I. Introduction

I.A. Background: Section 120 of CERCLA

Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Public Law 96-510), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. The primary goal of the Act is to encourage the identification and remediation of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Public Law 99-499), which amended CERCLA in 1986, added certain specific provisions applicable to the cleanup of contaminated sites at Federal facilities. These provisions, located in Section 120 of CERCLA, are briefly described below.

Under Section 120(a)(1), CERCLA specifies that Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities must comply with CERCLA in the same manner and to the same extent as nongovernmental entities. Except for requirements applicable to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility, all guidelines, rules, regulations and criteria applicable to preliminary assessments (PAs), National Contingency Plan (NCP) evaluations, inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL), and the conduct of remedial action are applicable to contaminated sites at Federal facilities (Sections 120(a)(2),(3),(4)).

Even before the passage of SARA, Federal agencies were required to identify sites where hazardous waste was treated, stored, or disposed of at any time. SARA added Section 120(b), which requires Federal agencies to also identify contamination affecting contiguous or adjacent property and any monitoring data associated with this contamination.

Section 120(c) of CERCLA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compile information about contaminated sites at Federal facilities and to enter the information into the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (the docket). The docket must also include information about Federal facilities where hazardous wastes are generated and managed under Sections 3005 and 3010 of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), even if these facilities are not contaminated.

To compile the docket, each Federal Agency, including DOE, notifies EPA of hazardous waste activity under:

• CERCLA Section 103 (notification of a release or potential release);

• RCRA Section 3005 (permitting authority);

• RCRA Section 3010 (notification of hazardous waste activity for generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities); and

• RCRA Section 3016 (biennial inventory of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities).

Certain Federal facilities that conduct hazardous waste activities under these sections of CERCLA and RCRA are, however, exempt from docket listing. These facilities include small quantity generators of hazardous waste (generators of less than 1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste) and facilities that notify EPA of hazardous waste activity under Section 3010 of RCRA only because they are transporters of hazardous waste.

Information submitted to EPA under the above requirements is entered into several EPA databases. EPA extracts the information from the databases to compile a proposed update to the docket that is provided to Federal agencies, including DOE. DOE reviews the proposed docket update and provides formal comments to EPA headquarters.

A facility is listed on the docket with a code that relates to the facility's NPL status. The NPL is EPA's list of the most serious or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term remedial action under CERCLA. Sites are placed on the NPL if they receive a threshold score from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. Docket status codes and their meanings are as follows:

EPA assigns the N code, which denotes Site Evaluation Accomplished, to facilities that are not likely to be placed on the NPL and where no further involvement by EPA in site assessment or cleanup is anticipated. (DOE may, however, perform additional response actions at the Site Evaluation Accomplished facilities.)

Section 120(d) of CERCLA requires Federal agencies to conduct a PA of facilities listed on the docket within 18 months after docket listing. If the PA indicates a need for further investigation, the responsible agency must conduct a site investigation (SI). Based on information developed in the PA or Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI), EPA must determine if: 1) no further remedial action is necessary at this time; or 2) further evaluation and possible inclusion on the NPL are warranted.

Section 120(e) of CERCLA requires Federal agencies that own or operate facilities on the NPL to begin a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for these facilities not later than 6 months after being placed on the NPL. EPA must review the results of each Federal facility RI/FS. Within 180 days after the completion of EPA's review, Federal agencies must enter into interagency agreements (IAGs) with EPA for expeditious completion of remedial action at the facility. The contents of IAGs must include:

• A review of alternative remedial actions and selection of a remedial action,
• A schedule for the completion of the remedial action, and
• Arrangements for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility.

Remedial action must begin not later than 15 months after the completion of a RI/FS and must be completed "as expeditiously as practicable." To ensure that adequate funds are appropriated to perform cleanup, Federal agencies must include a statement of the hazards posed to human health, welfare, and the environment by each facility on the NPL. Also, specific consequences of failure to begin and complete remedial action must be identified and included in annual budget submissions to Congress.

I.B. CERCLA Section 120(e)(5): Annual Report to Congress

Under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, each department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government responsible for compliance with Section 120 must submit an annual report to Congress concerning its progress in implementing the requirements of Section 120. The report must include information on at least the following items:

• Progress in reaching IAGs under CERCLA Section 120,

• Specific cost estimates and budgetary proposals involved in each IAG,

• A brief summary of the public comments regarding each proposed IAG,

• A description of the instances in which no IAG was reached,

• Progress in conducting RI/FSs,

• Progress in conducting remedial actions,

• Progress in conducting remedial actions at facilities which are not on the NPL,

• An explanation of any failure to conclude an IAG within 180 days after EPA review, and

• A detailed description on a state-by-state basis of the status of each facility subject to CERCLA Section 120, including a description of the hazards presented by each facility, plans and schedules for initiating and completing response actions, enforcement status (where appropriate), and an explanation of any postponements or failure to complete response actions.

This report is being submitted to Congress in accordance with Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA. It is the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Ninth Annual Report to Congress under Section 120(e)(5) and provides information on DOE's progress in implementing CERCLA Section 120 in Fiscal Year 1995 (FY 95), i.e., from October 1, 1994, to September 30, 1995.

I.C. Overview of DOE Facilities Subject to CERCLA Section 120

Figure I-1 shows the location of DOE facilities subject to CERCLA Section 120. These facilities are listed on Table I-1 , by state. The table also shows the status of each facility as listed on the docket, the type of contamination present, and the current status of remediation at each facility.

There are 99 DOE facilities subject to CERCLA 120 shown on Table I-1. Six of these facilities were removed from the docket in FY 95 because they are no longer subject to Section 120 of CERCLA (West Valley Demonstration Project, New York; Lapine (BPA), Oregon; Cosmopolis (BPA), Maple Valley Substation (BPA), Monroe (BPA), and Snow King Substation (BPA), Washington). These facilities are included on the table as a courtesy in this report, even though they are no longer subject to Section 120 of CERCLA. They will not be included in subsequent reports.

The table includes one facility, the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, for which DOE is not listed as the responsible Federal Agency on the April 1995 updated docket. DOE believes this to be an error and therefore has included the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center on the table. Previous docket updates correctly listed the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center as a DOE facility.

The table does not include the United States Enrichment Corporation, a wholly owned U.S. government corporation created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Corporation performs hazardous waste activities under contract to DOE as an operator of DOE's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Kentucky) and Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment Complex (Ohio). EPA included the United States Enrichment Corporation on the docket in the State of Ohio and identified DOE as the Federal agency responsible for the United States Enrichment Corporation in the most recent docket update. However, DOE believes the docket listing to be incorrect because the DOE-owned facilities where United States Enrichment Corporation generates hazardous waste as a site operator, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Kentucky) and the Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment Complex (Ohio), are already listed on the docket.

DOE also believes that the April 1995 docket listing for DOE's Carlsbad Area Office in Carlsbad, New Mexico is an error and has not included the Carlsbad Area office on Table I-1. The Carlsbad Area office administers DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is already on the docket.

Two of the facilities on Table I-1, the St. Louis Site in Missouri and the Monticello Vicinity Properties, are privately owned; thus, they are not included on the docket. DOE, however, is responsible for cleanup of these sites as established by Congressional mandate. Both of these facilities are listed on the NPL.

Two DOE facilities are listed differently on Table I-1 than by EPA on the docket.

• Ostrander Substation (BPA) (Oregon) on Table I-1 is listed on the docket as Oregon City (BPA). DOE has notified EPA of the correct name of this facility.

• EPA listed Sandia National Laboratory/Nevada (Tonopah) on the docket on April 11, 1995. DOE has informed EPA that this facility is the Tonopah Test Range (Nevada) and is already on the docket.

Twenty-three of the facilities on Table I-1 are on the NPL. However, DOE's Hanford facility, which is listed once on the docket, has four NPL entries. Each NPL entry covers a discrete contaminated area (i.e., areas 100, 200, 300, and 1100).

No DOE facility is currently proposed for the NPL, and no DOE facility has been removed from the NPL.

In an August 1995 memorandum, EPA advised its regional offices that Federal facilities are not listed on the NPL on a fenceline-to-fenceline basis. Only the contaminated areas are considered Superfund sites by EPA, even if the name of the site implies that it covers the entire facility. Future NPL rulemaking notices will contain revised language clarifying this point.

I.D. Contents of the Balance of This Report

This report presents information on contaminated sites at DOE facilities that were placed on the NPL as of September 1995, and on facilities on the docket as of April 11, 1995 (Docket Number 9). These versions of the NPL and docket were the last versions published before FY 95 ended. Information on DOE sites and facilities placed on the NPL or docket after FY 95 ended will be included in subsequent CERCLA reports to Congress. In this section of the report and in subsequent sections, the words "site" and "facility" are used interchangeably.

This report does not contain information on DOE remedial activities at sites that have not been placed on the docket and thus are not subject to the requirements of Section 120 of CERCLA. These sites may include 1) NPL sites that are not owned by DOE (such as the Maxey Flats Disposal Site in Kentucky, where DOE has been named as a Potentially Responsible Party), 2) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) project sites, 3) sites in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), and 4) non-DOE sites that became contaminated as a result of nuclear research and development activities sponsored by DOE and its precursors.

Section II describes DOE's CERCLA compliance strategy and identifies the:

• DOE organizations responsible for CERCLA compliance,
• Legal context for DOE's remediation activities,
• Causes of environmental contamination at DOE facilities,
• DOE approach to environmental restoration, and
• DOE activities related to CERCLA 120 compliance.

Environmental Management (EM) activities related to CERCLA 120 include DOE's production of the Baseline Environmental Management Report, Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and Site Treatment Plans under the Federal Facility Compliance Act, as well as DOE's participation on the Federal Facilities Environmental Dialogue Committee. CERCLA compliance activities performed by the Western Area Power Administration, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, Bonneville Power Administration, and the Morgantown Energy Technology Center are also described in this section.

Section III provides a discussion of DOE's overall progress in reaching IAGs and responding to public comments regarding proposed IAGs. It also identifies instances where no IAG has been concluded. Section III further provides highlights on progress in conducting RI/FSs, remedial actions, and response activities at NPL sites, and in performing cleanup activities at sites not on the NPL.

Section IV provides a detailed description of the status of each NPL facility subject to CERCLA Section 120 on a state-by-state basis. Included in this section is a description of the hazards presented, plans and schedules for initiating and completing response actions, enforcement status (where appropriate), and an explanation of any postponements or failure to complete response action. This section identifies DOE's FY 95 funding, appropriated FY 96 funding, and funding requested in the President's Budget for FY 97 for environmental restoration at each NPL facility.

Section V provides a description of the remediation status of non-NPL facilities (by state) subject to CERCLA Section 120 where 1995 CERCLA funding was more than $1 million.

Appendix A is a list of the acronyms and abbreviations used in this report.

Appendix B is an alphabetical listing of the facilities discussed in this report by facility name showing the pages in the report on which their primary information is discussed.