View Document Here - Hanford Site

^
Appendix J- Applicable or Relevant and •• • DoFlRIr20o 1-1 t•` •••'
Appropriate Requirements ... Rev.A I nralt 6A •
Redline/Strikeout
;•..Location-specific requirements are restrictions placed on the concentration of dangcrous :substances
or the conduct of activities solely because they occur in special geographic areas.
The information presented In this appendix contains asumman• discussion of how each remedial
alternative evaluated for the 221-U Facility will comply with key ARARs/TBCs. I)etailed Mists
of potential federal and state ARARs/TBCs are presented in Tables J-1 and J-2, respectively.
Because the No Action alternative does not
no associated ARARs or TBCs-+efawaatiet
natbeen provided for this alternative .
J.2 STANDARDS FOR SOIL CLEANUP AND GROUNDWATER
AND RIVER PROTECTION
The
Nashingrox Admixislratfve Code (WAC) 173-340 e+xl-establishes cleanup standards (including
cleanup levels and points of compliance) for nonradioactive contaminants in soil and
groundwater. In setting standards, AtTVA-WAC 173-340 prescribes a methodology for
calculating cleanup levels based on potential land use and exposure assumptions. In addition,
?.t FF,L WAC 173-340 specifies that soil and groundwater cleanup must be accomplished so that
other interconnected media, such as adjacent surface waters, are protected. For a containment
alternative, AIT4'-A WAC 173-340 acknowledges that numeric cleanup levels uill not be
attainedaMAGI be-- mo but that reliance on controls (e.g., barriers, groundwater monitoring, and
institutional controls) will be used to preclude contact above the numeric cleanup levels and
minimize the migration of hazardous substances.
'It is assumed that all waste
management facilities will be closed after a period of 50 ycars arid the 200 Areas will be
restricted to public entry for an additiona1100 years by enforcement of effective institutional
controls. After that time, although institutional controls would still exist, it is presumed that an
intruder could obtain access to the area and establish a residence, although the presence of
effective barriers would prevent access to contaminated materials.
It is assumed that Aafter the cessation of waste management operations, remediation goals for
radioactive wastes and radioactively contaminated soils for human receptors «•illaFo eensidei-ei
to be based on the EPA radionuclide soil cleanup guidance. The EPA has not promulgated
regulations on radioactive soil contamination. However, it has been stated in a directive (EPA
1999) that at CERCLA sites, a 10 to 10'6 incremental cancer risk range must be achieved for
radionuclides to be considered protective of human health and the environment in lieu of less
stringent standards promulgated by the NRC at 10 CFR 20 Subpart E. At
1 lanford. a 15 mrem/yr dose above background (generally representing a risk level of
Final Fearibiliry Srrrdyfor the Canyon Dfspoairion InlrlarHe (221-UFaeNiry)
94ptOR11urNO I September_ZM2 J-2