II. DOE CERCLA Compliance Strategy

II.A. DOE Organizations Responsible for CERCLA Compliance

This report was prepared by DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) within the Office of Environmental Management (EM). EM was created in 1989 to consolidate responsibility within DOE for environmental management activities at the nuclear weapons complex sites. Additional EM functions related to environmental restoration at the nuclear weapons complex sites include 1) ensuring worker safety and health, 2) managing and planning budgets, 3) resolving legal and compliance issues, 4) implementing public participation programs, 5) safely transporting all DOE materials, and 6) minimizing waste generated.

Within the EM organization, the following offices play an important role in CERCLA compliance activities:

• The Office of Waste Management (EM-30) is responsible for the treatment, storage, and disposal of large volumes of wastes generated by environmental restoration activities.

• The Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) is responsible for the cleanup of contamination at DOE nuclear weapons sites and for facility decommissioning.

• The Office of Technology Development (EM-50) is responsible for the development of new and more effective technologies to address contamination and management of wastes at DOE sites.

• The Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60) is responsible for the safe transition of facilities for decommissioning by the office of Environmental Restoration.

This report also covers CERCLA compliance activities at sites that are not in the nuclear weapons complex. Information on these sites was provided by the following DOE organizations:

• Bonneville Power Administration,
• Western Area Power Administration,
• Office of Energy Research,
• Morgantown Energy Technology Center, and
• Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center.

These DOE organizations are responsible for CERCLA compliance at the sites they own and operate.

DOE's Office of Policy and Assistance (EH-41) within DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) assists all DOE organizations with CERCLA compliance activities. The mission of the EH-41 organization is to 1) develop Department-wide environmental protection policies and complex-wide strategies for protecting the public and the environment and for attaining and maintaining environmental compliance with internal and external environmental requirements, and 2) assist program and field offices in averting environmental compliance problems. In addition, EH-41 serves as the CERCLA Docket Coordinator. The Coordinator receives the EPA's initial letter of proposed listings to the docket and NPL, and is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the proposed listings with the Program and Field Officer in a formal response to EPA.

II.B. Legal Context for DOE's Remediation Activities

DOE's remediation activities are governed by CERCLA, RCRA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws. CERCLA addresses the uncontrolled releases of substances to the environment and the cleanup of inactive waste sites. RCRA addresses the management of regulated hazardous waste and requires that permits be obtained for DOE facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous or mixed waste. RCRA also requires corrective action to address releases of hazardous contaminants. NEPA requires that Federal agencies consider the environmental effects of major Federal actions significantly affecting the human environment in the decisionmaking process. It is the Department's policy to rely on the CERCLA process for review of actions to be taken under CERCLA and to incorporate, to the extent practicable, NEPA values such as analysis of cumulative, offsite, ecological, and socioeconomic impacts into CERCLA documentation. The Department may, however, after consulting with its stakeholders and as a matter of policy, integrate the CERCLA and NEPA processes for specific proposed actions. It is also part of the Department's policy to take steps to ensure opportunities for early public involvement in the CERCLA process.

II.C. Environmental Contamination at DOE Facilities

The CERCLA Annual Report encompasses the following DOE facilities:

• Facilities in the nuclear weapons complex (i.e., production facilities, laboratories, and testing facilities);

• Electrical substations and electrical substation support facilities;

• Energy research and development laboratories; and

• Facilities involved in research and testing activities associated with alternative energy technologies.

The Office of Environmental Restoration is responsible for the cleanup of facilities in the nuclear weapons complex. Figure II-1 shows the locations of DOE facilities subject to CERCLA Section 120 that are in the nuclear weapons complex.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) are responsible for the DOE electrical substations and electrical substation support facilities that are subject to CERCLA Section 120. The Office of Energy Research is responsible for energy research and development laboratories subject to CERCLA 120. The Morgantown Energy Technology Center and the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center are responsible for the DOE alternative energy technology research and development facilities that are subject to CERCLA Section 120. Figure II-2 shows the locations of DOE facilities subject to CERCLA Section 120 that are not in the nuclear weapons complex.

Nuclear Weapons Complex Facilities

The environmental contamination problems at facilities in the nuclear weapons complex are unlike those associated with other industries. They include unique radiation hazards, unprecedented volumes of contaminated water and soil, and a vast number of contaminated structures including reactors and chemical plants. The environmental contamination problems associated with each step in the nuclear weapons production process are briefly described below.

• Uranium mining and milling produced large volumes of mill tailings which contain toxic heavy metals and radioactive radium and thorium.

• Uranium enrichment operations caused extensive contamination of the environment with radioactive materials, solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metals, and other toxic substances.

• Fuel and target fabrication resulted in releases of uranium dust, landfills contaminated with chemicals, and contaminated facilities.

• Reactor irradiation produced highly radioactive spent fuel and contaminated facilities.

• Chemical separations produced highly radioactive and hazardous chemical waste, as well as wastewater that contained small amounts of radionuclides and chemicals. Discharge of some of this wastewater directly to the ground caused widespread contamination. Chemical separation processes also produced contaminated facilities.

• Fabrication of weapons components produced plutonium-contaminated waste and facilities.

• Weapons assembly and maintenance resulted in soil contaminated with high-explosive waste, fuel and oil leaks, and discharge of solvents to the environment.

• Research, development, and testing activities resulted in highly radioactive underground craters and soils and debris contaminated with low-level waste.

In most cases, the environmental contamination caused by nuclear weapons production activities resulted from materials production and waste management practices that would be considered inadequate by today's standards. Additional information on the environmental contamination resulting from nuclear weapons production is available in the following DOE publications:

• Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report, March 1995 (DOE/EM-0232); and

• Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy Is Doing About It, January 1995.

Both documents may be ordered from the Environmental Management Information Center at 1-800-7EM-DATA. The 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report is expected to be available in the Spring of 1996.

Other Facilities

Other facilities in the DOE complex include electrical substations; facilities supporting electrical power distribution; petroleum and oil shale reserve facilities; and petroleum, coal, oil shale, and energy research facilities. Environmental contamination problems at these types of facilities are generally similar to those found at these types of facilities in the private sector. These problems resulted primarily from spills and leaks, and from past materials and waste management practices that would generally be considered inadequate by today's standards.

II.D. EM Approach to Environmental Restoration

The EM approach to environmental restoration of nuclear weapons sites involves setting values and goals for the program and developing different types of approaches for achieving these goals. EH supports EM in the implementation of this approach. Values, goals, and approaches are discussed below.

Values and Goals for the Environmental Restoration Program

The Environmental Restoration Strategic Plan (DOE/EM-0257) was published in August 1995. It identified the following core values for the Environmental Restoration program:

• Ensure protection of worker and public health and safety and the environment;
• Serve as a model steward of natural and cultural resources;
• Comply with Federal, state, and local statutes,
• Prudently use taxpayers' money in achieving tangible results;
• Focus on customer satisfaction and collaborative decision making; and
• Demonstrate a commitment to excellence.

The plan divides the Environmental Restoration program's sites and facilities into five program areas based on site characteristics. The following paragraphs identify the types of sites in each area and specify DOE's Environmental Restoration goals for the sites in each area.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) - FUSRAP was established as an initiative of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974 when the Commission realized that properties previously released did not meet applicable radiation protection requirements. There are currently 46 sites located in 14 states that are in the FUSRAP program. Remediation has been completed at 22 of these sites.

The FUSRAP program area encompasses sites where the Federal government formerly contracted with private firms to perform atomic weapons research. FUSRAP sites on the NPL include the St. Louis Site and Vicinity Properties (Missouri), the Maywood Site (New Jersey), and the Wayne Site (New Jersey). FUSRAP is authorized under Congressional mandate.

Goals of the Environmental Restoration program for FUSRAP program area sites are to:

• Address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative risk at all sites;
• Complete 50 percent of current FUSRAP sites (23 of 46) by the end of 1996;
• Complete remediation of all FUSRAP sites and related vicinity properties by FY 2016.

The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project - The UMTRA project program area encompasses sites that are or were contaminated with tailings and other by-products of former uranium operations. The UMTRA project is scheduled for completion by FY 98 and is authorized under its own legislation (the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978). The Grand Junction Projects Office Remedial Action Project is the largest UMTRA site. It is the only UMTRA site on the docket published April 11, 1995.

Goals of the Environmental Restoration program for UMTRA project program area sites are to:

• Address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative risk at all sites;
• Complete surface remediation of all 24 mill tailings sites and related vicinity properties by 1998; and
• Complete groundwater activities by 2014.

Other Small Sites - Other small sites are sites that are not in the UMTRA project or FUSRAP program and that have an estimated cost to complete remedial activities (FY 95 and beyond) of less than $150 million. Other small sites included in this CERCLA Annual Report are the Santa Susana Field Laboratories (Energy Technology Engineering Center), the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR), and the Pinellas Plant. Goals of the Environmental Restoration program for the small sites program area are to:

• Address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative risk at all sites;
• Complete remediation and decommissioning of 25 sites (out of 36 total sites) by FY 2000; and
• Maximize beneficial reuse of small site lands and facilities.

Large Site Decommissioning - The decommissioning program area addresses contamination at thousands of surplus facilities and structures at large sites across the DOE complex. Surplus facilities and structures include reactors, chemical processing facilities, and warehouses. CERCLA 120 sites in the large site decommissioning program include the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, and Oak Ridge Reservation. Goals of large site decommissioning program area are to:

• Address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative risk at all sites; and
• Reduce long-term costs associated with maintaining surplus facilities and structures.

Large Site Remedial Action - The large site remedial action program area includes sites with a total estimated cost to complete the remedial action of greater than $150 million (FY 95 and beyond). NPL sites in the large site remedial action program include the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, and Oak Ridge Reservation. Goals of the large site remedial action program area to:

• Address immediate risk concerns and prevent further increases in relative risk at all sites;
• Sequence work based on program priorities; and
• Make sites, or portions thereof, available for public use.

Analytic Approaches

During FY 95, analytic approaches to achieving Environmental Restoration goals were identified and evaluated by working groups focusing on technical scope; program management; technology applications; risk management; environment, safety and health; customer focus; performance measures; and contract strategies. Two areas of specific focus in FY 95 were the implementation of contracting reform initiatives and the development of a joint EPA/DOE policy on decommissioning DOE facilities under CERCLA.

In the contract reform area, DOE awarded its first performance-based Environmental Restoration contract for cleanup of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site during FY 95. The terms of the contract provide specific objectives and goals in key areas and disciplines. It is up to the contractor to decide how to best meet the specific objectives and goals in key areas and disciplines, and to decide how to best meet the specific objectives and goals of the contract.

The joint EPA/DOE policy on decommissioning DOE facilities under CERCLA, published on May 22, 1995, recognizes that decommissioning activities must be conducted in a manner consistent with CERCLA response authority and in conjunction with EPA and DOE stakeholders. It specifies that decommissioning activities should be conducted as non-time-critical removals, unless circumstances at the facility indicate otherwise.

Technical Approaches

Technical approaches to meeting Environmental Restoration goals have included continued progress in the development of remediation technologies and implementation of the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) methodology to Environmental Restoration projects. Recent efforts related to remediation technology development and SAFER implementation are described below.

Ten remediation technologies have been given top priority to expedite DOE cleanup by DOE senior managers. These technologies have been designed to address contamination from underground plumes and landfills, decommissioning, and mixed waste treatment.

DOE developed the SAFER process to reduce the time and cost of performing Environmental Restoration. It combines elements of the Data Quality Objectives process, which defines the quality and quantity of data needed to resolve a problem, and the Observational Approach, which provides an operational approach for managing the inherent uncertainty of remedial activities.

In 1994-1995, DOE and EPA evaluated the effectiveness of the SAFER on pilot projects at the Hanford Site, Mound, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site. A final report describing the accomplishments of these projects will be issued in 1996. DOE has also begun to implement SAFER principles at additional Environmental Restoration locations.

II.E. Related EM Efforts

Besides the CERCLA Annual Report, DOE publishes a number of other legally required reports on the progress of the Department's Environmental Restoration program and on the management of environmental restoration-generated waste. In addition, DOE participates in inter-agency activities dedicated to Federal Facility Compliance efforts. Some of these reports and activities are briefly described below.

1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report

In March 1995, DOE submitted the first Baseline Environmental Management Report to Congress on the activities and projects necessary to carry out the environmental restoration of all DOE defense nuclear facilities. The report was prepared to satisfy the requirements of Section 3153 of the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. The Baseline Environmental Management Report contains detailed information on the environmental restoration activities at all of the nuclear weapons complex facilities that are subject to Section 120 of CERCLA. The Baseline Environmental Management Report will be updated in FY 96.

Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

In August 1995, DOE published a Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement which examines the environmental impacts of different siting and management alternatives for radioactive and hazardous wastes. These wastes resulted from the development, production, and testing of nuclear weapons at a variety of sites located around the United States.

The alternatives were evaluated for waste stored, buried, or to be generated from future operations over the next 20 years at 54 sites. For each waste type, the analyses contained in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement examine the potential health and environmental impacts of integrated waste management program alternatives involving multiple sites, as well as the potential cumulative impacts. The Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be completed in FY 96.

Federal Facility Compliance Act Report to Congress

Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, DOE was required to develop site treatment plans for treating mixed wastes in accordance with RCRA regulations. (The Federal Facility Compliance Act defines mixed wastes as waste that contains hazardous waste and source, special nuclear, or by-product waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act.) The site treatment plans cover waste in storage, as well as Environmental Restoration waste that may be generated in the next few years.

The final Federal Facility Compliance Act Report to Congress was published in December 1995. It contains information on the:

• Identification of facilities for which DOE submitted site treatment plans to EPA or RCRA-authorized states;

• Status of state and EPA review and approval of each plan; and

• Number of Federal Facility Compliance Act Orders in effect requiring compliance with these plans.

According to the report, DOE submitted 37 site treatment plans covering 40 sites to appropriate states and EPA in FY 95. Based on the site treatment plans, DOE plans to enter into compliance orders with appropriate states and EPA, as required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act, in early FY 96.

Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee

In FY 95, DOE representatives participated in the drafting of Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities (August 2, 1995) as members of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee, a Federal advisory committee chartered by EPA and facilitated by the Keystone Center in Keystone, Colorado. Committee members agreed to principles concerning Federal facility cleanup. The committee's final report will be published in April 1996.

II.F. Approach to Environmental Restoration Used by Other DOE Organizations

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

The BPA markets and transmits power from 29 Federal dams and one non-Federal nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. BPA has built one of the largest and most reliable transmission systems in the United States. Bonneville owns and operates 363 electrical substations and maintains 15,012 circuit miles of transmission lines.

BPA currently has 13 sites on the docket. Only one, Ross Complex, is on the NPL. Of the other docket sites, two, Covington Substation and Celilo Converter Station, are currently undergoing site inspections under CERCLA. Contaminant concerns at Covington include polyaromatic hydrocarbons and PCBs. Celilo is a unique facility within the Bonneville system because power is converted from AC to DC and vice versa, utilizing mercury arc valves. Mercury-contaminated soils have been identified as a result of past maintenance practices associated with this equipment.

The majority of environmental restoration activities at BPA are voluntary cleanups conducted under state authority. The most common contaminant encountered at these sites is non-PCB mineral oil. The contamination is usually contained within the soils immediately surrounding oil-filled equipment. These sites are commonly identified when construction projects or major site modifications involve soil disturbance.

BPA also is in the midst of a long-range multiyear voluntary PCB capacitor replacement program. The purpose of the program is to replace PCB-containing electrical capacitors (which routinely fail, resulting in reportable PCB releases and localized soil contamination) with non-PCB capacitors. This involves taking the substation out of service, removing the old capacitor yard equipment (including metal support racks), excavating soil contaminated in the past with PCBs, and constructing a new non-PCB capacitor yard. In some cases a new yard must be constructed first and brought on line to avoid shutting down a crucial substation; then the old yard can be removed and cleanup initiated. This program is very expensive, but not because of soil remediation costs as much as the cost to purchase new capacitors and properly incinerate the old PCB capacitors. Due to budgetary constraints and operational issues, several substations are prioritized for capacitor replacement each year. Originally, about one-fourth (90 to 100) of BPA's 363 substations had electrical equipment that contained PCBs.

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)

WAPA is responsible for the Federal electric power marketing and transmission functions in 15 central and western states encompassing a 1.3 million-square-mile geographic area. WAPA provides power to more than 600 wholesale power customers. These wholesale power customers, in turn, provide service to millions of retail consumers in the States of California, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

WAPA has nine sites listed on the docket and does not have any sites currently listed on the NPL. The Administration has taken a proactive role by implementing a Facility Evaluation Program. The purpose of this program is to evaluate all Western Area Power Administration facilities for sources of oil, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants and suspected releases into the environment. WAPA has also proactively conducted PA/SIs at sites that are potentially contaminated. The Montrose Power Operations Center, located in Montrose, Colorado, notified EPA of hazardous waste storage activities in the early 1980s as did the Watertown Substation in Watertown, South Dakota, and Casper Maintenance Yard in Casper, Wyoming. None of these sites are RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, but because they have facilities for storage of PCB wastes, the sites were listed on the docket. PAs and screening SI final reports have been completed and submitted to EPA.

Morgantown Energy Technology Center

Morgantown Energy Technology Center is owned and operated by DOE as a research and development center and is listed on the docket. During 1992 and 1993, it was DOE's lead center for local gasification, fluidized-bed combustion, unconventional gas recovery, gas stream cleanup, heat engines, fuel cells, underground coal gasification, oil shale retorting, combined-cycle component integration, and instrumentation and control technologies.

The environmental management program at the DOE Morgantown Energy Technology Center addresses all areas of environmental concern, including surface water and groundwater quality, air quality, and solid and hazardous waste disposal. The program focuses primarily on the treatment and disposal of industrial, contaminated, and sanitary wastewaters; the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; the minimization of air pollutant emissions; the monitoring of surface water, groundwater, and air quality at the Morgantown Energy Technology Center site and in the surrounding area; the decommissioning, decontamination, and disposal of onsite research facilities no longer in use; and the identification, characterization, and cleanup of offsite property where Morgantown Energy Technology Center sponsored research and development activities.

Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

The Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center is the Federal government's most comprehensive coal technology research center and performs a major role in the Department of Energy's mission to ensure an adequate supply of clean energy from coal. The research programs at Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center emphasize new technologies that hold promise for increasing the industrial use of clean coal in the long term.

The Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, which is listed on the docket, has developed and implemented a program to identify and evaluate inactive hazardous waste disposal sites to determine the necessity of remediation. This program included a Phase I Site Sampling and Analysis Investigation. The scope of the Phase I Sampling and Analysis Investigation included reviewing present and historical operations of DOE facilities at Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, particularly as they related to hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and handling. Additionally, previous environmental investigations at the site were reviewed. The previous environmental work was supplemented by the Sampling and Analysis Investigation, and a comprehensive database for the DOE facilities has been compiled.

The Sampling and Analysis Investigation investigated soils, surface water, stream sediments, and groundwater throughout all the areas at the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center that are occupied or potentially impacted by DOE operations. The work plans utilized for the Sampling and Analysis Investigation included the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the investigation of soils, surface waters, and stream sediments, and the Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Management Plan for the investigation of groundwater. An additional component of the Sampling and Analysis Investigation was the Underground Storage Tank Management Plan, which reviewed the compliance status of DOE-managed underground storage tanks, sought to confirm the uncertain disposition or existence of a number of tanks, and investigated the potential for residual contamination due to the operation or removal of these tanks.