit condition II.A.
Condition: II.C.2.a.
Paye, lines: Page 28, lines 23-24
25 1J6 C^nt^RttlEn: ^vei-rte this c'vnu'ition.
Justification: The Draft Permit condition I.E.9.b indicates that the
---------- regulators-shall-"-have access--te and-e-0py;--at-reasonable .iaes,-any reco^s
that must be kept under the conditions of this permit'. There is no
justification for removing the provision from this condition that requires
access be at reasonable timesr because the language in already in the Draft
Permit. Training records are subject to protection under the Privacy Act of
1974 ( 5 USC 552a); these records cannot be turned over to anyone
snmu.11a-»
irldis\.r Iminately.

c^s
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 81 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.C.2.b.
25.396 Page, lines: Page 28, lines 26-29
Comment/Action: Add "and the Privacy Act of 1974" to the end of this
condition.
Justification: The commenters recognize that regulators have a valid need for
access to training records. Notwithstanding that, training records are listed
within the DOE's "systems of retords" required under the Privacy Act. As
such, the Department and the Agency are required to acknowledge and respect
the DOE-RL's responsibilities under that law as well. Access will not be
withheld and such records may be copied if necessary to meet regulatory
requirements once compliance with the Privacy Act is met.
, ..^ ^
Cr.,
.--
25.117
Condition:
Page, lines:
Comment/Action: Delete
II.C.2.c.
Page 28, lines 31-36
this condition.
4.
, r - - - - -Justificat-iQn:- Trainingrelated_So_the-safety-of_personnel relative to the
job site, facility, or environment is mandated by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration ( OSHA) and the AEA, as amended. The training plan,
Attachment 8, represents that mandatory training. Such training is necessary
to protect not only the regulators, but other workers in the area(s) where the
regulators might be inspecting. If the TSD unit to be inspected is in a
radiation zone, the inspector(s) are prohibited from entering unescorted
without proper training and approved access. The fact that regulations
allowing such access do not address issues such as inspector training for
access to radiation zones does not excuse inspectors from the safety protocols
specified by other regulations. Radiation training must be conducted at the
Hanford Facility.
Condition: II. D. FACILITY WIDE WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN
25.118 Pa-gPr, 1iFies: Page 28, iine 38 to Page 29, line 18
Comment/Action: Delete Draft Permit condition II.D and all its subparts.
Delete all references to a Facility Wide Waste Analysis Plan.
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment 3ustification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit condition II.A.
Condition: II.D.1, 2, 3, 4.
25.119 Page, lines: Page 28, line 38 - Page 29, line 18
Comment/Action: Delete conditions II.D.1, 2, 3 and 4.
920312.1539-II
Justification: The commenters have three concerns relative to Section II.D in
general. (1) There is no specific regulatory requirement for a separate
facility wide waste analysis plan. The compilation of unit-specific plans
meets all the regulatory requirements, and therefore meets the requirements of
a facility waste analysis plan. (2) It is unprecedented that if a document is
not written to the Department's expectations in the second revision it becomes
a noncompliance issue. (3) No reasonable explanation is given for why unitspecific
waste analysis plans will be used only for "back up" in the interim

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 82 of 223
03/16/92
period before the units are incorporated into the permit. This entire section
should be deleted. Justification for these three concerns follows.
(1) Each TSD unit on the Hanford Facility has a unit-specific waste analysis
plan that meets all of the regulatory requirements stipulated in
WAC 173-303-300. The Department's regulations require that a dangerous waste
facility operator must confirm his or her knowledge of the wastes managed
before treating, storing, or disposing of the waste. The relevant regulations
found at WAC 173-303-300(1) "GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS," state: Purpose. This
section requires the facility owner or operator to confirs his knowledge about
a dangerous waste before he stores, treats, or disposes of it. The purpose
for the analysis is to insure that a dangerous waste Is managed properly.
Because the regulations only require permits for TSD waste management
activities, and all of the Hanford Facility TSD units have unit-specific waste
= ana'.ysis plans that meet all of the re gulatory requirements, there is no need
for a separate facility wide waste analysis plan.
rf;
--.r:--- --- ^- 2) - ^ The Dra ft Permit condition that -states th a _
t disapprovai of a second
submittal may be deemed noncompliance with the terms of this Permit is
unprecedented and will be counterproductive to management efficiency. It is
not unusual for the Department and the Agency to reject a permit a pplication
or other submission based on one defect the first time and on completely
different grounds another time. Only the Permittee's failure to respond to
the reasons given for the first rejection should be grounds for a permit
violation.
The DOE-RL and its contractors make good faith efforts to respond to all of
the Department's notices of deficiencies in a reasonable and responsible
manner. The Department has provided no criteria in the Draft Permit or Fact
Sheet on which decisions regarding the acceptability of the information would
be based. Stipulating that failure to meet Department expectations or desires
will result in noncompliance raises a concern that the Permittee might be
------ -subjgct-to-arbitrAry decisi-ons,-because the Department has not provided clear
guidance on the criteria on which their judgments will be based.
(3)-7he-specif_i_c__regulatorg-requirement for-- a- waste--analysis plan is found at
WAC 173-303-300(5), which states: Maste analysis plan. The owner or operator
shall develop and follow a written waste analysis plan which describes the
procedures he will use to comply with the waste analysis requirements of
subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section. He must keep this plan at
the faeiifty1 and fiha ^e,1an s-oef enntain at least:
(a) The parameters for which each dangerous waste will be analyzed, and
the rationale for selecting these parameters;
(b) The methods of obtaining or testing for these parameters;
(c) The methods for obtaining representative samples of wastes for
analysis (representative saspling methods are discussed in
MAC 173-303-110(2));
--- ----- ---- -(d) -The-frequency-with-rhich. a.^.alysis of a waste will be reviewed or
repeated to ensure that the analysis is accurate and current;
(e) The waste analysts which generators have agreed to supply;
(f) Where applicable, the methods for meeting the additional waste
analysis requirements for specific waste management methods as
specified in 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts F through R for interii status
sansa.ts^-n

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 83 of 223
03/16/92
farffiities and -in WAC-173-303- 630 through 173-303-670 for final
status facilities; and
(g) For off-site facilities, the procedures for confirming that each
dangerous waste received matches the identity of the waste specified
on the accompanying manifest or shipping paper. This includes at
least:
(I) The procedures for identifying each waste movement at the
facility; and
(ii) The method for obtaining a representative sample of the waste to
be identified, if the identification method includes sampling.
As noted previously, each TSD unit on the Hanford Facility has a unit-specific
waste analysis plan that meets the regulatory criteria in WAC 173-303-300(5).
Again, the compilation of these plans will meet the requirements of a facility
waste analysis plan.
Specific additional comments are provided in the following comments on Draft
Permit condition II.D.
Condition: II.D.1.
25.120 Page, lines: Page 28, lines 40, 41, 42
Comment/Action: Delete this condition or modify it to correctly reflect
regulatory requirements. The following language is suggested:
920312.1539-II
The Permittee shall submit a unit-specific waste analysis plan for
each final status TSD unit covered by this Permit as part of the
unit-specific permit application submittal for that TSD unit. The
compilation of all unit-specific waste analysis plans for the
TSD units that have been included in the Permit shall comprise the
faciiity plan.
Justification: The Department's regulations require that a dangerous waste
faciiity-operator must confirm his-knawiedge of the wastes managed before
treating, storing, or disposing of it. The regulations at WAC 173-303-300(1)
•GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS,• state, Purpose. This section requires the facility
owner or operator to confirm his knowledge about a dangerous waste before he
stores, treats, or disposes of it. The purpose for the analysis is to insure
that a dangerous waste is managed properly. Each TSD unit on the Hanford
Facility has a unit-specific waste analysis plan prepared pursuant to
WAC 173-303-300(5) that is kept on the facility and that meets all of
regulatory requirements. Because the regulations only require permits for
_TCn wasre management activities, and all of the Hanford Facility TSD units
have unit-specific waste analysis plans that meet all of the regulatory
requirements, there is no need for a facility wide waste analysis plan.
However, the compilation of all unit-specific plans would constitute a
facility plan.
The commenters agree that it is appropriate in some cases for schedules or
dates for actions or submittals of information needed to fully comply with
regulatory requirements to be included in permit conditions. However, for
such a compliance schedule or date to be included, there must be a clearly
identified need under the regulations. As stated earlier in this comment,

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 84 of 223
03/16/92
___thers_is_no clsar_regulatory_requirement for the facility wide waste analysis
plan required in this Draft Permit condition. Without a regulatory basis for
the plan, there is no basis for the schedule or date. The Fact Sheet that
must provide a "brief summary of the basis" for permit conditions provides
none for this Draft Permit condition.
Condition: II.D.2.
25.121 Page, lines: Page 28, line 44 - Page 29, line 7.
Comnent/Action: Delete this condition or modify it to reflect specific
regulatory requirements. The following language is suggested:
After submittal of each unit-specific waste analysis plan in the
:-; unit-specific permit application submittal, the Director shall
either approve, modify and approve, or reject the unit-specific
c+.? waste analysis plan in writing.
^f Upon approval by the Director, the Permittee shall implement the
approved plan.
If the Director rejects the unit-specific waste analysis plan, the
Director shall notify the Permittee in writing of the deficiencies
of the plan and specify a due date for submittal of a revised plan.
Justification: As noted previously, each TSD unit on the Hanford Facility has
a unit-specific waste analysis plan that meets the regulatory criteria. The
compilation of the unit-specific plans neet all the regulations and therefore
can serve as a facility waste analysis plan.
Also, the condition included in the draft permit that states that disapproval
of a second submittal may be deemed noncompliance with the terms of this
Permit is unorecedented and will be counterproductive to management
efficiency. rIt is not unusual for the Department and the Agency to reject a
permit application or other submission based on one defect the first time and
on completely different grounds another time. Only the Permittee's failure to
respond to the reasons given for the first rejection should be grounds for a
permit violation.
The Fact Sheet that must provide a "brief summary of the basis" for permit
conditions provides none for this permit condition.
Condition: 11.0.3.
25•12Z Page, lines: Page 29, lines 9-13
Coaaeent/Aetion: Delete the condition or modify it to be consistent with the
resul_atorr requirements. The following language is suggested;
100312.1sH-tl
Upon approval or modification and approval by the Director, the
unit-specific plan(s) shall be incorporated into this Permit
following the class 1 permit modification procedures as specified in
WAC 173-303-830.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 85 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The WAC 173-303-830, Appendix I, identifies [c]hanges to waste
sampling and analysis methods, to conform with agency guidance or regulations
as a class 1 modification. The Fact Sheet that must provide a 'brief summary
of the basis" for permit conditions provides none for this permit condition.
Condition:
II.D.4.
25.123 Page, lines: Page 29, lines 15-18
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: It is unclear what this condition is intended to accomplish.
There will be no operational final status TSD units that do not have unitspecific
waste analysis plans. The Permit could not be issued to cover such
TSD unit because the application would not be complete. If this condition is
° included to cover the HWVP TSD unit, then it should be included as a specific
requirement in the HWVP unit section. The Fact Sheet that must provide a
"brief summary of the basis' for permit conditions provides none for this
r`°~ permit condition.
:`r--
^^r
Condition: II.E. FACILITY WIDE OUALITY ASSURANCE/OUALITY
25.124 CONTROL
Page, lines: Page 29, line 20 through Page 34, line 21
Comment/Action: Delete this condition and all its subparts in their
entirety. Delete all references to Facility Wide Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plan ( Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit).
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment justification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit condition II.A.
In the instance of the Hanford Facility Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) Plan, the Department has taken a management tool provided as an
example of the DOE-RL's commitment to QA and converted it to a costly and
inefficient Permit document bound to the modification process under
WAC 173-303-830. The QA/QC Plan relates not only to the individual final
status TSD units, but to a variety of operations. This plan goes beyond any
-------7`egtiia$ory reqiPirements that may, be related to its provisions, but in a
generic manner. As a management tool, it is subject to numerous, even
continuous changes to ensure its relevancy and responsiveness to QA/QC
imperatives which, when unrelated to the regulatory compliance issues, should
-be -not -be sub3ected-to-the-permit-modification_process. Additionally,_the
changes proposed in the following section are ambiguous and confusing at best
when read as permit conditions. The commenters attempt to provide the
Department with the fullest possible disclosure has been put to an unforseen
and inappropriate use.
920312.1539-1t
In addition, there is no regulatory basis to require a QA/QC Plan as a permit
condittonorattachment, Specifically, there is no specific reference to a
QA/QC document in WAC 173-303-300, -395, -600, -806, or -810. There being no
regulations specifying a QA/QC document or its contents, any attempt to
fncorporate such a plan into a final status permit or comment on or change an
internal management tool is beyond the scope of appropriate regulatory action.
The plan changes made by the conditions are subjective and argumentative.' A

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 86 of 223
03/16/92
QA/QC plan as a guidance document is a dynamic management tool subject to
frequent or immediate modification in response to various indications of a
nesd-te-eRSaare that qual!ty op@ritions and processes are continuousiy
conducted. The addition or treatment of a comprehensive guidance document
like the QA/QC plan in point, commits the document to an extraordinary and
time consuming process when changes are required that do nothing to add to the
-----prOtetti0n - 'fiimanoa^ huma n `--` w and anu the ^^rc environment. _
A QA/QC plan does not
regularly appear as an attachment in other permits previously issued in EPA
Region 10.
The individual changes made within this condition are also subjective and
---- -----without-regalatory basis.---The changes are unsubstantiated in that the Fact
Sheet submitted-with__the praft-Permit is required to provide justification for
;Tf each condition within a permit. Not only were none provided, the Fact Sheet
misrepresents that the QA/QC '.. plan is intended to set the basic
requirements that all areas of the Hanford Facility will meet...'. The
document actually states it will "...set forth the minimum requirements for
TSD units for which a final facility status permit has been, or will be,
sought." The Fact Sheet also inaccurately states that the Plan did not fully
comply with the regulations when there are no regulations governing such a
document. The plan document was included in the permit application to
demonstrate that a QA/QC program is in place at the Hanford Facility to ensure
the hazardous and dangerous waste management activities to be covered under
the Permit met appropriate QA/QC requirements. The commonality of various
TSD units does not equate to equal application of all QA/QC guidelines. As a
result, individual TSD units and projects have or will have QA/QC plans of
their own. No rationale or objective basis has been provided to support
making the modifications set forth in the Permit conditions upon which
enforcement actions may be taken applicable to this type of document.
The subjectivity of the conditions reflect more of an individual writing style
toward a quality assurance plan rather than objective identification of any
actual deficiencies related to a regulatory requirement. The Permit should
not be burdened with subjective or editorial type comments as conditions.
Such actions are neither efficient nor cost effective. The complexity of the
Hanford Facility makes this permit an extraordinarily complex document that is
adversely impacted by including the QA/QC plan and the changes required by
this section of the permit as conditions.
Many of the conditions are erroneous because they impose specific program
guidance, such as the Contractor Laboratory Program ( CLP) and SW-846, as
mandatory conditions for programs not covered by those documents. A variety
of projects are covered by this plan, the majority of which do not require
either CLP or SW-846. Putting SW-846 in as a mandatory requirement is
improper-in -ftself.-At--i-s-a qtidance-document that has been-ruled to have no
binding effect and is open to attack in any particular case. Citing such
specific requirements is more appropriately left to individual TSD units or
project requirement. In fact, the FFACO specifies that QA/QC for samples.be
-----in-accordance-with-the-Data Qua]!ty Ob,+,ec*_ives IOQO) for each sample, which is
conclusive evidence of the fact that QA/QC requ3rements are project specific.
Furthermore, the Agency, Department and the DOE-RL have been working on a more
comprehensive "Data Quality Strategy for Hanford Site Characterization' that

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 87 of 223
03/16/92
will be more project specific, and will be a more appropriate document to
ensure regulatory compliance.
Following are specific rationale for deleting each specific condition in this
section of the Draft Permit:
Condition: II.E.1.
25.125 Page, lines: Page 29, lines 22-24
Comment/Action: Delete the parenthetical and phrase, "(ATTACHMENT 9), except
as modified below."
Justification: This condition can remain in the Permit with this simple
change proposed in the comment. It would allow the DOE-RL to revise and
modify the QA/QC Plan to meet changing needs because the specific plan would
not be made a part of the Permit. The balance of the following conditions
constitute, on the part of the regulators, the appearance of an attempt to
overly control Hanford Facility operations rather than establish a basis to
monitor regulatory compliance.
Condition: II.E.2. (Descriptive statement)
25.126 Page, lines: Page 29, lines 26-27
Comment/Action: Delete this condition as it is not required with the Hanford
Facility QA/QC Plan removed from the Permit.
Justification: As stated in the comments for Draft Permit condition II.E,
including the modifications is without a regulatory basis and goes beyond the
appropriate level of regulatory control.
Condition: II.E.2.a.
25.127 Page, lines: Page 29, lines 29-30
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. "Sample" should be left in the
definition of "item."
Justification: This condition is subjective and without regulatory basis. As
used in the QA/QC Plan, "item" is a generic means of description and reference
used to limit the number of topical words in a given paragraph. This is a
common practice in the environmental arena [Refer to proposed ANSI/ASQC-E4,
Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Environmental Programs ( Comment
Attachment V)].
Condition: II.E.2.b.
25.128 Page, lines: Page 29, lines 32-35
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Do not change the definition of
'Quality'.
920312.1539-II
Justification: This condition is subjective and without regulatory basis.
The use of the phrase 'totality' leaves an open ended requirement that needs
to be reached. Not all features and characteristics that are needed in a

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 88 of 223
03/16/92
process may affect the quality of the product or service. Furthermore, the
term 'totality' is not defined in the regulations nor standards.
Condition: II.E.2.c.
25.129 Page, lines: Page 29, Lines 37-43
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Do not change the definition of
Quality Assurance.
C,^5.130
:-C-,
T:
^r-
25.131
Justification: This condition is subjective and without regulatory basis.
The proposed definition consists of specific activities that control quality
assurance, which will inevitably be left out or changed with time.
Condition: II.E.2.d.
Page, lines: Page 29, lines 45-50
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Do not change the definition of
Quality Control.
Justification: While the proposed definition has merit, the definition used
in the plan is also acceptable, as there is no regulatory or professional
society standard definition of this term. This condition exceeds the level of
control necessary for the regulators to ensure compliance.
Condition: II.E.2.e.
Page, lines: Page 30, lines 1-5
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The condition is subjective and without a regulatory basis.
It also is too prescriptive and does not address other QA/QC activities, such
as sample surveillance, design, construction, operations, etc. The statement
is also misleading in that it infers that QA/QC activities start after the
environmental data are collected.
Furthermore, use of the word enforcement by the Department is without
regulatory basis and exceeds reasonable limits of regulatory control. There
is no requirement that a Permittee's QA program be designed to collect data to
be used to support 'enforcement decisions'. It destroys the concept being
____dessribsd_inthe OA/nC Plan Section 2C5.2.1 as it is not relevant to the goals
being set therein.
Condition: II.E.2.f.
25.132 Page, lines: Page 30, lines 7-11
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
9aeat2.isa-u
Justification: The proposed condition is subjective and without a regulatory
basis. Not all activities have to follow "prescribed methodologies'; some are
only looking for an end product that can be obtained by multiple appropriate
means.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 89 of 223
03/16/92
More importantly, "reproducibility," is not always required, such as in
scoping activities. Reproducibility is only one of several DQOs that must be
addressed on an individual project basis, which is arrived at using a graded
approach. Using a graded approach is a reasonable, cost effective standard
QA/QC practice. That is why it is important to maintain a graded approach.
While it is arguable that the proposed condition language has merit, in some
contexts, it is too restrictive for this overall planning document.
Condition: II.E.2.g.
25.133 Page, lines: Page 30, lines 13-16
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The Draft Permit condition is not
consistent with the intent of the bullet.
Justification: The fourth bullet describes organizational requirements,
whereas the proposed statement regarding Laboratory Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) is not management related. The QA/QC program is
organizational while SOPs are operational. Recognizing that SOPs are
required, this use is too specific to place-in_the_outline of a QA/QC program.
The reference to "standard of quality" is inappropriate as it is a relative
term determined by the use of the data.
Condition: II.E.2.h.
134 Page, lines: Page 30, lines 18-20
Comment/Action: Delete the condition.
Justification: The Permit is not a proper vehicle to make editorial changes
-in-a--guidance-doc-umer*^.--Tlowever,-the-commenters-wouTd-consider-adding the
language as a management amendment to the plan. Nonetheless, such a change is
an inappropriate use of regulatory authority to make it a permit condition.
Condition: II.E.2.i.
25.135 Page, lines: Page 30, lines 22-25
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The Draft Permit condition is too
restrictive and creates ambiguity.
920312.1539-1I
Justification: Integrity of samples is only one of several regulatory
requirements related to QA/QC. It is inappropriate to add one requirement
without including all and such an addition is unnecessary for this document.
It must be recognized that regulations are constantly being changed and added.
However, the commenters would consider adding a bullet by management amendment
to the plan as follows:
Specific unit/program QA/QC plans will ensure that applicable
regulatory agency requirements, such as those of the Agency and the
Department, are addressed.

25.136
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 90 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.E.2.j.
Page, lines: Page 30, lines 27-29
Co°nt/Action: Delete this condition. Use of the term "invoke" is valid for
the intent of the section.
Justification: The change is editorial in nature, subjective and without a
regulatory basis.
Condition: II.E.2.k.
25.137 page, lines: Page 30, lines 31-33
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
t _r..
Justification: Refer to 3ustification statement for comment on Draft Permit
^ condition II.E.2.j.
Condition: II.E.2.1.
-25.138 Page. lines: Page 30, lines 35-37
0-11 Comeent/Action: Delete this condition. The existing language is sufficient
for the intent of the document.
Justification: This change is not appropriate for this plan as it is a
specific technical requirement. It is not appropriate to attempt to specify
all the technical requirements needed for procurement in this section. It is
a valid presumption that by complying with "applicable requirements" that
"sound analytical measurements" will be specified in a statement of work for
analytical work. The change is subjective and without a regulatory basis.
II.E.2.m.
25.139 Page, ge, lines: Page 30, line 39 to Page 31, line 29
ComAent/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There are many QA/QC requirements in a QA/QC Program Plan, and
it would be impractical to try and add them all in this permit. The original
- bualet ;tatement-is-iieclus#ve-and-allows-the appropri ate level of QA/QC review
because not "all contractors" are required to meet any specific QA/QC
requirements. The proposed language is overly prescriptive and changes the
overall intent of the plan without consideration of its structure as a top
level guidance document. Criteria similar to those proposed might be
appropriate for some specific TSD unit's procurement plan but not for other
cases. Furthermore, the language assumes that a detailed listing of SOPs can
be generated rapidly and meet a permit criterion immediately. To ensure that
all permit requirements were met, SOPs would have to be written after the
permit is issued. Numerous undefined terms are used such as "usability" and
"evidentiary situations". The condition reflects an intrusion into facility
- -- -- ---- mana-gement -and- is not-an-appropriate-application-of regulatory ovprsight.
•oaau.1ssan

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition: II.E.2.n., II.E.2.o., II.E.2.p.
25.140 Page, lines: Page 31, lines 31, 35, and 39
Comment/Action: Change the reference 2C.2.3 to read 2C^.2.3
Justification: This change corrects a typographical error.
Condition: II.E.2.n.
25.141 Page, lines: Page 31, lines 31-33
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
91 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The change is an editorial comment that does not change the
meaning or intent of the clause. To impose the change in this manner is
inappropriate. There is no regulatory basis for the Department to effect this
level of control; it goes beyond-reasonable regulatory oversight.
Condition: II.E.2.o.
25.142 Page, lines: Page 31, lines 35-37
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to justification statement on condition II.E.2.1.
Condition: II.E.2.p.
15.143 Page, lines: Page 31, lines 39-43
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
25.144
920313.1139•11
Justification: The condition will unreasonably narrow the focus of
assessment. The existing wording covers all types of QA/QC activities while
the Draft Permit condition limits it to "data". The commenters would consider
adding the condition as a second sentence to the bullet. However, such a
change should be as a management-determined modification to an internal plan,
not the result of a permit condition.
Condition: II.E.2.q.
Page, lines: Page 31, lines 45-49
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The change is subjective and editorial in nature and does not
consider the scope and intent of the plan language. The Draft Permit
condition limits all QA/QC activities to SOPs identified in SW-846 or CLP.
Those SOPs only cover data collection and analysis. Figure 2C-1 of the plan
specifies QA/QC requirements for: (1) design and construction; ( 2) waste
characterization and analysis; ( 3) maintenance, operation and closure;
(4) pos"tciosure; and (5) transportation. Such a change would preclude QA/QC
applications to (1), ( 3), (4), and (5).
It is important that a graded
"...to provide quality that is
economic .-' -(Refer-to-proposed
approach be applied to all QA/QC activities
satisfactory, adequate, dependable, Rd
condition II.'e.2.d) (emphasis added). The

25.145
^r
r,-?
._.^.(
`'..
CT ?
25.147--
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
92 of 223
03/16/92
Draft Permit condition exceeds the appropriate level of regulatory activities
necessary to monitor comDliance.
Condition: II.E.2.r.
Page, lines: Page 32, lines 1-3
nnln4 n 41.i e r^nwdit
--fY'w^ent/Actinn.
FG J MYIIY1.rI inn
YII• VGIG YII1YII.
Justification: The FFACO already provides requirements for DQOs, which must
be decided on for specific sampling efforts with the Agency's concurrence.
The original language is a more generic requirement covering samples for
programs beyond RCRA. To require the Agency's approval of all samples is
without regulatory authority, and would be costly and time consuming.
Condition: II.E.2.r.
146 Page, lines: Page 32, line 2
Comment/Action: Change "line 6" to read "line 310.
Justification: This change corrects a typographical error.
Cenditinn:
_ -..-.^t__^.
Page,- ilnes:
Comment/Action:
ii.E.2.s.
--- Paqe-32: lines 5-8
Delete this condition.
Justification: Not all presample activities are covered by a QAPP. Different
regulations require different QA conditions with different names, such as:
wasteanalysisD lans. sampling and analysis plans, etc. Some of these
activities are common - to all, but the activities are not always addressed in a
QAPP. The condition is editorial in nature and without a regulatory basis.
25.148
Condition:
line:
nt/Action:
.
Delete
II.E.2.t.
theseconditions
10-13
---Justi-ficat-ia!:-- De-tection limits are ascertained as a DQO. These limits might
be determined from CLP, other regulatory procedures (Clean Air or Clean Water
acts), or be site-specific. Most SW-846 procedures do not specify a detection
limit and neither is CLP required for RCRA analysis. The Draft Permit
condition is too limiting and is contrary to the intent of this plan section.
- The commenters would consider adding '. ..with detection limits consistent
with DQOs', to the existing plan language. This would be accomplished as a
management amendment to the plan, not as a permit condition because this
condition is without regulatory basis and is a subjective comment.
v:asn.»av-il

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 93 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.E.2.u.
25-149 Page, line: Page 32, lines 15-18
Comment/Action: Delete the condition.
Justification: Quality Assurance needs to be applied in a graded approach to
be cost effective and to ensure all DQOs are met. Not all data need to be
"legally" defensible. Legally defensible data are required in the superfund
program to establish the identities and levels of liability among parties
responsible for polluting the environment. These cases are frequently complex
and need extensive analysis of data to apportion responsibility. The CLP
packages are not necessary in a day-to-day sampling monitoring situation or
quality control testing for process control, or for RCRA activities. Process
control data need to be available in real time not in the 3 to 6 month period
typical of turnaround times for fully documented data packages from CLP
sources. This requirement would cut off all standards below level IV CLP
without Justification. Likewise, the blanket application of stringent CLP
type proof packages to all projects would waste considerable dollars that
could be used for cleanup. The existing language is clear, unequivocal, and
standard in the profession. There is no regulatory basis for the change.
Condition: II.E.2.v.
25.150 Page, lines: Page 32, lines 20-22
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for Draft Permit condition II.E.2.u.
Condition: II.E.2.w.
25.151 Page, lines: Page 32, lines 24-26
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In addition, delete the entire
sentence on page APP 2C-6 starting on line 10 through line 13 by Plan
amendment.
Justification: The complete sentence should be removed as there are many
activities that require environmental sampling and analysis that are not
identified in this sentence and this sentence detracts from the paragraph's
intent. In any event, the change is editorial and without regulatory basis.
Condition: II.E.2.x.
25.152 Page, lines: Page 32, lines 28-29
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
9MI2.+s39-11
Justification: Adding 'on-site' to this section is not required by law or
regulation. In fact, on-site movements are specifically exempted by RCRA and
the U.S. Department of Transportation. Additionally, the plan applies to
activities both on-site and off-site to the extent appropriate. The
commenters have been steadfast in this position during all permit negotiations
with the Department. This condition circumvents regulatory authority and
forces unnecessary and costly burdens on Hanford Facility operations. These
burdens are not justified because there is no increased protection to human
health or the environment. (In fact, the Hanford Site's record of safety in

------
CVI'N'IM VII Tfu1L DRArT fulAnroRO fA^iLLiT^PEMII
transporting material on-site and off-site is
provides no cause for such subjective actions
justification for the Draft Permit comment on
Condition: II.E.2.y.
25.153 Page, lines: Page 32, lines 31-33
Coment/Action: Delete this condition.
exemplary, and therefore
) Also, refer to the
condition I.E.17.b.
justification: Refer to general comments on condition II.E.
94 of 223
03/16/92
177=1 Condition: II.E.2.z.
°;p,g•15d -., Page, lines: Page 32, lines 35-37
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
cln
`1; Justification:- "Disposition" typically isused-in-nonconf9rmances to include
problem resolution and completion of an activity. The word "resolved" implies
problem resolution, but not work activity completion. There is no regulatory
T basis for the change; the change is editorial in nature and not appropriate as
a permit condition.
Condition: II.E.2.aa.
25.155 -Page, iines: -- -- Page 32, lines 39-41
---Cosm^nt/Acti-on:--corditior- . - - -eet-ain-th ..
c^ -^ ow^ a^lny_ , Im ___.._-_
---- -Delete-this
^^ lyuaye .
Justification: The original terminology is commonly used in nonconformances.
The change is subjective and without regulatory basis.
25.156 ondition: II.E.2.bb.
'age, lines: Page 32, lines 43-45
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Do not replace "dispositioned" with
"the original permit or contract".
9Mt2.ts19-U
Justification: Many of the changes necessitated by a nonconformance will not
be addressed in an original permit or contract or might require approval of an
alternative item or process that might differ somewhat from the original
contract requirements but still meet all functional and regulatory
requirements. Latitude must be left to "disposition" as would be appropriate.
The proposed condition language also changes the meaning and intent of the
-claase--and- ;n-e€€eet-estab i ishes an absolute policy of strict performance In
every event to the smallest level of detail. Application of such a standard
is commerciaily impracticable in some cases if not physically unachievable.
The original contract specifications might have been flawed, or passage of
time might preclude an exact action to be taken as originally prescribed.
This proposed condition is not regulatorily justified, contributes to
regulatory management beyond reasonable levels, and establishes a standard
that cannot be achieved.

25.157
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 95 of 223
. 93/16/92
Condition: II.E.2.cc.
Page, lines: Page 32, lines 47-48
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The word "validated" should be left
in the sentence.
Justification: There might be times when it is necessary to validate data
conversely, other times where validation is not necessary. Therefore, the
term is appropriate and should not be removed from the sentence. 'There is
regulatory basis for this change.
Condition: II.E.2.dd.
25.158 Page, lines: Page 33, lines 1-8
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Do not change the original text in
the manner indicated.
25.159
Justification: This section identifies controls for useability (physical
protection) of computer generated records. The proposed CLP reporting
requirements identify a reporting format for computer-readable data, a
different activity.
Because the Permit will require sampling and analysis data and numerous other
records, the CLP protocol required by the change is too restrictive and does
not pertain to the activity described. Furthermore, as this is a RCRA permit,
RCRA does not require CLP reporting requirements. The CLP requirements also
are more costly without adding additional protection for human health and the
environment in RCRA activities. The change is without a regulatory basis.
Condition: II.E.2.ee.
Page, lines: Page 33, lines 10-12
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. However, the change is appropriate,
provided it can be done solely by amending the plan.
Justification: As indicated throughout these comments on Section I.E., a
change of this nature is subjective, and without a regulatory basis. Permit
conditions should not be used to make such changes to internal Permittee
guidance documents.
Condition:
25.160 Page, lines:
Comment/Action
language.
920312.1539-II
II.E.2.ff.
Page 33, lines 14-16
Delete this condition. Do not delete the original plan
Justification: The proposed language is without regulatory basis and exceeds
the level of regulatory control necessary to determine compliance. The plan
is much more comprehensive than that suggested by the change and the
application of QA principles is not limited to data collection. Additionally,
when and what projects require a level of QA to be legally defensible is a
Permittee's management prerogative.
and
no

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 96 of 223
03/16/92
:ondition: II.E.2.gg.
25.161 )age, lines: Page 33, lines 18-20
tosoent/Action: Delete this condition.
25.162
Justification: This permit condition lacks a regulatory basis. It is
arguable that "methods" adds anything substantive to the intent of the
referenced bullet. Delete this permit condition because it lacks a regulatory
basis.
Condition: II:E.2.hh.
Page, lines: Page 33, lines 22-25
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The original language conveys the
appropriate intent of the Plan.
---k^;r---- -Justi-fication:--Department-or--Agencj-protocols--are not required or available
for all projects or activities covered by this plan. To require the change
here is without regulatory authority, is technically inappropriate, and is
improper as a permit condition.
[5 ^?
Condition: II.E.2.ii.
25•163-- Page, lines: Page 33, lines 27-31
Coaioent/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Again, the change is too specific for this section of the
plan. There are many other items that need control as good business practice
and as required by other regulations. It is inappropriate to add a specific
citation to a statement intended to cover multiple requirements and a variety
of items. The proposed language will create ambiguity as to the plan's intent
and result in confusion by focusing implementation more narrowly than the
overall intent of the document.
Condition:
25.164 Page, lines:
Coment/Action:
tne intent of the
II.E.2:jj.
Page 33, lines 33-35
Delete this condition. The existing language is adequate for
document.
ennditi_nn ehifte_ the _ focue Of the plan from
an overall QA/QC plan to a data collection QA/QC plan, which is not its
purpo se. Furthermore, even if that was its sole purpose, it is inappropriate
--te-14st ipee-ifie-regal:tory-a-yencies-and -guidance-uniess all are listed (such
a list could include the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
others that also could apply to some or all of the TSD units to be permitted).
The change further improperly imposes SW-846 and CLP protocols to all cases
i^egardless of relevance, appropriateness, or applicability. This condition
exceeds-rer,ulatoryiuthority*w4 treater-unnecessary-em,`riquities in the intent
and scope of the plan.
ruau.tssr-u

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 97 of 223
03/16/92
ond;t-'.-0n:--
iT,F,2.kk.
25.165 W, l;res . _-- Page 33, lines 37-39
conment%Action: Delete this condition. T he existing language meets the
intent of the plan.
Justification: Not all data need to be legally defensible and the Draft
Permit condition is ambiguous because it is not known what is meant by
"legally defensible". However, it implies a very•costly, intensive program,
that apparently in the mind of the Department is different from "defensible
data" and is neither justified by, nor required by, regulation.
Condition: II.E.2.11.
25.166 Page, line: Page 33, lines 41-43
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The existing language is consistent
with the theme and intent of the section.
=. ' Justification: The original language is purposely generic, to cover a number
of different scenarios because quality assurance plans for different types of
projects carry different titles. An activity might be controlled by a quality
assurance project plan, a waste analysis plan, or sampling and analysis plan,
etc. Because other plan titles might control a given effort, the quality
assurance project plan should not be specified. It is the "process" that the
Draft Permit condition deletes for "project plan", which establishes the
appropriate "plan". This change is subjective and without regulatory
justification.
Condition: II.E.2.mm.
25.167 Page, line: Page 33, lines 45-47
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to justification for Draft Permit condition II.E.2.11.
Condition: II.E.2.nn.
25.168 Page, line: Page 34, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to justification for Draft Permit condition II.E.2.j.
Condition: II.E.2.oo.
25.169 Page, line: Page 34, lines 5-8
Coament/Action: Delete this condition. However, the change is appropriate
provided it can be done solely by amending the plan.
920312.1539-11
Justification: As indicated throughout these coaments on Section II.E., a
change of this nature is subjective and without a regulatory basis. Permit
conditions should not be used to make such changes to internal permittee
guidance documents.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 98 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.E.2.pp.
25.170 Page, line: Page 34, lines 10-13
Coaeen"sjMction: Delete this condition.
Justification: This condition is erroneous because it requires, without
regulatory authority, the application of CLP and SW-846 protocols to all
instrument calibration even though both do not apply to all cases and neither
might be appropriate at times. It is not justified as a permit condition. It
is inappropriate to list any specific requirements unless all are listed,
which again exceeds the intent of this planning document. This section covers
more than just sample protocols, such as construction materials and test
equipment ( M&TE) requirements, which have no relationship to SW-846 or CLP.
-There -ara--also-ottt2r environment (Ml:TE`, requirement^ {Clesn Water Act of 1977
(33 USC 1251), Clean Air Act of 1977 ( 42 USC 7401)], as well as manufacturers
information that needs to be used for this effort. However, the intent
rr-` ----- perceived for the-condrtion--is-valid- and-a-change -ts-apprapriate provided it
can be done solely by amendinq_ the plan,-and without it being a permit
condition. The change in the language would read:
a--
..and manufacturing guidelines based on the applicable regulatory
requirements for the project activity.
This change will preclude inappropriate standards from being arbitrarily
imposed, sLch-zs--CLi' requirement for D.r.P.A TSD units.
Condition: II.E.2.qq.
25.171 Page, line: Page 34, lines 15-21
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The existing language meets the
intent of the plan.
Justification: This condition is without basis in regulation, scientific
protocol, or rule of reason for a generic level document. Calibration
frequency is determined as stated in the document, by individual protocol or
DQOs. It is inappropriate to list specific requirements unless all are listed
and that is beyond the scope of this plan. It would include numerous
construction M6TE requirements, which are not definable at this point of
development, and other environmental MBTE requirements [Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 USC 1251), Clean Air Act of 1977 (42 USC 7401)]. Furthermore, the
frequency stated is applicable only to a limited number of procedures.
Specific requirements of this nature belong in individual TSD unit or project
plans.
25 172 Condition: II.E.2.hh., II.E.2.ii., II.E.2.jj., II.E.2.kk.,
II.E.2.11 „ II.E.2.mm.
Page, lines: Pages 33, lines 22, 27, 33, 37, 41, 45
Comment/Action: Change reference 2C5.3.2.,l to read 2C5.3.2.1.
+aaau.1sa-u
Justification: This change corrects a typographical error.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 99 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.E.2.nn.
25.173 Page, lines: Page 34, line 1
Comment/Action: Change reference 2C5.3.2.1 to read 2C5.3.2.Z.
Justification: This change corrects a typographical error.
Condition: II.F. FACILITY WIDE GROUNDWATER MONITORING
25.174 Page, lines: Page 34, line 23 - Page 35, line 45.
Comment/Action: Delete condition II.F. and all its subconditions. None of
the TSD units being permitted as final status facilities at this time require
groundwater monitoring. There are no groundwater monitoring requirements
defined in Section II.F as the title would suggest. The conditions stated in
Section II.F of the Draft Permit arbitrarily establish conditions for
purgewater management; vadose zone well monitoring; and well construction,
remediation, and abandonment; none of which are within the scope of the
Dangerous Waste Regulations. The WAC 173-303-645(8) specifies the groundwater
monitoring requirements that will be applicable to those final status
TSD units that are subject to groundwater monitoring requirements at the
Hanford Facility. There is nothing in the regulations that requires facility
wide groundwater monitoring. The present draft language does not cover the
requirements of Chapter 173-303-645(8) as the title might suggest, but instead
goes beyond the scope of the regulatory requirements by stating conditions
that have no regulatory basis. This entire section should be deleted and
replaced with language that is consistent with the regulations. The following
suggested_1ainguage is consistent with the regulatory requirements.
II.F Groundwater Monitoring
The Permittee must comply with the general groundwater monitoring
requirements of WAC 173-303-645(8) for any groundwater monitoring
program developed to satisfy WAC 173-303-645 subsections ( 9), (10),
or (11).
II.F.1 In particular:
II.F.1.a The groundwater monitoring system must consist of a
sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and
depths to yield groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that:
(i) Represent the quality of background water that has not been
affected by leakage from a regulated unit;
(A) A determination of background quality may include sampling of
-------------- -----------wel-ls }.ha± are-not-hydraulically upgradient of the waste management
area where:
(I) Hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator to
determine what wells are hydraulically upgradient; and
(II) Sampling at other wells will provide an indication of
background groundwater quality that is representative or more
representative than that provided by the upgradient wells; and
(ii) Represent the quality of groundwater passing the point of
compliance.
920312.1539-II

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 100 of 223
03/16/92
All -iY- - - -
(ii-i)---A3 ^w -f3r-the--:etect#on-if -c0nt3m nation wh'en d'angereus waste
or dangerous constituents have migrated from the waste management
area to the uppermost aquifer.
II.F.1.b If a facility contains more than one regulated unit,
separate groundwater monitoring systems are not required for each
regulated unit, provided that provisions for sampling the
groundwater in the uppermost aquifer will enable detection and
measurement at the compliance point of dangerous constituents from
the regulated units that have entered the groundwater in the
..-__._-__• __..r__
uppermus^ aQu^rer.
:I.F.I.c A1l-monitoring-rells-must-be-cased-in-a-manner that
mai.n.tai.n.s the integrity of the monitoring well borehole. This
Y-°
casing must allow collection of representative groundwater samples.
^-^ Wells must be constructed in such a manner as to prevent
contamination of the samples, the sampled strata, and between
aquifers and water bearing strata. Wells must meet the requirements
set forth in Parts 1 and 3 of Chapter 173-160 WAC, 'Minimum
^ Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells.'
+aasu.s»-11
II.F.1.d The groundwater monitoring program must include, at a
minimum, procedures and techniques for:
(i) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment;
(ii) Sample collection;
(iii) Sample preservation and shipment;
(iv) Analytical procedures and quality assurance; and
( v) Chain of custody control.
II.F._1.e The groundwater monitoring program must include consistent
sampling and analytical methods that ensure reliable groundwater
sampling, accurately measure dangerous constituents and indicator
parameters in groundwater samples, and provide a reliable indication
of groundwater quality below the waste management area.
II.F.1.f The groundwater monitoring program must include a
determination of the groundwater surface elevation each time
groundwater is sampled. -
Justification: The requirements for a groundwater monitoring program must be
consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-303-645(8) and WAC 173-160.
Permit conditions beyond these requirements are inconsistent with the
regulations and well construction practices throughout Washington State. The
proposed permit conditions will result in inefficient use of resources and
will not result in a greater benefit to human health and the environment.
Groundwater monitoring is given a great deal of attention at the Hanford
Facility and the FFACO provides the agreed upon schedule for installation of
additional wells.
'1%e DOE-RL-ts-committing a great deal of time and money to develop groundwater
monitoring programs. However, the proposed permit conditions represent an
inappropriate level of regulatory control by going beyond the level necessary

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 101 of 223
03/16/92
to ensure compliance with the Permit. The Permittee will continue installing
new wells pursuant to the FFACO and will continue to carry out a responsible
groundwater monitoring program in a timely, cost effective manner.
There are no groundwater monitoring requirements defined in Section II.F as
the title would suggest. The title to Section II.F is inconsistent with the
contents of the section. The commenters believe that both should be changed
to reflect the actual regulatory requirements and are proposing language
consistent with the regulations. The groundwater monitoring requirements for
a TSD unit are found at WAC 173-303-645(8)(a) - (f) "General groundwater
monitoring requirements." The regulations state: The owner or operator must
comply with the requirements of this subsection for any ground water
monitoring program developed to satisfy subsections (9), (10), or (11) of this
^. ^ section.
(a) The ground water monitoring system must consist of a sufficient number
'r} of wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield ground water
^-` samples from the uppermost aquifer that:
(I) Represent the quality of background water that has not been affected by
leakage from a regulated unit;
(A) A determination of background quality may include sampling of wells
that are not hydraulically upgradient of the waste management area where:
(1) Hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator to
determine what wells are hydraulically upgradient; and
(II) Sampling at other wells will provide an indication of background
ground water quality that is representative or more representative than that
provided by the upgradient wells; and
(ii) Represent the quality of ground water passing the point of compliance.
(iii) Allow for the detection of contamination when dangerous waste or
dangerous constituents have migrated from the waste management area to the
uppermost aquifer.
(b) If a facility contains more than one regulated unit, separate ground
water monitoring systems are not required for each regulated unit, provided
that provisions for sampling the ground water in the uppermost aquifer will
enable detection and measurement at the compliance point of dangerous
constituents from the regulated units that have entered the ground water in
the uppermost aquifer.
(c) All monitoring wells must be cased in a manner that maintains the
integrity of the monitoring well bore hole. This casing auist allow collection
of representative ground water samples. Wells must be constructed in such a
manner as to prevent contamination of the samples, the sampled strata,
and_between_aquifgXs and water 6earing strata. Wells must meet the
requirements set forth in Parts 1 and 3 of chapter 173-160 WAC, "Ninimum
standards for construction and maintenance of wells."
(d) The ground water monitoring program must lnclude at a minimum,
procedures and techniques for:
(i) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment;
(ii) Sample collection;
(fi1) Sample preservation and shipment;
(iv) Analytical.procedures and quality assurance; and
(v) Chain of custody control.
'(e) The ground water monitoring program must include consistent sampling
and analytical methods that ensure reliable ground water sampling, accurately
measure dangerous constituents and indicator parameters in ground water
92o312.Is39-11

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 102 of 223
03/16/92
samples, and provide a reliable indication of groundwater quality below the
waste management area.
(f) The ground water monitoring program must include a deteraination of the
ground water surface elevation each time ground water is sampled.
The suggested language is taken directly from the regulations and is therefore
consistent with the requirements.stipulated in the regulations. The Fact
Sheet that must provide "a brief summary of the basis" for the permit
conditions does not. The Department has not provided adequate J ustification
for the omission of groundwater monitoring conditions as specified in the
regulation. The Department has not provided the rationale for exceeding the
-scope-of-the_Dangerous-ilaste-13egulations-that_contain--no-requirements-for:
C^n vadose zone monitoring; a well integrity inspection plan and schedule as
_; described in the Draft Permit conditions; a well remediation or abandonment
-pian as described in the Draft Permit conditions; or for notifying the
-;-, Department before remediating or abandoning wells.
Cendit_ien, I1 F-.1. Purgewater- M^nage -nt
^.175 Page, lines: Page 34, lines 25-29 _
Comment/Action: -Deie"te-this condition.
25. 176
Justification: The Purgewater Management Plan is not regulatorily required,
but rather is a ptan-agreed-upon by-the-Aepartment*Agency,-and the-DO€-RL,
and incorporated into the FFACO. Because the plan is already an attachment to
the FFACO and because there is no regulatory basis pursuant to WAC 173-303 to
require that the plan be a part of the final status permit, its inclusion in
the Permit is unnecessary and goes beyond the level of regulatory control
necessary to ensure compliance with the Permit.
Condition:
Page, lines:
Codmient/A'ction3
Ii.F.2. Groundwater and Vadose Zone Well Monitoring,
Remediation and Abandonment
Page 34, line 31-32 - Page 35, line 45
Deiete reference to vadose zone wells.
Justification: Vadose zone monitoring is not required for compliance with
groundwater regulations. The Fact Sheet, which must provide "a brief summary
of the basis" for the permit conditions, provides no basis for including
permit conditions regarding vadose zone monitoring.
Condition:
25.177 Page, lines:
+aeouAssv-11
Comment/Action: Delete
requirement to inspect
and submittal of a well
the following language
II.F.2.a.
Page 34, lines 34-41
this condition. There is no regulatory basis for the
for well integrity on a 5-year basis or for preparation
remediation or abandonment plan. In an alternative,
is suggested to replace the deleted language:
The Permittee shall comply with the well construction, remediation,
and abandonment requirements stipulated at WAC 173-160 to ensure
snat the integrixy of -al1-TSD--unit-groundwater aonttoring walls is
maintained.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 103 of 223
p3/16/92
Justification: There is no technical or regulatory basis for 5-year
inspection of all groundwater wells and it is not cost effective to do so.
There is no regulatory basis for the well remediation and abandonment plan.
Furthermore, the 120-day period for preparing a plan and schedule for this
activity cannot be met. The Fact Sheet that must provide a"brief summary of
the basis" for permit conditions provides none for this permit condition. The
attempted imposition of this requirement is not only unjustified from a
regulatory standpoint, but is inconsistent with integrated planning and
environmental restoration pursuant to the FFACO.
Condition: II.F.2.b.
25.178 Page, lines: Page 34, lines 43-47
Comment/Action: Delete the current text and replace this section with the
following text:
The Permittee shall remediate, abandon, or abandon and replace any
groundwater monitoring wells required under this section pursuant to
the requirements of WAC 173-160 and shall notify the Department as
required under that regulation. If the Permittee determines that
the detection monitoring program no longer satisfies the
requirements of WAC 173-303-645(9), the Permittee shall, within
90 days, submit a request for a permit modification to make
appropriate changes to the program.
Justification: Well construction and abandonment are regulated under an
independent regulatory program, as specified in WAC 173-160. These
regulations specify the methods for construction and abandonment, and require
notifita-t'ron, but not approvai, by the Department. Approval of the specific
plans for remediation or abandonment are outside of the scope of the
Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The regulations at
WAC 173-303-645(9)(h) require a permit modification for changes to an
established detection monitoring well network.
The Fact Sheet states that this condition will "ensure proper regulatory
oversight." The Fact Sheet does not provide adequate rationale for a need to
go beyond the requirements of WAC 173-160.
Condition: II.F.2.c.
25.179 Page, lines: Page 35, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this requirement.
920312.1539-I1
Justification: The Permit must be written to be consistent with WAC 173-160.
The Department has no authority to impose requirements for well remediation or
abandonment under WAC 173-303. The WAC 173-160 properly and adequately
addresses those activities. The commenters will comply with WAC 173-160 or
other requirements as agreed to under the FFACO.
It is agreed that a well should be immediately remediated if the well is
adversely impacting human health and the environment. However, if the well is
not being used and is not causing adverse impacts, the well should not be
prioritized for remediation in this manner.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 104 of 223
03/16/92
Sixty days is an arbitrary and unreasonably short amount of time to take the
actions necessary to plan for and then remediate or abandon a well. Also, the
issue of "grandfathering" wells for abandonment that were in place before
state groundwater regulations were promulgated has not been properly
considered in drafting this permit condition. Furthermore, this requirement
cannot physically be achieved. The Hanford Facility might have hundreds of
wells that would be deemed unsound based on the arbitrary criteria set in
Draft Permit condition II.F.2.f. The workload induced by this requirement
would result in a major undertaking that would be impossible to perform within
60 days, considering the potential number of wells affected.
In addition, prior approval for well abandonment and remediation is not
1-°" required under current regulations.
,-..^
.....
-^------ Y^It1Vr1: -- - - II.F.2.d
^'t
25^401 Page, lines: Page 35, lines 5-7
Comment/Action: Delete this condition and replace it with the following
suggested language:
^.
The Permittee shall verbally notify the Department of well
construction, remediation, or abandonment 72 hours before initiating
work pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-160.
Justification: This modification will make the permit condition consistent
with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-160. This modification will make
the requirements at the Hanford Faciljty consistent with the well abandonment
and reconstruction reporting requirements applied to the rest of Washington
State. Contrary to the Fact Sheet, which states that written notice 5 days in
advance is required to give the regulatory agencies sufficient time to
respond, the regulations at WAC 173-160 that are written by the Water Resource
Program, which is responsible for well construction, remediation, and
abandonment oversight, require only a verbal notification 72 hours in advance.
:ondition: II.F.2.e.
25.402 'age, lines: Page 35, lines 9-11
Comment/Action: Modify this permit condition to state that wells subject to
WAC 173-160 will be abandoned in compliance with WAC 173-160.
------ -- vustificationi The cona'ition as now written is incorrect. The
WAC 173-160 does not apply to vadose zone wells, because vadose zone wells do
not meet the definition of wells in WAC 173-160. In addition, citing only one
provision of WAC 173-160 [i.e., WAC 173-160-415(2)], as is currently done in
the Draft Permit condition, ignores other provisions of WAC 173-160 that might
be applicable. For example, WAC 173-160-020 allows for variances to be sought
when strict compliance with WAC 173-160 is impracticable.
4aaa1z.1s39-11

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 105 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.F.2.f.
25.180 Page, lines: Page 35, lines 13-30
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: These definitions for "unsound" are unreasonable and have no
basis in the regulations. In addition, this condition is in direct conflict
with the "Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria for
RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990". This policy (Attachment 11 of the Draft Permit)
states that wells not constructed in accordance with WAC 173-160 may be
considered to provide useable samples. Therefore, wells that are not drilled
in accordance with WAC 173-160 are not necessarily deemed unsound.
In addition, this is not the correct citation for well construction
requirements. The cited reference, WAC 173-160-50, is a typographical error.
The well construction requirements for monitoring wells are found in
WAC 173-160-500.
The Fact Sheet states that 'this condition explains the circumstances that
will trigger the obligation to remediate or abandon a well.' The Draft Permit
condition identifies some circumstances, but does not "explain" any of them.
The Fact Sheet must provide a "brief summary of the basis' for the permit
condition. It does not.
Condition: II.F.3.a.
25.181 Page, lines: Page 35, lines 34-36
Comnent/Action: Delete 'and vadose wells".
II.F.3. Groundwater and Vadose Zone Well
Construction
Justification: The WAC 173-160 does not address vadose zone wells and does
not define standards of construction for vadose zone wells. The WAC 173-160
is not applicable to vadose zone wells.
Condition: II.F.3.b.
25.182 Page, lines: Page 35, line 38-45
Comment/Action: Delete condition II.F.3.b and delete Attachment 11 of the
Draft Permit, "Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria
for RCRA and CERCLA, June 19900.
920312.1539-II
Justification: Attachment 11, "Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and
Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990" is a policy document, and
is too nonspecific for effective operational compliance, and should not be
included as a permit condition. 'Policy on Remediation of Existing Wells and
Acceptance-t-r4terAa--ftr-RCWand CERCLA, June 1990" cannot be consistently
applied, and will cause duplicate wells to be constructed for CERCLA and RCRA
applications, where it would otherwise be unnecessary. 'Policy on Remediation
of Existing Wells and Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June 1990,' as
currently written, does not ensure that specified well remediation activities
will meet the DQOs for both RCRA and CERCLA programs.

25.183
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
In addition, implementation of "Policy on Remi
Acceptance Criteria for RCRA and CERCLA, June
opinion as the attachment is now written, and
as a permit condition.
106 of 223
03/16/92
!diation of Existing Wells and
1990" will have to be based on
therefore should not be included
Condition: II.G. DANGEROUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT SITING
Page, lines: Page 36, lines 1-7
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to properly indicate the scope of
applicability for WAC 173-303-282. The condition should read as follows:
The Permittee shall comply with WAC 173-303-282 siting criteria
whenever expansion of any land-based unit is proposed; or when
' proposing a significant expansion of other existing dangerous waste
management units, unless the owner/operator can demonstrate to the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 107 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.H. FACILITY WIDE RECOROKEEPING AND REPORTING
25.184 Page, lines: Page 36, line 9 to Page 37, line 5
Comment/Action: Delete the condition. Replace the condition as follows:
"The Permittee shall be exempt from the requirements of WAC 173-303-620.
Permittee agrees to submit an annual report updating projections of
anticipated costs for closure and postclosure for final status TSD units.
This report will be submitted annually, by October 31, to the
Department."
Justification: The WAC 173-303-620 and 40 CFR 264.140(c) specifically exempt
"States and the Federal Government" from reporting requirements such as
closure cost estimates. The Department action, in requiring under the "any
other requirement" provision of WAC 173-303-390 that which is expressly
exempted under WAC 173-303-620, is directly contrary to law. The Department's
c1_ action also constitutes an abuse of discretion, a misapplication of
WAC 173-303-390 and WAC 173-303-620, and discriminates against the federal
government.
zr"
In the Fact Sheet discussion of Draft Permit condition II.H.1, the
Department's ,]ustification for imposing a requirement on the DOE-RL
contradicts WAC 173-303-620(1)(c). The Department states that:
920312.1539-11
Cost estimates for closure activities are being required by the Permittees
through the omnibus report requirement provisions. Normally the requirements
are met through the application of chapter 173-620 MAC (sic). However,
because the Department of Energy is exempt from this provision of the .
regulations the same information is being required through 173-303-390.
The exemption of 40 CFR 264.140(c) and WAC 173-303-620 is binding law, adopted
following rulemaking procedure, that recognizes and exempts both the state and
federal government from financial reporting and assurance requirements for
closure and postclosure. As the DOE-RL is the owner and operator of the
Hanford Facility, the exemption is expressly applicable and is a requirement
of law for the Hanford Facility Permit. The Department may not impose through
a permit a requirement that is prohibited by law. The Department may not
impose under a general "omnibus reporting" regulation (WAC 173-303-390) a
requirement that is exempted under a specific regulation (WAC 173-303-620).
For example, when EPA recently attempted under its omnibus authority to
regulate toxic gaseous vapors at a plant,'which were excluded from the
definition of "solid waste," the Administrator held that omnibus authority
"does not expand RCRA jurisdiction indefinitely." Specifically, the
Administrator held that "the omnibus authority may not be used to override the
exclusions (express or implied) from RCRA jurisdiction found in the definition
of "solid waste'. Otherwise, the exclusions would be rendered virtually
meaningless..." [Refer to BP Chemicals America, Inc., RCRA Appeal No. 89-4
(August 20, 1991) (Comment Attachment CC)]. The same logic applies here;
omnibus reporting authority cannot be used to override a specific exclusion
from a reporting requirement.
Even in those circumstances wherein the Department might impose extraordinary
requirements, it most be shown that such requirements were necessary to
protect human health and the environment. No showing has been made in this

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 108 of 223
03/16/92
ase that the circumstances at the Hanford Facility are in any way different
:han-thoge-contempiated by the exemption of 40 CFR 264.140(c). No benefit or
protection of health and environment is afforded by the proposed condition.
Furthermore, to the ixtent-the Department seeks to impose a requirement on the
federal agency from which the state is itself exempt, such action constitutes
an imperrwiss#ble and ifiprup@r discrimination against the federal government.
In the Fact Sheet, discussion of Draft Permit condition II.H.1, the Department
further asserts that:
The WAC 173-303-620 does not exempt contractors from the closure
cost requirements and therefore this information is required from
them for their units.
A similar statement is made in the Fact Sheet discussion of Draft Permit
condition II.H.2 pertaining to postclosure. This Department position
misinterprets both the law and the relationship between the DOE-RL and its
contractors. Neither WHC nor PNL have units separable from the DOE-RL.
Furthermore, the functional responsibilities of the DOE-RL and its contractors
are divided such that WHC and PNL cannot be subject to this requirement.
The DOE-RL is responsible for overall management and operation of the Hanford
Facility, including policy, programmatic funding, scheduling decisions, and
general oversight of the contractors' performance. The contractors are -
responsible for certain day-to-day activities such as waste analysis, waste
handling, monitoring, container labeling, personnel training, and
recordkeeping. The closure and postclosure cost requirements of
WAC 173-303-620 and 40 CFR, Subpart H, to include cost estimates and financial
assurances, are clearly programmatic funding functions, and therefore outside
the contractors' responsibilities.
In the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations, "operator" is defined as the
person responsible for the overall operation of a facility (WAC 173-303-040).
Neither WHC nor PNL are responsible for the overall operation of either the
Hanford Facility or any individual TSD unit within the Hanford Facility. The
--_--parti-es to-the-FFACO have-agreed-therein-that-t#ae-DDE owns and operates the
Hanford Facility. The contractors' roles are more limited as specified under
their contracts with the DOE-RL and should not be identified as responsible
for all activities.
vmsu.1sss-n
In the Hanford Facility Permit Fact Sheet, in comments pertaining to Permit
condition I.A.2, the Department has recognized that the contractors'
responsibility should be limited on both a functional and geographic basis to
the "day-to-day operations at certain units'. (Furthermore, the Department
incorrectly designated responsibilities by areas. Refer to comments to
Introduction, Page 7, lines 23-24 and 26-27, Attachments 3 and 4.)
Issuing the Permit to the "U.S: Department of Energy-Hanford Facility' will
a_void-oisc-h-aracterizing-_the-nature of responsibilities under the law and will
avoid the confusion of responsibilities created by WAC 173-303-620. A similar
action was taken by the state of Texas and the EPA in issuing a RCRA permit to
the 'U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant' (Comment Attachment Q. Refer to

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 109 of 223
03/16/92
comments to Draft Permit provision on Page 1, lines 28-37 ( Title Page) and
Draft Permit condition I.A.2. on Page 13, lines 26-29.
-The-Fact-Sheet further states that-all-parties-agreed to reporting closure
cost estimates under WAC 173-303-390 using the requirements under
WAC 173-303-620. That statement is not accurate. The commenters only agreed
to voluntarily submit projections of anticipated costs for closure annually in
a separate report. Interim status closure plans should not be included in the
final status permit. Final status permits are being sought for some
TSD units, while others will be closed under interim status. No rationale for
including interim status closure plans in the Draft Permit is given in the
Fact Sheet. The FFACO already has established how interim status TSD units
will be closed. This process for the submittal of interim status closure
plans, via the milestones established in the FFACO, and which regulations will
be followed during closure, already has been agreed upon by the parties
thereto.
Condition: II.H.1. Cost Estimate for Facility Closure
25.185 Page, lines: Page 36, lines 15-23
Comment/Action: Delete the condition. The language proposed by the
commenters at II.H accurately reflects the agreement reached in previous
discussions. Replace with the following:
920312.7539-t1
'The Permittee shall be exempt from the requirements of
-11AC 173-303-620. The Permittee agrees to submit an annual report
updating projections of anticipated costs for closure and
postclosure for final status TSD units. This report will be
submitted annually, by October 31, to the Department."
Justification: The WAC 173-303-620 and 40 CFR 264.140(c) specifically exempts
"States and the Federal Government" from reporting requirements such as
closure cost estimates. The Fact Sheet inaccurately states that all parties
agreed to reporting closure cost estimates under WAC 173-303-390 using the
requirements under WAC 173-303-620. The commenters offered to submit these
projections of anticipated costs for closure annually by the end of October in
a separate report starting in 1992.
It was agreed that projections of anticipated costs would follow the
estimating format used by the DOE-RL in environmental restoration projects.
This provides for a consistent cost estimating format that could be used to
determine the required funding levels. In addition, anticipated costs for
closure would be reported only for TSD units that were included in the Permit
at the time the report was being prepared.
There is no regulatory basis for requiring the requested cost estimate. The
Department's position that the DOE-RL's contractors are required to comply is
inconsistent with the fact that the land, structures, and appurtenances of the
Hanford Facility are the property of the United States. The contractors are
without contractual or legal authority to set, control, provide, or determine
funding and budget. These functions are reserved to the federal government.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 110 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.H.1.a.
^^ 7AFi w_-_ t---.
• raye, ^ a ^n^s. Page 36, lines 24-25
CommentfActton:--Delete-this con dltiVn.
Justification: Contrary to the statement in the Fact Sheet, the format for
the projections of anticipated costs for closure that was agreed upon was that
the commenters would provide the information in the format routinely used for
environmental restoration project cost estimating at the Hanford Site. This
method would ensure that the cost estimates were comparable to the budget
requests and other financial documents produced by the DOE-RL. It was agreed
that the Permit would not include conditions relating to WAC 173-303-620,
because these provisions do not apply to the DOE-RL as a unit of the federal
government. This condition, as well as all of the conditions under Draft
Permit conditions II.H., does not reflect an appropriate level of regulatory
control. These conditions explicitly require information from a party who is
exempted from the regulations.
Condition: II.H.1.b.
187 Page, lines: Page 36, lines 27-30
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis to require any submission of this
nature by the federal government because the federal government is exempt from
the provisions of the regulations. However, it was agreed that projections of
anticipated costs for closure of a unit will be included in the first annual
update of the anticipated costs repo rt issued after the unit was added to the
final status Permit. This is a voluntary action on the part of the
commenters.
Condition: II.H.I.c
25.188 Page, lines: Page 36, lines 32-33
Camment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The only cost projections that the commenters offered to be
included in the report are for final status units that are included in the
Permit (refer to comment on Draft Permit condition II.H.I.b.). For several
years there will be units for which closure plans have not been prepared or
submitted, let alone accepted. There is no regulatory rationale or basis for
requiring such a facility-wide estimate btcaase the federal government is
exempt from financial reporting requirements. Notwithstanding the exemption,
a requirement to obtain an estimate for overall facility closure costs is
totally impractical, requiring unreasonable guesses as to the cost of closure
for TSD units that do not, as yet, even have an accepted closure plan. The
commenters cannot submit such unsubstantiated cost projections.

25.189
25.190
25.191
9zosu.1539- ii
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition: II.H.2. Cost Estimate
Maintenance
Page, lines: Page 36, lines 35-42
Comment/Action: Delete the condition.
111 of 223
03/16/92
for Postclosure Monitoring and
Justification: The WAC 173-303-620 and 40 CFR 264.140(c) specifically exempt
"States and the Federal Government" from reporting requirements such as
closure cost estimates. The Fact Sheet inaccurately states that all parties
agreed to reporting closure cost estimates under WAC 173-303-390 using the
requirements under WAC 173-303-620. The commenters offered to submit these
projections of anticipated costs for closure annually by the end of October in
a separate report starting in 1992.
It was agreed that projections of anticipated costs would follow the
estimating format used by the DOE-RL in environmental restoration projects.
This approach provides for a consistent cost estimating format that could be
used to determine the required funding levels. In addition, anticipated costs
for closure would only be reported for units that were included in the Permit
at the time the report was being prepared.
-There --is- no -tregul atery-'uas-is--for -requi-ri-ng-the -requested - cost esttmate. The
Department's position that the DOE-RL's contractors are required to comply is
inconsistent with the fact that the land, structures, and appurtenances are
the property of the United States. The contractors are without contractual or
legal authority to set, control, provide, or determine funding and budget.
These functions are reserved to the federal government.
Condition: II.H.2.a.
Page, lines: Page 36, lines 44-45
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Contrary to the statement in the Fact Sheet, the commenters
only agreed to provide the information in the format routinely used for
environmental restoration project cost estimating at the Hanford Site. This
method ensures that the cost projections remain comparable to the budget
requests and other financial documents produced by the DOE-RL rather than
burdening an already complex system with another unnecessary requirement. It
was further agreed that the Permit would not include WAC 173-303-620
requirements because these provisions do not apply to the federal government.
This condition, as well as all of the proposed conditions under II.H., reflect
an inappropriate level of regulatory control because the conditions explicitly
require information from a Permittee who is exempt from these requirements.
Condition: II.H.2.b.
Page, lines: Page 36, line 47 - Page 37, line 2
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis to require any submission of this
nature because the federal government is exempt from this requirement.
However, it was agreed that anticipated costs for postclosure for individual
TSD units will be included in the first annual update of the anticipated costs

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 112 of 223
03/16/92
report after inclusion of the TSO unit into the Permit. This is a voluntary
action on the part of the commenters.
Condition: II.H.2.c
25.192 Page, lines: Page 37, lines 4,5
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The only cost projections that the commenters agreed to
#sac^^;1^-the-^epor: o .hose for final status TS"u units that are included
in the Permit ( refer to comment on Draft Permit condition II.H.1.b.). For
several years there will be units for which postclosure permits have not been
co prepared or submitted, let alone accepted. There is no regulatory rationale
or basis for requiring such a facility-wide estimate because the federal
government is exempt from financial reporting requirements. Notwithstanding
the exemption, a requirement to obtain an estimate for overall facility
postclosure costs is totally impractical requiring unreasonable guesses as to
the cost of closure for TSD units that do not, as yet, even have an accepted
postclosure permit. The commenters cannot submit such unsubstantiated cost
projections.
11.1. OPERATING RECORD
Condition: II.I.1.
25.193 $:g", 11ne's° "rage 37, line 9 to Page 39, line 23
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect the facility recordkeeping
requirements as found in WAC 173-303-380. The condition should read:
e20312.1339-11
The Permittee shall keep a written operating record at the facility.
The following information shall be recorded, as it becomes
available, and maintained in the operating record until closure of
the facility:
a. A description of and the quantity of each dangerous waste
received or managed onsite, and the method(s) and date(s) of its
treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility, kept in accordance
with WAC 173-303-380(2);
b. The location of each dangerous waste within the facility and the
quantity at each location. For disposal facilities, the location
and quantity of each dangerous waste must be recorded on a map or
diagram of each cell or disposal area. This information must
include cross-references to specific manifest document numbers, if
the waste was accompanied by a manifest;
c. Records and results of waste analyses required by
WAC 173-303-300;
dr--Summary- raport; and details of all incidents that require
implementing the contingency p1an, as specified in
WAC 173-303-360(2)(k);

9m3I2.1539-11
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 113 of 223
03/16/92
e. Records and results of inspections as required by
WAC 173-303-360(2)(k);
f. Monitoring, testing, or analytical data, and corrective action
where required by WAC 173-303-630 through 173-303-680;
g. All closure and postclosure cost estimates required for the
facility;
h. For offsite facilities, copies of notices to generators
informing them that the facility has all appropriate permits, as
required by WAC 173-303-290;
Justification: The facility recordkeeping requirements in this condition are
inconsistent with the requirements in WAC 173-303-380. The requirement in
Draft Permit condition 11.1.1 also is inconsistent with the meaning behind the
language of 40 CFR 264.73. The Agency states in 45 FR 33189: ...the large
area of some facilities and the variety of functions performed at some
facilities, make it very unlikely that all required information would be
recorded In one operating log at only one location. In writing the proposed
rules, the Agency assumed a number of logs or records, would be maintained at
a site.' All such records at a facility-taken together would then constitute
the facility's operating record.
As indicated in the referenced register, the Agency never intended for the
facility's operating record to be maintained in one location at the facility.
The regulation in 40 CFR 264.73 was written to require maintenance of certain
documentation that is pertinent to dangerous waste activities. The language
in WAC 173-303-380(1) is essentially identical to the language in
40 CFR 264.73(a) and (b). The operating record is kept at the Hanford
Facility in accordance with these regulations; the various records at their
respective locations taken together constitute the facility operating record.
Pursuant to WAC 173-303-380, the owner or operator is required to keep a
written operating record that must be maintained until closure of the
facility . The requirement to maintain the operating record for the TSD
facility "until 10 years after postclosure or corrective action is complete
and certified, whichever is later" is excessive. The WAC 173-303-380(3)(b)
indicates that the retention period is extended automatically during the
course of any unresolved enforcement action regarding the facility or as
requested by the Director; but this application of that authority is
unfounded. Record retention is not normally requested by the Director to be
extended for such an extraordinary length of time upon issuance of a permit.
Even postclosure plans are only required to be kept 'during the remainder of
the postclosure period."
The WAC 173-303-380 requires recording of information as it becomes available,
and maintaining it in the operating record. Interpreting this requirement to
be accomplished within a specified time frame in the manner as has been done
will result in management inefficiency and poor use of resources. Draft
Permit condition 11.1.1 is written in a context that would require transferral
of unit-specific records to a'facility-wide" operating record within
48 hours. The regulations are void of a requirement to keep records at one

COMMENiS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 114 of 223
03/16/92
centralized location. Activities at many units are independent of those
activities at other units; attempts to transcribe information to a facilitywide
operating record under a 48-hour deadline eventually would result in an
unnecessary administrative burden. This activity would do nothing to improve
protection of human health and the environment.
The scope of the operating record as written in Draft Permit condition II.I.1
goes beyond that in the rule; the use of the phrase "but not be limited to" in
the condition on page 37, line 22 is vague and as such, would be
unenforceable.
Additionally, some documents are referenced for inclusion in the operating
C:=. record without a regulatory basis. This is an unnecessary level of regulatory
control that will result in management inefficiency and poor use of resources
without adding any benefit to the protection of human health and the
environment. Documents that must be kept at the facility pursuant to
WAC 173-303 need not be specified for inclusion in the operating record
77. to preserve the regulator's authority to inspect them. The
_j_ WAC 173-303-810(10)(b) and 173-303-380(3)(a) both provide the regulator with
cf- the authority to request access to those facility records required by
WAC 173-303. This authority is not limited to the operating record.
Unnecessary incorporation of information to a specified location or
maintenance of unrequired information in the operating record is inefficient
and will result in a poor application of resources. The regulator
relinquishes no authority by establishing the permit condition concerning the
operating record consistent with WAC 173-303-380(1).
Comments on each of the Items a-z found in Draft Permit condition II.I.1. are
provided as follows:
Condition: II.I.1.a.
25.194 Page/Lines: Page 37, Lines 25-27
Coomnt/Action: Rewrite condition II.I.1.a to reflect the requirement in
WAC 173-303-380(1)(b). Condition II.I.1.a should read:
The location of each dangerous waste within the facility and the
quantity at each location. For disposal facilities, the location
and quantity of each dangerous waste must be recorded on a map or
diag ram of each cell or disposal area. This information must
include cross-references to specific'manifest document numbers, if
t,:e wsste was accompanied by a manifest;
justification: The proposed language accurately reflects the requirement in
WAC 173-303-380(1)(b). The regulations do not extend mapping requirements to
generator activities. The WAC 173-303-200 requires that satellite areas be at
or near the point of generation where wastes initially accumulate. The
generation of this waste must be under the control of the operator of the
--process-yenerating- thewaste. -ny, virtue of this requirement, satellite areas
often must be flexible to accommodate the generating activity location. A
permit condition mandating the mapping of points of generation goes beyond the
regulatory requirement in WAC 173-303-380(1)(b); such a requirement will
•result in management inefficiency and poor use of resources. The requirement
9aosuAs»-u

25. 195
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 115 of 223
03/16/92
for a map or diagram is limited to disposal facilities. The regulatory
requirement has been satisfied by the map that has been provided showing the
location of all TSD units at the Hanford Facility.
Condition: II.I.1.b.
Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 29-30
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect WAC 173-303-380(1)(c).
Condition II.I.1.b should read:
Records and results of waste analyses required by WAC 173-303-300;
Justification: The condition as written goes beyond the authority of
WAC 173-303-380. The WAC 173-303-380(1)(c) requires that the operating
record must contain records and results of waste analyses required by
WAC 173-303-300, not all analyses. This requirement is specific to certain
analyses used to confirm knowledge about waste that is treated, stored, or
disposed of. To expect records and results of analyses beyond what is
required to confirm knowledge about waste constitutes is an inappropriate
level of regulatory control.
Condition: II.I.1.c.
196 Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 32-36
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect the requirement found in
WAC 173-303-380(1)(d). The condition should read:
920312.1539-11
Summary reports and details of all incidents that require
implementing the contingency plan, as specified in
WAC 173-303-360(2)(k);
Justification: The proposed language accurately reflects the requirement in
WAC 113-303-380(1)(d). The condition as written does not reflect any
requirement found in WAC 173-303-380 and constitutes an inappropriate level of
regulatory control. This condition has been written to extend beyond what is
required by WAC 173-303-380(1)(d) to include unusual occurrence reports and
offnormal occurrence reports without regulatory basis. These internal
recordkeeping activities are outside the scope of regulatory authority.
The operating record will include summary reports and details of incidents
that require implementation of the contingency plan, as required by the
regulations. Unusual occurrence reports and offnormal occurrence reports are
internal documents and extend beyond what is necessary to comply with
regulatory requirements. Any incidents that are regulated under RCRA will be
reported as required. In some cases, that might include information from an
unusual or offnormal occurrence report, but it cannot be agreed to routinely
place documents that address matters outside the scope of the RCRA contingency
plan in the RCRA facility operating record.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 116 of 223
03/16/92
PwwA4*iw,: ^ 4V..V I r IV.
II.I.1.d.
25.197 Page/Lines: Page 37, line 38
Coam+ent/Actioa^--DelPte-thi-s condition. The waste analysis plan is required
to be kept at the facility; placement in the operating record is redundant.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-300(5) stipulates that the owner or operator
shall develop and follow a written waste analysis plan which describes the
pr^cedures...He must keep this plan at the facility... There is no known
specific requirement at WAC 173-303-380 to keep the waste analysis plan in the
operating record, although there is a requirement to have records and results
of waste analyses;-this-requirement has-been_addressed in the comment on Draft
Permit condition II.I.l.b. The written waste analysis plan will be kept at
the facility in accordance with WAC 173-303-300(5).
Condition: II.1.1.e.
Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 40-42
r; Coment/Action: Delete this condition. The appropriate WAC 173-303-380
requirement concerning manifests has been addressed in the comment on Draft
Permit condition II.I.1.a. The commenters' proposed language for Draft Permit
condition II.I.1.a includes the statement:
this information must include cross-references to specific manifest
document numbers, if the waste was accompanied by a manifest.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-380(1)(b) calls for cross-references to
specific manifest document numbers, If the waste was accompanied by a
manifest, not actual manifests or reports associated with unmanifested
shipments. Requirements for keeping copies of manifests are found in
WAC 173-303-210 for generators and in WAC 173-303-370(3)(e) for owners and
operators that receive waste from offsite sources.
Condition: II.I.I.f.
25.199 Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 44
Coaatent/Aetion: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement to.keep this plan in the operating
_--agcord, __?.he-WAC-1-73-a03-350(4) contains the requirements for maintenance of
the contingency plan. The plan will be kept at the facility in accordance
with the requirement.
Condition: II.I.I.g.
25.200 Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 46-47
. Conwent/Action: Delete this condition.
9aaau,1sW-,1
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to keep these
documents in the operating record. The training program requirements are
addressed in the unit-specific training plans. The written training plans,
which include the documents and records identified in WAC 173-303-330(2), will
be kept at the facility. Maintaining this information as part of the
operating record will result in unnecessary increased costs.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 117 of 223
Q3/16/92
Condition: II.I.1.h.
25.201 Page/Lines: Page 37, lines 49-51
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to properly reflect the requirement
found in WAC 173-303-340(5). The condition should read:
Documentation of refusal by state or local authorities that have
declined to enter into agreements in accordance with
WAC 173-303-340(4).
Justification: The only requirement for information related to preparedness
and prevention to be in the operating record is found at WAC 173-303-340(5).
This requirement is limited to placing documentation in the operating record
for situations where state or local authorities decline to enter into
agreements concerning response arrangements. Requiring all arrangements
pursuant to WAC 173-303-340 constitutes an inappropriate level of control.
Condition: II.I.1.i.
25.202 Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. There is no requirement to document
such information in this manner. The operating record requirement pertains to
documenting in the operating record incidents requiring implementation of the
contingency plan.
25.203
92a;12.1539-11
Justification: There is no regulatory authority to require reporting of
releases of radioactive substances under this Permit. Source, s pecial
nuclear, and by-product materials governed under the AEA are.excluded from
regulation under RCRA. The appropriate requirement is addressed in the
comment on Draft Permit condition II.I.1.c. This condition adds nothing in
terms of additional protection of human health or the environment, and can be
expected to result in protracted legal entanglements that will expend time and
money that could be better spent in conducting cleanup actions. Refer to
related comment on Draft Permit condition I.E.15.
Condition:
Page/Lines:
Comment/Action:
condition II.H.
II.I.1.3.
Page 38, lines 5-7
Delete this condition. Refer to comments on Draft Permit
Justification: It has been agreed to provide projections of anticipated costs
for closure of final status TSD units (i.e., those units for which final
status permit chapters have been incorporated into the Permit) on an annual
basis in a separate report, as discussed in comments for Draft Permit
condition II.H. There is no regulatory basis for extending requirements to
include "interim measures and final corrective measure cost estimates and
-financial assurance documents.= Refer to related comments on Draft Permit
conditions II.H. through II.H.2.c.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERNIT 118 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.I.I.k.
25.204 Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 9-10
Comment/Action: Amend the Permit Condition Authority Table at page 6 of the
Draft Permit to indicate that the Agency has sole authority for this
condition.
Justification: This condition currently is enforceable only by the Agency,
because the state of Washington has not yet been delegated HSWA authority.
There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to place this information in the
operating record.
Condition: II.I.1.1.
,-:-,
^^5.205 Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 13-22
-mm Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to place this
information in the operating record.
Cr
25.206
Condition: II.I.1.m.
Page/Lines:-- Page 38, lines 24-25
Coanent/Action: Delete this condition. The appropriate requirement is found
in WAC 173-303-380(1)(d). This requirement has been addressed in the comment
on Draft Permit condition II.I.1.c.
25.207
Justification: The requirement in WAC 173-303-380(1)(d) is explicitly limited
to summary reports and details of all incidents that require Implementing the
contingency plan, as specified in MAC 173-303-360(2)(k). Refer to related
comments on Draft Permit conditions II.I.1.c and II.I.1.i.
Condition-^
-----•-•-••
fi..i.i_....n .__.
Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 27-28
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to include this
information in the operating record; its inclusion would do nothing to protect
human health and the environment.
Condition: 11.1.1.0.
25.208 Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 30-32
Cooiwnt/Action: Delete this condition.
+aaaia.ls»- n
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to include this
information in the operati ng record. This condition constitutes an
inappropriate level of regulatory control.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition:
25.209 Page/Lines:
Comment/Action
25.210
II.I.I.p.
Page 38, line 34
Delete this condition.
119 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: There is no requirement for these reports to be kept in the
operating record. However, 173-303-380(3) states that all facility records,.
including plans that are required by Chapter 173-303, must be furnished upon
request. This does not mean that such records•must be kept as part of the
operating record. Maintenance of this information as part of the operating
record would result in management inefficiency and poor use of resources.
Condition: II.I.1.q.
Page/Lines: Page 38, lines 36-38
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect WAC 113-303-380(1)(f).
This condition should read:
Monitoring, testing, or analytical data, and corrective action where
required by WAC 173-303-630 through 173-303-680;
Justification: This condition should be changed to more accurately reflect
the requirement of WAC 173-303-380(1)(f) pertaining to final status
facilities.
Condition: II.I.1.r.
25.211 Page/Line: Page 38, line 40 - Page 39, line 8
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-380 identifies the requirements for the
operating record. This condition as written does not fit in the listing of
what must be kept as the operating record. This language details
requirements, without regulatory basis, for what monitoring information shall
consist of. This condition constitutes an inappropriate level of regulatory
control.
Condition: II.I.1.s.
25.212 Page/Lines: Page 39, line 9
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to keep such
information in the operating record. Further, there is no requirement in
40 CFR 264.73 to keep this information in the operating record. Section 9.0
of the FFACO Action Plan provides for the development and maintenance of
administrative records for all response actions for CERCLA Past Practice
--- ------ --- -operable-unitt and-corrective action3-for RCRA fas't Practice operable units.
The administrative record requirements of CERCLA have been imposed on both
CERCLA and RCRA operable units, which exceed the record requirements of RCRA.
C.orrective action must be administered in accordance with the FFACO, which
indicates that the Agency shall have authority until such time that the state
of Washington receives this authority. Even if the state program is later
_authorized by the Agency in lieu of the federal program, the Department is
920312.1539-11

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 120 of 223
03/16/92
bound by the FFACO to follow the processes provided therein for corrective
action, including record requirements.
Condition: II.I.1.t.
25.213 Page/Lines: Page 39, line 11
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
`cra
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC'173-303-380 for this condition.
It is unclear what progress reports might be expected. All required
notifications will be handled in accordance with the applicable WAC 173-303
section. Without a firm regulatory basis and clarification, the Permittee
would be unable to comply with this condition because it is too vague.
Condition: II.I.1.u.
125.214 Page/Line: Page 39, line 13
--Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380 to keep other
environmental permits in the facility operating record.
Condition: II.I.1.v.
25.215 Page/Lines: Page 39, line 15
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement for this condition in WAC 173-303-380.
Deed notifications will be handled in accordance with WAC 173-303-610(10).
Condition:
II.I.1.w.
25.216 Page/Lines:
Page 39, line 17
Coawent/Action: Delete this condition. There is no requirement to keep such
information in the operating record.
910312.1539-11
Justification: The WAC 173-303-610(3)(a) states the requirement for the
facility to have a written closure plan, but does not mandate that it be kept
in the operating record. Facility closure cannot occur before closure of the
last individual operating unit. Naturally, in the interim, partial closure
activities will occur. The facility closurle plan will grow as additional
final status units are added to the Permit through the modification process.
Maintenance of closure plan information in the operating record is redundant
and-would result in manageaent inefficiency and poor use of resources.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 121 of 223
03/16/92
25.217 Condition: II.I.1.x.
Page/Lines: Page 39, line 19
^----•^^^"^^ Mthis Modify condition to reflect the regulation at
WAC 173-303-380(1)(e). The condition should read:
Records and results of inspections as required by
WAC 173-303-320(2)(d), General inspection. Such information need be
kept only for 5 years.
Justification: The requirement at WAC 173-303-380(1)(e) is specific to
general inspectfion-and such information-neea -be kept-only for 5 years.
Maintenance of general inspection records beyond what is required by
regulation constitutes an inappropriate level of regulatory control and is a
poor use of resources.
Condition: II.I.1.y.
25.218 Page/Lines: Page 39, line 21
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. The comment on Draft Permit condition
II.I.1.x addresses all requirements concerning inspection.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-380(1)(e) that extends
to all inspection reports required by a permit. Refer to related comment on
Draft Permit condition II.I.1.x.
Condition: 11.1.1.z.
25.219 Page/Lines: Page 39, line 23
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no blanket requirement such as this in
WAC 173-303-380. The regulator will receive and have access to reports
required by this Permit in accordance with the regulations.
Condition: 11.1.2
^c "n Dans linee• Dann 70 lines 25-41
LJ.LLU O"! ' 7^ .f
Comment%Action: Delete this condition.
9msu.1s3s-u
Justification: There are two requirements specified in this condition. The
first, the requirement to submit an annual certification statement to the
Department, by reference to 40 CFR 264.73(b)(9), has no regulatory basis. The
reference as used here pertains to an Agency requirement for inclusion of the
certification in the operating record and has been used out of context. The
submittal of a separate certification statement annually is duplicative.
Secondly, although the requirement for an annual report on waste minimization
accomplishments might be justified under WAC 173-303-390, a separate report is
duplicative of other reports already filed to the Department. Biennial
reports on waste minimization are.required pursuant to 40 CFR 264.75 (h) and
(i). These reports are submitted to the Department by March 1 of even
numbered years. Waste minimization reporting is now required under Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know ( EPCRA) 313 for the chemicals found in
40 CFR 372.65 that exceed the reporting threshold.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 122 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: 11.1.3
25.221 22i
lines: Page 39, 43-44
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This requirement is duplicative of Draft Permit
condition I.E.22.
Condition: II.J.1 Facility Wide Closure Plan
25-222Pag&, lines• Page 40, li.n.e 3- Page 41, line 22
Comment/Action: Delete condition II.J.1 and all its subparts in their
r; entirety.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis contained in WAC 173-303 for a
+= --Refer_tQ Justifiratien for ; omment on Draft Permit condition
II.J.I. In addition, interim status closure plans should not be included in a
final status Permit because there is no regulatory basis for their inclusion.
12013.7lri-13

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERNIT 123 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
25.225 P a ge,
C
II.J.1.a.2.
Delete thise condition,l7-20
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit condition
II.J.1. Also, because all closure activities that are included in closure
plans are based on following the requirements outlined in WAC 173-303-610,
this condition is meaningless.
Condition: II.J.1.a.3.
25.226 Page, lines: Page 40, lines 22-23
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit condition
Condition: II.J.1.b.
25.227 Page, lines: Page 40, lines 26-38
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit
condition II.J.1.
Condition: II.J.1.c.
25.228 Page, lines: Page 40, lines 40-43
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit
condition II.J.1.
Condition: II.J.1.d.
25.229 Page, lines: Page 40, line 45 - Page 41, line 2
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for cosment on Draft Permit
condition II.J.1.
Condition: II.J.1.e.
25.230 Page, lines: Page 41, lines 4-5
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
920372.1539-II
Justification: Refer to 3ustification for comeent on Draft Permit condition
II.J.1. Also, there is no regulatory basis to require closure under
WAC 173-303-610 for anything other than units that have been permitted under
the authority of WAC 173-303. The remainder of the facility is considered as
past practice units and environmental restoration of these units already has
been agreed upon by all parties as outlined in the FFACO. The individual unit
closure plans satisfy the requirements of fU1C 173-303-610.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .124 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.J.I.f.
25.231 Page, lines: Page 41, lines 7-10
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to 3ustification for comment on Draft Permit
condition II.J.1.
Condition: II.J.1.g.
25.232 Page, lines: Page 41, lines 12-14
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
^mrd
Ili
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit
__-sondition II.J.1.
^ Condition: II.J.1.h.
2r,--403 Page, lines: Page 41, lines 16-22
(7' Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to Justification for comment on Draft Permit
condition II.J.1.
Condition: II.K. SOIL CLOSURE/REMEDIATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
25.233 Page, lines: Page 41, lines 24-29
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also refer to comments on Draft Permit
condition II.K. The Soil Cleanuo/Remediation for Hanford policy, dated
February 4, 1992, should not be included in the Permit. A policy is not a
regulatory requirement under NAC 173-303. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
uge a-policyasthe-basis_for a permit condition. In addition, the
Department's Solid and Hazardous Maste Program is intending to evaluate
---kAC-173-303-61D,- TSD-Flosure Rpaeire!!!ents, _^_..
during this regulatory revisions
cycle. Revisions to the regulations might be contrary to the subject policy.
Numerical cleanup standards should not be inciuded as-permit conditions
---because-the; -are- based on factors that are constantly changing as is evidenced
by the IRIS database.
9ea22.1ssv-11
In addition to these concerns, the policy is flawed. The approach or methods
used to develop the numerical cleanup standards were not based on well-founded
scientific principles or evidence. The nmmerical standards chosen in the
policy are below MTCA soil cleanup standards, which already are conservative
and were adopted after a comprehensive rule adoption process. The Department
provides no consistent or technically defensible basis for defining the
concentration levels in the policy. It is recoawended that the Department
should strive to develop a single, scientifically-based, and consistently
applied approach to establishing cleanup standards.

25.234
25.235
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 125 of 223
03/16/92
II.L. DESIGN AND OPERATION OF THE FACILITY
Condition: II.L.1. Proper Design and Construction
Page, lines: Page 41, lines 33-39
Comment/Action: This provision arbitrarily asserts authority over hazardous
substances under WAC 173-303 that are covered by other federal and state laws
and regulations. The condition also states provisions that differ from the
title of Draft Permit condition II.L.1. This provision should be deleted or
limited in scope. The following language is suggested:
The Permittee shall design and construct the facility to minimize
the possibility of a fire, explosion, and any unplanned release of
dangerous wastes or dangerous waste constituents in concentrations
that could endanger human health or the environment to the air,
soil, groundwater, or surface water.
Justification: This condition imposes requirements not within the scope of
the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) that are adequately covered by
other provision of state and federal law including the state equivalent of
Clean Air Act regulations ( WAC 173-400), (WAC 246-247), 40 CFR 61 (NESHAPs)
and General Regulation 80-7 of the local Air Pollution Control qg ency ( Comment
Attachment W). The proposed language is consistent with the titie for Draft
Permit condition II.L.1.
Condition: II.L.3.a.
Cao^nt lines:
42 ,
/Action: Delete thiseconditions 7-13
Justification: This condition unreasonably interferds with the Permittee's
ability to design and construct or modify units using accepted design and
construction practices by requiring Department review and approval for even
minor deviations from approved plans and designs. This Draft Permit section
and sections II.L.3.b, c, and d establish an unprecedented regulatory
requirement addressing the design and construction of permitted facilities.
Nothing in WAC 173-303 grants to the Department the design approval rights
sought to be created under these provisions. The Department's intended
purpose of approving all phases of the design and construction represents an
inappropriate level of regulatory control for a final status Permit.
Approving all phases of construction goes beyond the level of control
-necessary-ttr *nsnre compl-i-ance- and will result in management inefficiency and
poor use of resources.
Condition: II.L.3.b.
25.236 Page, lines: Page 42, lines 15-32
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
92o312.1539-11
Justification: This Draft Permit condition unreasonably and without
re9ulatory basis requires regulatory agency approval of even minor design
changes and represents an inappropriate level of regulatory control in a final
status Permit. This review and approval system goes beyond the level of
control necessary to ensure compliance with the Permit and will result in

--
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 126 of 223
03/16/92
management inefficiency by unnecessarily slowing down construction schedules.
This review and approval sytem over the design and construction of units at
the Hanford Facility is unwarranted. This Draft Permit section establishes an
arbitrary and unprecedented intrusion into the design and construction of
permitted facilities. If design changes are made during construction that
require modification of the Permit, then a Permit Modification will be sought
through the submittal of a revised permit application as provided by
regulation, before unit operations, which should provide ample opportunity for
review. The Department will continue to receive documentation of proposed
design changes for informational purposes and will be able to conduct onsite
construction inspections to ensure that the construction is completed
according to accepted engineering and construction practices.
This condition establishes an unwarranted and unprecedented conflict of
interest by making the Department, which is the authority responsible for
regulation, also effectively responsible for design, which is the
responsibility of professional engineers. This condition further might
represent a conflict with Washington State law with respect to the practice of
engineering. The Washington State Department of Licensing is the designated
state authority for determining who is qualified to practice engineering and
the regulation of the practice of engineering. The Department is neither
authorized nor licensed to practice engineering in the state of Washington.
From a practical construction standpoint, the situation created by this
condition would be totally untenable. Changes during the course of any
construction project are very common; for example, thousands can be expected
for a project as big and complex as the HWVP. No construction project could
be accomplished in any reasonable time if work had to stop for 7 days every
time there was a minor change in how the construction was going to be
accomplished. This condition places the major burden for project management
directly on the Department, which has neither the authority nor the personnel
and other resources to manage Hanford Facility_projects.
As just one example of the unacceptable impact this provision would have, the
commenters note that the Department, the DOE, and the EPA have recently
reaffirmed their intention to keep the HWVP on track for startup in December
1999. There has been significant public input demanding that the schedule be
met. If the unnecessary and unprecedented provision for prior review of
----- ---fngineering-Change-ilotices-is-retained; the-commenters are-certaifi-tirat they
will be unable to meet that goal. As a result of the condition, construction
will fall behind schedule almost as soon as it starts, and the DOE will be
forced to seek an extension of the startup date and interim milestones.
Imposition of this condition also will put the Department in a position of
having to explain to the public why its desire to micromanage construction on
the site is more important than the milestones established by the FFACO.
ae3,a.r^-fi

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 127 of 223
93/16/92
Condition: II.L.3.c.
25.237 Page, lines: Page 42, lines 33-41
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This condition requires Nonconformance Reports to be provided
to the Department and authorizes the Department to halt construction. This
condition represents an inappropriate level of regulatory control in a final
status Permit and will result in management inefficiency and poor use of
resources by unnecessarily slowing constructions schedules.,
From a practical construction standpoint, the situation created by this
condition would be totally untenable. No construction could be accomplished
in any reasonable time if work had to stop for 7 days every time there was a
minor change in how the construction was going to be accomplished. This
condition places the major burden for project management directly on the
=_E Department, which has neither the authority nor the personnel and other
resources to manage Hanford Facility projects.
25.238
920712.1539-1I
In addition, this permit provision establishes an unwarranted and
unprecedented conflict of interest by making the authority responsible for
regulation also responsible for design, which is the responsibility of
professional engineers. This permit provision further might represent a
conflict with Washington State law with respect to the practice of
engineering. The Washington State Department of Licensing is the designated
state authority for determining who is qualified t2 oracti-ce--engineeriag and
the regulation of the practice of engineering. The Department is neither
authorized nor licensed to practice engineering in the state of Washington.
Condition: II.L.3.d.
Page, lines: Page 42, lines 43-48
Page 43, lines 1-2
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The WAC 173-303 regulations provide no basis for this Draft
Permit condition that requires the submission of as-built drawings that
incorporate Engineering Change Notice and Nonconformance Report modifications
to the Department. There are no provisions in the WAC 173-303 regulations
that require submittal of 'as-built• drawings that incorporate
Engineering Change Notice and Nonconformance Report modifications. The
WAC 173-303-806(4)(b), (c), (d)(ii), (e)(iii), (f)(iii)(B), (h)(ii), and
(i)(i)(B) stipulate the design information that is required to be submitted
for the various types of units regulated under WAC 173-303. None of these
regulatory provisions requires submittal of •as-built' drawings. The
Department has no basis for this condition. If it is necessary to make
significant changes to a design, WAC 173-303-830 provides a detailed mechanism
for the submission and approval and listing of permit modifications. The
conditions as drafted exceed the authority provided under the regulations and
add no value to the overall process of assuring that the permitted unit is in
compliance with the terms of the Permit and the Department's regulations. The
effect of this requirement is an unwarranted interference in the management of
the Hanford Facility and will simply slow down the process of cleanup and add
significantly to the total cost without any resulting benefit.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 128 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.M. SECURITY
25.239 Page, lines: Page 43, lines 14-20
Comment/Action: Replace the last sentence with the following:
The Permittee may be required to comply with the requirements of
WAC 173-303-310(2) at particular units as determined on a
unit-by-unit basis.
___---- ------- _Justifizttion: As written- the Draft Permit condition appears to reauire
fencing on a unit-by-unit basis, whereas the Fact Sheet explains that this is
not necessarily required, but might be imposed at particular units. The
revision clarifies the intent of this paragraph to be consistent with the Fact
Sheet.
II.N. RECEIPT OF DANGEROUS WASTES GENERATED OFF-SITE
Condition: II.N.1. Waste From a Foreign Source
^;Z5.240 Page, lines: Page 43, lines 24-32
Comment/Action: The WAC 173-303-290(1) states, The facility owner or operator
who is receiving dangerous waste from a foreign source shall notify the
department in writing at least four weeks in advance of the date the waste is
expected to arrive at the facility. Notice of subsequent shipments of the
same waste from the same foreign source is not required. The present text in
the Draft Permit establishes requirements that exceed the requirements in the
regulation. The current Draft Permit text should be deleted and replaced with
the-Tal-l-owtng-textJto make-it-consistent with -the regulation, and to clarify
what constitutes a foreign source because this term is not defined.
The Permittee shall notify the Director and the Administrator in
writing at least four ( 4) weeks in advance of the date the Permittee
expects to receive dangerous waste from an entity that is not
located within the territory of the United States of America
(foreign source). Notice of subsequent shipments of the same waste
from the same source is not required. .
Justification: The current Draft Permit language goes beyond the scope of the
regufiation without justification. Annual renotification of the Department is
not required under WAC 173-303-290(1). The definition of "foreign source"
should be included because none is provided in WAC 173-303.
Condition: II.N.2. Notice to Generator
25.241 Page, lines: Page 43, lines 34-43
Comment Action: Delete the current Draft Permit conditibn and replace it with
the fol^owing:
The 3_enittee_shall Inform off-site waste generators in writing that
the Facility has the appropriate permits for, and will accept, the
waste the off-site generator is shipping. The Permittee shall keep
a copy of the written notice as part of the operating record
required under WAC 173-303-380(1).

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 129 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The WAC 173-303-290(3) states, The owner or operator of a
facility that receives waste from an off-site source ( except where the owner
or operator is also the generator) must inform the generator in writing that
he has the appropriate permit(s) for, and will accept, the waste the generator
is shipping. The owner or operator must keep a copy of this written notice as
part of the operating record required under WAC 173-303-290(3). The current
Draft Permit language goes beyond the regulatory requirements with no basis.
The regulation specifically applies to off-site sources and specifically does
not apply to waste generated by the owner or operator, either on-site or
off-site. Under the requirements of WAC 173-303-290(3), written notification
is only required to be made to off-site sources. There is no regulatory basis
for any other requirement.
Zy-
:x-.
Condition: 11.0. GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
,,,,;, 25.242 Page, lines: Page 43, line 45 to Page 45, line 23
Comment/Action: Delete all reference to General Inspection Requirements.
Delete the Facility-Wide Inspection Plan (Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit).
Justification: Refer to and incorporate the comment justification statement
pertaining to Draft Permit condition II.A.
197 Condition: 11.0. GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
Page, lines: Page 43, line 45 to Page 45, line 23
Comment/Action: Delete conditions 11.0.1 through II.0.2.d. Replace these
conditions with the following:
920313.1316-11
The Permittee shall inspect the permitted units included in Part III
of this Permit in a manner that satisfies the requirements of
WAC 173-303-320.
Inspections shall be in accordance with a written schedule for
inspecting all monitoring equipment, safety and emergency equipment,
security devices, and operating and structural equipment that help
prevent, detect, or respond to hazards to the public health or the
environment. This schedule shall be maintained in accordance with
WAC 173-303-320(2).
Justification: There is nothing in WAC 173-303-320 that requires or
authorizes the imposition of inspection of vast areas of land not used for
dangerous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. Very little of the
560 square miles of land that would be impacted by this condition is used for
TSD units. Most of the land is a security and buffer zone around the
operating areas. The WAC 173-303-320 states that the owner or operator shall
develop and follow a written schedule for Inspecting all monitoring equipment,
safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and operating and structural
equipment that help prevent, detect, or respond to hazards to the public
health or the_environaent. This requirement is specific concerning the
applicability of general inspection. Personnel at each TSD unit at the
Hanford Facility, including those under interim status, perform general
inspection in accordance with WAC 173-303-320. For TSD units operating
under final facility standards, general inspection is required by

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 130 of 223
03/16/92
WAC 173-303-600(1). For TSD units operating under interim status standards,
general inspection is required by WAC 173-303-400(3)(a)(i). General
inspection for interim status TSD units cannot be incorporated into the Permit
until these TSD units are incorporated via the modification process. General
inspection schedules are specific to equipment identified in
WAC 173-303-320(2); imposition of conditions beyond this is inconsistent with
other permits issued in the state of Washington [Refer to Texaco,
WAD009276197, condition II.F (Comment Attachment G); Shell Oil, WAD009275082,
condition II.F. (Comment Attachment H)]. This condition is not only without
regulatory basis, but also is inconsistent with the efficient expenditure of
taxpayer resources. Refer to also the justification sections of the following
comments on Draft Permit conditions 11.0.1, II.D.2.a., and II.0.2.b.
^Condition: II.0.1.
^43 Page, lines: Page 43, lines 48-49
+_= Comment/Action: Delete the statement, "...except as specified below."
Justification: The general inspection plan that has been submitted accurately
«- reflects the requirements in WAC 173-303-320. There is no regulatory basis
----for-specifying-addi-tionat-requirements-beyond-what-is provtded for by the
regulation; to do such would be inconsistent with other permits issued in the
state of Washington. Given the comprehensive nature of the FFACO, there is no
justification for requiring surveys of barren land.
Condition:
25.244 _ Paae - I ir.es-_- - ---
- -^-• -
Comment/Action:
11.0.2.
D,,.e Al i;..e: i=2
- =V- --, ; -
Delete this condition.
Justification: The modifications added to Draft Permit condition 11.0 go
beyond the scope of the regulations. The WAC 173-303-320 is specific
concerning general inspection and the written schedule criteria.
Condition: II.0.2.a.
25.245 - Page^ lines:- Page 44, lines 4-36
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Oao313.1316•11
Justification: There are no regulatory requirements for the detailed
conditions added to the existing general inspection plan. No requirement
exists that the entire surface area of a facility be inspected in accordance
with a schedule; rather, WAC 173-303-320 is specifically geared toward
prevention of malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and discharges
which may cause or lead to the release of dangerous waste constituents to the
environment, or a threat to human health. The schedule that must be developed
and followed should be based on efforts to identify problems associated with
dangerous waste management. The WAC 173-303-320(2) mandates a schedule to
inspect equipment consistent with this approach. The frequency of inspections
should be based on the rate of possible deterioration of equipment, and the
probability of an environmental or human health incident.

25.246
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 131 of 223
03/j6/92
The vast majority of area at the Hanford Facility consists of either inactive
-and -st-abil-i-zed--producti-on -un-its or unused land. The schedules used at the
Hanford Facility are consistent with the requirements. This Permit should be
consistent with other permits issued in Washington State.
Condition: II.0.2.b.
Page, lines: Page 44, lines 38-50
Page 45, lines 1-14
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The WAC 173-303-320(2) states that the owner or operator shall
develop and follow a written schedule for inspecting all monitoring equipment,
safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and operating and structural
equipment that help prevent, detect, or respond to hazards to human health or
:., the environment. Condition II.0.2.b inappropriately extends the requirement
for the written schedule required in accordance with WAC 173-303-320(2) to
encompass large sections of land. The inspection schedule is specific to
a^• equipment that helps prevent, detect, or respond to hazards to human health or
the environment. The frequency should be based on the rate of possible
deterioration of equipment, and the probability of an environmental or human
health incident. The specific items identified in condition II.0.2.b seem
more appropriate for a CERCLA preliminary assessment/site investigation or
RCRA facility assessment than an inspection schedule pertaining to general
inspection for a RCRA TSD facility.
Condition: II.O.2.c.
25.247 Page, lines: Page 45, lines 16-19
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no requirement in WAC 173-303-320 to notify the
Director or the Administrator before conducting any general inspection. The
Department and the Agency have authority to inspect the facility in accordance
with the FFACO and the respective applicable regulations. Additionally,
records of all required inspections are maintained in the operating record.
There is no added benefit to human health and the environment by providing the
Department and the Agency notifications before conducting general inspections.
Inspections of portions of the facility outside of operating TSD units occur
as part of normal activities and are not always scheduled in advance, making
prior notifications impractical. This level of control by the regulators is
inappropriate.
Condition: II.P. MANIFEST SYSTEM
25.248 Page, lines: Page 45, lines 25-28
_ Comment/Action:__ Rewrite_th-is cpndit-in1t_tp-prnperly reflect the requirements
of WAC 173-303-370. The condition as written omits the very important
provision in WAC 173-303-370(1) concerning applicability. Draft Permit
condition II.P should read as follows:
920373.1376-11

vtaats.^su-»
COMNENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERNIT 132 of 223
03/16/92
The Permittee shall comply with the requirements of
WAC 173-303-370(1), ( 2), (3), (4), and ( 5) when receiving dangerous
waste from off-site sources.
Justification: The manifest requirements of WAC 173-303-370 only apply to
owners and operators who receive dangerous waste from off-site sources. The
regulation at WAC 17- 303-370(1) states that the requirements of this section
apply to owners and erators who receive dangerous waste from off-site
sources ( emphasis adaed). The Department has inappropriately attempted to
impose the requirements for off-site waste shipments to on-site waste
movements. This condition, and a related one found on Page 22
(condition I.E.17), are unprecedented in applying the requirements of
WAC 173-303-370 to on-site transfers of dangerous waste.
Commenters do not agree that on-site waste movements require a manifest or its
equivalent. The WAC 173-303-040 defines on-site as the same, geographically
contiguous, or bordering property. The section further clarifies this
definition by adding that travel between two properties divided by a public
right of way, and owned, operated, or controlled by the same person, shall be
considered onsite travel if: The travel crosses the right of way at a
perpendicular intersection; or, the right of way is controlled by the property
owner and is inaccessible to the public.
The WAC 173-303-180 only becomes applicable to Hanford Facility waste
generating activity before transporting dangerous waste or offering dangerous
waste for transport off the site of generation. For on-site waste movement,
waste is transferred from the point of generation to TSD units along DOE-owned
roads that are not public right-of-ways in accordance with the definition at
WAC 173-303-040. The WAC 173-303-040 definition is derived from
40 CFR 260.10, which has been unchanged since adopted in 1980. In all that
time, the DOE has never used manifests for on-site shipments and the Agency
and the Department have never tried to impose such a requirement.
The Fact Sheet (Pages 8 and 20) stated the basis for this condition was the
potential long transport distances at the Hanford Facility and the intent of
the Department to treat all on-site waste movements as if they were to
off-site facilities.
The 'intent' of the Department to adopt an interpretation contrary to the
regulation is no 3ustification for doing so. The Department points to no
history of waste shipment discrepancies or transportation problems to 3ustify
treating the Hanford Facility as other than a single site. The Hanford
Facility is large, but most waste shipments are over much shorter distances,
such as within the 200 or 300 Areas. These shipments are over DOE-owned roads
that are closed to public access or subject to closure at DOE's direction.
The WAC 173-303-040 already has stipulated that travel can occur perpendicular
to a right of way, or that right of way can be controlled and made
inaccessible to the public, and still be considered on-site . Transfers at the
Hanford Facility clearly occur in a manner consistent with the meaning of the
terai 'on-site'.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 133 of 223
03/16/92
On-site waste tracking is applied at the Hanford Facility as a matter of good
management practice. A requirement to use manifests for on-site waste
movement would in no way add to the protection of human health and the
environment, and would increase an already overwhelming administrative burden.
The Department does not have the regulatory authority to impose
...
this
--reqLiremeni:.- Refer-to Colnmeflts oft r c re'r,^tt conditions 1.C.17.D and
III.1.B.g.
Condition: II.Q. ON-SITE TRANSPORTATION
25.249 Page, lines: Page 45, line 30 - Page 46, line 20
Comment/Action: Delete this condition and its subparts, II.Q.1 and II.Q.2.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis for this condition. This
condition has been inappropriately written to impose requirements for on-site
waste movement. The regulation in WAC 173-303-180 is applicable to generators
who offer waste for transport off the site of generation. The WAC 173-303-370
is applicable to dangerous waste facilities that receive waste from fo f-site
There are no shipping paper requirements for on-site movements. Tracking
mechanisms have been in place for the on-site movement of waste at the Hanford
Facility for many years; this documentation is used to ensure that waste
destined for further on-site or off-site management units is properly managed.
Furthermore, on-site transfers of dangerous waste meet all substantive
requirements of 49 CFR Parts 100-177; these regulations are applicable only to
off-site transport. Waste handling at the Hanford Facility is consistent with
that which is protective of human health and the environment. The
justification provided for the related comment on Draft Permit condition II.P
also is applicable to this comment. Refer to comments on Draft Permit
conditions I.E.17.b and III.1.B.g.
II.R. EQUIVALENT MATERIALS
Condition: II.R.3.
24.250 Page, lines: Page 46, lines 40-45
Comment/Action: Modify this condition to be consistent with WAC 173-303-830
provisions for approval or denial of class I permit modifications that require
Departmental approval. The following language is suggested:
920313.1316-I1
If, after reviewing the documentation required by permit condition
II.R.2., the Department determines that a substitution was not
equivalent to the original, the Department must notify the Permittee
by certified mail that the Permittee's claim of equivalency has been
denied and that the original material or equipment must be used.
Justification: The suggested language is consistent with the regulations at
WAC 173-303-830(4)(a)(i)(C) and is reasonable. If an equivalent material or
equipment already has been put into use before the notification of denial, the
Permittee will, in effect, be penalized by the requirement to return to use of
the original material or equipment. If the equivalent material has not been
put into use, then no violation will have occurred; mere possession of the
material or equipment is not a violation. The commenters are concerned that
the Fact Sheet offers no explanation of the basis for this condition or of the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 134 of 223
D3ji6/92
_ ^ - .._l.._.e_- .h
_
---- ------^r^tell2E^`tat--iii+kl_'^- b's-i7aeu- i^r^ erg!-^6!ng 1ne-@qll.ka 1 Cl!€y of the
ma4eri ... ^ 0al 5 or
equipment. - - -
Condition: II.S. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
251 Page, lines: - - -- Page 47, lines 1-5
Comment/Action: Rewrite the condition as follows:
Unless otherwise provided for in the FFACO, the Permittee shall
comply with all Land Disposal Restrictions requirements applicable
to TSD facilities in 40 CFR 268 and WAC 173-303-140, subject to
statutory or administrative extensions of requirements dealing with
mixed waste and subject to approved variances or waivers.
Justification: The Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) language in the FFACO is
;;- written in broad terms. Therefore the permit language should not use terms
-------"specifically identified' because that is subject to confusion and could be
misread as being inconsistent with the FFACO language. The additional
language dealing with administrative extensions, waivers or other variances is
Lr> a'ad'ea' to reflect the fact that other LDR variance mechanisms, such as the
present 2 year national capacity variance for radioactive mixed waste, are
potentially applicable.
25.252
25.253
920313.1316-11
Some parts of the LDRs are generator requirements and are not appropriate for
incfiusion in a TSD permit. [Refer to 40 CFR 268.7(a).] In addition, the
generator certification provisions only apply to a generator that sends waste
off-site, so these provisions would not apply within the Hanford Facility.
Condition:
Page, lines:
Coament/Action: -Delete
of the FFACO related to
than to RCRA corrective
II.T. ACCESS AND INFORMATION
Page 47, lines 7-12
this condit_ion._ Thiscondition references provisions
authority to take action pursuant to CERCLA rather
action activities.
Justification: The referenced section of the FFACO deals with access of the
DOE-RL to property not owned and controlled by the DOE-RL pursuant to
Section 104(e) of CERCLA, and might not provide the DOE-RL with authority to
obtain access for all corrective action work that might be required under this
-Permit. Therefore, the Draft Permit condition may impose upon the DOE-RL an
unachievable requirement. The Draft Permit condition should be deleted or
modified to recognize the DOE-RL might not be able to obtain access in all
cases,
Condition: II.U. MAPPING OF UNDERGROUND PIPING
Page: Page 47, lines 14-50; Page 48, lines 1-3
Coaiment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justificattorv,--CondittonII.ll.-requi-res-comprehens-ive maps '.. showir,g the
surveyed location of all dangerous waste underground pipelines and ancillary
equipment ( including active, inactive, and abandoned pipelines that at any
time contain or contained dangerous waste ... •

920313.1376-II
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 135 of 223
03/16/92
There are no specific regulatory requirements to prepare comprehensive
surveyed maps for the purpose of identifying active, inactive, and abandoned
dangerous waste lines, as the Draft Permit condition specifies.
The applicable dangerous waste regulations are:
WAC 173-303-380(1)(b): the operating record shall record ... the location of
each dangerous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location.
For disposal facilities, the location and quantity of each dangerous waste
must be recorded on a map or diagram of each cell or disposal area ...
WAC 173-303-640(5)(d): ... all tank systems holding dangerous waste shall be
marked with labels or signs to identify the waste in the tank. The label or
sign shall be legible at a distance of at least fifty feet, and shall bear a
legend which identifies the waste in a manner which adequately warns
employees, emergency response personnel, and the public of the major risk(s)
associated with the waste being stored or treated in the tank system(s).
(Note - If there already is a system in use that performs this function in
accordance with local, state or federal regulations, then such system will be
adequate.)
WAC 173-303-806(4)(c) and WAC 173-303-806(4)(c)(iv): Specific Part B
information requirements for tanks. Except as otherwise provided in
WAC173-303-600-(3), owners and operators of facilities that use tanks to
store or treat dangerous waste must provide the following information: a
diagram of piping, instrumentation, and process flow for each tank system.
Records are maintained at the Hanford Facility that describe both the location
and the quantity of all dangerous waste within the facility. These records
comply with WAC 173-303-380(1)(b).
This Draft Permit condition arbitrarily exceeds the requirement in the
Dangerous Waste Regulations. Information pertaining to the "piping,
instrumentation, and process flow for each tank system" is presently located
on many different engineering drawings, which collectively provide greater
information than would be provided by the maps requested in this Draft Permit
condition. In addition, the permit application documentation for each
individual TSD unit will provide a set of drawings showing locations of active
lines and process flow diagrams associated with that TSD unit. These
documents meet or exceed the requirements of WAC 113-303-806(4)(c) and
WAC 173-303-806(4)(c)(iv).
Maps of inactive and abandoned lines will be prepared during preparation of
work plans for the remediation of the corresponding operable unit in
accordance with the FFACO Work Plan. All inactive and abandoned waste lines
are generally flushed and capped before abandonment, so it is unlikely that
any significant dangerous waste residues remain in such lines. Therefore, the
ongoing risk to human health and the environment_from the_-abandoned lines
themselves is very small. There is no regulatory basis for mandating the
preparation of comprehensive surveyed maps of active, inactive, and abandoned
lines.
Furthermore, the time allowed for the tasks requested, if the tasks remain as
part -of - the -"rermit, is extremely unrealistic (for example; initial planning

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 131 of 223
03/16/92
could take approximately 4 months, the Request for Proposal could take
approximately 6 months, the Bid and Award process could take another 6 months,
etc.), and the cost involved is in the millions of dollars. There is no added
benefit to human health and the environment and no specific regulatory
requirements supporting the need for this condition. The information the new
maps would provide already exists in the Hanford Facility operating records.
Maps of each active, inactive, and abandoned pipeline will be made available
to the Department, the Agency, and the public when the maps are submitted with
each individual TSD unit Part B permit application ( for pipelines within
permitted unit boundaries) and/or in connection with the remediation of past
- pratt'tce-waSiE -s i4e's ( for pipelines within operable unit boundaries).
The Fact Sheet, which must provide "... a brief summary of the basis,
including supporting references..." for permit conditions per
WAC 173-303-840(2)(f)(iii)(C), provides neither basis nor references for
this extremely expensive, unnecessary mapping exercise. The time and money
spent to conduct these activities, if the condition is not removed from the
Permit, will have to come directly from efforts and funds that presently are
_a_J
alreciea toward more productive cieanup and waste management activities.
Condition: II.U.1.
25.254 Page, lines: Page 47, lines 16-27
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The time allowed for the tasks requested, if the tasks remain
as part of the Permit, is extremely unrealistic. Furthermore, the cost
involved is enormous. There is no added benefit to human health and the
environment and no specific regulatory requirements supporting the need for
this condition. The time and money spent to conduct these activities, if the
condition is not removed from the Permit, will have to come directly from
efforts and funds that presently are directed toward more productive clean up
and waste management activities. Refer to comment on Draft Permit
condition II.U.
Condition: II.U.2.
25.255 Page, lines: Page 47, lines 29-40
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
9msu.n16-n
Justification: The time allowed for the tasks requested, if the tasks remain
as part of the Permit, is extremely unrealistic. Furthermore, the cost
involved is enormous. There is no added benefit to human health and the
environment and no specific regulatory requirements supporting the need for
this condition. The time and money spent to conduct these activities, if the
condition is not removed from the Permit, will have to come directly from
efforts and funds that presently are directed toward more productive cleanup
and waste management activities. Refer to comment on Draft Permit
condition II.U.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition:
25.256 Page, lines:
Comment/Action:
25.257
II.U.3.
Page 47, lines 42-50; Page 48, lines 1-3
Delete this condition.
137 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The time allowed for the tasks requested, if the tasks remain
as part of the Permit, is extremely unrealistic. Furthermore, the cost
involved is enormous. There is no added benefit to human health and the
environment, and no specific regulatory requirements supporting the need for
this condition. The time and money spent to conduct these activities, if the
condition is not removed from the Permit, will have to come directly from
efforts and funds that presently are directed toward more productive cleanup
and waste management activities. Refer to comment for Draft Permit
condition II.U.
Condition: II.V. MARKING OF UNDERGROUND PIPING
Page, lines: Page 48, lines 5-12
Comment/Action: Delete this permit condition.
Justification: Draft Permit condition II.V requires the marking of
"underground pipelines identified in Draft Permit condition II.U.1. These
pipelines shall be marked at the point they exit or enter a fenced security
area, their origin and destination, at any point they cross an improved road,
and every 100 feet."
There are no specific regulatory requirements to post signs as indicated
above.
The applicable dangerous waste regulations are:
WAC 173-303-640(5)(d): ... all tank systems holding dangerous waste shall be
marked with labels or signs to identify the waste in the tank. The label or
sign shall be legible at a distance of at least fifty feet, and shall bear a
legend which identifies the waste in a manner which adequately warns
employees, emergency response personnel, and the public of the major risk(s)
associated with the waste being stored or treated in the tank system(s).
(Note - If there already is a system in use that performs this function In
accordance with local, state or federal regulations, then such system will be
adequate.)
This Draft Permit condition outlines a method of meeting
WAC 113-303-640(5)(d). However, the Hanford Facility already has a
system in place that exceeds the requirements of this regulation. This
system is outlined in the following paragraphs.
To prevent public access to the dangerous waste pipelines, the pipelines are
located within a controlled area where 24-hour surveillance is maintained with
armed guards.
To inform Hanford Facility personnel and visitors of the major risk(s)
associated with the waste, the exposed portions of tank systems are labeled
-- ------ ide.^.tifyi.^.g- the waste in the tank system and the major risk(s) involved. Most
tank systems are within a fenced barrier. Employees and visitors are escorted
920373.7316-11

25.258
ve1013. 13164 t
CgMMENTS_OM_THE_DpAFr WeuFOan Ferritrv PERMIT 138 of 223
v _--. 03/16/92
by trained personnel and/or receive specialized training in the unique hazards
that exist at the Hanford Site.
Furthermore, to inform Hanford Facility personnel or contractors of the major
risk(s) associated with buried dangerous waste lines when digging, an
excavation permit is required. The excavation permit provides all the
information necessary to identify the waste in a buried line and the
associated risks. The excavation permit also requires an exhaustive search of
the construction documents to identify all subsurface engineered structures
(not just dangerous waste pipelines). Information pertaining to these
underground appurtenancea_inc]udes_line_de$th,_ pipe size and material, product
handl4dr eonfigurati-on,-gxcavatien nreca^^tinns; etc, The excavation permit
exceeds the regulatory requirement cited above for identifying dangerous waste
and its associated risk(s).
Signs will provide no extra benefit and present several problems to the
Hanford Facility. It will be difficult to place signs in areas where several
lines run in the same direction ( and once there is a change in direction, the
signs will be useless in determining which pipelines diverged and which did
not). Some pipelines run underneath roads; the Draft Permit condition, as
written, would require signs to be placed on these roads, causing a safety
hazard.
There are no established standards for marking underground dangerous waste
lines. The Department has suggested to the commenters the use of American
Petroleum Institute (API) standards for the posting of the dangerous waste
lines. The API has two recommended practices for marking underground piping:
"RP1102, Recommended Practice for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines Crossing
Railroads and Highways" and "RP1109, Recommended Practice for Marking Liquid
Petroleum Pipeline Facilities." Both are obsolete; neither are readily
available; and both are under revision with no completion dates available.
The commenters have not been able to acquire a copy of the obsolete documents.
It_is_also-important-ta note-that--na-turaa gas companies post signs on their
pipelines only every 300 to 500 yards in rural areas and not at all in
populated areas.
The time allowed for the tasks requested, if the tasks remain as part of the
Permit, is extremely unrealistic. Furthermore, the cost involved is enormous.
There is no added benefit to human health and the environment, and no specific
regulatory requirements supporting the need for this condition. The time and
money spent to conduct these activities, if the condition is not removed from
the Permit, will have to come directly from efforts and funds that presently
are directed toward more productive cleanup and waste management activities.
II.W. OTHER PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS
Condition: II.W.1.
Page, lines: Page 48, lines 16-29
Coament/Action: This condition is arbitrarily drafted and exceeds regulatory
authority. Furthermore, there is no authority to require any such information
to be incorporated into a facility operating record. Revise the Draft Permit

920313.1316-I1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
condition to read identically to the regulatory language found at
WAC 173-303-800(5), as follows:
The Permittee is responsible for obtaining all other applicable
federal, state, and local permits authorizing the development and
operation of the TSD facility.
139 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: There is no regulatory authority.to require that other permits
must be submitted on the schedule specified in this condition, or any schedule
for that matter. The authority over other permits established by the WAC
regulations is as quoted above, and the permit language should be restricted
to this requirement. This condition exceeds the Department's regulatory
authority under RCRA. The Fact Sheet, which must provide "... a brief summary
of the basis, including supporting references .." for permit conditions per
WAC 173-303-840(2)(f)(iii)(C), provides neither basis nor references for this
requirement, portraying it as a "standard condition". This condition,
however, is not found in other Department/Agency joint permits [e.g., Texaco
WAD009276197 (Comment Attachment G); Shell, WAD009275082 (Comment
Attachment H)).
Furthermore, the 60-day requirement in this condition has no regulatory basis
and is wholly arbitrary. The length of time needed to prepare a permit
application is dependent on a number of factors, including the volume of
information required by the issuing agency. In the commenters' experience, it
is unreasonable to require submittal of permit applications no later than
60 days after the information to_prepare the permit is available. In some
cases, information might become available years before a permit is required,
and the implementation of regulations requiring permit applications becomes
the 60-day trigger. As an example, PSD permits have a defined lifespan of
only 18 months from issuance to start of construction. As such, the timing of
application submittal depends on when construction is planned to start, not
when the information becomes available. This illustrates the
inappropriateness of this Draft Permit condition.
The Department also is exceeding its regulatory authority by arbitrarily
defining the term "best efforts" in the Draft Permit. This definition is
unique to this Draft Permit and is arbitrarily drafted. "Best efforts" should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as is done for other Department and
Agency permittees. Many of the terms in this arbitrary definition are
undefined elsewhere in the Draft Permit, such as the terms "outside
contractors", "earliest opportunity", etc. This leads to ambiguity as to what
the regulators expect the Permittee to do to satisfy this permit condition,
counter to the stated purpose of this insertion as asserted in the Fact Sheet.
This condition also does not recognize that the DOE-RL may raise
that proper operation or maintenance was not possible because of
appropriated funds. The FFACO in Article XLVIII, paragraph 143,
DOE-RL's right to raise this defense and the Department's right
The Permit must be consistent with the FFACO.
as a defense
the lack of
preserves the
to dispute it.

ir8MMEMT3 ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 140 of 223
03/1¢/92
Condition:
II.W.2.
5.259 Page, lines: Page 48, lines 31-33
Coanent/Action: There is no regulatory basis for this condition. Delete this
condition.
Justification: Other permits are independent requirements placed upon the
Permittee by the agency(ies) issuing the permit. There is no regulatory need
or requirement to incorporate any such permit into the Dangerous Waste Permit.
The Fact Sheet states at Page 21 that "... any noncompliance with other
permits which are incorporated into this Permit will be enforced through the
provisions of that permit and not through the Dangerous Waste Permit." This
position argues against inclusion of other permits into this Permit in the
first place. However, the Draft Permit (page 7, lines 14-15) states that ". .
incorporated attachments are enforceable conditions of the Permit, as modified
by the specific Permit condition .. " Although other permits have not at this
time been specifically identified in the list of attachments, incorporation of
other permits is inconsistent with WAC 173-303-800(5), which states The
permittee is responsible for obtaining all other applicable federal, state,
and local permits authorizing the development and operation of the TSD
facility.
II.n. +vHEDv^LE EXTEiiJi^viiJ
Condition: II.X.1.
25.260 Page, lines: Page 48, lines 45-50 and Page 49, lines 1-4
Comment/Action: Delete this paragraph. This paragraph arbitrarily defines
"best efforts". This paragraph does not recognize the DOE-RL's right under
the FFACO to raise the defense that proper operation and maintenance could not
be achieved because of a lack of appropriated funds. The DOE-RL cannot
violate the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
O2031).1316-11
Justification: The Department is exceeding its regulatory authority by
attempting to arbitrarily define the term "best efforts" in the Draft Permit.
The first and third paragraphs of Section II.X.1 are standard regulatory
provisions mentioned in the WAC 173-303. This paragraph, however, is unique
to this Draft Permit and is arbitrarily drafted. There is no explanation in
the Fact Sheet for this unique permit condition.
"Best efforts' should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as is done for
other Department and Agency permittees. Many of the terms in this arbitrary
definition are undefined elsewhere in the Draft Permit, such as the terms
"outside contractors", "earliest opportunity', etc. This leads to ambiguity
astowh_at the regulators expect the Per^ittee to do to satisfy this permit
condition.
The Draft Permit does not recognize that the D0E-Rt may raise as a defense
that proper operation or maintenance was not possible because of the lack of
appropriated funds. The FFACO in Article XLVIII, paragraph 143, preserves the
DOE-RL's right to raise this defense and the_Department's-rigNt-to-dispute-it.
The Permit needs to parallel the FFACO on this issue.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 141 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: II.X.1.
25.261 Page, lines: Page 49, lines 23-24
Comment/Action: Delete this paragraph or replace the words "in the operating
record" with "on file at the facility."
Justification: There is no requirement found in WAC 173-303-380 or elsewhere
to keep this information in the operating record. Refer to comments on Draft
Permit condition II.I.
Condition: II.X.2.
25.262 Page, lines: Page 49, lines 26-30
Comment/Action: Make this section Section II.X.1 of the Permit, and
redesignate the amended Section II.X.1 of the Draft Permit as Section II.X.2.
926313.1316•II
Justification: The schedule extension procedures in the FFACO will govern
most of the major RCRA permitting schedules. Therefore, it should be clear
that the FFACO schedule extension procedure takes precedence, and the rest of
Section II.X. refers only to units that are not covered by the FFACO.

: ^4
^..
r('")
9=1Z.15N'11
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 142 of 223
03/16/92
This page intentionally left blank.

.
tr,
C;;-,
;^r^
25.263
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 143 of 223
03/16/92
COMMENTS ON PART III - UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
616 Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility
Condition: III.1.A. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION
Page, line: Page 50, lines 14-20
Comment/Action: Provide specific permit conditions for the 616 NRDWSF rather
than referencing the 616 NRDWSF Part B Dangerous Waste Permit Application.
The 616 NRDWSF Part B Dangerous Waste Permit Application should be used by the
Department as a source for developing permit conditions, and not merely
referenced in its entirety. An effort should be made by the Department to
develop an appropriate listing of permit conditions that can be used for
compliance purposes.
-3ustificat9se:--The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued under
WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the activities at 'final status
TSD facilities". At this time, there are only two TSD units identified in the
Draft Permit, the 616 NRDWSF and the HWVP, that the Department has determined
to have had the necessary information submitted for issuance of a'f1na1
facility permit'. •The scope of this permit, in accordance with the Dangerous
Waste Regulations, must be limited to these TSD units. There is no regulatory
authority for a"hybrid approach' or an "umbrella approach" that purports to
include interim status activities under the final status standards or that
purports to regulate activities not related to the final status treatment,
storage, or disposal of dangerous waste. The Permit must be explicit in the
scope of coverage; this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the
criteria for receiving final status. This is consistent with the FFACO, which
references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) as the federal authority to issue a permit in
this manner. Specifically, paragraph 25 of the FFACO states that the Action
Plan "establishes the overall plan to conduct RCRA permitting' and lists the
TSD units and groups "which are subject to permitting and closure under this
Agreement.' Paragraph 26 directs DOE to "comply with RCRA Permit requirements
for TSD Units specifically identified for permitting or closure by the Action
Plan . ' Paragraph 6.2 of the Action Plan acknowledges that not all TSD
units and groups can be permitted simultaneously, so "Ecology and the EPA will
issue the initial permit for less than the entire Hanford Site. . . . Any
units that are not included in the initial permit will normally be
incorporated through a permit modification.• The Action Plan is an integral
part of the FFACO. The Department's over-inclusive approach is therefore
contrary to these express provisions of the FFACO and fails to follow the
federal authority cited by the FFACO, 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4). Moreover, there is
no authority for the Department's approach in its Dangerous Waste Regulations.
92031Z. 1s4s-1i i
Based on the FFACO, which references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), the commenters
recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to incorporate
sections of unit-specific permit applications. For example, the commenters do
not object to the inclusion of documentation that was prepared specifically
for inclusion as permit conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related
compliance requirements, such as the unit-specific waste analysis plans and

leeft2.1St7-t1t
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 144 of 223
03/16/92
contingency plans. However, the Department has gone far beyond such specific
use of plans prepared for TSD facilities.
Throughout the Draft Permit, the Department has taken descriptive information
and documentation and turned this material into enforceable permit conditions
by including the material as attachments to the Draft Permit. Many of the
documents included in the Hanford Facility and unit-specific permit
applications were included for information with no intent that the documents
be included as permit conditions or altered beyond their intended purposes.
The wholesale inclusion of these permit application plans, specifications, and
information has resulted in a Draft Permit that contains provisions that are
far more detailed and stringent than the specific regulations the material is
intended to address. These documents, if incorporated, will be unnecessarily
subject to the permit modification process, thus adversely impacting the
management efficiency of the Permittee and the regulators.
Because of a sincere commitment by the DOE-RL to initiate site preparation for
the HWVP on schedule, the DOE-RL consented to provide several permit
application submittals despite a firm belief that the argument requiring the
submittals were of questionable merit, and not well-founded in the
regulations. These include the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan
(Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Preparedness and
Prevention Plan (Attachment 7 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility
Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan (Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford
Facility Inspection Plan (Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit) and the Hanford
Facility Waste Analysis Plan (to be provided at a later date). However,
because the Department has chosen to go beyond what had been previously
discussed and has attempted to impose numerous additional conditions that
would be very difficult and expensive to comply with, the commenters cannot
agree and must insist that the Permit be founded solely on the authorities
containe8 iw thir tegu i ati ons.
Other permit applicants in the Northwest who have been through Part B
permitting processes recently have achieved agreement with the Agency and
affected states to delete nonessential information from their permit
applications and to attach to their permits only those sections of plans and
information required under the regulations. These permits include:
Chemical Processors, Inc.
No. WAD000812909
Texaco Refining and Marketing
No. YAD009276197
Shell Oil Company
No. NAD009275082
Page 5, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comsent Attachment F)
Page 6, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment 6)
Page 6, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Coeiment Attachment H)

9ms12.1547- n 1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Chem-Security Systems, Inc.
No. 0RD089452353
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc
No. IDD073114654
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
No. WAD067548966
The attachments found in these pe,
from management plans or directly
in their Part A and Part B permit
that the same approach be applied
Facility Permit.
Page 9, no Part B permit
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment I)
Page 8, no Part B permit
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment J)
145 of 223
03/16/92
application;
application;
Page 5=6, no Part B permit
application; sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment K)
rmits are often copies of the relevant pages
pertinent descriptive information submitted
applications. The commenters are proposing
in a nondiscriminatory manner to the Hanford
The commenters request that they be given the opportunity to meet with the
Department and the Agency to craft appropriate permit conditions that comply
with the regulations and to identify and include the specific information
necessary to prescribe compliance with these regulations. This approach will
avoid excessive detail, ambiguity, and the inclusion of overbroad,
nonessential information. The commenters will work with the Department and
the Agency to identify and provide the relevant information for the Permit.
The commenters cannot agree to include facility-wide plans in the Permit
because there is no regulatory basis for doing so and because the Department
is putting such information to uses for which the information was not
originally intended. If the DOE-RL chooses to institute facility-wide
management policies or procedures to guide and assist in the development and
coordination of unit-specific plans as a management tool, that is appropriate.
However, there is no regulatory basis for incorporating facility-wide plans,
including those portions of the plans that do not pertain to final status
TSD units, into the Permit.
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation, no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the agencies may respond by deciding to
retain the full condition or address some but not all of the commenters'
concerns, the commenters have provided specific comments on individual
contested conditions with recommended language to correct other problems in
the condition. Regardless of how the agencies address the commenters'
principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive their
objections to the inclusion of the full condition or any overbroad portion
thereof in the Permit.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 146 of 223
03/16/92
tOndition: 111.1.8.a
25.264 Page, lines: Page 50, lines 24-27
Comment/Action: Delete this permit condition in its entirety. Use the permit
definition of dangerous waste proposed by the commenters to Draft Permit
definition (Dangerous Waste), Page 10, lines 5-11.
Justification: These additions clarify that the Department's jurisdiction is
over the hazardous components of mixed waste, not the radioactive components,
in accordance with RCRA Section 6905(a), 10 CFR Part 962, and EPA's Notice
Regarding State Authorization to Regulate the Hazardous Components of
Radioactive Mixed Wastes under RCRA, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,504 (July 3, 1986); also
refer to RCW 70.105.109 ( Department might regulate mixed wastes "to the extent
it is not preempted by federal law").
The AEA vests the DOE with the responsibility to assure the development,
utilization and control of atoxic energy for military and for all other
purposes vital to the common defense and security [42 U.S.C. f 2012(a)]. The
AEA also provides that The processing and utilization of source, byproduct,
and special nuclear material must be regulated In the national interest and in
order to provide for the coamwn defense and security and to protect the health
and safety of the public [42 U.S.C. 2012(d)]. In accordance with the AEA, the
DOE and its predecessor agencies have developed a comprehensive program for
the regulation of source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials in both
product and waste forms.
In 1976, Congress enacted the RCRA, a comprehensive cradle-to-grave management
scheme, administered by the EPA and authorized states, for the generation,
treatment, disposal, and recycling of hazardous waste. The scope of the RCRA
program is delineated by the definitions of "solid waste" and "hazardous
waste". The RCRA 1004(5) defines the term "hazardous waste" as a subset
within the universe of 'solid wastes", which are defined in Section 1004(27).
The definition of "solid waste" in RCRA expressly excludes "source, special
nuclear, or byproduct materials" as defined by the AEA. Those excluded
materials are regulated under the AEA either by the DOE or the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Because the materials are not solid wastes, the
materials cannot be hazardous wastes because all hazardous wastes must first
meet the definition of a solid waste.
In 1987, the DOE, after consultation with the EPA and other interested
parties, issued a Final Interpretive Rule (10 CFR Part 962) regarding the
definiti_on Qf__byproduct-material" set forth in Section 11(e)(1) of the AEA
(May 1, 1987, 52 FR 15937) for purposes of RCRA applicability. Under the
---fiule-, -the-AEA--term--lbyproduct :.ater#:l" =ans:
smsuAscr-i u
any radioactive material yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the
-radiation-inctdent-to-the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear
material.
The Final Rule clarifies the DOE's obligation under RCRA as applied to
"radioactive mixed waste" i.e., those radioactive waste substances that are
also "hazardous" within the meaning of RCRA. The Final Rule states that "the
words 'any radioactive material' as used in the term 'byproduct', refer only

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 147 of 223
Q3/16/92
to the actual radionuclides dispersed or suspended in the waste substance.
The nonradioactive hazardous component of the waste will be subject to
regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act." The principle
effect of the Final Rule is that handlers of radioactive mixed wastes, such as
the DOE, are subject to dual regulations; the handler must comply with both
the requirements of the AEA for the radioactive component and RCRA regulations
for the management of the nonradioactive hazardous waste component.
The Preamble to the DOE's May 1, 1987 byproduct rule recognizes that the DOE
is the federal agency responsible for authoritatively construing the
requirements of the AEA, as that Act applies to DOE facilities.
^7c' ... it seems apparent that RCRA was intended to have some applicability to
materials that were already regulated under the AEA. Section 1006(a) of RCRA,
..., specifies that as to 'any activity or substance' subject to the AEA, RCRA
regulation must yield, but only to the extent of inconsistent requirements of
the AEA. The archetypal substances that can fairly be described as 'sub, lect
to" the AEA are substances containing source, special nuclear and byproduct
material, to which the AEA expressly is directed. (52 FR at Col. 1,
page 15940).
The preamble explains the effect of language of RCRA and AEA as follows:
Read together, DOE believes that the definitional exclusion and the language
of section 1006(a) are correctly understood to provide for the regulation
under RCRA of all hazardous waste, including waste that is also radioactive.
RCRA does not apply to the radioactive component of such a waste however, if
it is source special nuclear or byproduct material. Instead, the AEA applies
to that radioactive component. Finally, if the application of both regulatory
schemes proves conflicting in specific instances, RCRA yields to the AEA
(emphasis added) (Id. at Col. 2, para 1).
In addition the preamble states:
While DOE does not anticipate that adoption of today's final rule will lead to
frequent cases of 'inconsistency', section 1006(a) provides critical assurance
that the implementation of the final rule will create no impediment to the
maintenance of protection of radiological hazards as well as DOE's
accomplishment of its other statutory responsibilities under the AEA (emphasis
added) (Id. at Col. 2, Para 2).
The DOE's byproduct rule therefore appropriately recognizes the dual AEA/RCRA
regulation of mixed waste while preserving the exclusion of the source,
special nuclear, and byproduct component of the waste from regulation under
RCRA, and also recognizes the supremacy of AEA authority in the event of a
conflict. This approach has been most recently confirmed by the Agency's
____ Clarifisation -Notimof September--23,-?988, ewtitled Clarification of Interim
Status Qualification Requirements for the Hazardous Components of Radioactive
Mixed Waste ( 53 Fed. Reg. 37,045). In the September 23, 1988 Notice, the EPA
committed to a strategy of minimizing the impact of RCRA regulations by
developing an approach for joint regulation of radioactive mixed waste 'that
will affect program implementation in the least burdensome manner
practicable." In terms of the inconsistency issue, the EPA recognized that
920312.7547-11I

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 148 of 223
03/16/92
"implementation of the dual regulatory program for radioactive mixed waste
management might result in instances where compliance with both sets of
regulations is not only infeasible but undesirable." In cases where there was
an actual ir,consistency, the EPA acknowledged that the AEA would take
____ precedence; and the inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable.
The FFACO likewise contemplates that the DOE, not the Department, will have
authority over radioactive waste pursuant to the AEA. The FFACO at Article V
defines mixed waste as follows:
Radioactive Mix°^." Waste" or "Mixed Waste" are wastes that contains both
hazardous waste subject to RCRA, as amended, and radioactive waste subject to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Under Article I, Jurisdiction, the parties agreed that the state of Washington
173 would regulate the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
waste pursuant to the state HWMA and regulations governing the management of
hazardous wastes (WAC 173-303). As explained above, RCRA excludes source,
special nuclear, and byproduct materials from its definition of solid (and
therefore hazardous) wastes. Article I further states that "nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to require DOE to take any action pursuant to
RCRA which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended." FFACO, Art. I, 1 S. The DOE's authority to regulate
radioactive materials was therefore clearly preserved in the FFACO. The FFACO
provides for CERCLA removal actions at certain operable units. Radioactive
materials fall within CERCLA's definition of hazardous substance. This does
not, however, bestow any authority on the Department to regulate radioactive
materials as a hazardous waste under the RCRA permit.
Therefore, any assertion by the Department that the source, special nuclear,
or byproduct component of a mixed waste is subject to regulation under RCRA or
the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations is inconsistent with and
preempted by federal law as well as being inconsistent with the FFACO. It
would also be outside the scope of activities which can be subject to
regulation at a federal facility pursuant to Section 6001 of RCRA
--ji`c U.S.C. 6961j: To ensure the -issue does not resuit in future
misunderstanding, the definition must be modified as proposed herein.
Condition: III.1.B.b.
25.265 Pa9e, line: Page 50, line 29
Coeawsnt/Action: Delete this permit condition in its entirety. Use the permit
definition of facility proposed by the commenters to Draft Permit definition
(Facility), Page 10, lines 27-32.
+2a312As47-11:
Justification: This rewording would make the definition in the Permit the
same as that set forth in WAC 173-303. The definition as currently worded is
confusing. The WAC 173-303-040 definition is clear.
Also refer to the comment to Draft Permit condition I.A.1.b. As currently
drafted, the definition includes all Hanford Site land including that not used
by the DOE-RL for TSD pu rposes, land leased to others, and noncontiguous
DOE-RL land across the Columbia River. As thereafter used throughout the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .149 of 223
03/16/92
Draft Permit, the term results in operating permit conditions being applied to
areas where DOE-RL has no authority to control the acts of others. The
Department and the Agency have no authority to impose such conditions to these
areas under the Permit and these conditions conflict with the FFACO.
Condition: III.1.B.c.
25.266 Page, line: Page 50, lines 31-32
Conment/action: Delete this permit condition in its entirety. Use the permit
definition of facility proposed by the commenters to Draft Permit definition
( Facility), Page 10, lines 27-32.
Justification: This rewording will make the definition in the Permit the same
as that set forth in the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The
definition as currently worded can be interpreted in a manner inconsistent
with the regulations. The WAC 173-303-040 definition is clear.
Refer to the comment to Draft Permit condition I.A.1.b. As currently drafted
the definition includes all Hanford Site land including that not used by the
DOE-RL for TSD purposes, land leased to others, and noncontiguous DOE-RL land
across the Columbia River. As thereafter used throughout the Draft Permit the
term results in operating permit conditions being applied to areas where the
DOE-RL has no authority to control the acts of others. The Department and the
Agency have no authority to impose such conditions to these areas under the
Permit and these conditions conflict with the FFACO.
Condition: III.1.B.d.
25.267 Page, line: Page 50, lines 34-38.
Comment/action: Delete this permit condition in its entirety. Use the permit
definition of facility proposed by the commenters to Draft Permit definition
(Facility), Page 10, lines 27-32.
920312.1547-I1l
Justification: This rewording will make the definition in the Permit the same
as that set forth in the Department's Dangerous Waste Regulations. The
definition as currently worded can be interpreted in a manner inconsistent
with the regulations. The WAC 173-303-040 definition is clear.
Also refer to the comment to Draft Permit condition I.A.1.b. As currently
drafted the definition includes all Hanford Site land including that not used
by the DOE-RL for TSD purposes, land leased to others, and noncontiguous
DOE-RL land across the Columbia River. As thereafter used throughout the
Draft Permit the term results in operating permit conditions being applied to
areas where the DOE-RL has no authority to control the acts of others. The
Department and the Agency have no authority to impose such conditions to these
areas under the Permit and these conditions conflict with the FFACO.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 150 of 223
03/16/92
^ . . •
Condition: III.1.B.e.
25.268 Page, line: Page 50, lines 40-41
Comment/action: Modify Draft Permit condition III.1.B.e from "monthly" to
" .....,...
yua^ w
..- 1., "
9y .
Justification: The Draft Permit condition as written will require continuous
notification of "minor changes that keep the permit current with routine
changes to the facility or its operations." While the Department might have
authority to require reporting on a frequency that is determined by the
Director, the Department also has a responsibility to set a frequency that is
reasonable and that which the Permittee can comply. Requiring these reports
monthly is unreasonable and should be conducted, at the very most, quarterly.
Presently, only two operating TSD units are included in the Draft Permit.
However, eventually there will be in excess of 25 operating permitted
TSD units. Given the number of TSD units at the Hanford Facility that
eventually will be covered by the Permit, considerable resources will be
required to compile the collective report monthly._ The commenters have
serious reservations concerning the management efficiency and the value of the
monthly reports. The compilation will be very labor intensive to prepare and
process, and will take resources away from cleanup efforts. There will be no
added level of protection of human health and the environment.
^ Condition: III.1.8.f.
2_ .69 Page, line: Page 50, lines 43-44
Comment/action: Modify Draft Permit Condition III.1.B.f to read:
on or before the 21st day of the month following the end of a
quarter.
Justification: The Draft Permit condition as written will require continuous
notification of "minor changes that keep the permit current with routine
---- cha.n.ges to the facility or its operations.' While the Department might have
-- -- ---- authority to require reporting on a frequency that is determined by the
Director, the Department also has a responsibility to set a frequency that is
reasonable and that which the Permittee can comply. Requiring these reports
monthly is unreasonable and should be conducted, at the very most, quarterly.
Presently, only two operating TSD units are included in the Draft Permit.
However, eventually there will be in excess of 25 operating permitted
TSD units. Given the number of TSD units at the Hanford Facility that
eventually will be covered by the Permit, considerable resources will be
required to compile the collective report monthly. The commenters have
serious reservations concerning the management efficiency and the value of the
monthly reports. The compilation will be very labor intensive to prepare and
process, and will take resources away from cleanup efforts. There will be no
added 1evel of human health and the environment.
9aas2,54s...!

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 151 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: III.1.B.g.
25.270 Page, line: Page 50, lines 46-47.
Comment/action: Deiete Qraft Permit condition lii.i.B.g.
Justification: This condition unduly restricts operations at the 616 NRDWSF
and implies that manifesting is required for onsite waste transfers. The
manifest requirements of WAC 173-303-370 only apply to owners and operators
who receive dangerous waste from offsite sources. The regulation at
WAC 173-303-370(1) states that the requirements of this section apply to
owners and operators who receive dangerous waste from offsite sources.
(emphasis added). The Department has inappropriatel'y attempted to impose the
requirements for offsite waste shipments to onsite waste movements. This
condition, and a related one found on page 22 (Draft Permit condition I.E.17),
are unprecedented in applying the requirements of WAC 173-303-370 to onsite
transfers of dangerous waste.
The commenters do not agree that on-site waste requires a manifest or its
equivalent under WAC 173-303-040 (definition of "on-site"), -180, and -370(1).
The Hanford Facility is a single site and waste is transported from the point
of generation to TSD units along roads that are owned by the DOE and are not
public right-of-ways. Likewise, the statement in the Fact Sheet that the size
of the Hanford Facility somehow Justifies treating it differently is
unsupported by anything in the record. However, the commenters recognize the
need to reconcile discrepancies between the records of waste shipped and waste
received by permitted facilities.
The Fact Sheet (Pages 8 and 20) states that the basis for this permit
condition is the potential long transport distances at the Hanford Facility.
However, many transfers will be intra-area (e.g., within the 200 East Area),
for which the distances are no greater than exist at other RCRA permitted
facilities [e.g., Chem-Security Systems, Inc., Arlington, OR (Comment
Attachment I)].
On-site waste tracking is applied at the Hanford Facility as a matter of good
management practice. A requirement to use manifests for on-site waste
movement would in no way add to the protection of human health or the
environment, and would increase an already overwhelming administrative burden.
The Department does not have the regulatory authority to impose this
requirement.
Also refer to comment Justification statement for Draft Permit condition II.P.
Condition: III.1.B.h.
25•271 Page, line: Page 51, lines 1-6.
Comment/Action: Revise Draft Permit condition III.1.B.h to'reflect actions
identified for Draft Permit conditions I.E.16, I.E.17, I.E.18, I.E.19, and
I.E.20.
920312.1S47-III
Justification: Justification is as identified for actions required for Draft
Permit conditions I.E.16, I.E.17, I.E.18, I.E.19, and I.E.20.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .152 of 223
03/16/92
•
Condition: III.1.B.i.
25 272 Page, line: Page 51, lines 8-9.
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, the condition
should be rewritten to add the very important provision in WAC 173-303-370(1)
concerning applicability.
Justification: The manifest requirements of WAC 173-303-370 only apply to
owners and operators who receive dangerous waste from off-site sources. The
regulation at WAC 113-303-370(1) states that the requirements of this section
apply to owners and operators who receive dangerous waste from o fsi sources
(emphasis added). The Department has inappropriately attempted to impose the
requirements for off-site waste shipments to on-site waste movements. This
Draft Permit condition, and a related one found on page 22 (Draft Permit
condition I.E.17), are unprecedented in applying the requirements of
WAC 173-303-370 to on-site transfers of dangerous waste.
^.. The commenters do not agree that on-site waste requires a manifest or its
equivalent under WAC 173-303-040 ( definition of "on-site"), -180, and -370(1).
r• The Hanford Facility is a single site and waste is transported from the point
``' of generation to TSD units along roads that are owned by the DOE and are not
-----pubii-c -right=of-ways.--tiicewise,-fhL^ si;atement-in the Fact-Sheet that the size
of the Hanford Facility somehow justifies treating it differently is
unsupported by anything in the record. However, commen"ters recognize the need
to reconcile discrepancies between the records of waste shipped and waste
rece-ived-b-y-perr.!itted-faci_lities.
The Fact Sheet (Pages 8 and 20) states that the basis for this permit
condition is the potential long transport distances at the Hanford Site.
However, many transfers will be intra-area (e.g., within the 200 East Area),
for which the distances are no greater than exist at other RCRA permitted
facilities [e.g., Chem-Security Systems, Inc., Arlington, OR (Comment
Attachment I)J.
On-site waste tracking is applied at the Hanford Facility as a matter of good
management practice. A requirement to use manifests for on-site waste
movement would in no way add to the protection of human health or the
environment, and would increase an already overwhelming administrative burden.
The Department does not have the regulatory authority to impose this
requirement.
Also refer to comment Justification statement for Draft Permit condition II.P.
Condition: III.1.B.J.
25.273 Page, line: Page 51, lines 11-12.
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
naaIMsa-1i1
Justification: This represents an attempt by the Department to micromanage
operations at TSD units on the Hanford Facility. This represents a level of
regulatory control beyond that required to ensure compliance.

25.274
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 153 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
III.1.B.1.
Page, line: Page 51, lines 16-23.
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The Department has no authority to specify how waste
designations are reviewed. This level of regulatory control goes beyond that
required to ensure compliance.
Condition:
III.1.B.m.
25.275 Page, line: Page 51, lines 25-28.
Comment/Action: Rewrite this condition to reflect WAC 173-303-110. The
condition should read:
920312.1547-1II
Petitions to add a testing or analytical method to WAC 173-303-110
shall be in accordance with WAC 173-303-910(2).
Justification: The proposed language more accurately reflects the requirement
at WAC 173-303-910(2). There is a difference between use of an alternate
test method" as written in this condition and the addition of a testing or
analytical metfiod-#o WAC i73=303=ii0-.- The iiAC-i771403=i10r(2)-(aj states that
the methods and equipment used for obtaining representative samples of a waste
will vary with the type and form of the waste. The department will consider
samples collected using the sampling methods below, for wastes with properties
similar to the indicated materials, to be representative of the wastes...
This provision indicates that for waste with properties similar to the
indicated materials, samples taken using the identified methods will be
considered representative. The WAC 173-303-910(2) provides an avenue for
incorporating into the regulations additional methods that will be considered
representative. The assertion that methods identified in WAC 173-303-110 are
considered representative amounts to pre-approval of the method. This preapproval
should not be construed as a limiting constraint on other methods
that--might-be -available and--al-so -are--representat,ve; -though-suct irmethods are
not "pre-approved', they are not automatically considered to be
nonrepresentative. Furthermore, the use of methods identified in
WAC 173-303-110 is limited to waste with properties similar to the indicated
materials. The 40 CFR 264.13(b)(3) states, with respect to the written waste
analysis plan: A representative sample may be obtained using either:
(i) One of the sampling methods described in Appendix I of Part 261 of
this chapter; or
(ii) An equivalent sampling method
Though samples are taken in accordance'with the prescribed methods when
appropriate, there is no clear regulatory authority to impose the use of the
referenced guidance documents as permit conditions.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 154 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: III.1.B.n.
2_5 2 7F_ Pa9e, line: Page 51, lines 30-42
Comaent/Action: Change "shall be used immediately upon the effective date"
to:
as soon as reasonably possible after the effective date.
Delete the statement: "To ensure analytical quality control, all analyses must
fulfill, at a minimum, the quality procedures specified in SW-846 Volume II."
Justification: Immediate implementation is not always practically possible or
appropriate. Analytical quality assurance requirements should be driven by
the data quality objectives for the sample, not predetermined by what is
contained in SW-846 Volume II. Refer to FFACO Action Plan, Section 6.5.
Condition: III.1.B.o.
2!5^277 Page, line: Page 51, lines 44-48
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
0 :
Justification: This condition extends the Department's regulatory control
beyond that required to ensure compliance and beyond the authority provided in
the regulations. This condition also will unduly decrease management
- effici-ency,-and--unduly increase-costs. -diowhere--does-WA£-173-303--prohibit-the
generator from taking and analyzing samples. This approach is the most common
way for analytical data to be obtained. It is impractical for the Hanford
Facility to provide independent sampling teams to sample each of the literally
thousands of containers each year that might require sampling and analysis.
The Department's revision states that sampling cannot be performed by
generating personnel. The regulations, however, specifically allow sampling
for designation purposes to be performed by the generator. In fact, the
regulations place the responsibility for proper designation on the generator.
Most waste generating activity personnel on the Hanford Facility have been
specially trained to do their own sampling. It is suspected that the
Department is confusing 'sampling for designation' with 'sampling for
verification'.
Condition: III.1.B.r.
25.278 Page, line: Page 52, lines 7-11
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
9ms12.Is47-191
Justification: This permit condition, if implemented, may violate the
integrity of the secondary containment system. It is unclear why it would be
desirable to core or chip sample a secondary containment system to obtain
samples when a nondestructive method already has been specified.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 155 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
III.1.B.t.
25.279 Page, line: Page 52, lines 16-21
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Analytical quality assurance requirements should be driven by
the data quality objectives for the sample, not predetermined by what is
contained in SW-846 Volume II. Refer to FFACO Action Plan, Section 6.5 and
comments to Draft Permit condition I.E.10.a..
Condition: III.1.B.v.
25.280 Page, line: Page 52, lines 26-45
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
25.281
920312. t5C7- n 1
Justification: 'This condition extends the Department's regulatory control
beyond that required to ensure compliance and beyond the authority provided in
the regulations. This condition also will unduly decreases management
efficiency, and unduly increases costs. Analytical verification is
specifically limited to TSD facilities receiving off-site generated waste by
WAC 173-303-300(3). On-site wastes are allowed by WAC 173-303-300(2) to be
managed using "generator knowledge", i.e. documented characteristics and
makeup of the waste material being submitted for treatment, storage, and/or
disposal.
Imposition of this requirement will impose significant new costs related to
management of existing waste streams. Full analysis for verification of
5 percent of the incoming waste (approximately 100 containers) at the
616 NRDWSF will cost several hundred thousand dollars per year (labwork,
tracking, labor, and transport). These costs are repetitive and unnecessary.
Verification analysis performed by the off-site TSDs receiving 616 NRDWSF
waste has revealed a discrepancy rate of less than approximately 0.2 percent.
Therefore, no major new safety or environmental protection is expected to
result from such a verification program. The imposition of this requirement
has the potential to disproportionately affect the research and development
operations at the Hanford Facility, as these operations produce nonrecurring,
small-quantity waste streams that would require confirmatory sampling and
analysis. The disposal of small quantities of research-produced waste
streams, currently being minimized through consolidation (labpacking or
bu-licing)-, wou-ld-have costs i.n.creased significantly. Fixing the level of
monitoring at an arbitrary level is inconsistent with as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA) policy for worker exposure to hazardous materials.
Also refer to comments provided for Draft Permit condition found in II.D.
Condition: III.1.B.w.
Page, line: Page 52, lines 47-48
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition directly contradicts the
requirements of WAC 173-303-300(4)(a), which requires analysis to be performed
when the owner or operator has been notified, or has reason to beiieve, that

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .156 of 223
03/16/92
the process or operation generating the dangerous waste has significantly
changed.
25 282 Condition: III.1.B.x.
Page, line: Page 53, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to justifications for comments provided on Draft Permit
condi"tions found in Ii.D.
T'j Condition: III.1.B.z.
z^83
Page, line: Page 53, lines 13-17
Comment/Action: .
Delete this condition.
u.-,
2:1 Justification: This condition extends the Department's regulatory control
beyond that required for ensuring compliance and beyond the authority provided
in the regulations. The Department is acting arbitrarily in preventing the
receipt of off-site generated wastes at individual Hanford Facility waste
management units. In this particular case, the Department is prohibiting
waste from being managed at a state-of-the-art storage unit. Even if the
DOE-RL did not wish to directly receive off-site generated wastes at the
616 NRDWSF, instances might arise where storage at the 616 NRDWSF would
present the best available option for managing off-site generated waste that
had been received already by another Hanford Facility TSD unit. This
provision is overly restrictive and might even violate the Commerce Clause of
the Constitutlon^ - Ttreroare-noYta4ues or-regsrlations that al low the
Department to impose this requirement. The Draft Permit condition also is
inconsistent with the Congressionally mandated scheme for the management and
disposal of defense related waste.
25.284
90D312.1547-11f
This Draft Permit condition results in an inappropriate level of regulatory
control. The appropriate level of regulatory control is defined as that level
which is necessary to ensure compliance. This level of control should be
consistent in final status permits statewide.
Condition: III.1.B.aa.
Page, line: Page 53, lines 19-28
Comment/Action: Modify this Draft Permit condition to only refer to actions
requiring implementation of the contingency plan.
Justification: This condition extends the Department's regulatory control
beyond t'nat-required to ensure-compiiance,and- beyond-the authority provided in
the regulations. The WAC 173-303-380(d) only requires information associated
with incidents requiring contingency plan implementation to be included in the
operating record. Refer to justifications for comments provided to Draft
Permit conditions in 11.1.
This Draft Permit condition results in an inappropriate level of regulatory
eantro-l: The appropriate-12ve1 of-regulat.^,ry cnntrol is defined as that level

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 157 of 223
03/16/92
which is necessary to ensure compliance. This level of control should be
consistent in final status permits statewide.
The Fact Sheet gives no regulatory basis for this Draft Permit condition. The
Fact Sheet states that "[t]his condition clarifies the requirements of the
text." This is an inadequate explanation.
25.285 Condition: III.1.B.bb.
Page, line: Page 53, lines 30-35
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The Fact Sheet provides no regulatory basis for this
condition. The WAC 173-303-390 identifies requirements for facility
reporting. Such a provision regarding remedial action or cleanup is not
contained in these regulations. The intent of this condition is not clear.
The term "remedial action" is a term used in connection with CERCLA
activities. Perhaps the intent of the Agency and the Department is to address
reporting for releases that cannot be contained, mitigated, and cleaned up.
The Dangerous Waste Regulations provide ample provisions regarding reporting
of spills and discharges and these should be followed.
Condition: III.1.B.cc.
25.286 Page, line: Page 53, lines 37-40
Comment/Action: Modify this condition to read:
The Permittee shall properly package, label, mark, and store the
waste.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition overextends the Department's
regulatory authority and unduly restricts operations at the Hanford Facility.
The Draft Permit condition does not recognize that the actions might be
performed by emergency response organizations.
Condition: III.1.B.ee.
Page, line: Page 53, lines 46-50
25.287 Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Information in the 616 NRDWSF
Dangerous Waste Part B Permit Application as submitted is sufficient to
address spill reporting and meets the regulatory requirements.
920312.1547-111
Justification: The incorporation of this condition has no regulatory basis,
constrains management efficiency, is not cost-effective, and provides no added
benefit of protection of human health or the environment. The Department and
the Agency have apparently tried to indicate that sampling of spills within
the containment will be done in accordance with what has been provided for
closure of the unit. Section 4.1.1.8 at page 4-5 of the 616 NRDWSF Dangerous
Waste Permit Application adequately describes the appropriate measures (and
also references applicable standards at Section 3.2.2) to be taken in
accordance with WAC 173-303.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 158 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: III.I.B.ff.
25.288 - Page, -line: Page-54,-lines 1-8
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
c^..,
Justification: This condition extends the Department's regulatory control
beyond that required to ensure compliance and beyond the authority provided in
the regulations. This condition also will unduly decrease management
efficiency, and unduly increase costs. The current inspection checklists meet
the requirements of WAC 173-303-320. These checklists were developed in
conjunction with the Department's permit writers and inspectors. In lieu of
listing individual pieces of emergency equipment on the inspection sheet,
616 NRDWSF personnel have placed all listed emergency equipment in a dedicated
cabinet with it's own checklist. This action was considered to be resolved in
previous negotiations with the Department.
This condition results in an inappropriate level of regulatory control. The
aopropriate level of regulatory control is defined as that level which is
necessary to ensure compliance. This level of control should be consistent in
final_status permits -statewide.
Condition: III.1.B.ggi
25.289 Page, line: Page 54, lnes 10-11
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
9miu.1547-111
Justification: The scope of a final status permit issued under
WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the treatment, storage, and/or disposal
activities at "final status TSD facilities". There is no regulatory authority
for a"hybrid approach" or an "umbrella approach" that purports to include
interim status activities under the final status standards or that purports to
regulate activities not subject to the final status treatment, storage, or
disposal standards. The Permit must be explicit in the scope of coverage;
this scope must be limited to the TSD units that meet the criteria for
receiving final status. The scope of a dangerous waste permit issued under
WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the treatment, storage, and/or disposal
activities at "final status TSD facilities". At this time there are only two
TSD units identified in the Draft Permit that the Department has determined to
have had the necessary information submitted for issuance of a"final facility
permit" . The scope of this Permit, in accordance with the Dangerous Waste
Regulations at WAC 173-303-840(1), must be limited to these TSD units.
The FFACO specifies in the Action Plan at paragraph 6.2 that the Department
and the Agency will Issue the Initial permit for less than the entire
facility. This permit will grow Into a single permit for the entire Hanford
Site. The procedure envisioned and agreed to in the FFACO is the permitting
procedure that must be followed here, and is the permitting procedure
authorized by federal authority [40 CFR 270.1(c)(4)].

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition:
25.290 Page, line:
Comment/Action:
III.1.B.hh.
Page 54, lines 13-14
Delete this condition.
159 of 223
.03/16/92
Justification: The commenters recognize that regulators have a valid need for
access to training records. Notwithstanding that, training records are listed
within the DOE's "systems of records" required under the Privacy Act. As
such, the Department and the Agency are required to acknowledge and respect
the DOE's responsibilities under that law as well. Access will not be
withheld and such records may be copied, if necessary, to meet regulatory
requirements once compliance with the Privacy Act is met.
Condition: III.1.B.ii.
25.291 Page, line: Page 54, lines 15-23
:F. Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Chapter 11 of the existing 616 NRDWSF Dangerous Waste Part 8
Permit Application already addresses the sampling and analysis of the
surrounding and underlying soil. Adding the term "and underlying soil" will
cause more confusion. In addition, the requirement to sample the soil
underneath the concrete if contamination is found on the concrete surface is
unwarranted and not scientifically or technically correct. Concrete is not
porous media in which a spill would result in direct soil contamination
underneath the concrete. A pathway is necessary, e.g., a crack in the
concrete, for the spill to reach the underlying soil; the closure plan
adequately address sampling of the soil in this case.
Condition:
25.292 Page, line:
Comment/Action:
III.1.B.kk.
Page 54, lines 29-38
Delete this condition.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis for requiring that all
constituents stored at the 616 NRDWSF storage unit be analyzed for at closure.
Only the constituents that were identified when a spill occurred should be
analyzed for at closure. Requiring the type of test methods or a QA/QC data
validation program is improper in itself. The SW-846 is a guidance document
that has been ruled to have no binding effect and should not be used as a
permit condition. Specifying action levels should be based on data quality
objectives not on an arbitrary level of quantitation. Also refer to comments
to Draft Permit condition I.E.10.a. -
Condition: III.1.B.11.
25.293 Page, line: Page 54, line 39
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
920312.1547-III
Justification: This requirement represents the means for notifying the DOE-RL
that cleanup procedures are complete and emergency equipment is fit for use.
The DOE-RL will in turn notify the Department of the unit's readiness to
restart operations as required by Page 12-6, lines 34 through 40 of the
616 NRDWSF Dangerous Waste Permit Application. Whether or not this Draft

24•294
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 160 of 223
03/16/92
Permit condition is deleted, this reporting action will continue. Also refer
to comments to Draft Permit condition I.E.15.
Condition: III.1.B.nn.
P ag
m,
e 54 ,
Delete thise co nditions 44-45
Justification: The commenters recognize that regulators have a valid need for
access to training records. Notwithstanding that, training records are listed
within the DOE's "systems of records" required under the Privacy Act. As
such, the Department and the Agency are required to acknowledge and respect
the DOE-RL's responsibilities under that law as well. Access will not be
a:. withheld and such records may be copied if necessary to meet regulatory
requirements once compliance with the Privacy Act is met.
cl._I
= ^= Condition: 111.1.8.00.
25;Z5 Page, line: Page 54, lines 47-48; Page 55, lines 1-9
a-' Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
920312.t547-iu
Justification: The inclusion of this footnote unnecessarily restricts the
manner in which the Permittee maintains these records. Hanford Facility as
used in the Table should not mean "the reports and records are available
through the Hanford Facility Regulatory File index pursuant to Section 12.0.
Until the index is implemented, reports and records will be available at the
Hanford Facility, but not necessarily at the 616 NRDWSF." Additionally,
location of reports and records for 616 NRDWSF should not be restricted to
"the 616 NRDWSF office." This Draft Permit condition fails to reflect
operating record requirements in WAC 173-303-380. The requirement in Draft
Permit condition III.1.B.oo is inconsistent with the meaning behind the
language of 40 CFR 264.73. The Agency states in 45 FR 33189: ...the large
area of some facilities and the variety of functions performed at some
facilities, make It very unlikely that all required information would be
recorded In one operating log at only one location. In writing the proposed
rules, the Agency assumed a number of logs or records, would be maintained at
a site. All such records at a facility taken together would then constitute
the facility's operating record.
As indicated in the referenced register, the Agency never intended for the
facility's operating record to be maintained in one location at the facility.
Tne reguiation in 40 CFR 264.73 was written to require maintenance of certain
documentation that is pertinent to dangerous waste activities. The language
in WAC 173-303-380(1) is essentially identical to the language in
40 CFR 264.73(a) and (b). There should be no distinction between "facility
wide" and "unit-specific" operating records. The various records at their
respective locations taken together constitute the facility operating record.
Although records will be kept
recordkeeping, the regulations
at one centralized location.
at individual TSD units to facilitate organized
are void of a requirement to keep these records

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 161 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
III.1.B.pp.
25.296 Page, 1ine: Page 55, lines 11-12
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: The current definition for Wind Class 1 is correct as defined
by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Wind speeds of 1 mile-per-hour and less
are considered calm and are not reported.
Condition:
III.1.B.rr.
25.297 Page, line: Page 55, lines 20-35, Page 56, lines 1-4
Comment/Action: Before "[n]o part of," insert:
920312.1547-11I
These procedure descriptions will be modified per WAC 173-303-830,
if necessary, before implementation at the 616 NRDWSF. Changes to
the Description of Procedures can be reported to the Department as
Class 1 changes.
Replace procedure descriptions included as Attachment 15 with those attached
to this transmittal (Comment Attachment X).
Justification: These procedure descriptions will be modified per
WAC 173-303-830, as described above, before implementation at the 616 NRDWSF.
These procedure descriptions describe procedures as they existed in the
January 1992 time frame. The procedures described also are used for work not
associated with the 616 NRDWSF, and the procedure manual that is the basis for
these descriptions is subject to frequent change. io require these
descriptions to be modified each time the parent document is revised would
unduly decrease management efficiency, and unduly increase costs.
These procedure descriptions were transmitted to the Department as draft
procedure descriptions, and were clearly marked as such. It was the intent of
the commenters to finalize these descriptions and transmit them to the
Department by February 28, 1992. The Department was notified that the
finalized procedure descriptions would be included as part of this submittal
(Comment Attachment X).

25.298
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Chapter 2
183-H Solar Evaporation Basin
^dition: III.2.A. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED CLOSURE PLAN
Pages, lines: Page 57, line 2 - Page 62, line 8
Comment/Action: Delete Chapter 2 183-H Solar Evaporation Basin.
162 of 223
03/16/92
Justification:- An interim status closure plan should not be included in the
final status Permit. As stated in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit
Application, final status permits are being sought for some TSD units, while
others will be closed under interim status. The 183-H Solar Evaporation
Basins are to be closed under interim status and, therefore, should not be
included in a final status Permit. No rationale for including the 183-H Solar
z. €vapo^ation-Basins-£losuretPos'^cTosure Pian in tiro^lraft Permi-t is yiven in
2K1 the Fact Sheet. The FFACO already has established how interim status
^ r TSD units will be closed. This process for the submittal of interim status
closure plans, via the milestones established in the FFACO, and which
" regulations will be followed during closure already has been agreed upon by
all parties.
Note that the commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire
provision be deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of
authority, no regulation, no requirement, or no reason or explanation that
----------- justi-fies-tlee i.n.6Te:sion of-the--condition.---Because the Departmcnt and/or
Agency might respond by deciding to retain the full condition or address some
but not all of the commenters concerns, the commenters have provided specific
comments on the conditions and its subparts, with recommended language to
correct the problems within these conditions and/or subparts. Regardless of
how the agencies address the commenters principle or alternate comments, the
commenters do not waive their objection to the inclusion of the full condition
or any overly broad portion thereof, in the Permit.
III.2.B. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED CLOSURE PLAN
Condition: II1.2.B.a.
2J•299 Page, lines: Page 51, lines 21-25
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, the phrase "and
guidance documents" in line 24 should be deleted.
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted. Also, guidance documents that have been
ruled to have no binding effect should not be used as a permit condition.
Condition: III.2.B.b.
.300 Page, lines: Page 57, lines 27-28
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
eewu.na-111
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition:
III.2.B.c.
25.301 Page, lines: Page 57, lines 30-31
Comment/Acti-on:---Del,ete this c^n+iti^n.
1603/16/82
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted.
Condition:
III.2.B.d.
25.302 Page, lines: Page 57, lines 33-34
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, change the
telephone number to 376-7277 in line 34.
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted. In addition, the correct telephone
number for the DOE-RL Environmental Restoration Division Manager is 376-7277.
Condition:
III.2.B.e.
25.303 Page, lines: Page 57, lines 36-42
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
25.304
920312.1S47-III
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted. Also, the condition as written does not
reflect any requirement found in WAC 173-303, and constitutes an inappropriate
level of regulatory control. This condition has been written to extend beyond
what is required by WAC 173-303 to include unusual occurrence reports and
offnormal occurrence reports without regulatory basis. These internal
recordkeeping activities are outside the scope of regulatory authority.
Unusual occurrence reports and offnormal occurrence reports are internal
documents that extend beyond what is necessary to comply with regulatory
requirements. Any incidents that are regulated under RCRA will be reported as
required; in some cases, these reports might include information from an
unusual or an offnormal occurrence report.
Condition: III.2.B.f.
Page, lines: Page 57, lines 44-46
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, delete the phrase
"and Section II.J.1 of this Permit." from line 46.
Justification: Refer to the comments for Draft Permit condition III.2.A on
why this condition should be deleted. In addition, WAC 173-303-620 and
40 CFR 264.140(c) specifically exempt "States and the Federal Government" from
reporting requirements such as closure cost estimates. The Fact Sheet states
that all parties agreed to reporting closure cost estimates under
WAC 173-303-390 using the requirements under WAC 173-303-620. That statement
is not accurate. What was agreed to during negotiations was that the DOE-RL
would voluntarily submit projections of anticipated costs for closure annually
in a separate report. These prodected costswould be submitted by the end of
October, starting in 1992. It also was agreed upon by all parties that the
projections of anticipated costs would follow the estimating formats that are

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 164 of 223
03/16/92
used by the DOE-RL in environmental restoration projects. This would allow
for a consistent cost estimating format that could be used to determine the
required funding levels for use by the DOE-HQ in preparing budget requests.
In addition, projections of anticipated costs would be reported only for
TSD units that were included in the Permit at the time the report was being
prepared. There is no regulatory basis requiring the requested cost estimate.
Also refer to comments to Draft Permit condition II.H. for further
clarification.
Condition: III.2.B.g.
25.305 Page, lines: Page 57, line 48 - Page 58, line 3
C-; Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, delete the phrase
on page 58, line 1"shall ... Permit." and substitute the following phrase
-----'shail be submttted-to the-Director-wtthin -60 -days before-the date-on-which
^ a{ final closure is expected to begin."
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. In addition, WAC 173-303-610(3)(c)(i)
---`-^'_ --- --statesthat--the-owner-or operatormust notify the department in writing at
least sixty days before the date on which he expects to begin final closure.
Condition: III.2.B.h.
306 Page, lines: Page 58, lines 5-10
lig^nent/Aetien: Delete this rnnditinn.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.
Condition: III.2.B.i.
25.307 Page, lines: Page 58, lines 12-21
Conment/Action: Delete this condition.
25.308
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.
Condition: III.2.B.j.
Page, lines: Page 58, lines 23-29
-Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, delete the last
sentence of this Draft Permit condition.
__Jestifisation: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also, WAC 173-303 clearly states that
laboratory procedures for analysis and quality control should be based on the
Agency's SW-846 test methods, not CLP test methods. However, requiring the
type of test methods or QA/QC data validation program is improper in itself.
The SW-846 is a guidance document that has been ruled to have no binding
effect and should not be used as a permit condition. Refer to comments to
Draft Permit condition I.E.10.a. for further clarification.
92as12.is47-111

,-^-,
fµtV
COMMENTS ON THE I
Condi ti c ; :
25.309 Page, lines:
Comment/Action:
^e114C111.C sen tence v1 o f this Un1a
IRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 165 of 223
03/16/92
III.2.B.k.
Page 58, lines 31-38
Delete this condition. In the alternative, delete the last
Draft Permit condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also, WAC 173-303 clearly states that
laboratory procedures for analysis and quality control should be based on the
Agency's SW-846 test methods, not CLP test methods. However, requiring the
type of test methods or QA/QC data validation program is improper in itself.
The SW-846 is a guidance document that has been ruled to have no binding
effect and should not be used as a permit condition. Refer to comments to
Draft Permit condition I.E.10.a. for further clarification.
Condition: 111.2.8.1.
25.310 Page, lines: Page 58, line 40 - Page 59, line 3
------ Commen*a-Action-:--Delgte thisAcond_ition:__In the_alternatiye, delete the last
sentence of this Draft Permit condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also, WAC 173-303 clearly states that
laboratory procedures for analysis and quality control should be based on the
Agency's SW-846 test methods, not CLP test methods. However, requiring the
type of test methods or QA/QC data validation program is improper in itself.
The SW-846 is a guidance document that has been ruled to have no binding
effect and should not be used as permit condition. Refer to comments to Draft
Permit condition I.E.10.a. for further clarification.
25.311 Condition: III.2.B.m.
Page, lines: Page 59, line 6 to Page 60, line 40
Comment/Action: Delete the reference to the "Soil Cleanup/Remediation for
Hanford."
920312.1547•111
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also refer to comments on Draft Permit
condition II.K. The Soil Cleanun/Remediation for Hanford policy, dated
February 4, 1992, should not be included in the Permit. A policy is not a
regulatory requirement under WAC 173-303. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
use a policy as the basis for a permit condition. In addition, the
Department's Solid and Hazardous Waste Program is intending to evaluate
WAC 173-303-610, TSD Closure Requirements, during this regulatory revisions
cycle. Revisions to the regulations might be contrary to the subject policy.
Numerical cleanup standards should not be included as permit conditions
because they are based on factors that are constantly changing as is evidenced
by the IRIS database.
In addition to these concerns, the policy is flawed. The approach or methods
used to develop the numerical cleanup standards were not based on well-founded
scientific principles or evidence. The numerical standards chosen in the
policy are below MTCA soil cleanup standards, which already are conservative
and were adopted after a comprehensive rule adoption process. The Department

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 166 of 223
03/16/92
provides no consistent or technically defensible basis for defining the
concentration levels in the policy. It is recommended that the Department
should strive to develop a single, scientifically-based, and consistently
applied approach to establishing cleanup standards.
Condition: III.2.B.n.
25.312 Page, lines: Page 60, lines 42-46
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
_
r^
f
Justification: Refer to the
why this condition should be
comments
deleted.
to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
Condition: III.2.B.o.
P^313 Page, lines: Page 60, line 48 - Page 61, line 3
m° Coament/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, delete the
entire sentence and substitute the following:
Detailed plans and an engineering report(s) describing how the
landfill cover is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained shall be submitted to the Director.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condit ion should be deleted. Also, WAC 173-303-806(4)(h)(ii) states
what information will be submitted to the Department for the landfill cover.
Condition:
25.314 Page, lines:
-{.fM^MQI l l.^ R{.1. 1 Vil .
III.2.8.p.
Page 61, lines 6-11
Delete tlli^ ^.vil'tiitivn.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. There is no regulatory basis for this
Draft Permit condition in either WAC 173-303 or the Fact Sheet. The
Construction inspection Policy ( CIP) is an internal Department document and
should not be a permit condition for the Permittee. This condition will
result in overly managing the installation of a RCRA-compliant cover, which
----------- wial_alrpady_be_approved_uia_the postelosure permit application. There will
isff -no protecti on of irumaft fieal4h -ov- i ronmeat- added-by- imposi ng th i s
permit condition.
Condition:
25.315 Page, lines:
Cotoent/Acti on
940312.17X7-tit
III.2.B.q.
Page 61, lines 13-23
Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 167 of 223
03/16/92
25.316 Condition: III.2.B.r.
Page, lines: Page 61, lines 25-30
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.
25.317 ondition: III.2.B.s.
,age, lines: Page 61, lines 32-36
.^ omment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.
Condition: III.2.B.t.
25.318 Page, lines: Page 61, lines 38-45
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.
Condition: III.2.B.u.
25.319 Page, lines: Page 61, line 47 - Page 62, line 2
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. In the alternative, change the phrase
on page 62, line 1, from "within 12 months" to "within 18 months".
25.320
920312.1547-I1I
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted. Also, because of the complexity of a
postclosure permit application, and this application being the first to be
submitted, 18 months would be more appropriate.
Condition: III.2.B.v.
Page, lines: Page 62, lines 4-8
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: Refer to the comments to Draft Permit condition III.2.A as to
why this condition should be deleted.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 168 of 223
03/16/92
Chau.ter....3.
Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant
Condition: 111.3.
25.321 Page, lines: Page 63, line 2 - Page 82, line 10
_________Cgmment,/Actjpn;nelgte_fhapter 3 and allow construction under interim status
expansion. Issue a final status Permit at the end of construction.
Justification: It is unclear how this chapter can be written as a"stateonly"
enforcement section when the HWVP is to be permitted as a Subpart X
Miscellaneous Unit for which only the Agency currently has authority.
Washington State is not authorized to enforce Subpart X. The effect of
• issuance in this manner needs to be clarified by the Agency. Interim status
--r^,------^--t,o reg ati ons -ar_ p suff__ic iPnL Enssre -- that -HWVP const_.1^_ rirt^:_.. nn mentc ...__... the
`r- regulatory requirements and that FFACO milestones are maintained.
_.^ In the comments on this section, as in the comments on other sections of the
Draft Permit, the commenters in many cases have recommended that an entire
condition be deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of
authority, no regulation, no requirement, and no reason that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the Agency and the Department may respond
by deciding to retain the full condition or address some, but not all, of the
commenters concerns, the commenters have provided specific comments on the
conditions with recommended language to correct other problems in the
condition. Regardless of how the Agency and the Department address the
commenters' principal or alternate comments, the commenters do not waive their
--objectien--to-the--tnc1u€ion-$f-the fuaT -condit-ion- or--any- over-broad -portion
thereof in the Permit.
25.322 Condition: 111.3. Introduction
-----
9iosu.u47-111
Cage, linesi t^i^n a9 ^^°e` 7°Q
, ---- --- - --- ^a^ yc va, ..uca i ai
(2) Page 63, line 9
Comment/Action: The following two comments apply to the 111.3 Introduction:
(1) On Page 63 revise lines 7-8 to read:
... produce canisters of borosilicate glass that will...
(2) On Page 63, change line 9"High Level Waste Repository" to
"national repository."
Justification: Justification for the two comments noted are as follows:
(1) The text states that the HWVP will produce cylinders of glass; however,
the glass actually will be encased in stainless steel canisters, providing an
additional barrier to the environment. This is not clear from the text.
(2) The HWVP Part B Dangerous Waste Permit Application states that the glass
canisters will be transported to a"national" repository.

25.323
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 169 of 223
03/16/92
ondition: III.3.A. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICATION
Page, lines: Page 63, lines 12-17
Comment/Action: Delete all reference to the HWVP Part 8 Dangerous Waste
Permit Application and delete all nonessential information in Attachment 21
not needed to demonstrate compliance with final status technical standards.
Replace with specific permit conditions based on specific regulatory
authorities and technical standards.
Justification: Throughout the Draft Permit, the Department has taken
descriptive information and documentation provided in the permit applications
and turned this material into enforceable permit conditions by including the
documents as attachments to the Permit. The scope of a Dangerous Waste Permit
issued under WAC 173-303-806(1) is to regulate the treatment, storage, and/or
disposal activities at "final status TSD facilities". The commenters contend
`=n 71-1 that the Permit must be explicit in the scope of coverage. The scope must be
-limited to the essentiai matters pertaining to specific compliance, technical
criteria, and standards in 40 CFR 264 and WAC 173-303 for final status
^ facilities. This is consistent with the FFACO, which references
40 CFR 270.1(c)(4) as the federal authority to issue a permit in this manner.
92o3+z. isa-1i i
Many of the documents attached to the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit Application
were included only for information purposes, with no intent that the documents
be included as permit conditions or altered beyond their intended purposes.
In many cases, the wholesale inclusion of these permit application plans,
specifications, and information has resulted in a Draft Permit that contains
provisions that are far more detailed and stringent than the regulations the
provisions are intended to and purported to address.-
Because of a sincere commitment by the DOE-RL to initiate site preparation for
the HWVP on schedule, the DOE-RL consented to provide several permit
application submittals despite a firm belief that the argument requiring the
submittals were of questionable merit, and not well-founded in the
regulations. These include the Hanford Facility Contingency Plan
(Attachment 6 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Preparedness and
Prevention Plan (Attachment 7 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility
Training Plan (Attachment 8 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford Facility Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan (Attachment 9 of the Draft Permit), the Hanford
Facility Inspection Plan (Attachment 12 of the Draft Permit) and the Hanford
Facility Waste Analysis Plan (to be provided at a later date). However,
because the Department has chosen to go beyond what had been previously
discussed and has attempted to impose numerous additional conditions that
would be very difficult and expensive to comply with, the commenters cannot
agree and must insist that the Permit be founded solely on the authorities
contained in the regulations.
Based on the FFACO, which references 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), the commenters
recognize that the regulatory agencies have the authority to incorporate
sections of unit-specific permit applications. For example, the commenters do
qot object to the inclusion of documentation that was prepared specifically
for inclusion as permit conditions or for unit-specific, permit-related
compliance requirements, such as the unit-specific waste analysis plans and

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 170 of 223
03/16/92
contingency plans. However, the Department has gone far beyond such specific
use of plans prepared for TSD facilities.
The commenters recognize that the Department and the Agency have the authority
to incorporate sections of unit-specific permit applications. The commenters
do not object to the inclusion of certain portions of the HWVP Part B
Dangerous Waste Permit Application into the Permit, so long as those portions
are crafted to provide only the information required to determine enforceable
conditions based on appropriate substantive provisions of the regulations.
The commenters do object to the incorporation of conditions in the permit that
impose conditions beyond RCRA or WAC 173-303 requirements.
The HWVP-is being-permitted as a Nfiscei-ianeous Unii under Subpart X of
-^^< - a.0 CF R 2_4,-- ^ Even.. thmiati _..__,.. the _..- nPnartmnnt --•- - • - has a section in the WAC 173-303
titled "Miscellaneous Units," it has not been delegated authority by the
Agency to manage the program under the Washington State authorized program.
Contrary to 40 CFR 264.601 requirements, the Department has not clearly and
unambiguously identified in the Draft Permit the specific relevant technical
standards necessary for compliance with 40 CFR 264 and WAC 173-303 final
status requirements.
Subpart X at 40 CFR 264.601 states:
... permits for miscellaneous units are to contain such terms and provisions
as necessary to protect human health and the environment, including but not
limited to, as appropriate, design and operating requirements, detection and
monitoring requirements, and requirements for responses to releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from the unit. Permit terms and
provisions shall Include those requirements of Subparts I through 0 of this
Part, Part 270, and Part 146 that are appropriate for the miscellaneous unit
being permitted.
-- --It does-not-appear- that-tfie-Department has-rrarrowiy-seiected those portions of
specific drawings and specifications deemed relevant to a determination of
compliance with specific permit terms and provisions from 40 CFR 264
Subparts I through 0. The Department has, on the contrary, elected to include
the entire HWVP Part B Dangerous Waste Permit Application in the Permit. The
Department also has included in the Draft Permit a large number of highly
detailed plans, specifications, and drawings descriptive of the entire HWVP
Project.
920312.Is47-111
Many-o€the-¢lans, specifications, and drawings do not appear to have a
reasonable relationship to the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of
hazardous waste. For example, Draft Permit condition III.B.3.2 requires
inclusion of drawings pertaining to the clearing, grubbing, and grading of the
site; Draft Permit condition III.B.3.3 requires inclusion of drawings and
specifications pertaining to road construction and site preparation; Draft
Permit condition III.B.3.4 refers to security fence installation; Draft Permit
cQnditipn-l11 _9_3.5 U_secyrity fenre lighting; and Draft Permit condition
III.B.3.8 refers to the construction of railroads. Most of the drawings and
-speeffi-cations inctuded in the Draft Permit conditions in Section III, which
become subject to the demands and rigors of the formal permit modification

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 171 of 223
03/16/92
process when the final status Permit is issued, have a very attenuated and
questionably relevant relationship to the management of hazardous waste.
920312.1547-11I
The Department appears to be taking the position that the management of the
entire HWVP Project through the inclusion of the entire Part A and Part B
permit applications is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The commenters object to this approach and contend that inclusion of the Part
A and Part B permit applications in their entirety results in the imposition
of additional requirements beyond those established under the regulations.
Section 3005 of RCRA and 40 CFR 270.32(b) limit the Department's authority to
impose additional permit conditions to where necessary to protect human health
or the environment. The Department has not made any finding that additional
conditions-beyond-those-estabTtshed-in-40-CFR-264-are-necesrary -^6o-protect
human health and the environment at the HWVP.
The commenters cannot agree to the wholesale inclusion of the Part A and
Part B permit applications in the Permit because there is no regulatory basis
for that inclusion, and because the Department is putting descriptive
information to a use for which the information was not intended and is not
suited. The inclusion of many of the HWVP plans, specifications, and drawings
from the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit Application, and the detailed technical
changes that were made to information contained in the HWVP Dangerous Waste
Permit Application, have resulted in a Draft Permit that contains more
provisions and appears more detailed than authorized by the regulations that
the Permit is intended to address. The conditions appear to address portions
of the TSD unit that have a very attenuated and questionably relevant
relationship to hazardous waste TSD activities.
In incorporating these sections of the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit
Application, the Department has failed to reasonably respond to repeated
requests and expressions of concern by the commenters over the past few years,
that such information was not intended to become part of the permit. The
commenters were responsive to the Department's requests that the information
be included in the HWVP Part B Dangerous Waste Permit Application. Nowhere in
the RCRA regulations or WAC 173-303 is it announced that such information,
provided in the permit application, will be incorporated wholesale into the
Permit. The commenters have maintained and continue to maintain that the
provided information should be used to draft specific permit conditions
addressing specific regulatory requirements.
The result is that the HWVP will be subject to far more inflexible
construction permit conditions than any other major RCRA TSD unit. The
commenters question whether the DOE-RL or the Department can reasonably manage
the institutional requirements associated with design modifications that will
be required by the inclusion of so many detailed drawings, plans, and
specifications in the Permit. The commenters also question whether the HWVP
can reasonably and successfully be constructed under the Draft Permit
conditions.
The commeaters note that-other permit applicants have satisfied the
information requirements of 40 CFR 264 and 270 with far less detailed
descriptions. The commenters contend that the inclusion of permit conditions

U_14^
rl..
1-r,
let ,3
rrl^
:X-
9to312.Is47-111
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
for the HWVP that have not been required for other TSD units is a
discriminatory action.
172 of 223
03/16/92
Other permit applicants in the Northwest who have been through Part B
permitting processes recently have acquired agreement with the Agency and
affected states to attach to the permit only those plans and information
required under the regulations. These permits include:
Chemical Processors, Inc.
No. WAD000812909
Texaco Refining and Marketing
No. WAD009276197
Shell Oil Company
No. WAD009275082
Chem-Security Systems, Inc.
No. 0RD089452353
EnvirosafeServices ofIdaho, Inc.
No. IDD073114654
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
No. WAD067548966
The attachments found in these pe.
from management plans or directly
in their Part A and Part B permit
that the same approach be applied
FaCiiity Permit.
Page 5, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment F)
Page 6, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment G)
Page 6, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment H)
Page 9, no Part B permit application;
sections of plans only.
Z'iomment Attachment i)
Page_8, no-Part SAer.mit-_application;
sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment J)
Page 5-6, no Part B permit
application; sections of plans only.
(Comment Attachment K)
rmits are often copies of the relevant pages
pertinent descriptive information submitted
applications. The commenters are proposing
in a nondiscriminatory manner to the Hanford
The commenters request that they be given the opportunity to meet with the
Department and the Agency to craft appropriate permit conditions that comply
with the regulations and to identify and include the specific information
necessary to prescribe compliance with these regulations. This approach will
avoid excessive detail, ambiguity, and the inclusion of overbroad,
nonessential information. The commenters will work with the Department and
the Agency to identify and provide the relevant information for the Permit.
The commenters cannot agree to include facility-wide plans in the Permit
because there is no regulatory basis for doing so and because the Department
is putting such information to uses for which the information was not
originally intended. If the DOE-RL chooses to institute facility-wide
management policies or procedures to guide and assist in the development and
coordination of unit-specific plans as a management tool, that is appropriate.
However, there is no regulatory basis for incorporating facility-wide plans,
including those portions of the plans that do not pertain to final status
TSD units, into the Permit.

25.324
25.325
25.326
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 173 of 223
03/16/92
The commenters have in many cases recommended that an entire condition be
deleted because the commenters contend that there is no basis of authority, no
regulation, no requirement, and no reason or explanation that justifies the
inclusion of the condition. Because the agencies may respond by deciding to
retain the full condition or address some but not all of the commenters'
concerns, the commenters have provided specific comments on individual
contested conditions with recommended language to correct other problems in
the condition. Regardless of how the agencies address the commenters'
principal or alternative comments, the commenters do not waive their
objections to the inclusion of the full condition or any overbroad portion
thereof in the Permit.
920312.1547-111
III.3.B. AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICATION
Condition: III.3.B.1.
Page, lines: Page 63, lines 22-24
Comment/Action: Revise the quoted letter date and subject title as follows:
dated November 26, 1991, "SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHANGE IMPACTS TO THE HANFORD
WASTE VITRIFICATION PLANT DANGEROUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION, REVISION 2
(TS-2-5)". In addition, revise the date quoted in the Fact Sheet, Page 32,
line 2.
Justification: The date and subject title are incorrect as identified.
Condition: 111.3.8.1.1.
Page, lines: Page 63, lines 30-33
Comment/Action: Delete "[This leaves... or 125,000 L.]'
Justification: This sentence was intended for the Department's information
and is inappropriate as a permit condition. It does not change anything in
the permit application that was submitted. Deletion of this sentence will
help clarify the condition.
Condition: III.3.B.1.18.
Page, lines: ( 1) Page 65, lines 29-33;
(2) Page 68, lines 11-17
Comment/Action: The following two comments apply:
-(I)-On-Page-65, lines 29-33, delete the requirement to submit a revised Figure
2-4 within 30 days of the effective date of the permit.
(2) On Page 68, lines 11-17, delete "(i.e., a difference of ...)" in the four
places it appears in this Draft Permit condition.
Justification: Justification for the two coaments noted as follows:
(1) A permit condition (similar to condition 39) is sufficient to identify
the change. It is unnecessary to require such a submittal. This figure will
be revised at the next phase of construction during the permit modification
process. This is inconsistent, because the Department has not required the

25.327
cs;., 1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 174 of 223
03/16/92
---submittal- o€-page changes ficr-the other-rev#sfons -tdentified ffrthe reference
letter 91-RPB-022.
(2) This text was intended for the Department's information and is
inappropriate as a permit condition. It does not change anything in the
permit application that was submitted. Deletion of this text will help
clarify the cond ition.
Condition: III.3.B.2.
Page, lines: Page 69, line 14
Comment/Action: Delete the "***Total***" on this line.
Justification: This word should be deleted as it appears to have no meaning.
Condition: III.3.8.3.
328 'rage,-iines: -- -- -( 1)- Page 70-, 7ine 8-; (2) Page 7 0, line 20
^-- Comment/Action: The following two comments apply:
(1) On page 70, line 8, add the following drawing to this table, after Line 8:
H-2-117023, Rev. 0, Sht. 1, Civil Roads & Site Preparation Plan, 11-06-91.
,-^
(2i_Un-oaae 70; iine 20,-deietg the-'***TOtal***' On this line.
Justification: Justification for the two comments is as follows:
(1) This drawing is included in HWVP Construction Package A130, Roads & Site
Preparation.
( 2) This word s hould be deleted as it appears to have no meaning.
25.329 Condition: III.3.8.4.
Page, lines: ( 1) Page 71, line 14; ( 2) Page 71, line 15
Coawent/Action: The following two comments apply:
( 1) On Page 71, line 14, add the word "Details" after the word "Grounding".
25.330
9iosu.+s47-1n
R)_On Page-71-, 1ine_15,--delete tha_!***Tntal***'on thi-s line.
Justification: Justification for the two comments is as follows:
(1) The correct title of H-2-117056 is CIVIL SECURITY FENCE GROUNDING
DETAILS.
(2) This word should be deleted as it appears to have no meaning.
Condition: 111.3.8.5.
Page, lines: (1) Page 71, line 29; (2) Page 72, line 33,
(3) Page 72, line 1; ( 4) Page 72, line 5;
(5) Page 72, line 5
Coeeent/Action: The following five comments apply to condition 111.3.5.5:
( 1) On Page 71, line 29, change the word "List" to "Index".

5 . 331
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 175 of 223
0/16/92
(2) On Page 72, line 33, change the drawing number to H-2-118000. Add the
word "Security" after the word "Area".
(3) On Page 72, line 1, Delete the "***Total***" on this line.
(4) On Page 72, line 5, revise the title of specification B-595-C-A150 to
read Area Security Lighting.
(5) On Page 72, line 5, change Rev. 1 to Rev. 0.
Justification: Justification for the five comments is as follows:
(1) The correct title of H-2-122051 is AREA SECURITY LIGHTING DRAWING INDEX.
(2) The correct drawing number is H-2-118000. The correct title of the
drawing is STRUCTURAL AREA SECURITY LIGHTING FOUNDATION DETAILS.
(3) This word should be deleted as it appears to have no meaning.
(4) The correct title of this specification is Area Security Lighting.
(5) The correct revision of this specification is Rev. 0.
Condition: 111.3.8.6.
Page, lines: (1) Page 72, line 8-13; (2) Page 73, line 17;
(3) Page 74, line 12; (4) Page 75, line 15)
Comment/Action: The following four comments apply:
(1) On Page 72, lines 8-13, change to Section III.3.B.6. In addition, the
title of this section should be changed to "INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL SITE
UTILITIES."
-- -- ------ --- (z, "'1--_ IT- n__P aae ,_ 73- . _ , itna . ..._ fi7 _. , rnanna _.._..,_ T^-^.nn-n- ... -__ _1 to ' -" IK-5oo-001. -"
920312.1547-1it
(3) On Page 74, line 12, change H-2-123034 to H-2-124034.
(4) On Page 75, line 15, delete the "***Total***" on this line.
Justification: Justification for the four comments is as follows:
(1) The title stated is incorrect.
(2) The title of drawing H-2-118013 refers to the tank as TK-500-001.
(3) The correct drawing number is H-2-124034.
(4) This word should be deleted as it appears to have no meaning.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 176 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: III.3.B.7.
Page, lines: ( 1) Page 76, line 7; ( 2) Page 76, line 16
(3) Page 77, line 3
25.332 :oment/Action: The following three comments apply:
:1) On page 76, line 7, revise "first application for" to "a future request
for"
( 2) On Page 76, line 16, delete this line.
( 3) On Page 77, line 3, delete the "***Total***" on this line.
-'j Just ification: Justification for the three comments is as follows:
(1) The regulations do not require the resubmittal of a permit application.
The only requirements are that the Permittee submit a"request for

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 177 of 223
03/16/92
better devoted to regulatory oversight, compliance activities, and site
cleanup.
Condition: III.3.6.10.
25.335 Page, lines: ( 1) Page 79, lines 7-13; (2) Page 79, lines 24-25
Comment/Action: The following two comments apply:
(1) On Page 79, lines 7-13, wherever it appears replace "department" with "a
qualified registered engineer".
920312.1917-17I
(2) On Page 79, lines 24-25, replace the words "Initiated upon the effective
date of modification" with "Initiated after the effective date of
modification".
Justification: Justification for the two comments is as follows:
(1) As discussed in the comment to Draft Permit condition II.L this permit
condition establishes an arbitrary and unprecedented intrusion i nto the design
and construction of permitted facilities. If design changes are made during
construction that require modification of the Permit, then a permit
modification will be sought in accordance with the regulations, which will
provide ample opportunity for review, before unit operations. The Department
will continue to receive documentation of proposed design changes for
informational purposes and will be able to conduct onsite construction
inspections to ensure that the construction is completed according to accepted
engineering and construction practices.
This- "uraft -Permit section and Sections II.L.3.b, c, and d establish an
unprecedented regulatory requirement addressing the design and construction of
permitted facilities. Nothing in WAC 173-303 grants to the Department the
design approval rights sought to be preserved under these provisions. The
Department's intended purpose of approving all ohases Qf the ^esign and
construction represents an inappropriate level of regulatory control for a
final status Permit. Approving all phases of construction goes beyond the
level of control necessary to ensure compliance and will result in management
inefficiency and poor use of resources.
From a practical construction standpoint, the situation created by this
condition would be totally untenable. No construction could be accomplished
in any reasonable time if work had to stop for 7 days every time there was a
erinor thange i^ how the-construction was-g6i-ngJto-be-accompt#shed:- This
condition places the major burden for project management directly on the
Department, which has neither the authority nor the personnel and other
resources to manage Hanford Facility projects.
(2) Some packages will not be able to be initiated on the date of the
modification. Certain packages will be required to be complete before the
next package can be started. The only regulatory requirement is nd to
initiate before the permit is in effect. There is no regulation requiring
work to begin on the date the permit goes into effect. The Permit provides
authorization to allow construction to proceed, not mandating the start of
construction. This provision exceeds the regulatory authority of the
Department beyond that required to ensure compliance.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 178 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: 111.3.8.11.
25.336 Page, lines: (1) Page 79, lines 30-42; (2) Page 79, line 42
Comment/Action: The following two comments apply:
(1) On Page 79, lines 30-42, delete:
1) Preliminary design for the HWVP
2) HWVP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
5) Piping and Instrument Diagrams
(2) On Page 79, line 42, delete the piping and instrument drawings from the
list of documents and information.
Justification: Justification for the two comments is as follows:
(1) The inclusion of these documents in the Permit extends beyond the level
of regulatory control necessary to ensure compliance. The Preliminary Design
sc for HWVP, the HWVP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, and the Piping and
Instrument Diagrams are provided in the HWVP Part B Dangerous Waste'Permit
Application as referenced documents/design media only. Linking these
F^e documents to the Permit is not only inappropriate ( because the information is
available and reviewed through other channels), but also require would a
modification to the permit every time a change was made to any of these
documents. Thus, the management efficiency of the commenters and the Agency
and the Department would be adversely impacted by unnecessarily increasing the
number of modifications that must be processed. The Preliminary Design for
__ the HWVP and the HWVP Preliminary Safety Analyses Report are documents that
are not as current as the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit Application, and thus
these documents contain information that does not agree with or might
contradict information in the permit application. Because of complications
and problems in keeping the Preliminary Design, Preliminary Safety Analysis
Report, and the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit Application concurrently updated,
the first two documents should be deleted as constituting information that is
incorporated in this Permit.
Design media (piping and instrument diagrams, process flow schematics,
material balances, sampling schedules, etc.) supplied with the HWVP permit
application or incorporated by reference is for information only. Piping and
instrument diagrams contained in the preliminary design for the HWVP are of a
revision superseded by those contained in the HWVP Dangerous Waste Permit
Application. Moreover, the piping and instrument diagrams, process flow
_ schematics, and material balances submitted with the HWVP Part B Dangerous
Waste Permit Application explicitly stated that this information was
preliminary and subject to change during Detailed Design. Also, the process
flow schematics and material balances depict a preliminary estimate of
typical, time-average operating conditions given a typical, but hypothetical,
feed composition. Actual operating conditions and feed compositions will vary
substantially from those shown.
9tas12.1547-111
(2) The piping and instrument diagrams were included in the HWVP Part B
Dangerous Waste Permit Application and do not need to be repeated.

25.337
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 179 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
III.3.B.12.
Page, lines: ( 1) Page 79, lines 44-46; ( 2) Page 80, lines 1-50;
(3) Page 81, lines 24-26
Comment/Action: The following three comments apply:
(1) On Page 79, lines 44-46, delete this permit condition.
( 2) On Page 80, lines 1-50, and on Page 81, lines 1-29, delete Table 1.
(3) On Page 81, lines 24-26, change the wording "trial burn" to "preliminary
test operations".
Justification: Justification for the three comments is as follows:
(1)--lt-is-tnfeas4ble-to--in:aediately initiate all the packages identified.
Some packages require completion of other packages before the package can be
initiated. There is no regulatory basis for requiring the initiation of the
construction packages. The Permit provides authorization to allow
construction to proceed, not mandating the start of construction.
The Department is granting permission to begin work. The internal scheduling
of how and when the work is to be performed is a business decision by the
Permittee, subject to meeting the deliverable dates. Instruction by the
Department to begin work on a certain date represents an unwarranted intrusion
into the business management of the Permittee.
(2) The only warranted "compliance" schedule is the "compliance" schedule
specified in the FFACO. This is the only schedule that has "authority" and
any other schedule, in the Permit or elsewhere, should be deleted. The
Permittee should have the control and management prerogative to make interim
changes to the schedule as long as the end date is met in accordance with the
FFACO. Incorporating the schedule as a permit condition places the major
burden for project management directly on the Department, which has neither
the authority nor the personnel and other resources to management Hanford
Facility projects.
If a schedule becomes a necessary part of the Permit, then the current
schedule in the Draft Permit should be replaced with the proposed schedule
provided below. The modification schedule as it reads now is neither
realistic nor consistent with current design schedules. Revision of the
schedule will result in a permit modification schedule consistent with the
design schedule as well as manpower availability. As the schedule appears in
the Draft Permit, many documents and plans are required significantly ahead
(in some cases by years) of the current planning base, as well as budget and
manpower resource availability. The proposed revision is consistent with the
modification schedule presented in the HWVP Part B Permit Application,
submitted to the Department on 10/01/91, with the exception of the submittal
sequence for construction and procurement packages. The proposed schedule
--provided_is_based_pn practical_design, construction, and operational
considerations and experience. For example, experience indicates that changes
to a unit will probably be required as a result of cold operational testing;
:nerefore, the schedule shows as-built drawing s being provided after the
testing has been accomplished. Another example is air monitoring and control
equipment. The Washington State Department of Health has expressed an
interest in having the equipment selected later In the design process, so as
920312.1547-111

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
to take advantage of the best available technologies at the
#his-iflformatian al-so i-s shown to be submitted in the fourth
The submittal represents achievable milestones that support
the plant for a December 1999 startup.
.180 of 223
03/16/92
time; therefore
modification.
construction of
The proposed schedule incorporates the revised HWVP design schedule into the
modification schedule and provides a permit modification schedule based on
need and practical timing of submittals. The schedule provides for submittals
appropriate for the level of design completed, and avoids submittals in which
adequate data are not available. Submittal of both construction and
procurement packages is based on meeting the commitment for HWVP hot
operations by December 1999.
These dates are appropriate for enforceable permit conditions. While some
packages might be available, i.e, 100 percent design complete and released for
construction by the DOE-RL, before the-proposed submittal dates, the_proposed
submittal schedule will allow adequate time for both the DOE-RL and Department
review. The Department will be provided with preliminary design packages to
support their review efforts.
Procurement package P35 is not included in the permit modification schedule.
This package consists of a basic ordering agreement where a single supplier
will be chosen to achieve standardization of instrumentation for the project;
- the--act4al--4nsti'ilmentai;iOi7 IS cvntained in other procurement packages.
Therefore, this package should not be part of the permit modification
schedule.
9203t2JS47-1 t t
PROPOSED MODIFICATION SCHEDULE
MODIFICATION 1
Effective permit date - 12/1/92
Submittal date - 05/30/92
Documentation to be provided:
Construction Packages: 200, 210A, 350
Procurement Packages: P02, P07, P22, P30, P34.
MODIFICATION 2
Effective permit date - 08/1/93
Submittal date - 02/1/93
Documentation to be provided:
Construction Packages: 175, 210B*, 265A, 410, 420
Procurement Packages: P01, P03, P04, P05A&B, P06A&B, P08A, P09, P10,
P12, P13, P20A, P21, P27A&B, P33A&B
MODIFICATION 3
Effective permit date - 05/15/94
Submittal date - 11/15/93
Documentation to be provided:
Construction Packages: 220, 250% 240, 251, 271, 260, 265B*, 330, 430
Procurement Packages: P05C, P06C, P08B, P16, P17, P18, P20B, P23, P24,
P25, P26, P28B&C, P31A&B, P32, P33C
Waste dischaye pe^it

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
MODIFICATION 4
Effective date - 12/1/94
_nJtl$mrt^.lat JQ.Le - - V ffG/1/OA
uLV^^i1
Documentation to be provided:
Construction Packages: 190, 255, 270, 280, 285, 290, 310,
345, 370, 375, 380, 435, 440, 445
Procurement Packages: P11, P14, P15, P20C, P29
Sample schedule
Waste analysis plan
QA/QC Plan
Integrity assessment plan
Monitoring and inspection plan for melter and tank systems
Environmental Performance Assessment
Air pollution control and monitoring equipment
Closure plan
MODIFICATION 5
Effective date - preoperational testing
Submittal date - 6 months before preoperational testing
`r' Documentation to be provided:
Preoperational test plan and identification of POHCs
Contingency plan
Training plan
25.400
920372.1547-111
MODIFICATION 6
Effective date - hot operations
Submittal date - 6 months before hot start
Documentation to be provided:
As-built drawings
^^sults of prcope otional testing
Final operating requirements and performance standards
NOTES:
181 of 223
03/16/92
320, 335, 340,
Construction and procurement packages are not required to be 100%
complete for public review. In select cases, some packages are not 100%
complete by planned effective permit date (refer to *).
* Indicates packages that will not be 100% complete by the time of the
planned effective date of the permit modification.
(3) Trial burn denotes an incinerator. The HWVP is classified as a Subpart X
Miscellaneous Unit because the melter and vitrification processes do not
involve the use of an incinerator.
Condition: III.3.B.13.
Page, lines: Page 81, lines 31-35
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Justification: This is an internal plan of UE6C that is not required by
WAC 173-303; therefore, no regulatory basis exists to include the plan in the
Permit. This plan has been prepared as a matter of good management practice

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 182 of 223
03/16/92
and is to be used as an internal management tool. It is an inappropriate
extension of the regulator's control to require that this document be included
in the Permit, and represents a level of control beyond that required to
ensure compliance.
25.338 Condition: III.3.B.15.
Page, lines: Page 81, lines 41-47
Comment/Action: Modify this condition to state:
The Permittee will comply with the requirements of
WAC 173-303-800(5).
Justification: As noted in comments to Draft Permit condition II.W.1, the
Department does not have the authority under the Dangerous Waste Regulations
to impose requirements pursuant to other regulations. Although other laws and
'`- regulations must -be complied with, this-Permit-is not the-appropriate vehicle
for ensuring that compliance. Furthermore, because the HWVP does not match
^ any of the sources in Section 30 of WAC 173-460, it will not be possible to
comply with this condition as written.
25.339 Condition: III.3.B.16.
Page, lines: Page 81, lines 49-50
Page 82, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete the requirement to submit the PSD "Compliance
Checklist" to the Department by April 30, 1991.
25.340
Justification: There is no known regulatory basis or RCRA authority for the
requirement to submit the Comoliance Checklist for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for review and approval of a source that, by design, will not be
a source emitting any significant level of a pollutant regulated under the
P5D regulations. While the commenters have agreed to provide a courtesy copy
of the checklist, [as indicated in letters dated August 9, 1991, Nord to Brown
(Comment Attachmen-t Y),and October 10, 1991. Bracken to Nord ( Comment
Attachment W. there was no agreement to submit the checklist for approval.
Furthermore, the information required to complete the PSD Applicability Form
will not be available before the required April 30, 1991 submittal date. Per
this Draft Permit, the Permittee has 60 days from the time the information
becomes available to submit permitting documentation. . Additionally, technical
working discussions between the commenters and the air permitting authorities
have resulted in agreements that air permitting documentation required for
--- yhase- lI- construction -activities will not be submitted to the authorities
until September 1992.
Condition:
111.3.8.17.
(1) Page 82, lines 5-7; ( 2) Page 82, lines 5-7
The following two comments apply:
i ifles -$-7,- ifl -the-phrase -sappl-icat#on--for NVtile of
Canstruction," d elete "application for."
_ Page, lines:
Comment/Action:
--i-0-On PW82.
9MI2.u47-111

^=r>
;-r-,
=F..
t]I )
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACI:. TY PERMIT
25.34 1
Condition:
Page, lines:
III.3.B.18.
Page 82, lines 9-10
- - 0nmlent/ •--wcc •-w -n -: D-iee
,-.ce
.l
cn J
is - Jl..--
2onv^L wn .
920312.7947-111
.183 of 223
03/16/92
(2) On Page 82, lines 5-7, delete the requirement to submit the Notice of
Construction to the Department by April 30, 1991.
Justification: Justification for the two comments is as follows:
(1) State and local air regulations [WAC 173-460-040(1)] indicate that the
correct title for this permitting document is "Notice of Construction".
(2) The regulator has erroneously drafted a condition driven by requirements
of WAC 173-400-110. Although the Permittee will comply with WAC 173-400-110,
it is inappropriate to include such a requirement as a condition of this
Permit. The Permittee will address other regulatory requirements as specified
in WAC 173-303-800(5). Thus, this condition extends the level of regulatory
control beyond that required to ensure compliance.
Furthermore, the information required to complete the Notice of Construction
will not be available before the required April 30, 1992 submittal date. Per
this Draft Permit, the Permittee has 60 days from the time the information
becomes available to submit permitting documentation. Additionally, technical
working discussions between the commenters and the air permitting authorities
have resulted in agreements that air permitting documentation required for
Phase II construction activities will not be submitted to the authorities
until September 1992.
Justification: This condition oversteps the bounds of regulatory authority
and is inconsistent with the FFACO. The language in the permit application
dealing with Regulatory authority over radionuclides is proper and should not
be deleted. The Department's jurisdiction is over the hazardous components of
mixed waste, not the radioactive components, in accordance with RCRA
Section 6905(a), 10 CFR Part 962, and EPA Notice Regarding State Authorization
to Regulate the Hazardous Components of Radioactive Mixed Wastes under RCRA,
51 Fed. Reg. 24,504 (July 3, 1986); also refer to RCW 70.105.109 (Department
might regulate mixed wastes "to the extent it is not preempted by federal
law").
The AEA vests the DOE with the responsibility to assure the development,
utilization and control of atomic energy for military and for all other
purposes vital to the common defense and security [42 U.S.C. § 2012(a)]. The
AEA also provides that The processing and utilization of source, byproduct,
and special nuclear material must be regulated in the national Interest and in
order to provide for the common defense and security and to protect the health
and safety of the public [42 U.S.C. 2012(d)]. In accordance with the AEA, the
Department of- €neryy and its predece3sor agencies have developed a
comprehensive program for the regulation of source, special nuclear, and
byproduct materials in both product and waste forms.
In 1976, Congress enacted the RCRA, a comprehensive cradle-to-grave management
scheme, administered by the EPA and authorized states, for the generation,
treatment, disposal, and recycling of hazardous waste. The scope of the RCRA

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 184 of 223
03/16/92
program is deiineated by the definitions of "solid waste" and "hazardous
waste". The RCRA 1004(5) defines the term "hazardous waste" as a subset
_--- ----wiLhirvthe-universe-o-f"salid_-mas-tee, which--are-defined--+nSection 1004(27).
The definition of "solid waste" in RCRA expressly excludes "source, special
nuclear, or byproduct materials" as defined by the AEA. Those excluded
materials are regulated under the AEA either by the DOE or the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Because the materials are not solid wastes, the
materials cannot be hazardous wastes because all hazardous wastes must first
meet the definition of a solid waste.
In 1987, the DOE, after consultation with the EPA and other interested
parties, issued a Final Interpretive Rule (10 CFR Part 962) regarding the
definition of "byproduct material" set forth in Section 11(e)(1) of the AEA
mm (May 1, 1987, 52 FR 15937) for purposes of RCRA applicability. Under the
rule, the AEA term "byproduct material" means:
any radioactive material yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the
4;.. radiation incident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear
material.
9aai+2.1547-111
The Final Rule clarifies the DOE's obligation under RCRA as applied to
"radioactive mixed waste" i.e., those radioactive waste substances that are
also "hazardous" within the meaning of RCRA. The Final Rule states that "the
words 'any radioactive material' as used in the term 'byproduct', refer only
to the actual radionuclides dispersed or suspended in the waste substance.
The nonradioactive hazardous component of the waste will be subject to
regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act." The principle
effect of the Final Rule is that handlers of radioactive mixed wastes, such as
the DOE, are subject to dual regulations; the handler must comply with both
the requirements of the AEA for the radioactive component and RCRA regulations
for the management of the nonradioactive hazardous waste component.
The Preamble to the DOE's May 1, 1987 byproduct rule recognizes that the DOE
is the federal agency responsible for authoritatively construing the
requirements of the AEA, as that Act applies to DOE facilities.
. it seems apparent that RCRA was intended to have some applicability to
materials that were already regulated under the AEA. Section 1006(a) of RCRA,
specifies-th3i as 19-'any activity oraubstanresubject to the AEA. RCRA
regulation must yield, but only to the extent of inconsistent requirements of
the AEA. The archetypal substances that can fairly be described as "sub,/ect
to" the AEA are substances containing source, special nuclear and byproduct
material, to which the AEA expressly Is directed." ( 52 FR at Col. 1,
page 15940).
The preamble explains the effect of language of RCRA and AEA as follows:
Read together, DOE believes that the definitional exclusion and the language
of section 1006(a) are correctly understood to provide for the regulation
under RCRA of all hazardous waste, including waste that is also radioactive.
RCRA does not apply to the radioactive component of such a waste however, if
It is source special nuclear or byproduct material. Instead, the AEA applies

920712.1547-I11
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 185 of 223
Q3/16/92
to that radioactive component. Finally, If the application of both regulatory
schemes proves conflicting In specific Instances, RCRA yields to the AEA.
( emphasis added) ( Id. at Col. 2, para 1).
In addition the preamble states:
While DOE does not anticipate that adoption of today's final rule will lead to
frequent cases of 'Inconsistency', section 1006(a) provides critical assurance
that the implementation of the final rule will create no Impediment to the
maintenance of protection of radiological hazards as well as DOE's
accomplishment of Its other statutory responsibilities under the AEA (emphasis
added) (Id. at Col. 2, Para 2).
The DOE's byproduct rule therefore appropriately recognizes the dual AEA/RCRA
regulation of mixed waste while preserving the exclusion of the source,
special nuclear, and byproduct component of the waste from regulation under
RCRA, and also recognizes the supremacy of AEA authority in the event of a
conflict. This approach has been most recently confirmed by the Agency's
Clarification Notice of September 23, 1988, entitled Clarification of Interim
Status Qualification Requirements for the Hazardous Components of Radioactive
Mixed Waste (53 Fed. Reg. 37,045). In the September 23, 1988 Notice, the EPA
committed to a strategy of minimizing the impact of RCRA regulations by
developing an approach for joint regulation of radioactive mixed waste "that
will affect program implementation in the least burdensome manner
practicable." In terms of the inconsistency issue, the EPA recognized that
"implementation of the dual regulatory program for radioactive mixed waste
management might result in instances where compliance with both sets of
regulations is not only infeasible but undesirable." In cases where there was
an actual inconsistency, the EPA acknowledged that the AEA would take
precedence, and the inconsistent RCRA requirement would be inapplicable.
The_FFACO--likewise-contemp-laxesthat the DOE,--rot the Department, will have
authority over radioactive waste pursuant to the AEA. The FFACO at Article
defines mixed waste as follows:
Radioactive Mixed Waste" or 'Mixed Waste" are wastes that contains both
hazardous waste subject to RCRA, as amended, and radioactive waste subject to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Under Article I, Jurisdiction, the parties agreed that the state of Washington
would regulate the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
waste pursuant to the state HWMA and regulations governing the management of
hazardous wastes (WAC 173-303). As explained above, RCRA excludes source,
special nuclear, and byproduct materials from its definition of solid (and
therefore hazardous) wastes. Article I further states that "nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to require the DOE to take any action pursuant to
RCRA which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended." FFACO, Art. I, T 5. The DOE's authority to regulate
radioactive materials was therefore clearly preserved in the FFACO. The FFACO
provides for CERCLA removal actions at certain operable units. Radioactive
materials fall within CERCLA's definition of hazardous substance. This does
not, however, bestow any authority on the Department to regulate radioactive
materials as a hazardous waste under the RCRA permit.

1
vr03+2.ui7-111
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 186 of 223
03/16/92
Therefore, any assertion by the Department that the source, special nuclear,
or byproduct component of a mixed waste is subject to regulation under RCRA or
-the- Department's -Dangerou¢ Waste Rega:l.ation, is inconsistent with and
preempted by federal law as well as being inconsistent with the FFACO. It
would also be outside the scope of activities which can be subject to
regulation at a federal facility pursuant to Section 6001 of RCRA
(42 U.S.C. 6961). Therefore the references to regulatory authority over
radionuclides in the permit application should.not be deleted.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 187 of 223
03/16/92
COMMENTS ON PART IV - CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PAST PRACTICE
Condition: IV. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PAST PRACTICE
25.342 Page, lines: Page 83 through 102
General comment: Part IV of the Draft Permit contains such an extensive
number of problems that Part IV should be rewritten in its entirety. The
commenters would be willing to work with the Department and the Agency to
develop an appropriate corrective action section for the Permit. Regardless
of how the agencies address the commenters' principal or alternative comments,
the commenters do not waive their objection to the inclusion of the full
condition or any overly broad portion thereof in the Permit.
920312.1553-tV
Justification: The proposed corrective action conditions of this Draft Permit
contain so many deficiencies that it is essentially impossible to provide all
the necessary comments that would be required to correct its' deficiencies.
A major deficiency posed by Part IV of the Draft Permit is its lack of
consistency with the FFACO. The Draft Permit conditions in Part IV are not
consistent with the FFACO process, which itself is a federal facilities
agreement and a consent order, binding upon the DOE-RL, the Agency, and the
Department. The FFACO defines the process to be followed for corrective
action activities on the Hanford Site. The FFACO provides for an integrated
program of conducting corrective action pursuant to RCRA and remedial actions
pursuant to CERCLA, under the processes set forth in the FFACO. However, the
Draft Permit corrective action provisions improperly establish an essentially
separate and substantially different permit-based program. The FFACO, at
Paragraph 16, provides that the activities covered by Part Three of the FFACO
will satisfy the corrective action requirements of Section 3004(u) and (v) of
RCRA for a RCRA P4rmit and Section 3008(h) for interim status releases. The
FFACO further states at Paragraph 19 that EPA and Ecology agree that when
permits are issued to DOE for hazardous waste management activities pursuant
to Part Two of this Agreement, requirements relating to remedial action for
hazardous waste management units under Part Three of this Agreement shall be
the RCRA corrective action requireeents for those units, whether that permit
is administered by EPA or Ecology.
In accordance with this paragraph of the FFACO, the corrective action section
of the Permit should merely reference the FFACO and indicate that conduct of
-acti•rities-under--Part Three-of the FFACO satisfies the corrective action
requirements of the Permit. Only the final corrective action decisions need
to be incorporated into the Permit as these decision are made. All other
matters, including schedules, will be addressed by the provisions of the
FFACO. This would be consistent with the Agency's guidance for corrective
action at federal facilities covered by an interagency agreement, as discussed
in the July 27, 1990 proposed regulations for Corrective Action for Solid
Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (55 FR 30798-
30884). This also would be consistent with other permits issued to federal
facilities by the Region 10 Office of the Agency, such as the Fort Wainwright
Permit (AK62100022426) (Comment Attachment D).
In contrast to this, the Draft Permit proposes that corrective action
requirements be imposed upon the DOE-RL for activities not covered by the

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 188 of 223
03/16/92
FFACO. The Draft Permit proposes to require the DOE-RL to be responsible for
corrective action at facilities that are not under the DOE-RL's direct
control, such as the BPA-owned or used lands, and the US Ecology site located
on land subleased to US Ecology by the state of Washington. For any of these
non-DOE-RL managed sites, SWMUs are not identified in the Draft Permit.
Should the Agency or the Department believe some form of investigation or
remediation is necessary for these non-DOE-RL managed sites, the appropriate
course of action would be for thg Agency or the Department to issue an Order
requiring su_c_h_act_i_on to the BPA or US Ecology under the other authorities
available to the agencies.
In addition, the Draft Permit appears to strive to create additional
responsibility on the part of the DOE-RL even where longstanding policy to the
contrary has been established by the Agency. For example, the Draft Permit
ignores the Agency's policy on treating major subunits of a cabinet department
as independent landowners. Under this policy, the BPA is an independent party
from the DOE-RL. The condition seeks to impose upon the DOE-RL the obligation
for corrective action at the BPA Midway Substation and Community, a property
owned by BPA even before the existence of the DOE-RL.
The DOE-RL is involved in an extensive environmental restoration project with
regard to its activities at the Hanford Facility. The DOE-RL should not be
burdened with the additional responsibilities of managing or performing work
- - - - - - - - --to clean up^ wastes of other parties. This action should be the responsibility
-- ------ -af--the BPA or US Ecology or the state of Washington. The Draft Permit
provisio.^.s would only serve to force the DOE-RL to reassign money and manpower
from environmental restoration activities to carry out permit-mandated
activ#ties relating to other perttes. !nc'lusion of corrective action
r€quirements-in this Permmit for those non-DOE-RL managed sites should be
deferred until such other actions have been exhausted.
The FFACO also states ( Paragraph 47) that all work described above [reaedfal
or corrective actions] ... shall be governed by this FFACO Part Three.
-However,--the-Draft--Permit--contains detailed-provisions in Part IV that propose
to separate out and accelerate work on units covered by the FFACO, describes
new criteria that will control how past practice work will be carried out, and
imposes permit conditions and processes on corrective action work that should
be governed by the FFACO.
These Draft Permit conditions are inconsistent with the carefully negotiated
requirements of the FFACO, which is an agreement that is legally binding on
------ -- t^^ _Department,--would-result-in-ad-hoc--(and unilateral) repr+,oritization of
restoration work at the Hanford Site by the Department, and inefficient
_ expenditures of human and monetary resourees_
*The BPA already has initiated a voluntary remediation activity at the
Midway Substation and Community. The BPA has a strong policy of acting
responsibly to protect and enhance the environment. There is no necessity to
'force>fit'-BPA owned-land into the correction action section of the DOE-RL's
final status.Permit.

^-o
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 189 of 223
03/16/92
The Draft Permit indicates that most corrective action provisions are issued
by and based on both state and federal authority and, in several cases, on
state-only authority; when in fact, the HSWA Amendments to RCRA and the FFACO
require that the EPA issue and administer the corrective action portion of a
final status permit unless and until the state program is authorized to act in
lieu of the federal program (refer to 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)]. The state of
Washington has not been so authorized. The state lacks authority independent
of RCRA and.the FFACO to impose corrective action on the Hanford Site. In
addition, a state-only corrective action requirement would be considered a
state removal or remedial action, which under 42 U.S.C. §9620(a)(4) is
inapplicable to federal sites listed on the National Priorities List.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the Department elsewhere in-the state for the
corrective action portion of the permit to be issued by the Administrator
sy
[refer to Chemical Processors, Inc., No. WAD000812909 (Comment Attachment F)].
n.m. Y
920312.150-1v
The Fact Sheet indicates that many of the Part IV conditions are standard
conditions when in fact very few, if any, of the Draft Permit conditions are
found-in-peraEits--issued-by the Departirent -An-lextremeiy detailed set of
corrective action conditions are included that have not been found in any
other permits reviewed by the commenters. These conditions are clearly
inconsistent with the FFACO and are contrary to applicable law. The Hanford
Site has been listed on the National Priorities List ( 54 FR 41015), October 4,
1989, pursuant to the CERCLA. Permit conditions that are inconsistent with
the conduct of activities being carried out pursuant to the FFACO are
inappropriate and are precluded by applicable law [refer to 42 USC 9620d(4)].
Even if it were determined that corrective action was appropriate under the
Permit for some units not covered by the FFACO, the extensive corrective
action provisions contained in Part IV are not appropriate and should be
developed with input r`rom all potentially affected parties.
In addition, throughout Part IV of the Draft Permit, arbitrarily set schedules
are established that are likely to be unobtainable, not only because of the
lack of any apparent consideration of the amount of work being requested and
the lack of information about the non-DOE-RL managed sites, but also because
of the lack of consideration of the internal DOE-RL review cycles and the
effect such priorities would have on work already scheduled. The DOE-RL has
no information as to the degree of effort that might be necessary to carry out
activities at the non-DOE-RL managed sites, which have been included in
Part IV of the Draft Permit. It is arbitrary on the part of the Agency or
Department to impose upon the DOE-RL the detailed form of corrective action
requirements that are contained in Part IV for non-DOE-RL managed areas.
These requirements would force the parties to become involved in a series of
permit modifications to revise these conditions to reflect the real capability
of the DOE-RL, and to structure the requirements to be consistent with
corrective action regulations being developed by the Agency.
In addition, the DOE-RL contractors ( WHC and PNL) should not be identified as
responsible for corrective action responsibilities on the Hanford Site.
Pirt IV of the Draft Permit totally fails to distinguish between DOE-RL and
its contractors as permittees. The Draft Permit might be read to hold WHC and
PNL responsible for corrective action on the Hanford Site. The Hanford

^rr
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 190 of 223
03/16/92
contractors have no responsibility for corrective action for either areas
covered by the FFACO or non-DOE-RL managed areas of the Hanford Site.
The entire Draft Permit, and Part IV in particular, mischaracterizes the
nature of contractor responsibilities under the law because it inaccurately
portrays the DOE-RL, WHC, and PNL as equal permittees with no distinction of
responsibilities. ( Even when read together with Draft Permit condition I.A.2,
Page 13, lines 26-29, the Draft Permit only recognizes a distinction of
contractor responsibility by geographical areas.) This approach ignores the
functional differences among DOE-RL and its contractors. The DOE-RL is
responsible for overall management and operation of the Hanford Facility,
including policy, programmatic funding, scheduling decisions, and general
oversight. The contractors, limited by the terms of their contracts, are
responsible for certain day-to-day activities such as waste analysis, waste
handling, monitoring, container labeling, personnel training, and
recordkeeping.
In 40 CFR 260.10 "operator" is defined as the person responsible for the
- v- - 1Qperation Bf -a faci-?-i-ty. This definition is applicable to corrective
action under 40 CFR 264.101. Neither WHC nor PNL are responsible for the
_overalloperatien-of-either-the-Har€ard-Fac-i-lity or any individual TSD unit
within the Hanford Facility. The DOE-RL, the Department, and the Agency
previously agreed in the FFACO that the DOE-RL owns and operates the Hanford
Facility. The contractors have more limited and specific roles under their
contracts with the DOE-RL and should not be identified as responsible for
corrective action on the Hanford Facility.
9zosa.+553-rv
In the Fact Sheet, in comments pertaining to Draft Permit condition I.A.2, the
Department has recognized that the contractors responsibility should be
limited on both a functional and geographic basis to the "day-to-day
operations at certain units." The Department also incorrectly designated the
contractor responsibilities by geographical areas. Refer to comments to Draft
Permit Page 7, lines 23-24 and 26-27, Attachments 3 and 4. In many cases, a
unit for which a contractor might have responsibilities is located in areas of
the Hanford Facility for which the contractor has no other responsibilities.
The Fact Sheet is totally devoid of any justification or even discussion of
the responsibility of WHC and PNL, as purported permittees, for corrective
action on the Hanford Site.
At Page 34 of the Fact Sheet, in discussions pertaining to the BPA and
US Ecology lands, the Agency and the Department state that the landowner
(USOOE), as the peraittee, is being required to perform corrective action...'
Jhi^-might_ be-read -as iimit-+.-ng--this ;^equ#rement-to--one-permittee, Dv"E-RL.
However, even this limiting language was not carried into the Draft Permit.
Issuing the Permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Hanford Facility" will
avoid mischaracterizing the nature of responsibilities under the law. A
similar action was taken by the state of Texas and EPA in issuing a RCRA final
status permit to the "U.S. Department of Energy-Pantex Plant" ( Comment
Attachment Q. Also refer to comaentt-t4-Or3ft-Permit_condition on Page 1,
lines 28-37 ( Title Page) and Draft Permit condition I.A.2 on Page 13,

25.343
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 191 of 223
03/16/92
lines 26-29. Also refer to the Agency permitting approach for Fort Wainwright
Alaska Permit No. AK6210022426 ( Comment Attachment D).
_Additional_deta-ils-an-all__of'_these_po;nts,-as well as other concerns, are
contained in the individual comments on Part IV conditions. While the
comments attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of this section, the
commenters remain firmly convinced that Part IV should be withdrawn in its
entirety. The specific comments should not be.construed as a waiver of that
position or an acceptance of this Part IV or any condition therein.
Condition: IV.A. EFFECT OF PART IV, RCRA PAST PRACTICE ACTIONS
Page, lines: Page 83, lines 5 and 8
Comment/Action: (1) Change title of Part IV to "CORRECTIVE ACTION"
(2) Change title of IV.A to "EFFECT OF PART IV, RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTIONS"
Justification: The term "Past Practice" originated with the FFACO and covers
all waste units within the DOE-RL managed elements of the Hanford Site. The
term includes those areas that do not qualify as SWMUs. The term "Corrective
Action" is more appropriate for this section of the Permit. Using the terms
inconsistently will result in confusion both with the public and in future
actions and will result in the inefficient usage of resources.
-5.344 Condition: IV.A.1. Integration with the FFACO
Page, lines: Page 83, line 10
Comment/Action: Add the following paragraph:
920372.1553-w
All SWMUs that are under the management of the DOE-RL will be
addressed within the FFACO. The DOE-RL managed SWMUs requiring
investigation will be assigned to an operable unit and will be
subject to investigation and remediation through either RCRA or
CERCLA past practice processes within the FFACO.
Justification: This language will ensure consistency with the FFACO. All
identified SWMUs under DOE-RL management at the time of the FFACO, along with
other waste units, including one time releases, were assigned to operable
units for investigation and corrective or remedial action, if necessary, as
part of the FFACO. A process was established as part of the FFACO to add new
units, when identified, to the appropriate operable unit or even to create a
new operable unit if necessary. The intent was to ensure a specific
management area was addressed as a whole instead of by individual unit. By
including all units within the FFACO, one planning and prioritization system
is used to ensure the highest priority work is accomplished first.
Furthermore, the FFACO integrated process will achieve greater efficiency and
cost effectiveness than could occur under a nonintegrated program. Following
approval of the FFACO, many new SWMUs have been identified and assigned to
operable units. It is anticipated that this will continue as further scoping
investigations are conducted throughout the Hanford Site. Part IV of this
Permit must be consistent with the FFACO.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT . 192 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: IV.A.i.a
25.345 Page, lines: Page 83, lines 12-17
Comment/Action: Reword to Read:
All RCRA Past Practice (RPP) activities performed pursuant to the
FFACO will not be subject to this Permit, with the exception of
documenting the selected corrective or interim measure via a permit
modification in accordance with permit condition IV.O. All
schedules of compliance shall be maintained as part of the FFACO.
Extensions of the due dates for all actions required by the
schedules of compliance, including submittals, shall be covered by
the change control process in the FFACO. Reporting and information
also will be governed by the FFACO.
Justification: This change is required to ensure consistency with the FFACO.
In the development of the FFACO, it was the intent of all parties that all
schedules of compliance for both CERCLA and RCRA past practice units that are
covered by the FFACO would be developed and maintained as part of the FFACO.
ar The requirements, documentation, processes, reporting, and ground rules for
carrying out RFI/CMSs, Corrective Measures, and Interim Measures are defined
in the FFACO under Article XIII and Section 7.0 of the FFACO Action Plan. A
permit modification would be issued following the RFI/CMS (or equivalent for
an interim measure) to document the remediation decision within the RCRA
permit, but the follow-on actions would continue to be carried out as part of
the FFACO. This would result in a single integrated cleanup plan for the
DOE-RL managed portion of the Hanford Site.
The change also is required to make the Permit consistent with the
requirements of the CERCLA (42 USC 9601-9675, as amended). The Hanford Site
has been listed on the National Priorities List pursuant to CERCLA. (Refer to
National Priorities List in 54 FR 41015, October 4, 1989). Pursuant to
CERCLA, the program for remedial actions being taken pursuant to that statute
------ ---- prec? udes-- appl iut ton -of -t.he -oermit- to those-actions aith#n the scope of the
FFACO. [Refer to U.S. v. Colorado, USDC Colorado, 33 ERC 1585 ( August 14,
1991)].
920312.1553-1V
In the supplementary information contained with the July 27, 1990 proposed
rule on corrective action (57 FR 30798-30884), the Agency stated under VII.F
(Federal Facilities): Many Federal facilities at which hazardous wastes are
•anaged will be subject to both CERCLA remedial action and RCRA corrective
action authorities. In many such cases, EPA intends to coordinate the
application of RCRA and CERCLA authorities through the use of interagency
agreements (IAGs), as provided under the authority of 120(e) of CERCLA. The
I^ w-fla-provIde .,4e-vehi-cl-o- for ezpi-ici-t-ly-def#ni-ng the pr;,cedurai and
technical requireaunts for corrective action, in satisfaction of the statutory
and regulatory authorities of both RCRA and CERCLA.
The schedules for all scheduled RCRA corrective or interim actions subject to
the FFACO must continue to be governed by the FFACO, even though the schedules
might be incorporated into this Permit. This will maintain consistency and
proper integration between RCRA and CERCLA activities.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .193 of 223
03/16/92
Condition:
IV.A.1.b
25.346 Page, lines: Page 83, lines 19-21
Comment/Action: Delete "section of the" on line 21.
Justification: This change will ensure consistency with the FFACO. By
indicating that this section of the Permit does not specifically apply to the
CERCLA past practice units, the Permit language might be interpreted to mean
that the other sections of the Permit do apply. None of the provisions of
this Permit apply to the CERCLA past practice units activities covered in the
FFACO. Any other interpretation would be beyond the authority of the Permit
and inconsistent with the FFACO. It also would be contrary to the
requirements of CERCLA. The Hanford Site has been listed on the National
Priorities List.
Condition: IV.A.2. Requirements for SWMUs
25.347 Page, lines: Page 83, lines 23-26
--tomeent/Action:
(1) Retitle IV.A.2 to read:
920312.1553-Iv
Requirements for non-Permittee managed SWMUs
(2) Delete Midway Substation and Community, North Slope, 351 Substation,
Central Waste Landfill, and Hanford Site Waste Units from Table IV.1.
(3) Revise sentence to read:
Permit conditions IV.8 through IV.P apply only to those SWMUs listed
on Table IV.1, with the exception of that process specified in
permit condition IV.A.I.a for incorporation of selected remedies.
(4) Reference to US Ecology or other BPA lands as SWMUs is inappropriate.
The individual SWMUs located within the State leased lands or the other BPA
lands not owned by the BPA must be identified and listed individually.
Justification: The effect of revised Draft Permit condition IV.A.1 as
proposed in this comment submittal is that all SWMUs located on the DOErRL
managed portion of the Hanford Site will be addressed by the FFACO.
Therefore, Draft Permit condition IV.A.2 should only address SWMUs that are
not located on the DOE-RL managed portion of the Hanford Site. Deletion of
the noted facilities from Table IV.1 is further based on the comments provided
for Draft Permit conditions IV.P.1, IV.P.3, IV.P.5, IV.P.6, and IV.P.7.
The Fact Sheet recognizes that some of the units listed in Table IV.1 are
contained in the FFACO, but states the units can be better addressed directly
as part of the Permit. The Agency, the Department, and the DOE-RL agreed in
1989 through the FFACO that these units should be addressed as part of the
FFACO to ensure all cleanup activities at the Hanford Site are properly
integrated and prioritized. Provisions were included in the FFACO to allow
for identification and conduct of interim actions, if deemed necessary. The
-arguments given in-the-Fact-Sheet are not valfid,-in-that all the appropriate
action identified in the Draft Permit relative to the DOE-RL managed SWMUs
could be carried out under the FFACO. Neither the Department nor the Agency

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 194 of 223
03/16/92
have requested, in accordance with the FFACO, acceleration of the activities
that have been included under this Draft Permit ( e.g., accelerated action at
------ the-North-Sl-ope -2=4,D--buriai-stte). for these DOE-RL managed areas, Draft
Permit conditions IV.B through IV.N, and IV.P are covered by the FFACO. This
includes the contiguous operating area consisting of the 100 Areas, 200 Areas,
300 Area, 400 Area, 1100 Area and 600 Area; as well as the 700 Area; and the
North Slope area. Not covered by the FFACO are the SWMUs located within State
leased lands, and any SWMUs that might be located within the other BPA lands
not owned by BPA. ( However, if the BPA is not treated by the Department and
the Agency as an independent subunit of the DOE, those units also would have
to be considered within the scope of the FFACO and would be excluded from
separate treatment under this Permit.) Also not covered by the FFACO is the
Washington Public Power Supply System leased area, which will be addressed in
a separate RCRA permit. The following identifies how the FFACO covers these
conditions for the DOE-RL managed areas.
no312.150•tv
Standard Conditions--Standard conditions are found throughout the FFACO.
Section 5.2.2 of the FFACO Action Plan addresses RCRA Sections 3004(u),
3004(v), and 3008(h). Paragraph 106 of the FFACO addresses off-site access.
Enforceability for failure to comply is addreased in_Artic-leXX jlf the FFAr.O:
Reporting Requirements--Article XXXII of the FFACO addresses reporting
requirements, which are further detailed in Section 8.0 of the FFACO Action
Plan. The FFACO also provides for access to data, submittal of documentation
upon request, and maintenance of Administrative Records.
Interim Measures--Interim measures are addressed in Paragraph 39 of the FFACO
and Section 7.2.4 of the FFACO Action Plan.
Interim Measures Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements-- Reporting is
addressed under Article XXXII of the FFACO and Section 8.0 of the FFACO Action
Plan. Section 9.0 of the FFACO Action Plan provides for the development and
maintenance of a complete Administrative Record for each interim measure, in
addition to corrective measures, satisfying the requirements as for a CERCLA
Admfnistrative Record for response actions.
Notification Requirements for and Assessment of Newly Identified Solid Waste
Management Unit--Section 3.0 of the FFACO Action Plan under Paragraph 3.5
identifies the_Waste Information-Data_System-(WIDS) as the primary vehicle for
listing all waste units within the DOE-RL managed portion of the Hanford Site.
The DOE-RL has developed a system using the WIDS database for notification of
newly identified SWMUs. These SWMUs would be added to the applicable operable
units through a change to the FFACO, using the FFACO change control process.
Aninit!_al_ assessment_af the newly identified SWMU is conducted as part of the
identification process. Further assessment, if necessary, would be conducted
in accordance with the schedule established for the operable unit. If a newly
identified SWMU of significant concern is added to a low priority operable
unit, then the operable unit might be reprioritized and addressed sooner or
the SWMU could be addressed separately under the FFACO.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 195 of 223
03/16/92
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Work Plan; RCRA Facility Investigation Final
Report and Summary Report: Remedies not Requiring Corrective Measure Studies
(CMS); Corrective Measure Study Plan; Corrective Measure Study Final Report;
Remedy Selection/Corrective Measure Implementation--These Draft Permit
conditions are addressed within Subsection 7.4 of the FFACO Action Plan, which
---- is titled "RCRA Past-Practice Unit Process". The specific documentation
associated with the process is identified in Section 9.0 of the FFACO Action
Plan.
25.348
920312.1553-IV
Investigati-ve-Deri:sed-Waste==Refer-tc specific conments on this Draft Permit
-condi_tion iV, I.
Permit Modification for Remedy--As agreed to in the FFACO, a permit
modification will be issued to the final status Permit to document the
approved proposed remedy. The schedule of compliance for carrying out the
remedy will be maintained within the FFACO in accordance with Section 11.0
(Work Schedule and Other Work Plans) of the FFACO Action Plan, and modified in
accordance with Section 12.0 (Changes to Action Plan/Supporting Schedules) of
the FFACO Action Plan.
Facility Solid Waste Management Units-Corrective Action Schedule of
Compliance-- Article XVI (Schedule) of the FFACO and Sections 2.0 (Major
Milestones) and 12.0 (Change to Action Plan/Supporting Schedules) of the
Action Plan provide the processes for maintaining schedules of compliance for
all activities governed by the FFACO. Appendix D of the FFACO Action Plan
lists all enforceable milestones and provides the Work Schedule.
Provisions exist to modify the FFACO, if necessary, to better address these
areas. In addition, supporting requirements to the FFACO can be agreed to by
the parties, and incorporated into the FFACO via inclusion in Appendix F,
Supporting Technical Plans and Procedures.
Condition: IV.B.
IV.C.
IV.D.
IV.E.
IV.F.
IV.G.
IV.H.
IV.I.
IV.J.
IV.K.
IV.L.
IV.M.
IV.N.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTERIM MEASURES
INTERIM MEASURES RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AND ASSESSMENT
OF NEWLY IDENTIFIED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
UNIT
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AND ASSESSMENT
OF NEWLY IDENTIFIED RELEASES AT SWMUs
RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI) WORK PLAN
INVESTIGATIVE DERIVED WASTE
RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION FINAL REPORT AND
SUMMARY REPORT
REMEDIES NOT REQUIRING CORRECTIVE MEASURE
STUDY (CMS)
CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY PLAN
CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY FINAL REPORT
REMEDY SELECTION/CORRECTIVE MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION

- ---- ----COMMENTS-ON-THE-DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIj -- 196 of 223
03/16/92
25.405
IV.O. PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR REMEDY
IV.P. FACILITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS -
CORRECTIVE ACTION SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Page, lines: Pages 83 through 102, generally
comment/Action: Conditions IV.B through IV.P. Note: These are general
comments addressing Draft Permit conditions IV.B through IV.P and apply to all
of those Draft Permit conditions. Specific additional comments that apply
only to an individual Draft Permit condition are addressed separately in later
comments.
(1) With exception of certain elements under Draft Permit condition IV.O for
selection of remedy, the Draft Permit conditions contained within sections
IV.8 through IV.P only apply to those SWMUs identified on Table IV.1.
?here-fore,---ifi ihe-Har.ford-Site €ontractors remain identified in some capacity
as part of this Permit, then the term "Permittees" for Part IV purposes should
be changed or clarified to mean only the "DOE-RL or such other party who may
be leasing or otherwise utilizing the land subject to the corrective action
requirements".
(2) Delete all references to provisions of the Washington Administrative
Codes (WAC) and "the Director".
(3) Change the permit condition enforcement authority on Page 6 of the Draft
^ Permit to indicate that all Part IV conditions are enforceable by the Agency
only.
(4) Delete all conditions that are identified in the Draft Permit condition
authority table (Page 6) as State-only requirements, which includes IV.I.2
through IV.I.8, and IV.P.3c,e.
(5) Delete, wherever it appears, the statement that a rejection of a second
submission might be deemed noncompliant with the Permit. The language appears
on at least the following pages: Page 86, lines 10-12 and 28-30; Page 88,
lines 19-21; Pag e 90, lines 34-36; Page 92, lines 45-47; Page 93, lines 37-38;
Page 95, lines-5-6-and_31-33, Page 98,-lines_23-25; and Page 100, lines 17-19.
(6) Include provisions within Section IV for "technical impracticability",
"temporary units", "corrective action management units", and "action levels".
Justification: The Hanford contractors have no responsibility for corrective
action for either areas covered by the FFACO or non-DOE-RL managed areas of
the Hanford Site. While the contractors should not be identified as
permittees in any capacity, if the contractors are included in any manner, the
language of Part IV must indicate that the corrective action portion of the
----- --- Pe-rm#r-i-s-.n.ot their responsib•i-1-i.ty. The reference to "other parties who may
be leasing or otherwise utilizing the land subject to corrective action"
should be added to allow deliverables to be prepared and submitted by these
parties, such as the BPA, the state of Washington, or US Ecology, who are
actually responsible for the SWMUs ( to the extent any exist) on land not
directly managed by the DOE-RL.
+aotu.uss-iv
The corrective action provisions of RCRA are part of the HSWA provisions,
which are required to be implemented by the Agency unless and until the Agency

920312.1553-rv
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 197 of 223
03/16/92
has approved a state program to operate in lieu of the Agency program
[42 U.S.C. §6926(g)]. The Agency has not authorized the state of Washington
to implement a corrective action program in lieu of the Agency program.
Therefore, all activities performed under Part IV of this Permit must be
required by, and reports or deliverables directed to, the Administrator of the
Agency. The Agency program is a comprehensive federal program that preempts
any state program. The Department has no authority independent of RCRA and
the FFACO to implement a corrective action program at the Hanford Site. A
state corrective action requirement would be considered a state "removal or
remedial action" requirement which under 42 U.S.C. 9620(a)(4) is inapplicable
to a federal facility listed on the NPL. Current Department policy is that
the Agency issues and administers the corrective action provisions of permits
[Refer to Chemical Processors, Inc. WAD000812909 (Comment Attachment F)].
Therefore, all references to, submittals to, approvals by, or requirements of
the "Director and Administrator" should refer solely to the "Administrator".
Similarly, reference to state administrative codes or assigning corrective
action related decision-making authority to the Director of the Department
through this Permit is inappropriate. There is no legal basis for the
Department to include State-only or joint enforcement conditions. All
conditions addressing corrective action must have a basis in federal laws or
regulations and be enforced only by the Agency unless and until the state of
Washington's corrective action program is approved by the Agency to operate in
lieu of the Agency program.
The statement that rejection of a second submission could be deemed as
noncompliance is not a standard condition in corrective action permit
requirements. Compare Fort Wainwright, No. AK6210022426 (Comment
Attachment D). It is not unprecedented for the Department or the Agency to
reject a document on one defect the first time and on completely different
grounds another time. Only the Permittee's failure to respond to the reasons
given for the first rejection should be grounds for a permit violation.
Tachnical Im-racticabilitv : The July 27, 1990 proposed rule for RCRA
Corrective Action ( 55 FR 30884) states, at proposed 40 CFR 264.531, that the
Regional Administrator can make a determination that remediation of a release
to a media cleanup standard is not required when remediation is technically
impracticable. The determination of technical impracticability generally
would involve a determinationofboth_engineerin g feasibility and reliability.
In other situations, a determination of technical impracticability could be
made when remediation might be technically possible, but the scale of
operations required might be of such a magnitude and complexity that the
alternative would be impracticable. This Agency proposal is further discussed
as part of the supplementary information to the July 27, 1990 proposed rule in
Sections IV.F.6.c and IV.H.S of the preamble to the proposed rule. The
language from the proposed rule should be included in the Permit or
incorporated by reference.
Temporarv Units : In the July 27, 1990 proposed rule for RCRA Corrective
Action, at proposed 40 CFR 264.551(b), the EPA proposes the use of temporary
units. According to the proposed regulations, the EPA is of the opinion that
certain technical requirements established under 40 CFR Part 264 might be
inappropriate for the managewent of hazardous waste during corrective action,

J
i^LJ
^^.
^^.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
198 of 223
03/16/92
and might in fact discourage prompt cleanup. Therefore, the EPA has proposed
that temporary units might be needed for temporary storage of waste generated
during the corrective measures phase and allows such waste to be stored in
these types of nonpermitted units for a period of 180 days. An allowance for
temporary units should be included in Section IV. This EPA proposal is
further discussed as part of the supplementary information in the preamble
(Section IV.J.3.a) to the July 27, 1990 proposed rule.
Corrective Action Management Units : The July 27, 1990 proposed rule for RCRA
Corrective Action provides, at proposed 40 CFR 264.551(c) and 264.501,
flexibility in defining the boundaries of a waste management unit. As stated
in the preamble to the proposed regulations at Section IV.J.3.b, corrective
action at RCRA facilities will address broad areas of contamination, which
might or might not themselves contain discrete waste management units. For
example, soil surroundin g one or more leaking surface impoundments, landfills,
or tanks might be contaminated. The EPA could consider the site as a whole
and select a remedy that best addressed the entire area of contamination. The
fPktreifevea that the entire area of contamination- could b e considered to be a
waste management "unit" under RCRA. Thus, these areas would be designated as
corrective action management units ( CANUs). The Permit should incorporate
language into Section IV that allows the development of CAMUs.
Action Levels : The Draft Permit does not indicate action levels or criteria
-__ unQer which_the_Agency-wili-r-equire_a corrective measures study. The July 27,
1990 proposed rule for RCRA Corrective Action, at proposed 40 CFR 264.521,
would require a corrective measures studX-whene_Yerconcentr-ationsof--hazardous
constituents in an aquifer, surface water, soils, or air exceed action levels
for any environmental medium. The Agency has indicated that the action levels
specified in the proposed rule are health-based and environmental-based levels
determined to be indicators for protection of human health and the
environment. The Permit should establish "action levels" that parallel those
contained in the proposed rule. This EPA p roposal is further discussed as
part of the supplementary information to the July 27, 1990 proposed rule in
Section IV.E.2 of the preamble.
IV.B. STANDARD CONDITIONS
25.349 Condition: IV.B.2
Page, lines: Page 83, line 45
Comment/Action: Delete "pursuant to Paragraph 106 of the FFACO,"
92ol12.1573-tv
Justification: It is not clear that the DOE-RL might have legal authority to
use § 106 of CERCLA, which is the statute addressed in Section 106 of the
FFACO, to obtain access for a non-CERCLA action.
Condition: IV.B.3
Page, lines: Page 84, lines 12-16
Comment/Action: The sentence beginning on line 12 states that "Five (5)
copies of these plans, reports, notifications or other submissions shall be
submitted to the Director and two (2) copies to the Administrator and sent by
certified mail or hand delivered as specified in Condition I.E.22 of this

25.351
920312.1553-1v
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 199 of 223
93/16/92
Permit". I.E.22 addresses annual reporting. Delete the sentence in its
entirety.
Justification: There is no regulatory requirement to submit five copies of
documents by certified mail or hand delivery. The condition that "five (5)
copies of these plans, reports, notifications or other submissions shall be
submitted to the Director and two (2) copies to the Administrator and sent by
certified mail or hand delivered as specified in Condition I.E.22 of this
Permit" (emphasis added) is further flawed because there is no such
specification at condition I.E.22. In fact, I.E.22 specifies compliance with
annual reporting requirements of WAC 173-303-390. The WAC 173-303-390(2)
requires that the owner or operator submit a single copy of an annual report
to the department by March 1 of each year. Although the Permittee will take
precautions to ensure that materials submitted reach their destinations
safely, there is no basis for attempting to establish a permit condition that
it be done as prescribed.
Condition:
IV.B.4
Page, lines:
Page 84, lines 20-22
Comment/Action: Delete "and those required by
(RPP) operable init work schedule contained in
the sentence on these lines.
the current RCRA Past Practice
Appendix D of the FFACO," from
Justification: This is consistent with the FFACO, which indicates that the
selected remedy for a RCRA corrective action will be documented in the Permit
via a permit modification. The milestones and schedules contained within the
FFACO for RCRA Past Practice corrective actions satisfies the requirement for
schedules of compliance for all SWMUs located within the DOE-RL managed areas
of the Hanford Site. The FFACO is referenced in the Permit, and there is no
need to add the schedules of compliance via a permit modification to the
Permit. The schedules must be maintained and controlled using the FFACO
change process. This is required to maintain the integration and
prioritization of RCRA and CERCLA cleanup activities on the Hanford Site.
The plans, reports, and studies for the DOE-RL managed areas of the Hanford
Site are covered by the FFACO, and with exception of documentation of the
selected remedy in accordance with permit condition IV.O, should not be
included in the permit. Most of the documents in question are approved by the
Agency and the Department in accordance with the FFACO, and undergo public
review in accordance with the FFACO public review processes. A follow-on
permit modification would result in a second public review process, which is
redundant and unnecessary. The parties have already agreed in the FFACO,
which is a binding interagency agreement and consent order, on the process to
be used for such documents. Pursuant to the FFACO, only the remedy selection
document is to be later incorporated into the Permit. If all of these
additional documents that are covered by the FFACO were incorporated into the
Permit, it would be necessary to further state in this condition that:
Extensions of due dates for such submittals shall be made through
the change control process of the FFACO.

COMMENTS-ON-THE-DRAFT HANFORD -F'ACILITY PERMIT 200 of 223
03/16/92
25.352 Condition: IV.B.5
Page, lines: Page 84, lines 34-42
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
..^.-
Justification: No regulatory basis is established to require, as a condition
of the Permit, that all raw data be kept for the time period identified.
Because this condition also as written affects non-DOE-RL managed sites, the
parties responsible for those sites also would have to comply with this
condition rather than the DOE-RL. In any event, because of the expected life
of the Hanford Site, the effect of this condition is to require raw data to be
kept essentially indefinitely, which is not reasonable or- required-by the
regulations.
IV.C. REPORTING REOUIREMENTS
^i.353 pageitlines: Page 85, lines 18-21
-?,
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
CPj
Justification: The items to be retained in the operating record should be
addressed in Permit condition 11.1.1. After Permit condition II.I.1 is
___-_modified-3o be with the actual regulations for operating records
(i.e., WAC 173-303-380), that permit condition alone should identify material
to be kept in the operating record.
The intent of WAC 173-303-380 is clearly not that the operating record be used
as an open ended central repository for any and all data, reports, etc.
Inclusion of extensive additional documents that would be required by this
condition dilutes the utility of the operating record. The condition also is
-------- -unreasynably vagueaea amaig_uoAm-as to-what alooments-fal?-witbin=itsand
no regulatory basis for the request is provided.
IV.D. INTERIM MEASURES
25.354 Condition: IV.D.3
Page, lines: Page 85, lines 40-46
-omment/iFetion: The 30-day time frame to-produce the IM Work Plan is
extremely short. Delete the words 'within 30 days of written request by the
Director and the Administrator' in lines 41 and 42 and replace with:
--- 920972.150-7V
within a reasonable time period agreed upon among the Permittee, the
party responsible for the site in question, and the Administrator.
Justification: While 30 days might be a reasonable time for small, well
defined ,)obs, more complex efforts will require additional time to include
conduct of some level of investigation before a complete work plan can be
prepared. In addition, these sites are on parcels of land not under active
management of the DOE-RL, but rather by a third party such as the state of
Washington and US Ecology (under sublease from the state of Washington) or the
BPA. Additional time must be permitted to allow for coordination with these

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 201 of 223
03/16/92
parties, who are the parties actually responsible for any SWMU activities on
their sites.
Condition: IV.D.4
25.355 Page, lines: Page 85, lines
Page 86, lines
25.356
Comment/Action: Revise the text in this
response to a release can be conducted,
required to protect human health and the
the words:
48-50
1-12
section to reflect that immediate
without an approved IM plan, as
environment by adding to the sentence
except that an immediate response to a release might be conducted
without an approved IM plan or revision to an approved plan when
required to protect human health and the environment.
Justification: Until such time that an approved plan is in place, the Permit
should not preclude actions from being taken that are necessary to respond to
releases to protect human health or the environment.
Condition: IV.D.7
Page, lines: Page 86, line 35
Comment/Action: Delete the condition.
Justification: There is no regulatory basis to require a certification of
completion for engineered IN or is any proposed under the Agency's proposed
corrective action regulations (55 FR 30798-30884). No similar requirement is
included in other permits issued (refer to Chemical Processors, Inc.,
WAD00091209). This condition as proposed in the Draft Permit would result in
management inefficiency and wasteful expenditure of taxpayer resources.
25.357 Condition: IV.D.8
Page, lines: Page 86, lines 40-42
Comment/Action: In line 40, change reference to 'II.M.3.' to 6II.L.30.
Delete the last sentence of this condition dealing with as-built drawings.
920312.1553-iv
Justification: II.M.3 does not exist. There is no regulatory basis to
require design changes to be converted into the form of as-built drawings for
correction action activities. An Engineering Change Notice or other change
tracking document is all that should be necessary. Typically, Engineering
Change Notices will be tracked against a drawing until is it both economical
and practical to incorporate into an as-built drawing. Incorporation of
as-built drawings into a permit is not required by the regulations, would be
wasteful of resources, and would result in unnecessary modifications to the
narmit
V-..... -.

25.358
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 202 of 223
03/16/92
IV.E. INTERIM MEASURES RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQU I REMENTS
Condition: IV.E.1
Page, lines: Page 86, lines 46-47
Comment/Ac'tion: Delete this condition in its entirety.
Justification: Permit Condition IV.D.4 has no requirement for inspection
logs.
Condition: IV.E.3
--^.359
- Page °v7, i ine" 5-ie
Comment/Action: (1) Revise the requirement on lines 7 and 8 to reflect
semiannual reporting requirements by changing the word 'quarterly" to
_ "semiannually' and change the sentence beginning in line 8 to state:
The semiannual reports shall be submitted on the 90th day following
the preceding semiannual period.
(2) Delete IV.E.3(a), lines 12 to 17 and replace with
a) summaries of any required progress reports on the construction of
engineered IM measures.!
Justification: The quarterly reporting requirements are not required by the
regulations and would result in management inefficiencies and poor use of
resources. Refer to WAC 173-303-645(11)(g), which states similar reports are
to be prepared semiannually. There is no technical or regulatory basis to
require more frequent reporting requirements. The increase in the time period
to prepare the semiannual report is necessary to reflect the fact that the
21-day time period provided is unreasonable to collect and prepare the data
requested, especially in view of the need to coordinate data from non-DOE-RL
managed activities.
With respect in the Draft Permit condition to the requirement for
certification of completion of construction by "registered, independent
professional engineers', there is no regulatory basis for any certifications
in the proposed Agency corrective action regulations or the Department's
---- _1Z3-343d--In _additlonf^.eAUrs-lu!ke--previou:Iy-Previded-comments-on the
inappropriateness of requiring certifications by an "independent" registered
engineer as defined in this Draft Permit. The comments on this point made on
the definition of 'Independent' at Page 10, lines 45 through Page 11, line 3
of the Draft Permit are incorporated herein by reference.
25.404 Condition: IV.E.4
Page, lines: Page 87, lines 34-36
Comment/Action: Delete this permit condition.
920312.1S53-IV
Justificaion: The intent of WAC-173-303-380 is clearly that the operating
record not be used as an open ended central repository for any and all data,
reports, etc. In addition, this condition deals with SWMUs not under the
management of the DOE-RL, but instead the BPA, the state of Washington, and

5
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 203 of 223
03/16/92
US Ecology. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect the DOE-RL, as the
Permittee, to maintain all the records required under this section in the
operating record. Most of the records might be maintained by US Ecology and
the BPA. The items to be retained in the operating record should be addressed
in permit condition II.I.1. After permit condition II.I.1 is modified to be
consistent with the actual regulations for operating records (i.e.,
WAC 173-303-380), that permit condition alone should identify material to be
kept in the operating record.
'?5.360 Condition: IV.F.1
; Page, lines: Page 87, lines 41-43
{. Comment/Action: Change the sentence to read:
IV.F. NOTIFICATION REQU IREMENTS FOR AN D ASSESSMENT
OF NEWLY IDENTIFI ED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
UNIT
The Permitt ee shall notify the Administrator in writing of any newly
identified SWMU found in those areas of the facility that a re
outside the portion of the Hanford Facility covered by the FFACO, no
later than 30 days after identification as a SWMU.
Justification: The SWMUs in areas covered by the FFACO will be addressed by
FFACO reporting mechanisms. The July 27, 1990 EPA proposed rule for
corrective action (55 FR 30798-30884) proposes a 30 day period for
notification of newly identified SWMUs under proposed 40 CFR 270.30(l)(12)(i).
This in itself is a tight schedule. No reasonable basis exists to shorten the
time period from that currently stated in the proposed regulation especially
in view of the fact that this section applies to lands not directly managed by
the DOE-RL and would require coordination with other responsible parties.
Unreasonably short, unilaterally established time schedules result in
inefficient management of resources and will harm the overall cleanup effort
by requiring more time to be spent on administrative actions, such as requests
for permit modifications. The FFACO process must be followed for those
portions of the facility covered by the FFACO.
Condition: IV.F.2
25.361 Page, lines: Page 87, line 50
Comment/Action: Change 090 days" to '180 days'.
Justification: If the Permittee (i.e., DOE-RL) must be responsible for
------ ----- -- coordinat5ng-corrective actions being performed by other parties (BPA,
US Ecology, state of Washington, etc.), a 90-day time period is inadequate to
allow the coordination to take place that will be necessary to prepare and
return the SA plan for areas where the Permittee has no direct control.
920313.131e-w

25.362
C"a
^..
,
1:i-J
25.363
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition: IV.F.3
Page, lines: Page 88, lines 16-19
Comment/Action: Rewrite the first sentence to say:
If the Administrator rejects the SA plan, the Administrator shall
notify the Permittee and the party currently leasing or utilizing
the land of the Plan's deficiencies. Due dates for submittal of a
revised plan will be negotiated and agreed to by the Permittee, the
party currently leasing or utilizing the larid (i.e., the affected
parties), and the Administrator, taking into account information
needs, the level of detail required, and Permittee's and other
--affected -0arties' review - and--appr-aval --scheduie -for preparing the
revised plan.
204 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised plan (including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the EPA alone. Input must be obtained from parties
actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise a plan.
For Ecology or EPA to set due dates, based on some unspecified criteria, is
inappropriate and inconsistent with efficient management of the required
activities.
IV.G. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AND ASSESSMENT
OF NEWLY IDENTIFIED RELEASES AT SWMUS
Condition: IV.G.1
Page, lines: Page 89, lines 17-20
Comment/Action: (1) In the first sentence, following the word constituents,
add "from a SWMU on portions of the Hanford Facility not covered by the
FFACO,".
(2) In line 19, change "15 days" to "30 days."
Just#fieation: The sentence-as written could 'oe-in't-erpreted_as any release;
which is addressed in the follow-on sentences, whereas the section is specific
---to -rel-eases -fram -SWMUs. - #r.-Section IV.S.2-of the suppaementart information to
the July 27, 1990 proposed rule for corrective action (55 FR 30798), the EPA
states: Although this definition of release is quite broad, §3004(u) is
limited to addressing releases from solid waste management units. Thus, there
may be releases at a facility that are not associated with solid waste
management units, and that are therefore not subject to corrective action
under this authority.
The July 27, 1990 EPA proposed rule for corrective action proposes a 30 day
period for notification of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from
SWMUs under 40 CFR 270.30(l)(12)(i). There is no regulatory basis or
fustification to shorten the time from that currently identified in the
proposed regulation. Unreasonably short, unilaterally established time
schedules result in inefficient management of resources and will harm the
__ovel'all__Cl$a^p -effort-by raquirina more time to be spent on administrative
actions such as requests for permit modifications.
9talfl2.1553-Iv

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 205 of 223
. Q3/16/92
-The- FfACa -process -im:st--be-fol}owed-far those-reieases on portions of the
facility covered by the FFACO and those actions should be excluded from this
Permit as noted in the earlier comments on Part IV Draft Permit conditions.
Condition: IV.H.1
25.364 Page, lines: Page 89, line 40
Comment/Action: Change "90 days" to "180 days".
IV.H. RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION ( RFI1 WORK PLAN
Justification: If the Permittee (i.e., DOE-RL) must be responsible for
coordinating the corrective actions that might need to be performed by other
parties (BPA, US Ecology, state of Washington), a 90-day time period is
inadequate to allow the coordination to take place that will be necessary to
prepare and return RFI work plans for areas where the Permittee has no direct
management control.
Condition: IV.H.1.a
25.365 Page, lines: Page 90, lines 7-9
Comment/Action: Delete the words "..the qualifications of personnel
performing or directing the investigations, including contractor
personnel,..." and substitute:
..."the general qualifications of the contractor"...
Justification: A requirement for the general qualifications of the company is
adequate and justified. The requirement for including the qualifications of
individual personnel in the RFI is unnecessarily restrictive and often
unattainable, because of the length of time involved in work plan approval and
implementation, which could potentially result in the substitution of other
individuals for those initially assigned to the project. No regulatory basis
for this requirement is provided.
Condition: IV.H.2.b
25.366 Page, lines: Page 90, lines 30-34
Comment/Action: Rewrite the first sentence to say:
920312.7553-rv
If the Administrator rejects the RFI Work Plan, the Administrator,
shall notify the Permittee and the party currently leasing or
utilizing the land, in writing, of the RFI work plan's deficiencies.
Due dates for submittal of a revised plan will be negotiated and
agreed to with the affected parties, taking into account information
needs, the level of detail required, and the Permittee's and other
affected parties review and approval schedule for preparing the
revised plan.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised plan ( including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the EPA alone. In p ut must be obtained from the parties
actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise a plan.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 206 of 223
03/16/92
For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some unspecified
criteria, is arbitrary and inconsistent with efficient management of the
required activities.
Condition: IV.I. INVESTIGATIVE DERIVED WASTE
25.367 Pag6, lines: Page 90, line 45 through Page 92, line 8
Comment/Action: Delete Condition IV.I and all its subparts in its
entirety. Delete attachment 10 to the Draft Permit.
Justification: This section is inconsistent with the FFACO with regard to
application to areas included within the FFACO and premature as to adoption
cIa for areas not included in the FFACO. In reviewing this Draft Permit condition
on IDW, of concern is the complete absence of any mention of the agreements
and strategies that have been negotiated pursuant to the FFACO. The
information contained in Draft Permit conditions IV:1:9 through IV.-1.8 not
r*= only fails to provide for reasonable management of past practice IDW, but also
-.: is inconsistent with regard to the directives provided in the current approved
procedure (Environmental Investigation Instruction (EII) 4.2] for handling
this material.
With regard to IDW that results from activities on the DOE-RL managed sites,
those activities are covered by the FFACO and cannot be subject to this Part
IV. A specific technical IDW Working Group (hereinafter Working Group) was
e3ta^Fjli;had_pursuantte_the_FFACntodeveloo a nnliry on TDY for FFACO
activities. The Working Group was formally established by all parties to the
FFACO at the General Topics Unit Managers' Meeting of December 18, 1990, and
has been actively meeting and negotiating in good faith until the Department
notified the EPA (Tim Nord to Paul Day) in a letter dated November 18, 1991
(Comment'Attachaient AA), that the Department was shifting responsibility for
the IDW strategy to the new Policy Development Unit and that this unit wanted
to be assured that the strategy was compliant with Dangerous Waste
-Regulatians:- The letter stated that the-strategy was expected to be held up
until February 1992; it went on to state that: The three parties have done a
remarkable job of working through very difficult issues and are close to
agreement. The DOE-RL expects that the Working Group will complete the
process of developing the IDW procedure for FFACO work.
Because of the large number of RCRA past practice and CERCLA past practice
units at the Hanford Site and the extremely large volumes of IDW that will be
generated,it was determined reasonable to develop under the FFACO a
management approach that would establish one method of operation for IDW
generated from RCRA and CERCLA past practice units. This approach is
consistent with the FFACO and the EPA proposed regulations on corrective
____ ____ _____astion, which both emphasize integration and consistency of.RCRA and CERCLA
requirements. The DOE-RL has reached agreement with the Agency for management
of IDW where the Agency is the Lead Regulatory Agency, as defined in the
FFACO. The agreement has been detailed in the document Strategy for the
Management of Investigative Derived Waste.
To date, the evolution of the management of IDW generated as a result of
---#anford Site-RCRA/CERCLA-site environmental restoration activities has been a
function of numerous negotiations between the principals.(DOE-RL, the Agency,
920M.16S3•1V

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 207 of 223
03/16/92
and the Department) along with their respective contractors. Initially,
EII 4.2, entitled Interim Control of Unknown, Suspected Hazardous and Mixed
Waste (portions of which were paraphrased in this Draft Permit condition)
governed all waste generated from the Hanford Site environmental restoration
activities. It soon became apparent that the constraints imposed by EII 4.2
were inappropriate with regard to the management of IDW. The cost required to
manage past practice IDW per RCRA regulations (as mandated by EII 4.2) were
prohibitively excessive, especially considering the lack of appreciable
benefit regarding protection of human health and the environment.
Draft Permit condition IV.I, as written, if applied to any DOE-RL managed
work, would result in significant increases in cost to the taxpayer, without
any appreciable environmental benefit and would be inconsistent with the
FFACO.
With regard to establishment of a policy for the sites that are not subject to
the FFACO, the commenters believe it is premature to establish a procedure of
this sort. The only sites of those identified in the Draft Permit, which
might fall outside the FFACO and therefore be subjected to corrective action
under this Permit, are certain BPA lands that are used by, but not owned by
the BPA and, potentially, the US Ecology site. No SWMUs have been identified
yet on the BPA sites and, as noted in the Fact Sheet, the US Ecology site is
expected to be remediated outside the Permit pursuant to MTCA. The commenters
do not have any knowledge about the conditions at those sites and cannot
reasonably determine whether this IDW is appropriate for those sites. An IDW
plan should be specifically developed for each of these sites as part of the
individual work plans with consideration for the specific concerns that might
be relevant at each such site.
The Purgewater Management Plan is included as part of the FFACO via
incorporation in Appendix F to the FFACO and applies to those units governed
by the FFACO. It might not be appropriate to apply the Purgewater Management
an to the potential US Ecology site or the BPA sites governed by this
section of the Permit, as these sites are not managed by the DOE-RL, and it is
not known what issues might be involved at those sites.
Condition: IV.I.1 through IV.I.8
25.368 Page, lines: Page 90, line 47 through Page 92, line 7
Comment/Action: While specific comments are made on the subparts of Draft
Permit condition IV.I, comments are made only to point out the significant
technical problems and inconsistencies that would be engendered by adoption of
these sections of the Draft Permit and to identify some of the major areas
where the Draft Permit IDW policy conflicts with the IDW policy being
developed under the FFACO. As stated in the previous comment, all these
conditions should be removed from the Draft Permit.
920373.73i8-tv

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
Condition: IV.I.1
25.369 Page, lines: Page 90, lines 47-48
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
208 of 223
03/16/92
Justification: The Purgewater Management Plan is included as part of the
FFACO via incorporation in Appendix F to the FFACO and applies to those units
governed by the FFACO. It might not be appropriate to apply the Purgewater
Management Plan to the potential US Ecology site or the BPA sites governed by
this section of the Draft Permit, as these sites are not managed by the DOE-
RL, and it is not known what issues may be involved at those sites.
Condition: IV.I.2
25r^70 Page, lines: Page 91, lines 1-3
Comment/Action: Delete this condition. Any IDW plan ultimately agreed upon
- ---!-- - --should reflect IDW eontainment-criteria as-;dentified in-EII-4-2, Section 6.0,
c^. "Procedure" and EII 4.3, section 6.0, " Procedure".
Justification: The condition text does not reflect current approved
containment cri teria provided in EII 4. 2 or negotiated containment criteria
provided in EII 4.3.
The requirement to containerize all non-groundwater IDW will be unreasonable
depending on the type of investigation being undertaken and the extent of
contamination present. With respect to the type of investigation, it is
overly burdensome to require all IDW to be placed in containers when a
backhoe, for example, is used to collect site characterization samples. Soil
samples collected from the 1100-EM-1 Operable Unit were collected using a
backhoe and all IDW was returned to the point of generation. The DOE-RL
recognizes that the 1100-EM-1 Operable Unit is a CERCLA unit; however, similar
types of sample collection most likely will be undertaken at RCRA corrective
action units. This type of activity expedites investigation activities and
also reduces the costs associated with placing IDW in containers, and the
subsequent management of those containers.
As negotiations are completed for the IDW policy to be developed pursuant to
the FFACO, another key factor is that the intent and scope of the FFACO
extends beyond that defined under Section 3004(u) of RCRA. Whereas, under
RCRA 3004(u), investigations are restricted to known or suspected releases of
contamination from SWMUs. The investigations carried out under the FFACO for
both CERCLA and RCRA past practice operable units will address units,
including those that do not qualify as SWMUs, for which no such release is
documented or even suspected. If contamination is known or suspected, then
the proper controls will be applied in accordance with the agreed to
procedures.
Condition: IV.I.3
25.371 Page, lines: Page 91, lines 5-8
Commen't/Action: Delete this condition. Any IDW plan
should reflect consideration of the container marking
9mau.+sss-w
EII'4.2, Section 6.1. "Container Preparation", and EII
'Container Preparation".
ultimately agreed upon
criteria as provided in
4.3, Section 6.1,

•.._1
:.5-.
r;-
^
cr- ,
25.372
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT
209 of 223
03/16/92
-Justificat4ons -Te•xt-does-not-reflect-€urrent--approved--con-tainment--criteria
provided in EII 4.2 or negotiated containment criteria provided in EII 4.3.
The above referenced criteria is as agreed to by the parties to the FFACO.
Condition: IV.I.4
Page, lines: Page 91, lines 10-34
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
(1) Any IDW plan ultimately agreed upon should reflect consideration of
"Constituent of Concern" sample analysis criteria negotiated by the Working
Group for corrective action generated waste, which is contained in EII 4.3.
(2) It is not necessary or cost effective to require analysis of
containerized IDW, when the associated sample analysis will suffice.
Justification: This Draft Permit condition is inconsistent with the sample
analysis criteria established in EII 4.3 for past practice IDW. Containerized
IDW should not require sampling and analysis. At the time an investigation is
being performed, field samples are collected routinely and analyzed for the
constituents of concern as identified in the associated investigation work
plan.- As site characterization samples are collected, the footage interval is
recorded so that the analyses from any given site characterization sample can
be correlated to the corresponding container of IDW generated from a specific
depth. There is no regulatory dustification to require redundant sampling of
the unit in question and the IDW generated from that unit. Through
negotiations already conducted, the EPA has determined that site
characterization information can be used to perform designation on
corresponding IDW. In fact, the Department, through the Working Group, has
also agreed that this is an appropriate approach to reduce analytical costs
that would otherwise result from redundant analysis.
When this requirement is combined with the requirement that all nongroundwater
IDW will be containerized, the costs of investigations would
increase significantly, with no appreciable benefit. As noted under Draft
Permit condition IV.I.2, the extent of investigation on all past practice
operable units will exceed those required under RCRA corrective action
provisions, in that samples will be taken within areas and units that have no
documented or suspected release of hazardous wastes or constituents.
Condition: IV.I.5
25.373 Page, lines: Page 91, lines 36-44
C_omment/Action: _Delete_this condition. Any final IDW policy ultimately
agreed upon should finciude -adding after °reduction` on line 44:
920312.1553-IV
or until 7 days after the request is made if no response is received
Justification: Ensuring a timely response from the regulators will avoid
unnecessary delays in achieving progress towards the cleanup of the Hanford
Site.

25.374
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 210 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: IV.I.6
Page, lines: Page 91, lines 46-47
Comment/Action: Delete this condition.
Any IDW plan that is ultimately agreed upon should: ( 1) Allow requests to
extend the 180 days for samples requiring special handling or analysis, such
as those requiring use of "Hot Cells".
(2) Contain text that reflects the time provided for validation of analysis
results as 21 days following receipt of the results by the DOE-RL or the
DOE-RL contractors, and an additional 15 days to be provided for submittal of
validated results to the regulators.
Justification: Special handling and analysis for such samples might require
more than 180 days. Also, only so much laboratory space is available for use,
C'

COM"n'enTS ON TH€-DRAfT^#ANFu"R"u FACILITY PERMIT 211 of 223
03/16/92
in a permitted interim status or final status TSD unit within 90 days of waste
removal from the operable unit.
Justifiratian:--The-eommePSters-beTi-eve-that a-flexible management approach for
IDW is required to address the multitude of drums of IDW that will be
generated at the Hanford Site. The IDW above dangerous waste designation
limits should be managed in accordance with the substantive requirements of
WAC 173-303-630 within a central location. Each operable unit would have such
a central location for IDW generated from that operable unit. All accumulated
IDW would be treated and/or disposed in accordance with the permit
modification for the selected RCRA corrective action. Again, this is an area
where both the Agency and the Department agreed, through the Working Group,
_ ------- _that_thi-sis an appropriate action, considering the large volumes of waste at
x^,g hand and the number of SWMUs at the Hanford Site.
:.1 (
IV.J. RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION FINAL REPORT AND
aT-r SUMMARY REPORT
F.i^.
Condition: IV.J.1
25.377 Page, lines: Page 92, line 11 and lines 18-20
Comment/Action: ( 1) On line 11 change "90 days" to "180 days."
(2) Delete sentence starting with "The RFI Final Report shall present"
starting on line 18.
Justification: If the Permittee must be responsible for coordination of
corrective actions due to activities of other parties (BPA, US Ecology, state
of Washington, etc.), a 90-day time period is inadequate to allow the
coordination to take place that will be necessary to prepare and return
reports for areas where the permittee has no direct management control.
There is no regulatory requirement that the RFI Final Report present all the
information gathered under the work plan. This would make it so massive as to
be useless. The rest of the paragraph adequately describes the contents of
the final report [Refer to Fort Wainwright, No. AK 6210022426, Attachment 12
(Comment Attachment D)]. The record supporting the report will contain all
the relative backup information.
9F 17Q Condition: IV.J.2.b
Page, lines: Page 92, lines 41-45
Comment/Action: Rewrite the first sentence to say:
920312.1553-Iv
If the Administrator rejects the reports, the Administrator shall
notify the Permittee and the party currently leasing or utilizing
the land, in writing, of the report's deficiencies. Due dates for
submittal of revised reports will be negotiated and agreed to by the
affected parties, taking into account information needs, the level
of detail required, and the Permittee's and other affected parties'
review and approval schedule for preparing the revised reports.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised reports (including document preparation, review, and approval) can

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 212 of 223
03/16/92
not be determined by the Agency alone. Information must be obtained from the
parties actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise the
reports. For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some
unspecified criteria, is arbitrary and inconsistent with efficient management
of the required activities.
IV.K. REMEDIES NOT REQUIRING CORRECTIVE MEASURE
STUDY (CMSI
Condition: IV.K.2.b
25.379 n,ge, lines: Page 93, lines 33-36
Comment/Action: Rewrite the first sentence to say:
J..
If the Administrator rejects the proposal, the Administrator shall
notify the Permittee and the party currently leasing or utilizing
the land, in writing, of the proposal's deficiencies. Due dates for
submittal of revised reports will be negotiated and agreed to by the
rt -af#ect2cFlyarttes, taking tnto account infvrmation needs, the level
^-' of detail required, and the affected parties review and approval
schedule for preparing the revised reports.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised reports (including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the Agency alone. Information must be obtained from the
parties actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise the
reports. For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some
unspecified criteria, is arbitrary and inconsistent with efficient management
of the required activities.
IV.L. CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY PLAN
Condition: IV.L.1
25.380 Page, lines: Page 94, lines 46-48, and Page 95, lines 37-47
Commment/Action: (1) Replace sentence starting on Page 95, line 45 that
begins "Where Department..." with the following:
9M12.1553-tv
Where Department health-based standards have been adopted that are
more stringent than federal levels, Department standards shall be
substituted for federal levels.
(2) The standards defined here should be consistent with those being used
-under the FFACQ_for__both__RCRA and CERCie past practice activities and with the
Agency's proposed corrective action criteria.
(3) The proposed e^cess upperbound lifetime risk on Page 94, line 38 should
be 1x10'4, not 1x10'
Justification: The first change is made to clarify that federal standards
cannot be superseded by informal Department "guidelines', but only by
regulatory standards that have been adopted as part of the Washington State
authorized RCRA Prograa.

,.,
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 213 of 223
03/16/92
Because the non-DOE-RL managed SWMUs are located within the overall Hanford
Site, it might not be appropriate to have different standards, either between
the FFACO and this section of the Permit, or between RCRA verses CERCLA.
The criteria for triggering a Corrective Measures Study appear to be much more
vague than contemplated in Sections 264.520 and 264.521 of EPA's proposed
Subpart S Corrective Action Rule, which provide specific and detailed criteria
for establishing "action levels". The Draft Permit excludes much of this
criteria.
With respect to cleanup levels, in the supplementary information to the
s^ -.. -^ t3^ z^, 1990-propos rule or ^,.
correet ve aet on {55 FR 3709-30884), the
Agency states in Section V.B of the preamble:
One of the more controversial issues related to corrective action Is the
cleanup goals for contaminated media, or 'how clean is clean.• EPA has not
attempted in this rule or elsewhere to establish specific cleanup levels for
different hazardous constituents in each medium. Instead, EPA believes that
=s° different cleanup levels will be appropriate in different situations, and that
the levels are best established as part of the remedy selection process.
Generally, however, the cleanup must achieve protective levels for future as
well as current uses. This is the approach taken in today's proposal.
25.381
25.382
vzo31:.15s3-1v
To be "protective" of human health, EPA believes that cleanup levels for
carcinogens must be equal to or beiow an upperbound excess lifetime cancer
risk level of I in 10,000 (1x10-^--). As proposed today, cleanup levels would
be selected within the upperbound Ix1O to 1x1O risk range during the
selection of remedy process; however, remedies at the more protective end of
the range would ordinarily be preferred. For non-carcinogens, cleanup levels
would be set at a level at which adverse effects would not be expected to
occur. The application of this approach to specific media is described below.
Condition: IV.L.2
Page, lines: Page 94, line 11
Comment/Action: On line 11 change 90 days to 180 days.
Justification: If the Permittee must be responsible for coordination of
corrective actions related to activities of other parties ( BPA, US Ecology,
state of Washington, etc.), a 90-day time period is inadequate to allow the
-coor-ddnation to-takeglace -that will -be-nece-ssary -to- prepare -a-LMS-plan for
areas where the Permit*.ee has no direct management control:
Condition: IV.L.4
Page, lines: Page 94, line 33
Comment/Action: Insert word •Plan" following "approve the CMS'.
Justification: This change is necessary to make the sentence technically
correct.

25.383
25.384
CONNENTS-ON TNE DRAFT nANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 214 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: IV.L.4.a
Page, lines: Page 95, lines 1-4
Comment/Action: Rewrite to say:
If the Administrator rejects the CMS Plan, the Administrator shall
notify the permitt_ee_and_the lessee or other parties currently
utilizing the land, in writing, of the CMS Plan's deficiencies. Due
dates for submittal of a revised plan will be negotiated and agreed
to by the affected parties, taking into account information needs,
the level of detail required, and the affected parties' review and
approval schedule for preparing the revised plan.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised reports (including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the Agency alone. Information must be obtained from the
parties actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise the
reports. For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some
unspecified criteria, is arbitrary and inconsistent with efficient management
of the required activities.
Condition: IV.M.2
Page, lines: Page 95, lines 27-31
Comment/Action: Rewrite to say:
IV.M. CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY FINAL REPORT
If the Administrator rejects the CMS Final Report, the Administrator
shall notify the Permittee and the lessee or other party currently
utilizing the land, in writing, of the deficiencies in the report.
Due dates for submittal of a revised report will be negotiated and
agreed to by the affected parties, taking into account information
needs, the level of detail required, and the affected parties review
and approval schedule for preparing the revised report.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised reports ( including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the Agency alone. Information must be obtained from the
parties actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise the
reports. For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some
unspecifiad criteria, is arbitrary and inconsistent with efficient management
of the required activities.
Condition: IV.N.3
25.385 Page, lines: Page 98, lines 19-23
Comment/Action: Rewrite to say:
92aa12.1553-rv
U.N. REMEDY SELECTION/CORRECTIVE MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION
If the Administrator rejects the proposed remedy, the Administrator
shall notify the Permittee and the lessee or other party utilizing

25.386
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 215 of 223
03/16/92
the land, in writing, of the proposed remedy's deficiencies. Due
dates for submittal of a revised proposed remedy will be negotiated
and agreed to by the affected parties, taking into account
information needs, the level of detail required, and the parties
review and approval schedule for preparing the revised proposal.
Justification: The amount of time required to gather information and process
the revised reports (including document preparation, review, and approval) can
not be determined by the Agency alone. Information must be obtained from the
parties actually performing the work as to how long it will take to revise the
reports. For the Agency to independently set due dates, based on some
unspecified criteria, is inappropriate and inconsistent with efficient
management of the required activities.
IV.O. PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR REMEDY
Condition: IV.0.1.a
Page, lines: Page 99, lines 8-9
Comment/Action: Add the following note under IV.0.1.a:
The schedule of compliance, for remedies for those SWMUs governed by
the FFACO, will be managed, controlled, and modified as part of the
FFACO, which is referenced by this Permit. Reporting and
information requirements for these SWMUs also will continue to be
governed by the FFACO.
Justification: This change is necessary to maintain consistency with the
FFACO. To provide for integration of RCRA and CERCLA cleanup work at the
Hanford Site, it was the intent of all parties to the FFACO that all the
schedules would be prioritized and maintained, including modifications to
those schedules, as part of the FFACO. The FFACO also provides for the
reporting and information requirements for those waste sites covered by the
FFACO.
IV.P. FACILITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS -
CORRECTIVE ACTION SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Condition: fV:P.i: Midway Substation and Community
25.387 Page, lines: Page 99, line 17 to Page 100, line 19
Comment/Action: Delete this condition in its entirety.
920312.1553-1V
Justification: The BPA is currently undertaking a voluntary cleanup action at
the Midway Site. This request for deletion is based on the lack of any DOE-RL
ownership or control over the BPA Midway Site. The Midway Substation and
Community Site is owned by the BPA. The BPA is an independent power marketing
agency that was in existence long before the DOE-RL activities on the Hanford
Site. The BPA is a rate payer funded entity that derives its income from
wholesaling electricity, and it would be inappropriate to place upon the
nuclear activities division of the DOE the responsibility to assure corrective
action of this separate organization's Midway Site. It is also noted that the
BPA apparently constructed the Midway Substation in 1940, which is before the

9aosu.1353-1v
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 216 of 223
03/16/92
establishment of the Hanford Site. The BPA has continued to maintain
ownership of the Midway Site.
-The-EPF, pub-llsheda statement ef-statutory interpretation in 52 Fed. Reg.
p. 7723 ( March 5, 1986) that indicates the EPA's position that in some cases
"ownership" should refer to major departmental subdivisions that exercise
independent management authorities, such as the National Park Service and
Bureau of Land Management in the U.S. Department of Interior, rather than to
an entire executive department of the United States. The Federal Register
Notice goes on to state:
EPA believes that recognition of these subdivisions is consistent with
Congressional intent. EPA will propose a rule to clarify this position and
explain more fully the rational for recognizing specific subdivisions. In the
interim, EPA intends to recognize principal subdivisions as a matter of
statutory interpretation on a case-by-case basis in individual permit
proceedings.
It is the position of the DOE-RL that the independent nature of the BPA and
the DOE-RL precisely fit the situation envisioned by EPA's statutory
interpretation. The BPA is an independent power marketing agency managed by a
separate administrator and operates on funds generated by wholesaling
electricity. Only since 1977 has the BPA been a reporting component of the
DOE. Before that time, the BPA reported to the Department of Interior. In
both cases, it has been an independent organization. The DOE-RL, on the other
hand, is a field office component of the Nuclear and Research and Development
function of the DOE and is operated on Congressionally appropriated taxpayer
funds. As such, the operations of the two organizations are far more distinct
than the Department of Interior examples provided in the 1986 EPA Federal
Register Notice, and it would be clearly inappropriate to hold the DOE-RL
responsible for coordination, review, recordkeeping, reporting, and
certification of corrective actions at a BPA-owned site.
The DOE-RL has extensive activities that must be managed and performed to
carry out the environmental restoration program for the Hanford Site. It is
wasteful of-taxpayer-reseorces to force the DOE-RL to take its limited
resources away from the task it has at hand under the FFACO and apply these
resources instead to management of a cleanup activity by the BPA, an
independent power marketing agency. This is especially true when one
considers that the BPA is strongly committed to environmental protection and
already has initiated a voluntary cleanup of the Midway Site.
Furthermore, no rational basis is provided in the Fact Sheet for the EPA's
apparent decision not to follow the statutory interpretation it promulgated in
52 Fed. Reg. p. 7723 (March 5, 1986).

25.388
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 217 of 223
Q3/16/92
Condition: IV.P.2. Other BPA Lands
Page, lines: Page 100, lines 26-29
Comment/Action: (1) Change title of IV.P.2 to:
BPA Facilities on Hanford Site land not Owned by BPA.
Identify specific SWMUs in Table IV.1 for this category. ( 2) Delete sentence
starting on line 26 with "This plan shall specifically..." in IV.P.2.a.
(3) If no SWMUs are identified, then delete IV.P.2.a in total and replace with
statement that:
No SWMUs have been identified in these areas.
Justification: The RCRA corrective action provisions are established to deal
with the release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from SWMUs.
Groundwater wells are not SWMUs. Until such time that SWMUs are identified on
the BPA lands not owned by BPA, there should be no requirement for a plan. In
no event should a plan be required at this time to address more than the need
to perform a SWMU assessment.
It is not reasonable or appropriate to designate an entire area of land as a
SWMU, as currently shown on Table IV.1. The Agency recognized the limitations
of the RCRA corrective action provisions and their application only to SWMUs
in its July 27, 1990 supplementary information discussing the proposed
regulations for corrective action ( 55 FR 30798-30884). Under the definition
of Solid Waste Management Units in the supplementary information
(Section IV.B.3) it is stated: EPA recognizes that these interpretations have
the effect of precluding 3004(u) from addressing some environmental problems
at RCRA facilities. However, EPA intends to exercise its authority, as
necessary, under the RCRA •onnibus" provision (3005(c)(2)), or other
authorities provided in RCRA ( e.g., 3008(a) and 7003) or CERCLA (e.g., CERCLA
104 or 106), or States, under State authorities, to correct such problems and
to protect human health and the environment.
The EPA has not identified any environmental problems at the BPA facilities on
the Hanford Site (Midway is not part of the Hanford Site) with possible
exception of the potential for groundwater wells to facilitate the transport
of contaminants. If any problems are found or if the Agency or the Department
wishes to pursue an investigation of the groundwater wells, an appropriate
order issued in accordance with the other identified authorities should be
issued to the BPA. The DOE-RL should be allowed to focus its limited
resources on remediation of its activities pursuant to the FFACO, rather than
becoming responsible for managing the activities of the BPA, an independent
power marketing authority.
Condition: IV.P.3. North Slope
115.389 Page, lines: Page 100, line 31 to Page 101, line 25
Comment/Action: Delete this condition in its entirety, as the North Slope is
addressed by the FFACO.
92012.7553-1V
Justification: The North Slope area is not subject to corrective action
pursuant to issuance of a hazardous ( dangerous) waste permit because it is not

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 218 of 223
03/16/92
part of the permitted facility and is not on contiguous land to the permitted
Hanford Facility. It is separated from the Hanford Facility by the stateowned
Columbia River bed, and the Columbia River itself, which is a major
natural barrier to contiguity of the sites. However, the North Slope is
covered by the FFACO and will be appropriately addressed under FFACO.
The North Slope area already has been included in the FFACO as operable unit
100-IU-3. As listed in the FFACO, 100-IU-3 currently contains the USBR,2,4-D
burial site and the entire Wahluke Slope Nike Missile Base. Per the FFACO
change process, if other units are identified later within the North Slope
area, the units would be added to 100-IU-3, or possibly a new operable unit
would be formed. In addition, it should be noted that indications are that
^.. the MIL-PSN 04 well is dry.
If any near term actions are appropriate on the North Slope, the actions
should be addressed in accordance with Section 7.2.4, Interim Response Action
and Interim Measure processes, of the FFACO Action Plan. If the parties to
the FFACO feel that earlier action is necessary at the 2,4-D site, an interim
measure could be planned. The Fact Sheet's statement that such action could
be performed quicker and cheaper under the Permit instead of the FFACO is not
valid, because the processes in the FFACO for interim measures are equivalent
to those that would be required under the Permit. As part of the FFACO, the
action would be prioritized along with all other cleanup work to ensure the
- #i^yhest--pr#Ority tiork is performed on the Hanford Site.
920312.1553-rv
Draft-ye.-mit coflditions-Iii."r.3.e., . d., and e. all extend beyond the
authority of the RCRA corrective action provisions. Such provisions under
3004(u) and 3004(v) are to address the releases of hazardous wastes and
hazardous constituents from any SWMU at the facility or off-site,
respectively. Other than for the purpose of identification of SWMUs, there is
no authority to deal with solid wastes that are not hazardous, or to address
items that might simply constitute potential physical hazards.
The areas north and east of the Columbia River are under the management and
operation of the Washington State Department of Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Under the terms of these permit agreements, these agencies
are responsible for maintenance and upkeep of these areas including
maintenance of fence lines, roads, and cleanup of any trash or waste accruing
in these areas since_the_agensjes_essymed responsib_ility_. -The DOE-RL and its
contractors should not be required under this permit to perform general clean
up and security control in areas where these other agencies have
responsibility.
For all of the above reasons, condition I.P.3 should be deleted.

25.390
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 219 of 223
03/16/92
Condition: IV.P.4.
IV.P.4.a
US Ecology
Page, lines: Page 101, lines 27-34
Comment/Action: (1) Change title to US Ecology
after "administrator":
SWMUs. (2) Add the following
for all SWMUs that have released or are suspected to have released
hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents.
(3) Delete the language in permit condition IV.P.4.a and replace it with:
Reserved.
Justification: As previously noted in comments to permit condition IV.B.1, it
;-.,. is not appropriate to identify "US Ecology Site" as a SWMU. Table IV.1 must
list the individual SWMUs on the Hanford Site. In addition, the specific
actions under the authority of RCRA 3004(u) must be directed at the SWMUs, and
not at the any site in general. Such actions can only be directed if there is
a release of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents, or a reasonable
^--, ,
expectation that such releases have occurred. As noted in the Fact Sheet, the
Department expects to conduct any remediation that might be necessary at the
US Ecology site under the MTCA. There are several significant issues, such as
the apparent inconsistency with the Atomic Energy Act in identifying a
licensed commercial low-level waste disposal site as an SWMU, that would need
to be addressed if the US Ecology site was included in the Permit. These
issues could be avoided if this section of the Draft Permit was deleted.
Because the state of Washington is the party that subleased the site to
US Ecology and the Washington State Department of Health extensively regulates
disposal activities at the site under US Ecology's license to operate a
commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal site, correction of any
problems at the US Ecology site should be addressed by the state of Washington
under its lease agreement with US Ecology or its' radioactive waste disposal
licensing authority. Any incorporation of corrective action provisions for
US Ecology SWMUs should be deferred until the other available courses of
action have been undertaken. As noted in the Fact Sheet, other processes are
available to address any issue at the site.
Condition: IV.P.S. 351 Substation
25.391 Page, lines: Page 101, lines 36-41
Comment/Action: ( 1) Delete this condition in its entirety.
(2) The Fact Sheet statement that the 351 Substation is a location at which
the BPA once operated is misleading.
92072.1553-w
Justification: The 351 Substation is a DOE-RL facility. Any release within a
DOE-RL managed area of the Hanford Site is covered under Draft Permit
condition IV.A.1. The 351 Substation is located within the area of the
300-FF-3 operable unit on land that currently is managed by the DOE-RL.
Therefore, per the FFACO change process, the yellow cake contaminated area
should be addressed as part of the 300-FF-3 operable unit. If earlier action
is deemed necessary than the currently planned for 300-FF-3, then that action
can be taken in accordance with Section 7.2 of the FFACO Action Plan.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 220 of 223
03/16/92
In addition, because the 351 Substation was not a facility used to treat,
store, or dispose of solid waste, the site is not a SWMU. The yellow cake
contaminated area might not qualify as a SWMU. As an area contaminated with
uranium, an AEA regulated "source" material, even if determined to be a SWMU,
RCRA corrective action authority would only apply to the.release of hazardous
wastes or constituents, and not the radioactive constituents that are present.
If this site is addressed under the FFACO, these issues are not significant,
because all releases of hazardous wastes, constituents, or substances
including radioactive components will be addressed at all waste sites, even if
the sites are not SWMUs.
The 351 Substation always has been a DOE-RL managed unit. At one time, the
;_C,; BPA used a portion of the facility to support their other operations (i.e.,
for switching purposes). At no time has theunit or the land it is located on
been turned over to the BPA for management. Therefore, this unit should not
be included in Table IV.1.
r='
-Conditi-ona_ IV.P 6 Central Waste Landfill
2^392 Page, lines: Page 101, lines 43-47
Comment/Action: Delete this condition in its entirety.
Justification: The Central Waste Landfill is included in the FFACO as part of
the 200-IU-3 operable unit and is therefore covered under Draft Permit
condition IV.A.1. All actions will be prioritized and planned as part of the
FFACO Depending on whether this operable unit is assigned as RCRA past
practice or CERCLA past practice unit, a RI/FS or RFI/CMS work plan would be
submitted in accordance with the process contained in the FFACO.
In reference to the statement made in the Fact Sheet concerning this unit,
studigs-donein-this-arpa--havP -ider.t-ified-several potential- sources of the
very low levels of contamination found beneath the Solid Waste Landfill. The
exact source of the contamination is not known and might be from other sites
within the operable unit. Should the Department and the Agency determine that
accelerated action should be taken at this site the processes set forth in the
FFACO should be used to undertake that action.
Condition: IV.P.7. Hanford Site Waste Units Report
25.393 Page, lines: Page 102, lines 1-9
Comment/Action: Delete this condition in its entirety.
920312.1553-iv
Justification: The statement in Line 6 indicating these units are to be
"addressed separately from the operable unit investigations of the FFACO" is
not accurate. It is clearly intended under Section 3.1 of the FFACO to
incorporate any releases or significant potential for release of hazardous
substances or hazardous wastes from these units into the FFACO.
The Fact Sheet refers to all 244 units as SWMUs, which is not accurate.
Any required actions under RCRA or CERCLA associated with the 244 units
contained within the Hanford Site Waste Management Units Report (HSWMUR) are
already appropriately addressed in the FFACO based on the following.

1:r
92012.1553-1v
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT .221 of 223
.03/16/92
• Approximately 120 of these units are the RCRA TSD units that are planned
permitting and/or closure, in accordance with Part II of the FFACO.
^ Approxir;ately 4!l--of-these--unit-s-am-not--SWMUs-and do--not

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 222 of 223
03/16/92
the FFACO, or well thought out in light of the significant data already
available to both the Agency and the Department on these units.
Condition: Table IV.1
25.394 Page, lines: Page 102, lines 9-27
Comment/Action: Revise -able IV.I to include only specific BPA SWMUs on
Hanford Site land not owned by the BPA, and identify specific SWMUs on the
US Ecology site or reserve this section. All other components of the table
should be deleted.
Justification: As previously discussed in other comments on Part IV these are
C" the only sites, of those proposed in the Draft Permit, that are
rr,
on contiguous
^5_ land and that are not already addressed in the FFACO. No basis exists to
"; address the other units in this Permit. With respect to the US Ecology site
»'? and the non-BPA owned land used by the BPA, it is necessary to list specific
SWMUs rather than list whole areas, or to identify this section as reserved.
C=y: .
25.395
Condition: IV.P.8.1.
Page, lines: Page 102, line 27
Comment/Action: Include an additional condition in Part IV stating the
following:
Schedule Extensions for Activities not Covered by FFACO
To the extent that activities required by Part IV of this Permit for
narrad - h v tho-ERAFR
- - - - ^re^S^'.^-EL'.^. ^,..., ...... ....3Ye fl8t-cumpi@ieu in accordance with
the schedules contained in this Permit, and the Permittee can
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the Permittee
used best efforts to accomplish the activity within the required
schedule, the Administrator shall grant the Permittee an extension
to the schedule contained in Part IV of this Permit. For the
purposes of this permit condition, "best efforts" shall include
performance of all activities necessary to award contract(s) is
available to the Permittee, adequate planning, adequate operator
staffing, adequate laboratory and process controls, operation of a
backup or auxiliary facility or similar systems by the Permittee
when necessary to meet the schedules in Part IV of this Permit. The
-------i^erm#ttee s#^all notifiy--the Agency -in- writisog as soon -as-yossible of
any deviations or expected deviations from schedules in Part IV of
the Permit. The Permittee shall include with the notification
information to support that the Permittee has used its best efforts
to meet the schedule in Part IV of the Permit. If the Administrator
determines that the Permittee has made best efforts to meet the
schedule, the Administrator shall notify the Permittee in writing by
certified mail that the Permittee has been granted an extension and
provide the Permittee a revised schedule reflecting this extension. -
Such revision of schedules in Part IV of this Permit shall not
require a permit modification.
9xaaI2.1553-rv
Justification: Schedule extension provisions for corrective action are
commonly included in corrective action sections of permits and should be

920312.1553-1V
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY PERMIT 223 of 223
03/16/92
included in this permit for consistency, especially in view of the lack of
information available for the non-DOE-RL managed areas of the site. Schedule
extension language of this form was included in the Chemical Processors, Inc.
Permit WAD000812909 (Comment Attachment F).

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

^
Seotne OIBCe Nbsnlnpton, D.C Office BoorO of DNectors Execunve Director
1305 Fouth nvenue WhsMpton, D C RepqesentatneMark BbOme. Cha+r*v+ Gerado M Pallet
Cobb Bubnp. Sute 208 Honorable Don Bor*Sr Sharon Bbome, vreshent
Seattle. WosMgton 9870t cp Arnold & Porter Conudtinp Fbrqrople Don BoNw.
(206) 382-1014 1155 21st Street N W, Soite 1c00 Member of Congress. 19741989
FAU (206) 382-1148 NhsMgton. D C 20036 Bruce wlyer •
(202) 778-1019 Det Keehn
FAX (202) 331-9832
HeartOfAmericaNorthwest r -
"Adwncing our tegion's quolif y of bfe." ^
26.0
COMMENTS OF HEART OF AMERICA NORTHWEST,
HEART OF AMERICA NORTHWEST RESEACH CENTER
ON
DRAFT
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL PERMIT
FOR DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES
AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION
^.... PURSUANT TO R.C.W. 70.105 AND
THE FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO WASHINGTON DEPT. OF ECOLOGY &
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTSCTION AGENCY REGION 10
PERMIT NO. WA7A90008967
COLSMzNTS OF HEART OF AMERICA NORTHWF riA' MEMBERS AND STAFF AT PUBL•1'C
HEARIN • AND PUB •7 - MEETINGS IN -OrePOUamM- COMMEN_TS ON THP PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT PROCESSe
Heart of America Northwest represents 16,000 household
and individual members who are concerned about public safety,
health and protection of the environment from releases and
threatened releases of hazardous and dangerous wastes, including
radioactive mixed hazardous wastes , from facilities and waste
dumps at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Our organization believes
that Hanford, which is acknowledged to be the most contaminated
land area in the hemisphere, represents the eingle greatest threat
to the economic resource base of the region and single greatest
threat to public health and safety known to exist at any United
States industrial facility.

^A6.1
Iqi^J
cr,
^---r`)
26.2
In light of the seriousness of the threat and the
complexity of the issues involved in this permit, acknowledged by
Ecology to be the largest and most complex permit ever issued under
RCRA in the United States, we have encouraged our members to be
involved and comment on this draft permit. The attached "Citizens'
Guide" prepared by us to assist the public in understanding the
process and identifying key issues, is hereby submitted for the
record. We request that each key issue and comment in the Citizens'
Guide be considered a formal comment and responded to by the Dept.
of Ecology and U.S.EPA accordingly.
The comments of our members and the public at the Tri-
Party Agreement quarterly meeting in Vancouver Washington should
be entered into the record and responded to as if given at a public
hearing. We ask that each comment at that meeting be separately
tabulated and noted in the response documents along with all
^omments -given-at--public 3searings-on the permit. We ask that the
same treatment be given to all comments at the White Salmon public
meeting and the informal Vancouver public meeting on the permit,
and the comments of Heart of America Northwest board members and
staff at the Seattle hearing. [These comments are supplementary to
those formal oral comments offered in detail by our organization
at those hearings.)
Given the significance of this permit, it was imperative
that the Department of Ecology and USEPA take every step possiblle
to inform and involve the public in the comment process. Sadly,
this was not done. No summary and guide to the permit process was
mailed to interested citizens or provided by the parties at the
hearings. This process called for hearings in numerous areas of the
State and in Portland Oregon to receive comments. Instead, 24 hours
notice was given for a public meeting in Vancouver , WA.. We ask
that the USEPA and Dept. of Ecology respond to public requests that
hearings (not meetings) be held in Portland, OR in any future
processes of this nature, and please explain why, if EPA was
involved, such a hearing was not held in the downstream population
-center of Portland. We appreciate the response of Ecology staff to
the request of Columbia River United and our organization for a
hearing in White Salmon. However, public meetings without recording
equipment and short notice do not - replace hearings with proper
notice and respect for the comments offered by citizens. Further,
we feel that the citizens who spoke out at the Tri-Party Quarterly
meeting in Vancouver and demanded an opportunity to comment on this

f
issue of vital significance to citizens of Southwest Washington and
the Portland area were never afforded a proper opportunity to be
involved in and comment on this permit. The Department of Ecology
and EPA must explain whether they had sufficent funds from the
permit applicants to conduct an appropriate process for public
involvement. If funds were not the limiting factor, why did you not
plan for more hearings, workshops, mailings and an adequate comment
period?
26.3 We also request that our comments on the SEPA determination
that no further Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for
the decision to permit the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant and
the Declaration of Nonsignificance for this permit ( DNS) be
formally incorporated into the record for this permit. Not only do
we object to the substance of those decisions, but we object to the
poor process by which the public was not informed adequately about
the meaning, substance or separate timing of the SEPA decisions.
We thank -the --Ecology etaff who brought--the timing-af the SEPA
decision to our attention while we lament the fact that the general
public was uninformed during the hearing process that the decision
to not do an EIS on a $1.2 Billion project with necessary multibillion
dollar ancillary projects had already been made. As we have
stated in those incorporated comments, we believe that this
decision violates SEPA and NEPA.
CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL•, HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF THE RFt 1TED
26.4 PROGR_,MM_'TIC DECISIONS INCORPORATED INTO THIS DRAFT PERMIT HAVE NOT
BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS REQLIRED BY SEPA. ALTERNATI VES HAVE NOT
BEEN DETAILED IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND IRREVERS7BLE
COMMITMENTS ARE BEING MADE ON MASSIVE PRO,TECTS OF AN UNPRECEDENTED
SCALE WITHOUT PERFORMIN(3 A PROGRAM-M_1TIC OR SITEWIDE E3Se
26.5
The decision to permit the construction of the Hanford Waste
Vitrification Plant ( HWVP) can not be legally considered in
isolation from the related programmatic decisions and the
cumulative impacts of those decisions.
No NEPA or SEPA EIS with full public participation has
considered alternatives for the future of the Hanford site. Yet,
the HWVP decision is based upon related programmatic decisions to
allow a large area of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation to be
permanently turned into an High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump for

approximately 20 million curies of "grout". The USDOE's prior EIS
in 1987, based upon 1985 or earlier data, never considered the
consequences of this irreversible decision for this quantity of
radiation. Further, the EIS of 1987 was predicated upon a smaller
HWVP with lower emissions ( the smaller plant was expected to emit
11 curies of radiation per year, compared to the Three Mile Island
emissions of 15 to 25 curies ) and there is no current
environmental analysis of the emissions from the proposed plant,
nor of the cumulative impact of emissions from the total program
including a pretreatment plant that has yet to even have a
preliminary design.
Documents proposed to be adopted by Ecology for SEPA purposes
regarding the HWVP have not been subjected to ANY outside public
review and comment, norr has there been any meaningful public
opportunity to comment on the scope of necessary environmental
review. SEE comments above regarding lack of public notice.
The "Additional Information" provided WA Dept. of Ecology by
USDOE to avoid a SEPA EIS calculated that 26.88 tons pe year of
Oxides-oi-Nitroqen; i.4 tons/year of Oxides of Sulphur; 26.6
--toas-jyear-of - Oxid-es of Garbari, --and;- .014- ton$Jyear of Flourine
would be released by the HWVP during normal operation. Absolutely
no environmental impact assessment has been done on these large
--emiasians. No consideration has been given to the total cumulative
emissions from the program as required by SEPA and NEPA. No
efrvirons.enta'.--i-mpaet--an-alysis has been done for air emissions in
the event of a credible set of accidental releases. Support
documents for even these calculations have not been provided for
public review as would be the case if an EIS was prepared.
USDOE has informed Ecology that EPA "has promulgated
vitrification as the treeatment standard... for the high-level
fraction of the mixed waste...". Ecology has stated on the record
that the HDW-EIS "did not evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with alternative DST waste treatment facilities.... No
comparison of environmental impacts from operation of various highlevel
waste treatment facilities has been conducted." (I.e., glass,
crytalline ceramic, supercalcine and alternative vitrification
technologies and designs.)
This constitutes an admission by the State that an EIS is
required prior to permitting HWVP in order for alternatives and
their impacts to be considered.
4

0
USDOE's sole response was to state that EPA had promulgated
vitrification as the BDAT (Best Demonstrated Available Technology).
This response did not even address the issue of alternative
vitrification technologies. Further, SEPA and NEPA require
consideration of the environmental impacts of these alternative
technologies and alternative forms of vitrification technology even
if there is a BDAT promulgated.
26.6 The program of vitrification includes the related decison on
grout and pretreatment. Vitrification is one step in a process.
Within a few months, Ecology is expected to issue another RCRA
permit for the related grout facilities, with immense permanent
environmental impacts. That permit decision will be rendered years
after the public was promised a site wide ETS. The permit will be
issued long before the public is involved in reviewing alternatives
and impacts of programmatic decsions in a site wide EIS. These
major irreversible decisions should come after - not before - an
EIS is completed.
26.7
We request that we be informed of your decision on the SEPA
determination and hereby inform you that we intend to appeal the
determination to adopt existing environmental documents in lieu of
an environmental impact statement if these defects are not cured
through a public process considering alternatives and cumulative
and programmatic impacts.
The permit should require immediate notification followed by
written notification within 24 hours of all releases to the
environment of any dangerous waste, hazardous substance or other
unpermitted release.
Hanford's record of reproting releases is abysmal. A recent
review of Ecology records of reported releases and a partial review
of the record of inspections shows a pattern of blatant disregard
for the laws requiring notification of releases.
Ecology has yet to be notified of the releases from High-
Level Nuclear Waste Tank 105-A of over a half a million gallons of
the most deadly substances known. Our records review shows Ecology

has not been notified of other tank releases, vault and pipe
releases, landfill releases, etc.. Recent records review by our
staff indicates Ecology was not notified of releases from: Catch
Tank 241-A-302-B on 2-7-89;
Tank A-102 in 1989;
Tank 241-AX-102;
Tank 241-SX-104;
Tank Farm Ammonia releases to Crib 216-A-37-1 and to air.
Ecology has not even been properly notified of air emission
releases of hazardous wastes ( probably ammonia ) in the Tank Farms
which have caused the hospitalization of Hanford employees on
° several occasions, including two events in 1989 and more recent
events.
26'g
Releases to "containment" at Hanford must be considered
releases to the environment unless a facility or unit has obtained
a TSD permit which identifies the area where a release occurs as
having been engineered and certified as meeting the standards for
containment in WAC chapter 173-303.
Most Hanford vaults, transfer lines, facility floors, etc.
are very old, often are contaminated already, often have a history
of failure.... Simply put, when floors of facilities are considered
"sponge like" and the soil beneath facilities is contaminated from
past spills, it is not acceptable to allow USDOe to self designate
spills insuch areas as spills to containment.
Further, spills to containment should be required to be
reported if the total spill exceeds 100 pounds and any dangerous
waste is POSSIBLY present.
This-permit's condi'tions should-go further than the general
regulations for spill notification for regulated industries. Other
regulated industries in the State should not suffer stricter than
necessary reporting rules for spills to containment just because
Westinghouse Hanford Co. and USDOE have an abominable record.
GRO1)NDWATER MONITORING:
It should be stated directly and acknowledged in the permit
that USDOE is not in compliance with groundwater monitoring
requirements for interim status facilities, thus, all such
6

0
facilities lacking such certification are no longer in compliance
with interim status requirements.
The permit should then proceed to specify steps for
groundwater monitoring compliance as conditions for the general
facility wide permit and state the specific steps that will be
taken in the review of individual facility permits to assure
compliance before the permit will be issued.
The permit should specify that lateral wells beneath tanks
^ and basins and such other facilities as appropriate will be
required for leak detection. Reliance upon testing for Ruthenium
in wells near High-level Nuclear Waste tanks must be replaced with
monitoring for an array of both short and long half-life
radionuclides. SEE United States General Accounting Office Report,
July 1990 on Hanford Single Sheii Tank Leaks. [GAO noted that
testing for Ruthenium was designed to show that nothing would
appear in the wells, as one would not expect to find significant
migration or survival of a short half life element.]
OPERATING RECORD:
Hanford is not a normal industrial facility, nor is its cleanup
a normal one. Given the fact that remedial action under the Tri-
-Party-Agreement-ant4 future -legal regimes is likely to be ongoing
for five decades at the site, and, given that a lack of operating
records could cause cost escalations or even exposures to cleanup
personnel, it is necessary that SECTION II.I be amended to
require retention of records until ten years after all units at
Hanford are certified as closed and as having corrective actions
completed. All similar sections of the permit should use this as
the standard for records retention.
OUR STATE IS NOT A DUMP SITE^ HANFO D MUST NOT BE P.ni.trmmvn TO
26.10 A CEPT ANY OFFSITE - N. ,T .D WASTE UNL•ESS ALL ANFORD FA Ir ITIES
ARE CERTIFTED AS HAVING CORRECTIVE ACTTONS COMPLETED AND OSED
Section II.N ( Receipt of Dangerous Wastes Generated Offsite)
of the draft permit is not acceptable to the people of the State
of Washington.

It is not acceptable to state that this is a standard
condition for normal TSD facilities. Hanford is not a normal TSD
facility. USDOE has turned Hanford into the nation's most
contaminated area and the facility with the largest number of waste
sites violating RCRA. It will be decades before we dig up and
legally and safely store buried wastes at Hanford, significant
quantities of which USDOE brought from other sites or nations,
including fuel rods and contaminated dead animal carcasses. Limited
resources and facilites to store wastes already at Hanford justify
a flat out prohibition on acceptance of any further wastes until
all wastes at Hanford are stored, treated or disposed of in accord
with the law. Ecology has authority to impose this condition, given
USDOE's lack of compliance with RCRA.
The public has repeatedly voted to bar receipt of offiste
wastes at Hanford.
- ,^--,- - - - The -Covarnerkas-etated--ke-xould . . not ...,.. agree oe to offsite wastes
being-brought to Hanford.
The permit must reflect this policy.
USDOE is actively seeking to "store" the dangerous mixed
wastes accumulated at tother USDOE facilities. "Temporary storage"
of these wastes at INEL from Rocky Flats has exceeded 20 years.
This has greatly exasperated the lack of legal storage capactiy at
the facility for facility generated wastes and wastes that are
-- boing- romovod from the soils. hanford would face an even more
desperate compliance problem if we do not bar offsite generated
wastes at this time. Ecology has the legal authority to bar these
wastes so long as USDOE is out of compliance at the site.
The permit language in Section II.N should read as follows:
The permittees shall not accept any dangerous wastes
generated offsite at any unit or facility at the Hanford
Site until all units and facilities at the site are
certified as having completed corrective actions and are
certified as closed and all units are in compliance with
the conditions of this permit and compliance with RCW
70.105 as currently or hereafter amended, and WAC chapter
173-303.

11
26.11
26.12
This section ( II.U) must be retained in the final permit and
strengthened. It is vitally important that the mapping begin on an
expedited schedule.
The mapping requirement must be strengthened to include:
a) When each pipe was constructed or when any
subsequent reconfiguration or construction or, rerouting
occurred;
b) What legal authorization was required and
received for all construction, rerouting or other
significant action for each identified pipe since the
application of RCRA to USDOE facilities by the United
States Congress and the apllication of RCW 70.105 to
hanford facilities.
c) Identify all relevant engineering analyses,
safety analyses and known process reprots for each pipe
identified.
d) Identify all sources known for each pipe and all
past and present connections or discharges or releases.
Each Subsection of Section II. sould incorporate the above
items. It is dangerously insufficient to only have USDOE identify
the current destination and flow for these pipes as opposed to
identifying what they may have carried in the past or where they
may still have interconnections that USDOE no longer believes
exist.
WASHINGTON'S WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES ( RCW 70 105) MUST BE
SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE PERMIT ISSUED UNDER RCW 70 , 105 AND
- -'i±HS' REDUCT7ONfTFi7-AS•i'gSTRt7AMg F3[gST-BE SPECIFICAL•L•Y ADDRESSmD AL•ONCi
WITH THE PRIORITIES FOR TREATMENT AND ECYCLIN6 OF WAST.S:
There should be a general permit condition covering the
requirements for reducing and recycling liquid waste streams.
USDOE, Westinghouse and Battelle should be barred from
diluting with any other process stream any process or facility
waste stream with dangerous wastes or the potential for dangerous
wastes to enter. Such nondangerous waste streams should be required
to be recycled on an expedited timeline not to exceed two years.
9

26.13
Y} j
26.14
It is well established that the discharge of even nondangerous
waste streams into Hanford soils has raised the water table so
significantly as to create a groundwater pathway for contaminants
to reach the Columbia River. This is true for units near the River
( i.e., the 300 Area process Trenches ) and for areas far from the
River ( i.e., the 200 Areas ).
SEE 1987 USDOE "Environmental Survey of the Hanford Site"
(Ecology has this document on file): "The continued discharges of
large quantities of process waste water to this unit ( even though
it is said to no longer contain HW or RMW) will probably force
hazardous/radiocative constituents into the Columbia River at a
significant rate." RE: 300 Area, same statement at 4-28 for 200
Area discharges.
Thus, it is imperative that all recycable discharges cease
within two years at all units on the Hanford Reservation. This
should be accomplishable given that USDOE has had funds
appropriated for treatment and to cease discharges for several
years, although these funds have apparently been spent on other
pet projects.
All recyclable discharges must be separated from combined
sewers, trenches and cribs. Section I.E.10.a should require
sampling at the process stream head, prior to dilution or discharge
into any common sewer.
PUSLiC PARTICTPATION and CHARGING PERMITTEES FOR COSTS•
The Draft Permit is woefully inadequate in protecting and
ecouraging the public's right to participate in critical decisions.
--The- -dratt simply--saya -that-the parties will use Tri-Party
Agreement processes (FFACO), SEC. I.C.3.b.
B[s-prsposs thar _ti,era-ba- a- sommi_tment in the permit to hold
a comment period with public hearings on any major modification of
a facility permit or umbrella permit. Upon the petition of any one
individual or organization, a hearing should be held in the
geographic region of the petitioner.
10

Additional permits; i.e., the Grout Facility Permit, must be
subjected to full public review through workshops, mailings and a
set of public hearings in the interested geographic regions.
Affected regions must include Portland, Oregon - which is served
by Region 10 of the EPA, which is a party to this permit. This is
a national as well as state permit and hearings and public
involvement activities must occur in affected regions even if they
cross state lines, as in the case of the Columbia Gorge and
Portland. The permittees must provide the regulators will full
funding as a cost of permit activities for conducting all these
activities, including those in Oregon.
Quarterly meetings under the TPA may provide a forum for
discussion of permit applications and modifications, However, they
do not equal the necessary public hearings on key actions, i.ei.,
past practice unit closure permits, facility permits, major
modifications to the permits.
Quarterly meetings are a misnomer in the first place. they are
held quarterly only in the Tri-Cities. They are held only once ever
year and a half in each of the other interested/affected regions
of the state and region. There is a need for a separate process for
key decisions, as well as a need for the State Dept, of Ecology to
publish and mail updates and citizen fact sheets on major
violations of RCRa found a the site, major proposed modifications,
etc.. It iws not acceptable to delegate this public educational
writing and mailing to the permittee under the Tri-party Agreement.
Washington Dept. of Ecology, should as a condition of this
26.15 permit, utilize its current legislative authority in RCW 70.105 to
charge "Mixed Waste Service Charges" and Permit Fees to fully cover
the costs of all permit public involvement activities, hearings,
public participation and technical assistance grants and a public
records system for public access.
Ecology should not wait for general regulations to charge
these permit fees and service charges. The authority exists to
charge them as a condition of the permit.
11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

(^r
c.-;.
rr;
^,-..
L
Seonle Oflice
1305 FaYM Avervle
Cobb B&aiatrq. Sute 208
Seatue. Nbshwpton 98101
(206) 382-1014
FAX (206) 3824148
HeartOfAmericaNorthwest
:4vwncrrp o«n replon s Uabsy oa6le: •
Nbsfunpten, D.C. O/OCs
Nt]fhnpton D.C. Representative:
HoncraUle Don BorYcer
c/o ArnoW & Porter Consulting
1155 21st Street N.W. Suite 1000
MAUtrwtort D.C.200J6
(209 778-1019
FAX (202) 331-9832
Booro of Onectas
Mvk Bbane. Choiman
Sharan Bbane. Presioent
Ilorwrade Don 8onker.
Mernber of Conprea.1974-1989
&ucetYYer
DelKaehr
A Citizen's Guide To
The Nation's Largest and Most Complex
Hazardous Waste Permit:
The Hanford "RCRA° Permit
ExecutNe Dbector
Gerald M. Poper
RCRA stands for the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act".
It is our nation's basic federal hazardous waste law. RCRA
regulates the safe handling, treatment , storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes from 'cradle to grave'. Hazardous wastes include
"mixed wastes" composed of both radioactive and hazardous chemical
wastes.
Hanford is the Western Hemisphere's most contaminated land
area - 560 square miles next to the Columbia River. The U.S.
Department of Energy ( USDOE) admits it has dumped 440 Billion
Gallons of liquid radioactive and hazardous wastes into the soil
at Hanford since the 1940's.
Washington State's Dept. of Ecology is given the authority
under RCRA and state law to issue permits for new hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The United States EPA
currently has the au'thority to issue permits and orders regarding
the "closure" and clean-up of hundreds of hazardous-radioactive
waste contaminated soil sites, weapons plants, reactors and
L--11^
uu iiu nys at Han Htvrv ford .
What in the "Hanford RCRA Umbralla Permit"?
USDOE has applied for a permit under RCRA to build major
waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities at Hanford as
envisaged by the 1989 Hanford Clean-Up Agreement (Tri-Party
Agreement involving USDOE, Ecology and EPA).(
Because the Hanford site is so vast and involves so many waste
dumps, contaminated plants and yet to be built clean-up facilities,
Ecology and USDOE agreed to propose an " Umbrella Permit ", one that
would set all the ground rules for future Hanford waste permits.
f This 'CJt/ron's 6uldo' has been prepared by Nosrt of Aa"rico Northwest to assist you as in Int1/IsteO
citizen In preparing cowonts for the public IunrlnNs at wrlttrn oam"nts no the NCNA permit. Written roem"nts
can be .nnr to NA fcelop, RCRA Permit, P0 Bos 47600 01rwPFO, NO 96604-7600 untll March 1. 1991. Ctll or write
Heart of Aworics Northwest for additional 1n1or110ti0n or if YOU nrou/0 IIRo to he in/OrIIO Of u0comin( nrtsloPs.

,.1
J1
Within the Umbrella Permit, Ecology Proposes to Give USDOE
Permits For Massive Questionable Projects in Early 1992 -
26.16 Before An Environmental Impact Statement is Prepared;
In addition to Ecology issuing the "umbrella" rules for all
RCRA hazardous waste permits at Hanford, Ecology is proposing to
issue specific permits for major facilities to be built at Hanford
that will irreversibly commit the clean-up of Hanford to a unproven
course questioned by many scientistr, tribes and watchdog groups.
The permits that Ecology proposes to give USDOE will
irreversibly allow USDOE to build huge plants and literally create
a huge above ground High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump at Hanford - all
before a long promised Environmental Impact Statement is completed
on the clean-up of Hanford and future land uses after clean-up of
this area, which is half the size of the State of Rhode Island.
Facalities that are ^naludad in the 1992 Hanford RGR, Fermit•
1) The Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant :
26.17 This $1.2 Billion project is supposed to turn the liquid High-
Level Nuclear Wastes in Hanford tanks into solid glass
(vitrification) logs that would eventually go to a"repository".
Questions exist about USDOE's choice of technology, and whether
USDOE knows enough about the chemistry of Hanford's liquid High-
Leve1 Nuclear Wastes to design a process that will not cause an
explosion of the wastes, which contain highly explosive chemicals.
The Vitrifcation Plant - if it works perfectly accident free -
will release to the air over 11 curies of radioactivity every
year. For over 60 years, we would have a small Three Mile Island
radioactive release occurring each year.
USDOE is seeking permission from Ecology to start constructing
26.18 this enormously expensive plant prior to:
26.19
*the completion of engineering and designs for the plant;
*engineering, design and choice of technology for how the
explosive liquid High-Level Nuclear Wastes will be pretreated
before being piped into the Vitrification Plant;
*construotion_oroperatior. of either a demonstration or
production scale waste vitrification plant with the
technology and design chosen by USDOE;
*preparing an Environmental Impact Statement on the Plant
itself which considers alternative technologies (i.e. a
French modular design with different materials for the
critical melters - which is the only operating nuclear
--waste vitrification process) and the impacts on the
environment from creating a vast above ground High-Level
Nuclear Waste Dump composed of the *grout* vaults for
wastes that do not go through the Plant itself.

20
26.21
2) Hanford Ggout Treatment Facility :
Hanford officials want to take about 10% of all the
radioactivity in the liquid High-Level Nuclear Waste Tanks and
divert these liquid radioactive and chemical wastes to a "cement"
mixer, reducing the volume of wastes that will go through the
Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant. USDOE seeks to save large sums
of money by diverting as much liquid High-Level Nuclear Waste to
the "Grout" plant as possible. After being mixed with "grout", the
liquid wastes would be poured into large cement vaults at Hanford.
Prior to completion of a promised Environmental Impact
Statement on the future land uses and clean-up standards for
Hanford's 560 square miles, the Grout Facility will irreversibly
make a largo area of Hanford an above ground High-Level Nuclear
Waste Dump with up to 20 million ourisa of radioactivity. (The
Three Mile Island accident released just 15 to 25 curies).
Questions abound regarding whether the "grout" can truly be
expected to stand up to 10,000 years, 100,000 years or 240,000
years of exposure without relasing the deadly wastes mixed into
the grout. One reason for these serious questions is that the
cement or "grout" will have mixed into it a deadly brew of both
hazardous unstable chemicals and highly radioactive elements. Noone
knows_what thebynroducta of these mixtures will be over time -
much less whether the grout will retain them or degrade.
The USDOE continues to say that only "incidental" or low
levels of radiation will be put into the vaults.
In fact, USDOE wants to create a High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump
above ground at Hanford for a huge quantity of deadly wastes - and
Ecology has not proposed any permit conditions limiting the
quantity of grout to be dumped into vaults or requiring that the
maximum amount of Hanford's liquid wastes be turned into glass logs
(vitrified). Heart of America Northwest urges citizens to insist
that Ecology impose such permit conditions and prevent USDOE from
creating a cheap above ground High-Level Nuclear Waste Dump.
3) The 183-H
This is
Solar Evaporatore
a contaminated facility for which a RCRA closure
permit ( a clean-up permit ) is proposed. The Evaporator is a
potential source of known groundwater contamination in the Hanford
"100 Area", near the Columbia River. Ecology has issued a
"Declaration of Non-Significance" under Washington State's
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), exempting the project from
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. This declaration
is based upon 2 year old documents prepared by USDOE. It is unclear
whether the EPA and Ecology will require removal to background
levels of contaminants or whether USDOE will simply cap
contaminants with a"geotextile" barrier - a fancy term for placing
soil, clay and a"woven synthetic" fabric over the contaminants.
26.22 4) The 616 Nonradioaative wasa StoraQO FaOilitv :
This is a storage building for dangerous wastes that are to
be shipped offsite for treatment or disposal. RCRA sets strict
standards for construction of new storage facilities.

The Hanford Permit Should Be Changed to Stop USDOE
Shipping Deadly Nuclear and Hazardous Wastes
From
From Other USDOE Nuclear Weapons Plants and Foreign Reactors
To Be Dumped At Hanford:
26.23
USDOE is desperately seeking a dumpsite for its mixed
radioactive and hazardous wastes from other nuclear weapons
production plants, including Rocky Flats. USDOE is also looking to
bring to a USDOE site large quantities of High-Level Nuclear Waste
from foreign reactors.
If these wastes are allowed to come to Hanford, they are
likely to stay here forever - and drasttcally compound the already
unsafe and illegal waste storage dumps and facilities at Hanford.
Yet, the proposed Hanford RCRA permit, in Sections II.N. and
I.E.17, specifically foresees allowing USDOE to make
waste dump for both the entire USDOE nuclear weapons
Hanford
complex
the
and
6?
,^
foreign reactor fuels.
Other states have imposed strict RCRA waste storage limits on
USDOE facilities and have directly stopped USDOE both from putting
or, these deadly wastes on their highways and from turning their states
into nuclear waste dumps.
Washington State has the authority
-^------IIm?+sel.la- Permit conditions that would
to include in the
stop USDOE from
Hanford
turning
Hanford into USDOE's-nuclear waste storage dump. It is clear that
this will only happen if citizens are determined to insist that
Hanford's immense problems not be made worse by USDOE being allowed
to bring to Hanford any wastes generated offsite.
A solution proposed by Heart of America Northwest is a permit
conaitien that bars USDOE from accepting at Hanford any offsite
generated regulated wastes at
Hanford RCRA permit.
any Hanford facility covered by the
So long as Hanford is the site of hundreds of illegal and
unsafe RCRA regulated waste dumps, it is outrageous folly not to
include in the permit conditions barring USDOE from adding to our
waste problems at Hanford.
26.24 Hanford- O C al-s- coTtt Tiiie to avo- - RCRA --rey-ulatio:, by
_iluting hazardous and radioactive waste streams that are dumped
straight into Hanford's soils. Absent permit conditions requiring
YJA§TZ-REDUCTION, PRevCLrNG and CLOSED LOOP cooling; and, conditions
barring massive discharges of hazardous and radioactive wastes from
being mixed in common sewer lines with noncontaminated waste
waters, USD08 will continue to pour billions of gallons of
untreated and unregulated wastes directly into Hanford's every
yearltl
Ecology has conducted fewer than 10 RCRA inspections at
Hanford over the past two years - and Ecology officials have
dragged their heels resisting releasing the results of those
inspections to the public. Can we truly trust USDOE to self-police
itseif9Yf- Permit-c:3nditions cha-rging the-USDOE the full costs of
-iaspections, monitoring and outside lab sampling are necessary to
ensure that Ecology can prptect the public interest at Hanford.

0 ^
rEs
Inndvnlarm' BPA-Al
Mary Getchell
Washington State Department of Ecology
99 South Sound Center
Capital Financial Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98503
27.0
Re: Draft Dangerous (Hazardous) Waste Permit for the U. S. Department of Energy
Hanford Site - Public Comment
Dear Ms Getchell:
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns, and/or operates several electrical
substations on the Hanford Site. BPA wishes to clarify its responsibilities regarding these
facilities, in terms of the subject Draft Permit. We therefore offer the enclosed comments on
the applicable portions of Part IV of the Draft Permit.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments. Should you have further questions,
please contact Mr. Steve Sander of my staff at (503) 230-5139.
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Cliff Clark, DOE Richland
Mr. Bob Carosino, DOE Richland
Mr. Steve Woodbury, DOE Headquarters
Department of Energy
.Bonneville Power Administration
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, Oregon 97208-3821
-. ,
in: c i 3 1392
Sincerely,
^^^ ja^^
^ Alexandra B. Smith
Assistant Administrator
for Environment
V9
1 61992

27.1
7.2
COMMENTS ON PART IV. P.1., Line 18, MIDWAY SUBSTATION AND
COMMUNITY
MAR 16
Delete any reference to the Midway Substation And Community from the permit. The
Midway Substation and Community is an electric substation and related support facility,
independently owned and operated by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). BPA will
retain all management, control, and financial responsibility for satisfying any remediation
required at the Midway facility. BPA has reached agreement with the State of Washington
Department of Ecology on the remediation activities to be taken and is proceeding with
implementation in accordance with the schedule agreed upon, with one exception:
Change PART W. Pl.d. at Line 36 to read "240 days" rather than
"120 days". The additional time is to allow for the design and engineering of a new
stormwater catchment system.
^ONIIVIENTS ON PART IV.P.2., Line 22, OTHER BPA LANDS
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will assume responsibility (including financial)
for the completion of an RFI work plan, within 365 days, for those facilities which it operates
on the Hanford Site (specifically: Hanford Switch, Benton Switch, Ashe, White Bluffs). BPA
will assume responsibility for contaminants, if any, identified or associated with its operation
of these facilities, provided however, that corrective requirements involving contaminants that
are not the result of BPA operations or actions will remain under the management control and
responsibility of the permittee, USDOE, and will be addressed through the Hanford Federal
Facility Agreement And Consent Order (FFACO). Schedules and provisions governing any
necessary follow-on activities should be negotiated after completion of the RFI.
1992 -

AAUW-Wasninpton Stale Division
Abundant Life Seed Foundation
Admiralty
Aueupon Society
Air Quality Coalilion
Alpine Lake3 Proteclion Soclely
Associanon of Bainbridge Communities
91ack Hills AuEubpn Society
BWe Mountain AuduCon Society
Camano Island Homeowners Association
Cascade Bicycle Club
CascaCe Wilderness Club
Cerro Gordo Community Town Forum
Citizens Against Woodstove Fumes
Crhzens for Clean Industry
Cipzensfor Sensible Develc
Citizens to Save Puget Sour .28. 1
Civic Action on Redmond's
Clark County Natural ReSOI
Committee for Oil Pollution .._._...._
Consumers United for Food Safety
Councilfor Land Care and Plannlnq
fratwr RoaE Action Committee
Dlshman Hills Natural Area Association
East Lake Washington Audubon Society
Everett Garden Club
Evergreen Islands.Inc.
Floating Homes Association
Four Creeks Community Association
Friends of Cypress Island
Friends of Discovery Park
Friends of Mt St. Helens pO
Fnlrlds of the San Juins Lp. 2L
Greenpeace-NW Reqiona
Hanford Oversight Commit
Hood Canal Envkonmen0l Council
Issaeuah Alps Trails Club
1•aak Walton League of America
.pAUOUOOnSociety
----ar cawoola9eslnAUmmn. Snrie_)y
_.rnow Valley Citizens Council
Mt. Baker Watershed Protection Association
The Mountaineers
Nbpually Della Association
North OascaCes Audubon
North CascaCas Conservation Society Council
Nortn CenlralWaskinplon Audutwn Society
Cowlltz Environmental Council
North
North Univarsity Garden Club
Northwest Fly Anglers
Norlhwesl Riyers Council
Nortllwaat Slaelnaad and Salmon Council
of Trout Unlimiled
Oak HarEor Garden Club
Olympic Park Associates
Olympic Peninsula Audulan Society
People for Fair Taxes in Washington
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Plateau Preservation Society
Point Roberts Haron Preservation Commltlee
Professlonal Resource Orp-Saimon
Protect the Peninsulas Future
- rx
.miYana
iup^^Sound ARlance
PuOetSounoea
Saratoga Cove Foundation
Save a Valuable Environment
Save Our SNO.es
Save the Traes
Seattle Auduoon Society
Selltle Shoreline Coalition
Sierra Cluo-Cascade Chapter
Skagit Alpine Club
SkaVil Audubon Sociely
Spokane Mountaineers. Inc
Spokane AuduEon Society
Tanoma Audubon Society
Urean Wildlife Coalition
Vancouver AuduGon Society
Washington Citizens for Recycling
Washington Council ollne Federation
Fly FbMrs
slunptun FMconera Association
,shlnqton Fly Fishing Club
W asllinpton Kayak Club
Waalllnpton Native Plant Society
Washington Roadside Council
WaNinyton Toxics Coalilion
Washington TroMrs Association
Wa1NnUa of Wast Hy11MOs
Wnqpay Is1anG Audubon Society
WiId1iN SoNety-Wasllinplon Chapter
yNlNna Valley Aadubun Society
Zero Population Growth
Washington
Environmental
Council ,
March 13. 1992
28.0
Mary Getchell
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia WA 98504-7600
RE: Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Draft Permit
Spill Response
OLYMPIA OFFICE
1063 South Capitol
Suite 212
Olympia, WA 98501
(206) 3578548
The proposed hazardous waste rule changes on the reportable
quantities for spills are not adequate for the type of incidents at
Hanford which may invovle radioactive materials. It should be
specified within this permit that the threshold for reporting a spill
is zero quantity, regardless of the final language of the hazardous
waste rulese
Environmental Impact Statement
The issuing of this permit by the Department of Ecology must fully
comply with both the letter and the spirit of the State Environmental
- Policy-Ar.t,--A11-activitlEs-whith--might--occur under this permit must
be fully analyzed in an environmental impact statement using current
data, not information gathered five years ago.
Moreover, as this facility will be part of a larger effort to address
contamination on the Hanford Reservation, there should be an areawide
impact analysis which will fully address all cumulative and
interrelated impacts. For examply, if this facility will solidify
waste into grout, where exactly will be the final location of that
material and what will be the environmental impact.
The remedial efforts at Hanford must proceed with full knowledge of
the environmental consequencese All effort must be made to address
this permit with full compliance of SEPA. This includes full public
-knowledge-and--opportLnity-te comment-on-the-total--acope of the
proposed cleanup.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
Elizabeutt, DirectAr for Policy
Washington Environmental Council
Z^1^:^
Doris Cellarius, Toxics Coordinator
Cascade Chapter, Sierra Club
Printed an McyclMd Paper
14
HEADQUARTERS
5200 University Way N.E.
Suite 201
$eattle, WA 98105
(208) 527-1599

THIS °AOE INTFNTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

29.1
March 10, 1992
Mary Getchell
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Dear Ms. Getchell:
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
P.O. Box 968 • 3000 George Washington Way • R(chtand, Washington 99352
29.0
MAR 16
Subject: DRAFT HANFORD FACILITY DANGEROUS WASTE PERMIT
We have reviewed the subject draft permit (without attachments) and accompanying draft fact
sheet and offer the following brief comments for your consideration.
It is not clear to us the extent to which the general facility conditions of the permit are intended
to be applicable to leased properties. The fact sheet (page 1) suggests that the facility is defined
to include all properties owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). However, the
permittee (USDOE) cannot be expected to oversee the activities of lessees. We are interested
in clarification of this issue because the Supply System has three significant lease agreements
with USDOE for property on the Hanford Site.
2^ 2-- -- -Cendition l.F 15-(Immediate Reporting) should be consistent with proposed revisions to WAC
173-303-145 and any additional changes which may result from public comments. In its January
21 proposal, the Department of Ecology acknowledged that the existing rule was more restrictive
than necessary. The Department went on to propose changes which it believes will provide a
.more reasonable and understandable approach to spill reporting yet protective of health and the
environment" (WSR 92-03-127). There is no ostensible reason to make the permit more
restrictive than the dangerous waste regulation. Also, we believe the Department is applying
an unduly restrictive interpretation as to how spills of hazardous substance mixtures are to be
evaluated for reportability (fact sheet, page 7). The reportable quantity should be the quantity
of hazardous substance, not the mixture quantity.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
/GC .6Sorensen, Manager
Regulatory Programs (Mail Drop 280)
JPC:sn

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

•
Sf1T BY:RICfflA4D OFFICE : 3-16-32 .10:12AN :YAKIItlA IAIDIAN NATION+ 2ub 40U Gtk7v;ia i
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS ESTABLISHED BY THE
OF THE YAKIMA INDIAIi NATION TREATY OF JUNE 9, 1855
P.O. Box 151, Toppcaish, WA 98948
T • ENVIRONMENTAL RPSTORATIOM/WASTE MANAGEMENT
WAPATO. WA OFFIC6 RICHLAND, WA OFFICE
622 Weat lat Street 1933 Jadvin Ave.. Ste no
Wapato, WA 98951 Richland, WA 99352
FA%: (509) 877-4101 FAX: ( 509) 943-8555
T R A B S M I S S I O N C O Y E R S H E E T
TO: Mr. M. Getchell DATE: March 16. 1992
FAY NUMBER: 206-459-6859 NO. OF PAGES 7 iaclueive
FROM: Y. R. Cook
I
Yollowing is a copy or a letter bcing sent to John Wagoner, DOE. regarding the
five-year plan activities for your information.
30.0
IF TRANSMISSION IS UNREADABLE. PLg.ASE PHOaiE:
for.Wapato 11R/WM Office For Richland ZRli1H Office
(509) 077-4151 or (509) 946-0101
(509) 865-5121, E:t. 617/618

3L\bD1•Ill\dh^W VC11^L r u-ku-J' .au•Ac.vu 1^iu^^dm ^.w^.v...n..v.. --.. -.. ....-..
Confederated Trlbes and bands
of the Yakima Indian Nation
00llt" L_ _I •.
John Wagoner,
Manager Richland Operations Office
Department of Energy
P.O. Box dBo
Nichland, WA 99352
Established by the
Treaty of June 9. 1855
March 16, 1992
subject: FIVE-YEAR PLAN ACTIVITIES; DOE RCRA PERMIT APPLICATIONS
AND WASHINGTON STATE PREPARED PERI[IT--COlOIENTS ON AND REQUEST FOR
PIAIrFOR INTERACTION AND INFORMATION REGARDING PERHITTED ACTIVITIES
C=:-
:LX'^' Dear Mr. Wagoner:
,-, We are in the process of reviewing a lengthy RCRA facility permit
forwarded to us by the State of Washington regarding Hanford Site
faGilit#es: :ir have-rsqiiasted copies of tizs various 23 Attachments
to the draft permit from the State of ifashington, however, we have
not received them as yet. If the Stata can not supply these
documents for our infornation, we may request same from the DOE.
To the extent that we have been able to prepare our responses,
detailed comments on the Permit are contained in Attachment A.
Cosaents on the Permit Attachments will be made as soon as we
accomplish their review.
-iie take -this opportunity to request that future copies of
DOE/contractor submittals made to the State or EPA regarding their
CERCLA or RCRA regulatory action be submitted to us at our Richland
Office prior or at least concurrently to allow us to stay current
on actions being taken and proposed.
as we discussed at our meeting with you, Mr. Duffy, etal, on
September 10, 1992, early review of documents by the YIN before
being submitted to the State or EPA may frequently be warranted to
allow effective and timely participation by the YIN in an important
aspect of DoE"s Five-Year Plan activities at Hanford.
In this regard we propose to develop a plan with your Indian
Program I[anager, Mr. Clarke, to provide visibility of documents
being prepared by DOE or DOE contractors and, thereby, allow us the
opportunity to identify_the ixema_m^w-s:onsidar3mpo?ant-a-nd to
su]owit oomments during their preparation period.
In our view DOE/RL is the prime entity responsible to resolve our
colsaents regarding actions at Hanford, however, we will forward
cosssents to the State of Washington and Oregon for their
information at the same time in way of keeping them informed of our
ooncerns and issues.
PoSt Oftice 6W( 151. Port ftOad, TOppefliSh, WA 98948 (509) 565-5141

^
- - -^ ...----- --- ---
11/ditional comments will be the subject of saparate correspondence
as review of psrtinant-information is accomplished.
Sincerely,
y14'641'^e^
P. Robert Cook, Technical Analyst
iakis.a Indian Nation
11133 Jadwin Avenue, Suite 110
Nichland, WA 99352
ac: x.
a.
Clark DOE/RT.
sia r.K/WM
-^ P. Oshia, YIN
A. Patt Oregon DO8
^= l stanley, Washington DOE
Oatchell• Washington DOE
A'lTAtlO[SNTt Yakima Indian Nation Comments on Hanford RCRA Facility
Permit Applications and Draft Persit

JL.^. V4 •niwLLllw v...w_ . ^.v v^ ,...a.^.. ........... ........, .,...._. _..
O O M
' TPACIDSffidT A---YAKILtA INDIAN NATION CON!ffiiTS ON HANFORD. RCRA
ACILITY PSIiMIT APPLICATION AND DRAFT PERMIT -- MARCH 13, 1992
i. DESIGN BASES--Desiqn requirements should be incorporated into
the design bases for the RCRA facilities to require the use of the
best available technology to remove substances (including
radioactive substances) that are not naturally existing in the
environment from waste streams or waste decommissioned equipment
discharged to the environment or left at the site after
decommissioning or closure.
Requirements should be established to disallow dilution of wastes
in waste streams unless the dilution is necessary to make a waste
fort whose performance in the long and short term reflects
superior perforsanca_ Applicable waste streaas considered in this
context should include those streaus with discharges to the
atmosphere as well as a liquid, gaseous or solid wastes from
streams discharged to waters or soils..
superior performance of a waste form that contains contaminants for
any proposed application should be determined. To accomplish this
the best estimate of the natural. maximum concentration of any
qiven contaminant in the environment ( soils, waters or atmosphere)
around the RCRA facility disposing of the waste at any given time
in the Holocene before the 1943 construction of Hanford facilities
should be established. The waste form in question should be
considered superior in its performance, if, considering possible
processss and events, its performance would not allow greater than
a S10 increase above the natural maximum concentration of
contasri-nant-irr-egsestion--for all-tine:- if,-addition-ttie waste form
should not degrade so as to cause any continuous contaminant
accumulation from year to year in the environment for sore than a
period of 10 years. The level of cgrtainty for this performance
should be reasonable assurance.
iossible natural and man induced processes and events should
include all potential processes and events except those for which
there is reasonable assurance that they will p& occur in a 100,000
- ars. Tnus, if a scenario is proposed by any person, there must
reasonable assurance that the proposed scenario will not occur
order to reject consideration of the scenario in the performance
asassmsnt. ,
-- e-desi^ goals -would-serva tfl--allo.. ta;:;,ica;, consideration of
ltural/religious values held by the Yakima Indian Nation
ardinY tre value of a pristine, unadulterated
vironment/ecol oqy around Hanford on ceded, culturally significant
1 nds. They are in way of recommending a basis for holistic
insaring evaluations as proposed by the YIN and others.
_ 3. lAULTS-AT--RORAFACIL3'.[T-TgS--The EPA RCRA roViremants as well as
^^ ^ the state of Washington requirements restrict the construction of

0 . (^;Uov
Rc1tA facilities, including disposal facilities for site thaC have
faults. The tera "fault" is dafined as, "a fracture along which
rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the
other side."
Thera is a substantial likelihood that any potential or existing
RC7lA facility site at Hanford may fail this requirement, because of
the numerous faults that have been observed at Hanford and because
of the indirect evidence of their existence from geophysical data
collected in the past.
if specific geophysical information is not available to
provide assurance that any particular site is free of faults, than
site characterization should be accomplished to prove there are no
faults present that have bad movement during the 8olocene. such
determination can not be readily ascertained because such of the
surface deposits, including subsurface soils down to the Ringold
deposits or basalts, have been deposited subsequent to the
beginning of the Holocene. surface investigations may not reveal
faulting.
Rowevar, the YIN notes that anticipated sites for grout disposal
facilities have been observed to contain faults described more
specifically as "clastic dikes". Theas "faults" are believed by
Sanford geologists to have first occurred in the early Solocana as
a result of hydrologic loading resulting from post glacial flooding
in the Pasco Basin. some technical experts consider they may have
been associated with seissic events. In any case it appears that
typically the rocks (sediments) on either side of the fault were
split open with displacement in a direction normal to the plans of
the fault in a manner consistent with the common definition of a
fissure.
Although the phenomena described above does not meet the common
definition of a fault as the term is used by Hanford geologists, it
is consistent with the EPA/RCRA definition and the definition in
the State RCRA rules. we note that the phenomena of creation of a
elastic dike under or around a Hanford RCRA facility, for exasple,
a disposal facility, could have a devastating effect on the
intlK,+rity of the facility. iae phenomena oouid act to flusb
contaminated soils and water to the surface and/or otherwise defeat
the closure cap barrier planned for disposal facilities. It could
also act to fracture the barriers around a grout vault and the
vault itself.
The fact that Hanford clsstic dikes are associated with post
lacial flooding is not strongly disputed. Thus, siting a facility
In
a location that is geologically stable since the beginning of
the Rolocene should be clearly set an a design criteria and clastic
dikes at prospective facilities disallowed given the likelihood of
reoccurrence during the facilities,' design life, which should
extend beyond the 10 to 15 thousand years associated with the Holocene.

dLN1 D1•Il1L41L.ei1Uj v1 fl^d. ^iu•AvNa
CopV
k.w1w,-..,. ..._ ____
Seismic reflection surveys should be conducted at all prospective
RCRA sites at Hanford, and suspected faults should be cored to
ascertain the age of the fault identified in the survey. In
addition existing seismic data taken in the past (records of
hundreds to a thousand events) should be evaluated as to location
and likely trends in the faults that are active and associated with
each epicenter. Since there is no limit to the depth of faults
that can disqualify a RCRA 'oite, the 8anford.data review and
evaluation should not be restricted to consideration of shallow
sais=ic events.
3. SITING RCR11 FACILITIES IN CONTAI[INATED ZONES--The facility
30.3 requirssents include requirements to monitor the facilities and the
ground water under the facility for leakage from the facility.
Determination of leakage to already contaminated areas and ground
y^`"^" water may be difficult, if the facility leakage is minimal such
that increases in the concentration of a contaminant is not capable
; _itt _ bsing - eere..e.+, In_auch-A_-case -the requirement to m+.n.itor a
l t A i _ 1 J
^:_..
. Thus, the requirements for monitoring releases from a facility
should consider the background contaminant levels. For example,
0" such dangerous substances as nitrate should be characterized as to
its concentration in the environs around a proposed facility,
if it is a potential contaminant from the facility. Radioactive
contaminants should be treated in a similar manner. RCRA
facilities should not be sited in contaminated areas, if reliable
monitoring is not possible. Particular attention should be paid to
proposed disposal facilities, considering the long tarm monitoring
required and the potential for contaminant levels to change as a
result of nearby exiting disposal levels or the s:otion of
contaminants in the environs.
*anford RCRA site applications should address this issue.
4. QIIIILITY ASSDRANCE--Ths permit should establish requirements for
-3T.4 quality assurance- systams--and--their implementation at RCRA
facilities. The applications should identify the system that is
required. It is particularly pertinent that design activities be
controlled by adequate design control procedures. There is
evidence that the current performance for a grout facility for
- -- -doyble shell- tank- -wsstss --is- -inadequate - and was allwA to. be
prepared because of inadequate design control. Validation of the
design analyses reported in the grout facility performance
assessment is particularly inadequate. Permit applications should
not be made nor accepted by the State, if there is evidence of
inadequate application of quality assurance. DOE contractor and
State quality assurance audits, if any, should be made available to
the public.
Confidence statement requirements pertinent to design procedures
and providing estimates for system performance should be specified
3

to assure that uncertainties are determined and reduced to
acceptable valties consistent with design bass requirements. Such
determination becomes the focus of design control actions. With
the specification of confidence limits design control is impossible
since there is no basis from which to evaluate uncertainties.
Additional comments will be forwarded at a later date once
inforsation regarding quality assurance systems used by design
entities are reviewea. Such inforsation may or may not be
available in Permit Applications. If not available, the State of
Washington should identify evidence of the adequacy of the
applicant's quality assurance systems and their satisfactory
implementation in order to provide reasonable assurance that design
requirements are not and other information is of adequate quality
arior to issuing the permit. Quality assurance audits may be
required to be performed by the State of Washington or other
qualified entity on behalf of the state to demonstrate this
adequacy.
S. ]tEpvIRE NRC LICENSING AND MEET LA1ytS--Consistent with
30.5 previous eomments to the DOE, the NRC and others, DOE should apply
for a license from the DiRC before initiating construction of a
Siqh-levei radioactive disposal facility such as the propoased
qrout facilities. The State of Washington should not issue a
permit for any such facility until all State and Federal rules and
laws are net. Any shuch permitting should include a provision that
actions by contractors, the DOE and other involved parties meet
Federal, State and Indian laws.
4

TH{S PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

.. •
^
^•
^
--- PERKWS GOIE- ° d
^
r^•: ^^
A LAW PARTNRRSNIP INCLUDING PROPlSS10NAL CO@ORAUyw(
1201 THIRD AVENCE. 40TH FLOOR ' SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-300 - 1206) 583'SM
31.0
March 16, 1992
Dave Jansen
Hanford Project Manager
Nuclear & Mixed Waste Management Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
M.S. PV-11
olympia, Washington 98504-8711
Re: Comments of US Ecology, Inc. on the Proposed BCR71
"Part B" Permit for the Hanford lacilitp (Permit
No. Ah 789008967)
Dear Mr. Jansen:
We are filing the enclosed comments on behalf of
US Ecology regarding the above-referenced proposed permit. In
light of the fact that these comments have been prepared
during US Ecology's first opportunity to review the Proposed
Permit, we are available to meet with you to discuss them.
Please direct any responses to or questions about these
comments to Barry Bede of US Ecology, (206) 754-3733, or to
David Dabroski, (206) 583-8885.
TT:DD:sab
Enclosure
cc: Brad Dillon
Barry Bede
;::o':--^-0"4«°'w";',^F' .773J
TtL[x: 32-0319 PERKINS SEA • FACSIrD.[: ( 206) S!34500
Sincerely yours,
^^ ^^
Ano>d Thompson
David Dabroski WSBA #18408
ANCHORAGE • BRLLRVCR • Los ANGELES • PORTLAND • SPOKANE • WASNINGTON. DC.

^
COMIIENTS OF US ECOLOGY, INC.
ON THE PROPOSED RCRA "PART B" PERMIT
FOR THE HANFORD FACILITY
(PERMIT NO. WA7890008967)
[3Mmnosn1 3/16/92

TABLE OP COlPPE1iT8
I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1
A. Summary ................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND ..................................... 4
III. DISCUSSION ..................................... 8
Page
A. The Ecology Site Cannot Legally Be Part of
the "Facility" Covered by the Proposed
Permit .................................... 8
B. The Washington Model Toxics Control Act
=4` ("MTCA")Is Inapplicable ................... 16
C. The US Ecology Facility Is Pervasively
^-- Regulated By The WDOH Pursuant To The AEA
Agreement State Program ................... 19
^
1. introduction ......................... 19
2. Site Characteristics ................. 21
3. License Requirements ................. 23
a. Legal Background ................ 23
b. Waste Receipt and Packaging..... 24
c. Trench Design and Operation..... 26
d. Site Environmental Monitoring
Requirements .................... 28
e. Site Closure and Stabilization.. 30
C. The Ecology Site Has Never Been Subject to
RCRA Regulation ........................... 34
D. Assertion Of RCRA Jurisdiction Over The IIS
Ecology Facility Would Be Inconsistent
With The Requirements Of The AEA.......... 37
[savmno.:rn - i- 3116M

IV. CONCLUSION ....:................................ 43 -
Appsadices:
A Letter of Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. dated
November 18, 1980 to EPA, Region 10, with attached letter
dated October 24, 1980
B Letter of US Ecology dated October 29, 1985 to EPA,
Region 10 and WDOE with Attachment A, "Scintillation
Vials"
C Detailed Comments on the Draft Permit, Fact Sheet, and
Draft RCRA Facility Assessment Report
D Site Diagram
E Perpetual Maintenance Fund and Site Closure
Account
[ss9mnos171 -11- 3/16/92

i`
31.1
31.2
COAUVIENTS OF US ECOLOGY, INC.
ON THE PROPOSED RCRA "PART B" PERMIT
FOR THE HANFORD FACILITY (PERMIT NO. WA7890008967)
A. Bummary
1. IIITRODUCTIOII
Since 1965, US Ecology Inc. ("US Ecology") or its
predecessors have operated a low-level radioactive waste
disposal site on the Hanford Federal Reservation. The site is
one of the nation's four licensed commercial low-level
radioactive waste sites and is the express subject of
Congressional action under the Low-level Radioactive Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1985. Because of the need for long-
term institutional control at radioactive waste sites, Atomic
Energy Act ("AEA") regulations require federal or state land
ownership prior to disposal. Therefore the US Ecology site is
located on the Hanford Federal Reservation and subleased from
the state of Washington, which holds a long-term lease with
the United States. The site is and always has been physically
separate and legally distinct from the other activities at
Hanford.
As is well known, the Hanford Reservation has long been
the site of a variety of federal activities involving nuclear
power and weapons research and production. As part of a major
t309207e0.2171 w1uM

- - - -
31.3
program under the Hanford Federal Facility Aqreement and
0
- - - - ----
Consent Order ("FFACO") with EPA to clean up the wastes from
these activities, the United States Department of Energy
("DOE") (together with its contractors, Batelle and
Westinghouse) has applied for a permit (the "Proposed Permit")
to build and operate a waste treatment facility regulated
under the federal and state hazardous waste programs. As part
of this Proposed Permit, corrective action will be required at
all solid waste management units ("SWNUs") within the
permitted "facility". Although several hundred SWMUs directly
related to DOE activities have been identified on the Hanford
Reservation, many of these SWMUs were determined to be of
little or no consequence and so are not included in the
Proposed Permit. Neither US Ecology nor any of its operations
has any tie to the weapons work that has led to the massive
clean-up efforts now under way at Hanford. Yet, in defiance
of this basic fact, United States Environmental Protection
^;cy_-(NEDp^a)__and the-Washington Department of E: oi:.gy
("WDOE") have included "corrective action" requirements
covering the US Ecology site in a proposed hazardous waste
treatment permit for DOE, Batelle and Westinghouse wastes.
US Ecology was not consulted in the drafting of the
Proposed Permit and only at this late date, has it been
provided with any opportunity to demonstrate that the portions
of the Proposed Permit that would apply to the US Ecology site
(3e9mrj*03171 -2- 3/16Nx

--cannot be justi£iad-u:;der either the-law, the facts-ar s:,un:
publie-po3icy.- For these reasons, as discussed more fully
below, US Ecology hereby requests that all references to its
facility be deleted from the Proposed Permit.
In these comments, US Ecology demonstrates that this
proposed extension of corrective action to the US Ecology site
t--_= ^ ... is entirely without statutory or regulatory underpinnings:
31.4 • The US Ecology site cannot lawfully be included in
31.5
the "facility" covered by the Proposed Permit. US
Ecology is not a party to the Proposed Permit. Its
operations at the site are physically separate from
the rest of the Hanford Reservation and they have no
relation to any of the activities covered by the
Proposed Permit or to any of the Proposed
Permittees. US Ecology's landlord is the State of
Washington, which is not a permittee under the
Proposed Permit. None of the permittees enjoy any
real measure of control over the US Ecology site.
• All environmental concerns at the US Ecology site
are already pervasively and adequately regulated
under the AEA. Imposing RCRA regulation as well
could add nothing but a conflicting and separate set
of timetables, a separate set of administering
[ssrtarw.sin -3- vMn

31.6
r31; 7
agencies, and a real chance of creating completely
incompatible and contradictory requirements.
• The US Ecology site has never been subject to
regulation under the Federal RCRA or the Washington
Hazardous Waste Management Law.
These defects in themselves bar any application of
hazardous waste laws to the US Ecology site. They also add up
07; to a conclusive demonstration that applying these requirements
^.-^.
would be "inconsistent" with the AEA under RCRA S 1006(a).
hr-
Ce
After a brief background discussion, we will address each
of these points in more detail.
II. BACKGROUND
The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is a 570 square mile
tract of Federally owned land, much of which has been used
since the 1940s for nuclear weapons activities, first by the
Manhattan Project, then by the Atomic Energy Commission
("AEC") and finally by its successor, the Department of
Energy.
In 1964, the State of Washington leased from the AEC a
1000 acre portion of the Hanford Reservation that had never
been used for any Federal activities. The lease had a 99-year
1sswtmw.s1N -4- u1wsa

term and placed full responsibility for environmental
compliance and clean-up on the State of Washington.
In 1965, the State of Washington subleased 100 acres to
California Nuclear, Inc, predecessor of US Ecology for use as
a low-level waste disposal facility. The sublease was
negotiated in 1976. If all renewal options are exercised, it
will expire in the year 2015--48 years before the State lease
expires. In both the 1965 and 1976 subleases, the site
operator agreed to assume the same environmental obligations
-^_ ---- imposed on the State of Washington in the prime lease with the
07)
federal government. US Ecology is now bound by those same
^.._
1
obligations.
As described in detail below, US Ecology has always
operated under a comprehensive framework of AEA regulatory
requirements and detailed licensea, issued either by the
Federal government or by the State of Washington as an
Agreement State, that address all environmental concerns the
site might present. All low-level waste ever received at the
site has been accepted and disposed of in accordance with that
framework. In addition to low-level waste, the site contains
a trench used between 1968 and 1972 to bury chemical waste.
The existing license requires US Ecology to study the
environmental impact of this trench and address any concerns
it may present during site closure.
[32920730s171 -5- 3116092

Lf"z
r.,
--- - The US-Ecoiogy sitmhas-neverbeen -reguiated-under RCRA.
In 1980, the company submitted a RCRA "Part A" application as
a protective measure. In 1985, as ordered by EPA, Region 10,
US Ecology submitted a "Part B" application as a protective
measure. In both of its 1980 and 1985 cover letters to the
-applications,- US- Ecology- pointed cut the entire lack of any
basis for RCRA jurisdiction. ( Appendices A and B).1 In the
1985 letter, IIs Ecology explained that RCRA regulation would
be inconsistent with the AEA regulations that already applied.
Although EPA claimed that "scintillation vials" received at
^-
(7"- the site were "hazardous waste", the letter demonstrated that
the toluene and xylene in those vials was part of a
"commercial product" and was not covered by EPA waste -
listings. In addition, these vials were received from "small
quantity generators" and were exempt from RCRA regulation.
( See Attachment A to Appendix B, "Scintillation Vials").
Despite repeated inquiries from US Ecology, neither EPA
nor DOE ever processed that application nor reacted to US
Ecology's arguments in any way.
IMith the exception of Appendices C and E, all docwaents referenced
in theee are already in the poeeeeeion of EPA or wDOE. If not
already, we expect that any referenced will be made a part of the
administrative record for the Proposed Permit.
133920730.2171 -6- 3/16/92

w,
I-t\,
Meanwhile, the efforts to clean up the weapons facilities
at Hanford moved forward without any involvement by US
Ecology. In 1989 the DOE entered into the comprehensive FFACO
providing for the clean-up of the weapons sites at Hanford.
US Ecology had no involvement in negotiating the FFACO and is
not bound by it.
Nor was US Ecology included in the initial or any
subsequent amended permit applications to implement the FFACO
_mubmitted_b,v the DOE to EPA and the WDOE. Nevertheless, the
permit as it emerged from review by these agencies includes
the US Ecology site in "corrective action" requirements.
As we discuss in more detail in Appendix C, the
discussion of US Ecology in the Proposed Permit is misleading
and incomplete in its portrayal of the past history of the
site and its environmental condition, and completely ambiguous
in its portrayal of the regulatory agencies' intentions. It
seems to have been written to maximize both the case for RCRA
jurisdiction, and the discretion of the agencies to do what
they like once RCRA jurisdiction has been successfully
asserted.
[fl9107d0.211J -7- 3116/9t

III.
31.8 A. The Eooloqy Site Cannot Legally Be Part of the
"Facility" Covered by the Proposed Permit
As noted earlier, US Ecology is not a party to the
Proposed Permit. The function of the Proposed Permit is to
grant the regulatory approvals that are needed so that clean-
up of areas contaminated during federal nuclear operations can
proceed. The Proposed Permit expressly states (pp. 4 and 5)
r} that "[e]nforcement of all the conditions of this permit,
including Part IV [which governs the US Ecology site], will be
^ primarily through the procedures identified in (the FFACO]."
US Ecology is not a party to the FFACO and played no part in
7cegotiating it.- Instead, as discussed below, US Ecology's
closure obligations are fully set forth in the Closure Plan
prepared under the AEA.
Despite this complete lack of relationship between the
31.9 subjects of the Proposed Permit and either US Ecology or its
operations, the Proposed Permit purports to impose RCRA
-ohligations__concerningt_he US Feoiogy site on the DOE as the
"owner" of this land, which is counted as part of the larger
Hanford facility for "corrective action" purposes.2 Both the
21n this regard, US Ecology formally notes that any statements in the
Proposed Permit that could be taken as binding US Ecology directly are
legally indefensible and must be withdrawn.
[s1920fl0.2171 -8- 7n6/92

description of DOE as the "owner" and the assertion that this
site is part of the larger "facility" are attenuated to the
breaking point.
Although this land is formally owned by the DOE, since
31.10
--1964 it has-been--leased by-ths-State of-bea-shi-ngton--ua:der--a-»=
year lease expiring in the year 2063. The State of Washington
-1-.
r--. agreed in that lease to take full responsibility for any
r^:F
environmental clean-up at the site. In other words, the
^ Federal contacts with this land have been reduced to the
["

In attempting to impose RCRA corrective action at the US
31.12 Ecology facility, EPA and WDOE have fundamentally
i
misapprehended the RCRA corrective action scheme.
Under RCRA S 3004(u), corrective action is required:
"for all releases of hazardous waste or
constituents from any solid waste management
unit at a treatment, storage or disposal
facility seekina a oermit under this
saiba.hapt°ar. • . "
42 U.S.C. S 6924(u). (Emphasis added).
Similarly, EPA's 1985 "codification rule" interpreting
this provision notes that:
Section 3004(u) requires corrective action for
all releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a
facility seekina a RCRA oermit regardless of
the time at which such waste was placed in the
unit.
50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 28714 (July 15, 1985) ( Emphasis added).
EPA's "codification rule" also notes that:
Section 3004(u) does not appear to contemplate
that its terms apply to solid waste management
units located at facilities that are not
required by requlation to obtain a subtitle C
permit. ISL
Both the regulations and the statute are clear:
corrective action only applies to those who seek a RCRA
permit. Moreover, the price for failure or refusal to conduct
corrective action is denial of a RCRA permit.
[30910730.217) -10- 7/16ro2

::z :
31.13
31.14
UB Ecology is not now seeking nor has it ever sought,
except under compulsion, any such RCRA permit. As discussed
later, these permit requirements do not apply and never have
applied to US Ecology. Therefore, it is apparent that RCRA
g 3004(u) is not legally applicable to US Ecology or to the US
Ecology facility.
Indeed, even a superficial examination of the Proposed
Permit reveals inconsistencies in asserting RCRA corrective
,.--^, ---- ----n:.t-iOn-OVFr-US--s'^..^.12gy: --FIIr--inStaAG4„-L34-EPk_andWlloE-exnect
=r` Westinghouse, Batelle and DOE to enter onto the US Ecology
^
31.15
site and perform or pay for any corrective action? Who would
bear any liability for failure to properly perform such
corrective action? Who will pay for its costs? Can
corrective action be reconciled with the site closure plan
already submitted to the Washington Department of Health
("WDOH")? If not, who will bear the costs of its revision?
Moreover, if the final permit does.require DOE, Batelle
and Westinghouse to undertake corrective action at the US
Ecology facility, those entities would be forced to seek legal
access to the site-to conduct corrective action. Neither
Batelle nor Westinghouse have any legal means or authority for
doing so and any attempt to do so might well be beyond their
contractual authority. Although DOE has leased the site to
the state of Washington, who, in turn, subleased it to US
'\.. . (fs920770.2171 -11- . 7n6/92

Ecology, US Ecology has no direct contractual obligation to
DOE. Therefore, even DOE has, at best, an extremely limited
legal ability to enter upon and control conditions at the US
Ecology site.3 Moreover, it may only do so by virtue of its
arrangements with the state, which is not a permittee. it is
both common sense and clear from the Proposed Permit that the
obligations imposed in the permit are the sole responsibility
of the permittees. Therefore, as a legal matter, US Ecology
IX-1 has no responsibility under the Proposed Permit at all. Yet
,$
the permit purports to require corrective action at the US
Ecology site.4
in its July, 1985 codification rule, EPA defined the term
31'16 "facility" quite broadly. According to the rule,
the term "facility" is not limited to those
Fortions of an owner's property at which units
for the management of solid or hazardous waste
are located but rather extends to all
contiguous property under the owner or
operator's control.
50 Fed. Reg. 28702, 28712 (July 15, 1986).
'Indeed, US Ecology is bound by its own license and the accompanying
framework to restrict site access. Cosrnsrcial low-level radioactive waste
disposal sites operate pursuant to a different AEA schame than do DOE and
its contractors. Because of this fact, personnel familiar with the DOE
regulatory regime may be unqualified to enter upon and conduct
-operations--at- -a -cos.aercial - site -such-az the '38-Ecc:oyi facility. Forced
entry by DCE may well violate the sublessas's right to quiet enjoyment of
its property.
•A separate document discussing and detailing additional conflicts
and inconsistencies is included as Attachment C.
[SB920770.2171 -12- 3/16/92

N.
However, EPA also noted that:
[t]he extent to which the above interpretation
applies to federal facilities raises legal and
policy issues that the agency has not yet
resolved.
In 1986; EPA issued a Notice of Policy and Interpretation
r',_j regarding those " unresolved issues". 51 Fed. Reg. 7,722
+^,.;..
(March 5, 1986). EPA simultaneously issued a Notice Of Intent
to propose rules regarding the same issue. 51 Fed. Reg.
7,723, ( March 5, 1986).
In its Notice of Policy and Interpretation, EPA took note
of the problem posed by allowing corrective action to be
triggered on contiguous federal lands administered by
different agencies with different responsibilities. According
to EPA: "In the Western half Of the United States, contiguous
federal lands cover large portions of several states". 51
Fed. Reg. 7727 (March 5, 1986). Because of this fact:
a permit for a hazardous waste management
located anywhere on [such a] . . . collective
federal facility could trigger corrective
action requirements for every solid waste
management unit found within its boundaries
. .[and] the agency that operates such a
unit might not have authority to require or
manage clean-up of solid waste management units
on lands administered by other federal
- -- - agencies. yg.
( .
\ 13e920M.2171 -13- 3/16M

c71-1
rr.^
To address this problem, EPA proposed to limit the
"facility" subject to corrective action to land within the
jurisdiction of "major departmental subdivisions that exercise
independent management authorities." Id, That principle
dictates excluding the US Ecology site from corrective action
here, since it properly falls under the jurisdiction of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission rather than the DOE.
In addition, EPA addressed the relationship for
',2^^7 1.17
"- corrective action purposes between publicly owned lands and
private entities operating under long-term leases. To address
this problem, EPA noted in its Notice of Intent of proposed
rulemaking, that: '
EPA intends to propose a rule that limits
Federal agency responsibility for facilities
operated by private parties with legal
ownership interests by identifying a "principal
owner" for the purpose of defining the
"facility" boundary under section 3004(u). The
"principal owner" probably would be the person
-most--directly-QaBOCi-ated- w-'ttiT-operation of the
hazardous waste facility. Only property within
the scope of the "principal owner's" legal
interest would be considered the "facility" for
corrective action purposes. J-d,,
EPA explained this proposal by noting:
To determine whether a.private party on federal
lands should_be treated as a"princioal owner".
EPA might consider factors such as the degree
of control the federal agency exercises over
the private party's actions, or the amount of
benefit the agency derives from the private
party's waste management operation. EPA will
also need to consider the impact of this
-8-^vnceDt £YF.priv°ot°v 1a.^.d6 wii°c&°v vi.°v pri^'s^to
part_Y has granted legal ownership interests to
(3sr2073o.2171 -14- 3/16/92

a `
a second private party that operates a
hazardous waste "facility." jd,
Although EPA has not yet promulgated this rule, it is
clear from this notice and from the plain language of the
existing EPA definition of facility that contiguous property
not under the owner's control is not included within
definition of a facility subject to corrective action. Here,
UCE has no control over US Ecology's operations. Nor does DOE
derive any benefit from the State of Washington's sublease
with US Ecology, since that sublease does not affect the
payments the state must make to DOE under the principal lease.
Indeed, our situation presents a stronger case against
"corrective action" than the example given in the notice, in
which private companies had leased federal land directly. In
this case, it is the State of Washington, not US Ecology that
has leased land from the federal government.5 Since DOE has
essentially.no control over the US Ecology site, and Batelle
and Westinghouse have none, US Ecology cannot be considered to
be within the "facility" to be permitted.' Corrective action
is therefore without legal basis.
5it is also well worth noting that federal/state land ownership at
the US Ecology facility did not happen by accident, nor was it due to any
concerns regarding hazardous waste or any other material subject to EYA
jurisdiction. In fact, federal or state land ownership is required under
the AEA in order to ensure long-term institutional site control. See 10
c.t.R. 61.54. Use of this fact as a means of proving corrective action
jurisdiction at the facility cannot have been intended and is inconsistent
with the AEA.
13e920fw.2171 -15- 3n6M

31 18 H. The Washington'Modsl Tozics Control Act ("MTCA")Is
inapplicable
Co
In spite of the fact that corrective action may not be
legally be imposed upon the US Ecology facility, the Proposed
Permit nevertheless announces its intention to attempt
regulation of the US Ecology site using whatever legal
authority it can find. The permit categorically states that:
It is the intent of the regulatory agencies to
have the US Ecology site remediated.
Given this announced intent, in order to extricate it from
^.r.
° obvious difficulties inherent in applying RCRA corrective
action to US Ecology, the proposed permit states that:
To accomplish this [remediation of the US
Ecology site] however, Ecology intends to
address remediation of the site under the
authority of the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA). Based on the results of the remedial
investigation, a decision will be made in the
next phase of the work.
Apart from the fact that this provision applies uniquely
to US Ecology and that MTCA is mentioned no where else in the
permit, use of a proposed RCRA permit to impose MTCA-type
cleanup requirements on US Ecology is patently illogical and
without a legal foundation. Congress enacted two statutes,
RCRA and CERCLA, not one, and the purposes are quite
different. Washington State counterparts to these laws
(Hazardous'Waste Management Act and MTCA) are similarly
distinct.
146920730.2171 -16- 3/16/92

This distinction is apparent when the Proposed Permit
itself is examined, even without any basic understanding of
the difference between RCRA and CERCLA and their state
counterparts. The Proposed Permit itself states repeatedly
that CERCLA past practice ("CPP") units are not included
- wi-th-in - t-he- -Proposed Permitl -As- noted in-the Fac,. ShQe,. for
.r. Proposed Permit Conditions IV.A.1.b of CERCLA, CPP units are
completely excluded from the terms of this Permit as they fall
%_, within the re lato authority of the CERCLA
^Iu ry program as
^-r-,
YY
C"^"`
31.20
^
11.19
opposed to the RCRA program. The same distinction undeniably
holds true for the state RCRA and CERCLA counterparts.
As discussed in detail below, the US Ecology site is
pervasively regulated by United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the WDOH under authority of the AEA. The AEA
completely and utterly occupies the field in its area. Under
its coverage, states may only regulate source, special nuclear
and by-product material through the AEA Agreement State
Program. State statutes, including statutes such as MTCA are
preempted by the federal.program and may not be used to compel
cleanups of "Federally Permitted Releases" at AEA sites.
Congress, in enacting CERCLA, recognized that CERCLA
could not sensibly (and quite possibly constitutionally) be
applied to releases that were permitted, authorized or even
required under federal law. Based on this recognition,
(ssw2073o.2171 -17- 3116092

31.21
Congress exempted "Federally Permitted Releases" from CERCLA
liability. 42 U.S.C. S 9607(j). Moreover, the broadest
exemption found in the definition of a "Federally Permitted
R°oi°case" i°a for:
Any release of source, special nuclear or byproduct
material, as those terms are defined in
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in-compliance with
the legally enforceable license permit,
regulation or order pursuant'to the Atomic
Energy Act.
42 U.S.C. S 9601(10)(K). The US Ecology low-level radioactive
waste and special nuclear material site unquestionably
qualifies for this exemption.
If WDOE.and EPA are interested in asserting CERCLA/MTCA
jurisdiction over the US Ecology site, it cannot do so by
virtue of a RCRA permit issued to a third party; they must use
the legal authorities given to them in those statutes.
Federal law does not permit use of CERCLA to require cleanup
of "Federally Permitted Releases." There are significant
factual, legal, and policy issues regarding whether MTCA could
apply to the U.S. Ecology site. Use of a RCRA permit (issued.
to a third party) to impose MTCA requirements on an AEA-
regulated site, licensed by their sister agency, WDOH, simply
does not provide such authority.
(se920730.2171 -18- 3n6M

31.22
C. The Us Ecology Facility Is Pervasively Regulated By
The *DOH Pursuant To The AE7171greement 8tate Program
1. introduction
As one of the nation's four licensed commercial low-level
radioactive waste disposal sites, the US Ecology site is
subject to controls under the AEA and the State of Washington
agreement state program designed to protect human health and
e ;
77
.,+
the environment over the next few hundred years from Ay
=ta environmental dangers that any.waste at the site might
^_r<
present. The AEA ("AEA") requirements applicable to the site
'=f either meet or exceed the standards applicable to hazardous
^.
31.23
waste under subtitle C of RCRA or differ from them due to the
unique nature of radioactive waste. Indeed, it is the AEA,
not RCRA that represents the nation's first "cradle to grave"
regulatory scheme. This point is not merely academic since
retroactive application of RCRA to an Atomic Energy scheme
that predated RCRA clearly imposes duplicative and even flatly
inconsistent requirements.
Low-level waste disposal at the US Ecology site has
always been conducted pursuant to AEA requirements. To date
there has been no showing that these requirements were
insu#ficient in any way, much less that they need to be
supplemented by RCRA "corrective action." Indeed, g 3004(u)
corrective action was designed for unreculated disposal units.
(sw20w.2173 -19- 3/16M

31,24 Under US Ecology's license, onlyspecified classea_and
- -types-of properly packaged and manifested low-level
radioactive waste may be received. Burial of waste at the
site is strictly regulated. Applicable requirements include
waste segregation methods, proper disposal trench design and
maintenance, and use of interim covers and site buffer zones.
«, NRC and OSHA standards for worker protection from radiation
ra-..
rr:
M-. 25
c;°}
31.26
and other hazards also apply.
Site operations are also subject to a detailed site
environmental monitoring program that covers potential
releases to or through groundwater, air, soil, vegetation,
wildlife and direct radiation exposure pathways. These
monitoring requirements have never indicated any releases of
hazardous substances in excess of allowable limits. Any
"corrective action" studies would simply duplicate the
controls already required or authorized by this monitoring
program.
The AEA license requires closure of the US Ecology site
under a detailed plan designed to maintain full environmental
protection at the site well into the final half of the 21st
Century. Here, too, any RCRA "corrective action" requirements
would at best be meaningless duplication. In further
illustration of these points, a brief summary of the site
1S2920770.2171 -20- - 7/16/92

31.27
characteristics, trench operation, monitoring, and closure
requirements of the US Ecology site is set forth below.
2. site Charaoteristias
The US Ecology site is located between the 200E and 200W
areas of the Hanford federal reservation and is more than six
miles from its boundary. It is miles from any activities
subject to the Proposed Permit. • There are no permanent
residents on the Hanford Reservation. Access to both the
Hanford reservation and the US Ecology facility is controlled.
The nearest population center is Richland, Washington, which
is 27 miles from the US Ecology site. See Appendix D.
The site climate is characterized as a mid-latitude semi-
arid desert. Average annual rainfall for the area is
approximately 6.3 inches, most of which occurs during the
winter. Because of hot, dry conditions in the non-winter
months, the annual evaporation potential exceeds annual
precipitation--resultinq in a net moisture deficit potential
of more than 23 inches per year. Thus, infiltration of water
into the disposal site is only possible between November and
January, when precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration
potential. Because of the presence of caps specifically
designed to preveni infiitration and provide for run-off of
precipitation, combined with the small annual rainfall, there
[SB9207d0.217[ -21- 3116/92

Fr.
^.:
31.28
31.29
is only a very small risk that any precipitation will
penetrate into or build-up in any disposal units.
There are no surface streams located directly on the US
Ecology site.6 Flooding at the site is extremely unlikely.
- In 1987, the United States DOE issued an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Hanford site that concluded that neither a
100 year flood of the Yakima or Columbia rivers nor a 50%
breach of`the Grand Coulee dam would result in site flooding.
In, Final Environmental Imoact Statement: Disnosal o f
Hanford Defense Hiah Level. Transuranic and Tapk Wastoa
.
(DOEjEIS-0ii3).
The water table lies at least 323 feet below the site.
The annual.recharge at the site is estimated at about 0.2
inches per year. Based on these calculations, travel time
through the vadose zone above the unconfined aquifer has been
@stimated at approximately 1060 years. If, as is planned, a
cap is'placed over waste to prevent the infiltration of water,
recharge rates are estimated to be 0.08 inches per year
resulting in a travel time through the vadose zone of more
than 1400 years. Moreover, because operations at the Hanford
site have artificially raised groundwater elevations,
eSurfaca waters in the arsa include the Columbia River, the Yakima
River and Cold Cresk, a small, seasonal stream.
1SS920730.2171 -2 2 - 3/16l92

31.30
cessation of these operations will ultimately result in a
significant groundwater depression, thereby adding an
additional 350 years of travel time through the vadose zone.
These travel times and recharge rates indicate that US Ecology
will be able to fully comply with environmental release
conditions applicable to the site through its license. They
also indicate that releases of hazardous or dangerous
substances to groundwater within the 30-year time frames
contemplated by RCRA are most unlikely. Moreover, as
discussed more fully below, US Ecology has installed
groundwater and vadose monitoring wells at its facility and
also conducts regular groundwater monitoring at the site to
ensure that any releases of hazardous substances are
immediately detected and remedied.
3. License Requirements
a. Legal Background
The US Ecology site is licensed by the state of
Washington pursuant to its agreement state authority delegated
by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (°NRC")
under section 274 of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. S 2021 and 10 C.F.R.
part 150. US Ecology also operates pursuant to a special
nuclear material license issued by the NRC. Relevant
standards applicable to the site under the agreement state
program are found at WAC title 402 and are promulgated under
(5B920730.217J -2 3 - 3116/93

authority of the Washington Nuclear Energy and Radiation
Control Act, RCW S 70.98.
These regulations include standards equivalent to federal
regulations issued by NRC found at 10 CFR parts 20 and 61.
Although the US Ecology site existed prior to NRC's 1982
promulgation of 10 CFR part 61 requirements for the land
P111 disposal of radioactive wastes, these standards, or their
:5r
equivalent, are nevertheless applicable to the site in many
+;;iT^i
` instances through the site license originally issued under the
cT°;
^?° authority of 10 CFR part 20. In addition, US Ecology is
31.31
l • .
subject to detailed licensing requirements that are site
specific and generally based upon the regulatory requirements
referenced above.
b. Waste Receipt and Packaging
Since operations began in 1965, all low-level waste
received at the site has been disposed of in trenches tinder
carefully specified design waste form and operating conditions
that are designed to comply with the evolving and
comprehensive NRC regulatory scheme.
All such waste must be packaged and transported in
accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Transportation
Regulations and NRC regulations. License condition 14. No
--pyroph3ric;-hazardoua, raactiva or chemically explosive
Is.vlmw.:in - 24- ^naroz

^.:
CY
materials or materials violently reactive to water or
agitation may be received at the site. License Condition 20.
Wastes may not contain or be capable of generating toxic
gases, vapors or fumes during transportation, handling or
disposal. License Condition 19.
The State of Washington Radioactive Materials license
makes clear the importance of proper waste form in the
regulatory scheme. See generally , License Conditions 24-38.
In general, all materials received at the site containing
liquids must be stabilized, solidified or treated by sorption
prior to disposal. License conditions 24 and 25 require the
following:
Isl.
Except as allowed under Conditions 28 and 32,
untreated liquids and sludges are not allowed
for disposal. Liquids shall be rendered
noncorrosive prior to treatment . . Wet
sluda_es or slurries such as evaporator bottoms
shall be noncorrosive and shall be treated by
stabilization or solidification....Liquids
treated by stabilization shall be processed
. using an approved stabilization medium.
The resulting waste form shall contain no
detectable, freestanding liquid and shall meet
the stability requirements [found in NRC
guidance and regulations]....
The permit notes that sorption of liquids is acceptable
so long as the liquids are packaged in a DOT class 7A metal
container lined with a 4 mil. plastic liner and the liquid is
Ess920730.2171 -25- 3116/92

~^'31.32
contained in enough approved sorbent material to absorb at
least twice the volume of waste. License condition 27.
For all these reasons, there are only minimal amounts of
liquids, if any, buried at the site and minimal potential
exists for their release due to the nature of their disposal,
site climatological conditions and the lack of liquids in
other wastes disposed alongside these materials.
License condition 22 requires that all waste be properly
classified and marked as class A,B or C wastes in accordance
uY ` with NRC rules and that stability be achieved either through
31.33
stabilization or site engineered barriers ( contingent upon
express WDOH approval). These requirements insure that even
after the required institutional control period of 100 years,
wastes at the site and the disposal units themselves will
remain stable enough to eliminate any significant risks of
exposures to the public for the foreseeable future.
o. Trench Design and Operation
All low-level waste received since the US Ecology site
began operating is contained in separate trenches located on
approximately 30 acres of the facility. For trenches 1-6,
=war3`La yina:'m6iit-t^inai.ed at thPe@ feet below grade. For all
subsequent trenches, waste placement terminated at 8 feet
below grade.
fsM9mMstn -26- 3/16/92

31.34
Once the trenches are filled, an interim cover approved
by the WDOH must be installed along with interim markers
displaying information regarding the disposal unit and the
waste found within. The interim covers consist of up to 10
feet of site soils placed on the trench after backfilling of 3
or 8 feet of site soils brings the trench level up to grade.
Six inches of cobble to form an interim cap are then placed
above grade. Trenches are then super-charged with up to
twenty feet.of excavated soil, in order to minimize subsidence
and prevent infiltration.
Final cover at the site is specifically designed to
prevent any infiltration of water into the trench and
eliminate any possibility of radiation exposure. Final covers
at the site will consist of multilayered caps constructed with
a low permeability geocomposite liner, followed by a synthetic
cover, a liquid collection system and site soils. By placing
an impermeable cap equipped with a liquid collection system
over the trenches, the possibility of any liquids entering the
trenches, is virtually eliminated.
The NRC radioactive waste disposal scheme differs
fundamentally from the RCRA subtitle C requirements in its
rejection of synthetic under liners and active maintenance,
like leachate pumping. Because radioactive wastes may remain
threatening for hundreds of years after the usual 30 year RCRA
[ss9e073oa171 -27- v1as2

t°_
1.35
31.36
post closure period has expired, radioactive waste disposal
sites may not rely upon such approaches. Instead, AEA sites
rely upon natural liners and carefully selected site
characteristics as a means of retarding and mitigating
releases of radioactive materials. This system of controls is
characterized as passive rather than active and represents a
fundamentally different control philosophy from RCRA.
In addition, NRC's ALARA concept requires that exposure
of workers and the public remain As Low As Reasonably
Achievable ("ALARA"). This too works against active.
maintenance since active maintenance measures such as those
required under RCRA would result in increased exposure of
workers and the public to radioactivity.
4. site Environmental Monitoring Requirements
The site is subject to an extensive environmental
----- ----- --moni-tcring program approved by the WDOH and the NRC. To date,
31.37
there has been no showing by EPA or WDOE that supplementary
efforts are necessary, beneficial or otherwise justified. See
License Conditions 54-56.
.
Five groundwater monitoring wells are sampled on a
quarterly basis for a wide variety of both radioactive and
chemically hazardous constituents including pH, conductivity,
nitrate, uranium, tritium, strontium, total organic carbon,
` (S5920736317) -28- 3/16/92

total organic halogens, tetrachloromethane, tetrachlorethane,
dioxane, methylethyl, pyridine and formaldehyde.
Samples are also analyzed for concentrations of benzene,
toluene and xylene. To date the general range of
concentrations for these latter constituents has been measured
at no more than 2 parts per billion. Thus, there is no
r`°' indication that any significant release has occurred. If it
^^.
1 1"')
were to occur in the future, it would be detected immediately.
Given these facts, no sound basis exists for,imposing
duplicative corrective action requirement at the site. Under
the closure plan, groundwater monitoring will continue at the
site for at least the next 100 years. _
Perpetual care and maintenance accounts have been
budgeted for sampling and closure purposes. To date, the
Perpetual Maintenance Account contains approximately $18.6
million; the Site Closure Account contains approximately $10.4
million. A more detailed description of these accounts is
contained in Appendix E.•
US Ecology has also installed two vadose zone monitoring
wells to experiment with soil gas sampling and analysis
techniques. Vadose zone monitoring would provide additional
protection against releases to groundwater by monitoring
releases to the environment above the unconfined aquifer.
- ----- -- --Potential -concentrations mf- botA - toluene and banzane, as well
[savwr3o.2171 -29- 3n6/ft

31.38
^..
3?.3°
as tritium, would be monitored, thereby providing additional
protection against the possibility of releases of chemical
constituents.
e. site alosure and etabilisation
As required by its licenses for both byproduct material
and special nuclear material, US Ecology has prepared, and
operates in accordance with, a detailed site stabilization and
closure plan approved by both the state of Washington and the
NRC that is designed to assure protection of health and the
environment over the next 200-500 years. This closure plan is
fully integrated into the current site license.7
The US Ecology closure plan contemplates two closure
scenarios: Lease Closure and Capacity Closure. Under lease
closure, the site would cease operations in the year 2063. A
two year closure period would then follow ending in the year
----------------2065.--A€ter a stabilizatio:: period, the custodial agency,
(the State of Washington/DOE) would take over at the site.
Institutional controls at the site under this scenario would
be expected to last until at least 2167. Under the capacity
closure scenario, the site would reach capacity in the year
71t duplicates all significant environmental protections contained in
the Part E permit application that US Ecology aubmitted under protest in
1985, but that EPA and WDOE never processed.
133920730.2171 -3 0- 3r16/92

2112 and institutional controls would last until the year
2216. As is evident, these time frames exceed the usual
30-year RCRA post closure time frames by a factor of three.
31.40 The closure plan outlines a number of closure methods
that will not require active maintenance and that will be
_ -compatible with future plans for the site. These include site
^-'
security measures, installation of permanent monuments to
avoid intrusion into waste trenches, federal land ownership
r_. and an extensive perpetual care and maintenance fund. Because
;a-
l
the land will be owned in perpetuity by the federal
government, most likely as a permanent part of the Hanford
federal reservation, there is little likelihood of inadvertent
use of the site for incompatible purposes.•
31.41 As is apparent from the foregoing discussion,.the site
license and the closure plan will amply protect human health
and the environment from potential hazards. No-showing that
the WDOH oversight is inadequate has been made. The WDOH and
NRC approved closure plan is specifically designed to detect
SBy letter dated October 29, 1985, US Ecology requested the wDOE, as
t-hr agency r::pcin.ibir^ for the administrition of the ieass, to place a
notice in the deed as required by that the land has been used to
manage hazardous waste and its use is restricted. Consistent with all
correspondence since 1980, this letter again states that the Part s
application was a protective filing because 98 Ecoloqy did not believe it
had accepted RCR11 hazardous waste. See Part E Application, Attachment 2-6.
` (53920770.2171 -3 1- 3/16192

31.42
and adequately remedy any releases or future releases at the
€ite-,- of-any-chemicala or .odioriuciides.
The chemical trench identified by EPA as a SWMU in the
draft permit is covered by the closure plan. Since no
releases from that trench have been detected, it is apparent
that closure under AEA type conditions has functioned
acceptably and will likely continue to do so. In addition,
M-, the closure plan provides express authority for future
r_}
•8- remcdial action should that prove necessary.
..^.:
t
31.43
Similarly, all structures, equipment and materials at the
site, such as the other potential SWIflIIs identified in the
Proposed Permit,• must be dismantled, decontaminated and
disposed of prior to site transfer.
The initial closure plan has been approved by both the
NRC and the State of Washington. An amendment submitted in
October of 1990 is awaiting final approval. Imposition of
RCRA corrective action at this time can only serve to disrupt
this process costing NRC, WDOH and US Ecology significant time
and resources with no corresponding environmental benefit.
99MNU 3, the resin ranks, were removed and the surrounding soil
reeediated pursuant to a plan approved by the State. sWMU 4 requires no
further action. see Draft RCRA Facility Assessment Report by RRC
mnviroomental Management, Inc.
13020303171 -32- ^^^6roz

31.44
31.45
Neither EPA nor WDOE has demonstrated any real need to
impose corrective action at the US Ecology site. Indeed other
SWMUs or potential SWMUs on the Hanford Reservation that are
unquestionably part of the permitted "facility" and are far
less pervasively regulated than the US Ecology site are not
addressed at all in the Proposed Permit.
US Ecology is not attempting to avoid the.need for
environmental controls.' But the proper agency to.impose such
controls is the WDOH. If EPA and.WDOE are concerned about the
potential SWMUs at the site, they should have raised such
concerns in the far more appropriate context of the closure
plan submitted to WDOE's sister agency WDOH. They could have
consulted with or requested that WDOH require further
monitoring or investigation of potential SWMUs. There has
certainly been no claim or showing by EPA or WDOE that
regulation by WDOH is not fully adequate to protect human
health and the environment. EPA and WDOE should reconsider
their initial decision to assert jurisdiction over the site
for its own sake.
This point comes into even clearer focus when one
considers that the state, through WDOE, is the lessee at the
site and responsible for administering the perpetual care and
maintenance fund. WDOE should well consider its role in
exposing the State of Washington to further liability concerns
lse920730s171 -33- 3116M

31.46
^.r...
a. .
1.-z<
Fr`
47':
by affirmatively seeking the imposition of duplicative
regulatory requirements at a site for whose clean-up it is
financially responsible.
C. The Ecology site Has Hsver Been subject to RCRA
Regulation
As noted earlier, EPA has never addressed US Ecology's
arguments demonstrating that the US Ecology site never fell
under the RCRA regulations. Yet those arguments were and are
clearly correct:
• As US Ecology pointed out in 1985, the toluene and
xylene in scintillation vials was not covered by
EPA's 1980 listings of "spent solvents" because
scintillation vials are commercial chemical
products, not solvents. See "comment" to 40 CFR
261.33(d) and 45 Fed. Reg. 78541 ( Nov. 25, 1980).
EPA has expressly admitted that the original 1980
solvent listings only covered solvents in their pure
form and could not have covered scintillation vials.
50 Fed. Reg. 18378 (Apri1 30, 1985). Even when EPA
broadened those listings at the end of 1985, it gave
no indication that it intended to cover
(s9i1ofl0.2171 -34- 3/16ro2

scintillation vials thereafter. 50 Fed. Req. 53316
(Dec. 31, 1985).10
• In addition, as the 1985 scintillation vial
memorandum also made clear, any such vials were
covered by a "small quantity generator" exemption
and excluded from substantive RCRA regulation.
• US Ecology believes that scintillation vials are
"byproduct" material exempt from RCRA regulation
under the exclusion for "source, byproduct and
special nuclear" material in RCRA g 1004(27). The
clear purpose of this exclusion is to avoid
duplicate regulation of substances that are
comprehensively regulated under the AEA. To
accomplish that purpose, it must apply to
scintillation vials.
• EPA itself has conceded that because of the
uncertainty about the requlatory*status of "mixed
waste", that waste did not become subject to RCRA
regulation until 1986--well after US Ecology had
stopped accepting scintillation vials. On
101n any event, US Ecoloqy stopped acc*ptinq scintillation vials in
1985. 1lccordinqly, whatever EPA's December 31, 1985 rule miqht have
provided, it would not have applied to US Ecoloqy's activities.
[S6920Tlo.2171 -35- 7/16N2

September 23, 1988 EPA issued a Federal Register
notice allowing-faci2.ities handii-ng_"mixcd-waste" to
qualify for "interim status" under RCRA exactly as
though "mixed waste" had only become subject to RCRA
jurisdiction in 1986. 53 Fed. Reg. 37048. Since
the US Ecology site stopped receiving scintillation
vials in 1985, it never became subject even to the
^ requirement to qualify for "interim status" , much
^.
=F= -.
r-,
less to any other RCRA regulatory requirement.
^
^^r?
• The chemical trench stopped accepting waste in 1972,
well before the RCRA regulations were ever
promulgated. For that reason, it, too, never came
under RCRA jurisdiction.
In short, the US Ecology site has never disposed of
---- wa$tes that were--subject to RCRA regulatory requirements at
the time they.were being managed. The argument for EPA
jurisdiction over the hazardous component of "mixed waste" has
always rested on the need to assure compliance with the
"hazardous waste" regulatory standards of RCRA subtitle C.
That basic justification is totally absent here.
[239107^0.2171 -36- 3/16192

31.47
D. Assertion Of RCRA Jurisdiction Over The US Ecology
Facility Would Be Inconsistent With The Sequirements
Of The AEA
We have shown that the US Ecology site cannot lawfully be
included in the Proposed Permit because ( 1) the US Ecology
site has no relation to the Proposed Permit and therefore
cannot be part of the "facility" that it covers; (2) all
environmental risks at the site are already comprehensively
02 regulated under the AEA, and (3) the site has never been
'm? subject to.RCRA regulation.
c°r •
^
Each of these arguments stands on its own. But each of
-tham also demonstrates that including the US Ecology site in
this permit would be "inconsistent" with the AEA within the
meaning of RCRA-$ 1006(a), which provides that:.
nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply
to (or to authorize any state, interstate, or
local authority to regulate) any activity or
substance which is subject to . . . the AEA of
1954 . .. except to the extent that such
application ( or regulation) is not inconsistent
with the requirements of such Acts.
In using the term "inconsistent", Congress picked a word with
an accepted meaning, and set it in a context that can only
make that meaning broader.
When a statute allows states to regulate an area except
where state rules are "inconsistent" with Federal regulation,
state rules are preempted if they contradict Federal
Iae920M.3171 -37- 3116M

equirements and if they present "an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution" of the Federal scheme--for
example, if they
address matters already covered by the federal
regulations, impose substantial burdens on
applicants, and create the risk of confusion,
conflicts-and del+Sya,
Southern Pac. Transp, v. Public Serv. Com'n of Nevada , 909
i^sd 35i, 355, 357 (D.C. 'ir. i990). Courts have applied the
02 same principle under the AEA, finding that, despite a specific
,-;
^^.
^7
reservation of state authority over non-radioactive wastes,
LTs°,
the Federal statute preempts state regulation of waste streams
in which radiation and non-radiation hazards are "inextricably
intermixed." Brown v. Kerr-McGee Corp. , 767 F.2d 1234 (7th
Cir. 1985). If we use these authorities to interpret the
term "inconsistent" in RCRA S 1006(a), we must conclude that
RCRA will cease to apply whenever it would "substantially
interfere" with efforts under the AEA to regulate radioactive
waste.
But in fact, the term "inconsistent" should receive a
broader reading where it addresses the relationship between
two Federal statutes than it has received where the
IlAccordingly, to the extent "corrective action" in the
proposed permit might raat on state law, they would also be preempted. seg
Pacific Oaa and Slectric Comoanv v. State Hnerav Reaourcea Conservation and
Qavalenment Commiuion , 461 U.S. 190 (1983).
[38920730.217) -38- 3/16/92

elationship between the states and the Federal government is
at issue. In the second case, the question concerns the
relationship between two Constitutionally separated levels of
government. Duplication and inconsistency that night be
acceptable so as to assure the ability of each level to
achieve its major goals should have no place in cases where
two statutes must be reconciled at the same level of
government. Indeed, RCRA requires EPA to administer RCRA
consistent with all "other Acts of Congress [that] grant
regulatory authority to the Administrator", RCRA 5 1006(b), so
as to "avoid duplication."12 These principles set forth in
S 1006(b) of RCRA must also govern the determination of
"inconsistency" between statutes set out in 5 1006(a). If
they did not, then there would be less inaentive to achieve
harmony in statutory interpretation between agencies than
there is to achieve harmony among EPA statutes, even though
harmony between agencies is clearly both needed more and
intrinsically harder to accomplish. Accordingly,
"inconsistency" within the meaning of RCRA 5 1006(a) must
include needless duplication between two regulatory schemes
serving the same function.
12ju U.S. v. Burns , 512 F. Supp. 916 (W.D. Pa. 1981). (In light of
the PCB regulatory scheme under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA could
not seek injunctive relief under RcR71 for improper handling, storage, and
disposal of PCBs.)
[51920w.2371 -39- 3/1692

Nothing in EPA or DOE regulations, or in any other source
of law, contradicts this natural reading of the statutory
language and purpose. RCRA S 1004(27) automatically excludes
"source, byproduct and special nuclear material" from RCRA
------- - ray.:latio:. EPA and the DOE have both taken a very narrow
view of what this term covers. But they did this largely
because they viewed the "inconsistency".provisions of RCRA
S 1006(a) as a more flexible and policy-oriented vehicle for
rz< avoiding conflicts than the definition of "solid waste," with
its accompanying exclusion for "source; byproduct and special
nuclear" materials. See 52 Fed. Reg. 15937, 15940 (May 1,
1987). Yet despite numerous promises of forthcoming
clarification, neither DOE nor EPA has over clarified what
"inconsistency" actually means, either in general or in the
context of a specific regulatory action.13
Accordingly, the question must be addressed in this
31.48 permit proceeding. If ever a case where RCRA application was
inherently weak, it is this one.
First, the same activities that RCRA "corrective action"
would address are already subject to comprehensive AEA
13since neither EPA nor DCE haa interpreted the meaning of
"inconsietent" in this proceeding, no conflict between agency approaches
has yet emerged. But in the event of auch a conflict, it is clear that the
DOE interpretation, not the EPA interpretation, would govern. [gE! 52 Fed.
Req. 15937 (May 1, 1987).
[58920770.217) -40- 3/16192

31.49
regulation, both under the operatinq license, and under the
Closure Plan.14
Second, the US Ecology site mover came under the RCRA
hazardous waste regulatory system. Yet it is the need to make
this system applicable to ongoing waste management activities
that has justified all prior EPA assertions of jurisdiction
over nuclear facilities.
Third, since the prospective RCRA rsgalatory requirements
>^- of Subtitle C have no application to the US Ecology site, any
-^^
l
31.51
assertion of RCRA jurisdiction must rest on the need to make
"corrective action" applicable. But "corrective action" lies
at the periphery, not the center, of RCRA's statutory
purposes. The argument for invading the jurisdiction of other
aqencies to make "corrective action" applicable is far weaker
than the argument for a similar effort to extend the reach of
Subtitle C.
Fourth, the US Ecology site has a separate purpose, a
separate operator, and completely separate operations from
anything directly covered by the Proposed Permit. It cannot
14Indssd, as noted sarlisr, the Closure Plan includss ths key terms
from the Part B RCRA permit application that US =coloqy submitted under
protest in 1985, but that sP11 never processed.
(se92m30s171 -41- 3116092

lawfully be included in that "facility" for corrective action
purpqses.
There is nothing RCRA corrective action could accomplish
31_S9
J v^ at this site that has not already been required--generally in
^
a stricter and more elaborate form--under the AEA. RCRA might
require the wastes at the site to be characterized. But under
the AEA, they were characterized before they were ever
accepted--only certain types of wastes were allowed. RCRA
might require monitoring. But groundwater monitoring is
already required as an operating condition, and more
monitoring will be required as a closure condition. RCRA
might address the security of waste disposal. But the exact
present and future methods of waste disposal have already been
set out in the operating license and the closure plan. RCRA
might address the chemical trench. But the chemical trench is
already being addressed under the Closure Plan.
In short, this is a case for the.principle: Meaningless
duplication is "inaonsistency." EPA and the WDOE have
proposed a permit that will require US Ecology to deal with a
completely new set of regulatory agencies, on a new timetable,
over matters already addressed and long settled under the AEA.
EPA and the WDOE may defend their actions by asserting that it
is not yet clear that any flat conflict in requirements will
result. But*it is already clear both that there will be a
_ . _ ^a^savu.LiTj -42- 7/16/92

31.53
31.54
duplication of regulatory burdens, with no environmental
benefits. The inclusion in RCRA of a specific bar on
"inconsistent" activities means nothing if it does not cover
cases like this.
IV. CONCLUSION
The US Ecology facility cannot lawfully be included
within the Proposed Permit to be issued to DOE and its
Contractors. US Ecology is not and was not a party to the
Proposed Permit. DOE and its contractors exercise no control
over the US Ecology facility. Without a permit issued to US
Ecology, EPA lacks statutory authority to require corrective
action. The US Ecology facility is and has been pervasively
regulated by WDOH and NRC since 1965. Imposition of RCRA
corrective action upon US Ecology would produce no discernable
environmental benefit. Any claim by EPA to RCRA jurisdiction
over the site is tenuous at best. Imposition of RCRA
corrective action requirements upon the site threatens the
viability of the existing closure plan for the site and is
either duplicative or flatly inconsistent with carefully
considered regulatory provisions designed in accordance with
regulations promulgated under authority of the AEA.
The Proposed Permit seeks, without reason, justification, or
legal authority to impose RCRA corrective action at the US
Ecology low level radioactive waste and special nuclear materials
[3e9Mreos171 -43- 3/1e92

disposal site regulated by the WDOH and the NRC. Neither EPA nor
WDOE have participated in or expressed more than a passing
interest in the extensive regulation of the site by their sister
i t uon WDOH. Yet
-------- ----agene_^s, h^ - r.. and ......n:^^ they now seek, solely by virtue
c'2;
of a permit issued to a third party, to intrude upon the
operation of one of the nation's principal low level radioactive
waste disposal sites. If EPA and WDOE have concerns regarding
the environmental safety of the US Ecology site, the proper,
r. ; economical and legally correct course of action would be for them
r, to consult with the agencies that bear primary responsibility for
u the site. Yet it is precisely because neither EPA nor WDOE can
31.55
^
properly articulate such a concern in any credible fashion that
they are forced to strain both the law and the facts as they have
done.
This tortured misapplication of a proposed RCRA permit to
impose cleanup requirements upon US Ecology at the cost of
abrogating fundamental distinctions between their own statutes is
a feeble attempt to overcome the obvious deficiencies in the
agencies approach under RCRA. It raises troubling questions
about the agencies motivation and, at a minimum, demonstrates how
truly ill-considered their actions are. EPA and WDOE have more
than enough to do at the Hanford Reservation without looking for
additional projects that lie well beyond their statutory
authority. This is particularly so where there is nothing to be
gained by way of environmental protection.
[se920rdo.2171 -44- 9n6/92

'ucicar Engineering Com{any Inc
^, - 9200 fNCLaYViLLC IIOAD. fU1TC a26 • P.0. aOX 7246
- L•y LOUISYILLC.KCNTUCKY 40207 9MONC (9oa) 426•7160
November 18, 1980
EPA Region X
M/S 530-A EPA ID {s WAD060048360
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
-Gentlemen:
Appendix A
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. operates a cozronercial low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility at Richland, Washington. The
site is operated under the authority of the State of Washington,
'-`=' pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 USC
2011, It seq (AEA), as amended.
It is the position of Nuclear Engineering Company that it is neither
the intent of RCRA nor the regulations adopted by EPA thereunder
that the radioactive waste disposed at our facility be subject
to RCRA. However, in order to preserve our rights should it
be ultimately determined that certain of our activities are in fact
subject to RCRA, we filed a"Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity"
prior to August 19, 1980, and subsequently received an EPA
identification number for our facility.
On October 24, 1980 ( see attached) we requested of Mr. Costle an
RIM which would permit the State of Washington, under its Section
274 agreement with the NRC, t4_csntinaks ;o-reguiate those low-level
radicsaetiire waste disposal activities presently being carried out
at our Richland site. As of this date the EPA has not responded to
our request.
Under the circumstances, we are filing Form 1, General Information,
for the Consolidated Permits Program with the Environmental Protection
Agency in order to preserve our rights should it be ultimately
determined that certain of our activities on our low-level radioactive
waste disposal site are subject to RCRA. Please note that
we have not completed EPA Form 3510-1(6-80) with respect to Question
II E since this question is still to be resolved by the EPA.
Also,'we have not filed Form 3 but have instead included as a separate
enclosure a list of responses to the technical criteria requested
in Form 3.
In summary, this filing is not to be construed as a waiver of our
position that our Company's low-level radioactive waste disposal
operations at Richland, Washington, are not subject to EPA requla-
^ tions under RCRA.

EPA Region X -2- November 18, 1980
In the meantime, we shall continue to accept naturally-occurring
and accelerated-produced low-level radioactive waste or by-product,
source and special nuclear low-level radioactive waste which are
slightly contaminated with materials such as toluene, at our lowlevel
radioactive waste disposal site at Richland, Washington.
These activities shall be conducted in accordance with the statutes,
rules, regulations, and license conditions applicable to the lowlevel
radioactive waste facility. We trust that the Environmental
Protection Agency will address this question of jurisdiction at its
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
^f..'v"'
T. S. Saer
Vice President
TSB/bt
cc: Jane Axelrad
EPA Office of General Counsel
^
^ : ' J

•`.
.
^ Nuclear l:u9incerin„ Convam: inc
e200 aNCLaVVILLL eOAD, SUITE a!{ . ' .O. aOt 7f4{
lOYIaVILLL.aLNTYCRT 40107 PHONE 1a0214t{•11{O
October 24, 1980
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 •M" Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Costle:
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (NECO) operates two commercial
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the western
United States, one located at Deatty. Nevada, and the other on
the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Resezveti9D in Washinaton
State. The sites are licensed under Section 274 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1956, 42 USC 2011, at sga (AEA), as amended, by
the States in which the facilitiesare ocated.
^. Low-level radioactive material in the form of waste products is
shipped to these facilities for disposal. Most of the waste materials
are either by-product, source, or special nuclear material as
defined in the AEA, and are excluded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, P.L. 94-580, 42 USC 6901, It seg (RCRA).
r
Naturally occurring and accelerator produced isotopes contained
in waste materials are also disposed of at these facilities. By
law these isotopes do not currently fall within the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coswission (NRC) but are controlled
by the individual states and have been incorporated into the regulatory
programs of both Nevada and Washington.
this action on the part of both states is a logical extension of
the need to cover all radioisotopes and sources of ionising radiation
in one set of rules and to have these rules administered by
one agency. The agency regulating radioactive waste disposal activities
in Nevada is the Nevada Department of Human Resources, and in
Washington is the Department of Social and Health Services.
The problem to be described herein arises when the following facts
are recogniseds
1) Naturally occurring and accelerator produced isotopes
are not regulated by the HRC under its authority as

•, Douglas M. Costle -2- October 24, 1980
--^
l,
defined in the AEA and consequently are not excluded
from the EPA's authority under RCRA.
2) Naturally occurring and accelerator produced isotopes
are not currently addressed in the EPA's regulations
implementing RCRA.
3) Certain naturally occurring and accelerator produced
isotopes, notably, Carbon-14 and Tritium ( e-3), are
used extensively for medical and university research
and are frequently mixed with solvents such as toluene
and xylene, prior to radioanalysis. These solvents
are defined as hazardous under RCRA and constitute
about lSi of the commercial low-level radioactive waste
on a national basis.
4) These radioactive materials are covered by State health
regulations and are controlled as extensively as byproduct,
source, and special nuclear materials.
As you may know, the NRC is currently developing regulations
(10 CFR 61) that will further assure the public health and safety
at low-level waste disposal facilit as. These proposed regulations
make-prov-i-s-i®nt-fof-aitingr-closure; post-closure maintenance and
perpetual care among other things. ^
In view of the above# we recommend that the EPA regulations be
amended, or clarified through Regulatory Interpretation Memoranda
(RIMS) so that:
1) all low-level radioactive waste disposal sites licensed
by the NRC be exempt from RCRAt
2) all low-level radioactive waste disposal sites licensed
by Agreement States be exempt from RCRAI
3) all low-level radioactive waste disposal sites licensed
by the NRC or Agreement States be exempt from RCRA when
the hazardous wastes contain radioactive materials in
sufficient quantity to warrant disposal in a low-level
radioactive waste site.
If the above action is not taken, the result could be to effectively
shut down the vast majority of medical research in the U.S., since
disposal of these material s in other than low-level waste disposal
facilities is prohibited by State statutes. To do otherwise would
also promote an unnecessary and confusing overlap of regulatory
processese
Ns^r^++^eat+^Diup^^taie ^•^':^
, ^ ^

^x.-.
C-r
•^ Douglas M. Costle -3- October 24, 1980
^
In order to preserve our rights under the interim status standards
promulgated by EPA, NECO submitted the required information to the
-EPA t:.-Te:t the pr•liminary notification filing requisements. However,
since it is our position that it was not the intent of RCRA
to regulate activities currently overviewed by the NRC, NECO will
defer submitting the Part A application pending resolution by the
EPA with the NRC and the States of Nevada and Washington on this
issue.
Sincerely,
NUCLXAR ENGINEERING COl7PANY, INC.
T. S. Baer
= Vice President
TSB/bt
te+derEnstrcslhaomvsfa:a+e. j

Us ^e,..e.
ON a^.ewa Pa.a ww an
L"..e.. n«
"May Me.
Appendix B
am .sV,p
U5FC010gy
Mr. Charles Be Pindley, Director October 29, 1985
Eazardous Waste Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region i
1200 Sizth Avenue
8eattle, Washington 98101
Mr. Richard A. Burkhalter, P.E.
Supervisor, Industrial Section
Departsent of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is 08 Ecology, Inc's Part E Application and Closure/Post Closure
Plans for the Richland, Washington facility. This facility, located on
federally owned property, is a commercial low-level radioactive waste site,
licensed by the State of Washington and the Nuclear Regulatory Coemission
(NRC). Its daily operations are supervised on a full time basis by on site
State inspectors and_all acti.vltied araalso-eonitor:d by the Nuclear
Regulatory Cosdmission and its Agreement State program audits. The facility
has also been the subject of considerable State and Pederal legislative
scrutiny and, as such, its oparations have been closely monitored by the
public.
As you are aware, in November, 1980, US Ecoloqy, Inc. (then known as Nuclear
Enqinserin9 CoNpany, Inc.), the site operator, made a orotective filing for a
R::ource conwrvation-aaQ lecovery Act (RCRA) Part A application in order to
preclude any issuance of noncoupliances regarding its receipt of scintillation
vials which iteas may have been interpreted as fallin9 within the RCRA-sphere
of requlation. Since that initial filing in 1900, the cospaay has drafted
----va?ieils-let'sers and has not on numerous occasions with federal and state
regulatory officials as well as Congressional representatives in order to try
and resolve the potential conflicts which exist between the RCRA and 10 CPR 61
regulatory schemas. The present situation of dual statutory jurisdiction
places the cospany under the regulatory purview of the NRC, SPA, Washington
State Departments of Ecology and Social and Eealth services, as well as
interfaciay with the Department of Energy. The company has repeatedly sought

Messrs. Charles B. Pindley and
Richard A. Burkhalter
October 29, 1985
Page 2
to have but one regulatory agency or single-line of authority tasked with the
overall responsibility for regulating the site. Such a designation will avoid
the potential for conflicting enforcement policies or philosophies, and in
turn will assure a coordinated, appropriate and timely response to specific
regulatory demands.
However, during the pendency of these activities dedicated to resolving this
issue, the company received an April 30, 1985 letter from US EPA, Region X,
:•..; requesting that the company submit a RCRA Part B application for the Richland
facility. While the company is complying with this request by filing the
previously referenced documents, it also wishes to point out that it believes
that the attached Part B filings may not be required in this specific
instance. Specifically, the Part B filings are allegedly being mandated due
.. . to the compan y 's receipt of mixed waste -- in this case being confined to the
constituents of scintillation vials received at the site. These vials contain
substances of toluene, :ylene, and benzene, some of which were previously
thought to be potential subjects of RCRA regulation. However, their receipt
at the site as small quantity generator produced items, as well as their
designations and/or shipping configurations, now casts serious questions as to
the appropriateness of their inclusion as RCRA regulated substances.
While the presence at the facility of scintillation vials with chemical
constituents is known, whether such materials are RC1tA regulated is a separate
issue. Small quantity generators of hazardous wastes are not RCRA regulated
and are not required to use an EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form.
Since the facility has not received any such forms and the generators have
contractually warranted to 08 Ecology that they will comply with all applicable
laws and have indemnified 08 Ecology for any failure to do so, it can be
assumed that the generators do not believe the waste to be RCRA regulated.
Even though the company has substantial reservations regarding this material's
classification as RQtA regulated, the company took the added precaution of
advising its customers via a September 13, 1985 letter (See Attachment B),
that effective October 28, 1985, US Ecology will no longer accept scintillation
liquids contining toluene, or xylene in any physical form for disposal
at its low-level radioactive waste facility in Richland, Mashington.
Obviously, such prohibition was confined solely to RCRA regulated substances.
For a further discussion of the company's position on this matter, see
Attachment A, •Scintillation Vials'.
08 Ecology has limited its discussion solely to the contents of scintillation
vials as it believes that this is the only material received at the site which
could potentially be RCRA regulated. This position is predicated on the fact
that US Ecology is the only company disposing of commercial low-level
radioactive waste to have filed a Part A or Part n application and the only
waste item which it receives at Richland which is different from that received

Messsrs. Charles B. Finley and
Richard A. Burkhalter
October 29, 1985
Page 3
at other facilities is scintillation vial materials. Therefore, to conclude
otherwise would be contrary to existing facts and regulatory enforcement
posture and would give rise to serious constitutional questions regarding
equal protection.
The company believes that although there exists some question as to the regulation
of this material, its present action was necessary in order to obtain a
formal ruling from the agencies regarding this material, and thus requests a
formal response as soon as practical. The desire for a formal response is
necessary in that the Richland site is the only commercial low-level radioactive
waste landfill which currently accepts this waste. Although scintillation
vials constituted less than three per cent of the waste received at the
.a. facility, we believe this issue has national significance because of the
potential impact on medical applications. The issue thus warrants a quick
ZT
resolution by the Agency as to whether the vials are RCRA regulated in order
to avoid a material disruption in the nation's medical and research
communities.
For your information, and as set forth in the Part B, US Ecology will complete
-by -November -Sr-1985r-the-instslYation of :.v: -sit.=assoc-iatad monitoring well
and thus will be able to conduct RCRA monitoring if it is determined to be
applicable. Previous monitoring ( in accordance with the company's existing
licenses) utilixed DOE wells which were located in the vicinity of the site.
US Ecology is submitting its Part B and Closure/Post Closure applications as a
protective filing. As such, the company does not, by submitting these documents,
admit to the applicability of RCRA to the Richland low-level radioactive
waste disposal facility, not does it waive its rights to supplement or
withdraw such documents or request administrative or judicial relief on this
matter.
___ Plta!* beadvised-that-A$Bcologv, Inc. intends that this letter and attachments
be incorporated as an integral part of our Part B and Closure/Post
Closure applications.
truly yours,
. ^^
y i. nriguc, ^"-c ^•'
President, Radiological Division
SWt/sw 2S1
Attachment

c^--.
cr..
SCINTILLATION VIALS
ATTACHMENT A
Scintillation vials contain low-level radioactive materials and
toluene, benzene, and xylene. Such vials are produced for use in such
settings as hospitals and medical research facilties throughout the United
States as a part of medical and other scientific testing performed at those
institutions. Laboratory procedures that use these vials perform such vital
functions as determining the levels of hormones, vitamins or drugs in a
patient, diagnosing pregnancy, and detecting cancers and other diseases such
as- tepatitis. These materials in the vial are often referred to as the
'scintillation cocktail'.
A scintillation cocktail is often composed of a scintillating
material, a surfactant that serves as an emulsifier, and a solvent to serve as
-s suspension -for --the---scintili-ation---materials and surfactant. The solvent
--- --- ----also fiai--the importas>t--function ^t abaocbi7y the energy produced by the
radioactive materials, and transferring that energy to the scintillating
material. This function of the is vital to the usefulness of the
scintillation vial.
Typical solvent materials for these scintillation vials are xylene,
toluene, benzene or other similar organic materials. When these solvents are
included in a scintillation cocktail formulation, they constitute an integral
part of a usable product not intended for discard. That is, those solvents
are a part of the vials as a product . The solvents never separately become
waste before they become -a -part - of the -scintillation cocktail, not are they
mixed with any hazardous waste either before or after their addition to the
cocktail.
At the time when the scintillation formulation is prepared and placed
on the shelf for future use, the resultant mixture is a product and not a
solid waste as defined in RCRA. At the time that the vial is used, thereby
becoming a waste (though not a hazardous waste), the solvent is nothing more
than part of that used product.
As outlined in greater detail below, the more fact that the used
scintillation vial may contain a solvent as a part of its content is
irrelevant in determining whether the scintillation vial and its contents
taken as a whole should be classified as a'hazardous waste'. Instead, one
must look at the vial and its contents at the time it becomes (or is intended
to become ) discarded in order to detirmine whetAer it is clasiifiable as
hazardous waste. The xylene, toluene, benzene, or similar materials contained
in the scintillation cocktail were not placed into the mixture in order for
that organic constituent to be disposed of. The fact that the organic
component in question was added to the formulation in preparation of a
product, and was not in fact added to a solid waste, is important in a final
determination of the applicability of ACRA to scintillation cocktails.

s >
r-^
mnn.v
:;P1
cr;
40' Cl7l 261'.1(a) outlines the scope of the different Subparts
through D that make up Part 261, as follows:
(1) Subpart A defines the terms 'solid waste'
and 'hazardous waste,' identifies those wastes
which are excluded from regulation under Parts 262
through 265, 270, 271 and 124 and establishes
special management requirements for hazardous
waste produced by small quantity generators and
hazardous waste which is used, re-used, recycled
or reclaimed.
(2) Subpart S sets forth the criteria used by
EPA to identify characteristics of hazardous
waste and to list particular hazardous wastes.
(3) Subpar't C identifies characteristics of
__ - hazardnus wsstes.
( 4) Subpart D lists particular hazardous wastes.
In order for a waste to be characterized as •hazardous waste,' it must either
fall within a list in Subpart D or contain one of the four characteristics
outlined in Subpart C. (There is a provision in Subsection 261.1(b) which
allows alternative methods for declaring a material a hazardous waste, but
those_are not relevent to this discussion, since there has been no actic
regarding the materials covered here as is contemplated in that section. St
40 CPR 261.1(b).
An outlined further below, the scintillation vials do not fall within
any of the lists contained in Subpart D. Likewise, they do not possess any of
the characteristics contained in Subpart C. (The sole exception to the
absence of a hazardous characteristic is the possibility that vials might be
ignitable. Even if the vials are ignitable, this is not sufficient to allow
their classification as a hazardous waste because the Company continues to
express its willingness to require that the material be placed in absorbent
material or otherwise handled to eliminate its ignitability, and, thus, no
longer provide a basis for its classification as a hazardous waste.)
Subpart D Lists
Subpart 0 contains four lists of specific waste. See 40 CPR 261.30
thorugb Section 261.33, and the Appendices thereto. Those lists are as
`_..-'---
LV11V^a i
- P-codes, which list specific hazardous waste from non-specific
sourcest
= J^^odee-r--wh3ch-caves-geaer-Lc process waste from specific sources
(no specific chemicals)t and
2

- P- and D-codes, which apply to discarded commercial chemical
products when intended for discard.
First consider the list of P- and U-code waste.
The P-code and U-code Lists
Both p-code and 0-code lists contain specific chemicals which are
designated hazardous when they are:
(1) discarded or intended to be discarded as commercial chemical
productsr or
(2) manufacturing chemical intermediates having the generic names
c^^ listed in those tablesT or
rY:
(3) any off-spec ( off specification) commercial chemical productst or
(4) manufacturing chemical intermediatesi or
=?° (5) _ containers or innerliners removed from containers being used to
hold one of those productsj or
(6) residues or contaminated soil or water from a cleanup of a spill
of one of those commercial chemical products.
In a comment contained in 40 C!R 261.33 immediately preceding the P- and
U-code list, EPA explains the meaning of the phrase •commercial chemical
products or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic name' as
referring:
...to a chemical substance which is manufactured
or formulated for commercial or manufacturing use
which consists of a commercially pure grade of the
chemical, any technical grades of the chemical that
a2s -produced or marketed, and all formulations in
which the chemical is the sole active ingredient.
It does not refer to a material, such as the
manufacturing process waste that contains any of
the substances listed in paragraph e or f .
(Emphasis added.)
In the background document for Subtitle C, Section 3001, Section 261.33 issued
by EPA Office of Solid Waste on April 30, 1980, the Agency by way of the
following comments makes the intent of the applicability of those P- and
U-code lists quite clear. On page 5 of that background document EPA states:
in the development of the proposed rules, a
number of persons pointed out that the important
part of the hazardous waste generated throughout
the country were commercial chemicals that are
normally not discarded but, for a variety of
reasons, are occasionally discarded.
3

Examples given were reduction of inventory,
changes in product line, cancellation of pesticides,
no further use of remaining stocks and
residuals from batch processing manufacturing
or formulating operations. In particular,
operators of solid waste management facilities
indicated that some 'wastes' which they receive
are discarded pure chemicals as opposed to typical
waste from manufacturing or other activities. These
same persons also indicated that off specificaiton
chemicals are sometimes discarded. The agency
----recognizea that some of these chemicals and off
specification materials were toxic and, even
though discarded, only occasionally (and usually
in small amounts), could pose a substantial hazard
to human health or the environment.
In response to concerns or questions from the regulated community as to
whether any solid waste which contained one of those listed chemicals in the
P- or u-code list was a hazardous waste, EPA responded on page 9 of the
background document:
A number of commentators misunderstood the
proposed rules and assumed that any waste,
including manufacturing process waste, containing
any of the chemicals listed in the Appendices III,
IV, V, and XII would be a hazardous waste. This
led several of these commentators to urge that a
quantity or concentration level below which the
waste would not be hazardous be established for
each chemical listed in the appendices. Other
commentators urged that, if the appendices only
applied to pure chemicals and then only apply when
they are discarded, these points should be emphasized.
The agency recognizes the language of the proposed
rules may have been confusing. Consequently it has
substantially rewritten the provision, currently in
Section 261.33 of the final rule, and has added an
extensive comment to clarify the point raised by
these commentators.
The comment referred to in the previous quotation is the comment previously
cited on the previous page of this memo. EPA further stated on page 10 of
that same document that:
A few commentators seemed to suggest that Appendices III,
IV, V and XII should be used to cause waste containing
any of the listed chemicals to be a hazardous waste. This
would essentially change the list into a 'characteristic'
with its attendant responsibilities for the generator.
The agency did not intend such a result. However, the

•,
-,..5
agency has revised its criteria for listing hazardous
waste ( See Section 261.11 of the final rules) to include
this concept. The agency has developed a list of
hazardous constituents, Appendix VIII, and will presume
that a waste containing any of those constituents is
a hazardous waste unless consideration of other factors,
such as quantity of the waste, concentration of the toxic
agent at mob'ility of-the coxicant-etc.-,-cauaea the Agency
to conclude that the waste does not pose a substantial
threat to human health or the environment. This criteria
VIII does in fact contain the toxic substances listed in
261.33(e) of the final rule. ( Emphasis added.)
Finally, in that background document, EPA concluded on page 20:
In addition, the agency substantially modified
the final list of chemicals. First it has listed
^ only commercial chemical products from manufacturing
chemical intermediates, chemicals that are not normally
discarded. The reason for this is that Section 261.33
is exclusively designed to regulate these materials
in the event they are discarded or intended to be
discarded, or discarded as off specification materials,
or discarded as residuals in containers or in liners
of the containers or spilled. Where the agency's
been to eliminate as a class the chemicals listed in
appendix which derive from a list of toxic chemicals
that are typicallyfound in industtial wastewaters,
or its constituents of hazardous waste. (Emphasis added.)
Concurrent with the initial promulgation of 40 ClR.261 in 180, US EPA
pulbished a•Guide to the Regulations•. In that publication EPA answered the
very basic question, 'flhat is Section 261.3379 In answer the agency stated
the following:
Beetian--261.33-contaias -a-listiag-esy-361 co.:.ercial
- ---- ck__,-o. a. •, ^-^^..^•
^......^...- that . are hazardous waste if and
when they are discarded, because these are valuable
commercial products, that normally are not discarded.
For various reasons, however, they are
occasionally discarded and when this occurs EPA
believes these products may pose a present or
potential hazard to human health or the environ-
S

ment. Thus Section 261.33 brings these commercial
products under hazardous waste regulations if and
when they are discarded or intended to be discarded.
(Emphasis added.)
Additionally, EPA responded to the question -IS a waste a hazardous
waste if it contains a commercial product listed in Section 261.33(f) but does
not exhibit any of the four characteristics?•, EPA's response was that:
-- -- --------- --- -az-i6- -probablyiiot a nanrd'vus waste. IL the
waste is not listed as a hazardous waste, is not
a mixture containing a listed hazardous waste, and
does not exhibit any of the four characteristics
it is not a hazardous waste by virture of containing
a commercial product listed in Section 361.33(e)
or ( f) unless the commercial product was discarded
°
0a
by mixing into the waste. ( Emphasis added.)
-- r=_-- -----Alao- answered- in- tFe--document aas -the ;:estio:. •Is a facility that
eoxmercial products-listed- isr SectiosF 261.}}-prior to-their-saie
the regulations?' EPA's response was:
stores the
subject to
No. The commercial products listed in Section
261.33 are subject to regulation only when
they are discarded or intended to be discarded .
(Emphasis added.) -
Even as late as May 9, 1985, John Skinner by issuance of a memorandum
regarding the statutory interpretative guidance on treatment of bulk hazardous
waste acknowledged the distinction between mixing of materials with product
and mixing of materials with waste. Mr. Skinner stated that:
Section 3004(C)(1) prohibits the placement in a
landfill of bulk liquid waste to which absorbents
have been added, but does not ban the landfilling
of absorbed materials if the absorbent was added
before the material became a waste. Hence, the
-ban-appliea_to-Ak Apil1-OL_Coamercial chwatrat
product or manufacturing chemical intermediate
listed in Section 261.3 if the absorbent was added
after the product became a waste.
Having now established that scintillation cocktails when disposed of
are not a commercial chemical product listed as a P- or 0-code, it must be
determined if the solid waste generated by the use of that scintillation
cocktail is contained as an F- or H-code.
E-code List
As stated ifi_8ection_261^32=_the_lC^ode list includes solid wastes
that are listed as hazardous wastes from specific sources. This section'srequirement
that hazardous waste be derived from specific sources quit
6

^°ra
clearly results in the exclusion of liquid scintillation cocktails from the
list of hazardous waste by virtue of absence from that table. Clearly the
process of using scintillation cocktails in any manner is not contained in the
K-code list.
Consideration must now be given to the inclusion of liquid
scintillation cocktails in which organics are a component on the list of
F-codes.
P-code List
Section 261.31 provides that the P-codes cover hazardous wastes that
come from nonspecific sources. P001 through t005 do contain specific solvents
which are considered hazardous by virtue of the F-codes when they are spent
and intended for discard. Eenzene is not included in any of these P-code
lists. Zylene and toluene are mentioned in these listsi however, this fact
does not require or determine that scintilaltion vials containing xylene or
toluene are, therefore, to be classified as listed hazardous wastes.
Consideration must be given to the application of the term 'spent solvents• as
contained in Section 261.31 to sae that the scintillation vials are not
r° ' covered by any of these F-code lists.
cc;
On page 31 of the 40 CPR 261.31 background document dated May 2,
1980, EPA explains the following basis for listing substances (including
solvents) in the P-code lists:
Waste resulting from usage of organic solvents
typically contains significant concentrations of
the solvent. Examples of waste from usage of
organic solvents include still bottoms from solvent
recovery and spent solvents from dry cleaning
operations and maintenance and repair shops.
This basis of the listing of-the-solventsunderl001-through l005 codes does
-------------- -------rot -cor.template the use of solvents in scintillation cocktails and for the
purposes for which scintillation cocktails are used, as a source of hazardous
waste. This in further evidenced in the analysis in the above noted
background document relative to the sources of the waste in typical disposal
practices. As stated by EPAs
(t)he primary solvent-using industries and the
quantities of solvents they use annually are as
follows: ...paint and allied products or industrial
operations, surface cleaning, pesticide production,
-laundry-and-dr-y-Slaaning o^ ratio^._, pharmacentical
manufacture, solvent recovery operations. IA at p. 36.
This list clearly does not include use of the solvents In scintillation
formulations. The only point of contention may be use in the pharmaceutical
industry. Eowever, this point is clarified on page 42 of the dcucment, in the
explanatory material relating to the production of pesticides, pharmaceuticals
and other organic chemicals:
7

-i
r-,
rr,
^.^.
solvent applications in the production of pesticides,
pharmaceuticals and other organic chemicals include
usage as a reaction (synthetic) medium, and the
usage in equipment cleaning. The solvents used are
primarily non-halogenated and are typically selected
for compatibility with the production process. Toluene
is the most widely used solvent in pharmaceutical manufacture,
methanol is used as the reaction solvent in nylon
66 production, and acetone is used as the solvent in the
production of cellulose acetate.
Naste from solvent usage in these industries take
the form of off-specification product material,
equipment cleaning waste, and solvent recovery still
bottoms. The destination of all solid waste is not
known, but a large percentage is either reclaimed in
house or by contract recovery operation.
Absent from all of the above explanantions about the application of
P001 through P005 codes to spent solvents is any implicit or explicit
reference to use of organic solvents in formulation of scintillation
cocktails. In the 'Guide to the Regulations' published by US EPA in 1980, the
following question and response are contained regarding the application of the
term 'spent solvents':
Q. Are the spent solvents listed in Section 261.3
generated by specific processes or any materials
that contain these solvents considered hazardous?
A. The spent solvents listed in Section 261.31
covers spent solvents generated by any and all
processesr hence they are not limited to spent
solvents derived from specific processes.
These listed spent solvents themselves are hazardous
waste. Also any solid waste with which these
listed spent solvents are mixed are hazardous
waste. Solid waste that may contain some amount of
solvents from the manufacturing or other activity
in which the solvents are used are not, however,
hazardous waste by virtue of their solvent contentr
they may, however, be hazardous waste for other
reasons. ( Emphasis added.)
EPA does not view discarded scintillation cocktails, including those
containing solvents, in the same that EPA views spent solvents under P-code or
R-code lists. This view by EPA is evidenced by the answer to another question
contained in that Guideance Document involving hazardous wastes generated by
hospitals. In answering that question about hospitals, EPA excluded any
mention of some wastes and included others, but most importantly, in makinq.,
the analysis, EPA specifically excluded anv mention of the P-code or a-cot
8

lists . These listi were excluded, because EPA does not 'view their
classifications as including an activities performed at hospitals. Hospitals
use and discard scintillation vials. Thus, EPA does not believe that used
scintillation vials fall within the !-code, or K-code list classificaitons of
Subpart C.
Clear from the above discussion is the apparent intent on the part of
the Agency that the spent solvents referred to in the F-code list include
solvents which have been used in processes normally associated with solvents,
such as paint stripping, degreasing, etc. All of these indications on the
part of the Agency as to the applicability of spent solvent and F-codes
indicate that products in which one of the listed solvents is one of several
ingredients are not intended to be categorized as spent solvents when disposed
of merely by virtue of the content of the solvent.
cF^.
F In summarizing the non-applicability of RCRJ1 Subpart D codes to
scintillation cocktails, one can draw analogy to paints that were manufactured
with solvents as one of their constituents. The waste from such paint after
its use will contain high levels of the solvents which were included as one of
the paint's constituents. EPA has stated that the treatment of such paint
waste under RCRa should be through an examination for possible applicability
of one of the four subtitle C characterisitics as opposed to the Subpart D
lists). As in the case of scintillation cocktails, the product paint contains
solvent as an ingredient. The residue paint is not included in a P- of U-code
list as a discarded commercial chemical product. In evaluating the waste
paint scenario, EPA has stated that the e-code spent solvents are intended to
encompass solvents which have been spent by their use in a traditional solvent
process, such as degreasing, stipping, and the like. They were not intended
to encompass paint product wastes which contain a solvent by virtue of the
solvent content of the original product, nor paint product waste which has had
solvent added as a product in order to act as a thinning agent to facilitate
easier use of the paint.
Applying the paint analogy above, scintillation cocktails are
purchased or provided as product formulations containing a solvent along with
a scintillator and surfactant or detergents. Most of these scintillation
formulations purchased from manufactures have already been formulated prior to
their purchase by the eventual user. Like the resultant paint product waste,
the discarded scintillation cocktail contains the solvent by virtue of the use
of the solvent in the original product formulation, and not the use of the
solvent in a traditional or classic sense.
Thus, discarded scintillation vials or scintillation cocktails, while
including organic chemicals as part of- their formulation, are in no way
included in any Subpart 0 list ( i.e., P-code, D-code, E-code and F-code
lists). Consideration must be given to the possible applicability of one of
the- *-our--- Subpart-- C -- zharacteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity and EP toxicity).
9

Subpart C
To determine if the resultant waste scintillation vial is hazardous
under such guidelines, one must examine whether the materials are ignitable,
reactive, corrosive or EP toxic. The only characteristic of the four
contained in Subpart C which might possibly be applicable is that of
ianitability (D001).
Many scintillation cocktails containing organic materials have liquid
flash points of iess than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. If the small-quantitygenerator
exemption does not apply, the resultant liquid night be classified
as an ignitable waste under the DOOl code.
9aving found the 'hazardous characteristics' of the liquid
scintillation cocktails as it is contained in the vial in liquid form, the
form in which the material will be received must be examined.
that the scintillation cocktail might be treated as a RCRA
r.„ hazardous waste by virtue of the characteristic ignitability (D001), when the
cocktail is received in solid form (suitably absorbed), the determination for
ignitability of a solid must be applied. The solid waste characteristic as
stated in Section 261.21(2) is that the waste:
...is not a liquid and is capable under standard
iemperature and pressure, of causing through
friction, absorption or moisture or spontaneous
chemical changes and, when ignited, burns so
vigorously and persistently that it creats a
hazard.
_>:PA has concusasQ-in_-thisaesessment via a request to EPA through its RCRA
hotline. Therefore, the scintillation cocktails suitably absorbed and
received by US Ecology would not be regulated hazardous wastes, even if
they could otherwise be classified as ignitable hazardous waste without such
absorption.
10

APPENDIX C
Detailed Comments on the Draft Permit, Fact Sheet,
and Draft RCRA Facility Assessment Report
The totality of information contained in the Draft
Permit, the accompanying Fact Sheet, and the Draft RCRA
Facility Assessment Report, prepared by PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. ("PRC"), do not show that any remediation is
necessary at the US Ecology facility or why it is necessary to
include US Ecology in the Permit. The three documents contain
inaccurate information and are inconsistent and wholly
speculative with regard to the need for remediation of any
hazardous substances at the facility. US Ecology is uncertain
at this time whether there is any information in the
administrative record to support the agencies' principal
determinations. US Ecology has attempted unsuccessfully to
identify and review any such information.' The following
Ion February 24, 1992 US Ecology submitted a Freedom of Information
Act request to EPA for all records and information regarding US Ecology,
its parent company American Ecology, and/or its predecessor, Nuclear
Engineering Company. US Ecology contacted Department of Ecology regarding
this same request.on February 24, 1992 and submitted a request for public
records on February 26, 1992. US Ecology was initially told that all
publicly available records regarding US Ecology were in the library at the
Department of Ecology in Lacey and went to the agency to review this
information. With the exception of the Draft RCRA Facility Assessment
Report, these documents consisted entirely of reports submitted by or on
behalf of US Ecology. US Ecology was told at that time that the
information we requested had not yet been collected or reviewed for
(13217-000U3L920650324] 7/16192

c:ar
cF;
discussion addresses the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and
speculative nature of the three documents:
• Permit p.3, lines 14-17,40; Fact Bheet p.1, Fourth
31.56 Paragraph.
31.57 •
US Ecology is not a Permittee under the Permit and has
-^tOt-f fled-aTi -ap'yiiCa`civn - ti5- beCome - oiie . And yet the Permit
purports to impose obligations on US Ecology pursuant to its
terms as if it had filed an application and would be a
Permittee.
Permit p.8, lines 21-23 and p.5; Fact Bheet p.2.
The Permit is to ensure proper implementation of the
°a:.ford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (eFFACO")
and "(e)nforcement of all the conditions of this permit,
including Part IV, will be primarily through the procedures
identified in the FFACO."
Part IV of the Permit includes US Ecology, and yet it was
not a party to the negotiations creating the FFACO and the
FFACO is not binding upon US Ecology. The parties to this
exemptions. By letter dated February 20, 1992 US Ecology also specifically
requested documentation regarding employee interviews referenced in the
1987 Cammercial Hanford Facility Site Closure/Perpetual Care Phase One
Final Report from Department of 8cology. To date US Ecology has received
acknowledgement from both agencies of these requests. Only as of the
afternoon of March 12, 1992 has US Ecology been informed by EPA that
responsive documents were available for reviewl there has still been no
response from NDOS.
[13813-000i/S1930630.22{1 -2- 3/16/92

agreement are the Environmental Protection Agency, the
_Washington-£tate--Department o€ -Ecoiogy-, -and *_he-Unite&-States
Department of Energy.2 This agreement is binding and
enforceable only against the parties to the agreement. 3
Although the agreement contemplates agents, contractors and/or
consultants of the Department of Energy, and requires them to
comply with the terms of the agreement4, no mention is made of
US Ecology, or parties similar to US Ecology. US Ecology is
not an agent, contractor and/or consultant of the Department
of Energy, and thus is not bound by the agreement.
To include US Ecology in this Permit and thereby attempt
to enforce the FFACO against it is an injustice to US Ecology
when it was not even a party to the FFACO negotiations wherein
many of the conditions, milestones, and schedules of the
Permit were agreed upon and have been incorporated by
reference. ,^gg Permit I.A.4. US Ecology's unique situation
vis-a-vis the Permittees has not been considered. By this
Permit alone the agencies attempt to impose an additional and
inappropriate regulatory scheme upon US Ecology merely because
2SOS lFACO, Article II (7).
aSN ilACO, Articlo II (12)
4Z&L
p3813-000t/3I920650.2241 -3- 3116Nt

a^-
it is geographically located within the boundaries of a
facility that is the subject of the FFACO and this Permit.
• Permit I.A.i.b.; Fact Bheet re I.A.i.b.;. and Fact Sheet
31.58 pp.33-4.
Areas of concern that are "Lands leased by the State of
Washington," "are not actively controlled by the Richland
Field Office of the Department of Energy," and "which were
excluded from the FFACO or which are otherwise determined to
be-necessary to address in this permit" are included in Part
IV, and include US Ecology. In spite of the fact that USDOE
did not and does not control the activities of US Ecology, and
in spite of the fact that the State of Washington is US
Ecology's landlord, the Permit suggests that only "the.
landowner (USDOE), as the permittee, is being required to
perform corrective action to remediate releases from these
units as necessary to protect the human health and the
environment." Fact Sheet p.34. The State of Washington
cannot avoid liability for the US Ecology facility merely
because it is the principle author of the Permit.5
The parcel of land US Ecology currently occupies is owned
by the United States as represented by the United States
sHote that elsewhere in the Permit the State has managed to
specifically exclude from the definition of the Hanford Facility for the
purposes of this Permit any state-owned land within the boundaries of the
Hanford Site. Permit III.l.S.d.
[13S17-0006/30206303341 - 4- 3/16/92

Atomic Energy Commission (the "Commission"). The State of
Washington (the "State") leased from the Commission a 1,000
acre tract containing this parcel in 1964 for a term of 99
years("Prime Lease") for the purposes of encouraging the
development of nuclear industry related enterprises.6
California Nuclear, Inc sublet 100 acres of this land in 1965
from the State for development and use as a low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility, for a term of 10 years,
with an option to renew for two additional fifteen year
periods.7 Subsequently, US Ecology acquired California
Nuclear. In 1976 a new sublease was executed between US
Ecology (known as Nuclear Engineering Company) and the State,
for a 15-year term, with the option of renewing for one
additional 15-year periods.e The term of this sublease began
in 1976 upon the expiration of the prior sublease. This
sublease was amended on January 11, 1980 and January 14,
6Sae lease between the State of Washington and the Atomic Enargy
Commisaion, dated September 10, 1964.
7See lease between California Nuclear, Inc. and the State of
Washington, dated July 29, 1965(•State/cal laasa•). This in contrary to
the Site Cloaura Plan, which incorrectly describes this an a 99-year aublaasa.
•Sea lease between Nuclear EnginNring Company and the State of
Washington, dated Fabruary 26, 1976(•Stata/Ii6CO laaaa-).
(13813-0009SL9206l0.2241 -5- 31I6H1

1982.9 In 1990, US Ecology extended the Sublease for an
additional 15 years.10
In the Prime Lease, the State incurs a number of
obligations relating to the maintenance and cleanup of the
site. For example, the State is required to abide by all laws
_ and obtain all necessary permits." If the State fails to
^;= }
;^.
comply with any applicable laws , the Commission can terminate
the lease. 12 Upon the expiration or termination of the lease,
I.1.!-
cg`^
the State shall, at its own expense, take all measures
necessary to decontaminate the land. 13 If the Commission
performs any work to this end, the State must reimburse the
Commission for the cost. In addition, the State entered into
a perpetual maintenance agreement with the Commission,
providing for a perpetual maintenance fund.14 Thus, they have
also incurred responsibility to fund or assure funding of any
sSee lease amendment dated January 11, 1980 and lease amendment dated
January 14, 1982.
10See lease amendment dated April 1990.
11An Prime Lease S 11.
721m Prime Lease S 7.
tifim Prime Lease $ 9.
143ee discussion in Appendix 8 reqardinq the perpetual care and
maintenance account and the site closure account.
p3e13-0001/sc920650.2241 -6- 3n6i92

cleanup.15 Therefore, under the terms of the Prime Lease, the
State of Washington is liable for the clean-up of this parcel
of land.
The State has preserved and maintained this
responsibility even under, or in spite of, the sublease. This
is evidenced by the control that the State retains in both the
sublease with California Nuclear and with Nuclear Engineering.
For example, the State retains the right of approval over all
subleases.1° Also termination clauses similar to those in the
Prime Lease exist in the subleases.17 The State also retains
access to the premises for the protection of the health and
safety of the public, for taking readings or samples from, or
for servicing, maintaining or repairing, or replacing the
State's environmental monitoring devices, and for inspection
of the premises to determine if the company is complying with
the sublease18.
However, in both subleases the relevant company, "agreed
to assume all obligations and responsibilities" that the State
16sae Appendix X.
1°s•• state/cal and Stata/IiEOO lease, Article II(S).
17Sw Stata/cal Leaae and Stata/NiCO laaaa, Article IX
1°Saa Stata/Cal Laasa and Stata/NEOO leaaa articla VI
[13813-000VSL920650.2241 -7- 3116/°1

(1 ,
did in the Prime Lease.19 Although each company, thus US
Ecology, is liable for the obligations, the State retains its
liability. In addition, indemnification clauses exist in each
sublease identical to those in the Prime Lease.20 The State's
obligations are not extinguished by the subleases. The
subleases merely give the State a cause of action against us
Ecology as successor in interest to both companies. Both the
Prime Lease and the subleases provide for the continuing
obligation of the parties during the closure and post-closure
periods. Therefore, if there is any cleanup to be performed
at the US Ecology facility, the State is as lessor equally
liable for such cleanup. The State cannot avoid this
liability merely because the Permit attempts to hold the DOE
solely responsible.21
Additionally, in 1983, the WDOE became the administering
agent for the lease. As administering agent, they are aware
of the nature and extent of the perpetual maintenance account
and the site closure account. Although WDOE is asserting the
need for corrective action, they are ultimately responsible
19,gg: Stats/Cal Litasa and Stata/NECO lsasa Articla 11(2).
20fin Stats/Cal Lease and Stats/NECO lease, Article X(3).
----Zn14Fiouyh-US Ecaloyy itas -providt9-indemniftcation-ior certain
activities, this does not dissolve the State's responsibility.
[13613-0006/4L920650.224] - 8- 3/16/92

for overseeing corrective action pursuant to both law and the
sublease.
• Draft Permit and Fact Sheet re I.A.l.b., IV.A.2.,
31.59 Iv.P.4., and IV.P.4.a.
^.
The documents are totally unclear regarding who is
responsible for any activities under the Permit at the US
Ecology site. The documents are internally inconsistent
regarding whether the agencies have determined that the US
Ecology site is to be included at this time for purposes of
investigation or remediation.
Condition I.A.l.b. provides that the US Ecology facility,
because it is on land leased by the State of Washington, is,
either as a "Solid Waste Management Unit" or "area of
concern", subject only to the provisions of Part IV of the
Permit, as well as any references in Part IV to conditions in
other Parts. The Fact Sheet regarding this condition explains
that "(w)hile it is required that these units be investigated
for oast releases (under either the State or Federal program)
it is not the intent of this permit to set operating
conditions for those units," and therefore only Part IV
applies. (Emphasis added) Condition IV.A.2. provides that
"(t)hose Solid Waste Management Units on Table IV.1.
(including US Ecology) shall be subject to all provisions of
this section of the Permit." Condition VI.P.4 (sic) addresses
US Ecology specifically. The Fact Sheet explains that "(i)t
[13813-00aisL920ssox241 -9- uuiwi

^,-
has been determined that the US Ecology site is a SWMU
requiring investigation ." (Emphasis added) Condition
IV.P.4.a._ requires_the ° Permittees ° t9submit a"RCRA Facility
Investigation Work Plan" (RFI) for the US Ecology facility
within 90 days a written request by the agencies. The Fact
Sheet for this condition states: "It is the intent of the
regulatory agencies to have the US Ecology site remediated ."
(Emphasis added) The Fact Sheet discussion of Part IV
generally confirms that the agencies have already determined
"that there have been releases to environmental media from
past practices" for those units subject to Part IV which were
excluded from the FFACO; and that it is the "Permittees" who
are required to submit the RFI for each unit subject to Part
IV. Fact Sheet pp.33-4.
While it is clear that Part IV was intended to address
units requiring remediation that were not part of the FFACO,
it is not clear that US Ecology is one of them. The documents
reflect the agencies' uncertainty whether only further
investigation is required, or whether it is certain that
releases have occurred and remediation is necessary. (The PRC
Report, as discussed below, sheds no meaningful light on this
igsu¢

time periods of the effective date of the Permit. IV.P. It
If action under the Permit at the US Ecology site is
necessary, it is clear from the above-referenced conditions
that the Permittees are required to take such action. US
Ecology is not one of the three Permittees identified in the
'a definitional section and elsewhere throughout the Permit and
Fact Sheet.
rr<
;^_ • P.rmit Introductioa; Permit and Faot Sheet re IV.A.Z „
^.°.
cf,
31.60
Iv:A.i.b.-,-aad IV.P.4.a.
The US Ecology facility is the only unit in the Permit
where any remediation is to be conducted under the State of
Washington Model Toxics Control Act ( MTCA). Inclusion of US
Ecology to solely achieve this unlikely eventuality is misuse
by the agencies of the purpose and authority of the Permit .
The Introduction and the Permit throughout make clear
that the Permit is issued pursuant to the federal RCRA and
State Dangerous Waste Regulations authority. For those units
that were not part of the FFACO, Part IV of the Permit is the
sole mechanism for addressing investigation and remediation of
the units. IV.A.2. Condition IV.P.4.a., addressing solely US
Ecology, is one of the conditions jointly enforced by the two
agencies pursuant to only the RCRA and Dangerous Waste
authorities, respectively. Permit Introduction p.6. But
p3813-0oovsL920650.2241 -11- 3n6ft

ecause "Washington is not yet authorized to implement the
corrective action provisions of RCRA, therefore EPA is issuing
the corrective action portion of this RCRA permit." Public
Notice. Wholly unique to the US Ecology facility, the
agencies have made the following determination:
It is the intent of the regulatory agencies to
have the US Ecology site remediated. To
{;, accomplish this, however, Ecology intends to
address remediation of the site under the
authority of the Model Toxics Control Act
c^" (MTCA). Based upon the results of the remedial
investigation, a decision will be made on the
next phase of the work.
Fact Sheet re IV.P.4.a.
This is a tortured misapplication of this RCRA permit at
best. If MTCA cleanup at the US Ecology site is possible and
appropriate, WDOE can choose and attempt to apply such
authority-directly-outside this Permit.- This is especially
appropriate where for all other units that the Permit defines
as CERCLA Past Practice (CPP) units, the Permit specifically
exempts such units from inclusion in the Permit. Condition
IV.A.l.b. The Fact Sheet for this condition explains that
"CPP units are completely excluded from the terms of this
permit as they fall within the regulatory authority of the
CERCLA program as opposed to the RCRA program." If this is
true for the application of CERCLA, why should it also not be
the case for the ostensible application of MTCA to the US
p3913-0oous[9206so.2241 -12- a/1sN2
I i

31.61
Ecology facility? US Ecology should be exempt from inclusion
in this Permit by the same reasoning.
PRC Report.
The information contained in the PRC Report is derived
primarily from US Ecology, primarily its Part B Application
Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Where the PRC Report goes beyond
the Part B documents, it is inaccurate, speculative, and
unfounded.
(1) Page 1, section 1.0. Third Paragraph.
The PRC Report makes reference to the fact that EPA has
authority to require corrective action for release of
hazardous waste and constituents from SWNUs at RCRA-regulated
facilities.
The US Ecology facility is not a RCRA-regulated facility.
On October 24, 1980, US Ecology's predecessor, Nuclear
Engineering Company, Inc., sent a letter to the Administrator
of EPA first raising the very issues which are belatedly the
subject of this Permit. (Appendix A, Attachment 2-3) This
le*_ter -specific.-a11y--reguested-a-dialogue--with ,*.he Agoncy
regarding the fact that low-level radioactive waste disposal
sites licensed by the NRC be exempt from RCRA. Nuclear
Engineering requested a timely response from the Agency
[13613-0008/31A20610.2241 -13- 7/16/92

ecause of the then upcoming deadline to file a Part A
Application. The Agency never responded to this letter.
By letter dated November 18, 1980, Nuclear Engineering
filed Form 1, General Information as part of the Part A
process emphatically stating that it was the position of the
company that RCRA was never intended to regulate low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities and that the company was
not subject to EPA regulations under RCRA. (Appendix A,
Attachment 2-3) This filing was made solely to preclude the
commencement of any noncompliance enforcement action regarding
the receipt of scintillation vials at the Richland facility.
Once again, the EPA never responded to the company's specific
request to resolve the issue of EPA jurisdiction.
On April 30, 1985, EPA Region 10 requested that the
company file a RCRA Part B Application. By letter dated
October 29, 1985, (Appendix B) US Ecology submitted an
extensive Part B Application and Closure/Post-Closure Plans
for the facility. This letter indicates that the company has
repeatedly sought to resolve the issue of RCRA jurisdiction
and that the Agency consistently failed to respond. This
letter again makes it emphatically clear that the company was
submitting the Part B documents as a protective filing and was
not waiving its rights to withdraw the documents or to
challenge the application of RCRA. The Part B documents
(13e13a0011=920sw.xZ41 -14- 311e192
^ ^

.,. ^^
themselves are replete with numerous reservations and
nonwaivers with respect to RCRA jurisdiction. See, for
example, Section 4.0, paragraph 2 regarding low-level
radioactive waste "may be defined as RCRA hazardous;
Section 4.5.4 regarding closure of "the last RCRA disposal
unit, if it is so classified"; and Section 4.5.6 regarding
discussion of Inventory Removal as not applicable "since no
RCRA waste are stored at the facility." US Ecology's 1985
letter further states that effective October 28, 1985 "US
Ecology will no longer accept scintillation liquids containing
toluene, or xylene in any physical form for disposal at its
low-level radioactive waste facility in Richland, Washington"
until resolution of the RCRA issue. The extensive Part B
documentation was submitted to both EPA Region 10 and WDOE.
To the company's knowledge, the application was never
reviewed by Agency personnel, no comments were received, nor
was the application approved. When US Ecology personnel
attempted to discuss this application with the agencies in
1989, WDOE personnel generally responded that they were not
aware of what had happened regarding the application; EPA
personnel stated that the company should talk to WDOE.
(2) Page 8, sectioa 3,2.
The report correctly notes that low-level radioactive
waste has been buried in "unlined trenches." As discussed
113313a009isL920650.2241 -15- 3116M

-^-.
31.63
31.64
elsewhere in these comments, such unlined trenches are
appropriate for an NRC facility, but not for a RCRA one.
- -- (Sr)-- =raga$, $i6tion-3-:2-, - Last--PaYagraph.
The statement that Trench 13 is a proposed trench is
inaccurate. PRC has confused Trench 13 with Trench 12.
( 4) Page 9, eeotion 3.2, First Paragraph.
The PRC Report states that "there is susoicion that
uncontainerized liquid waste have also been disposed of in
`'`' this chemical trench." ( Emphasis added.) The basis for this
31.65
suspicion is purportedly that a former US Ecology employee
told DOE "staff" that past practices included the disposal of
uncontainerized waste. US Ecology has not been able to
confirm this "suspicion," questions whether any such
statements were ever made to DOE "staff," and submits that the
conclusion by PRC is unfounded and may be slandering.
(S) Page 9, 8eation 3.2, second Paragraph.
"US Ecology acknowledges receipt of scintillation
fluids," but never "the likelihood that hazardous or mixed
waste were disposed of in trenches prior to November 1985"
subject to RCRA jurisdiction. As discussed in (1) above, the
Part A was filed solely as a protective filing; the Part B was
filed solely because the Agency required US Ecology to do so.
(13217-00ML9206t0.2241 -16^ 3/16192

31.66
The PRC Report ignores the company's emphatic denials of the
applicability of RCRA to the low-level radioactive waste and
mischaracterizes the content of the various documents. See,
for example, US Ecology's ten-page discussion of scintillation
vials, Attachment B to the October 29, 1985 letter to EPA.
( 6) Page 9, 8ectioa 3.3.
PRC's "Regulatory History" is incomplete and inaccurate.
The history is incomplete in that it fails to include the fact
that both agencies failed to review and to respond to the
company's Part A and B applications in spite of follow-up
requests by the company to do so. This section is inaccurate
---- -- ------ ---in eeveral- respects.. - Firsr_, -as--disc'assed in 111 abova•, the
^
letter accompanying the Part A did not "express uncertainty"
regarding the applicability of RCRA; the company denied its
application and reserved its rights in spite of its having to
file. Secondly, US Ecology never sought interim status or
permitted status under the RCRA regime. US Ecology does not
consider that it "lost interim status" it never sought. It
"is not permitted to receive RCRA-regulated waste" because it
has never sought, except under compulsion, such permitted
status. Finally, PRC notably fails to recognize the failure
of the agencies to in any way respond to the documents filed
by US Ecology.
(13913-00ai3L920550=q -17- 3/16a1

31.67 (7) Page 11, 8ection 4.1, Third Paragraph.
As discussed in (4) above, the PRC Report reflects
uncertainty ( "may") regarding the disposal of uncontainerized
waste. In the final sentence, the Report expresses its own
__ _______ uncerrain*y ("may be RCRA hazardous waste") regarding the
_.--
[T:
6i 1
31.68
1 .
applicability of RCRA to the site's waste.
(8) Page 11, Section 4.1, Final Paragraph.
The PRC Report states that "(t)he chemical trench is
unlined and not covered with an impervious cap." The PRC
Report fails to include the fact that the chemical trench is
included in the Site Stabilization and Closure Plan submitted
to the Washington State Department of Health, Office of
Radiation Protection, on October 29, 1990 pursuant to US
Ecology's license with that agency. As discussed, the Closure
Plan includes a multi-layered cap, with both a synthetic and
low permeability cover, for the chemical trench as part of the
overall facility closure.
The PRC Report states that "(t)here are no documented
releases for this unit." This statement fails to specifically
recognize that the groundwater and other monitoring conducted
by US Ecology pursuant to its licenses with the NRC and State
Department of Health affirmatively demonstrates that there
have been no releases from the chemical trench. With respect
[13917d006I36920650.2241 -18^ 3116192

^•
to SwMU 1, the chemical trench, the agencies have failed to
show that there have been releases of substances requiring
remediation.
31.69 (9) Page 12, Section 4.2, First Paragraph.
The PRC Report correctly notes that the US Ecology Part B
Application "states that Trenches 1 through 11A all contain
minor amounts of randomly-placed low-level radioactive waste
r:r-, that may be defined as RCRA hazardous." ( Section 4.1; second
=a....
\
31.70
and third paragraphs.) That the chemicals "may be defined as
RCRA hazardous," repeated several times in the Closure Plan
portion of the Part B, must be read in context. As discussed,
the cover letter and the document as a whole repeatedly deny
the applicability of RCRA. Because the agency required US
Ecology to submit the Part B, the document, when referring to
the waste in question, accurately reflects that whether the
waste are indeed RCRA waste is a question still to be
determined; the use of the "may" reflects this fact.
(10) Page 12, Section 4.2, Last Paragraph.
'i'he PRC Report notes that the low-level radioactive waste
"trenches are unlined and are not covered with an impervious
cap" and "(t)here are no documented releases from these
units." Again, the PRC Report fails to include a discussion
of the details of the multi-layered cap in the Closure Plan
[138134)aan[,9206so.2241 -19- 7116M

=^
31.72
31.73
-submitted to the State Department of Health. Again, the PRC
Report fails to show that the monitoring pursuant to the
licenses at the facility demonstrates that there have been no
releases of substances from the trenches, rather than create
the inference that there is simply no documentation regarding
releases.
(11) Page 13, Section 4.3.
The PRC Report fails to include a discussion of the fact
that the underground tanks were closed in accordance with a
plan submitted to and approved by the State of Washington.
(12) Page 14, 8eation 4.4, Last Paragraph.
Contrary to the PRC statement, the oil tank is stored on
a rmed cement pad.
(13) Page 14, section 6.0, lirst Paragraph.
The PRC Report concludes: "Potential exposure pathways
for humans include inhalation and ingestion of contaminated
soil particles, dermal exposure to contaminated soils, and
inhalation of volatile organic compounds." With respect to
the chemical trench and the scintillation vial waste, this
conclusion is professionally irresponsible. The chemical
trench was closed in 1972; the facility ceased receiving
scintillation vials in 1985. As required by the low-level
^:xuaooust naw.uq -20- 3i:6/92

.• -. ^
radioactive waste regulations, all waste was immediately
buried to prevent worker exposure, and all waste have since
been covered with a layer of cobbles or site soils. It is
impossible to conclude that "inhalation is primary pathway of
concern."
The State of Washington's own Assessment of Risk
Associated with Oneration of the Hanford Commercial Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility , prepared by ICF
;^.. Incorporated June 30, 1987, does not support the PRC
c~; conclusion. Assessing all five pathways of potential risk,
that report concluded that there is a moderately likely-to-
occur risk from airborne contaminants if, and only if, "some
future waste shipment to the LLW disposal site would contain
--- -------- --- -----enough-f-lammable-or--exphsive materiai that an accident during
handling could cause an explosion of fire that could disperse
- - - _the--shipment:" -t-Section-3.2:3).- -The-iiKelihood of this
occurring "is strongly affected by the extent to which the
regulatory agencies inspect and enforce the rules," and is
lessened by the inspections performed by US Ecology personnel,
as well as by the on-site State inspector, on incoming
shipments. This scenario simply does not apply to the now
long-since deeply buried scintillation vials and chemical
waste.
(138IS-0OrnaL920sso.Mq -21- Lt6Ai

31 .74
( 15) Page 15, section 6.0, First Paragraph.
The PRC Report concludes: "The Hanford site is seeking a
RCRA permit to handle hazardous waste, and the US Ecology
facility, as part of the site, is therefore subject to
z,Ft, corrective action." This statement is wholly conclusory,
^r.
wrong, and does not comport with federal or state law.
f3'^
31.75
31.76
(16) Page 15, Section 6.0, Second Paragraph.
As discussed above, the PRC's conclusion that "(i)t is
likely that there have been environmental releases from SWMU 1
(chemical trench)" is speculative. All monitoring at the
site, including ground monitoring in five wells, demonstrates
that releases have not occurred. US Ecology has received
contradictory information from Joe Witzcak of WDOE regarding
his allegations set forth in the PRC report. Finally, the PRC
Report fails to address the results of the vadose zone
monitoring program being conducted.
(17) Page If,, section 6.0, First Paragraph.
The PRC's unsubstantiated conclusion that
"(e)nvironmental releases have potentially occurred from
SWMU 2" is meaningless.
113313-uoovs69106to.Yt4] -22- 7/16lY't

31.77
(18) Table 1 .
In light of the above discussion, words used by PRC
throughout this table, "could result" or "possible releases,"
reveal further the speculative and unsubstantiated nature of
the PRC report generally.
(139134001/3020650.2zq -23- 31161n

:J-11
r^s
<
,,; ^^^
Cy-.
[.^'i
___Ynr w r
M •
^Ia^M
YM^
•.ran
r..rr.. I
/
aW iu
•
NA
G!I
•rr•m
•r• r' l^•q N
W..
ARFAf
_ ^ •
^ , _..._.:_..r. ^ - - •4e^^ -
/ ^ ^•^
n . ^
-. r
AL
• r 3 T • r
aRs
^y NTNIIE
ONlRVATO[Y
• _
.^' ` N^^AI! \
_\
^
HANFORD SITE
Department of Energy
^-
Appendix D
ro ne.ra ^ ^^^^
r^-
VrrlryrtM Mr
7M AREA r.n • wrur
•ATTELLPS RICHEAND
IfSFARCH CQMn[7(
WASHINGTON
FOWER SUIRY SYSTEM
fORT OF R^VTON
1. A. )ONES
ROCKWELL HANFORD
OFERATIONS
Ce^uu srwes a
Tu^fp4^nor.
FEOERAL lUIEDING

^.;
APPENDIX E
I. Perpetual A"aint-vnanca Fund Regarding the Ds B6ology
31.78 Facility Site
The 1965 Session Laws for Washington State amended RCW
43.31 to give the director of Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, through the Office of Nuclear Energy
Development, certain powers and duties relating to nuclear
wT° energy. The director became responsible for the perpetual
surveillance and/or maintenance of radioactive materials held
for waste management purposes at any publicly or privately
owned facility located within the state. This function is
currently being implemented by the Washington Department of
Ecology.
In order to finance this responsibility, the director was
given the power to collect fees from public or private parties
holding radioactive materials for waste management purposes.
He could collect a total of not less than five cents, nor more
than fifty cents, per cubic foot of space occupied by
materials held, stored or buried. All fees were transmitted
to the State treasurer who placed the money in an account
labeled "perpetual maintenance fund." This fund was to be
used exclusively for surveillance and maintenance costs at
waste management facilities.
(13813-0009/3L920610.004] 3/16/92

-.
^..
The director was also given the authority to enter into
agreements with the federal government to assume perpetual
surveillance and/or maintenance of lands leased or purchased
from the federal government and used as a burial or storage
site for radioactive wastes.l In July of 1965, the State,
pursuant to this authority, and the Commission entered into a
perpetual care agreement, where the State assumed perpetual
care of the present US Ecology facility site ("Site").2
The State agreed to deposit annually during the term of
ir- the sublease with California Nuclear, or any successor
1 :
sublessee, $2,000 or 5 cents for each cubic foot of
radioactive waste stored or buried, whichever is greater. The
deposits were placed with the State Treasurer, who placed the
money in the Perpetual Maintenance Fund described above. The
fund was earmarked exclusively for defraying the costs of
insuring perpetual maintenance and surveillance of the Site.
If at any time the Commission or the State decided that the
fund is not sufficient, or that a surplus of funds exist, the
Commission or the State may request an increase or decrease
1With regard to the present US Hcology facility, in the 1964 lease
between the $nergy Cosmission and the State of Washington the State agreed
to return the leased premises to the government with radioactive
contamination reduced to a level satisfactory to the Comsission, except
land or facilities over which the State agrees to assume perpetual care
under agreement with the Commission.
2see Perpetual Care dated July 29, 1965.
(13l13-OOOVSL920610.00l1 -2- 3/16/92

espectively, in the State's annual deposit. A review of the
adequacy of the fund is required to be made at the expiration
of the lease between the State and the Commission. The
Commission and the State must mutually approve any
disbursement from the fund.
Upon expiration or termination of the lease between the
` Commission and the State, the Perpetual Maintenance Fund will
czi
.,.
^,.
^
be transferred to the Government for deposit in a trust fund
of the United States Treasury to be used exclusively for
surveillance and maintenance of the Site. The Commission, in
lieu of requiring the transfer, may elect to sell the State
the land. If the land is sold to the State, the perpetual
maintenance agreement will be terminated.3
In the 1965 sublease between the State and California
Nuclear Inc., California Nuclear agreed to undertake all
surveillance and maintenance as required by applicable laws.•
If at any time California Nuclear defaults or fails to comply
with the terms of its licenses, or withdraws from the
_nremiaea,_the_State_must-&ssuma_-suryeitlanca and maintenance
obligations and pay surveillance and maintenance costs.
3Prasumably, the RCW would still raquira the maintananca of the fund.
4saa laasa between California Nuclear, Inc. and the stata of
Waahinqton.
1139134009/sc920610.0081 -3- 3116/92

California Nuclear agreed to pay to the State $2,000
annually during the sublease and five cents for each cubic
foot of radioactive waste in excess of forty thousand feet of
waste stored or buried annually. The State had the option of
raising this amount to fifty cents as necessary. In order to
-a$eur-e that Punrls would be readily available and
unencumbered, California Nuclear, prior to commencement of
burial or storage operations, deposited twenty thousand
F=°j dollars in escrow as collateral for the annual minimum
^ payments.
s^-
In the February 26, 1976 sublease between the State and
Nuclear Engineering Company, the company again agreed to
undertake all surveillance and maintenance as required by law,
regulation or licenses.5 With the sole exception of the
amounts required, the provisions were unchanged from the 1965
sublease. Nuclear Engineering agreed to pay eight cents for
each cubic foot of radioactive materials and wastes buried or
stored. The company also agreed to deposit an amount equal to
that due for fifty thousand cubic feet of material every
January first, to be used as a credit against their
obligations.6 The 1980 amendments to the sublease between the
asN laaae betwNn the State of Washington and California Nuclear.
asubaaquently the Commis•ion and the atata amrndad the Parpatual Cara
Aqreement on July 22, 1976. The Stata must dapoait annually a sum of monay
p3813-0008/3L920610.00{] -4- 3/16/92
I

ZD
State and Nuclear Engineering Company raised the amount
payable to twenty five cents per cubic foot, with a deposit
for 100,000 cubic feet of material due each January 1.7
-The-1982 -subleaae-amendment-further raised the rates to
one dollar and seventy five cents for each cubic foot of
materials or waste buried or stored.e When the amount
collected reached six million dollars or the Northwest
1=
2 Interstate Compact of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management
was formally ratified by Congress, the State was required
adjusted the rate to reflect the prevailing rate at other
sites across the nation.9 Within two months of the fee
adjustment, the State and US Ecology were required to conduct
a joint technical study to reevaluate the then existing site
conditions as they related to the adequacy of the perpetual
care and maintenance account. The account, as of January
1992, contained $18.6 million. No money has been withdrawn
from this account.
equal to the not amount receivad by the Stata from the aublaaaea during the
year.
7SN Sublease Amendments dated 1980.
BSae Sublaaaa Amendments dated 1982.
sTiii^
L-I l- 1ft0•
..^^ -Lea^i1.^Y
i.l 1JV7.
113813a00uacsa0s10.0041 ' -5- 3116192

31.79 iI. Site Closure Account
The 1982 sublease amendments also provided for a closure
fee to be deposited in a segregated account in the Perpetual
Maintenance Fund. These fees are to be used for paying all
reasonable costs of closure after the termination of waste
disposal activities as required under the facility license and
_ Article X of the sublease. The Company agreed to pay, on a
quarterly basis, twenty five cents per cubic foot of
^• radioactive materials and waste permanently stored or buried
^•s
at the low-level radioactive waste facility. The payments
were to continue until the effective date of the exclusionary
provisions of the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Management is formally ratified by Congress
or the balance of the account reaches one million dollars. At
this point the parties will conduct a joint technical study to
determine whether additional closure fees are required.
Although technical meetings have been held between US Ecology
and the State, this study has not been completed.
In the event that the Company performs closure activities
at the facility after the termination of waste disposal
activities, the State warranted that the Company will be
reimbursed, plus a reasonable profit, from the monies
collected for closure. The State, after satisfactory
performance of closure by the Company or any other entity,
p3e134oovsL920610.0061 -6- 3i16192

must transfer any unexpended monies from the closure account
to the perpetual maintenance account. By January 30, 1982,
the company posted a surety bond of five hundred thousand
dollars, effective for a period of one year, payable to the
State should the company leave the site without accomplishing
the closure conditions of the license. On January 30, 1983
the company posted a surety bond for one year in an amount
which represented the difference between five hundred thousand
dollars and the present balance of the closure account.
In 1989 a new RCW section was added to ensure site
closure under the amendments to the sublease. The provision
provides for two accounts under the perpetual maintenance
fund, the site closure account and the perpetual maintenance
account. The site closure account is exclusively available to
reimburse the site operator for its closure costs plus a
reasonable profit. If a balance remains after closure, it
will be transferred to the perpetual maintenance account.
State of Washington Substitute House Bill 2956, which was
signed into law on March 13, 1990, allowed the Department of
Ecology to transmit a $10.00 per cubic foot surcharge into the
closure fund. The balance in this account as of September 30,
1990 was $4,646,837.19. Due to the surcharge, this number
increased to approximately $10.4 million by January 1992. No
money has been withdrawn from this account.
[13813000W3L920610.008] -7- 3116/92

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

l,nited States
Region 10
Environmentaa Protection 1200 Sixth Avenu^
Agency
Seattle WA 98101
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: HW-106
Narda Pierce
Assistant Director
for Waste Management
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
32.0
Re: EPA/Ecology ID No. WA7 89000 8967
Dear Ms. Pierce:
March 16, 1992
With this letter the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is conveying the concerns and comments which have resulted
from our review and further consideration of the draft Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit for Hanford. The
enclosure accompanying this letter details EPA's comments. In
addition, we have scheduled a meeting for our respective staff
--- embers -- co revlew the enaiv5ed comments cmmcn^^ on Tuesday, March 17.
EPA!-s comments are beina provided in accordance with
40 C.F.R. g 271.19, which sets a formal mechanism for EPA comment
on state permits issued pursuant to the authorized RCRA program.
Although the-state's-phssed -permitting approach did not
require the completion of a Part B application for the Hazardous
Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) prior to permit issuance, EPA
initially agreed to support the state's novel approach for phased
permitting. Subsequent legal considerations caused EPA to
reconsider this approach. At the time of draft permit public
notice, EPA chose not to issue the 40 C.F.R. Part 264 Subpart X
permit for which EPA currently retains regulatory authority. As
a result, the draft permit for HWVP is a "state-only" permit and
was not issued pursuant to RCRA.

The regulatory status of HWVP has been a mutual concern of
our agencies. Allowing HWVP construction to legally start in
••^ A^-r-- 9i I-e-92 has long been a recognized milestone on the critical
-- -
path to the December 1999 operational start date established by
the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Compliance Order
(FFACO). EPA believes that HWVP can qualify as a new unit under
interim status, in accordance with state authority under WAC 173-
303-805(7)(a)(iii) and (b)(v). Ecology is authorized to grant
interim status in these circumstances. Thus, Ecology has the
discretion to allow facilities to add process units under interim
status if such change is necessary to comply with a federal
corrective action order or other state or federal authority (such
4XI
'1;
as the terms of the FFACO).
regulatory "reconstruction"
Such
limit
changes are not restricted to
found at WAC 173-303-805(7)(b),
when limited to units necessary to address onsite releases.
Under interim status, DOE could begin site preparation
activities during April 1992. EPA and Ecology could then focus
on the technical review of DOE's HWVP Part B application. It is
unlikely that DOE's near term construction activities, which
involve site preparation and construction of housing for the
units, will progress beyond the ability to retrofit should
unanticipated changes be identified in subsequent designs.
The existing regulations should provide EPA and Ecology
adequate control over HWVP development and permitting. As a
further oversight tool, Ecology may consider the option of a
compliance order with DOE to clearly define the schedules and
expectations for progress on the HWVP Part B application.
On a final note, I believe the agencies should reconsider
the permit schedule which currently allows only two weeks for
consideration of comments, preparation'of written response, and
resultant modification to the permit prior to issuance. With the
-- ---- -foregoing changes to thereaulatory status of HWVP, the agencies
could allow additional time for consideration of comments and to
make any necessary permit revisions.
We are looking forward to working closely with you and your
staff-to finalize the-Hanford Faeilaty DangerousWaste Permit

3
If Ecology staff or attorneys would like clarification or further
discussion of the enclosed comments, please direct them to Carrie
Sikorski, of the RCRA Permit Section at (206) 553-2851, or Dean
Ingemansen of EPA's Office of Regional Counsel at (206) 553-1744.
Sincerely,
4vA S rector
Hazardous Waste Division
cc: R. Izaat, DOE-RL
C. Clark, DOE-RL
S, Wisness, DOE-RL
S. Price, Westinghouse Corporation
H. Tilden, Battelle Pacific Northwest
D. Jansen, Ecology
J. Manning, Washington State Attorney
Laboratories
General's Office

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

0
Comments Regarding
January 1^, 1992, Draft Permit
for
The Hanford Facility
-^,
32_1
1. The draft permit currently includes both Westinghouse
Corporation (WHC) and Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) as
co-permittees. The fact sheet states that WHC and PNL are to
be responsible only for the areas that they operate on a dayto-day
basis. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order (FFACO) does not provide for inclusion of
contractors as permittees (see Article II), and therefore
contractors would not be subject to its provisions for
document review, dispute resolution, etc., while Department of
Energy (DOE) would be. The different treatment of DOE and the
Lotsrtractor/operators needs to be reconciled. The fact sheet
does not provide the legal rationale for including multiple
Cy'z operators as co-permittees.
t^J 2. The Permit Condition Authority table found on page 6 of the
draft permit is not currently complete or entirely accurate.
32.2 In addition, several citations regarding Agency enforcement of
the permit found in the introductory language of the permit
need to be revised. EPA will prepare these revisions prior to
issuance of the final permit.
Part I - Standard Conditions
3. Although the Fact Sheet indicates that all units not included
at this time in this permit will continue to operate under
interim status, permit condition I.A.1.a specifies that any
32.3 treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous waste by the
Permittees that is --not- authorized by WAC 173-303 or this
permit is prohibited.
Either permit condition I.A.l.a or the introduction needs to
clarify that the requirements of this permit are not
applicable to units and operations that are subject to interim
status requirements under WAC 173-303, and that the issuance
of this permit does not affect the status of these units. For
inspection and enforcement purposes, a list of units operating
under interim status should be prepared and maintained up-todate
in both Ecology, EPA and DOE records.
4. Permit condition I.C.3.a requires that all Class I permit
modifications which do not require prior approval shall be
performed as Class 3 permit modifications. This permit
32.4 condition should be revised to require compliance with the
permit modification procedures found at WAC 173-303-830(4)
and/or 40 C.F.R. § 270.42.

S. The last half of permit condition I.D.2, beginning "... unless
the Director and the Administrator determine ...", should be
deleted. 40 C.F.R. § 124.16 requires that all non-severable
32.5 conditions also be stayed in the event of an appeal of certain
permit conditions. "Technologically incompatible" conditions
would fall within the realm of non-severable conditions.
32.6
6. Permit condition I.E.3 should be revised to require that the
permittee submit a new permit application at least 180
calendar days prior to the expiration date of this permit.
32,7
;`z=
;-r-;
Permit condition I.E.8 requires that the permittees furnish
information "within a reasonable time". This appears to be in
conflict with the definition of "reasonable time" found on
page 11 of the draft permit, which is intended to define this
term as it applies to site access for inspection purposes.
zr..
c7^ Part II - General Facility Conditions
8. The majority of the permit conditions contained in Section II
of the permit are designated as State-only conditions of the
draft permit. These conditions require submittal of and
.8 compliance with certain site-wide plans. It is understood by
EPA that these conditions are based on state authorities which
exist independently from the delegated RCRA permitting
program. EPA believes such conditions are broader in scope
than the delegated RCRA program, as they have been applied to
activities of the facility which do not have interim status
and are not subject to final permitting standards.
Some conditions also require submittal of information which is
typically provided in permit applications. RCRA provides
authority for inclusion of compliance schedules for physical
modification of the facility to meet more stringent permitting
standards, and for corrective action. This authority does not
normally extend to. submittal of information required in the
permit application.
EPA has also noted that the federal portion of the permit
(i.e., Part IV) is currently lacking the standard conditions
which are required in all permits pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S
--- ---- ---- 27-0:30-^ --This-o°Eurred-- as a-r@aL`l-tOf--EGo-logy'.G adaptatinn of
the standard conditions to site-wide conditions and the status
of those conditions as "state-only". To add standard
conditions that support the federal corrective action permit
conditions the permit would either have to add a full set of
standard conditions that are independent from the site-wide
conditions or issue a separate permit for federal permit
conditions.

1]
9. The permit must be revised to clarify that the site-wide
permit conditions shall not apply to units and operations that
32 9 are subject to permitting or interim status requirements
except for the 616 Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Storage
Facility (616) and the 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins (183-H).
Final administrative disposition of permit applications for
units other than 616 and 183-H is not being taken at this
time.
10. Procedures for determination of "best efforts" under permit
condition II.T should be clarified. As this permit condition
incorporates Paragraph 106 of the FFACO, it is unclear whether
32.10 the procedures of that paragraph or the procedures of
Definition "c" (p. 9 of the permit) are to be used to obtain
off-site access agreements. Note that permit condition IV.B.2
!-^ also specifies that Paragraph 106 of the FFACO shall be used
rr: to obtain off-site access agreements.
r•^r°:
Part III - IInit specific Conditions
11. EPA has determined that, at a minimum, all permit conditions
included in chapters 1 and 2 of Part III of the draft permit,
"616 Non-Radioactive Dangerous Waste Storage Facility" and
32.11 "183-H Solar Evaporation Basin", are necessary to implement
approved State program requirements. As provided in 40 C.F.R.
S 271.19, EPA may take action under Section 3008 (a) (3) of RCRA
against the Permittees, as provided in the FFACO, in the case
of a violation of a State program requirement or the
conditions of this permit.
Part IV - Corrective Action for Past Practices
12. Article IV of the FFACO, paragraphs 15-20, sets out the
authorities to be used to conduct corrective actions at the
---------- ----- Hanford facility. Waste management units at Hanford have been
32.12 classified as either TSD units subject to Chapter 70.105 RCW
or past practice units subject to either CERCLA or the
corrective action provisions of RCRA.
_In_addition; the-Action Plan portion of the FFACO states that
until Ecology is authorized to administer the RCRA corrective
action program, corrective action will be administered and
imposed by EPA. The imposition of separate "state-only"
corrective action requirements is inconsistent with the FFACO.

In reconsidering the draft permit conditions during the public
comment period, EPA has determined that the need for revision
of the corrective action portion may be extensive. Given the
significance of the anticipated changes, the corrective action
section of the permit may have to be reproposed and
resubjected to a 45-day comment period.