Phase 1 Studies Website

What is New:

Exhumation Working Group (EXWG) Final Reports

Study 1-Waste Inventory: Analysis and Application

Study 2-Correlation Study: Waste Inventory vs. Field Study Results

Study 3-Review of Precedent Projects: Application to West Valley

Study 1-Terrain Analysis, Age Dating, and Paleoclimate

Erosion Working Group Study 1 - Terrain Analysis Final Report Volume II- Appendices February 2018

Welcome

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) selected Phased Decision-making as the path forward for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) and Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC).

Under the Phased Decision making alternative, the work will be conducted in two phases. During Phase 1, which began in 2011 and will take about 10 years, a number of highly contaminated facilities at the WVDP will be removed. Also, during Phase 1, DOE and NYSERDA intend to conduct additional scientific studies (hereafter “Phase 1 Studies”) in order to facilitate interagency consensus to complete decommissioning of the remaining facilities at the WVDP and WNYNSC during Phase 2 of the Phased Decisionmaking alternative.

NYSERDA and DOE are committed to conducting Phase 1 Studies through a process that involves input from Subject Matter Experts (SME), an Independent Scientific Panel (ISP), the regulatory agencies and the public.

Guiding Principles

DOE and NYSERDA agree that the Phase 1 Study process will be conducted in accordance with the following guiding principles:

Guidance for Identifying and Conducting Potential Phase 1 Studies

The Phase 1 Study process will evaluate the Potential Areas of Study (PAS) to facilitate the agencies reaching consensus on a Phase 2 decommissioning decision. DOE and NYSERDA will assign Subject Matter Experts (SME) for each PAS. A SME may be assigned to multiple PAS. DOE and NYSERDA will provide relevant background information on the PAS, including input received from stakeholders, to SME. The SME will evaluate their respective PAS and recommend to DOE and NYSERDA Phase 1 Studies.

If differences of opinion prevent the SME from making a recommendation, the SME may consult with the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) in an attempt to resolve differences.

Please review Phase 1 Study Guidance Document under Document tab (Guidance for Identifying and Conducting Potential Phase 1 Studies) for more details.

Potential Areas of Study (PAS):

Subject Matter Expert Responsibilities:

Independent Scientific Panel Responsibilities:

The following individuals will serve as the ISP in the West Valley Phase 1 Studies.

Dr. B. John Garrick: Ph.D. and M.S. in Engineering and Applied Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a B.S. in Physics from Brigham Young University; he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering and is a past President of the Society for Risk Analysis; he is an executive consultant on the application of the risk sciences to complex technological systems in the space, defense, chemical, marine, transportation, and nuclear fields.

Dr. James Clarke: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth and Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University; he is an expert in risk analysis, investigation & remediation of contaminated sites, long term management of legacy nuclear & hazardous waste sites, contaminant transport, and environmental forensics.

Dr. Chris Whipple: Principal with ENVIRON International Corporation in Emeryville, CA. He holds a Ph.D., M.S., and B.S. in Engineering Science; he is a Member of the National Academy of Engineering and is a past President of the Society for Risk Analysis. He chaired and served on the National Academy of Sciences Board On Radioactive Waste Management.

Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette: O’Neil Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame; she directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children's Health; she has served on many National Academy of Science boards/panels and on the US EPA Science Advisory Board, and has done post-docs in economics and hydrogeology.

Phase I Studies Update

Documents

Phase 1 Studies

Key Legal Agreements

Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship Environmental Impact Statement

  1. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, January 2010 [PDF]
  2. Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H
  3. DOE Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project & Western NY Nuclear Service Center
  4. State Environmental Quality Review Finding Statement [PDF]

Environmental Assessments

  1. Final Environmental Assessment for Decommissioning, Demolition, & Removal of Certain Facilities (DOE/EA-1552)
  2. Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

West Valley Reports

  1. Adoption of Phased Decisionmaking Alternative with Regard to Remediation of the West Valley Site [PDF]
  2. Independent Review of Selected Sections of the 2009 West Valley Decommissioning Final Environmental Impact Statement and Independent Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center [PDF|4.5 MB]
  3. Quantitative Risk Assessment of the State-Licensed Radioactive Waste Disposal Area, August 2009 [PDF|10.1 MB]
  4. The View of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center,January 2010 [PDF]

Public Meeting

DOE and NYSERDA intend to conduct additional scientific studies (Phase 1 Studies) in order to facilitate interagency consensus on Phase 2 decisions.

DOE and NYSERDA will meet with the public throughout the Phase 1 Study process. DOE and NYSERDA will provide updates on the progress of the Phase 1 Study process, including study results, reports, and interpretations and the recommendations of the SME and ISP. DOE and NYSERDA will attempt to have SME and ISP members available at the meetings, either in person or on the telephone. The public will have the opportunity to ask questions of DOE and NYSERDA and provide comments. DOE and NYSERDA will consider this input and will make this available to the SME and ISP as they evaluate a particular PAS. DOE and NYSERDA will respond to comments.

Quarterly Public Meetings will be held at the Ashford Office Complex (AOC) 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY 14171
Public Meeting Map
Phase 1 Studies updates will be provided during the Quarterly Public Meetings. Please visit www.chbwv.com/Quarterly_Public_Meetings.htm And www.wv.doe.gov for details on the QPM dates, agenda, and presentation materials. Photo Identification and U.S. Citizenship is required for entry to the meetings. The Quarterly Public Meetings are from 6:30-8:00PM.

To participate remotely and to view presentations during the meeting via WebEx, please email Lynette.Bennett@chbwv.com by 9:00 AM the day of the meeting and an electronic meeting invitation will be sent to you including the link and conference line information. When possible please use the WebEx chat feature to post questions or comments. As time allows, the facilitator will read these to all present.

NEW SECURITY MEASURES FOR ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS

Security Requirements and Prohibited Articles for Workshop and Public Meetings

Public Meeting 2015 and 2016 Meeting Agenda/Presentation/Minutes
Please visit http://www.chbwv.com/Quarterly_Public_Meetings.htm and http://www.wv.doe.gov for details on the QPM dates, agenda, and presentation materials.
Public Meeting 2014 Meeting Agenda/Presentation/Minutes
2014 QPM Agendas, Presentations, and Minutes

Public Meeting 2013 Meeting Agenda/Presentation/Minutes
November 20, 2013

August 28, 2013

May 22, 2013

February 27, 2013

Public Meeting 2012 Meeting Agenda/Presentation/Minutes
November 14, 2012

August 22, 2012

May 23, 2012

For More Information Contact:
Moira Maloney
United States Department of Energy

West Valley Demonstration Project

10282 Rock Springs Road

West Valley, NY 14171

Office: 716-942-4255

Fax: 716-942-4703

Moira.N.Maloney@wv.doe.gov
Lee M. Gordon, Ph.D.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

West Valley Site Management Program

9030 Route 219

West Valley, NY 14171

Office: 716-942-9960, x4963

Fax: 716-942-9961

LMG@nyserda.ny.gov

Stakeholder Comments and Agency Responses

No. Date Received Comment Response Date Completed
38 11/03/2015 Letter from Barbra Warren and others Comments on PHASE 1 EXHUMATION STUDY PLAN Revision 2, July 2015 DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from Barbra Warren and others 04/13/2016
37 10/05/2015 E-Mail from Joanne Hameister on Exhumation Study Plans DOE and NYSERDA Response to E-Mail from Joanne Hameister 01/25/2016
36 07/28/2014 Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister on Request for Agenda Recommendations for August Quarterly Public Meeting DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister 08/05/2014
35 05/14/2014 Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister on Request for Agenda Items at May 2014 Quarterly Public Meeting (QPM) DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister 06/10/2014
34 01/15/2014 Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister on Erosion and Exhumation Working Group Reports DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from Barbara Warren, Diane D'Arrigo, and Joanne Hameister 07/31/2014
33 01/14/2014 Letter from West Valley Citizen Task Force on Recommendations for Phase 1 Exhumation Studies DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from West Valley Citizen Task Force 06/18/2014
32 09/30/2013 Letter from Joanne Hameister of Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes DOE and NYSERDA Response to Letter from Joanne Hameister of Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes 01/16/2014
31 09/06/2013 E-Mail from Barbara Warren on Agenda for next QPM DOE and NYSERDA Response to E-Mail from Barbara Warren on Agenda for next QPM 02/06/2014
30 05/17/2013 E-Mail from Ray Vaughan to Lee Gordon, NYSERDA and Moira Maloney, DOE on Exhumation Working Group DOE and NYSERDA Response to E-Mail from Ray Vaughan on Exhumation Working Group 05/22/2013
29 03/30/2013 Memo from From Barbara Warren, Joanne Hameister and Diane D' Arrigo to Lee Gordon, NYSERDA and Moira Maloney, DOE on Recommendation of Dr. David O. Carpenter to the West Valley Independent Scientific Panel DOE and NYSERDA Response to Memo from Barbara Warren, Joanne Hameister and Diane D' Arrigo on Recommendation of Dr. David O. Carpenter to the West Valley Independent Scientific Panel 01/27/2014
28 03/19/2013 Memo from From Barbara Warren, Joanne Hameister and Diane D' Arrigo to Lee Gordon, NYSERDA and Moira Maloney, DOE on Quarterly QPM February 27th DOE and NYSERDA Response to Memo from Barbara Warren, Joanne Hameister and Diane D' Arrigo on Quarterly QPM February 27th 05/22/2013
27 03/08/2013 Memo from Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others to West Valley ISP DOE and NYSERDA Response to Memo from Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Letter to West Valley ISP 05/09/2013
26 03/04/2013 Memo from Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Climate Guidance for Phase 1 Studies November 2012 DOE and NYSERDA Response to Memo from Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Climate Guidance for Phase 1 Studies November 2012 05/09/2013
25 01/31/2013 Memo from Barbara Warren, Diane D’Arrigo, Joanne Hameister and Lynda Schneekloth on Agenda for February 2013 QPM DOE and NYSERDA Response to Memo from Barbara Warren, Diane D’Arrigo, Joanne Hameister and Lynda Schneekloth on Agenda for February 2013 QPM 02/19/2013
24 10/14/2012 Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Waste on November QPM Agenda DOE Response to Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Waste on November QPM Agenda 11/01/2012
23 09/07/2012 The West Valley Citizen Task Force on Erosion Working Group Recommendations for Phase 1 Erosion Studies July 20, 2012 DOE and NYSERDA Response on Support from The West Valley Citizen Task Force on Erosion Working Group Recommendations for Phase 1 Erosion Studies July 20, 2012 10/15/2012
22 09/13/2012 NRC Staff Comments on EWG Recommendations for Phase 1 Erosion Studies DOE and NYSERDA Response on NRC Staff Comments on EWG Recommendations for Phase 1 Erosion Studies 01/17/2013
21 09/06/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on The SME Panel on Erosion Report and Recommendations DOE and NYSERDA Response on Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on The SME Panel on Erosion Report and Recommendations 11/07/2012
20 09/06/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on The Climate Change Expert Panel and Next Steps DOE and NYSERDA Response on Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on The Climate Change Expert Panel and Next Steps 11/07/2012
19 08/24/2012 Nuclear Information and Resource Service on Next QPM plus Questions for Erosion Team, ECS, DOE, NYSERDA DOE and NYSERDA Response on Nuclear Information and Resource Service on Next QPM plus Questions for Erosion Team, ECS, DOE, NYSERDA 11/07/2012
18 08/24/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on Agenda for November QPM DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on Agenda for November QPM 10/11/2012
17 08/10/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on Quarterly Meeting Agenda for August DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on August 22 Quarterly Meeting Agenda 10/15/2012
16 08/06/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on DOE Requirements on Climate Change DOE Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on DOE Requirements on Climate Change 08/16/2012
15 06/26/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Concerns Regarding Phase 1 DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Concerns Regarding Phase 1 10/12/2012
14 05/04/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on Quarterly Meeting DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on Quarterly Meeting 10/15/2012
13 04/16/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on Climate Change Workshop DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on Climate Change Workshop 08/16/2012 and 11/07/2012
12 03/31/2012 Nuclear Information and Resource Service on Request for Information on the New Study Areas DOE and NYSERDA Response to Nuclear Information and Resource Service on New Study Areas 04/13/2012
11 02/29/2012 Citizens Environmental Coalition on Erosion Suggestions for SMEs DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition on Erosion Suggestions for SMEs 09/13/2012
10 02/15/2012 Center for Health, Environment and Justice and Others on Process for Phase 1 Studies DOE and NYSERDA Response to Center for Health, Environment and Justice and Others on Process for Phase 1 Studies 08/08/2012
9 02/10/2012 Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Others on Recommendation of Dr. Richard Young as SME for West Valley Erosion Study Team DOE and NYSERDA Response to Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Others on Approval of Dr. Richard Young as SME for West Valley Erosion Study Team 03/01/2012
8 12/15/2011 Center for Health, Environment & Justice and Others on West Valley Public Participation Process DOE and NYSERDA Response to Center for Health, Environment & Justice and Others on West Valley Public Participation Process 02/06/2012
7 04/29/2011 NYSDEC on Phase 1 Guidance Document DOE and NYSERDA Response to NYSDEC on Phase 1 Guidance Document 09/26/2011
6 04/25/2011 Center for Health, Environment & Justice and Others on ISP composition DOE and NYSERDA Response to Center for Health, Environment & Justice and Others on ISP Composition 10/24/2011
5 03/24/2011 Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others on Phase 1 Studies Process DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition and Others 07/20/2011
4 09/30/2010 Citizens Environmental Coalition E-Mail on Phase 1 Study Process DOE Response to Citizens Environmental Coalition 09/30/2010 and 03/18/2011
3 09/21/2010 NYSDEC on Phase 1 Studies Protocol DOE and NYSERDA Response to NYSDEC 09/26/2011
2 09/13/2010 Citizen's Environmental Coalition and Others on Proposed ISP DOE and NYSERDA Response to Citizen's Environmental Coalition and Others 11/15/2010
1 06/23/2010 The West Valley Citizen Task Force Presentation on Potential Phase 1 Study Tpoics DOE and NYSERDA Provided a Copy of Presentation to the ISP and EWG 10/15/2011

Ceci est la version HTML du fichier https://www.wv.doe.gov/Documents/DOE_NRC_MOU.pdf.
Page 1
WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBETWEEN THEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYAND THEU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGWEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTI. Purpose and ScopeThis Agreement, mandated by the West Valley Demonstration Project Actof 1980, (the Act), Pub. L. No. 96-368, establishesprocedures forreview and consultationby the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)with respect to activitiesconducted at the Western New York NuclearService Center, West Valley, New York (the Center) by the U.S. Departmentof Energy (the Department) under the Act. This agreement encompassesthose development, design, construction,operation,and decontaminationand decommissioning activitiesthat are associated with the project asdescribed in the Act.II. Responsibilitiesof PartiesA. Department of Energy1. The Act directs the Department to carry out a high-levelradioactivewaste management demonstrationproject (the project)at the Center.Under the Act, the Department is responsible fordemonstratingthe solidificationand preparationof the liquidhigh-levelradioactivewastes stored at the Center in a formsuitable for transportationand disposal.The Department hasresponsibilityfor the public health and safety associated withthis project.The Department agrees to provide the NRC infonna-tion required to identifyany potentialradiologicaldanger topublic health and safety and to provide access to the Center to
Page 3
2.2NRC for the monitoring of project activitiesto further assurethe public health and safety from a radiologicalstandpoint.The Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear WasteManagement and Fuel Cycle Programs, or his successor, isresponsiblefor ensuring the implementationof the terms ofthis Agreement.The Department's West Valley Project Manager(Project Manager) will be the Department's point of contact forall communications relatingto carrying out the provisionsofthis Agreement. The Department‘s Project Manager will coordinateall interactionswith the NRC and, on a timely basis, providethe NRC the information,reports,and access as provided in thisAgreement.The Department's Project Manager will consult withthe NRC on matters within the scope of this Agreement. Thisconsultationincludes the exchange of informationand opinion,in person, and in writing,between personnel of both theDepartment and the NRC.0. Nuclear Regulatory Commission1. The Act requires that the Department enter into an agreementwith the NRC to establisharrangements for review and consulta-tion by the NRC with respect to the project.The review andconsultationshall be conducted informallyand, in accordancewith the Act, shall not be subject to formal Commission pro-cedures or actions required by law for licensed activities.TheNRC review, consultation,and monitoring establishedby thisAgreement will provide the Department with independent analyses
Page 4
2.to assist the Department in fulfillingits responsibilityforpublic health and safety.The NRC has the responsibilitytocarefullyreview, critique,and analyze, in a timely manner,the informationprovided to identifyto the Department anypotentialradiologicaldanger to the public health and safetywhich may be presented by the project.The NRC's Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards(NMSS), or his successor, is responsiblefor ensuring theimplementationof the terms of this Agreement. The NRC's WestValley Project Manager (Project Manager) will be the NRC pointof contact for all communications relatingto carrying out theprovisionsof this Agreement.NMSS, or any office to whom itsfunctions may be transferred,is responsible for reviewing,consultingwith respect to, and commenting upon project activi-ties to identifyany potentialradiologicaldanger to the publichealth and safety.The NRC's Project Manager will receive andcoordinate the review of project informationsubmitted by theDepartment.The NRC's Project Manager will provide the Depart-ment with comments as appropriateor required by this Agreement.The NRC's Project Manager will consult with the Department onmatters within the scope of this Agreement. This consultationincludes the exchange of information,opinion and advice, inperson and in writing,between personnel of both the Departmentand the NRC.
Page 5
4III.Agreements Between PartiesA. General Provisions1. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the timelyand orderly completion of the project mandated by the Act withdue regard for the public health and safety.Essentialto thistimely and orderly completion is a relationshipbetween theagencies marked by open and candid communications at all levelsand prompt resolutionof any issues which may arise.2. Insofar as practicable,the NRC agrees to receive and useinformationand reports developed in the course of the Depart-ment's routine operations,and in accordance with Departmentadministrativerules, regulations,procedures and orders whichapply to its management and control of the project.The Depart-ment will,however, provide the NRC such additionalinformationas the NRC may require to identifyany potentialradiologicaldanger to the public health and safety which may be presented bythe project.To the extent not subject to the exemptionscontained in 5 USC Q 552(b), informationor reports requiredunder this agreement to be submitted by the Department to theNRC, for review and any comments provided by the NRC to theDepartment in response thereto,shall be available for'publicinspection.3. NRC comments resultingfrom its review and consultationwill bediscussed between the respective Project Managers and confirmedin writing.The Department will inform the NRC in writingofthe dispositionof such comments upon NRC's request.
Page 6
54. Should an activitybe identifiedby NRC as posing an immediateradiologicalthreat to public health and safety, the NRC'sDirector,NMSS, will so notify the Department's Project Manager.The Department will promptly review the actfvityand takeappropriateaction.The NRC and the Department agree that ahigh prioritywill be given such resolutions.5. The Department will transport,in accordance with applicableprovisionsof law, the waste solidifiedat the Center to anappropriate Federal repositoryfor permanent disposal.6. The Department will,in accordance with applicablelicens?ngrequirementsidisoose of law levet mdtoactWeand transurmicwme ptwf.u~d by the sofid-ificatfonof tk tfc@d Mgh-tevelwaste wkkr the project.7. For those portions of the Center in the possession of theOepartment which are not used in connection with the project,the Department will provide the Commission informationtoidentifyany potentialradiologicaldanger to the public healthand safety and access to monitor the activities.8. To the extent that detailed working procedures are necessary toimplement the provisionsof the Act and of this Agreement, theDepartment and the NRC agree to establishsuch procedures by theexchange of letters between the Department's Project Manager andthe NRC's Chief, Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch,or his successor.
Page 7
69. If an issue should arise which cannot be promptly resolvedbetween Project Managers, the NRC and the Department agree torefer the matter to appropriatemanagement levels for resolution.10. Nothing in this Agreement shall derogate from the statutoryauthorityof the Department or the NRC.6. Specific Provisions1. Waste Solidification,Disposal, and DecontaminationPlan (theProject Plan)a. The Department will submit to the NRC, for review andcomment, a plan for the solidificationof the high-levelwaste at the Center, the removal of the waste for purposesof its solidification,the preparationof the waste fordisposal,and the decontaminationof the facilitiesusedin solidifyingthe waste.Before the submission of the plan, the Department mayconsult with the NRC, in person or in writing,with respectto the development of such plan or any issues that may bepresented by it, including decisions which the Departmentproposes to make in accordance with the process contemplatedby the National Environmental Policy Act. NRC will respondto a Department request for such consultation,in person orin writing,as the case may be.b. The Project Plan will contain the level of detail generallyassociated with conceptual design of structures,systems and
Page 8
7components.As the project continues and more precisefnformatfonis developed, that informatfonwfll be submfttedto the NRC prior to the begfnnfng of project activitiesforwhich the informatfonis relevant.c. The Project Plan will be submitted as soon as practicableprior to major constructionor modificationof structures,systems and components at the project facilities.TheProject Plan will discuss the Department's approach for theconduct of the project by describing what is going to bedone and how it will be accomplished, and will include:(1) A descriptionof what is to be developed, constructed,or used including the major systems or elements of theproject and facilities,whether existing,modified, ornew.(2) A descriptionof the status of technology for implement-ing the project including a descriptionof any ongoingor planned supporting development work upon which theproject is dependent.(3) A descriptionof the specificscientific,technological,or engineering approaches or processes to be used inmeeting the project objectives.(4) A preliminaryproject schedule and a descriptionofeach phase of the project includingthe work to be
Page 9
accomplished and products developed, including majorproject events, technicalactivities,and decisionpoints.d. Upon submission of the Project Plan to the NRC, the Departmentwill publish in the Federal Register a notice of the submissionand of the plan's availabilityfor public inspection.e. The NRC will review the Plan and provide written commentsto the Department.In preparing its comments, the NRC willspecify with precision its objection to any provision of theplan.f. Upon receipt of Commission comments, the Department willpublish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt andof the availabilityof the comments for public inspection.9* If the Department does not revise the plan to meet objectionsspecifiedin the Commission's comments, the Department willso notify the Commission and publish in the Federal Registera detailed statement for not so revising the plan.h. The Department will inform the Commission of significantchanges in the plan as the project proceeds.2. Waste Form and Containersa. The Department will consult with the NRC with respect to theform in which the high-levelradioactivewaste at the
Page 10
9Center will be solidifiedand with respect to the containersto be used in the permanent disposal of this waste.b. As the basis for this consultation,the Department willprovide the NRC a descriptionand an analysis of the extentto which the final waste form and container complies withany NRC technicalregulations(or proposed- regulations)regarding disposal of high-levelradioactivewaste ingeologic repositories.c. Upon receipt the NRC will review the informationand providewritten comments and recommendations to the Department.Asa basis for its comments and recommendations, the NRC willuse any technicalcriteriaissued with respect to the wasteform and containersthat may be emplaced in geologic reposi-tories that are subject to the licensingjurisdictionof theNRC.3. Safety Analysis Reports and Other Informationa. Before substantialconstructionor modificationof structures,systems or components, the Department will prepare a safetyanalysis report (SAR) that will assure that:(1) potentialhazards are systematicallyidentified;(2) potentialimpactsare analyzed; and (3) reasonable measures to eliminate,control or mitigate the hazards have been taken. TheDepartment will submit the SAR to the NRC for independentreview.The SAR will contain design descriptions,safetyoperating limits,and minimum conditionsfor operation.
Page 11
10The safety analysf s wfll address in appropriatedetail thefollowingtopics:(1) a descriptionand evaluationof theproject facilitiesand processes; (2) design crfteri a forsystems, components, and structures;(3) normal and emergencyoperating procedures to be used; (4) identificationofhazards; (5) physfcal desfgn features and administrativecontrols provided to prevent or mitigate potentialaccidents:(6) potentialaccidents and consequences including thoseresultingfrom natural phenomena; (7) operationallfmi tatfons;and (8) means for controllingeffluentsand minfmitfngradiationexposures.A quality assurance plan and a safeguards and security planwill be prepared by the Department and provided to the NRCwith the SAR or in advance of the SAR if they are availableearlier.b. Before solidificationof the waste, the Department will provideto the NRC informationupdating the SAR which will describethe project facilitiesas actually constructedor modifiedwhere such constructionor modificationdoes not conform tothe descriptioncontained in the SAR. The SAR updates willaddress changes in design, safety operating limits,andminimum conditionsfor operation and will be similar in formto the SAR.
Page 12
114. Decontamfnatfon and Decommissioninga. The Department will perform an analysis of fmpacts and risksof potentialdispositionmodes for the tanks and otherfacflftiesof the Center fn which the high-levelradio-active waste solidifiedunder the project was stored, andfacilities,material,and hardware used in connection withthe project.The NRC and Department project managers willconsult on requirements and dispositionmodes to be analyzed.b. Upon receipt of the Department analysis,the NRC willprescribe decontaminationand decommissioning (D&D) require-ments in accordance with the Act.c. The Department will prepare a Project Decommissioning Planwhich includes a descriptionof engineering and operatingactivitiesto be performed.This plan will be reviewedby the NRC and comments provided to the Department.TheDepartment will review and consider the comments providedprior to initiationof D&D operations.d. The Department will prepare a Site Status Report. The reportwill provide:1) a statement of the D&D requirements prescribed by NRCand an analysis of the extent to which such requirementshave been satisfiedfor those portions of the Centerrequired to be decontaminated and decommissioned by theAct; and
Page 13
122) a descrfptfonof those portions of the Center fn thepossessfon of the Department with particularreferenceto physf cal and radiologicalconditions.5. Monftorinaa. The Department will afford the NRC such access as necessaryto monitor project activitfesto further assure the publfchealth and safety.The NRC will use the descriptions,operating limits,minimum conditions,and technicalspecifi-cations included in the SAR as the criteriafor conduct ofits monitoring program.The monitoring results will be discussed between the respec-tive Project Managers and provided to the Department in theform of a written monitoring report.The Department willinform the NRC in writing of the dispositionof such commentsupon NRC's request.b. Records ExaminationFor the purposes of further assuring the public health andsafety, the Department will make availableto the NRC forexamination and copying, upon reasonable notice, recordskept by the Department pertainingto the project.IV. EffectiveDateThis agreement shall take effect upon the signing by the Deputy AssistantSecretary for Nuclear Maste Management and Fuel Cycle Programs of the
Page 14
U.S. Department of Energy, and the Oirector, Office of Nuclear bhterfalSafaty and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulator?/ Commission, and shallcontinue in effect untdl revised by mutual agreement unless teninatedby either party, f.or good cause, upon 120 days notfce in wrWng.for the United States Department of EnergyFat the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comfssion

Ceci est la version HTML du fichier https://www.wv.doe.gov/Documents/Final_EA_091106.pdf.
Page 1
DOE/EA-1552Environmental Assessment for theDecontamination, Demolition, andRemoval of Certain Facilities at theWest Valley Demonstration ProjectFinalU.S. Department of EnergyWest Valley Demonstration ProjectWest Valley, New YorkSeptember 14, 2006
Page 2
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPiTable of ContentsCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION................11.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 11.2 West Valley Demonstration Project.............................................................................. 21.3 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .......................................................................... 6CHAPTER 2PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES............................................................. 72.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................ 72.2 No Action Alternative................................................................................................. 182.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed ................................................................ 18CHAPTER 3EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................ 193.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 193.2 Climate, Air Quality, and Visibility............................................................................ 193.2.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 193.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 203.3 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 203.3.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 203.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 213.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 213.4.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 213.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 223.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................................. 233.5.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 233.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 243.6 Historical and Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 243.6.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 243.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 253.7 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice............................................................... 253.7.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 253.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 253.8 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 253.8.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 253.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 263.9 Land Use and Visual Surroundings ............................................................................ 273.9.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 273.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 273.10 Health and Safety........................................................................................................ 283.10.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 283.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 283.11 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 323.11.1 Existing Environment ..................................................................................... 323.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action................................... 343.12 Consequences of the No Action Alternative............................................................... 383.13 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 393.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................... 39
Page 3
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPiiCHAPTER 4PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ............................................................... 40CHAPTER 5REFERENCES...............................................................................................................41APPENDIX ADESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES PROPOSED FOR DECONTAMINATION,DEMOLITION, AND REMOVAL .............................................................................A-1APPENDIX BWVDP FACILITY MAP AND CROSSWALK .......................................................... B-1APPENDIX CWETLAND DELINEATION MAP—WVDP ENVIRONS........................................ C-1APPENDIX DDOE’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .......................................................................D-1List of TablesTable 1.Facilities Proposed for Demolition and Removal.......................................................................8Table 2.Facility Functions to be Replaced............................................................................................. 11Table 3.Waste Types, Packaging, Disposal Locations, and Estimated Volumes .................................. 14Table 4.Noise Levels of Typical Heavy Equipment..............................................................................26Table 5.Impacts from Collective and Individual Radiation Doses to Involved and NoninvolvedWorkers .................................................................................................................................... 29Table 6.Impacts from Collective and Individual Radiation Doses to the Public Under the ProposedAction ....................................................................................................................................... 30Table 7.Radiological Consequences of Accidents Under the Proposed Action Using 50-PercentAtmospheric Conditions ........................................................................................................... 31Table 8.Radiological Consequences of Accidents Under the Proposed Action Using 95-PercentAtmospheric Conditions ........................................................................................................... 31Table 9.Wastes and Topsoil Shipped Under the Proposed Action ........................................................ 35Table 10. Transportation Impacts Under the Proposed Action................................................................. 36List of FiguresFigure 1. Location of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York NuclearService Center (WNYNSC)........................................................................................................ 3Figure 2. WVDP Site Map (Project Premises)........................................................................................... 5Figure 3. WMAs 1 – 10 at WVDP...........................................................................................................12Figure 4. WMAs 11 – 12 at WVDP......................................................................................................... 13Figure 5. Waste Destinations for Asbestos, Industrial Waste, and Concrete...........................................15Figure 6. Destinations for LLW, Mixed LLW, and Hazardous Waste .................................................... 15Figure 7. Transportation Routes in the Vicinity of WNYNSC ................................................................ 33
Page 4
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPiiiList of Acronyms and AbbreviationsALARAas low as reasonably achievableCAIRSComputerized Accident/Incident Reporting SystemCFRCode of Federal RegulationsCFMTConcentrator Feed Makeup TankdBAA-weighted decibelDOEU.S. Department of EnergyDOTU.S. Department of TransportationEAenvironmental assessmentEISenvironmental impact statementEPAU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyERPGEmergency Response Planning GuidelineFFahrenheitft2square footft3cubic footHEPAhigh efficiency particulate airHLWhigh-level radioactive wasteISInterim StatusLLWlow-level radioactive wasteLLWTFLow-Level Wastewater Treatment FacilityMFHTMakeup Feed Hold TankmremmilliremNAnot applicableNDANRC-Licensed Disposal AreaNEPANational Environmental Policy ActNESHAPNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantsNFSNuclear Fuel Services, Inc.NRCU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNTSNevada Test SiteNYSDECNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationNYSERDANew York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityOSHAOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationPCBpolychlorinated biphenylRCRAResource Conservation and Recovery ActREMSRadiation Exposure Monitoring SystemSDAState (of New York)-Licensed Disposal AreaSPDESState Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemSWMUSolid Waste Management UnitTRUtransuranicU.S.C.United States CodeWMAWaste Management AreaWNYNSCWestern New York Nuclear Service CenterWVDPWest Valley Demonstration ProjectWVDP WM EIS West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental ImpactStatement
Page 5
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FORAGENCY ACTION1.1 OverviewAs part of its ongoing West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) responsibilities and in accordancewith the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (Public Law 96-368, October 1, 1980), the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to demolish and remove 36 unneeded facilities at the WVDP inWest Valley, New York.1 DOE would develop a logically sequenced dismantlement plan to ensure thatsite services and functions remained available until no longer needed. DOE would decontaminate anyfacilities as needed. Industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste resulting from decontamination anddemolition would be transported off-site for disposal at licensed commercial or DOE disposal facilities.DOE has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321 et seq.) and applicable Council onEnvironmental Quality requirements at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), including Part1506.1, to determine whether the environmental impacts of the proposal may be significant. A draft EAwas circulated for review and comment to the State of New York and other interested stakeholders for a30-day comment period that ended on July 29, 2006. A public meeting to discuss the draft EA was heldon July 19, 2006.In the draft EA, DOE proposed 42 facilities for decontamination (as needed), demolition, and removal.The 42 facilities were originally identified as those that did not contribute significant source term(radiological contamination) to the site, and for which no future use was thought to exist. Based on thecomments received on the draft EA, DOE evaluated whether any of the 42 facilities included in the draftEA could potentially provide support functions for implementation of the full range of possibledecommissioning and/or long-term stewardship alternatives being considered in the Decommissioningand/or Long-Term Stewardship Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0226-R (DecommissioningEIS). In addition, DOE identified facilities that could be used to address currently unresolved situationsshould those situations remain unresolved beyond the next 4 years (e.g., storage of transuranic [TRU]waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The result of this effort was a list of several facilities thatwere recommended for removal from the EA.2 This final EA and the impact analyses it contains reflectthat recommendation.1 Some of the buildings are currently being used to store low-level radioactive waste. This waste is being shippedoff-site consistent with DOE’s Record of Decision for the West Valley Demonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337F) (DOE 2003) (WVDP WM EIS). When the shipments arecomplete, the buildings will be empty and ready for decontamination (if needed), demolition, and removal from theWVDP site. The proposed decontamination, demolition, and removal of the 36 buildings and the resulting wastevolumes were not included in the scope of the WVDP WM EIS or in the Supplement Analysis for the West ValleyDemonstration Project Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337F-SA-01) (DOE 2006)issued after the Record of Decision.2 The facilities that were initially included in the draft EA and that have been removed from the scope of the finalEA are: Equalization Basin, Equalization Tank, Lag Storage Addition 4 and Shipping Depot, New Warehouse,Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell, Sewage Treatment Plant, and one of two Waste Tank Farm TrainingPlatforms. These facilities will be included in the Decommissioning EIS.
Page 6
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP21.2 West Valley Demonstration ProjectThe Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC or the Center) encompasses 14 squarekilometers (5 square miles) in West Valley, New York, in rural Cattaraugus County, approximately50 kilometers (30 miles) southeast of Buffalo, New York. The WNYNSC was once a commercial nuclearfuel reprocessing plant and was the only one to have operated in the United States. Figure 1 shows thelocations of the Center and the WVDP site within the State of New York (USGS 1979).The Center operated under a license issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the NuclearRegulatory Commission [NRC]) in 1966 to Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) and the New York StateAtomic and Space Development Authority, now known as the New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority (NYSERDA) (AEC 1966). Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, theregulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission were given to the NRC, which became thelicensing authority for the Center’s operation.During reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel was chopped, dissolved, and processed by a solvent extractionsystem to recover uranium and plutonium. Fuel reprocessing ended in 1972 when the plant was shut downfor modifications to increase its capacity, reduce occupational radiation exposure, and reduce radioactiveeffluents. At the time, NFS, the owner and operator of the reprocessing plant, expected that themodifications would take 2 years and $15 million to complete. However, between 1972 and 1976, therewere major changes in regulatory requirements, including more stringent seismic and tornado sitingcriteria for nuclear facilities and more extensive regulations for radioactive waste management, radiationprotection, and nuclear material safeguards.As a result of these changes, in 1976, NFS estimated that over $600 million would be required to modifythe facility to increase its capacity and to comply with the new regulatory standards (DOE 1978). Thecompany subsequently announced its decision to withdraw from the nuclear fuel reprocessing businessand exercise its contractual right to yield responsibility for the Center to NYSERDA. NYSERDA nowholds title to and manages the Center on behalf of the people of the State of New York.In 1978, Congress passed the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-238), which,among other things, directed DOE to conduct a study to evaluate possible federal operation or permanentfederal ownership of the Center and use of the Center for other purposes. Congress subsequently passedthe West Valley Demonstration Project Act in 1980, which directed DOE to demonstrate solidificationtechniques for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and decontaminate and decommissionfacilities in accordance with NRC requirements.In 1981, the NRC license for the facility was modified, giving DOE exclusive use and possession of thefacility. In the following year, the NRC license was once again modified to terminate NFS’sresponsibilities under the license coincident with NYSERDA’s acceptance of surrender of the facilityfrom NFS and DOE’s assumption of exclusive possession.
Page 7
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP3Figure 1. Location of the West Valley Demonstration Project andWestern New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC)Not to scale
Page 8
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP4The WVDP (or the Project) was established to implement the West Valley Demonstration Project Act.The WVDP is located on approximately 80 hectares (200 acres) within the WNYNSC. The Projectincludes the former NFS plant and related facilities. Several additional facilities were constructed tocomplete the WVDP mission. In addition to the WVDP facilities, the WNYNSC includes two formerradioactive disposal areas: an NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA) within the Project premises, and aState of New York-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA), which is not within the Project premises. Figure 2shows the Project Premises, NDA, and SDA.In 2002 and in accordance with the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, NRC issued its final policystatement regarding West Valley site decommissioning. The NRC criteria are based on radiological dosesto members of the most affected population and are intended to protect public health and safety. DOE alsohas an obligation, under a Stipulation of Compromise with the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastesand Radioactive Waste Campaign, to prepare a site closure EIS in accordance with NEPA. BeforeNYSERDA’s license for the site could be terminated (assuming it would be reactivated) in order to closethe site, the NRC decommissioning criteria must be satisfied.Accordingly, DOE is jointly preparing, with NYSERDA, the Decommissioning EIS specifically focusedon alternatives for decommissioning the site and identifying potential needs for long-term stewardshipthere. That is, the Decommissioning EIS will evaluate the range of reasonable alternative strategies formeeting the NRC radiological decommissioning criteria as the primary condition for eventual site closure,as well as potential needs for long-term stewardship at the site.This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of demolishing and removing a set of facilitiespreviously or currently used by the WVDP that, because of their design, function, and lack of significantsource term, are not expected, either individually or collectively, to affect whether the decommissioningcriteria for the site could be met. Although DOE estimates that the total radiological content of all thefacilities proposed for demolition and removal would not exceed approximately 5 curies, DOE hasSite TerminologyThe Center or the WNYNSC – The 14-square-kilometer (5-square-mile) Western New York Nuclear ServiceCenter in West Valley, New York.The Project or the WVDP – All activities undertaken in carrying out the solidification of the liquid HLW atthe Center, including (1) solidification of liquid HLW; (2) preparation of the Project Premises and ProjectFacilities to accommodate action 1; (3) development of containers suitable for the permanent disposal of theHLW solidified at the Center; (4) transportation of the wastes solidified at the Center to an appropriate federalrepository for permanent disposal as soon as feasible after solidification and in accordance with applicableprovisions of law; (5) decontamination and decommissioning of the tanks, other facilities at the Center in whichthe solidified wastes were stored, all Project Facilities, and other facilities, material, and hardware used incarrying out the solidification of the HLW at the Center; (6) disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW),mixed LLW, and transuranic (TRU) waste in accordance with applicable licensing requirements; and (7) all otheractivities necessary to carry out the foregoing.Project Premises – An area of approximately 80 hectares (200 acres) within the WNYNSC made available toDOE for carrying out the WVDP. The Project Premises include the Project Facilities and the 2-hectare (5-acre)NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA).Project Facilities – The facilities that NYSERDA made available to DOE to be used in the solidification ofthe HLW at the Center.Retained Premises – The 1,335-hectare (3,300-acre) portion of the Center, not including the ProjectPremises, retained by NYSERDA. The Retained Premises include the 6-hectare (15-acre) State-licensed DisposalArea (SDA) adjacent to the NDA.
Page 9
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP5Figure 2. WVDP Site Map (Project Premises)Not to scale
Page 10
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP6assumed for purposes of analysis that the total radiological content would not exceed 50 curies. Even thishighly conservative assumption of 50 curies is not sufficient, either by itself or in comparison to the totalon-site radiological profile (approximately 1 million curies, assuming the vitrified HLW is shipped off-site for disposal), to affect whether any Decommissioning EIS alternative meets the NRC criteria.1.3 Purpose and Need for Agency ActionUnder the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, DOE was responsible for, among other things,solidification of the liquid HLW stored on-site. DOE has completed the vitrification of the HLW and isshipping low-level radioactive waste (LLW) off-site for disposal. As a result of having completed theHLW vitrification, DOE has identified 36 facilities for decontamination, dismantlement, removal, anddisposal. These facilities are, or within the next 4 years will be, no longer needed to safely monitor andmaintain or support future removal of the vitrified HLW or facilities that are under consideration in theDecommissioning EIS. There is no reasonably expected future use for the facilities that are within thescope of this EA. Leaving the unneeded facilities in place would require continuing maintenance andmonitoring, resulting in unnecessary expense. DOE needs to remove these facilities for cost-efficiency.
Page 11
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP7CHAPTER 2PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVESThis section describes DOE’s Proposed Action, which would, for purposes of analysis, occur over anestimated 4-year period (through December 31, 2010). It also discusses the No Action Alternative andalternatives considered but not analyzed.2.1 Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, DOE would demolish and remove the 36 facilities at WVDP listed inTable 1. All of the facilities would be demolished and the resulting waste would be removed from the site.None of the facilities would be reused.Although some of the facilities are currently in use, DOE will be able to eliminate or significantly reducethe functions that are undertaken in those facilities over the next 4 years. Replacement of any remainingfunctions could require minor modifications of existing facilities but no new construction. A fewfunctions would be taken over by qualified off-site vendors. Table 2 identifies the facilities for whichfunctions would need to be replaced. Once the functions were replaced or were no longer needed byWVDP, DOE would demolish and remove the facilities from the site. DOE would develop a logicallysequenced dismantlement plan to ensure that site services and functions remained available until nolonger needed. Facilities that remain at the end of the 4-year period would be safely maintained, operated,and monitored, as appropriate.Some of the facilities proposed for demolition and removal are permitted under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or have Interim Status (IS) under RCRA as Hazardous WasteManagement Units. Many are Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs). All applicable RCRArequirements would be met in the implementation of the Proposed Action. For those facilities that containany residual radioactive contamination, DOE would decontaminate them as needed in accordance withsite procedures.3 Industrial waste (including concrete), asbestos, hazardous waste, Class A LLW, andmixed LLW (radioactive waste that also contains hazardous components) would be generated as a resultof decontamination and demolition. No other waste types would be generated. As noted above, thesewaste volumes were not included in the West Valley Demonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement (WVDP WM EIS) (DOE/EIS-0337F) (DOE 2003) or in the SupplementAnalysis for the West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement(DOE/EIS-0337F-SA-01) (DOE 2006a).Table 1 lists the facilities proposed for demolition and removal and provides information regarding theirWaste Management Area (WMA) location, construction type, size, regulatory status, and the estimatedvolume of waste that would be generated. Waste volume estimates in Table 1 are based on priorradiological characterization, process knowledge, screening data, and DOE’s 25 years of experience at theWVDP. The waste volume estimates include radioactive waste that would be generated as a result ofdecontamination activities—specifically, estimated waste volumes for Class A LLW and mixed LLW inaddition to asbestos-contaminated, hazardous, and industrial wastes. The hazardous waste stream volumeassumes that some potentially contaminated soil (i.e., Live Fire Range soil) would be removed anddisposed of in a landfill in Indianapolis, Indiana. Appendix A contains a general description of thefacilities; Appendix B contains a detailed WVDP facility map and facility name crosswalk that includesthe facilities covered by the Proposed Action. Figures 3 and 4 show the 12 WMAs in which the facilitiesare located.3 Removal of all foundations and pads of facilities located in areas where underground contamination is likely to beencountered will be considered as part of the Decommissioning EIS.
Page 12
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP8Table 1. Facilities Proposed for Demolition and RemovalVolume of Waste (ft3)FacilityWMAConstructionTypeFootprint(ft2)StoriesFt2 ×StoriesRegulatoryStatusClass ALLWMixedLLWAsbestos Hazardous IndustrialConcreteSlabaAdministration Bldg.10Metal,Concrete, andWood5,20015,200NA0070028,600Bulk StorageWarehouse11Metal andSteel13,040226,080NA0012040,04021,000CPC Waste StorageArea5Steel14,000342,000ISSWMU10040004,000Cold ChemicalFacility3Metal andSteel1,93835,814NA000046,442Contact SizeReduction Facility1Concrete1,43522,870IS10,0002,435000Diesel Fuel OilBuilding10Metal3341334NA000203,000Emergency VehicleShelter1Metal69321,386NA00009,000Expanded(Environmental) Lab10Metal andWood4,60014,600NA000027,200Fabrication Shop10Metal4,80029,600NA0012040,040Haz Waste StorageLockers5Metal5121512ISSWMU00001,500Hydrofracture TestWell Area11Steel and Soil 90,00000NA00000(wells)Interim WasteStorage Facility7Metal1,29622,592ISSWMU100400406,296Lag StorageAddition 15Metal, Steel,and VinylFabric10,500110,500ISSWMU10040005,000Lag StorageAddition 2(hardstand)5Gravel pad13,000113,000ISSWMU1004000100Lag StorageAddition 35Steel25,600125,600ISSWMU100400050,000
Page 13
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP9Table 1. Facilities Proposed for Demolition and Removal (cont’d)Volume of Waste (ft3)FacilityWMAConstructionTypeFootprint(ft2)StoriesFt2 ×StoriesRegulatoryStatusClass ALLWMixedLLWAsbestos Hazardous IndustrialConcreteSlabaLag Storage Bldg.5Metal8,40018,400ISSWMU100400020,000Laundry Room1Concrete1,45622,912NA6,824033025,000Live Fire Range12Wood withSoil40,000140,000NA00070,000b500Lube Storage Locker2Prefab3241324NA00001,000Maintenance Shop2Metal6,000212,000SWMU00010047,000Maintenance StorageArea2Metal2,86025,720NA000011,500MSM Repair Shop1Concrete andSteel3,19513,195NA8,0000000NDA Hardstand7Cinder blockand crushedrock4001400SWMU1,1000000New Cooling TowerMetal andconcrete1,00011,000NA0008,300Slabc66,800O2 Bldg.Concrete andSteel9,600328,800SWMU29,0004010000Slabc24,000Old Warehouse6Steel12,150224,300NA0005042,150Old SewageTreatment Facility6Concrete pit22500SWMU00000600Radwaste Process(Hittman) Bldg.Steel80021,600SWMU5,1600000Slabc13,000Recirculation VentSystem Bldg.1Metal1,05011,050NA5200100106,000
Page 14
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP10Table 1. Facilities Proposed for Demolition and Removal (cont’d)Volume of Waste (ft3)FacilityWMAConstructionTypeFootprint(ft2)StoriesFt2 ×StoriesRegulatoryStatusClass ALLWMixedLLWAsbestos Hazardous IndustrialConcreteSlabaRoad-Salt & SandShed6Steel andWood68621,372NA00001,000Schoolhouse12Wood7601760SWMU000205,380200Test & Storage Bldg.2Metal andWood9,600219,200SWMU00010043,600Vehicle Repair Shop2Metal1,41022,820NA0002010,000Vitrification TestFacility2Metal5,276421,104SWMU000071,104Warehouse Bulk OilStorage Unit10Prefab1601160NA0000500WTF TrainingPlatform (one oftwo)6Steel andFabric25661,536NA00002,400TOTAL341,14175,0042,71530570,400556,65221,800a. Slabs for the Bulk Storage Warehouse, Old Sewage Treatment Facility, and Schoolhouse are in radiologically clean areas and would be removed under the ProposedAction.b. For purposes of analysis and to conservatively bound the impacts, DOE assumed that the soil from the Live Fire Range would be hazardous waste because it may containlead from spent bullets. However, the soil would be sorted and the spent bullets segregated. Because the bullets were used for their intended purpose, the lead and anyresultant contamination is not RCRA waste (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] OSWER 9441.1992(02), dated January 15, 1992). Thus, the soil from the LiveFire Range could be disposed of as industrial waste. Because hazardous waste would be shipped to a permitted landfill in Indiana and industrial waste would be shipped toa landfill in New York, the analysis that assumes the Live Fire Range soil to be hazardous waste bounds the impacts, which are based upon miles traveled.c. Slabs for the New Cooling Tower, O2 Building, and Radwaste Process (Hittman) Building would be decontaminated if necessary but would not be removed under theProposed Action. These slabs will be evaluated in the Decommissioning EIS.Note: ft2 = square foot; ft3 = cubic foot.NA = not applicable; SWMU = Solid Waste Management Unit; IS = Interim Status Hazardous Waste Management Unit.
Page 15
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP11Table 2. Facility Functions DOE Expects to be ReplacedWVDP FacilityFunctionReplacementaBulk StorageWarehouseStores office furniture, supplies,computers, and electrical equipmentRemaining storage needs would be met by the NewWarehouse,b which would remain available.Diesel Fuel OilBuildingStores diesel fuel oil for theVitrification Facility dieselgeneratorEmergency generator fuel needs for the VitrificationFacility would be met using other remaining sitesystems such as the Permanent Ventilation SystemBuilding.EmergencyVehicle ShelterHouses the site emergency vehicles The emergency response vehicle would remainavailable and fully stocked, and existing agreementswith local response organizations would remain ineffect. The on-site emergency response vehicle wouldbe stored outside or in another existing facility.ExpandedEnvironmentalLaboratorySupports laboratory analysis andtestingThis function would be replaced by quality-certifiedoff-site laboratories, mobile laboratories, or remainingsmaller on-site facilities to match current needs.Hazardous WasteStorage LockersUsed for short-term storage ofhazardous wasteHazardous waste would be stored appropriately inexisting facilities until shipped off-site for disposal.cLaundry RoomUsed for laundering both clean andcontaminated protective clothingServices would be provided by off-site vendors ifnecessary.Live Fire RangeUsed for weapons practice andqualification coursesA firing range is available locally.Lube StorageLockerUsed for lubrication materialsstorageLubrication materials would be stored appropriatelyin other remaining facilities such as the NewWarehouse,b if necessary.Maintenance Shop Used for metal-working activitiesRemaining maintenance functions would betransferred to the New Warehouse,b which wouldremain available.MaintenanceStorage AreaStores raw materials for use in theMaintenance ShopRemaining storage needs would be met by the NewWarehouse,b which would remain available.New CoolingTowerProvided cooling water to systemsand equipmentCooling function is being converted to air-cooledsystems as part of routine maintenance.Old WarehouseSupports the storage of spare parts,equipment, and chemicalsassociated with conduct of theWVDP; formerly used by NFS forthe same purpose; a portion housesa radiological counting facilityRemaining storage needs would be met by the NewWarehouse,b which would remain available.Road Salt andSand ShedStores road salt and sand used fortreating roadways in the winterAn off-site contractor would be used to maintainwalkways and roadways.Vehicle RepairShopUsed to maintain and repair vehiclesused on-siteVehicle maintenance and repair would be housed inthe New Warehouse,b which would remain available.Warehouse BulkOil Storage UnitUsed for the storage of combustiblematerialsCombustible materials would be stored appropriatelyin existing facilities such as the New Warehouse,b ifnecessary.a. DOE expects the impacts from each of the replacement activities to be the same as or less than those from the respectivecurrent activities.b. The New Warehouse is an existing facility located east of the Administration Building, west of the Old Warehouse, and southof the Main Plant Process Building.c. The Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers are currently identified as RCRA Hazardous Waste IS Storage Units on the RCRAPart A Permit Application. To keep operating the unit as an IS unit, the Waste Management Staging Area of LSA 4, theShipping Depot, or the Loadout of the Remote Handled Waste Facility could be utilized for nonradioactive hazardous wastemanagement purposes with Radiation Protection’s and Waste Operations’ approval. The waste also could be managed byfollowing the requirements for 90-day storage areas and shipping within the 90-day timeframe, and by using one of the bermedrooms of the New Warehouse.
Page 16
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP12Figure 3. WMAs 1 – 10 at WVDP
Page 17
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP13Figure 4. WMAs 11 – 12 at WVDP
Page 18
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP14DOE would package the generated wastes on-site and transport them to licensed commercial or DOEdisposal facilities located off-site. Class A LLW and mixed LLW would be shipped to Hanford, EnergySolutions (formerly Envirocare), and/or the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal. No radioactive wastewould be disposed of within the State of New York. Industrial waste and building debris waste would beshipped to a landfill in Model City, New York, or to a landfill outside of Angelica, New York, where thistype of WVDP waste is currently shipped for disposal.4 Asbestos waste would be shipped to a landfill inModel City, New York. Hazardous waste would be shipped to a landfill in Indianapolis, Indiana, wherethis type of WVDP waste is currently shipped for disposal.Table 3 lists the types of waste packaging expected to be used for each waste type, the off-site disposallocations where the wastes would be sent, and the projected volumes. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping regulations would be followed toensure safe packaging, temporary on-site storage, and shipment. Figures 5 and 6 show proposed disposallocations for each waste type. With the exception of the Hanford Site, these are the sites to which WVDPLLW, mixed LLW, asbestos, hazardous waste, industrial waste, and concrete debris are currently shippedfor disposal. LLW and mixed LLW handling and disposal activities at NTS and Hanford are described inthe Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-site Locations (DOE 1996a)and the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement (DOE 2004), respectively. Disposal of waste at commercial facilities would be conducted inaccordance with existing licenses and permits.Table 3. Waste Types, Packaging, Disposal Locations, and Estimated VolumesWaste TypeExpected WastePackagingaDisposal LocationsVolume(ft3)Class A LLWB-25 boxesNTS (Mercury, NV),Hanford Siteb (Richland, WA), orEnergy Solutions (Clive, UT)75,004Mixed LLWB-25 boxesNTS (Mercury, NV),Hanford Siteb (Richland, WA), orEnergy Solutions (Clive, UT)2,715AsbestosDouble bags (friable)Roll-offs (nonfriable)Chemical Waste Management(Model City, NY)305Hazardous Waste 55-gallon drumsHeritage Environmental Services(Indianapolis, IN)70,400Industrial WasteB-25 boxesSDS (Angelica, NY) or ChemicalWaste Management (Model City, NY)556,652Concrete / Debris Single-body dumptrucksSDS (Angelica, NY) or ChemicalWaste Management (Model City, NY)21,800a. This packaging was assumed for purposes of analysis. Although different packaging may be used, the impactswould be similar because the waste volume would be the same.b. In accordance with the settlement agreement between DOE and the State of Washington of January 6, 2006,regarding the case Washington v. Bodman, DOE will not ship LLW and mixed LLW from WVDP to Hanforduntil DOE has satisfied the requirements of the settlement agreement.Note: NTS = Nevada Test Site.4 The draft EA stated that industrial waste and concrete/debris waste would be shipped to Olean, New York. Thefacility in Olean is a transfer station. The landfill in which the waste would be disposed is located in Angelica, NewYork. Both the draft and final EA analyze the potential transportation impacts of shipping the waste from the WVDPsite to the landfill in Angelica.
Page 19
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP15Figure 5. Waste Destinations for Asbestos, Industrial Waste, and ConcreteFigure 6. Destinations for LLW, Mixed LLW, and Hazardous Waste
Page 20
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP16DOE would undertake the following specific activities under the Proposed Action:• Perform surveys of residual radioactivity prior to spraying or painting a sealant over facilitysurfaces.• Remove radioactive contamination from facilities as appropriate. Depending on the amount andlevel of contamination, pre-demolition preparation could include debris removal, washing orwiping of surfaces, and application of sealants or fixatives. Contaminated water would becollected, treated, and discharged in accordance with state-permitted procedures.• Remove asbestos and hazardous waste.• As appropriate, remove major equipment not directly involved in the vitrification process such asprocess tanks, vessels, and pumps and remove valves and piping.• Demolish the facility, along with any appurtenant facilities. Demolition methods would include,but not be limited to, grapples, masonry saws, ultra-high-pressure water jets, drilling andexpansion cracking, and water-cooled track saws. Explosives would not be used in demolition.• Excavate contaminated soils as necessary (Live Fire Range only).• Conduct post-decontamination radiation surveys and collect samples for radiological andhazardous waste characterization and other analyses as required.• Remove and dispose of asphalt and concrete from parking lots, roadways, and walkways asneeded. Areas would be regraded and stabilized (seeded) to match natural contours.• Segregate and package the resultant wastes.• Transport the wastes off-site using rail or truck, or a combination of both.• Dispose of the debris and packaged waste at off-site locations.• Stabilize exposed, unarmored soils using vegetative methods in accordance with the New YorkState Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (NYSDEC 2005) and theWVDP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (WVNS 2004a), which meet the requirements ofthe WVDP State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit that regulates sitestormwater discharges. The New York standards for erosion and sediment control identify thetopsoil, seed mix, and mulching specifications to ensure proper soil stabilization. Approximately50 loads of topsoil would be brought to the site for this purpose from about 16 kilometers(10 miles) away.• Use fugitive dust controls, including water sprays, where soil disturbance and demolition-relatedactivities would substantively increase airborne particulate levels. Water spray usage would becontrolled to minimize excess water, which would be monitored and treated as necessary prior todischarge.All decontamination activities would be conducted in accordance with the WVDP Radiological ProtectionProgram, which meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. TheRadiological Protection Program requires that radiological operations be performed in a manner thatensures the health and safety of all workers and the public. The program also requires that radiation
Page 21
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP17exposures to workers and the public, and releases of radioactivity to the environment, be maintainedbelow federally allowed limits and that deliberate efforts be taken to further reduce exposures andreleases in accordance with a process that seeks to make any such exposures or releases as low asreasonably achievable (ALARA).Applicable federal limits for public exposure are set at 10 millirem (mrem) per year by the EPA NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, 40 CFR Part 61, for theairborne pathway and 100 mrem per year by DOE Order 5400.5 for the sum of all exposure pathways.The following steps would be taken to ensure compliance with the limits and ALARA principles in theimplementation of the Proposed Action:• Post-decontamination radiation surveys would be conducted and samples would be collected forradiological and hazardous waste characterization and other analyses as required.• Air monitoring during decontamination activities would be performed at removal sites and at thesite boundary as necessary to verify that no threat to the public was present and that cumulativeemissions of radionuclides from excavation areas or from facility removal activities would notresult in members of the public receiving more than the DOE primary dose standard (an effectivedose equivalent of 100 mrem annually).• Shielding would be provided commensurate with the particular radiological hazard andanticipated scope(s) of work to ensure that doses to workers would be below federally allowedlimits.• Airborne contamination controls would be provided to ensure that doses to workers would bebelow federally allowed limits. These controls would include barriers (e.g., structures and filters)and differential pressures between adjacent areas/rooms/cells, as appropriate for a particularradiological hazard.• Personal protective equipment, such as respirators and anti-contamination clothing, would beused in contaminated areas as needed to ensure that doses to workers would be below federallyallowed limits.• Area radiation monitors, continuous air monitors, personal contamination monitors, friskers, andother radiation detection equipment would be used as appropriate to ensure that workers weremade aware of any abnormal radiological conditions in a timely manner.• ALARA reviews and other activities as appropriate would be performed to ensure that shieldingand contamination control functions were adequately maintained when modifications were madeto passive confinement or radiation shielding structures.• Existing public access restrictions to minimize the potential for radiological exposure wouldremain in effect during facility removal and upon completion of the work.The planned approach is to remove facilities to grade level. Grade level and below will be addressed inthe Decommissioning EIS now in preparation. DOE believes that decisions on the overall management ofbelow-grade material, based on contamination levels and applicable regulations and guidelines, should bemade as part of the plan for the long-term management of the WVDP site and the WNYNSC.Radiological decontamination levels for EA work would be determined in accordance with the limitsestablished in the WVDP Radiological Controls Manual (WVNS 2001), which was developed inaccordance with 10 CFR 835.
Page 22
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP18DOE 5400.5 and 40 CFR Part 61 provide the radiological standards applicable to environmental mediareleases during and after structure removal. 40 CFR Part 61 addresses the requirements relative toradiological air permitting based on CAP-88 modeling of emissions associated with demolition. TheProject Premises areas would remain under institutional and public access control during and uponcompletion of facility removal.All applicable RCRA and corollary New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC) Quality Services regulations for management (storage, shipping, reporting, and off-sitedisposal) of solid waste, including hazardous waste, would be followed in completing this work. Forhazardous constituents, facility removal would be conducted in accordance with IS closure requirementsas identified in 6 NYCRR 373-3. Requisite RCRA corrective actions would be addressed pursuant to theRCRA 3008(h) Order on Consent.2.2 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, current operations would continue and DOE would not decontaminate,demolish, or remove the 36 unneeded facilities. Contaminated soil, equipment, and facilities wouldremain in place. Funds would continue to be spent for routine maintenance and monitoring of theseunneeded facilities. Ongoing activities at the WVDP site would continue, including the loading,transportation, and off-site disposal of LLW and mixed LLW as analyzed in the WVDP WM EIS(DOE/EIS-0337F) (DOE 2003) and the Supplement Analysis for the West Valley Demonstration ProjectWaste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337F-SA-01) (DOE 2006a).2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not AnalyzedDOE considered whether to analyze the decontamination, demolition, and removal of a subset of the36 facilities included in the Proposed Action. Because the potential impacts of the decontamination,demolition, and removal of all 36 facilities would collectively be very small, it would be difficult todistinguish among alternatives if subsets of fewer facilities were analyzed. Moreover, the impactsdescribed for the Proposed Action bound the impacts that would be expected if a smaller number offacilities were decontaminated, demolished, and removed from the WVDP.
Page 23
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP19CHAPTER 3EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS3.1 IntroductionThe following sections provide a general description of the existing environment on and near the WVDPsite for the affected resource areas. A more detailed description of these resource areas can be found inChapter 3 of the WVDP WM EIS (DOE 2003) and other references cited in that document. Following thedescription of each resource area, a description of the adverse or beneficial impacts that would occur orcould be reasonably expected to occur to this resource area if the Proposed Action were implemented ispresented. For comparison purposes and as required under NEPA, Section 3.12 describes adverse orbeneficial environmental impacts that would occur if the No Action Alternative were implemented.3.2 Climate, Air Quality, and Visibility3.2.1 Existing EnvironmentThe climate of western New York is the moist continental climate typical of the northeast United States.The climate is seasonally diverse due to the influence of several atmospheric and geographic factors, mostnotably the “lake effect” which results in abundant snowfall.5 Although there are recorded extremes of98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and -43.6 ºF for western New York, the climate is moderate, with an averageannual temperature (1971–2000) of 48 ºF. Rainfall is relatively high, averaging about 104 centimeters(41 inches) per year. Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year and is markedly influenced byLake Erie to the west and, to a lesser extent, by Lake Ontario to the north. The prevailing winds aresouthwesterly and average 4 meters per second (9 miles per hour) (WVNS 2004b). Severe summerthunderstorms occur in western New York, but tornadoes are rare.New York is divided into nine regions for assessing state ambient air quality. The WVDP site is locatedin Region 9, which consists of Niagara, Erie, Wyoming, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany counties.Cattaraugus County, where the WVDP is located, is an attainment area for all National Primary andSecondary Ambient Air Quality Standards contained in 40 CFR Part 50 and New York State air qualitystandards contained in 6 NYCRR 257. Chautauqua and Erie counties, which border Cattaraugus Countyto the west and northwest, are nonattainment areas for ozone. However, the prevailing southwesterlywinds would tend to disperse WVDP emissions away from these nonattainment counties. Because theProposed Action would not be implemented in a criteria air pollutant nonattainment or maintenance area,and would not adversely impact a neighboring nonattainment or maintenance area, a full Clean Air ActConformity determination is not required.Air emissions of radionuclides from WVDP are regulated by EPA under the NESHAP regulations,40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, National Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon from Department ofEnergy Facilities. Emissions from the WVDP for the calendar year 2004 can be found in the WVDPAnnual Site Environmental Report. In 2004, the estimated dose of radiation to a maximally exposed off-site individual from airborne emissions at the WVDP was 0.0015 mrem, which is about 0.02 percent ofthe 10-mrem EPA standard (WVNS 2005).There are no mandatory Class I visibility areas either in New York State or in Pennsylvania (EPA 2005).5 “Lake effect” refers to the generation of sometimes spectacular snowfall amounts to the lee of (downwind of) theGreat Lakes as cold air passes over the lake surface, extracting heat and moisture, resulting in cloud formation andsnowfall downwind of the lake shore (AMS 2006).
Page 24
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP203.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionImplementation of the Proposed Action would result in the unavoidable short-term mobilization oremission of small amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive particulates. It would also result in short-term emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from the exhaust of a small number of gasoline anddiesel engines used for demolition and transportation activities.During calendar year 2005, approximately 8,500 cubic meters (300,000 cubic feet) of LLW waste hadbeen shipped off-site from the WVDP site. This is approximately four times the volume of LLW thatwould be shipped off-site under the Proposed Action. For at least the last decade, the radiological dosefrom air emissions received by the maximally exposed off-site individual has been less than 1 percent ofthe most stringent limit and in most years has been substantially lower. These were years when activitiessimilar to those proposed under the Proposed Action were ongoing.6 Consequently, similarly low levels ofdispersed radioactive particulates are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. Potential humanhealth impacts to workers and members of the public as a result of exposure to these emissions arespecifically addressed in Section 3.10.During excavation of soils and during other demolition activities as appropriate, all personnel within thework area would be protected, through the use of appropriate construction techniques, from airborneemissions by use of full-face respirators and other protective clothing or equipment as required by theWVDP Radiological Protection and Industrial Health and Safety Organizations. Constant air monitoringwould provide a warning of release and help ensure that demolition and removal activities did not causereleases in excess of DOE Order 5400.5 guidelines at the construction site or the WVDP site boundary.Releases of airborne contamination to the environment during facility removal activities would beminimized through the use of at least two levels of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration.Fugitive dust controls, including water sprays, would be used where soil disturbance and demolition-related activities would substantially increase airborne particulate levels. Vehicle and equipmentemissions would be minimized by keeping all equipment maintained to manufacturer specifications.Because there are no mandatory Class I visibility areas in New York or Pennsylvania, there would be noadverse impacts to visibility to such resources.3.3 Geology and Soils3.3.1 Existing EnvironmentThe geologic sediments beneath the WVDP site include a sequence of glacial sediments above shalebedrock. The site is divided by a stream valley into two areas: the north plateau and the south plateau. Theuppermost layer on the south plateau is a silty clay till, the Lavery till. Weathering has fractured thenearsurface sediments. Within the Lavery till on the north plateau is a silty, sandy layer of limited extent,the Lavery tillsand. The Kent recessional sequence underlies the Lavery till beneath both the north andsouth plateaus and is composed of silt and silty sand with localized pockets of gravel (WVNS 2000).6 For more than 10 years, activities at WVDP have included decontamination and decommissioning of facilities,such as cleaning up hot cells. Radioactive waste has also been shipped off-site. These activities are similar to thosethat would occur under the Proposed Action. For that reason, DOE concluded that the maximally exposed off-siteindividual would receive radiological doses similar to what had been released in the last 10 years, or less than1 percent of the most stringent limit. DOE assumed that any buildings to be demolished would be clean ordecontaminated such that there would be no radiological air emissions.
Page 25
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP21With respect to the North Plateau portion of the site, geologic factors influencing groundwater flowsediments in the sand and gravel waterbearing zone can be divided into two depositional units: SurficialAlluvium and Slack Water Sequence. The Surficial Alluvium blankets the entire North Plateaudowngradient of the Process Building. Surficial Alluvium sediments are poorly sorted and occur in beds(separate depositional layers) that range in thickness from 10 centimeters (4 inches) to over30 centimeters (12 inches). Most of the sediments in the Surficial Alluvium can be classified as muddygravel or muddy sandy gravel. These sediments were deposited by streams that eroded and reworkedglacial deposits and outwash (WVNS 1995).Slack-Water Sequence sediments were deposited in a glacial lake/pond. Streams from Dutch Hill(southwest of the Main Plant) transported sediments into the still water of the lake. The sediments werealso sorted by the lake water. Coarser sediments were deposited near the mouth of the streams and finersediments dropped out further in the lake. Sediment layers in the Slack-Water Sequence are generallythin-bedded (less than 5 centimeters [2 inches] thick) and well sorted. In general, the well sorted, mediumto coarse grained sediments of the Slack-Water Sequence are believed to be more permeable than thepoorly sorted sediments of the Surficial Alluvium. The permeability of fine grained Slack-WaterSequence sediments may not be greater than the Surficial Alluvium. Permeability descriptions are basedon geologic descriptions from borehole logs. Slack-Water Sequence sediments occur only within anortheast-trending channel-like depression on the Lavery till surface in the center of the North Plateau.This depression extends from the water cooling tower in the south to Frank's Creek valley opposite theclosed, inactive Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill (WVNS 1995).The WVDP is in a low seismic shaking hazard area (USGS 2005). From 1737 to 1999, there have been119 recorded earthquakes within 480 kilometers (300 miles) of the WVDP with epicentral intensities ofModified Mercalli Intensities V to VII. Of the 119 recorded earthquakes, 25 occurred within320 kilometers (200 miles) of the WVDP (WVNS 2000). The highest Modified Mercalli Intensityestimated to have occurred at the Center within the last 100 years was an intensity of IV, which is similarto vibrations from a heavy truck that might be felt by people indoors but does not cause damage(DOE 1996b).3.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionEnvironmental impacts to geological and soil resources would be limited to the removal of soil at the LiveFire Range and uncontaminated soil surrounding, and from up to 0.6 meters (2 feet) below, severaluncontaminated building slabs. All topsoils and subsoils that would be disturbed under the ProposedAction have been previously disturbed—in some instances, profoundly disturbed. Because the ProposedAction would be of limited duration (4 years) and because the WVDP is in a low seismic shaking hazardarea, the chance of a seismic event affecting the Proposed Action is considered to be extremely low.3.4 Hydrology3.4.1 Existing EnvironmentSurface water. The WVDP facilities and its two water supply reservoirs lie in separate watersheds, bothof which are drained by Buttermilk Creek. Buttermilk Creek, which roughly bisects the WNYNSC, flowsin a northwestward direction to its confluence with Cattaraugus Creek, at the northwest end of the Center.Several tributary streams flow into Buttermilk Creek at the Center. The flow length of Buttermilk Creekthrough the Center is about 7,600 meters (25,000 feet). About 2,700 meters (9,000 feet) of this is adjacentto the Project Facilities and the water supply reservoirs (WVNS 2000). Cattaraugus Creek flowswestward from the Buttermilk Creek confluence to Lake Erie, 63 kilometers (39 miles) downstream.
Page 26
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP22The watershed on the Project Premises is drained by three named streams: Quarry Creek, Frank’s Creek,and Erdman Brook (WVNS 2000). Erdman Brook and Quarry Creek are tributaries to Frank’s Creek,which in turn flows into Buttermilk Creek. Erdman Brook, the smallest of the three streams, drains thecentral and largest fraction of the developed WVDP premises, including a large portion of the disposalareas and the areas surrounding the lagoon system; the plant, office, and warehouse areas; and a majorpart of the parking lots. Following treatment, WVDP wastewater is also discharged to this brook.Cattaraugus Creek is used locally for swimming, canoeing, and fishing. Downstream from the WVDP,the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation is located along Cattaraugus Creek, from Gowanda, New York,downstream to the shore of Lake Erie. Although some water is taken from Cattaraugus Creek to irrigatenearby golf course greens and tree farms, no public potable water supply is drawn from the creekdownstream of the WNYNSC before the creek flows into Lake Erie south of Buffalo, New York. Waterfrom Lake Erie is used as a public drinking water supply.Groundwater. The WVDP is located within the Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer System, a system thathas been designated by EPA as a sole or principal source of drinking water for the surrounding towns(52 Fed. Reg. 36102 (1987)). This means that all projects with federal financial assistance constructed inthis basin are subject to EPA review to ensure that they are designed and constructed so as not to create asignificant hazard to public health.The WVDP site is underlain by two aquifer zones, neither of which can be considered highly permeableor productive. The groundwater flow patterns pertinent to the site relate to recharge and downgradientmovement for these two aquifers. Groundwater in the surficial unit tends to move in an easterly ornortheasterly direction from the western boundary of the site, close to Rock Springs Road. Most of thegroundwater in this unit discharges via springs and seeps into Frank’s Creek or into small tributaries ofthat creek (for example, Erdman Brook). Groundwater recharging the weathered shale and rubble zonetends to move eastward toward the thalweg of the buried valley (the locus of the lowest points in thecross-section of the buried valley), located about 300 to 350 meters (980 to 1,150 feet) west of ButtermilkCreek. Once attaining the thalweg, the direction of groundwater movement shifts to the direction of thethalweg, about 25 degrees west, and proceeds toward the northwest (WVNS 2000).3.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would not require any new facility construction and is not expected to cause anyimpacts requiring EPA or NYSDEC review or additional permitting for surface water or groundwaterquality.Intermittently and for relatively short periods during the Proposed Action, suspended solids in stormwaterrunoff may increase during soil excavation activities that would occur for some facilities. Thisintermittent short-term impact would be mitigated by stabilization techniques and sediment controls asprescribed in the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control(NYSDEC 2005). Such impacts would be temporary, occurring only during soil excavation, disturbance,and placement activities. Controlled discharges of stormwater runoff from these activities are authorizedby, and would comply with, the terms of the existing individual SPDES Permit No. NY 0000973 forstormwater discharges.Mitigation actions that would be implemented include fugitive dust controls such as water sprays thatwould be used where soil disturbance and demolition-related activities could substantively increaseairborne particulate levels. For certain contaminated facilities such as the O2 Building, DOE wouldconstruct dikes around the facility to prevent stormwater runoff and collect water from fugitive dustcontrol and vehicle washdowns. Collected water would be treated and released to the Low-Level
Page 27
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP23Wastewater Treatment Facility (LLWTF) Lagoon. At other facilities, mitigation measures would includerunoff diversion (around the work area) or straw bale or fabric filter fencing for silt control. Post-demolition stabilization of exposed work areas would include the addition of topsoil, seed, and mulch.For paved areas, stabilization would include the use of washed stone, washdown and water collection, orbroom sweeping (for example, for concrete or asphalt pads).Potential increases in erosion rates and associated nonradioactive solids loadings into surface waters fromremoval of pads and foundations in several noncontaminated areas would be reduced as former buildingfootprints were replaced by permeable, vegetation-covered soils. The increase in vegetation would reducestormwater runoff velocities and increase stormwater infiltration into the soil. The Proposed Action wouldhave no measurable adverse impacts on groundwater.3.5 Ecological Resources3.5.1 Existing EnvironmentAnimals and Plants. The WNYNSC lies within the northern hardwood forest region. Its climaxcommunity forests are characterized by the dominance of sugar maple, beech, and Eastern hemlock. Atpresent, the site is about equally divided between forestland and abandoned farm fields. Consequently, itprovides habitat especially attractive to white-tailed deer, various indigenous migratory birds, reptiles,and small mammals. Plant communities found on the site have been categorized into five cover types:mixed hardwood forest, pine-spruce community, successional creek bank communities, late oldfieldsuccessional areas, and fields-meadows. The plant communities found on the site are characteristic ofwestern New York. The relatively undisturbed nature of large portions of the WNYNSC has allowed fornatural succession of previous agricultural areas within its boundaries. Because neither the setting nor theformer agriculture land use is unique, the forest communities that will eventually develop in theabandoned fields will be similar to others in the region (WVNS 2000).Federally Listed Species. In comments submitted on the draft version of the WVDP WM EIS(DOE 2003), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred in DOE’s determination that no federally listedor proposed endangered or threatened species are known to exist in the project impact area and that nohabitat in the project impact area is currently designated or proposed critical habitat in accordance withthe provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.State-Listed Species. State of New York “special concern species” are species of fish and wildlife foundto be at risk of becoming endangered or threatened in New York (New York Code of Rules andRegulations Title 6, part 182.2(i)). Typically, species of special concern are those whose populations aredeclining, often in association with critical habitat loss. Field investigations at the WNYNSC in 1990 and1991 recorded one species (Northern harrier) on the state list of threatened species and six state species ofspecial concern (Cooper’s hawk, upland sandpiper, common raven, Eastern bluebird, Henson’s sparrow,and vesper sparrow). However, all of the noted species were observed in areas of the WNYNSC outsideof the WVDP Project Premises. Moreover, none of these threatened species or species of special concerndepend on habitat within the WVDP Project Premises for any aspect of their life cycles (DOE 2003).Wetlands. The WNYNSC has meadows, marshes, lakes, ponds, bogs, and other areas that are consideredfunctional wetlands. Fifty-six such areas have been identified as “jurisdictional” wetlands, or wetlandsthat are constrained from dredging or filling actions by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and by thestate Freshwater Wetland Act (WVNS 2006). These wetlands range in size from 100 square meters(1,100 square feet) to more than 30,000 square meters (318,000 square feet). The total wetlands area isapproximately 138,000 square meters (34 acres). Twenty-seven wetlands were wholly or partially withinthe Project Premises. The NYSDEC has determined that six wetlands encompassing 70,000 square meters
Page 28
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP24(754,000 square feet) on the south and east sides of the Project Premises and SDA are linked and meet thecriteria for a single wetland. A wetland delineation map for the WVDP environs is contained inAppendix C.Floodplains. The site’s topographic setting renders major flooding unlikely; local runoff and flooding isadequately accommodated by natural and man-made drainage systems in and around the WVDP(WVNS 2000). Flood levels for the 100-year and the 500-year storms show that no facilities on theProject Premises are in either the 100- or 500-year floodplain (FEMA 1984).3.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionNo federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species and no critical habitat for any federally orstate-listed threatened or endangered species would be affected by the Proposed Action because noneexist on the WVDP Project Premises. During demolition operations, noise and increased human activitycould temporarily disturb local wildlife. In the long term, the demolition and removal of unneeded orcontaminated facilities would enhance the quality of the WVDP habitat for local indigenous or migratoryspecies. Any required backfilling, regrading, and revegetation around foundation areas would alsoenhance the WVDP habitat.Most of the wetlands within the WNYNSC are outside of the Project Premises. Of those few on theProject Premises, none are co-located with any of the 36 facilities proposed for removal. Because theProposed Action would not entail any new construction activities or any planned disturbance to ordischarge into any delineated wetlands or wetland buffer areas, no adverse impacts to wetlands areexpected (see Appendix C). Measures would be taken to ensure that any potential adverse impacts todelineated wetlands would be avoided to the fullest extent possible. Prior to work performance, activity-and task-level work would be assessed by qualified environmental professionals to identify the potentialfor adverse impacts to site wetlands and to prescribe appropriate controls into the work process tominimize and mitigate such impacts. Administrative controls (such as delineating work area limits anderecting exclusion fencing) and physical controls (for stormwater runoff) would be implemented.Sediment and erosion controls for runoff from the work area (including filtration or diversion techniques,such as fabric siltation fences, diversion channels, straw bale dikes, and check dams) would be specified,installed, and maintained.There would be no substantive changes to the existing stormwater drainage infrastructure, and theProposed Action would not occur in a 100- or 500-year floodplain.3.6 Historical and Cultural Resources3.6.1 Existing EnvironmentCultural resource materials have been found and 11 cultural resource sites have been identified at theWNYNSC. The resources consist of eight historic archaeological sites, two standing structures, and oneprehistoric lithic findspot (WVNS 1994). However, no sites of historical or cultural interest have beenfound on the Project Premises. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and HistoricPreservation has determined that no site facilities, including those proposed for demolition and removal,are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (SHPO 1995).
Page 29
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP253.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would not affect any known historical or cultural resources. If an historical orcultural resource were discovered during the Proposed Action, activities at that location would besuspended pending an opinion by the State Historic Preservation Officer or a qualified anthropologist.3.7 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice3.7.1 Existing EnvironmentThe WVDP site lies within the town of Ashford in Cattaraugus County. The nearby population,approximately 9,200 residents within 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the Project, relies largely on anagricultural economy. No major industries are located within this area. The WVDP is among the largestemployers in Cattaraugus County. Section 3.8 of the WVDP WM EIS (DOE 2003) describes low-incomeand minority populations near the WVDP.3.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionUnder the Proposed Action, no significant changes to the existing workforce at WVDP would beanticipated. Functions that were still needed by site operations, but not transferred to another existingWVDP facility, would be taken over by qualified off-site or mobile vendors. For that reason, there wouldbe no impact to socioeconomic resources such as housing, schools, and other public facilities. Theexisting tax base would neither increase nor decrease.The only impact from the Proposed Action with the potential to disproportionately and adversely affectminority or low-income populations would be the short-term increase in uncontaminated suspended solidscarried by stormwater runoff from areas where soil was temporarily unarmored (uncovered) or disturbedduring the course of facility removal (described in Section 3.4.2). No failures have occurred in the past,and such failures are unlikely in the future. If a failure were to occur, DOE would stop work, re-evaluateits work procedures, and improve control measures to correct the problem. If existing and plannedsediment and silt control measures unexpectedly failed, there could be a disproportionate adverse impactto residents along Cattaraugus Creek, which traverses the Cattaraugus Reservation of The Seneca Nationof Indians.3.8 Noise3.8.1 Existing EnvironmentNoise can be defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech, communication,or hearing; is intense enough to damage hearing; or is otherwise loud, discordant, or disagreeable to somereceptors. Depending upon the loudness and the duration of a noise, its effects can range from temporaryannoyance to permanent hearing impairment or loss. Ambient noise is the collective sound resulting fromthe omnipresent background noise associated with a given environment. It is usually a composite of manysounds from many sources. An environment’s ambient noise serves as a point of departure andcomparison for analyzing the impact of a new or additional noise on a sensitive environment.Noise is generally considered to be low when its ambient levels are below 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA),moderate in the 45- to 60-dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Typical wilderness area ambient sound isabout 35 dBA, typical rural residential levels are about 40 dBA, typical wooded residential area levels areabout 50 dBA, and typical urban residential sound levels on a busy street are about 68 dBA (outdoor day-
Page 30
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP26night average sound levels) (Suter 1991). Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can result in the onset ofsleep interference; above 70 dBA, sleep interference effects become considerable. Different environmentscan be characterized by noise levels that are generally considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lowerlevels are expected in rural or suburban areas than would be expected for commercial, industrial, orconstruction zones.The Proposed Action would occur on a small former industrial complex surrounded by undisturbedforested areas and agricultural areas. The nearest off-site noise receptor is approximately 0.95 kilometer(0.6 mile) from the WVDP fenceline. Ambient noise levels in the surrounding area would be typical ofaverage outdoor noise levels in rural areas. Background sounds are produced mostly by naturalphenomena (wind, rain, and common wildlife) and by light to moderate traffic on SR-240. In theimmediate vicinity of the Proposed Action, there are no sustained outdoor ambient noise levels above85 dBA, the level considered harmful by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)(OSHA 2004). Noise from ongoing site activities includes that from the Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroadline, which runs within 800 meters (2,600 feet) of the Project Premises. Rail noise occurs when railcarsare brought to the site from the south and leave from the site to the south for waste shipping purposes.3.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action includes the demolition and removal of 36 facilities. The specific pieces of heavyequipment that would be required at each of these 36 facilities and the duration for which they would beused are not known and probably would not be known until operations were underway. However, it islikely that activities performed under the Proposed Action would result in a short-term increase in noise atthe WVDP. Noise would be generated by decontamination, demolition, excavation, grading, scraping, andremoval operations. Truck or rail traffic traveling to and from the area as part of the Proposed Actionwould also contribute to the noise impact.Table 4 shows typical heavy equipment noise levels at 15 meters (50 feet) from the source. Based onDOE’s prior experience, the types of equipment shown in the table are illustrative of what would be usedfor decontamination, demolition, excavation, grading, scraping, and removal operations. The overall noiseimpact would vary daily, depending on the type of activity, duration of the activity, distance between theactivity and noise-sensitive receptors, and any shielding effects provided by local barriers andtopography.Table 4. Noise Levels of Typical Heavy EquipmentEquipmentTypical Noise Level (dBA)50 Feet from SourceBackhoe80Grader85Loader85Roller75Bulldozer85Truck88Scraper80Source: FTA 1995.The loudest removal activity that would be undertaken for a sustained period would probably be thedemolition of facilities with a bulldozer. As seen in Table 4, at 15 meters (50 feet) from the bulldozer, this
Page 31
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP27activity would generate noise levels of about 85 dB.7 The day-long average noise exposure level wouldbe approximately 85 dB, which would meet OSHA requirements.A basic noise drop rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of the distance to a receptor is a commonly applied noiseattenuation factor. The nearest residence is approximately 0.95 kilometer (3,200 feet) from the WVDP.Applying the 6.0-dBA reduction (as distance doubles) to a receptor, at 3,200 feet the noise from abulldozer would be approximately 49 dBA. This is a conservative estimate because it does not includeattenuation factors other than distance—for example, trees or buildings between the noise source and thenearest residence that would act as buffers. As noted above, a noise level of 50 dBA is approximately theoutdoor noise level of a wooded residential area. This would be a short-term impact lasting only for theduration of the Proposed Action. There would be no long-term noise impacts.3.9 Land Use and Visual Surroundings3.9.1 Existing EnvironmentThe WVDP is a formerly active, but now inactive, heavy industrial site. Current land use on the premisesis primarily for waste storage and for stewardship of inactive facilities pending final disposition. It is acontrolled access security area surrounded by a high chain-link fence. Depending on vantage point andseason of the year, the site can be either unnoticeable or clearly visible on the ground from several milesaway. It is well-lit at night. Visually, it stands in marked contrast to the wooded hills and agriculturallands that surround it on all sides.Land within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the site is used mainly for agricultural (active and inactive) andforestry activities. The major exception is the Village of Springville, where residential/commercial andindustrial land uses are found (WVNS 2000).The industries nearest the site are light-industrial and commercial (either retail- or service-oriented). Afield review of an 8-kilometer (5-mile) radius did not indicate the presence of any industrial facilities thatwould present a hazard in terms of safe operation of the site.A similar field review of the Village of Springville and the Town of Concord did not indicate the presenceof any significant industrial facilities. Industrial facilities near the WNYNSC include Winsmith-PeerlessWinsmith, Inc., a gear reducer manufacturing facility, and Springville Manufacturing, a fabricatingfacility for air cylinders (WVNS 2000). The industries within the Village of Springville and the Town ofConcord, Erie County, are located in a valley approximately 6 kilometers (4 miles) to the north and eastof the WVDP.3.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would not affect the current land use at the WVDP or the surrounding area. Theremoval of unneeded facilities and planned regrading and revegetation (where pads and foundations wereremoved) would enhance the visual aspects of the site by modestly reducing the degree to which theWVDP visually contrasts with the surrounding rural landscape. Some temporary land disturbance wouldbe caused by the Proposed Action, although there would be no long-term or permanent adverse impactson the topography or physiography of the WVDP.7 As shown in the table, the noise levels at 15 meters (50 feet) for typical heavy equipment range from 75 to 88dBA; thus, the 85-dBA level from a bulldozer is typical of heavy equipment noise. Noise from a bulldozer was usedto illustrate the impact because it is likely to be the loudest sustained equipment noise during the Proposed Action.
Page 32
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP283.10 Health and Safety3.10.1 Existing EnvironmentAs noted in Section 3.2.1, Cattaraugus County, where the WVDP is located, is an attainment area for allNational Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards contained in 40 CFR 50 and New YorkState air quality standards contained in 6 NYCRR 257. Chautauqua and Erie counties, which borderCattaraugus County to the west and northwest, are nonattainment areas for ozone. However, theprevailing southwesterly winds would tend to disperse WVDP emissions away from these nonattainmentcounties. With respect to radiological air emissions, in 2004, the estimated dose of radiation to amaximally exposed off-site individual from airborne emissions at the WVDP was 0.0015 mrem, which isabout 0.02 percent of the 10-mrem EPA standard (WVNS 2005).3.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionWorker Impacts. Under the Proposed Action, waste management activities would involve the generationof Class A LLW, mixed LLW, asbestos waste, hazardous waste, industrial waste, and building debriswaste. Table 5 presents the radiological impacts associated with collective and individual radiation dosesfor involved and noninvolved workers performing such activities. In this EA, estimates of latent cancerfatalities were based on a radiation dose-to-health-effect conversion factor of 0.0006 latent cancerfatalities per rem for both workers and members of the public (DOE 2002a). The radiological impacts forworkers were based on data provided by DOE (2006b).During the 4-year time period for the Proposed Action, the collective radiation dose to involved workerswas estimated to be about 5.4 person-rem, or about 1.4 person-rem per year, from activities under theProposed Action. This is equivalent to a latent cancer fatality risk of 0.0032 over 4 years, or 0.00081 peryear.Over this same time period, the individual radiation dose to the average involved worker would rangefrom 44 to 63 mrem per year. This radiation dose is well below the limit in 10 CFR 835 of 5 rem(5,000 mrem) per year and the WVDP administrative control level of 500 mrem per year (WVNS 2001),and would result in less than 1 (1.1 × 10-4 to 1.5 × 10-4) latent cancer fatality.In addition to radiation doses from the Proposed Action activities, workers would be exposed to radiationdoses from the ongoing operations of the WVDP site. When radiation doses are calculated for involvedand noninvolved workers for both Proposed Action activities and ongoing operations, the total collectiveradiation dose to the workers was estimated to be about 160 person-rem over the duration of the ProposedAction, or about 39 person-rem per year (Table 5). This radiation dose is equivalent to less than 1 (0.093)latent cancer fatality within the worker population, or 0.023 per year.8Precautions taken to protect workers against nonradioactive hazardous materials would be similar to theprecautions taken to minimize exposure to radiation and radioactive material. Therefore, the impacts toworkers from exposure to nonradioactive hazardous materials are expected to be minimal.8 For the noninvolved workers in the EA, DOE used the sum of the Involved and Noninvolved Workers from theSupplement Analysis for the West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental ImpactStatement (see Table 1, page 8 and Table 10, page 16) (DOE 2006). These workers are considered to be thenoninvolved workers for purposes of this EA. Radiation doses for ongoing activities at the WVDP site were basedon data from the DOE Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) for 2001 through 2005.
Page 33
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP29Table 5. Impacts from Collective and Individual Radiation Dosesto Involved and Noninvolved WorkersCollective DoseLatent Cancer FatalitiesWorkerPopulationActivityTimePeriod(years)Annual(person-rem/yr)Total(person-rem)AnnualTotalProposed Action(demolition activities)40.973.95.8 × 10-42.3 × 10-3InvolvedworkersaProposed Action(loading activities)40.381.52.3 × 10-49.1 × 10-4Ongoing operations ofWVDP4301201.8 × 10-27.1 × 10-2Loading melter, CFMT,and MFHTNA(one time)0.0660.0664.0 × 10-54.0 × 10-5NoninvolvedworkersbLoading LLW andTRU waste47.7314.6 × 10-31.8 × 10-2All workers (Total)4391602.3 × 10-29.3 × 10-2Individual DoseLatent Cancer FatalitiesWorkerPopulationActivityTimePeriod(years)Annual(mrem/yr)Total(mrem)AnnualTotalProposed Action(demolition activities)4441802.6 × 10-51.1 × 10-4InvolvedworkersaProposed Action(loading activities)4632503.8 × 10-51.5 × 10-4Ongoing operations ofWVDP41305307.9 × 10-53.2 × 10-4Loading melter, CFMT,and MFHTNA(one time)11116.6 × 10-66.6 × 10-6NoninvolvedworkersbLoading LLW andTRU waste43201,3001.9 × 10-47.7 × 10-4a. Involved workers would be those individuals that actively participate in the Proposed Action.b. Noninvolved workers would be those individuals that would be on-site but would not actively participate in the ProposedAction. For these workers, DOE used the sum of the Involved and Noninvolved Workers from the Supplement Analysis forthe West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (Table 1, page 8 and Table 10,page 16) (DOE 2006a).Note: CFMT = Concentrator Feed Makeup Tank; MFHT = Makeup Feed Hold Tank; TRU = transuranic; HLW = high-levelradioactive waste.In over 20 years of operations, there has never been a work-related worker fatality at the WVDP site.Over the past 4 years, there has not been a lost time work accident or injury. Based on these data, theexpected number of worker fatalities from industrial accidents under the Proposed Action is zero. UsingDOE-wide data from the DOE Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS) for 2000through 2004, it is estimated that there would be less than 1 (4.4 × 10-5) worker fatality from industrialaccidents under the Proposed Action.Public Impacts. Under the Proposed Action, people near the WVDP site would be exposed to airborneand liquid releases of radionuclides due to normal operations. Table 6 presents the radiological impacts ofthese airborne and liquid releases. These radiological impacts were based on the data contained theWVDP Annual Site Environmental Reports for 2001 through 2004 (WVNS 2002, WVNS 2003, WVNS2004b, WVNS 2005), the volume of LLW generated in 2001 through 2005 (DOE 2006c), and the volumeof LLW analyzed in this EA.
Page 34
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP30Table 6. Impacts from Collective and Individual Radiation Doses to the PublicUnder the Proposed ActionaMaximally Exposed IndividualPopulation Around WVDP SiteIndividual RadiationDosebProbability of LatentCancer FatalityCollective RadiationDosecProbability of LatentCancer FatalityActivityAnnual(mrem/yr)Total(mrem)AnnualTotalAnnual(person-rem/yr)Total(person-rem)AnnualTotalProposedActiond0.0140.0568.4 × 10-93.4 × 10-81.9 × 10-57.5 × 10-5ContinuedOperationsd0.0620.253.7 × 10-81.5 × 10-70.251.01.5 × 10-46.0 × 10-4Total0.0760.314.5 × 10-81.8 × 10-70.281.11.7 × 10-46.8 × 10-4a. The time period for the Proposed Action is 4 years.b. Individual background radiation doses are about 300 mrem per year.c. The collective radiation dose to the 1.5-million-person population that surrounds the WVDP site from natural background isabout 380,000 person-rem per year.d. Includes the radiation doses from airborne and liquid releases.During the 4-year time period for the Proposed Action, the individual radiation dose to the maximallyexposed individual living near the WVDP site would be 0.14 mrem per year from airborne and liquidreleases, which is much less than the 100-mrem per year standard in DOE Order 5400.5, RadiationProtection of the Public and the Environment, and would result in less than 1 (8.4 × 10-9) latent cancerfatality per year, or a chance of about 1 in 120,000,000 for the maximally exposed individual. Whencombined with the radiation dose from continued operations at the WVDP site, the radiation dose to themaximally exposed individual would be 0.076 mrem per year, which is also much less than the 100-mremper year standard in DOE Order 5400.5 (see Table 6).Over this same time period, the collective radiation dose to people living within 80 kilometers (50 miles)of the WVDP site would be 0.12 person-rem, or about 0.31 person-rem per year. This is equivalent to alatent cancer fatality risk of 2.7 × 10-5 over 4 years, or 1.9 × 10-5 per year. When combined with thecollective radiation dose from continued operations at the WVDP site, the collective radiation dose isestimated to be 1.1 person-rem. This is equivalent to a latent cancer fatality risk of 6.8 × 10-4 (seeTable 6).Precautions taken to protect the public against releases of nonradioactive hazardous material would besimilar to the precautions taken to minimize releases of radioactive material. Therefore, the impacts tomembers of the public from releases of nonradioactive hazardous material are expected to be minimal.Facility Accidents. DOE evaluated the potential impacts that could occur as a result of accidents at theWVDP site during the implementation of the Proposed Action. One accident involved a breach of thebuilding ventilation system during decontamination activities. The suspended particulate activitygenerated by mechanical cleaning, cutting, or other decontamination activity could stress the HEPA filtersin the ventilation system. If the filters were compromised or if the ventilation duct failed, exhaust aircould be released unfiltered to the environment. The frequency of this accident was estimated to be in therange of 10-6 to 10-8 per year. The consequences of this accident using 50-percent atmospheric conditionsare presented in Table 7. For a worker located on the site, this accident could result in a radiation dose of0.013 rem. This accident could result in a radiation dose of 0.0045 rem to the maximally exposedindividual living near the site. For the population living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the WVDPsite, this accident could result in a collective radiation dose of 14 person-rem; this is equivalent to less
Page 35
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP31Table 7. Radiological Consequences of Accidents Under the Proposed ActionUsing 50-Percent Atmospheric ConditionsWorkerMaximally ExposedIndividualPopulationaAccidentFrequency(per year)RadiationDose(rem)LatentCancerFatalityRadiationDose(rem)LatentCancerFatalityRadiationDose(person-rem)LatentCancerFatalityBreach of buildingventilation systemduringdecontamination10-6 – 10-80.0136.5 × 10-60.00452.7 × 10-6140.0084Class A boxpuncture0.1 – 0.01 8.5 × 10-54.3 × 10-82.9 × 10-51.7 × 10-80.0905.4 × 10-5Fire in buildingduringdecontamination10-4 – 10-60.147.0 × 10-50.0472.8 × 10-51500.090a. Collective dose to the 1.5 million people living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the WVDP site.than 1 (0.0084) latent cancer fatality. Using 95-percent atmospheric conditions, this accident could resultin about 0.13 latent cancer fatalities for the population living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of theWVDP site (Table 8).A second potential accident involved the puncture of a box containing Class A LLW. The frequency ofthis accident was estimated to be in the range of 0.1 to 0.01 per year. The consequences of this accidentusing 50-percent atmospheric conditions are presented in Table 7. For a worker located at the site, thisaccident could result in a radiation dose of 8.5 × 10-5 rem. This accident could result in a radiation dose of2.9 × 10-5 rem to the maximally exposed individual living near the WVDP site. For the population livingwithin 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the site, this accident could result in a radiation dose of 0.090 person-rem; this is equivalent to a probability of a latent cancer fatality of 5.4 × 10-5. Using 95-percentatmospheric conditions, this accident could result in a probability of a latent cancer fatality of 8.4 × 10-4for the population living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the WVDP site (see Table 8).Table 8. Radiological Consequences of Accidents Under the Proposed ActionUsing 95-Percent Atmospheric ConditionsWorkerMaximally ExposedIndividualPopulationaAccidentFrequency(per year)RadiationDose(rem)LatentCancerFatalityRadiationDose(rem)LatentCancerFatalityRadiationDose(person-rem)LatentCancerFatalityBreach of buildingventilation systemduringdecontamination10-6 – 10-80.136.5 × 10-50.0492.9 × 10-52200.13Class A boxpuncture0.1 – 0.01 8.4 × 10-44.2 × 10-73.2 × 10-41.9 × 10-71.48.4 × 10-4Fire in buildingduringdecontamination10-4 – 10-61.47.0 × 10-40.513.1 × 10-42,3001.4a. Collective dose to the 1.5 million people living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the WVDP site.
Page 36
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP32A third potential accident involved a fire inside a building during decontamination. The frequency of thisaccident was estimated to be in the range of 10-4 to 10-6 per year. The consequences of this accident using50-percent atmospheric conditions are presented in Table 7. For a worker located on the site, this accidentcould result in a radiation dose of 0.14 rem. This accident could result in a radiation dose of 0.047 rem tothe maximally exposed individual living near the site. For the population living within 80 kilometers(50 miles) of the WVDP site, this accident could result in a collective radiation dose of 150 person-rem;this is equivalent to less than 1 (0.090) latent cancer fatality. Using 95-percent atmospheric conditions,this accident could result in about 1.4 latent cancer fatalities for the population living within 80 kilometers(50 miles) of the WVDP site (see Table 8).In the Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities (WVNS 2004c), two accidentsinvolving releases of nonradioactive hazardous material were evaluated: an accident involving the releaseof hydrogen peroxide and an accident involving the release of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated oil. In both cases, the concentration of the hazardous material at the maximally exposedindividual did not exceed the Emergency Response Planning Guideline-2 (ERPG-2) concentration, and nolife-threatening health effects would be expected.Impacts at Other Sites. Impacts of radioactive waste management activities at off-site locations thatwould be used to dispose of radioactive wastes under the Proposed Action (Energy Solutions, Hanford,and the NTS) have been addressed in earlier NEPA documents (DOE 2003).9 For all waste types, WVDPwaste represents less than 2 percent of the total DOE waste inventory. Human health impacts at these sitesas a result of the disposal of WVDP waste during the 4-year period of Proposed Action would be veryminor (substantially less than 1 latent cancer fatality).3.11 Transportation3.11.1 Existing EnvironmentTransportation infrastructure near the WVDP includes highways, rural roads, a rail line, and aviationfacilities. The primary method of transportation in the site vicinity is motor vehicle traffic on the highwaysystem (Figure 7).All roads in Cattaraugus County, with the exception of those within the cities of Olean and Salamanca,are considered rural roads. Rural principal arterial highways are connectors of population and industrialcenters. This category includes U.S. Route 219, located 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) west of the site;Interstate 86, the Southern Tier Expressway located approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles) south of thesite; and the New York State Thruway (I-90), approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles) north of the site.Traffic volume along U.S. 219 between the intersection with NY Route 39 at Springville and theintersection with Cattaraugus County Route 12 (East Otto Road) ranges from a low average annual dailytraffic volume of 6,100 to a high volume of 7,500. Seasonal holiday traffic is as much as 128 percent ofthe average annual daily volume. Approximately 18 percent of the traffic consists of trucks. This route9 LLW and mixed LLW would be sent to DOE radioactive disposal sites (NTS and/or the Hanford Site) and/or toEnergy Solutions. LLW and mixed LLW handling and disposal activities at NTS and Hanford are described in theFinal Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-site Locations (DOE 1996a) and the FinalHanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 2004),respectively. Disposal of waste at commercial facilities would be conducted in accordance with existing licenses andpermits. In accordance with the settlement agreement between DOE and the State of Washington of January 6, 2006,regarding the case Washington v. Bodman, DOE will not ship LLW and mixed LLW from WVDP to Hanford untilDOE has satisfied the requirements of the settlement agreement.
Page 37
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP33Figure 7. Transportation Routes in the Vicinity of WNYNSCOut of Service Railroad Tracks
Page 38
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP34operates at a level of service B, which indicates a stable traffic flow, an operating speed of 80 kilometersper hour (50 miles per hour), and reasonable driver freedom to maneuver (WVNS 2000).Rock Springs Road, adjacent to the site on the west, serves as the principal site access road. The portionof this road between Edies Road and U.S. 219 is known as Schwartz Road. Along this road, between thesite and the intersection of U.S. 219, are fewer than 24 residences. State Route 240, also identified asCounty Route 32, is 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) northeast of the site. Average annual daily traffic on theportion of NY Route 240 that is proximate to the site (between County Route 16 - Rosick Hill Road andNY Route 39) ranges from a low of 440 to a high of 2,250 (WVNS 2000).The Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad line is located within 800 meters (2,600 feet) of the Project Premises.The rail line runs from Salamanca, New York to the site, but has been abandoned north of the site. In1999, the railroad completed connection of track between Ashford Junction and Machias, New York.Service by the Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad on the rail line from the WVDP to Ashford Junction andthen to Machias now provides the WVDP rail access (WVNS 2000). No credible accidents or abnormaloperations at off-site transportation facilities (i.e., the branch rail line) were identified that wouldcontribute to an accident at the West Valley site (WVNS 2004c).There are no commercial airports in the site vicinity. The nearest major airport is Buffalo NiagaraInternational Airport, 55 kilometers (34 miles) north of the site (WVNS 2000).3.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed ActionTruck traffic on roads servicing the WVDP would occur as a direct result of undertaking the ProposedAction. Daily truck trips for off-site shipment of waste and on-site delivery of soil amendments, includingtopsoil for stabilization and vegetation, and operating equipment (to remove facilities, transfer waste, andregrade soil) would occur during an estimated 4-year period for completing this action.Approximately 700 shipments of waste would be made to licensed off-site disposal facilities during the4-year duration of the Proposed Action. About 75 percent of these shipments would be shipments of non-nuclear/non-hazardous material, mostly industrial waste, concrete, and debris. It is not possible at thistime to develop a precise schedule for these shipments. However, if the currently projected approximatetotal number of truck shipments (700) were to occur at a fairly constant rate over the projected 4-yearperiod, there would be approximately 4 truck shipments per week. Doubling this to account for roundtrips would result in approximately 8 weekly truck trips (about 2 per day assuming 5-day-per-weekoperations). The road infrastructure that currently services the WVDP site would be adequate toaccommodate this small projected increase in daily truck traffic without upgrades.Based on the information provided in Section 3.11.1 regarding traffic volume on local roads, truck trafficvolume along U.S. 219 between the intersection with NY Route 39 at Springville and the intersectionwith Cattaraugus County Route 12 (East Otto Road) ranges from 1,100 to 1,350 daily (approximately18 percent of the average annual daily total traffic volume of 6,100 to 7,500). An additional two trucksper day would represent less than a 1-percent increase in truck traffic over this level. An additional twotrucks per day on the portion of NY Route 240 that is proximate to the site (between County Route 16 -Rosick Hill Road and NY Route 39) would also be less than a 1-percent increase in overall trafficvolume, which ranges from a low of 440 to a high of 2,250.If some of the projected shipments were to be by rail, the impact on traffic volume and roadsinfrastructure would be commensurately less.
Page 39
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP35Under the Proposed Action, about 20,600 cubic meters (727,000 cubic feet) of Class A LLW, mixedLLW, asbestos waste, hazardous waste, industrial waste, and building debris waste would be shipped fordisposal. These shipments would take place over 4 years. Class A LLW and mixed LLW would beshipped to Hanford, Energy Solutions, or the NTS for disposal. Industrial waste and building debris wastewould be shipped to a landfill in Model City, New York, or Angelica, New York, where this type ofWVDP waste is currently shipped for disposal. Asbestos waste would be shipped to a landfill in ModelCity, New York. Hazardous waste would be shipped to a landfill in Indianapolis, Indiana where this typeof WVDP waste is currently shipped for disposal.Transportation impacts were estimated assuming that 100 percent of the waste would be shipped by truckand 100 percent of the waste would be shipped by rail. Table 9 lists the volumes and shipments associatedwith the Proposed Action.In addition to the waste shipments shown in Table 9, an estimated 425 cubic meters (15,000 cubic feet) oftopsoil may be required for site remediation. These shipments are also considered to be part of theProposed Action. Assuming each dump truck holds 8.5 cubic meters (300 cubic feet) of topsoil, 50 truckshipments would be required. The site for obtaining the topsoil is assumed to be about 16 kilometers(10 miles) from the WVDP site. Truck traffic for delivery and removal of operating equipment isexpected to be minor and substantially less than that for topsoil delivery.The transportation impacts of shipping the Class A LLW, mixed LLW, asbestos waste, hazardous waste,industrial waste, and building debris waste would be from two sources: incident-free transportation andtransportation accidents. Both radiological impacts and nonradiological impacts are included in theanalysis. The total impacts from transportation would be the sum of the impacts from incident-freetransportation and transportation accidents.Table 10 lists the total transportation impacts for truck and rail by waste type and destination under theProposed Action. The top half of Table 10 shows the impacts of transporting waste and topsoil by truck.The total waste shipment impacts are shown as a range to reflect the difference in impacts, depending onthe actual site to which the waste is shipped. This is followed by a row showing the impacts for shippingtopsoil to the WVDP site, then a row showing the range of impacts associated with continued operationsTable 9. Wastes and Topsoil Shipped Under the Proposed ActionWaste TypeContainer TypeaWaste Shipped(ft3)bNumber ofContainersNumber ofShipmentsLLW, Class AB-25 boxes75,00483360 (Truck)30 (Rail)MLLW, Class A B-25 boxes2,715313 (Truck)2 (Rail)Asbestos20-cubic-yard intermodalcontainer30511 (Truck)1 (Rail)Hazardous waste 55-gallon drums70,4009576114 (Truck)57 (Rail)Industrial waste B-25 boxes556,6526180442 (Truck)221 (Rail)Concrete / debris 10-cubic-yard dump truckor intermodal container21,8008181 (Truck)41 (Rail)Topsoil forrevegetation300-cubic-foot dumptruck15,0005050 (Truck only)a. These packages were assumed for purposes of analysis. Actual packaging may vary.b. To convert cubic feet to cubic meters, multiply by 0.028.
Page 40
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP36Table 10. Transportation Impacts Under the Proposed ActionIncident-FreePublic WorkerWaste TypeDestination(LCFs)RadiologicalAccidentRisk(LCFs)PollutionHealthEffects(Fatalities)TrafficFatalitiesTotalFatalitiesProposed Action—TruckEnergy Solutions 3.3 × 10-3 4.9 × 10-35.3 × 10-67.5 × 10-43.9 × 10-31.3 × 10-2Hanforda3.9 × 10-3 5.8 × 10-35.7 × 10-68.2 × 10-45.0 × 10-31.6 × 10-2LLW, Class ANTS3.8 × 10-3 5.8 × 10-35.4 × 10-67.7 × 10-44.6 × 10-31.5 × 10-2Energy Solutions 1.6 × 10-4 2.4 × 10-42.3 × 10-83.8 × 10-52.0 × 10-46.4 × 10-4Hanforda2.0 × 10-4 2.9 × 10-42.6 × 10-84.1 × 10-52.5 × 10-47.8 × 10-4MLLW, Class ANTS1.9 × 10-4 2.9 × 10-42.4 × 10-83.8 × 10-52.3 × 10-47.5 × 10-4AsbestosModel City, NY0.00.00.02.5 × 10-63.0 × 10-65.5 × 10-6Hazardous Waste Indianapolis, IN0.00.00.06.4 × 10-41.3 × 10-31.9 × 10-3Model City, NY0.00.00.01.1 × 10-31.3 × 10-32.4 × 10-3Industrial WasteAngelica, NY0.00.00.01.6 × 10-41.4 × 10-31.6 × 10-3Model City, NY0.00.00.02.0 × 10-42.4 × 10-44.5 × 10-4Building DebrisAngelica, NY0.00.00.02.9 × 10-52.7 × 10-42.9 × 10-4Total Waste Transport Truck Fatalities: 0.017-0.021TopsoilWVDP0.00.00.08.4 × 10-72.0 × 10-52.1 × 10-5Continued Operations TruckTotal Truck Fatalities: 1.0-1.1Total Truck (Proposed Action + Continued Operations)Total Truck Fatalities: 1.0-1.1Proposed Action—RailEnergy Solutions 5.4 × 10-3 5.1 × 10-32.0 × 10-51.1 × 10-33.4 × 10-31.5 × 10-2Hanforda5.6 × 10-3 5.5 × 10-32.3 × 10-51.1 × 10-34.4 × 10-31.7 × 10-2LLW, Class ANTS5.9 × 10-3 7.6 × 10-32.0 × 10-51.1 × 10-34.3 × 10-31.9 × 10-2Energy Solutions 3.6 × 10-4 3.4 × 10-41.3 × 10-77.0 × 10-52.2 × 10-41.0 × 10-3Hanforda3.7 × 10-4 3.7 × 10-41.5 × 10-77.2 × 10-52.9 × 10-41.1 × 10-3MLLW, Class ANTS3.9 × 10-4 4.8 × 10-41.4 × 10-77.1 × 10-52.8 × 10-41.2 × 10-3AsbestosModel City, NY0.00.00.04.9 × 10-61.8 × 10-52.3 × 10-5Hazardous Waste Indianapolis, IN0.00.00.01.0 × 10-33.1 × 10-34.1 × 10-3Model City, NY0.00.00.01.2 × 10-34.0 × 10-35.2 × 10-3Industrial WasteAngelica, NY0.00.00.02.1 × 10-43.0 × 10-33.2 × 10-3Model City, NY0.00.00.02.2 × 10-47.5 × 10-49.6 × 10-4Building DebrisAngelica, NY0.00.00.03.9 × 10-55.5 × 10-45.9 × 10-4Total Waste Transport Rail Fatalities: 0.027-0.034Topsoil (Truck) WVDP0.00.00.08.4 × 10-72.0 × 10-52.1 × 10-5Continued Operations RailTotal Rail Fatalities: 0.76-0.91Total Rail (Proposed Action + Continued Operations)Total Rail + Topsoil Truck Fatalities: 0.79-0.94a. In accordance with the settlement agreement between DOE and the State of Washington of January 6, 2006, regarding thecase Washington v. Bodman, DOE will not ship LLW and mixed LLW from WVDP to Hanford until DOE has satisfied therequirements of the settlement agreement.Note: LCFs = latent cancer fatalities.
Page 41
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP37at the site (DOE 2006a). The final row of the top half shows the overall range of impacts for the sum ofthe Proposed Action and continued operations if truck were selected as the transport mode.The bottom half of Table 10 shows the impacts of transporting waste by rail and topsoil by truck. Theseimpacts include an estimated range of impacts for the rail waste shipments, the truck shipments of topsoilto the WVDP site, and the range of rail impacts for continued operations. The final row shows the overallrange of impacts for the sum of the Proposed Action and continued operations if rail were selected as thetransport mode.If either trucks or trains were used to ship the waste, essentially no additional fatalities are anticipated.When the transportation impacts of the Proposed Action are combined with the transportation impacts ofcontinued operations at the WVDP site, after adding the impacts of the Proposed Action to thoseanticipated from continued operations, about 1 fatality might occur. For perspective, during the 4-yearperiod of the Proposed Action, there would be about 160,000 traffic fatalities in the United States (U.S.Bureau of the Census 1997).As shown in Table 10, the total transportation fatalities associated with the Proposed Action ranged from0.017 to 0.021 for truck transport and ranged from 0.027 to 0.034 for rail transport. Table 10 also showsthat the total transportation fatalities under the Proposed Action would be a small fraction of the totaltransportation fatalities associated with continued operations at the West Valley site. Under the ProposedAction, the total transportation fatalities for rail transport were slightly higher than the total transportationfatalities for truck transport. This was due to several factors:• Truck stop exposure model—Exposures of people at truck refueling stops were estimated usingthe model used in the Final Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002b). For truck shipments, this modelyields lower radiation doses at stops than the model previously used in RADTRAN, and results inlower impacts for truck shipments relative to rail shipments.• Rail capacity—For some commodities, such as spent nuclear fuel or HLW, rail containers holdabout 5 to 10 times more material than truck containers, which results in a proportional reductionin the incident-free radiological impacts and the nonradiological traffic fatalities for railshipments. In this analysis, rail shipments were assumed to hold only 2 times as much material astruck shipments, so the reduction in rail impacts was much smaller.• Nonradiological traffic fatality rate—The nonradiological traffic fatality rate for railcars istypically larger than for trucks. For example, the mean national fatality rate for trucks oninterstate highways is 8.8 × 10-9 fatalities per truck-kilometer, while the mean national fatalityrate for railcars is 7.8 × 10-8 fatalities per railcar-kilometer (Saricks and Tompkins 1999).3.11.2.1Incident-Free Transportation ImpactsWorker Impacts. If trucks were used to ship the waste, the maximally exposed worker would be a driverwho would receive a radiation dose of about 250 mrem per year based on driving a truck containingradioactive waste for about 700 hours per year. This is equivalent to a probability of a latent cancerfatality of about 1.5 × 10-4. If trains were used to ship the waste, the maximally exposed worker would bean inspector. This worker would receive a radiation dose of about 1.8 mrem per year. This is equivalent toa probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 1.1 × 10-6. These scenarios used to estimate the radiationdoses for the maximally exposed individual from incident-free transportation are presented in Section D.5of the WVDP Waste Management EIS (DOE 2003).
Page 42
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP38Public Impacts. For truck shipments, the maximally exposed member of the public would be a personworking at a service station who would receive a radiation dose of about 0.097 mrem per year. This isequivalent to a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 5.8 × 10-8.If shipments were made by rail, the maximally exposed member of the public would be a rail yard workerwho was not directly involved with handling the railcars. This person would receive a radiation dose ofabout 0.33 mrem per year. This is equivalent to a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 2.0 × 10-7.3.11.2.2Reasonably Foreseeable Transportation Accident ImpactsThe maximally exposed individual would receive a radiation dose of 1.0 rem from the maximumreasonably foreseeable transportation accident involving a truck shipment of Class A LLW or mixedLLW. This is equivalent to a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 6.2 × 10-4. The populationwould receive a collective radiation dose of about 290 person-rem from this truck accident involvingClass A LLW or mixed LLW. This could result in about 0.18 latent cancer fatality.For the maximum reasonably foreseeable transportation rail accident involving Class A LLW or mixedLLW, the maximally exposed individual would receive a radiation dose of about 2.1 rem. This isequivalent to a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 1.2 × 10-3. The population would receive acollective radiation dose of about 580 person-rem from this rail accident involving Class A LLW ormixed LLW. This could result in about 0.35 latent cancer fatality.Transportation accidents involving releases of hazardous materials were evaluated in the Waste IsolationPilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1997a) and theFinal Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1997b). In DOE 1997a,no human health impacts would be expected from acute exposure to hazardous materials released during asevere transportation accident. In DOE 1997b, no potential for increased cancer incidence and nopotential adverse health effects were found for transportation accidents involving solid low-level mixedwaste.Using the screening procedure in A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic andTerrestrial Biota (DOE 2002c), the sum of fractions of the biota concentration guides for the Class ALLW or mixed LLW accidents was less than 1. Therefore, the radioactive releases from the Class A LLWor mixed LLW accidents would not be likely to cause persistent, measurable deleterious changes inpopulations or communities of terrestrial or aquatic plants or animals.3.12 Consequences of the No Action AlternativeAs described in Section 2.2, under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not demolish and remove the36 unneeded facilities at WVDP. Under this alternative, there would be no short-term increase in themobilization or emission of small amounts of particulates. There would be no short-term increase inemissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from the exhaust of a small number of gasoline or dieselengines. The short-term intermittent increase in suspended solids in stormwater runoff during soilexcavation activities would not occur, nor would the increase in noise at the WVDP due to demolitionactivities. The very minor increase in latent cancer fatalities among workers and the public would notoccur. The facilities would continue to age, requiring unnecessary increased maintenance and incurringthe costs associated with that maintenance.
Page 43
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP393.13 Cumulative ImpactsIn the short term, the Proposed Action would slightly increase the amount of contaminants currentlybeing released to the environment at the WVDP. Specifically, removal activities would result in releasesof contaminants to the air and stormwater runoff. Monitoring and mitigation controls would be in effectthroughout the Proposed Action to ensure that the short-term increases in released contaminants would beminimized and kept in compliance with regulatory guidelines. The cumulative long-term impacts of theProposed Action would be beneficial due to the demolition and removal of 36 unneeded facilities and theremoval, consolidation, and appropriate disposal of hazardous and radioactive wastes.3.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of ResourcesThe Proposed Action would require the use of natural resources such as vehicle fuel and electric power;the quantities involved would be small. The land involved in the action is already dedicated to use by theWVDP. The disposal of both radioactive and other wastes generated during the Proposed Action wouldoccur at licensed facilities already dedicated to that purpose.
Page 44
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP40CHAPTER 4PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTEDThe following agencies were consulted in the preparation of this EA:New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)West Valley Site Management ProgramThe Seneca Nation of IndiansIn addition, the draft EA was circulated for review and comment to the State of New York and otherinterested stakeholders for a 30-day comment period that ended on July 29, 2006. A total of eightcomment letters were received from the agencies and organizations listed below. DOE also held a publicmeeting on July 19, 2006, at which public comments on the draft EA were accepted and transcribed. Thecomments received and DOE’s responses to those comments are contained in Appendix D.Organizations from which comments were received:• New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)• Town of Ashford• U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)• Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ); Citizens Environmental Coalition (CEC);Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County (CCCC); Nuclear Information and Resource Services(NIRS)• Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes• West Valley Citizen Task Force• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Page 45
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP41CHAPTER 5REFERENCESAEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1966. Provisional Operating License No. CSF-1 issued toNuclear Fuels Services Inc., and New York State Atomic Energy and Space DevelopmentAuthority - Docket 50-201.AMS (American Meteorological Society), 2006. Glossary of Meteorology, available online athttp://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1978. Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study: CompanionReport, TID-28905-2, November.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada TestSite and Off-site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243-F, Las Vegas, Nevada, August.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of theWest Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-term Management of Facilities at theWestern New York Nuclear Service Center, DOE/EIS-0226D, Washington, DC, January.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997a. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase FinalSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement, September 1997 (DOE/EIS-0026-S-2),Washington, DC.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997b. Final Waste Management Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and HazardousWaste (Volumes 1 through 5), May 1997 (DOE/EIS-0200-F), Washington, DC.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002a. Radiation Risk Estimation from Total Effective DoseEquivalents, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy, Memorandum from A. Lawrence,Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance, August 9.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a GeologicRepository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at YuccaMountain, Nye County, Nevada, DOE/EIS-0250, Washington, DC, February.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002c. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses toAquatic and Terrestrial Biota, Report No. DOE-STD-1153-2002, Washington, DC, July.DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2003. West Valley Demonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement, December 2003 (DOE/EIS-0337F).DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004. Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) WasteProgram Environmental Impact Statement, January 2004 (DOE/EIS-0286F).DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006a. Supplement Analysis for the West Valley DemonstrationProject Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, January 2006 (DOE/EIS-0337F-SA-01).DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006b. “Worker Calculation – final.xls.” Excel spreadsheet preparedby West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York. Provided by C. Bohan, DOEWVDP, to L. Swartz, NEPA Program Manager, Battelle Memorial Institute. August 14.
Page 46
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP42DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006c. “HRM LLW MLLW 2001 – 2005 Gen DD Breakout.xls.”Excel spreadsheet prepared by West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York.Provided by C. Bohan, DOE WVDP, to L. Swartz, NEPA Program Manager, Battelle MemorialInstitute, August 23.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas.Online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/visibility/class1.html, June 16.FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1984. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Ashford,NY, Cattaraugus County, Community Number 360062B, May 25.FTA (U.S. Federal Transit Administration), 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTAReport DOT-T-95-16. Washington, DC.NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), 2005. New York StateStandards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Prepared by the New York StateSoil and Water Conservation Committee for the NYSDEC Division of Water. August.OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 2004. Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR)Occupational Noise Exposure - 1910.95. Online athttp://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9735&p_table=STANDARDS.Saricks, C.L., and M.M. Tompkins, 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight Transportation:A Reexamination. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory, Report No. ANL/ESD/TM-150.SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office), 1995. Letter from Robert D. Kuhn, Historic PreservationCoordinator, SHPO, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, toPaul L. Piciulo, Program Director, U.S. Department of Energy. Subject: “DOE West ValleyDemonstration Project, Ashford, Cattaraugus County,” June 5.Suter, A.H., 1991. Noise and Its Effects, report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the UnitedStates, November 1991. Online at http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm.U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (117th Edition),Washington, DC.USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1979. 7.5 Min. Quadrangle Map, Ashford Hollow, NY, 1964, Revised1979.USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2005. Map of U.S. Shaking Hazards. Online athttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/haz101/hazmaps.html, August 26.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 1994. Environmental Information Document, Vol. X,Cultural Resources of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, WVDP-EIS-030, Rev. 0.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 1995. Subsurface Probing Investigation on the NorthPlateau at the West Valley Demonstration Project, WVDP-220, Rev. 0.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2000. West Valley Nuclear Services Safety AnalysisReport, SAR-001 Volume 1 Rev. 6.
Page 47
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDP43WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2001. WVDP Radiological Controls Manual, ReportNo. WVDP-010. U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley, NY. August.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2002. West Valley Demonstration Project SiteEnvironmental Report, Calendar Year 2001, U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley, NY.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2003. West Valley Demonstration Project SiteEnvironmental Report, Calendar Year 2002, U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley, NY.WVNS (West Valley Demonstration Project), 2004a. Clean Water Act/State Pollutant DischargeElimination System Best Management Practices and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan forthe West Valley Demonstration Project, Rev 1. WVDP-206. December 21, 2004.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2004b. West Valley Demonstration Project SiteEnvironmental Report, Calendar Year 2003, U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley, NY.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2004c. Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processingand Support Activities, WVNS-SAR-001, Revision 9, U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley,NY, March 8.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2005. West Valley Demonstration Project SiteEnvironmental Report, Calendar Year 2004, U.S. Department of Energy: West Valley, NY.WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company), 2006. “Wetland Delineation—Corps of Engineers(COE) Request for Additional Information, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—West ValleyDemonstration Project,” letter from J.H. Swailes, Director, West Valley Demonstration Project,to M. Senus, Hydrologist, Department of the Army, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers,DW:2006:0014, dated January 18, 2006.
Page 48
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-1APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES PROPOSED FORDECONTAMINATION, DEMOLITION, AND REMOVALThis appendix describes each of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) facilities that areproposed for decontamination (if needed), demolition, and removal for off-site disposal. Table 1 inChapter 1 of the environmental assessment (EA) contains a list of these facilities, including informationregarding size, expected waste volume, and construction type. With respect to building foundations, DOEwould determine the need for decontamination and, if it exists, would decide whether to paint, applyfixative, or cover the foundations in order to prevent migration of any non-removable contamination fromthe foundation surface.The Administration Building is a single-story structure. The concrete base is 9 inches thick. Constructionmaterials include a concrete foundation, wood frame, metal siding, and metal roofing. This facility is notradiologically contaminated. The Administration Building was used as office space. Personnel from DOEand NYSERDA have relocated off the project premises. DOE would dismantle the building and disposeof the rubble in a sanitary landfill.The Bulk Storage Warehouse (BSW) is approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Process Building. Itwas built in 1969 as the Plutonium Storage Facility. An inspection was conducted by the NRC duringJanuary 1975 to verify that radiation levels did not exceed background, then it was released forunrestricted use. At the request of NYSDEC, another radiation survey was conducted during 1984 andadditional decontamination was performed in a few areas. It is used by the WVDP to store officefurniture, supplies, computers, and electrical equipment. No radiological or hazardous chemicalcontamination has been identified at the BSW.The BSW is a steel-frame, metal-clad building. The floor is 4-inch-thick concrete that rests on a concretefoundation. The warehouse area is serviced by a 6,000-pound-capacity steel crane. An interior concreteblock wall 8 inches thick separates an office area from the Main Warehouse. The office area is subdividedinto three rooms: a switch gear room, a computer storage room, and an office area. A loading dock islocated on the east side of the BSW. A nearby well supplies water to the BSW bathroom. The bathroomwaste is discharged to a septic tank.Remaining storage needs would be met by the New Warehouse, which would remain available.The Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area (CPC-WSA) is a structure used to temporarily storeequipment removed from the decontamination of the CPC. It is a 12-gauge, galvanized steel-panelenclosure with a gravel pad floor. Approximately 42 steel boxes containing radioactively contaminatedequipment are currently stored in the CPC-WSA. This facility is not radiologically contaminated.However, the structure (including the gravel floor) would be surveyed to ensure that no contaminationhad resulted due to potential, but undetected, container integrity issues.The Cold Chemical Facility (CCF) is a structural steel frame and sheet-metal building locatedimmediately west of and adjacent to the Vitrification Facility. The floor of the CCF is poured concreteand has curbs that provide secondary containment for storage tanks housed in the building. The CCF wasused to prepare nonradioactive feed materials, such as nitric acid and glass formers, which were used inthe vitrification process. The CCF contains 10 process tanks and associated pumps that were used to storeand mix the nitric acid and glass formers. All tanks are currently empty. Because the CCF is not used tomanage or treat radioactive materials, the structure is expected to be radiologically clean.The Contact Size-Reduction Facility (CSRF), located just northeast of the Main Plant at ground level, isan enclosed structure constructed of concrete block. It is divided into four work rooms (cutting area,decontamination and survey area, small item decontamination area, and the large item decontamination
Page 49
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-2and survey area), two personnel entry airlock rooms, and one equipment airlock room. Adjacent to theCSRF is the MSM repair shop with another personnel entry airlock. The MSM repair shop and associatedairlock is not included in the CSRF permitted area.CSRF is primarily used for volume reduction of nonhazardous low-level radioactive waste (LLW).Volume reduction may include various mechanical processes, such as abrasive cutting, band saw cutting,or plasma arc cutting. In addition, the CSRF may be used for staging, sampling, sorting, consolidating,and repackaging mixed waste and LLW containers. These activities will not include size-reductionprocesses which would be comparable to containment building activities. Typically, wastes are stored lessthan 2 weeks; however, the CSRF could be used for longer-term container storage if necessary. Before theCSRF was set up and the floors lined, floor drains in the MSM Repair Shop (including the section in theCSRF) were plugged. The floors, walls, and ceilings of the cutting room and large item decontaminationroom are lined with stainless steel. The remaining rooms do not have any liners or coatings for secondary-containment purposes. During operational activities, the walls and floors are lined with herculite. Theslope of the pavement surrounding the CSRF directs water away from the area and controls run-on fromprecipitation.This facility is radiologically contaminated. It has a relatively small footprint compared with otherfacilities, but because concrete was used in its construction, it is conservatively assumed that the concretehas been contaminated and that decontamination, demolition, and removal activities would thereforegenerate a higher volume of LLW than larger facilities constructed of metal and steel.The Diesel Fuel Oil Building is a metal building used for diesel fuel oil storage for the VitrificationFacility diesel generator and houses a 7,450-gallon tank located in a below-grade concrete vault. Thisfacility is not radiologically contaminated. DOE proposes to remove this building. Duringdecommissioning activities, emergency generator fuel needs would be met using other remaining systems.The Emergency Vehicle Shelter is a steel-framed structure with corrugated metal siding and a metal roofused to store the emergency vehicle. This facility has never been radiologically contaminated. Theemergency response program at the WVDP would not be affected by removing the Emergency VehicleShelter. The emergency response vehicle would remain available and fully stocked, and existingagreements with local response organizations would remain in effect. The emergency response vehiclecould be stored outside or in another existing facility.The Expanded Environmental Laboratory is located south of the Administration Building and annextrailer complex. It was constructed during the early 1990s. The laboratory has two sections: the ExpandedEnvironmental Laboratory and the Expanded Analytical Annex. The laboratory consists of eight one-story modular units supported by 72 concrete piers. It was manufactured from light wood framing, metalroofing, and siding. An addition was built on the east side of the laboratory. This facility is notradiologically contaminated; however, there is a potential of low-level activity in the fume hoods.The function provided by this facility would be substantially reduced or eliminated and replaced by anoff-site contract laboratory, mobile laboratories, or remaining smaller on-site facilities to match currentneeds. When the facility function is replaced or is no longer needed by the WVDP, the facility would beremoved.The Fabrication Shop lies west of the WTF. It was recently erected on a concrete pad from metalmodular components. It consists of two fabrication bays that are two stories high, and a storage area onestory high. This facility contained a sanitary wastewater storage tank and a satellite accumulation area forthe storage of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes. Minor chemical spills
Page 50
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-3in this shop were cleaned up in accordance with site procedures. This facility is not radiologicallycontaminated.The Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers are located east of the Remote-Handled Waste Facility (RHWF).The four lockers are used for short-term storage of hazardous waste. This facility is not radiologicallycontaminated. Hazardous waste would be stored appropriately in existing facilities until shipped off-sitefor disposal.The Hydrofracture Test Well Area consists of four observation wells and one injection well. During1969, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) installed these wells northwest of the BSW. The wellswere installed to perform hydraulic fracturing experiments as part of a pilot study to assess the suitabilityof this method for the underground disposal of LLW. The wells were drilled to depths of 1,500 feet andwere cased with steel risers along their entire length. The injection well was centrally located and the fourobservation wells were located approximately 150 feet north, south, east, and west of the injection well.Six hydraulic fracturing tests were performed from 1969 through 1971 at depths of 500 to 1,450 feet.Each of the injections consisted of water mixed with clay. Four of the injections used zirconium-95 as aradioactive tracer in the water.The injection well is a 4.5-inch-diameter steel casing, which was placed in an 8-inch-diameter core holethat extended to a depth of 1,520 feet. The well annulus was cemented down to a depth of 1,520 feet.During an injection test, the well was plugged with cement below the desired injection depth, and a360-degree horizontal slot was made in the well for the injection. Because the injection tests were insequence from the bottom of the well upward, the injection well is currently filled with grout at depths of50 to 1,520 feet.The north, south, and west observation wells are composed of 2-inch-diameter steel casings that wereplaced in 6-inch-diameter core holes that extended to a depth of 1,520 feet. The east observation well is a1.25-inch-diameter steel tube that was placed in a 3-inch-diameter core hole drilled to a depth of1,520 feet. The annulus of each observation well was filled with cement down to a depth of 1,520 feet.The observation wells were used for gamma-ray logging after each injection.During the hydraulic fracturing program, the east observation well was found plugged with cement at495 feet and the casing ruptured at 1,226 feet. The south observation well was found plugged with cementat a depth of 1,445 feet, but it was later cleaned out.Hazardous waste is not expected to be present in the surface soil or subsurface at the Hydrofracture TestWell Area, because such waste was not used in the area during or anytime after the hydraulic fracturingexperiments. Although zirconium-95 was used as a radioactive tracer during four of the five injectiontests, this radionuclide would no longer be present in the subsurface due to its short half-life of only65 days. Zirconium-95 decays to the stable nonradioactive isotope molybdenum-95. At no time was wasteinjected into the test wells. The wells would be closed in accordance with State requirements.The facility is expected to be radiologically clean; however, operational components may becontaminated.The Interim Waste Storage Facility (IWSF) is a pre-engineered metal structure located on the north sideof the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA). The building is anchored to a concrete slab with a curbedperimeter. The IWSF has a storage capacity of about 1,500 cubic feet and is used to store mixed LLW.This facility is not radiologically contaminated, nor is there known hazardous waste contamination.However, soils beneath the foundation may be contaminated, given the facility is located on the NDA.
Page 51
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-4Once the metal shell is removed, DOE would place the foundation in a safe condition, pendingcompletion of the Decommissioning EIS, in which disposition of the foundation and any adjacent soilcontamination will be evaluated.The Lag Storage Addition (LSA) 1 is a pre-engineered steel frame and fabric structure built in 1987 tostore containerized LLW and protect it from wind and precipitation. The frame consists of 15 tons ofgalvanized steel and aluminum, including the doors. The fabric consists of approximately 13,800 squarefeet of fire-retardant and self-extinguishing vinyl. The floor is compacted gravel. LSA 1 has never beenused to store mixed waste; it currently stores LLW.This facility is radiologically clean at grade. Once the waste boxes were removed, the hardstand would besurveyed and RCRA sampled to ensure that no contamination had resulted due to potential, butundetected, container integrity issues. If spot contamination was found, the affected gravel would beremoved and disposed of as LLW, or mixed LLW, if appropriate.The Lag Storage Addition (LSA) 2 Hardstand was a tent structure that was dismantled after it wasdamaged by high winds. The foundation of LSA 2 is 8 inches of crushed stone covering an area 65 feet by200 feet. Ten concrete footings reach a total depth of 4 feet. Six footings have cross-sections of 5 squarefeet and four have cross-sections of 3 square feet.An area of the old foundation, measuring 40 feet by 65 feet, is radiologically contaminated. The estimatedvolume of the contaminated soil is 2,600 cubic feet. No hazardous chemical contamination has beenidentified. The LSA 2 Hardstand is used to store LLW and mixed waste.This facility is radiologically clean at grade. Once the waste boxes are removed, the hardstand will besurveyed and RCRA sampled to ensure that no contamination has resulted due to potential, butundetected, container integrity issues. If spot contamination is found, the affected gravel would beremoved and disposed of as LLW, or mixed LLW, if appropriate.The Lag Storage Addition (LSA) 3 is a clear-span structure with a pre-engineered frame and steelsheathing on a 7-inch concrete slab with curbs 6 inches high around the inside perimeter. The floorconsists of approximately 20,000 cubic feet of concrete. LSA 3 is used to store LLW and mixed waste.This facility is not radiologically contaminated, nor are there known hazardous constituents in the facility.The structure (including the floor) would be surveyed and RCRA sampled (swipe samples) to ensure thatno contamination had resulted due to potential, but undetected, container integrity issues. If spotcontamination was found in the floor, the affected surfaces would be secured appropriately or removedand disposed of as LLW or mixed LLW. Spot contamination found on the structure would be cleaned,and the waste handled appropriately.The Lag Storage Building (LSB) is an engineered metal structure that was built in 1984 to storeradioactive and mixed waste; it is currently empty. It is supported by a clear-span frame and anchored to aconcrete slab foundation. The slab is 10 inches thick at its highest point, and it slopes downward on allsides to a thickness of 8 inches. A 6-inch-high concrete curb encloses the inner perimeter. The slabsurface was coated with an acid-resistant, two-coat application of epoxy sealer.The roof is sloped. Seven continuous ventilators with chain-operated dampers are located on top of thebuilding. The siding, roofing, gutters, and downspout are constructed from 26-gauge steel.Three 18-gauge steel personnel doors are located around the building. Metal (22-gauge) roll-up doors arelocated at the south and east ends of the building. A manually adjusted louver door is located on the north
Page 52
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-5and south walls of the building. The interior walls and ceiling are equipped with 4-inch-thick fiberglassinsulation. This facility is radiologically contaminated in the WCA (former supercompactor area);however, the contamination can be removed.The Laundry Room is located southeast of the Utility Room. It is a small concrete block structure. Theroof is metal decking with insulation and asphalt roofing. The floor is a concrete slab 6 inches thick. Thefloor contains a sump that is radiologically contaminated. It contains a commercial-size washer, acommercial-size dryer, and sorting tables and racks for laundering contaminated protective clothing,including shoe rubbers, boots, face masks, and coveralls. Chemical disinfectants and detergents are usedin this building.A wooden wall separates the laundry into a radiologically contaminated side and a clean side. In thecontaminated side, fixed radiological contamination exists in the floor and may exist in the washer, dryer,and ventilation system. Removable contamination exists in the MCC panels. The Laundry Room has arelatively small footprint compared with other facilities, but because concrete was used in its construction,it is conservatively assumed that the concrete has been contaminated and that decontamination,demolition, and removal activities would therefore generate a higher volume of LLW than larger facilitiesconstructed of metal and steel.DOE would use off-site vendors for laundry services if necessary.The Live Fire Range was constructed about 1.5 miles southeast of the Process Building during 1986. It isa fenced-in area with earth-mounded backstops, or berm, and fixed targets used by WVDP Security andlocal law enforcement agencies for weapons practice and qualification courses. A shelter is locatedagainst the berm to provide non-shooters with cover from inclement weather. Weapons and ammunitionused in exercises include 0.38-caliber handguns, 12-gauge shotguns, and 0.223-caliber semi-automaticand fully automatic assault rifles. The firing range is expected to contain unknown quantities of lead fromspent bullets generated during its use as a weapons training facility. Because the bullets were used fortheir intended purpose, it is not RCRA waste (EPA OSWER 9441.1992[02], dated January 15, 1992).However the soil volumes estimated for removal of this facility were conservatively assumed to behazardous waste (see Table 1 of the main text). The firing range is not radioactively contaminated.Three trailers and two small wood-frame buildings are located just outside the firing range perimeter onthe south side. The range house was used to store safety and first aid equipment, spent casings, and wood.It is constructed of a concrete slab floor, light wood frame, wood siding, and asphalt roofing. The otherbuilding was used to simulate hostage rescue operations. It has a light wood frame, waferboard siding androofing, and crushed stone flooring. Neither building has furniture, plumbing, or electrical facilities.A firing range is available locally.The Lube Storage Locker is a metal locker used to store lubrication materials and located on a gravel padarea referred to as the Industrial Waste Storage Area. This structure was never radiologicallycontaminated. Lubrication materials would be stored appropriately in other remaining facilities, ifnecessary.The Maintenance Shop is a metal building with steel supports. It houses locker rooms, lavatories,instrument shops, work areas, and a finished office area. Metal-working activities in the MaintenanceShop generated wastes containing metal constituents. The concrete floor is supported by a concretefoundation wall and concrete piers. This building is potentially radiologically contaminated in theconcrete and in the overheads. Remaining maintenance functions would be transferred to the NewWarehouse, which would remain available.
Page 53
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-6The Maintenance Storage Area is a sheet-metal storage area used to store raw materials for use in theMaintenance Shop. This facility was never radiologically contaminated. Remaining storage needs wouldbe housed in the New Warehouse, which would remain available.The Master Slave Manipulator (MSM) Repair Shop was constructed around 1971 to allow repair ofcontaminated MSMs close to their point of use, particularly those in the Process Mechanical Cell, GeneralPurpose Cell, Scrap Removal Room, and laboratories. It is concrete block with structural steel framing, aconcrete slab floor, and metal roof deck with sloped built-up roofing. The facility has controlledventilation, utilities, lighting, an overhead monorail, and decontamination facilities. The floors and tankswere designed to drain to a buried 1,500-gallon tank (15D-6) east of the MSM Shop. The ventilation hasbeen upgraded, a new floor poured, and a stainless steel pan added. Temporary shielding was installed inthe southeast corner for additional protection from the HEV filter plenum. The facility contains one glasswindow in the north wall that looks in on the Contact Size Reduction Facility. The MSM Repair Shop haslow levels of radiological contamination not thought to be significant and a requirement fordecontamination would be minimal.The NDA Hardstand, located near the southeast corner of the NDA, was an interim storage area whereradioactive waste was staged before being disposed. The hardstand contains a three-sided structure withcinder-block walls that is located on a sloped pad of crushed rock. The hardstand is radiologicallycontaminated in the soils from material that was staged for burial.The New Cooling Tower provides cooling water to selected systems and equipment. It stands on aconcrete basin. The floor of the basin is an 8-inch-thick concrete slab. The basin floor is supported by aretaining wall 4 feet deep. The concrete basin is radiologically contaminated and chemically contaminatedwith water treatment chemicals, such as corrosion inhibitors and biocides, which have been used as partof normal operations in the cooling tower. Only the above-grade uncontaminated structure would beremoved. Some amount of decontamination of the basin and slab may be necessary. This potential wastevolume is included in Table 1 of the main text.The basin would be covered to prevent wateraccumulation. The contaminated basin, including the slab, will be evaluated in the Decommissioning EIS.The basin would be covered to prevent water accumulation. The cooling function would be providedthrough equipment modification or replacement to eliminate the need for Cooling Tower (e.g., conversionto air-cooled equipment).The O2 Building is a steel-framed concrete building with a concrete slab located outside the building.The LLW Treatment Facility in the O2 Building was replaced by an LLW Treatment Facility in theLLW2. All equipment has been removed from the building and slab. The O2 Building has beensignificantly decontaminated. Remaining radiological contamination is in both fixed and removable form.Only the above-grade structure would be removed. Some amount of decontamination of the slab may benecessary. This potential waste volume is included in Table 1 of the main text. The removal of thecontaminated slab will be evaluated in the Decommissioning EIS. The O2 Building has a relatively smallfootprint compared with other facilities, but because concrete was used in its construction, it isconservatively assumed that the concrete has been contaminated and that decontamination, demolition,and removal activities would therefore generate a higher volume of LLW than larger facilities constructedof metal and steel.The Old Warehouse is a pre-engineered steel building with three sections. The facility supports thestorage of spare parts, equipment, and chemicals associated with conduct of the WVDP; in the past, NFSused the facility for the same purpose. The room attached to the north end of the building formerly housedthe blueprint facility and currently houses a radiological counting facility. A concrete ramp with anasphalt cover is located at the north cargo door. This facility is potentially radiologically contaminated
Page 54
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-7due to rodent issues. There is no removable contamination. Remaining storage needs would be met by theNew Warehouse, which would remain available.The Old Sewage Treatment Plant provided primary and secondary treatment of sanitary wastewatergenerated at the WVDP from 1966 to 1985. The unit consisted of a concrete basin (5,000 gallons per daycapacity), control boxes, a surge tank, an aeration tank, and a clarifier. Effluent from the facility wasmonitored under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) regulatory program since1978. The treatment plant received wastewater from the Main Plant locker room floor drains, sinks andtoilets, and other on-site sanitary waste streams. Low levels of radioactivity were documented in thisfacility. A piping source was identified and pipes were replaced, eliminating the radioactivityoccurrences.The Radwaste Process (Hittman) Building is located in the yard area north of the FRS Building. Thebuilding is steel-framed, with steel siding and roofing. The center section of the roof is removable toallow access to steel and concrete shields that house high-integrity containers (HICs) used to store loadedresins from the fuel pool Submerged Water Filtration System. The Radwaste Process Building isequipped with provisions for the confinement of radioactive materials. The foundation perimeter iscurbed, and a sump located in the southwest corner of the building provides spill collection. This facilityis radiologically contaminated with elevated contamination levels in the facility sump and low-levelremovable and fixed contamination in the posted contamination area used to support resin transfers. Onlythe above-grade structure would be removed. Some amount of decontamination of the slab may benecessary. This potential waste volume is included in Table 1 of the main text. The removal of thecontaminated slab will be evaluated in the Decommissioning EIS.The Recirculation Vent System Building is fabricated from sheet metal and is located in the north FRSyard. This building contains the equipment that provides the majority of the heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) for the FRS Building. This facility is radiologically contaminated in the ventilationsystem components.The Road Salt and Sand Shed consists of a storage bin and a sand stall on 5-inch-thick blacktop. Theblacktop is underlain with 10 inches of stone. This structure was used to store road salt and sand and isnot radiologically contaminated. DOE proposes to remove the storage bin and sand stall within the next4 years. During decommissioning of the site, DOE would contract with a commercial firm for roadmaintenance as needed.The Schoolhouse, located south of the WVDP on Rock Springs Road, is a two-room, one-story woodbuilding with clapboard siding. It has asphalt shingles over the original wood shingles and a brickchimney. It has a fieldstone foundation. It was previously used as an environmental laboratory and as atraining center, but it is currently being used as a deer check facility during restricted deer hunting at theWestern New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC). The schoolhouse was never radiologicallycontaminated.The Test and Storage Building (TSB), located northeast of the Process Building, has a timber frame,metal siding, and steel beams. The building was initially used to test glass recipes and store glass samples.It currently has office space, the tool crib, and garage space. A concrete block addition houses Radiationand Safety Operations. This building is potentially radiologically contaminated by a low-level fixedcontamination.The Vehicle Repair Shop is a steel I-beam framed structure with corrugated metal siding and a metalroof. This facility was never radiologically contaminated. Vehicle maintenance and repair would behoused in the New Warehouse, which would remain available.
Page 55
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPA-8The Vitrification Test Facility is a metal building with a concrete floor. It is equipped with three large,motor-operated roll-up doors and a 16-ton overhead bridge crane. It housed, among other things, a small-scale vitrification facility used to test the technology without using actual radioactive waste. Therefractory in the scale vitrification system melter might contain some metal constituents such aschromium and thorium.A “speed-space” was added to the south side of the Vitrification Test Facility to simulate a control roomfor operator training.Eleven wood utility poles are located between the Electrical Switching Station and the northeast area ofthe Vitrification Test Facility. These poles are 1.5 feet in diameter and approximately 30 feet tall. Theyhave been treated with creosote. One cross arm with ceramic insulators is mounted on each pole. Thisbuilding is not radiologically contaminated.The Warehouse Bulk Oil Storage Unit is a metal, insulated-wall structure insulated with 2-hour firerating. The floor is a removable fiberglass grating located 6 inches above a catch basin with a sump. It islocated east of the New Warehouse. It has been used for the storage of combustibles (i.e., grease, oils,antifreeze, etc.) in 1 gallon to 55 gallon containers. This facility is not radiologically contaminated.Within the next 4 years, the need for combustible materials storage will have been eliminated orsubstantially reduced. Combustible materials would be stored appropriately in existing facilities, ifnecessary.The Waste Tank Farm (WTF) Training Platform 2, the mobilization pump repair platform, is a pre-engineered structure erected as a stack of four modules, including ladders, handrails, and grating.Structural shapes and plates are carbon steel. The grating is galvanized. The modules, ladders, andhandrails are bolted together. The exterior “skin” is fabric. This platform is not radiologically orchemically contaminated. It was constructed as a mock-up to support the replacement of pumps in theWaste Tank Farm. The platform was an aboveground training and practice area designed to facilitate full-scale mockup of pump replacement activities. WTF Training Platform 1, the decant pump and heatexchanger platform, would remain operational.
Page 56
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPB-1APPENDIX B WVDP FACILITY MAP AND CROSSWALK
Page 57
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPB-2West Valley Demonstration Project Facilities Showing Those FacilitiesProposed for Demolition and RemovalFacilityNumberaFacility Name101-14 Building Including Cement Solidification System2Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility (02 Building)3Bulk Storage Warehouse (BSW)4Cement Solidification System (CSS)5Chemical Process Cell-Waste Storage Area (CPC-WSA)6Clarifier7Cold Chemical Facility (Cold Chem)8Contact Size Reduction Facility (CSRF)9Container Sorting and Packaging Facility (CSPF)10Cooling Tower11RTS Drum Cell12Emergency Vehicle Shelter13Expanded (Environmental) Lab14Construction Fab Shop (Vitrification Fab Shop)15Fire Pumphouse & Storage Tank16FRS North Yard Hardstand17Fuel Receiving and Storage (FRS) Building18Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers19High-Level Waste Transfer Trench20New Interceptor (North and South)21Interim Waste Storage Facility (IWSF) or Kerosene Tanks & NDA ContainerStorage Area22Lag Hardstand23Lag Storage Area 124Lag Storage Area 2 (hardstand)25Lag Storage Area 326Lag Storage Area 4 (LSA 4) Including Shipping Depot27Lag Storage Building (LSB)28Lagoon 129Lagoon 230Lagoon 3 (includes nearby french drain)31Lagoon 432Lagoon 533Laundry Room34Liquid Waste Treatment System (LWTS)35Live Fire Range36Low-Level Waste Treatment Building (LLW2)37Main Plant Process Building (MPPB)38Maintenance Shop39Master Slave Manipulator (MSM) Shop40NDA Interceptor Trench41NDA Hardstand/Staging Area42Neutralization Pit43New Warehouse (Main 2)44North Parking Lot
Page 58
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPB-3West Valley Demonstration Project Facilities Showing Those FacilitiesProposed for Demolition and RemovalFacilityNumberaFacility Name45North Plateau Groundwater Recovery System Pump & Treat46Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA)47Off-Gas Trench48Plant Office Building49Permanent Vent System Bldg (PVS)50Permeable Treatment Wall51PPC Box Storage Area52Radiation Protection Counting Lab53Radwaste Process (Hittman) Bldg54Rail Packaging and Staging Area55Old (Main) Warehouse56Remote Handled Waste Facility (RHWF)57Sample Sorting and Packaging Area58South Parking Lot59Supernatant Treatment System (STS)60Test and Storage Building (TSB)61Trailers (3)62Utility Room63Utility Room Expansion64Vehicle Maintenance Shop65Vitrification Facility Bldg66Load-In/Load-Out Facility67Vitrification Hardstand68Vitrification Test Facility (VTF)69(Former) Waste Management Staging Area (WMSA)70Waste Tank Farm (WTF)71Equalization (EQ) Basin72Waste-Water Treatment Facility or Sewage Treatment Plant73Aboveground Petroleum Tanks (41-D-021, 41-D-022)74Administration Building75Con-Ed Building76Construction and Demolition Area or Concrete Washdown Area77Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill (CDDL)78Dams and Reservoirs79Demineralizer Sludge Ponds80Designated Roadways81Electrical Substations82Equalization (EQ) Tank83Waste Tank Farm Equipment Shelter and Condenser84Fire Brigade Training Area85Former NDA Lagoon (also called “Pete’s Pond)86FRS Ventilation Building (Recirculation Ventilation System Building)87Fuel Receiving & Storage Area’s High Integrity Container (HIC) & SUREPAK StagingArea88HLW Tanks Pumps
Page 59
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPB-4West Valley Demonstration Project Facilities Showing Those FacilitiesProposed for Demolition and RemovalFacilityNumberaFacility Name89Hydrofracture Test Well Area90Industrial Waste Storage Area Lube Storage Lockers and 2 Metal Lockers91SDA Leachate Transfer Line92Liquid Pretreatment System93Maintenance Shop Leach Field94Maintenance Storage Area95Meteorological Tower96Miscellaneous Facilities and Storage Areas97Monitoring Wells/Stations98NDA Trench Soil Container Area99NFS Deep Holes100NFS Special Holes101Old Interceptor102Old Sewage Treatment Facility103Old/New Hardstand Storage Area104Product Storage Area105Rail Spur106Road-Salt & Sand Storage Shed107Satellite Accumulation and 90-Day Storage Areas108Schoolhouse109Security Gatehouse and Fences110Soil Piles111Solvent Dike112STS Bulk Underground Fuel Oil Tank (50D-09)113Subcontractor Maintenance Area114Tank 8D-1 (including in-tank STS Components)115Tank 8D-2116Tank 8D-3117Tank 8D-4118Vitrification Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank & Building (or Diesel Fuel Oil Building)(FOD-11)119Vitrification Vault and Empty Container Hardstand120Warehouse Bulk Oil Storage Unit121Warehouse Hardstand Tents122Waste Packaging Area123Waste Tank Farm Test Towers (one of two)124Well purge water storage locations125WVDP Caissons126WVDP Trenches127Sealed Rooms128Cold Hardstand Near CDDL129SDA-Disposal Trenches130SDA-Former Lagoons131SDA-Mixed Waste Storage Facility132North Plateau Groundwater Plume
Page 60
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPB-5West Valley Demonstration Project Facilities Showing Those FacilitiesProposed for Demolition and RemovalFacilityNumberaFacility Name133Stream Sediments134Cesium Prong135Contaminated Soils on Project Premises136High Level Waste Tank Pump Storage Vaults137VH Series Trailers138SDA Leachate Pumphouse139Lakes Pumps140Nitrogen Storage Tank141Aboveground Diesel Fuel Tank 31D-01142AA Hardstand143Lagoon 2 Pumphouse144Lagoon 3 Weir Shed145Shipping Depot Containment146Demineralized Water Tank147Waste Paper Incinerator Pad148FRS Pump Shed149Empty Hardstand150HEV & Decon Shop Waste Catch Tank 15D-6151LLW Catch Tank from Lab Drains 7D-13152New Communications Shed153Drum Cell Instrumentation Monitoring Shed154Communications Hub Shed155Asbestos Decon Shower156WVDP Road Show Trailera. Shaded rows indicate facilities evaluated in this EA.
Page 61
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPC-1APPENDIX CWETLAND DELINEATION MAP—WVDP ENVIRONS
Page 62
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-1APPENDIX D DOE’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTSIntroductionDOE issued the draft EA on June 26, 2006, initiating a public comment period that extended through July29, 2006. DOE also held a public meeting on the draft EA on July 19, 2006. DOE has considered all ofthe comments received in the comment letters and transcript of the public meeting. The followingprovides a summary of the major comments followed by an index of commenters and DOE’s response tospecific comments.Several commenters stated that some of the 42 facilities proposed for demolition and removal in the draftEA could be needed under future site decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship scenarios. For thisreason, the commenters stated that demolition and removal of the facilities could not be independentlyjustified and prejudiced the outcome of the ongoing Decommissioning EIS in violation of NEPA. Thefunctions that commenters stated might be needed are:• Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage• Sewage Treatment Plant• Warehouse capacity• Waste Tank Farm Training Platform• Maintenance-type facilities• Emergency response facilities• Hydrofracture test well areaCommenters also stated that by preparing an EA for the demolition and removal of certain facilities, DOEwas improperly segmenting the NEPA process. Commenters stated that issuing the EA would violate theStipulation of Compromise entered into by DOE and the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes.Response to CommentsThe 42 facilities proposed for demolition and removal in the draft EA were originally identified as thosethat did not contribute significant source term (radiological contamination) to the site, and for which nofuture use in implementing potential Decommissioning EIS alternatives was thought to exist. Based onthe comments received on the draft EA, DOE, supported by West Valley Nuclear Services Company (thecurrent site operations contractor) and the contractors involved in drafting the Decommissioning EIS,revisited the issue of whether any of the 42 facilities included in the draft EA could potentially providesupport functions for implementation of the full range of possible decommissioning and/or long-termstewardship alternatives. In addition, DOE identified facilities that could be used to address currentlyunresolved situations should those situations remain unresolved beyond the next four years (e.g., storageof transuranic (TRU) waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The result of this effort was a list ofsix facilities recommended for removal from the EA.These facilities are:• Lag Storage Addition (LSA) 4 and Shipping Depot• Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell• Equalization Basin• Equalization Tank
Page 63
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-2• Sewage Treatment Plant• Waste Tank Farm Training Platform (one of two)• New WarehouseThe demolition and removal of these facilities has been eliminated from the scope of the final EA. TheLSA-4 and Shipping Depot and the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell will be available for LLWand TRU waste storage, respectively, in the future as needed, and the Sewage Treatment Plant,Equalization Basin, and Equalization Tank will remain available to support any workers involved infuture decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities. In addition, the New Warehouse wouldhouse the vehicle repair shop, maintenance shop, maintenance storage, and any necessary equipment andmaterials from the Old Warehouse and Bulk Storage Warehouse. The hydrofracture test well area andEmergency Vehicle Shelter remain within the Proposed Action for demolition and removal as explainedin response to specific comments below. The final EA and the impact analyses it contains have beenrevised to reflect the revised scope.Based on DOE’s recent comprehensive review, the Department confirmed that the 36 facilities thatremain within the scope of the EA are not now and/or would not be needed in the future under any WestValley Demonstration Project (WVDP) closure scenario. Because the demolition and removal of thesefacilities would not affect the range of alternatives available for decommissioning and/or long-termstewardship or prejudice the outcome of the ongoing Decommissioning EIS, NEPA requirements allowDOE to take this interim action (10 CFR § 1021.211 and 40 CFR § 1506.1).Because applicable NEPA regulations permit DOE to take this interim action, DOE is not improperlysegmenting its NEPA compliance as some commenters suggest. The Stipulation of CompromiseSettlement that DOE entered into with the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes and RadioactiveWaste Campaign in 1987 does not preclude the preparation of a NEPA document to address managementof WVDP facilities that would not be needed under any future decommissioning and/or long-term closurescenario. DOE has complied, and continues to comply, with the Stipulation.Commenters also raised specific issues and asked specific questions regarding the analysis of impacts inthe draft EA. DOE has responded to those issues and questions individually in the following matrix.Table D-1 provides an index to all commenters and the identification numbers used for each specificcomment. These identification codes are also shown on the incoming comment documents, reproduced intheir entirety at the end of this appendix.
Page 64
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-3Table D-1. Public Comments Received on Draft EACommentNumbersDate ReceivedCommenter1-1 through 1-12 June 30, 2006Dr. Paul PiciuloNew York State Energy Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA)West Valley Site Management Program2-1 through 2-7 July 17, 2006William T. King, SupervisorTown of Ashford3-1 through 3-3 July 27, 2006Keith I. McConnell, Deputy DirectorU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Division of Waste Management and Environmental ProtectionOffice of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards4-1 through 4-5 July 29, 2006Diane D’Arrigo, on behalf of theCenter for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ);Citizens Environmental Coalition (CEC);Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County (CCCC);Nuclear Information and Resource Services (NIRS)5-1 through 5-5 July 29, 2006Joanne HameisterSeth WochenskyKathleen McGoldrickLee GridleyJudith EinachCoalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes6-1 through 6-4 July 29, 2006Raymond C. Vaughan, on behalf of theWest Valley Citizen Task Force7-1 through 7-24 August 2, 2006 Edwin E. Dassatti, Bureau DirectorNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC)Division of Solid and Hazardous MaterialsBureau of Hazardous Waste & Radiation Management8-1 through 8-8 August 2, 2006 Grace Musumeci, ChiefU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2Environmental Review SectionStrategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs BranchT-1 throughT-14July 19, 2006Various Commenters
Page 65
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-4Specific CommentsCommenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseNew York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)1-1DOE has not, however, provided a[publicly] available document, thatwould explain why the buildings that arestill currently in use will no longer beneeded to complete implementation ofthe WVDP Act. A [publicly] availabledescription of DOE’s assumptionsregarding decommissioning and closureactions would help reviewers of this EAunderstand why DOE believes thefunctions served by these 42 buildingsare no longer needed and/or how thesefunctions will be replaced during sitedecommissioning activities.As stated in the draft EA, DOE identifiedfacilities for decontamination (if necessary),demolition, and removal because theirdesign, function, and lack of significantsource term would not affect whether thedecommissioning criteria for the site couldbe met. Since the issuance of the draft EA,DOE has determined that six structures(plus one of the two Waste Tank Farmtraining platforms) originally proposed fordemolition and removal could be neededunder future decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios or to address currentlyunresolved needs and, for that reason, haseliminated those buildings from the scope ofthe final EA. Of the remaining 36 facilities,those that DOE currently uses to store LLWwould no longer be needed once that wasteis shipped off-site in accordance with theRecord of Decision for the West ValleyDemonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337), December 2003. The LSA-4 andShipping Depot and the RadwasteTreatment System Drum Cell have beenremoved from the scope of the EA and willbe available for radioactive waste storage inthe future as needed. The New Warehousewould house the vehicle repair shop,maintenance shop, maintenance storage, andany necessary equipment and materials fromthe Old Warehouse and Bulk StorageWarehouse. These facilities will be includedin the Decommissioning EIS.1-2The description of the 42 buildings andother structures at the WVDP that arethe subject of this EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) as “unneeded andunused” is not entirely accurate. WhileFootnote 1 on Page 1 of the draft EAacknowledges that some of the buildingsare currently used to store low-levelradioactive waste and Table 2 describesAs noted above, since the issuance of thedraft EA, DOE has determined that sixstructures (plus one of the two Waste TankFarm training platforms) originallyproposed for demolition and removal couldbe needed under future decommissioningand/or closure scenarios or to addresscurrently unresolved needs and, for thatreason, has eliminated those buildings from
Page 66
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-5Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsein general terms how functions servedby certain of the EA buildings andstructures will be replaced, the EAappears to lack a thoughtfulconsideration of the consequences ofremoving certain facilities orcombinations of facilities prior toselecting and/or completingimplementation of a WVDPdecommissioning alternative.NYSERDA does not believe thatremoval of certain facilities or theremoval of certain combinations offacilities can be independently justifiedfrom the actions that are currently withinthe scope of the Decommissioningand/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. Inaddition, the “replacement impacts,”which were to have been addressed inthe EA for any function that would stillbe required (see DOE Response toNYSERDA Comment #1, 1/4/06) arenot included in this draft EA. Comments3 through 7 present specific examples ofNYSERDA’s concern.the scope of the final EA. Facilities withfunctions that would need to be replaced arelisted in Table 2 of the final EA, along withan explanation as to where the replacementfunction would occur. As stated in the finalEA, “Replacement of any remainingfunctions could require minor modificationsof existing facilities but no newconstruction. A few functions would betaken over by qualified off-site vendors.”DOE expects the impacts from each of thereplacement activities to be the same as orless than those from the respective currentactivities.1-3NYSERDA urges DOE to reconsider theremoval of all low-level waste storagecapacity. Some amount of low-levelwaste storage capacity will be needed tosupport implementation of futuredecommissioning actions and someportion of the existing low-level wastestorage capacity should be retained tosupport these future decommissioningactions.DOE has reconsidered the removal of allprimary LLW storage capacity. The LSA-4and Shipping Depot have been removedfrom the scope of the EA. The RadwasteTreatment System Drum Cell also has beenremoved from the scope of the EA andcould be used for TRU waste storage if off-site disposal were delayed. These facilitieswill be included in the DecommissioningEIS.
Page 67
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-6Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Response1-4NYSERDA is aware that the existingsewage treatment plant may be oversizedfor the size of the current work force andthus may not function as well as itshould, but why would the WVDP electto replace all the existing sanitationfacilities with portable units instead ofjust continuing to use a contractedtransport and disposal service to bulkship the sewage off-site, as is done now?In addition, there is no assessment ordiscussion of the replacement impacts.Based on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the Sewage TreatmentPlant, Equalization Basin, and EqualizationTank could be needed to provide sanitaryfacilities and potable water for workersunder one or more decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios. Those facilities have beenremoved from the scope of the EA and willbe included in the Decommissioning EIS.1-5NYSERDA questions the merit ofremoving all three warehouses andwould propose that DOE retain thelargest and newest warehouse located onthe Project Premises to support futuredecommissioning activities. In addition,there is no assessment or discussion ofreplacement impacts (e.g., rental costs,fuel use and employee hours to transportmaterials to and from an off-sitewarehouse, etc.).Based on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the New Warehouse couldbe needed under one or moredecommissioning and/or closure scenarios.That facility has been removed from thescope of the EA. It will be included in theDecommissioning EIS.1-6NYSERDA believes that one of the twoWTF Training Platforms should beretained to facilitate mockups of theinstallation and removal of equipmentfrom the HLW tanks. Additionalequipment, such as the zeolite columnsor tank pumps may need to be removedfrom the tanks. Additional equipment,such as sampling equipment or wasteremoval equipment may need to be putin the tanks. One of the WTF trainingplatforms should be retained to facilitateproper planning of this important work.Based on further review, DOE hasdetermined that one of the Waste Tank Farmtraining platforms (the larger one) could beneeded under one or more decommissioningand/or closure scenarios. That facility hasbeen removed from the scope of the EA. Itwill be included in the DecommissioningEIS.1-7NYSERDA believes that one or more“maintenance-type” facilities (e.g., FabShop, Maintenance Shop, Test andStorage Building, Vehicle Repair Shop,MSM Repair Shop) should be retainedto support future site decommissioningactivities. Radiological andnonradiological equipment will still needto be maintained, modified, mocked-up,etc. during decontamination anddecommissioning activities that areBased on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the New Warehouse couldbe needed under one or moredecommissioning and/or closure scenarios.That facility has been removed from thescope of the EA and will be included in theDecommissioning EIS. The NewWarehouse would be used to house thevehicle repair shop, maintenance shop,maintenance storage, and any necessaryequipment and materials from the Old
Page 68
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-7Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsewithin the scope of theDecommissioning EIS. NYSERDAurges DOE to retain one or more of theexisting “maintenance-type” facilities tofulfill this future need.Warehouse and Bulk Storage Warehouse.1-8Page 7, Table 1, Bulk StorageWarehouse - A waste volume estimatefor the Bulk Storage Warehouse (BSW)appears to be missing from the table.The only waste volume estimated for theBSW is the volume associated with theconcrete slab. Shouldn’t an estimatedvolume of industrial waste be associatedwith the building?The missing information has been includedin Table 1 in the final EA.1-9Page 7, Table 1, Equalization Tank - Awaste volume estimate for theEqualization Tank appears to be missingfrom the table.The Equalization Tank has been removedfrom the scope of the EA. It will be includedin the Decommissioning EIS.1-10Page 7, Table 1, Live Fire Range -Based on the WVDP use of this area andthe expected hazardous wastecontamination, why hasn’t the live firerange been declared and assessed as aSWMU under the RCRA 3008(h)Consent Order?In accordance with the guidance providedby the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in OSWER 9441.1992(02),dated January 15, 1992, DOE does not feelthat the Live Fire Range should be managedas a Solid Waste Management Unit. In theguidance document, the EPA indicated,“…the disposition of lead at shooting rangeswas within the normal and expected usepattern of the manufactured product and theresultant contamination was not subject tothe RCRA regulations.”1-11Page 7, Table 1, Old Sewage TreatmentPlant - The old sewage treatment plant isknown to have received radiologicallycontaminated liquids from the ProcessPlant and is currently posted as aradiologically contaminated area. IfDOE intends to remove this slab, howdoes DOE plan to address contaminatedsoils? What cleanup standard will beapplied to determine when enoughradiological soil has been removed? Apredetermined exhumation depth orvolume of soil is not an acceptable wayto demonstrate adequate cleanup.NYSERDA does not want clean fillplaced over contaminated soil in the areaof the sewage treatment plant or anyThis facility did become contaminated withlow levels of radioactivity sometime in thelate 1970s. The source of contamination wassuspected to be the acid recovery pumproom and corroded wastewater pipes below.The pipes were replaced with stainless steelpipes, eliminating recurrence. Thecontaminated sludges were removed andpackaged as waste. The portion of the OldSewage Treatment Plant underconsideration in the EA is not currentlyposted as a radiologically contaminatedarea. Additionally, no soil contamination iscurrently expected in this area because theleak in question was under the Main ProcessPlant Building, not in the direct vicinity ofthe Old Sewage Treatment Plant itself.
Page 69
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-8Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseother area of the site. This practice willlead to the generation of additionalcontaminated soil volumes and may leadto the loss of institutional knowledge ofthe presence of subsurfacecontamination. NYSERDA requests thatcontaminated soil and contaminatedsurface features be completelycharacterized and/or remediated so theyare not left to be “rediscovered” at somepoint in the future.1-12Appendix B, WVDP Facility Map andFacility Name Crosswalk - The facilityname crosswalk table may lead tosignificant confusion andmisunderstanding because it includes allof the site facilities, as opposed to justthe EA facilities. In addition, thefollowing acronyms are not defined andreferences or citations to the relevantdocuments are not provided: “GOAT,”“SAR,” “ORPS” and “SUMP.” Also, itis unclear if the RCRA column wasintended to list only the RCRA HWMUsor the RCRA HWMUs and RCRASWMUs. Either way, the RCRA columnis incomplete.The final EA contains a revised Appendix Bwith a new map and a new table to addressthese concerns.Town of Ashford2-1The Town of Ashford is in completeagreement with the 12 comments madeby NYSERDA, June 30, 2006. We arevery concerned with how the DOE willanswer the NYSERDA comments andwant to be [kept] up to date on theanswers to the Comments. We alsorequest a time frame to allow foragreement or disagreement.Please see DOE’s responses toNYSERDA’s comments, above.2-2We find that your reference to future useof offsite local warehouses, if needed, isanother possibility for accidents andmore of a threat to our health and safety.We Strongly urge that any possiblebuilding that could be used for anyfuture Demonstration projects or anyUNFORESEEN reasons must be left andmaintained. The EA does not include alist of where these actual suitableBased on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the New Warehouse couldbe needed under one or moredecommissioning and/or closure scenarios.That facility has been removed from thescope of the EA and it will be included inthe Decommissioning EIS. The NewWarehouse would be used for on-sitestorage as necessary. WVDP material andequipment would not be transported off-site
Page 70
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-9Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsewarehouses are or what may have to bestored.for storage.2-3We strongly urge that research be doneon the small school house that appears tobe outside of the actual area where theanticipated reduction of building footprint is located. This is the onlysurviving building that the town hasfrom the original take over. We feel thatsentimental effects and historical valuesmust be considered before it isdemolished. It certainly has nothing todo with the removal of radioactivity. Thesame goes for the demolishing of manyof the buildings, as to the actualreduction of the real problem.DOE has retained the Schoolhouse in thescope of the EA. The Schoolhouse is notwithin the Project Premises. Removal of theSchoolhouse would be coordinated with theTown of Ashford.2-4As the local community to which thefederal government (DOE) has alwaysstated they have been friendly with, weare very disappointed that we have notbeen or at least considered to becontacted for a study to the eliminationof certain support projects. Including thesewer system, water supply system, andcertain buildings.DOE issued the EA in draft in order to seekpublic comments, which the Town ofAshford provided. The water supply systemwas not within the scope of the EA. Basedon further review, DOE has determined thatthe Sewage Treatment Plant, EqualizationBasin, and Equalization Tank could beneeded to provide sanitary facilities andpotable water for workers under one or moredecommissioning and/or closure scenarios.Those facilities have been removed from thescope of the EA. They will be included inthe Decommissioning EIS.2-5We, as the local community, are veryconcerned with what appears to be aquick suggestion to remove buildings.Our town is presently suffering a majorproblem caused by the very rapid andnot researched removal of approximately80 temporary office trailers last year.They were moved onto property withinthe Town without Permits and are inviolation of the local Town Law andOrdinance.DOE did not take the Proposed Action toremove these facilities lightly. DOE hasconsidered the future use of these facilitiesrelative to the potential alternativesavailable for consideration in the draft EISand confirmed that the 36 facilities thatremain within the scope of the EA are notnow and/or would not be needed in thefuture under any potential WVDP closurescenario. The EA does address the types ofwaste to be generated from facility removaland the proper disposal of this waste atlicensed commercial or DOE disposalfacilities.2-6The Environmental Assessment is notclear about what we feel important.Issues such as the real impacts to ourlocal health safety and economy:The EA is limited to an evaluation of thepotential impacts of the decontamination,demolition, and removal of certainunneeded buildings at WVDP. The impacts
Page 71
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-10Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Response(a.) Future monitoring of localvolunteers, within a specified perimeter,to have physicals done and recorded(b) Monitoring off site but within theimmediate area of creeks, springs,underground water supplies, wildlife,wooded areas and air. These areexamples we feel this EA hasoverlooked. The fact that our people stilllive in the area and the rights to localprotection of health, safety and economyare equal to all who live within theUnited States, is very important to us.addressed in the EA include those to humanhealth and safety. However, theDecommissioning EIS, which remains apriority, will address the potentialenvironmental impacts of variousdecommissioning and/or closure scenarios,including impacts to local health and safetyand the economy and the need formonitoring.2-7More effort must be put on total removalof any and all contaminants from thissite. This EA suggest[s] that by reducinga footprint we are taking care of the realproblems.The EA does not suggest that removing36 unneeded facilities from the WVDP siteaddresses all of the environmental issues atthe site, nor does it suggest that removingthe 36 facilities would reduce the footprintof the Project Premises. In fact, DOErecognizes that the buildings that areproposed for demolition and removal lack asignificant source term as compared to theremainder of the facilities at WVDP.Analysis of other contaminated facilities andtheir potential removal is being done in theDecommissioning EIS.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)3-1During the period that the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE) hasexclusive use and possession of the WestValley Demonstration Project (WVDP)facilities, it should ensure that provisionsexist for the continued monitoring andsurveillance of site activities, and thatfacilities necessary for sitedecommissioning are retained.DOE continues to provide monitoring andsurveillance of site activities. As notedabove, since the issuance of the draft EA,DOE has determined that six structuresoriginally proposed for demolition andremoval could be needed under futuredecommissioning and/or closure scenariosor to address currently unresolved needsand, for that reason, has eliminated thosebuildings from the scope of the final EA.DOE has confirmed that the 36 facilities thatremain within the scope of the EA are notnow and/or would not be needed in thefuture under any potential WVDP closurescenario. Ongoing monitoring andsurveillance of site activities will not changeas a result of the EA.3-2DOE should be mindful that cleanuplevels established for remediation underthe draft EA may be different from thoseDOE recognizes that facilities or soils notremoved prior to site decommissioningwould be subject to remediation based on
Page 72
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-11Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseestablished for site decommissioning.Therefore, any decontaminated facilitiesor remediated soils that are not removedprior to site decommissioning may besubject to further remediation based oncleanup levels established for sitedecommissioning. Further, clean soilsplaced over such areas may need to beexhumed potentially resulting in thegeneration of additional waste.cleanup levels established for sitedecommissioning. In addition, DOE doesnot plan to excavate pads or foundations inareas with subsurface contamination inorder to avoid the situation described in thiscomment – that is, one that would result inthe placement of clean soils overcontaminated areas that may then requirefurther action based on decommissioningdecisions and result in additional wastevolumes.3-3DOE should also consider the potentialbenefit of this type of information tosupport subsequent decommissioningactivities (e.g., historical site assessment,characterization surveys, and final statussurveys). If survey and samplingactivities under this EA can be used tosupport subsequent decommissioningactivities, they should be designed withthat benefit in mind.Concur. Survey and sampling activitiesconducted under this EA may be used tosupport subsequent decommissioningactivities, as applicable.Center for Health, Environment and Justice; Citizens Environmental Coalition; Concerned Citizens ofCattaraugus County; Nuclear Information and Resource Services4-1Segmenting or splitting off a portion ofthe cleanup violates the spirit and theletter of the law, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). Thecombined impacts of the full cleanupplanned and required for this facilityshould be considered prior to approvingdisposal of debris from these 42structures. We oppose the continuedsegmentation of the EnvironmentalImpact Statement on the cleanup andfinal disposition of the West Valleynuclear waste site.We opposed the splitting of the originalEnvironmental Impact Statement intotwo separate processes. (This is stillbeing challenged in court.) TheDepartment of Energy fails to make acase for the additional separation of thisactivity from the on goingenvironmental analysis being done. Weadvocate and support the full cleanup ofthe West Valley site but both federal lawDOE is proceeding with theDecommissioning EIS, which will be usedas the basis for a decision on the cleanupand final disposition of the WVDP site. Thedecontamination (if needed), demolition,and removal of some unneeded facilities atthe site would not affect the range ofalternatives available for decommissioningand/or long-term stewardship or prejudicethe outcome of the ongoingDecommissioning EIS. The ProposedAction analyzed in the EA is an interimaction permissible under NEPA regulationsand does not constitute an impropersegmentation of the NEPA process. TheStipulation of Compromise Settlement thatDOE entered into with the Coalition onWest Valley Nuclear Wastes andRadioactive Waste Campaign in 1987 doesnot preclude the preparation of a NEPAdocument to address management of WVDPfacilities that would not be needed underany future decommissioning and/or long-term closure scenario.
Page 73
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-12Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseand common sense require that thecleanup be done comprehensively takinginto consideration the full impacts of theactions, not addressing each piecemeal.4-2Furthermore, there is not enoughinformation provided in this documentto determine the impact of removal ofsome facilities as they could be neededfor maintenance and cleanup dependingon future scenarios. This is an exampleof the consequences of unnecessary andillegal segmentation of environmentaldecisions. Removing buildings androads gives the illusion of closure to thesite cleanup when the reality is that nofinal decisions have been made on whatactivities will take place and whatfacilities might still be needed for longterm cleanup and stewardship. DOEstates in the EA that services ofstructures being removed can beprovided by offsite facilities butprovides no analysis of how muchradioactivity would be spread into thecommunity and to other offsite locationsby those activities. If full or partialexhumation of the site is carried out,some of the structures could still beneeded. Even if it made sense to pursuethis portion of the work independently,the alternatives to and consequences ofremoval of some structures have notbeen fully explored to justify a Findingof No Significant Impact.The claim is made that the 42 structuresto be removed are not and will not beneeded at the site, but that is highlyquestionable as NYSERDA’s commentsdetail.As a result of public comments, DOEundertook a review to determine whetherany of the 42 facilities included in the draftEA could potentially provide supportfunctions for implementation of the fullrange of possible decommissioning and/orlong-term stewardship alternatives. Inaddition, DOE sought to identify facilitiesthat could be used to address currentlyunresolved situations should those situationsremain unresolved beyond the next fouryears (i.e., storage of TRU waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The resultof this effort was a list of six facilities (plusone of the two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) recommended for removal fromthe EA. The Department also confirmed thatthe 36 facilities that remain within the scopeof the EA are not now and/or would not beneeded in the future under any potentialWVDP closure scenario. The EA addressesthe potential human health impactsassociated with the decontamination (asnecessary), demolition, and removal of these36 facilities, including impacts from off-sitetransportation. No equipment or materialswould be transferred off-site for storage.4-3One of the most difficult and expensiveproblems with manmade radioactivity isthe detection and tracking. Since there isno safe level of exposure toradioactivity, it is prudent to minimizeunnecessary dispersal and spreading ofradioactive material and contamination.DOE, on the federal level, hasUnder the Proposed Action analyzed in theEA, the unneeded facilities would bedecontaminated as necessary, demolished,and removed from the site. Industrial,hazardous, and radioactive waste resultingfrom decontamination and demolition wouldbe transported off-site for disposal atlicensed commercial or DOE disposal
Page 74
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-13Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsedetermined unilaterally and against themajority of affected public comment andother industries’ comment, that someamounts of radioactivity can be releasedor cleared from regulatory control. Theresult is spreading radioactivity(sometimes at levels that are expensiveand time-consuming to detect) into thepublic commons, into the sharedenvironment, in order to more cheaplyget rid of radioactive and potentiallyradioactive materials and wastes. Thishas been challenged repeatedly by thepublic and affected industries that couldend up with nuclear materials in theirpurview.This EA simply refers to 10 CFR 835 asthe reference for releasing materials tounregulated disposal or commerce. Thatregulation is for Occupational RadiationProtection and is not focused on publicprotection nor should it be used to allownuclear materials to get out into thepublic.The numbers that are presumably beingused from DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR835 appear to be the same as those froman old 1974 Atomic Energy Commissionguidance (Regulatory Guide 1.86) whichwas originally created to removerestrictions from radiation areas inreactors. The exposures from thoselevels could exceed what the publicaccepts and the public would have nowarning or opportunity to object. Thosecontamination levels were not intendedas allowable contamination for everydayconsumer goods with which members ofthe public come into routine contact orfor release of nuclear contaminatedmaterials to regular trash or mixed wasteto sites with hazardous-only permits.Once items, equipment or othermaterials from the site are sent off, withno labeling or indication that they wereat this site, they could end up anywhere.facilities. No potentially radioactivematerials or wastes would be sent to sitesthat do not have appropriate licenses andcontrols. No radioactive or hazardousmaterials or wastes would be released forunregulated disposal or commerce.
Page 75
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-14Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseIf materials from the site go intorecycling, directly or indirectly fromscavenging at landfills, products couldbe made from them with residual levelsof contamination. If they go to landfills,most of which leak, they could addradioactivity to the leach ate eventually,exacerbating the existing problems. Thehealth and environmental effects ofradiation and hazardous materialsleaking together can be more thanadditive, but synergistically greater. Thispotential impact is not even mentionedin the EA.Some of the demolition debris from thisportion of the project would be sent tothe solid waste landfill a commercialtransfer station in Olean, NY, andultimately to the operator’s HylandLandfill in Angelica, NY; the asbestoswould go to Model City in Lewiston,NY and [the] hazardous waste would goto Heritage Environmental Services inIndianapolis, Indiana. It is not clear fromthe EA that realistic analyses [have]been done of the effects. The fact thatwaste from the West Valley nuclear siteis already waste going to those facilitiesdoes not mean it is acceptable forsubstantial additional material to gothere. In fact it raises questions about theadequacy of those sites for routineactivities at West Valley. Allowingpotentially contaminated materials to goto destinations that are not regulated forradioactive waste appears to violate thepublic expectations that nuclearmaterials must be isolated from theenvironment.We oppose the deregulation anddispersal of potentially radioactive wasteand materials to unregulated destinationsfor disposal, reuse, recycling or otherprocessing that leads to unregulatedrelease and dispersal of the radioactivity.
Page 76
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-15Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseThe US Department of Energy hasadopted policies and proceduresallowing potentially radioactivematerials (all but potentially radioactivemetal) to be released or cleared as ifnon-radioactive for recycling intoeveryday commerce. Potentiallyradioactive and radioactive metals couldend up in recycling but are not supposedto go to commercial recycling. TheEnvironmental Assessment is unclearabout the distinctions being madebetween what is considered radioactiveand what is not. One of the keyquestions is how much contaminationDOE considers acceptable to go to solidand hazardous (non-radioactive) wastefacilities, what can go to auction forreuse in the community, what can besent for recycling and subsequentfabrication into consumer goods andindustrial materials.A clear weakness in the DOE’s national‘clearance’ scheme is over-reliance on“institutional knowledge” for what isclean or has never been exposed toradioactivity or hazardous materialsversus that which is contaminated.Institutional memory does serve somepurpose but should not be relied uponalone for clearing materials from nuclearsites since staff change and no oneknows all the exposures that materialshave encountered, especially oldstructures and facilities. Surveys arelaborious and potentially expensive.When in doubt, treat the materials ascontaminated and keep them controlled.4-4We also have a concern that removingless concentrated radioactive materialsand structures that could be providingshielding on site will result in highroutine worker exposures.None of the facilities proposed fordemolition and removal are relied upon toprovide shielding to workers.4-5DOE should incorporate all aspects ofsite cleanup into one comprehensiveplan which prevents nuclear materialsfrom being deregulated and treated asDOE is proceeding with theDecommissioning EIS, which will be usedas the basis for a decision on the cleanupand final disposition of the WVDP site.
Page 77
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-16Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsenonradioactive. DOE should not sendany potentially radioactive materials tosites that do not have radioactivelicenses and/or controls. DOE at WestValley should be more transparent abouthow decisions are being made thatrelease materials and structures fromradiation and hazardous control.Industrial, hazardous, and radioactive wasteresulting from decontamination anddemolition under this EA would betransported off-site for disposal at licensedcommercial or DOE disposal facilities. Nopotentially radioactive materials or wasteswould be sent to sites that do not haveappropriate licenses and controls.Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes5-1However, the Coalition does notencourage the development of a newguiding document that we believe has nolegitimacy, legally or procedurally. Theillegitimacy of this draft EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) is based on our viewthat, given the on-going EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) process, an EAat this time is inappropriate. While wedo not agree or disagree with all theactions laid out in the draft EA, theseactions and/or alternatives rightly belongin the EIS. In fact, the areas andfacilities covered by this Draft EA wereincluded in the 1996 Draft EIS.A decade ago, DOE fragmented the1996 Draft EIS, creating a set ofprocedures that split the process in twodirections. The Coalition contends thiswas contrary to the spirit and intent ofthe NEPA process. The Draft EA beforeus is yet another example of DOE’sdisregard for the spirit and intent ofNEPA. The Coalition does not acceptthe premise that parts of the area coveredin the 1996 Draft EIS suddenly nolonger need to be covered by an EIS,which is an erroneous assumptionclearly evident in this draft EA.DOE acknowledges that the facilitiesproposed for demolition and removal wereincluded in the draft EIS issued in 1996.Since that time, DOE has determined thatthere are actions that would be prudent totake prior to the completion of theDecommissioning EIS. Those actionsinclude those analyzed in the West ValleyDemonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337), December 2003.Because the demolition and removal ofunneeded facilities would not affect therange of alternatives available fordecommissioning and/or long-termstewardship or prejudice the outcome of theongoing Decommissioning EIS, NEPArequirements allow DOE to take the interimaction proposed in this EA (10 CFR §1021.211 and 40 CFR § 1506.1).5-2Yet another reason for the Coalition notto legitimize this draft EA is that someof the actions laid out in the draft EA arein direct violation of the terms agreed toin a contract between DOE andCoalition, The Stipulation ofCompromise, and which remains ineffect. We are disappointed that DOEThe Stipulation of Compromise Settlementthat DOE entered into with the Coalition onWest Valley Nuclear Wastes andRadioactive Waste Campaign in 1987, andreferred to in the comment as a contract,does not preclude the preparation of aNEPA document to address management ofWVDP facilities that would not be needed
Page 78
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-17Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsewould disregard so blatantly a lawfulcontract.under any future decommissioning and/orlong-term closure scenario. DOE hascomplied, and continues to comply, with theStipulation.5-3The Coalition is not only troubled byDOE’s disregard for process, but theCoalition also is troubled by theapparent attempt to reclassify nuclearwaste, by levels of radioactivity left onsite that appear to be too high not torequire an EIS, by the lack of assurancethat contaminated soils will be fullydecontaminated, by the lack ofaccountability, by the movement ofwaste from the Demonstration Project toother sites in Western New York, and bythe incorrect assumption that the WVDPcould be covered by regulationsgoverning a “defense site” and theWVDP is not a defense site.DOE is not proposing to reclassify anyradioactive waste evaluated in this EA. TheLLW generated as a result of the ProposedAction would qualify as Class A LLW inaccordance with Nuclear RegulatoryCommission requirements. Overall, thewaste that would be generated under theProposed Action analyzed in the EA isClass A LLW, mixed LLW, asbestos,hazardous waste, and solid industrial waste(non-radioactive and non-hazardous).Class A LLW and mixed LLW would beshipped to Hanford, Energy Solutions(formerly Envirocare), or the Nevada TestSite (NTS) for disposal. No radioactivewaste would be disposed of at the WVDPsite or within New York State. Industrialwaste and building debris waste would beshipped to a permitted landfill in ModelCity, New York, or Angelica, New York,where this type of WVDP waste is currentlyshipped for disposal. Asbestos waste wouldbe shipped to a permitted landfill in ModelCity. Hazardous waste would be shipped toa permitted landfill in Indianapolis, Indiana,where this type of WVDP waste is currentlyshipped for disposal.None of the waste types generated by theProposed Action is involved in the “WasteIncidental to Reprocessing” issue. Inaddition, DOE is not proposing to clean upradioactive soil contamination to anyparticular standard under this EA; thatdecision will be made after the completionof the Decommissioning EIS, which is inprogress.5-4The Coalition supports the commentssubmitted by NYSERDA regarding thelack of need for the targeted structures.DOE has not offered assurance thatspace in “existing facilities” will beadequate. The implied new use of off-site and/or local vendors, services, spacePlease see DOE’s responses toNYSERDA’s comments (Comments 1-1through 1-12). DOE believes that the cost ofusing off-site vendors for certain serviceswould be far less than the cost ofmaintaining such facilities at the WVDP,which is one of the reasons DOE is
Page 79
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-18Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseand facilities would be new costs, theimpact of which should be consideredagainst the cost of maintenance of thestructures in question.proposing to demolish and remove theunneeded facilities.5-5If DOE chooses not to withdraw thisdocument, we support a “No Action”determination.DOE considered this comment, but plans toproceed with the final EA.West Valley Citizen Task Force6-1The Draft EA, by allowing prematureremoval of buildings and other facilitiesthat would be needed to carry out certainalternatives in the Decommissioningand/or Long-Term StewardshipEnvironmental Impact Statement(Decommissioning EIS), wouldprejudice the outcome of theDecommissioning EIS and therebyviolate NEPA. In our view, this is a veryfundamental problem. On page 4 of theDraft EA, DOE suggests that the DraftEA is compatible with theDecommissioning EIS because it wouldnot affect whether the decommissioningcriteria for the site could be met by anyof the EIS alternatives. We disagree.Premature removal of buildings andother facilities under the Draft EA wouldnot entirely prevent any alternative frombeing carried out, but it would bias thecosts. In effect, it would be anirretrievable commitment of resources.The concern is that some of these samefacilities would need to be rebuilt orreplaced to achieve certain alternatives.The costs of rebuilding or replacementwould prejudice the DecommissioningEIS and thus violate NEPA.As a result of public comments, DOEundertook a review to determine whetherany of the 42 facilities included in the draftEA could potentially provide supportfunctions for implementation of the fullrange of possible decommissioning and/orlong-term stewardship alternatives. Inaddition, DOE sought to identify facilitiesthat could be used to address currentlyunresolved situations should those situationsremain unresolved beyond the next fouryears (i.e., storage of TRU waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The resultof this effort was a list of six facilities (plusone of the two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) recommended for removal fromthe EA. The Department also confirmed thatthe 36 facilities that remain within the scopeof the EA are not now and/or would not beneeded in the future under any potentialWVDP closure scenario.The EA addresses the potential humanhealth impacts associated with thedecontamination (as necessary), demolition,and removal of these 36 facilities, includingimpacts from off-site transportation.Facilities with functions that would need tobe replaced are listed in Table 2 of the finalEA, along with an explanation as to wherethe replacement function would occur. Asstated in the final EA, “Replacement of anyremaining functions could require minormodifications of existing facilities but nonew construction. A few functions would betaken over by qualified off-site vendors.”No equipment or materials would betransferred off-site for storage. DOEbelieves that the cost of making small
Page 80
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-19Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsemodifications to existing facilities to housesome of the functions currently beingperformed in certain facilities would be farless than the cost of maintaining suchfacilities at the WVDP, which is one of thereasons DOE is proposing to demolish andremove the unneeded facilities. Because thefacilities proposed for demolition andremoval would not be needed in the future,rebuilding would not occur.6-2The June 30, 2006, comment letter fromthe New York State Energy Researchand Development Authority(NYSERDA) provides examples offacilities proposed for removal thatwould need to be rebuilt or replaced toachieve certain decommissioningalternatives. Such facilities includewaste storage structures, warehousecapacity, maintenance facilities, andtraining platforms forinstalling/removing equipment in tanks.The NYSERDA letter also indicates thatthe proposed removal of toilet, shower,and washing facilities may violateOSHA.Please see DOE’s responses toNYSERDA’s comments (Comments 1-1through 1-12).6-3Since we have not yet seen drafts of theDecommissioning EIS, we cannot sayhow large a work force would be neededto carry out any of its alternatives.However, based on the draft issued in1996, it is reasonable to assume thatsome of the decommissioningalternatives would require a much largerwork force than is currently employedon the site. For these alternatives, someworkers will likely be handling wastes instorage structures while others will behandling equipment in warehouses,servicing equipment in maintenancefacilities, and training for further wasteremoval activities. All such workers willneed adequate sanitary facilities. Untilthe Decommissioning EIS is issued andthe size of the necessary work force hasbeen identified, DOE should take nosteps to remove facilities that this workforce would need for its variousBased on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the Sewage TreatmentPlant, Equalization Basin, and EqualizationTank could be needed to provide sanitaryfacilities and potable water for workersunder one or more decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios. Those facilities have beenremoved from the scope of the EA and willbe included in the Decommissioning EIS.
Page 81
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-20Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsedecommissioning tasks.6-4We ask DOE to withdraw the Draft EAand to focus instead on completion ofthe Decommissioning EIS.Thank you for your comment. Regardless ofDOE’s decision with respect to the proposeddemolition and removal of unneededfacilities, the Department continues to focuson the completion of the DecommissioningEIS.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)7-1The Department supports the concept ofdecontamination and removal offacilities that will no longer be needed tocarry out known or possible futureactivities at the site. However, wedisagree with the scope of the facilitiesthat are described in the EA as“unneeded and unused.” Certain types offacilities listed in the EA can not berealistically considered for removal atthis time, given that a final approach tosite decommissioning has yet to bechosen through the EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) process. Ofparticular concern to the Department arethe proposed removal of all wastemanagement and storage facilities, andthe removal of all warehouse,fabrication, sanitary, emergencyresponse, and specialized trainingfacilities. Several of these facilitieswould be best left in place under anyscenario for ongoing work. Dependingupon the closure alternative chosen forthe site, some or all of the facilities arelikely to be needed to support that work.Since the issuance of the draft EA, DOE hasdetermined that six structures (plus one ofthe two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) originally proposed fordemolition and removal could be neededunder future decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios or to address currentlyunresolved needs and, for that reason, haseliminated those buildings from the scope ofthe final EA. The following facilitiesoriginally proposed for demolition andremoval in the draft EA have beeneliminated: Equalization Basin, EqualizationTank, Lag Storage Area 4 & ShippingDepot, New (Main 2) Warehouse, RTSDrum Cell, Sewage Treatment Plant, WTFTraining Platform (south tower). They willbe included in the Decommissioning EIS.7-2With this Environmental Assessment(EA), DOE proposes to demolish andremove 42 unneeded and unusedbuildings and other structures. The NYSDepartment of EnvironmentalConservation (the Department) supportsthe concept of removing unneededfacilities. However, we cannot supportremoval of the wide range of facilitieslisted in this Environmental Assessment.The Department does not agree that it isappropriate to remove facilities thatclearly could support site activities underSince the issuance of the draft EA, DOE hasdetermined that six structures (plus one ofthe two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) originally proposed fordemolition and removal could be neededunder future decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios or to address currentlyunresolved needs and, for that reason, haseliminated those buildings from the scope ofthe final EA. The following facilitiesoriginally proposed for demolition andremoval in the draft EA have beeneliminated: Equalization Basin, Equalization
Page 82
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-21Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseone or more of the site closurealternatives under consideration.Tank, Lag Storage Area 4 & ShippingDepot, New (Main 2) Warehouse, RTSDrum Cell, Sewage Treatment Plant, WTFTraining Platform (south tower). They willbe included in the Decommissioning EIS.DOE has confirmed that the 36 facilities thatremain within the scope of the EA are notnow and/or would not be needed in thefuture under any potential WVDP closurescenario.7-3The EA focuses primarily on theradioactive contamination at the site.There is some mention of hazardouscontamination, but it is not addressedconsistently. This document mustaddress all NEPA needs. Adequatelyaddressing hazardous contaminationunder the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) regulations inTitle 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations (40 CFR) is needed to fulfillNEPA requirements. Please note that,even though New York State isauthorized to administer the federalRCRA program under regulations foundin Title 6 of the New York Code ofRules and Regulations (6 NYCRR), thefederal regulations still apply to thefacility.The EA has been revised to clarify that allapplicable RCRA requirements would bemet in the implementation of the ProposedAction.7-4DOE is obligated to meet closure andcorrective action requirements forInterim Status (IS) units and Solid WasteManagement Units (SWMUs),regardless of whether or not a “NoAction” alternative is enacted at the site.DOE recognizes that it is obligated to meetclosure and corrective action requirementsfor Interim Status units and Solid WasteManagement Units at the WVDP site.7-5None of the facilities referred to in theEA as Hazardous Waste ManagementUnits (HWMUs) are permitted byFederal or State RCRA programsbecause the permitting process at the sitehas not been completed. The HWMUshave Interim Status in accordance withboth Federal and State regulation. Inorder to ensure the use of consistentterminology for the regulators, DOE,NYSERDA, and the public, please referto these units as Interim Status or ISDOE modified the EA to use the termInterim Status (IS) units. Specific RCRArequirements for the closure of thesefacilities are not within the scope of the EA.Rather, DOE will address applicable RCRArequirements, including RCRA correctiveactions, pursuant to the RCRA 3008(h)Order on Consent. As stated in the EA inSection 2.1, facility removal would beconducted in accordance with applicable ISrequirements. RCRA closure will beaddressed through the appropriate
Page 83
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-22Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseunits. It should be understood that the ISunits, and any subsequently permittedunits, are automatically SWMUs.Discussion of the closure requirementsfor the IS units should be included in thedocument. Additionally, the EA shouldexplain that the regulations containrelevant investigation and remediationrequirements for the SWMUs.regulatory process.7-6There are several units discussed withinthe document that may be SWMUs. TheDepartment requests additionalinformation and/or assessments on thefollowing units: Equalization Tank,Expanded Environmental Laboratory,Fabrication Shop, Laundry Room,Master Slave Manipulator (MSM)Repair, New Cooling Tower, and OldWarehouse. Additionally, the Live FireRange is subject to RCRA CorrectiveAction regulations. Typically, as wasdone at the DOE Knolls Atomic PowerLaboratory Site in West Milton, a firingrange is treated as an Area of Concern(AOC). However, the designation ofAOC is not used in conjunction with theWVDP, therefore this area is considereda SWMU. As such, an assessment reportis required for this unit within 45 days ofreceipt of these comments.This EA evaluates potential environmentalimpacts of removal of the identifiedfacilities. Specific RCRA requirements forthe closure of these facilities are not withinthe scope of the EA. DOE would addressthese requirements directly with NYSDECunder separate cover.7-7However, there is no description of howDOE will determine when it has reachedacceptable levels of residualcontamination in these variouscircumstances. Nor is mention made ofwhat would constitute a final acceptablecleanup level. Without clear guidance onthe need to comply with conservativelychosen cleanup levels, DOE leaves openthe potential to have to revisit some ofthese facilities and carry out additionaldecontamination work once a siteclosure option is chosen and acceptablecleanup levels are established. Withoutthis clear guidance the Department isunable to support actions to removestructures and leave unspecified levels ofcontamination in place.The planned approach is to remove facilitiesto grade level. Grade level and below willbe addressed in the Decommissioning EISnow in preparation. DOE believes thatdecisions on the overall management ofbelow-grade material, based oncontamination levels and applicableregulations and guidelines, should be madeas part of the plan for the long-termmanagement of the WVDP site and theWestern New York Nuclear Service Center(WNYNSC). Radiological decontaminationlevels for EA work will be determined inaccordance with the limits established inWVDP-010, Radiological Controls Manual,which was developed in accordance with 10CFR 835.
Page 84
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-23Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseDOE 5400.5 and 40 CFR Part 61 providethe radiological standards applicable toenvironmental media releases during andafter structure removal. 40 CFR Part 61addresses the requirements relative toradiological air permitting based on CAP-88modeling of emissions associated withdemolition. The facility footprint areaswould remain under institutional and publicaccess control during and upon completionof structure removal.For hazardous constituents, facility removalwould be conducted in accordance withInterim Status Closure Requirements asidentified in 6 NYCRR 373-3. RequisiteRCRA corrective actions would beaddressed pursuant to the RCRA 3008(h)Order on Consent.7-8Section 1.1 The New York StateEnvironmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) should be referenced inaddition to NEPA.The New York State Environmental QualityReview Act is not applicable to DOE’sProposed Action or to the preparation of theEA by DOE.7-9Waste Storage Facilities In footnote 1.,DOE states in the EA that somebuildings are currently being used tostore low-level radioactive wastes(LLRW), and that as those buildings areemptied of stored wastes, they would beready for decontamination, demolition,and removal. This decision appears to bebased upon the belief that futureactivities at the site will not requirestorage of more than a small volume ofLLRW at any given time. Consideringpast waste management practices at thesite, and the large scale of potentialwaste generating activities under someof the potential site closure alternatives,it is likely that interim storage space forLLRW will be needed during sitedecommissioning activities.Reduction of storage needs is possible,in part, through use of an on-timeshipping (or ship as you go) approach towaste management, which is a costeffective approach that could be utilizedDOE has decided to remove Lag StorageArea 4 and the Shipping Depot fromconsideration in the EA. The RadwasteTreatment System Drum Cell also has beenremoved from the scope of the EA andcould be used for TRU waste storage if off-site disposal were delayed. These facilitieswill be included in the DecommissioningEIS.
Page 85
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-24Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseto the extent that conditions allow.However, if all or even most LLRWstorage capacity were removed, anydisruption in shipping schedules wouldresult in short term delays or long termstoppages of work at the site because ofa lack of LLRW storage space on-site.Such disruptions could come in manyforms, such as severe weather events,legal actions, security threats, the failureof DOE to meet commitments to Stateshosting DOE sites used as trans-shippingpoints or final disposal sites, or otherimpediments. The retention ofsubstantial on-site storage capacity is areasonable and necessary precautionagainst such interruptions.Given the likely need for future LLRWstorage space, the proposed removal ofthis space could unnecessarily result in aneed to build new LLRW storagefacilities. Such construction, or anysignificant delays in decommissioningwork caused by a lack of storage space,would likely increase the costs, andpotentially the risks, associated with anydecommissioning alternative thatresulted in generation of any butminimal volumes of LLRW. Withoutfurther strong support for a decision toremove the LLRW storage facilities, theDepartment has to view such an actionas biasing the EIS process.7-10Figure 2 This map does not includeareas in Waste Management Areas(WMA) 11 and 12. An inclusive map ofthe entire West Valley DemonstrationProject (W\TDP) premises should beprovided.The Waste Management Areas are shown inFigures 3 and 4.7-11Site Terminology Box, Page 3, andFigures 1. and 2. The Project Premisesincludes all land and structures overwhich DOE has sole use and control. Inaddition to the areas described in thedescription and figure in question, therail spur, live-fire range, reservoirs, andBulk Storage Warehouse are part of theThe Site Terminology box accuratelydescribes the activities undertaken incarrying out the solidification of liquid high-level radioactive waste (HLW) at theWNYNSC and is not an attempt to list everycomponent of the site. The official ProjectPremises are defined by the DOE-NYSERDA Cooperative Agreement and by
Page 86
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-25Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseProject Premises. Descriptions of thePremises, both written and visual,should make this clear.two subsequent letters as referenced in theWVDP 6 NYCRR Part 373-2 HazardousWaste Permit Application (WVDP-443).The rail spur on the WNYNSC retainedpremises, reservoirs, and the Bulk StorageWarehouse have been used by DOE inconducting the WVDP, but are not officiallycited as Project Premises. The purpose ofFigure 1 is to show the relative location ofWVDP and WNYNSC within the State ofNew York and in reference to each other.Figure 2 does not attempt to show everybuilding and facility within the WVDP site.7-12Section 2.1 This section states that“DOE needs to eliminate or significantlyreduce the functions that are undertakenin those facilities” being proposed forremoval on the EA. DOE does notexplain why it “needs to” remove allLLRW storage capacity, the onsiteemergency response and sanitaryfacilities, or the specialized training andmaintenance facilities. Nor does itexplain why it “needs” to remove thenew warehouse. The only languagesupporting removal appears to be thestatement that DOE “needs” to do so. Ifthere were no reasonably expected futureuse for these facilities, then it would berational to say that their continued usewas no longer needed. However, that isnot the case for these facilities.Since the issuance of the draft EA, DOE hasdetermined that six structures (plus one ofthe two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) originally proposed fordemolition and removal could be neededunder future decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios or to address currentlyunresolved needs and, for that reason, haseliminated those buildings from the scope ofthe final EA. The structures that have beenremoved from the scope of the EA includeLLW and TRU waste storage capacity,sanitary facilities, specialized training andmaintenance facilities, and the newwarehouse. They will be included in theDecommissioning EIS. There is noreasonably expected future use for the 36facilities that remain in the scope of the EA.Additional language to this effect was addedto the EA.The emergency response program at theWVDP would not be affected by removingthe Emergency Vehicle Shelter. Theemergency response vehicle would remainavailable and fully stocked, and existingagreements with local responseorganizations would remain in effect.However, to address the concern raised inthis comment, the EA has been revised toreflect the fact that the emergency responsevehicle could be stored outside or in anotherexisting facility.7-13DOE does not explain why it no longersees a need for an on-site emergencyThe emergency response program at theWVDP would not be affected by removing
Page 87
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-26Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseresponse capability. The EA does notinclude language stating whether thelocal EMS services are able to provide acomparable level or speed of care inresponding to on-site emergencies withradiological contamination of victims orfacilities. DOE does not state whether ithas confirmed the willingness andcapability of the outside services to takeover these responsibilities. It is unclearwhy, when some potentialdecommissioning alternatives couldresult in decontamination and demolitionactivities of similar or even greaterscope than those already undertaken atthe site, the current on-site emergencyresponse facilities are no longernecessary. Unless and until a closurealternative that does not require anysignificant demolition or wastepackaging activities, it would appearunreasonable to remove viable on-siteemergency response capabilities.the Emergency Vehicle Shelter. Theemergency response vehicle would remainavailable and fully stocked, and existingagreements with local responseorganizations would remain in effect.However, to address the concern raised inthis comment, the EA has been revised toreflect the fact that the emergency responsevehicle could be stored outside or in anotherexisting facility.7-14The EA includes insufficientjustification for removal of the on-sitesanitary treatment facility. Under justabout any scenario, the site will remain apermanent place of employment forsignificant numbers of people for manyyears. If this were a facility withoutsanitary facilities, it might be justifiableto rely upon outside services for sanitaryneeds. However, given the present sitecircumstances the elimination of showerand flush toilet facilities for thedecommissioning crews, support staff,and management personnel is not areasonable action, and may be inviolation of safety and healthregulations. Furthermore, removal of anon-site sanitary system would seriouslylimit potential future use scenarios forthe Center.Based on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the Sewage TreatmentPlant, Equalization Basin, and EqualizationTank could be needed to provide sanitaryfacilities and potable water for workersunder one or more decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios. Those facilities have beenremoved from the scope of the EA. Theywill be included in the DecommissioningEIS.7-15The proposal to remove specializedtraining and maintenance facilitiesneeded to support many of the possiblefuture remedial alternatives is not areasonable decision. The trainingThe larger Waste Tank Farm TrainingPlatform has been removed fromconsideration in the EA. It will be includedin the Decommissioning EIS.
Page 88
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-27Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsefacilities in particular could not bereadily duplicated through the use of off-site resources. As with the proposal toremove all LLRW storage capacity,removal of these facilities would beviewed as biasing the EIS processtowards closure options that do not needthese services.DOE has considered the need formaintenance facilities and would relocateon-site maintenance, if required, to availablefacilities. The New (Main-2) Warehouse hasbeen removed from consideration in this EAand could provide space for any neededmaintenance functions. It will be included inthe Decommissioning EIS.7-16There is no reasonable justification forremoval of the new warehouse. For mostfuture actions at the site, it would beadvantageous to have a storage facilityfor supplies and equipment close athand. It is understandable that the olderor more remote storage facilities wouldbe considered for removal. However, anewer, relatively low maintenancestorage facility in close proximity toareas of ongoing site activities wouldappear to be a benefit to future siteactivities rather than an obstacle thatneeds to be removed and replaced byoff-site storage facilities. Additionally,the Citizens Task Force and othersworking on potential future usescenarios for the site have requested thatthis structure be maintained. Given theseconcerns the Department believes that itis prudent to retain the new warehouseuntil such time as it became clear thateither it was an obstruction to necessarysite decommissioning activities, or wasobviously no longer needed due tocompletion of major site [closure]activities and a determination that it wasnot viable to retain it for future site uses.Please see the response to Comment 7-15.7-17Section 2.3 This section correctlyexplains that the potential impacts thatwould be described in a final approvedEA (to personnel, the public, and theenvironment) for removal of all 42facilities proposed for removal wouldbound the impacts of work performed toremove a reduced number of this set offacilities. What is not adequatelypresented here or elsewhere is thedifference in potential implications forthe EIS process of choosing a PreferredDOE has reduced the number of facilitiesproposed for demolition and removal underthe Proposed Action.
Page 89
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-28Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseAlternative if certain facilities are or arenot removed. As stated above, removalof certain of the facilities listed in Table1. would have significant implicationsfor the Preferred Alternative selectionprocess. This would quite probably biasthat process towards selection ofalternatives that would not require re-developing facilities or services lost as aresult of removal of all 42 facilities. Thisissue needs to be addressed, either in theEA or in referenced supportingdocumentation, and seriousconsideration needs to be given toreducing the scope of facilities to bedemolished.7-18Section 3.3.2 The contaminants in thesoil at the live fire range need to beidentified in the EA.Management of soil from the Live FireRange is considered in the EA. The soilpotentially contains lead bullets from spentammunition. This has been noted in the EA.7-19Section 3.4.2 Any and all soildisturbance must be performed incompliance with all applicable NYSrules and regulations. Major changes tothe surface water regimes could affectgroundwater flow patterns, shouldtemporary or permanent recharge areasbe developed on the site. This isparticularly important given the knownpresence of groundwater contamination.DOE has modified Section 3.4.2 in responseto this comment.7-20Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 It should benoted that impacts that will needmitigation or permitting in wetlands arenot limited to the wetland proper, per[se], but would also [include] regulatedbuffer areas. This section should beclarified and the need for a wetlandpermit, or the lack thereof, should bediscussed. Additionally, a map showingthe facilities under consideration forremoval AND the identified wetlands onthe site, should be included in thisdocument.Under current regulations, none of thefacilities considered are located withinregulated wetlands or wetland buffer areas.Thus, no wetlands mitigation or permitwould be required. The EA has been revisedto include this information. A map showingthe wetlands associated with the site havebeen appended to the EA. See Appendix C.7-21Section 3.8.1 The last sentence in thissection states that “Noise for ongoingsite activities includes that from theBuffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad line,Section 3.8.1 has been modified to add asentence that says “Rail noise occurs whenrailcars are brought to the site from thesouth and leave from the site to the south for
Page 90
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-29Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsewhich runs within 800 meters (2,600feet) of the Project Premises.” It is ourunderstanding that this rail line isabandoned north of the connection forthe rail spur that feeds the site from thesouth. This includes the portion of theline that runs within the Western NewYork Nuclear Service Center east of theProject Premises. Thus, the only noisefrom this line would be when rail carsare brought to the site from the south forwaste shipping purposes. Please clarifythis discussion.waste shipping purposes.”7-22Section 3.12 This section states thatunder this alternative “The condition ofunused and unneeded facilities wouldcontinue to deteriorate.” In the case ofthis EA a “No Action” option wouldmean that the facilities would not beremoved, not that work at the site wouldnot continue. Thus, it is reasonable toassume that ongoing maintenance wouldbe performed on facilities such as theLLRW storage facilities, sanitary wastefacility, the new warehouse, and theemergency vehicle shelter so that theycould continue to provide the servicesfor which they were designed. Thissection needs to be revised to reflect thatfact.The facilities noted in the comment havebeen removed from the scope of the EA.These facilities would be maintained asnecessary. With respect to the No ActionAlternative, the EA has been modified toclarify that the facilities considered in thescope of the EA will continue to age,requiring unnecessary increasedmaintenance and the costs associated withthat maintenance.7-23Appendix A There are several unitsmentioned in Table 1 that are notdescribed in the appendix with the restof the units. Please either provide thedescriptions for these unmentioned unitsor an explanation as to why a descriptioncan not be given for these units.A review of the facilities listed in Table 1and those described in Appendix A revealedno discrepancies.7-24Appendix B The map and table need tobe presented in a larger format tofacilitate review.Appendix B has been modified to include acolor map to improve clarity.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)8-1There appears to be a gap between whatdemolition and removal actions areanticipated in the pre-decisional EIS andthis EA.The Decommissioning EIS assumes thatunneeded facilities will have beendemolished and removed from the site.Since the issuance of the draft EA, DOE hasdetermined that six structures originallyproposed for demolition and removal could
Page 91
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-30Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responsebe needed under future decommissioningand/or closure scenarios or to addresscurrently unresolved needs and, for thatreason, has eliminated those buildings fromthe scope of the final EA. They will beincluded in the Decommissioning EIS. DOEhas confirmed that the 36 facilities thatremain within the scope of the EA are notnow and/or would not be needed in thefuture under any potential WVDP closurescenario.8-2This EA does not contain enoughinformation to allow the reader tounderstand why these facilities can beremoved as well as making it clear thatthe functions of these facilities will notbe needed in the future as part of thedecommissioning.The EA evaluates the potentialenvironmental impacts of demolishing andremoving a set of facilities previously orcurrently used by the WVDP that, becauseof their design, function, and lack ofsignificant source term, are not expected,either individually or collectively, to affectwhether the decommissioning criteria forthe site could be met. The functions of thefacilities proposed for decontamination (ifnecessary), demolition, and removal aredescribed in Appendix A to the EA.8-3Also, the EA was not consistent indescribing how much of each of the 42facilities will be removed. Werecommend that DOE produce criteriafor building demolition, removal, andreuse, with an evaluation of thefunctions and facility structures andrelate that evaluation to the overall needsof the facility to achieve decommission.We believe that such an evaluationwould better inform the removaldecisions at this point and wouldminimize environmental impacts byreducing the amount of deconstructionand replacement activities.As a result of public comments, DOEundertook a review to determine whetherany of the 42 facilities included in the draftEA could potentially provide supportfunctions for implementation of the fullrange of possible decommissioning and/orlong-term stewardship alternatives. Inaddition, DOE sought to identify facilitiesthat could be used to address currentlyunresolved situations should those situationsremain unresolved beyond the next fouryears (i.e., storage of TRU waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The resultof this effort was a list of six facilities (plusone of the two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) recommended for removal fromthe EA. The Department also confirmed thatthe 36 facilities that remain within the scopeof the EA are not now and/or would not beneeded in the future under any potentialWVDP closure scenario. DOE woulddemolish and remove all of the 36 facilitieslisted in Table 1 in their entirety. As shownin Table 1, slabs for the New CoolingTower, O2 Building, and Radwaste Process
Page 92
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-31Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Response(Hittman) Building would bedecontaminated if necessary but would notbe removed under the Proposed Action.These slabs will be evaluated in theDecommissioning EIS.8-4We are most concerned with the impactsto surface waters from the proposedamount of deconstruction and removalactivities. The EA should contain anevaluation of the potential amount ofsoil disturbance that will occur on thesite and the potential for soil loss andsediment in runoff (e.g., the equalizationbasin, equalization tank, Diesel fuel oilbuilding and the test wells will allinvolve foundation and in-groundstructure removal that the EA did notdirectly address in the evaluation ofimpacts).It is not possible to specify at this time thepotential amount of soil disturbance thatwould occur under the Proposed Action.Stormwater and wastewater controlspecifications would vary from facility tofacility based on professional judgment, theenvironmental setting, and buildingdemolition methods.Mitigation actions that would beimplemented include fugitive dust controlssuch as water sprays that would be usedwhere soil disturbance and demolition-related activities could substantivelyincrease airborne particulate levels. Forcertain contaminated buildings such as theO2 Building, DOE would construct dikesaround the building to prevent stormwaterrunoff and collect water from fugitive dustcontrol and vehicle washdowns. Collectedwater would be treated and discharged to theLow-Level Wastewater Treatment Facility(LLWTF) Lagoon. At other facilities,mitigation measures would include runoffdiversion (around the work area) or strawbale or fabric filter fencing for silt control.Post-demolition stabilization of exposedwork areas would include the addition oftopsoil, seed, and mulch. For paved areas,stabilization would include the use ofwashed stone, washdown and watercollection, or broom sweeping (for example,for concrete or asphalt pads).A description of these mitigation measuresis included in the final EA.8-5The EA should also identify andevaluate what Best ManagementPractices can be employed to control andminimize these effects once buildingsare demolished and either thefoundations remain or are removed.Though some measures are brieflydiscussed in the wetlands section, theseSee the response to Comment 8-4.
Page 93
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-32Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseshould be expanded upon to determine ifthey will meet the needs for a broadersediment control program for the site.8-6In a related matter, we would assumethat some dust suppression techniques,such as the use of water, would be usedduring demolition and structure removal;however, that is not discussed nor is thepotential for hazardous or radioactivematerial to enter surface water indemolition runoff fully evaluated withappropriate mitigation measures offered.The EA states generally that the plantsediment control systems can handle theadditional sediment load; however, nofurther analysis is offered with adescription of these systems.Nonetheless, though these systems mayhave capacity, we would not assume thatthey are set up to receive the runoff fromthe removal of all of these buildings andfacilities. These issues will need furtherevaluation and disclosure.See the response to Comment 8-4.8-7Additionally, this EA is lacking anevaluation of the various impacts toreplace some of these facilities, (i.e.,construction and operational effects toair, noise, runoff). As an example, weare concerned with the proposal to closeand then replace the sewage facility onthe site. The EA does not explain whythis facility would need to be removedonly to be replaced at some later date bytemporary-portable facilities. Ofparticular note is the lack of discussionto determine what portable facilitieswould be brought in during thedecommissioning phase, what are theimpacts from those facilities, and ifthose are sufficient to handle the sanitaryneeds for the workers better than leavingthe sewage treatment plant in place. TheEA also states that no facilityconstruction is required, which wouldcontradict the pre-decisional multi-agency EIS that identified that functionsand facilities that were removed, as partof this action, would need to be replaced.Facilities with functions that would need tobe replaced are listed in Table 2 of the finalEA, along with an explanation as to wherethe replacement function would occur. Asstated in the final EA, “Replacement of anyremaining functions could require minormodifications of existing facilities but nonew construction. A few functions would betaken over by qualified off-site vendors.”No equipment or materials would betransferred off-site for storage. Based onfurther review, DOE has determined that theSewage Treatment Plant, EqualizationBasin, and Equalization Tank could beneeded to provide sanitary facilities andpotable water for workers under one or moredecommissioning and/or closure scenarios.Those facilities have been removed from thescope of the EA. They will be included inthe Decommissioning EIS.
Page 94
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-33Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Response8-8We also question whether the removal ofsome of these facilities, particularly low-level waste treatment and storage andWaste Tank Farm training platform, atthis time is immediately necessary orprudent given that a decommissioningalternative has yet to be identified.Given these concerns we don't believethat the Department of Energy canproceed to a Finding of No SignificantImpact for this segment of the actionwithout additional information regardingthe environmental impacts from theactions and that measures will be inplace to mitigate for these impacts.DOE has reconsidered the removal of allprimary LLW storage capacity. The LSA-4and Shipping Depot have been removedfrom the scope of the EA. The RadwasteTreatment System Drum Cell also has beenremoved from the scope of the EA andcould be used for TRU waste storage if off-site disposal were delayed. In addition,based on further review, DOE hasdetermined that one of the Waste Tank Farmtraining platforms (the larger one) could beneeded under one or more decommissioningand/or closure scenarios. That facility hasbeen removed from the scope of the EA.The facilities noted will be included in theDecommissioning EIS.Comments submitted at public meeting on July 19, 2006 (transcript)T-1The draft EA, by allowing prematureremoval of buildings and other facilitiesthat would be needed to carry out certainalternatives in the Decommissioningand/or Long-Term StewardshipEnvironmental Impact Statement,otherwise known as theDecommissioning EIS, the draft EAwould, therefore, prejudice the outcomeof the Decommissioning EIS andthereby violate NEPA. In our view, thisis a very fundamental problem. On pagefour of the draft EA, DOE suggests thatthe draft EA is compatible with theDecommissioning EIS because it wouldnot affect whether the decommissioningcriteria for the site could be met by anyof the EIS alternatives.We disagree. Premature removal ofbuildings and other facilities under thedraft EA would not entirely prevent anyalternative from being carried out, but itwould bias the costs. In effect, it wouldbe an irretrievable commitment ofresources. The concern is that some ofthese same facilities would need to berebuilt or replaced to achieve certainalternatives. The costs of rebuilding orreplacement would prejudice theDecommissioning EIS and thus, violateAs a result of public comments, DOEundertook a review to determine whetherany of the 42 facilities included in the draftEA could potentially provide supportfunctions for implementation of the fullrange of possible decommissioning and/orlong-term stewardship alternatives. Inaddition, DOE sought to identify facilitiesthat could be used to address currentlyunresolved situations should those situationsremain unresolved beyond the next fouryears (i.e., storage of TRU waste until off-site disposal becomes available). The resultof this effort was a list of six facilities (plusone of the two Waste Tank Farm trainingplatforms) recommended for removal fromthe EA. They will be included in theDecommissioning EIS. The Department alsoconfirmed that the 36 facilities that remainwithin the scope of the EA are not nowand/or would not be needed in the futureunder any potential WVDP closure scenario.Facilities with functions that would need tobe replaced are listed in Table 2 of the finalEA, along with an explanation as to wherethe replacement function would occur. Asstated in the final EA, “Replacement of anyremaining functions could require minormodifications of existing facilities but nonew construction. A few functions would betaken over by qualified off-site vendors.”
Page 95
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-34Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseNEPA.No equipment or materials would betransferred off-site for storage. DOEbelieves that the cost of making smallmodifications to existing facilities to housesome of the functions currently beingperformed in certain facilities would be farless than the cost of maintaining suchfacilities at the WVDP, which is one of thereasons DOE is proposing to demolish andremove the unneeded facilities. Because thefacilities proposed for demolition andremoval would not be needed in the future,rebuilding would not occur.T-2The June 30th, 2006, comment letterfrom the New York State EnergyResearch and Development Authority,NYSERDA, provides examples offacilities proposed for removal thatwould need to be rebuilt or replaced toachieve certain decommissioningalternatives. Such facilities includewaste storage structures, warehousecapacity, maintenance facilities, andtraining platforms for installing orremoving equipment in tanks.The NYSERDA letter also indicates thatthe proposed removal of toilet, showerand washing facilities may violateOSHA. NYSERDA points out that thedraft EA fails to identify the replacementimpacts of some of these prematureremovals. We would agree and also raisethe related concern that these removalswould prejudice the outcome of theDecommissioning EIS.Please see DOE’s responses toNYSERDA’s comments (Comments 1-1through 1-12).T-3Since we've not yet seen drafts of theDecommissioning EIS, we cannot sayhow large a work force would be neededto carry out any of its alternatives.However, based on the draft issued in1996, it is reasonable to assume thatsome of the decommissioningalternatives would require a much largerwork force than is currently employedon the site.For these alternatives, some workers willBased on further review, DOE hasdetermined that the Sewage TreatmentPlant, Equalization Basin, and EqualizationTank could be needed to provide sanitaryfacilities and potable water for workersunder one or more decommissioning and/orclosure scenarios. Those facilities have beenremoved from the scope of the EA. Theywill be included in the DecommissioningEIS.
Page 96
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-35Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responselikely be handling wastes in wastestorage structures while others will behandling equipment in warehouses,servicing equipment in maintenancefacilities, and training for further wasteremoval activities.All such workers will need adequatesanitary facilities. Until theDecommissioning EIS is issued, and thesize of the necessary work force hasbeen identified, DOE should take nosteps to remove facilities that this workforce would need for its variousdecommissioning tasks.T-4We ask DOE to withdraw the draft EAand to focus instead on completion ofthe Decommissioning EIS. Thank youand those complete my comments onbehalf of the CTF.Thank you for your comment. Regardless ofDOE’s decision with respect to the proposeddemolition and removal of unneededfacilities, the Department continues to focuson the issuance of the draftDecommissioning EIS.T-5I would also add with regard to one ofthe facilities that is proposed for closurein the draft EA, namely, thehydrofracture test well area, that it isimportant before any of thehydrofracture test wells are closed, touse those wells for geophysical testingsuch as downhole seismic to characterizethe structure of the local bedrock.This is especially important due to theexisting evidence for major vertical andsubvertical fractures in bedrock beneaththe West Valley site, and also due to thefact that a fault, perhaps the southwestextension of the Clarendon-Linden fault,has been identified by seismic testingnear Sardinia. For these reasons thehydrofracture test well area should notbe closed until its use for geophysicaltesting has been fully addressed.The hydrofracture test wells were installedin the late 1960s and have not been used for35 years. The five wells include one centralinjection well and four monitoring wells,each located 150 feet from the injectionwell. All five wells were drilled to a depthof just over 1,500 feet and were cased withsteel pipe over their entire depth. The five-well arrangement was used to test bedrock(shale) hydrofracturing at depth using ashort-lived radioactive tracer. After the testswere completed, the injection well wassealed from the bottom up to a depth of45 feet and the four monitoring wells werecapped. It is expected that the injection wellwas backfilled with a Portland cement grout,but this has not been confirmed. [Reference:1990 report (WD:90:0306) by T.X. Grassoof URS (Dames & Moore).]The injection well is not usable forgeophysical data acquisition or boreholelogging because of the backfill. The fourobservation wells are reported to havecasings ranging in size from 1.25 to 2.0inches, and would be unable toaccommodate the size of the testing
Page 97
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-36Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE Responseequipment. Additionally, if the equipmentcould fit inside the wells, borehole loggingwould be limited because the wells arecased with steel over their entire depth.DOE believes that that the type ofgeophysical survey referred to in thecomment is borehole tomography or verticalseismic profiling. This type of surveyincludes placing a geophysical source in oneborehole at depth and placing thegeophysical receivers (geophones) in theother borehole(s). The resulting data cangive increased geologic detail in thelocalized area between the boreholes, whencompared to a conventional, surface-basedseismic reflection survey. A variation of thismethod is to place the geophysical source orreceiver at the ground surface and theother(s) at depth in the borehole(s). Thetypical use of this type of geophysics is toattempt to obtain improved, localizedgeologic detail. For example, it can be usedto help interpret the boundaries of an oil orgas prospect.Using the hydrofracture test wells, thegreatest lateral source-receiver distancewould be approximately 300 feet. Therefore,the value of this method is very limited withregard to evaluating regional structuralfeatures or seismic risk in the area of theWNYNSC, for example. In addition, a depthof 1,500 feet is quite shallow for obtaininguseful geologic information on a regionalscale.For these reasons, DOE believes it isappropriate to close the hydrofracture testwell area.T-6What has been lacking is ademonstration of sincerity anddedication to the NEPA process.Following the issuance of the draft EIS10 years ago, DOE fragmented the nextsteps of the procedure into twodirections, which is, in my mind, indirect contravention of the spirit ofDOE acknowledges that the facilitiesproposed for demolition and removal wereincluded in the draft EIS issued in 1996.Since that time, DOE has determined thatthere are actions that would be prudent totake prior to the completion of theDecommissioning EIS. Those actionsinclude those analyzed in the West Valley
Page 98
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-37Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseNEPA.This Environmental Assessment is yetanother contravention and insult to thespirit of the laws which we, asstakeholders, necessarily have to rely onto make sure that we have access to theprocess and assurance that the bestdecisions are made for the West Valleysite.Demonstration Project Waste ManagementEnvironmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0337), December 2003. Because thedemolition and removal of unneededfacilities would not affect the range ofalternatives available for decommissioningand/or long-term stewardship or prejudicethe outcome of the ongoingDecommissioning EIS, NEPA requirementsallow DOE to take this interim action (10CFR § 1021.211 and 40 CFR § 1506.1).T-7…the issuance of an EnvironmentalAssessment in the middle of an on-goingEIS process is wrong and this documentshould never have been developed andreleased and we hope that it iswithdrawn.Based on a comprehensive review, theDepartment has confirmed that the36 facilities that remain within the scope ofthe EA are not now and/or would not beneeded in the future under any potentialWVDP closure scenario. Because thedemolition and removal of these facilitieswould not affect the range of alternativesavailable for decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship or prejudice the outcomeof the ongoing Decommissioning EIS,NEPA requirements allow DOE to take thisinterim action (10 CFR § 1021.211 and 40CFR § 1506.1).T-8First, there is the issue of procedure orprocess. If this draft EA is adopted andacted upon, the DOE will be in directviolation of a contract reached with theCoalition and spelled out in thestipulation of compromise. DOEconsulted with NYSERDA and theSeneca Nation during the preparation ofthe draft EA but not with the Coalitionwith whom the DOE has a contract.The Stipulation of Compromise Settlementthat DOE entered into with the Coalition onWest Valley Nuclear Wastes andRadioactive Waste Campaign in 1987,which is referred to in the comment as acontract, does not preclude the preparationof a NEPA document to addressmanagement of WVDP facilities that wouldnot be needed under any futuredecommissioning and/or long-term closurescenario. DOE has complied, and continuesto comply, with the Stipulation.T-9Second, the Coalition is troubled thatwastes of potentially contaminateddebris is slated to be moved from theDemonstration Project to landfills inWestern New York, specifically, sites inOlean and Model City, New York. TheCoalition has always been veryconcerned that the problems in ourbackyard do not become problems insomeone else's backyard.The waste that would be generated under theProposed Action analyzed in the EA isClass A LLW, mixed LLW, asbestos,hazardous waste, and solid industrial waste(non-radioactive and non-hazardous).Class A LLW and mixed LLW would beshipped to Hanford, Energy Solutions(formerly Envirocare), or NTS for disposal.No radioactive waste would be disposed ofat the WVDP site or within New York State.
Page 99
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-38Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseFurthermore, what this effectively doesis set the precedent that it's okay to keepunloading potentially or actuallyhazardous nuclear wastes on WesternNew York, an area that already has thedistinction of being our nation's capitalfor nuclear and hazardous wastes.This comes at a time when there is a billbefore the Governor, a bill withoverwhelming support, both the StateAssembly and Senate, calling for an endto new hazardous landfills where wastewill undoubtedly leak into surroundingsoil and water, water that is part of theGreat Lakes Water Shed.The landfills in Olean and Model Cityboth compromise the safety of the GreatLakes Water Shed. How is movingDemonstration Project material to theselocations solving the problem ofcleanup? Such a quote unquote solutionis short-sighted at best.Industrial waste and building debris wastewould be shipped to a landfill in ModelCity, New York, or Angelica, New York,where this type of WVDP waste is currentlyshipped for disposal. Asbestos waste wouldbe shipped to a landfill in Model City.Hazardous waste would be shipped to alandfill in Indianapolis, Indiana, where thistype of WVDP waste is currently shippedfor disposal.T-10Third, the Coalition is very concernedthat some of the buildings targeted forremoval will be recycled in ways that aretotally inappropriate. Buildings on othernuclear waste sites have been reused asclassrooms for children. The buildingsmay meet the DOE standards forcleanliness but our children should notbe exposed to a single milligram ofradioactivity beyond what is natural inthe environment.We have to ask what independentverifications will be done to insure thatthe release or clearance of materialsfrom the Demonstration Project cansafely be moved to non-nucleardestinations.The facilities that are the subject of this EAwould be demolished and the resultingwaste would be removed from the site.None of the buildings or facilities would bereused.T-11And again, we expect some of thebuildings slated for removal will havevalue during the next phase ofdecontamination and decommissioning.As noted above, based on a comprehensivereview, the Department confirmed that the36 facilities that remain within the scope ofthe EA are not now and/or would not beneeded in the future under any potential
Page 100
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at WVDPD-39Commenter /CommentNumberCommentDOE ResponseWVDP closure scenario. DOE diddetermine that six structures (plus one of thetwo Waste Tank Farm training platforms)originally proposed for demolition andremoval could be needed under futuredecommissioning and/or closure scenariosor to address currently unresolved needsand, for that reason, has eliminated thosebuildings from the scope of the final EA.They will be included in theDecommissioning EIS.T-12We will not be satisfied until we seeDOE documents that reflect respect forthe Coalition, a sound understanding ofthe problems associated with theDemonstration Project and long-termsolutions that work for the people andgeology of the natural environment ofWestern New York.DOE has complied, and continues tocomply, with the Stipulation. TheDepartment also continues to focus on long-term solutions at the WVDP and on thecompletion of the Decommissioning and/orLong-Term Stewardship EIS.T-13As a spokesperson for the Coalition onWest Valley Nuclear Wastes, Istrenuously object to the draftEnvironmental Assessment before us.Thank you for your comment.T-14I urge you to scrap this document alongwith others that do not call for a realcleanup of the West Valley site. Thankyou for this opportunity to share myviews.Thank you for your comment. Regardless ofDOE’s decision with respect to the proposeddemolition and removal of unneededfacilities, the Department will continue tofocus on the completion of theDecommissioning EIS.
Page 101
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-40Comment Number: 0001Comment Number: 0001 (continued)
Page 102
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-41Comment Number: 0001 (continued)Comment Number: 0001 (continued)
Page 103
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-42Comment Number: 0001 (continued)Comment Number: 0001 (continued)
Page 104
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-43Comment Number: 0002Comment Number: 0002 (continued)
Page 105
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-44Comment Number: 0003Comment Number: 0003 (continued)
Page 106
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-45Comment Number: 0003 (continued)Comment Number: 0004
Page 107
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-46Comment Number: 0004 (continued)Comment Number: 0004 (continued)
Page 108
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-47Comment Number: 0004 (continued)Comment Number: 0004 (continued)
Page 109
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-48Comment Number: 0004 (continued)Comment Number: 0004 (continued)
Page 110
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-49Comment Number: 0005Comment Number: 0005 (continued)
Page 111
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-50Comment Number: 0005 (continued)Comment Number: 0006
Page 112
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-51Comment Number: 0006 (continued)Comment Number: 0007
Page 113
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-52Comment Number: 0007 (continued)Comment Number: 0007 (continued)
Page 114
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-53Comment Number: 0007 (continued)Comment Number: 0007 (continued)
Page 115
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-54Comment Number: 0007 (continued)Comment Number: 0008
Page 116
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-55Comment Number: 0008 (continued)Comment Number: 0008 (continued)
Page 117
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-56Comment Number: Transcript (T)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 118
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-57Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 119
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-58Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 120
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-59Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 121
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-60Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 122
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-61Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 123
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-62Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 124
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-63Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 125
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-64Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 126
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-65Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 127
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-66Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 128
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-67Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 129
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-68Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 130
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-69Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 131
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-70Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 132
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-71Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 133
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-72Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 134
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-73Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)
Page 135
Final EA – Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Various Facilities at WVDPD-74Comment Number: Transcript (T) (continued)

Ceci est la version HTML du fichier https://www.wv.doe.gov/Documents/Administrative_Order_On_Consent.pdf.
Page 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION II-----------------------------IN THE MATTER OF:Western New York NuclearService CenterNew York State EnergyResearch DevelopmentAuthority,EPA ID NumberNYD986905545:U.S. Department of Energy,EPA ID Number NYD 980779540 IWSPONDENTSIi-----------------------------I ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERiON CONSENTi DOCKET No. II RCRA-3008(h)-I92-0202i Proceeding under'section3008(h),Iof the Resource Conservationand, Recovery Act, as amended.
Page 2
2Table of Contentsi.I.II.111.IV.77.VI.VII.VIII.IX.x.XI.XII.XIII.XIV.XV.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.TAB= OF CONTENTS ...............................2PRELIMINARY STATEHENT ...........................4PARTIES BOUND ...................................5STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ............................'6FINDINGS OF FACT ................................7CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..............................22ORDER: WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY DOE AND NYSERDA . . 23ADDITIONAL WORK ............y ....................48EMERGENCY PROVISION .............................49MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERSONNEL..; .........50PROJECT COORDINATOR/INFORMATION...;. .............51QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ...............52EPA APPROVALS ..... ..............................53ACCESS ..........................................55RECORD PRESERVATION .............................56'RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ...........................58NON-RELEASE OF OTHER CLAIMS AND PARTIES .........62PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................63OTHERAPPLICABLE LAWS ...........................63DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..............................64AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION/NOTIFXCATION ........70TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION ....................73SURVIVABILITY/PERMIT INTEGRATION ................73MODIFICATION/EXTENSION ..........................75
Page 3
XXIV.NO FINAL AGENCY ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76XXV.SEVERABILITY ....................................76XXVI.FORCE M?dJRE AND EXCUSABLE DEUY ...............76XXVII.ENFORCEMENT .....................................79XXVIII.FUNDING .. .......................................79XXIX.EFFECTIVE DATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81XXX.CONSENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Attachment IAttachment IIAttachmentIII- Map of Facility
Page 4
4I. PreliminarvStatementThis AdministrativeOrder on Consent.(Ordern)is beingissued on consent to New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority(“NYSERDAn),and the United StatesDepartment of Energy ("DOE"), (which hereinaftermay becollectivelyreferredto as wRespondentw or wRespondentsti)pursuant to the Resource Conservationand Recovery Actof 1976,("RCRA") as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendmentsof 1984, ("HSWAw) codifiedat 42 J7.S.C. 5 6901 & Seu..("theAct”)and,the New York State Environmental.ConsenrationLaw("ECL") Article27, Titles 9 and 13 and 10 71-2727 and 3-0301.Section 71-2727 of the ECL authorizesthe Commissioner ofthe New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation("NYSDECn) to issue orders reguiring.correctiveaction.Suchorders may require correctiveaction beyond the facilityboundarywhen necessary to protect human healthand the environment.Suchorders may issue for any and all releases of hazardous waste orhazardous constituentsfrom any solid waste management unit atany treatment,storage or disposal facilitywhich has interimstatus regardlessof the time at which waste was placed in theunit.Section 3008(h) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Q 6928(h), authorizesthe Administratorof the United States EnvironmentalProtectionAgency ("EPA") to issue an order requiringcorrectiveaction orsuch other response which he deems necessary to protect humanhealth or the environment,if, on the basis of any information,
Page 5
5he determines that there is or has been a release of hazardouswaste or hazardous constituentsinto the environmentfrom afacilitythat is or was authorizedto operate under Section3005(e) of the Act,42 U.S.C. S 6925(e).The authorityvested inthe AdministratorhasAdministratorsby EPA1985. This authorityAdministratorof EPA,been delegated to the RegionalDelegationNumber 8-31, dated April 16,has been further delegated by the RegionalRegion II, to the Directorof the Air andWaste Management Divisionof EPA, Region II, by Region IIDelegationNumber 8-32, effectiveJuly 1, 1987.1. This Order, and the responsibilitiesand obligationsitimposes, shall apply to and bind the Respondent, its present andfuture officers,directors,officials,employees, agents,trustees,receivers,successors,assigns, and all other personsincluding,but not limited to, firms, corporations,parentcompanies, contractors,independent contractors,subcontractors,or consultantswho act for, are owned by, or are in an agencyrelationshipwith the Respondent, and who conduct, monitor orperform any work pursuant to or required by this Order.2. Regardless of Respondent'semploy of, or contractualagreement with, any entity named in paragraph 1 of this section,the Respondent remains ultimatelyliable for failureto carryout, or comply with, any term or conditionimposed by this Order.3. Allcontractualagreements entered into by Respondentaimed at satisfyingits responsibilitiesor obligationsunder
Page 6
this Order shall strictlycomply with the terms and conditionsofthis Order.In addition,Respondent shall, within one week ofthe effectivedate of this order and immediately,upon hiring,provide a copy of this Order, and any relevantattachments,to6all contractors,subcontractors,laboratories,consultants,ormY entity retained to conduct, monitoror perform any workpursuant to this Order.4. Respondent shall give notice, and a copy, of this Orderto any successor in interestprior to any transferof ownershipor operationof the Facility(as defined in Section IV below) andshall notify EPA@s. designated contact thirty(30) days prior toany such transfer.5.No change in the Respondent'sorganizationalform orin the ownership of the Facility,except as specificallyprovidedfor by an act of Congress or the New York StateLegislature,shall in any way alter or alleviateRespondent'sresponsibilityand obligationto carry out all the terms and conditionsof thisOrder.III. Statement of Purnosg1.This Order is being issued to protecthuman health andthe environmentfrom releases of hazardous waste and/or hazardousconstituents,as defined by Section 1004(5) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.0 6903 (5) t 40 C.F.R. Part 261.3, ECL 5 2700901(3),and 6 NYCRRPart 371 and 40 C.F.R. Part261 Appendix VIII, and 6 NYCRR Part371, Appendix 23, at or from Respondent'sFacility.
Page 7
72.To achieve this purpose, DOE and NYSERDA shall, amongother things:(a) perform Interim Measures ((lIM,l) at the Facilityto reduce or eliminateany threats to human health or theenvironment;(b) perform a RCRA FacilityInvestigation(1%FI
8) todetermine fully the nature and extent of any release(s)ofhazardous waste and/or hazardous constituentsfrom the Facilityinto the environment:and (c) if any releases exceed actionlimits set by the EPA consistentwith applicablelaw andapplicableguidance, or agreed upon by the Parties(includingRespondents and EPA) to reduce or eliminateany threats to humanhealth or the environment,perform a CorrectiveMeasures Study('@CMSI') to determine the most environmentallybeneficialcorrectivemeasure(s) for each solid waste management unit.IV. Findinus of Fact1. Historv of Site Ouerations:a)In 1962, Nuclear Fuel Services,Inc. ("NFS")entered into Agreements with the AtomicEnergy Commission and New York State toEnergy Commission and New York State toconstructthe first commercial reprocessingconstructthe first commercial reprocessingplant of nuclear fuel in the United States.The NFS reprocessingfacilitywas .located onThe NFS reprocessingfacilitywas .located onstate-owned property known as the Western NewYork Nuclear Service Center (gBCenter4@). Aprovisionaloperating license for the Centerwas issued to the Center by the Atomic EnergyCommission on April 19, 1966.
Page 8
8b)From 1966 to 1972, the Center was thelocationof the only commercial nuclear fuelreprocessingfacilityever operatedintheUnited States.A6 a result of thisoperation,nearly 600,000 gallons of highlevel liquid nuclear waste, a by-productofreprocessing,was produced and a part ofwhich remains in underground storage tanks atthe Center as of the date of this Order.clIn 1972, the NFS Reprocessingplant was shutdown for modificationsto increase capacity.In 1976 NFS withdrew from the reprocessingbusiness and the plant never reopened.2, TeaislativeHistarr;a)In 1980, Congress passed the West ValleyDemonstrationProject Act ("WVDP Act"),Public Law 96-368, directingDOE incooperationwith the State of New York tocarry out a high level radioactivewastemanagement demonstrationprojectat theCenter for the purpose of demonstrdtingSolidificationtechniquesfor preparing highlevel radioactivewaste fordisposal.b)Under the WVDP Act, DOE is mandated, in part,to dispose of low-leveland transuranicwasteproduced by WVDP activities,decontaminate
Page 9
cld)9and decommission the tank6 in which the highlevel waste was stored as wellas thefacilities,hardware and materialused in theWVDP.EffectiveOctober 1, 1980, DOE, on behalfofthe United States of America, and NYSERDA, onbehalfof the State of New York,entered intoa CooperativeAgreement to establishaframework for the iaqlementationof the WVDPAct by DOE andNYSERDA.On September 30, 1981, the Nuclear RegulatoryCOmIXdSSiOn (wNRCw) i66Ued an amendment t0 theFacilitylicense which permittedtransferofthe Facilityto DOE for the purpose ofcarryingout the WVDP (46 m. &g. 49237).In 1982 NYSERDA became the exclusivelicensee,but presentlylacksauthorityunderthe license to possess, use, or operate theFacilityon WVDP premises or on the Center.NYSERDA'sauthorityfor activitieswithregardto the State Licensed Disposal(Burial)Area ("SDA") is separate from thislicense.3.State Authorizationt
Page 10
10a)Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 5 6926(b),permits the Administratorof the EPA toauthorizea state to operate a hazardouswaste program.New-York State Department ofEnvironmentalConservation(wNYSDECw)received final authorizationto administerthe pre-HSWA hazardous waste program as ofMay 29, 1986 (51 &J. &g. 17737 (May 15,1986)).b)On September 23, 1988,,EPA published aClarificationNotice (53 &&. m. 37045)which stated that "Facilitiestreating,storing,or disposing of radioactivemixedwaste in states that receivedauthorizationby September 23, 1988 are not subject to RCRAregulationsuntilthestaterevisesitsexistingauthorizedhazardous waste programto include authorityto regulate radioactivemixed waste."The State of Neti York hasrevised its authorizedprogram as required bythe above Notice.clIn a rule published on March 6, 1990, NewYorkState was authorizedto regulate thehazardous waste constituentsof radioactivemixed waste, effectiveMay 7, '1990 (55 Fed.m. 7896).
Page 11
114. Owner/O~erator:EPA has determined that Respondent DOE is the operator ofthe West Valley DemonstrationProject (wWVDPw) and thatRespondent NYSERDA owns the Center and is the operator for allparts of the,Centerexcept those parts which are used or are inthepossessionof DOE as part of the WVDP.2. Resuondent is a wPerson ":NYSERDA is a "person w as definedby Section 1004(15) ofthe Act,42 U.S.C. 5 6905(15)and Title Six (6) New York Codes,Rules and Regulations,Part 370, Section370.2(b)(102) [6 NYCRR370,2(b)).Pursuant to Section 6001 of the Act,42 U.S.C. fi§6961, DOE is subject to all federal,state, interstate,and localrequirements,both substantiveand procedural,justas any personis subject to such requirements.Pursunt to Section 3010 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. B 6930,on October17, 1984, Respondent DOE notifiedEPA of its hazardouswaste activity,as that term is defined by Section 1004(5) of theAct,42 U.S.C. j 6903(5) and requestedthe issuance of an EPAHazardous Waste Identificationnumber.On June 5, 1990,RespondentNYSERDA notifiedEPA of its hazardous waste activity,as that term is defined by Section 1004(5) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.f 6903(5) and requestedtheissuanceof anEPA Hazardous WasteIdentificationnumber.In thesenotifications,Respondent DOE
Page 12
12identifieditselfas a generatorof hazardous waste and anoperatorof a hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposalfacility:and NYSERDA establisheditselfas the owner of theCenter as the term wownerw is used under RCRA. In addition,EPAha6 determined that NYSERDA is a generator of hazardous waste dueto the generationof hazardous waste in the leachate at the SDA..7. Part A Permit ADDllCa tion:Pursuant to Section 3005(e) of6925(e) t on June 4, 1990, Respondent DOENYSDEC its Part A Hazardous Waste Permitthe Act, 42'U.S.C.5submitted to EPA andapplication..Based onRespondent DOE's Part A application,Respondent DOE stores andtreatshazardous wastes at its Facility,includingstorage inIcontainers,storagein tanks, and treatment of the following:a)DO05 (wastes that are EP Toxic for Barium)blDO06 (waste6 that are EP Toxic for Cadmium)clDO07 (wastes that are EP Toxic for Chromium)d)DOO'9 (wastes that are EP Toxic fdr Mercury)e)DO10 (wastes that are EP Toxic for Selenium)f)DO02 (corrosivewastes).Pursuant to Section 3005(e) of the Act,42 U.S.C. 06925 (e) , on June 5, 1990, Respondent NYSERDA submitted to DEC andEPAits Part A Hazardous Waste Pemit applicationin whichNYSERDA asserted that it submitted its applicationto EPA andNYSDEC as a protectivefiling.Based on Respondent NYSERDA'sPart A application,EPA has determined that Respondent SJYSERDA
Page 13
13stores. and treats the followinghpzardous wastes at its ‘Facility:a)b)clSsorage of hazardous wastes (F002, FO03,F005, UO19, U159, U044, U165, UlOl, U076,U083, U210, 0228, UO80, U239, UO02, Ulbl, andU188) in tanks;Treatment of hazardous wastes (FO02, F003,F005, UO19, U159, U044, U165, UlOl, U076,U083, U210, U228, UO80, U239, UO02; U161, andU188); andStorage of hazardous wastes in containers.Pursuant to Section 3005(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. andat 40 C.F.R. 55 270.1(b) and 270.70(a),RespondentsDOE andNYSERDA received "interimstatus I0 due to timely submission oftheir:alSection 3010 Notification:andPIPart A of the Permit Application.Interim status facilitiesare subject to theregulationspromulgated pursuant to Sections 3004, and 3005 of theact; 42 U.S.C. 09 6924 and 6925, which.are codifiedin 40 C.F.R.Parts 260 - 265, 268 and 270, and 6 NYCRR Parts370 - 373.a)The Facilitysubject to this Order includesthe Center and consists of approximately
Page 14
143,300 acres.The Center is owned by NYSERDAand is located in CattaraugusCounty, NewYork State and includes:(i) the property used.for the West ValleyDemonstrationProject (wWVDPw);(ii) the New York State Low Level Burial(Disposal)Area (wSDAw); and,(iii)all contiguous land and structures,other appurtenances,and improvements on theland, used for treating,storing,ordisposing of hazardous waste.b)The WVDP, approximately 300 acres in size andlocated within the Center, includes all landand improvements utilizedas part of theWVDP, including,but not necessarilylimitedto, the Process Plant and project areaswithin the perimeter of an eight-footchainlink fence, including the NRC Licensed Burial(Disposal)Area ("NDA") and SWXU 21 (the RTSDrum Cell), but excluding the SDA. The WVDPalso includes the followingSWMUs listedinTable I, below:LI.:: OF INDIVIDUAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (SWMU)SW. ,#1.Construction and Demolition Debris Landfu-
Page 15
15'2JGK-Licensed Disposal Area (NDAI -3. W-n1 -4. Active UWTF Laaoons 2. 3. 4. & 5 -5. pemineralizerSludae Ponds (21 -6. Solvent Dike -7. Zffluent Mixina Basin -8. vaintenance ShoD Leach Field -9. & Old/New Hardstand Storaae Area -9A.10. .paner Waste Incineratoz -1l.b perosene Tanks and NDA Container Storace -lla12 & VitrificationFacilitv Test Waste Storace Tanks12a13. pith-LevelWaste Tank Farm -14. Chemical Process Cell'(CPC) Waste Container Storaae Area -15. Containerized Low-Tevel and Transuranic Waste Storaae Area_/Las Storaue 1 6 2)16 C Las Storaae Buildina. Extension and Addition Areas (3 6 4L -16a17. Low-Level Waste Treatment Facilitv(TdWTF) -18. Liauid Waste Treatment Svstem fTWTS> -19. SuDernatant Treatment System (SE) -20. Hi&-LevelWaste VitrificationFacilitv-21. Padwaste Treatment System drum Cell -22.CementSolidificationSvstemfCSS1 -23. Trench InterceDtor Project -24. Hazardous Waste Storask Lockers (New SWMU) -
Page 16
16clThe SDA comprises approximately15 acresandis located adjacent to the southeasternboundary of the WVDP. The SDA iXlUde6thefollowingSWMTJs: 14 ~naCtiV8 -W DiSpOSalTrenches:Inactive Lqgoont Northern FilledLagoon; Southern Filled Lagoon: and Trench 14Leachate Treatment Facility.d) NYSERDA is responsiblefor maintaining theSDA, includingSWMJs SDA-1 through SDA-5, andSWMU 25. (These SWMUs are detailedin TableII, below).DOE iS r8SpOnSibl8 for the WVDP.The maps appended to this OrderinAttachments 3A and X3, depict those areas in .which DOE and NYSERDA shall conduct theInterimMeasuresrequired pursuant to thisOrder.DOE asserts that it has no authorityunder the WVDP Act Vithrespectto thoseportionsof the Facilitynot used pursuant tothe WVDP Act and that it do86 not generallyhave authorityunder the WVDP Act fordispositionof facilitiesbeyond the WVDP.LIST OF NON-IWDP SOLID WASTE MANAGEKENT UNITS (SWS)SwMu#SDA-1SDA-214 InactiveLLRW Disposal TrenchesInactiveIdgoon
Page 17
17SDA-3Nortfiern Filled LagoonSDA-4Southern Filled LagoonSDA-5Trench 14 Leachate Treatment Facility25Inactive Scrap MaterialLandfillAdjacent to BulkStorage Warehousea) Information supplied by DOE concerningsampling of groundwater monitoringwells in1983-1989 in the NDA revealedthe presence ofa mixed petroleum hydrocarbonsolvent(C-10to C-16) contaminated with radionuclides.Arecord review indicatesthat this solvent iseither "A.?GCO Odorless Mineral Spirits"or"ADAKANE-12," which were used as diluentsinb)the fuel recyclingprocess by Nuclear FuelServices from 1966-1971.These productscontain a small percentage of aromaticcomponents, includingthe hazardousconstituentNaphthalene.Informationsupplied by DOE and NYSERDAconcerning sampling of leachate from Trench#14 in the SDA revealed the presence ofcertain organic constituentsmixed withradionuclides.These organic chemicalsinclude the followingtwenty-two(22),identifiableorganic compounds which are
Page 18
18hazardous constituentsand may constitutelisted hazardous wastes (the concentrationlevels at which they have been found is alsoindicatedbelow:)ComDoun~(parts per billion)Methylene chloride1,l DichloroethaneChloroform1,2 DichloropropaneTrichlorokheneBenzene2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-PentanoneTetrachloroethaneTolueneEthylbenzene2-ButanoneAcetoneVinyl AcetateXylenePhenolNaphtalene39843902850ND37065443ND62ND25ND450ND41ND41ND2775028000ND770ND777ND4825ND37040725<l4204001402989(Averaae)
Page 19
19Benzyl Alcohol4-Methylphenol2,4=DimethylphenolBenzoic AcidToxaphene<216<1425<l37X10425Cl8<lHazardous wastes and/or hazardous constituentsmay migratefrom units at the Facilityinto the environment via the followingpathways:a)Groundwater:either discharges directlyorindirectlythrough surface waters.(ii)Hazardous wastes and/or hazardousconstituentshave been detected in thegroundwater and SDA leachate.There is the potentialfor the movementof hazardous wa'stes and/or hazardousconstituentsbeyond the Facility'sboundaries.b)Soils: Soils containinghazardous vastesand/or hazardous constituentsare containedin some of the SWMUs at the Facility.Hazardous waste in soil may be directlyand/or indirectlyingested,leached intogroundwater,transportedby runoff,or blownby wind.
Page 20
20clSurfaceliquidsWater and Sediment: Sludges aid.containingpermissiblelevels ofhazardous wastes and/or hazardousconstituentshave been released directlyintoth8 Streams and/or drainage channels under aState PollutionDischarge EliminationSystem("SPDES") Permit.These stream course6 maypotentiallyreceive hazardous wastes and/orhazardous constituentsas a result of surfacerunoff from contaminatedsoils and dischargefrom contaminatedgroundwater;d)Air: Air currents can suspend fine, silt-sized particlesalong with hazardous wastesand/or hazardous constituentsin the air andtransportthem to areas beyond the Facility’sboundaries.. Need to Protect Human Health and Environment:a)The followinghazardous wastes and/orhazardous constituentshave been detected in groundwateror SDAleachate at the Facility.i)Benzeneii)Tolueneiii) Chloroformiv) Methylene ChlorideVINaphthalenevi) Phenol
Page 21
21'vii) Tetrachloroethaneb)On December 30, 1988, DOE publisheda Noticeof Intent to prepare an EnvironmentalImpactStatement ("EIS") jointlywith NYSERDA for@@Completion of the West Valley DemonstrationProject Activitiesand Closure of the WesternNew York Nuclear Service Center."(53 Fed.Reg. 53052).The EIS is to provideenvironmentalinformationfor considerationin federal and NYSERDA decision-makingrelated to WDP completion activitiesby DOE,and the closure of the Center by NYSERDA.clDOE and NYSERDA have indicatedtheir desireto coordinateand integratethe requirementsof this Order with the development of theEIS.d)EPA and NYSDEC intend to accommodate the DCEand NYSERDA's effortsto coordinateandintegratethe EIS process described above,with the work required under this Order tothe extent EPA and NYSDEC deem suchcoordinationand integrationto be consistentwithapplicableregulationsand theprotectionof human health and theenvironment and such coordinationandintegrationdo not unduly delay the
Page 22
22completion of the work required under thisOrder.V. Conclusions of uBased on the Findings of Fact set outabove, and theadministrativerecord,the Directorof the Air and WasteHanagement Division,EPA Region XI, has determined,and theCommissioner of NYSDEC has concurred, as a matter of law, that:1. The Facility(as definedin Section IV, Subsection 9,above) is authorizedto operate under Section 3005(e), 42 U.S.C.S 6925(e).2. Respondent DOE is the operatorof the WDP portion ofthe Facility.Pursuant to Section 6001, 42 U.S.C. 5 6961, DOE issubject to all applicablehazardous waste requirementsto thesame extentas any llpersont@ as defined in Section 1004(15) of theAct, 42 U.S.C. Q 6903(15).3.Respondent NYSERDA is the owner of the Facilityasowner is defined under RCRA.4Respondent NYSERDA is the operator of the SDA portionof the Facility.5.Certainwastes found at the Facilityare hazardouswastes and/or hazardous constituentsas those terms are definedby Section 1004(S) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 6903(S) and 40 C.F.R.Part 261.6. There is or has been a release of hazardous waste(s)and/or hazardous constituentsinto the environment from theFacility:and
Page 23
237.The actions required to be takenOrder are deemed to be necessary to protectthe environment.pursuant to thishuman health and/orVI
Order: Work To Be Performed bv DOE AND NYSERDA1. DOE and NYSERDA shall implement the RCRA FacilityInvestigation('RFIV*) set forth in Attachment I to this Order.2.The Respondents shall undertake and complete the RF1for the Facilityand shall evaluate the potentialfor releasesfrom 1) all SWMUs identifiedin Tables I and II,above, and 2)any additionalSWMUs discovered during the course of groundwatermonitoring,field investigations,environmentalaudits,or othermeans. This RF1 program shall be implemented in accordance withthe Act, its implementingregulationsand relevantEPA guidancedocuments, submitted to Respondents in a timely manner.Schedules contained in this Order establishingwork-relateddeadlines which are expressed in terms of fldays,nshall refer tocalendar days. Deadlines fallingon federal holidays or weekendsshall be understood to extend to the first subsequent businessday.3.Assessment of Newly IdentifiedSWMUs:alThe Respondents shall notify the EPA andNYSDEC in writing,of any additionalSWMUsdiscovered during the course of groundwatermonitoring,field investigations,environmentalaudits, or other means within15 days of discovery.
Page 24
24b)Within sixty (60) days from notificationofthe EPA and NYSDEC, the Respondents shallprepare a SWMU assessment plan and a proposedschedule of implementationand completionforany additionalSWMJ which is discoveredsubsequent to the issuance of this Order andis known or suspected to have releases ofhazardous waste or releases of hazardousconstituentsto the environment.The planshall include methods arid specificactionsasnecessary to determine whether a priororcontinuingrelease of hazardous waste orhazardous constituentshas occurred at eachSW-MU. The plan must also include,at aminimum, the followinginformationfor eachunit:(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)WI(vi)(vii)Type of unit:Location of each unit on a topographicmap of appropriatescale:Dimensions and capacities:Function of unit;Dates that the unit was operated:Descriptionof the wastes that wereplaced in the unit: andDezriptionof any known releases orspills(to include groundwater data,
Page 25
25soil analyses, and/or surfacewaterdata).4.The'Respondentsmay, at their option, combine two ormore units into a common RF1 or CWS with concurrentinvesti-gations,studies,and remedial actions and a single set ofreports.The Respondents may also conduct the RF1 in a phasedapproach (e.g., conducting soils investigationafterground waterinvestigation&)provided that the entire investigationiscompletedOrder and5.in accordance with the schedules contained in thisits Attachments.pCRA FacilitvInvestiaationf"RFT"J:a)RF1 Workplan for known SWMUs.(i)(ii)Within sixty (60) days after theeffectivedate of this Order, theRespondent shall prepare an RF1 Workplanfor all SWNUs identifiedin Tables I andII.This RF1 Workplan shall includeschedules of implementationandcompletion of specificactionsnecessaryto determine the nature and extent ofreleases and the potentialpathways ofcontaminant releases to the air, land,subsurface gas, surface water, andground water.The Respondents shall, ata minimum, characterizereleases from
Page 26
26those units, to the specificmedi'a ofconcern at each unit.b)RF1 WOrkplan for New SWMUS.Within ninety (90) days after Completion ofth8 assessment Of newly identifiedSW6described above, the Respondents shallprepare and submit to the EPA and NYSDEC, aRF1 workplan which includes schedulesofimplementationand completionof specificactionsnecessary to determine the nature andextent of releases indicated.bytheassessment, and the potentialpathways ofcontaminant releases to the environment.TheRespondents must provide documentationthat areleasehas not occurred and is not likelytooccur if a newly identifiedSWHU is notincluded in this RF1 workplan.clScope of Work.(i)General Requirements.The RFI Workplansrequired above, shall at a minimum,address the requirementsof the Scope ofWork included as Attachment I to thisOrder. The RPI shall be conducted inaccordance with the approved RPIWorkplan.The Respondents shall providewritten justificationfor any omissions
Page 27
27or deviationsfrom the minimumrequirementsof Attachment I.d)Approval of Plans and Schedules.All futureplans and schedules not initiatedon theeffectivedate of this Order shall be subjectto approval of the EPA prior toimplementation.The Respondents shall reviseall submittalsand schedules as specifiedbythe EPA.e)Submittalof Plans and Reports.The resultsof all plans and reports shall be submittedin accordance with the approved schedule.Extensions of the due date for submittalsmay.be granted by the EPA Project Coordinatorbased on the Respondents'demonstrationthatsufficientjustificationfor the extensionexists.f)Progress Reports.The Respondents shallsubmit quarterlyprogress reports to EPA andNYSDEC until terminationof this Order.TheRespondents shall submit quarterlyreports toEPA within forty five (45) days followingtheend of a quarter.For the purposes of thisOrder, quarterlyreportingperiods aredefined as follows:October 1 to December 31- First (1st) Quarter
Page 28
9)h)28January 1 to March 31 - Second (2nd) QuarterApril 1 to June 30 - Third (3rd) QuarterJuly 1 to September 30 -Imminent Hazard Report.shall immediatelynotifyFourth(4th) QuarterThe RespondentsEPA and NYSDECorallyof any imminent or existinghazard topublic health or the 8nVirOIIment from thepresent or past release of hazardousconstituents.This oral report shall befollowed up with a writtenreport within 14days t summarizing the immediacy and magnitudeof the potentialthreat to human health andthe environment.RF1 Report.The.Respondentsshall submit theRF1 Report to the EPA in accordance with theschedule contained in the approved RF1Workplan. The RPI Report shall be developedin draft form for EPA and NYSDEC review.TheRF1 Report shall be developed in final formwithin sixty (60) days of receipt of theEPA's comments on the draft RF1 Report.TheRF1 Report shall be prepared in accordancewith the applicable specificationsandschedules containedinthe Scope of Workincluded as Attachment I to this Order.
Page 29
i)29PreviouslySubmitted Information.If anyitems required by this Order or by theattached Scope of Work have previously beensubmittedor completed,it shall be so statedin the RF1 Workplan. For these items, theRF1 Workplan shall include the followinginformation:(i)(ii)(iii)A descriptionof the items previously'submitted and/or a summary of thepreviouslycompleted investigations:The date(s) of submission and/orcompletion:andAny known changes or new informationdeveloped since the previous submissionand/or completion.The EPA will determine the extent to which priorsubmissions and/or completionssatisfyspecificitems required by this Order and reserves theright to require the resubmittaland modificationof any prior submissions.6.CorrectiveMeasures Study:(a) Review of Final RF1 Report.The EPA shallreview the final reports on the RF1 andnotify the Respondents of the need forfurtherinvestigativeactions.(b) CorrectiveMeasures Study ("CMS").
Page 30
300) Upon determinationby EPA thatadditionalcorrectiveaction is needed,the Respondent& shall submit to the EPAand NYSDEC, a CMS in accordance with thespecificationsand schedule contained inthe Scope of Work included as AttachmentII to this Order.The proposed CMS mustinclude an evaluationand recommendationof correctiveaction alternativesusingtechnical,human health andenvironmentalcriteria,and mediaprotectionstandards set by EPA.(ii) The Respondents may, subject to EPAapproval,conduct CNS activitiesrelatedto (a) source control and (b) plumecontrol and recovery as.separateanddistinctrequirementsand submitworkplans,schedules,and CMS reportsaccordingly.(cl Scope of Work.The RCRA CMS shall, at a minimum,requirementsof the Scope of WorkAttachment II to this Order.Theaddress theincluded asRespondentsshall provide written justificationfor anyomissions or deviationsfrom the minimumrequirementsof Attachment II.
Page 31
31Cd) PreviouslySubmitted Information.If any items required by this Order or by theattached Scope of Work have previouslybeensubmitted or completed, it shall be so statedin the CMS Report.For these items, the CMSReport shall include the followinginformation:(i)(ii)(iii)A descriptionof the.itemspreviouslysubmitted and/or a summary of thepreviouslycompleted investigations;The date(s) of submission and/orcompletion;andAny known changes or new informationdeveloped since the previoussubmission and/or completion.The EPA will determine the extent to whichprior submissions and/or completionssatisfyspecificitems required by this Order andreserves the right to require the resubmittaland modificationof any prior submissions.7.Interim Measures:(a) Interim Measures ("IM") must be designed tomitigate environmentalproblems that pose athreat to human health-and/ortheenvironment.IM may also be required by theEPA in order to prevent the movement of
Page 32
32hazardous waste or hazardous constituentsbeyond the Facility'sboundary or to mitigatethe effectsof releases,if any, that mayhave already migrated beyond the Facility'sboundary.IM should be designed to be (consistentwith the anticipatedfinalcorrectivemeasures for the Facility.TheEPA shall decide if and when IM are requiredin accordance with the requirementsof thisOrder.(b) The Respondents shall continue to conduct allexistinginterim remedial measures that maybe specifiedin any part of this Order.TheRespondents shall continue to conduct theseexistingremedial measures until receivingwrittennotice from the EPA that the existingremedial measures are no longer needed oruntil such time as the EPA approvesmodificationof the interim remedialmeasures.(c) In the event that during,or as a result of,the Remedial Investigation,the Respondentsor the EPA determines #at newly acquiredinformationindicatesan imminent threat tohuman health and/or the environment,theRespondents shall:
Page 33
33(i) Undertake additionalXM as directedby theEPA, to be implemented by the Respondentswithin a timeframe specifiedby the EPA;and/or(ii) Submit a proposal for additionalIX to bed)(i).approved and/or modified by the EPA andimplemented within an approved timeframe.Int8rim M8aSUr8S in the NRC-LiC8nS8d DisposalArea (MDA):Descriptionof Events Leading to InterimMeasures:A record review indicatesthat Tributylphosphate (TBP) dissolvedin either HAMSCOMineral SpiritsI'or gfADAXANX-121@ weresolvents used by NFS in the solventextractionphase of reprocessingspentnuclear fuel.A record review indicatesthata totalof twenty two, one thousand gallontanks containingthe solvent/sorbentmaterialwas disposed of episodicallybetween 1968 and1972 in disposal holes designatedEspecialholes"in the NDA.In November of 1983, solventwas detected inthe NDA area.Followingthe exhumation ofcertain tanks in 1986, monitoringresultsremained static until August, 1988, when
Page 34
34again solvent was discoveredin the NDA in amonitoringwell downgradientfrom one of thedisposal holes.(ii) Descriptionof Interim Measures:Duringinvestigationsin 1989, DOE discoveredthatwater had entered all of the disposal holeswhich contain solvent disposal tanks.TheParties detected lateralmigrationof thesolvent,and radioactivelycontaminatedgroundwater beneath it.Based upon this discoveryand the resultsofprior effortsto address the solventmigrationproblem, interim maintenancemeasures to prevent potentialmigrationtonearby surface waters (Erdman Brook) weredeemed necessary by DOE. DOE decided thatthe installationof an eight hundred and twofoot interceptortrench between the boundaryof the NDA and Erdman Brook to recoverpotentiallycontaminatedgroundwater was thepreferredmaintenance measure.Trenching constructionwas initiatedinJanuary of 1990 and completed in December1990. Non-contaminatedliquid pumped fromthe trench is routed to temporary holdingtanks and then routed to State Pollutant
Page 35
Discharge EliminationSystem(SPDES)permittedoutfall001 via the Low Level WasteTreatment Facility(LLWTF). A "pretreatmentsystemI to remove any solvent and radioactiveIodine-129,has been designed and is in finalstages of construction.Upon the detectionof contaminatedgroundwaterin the trench,the liquids will be processed through thepretreatmentsystem.The pretreatedliquidswill then be processed to remove low-levelradioactivecontaminantsin the existingLLWTF, and then discharged to Erdman Brookvia SPDES permittedOutfall001. As of July1, 1991, approximately355,000 gallons of"trench water," consistingof snow melt andrainwater,collectedduring the trenchconstruction,and non-contaminatedgroundwater have been transferredto theLLWTF and then discharged through Outfall001to Erdman Brook.(iii)Interim Measures Workplan.Within ninety days of the effectivedate ofthis Order, an IM Workplan and schedule forthe NDA trench project shall be submitted byDOE to the EPA and NYSDEC for approval,consistentwith this Order and RCRA. The IM35
Page 36
36Workplan shall document specificproceduresto be implemented in carryingout theactivitiessummarized in section (d)(ii),above.The IM Workplan and schedule shall includesufficientinformationto satisfythefollowingelements:1) @@IM" objectives:2) aHealth and Safety Plan; 3) a CommunityRelationsPlan: 4) a Data CollectionQualityAssurance Plant 5) a Data Management Plan: 6)Design Plans and Specifications;7) anOpera_tion and Maintenance Plan: 8) a ProjectSchedule: 9) "113" ConstructionQualityAssurance Plan: and 10) ReportingRequirements.Interim measures that were begun in January1990 and which are currentlyproceeding,shall continue until otherwise directedbythe EPA.IM implementationshould in no way interferewith the execution or schedulingof the RFI;however, adjustmentsto this schedule may besought, if appropriate,pursuant to themodificationprovisionsof this Order.(8)Interim Measures in the 8tat8 tiC8nSedDisposal Area (BOA):
Page 37
37(i) Descriptionof Events Leading to InterimMeasures:From 1963 to 1975, the SDA was operated byNuclear Fuels Services,Inc. as a commerciallow level radioactivewaste disposalfacility.Packaged waste was placed in long-trenches excavated in highly impermeable,silty tillsoil native to the site, andcovered with four to eight feet of nativesoil.Due to the characterof the soil andthe wet climate,water management problemswere experiencedfrom the very early years ofoperation..Water accumulated in the openuncompleted trenches and in covered completedtrenches.Water continued to accumulate inseveralof the originaltrenches until March1975 when it crested the originalterrainandbegan to seep through the cover of twotrenches.Redesigning and reworking thecovers has thus far reduced but noteliminatedthe problem of water acqunulationin the trenches.In its present condition,the SDA will continue to require activemaintenance.In March 1983, responsibilityfor managementof the SDA was transferredto NYSEFIDA. As
Page 38
(ii)38part of its maintenance of the SDA, NYSERDAmonitors the water levels within each of theinactivedisposal trenches.The accumulatedwater must be pumped out of the trenches fromtime to time and treated,prior to discharge.Accumulated water was last treated anddischargedfrom the SDA in 1981.One of these trenches,Trench #14,experiencedlarge water infiltrationratesdU8 to a previouslyundiscoveredadjacentsand and gravel body. The sand and gravelbody was removed and maintenanceeffortshavegreatly reduced the water infiltrationrates.The water levels in Trench f14, like those ofother trenches,continue to rise.Becausethe level in Trench #14 is near itshistoricallyhighest point, the water in thetrench needs to be pumped out and treated assoon as possible to minimize the possibilityof an uncontrolleduntreatedrelease.Descriptionof Current and ProposedActivities:The purpose of this interim measure is toinstalla system to remove, process, anddispose of water from Trench f14 in the SDA.The system is being installedin two parts.
Page 39
39Initially,NYSERDA will be installingstoragecapacity sufficientto store 50,000 gallonsof untreated water while the treatmentsystemis being designed and constructed.To date,NYSERDA has installedan 8,000 gallon ventedstorage tank on a concrete pad withinaweather protectionbuildingand, on March 7,1991, pumped 7,462 gallons of water fromTrench #14 into that tank.NYSERDA is in theprocess of installingtwo additionalstoragetanks with a capacity of 21,000 gallonseach.Water from Trench #I4 will be pumped intothese tanks in the event that furtherreductionof the water level in the Trenchbecomes necessaryprior to completionof thetreatmentsystem. When the treatabilitystudy currentlybeing conducted by NYSERDA iscompleted, a treatment system will bedesigned and constructedto processapproximately60,000 gallons of water fordisposal.Although the treatmentprocess hasnot yet been determined,it is anticipatedthat it will include a pre-filterfor removalof particulates,followed by a biological,evaporativeor W catalyzed oxidationtreatment system for the destructionof
Page 40
40hazardous organic constituentsand BOD, ionexchange columns for radionuclideremoval andactivatedcarbon columns for polishing.Thetreated water will be stored in tanks andbatch released to Erdman Brook via a SPD‘ESpermittedoutfall.(iii)InterimMeasuresWorkplan:Within ninetydays of,the effectivedate ofthis Order, NYSERDA shall submit to the EPAfor approval,an IM Workplan and scheduleconsistentwith this Order and RCRA. The IMWorkplan shall document specificproceduresto be implemented in carryingout theactivitiessummarized in section (c)(ii),above.The IM Workplan and schedule shall includesufficientinformationto satisfythefollowingelements:1.) "IM" objectives:2.)a Health and Safety Plan; 3.) a CommunityRelation Plan; 4.) a Data CollectionQualityAssurance Plan; 5.) a Data Management Plan:6.) Design Plans and Specifications:7.) anOperation and Maintenance Plan: 8.) a ProjectSchedule; 9.) an "IM" ConstructionQualityAssurance Plan; and 10.) ReportingRequirements.
Page 41
(fl(i)(ii)41IM implementationshould in no way interferewith the implementationor schedulingof theRX; however, Respondentsmay, ifappropriate,seek a modificationof thisschedule pursuant to the modificationprovisionsof this Order.InterimMeasures Related to detectionofl,l,l-TriChlOrO8th~8in GroundwaterSeep.l,l,l-TrichloroethaneDetection.Measurable levels of l,l,l-trichloroethaneequal to or less than five micrograms perliter to forty-onemicrograms per liter weredetected by DOE in or about June, 1990, insamples collectedfrom sample pointWNGSEEP," located outside the WVDP ProjectPremises securityfence.Subsequent Investigations.Further investigationswill include:0Continuationof non-routinegroundwatermonitoringin the area;0Collectionof additionalsamples in theimmediatearea of WNGSEEP, to determinethe lateralextent of contamination;and,
Page 42
420Continued developmentof contour mapsfor use in identifyingpotentialsourcesof l,l,l-trichloroethane.A full investigationreport will be providedby DOE to EPA and NYSDEC no later than ninetydays followingthe effectivedate of thisOrder,The report will include proceduresemployed to ensure data quality,all relevantanalyticaldata,.pertinenthydrogeologicalinformation,maps depictingsample locationsand topography of the area, and otherinformationrelativeto assessing healthrisks associated with the release.If the source of the contaminationisdetermined by EPA to be inside the WVDPportion of the facility,as defined insectionIV, subsection9(b), and asillustratedin the map at Attachment 3A asthe area shaded with yellow cross-hatching,DOE shall conduct interim measures relatingto l,l,l-Trichlorethane.If the source ofthe contaminationis determined by EPA to bewithin any otherportion of the facility,asthat term is d&fined in section IV,subsection9(a), and as illustratedin themap at Attachments 3A and B as the area
Page 43
43shaded with green dots and dashes, NYSERDAshall conduct such interim measures.If EPAiS unable to determine the source Of thecontamination,DOE shall conduct thoseinterim measures necessary to be taken insidethe WVDP portion of the facility,and NYSERDAshall conduct those interim.measuresnecessary to be taken within any otherportion of the facilityuntilEPA is able todetermine the source of the contamination.(This allocationis for the purpose ofimplementingthis Order only and does notaffect the resolutionof related issuesbetween DOE and NYSERDA. Both partiesreserve their rights against each other asindicatedin section XV of this Order.)EPA's determinations,as described above, aresubject to Dispute Resolutionunder sectionXIX of this Order.(iii)Interim Measures Workplan:After review of the investigativereport,ifthe EPA determines that interim measures arerequired,an IM Workplan consistentwith thisOrder and RCRA, shall be submitted to the EPAfor approval within 180 days of Respondent'sreceipt of EPA's written determination.(The
Page 44
44IM Workplan shall be submitted by the partyconducting the IM relatingto 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.)The IM Workplan andscheduleshall include sufficientinformationto satisfy the followingelements: 1). "IX"objectives;2.) a Health and Safety Plan: 3.)a Community relationsPlan: 4.) a DataCollectionQualityAssurance Plan; 5.) a DataManagement Plan: 6.) Design Plans andSpecifications;7.) an OperationandMaintenance Plan; 8.) a Project Schedule: 9.)"IM* ConstructionQuality Assurance Plan; and10.) Reportirig Requirements.Upon receipt of writtenapproval from EPA,the IM Workplan and schedule shall b8implemented in accordance with therequirementsand schedules contained therein.IM implementationshould in no way interferewith the execution or schedulingof the RFI;however, an adjustment to this schedule, ifappropriate,pursuant to the modificationprovisionsof this Order may be sought.9)UneXpeCtedThreats.(i) In the event Respondents become aware ofexistinginformationor identifynew oradditionalinformationconcerning an
Page 45
(ii)(iii)45unexpected threat or potentialthreat tohuman health or the environmentat ornear the facility,Respondents shallnotifyEPA and NYSDEC as described insection X, below.Within thirty(36)Cal8ndardays of notifyingEPA andNYSDEC, Respondents shall submit to EPAfor approval an IM Workplan thatidentifiesthe proposed IM which will betaken to prevent or mitigatethis threator potentialthreat to human healthand/or the environment which areconsistentwith, and can be integratedinto, any long term remediationat theFacility.The IM Workplan shall be developed in amanner consistentwith this Order andthe Act. The IM Workplan shall documentthe procedures to be implemented by theRespondents.The IM Work-plan shall include:1) fvIMttObjectives:2) a Health and Safety Plan:3) a Community RelationsPlan; 4) a DataCollectionQuality Assurance Plan; 5) aData Management Plan: 6) Design Plansand Specification:7) an Operation and
Page 46
46Maintenance Plan: 8) a Project Schedule:9) an "IM" Construction QualityAssurance Plan; and 10) ReportingRequirements.(iv) Upon receipt of written approval fromEPA, Respondents shall implement the IMWorkplan in accordance with therequirements and schedules containedtherein,IM implementation should in noway interferewith the implementation orscheduling of the RFI; however,Respondents may, if appropriate,seek amodificationof this scheduling pursuantto the modificationprovisions of thisOrder.(v) Environmental emergency situationsmayarise which require the Respondents toimmediately implement necessary actionsto mitigate any such emergencies.Allemergencies and any situationsarisingfrom such emergencies must be dealt withpursuant to Section VIII of this Order.8. Coordination of Activities:a) DOE and NYSERDA will jointlyconduct the RF1and CB¶S required under this Order. DOE and
Page 47
47NYSERDA intend to complete these activitiesas part of the joint EIS process.b) DOE will conduct interim measures that arerequired under this Order with respect tosources of contamination on the WVDP portionof the facility,as defined in section IV,subsection 9 (b), and as illustratedin themap at Attachment 3. NYSERDA will conductinterim measures that are required under thisOrder with respect to sources ofcontamination on any other portion of theFacility,as that term is defined in sectionIV, subsection 9(a), and as illustratedinthe map at Attachment 3.clThe allocationset forth in subparagraph (b),above, is for the purpose of implementingthis Order only and does not affect theresolution of related issues, includingfinancialissues, between DOE and NYSERDA.Both parties reseme their rights againsteach other as indicated in section XV of thisOrder.9. Schedules:a) The approved RF1 Workplan shall be initiatedwithin one hundred and twenty (120) days ofthe date this Order is executed by EPA, or in
Page 48
48accordance with the schedule approved by EPA,if a longer timeframe is justified.b) If the Respondents determine that anyinvestigationsrequired under this Ordercannot be completed within the specifiedperiod, a request for an extension period,not to exceed three hundred and sixty five(365) days, must be submitted, in writing,toEPA for approval.This request shall besubmitted no later than ninety (90) daysprior to the originallyscheduled completiondate and must be accompanied by a ProjectProgress Summary Report which details all ofthe investigativework completed to date, thework which still must be accomplished, thefactors which have prevented adherence to thespecified schedules, and the duration of thespecific extension period requested.EPAwill notify the Respondents whether therequest has been approved, disapproved, orrequires modification.VII. Additional WorkEPA may determine that work, in addition to that detailed inthis Order and Attachments I and II but excluding correctivemeasures implementation(CMI), is necessary to protect humanhealth and/or the environment.If EPA determines that any such
Page 49
49additionalwork is necessary, it shall notify the Respondent inwriting specifying the basis and reason for EPA's determinationand the additional work deemed necessary.Within fifteen(15)days after receipt of any such notice, the Respondent shall beafforded an opportunity to meet with EPA and NYSDEC to discussthe additionalwork required by EPA. If Respondent disagreeswith EPAs.determinationthat additionalwork is required, it mayinvoke the dispute resolution procedures as set forth in thisOrder. Following the conclusion of 'the dispute resolutionprocedures set forth in this Order, Respondent shall perform suchadditionalwork, if any, including the submission of a workplan,in accordance with the standards, specifications,and schedulesdeemed necessary and approved by EPA subject to thedeterminationsmade in the dispute resolutionprocess. Allapproved additionalwork performed by thethis paragraph shall be performed subjectconsistent with, the terms and conditionsrequirements for additional work shall beOrder as if fully set forth herein.Respondent pursuant toto, and in a mannerof this Order. Anyincorporatedinto thisVIII.EMERGENCY PROVISION1.In the event Respondents identify a current orimmediate threat to human health or the environment, the WYSERDAor DOE shall immediately notify EPA and NYSDEC orally and shallnotify EPA and NYSDEC in writing within fourteen (14) days ofsuch identification,summarizing the immediacy and magnitude ofthe potentialthreats to human health or the environment.
Page 50
50Respondents shall submit to EPA and NYSDEC as soon as possible aplan which mitigates this threat.EPA will approve or modifythis plan, and Respondents shall implement this. plan as approvedor modified by EPA.2,If EPA determines that immediate action is required,then the Director of the Air and Waste Management Division,Region II, may orally authorize Respondents to act prior to. .making the required written submission to EPA.3.If EPA determines that activitiesin compliance or non-compliance with this Order have caused or may cause a release ofa hazardous waste, hazardous constituent,pollutantorcontaminant or may pose a threat to human health or theenvironment, EPA may order DOE and NYSERDA to stop furtherimplementation of this Order for such period of time as may beneeded to abate any such release or threat and/or to undertakeany action which EPA determines is necessary to abate suchrelease or threat.IX. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS FOR PERSONNELAll work performed by Respondents pursuant to this Ordershall be under the directionand supervision of an individual(s)who has demonstrated experience and expertise in hazardous wasteinvestigationsand remediations.Before any work is performed,Respondents shall notify EPA in writing giving the name, titleand qualificationsof the supervisory personnel and contractorsor'subcontractorsand their key personnel to be used in carryingout the terms of this Order. In addition, Respondents shall
Page 51
51ensure that when necessary,, it shall use licensed individualsforperforming any work required by this Order. Nothing herein shallbe interpretedto affect or supersede Respondents' authority overtheir personnel or contractingactions.3. Proiect Coordinator/Information1. On or before the effectivedate of this Order, EPA andNYSDEC and.each Respondent shall designate a Project Coordinator("PC") and the name of at least one alternate who may function inthe absence of the designated PC. The PCs shall be responsiblefor overseeing the implementation of this Order. The EPA PC, orhis designee, will be EPA's designated representativeat theFacility.The NYSDEC PC, or his designee, will be the NYSDEC'sdesignated representativeat the facility.2. All communications between Respondent and the Agencies(EPA and NYSDEC), and all documents, reports, approvals, andother correspondence concerning the activitiesperformed pursuantto the terms and conditions of this Order, shall be directed toand through the respective PCs. Unless otherwise specified,reports, correspondence, approvals, disapprovals,notices, orother submissions relating to or required under this Order shallbe in writing and originals or copies shall be sent to:r. copy:1 copy:ChiefHazardous Waste Compliance BranchU.S. EPA26 Federal Plaza - Rm. 1009New York, N.Y. 10278Project CoordinatorHazardous Waste Compliance BranchU.S. EPA26 Federal Plaza - Rm. 1000
Page 52
52New York, N.Y.102781 copy:Permits AdministrationBranchU.S. EPA26 Federal Plaza - Room 505New York, N.Y. 102781 copy:ChiefHazardous Waste FacilitiesBranchU.S. EPA26 Federal Plaza - Rm. 1043New York, N.Y. 102782 copies: DirectorBureau of Hazardous Waste FacilityPermittingDivision of Hazardous SubstancesRegulationNew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, New York 12233040161 copy:Regional DirectorNew York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation - Regional 9600 Delaware AvenueBuffalo, NY 142023. Each party shall provide at least five (5) days writtennotice prior to changing the PC(s) and shall immediately providewritten notificationonce a new PC is selected.XI. Oualitv Assurance/OualitvControl1. All sampling, monitoring, analytical,and chain-of-custody plans shall be developed in accordance with the standardand recommended procedures contained in SW-846 - "Test Methodsfor the Chemical and Physical Analysis of Solid Waste", thirdedition, as amended, and the EPA Region II Quality AssuranceManual. Any deviations from these two documents must beaccompanied by an appropriate justificationand a demonstration
Page 53
53of the effectivenessand applicabilityof the proposedalternative.EPA and NYSDEC must approve the use of suchalternativesprior to such2. Respondents shalladvance which laboratoriesthat EPA personnel and EPAuse.inform the EPA Project Coordinator inwill be used by Respondent and ensureauthorized representativeshave accessto the laboratoriesand personnel performing any analyses.Inthe event that EPA or its representativescannot satisfactorilyobtain access to the laboratoriesfor any reason for the purposesof auditing protocols and technical proficiency,then EPA shallso inform the Respondents and the Respondents shall, as soon aspracticablethereafter,substituteanother certifiedlaboratorywhich provides access in a manner deemed satisfactoryto EPA.3. Respondents shall consult with EPA in planning for fieldsampling and laboratory analysis, including a descriptionof thechain of custody procedures to be followed.I. EPA Amrovals1. Unless otherwise specified,EPA shall review any plan,report, specificationor schedule submitted pursuant to, orrequired by this Order, and provide its writtenapproval/disapproval,comments and/or modificationsto theRespondents. Within fifteen (3.5) days of Respondents' receipt ofEPA's approval/disapproval,comments and/or modifications,Respondents may request a meeting with EPA and NYSDEC to discussthe approval/disapproval,comments and/or modifications,Withinthirty(30) days of such meeting, or if no meeting is requested,
Page 54
54within forty-five(45) days of receipt of EPA'sapproval/disapproval,comments and/or modifications,Respondentsshall either:(1) notify EPA of its intention to amend or modifythe submission to incorporate all EPA comments and proposedmodificationsnecessary to meet the purposes of this Order andsubmit the amended submission to EPA and NYSDEC within thirty(30) days thereafteror according to a mutually agreed schedule;or (2) provide EPA and NYSDEC with a written notice of dispute,setting forth Respondents' position,any actions whichRespondents considers necessary to resolve the dispute, and thebasis for Respondents' position.Any such writtennotice ofdispute shall be subject to the dispute resolutionprocedures asset forth in Section XIX of this Order.2..Any reports, plans, specificationsor schedules,submitted pursuant to, or required by this Order, are herebyincorporated by reference into this Order on the date EPA'swritten approval is received by Respondents or the disputeresolutionproceeding concerning such submittal,if any, has beenconcluded with notice to Respondents. Prior to this approvaldeterminationor dispute resolution determination,no plan,repoft, specificationor schedule shall be construed as a finalapproved plan. Oral advice, suggestions,or comments given byEPA and NYSDEC representativesshall not constitutean officialapproval, nor shall any oral approval or oral assurance ofapproval be considered binding.
Page 55
553. Any noncompliance with an approved EPA document ordeterminationunder the dispute resolution provision of thisOrder constitutesnoncompliance with this Order.II. ACCESS1. Until this Order is terminated pursuant to Section XXI,EPA and NYSDEC representatives,authorized designees, employees,agents, contractors,subcontractors,and consultants are herebyauthorized to enter and move about the Facilitypursuant toSection 3007 of RCRA. Any person entering Respondents' Facilitypursuant to this subparagraph shall fully comply with all healthand safety plans referencedin this Order. In the event thatentry onto the facilityis necessary before completion of allrequired health and safety plans, entrants shall make their bestefforts to comply with all applicable OSHA and DOE rules andregulationsincluding applicable WVDP radiologicalsafety andsecurity procedures (WVDP-010, lfRadiologicalControls Manual,"Rev. 4, dated October 24, 1990, and WV-544, "Visitor Control,"Rev. 8, dated October 19, 1990).2. To the extent that work required by this Order must beperformed on property not owned or controlledby the Respondents,the Respondents shall use their best efforts to obtain "SiteAccess Agreements H to perform such work within thirty(30) daysof the date Respondents become aware of the need to perform suchwork. Any such access agreement shall provide for reasonableaccess by EPA and NYSDEC representatives.A copy of suchagreement shall be submitted'tothe EPA and NYSDEC Project
Page 56
56Coordinators.In the event that Site Access Agreements are notobtained within the thirty (30) day period, the Respondents shallnotify EPA and NYSDEC in writing documenting their best effortsto obtain such agreements. Best efforts as used in thisparagraph shall include, but is not limited to:a) a certifiedletter from the Respondents tothe present owner of such property requestingpermission to allow the Respondents, EPA andNYSDEC and any of their authorizedrepresentative(s)access to such property;and,b) the property owner's response, if any.3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit orotherwise affect EPA's or NYSDEC's right of access and entrypursuant to any applicable laws and regulations,including,butnot necessarily limited to, the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse Compensation and LiabilityAct of 1980 ("CERCLAt'), asamended by 42 U.S.C. 09601 &. w.,and provisions of theEnvironmental Conservation Laws of New York.4. Nothing.in this section shall be construed to limit orotherwise affect the Respondents' liability,if any, with respectto off-sitecontamination from the Facility,notwithstandingthelack of access.377. RECORD PRESERVATION1. Each Respondent shall preseme, throughout the durationof this Order and for a minimum of six (6) years after its
Page 57
57termination,all data, records and documents in its possession orin the possession of any officer,director,employee, agent,consultant,contractor(including independent andsubcontractors),successor, or assign which relates in any way tothis Order, to its implementation or to the past and/or currenthazardous waste management practice(s)at the Facility.Six (6)years after. the termination of this Order, Respondents shall makesuch records available to both EPA and NYSDEC and shall provideoriginalsor copies of any documents that either EPA or NYSDECrequests.In addition, written notificationshall be provided toEPA and to NYSDEC, sixty (60) days before the destructionof anysuch documents. Such written notificationshall reference theeffectivedate, caption and docket number of this Order and shallbe addressed to:DirectorAir & Waste Management DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency26 Federal Plaza,New York, New York 10278DirectorBureau of Hazardous Waste FacilityPermittingDivision of Hazardous SubstancesRegulationNew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, New York 12233-40162. Each Respondent shall preserveall documents pertainingto this Order which are in its possession, or in the possessionof the persons and entities referenced in paragraph one, above,
Page 58
58in a centralizedlocation to afford ease of access by EPA, NYSDECor its representatives.. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS1. EPA and NYSDEC expressly reserve, subject only toparagraph 13 of this section, all of their statutory andregulatory powers, authorities,rights, remedies and defenses,both legal and equitable,including,without limitationthe rightto seek injunctiverelief,cost recovery, monetary penalties orpunitivedamages.2. This Order and Respondents' consent to its issuanceshall not limit or otherwise preclude EPA and NYSDEC from takingany additionallegal action against RespondentsNYSDEC determine that any such additionallegalnecessaryor warranted.should EPA andaction is3. This Order shall not relieve Respondents of theirobligationto obtain and comply with any federal, state, countyor local permit nor is this Order intended to be, nor shall it beconstrued to be, a ruling or determinationon, or of, any issuerelated to any federal,state,county or local permit.4,EPA and NYSDEC reserve the right to perform any and allwork required by this Order including,but not limited to, anyadditionalsitecharacterization,feasibilitystudy, and/orresponse or correctiveaction deemed necessary to protect humanhealth or the environment.5. Notwithstandingcompliance with the terms of thisOrder, Respondents are not released from liabilityfor the costs
Page 59
59of any response actions taken by EPA. EPA and NYSDEC reserve anyrights they may have to seek reimbursement from the Respondentsfor any such costs incurred by the EPA and/or NYSDEC.6. By enteringintothis Order, neither DOE nor NYSERDAwaives any claim of immunity from payment of fines or penalties,nor does either waive any claim of jurisdictionover mattersreserved td DOE und& the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA").7. Respondents do not waive any defenses Respondents mayhave or wish to pursue in any action beyond the scope of thisOrder.8. Nothing in this Order and no determinationmade oraction taken (including any failure to act) pursuant to theOrder, including,without limitation,any determinationorresolutionresultingfrom Dispute Resolution under Section XIX,shall constitutean admission or evidence of an admission byRespondents or otherwise constitutean adjudicationof any factor conclusion of law, except in an action or proceeding by EPA toenforce the terms of this Order, nor shall anything in this Orderrelease, waive, or otherwise affect or diminish any right,defense, authority,responsibility,immunity or claim for reliefwhich NYSERDA or DOE may have against the other (or any person orentity not a party to this Order) under applicable provisions oflaw or contract, including, without limitation,NYSERDA and DOE’srespective rights, authoritiesand responsibilitiesunder theWVDP Act or the Cooperative Agreement.
Page 60
609. The Partiesacknowledge the existenceof the DOE'sManagement and Operating Contract, and the Cooperative Agreementbetween DOE and NYSERDA.10. In the eventthat one of the Respondents is alleged tobe out of compliance with the Interim Measures provisions of thisOrder, the noncompliance of that Party shall not affect thecompliance status of the other Respondent.11. DOE and NYSERDA reserve the right to seek judicialreview of disputes between them concerning their respectiveauthority and responsibilityarisingfrom or related to the WVDPAct or the Cooperative Agreement (including disputes concerningthe SDA and the NDA). Nothing in thisSubsection will diminishthe responsibilityof WE or NYSERDA to proceed with studies,investigations,or interim measures, or to implement the finalresolutionof any dispute as provided in Section XIX, "DisputeResolution,"in a timely manner as set forthin thisOrder.12. Nothing in this section shall diminish, impair, orotherwise adversely affect the authority of EPA or DEC to enforcethe provisions of this Order.13. Based on the facts and circumstances known to EPA andNYSDEC as of the effective date of this Order, and as set forthin this Order, EPA and NYSDEC hereby agree not to initiateanyfurther administrativeenforcement action (or to refer a civiljudicialenforcement action to the Department of Justice or theState Attorney General), to compel the performance of thecorrectiveaction specificallyrequired hereunder for so long as
Page 61
61this Order remains effectiveand for SO long as DOE and NYSERDAare in compliance with the requirementsof this Order.However, in the event that DOE is delayed in fulfillingitsobligationsas set forth in this Order as a result ofinsufficientavailabilityof funding, and the Parties are unableto agree to an extension of schedules as providedfor in sectionIMIII,the covenant set forth above Shall terminate.14. Nothing herein shall preclude any actionsby EPA orNYSDEC to enforce the terms of this Order, or to address or bringany availablelegal or equitableclaim for: (1) any pre-existing,current or future violationsor conditionsat the facilitynotspecificallycovered by this Order; (2) any emergency conditionsor imminent hazard which may exist or arise at the facility;(3)any correctiveaction pursuant to the Act, not specificallycovered by this Order: or (4).any response action pursuanttoCERCLA, as amended.
Page 62
6215. Subject to the provisionsin XXIX of this Order, theParties recognize that EPA and/or NYSDEC may issue a hazardouswaste management permit under the Act or state law to the owneror operator of the Facilitywhich include6 correctiveactionrequirements.EPA and.DEC reserve the right to enforce therequirementsof such permits,includingcorrectiveaction.EPAand NYSDEC willnot take any administrativeaction (or make anyreferralfor judicialenforcement action to the Department ofJustice or the State Attorney General) for a violationof suchpermits until EPA or NYSDEC (whichever agency has issued thepermit) has afforded DOE and NYSERDA the opportunityto presenttheir positionto the permit issuing agency.16. Although this Order is issued under the Act (RCRA), DOEand NYSERDA reserve any right each may have to exercise any otheravailableauthorityas provided by law (includingCERCLA, asamended) to implement the provisionof this Order.17. Except as otherwise provided in Section XXX, 41Consent,t1in the event of any judicialaction by EPA or DEC, all Partiesreserve all rights,claims, and defenses, availableunder law.18. Except as otherwise specificallyprovided herein, allParties reserve all other rights they may have under law withrespect to any person.I. NON-RELEASE OF OTHER CLAIMS AND PARTIES1.Nothing in this Order shall constitute,or be construedto constitute,a release from any claim, cause of actionordemand in law or equity against any person# firm, partnershipor
Page 63
63corporation,not a signatoryto this Order, for any liabilityitmay have arisingout of, or relatingin any way to, thegeneration,stbrage, treatment,handling,transportation,releaseor disposal of any hazardous constituent,hazardous substance,waste, pollutantor contaminantfound at, taken to, taken from oremanating from the Facility.2.Subject to the provisionsof Section XXII of thisOrder, EPA or NYSDEC may issue one or more hazardous wastemanagement permits under RCRA or pursuant to the provisionsofthe EnvironmentalConservationLaw Article27, Title 9 which mayinclude correctiveaction requirementsfor one or more of thesame SWMUs covered by this Order.II.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION1.EPA will coordinatewith NYSDEC, DOE and NYSERDA, asappropriate,in making the RCRA FacilityInvestigationFinalReport, Final CorrectiveMeasures Study, and any EPA summaries ofthese reports,availablefor public review and comment.III.OTHER APPLICABLE LAWSAll actions undertaken pursuant to this Order by Respondentsshall be done in accordance with all applicablelocal, state andfederal laws, regulations,ordinances and Executive Orders.Respondents retain the obligationand agree to obtain all permitsor approvalsnecessary to perform the work required by thisOrder.
Page 64
64X. DISPUTE RESOTJJTIONAll Parties to this Order shall make reasonable effortstoinformallyresolve all disputes arising under any part of thisOrder at the Project Coordinatoror immediate supervisorlevel.If resolutioncannot be achieved informally,the procedures ofthis section shall be implemented to resolvea dispute.1.Within forty-five(45) days of the EPA or NYSDEC actionthat leads to or generatesa dispute,the disputingParty Shallsubmit to the other Parties a writtenstatement of disputesettingforth the nature of the dispute,the work affectedby thedispute,the disputingPatty's positionwith respect to thedispute and the informationthe disputingPartyis relying uponto support its position.If the disputingParty does not providesuch writtenstatement within this forty-five(45) day period,that Party shall be deemed to be in agreement with EPA.2.Prior to NYSERDA or DOE's issuanceof a writtenstatement of dispute,the disputingParty shall engage the otherParties in informal dispute resolutionamong the ProjectCoordinatorsa&ortheir immediate supervisors.Duringthisthirty(30) day informal dispute resolutionperiod the Partiesshall meet as many times a6 are necessary to discuss and attemptresolutionof the dispute.3.Ifagreement cannot be reached on the issue within thethirty(30)day informal dispute resolutionperiod, the disputingParty may, within a fifteen(15) day period followingthe end ofthe thirty(30)day informal dispute resolutionperiod, forward
Page 65
65the writtenstatement of dispute to the Dispute ResoluL,,Committee (DRC) thereby elevatingthe dispute to the DRC forresolution.Alternatively,the Parties may, within the forty-five (45) day period noted above, unanimously decide to escalatethe dispute directlyto the Senior Executive Committee(SEC).4.Any party may decide atprocess,by written notice to theparticipatein dispute resolutionany level of the disputesparticipatingparties,not toconcerning any one or moreissues.However, any resolutionreached by the participatingpartiesshall be binding on all parties to this Order.5.The DRC will serve as a forum for resolutionofdisputes for which agreement has not been reached throughinformal dispute resolution.The Parties shall each designateone individualand an alternateto serve on the DRC. Theindividualsdesignated to serve on the DRC shall be employed atthe policy level (SES or equivalent)or be delegated theauthorityto participateon the DRC for the purpose of disputeresolutionunder this Order.The EPA's representativeis the Air,and Waste Management Division Director,Region II.The NYSDEC'srepresentativeis the Directorof the Divisionof HazardousSubstances Regulation.DOE’s representativeis the West ValleyProject Office Manager.NYSERDA’s representativeis the ProgramDirector,RadioactiveWaste Management. Written notice of anydelegationof authorityfor a Party's designated representativeon the DRC shall be provided to all other Parties.
Page 66
666.Following the receipt of all statements of dispute orthe expirationof the escalationtime periods noted above, theDRC shall have twenty-one(21) days to unanimously resolve thedisputeand issue a writtendecision.If the DRC is unable tounanimously resolve the dispute within this twenty-one(21) dayperiod the writtenstatement of disputeshall be fowardedby thedisputingparty to the SEC for resolution.Alternatively,withinthe twenty-one(21) day period noted above, the parties mayunanimously decide to escalate disputes involvingnationallysignificantissues directlyto the Administratorof EPA.7.The SEC will normally serve as the forum for resolutionof disputes for which agreement has not been reached by the DRC.The EPA representativeis the Regional Administratorof RegionII.The NYSDEC's representativeis the Commissioner.The DOE’srepresentativeis the Idaho Field OfficeManager. NYSERDA'srepresentativeon the SEC is the President of NYSERDA. Writtennotice of any delegationof authorityfor a Party's designatedrepresentativeon the DRC shall be provided to all other Parties.The SEC members shall, as appropriate,confer,meet and exerttheir best effortsto resolve the dispute and issue a writtendecision-If unanimous resolutionof the dispute is not reachedwithin twenty-one(21) days, EPA's Regional Administratorshallissue a writtenpositionon the dispute,The DOE or NYSERDA may,within twenty-one(21) days of the Regional Administrator'sissuance of EPA's position,issue a written notice elevatingthedispute to the Administratorof EPA for resolutionin'accordance
Page 67
67with applicablelaws and procedures.In the event that DOE orNYSERDA elects not to elevate the dispute to the Administratorwithin the designated twenty-one(21) day escalationperiod, theDOE or NYSERDA shall be deemed to have agreed with the RegionalAdministrator'swritten positionwith respect to the dispute.8.Upon escalationof a dispute to the AdministratorofEPA pursuant to subpart 7, above, the Administratorwill reviewand resolve the dispute as expeditiouslyas possible.Uponrequest by the Commissioner of the NYSDEC, the Secretary of theDOE, or the President of NYSERDA, and prior to resolvingthedispute,the EPA Administratorshall meet and confer with suchperson(s),as appropriate,to discuss the issue(s)under dispute.Upon resolution,the Administratorshall provide the DOE orNYSERDA with a writtenfinal decision settingforth resolutionofthe dispute.9.The pendency of any dispute under this section shallnot affect the DOE's or NYSERDA's responsibilityfor timelyperformance of the work required by this Order, except that thetime period for completion of work affected by such dispute shallbe extended for a period of time usually not to exceed the actualtime taken to resolve any good faith dispute in accordance withthe procedures specifiedherein.All elements of the workrequired by this Order which are not affectedby the disputeshall continue and be completed in accordance with the applicableschedule.If EPA or NYSDEC determines,pursuant to applicablelaw and guidance, that an actual or potentialemergency exists
Page 68
68and directs Respondent to take appropriateaction(in accordancewithsections VI, VII, and VIII),timely performance of suchaction shall not be delayed by the dispute resolutionproceduresand such directionis subject to the resultof these procedures.10. When dispute resolutionis in progress,work affectedby the dispute will immediatelybe discontinuedif the Air andWaste Management Division Directorfor EPA’s Region XI requests,in writing,.thatwork relatedto the dispute be stopped because,in EPA's Opinion, such work is inadequate or defective,and suchinadequacy or defect is likely to yieldan adverse effect onhuman healthor the environment,or may have a substantialadverse effect on the remedy selectionor implementationprocess.To the extent possible,EPA shall give DOE or NYSERDA priornotificationthat a work stoppage request is forthcoming.After.stoppage of work,if the DOE or NYSERDA believes that the workstoppage is inappropriateor may have potentialiignificantadverse impacts, WE or NYSERDA may meet with the EPA DivisionDirectorto discuss the work stoppage.Following this meeting,and furtherconsiderationof the issues, the DivisionDirectorwill issue, in writing,a final decisionwithrespect to the workstoppage.The final written decision of the DivisionDirectormay immediatelybe subjected to formal disputeresolution.Suchdispute may be brought directlyto the either the DRC or the SECat the discretionof DOE or NYSERDA.11. Within twenty-one(21) days of resolutionof a disputepursuant to the procedures specifiedin this Section, DOE and
Page 69
69NYSERDA, as appropriate,shall incorporatethe resolutionandfinal determinationinto the appropriateplan, schedule orprocedures and proceed to implement this Order according to theamended plan, schedule or procedures.12. Resolutiono.f a dispute pursuant to this section of theOrder constitutesa final resolutionof that dispute arisingunder this Order.DOE or NYSERDA shall abide by all terms and.conditionsof any final resolutionof dispute obtained pursuantto this section of this Order.13. Disputes between NYSERDA and DOE concerningtheirrespectiveauthorityand responsibilitiesarisingfrom or relatedto the WVDP Act or the CooperativeAgreement or any cost sharearrangement,shall not affect the timely completionof any workpursuant to this Order.DOE or NYSERDA may request an extensionof time to resolve such disputes.Notwithstandingany otherprovisionof this Order, neither such disputes between DOE orNYSERDA, nor any EPA decision with regard to such request forextension of time, shall be subject to Dispute Resolution.14. The procedures of this section shall also not apply todisputes about: (a) EPA's and/or NYSDEC's designationof projectcoordinators;(b) EPA's and/or NYSDEC's access to the facility(such access to be subject to section XIII, paragraph 1, andsection XV, paragraph 6); and/or (c) EPA and/or NYSDECenforcement actions (such enforcement actions to be subject tosection XV, paragraph 13, and only after notice to EPA's Officeof Enforcement).
Page 70
70. Availabilitvof Information/Notificatioq1. Tothe EPA andoral noticethis Order:the maximum extent possible,Respondents shall giveNYSDEC Project Coordinatorstwenty (20) days advanceof the followingactivitiesundertakenpursuant toall well monitoringactivities,drilling,wellinstallatiqnand testing:as well as all on-siteand off-sitefield activities,such as installationor removal of equipment orsampling events, geophysicalstudies,and soil gas monitoring.At the request of EPA and/or NYSDEC, Respondents shall provide orallow EPA, NYSDEC, and/or their authorizedrepresentativestotakesplit samples of any or all samples collectedby theRespondents pursuant to this Order.EPA will,to the extentpossible,give Respondents noticeof EPA's intentionsto takesamples and/or allow Respondents to take split or duplicatesamples of all samples collectedby EPA or NYSDEC under thisOrder.2.Alldata, information,and other nonprivilegedrecordsconcerning,created for or maintainedby the Respondents pursuantto this Order, except attorney-clientprivilegeor work productprivilegedmaterial,shall be made availableto EPA and/or NYSDECupon request.All employees of the Respondents and all persons,includingcontractorsand subcontractorswho engage in activitiesunder this Order, shall be made reasonablyavailableto andcooperate with EPA and/or NYSDEC if information,whether writtenor oral, is sought.
Page 71
713. All final reports,plans, studies,records, or otherdocuments submittedor otherwise in the possessionof EPA orNYSDEC under the term6 of this Order by DOE or NYSDEC shall bemade availableto the public pursuant to the Freedom ofInformationAct, 5 U.S.C.,552, & sea., or the New York StateFreedom of InformationLaw, Public Officer6Law Article6, except(a) those identifiedby DOE which are classifiedpursuant toExecutive Order or Statute,or unclassifiedcontrollednuclearinformationwithin the meaning and in conformance with Section148 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA); (b) those that areappropriatelywithheld pursuant to the Freedom of InformationActor Freedom of InformationLaw; and, (c) those entitledto abusiness confidentialityclaim covering all or part of anyinformationsubmitted to EPA. Any assertionof confidentialityshall be accompanied by a response to the questions listed at 40C.F.R. § 2.204(e)(4).Informationdetermined to be confidentialby EPA shall be disclosed only to the extent permittedby 40C.F.R. Part 2. Respondents agree not to assert anyconfidentialityclaim with regard to any physical or analyticaldata that has been validatedor otherwise evaluated usingapplicablequalityassessment/qualitycontrol(QA/QC) methods.Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the use of suchinformation,records,or other documents in administrativeproceedings.
Page 72
724(a) Upon request by EPA or NYSDEC, the DOE or NYSERDA shallmake availableto EPA and/or NYSDEC for inspectionand review atthe facility,copies of non-qualityassured data or results,nonprivilegedrecords, and other documents, includingsamplingand monitoringdata, which have been received by DOE or NYSERDA,that EPA determines are necessary for oversightactivities.Suchdataor results shall not be duplicatedor removed from thefacilityunless EPA determine6 that an imminent and substantialhazard exists or may exist.If such records and documents areduplicatedor removed from the facilityby EPA or NYSDEC, DOEreserves its right to assert a claim of confidentialitywithrespect to such records or documents.Where EPA or NYSDECduplicatesor removes non-qualityassured data, Respondent(s)shall attempt to complete qualityassurance within sixty (60)day6 followingthe receipt of such data by the DOE or NYSERDA.The sixty day period provided for completing qualityassurance isfor the purposes of this section only.b)To the extent the non-quality,assured data are madeavailableto, or are reviewed by, EPA or NYSDEC, such data:(i) shall not form the basis for agency action unlessEPA determinesthat an imminent and substantialhazard exists ormay exist: and,(ii) shall be held in confidenceand shall not bedisclosedfurther unless EPA or NYSDEC receivesa request forsuch data under FOIA or FOIL, or unless disclosureis otherwisemandated by law. Upon receipt of such request, and prior to any
Page 73
73mandatory disclosureunder this paragraph,EPA or NYSDEC shallendeavor to consultand coordinatewith DOE or NYSERDA, includingpossibly transferingto DOE responsibilityfor responding to arequestforsuch data,as provided in 40. C.F.R. 5 2.111(d)(2).. Terminationand Satisfaction1.The provision6of this Order shall be deemed satisfiedand the obligation6of the Respondents under this Order shallterminateupon Respondents'receipt of a writtenstatementfromEPA stating that Respondents have completed, to EPA16satisfaction,allthe terms and conditionsof this Order,includingany additionalwork which EPA may determine to benecessary pursuant to this Order.So long as the Respondents areperformingwork pursuant to, or required by this Order, thisOrder shall not be deemed terminatedor satisfied.2.Following the issuance of a final RCRA Part B permit,or upon the satisfactorycompletionof all required actions andupon writtenrequest by DOE or NYSERDA, EPA shall endeavor tosend to DOE and NYSERDA (as appropriate)a writtennotice ofsatisfactionof the terms of this Order as soon as practicable.The notice Shall state that EPA considers DOE or NYSERDA (asappropriate)to have satisfiedthe terms of this Order.Thenotice,or lack of notice, may be subject to dispute resolution., Survivabilitv/PermitInteuration1.After the effectivedate of this Order, a RCRA/HSWAPermit may be issued to the Facility(or any portion of theFacility)incorporatingthe requirementsof this Order by
Page 74
74referenceinto the permit.The requirementsof this Order shallnot terminateupon the issuance of a permit unless therequirement(s)of this Order are expresslyreplaced by equivalentor more stringentrequirementsin the permit and EPA approvessuch termination.2.Notwithstandingany other provisionof this Order, EPAand NYSDEC agree that in issuinga RCRA/HSWA (includingequivalentstate law) Permit to Respondent, absent any newinformationthat requiresa differentapproach, EPA'and NYSDECwill not include in a draft permit any conditionor requirementthat directsRespondent to perform or refrainfrom performinganyactionthat is clearlyinconsistentwith the requirementsof thisOrder.If it appears that an inconsistentconditionmay beincluded in the final permit, EPA and NYSDEC will attempt toconfer with DOE and NYSERDA before the final permit is issued.To the extent EPA or NYSDEC includes all or part of thereguirmentsof this Order in such permit, EPA and NYSDEC agree tomodify this Order accordingly.Requirements of this Order notincorporatedinto a permit shall remain an enforceablepart ofthis Order.Requirements of this Order incorporatedinto apermit shall no longer be enforceableunder this Order.,3.The limitationsof subsection2, above, shall not applyto: (a) any interim measure or correctiveaction that EPA orNYSDEC determine is not within the scope of this Order: (b) anypre-existing,current,or future conditionat the Facilitynotexplicitlycovered by this Order or which was not known to EPA or
Page 75
75NYSDEC at the time the Order was executed: or, (c) any responseaction pursuant to CERCLA, as amended.4.Respondent'sgood-faithbelief that a conditionorrequirementof this Order is inconsistentwith a requirementinany final RCRA/HSWA Permit, shall constitutea dispute to beresolved under the terms of section XIX (Dispute Resolution)ofthis Order.1.This Order may be modified by mutual agreement of EPAand NYSDEC and Respondents.Such modificationshall be inwriting,Shall be signed by the Respondents first,and shall haveas its effectivedate the date on which it is signed by theDirectorof the Air and Waste Management Division,Region II,EPA, and a signed copy is received by the Respondents.Any suchmodificationis, on its effectivedate, hereby incorporatedintothis Order.2. Notwithstandingthe above, the appropriateProjectCoordinator6may agree to extensionsconcerning timetables,deadlines,or the scheduling of events.Any such extensionsmustbe requested in writingby the Respondents and be approved inwritingby the EPA Project Coordinator.3.In the event the parties cannot agree on theappropriateextension of timetables,deadlines,or scheduling,such disagreementmay be subject to dispute resolutioninaccordance with section XIX.
Page 76
764. No informal advice, guidance, suggestions,or commentsby EPA and NYSDEC regardingreports, plans, specifications,schedules, and any other writingsubmitted by thewill be construed as an amendment or modificationRespondentsto this Order,1. Notwithstandingany other provision of this Order, noaction or decision by EPA pursuant to this Order, includingwithout limitation,decisions of the Administrator,the RegionalAdministrator,the Director of the Air and Waste ManagementDivision for Region 11, or any authorized representativeof EPA,shall constitutefinal agency action giving rise to any rightsofjudicialreview prior to EPA's initiationof a judicialactionfor a violationof this Order, including an action for penaltiesor an action to compel Respondent's compliance with the terms andconditions of this Order.. Severabilj&yIf any provision or authority of this Order or theapplicationof this Order to any party or circumstance is foundto be invalid,or is temporarily stayed, the remainder of thisOrder shall remain in force and shall not be affectedthereby..orce Maieure and Excusable Delay1. Respondent shall perform all the reguirements of thisOrder within the time limits set forth, approved, or establishedherein, unless the performance is prevented or delayed solely byevents which constitutea force maieure.A force mai eure isdefined as an event arising from causes not reasonably
Page 77
77foreseeableand beyond the control of the Respondents which couldnot be overcome by due diligence and which delays or preventsperformance by a date required by this Order. Such evefits do notinclude unanticipatedor increased costs or expenses of responseactions, whether or not anticipatedat the time such performanceor response action was initiated.Nor does Force maieure includechanged economic circumstances,normal precipitationevents, orfailure to exercise due diligence in obtaining federal, state, orlocal permits.2. Force paieure shall include acts of God: fire;war:insurrection;civil disturbance;explosion: restraintby courtorder or order of an existing public authority:inabilitytoobtain, after due diligence,any necessary authorizations,approvals, permits or licenses due to action or' inactionof anygovernmental agency or authorityother than the DOE or NYSERDA;delays caused by compliance with applicable statutes orregulationsgoverning contracting,procurement or acquisitionprocedures, despite the exercise of due diligence:any strike orother labor dispute, whether or not within the control of theParties affected thereby: and insufficientavailabilityofappropriatedfunds, provided DOE or NYSERDA, as appropriate,madetimely request for such funds as part of the budgetary process asset forth in Section XXVIII (Funding) of this Order.3.The Respondentsshall notify the EPA or NYSDEC ProjectCoordinator within seventy-two (72) hours, if possible, but in noevent after forty (40) days, after Respondent(s)first becomes
Page 78
78aware of an event, which it knows or should have known,constitutesa force maieure,Within five (5) business days, ifpossible,but in no event afterthirty(30) business days afterRespondent(s) provides such initialnotice, the Respondent shallsubmit to EPA a written report detailing the estimated length ofdelay, including necessary demobilizationand remobilization,itscauses, measures taken or to be taken to minim&e the delay,andan estimated timetable for implementation of these.measures.Respondents must adopt all reasonable measures to avoid andminimize the delay. Failure to comply with the forty (40) daynotice provision of this section shall constitutea waiver ofRespondents' right to assert a force maieure and shall be groundsfor EPA to deny Respondents an extension of time for performance.Such a waiver of a fm,mieureunder this Order shall not bedeemed to be a waiver of any other defense the Respondent mayhave at law with regardto the performance of obligationsofcontracts that become impossible.4. If a Jorce paieure has occurred, the time forperformance may be extended, upon EPA approval,for a periodequal to the delay resulting from such circumstances.This shallbe accomplished through written amendment to this Order pursuantto Section XXIII.Such an extension does not alter the schedulefor performance or completion of.any other tasks required by thisOrder unless these are also specificallyaltered by amendment ofthis Order.
Page 79
79. l?NFORCEMENT1.DOE and NYSERDA recognize their respective obligationsto comply with the applicable federal and state laws andregulations,including RCRA, as set forth in Section 6001 ofRCRA, 42 U.S.C. 5 6961 and Title 27, Article 9 of the ECL, andTitle 6 bf the New York Code, Rules and Regulations,and tofaithfullydischarge the requirements of this Order.2. The provisions of this Order shall constituterequirements which are enforceable against DOE or NYSERDApursuant to the citizensuit provision of Section 7002 of RCRA,42 U.S.C. 5 6972. DOE and NYSERDA agree that the State (NYSDEC)constitutesa "person" pursuant to Section 7002(a) of RCRA.Therefore, citizen suits include actions or suits by the State toenforce the terms of this Order.III.FUNDING1. It is the expectation of the Parties to this Agreementthat all obligationsof DOE or NYSERDA arising under thisAgreement will be fullyfunded.Consistent with Congressionaland State Legislativelimitationson future funding, NYSERDA andDOE shall take all necessary steps and make best efforts toobtain timely funding to meet their obligationsunder this Order,includingbut not limited to the submission of timely budgetrequests.2. Any requirement for the payment or obligationof fundsby DOE or NYSERDA established by the terms of this Order shall besubject to the availabilityof appropriatedfunds. and no
Page 80
80provision herein shall be interpretedto require obligationorpayment of funds in violationof the Anti-DeficiencyAct, 31U.S.C. 5 1341, or New York State Finance Law, Section 41. Incases where payment or obligation of funds would constitute. aviolationof the Anti-DeficiencyAct, or the'New York StateFinance Law, the dates established requiring the payment orobligation of such funds shall be appropriatelyadjusted.3.DOE has prepared an Environmental Restoration and WasteManagement Five-YearPlan (the “FiveYear Plan") to identify,integrate,and prioritizeDOE's compliance and cleanup activitiesat all DOE nuclear facilitiesand sites.DOE will update theFive-Year Plan on an annual basis.4.The terms of the Five-Year Plan shall be consistentwiththe provisions of this Order, including all requirements andschedules contained herein: it is the intent of DOE that theFive-Year Plan be drafted and updated in a manner that ensuresthat the provisions of this Order are incorporatedinto the DOEplanning and budget process. Nothing in the S-Year Plan shall beconstrued to affect the provisions of this Order.5.DOE is developing a nationalprioritizationsystem forinclusion in the Five-Year Plan. DOE’s applicationof itsnational prioritizationsystem may indicate to DOE that amendmentor modificationof the provisions and/or milestones establishedby this Order is appropriate.In that event, DOE may request,inwriting,amendment or modificationof this Order, includingdeadlines established herein.EPA may contend that the Five-Year
Page 81
aiPlan should accommodate the milestones established by this Order.Where the parties are unable to reach agreement on a requestedamendment or modification,the Parties may invoke the disputeresolution provisions of this Order. Pending resolution of anysuch dispute, the provisionsand deadlines in effect pursuant tothis Order shall remain in effect and enforceable in accordancewith the terms of this Order. Any amendment or modificationofthis Order will be incorporated,as appropriate,in the annualupdate to DOE's Five-YearPlan.6. If appropriated funds are not availableto fulfil1NYSERDA's or DOE's obligationsunder this Order, EPA reserves theright to initiateany other action which it deems to beappropriateabsent this Order.7. Nothing herein shall affect NYSERDA's or DOE'sauthority over, or responsibilityfor, its budget and fundinglevel submissions.. ffectiveDateThe effectivedate of this Order shall be ten (10) daysafter the date on which the Director of the Air and WasteManagement Division, Region II, signs this Order.lConsent1. Respondents consent to the issuance of this Order, andagree to undertake all actions required by the terms andconditions of this Order, including any portions of the Orderincorporated by reference.Respondentsconsent to the issuanceof this Order, as an Order, pursuant to Section 3008(h) of RCRA,
Page 82
a242 U.S.C. J 6928(h), and explicitlywaive their right to requesta hearing on this matter. In addition, whether brought in anadministrativeor judicial proceeding, the Respondents consent toand agree not to contest EPA's jurisdictionto enforce or compelcompliance with any term of this Order or the validityof thisOrder.and all of itsprovisions.Subject to the Reservation ofRights in Section XV, the Respondents agree not to contest, andwaive any defense concerning, the validityof this Order, or anyparticularprovision contained herein.2.Each undersigned signatory to this Order certifiesthathe or she is fully authorized to enterinto the terms andconditions of this Order.IT IS SO AGRXED:Date:/v-‘/SIGNED:A. A. PitroloManagerU.S. Department of EnergyIdaho FallsOperation Office
Page 83
83IT IS SO AGREED:Date: 2!28)92ActingPresidentNew York State Energy Researchand Development Authority
Page 84
84IT IS SO ORDERED:Date:SIGNED:Thomas JorlingCommissionerNew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation
Page 85
85IT IS SO ORDERED:Date:%fco~~z&4s2s-SIGNED:Air an&Waste Management DivisionU.S Environmental ProtectionAgency - Region II
Page 86
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTlONAGENCYREGION IIJACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL SULOINGJ’Ec._FNEW YORK. NEW YORK 70278ElrA& 1 41’ s ;-: @‘9s~yi.l’August 12, 1991Mark OlsenBrett BowhanCounselOfficeof Chief CounselU.S. Department of Energy785 DOE PlaceIdaho Falls, Idaho 83402Hal BrodieAssistant CounselNYS Energy Research andDevelopment Authority2 RockefellerPlazaAlbany, NY 12223Re: West Valley RCRA 3008(h) OrderDear Messers.Olsen, Bowhan and Brodie:Enclosedplease find the revised Attachments.I have not QA/QCsdthem, so to speak, but am sending them out to you to compare withthe Attachments you should already have. Let me know onWednesday during our conference call if any problems arise or mayarise with regardto these Attachments,siz~@~~~~w/~Carl R. HowardAssistant Regional Counsel'Office of Regional CounselEnclosurecc:Deborah Christian,DECVictor Franklin, WVNSPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Page 87
SCOPE OF WORK FOR A RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATIONAtWESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CEId!ERTask I:Task II:Task III:Task IV:Task V:Task VI:Task VII:Descriptionof Current ConditionsPre-InvestigationEvaluationof CorrectiveMeasureTechnologiesRF1 Workplan RequirementsFacilityInvestigationInvestigationAnalysisLaboratoryand Bench-Scale StudiesReports
Page 88
1SCOPE OF WORK FOR A RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION [RF11AtWESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERtiCE CENTERPURPOSEThe purpose of this RCRA FacilityInvestigationis to determinethe natureand extent of releases of hazardous waste or hazardousconstituentsfrom regulatedunits, solidwaste management units,and other source areas at the Western New York Nuclear ServiceCenter and to gather all necessary data to support the CorrectiveMeasures Study, if one is determined to be necessary.TheRespondent(the term Respondent whenever used in this Attachmentshall iclude both the New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority(EPA ID Number NYD986905545)and the U.S.Departmqt of Energy (EPA ID Number NYD980779540)shall furnishall personnel,materials,and services necessary for, orincidentalto, performingthis RCRA FacilityInvestigation.SCOPEThe RCRA FacilityInvestigationconsistsof seven tasks:Task I:Descriptionof Current ConditionsA.FacilityBackgroundB.Nature and Extent of ContaminationC.Implementationof Interim MeasuresTask II:Pre-InvestigationEvaluationof CorrectiveMeasureTechnologiesTask III:RF1 Workplan RequirementsA.ProjectManagement PlanB.Data CollectionQuality AssurancePlanC.Data Management PlanD.Health and Safety PlanE.Community RelationsPlanTask IV: FacilityInvestigationA..EnvironmentalSettingB.Source CharacterizationC.ContaminationCharacterizationD. PotentialReceptor IdentificationTask V:InvestigationAnalysisA. Data AnalysisB.ProtectionStandards
Page 89
2Task VI: Laboratoryand Bench-Scale StudiesTask VII: ReportsA.Preliminarya:ld WorkplanB.Progressc.Draft and Final
Page 90
3TASK I:DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONSThe Respondent shall submit for U.S. EPA approval,a PreliminaryReport providing the background information pertinentto thefacility,contamination,and interim measuzes as set forth below.The data gathered during any previous investigationsorinspectionsand other relevant data shall be included.A.pacilitvBackcrroundThe Respondent's report shall summarize the regThe Respondent's report shall summarize the regional Tonallocation,pertinentboundary features, general facilitylocation,pertinent boundary features, general facilityphysiography,hydrogeology, and historicaluse of thephysiography,hydrogeology, and historicaluse of thefacilityfor the treatment,facilityfor the treatment, storage or disposal of solidhazardous waste.storage or disposal of solidThe Respondent's report shall include:and1.Map(s) depicting the following:a.b.C.d.e.f.g
h.i.General geographiclocation:Propertylines, with the owners of all adjacentproperty clearly indicated;Topography and surface drainage(with a contourintervalof two (2) feet and a scale of 1 inch =100 feet) depictingall waterways, wetlands,floodplains,water features, drainage patterns,and surface water containment areas;All tanks, buildings,utilities,paved areas,easements, rights-of-way,and other features;All solid or hazardous waste treatment,storage ordisposalareas active after November 19, 1980;All known past solid or hazardous waste treatment,storage or disposalareas regardless of whetherthey were active on November19, 1980;All known past and presentproduct and wasteunderground tanks or piping:Surroundingland uses (residential,commercial,agricultural,recreational):andThe location of all productionand ground watermonitoringwells.These wells shall be clearlylabeled and ground elevations and top of casingelevations and constructiondetails included(these elevationsand detailsmay be included asan attachment).
Page 91
2,3.4.4All maps shall be consistent with the requirements setforthin 40 C.F.R. g 270.14 and be of sufficientdetailand accuracy to locate and report all current andfuture work performed at the site.A history and descriptionof ownership and operation,solid and hazardous waste generation,treatment,storage and disposal activitiesat the facility;Approximate dates or periods of past product and wastespills,identificationof the materials spilled,theamount spilled, the location where spilled,and adescriptionof the response actions conducted (local,state, or federal response units or private parties),including any inspection reports or technical reportsgenerated as a result of the response: andA summary of past permits requested and/or received,any enforcement actions and their subsequent responses,and a list of documents and studies prepared for thefacility.3.Nature and Extentof ContaminationThe Respondent shall prepare a??d submit for U.S. EPAapproval, a Preliminary Report describing the existinginformationon the nature and extent of contamination.1. The Respondent's report shall summarize all possiblesource areas of contamination.This, at a minimum,should include all regulated units, solid wastemanagement units, spill areas, and other suspectedsourceareas of contamination.For each area, theRespondent shall identify the following:a.Location of unit/area(which shall be depicted ona facilitymap):b.Quantitiesof solid and hazardous wastes:C.Hazardous waste or constituents,to the extentknown; andd.Identificationof areas where additionalinformation is necessary.2. The Respondent's Report shall include an assessment anddescriptionof the existing degree and extent ofcontamination.This should include:
Page 92
5a.b.c.Available monitoring data and qualitativeinformation on locations and levels ofcontamination at the facility:All potential migration pathways includinginformation on geology, petrology,hydrogeolon,physiography, hydrology, water guality,meteorology, and air quality;andThe potentialimpact(s) on human health and theenvironment, including demography, ground waterand surface water use, and land use.c.Imolementationof Interim MeasuresThe Respondent's Report shall document interim measureswhich were or are being undertaken at the facility.Thisshall include:1.Objectives of the interim measures: how the measure ismitigatinga potential threat to human health and theenvironment and/or is consistent with and integratedinto any long term solution at the facility;2.Design, construction,operation, and maintenancerequirements;3.Schedules for design, constructionand monitoring;and4.Schedule for progress reports.
Page 93
6TASK II:PRE-INVESTIGATION EVALUATION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURETECRNOLOGIESPrior to starting the facilityinvestigation,the Respondentshall submit to EPA a report that identifiesthe potentialcorrectivemeasure technologies that may be used on-site oroff-sitefor the containment, treatment, remediation,and/ordisposal of contamination.This report shall also identifyanyfield data that needs to be collected in the facilityinvestigationto facilitatethe evaluation and selection of thefinal correctivemeasure or measures (e.g., compatibilityofwaste and constructionmaterials,informationto evaluateeffectiveness,treatabilityof wastes, etc.).
Page 94
7TASX III: RFI WORKPLAN REOUIREMENTSThe Respondent shall prepare a RCRA FacilityInvestigation(RFI)Workplan. This RF1 Workplan shall include the development ofseveral plans which shall be prepared concurrently.During theRCRA FacilityInvestigation,it may be necessary to revise theRF1 Workplan to increase or decrease the detail of informationcollected to accommodatethe facility-specificsituation.TheRF1 Workplan includes the following:A.Proiect Hanauement PlanThe Respondent s-hall prepare a Project Management .Plan whichwill include a discussionof the technical approach,schedules, budget, and personnel.The Project ManagementPlan will also include a descriptionof the qualificationsof personnel performing or directing the RFI, includingcontractor personnel.This plan shall also document theoverall management approach to the RCRA FacilityInvestigation.B. Data Collection Oualitv Assurance PlanThe Respondent shall prepare a plan tomonitoring procedures: sampling, fielddocument allmeasurements, andsample analysis performed during the investigationtocharacterizethe environmental setting, sourcep andcontamination,so as to ensure that all information,dataand resultingdecisionsare technicallysound, statisticallyvalid, and psoperly documented.1.Data Collection StrategyThe strategy section of the DataAssurance Plan shall include butfollowing:Collection Qualitynot be limited to thea.Descriptionof the intended uses for the data, andthe necessary level of precision and accuracy forthese intended uses:b.Description of methods and procedures to be usedto assess the precision,accuracy, andcompleteness of the measurement data;C.Description of the rationale used to assure thatthe data accurately and precisely represent acharacteristicof a population,parametervariationsat a sampling point, a processcondition,or an environmental condition.Examples of factors which shall be considered anddiscussed include:
Page 95
i)ii)iii)iv)8Environmental conditions at the time ofsampling:Number of sampling points;Representativenessof selected media: andRepresentativenessof selected analyticalparameters.d.Description of the measures to be taken to assurethateachi)the following data sets can be compared toother:RF1 data generated by the Respondent oversome time period:ii)iii)iv)RF1 data generated by an outside laboratoryor consultant versus data generated by theRespondent:Data generated by separate consultants orlaboratories:andData generated by an outside consultant orlaboratoryover some time period.e.Details relating to the schedule and informationto be provided in quality assurance reports.Thereports should include but not be limited to:i)Periodic assessment of measurement dataaccuracy, precision,andcompleteness:ii) Results of performance audits:iii) Results of system audits:iv) Significantquality assurance problems andrecommended solutions:andVI Resolutions2.Samplingof previously stated problems.The Sampling section of the Data CollectionQualityAssurance Plan shall discuss:a.Selecting appropriate sampling locations,depths,etc.:
Page 96
b.C.d.e.f.9=h.i.9Providing a statisticallysufficientnumber ofsampling sites:Measuring all necessaryancillarydata:Determining conditions under which sampling shouldbe conducted:Determining which media are to be sampled (=.g.,ground water, air, soil, sediment, etc.):Determining which parameters are to be measuredand where;Selecting the frequency ofsampling and length ofsampling period:Selecting the types of sample (e.g., compositesvs. grabs) and number of samples to be collected:Measures to be taken to prevent contaminationofthe sampling equipment and cross contaminationbetween sampling points:Documenting field sampling operations andprocedures, including:i)ii)iii)iv)VIvi)vii)viii)Documentation of procedures for preparationof reagents or supplies which become anintegral part of the sample (=.g.,filters,and adsorbing reagents):Procedures and forms for recording the exactlocation and specific considerationsassociated with sample acguisition;Documentation of specific sample preservationmethod:Calibrationof field devices;Collectionof replicatesamples:Submission of field-biasedblanks, whereappropriate:Potential interferencespresent at thefacility;Construction materials and techni'ques,associated with monitoring wells andpiezometers;
Page 97
10ix) Field equipment listing and samplecontainers:xlSampling order; andxi) Decontamination procedures.k.Selecting appropriate sample containers:1. Sample preservation;andm. Chain-of-custody,including:i)Standardized field tracking reporting formsto establish sample custody in the fieldprior to and during shipment: andii} Pre-prepared sample labels containing allinformation necessary for effectivesampletracking.3. Field MeasurementsThe Field Measurements section of theQuality Assurance Plan shall discuss:Data Collectiona.b.C.d.e.f.h.Selecting appropriate field measurement locations,depths, etc.:Providing a statisticallysufficientnumber offield measurements;Measuring all necessary ancillarydata:Determining conditions under which fieldmeasurements should be conducted:Determining which media are to be addressed byappropriate field measurements (e.g., groundwater, air, soil, sediment, etc.);Determining which parameters are to be measuredand where:Selecting the frequency of field measurement andlength of field measurements period: andDocumenting field measurement operations andprocedures, including:i> Procedures and forms for recording raw dataand the exact location, time, and
Page 98
11facility-specificconsiderationsassociatedwith the data acquisition;ii) Calibrationof field devices;iii) Collectionof replicate measurements;iv) Submission of field-biasedblanks, whereappropriate;VI Potential interferencespresent at thefacility;vi) Construction materials and techniquesassociated with monitoring wells andpiezometers used to collect field data:vii) Field equipment listing:viii) Order in which field measurements were made:andix) Decontamination procedures.4.Sample AnalysisThe Sample Analysis section of the Data CollectionQuality Assurance Plan shall specify the following:a.Chain-of-custodyprocedures, including:i)ii)iii)Identificationof a responsible party to actas samplecustodian at the laboratoryfacilityauthorized to sign for incomingfield samples, obtain documents of shipment,and verify the data entered onto the samplecustody records:Provisionfora laboratory sample custody logconsistingof seriallynumbered standardlab-trackingreport sheets: andSpecificationof laboratory sample custodyprocedures for sample handling, storage, anddispersement for analysis.b.Sample storage procedures and storage times:C.Sample preparation methods:d.Analyticalprocedures, including:
Page 99
C.12i)Scope and applicationof the procedure:ii) Sample matrix;ii.i) Potential interferences:iv) Precision and accuracy of the methodology:andVI Method detection limits.e.Calibrationprocedures and frequency;f.Data reduction, validationand reporting:90 Internal quality control checks, laboratoryperformance and systems audits and frequency,including:i)Method blank(s):ii) Laboratory control sample(s):iii) Calibrationcheck sample(s);iv) Replicate sample(s):v) Matrix-spikedsample(s):vi) "Blind" quality control sample(s);vii) Control charts:viii) Surrogate samples;ix)Zero and span gases: andxlReagent quality control checks.h.Preventivei.Corrective5TurnaroundData Management PlanThe Respondent shallPlan to document andmaintenance procedures and schedules:action (for laboratory problems); andtime.develop and initiatea Data Managementtrack investigationdata and results.This plan shall identify and set up data documentationmaterials and procedures, project file requirements,andproject-relatedprogress reportingprocedures and documents.
Page 100
13The plan shall also provide the format to be used to presentthe raw data and conclusions of the investigation.1.Data RecordThe data recordshalla. Unique sample orinclude the following:field measurement code;b.Sampling or field measurement location and sampleor measurement type:C.Sampling or field measurement raw data:d.Laboratory analysis ID number:e. Property orcomponent measured; andf.Result of analysis (e.g., concentration).2. Tabular DisplaysThe following data shall be presented in tabulardisplays:a, Unsorted (raw) data:b. Results for each mediums or for each constituentmonitored;C.Data reductionforstatisticalanalysis;d.Sorting of data by potentialstratificationfactors (e.g., location, soil layer, topography);ande.Summary data.3.Graphical DisplaysThe following data shall be presented in graphicalformats (e.g., bar graphs, line graphs, area or planmaps, isopleth plots, cross-sectionalplots ortransects,three dimensional graphs, etc.):a.Display sampling location and sampling grid:b.Indicate boundaries of sampling area, and areaswhere more data are required;C.Display levels of contamination at each samplinglocation;
Page 101
14d.Displaye. Displaymaxima:geographical extent of contamination:contamination levels, averages, andf.Illustratechanges in concentrationin relation todistance from the source, time, depth or otherparameters; and90 Indicate features affectingintramedia transportand show potentialreceptors.D.Bealthand Saf&PlanThe Respondent shall prepare a facilityHealth and SafetyPlan.1. Major elements,of the Health and Safety Plan shallinclude:a.b.C.d.e.f.90h.i.k.Facilitydescription,including availabilityofresources such as roads, water supply, electricityand telephone service;Descri.be the known hazards and evaluate the risksassociated with the incident and with eachactivityconducted;List key personnel and alternatesresponsible forsite safety, response operations,and forprotectionof public health;Delineate work areas:Describe levels of protectionto be worn bypersonnel in work areas:Establish procedures to control site access;Describe decontamination procedures for personneland equipment:Establish site emergency procedures:Address emergency medical care for injuries andtoxicologicalproblems:Describe requirements for an environmentalsurveillanceprogram;Specify any routine and special training requiredfor responders: and.
Page 102
E.1. Establish procedures for protectingworkers fromweather-relatedproblems.2.The Facility Health and Safety Plan shall be consistentwith:a.b.Cd.e.f.h.NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health GuidanceManual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities(1985);EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection;EPA Order 1440.3 - Health and Safety Requirementsfor Employees engaged in FieldActivities:FacilityContingency Plan:EPA Standard Operating Safety Guide (1984);OSHA regulationsparticularlyin 29 C.F.R.gg 1910and 1926:State, local, and other federal agency (e.g., DOD,DOE) regulations:andOther EPA gu idxse as provided.Communitv Relations PlanThe Respondent shall prepareof informationto the publicactivitiesand results.a plan, for the disseminationregarding investigation
Page 103
16TASK IV: FACILITY IR774STIGATIONThe Respondent shall conduct thoseinvestigationsnecessary to:characterizethe facility(Environmental Setting);define thesource(s) (Source Characterization);define the degree and extentof contamination(Contamination Characterization);and identifyactual or potentialreceptors (Potential Receptors),The investigationsshould result in data of adequate technicalquality to support the development and evaluation of thecorrective measure alternativeor alternativesduring theCorrective Measures Study, if one is determined to be necessary.The site investigationactivitiesshall follow the plans setforth in Task III.All sampling and analyses shall be conductedin accordance with the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan.All sampling locations shall be documented in a log andidentifiedon a detailed site map.A. Environmental SettinqThe Respondent shall collect information to supplement andverify existing information dn the environmental setting atthe facility.The Respondent shall characterizethefollowing:1. HydrogeologyThe Respondent shall conduct a program to evaluatehydrogeologic conditions at the facility.This programshall provide the following information:a. A descriptionof the regional and facilityspecific geologic and hydrageologiccharacteristicsaffecting ground water flowbeneath the facility,including:i)ii)iii)iv)Regional and facilityspecific stratigraphy:descriptionof strata including strike anddip, identificationof stratigraphiccontacts:Structuralgeology: descript Len of local andregional structuralfeatures (e
g- 8 folding,faulting,tilting,j ointing, etc.) :Depositional history:Identificationand characterizationof areasand amounts of recharge and discharge:
Page 104
17b.C.VIRegional and facilityspecific ground waterflow patterns; andvi) Characterize seasonal variationsin theground water flow regime.An analysis of any topographic features that mightinfluence the ground water flow system. (Note:Stereographic analysis of aerial photographs mayaid in this analysis.)Based'& field data, test, and cores, arepresentativeand accurate classificationanddescriptionof the hydrageologic units which maybe part of the migration pathways at the facility&e*, the aquifers and any interveningsaturatedand unsaturated units),including:i)Hydraulic conductivityand porosity (totaland effective):ii) Lithology,grain size, sorting, degree ofcementation:iii) An interpretationof hydrauiicinterconnectionsbetween saturated zones: andiv) The attenuationcapacity and mechanisms ofthe natural earth materials (=.g., ionexchange capacity, organic carbon content,mineral content etc.).d,Based on field studies and cores, structuralgeolom, and hydrogeologic cross sections showingthe extent (depth, thickness, lateral extent)ofhydrogeologic units which may be part of themigration pathways identifying:ilSand and gravel deposits in unconsolidateddeposits:ii) Zones of fracturingor channeling inconsolidatedor unconsolidateddeposits:iii) Zones of higher permeabilityor lowerpermeabilitythat might direct and restrictthe flow of contaminants:iv) The uppermost aquifer: geologic formation,group of formations, or part of a formationcapable of yielding a significant'amountofground water to wells or springs: and
Page 105
VI18Water-bearing zones above the first confininglayer that may serve as a pathway forcontaminant migration including perched zonesof saturation.e.Based on dataobtained from ground watermonitoring wells and piezometers installedupgradient and downgradient of the potentialcontaminant source, a representativedescriptionof water level or fluid pressure monitoringincluding:. .i)Water-level contour and/or potentiometricmaps:ii) Hydrologic cross sections showing verticalgradients:iii) The flow system, including the verticalandhorizontalcomponents of flow: andiv) Any temporal changes in hydraulic gradients,for example, due to tidal or seasonalinfluences.f.A descriptionof manmade influences that mayaffect the hydrogeologyof the site, identifying:i)ii)2.SoilsActive and inactive local water-supply andproduction wells with an approximate scheduleof pumping: andManmade hydraulic structures(pipelines,french drains, ditches, unlined ponds, septictanks, NPDES outfalls,retention areas,etc.).The Respondent shall conduct a program to characterithe soil and rock units above the water table in thevicinityof the contaminant release(s).Suchcharacterizationshall include but not be limited tothe following information:a. SCS soil classification:b.Surface soil distribution:zeIC.Soil profile,including ASTM classificationofsoils ;
Page 106
19d.e.f.g-h.i.j-k.1.la.n.0.P-90r.S.t.u.Transects of soil stratigraphy;Hydraulic conductivity(sattirated andunsaturated);Relative permeability;Bulk density:Porosity:Soil zorptive capacity:Cation exchange capacity (CEC);Soil organic content:Soil pH;ParticleDepth ofMoisturesize distribution:water table;content;Effect of stratificationon unsaturated flow:InfiltrationEvapotranspiration;'Storage capacity:Vertical flow rate: andMineral content.3. Surface Water and SedimentThe Respondent shall conduct a program to characterizethe surface water bodies in the vicinityof thefacility.Such characterizationshall include, but notbe limited to, the following activitiesandinformation:a.Description of the temporal and permanent surfacewater bodies including:i)For lakes and estuaries:location', elevation,surface area, inflow, outflow, depth,temperature stratification,and volume:
Page 107
20ii)iii)iv)VIFor impoundments: location,elevation,surface area, depth, volume, freeboard, andpurpose of impoundment;For streams, ditches, drains, swamps andchannels: location,elevation,flow,velocity,depth, width, seasonalfluctuations,and flooding tendencies (i.~.,100 year event);Drainage patterns: andtivapotranspiration.b.Description of the chemistry of the naturalsurfacewater and sediments.This includesdetermining the pH, total dissolved solids, totalsuspended solids, biologicaloxygen demand,alkalinity,conductivity,dissolved oqgenprofiles,nutrients(MIX, NO,/NO, , PO, ), chemicaloxygen demand, total organic carbon, specificcontaminant concentrations,etc.c.Description of sediment characteristicsincluding:i)ii)iii)4. AirDeposition area:Thickness profile:andPhysical and chemical parameters (g.q., grainsize, density, organic carbon content, ionexchange capacity, pH, etc.)The Respondent shall provide informationcharacterizingthe climate in the vicinityof the facility.Suchinformationshall include, but not be limited to:a. A descriptionof the following parameters:i)Annual and monthly rainfallaverages:ii) Monthly temperature averages and extremes;iii) Wind speed,and direction:iv) Relative humidity/dew point;VI Atmospheric pressure:vi) Evaporation data:..
Page 108
21vii) Development of inversions:andviii) Climate extremes that'have been known tooccur in the vicinityof the facility,including frequency of occurrence.b. A descriptionof topographic and manmade featureswhich affect air flow and emission patterns,including:.i)ii)iii)iv)VIRidges, hills or mountain areas:Canyons or valleys:Surfacewater bodies (e.g., riversp lakes,bays, etc.);Wind breaks and forests; andBuildings.B. Source CharacterizationThe Respondent shall collect analyticaldata to completelycildracterizethe wastes and the areas where wastes have beenplaced, collected,or removed, including:type: quantity;physical form: disposition(containment or nature ofdeposits);and facilitycharacteristicsaffectingrelease(s-9* t facilitysecurity,and engineered barriers).Thisshall include quantificationof the following specificcharacteristicsat each source area:1.Unit/DisposalArea characteristics:a.b.c.d.e.f.90h.Location of unit/disposalarea:Type of unit/disposalarea:Design features:Operating practices (past and present):Period of operation;Age of unit/disposalarea:General physical conditions;andMethod used to close the unit/disposal-area.
Page 109
222. Waste Characteristics:a. Type of waste placed in the'unit;i)Hdzardcus classification(=.g., flammable,reactive, corrosive,oxidizing,or reducingagent):ii) Quantity: andiii) Chemical composition.b.Physical and chemical characteristics:i)ii)iii)iv)VIvi)vii)viii)ix)xlxi)xii)xiii)Physical form (solid, liquid, gas):Physical description(e.g., powder, oilysludge):Temperature;pH:General chemical class (n.g., acid, base,solvent):Molecular weight;Density:Boiling point:Viscosity:Solubilityin water;Cohesiveness of the waste:Vapor pressure.Flash pointC.Migration and dispersal characteristicsof thewaste ;i)Sorption:ii) Biodegradability,bioconcentration,biotransformation:.iii) Photodegradationrates:
Page 110
23iv) Hydrolysis rates; andVI Chemical transformations.The Respondent shall document the proceduresmaking the above determinations.C, ContaminationCharacterizatiotiused inThe Respondent shall collect analyticaldata on groundwater, soils, surface water, sediment, and subsurface gascontaminationin the vicinityof the facility.This datashall be sufficiintto define the extent, origin, direction,and rate of movement of contaminant plumes. Data shallinclude time and location of sampling, media sampled,concentrationsfound, conditions during sampling, and theidentityof the individualsperforming the sampling andanalysis.The Respondent shall address the following typesof contamination at the facility:1.Ground Water ContaminationThe Respondent shall conduct a Ground WaterInvestigationto characterizeany plumes ofcontamination at the facility.This investigationshall, at a minimum, provide the following information.:a. A descriDtionof the horizontaland verticalextent 0% any immiscible or dissolvedoriginatingfrom the facility:b.The horizontaland verticalcontamination movement:C.The velocity of contaminantd.The horizontaland verticalof Appendix IX constituentsdirectionofmovement;pl=e(s)concentrationprofilesin the plume(s);e.An evaluation of factors influencingthe plumemovement: andf.An extrapolationof future contaminant movement.The Respondent shall document the procedures used inmaking the above determinations(=.g., well design,well construction,geophysics, modeling, etc.).2.Soil ContaminationThe Respondent shall conduct an investigationtocharacterizethe contamination of the soil and rock.s
Page 111
24units above the water table in the vicinityof thecontaminant release.The investigationshall includethe following information:a. i descriptionof the verticaland horizontalextentof contamination.b.A descriptionof contaminant and soil chemicalproperties within the contaminant source area andplume. This includes contaminant solubility,speciation,adsorption,leachability,exchangecapacity, biodegradability,hydrolysis,photoLysis, oxidation,and other factors thatmight affect contaminant migration andtransformation.c.Specific contaminant concentrations.d. The velocity and directionof contaminantmovement.e. An extrapolationof future contaminant movement.The Respondent shall document the procedures used inmaking the above determinations.3.Surface Water and Sediment ContaminationThe Respondent shall conduct a surface waterinvestigationto characterizecontamination in surfacewater bodies resulting from contaminant releases at thefacility.The investigationshall include, but not belimited to, the following information:a.b.C.d.e.f.A descriptionof the horizontaland verticalextent of any immiscible or dissolved plume(s)originatingfrom the facility,and the extent ofcontamination in underlying sediments;The horizontaland verticaldirectionofcontaminant movement:The contaminant velocity:An evaluation of the physical, biologicalandchemical factors influencingcontaminant movement;An extrapolationof future contaminant movement:and.A descriptionof the chemistry of the contaminatedsurface waters and sediments.This includes
Page 112
25determining the pH, total dissolved solids,specific contaminant concentrations,etc.;The Respondent shall document the procedures used inmaking the above determinations.4. Air ContaminationThe Respondent shall conduct an investigationtocharacterizethe particulateand gaseouscontaminantsreleased into the atmosphere.This investigationshallprovide the.followinginformation:a. A descriptionof the horizontaland verticaldirectionand velocity of contaminant movement:b.The rate and amount of the release; andc.The chemical and physical composition of thecontaminants(s)released, including horizontalandverticalconcentrationprofiles.The Respondentshall document the procedures used in making theabove determinations.5.Subsurface Gas ContaminationThe Respondent shall conduct an investigationtocharacterizesubsurface gases emitted from buriedhazardous waste and hazardous constituentsin theground water. This investigationshall include thefollowing information:a. A descriptionof the horizontaland verticalextent of subsurface gas mitigation:b.The chemical compositionof the gases beingemitted;C,The rate, amount, and density of the gases beingemitted: andd.Horizontaland verticalconcentrationprofiles ofthe subsurface gases emitted.The Respondent shall document the procedures used inmaking the above determinations.D. Potential RecentorsThe Respondent shall collect data describing the humanpopulationsand environmental systems that are susceptibleto contaminant exposure from the facility.Chemical
Page 113
26analysis of biologicalsamples may be heeded. Data onobservable effects in ecosystems may also be obtained.Thefollowing characteristicsshall be identified:1. Local uses and possible future uses of ground water:a. Type of use (g.g., drinking water source:municipal or residential,agricultural,domestic/non-potable,and industrial);andb.Location of ground water usersdischarge areas.2.Local uses and possible future usesdraining the facility:including wells andof surface watersa. Domestic and municipal (n.g., potable andlawn/garden watering);b. Recreational(e.g., swimming; fishing);C.Agricultural:d. Industrial:ande. Environmental (e.g., fish and wiiiilifepropagation).3. Human use of or access to the facilityand adjacentlands, including but not limited to:a. Recreation;b. Hunting:C.Residential:d.Commercial:e.Zoning: andf.Relationshipbetween population locations andprevailingwind direction.4. A descriptionofthe biota in surface water bodies on,adjacent to, or affected by the facility.5. A descriptionof the ecology overlying and adjacent tothe facility.
Page 114
276.A demographic profile of the people who use or haveaccess to the facilityand adjacent land, including,but not limited to: age, sex, and sensitive subgroups.7. A descriptionof any'endangered or threatened speciesnear the facility.
Page 115
28TASK V:INVBSTXGATION ANALYSISThe Respondent shall prepare an analysis and summary of allfacility-investigationsand their results.The objective of thistask shall be to ensure thatthe investigationdataaresufficientin quality (e.g., quality assurance procedures havebeen followed) and quantity to describe the nature and extentofcontamination,potentialthreat to human health and/ortheenvironment, and to Support the Corrective Measures- Study, if oneis determined to be necessary.A* pata AnalvsisThe Respondent shall analyze all facilityinvestigationdataoutlined in Task IV and prepare a report on the type andextent of contamination at the facilityincludingsourcesand migration pathways. The report shall describe theextent of contamination(qualitative/quantitative)inrelation to background levels indicativefor the area..B. ProtectionStandards1. Ground Water Protection StandardsFor regulated units, the Respondent shall provideinformationto support the Agency's selection/development of Ground Water Protection Standards forall of the 40 C.F.R. Part 261 Appendix IX constituentsfound in the ground water during the FacilityInvestigation(Task IV).a. The Ground Water Protection Standards shallconsist of:i)ii)iii)for any constituentslisted in Table 1 of 40C.F.R. g 264.94, the respective value givenin that table (MCL) if the background levelof the constituentis below the value givenin Table 1; orthe background level.ofthat constituentinthe ground water: ora U.S. EPA approved Alternate ConcentrationLimit (ACL).b.Information to support the Agency's subsequentselection of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs)shall be developed by the Respondent in accordancewith U.S. EPA guidance.For any proposed ACLs,the Respondent shall include a justificationbased
Page 116
2.3.29upon the criteriaset 'forth in 40 C.F.R.0 264.94(b).c.After receipt and review of any proposed ACLs, theU.S. EPA shall notify the Respondent in writing ofapproval, disapproval or modifications.The U.S.EPA shall specify, in writing,the reason(s)forany disapproval or modification.d, Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the U.S.EPA's -notificationor disapproval of any proposedACL, the Respondent shall withdraw the applicationor amend and submit revisions to the U.S. EPA.For all other units or areas of contamination,theRespondent shall propose a ground water protectionstandard for each Appendix IX constituentfound in theground water and provide adequate informationtosupport this proposal, including a justificationbasedupon the criteriaset forth in 40 C..F.R. g 264.94 (b)..a.The proposed ground water protectionstandard willbe reviewed by EPA in accordance with U.S. EPAguidance for ACLs.b.After receipt and review of any proposed groundwater protectionstandards, the U.S. EPA shallnotify the Respondent in writing of approval,disapproval or modifications.The U.S. EPA shallspecify in writing the reason(s) for anydisapproval or modification.c.Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the U.S.EPA's notificationor disapproval of any proposedACL, the Respondent shall withdraw the proposal oramend and submit revisions to the U.S. EPA.Other Relevant Protection StandardsThe Respondent shall identify all relevant andapplicable.standardsfor the protectionof human healthand the environment (e.g., National Ambient Air QualityStandards, Federally-approvedState water qualitystandards, etc.).
Page 117
30TASK VI: LABORl4TORY A.ND BENCX-SCALE STUDIESThe Respondent shall conduct laboratory and/or bench scalestudies to determine the applicabilityof a corrective measuretechnology or technologies to facilityconditions.TheRespondent shall analyze the technologies,based on literaturereview, vendor contracts,and past experience to determine thetesting requirements.The Respondent shall develop a testing plan identifyingthetypes(s) and goal(s) of the study(ies),the level of effortneeded, and the procedures to be used for data management andinterpretation.Upon completion of the testing, the Respondent shall evaluate thetesting results to assess the technology or technologies withrespect to the site-specificquestions identifiedin the testplan.The Respondent shall prepare a report summarizing the testingprogram and its results, both positive and negative.
Page 118
31TASK VII:REPORTSA.PreliminarvandWorknlan- The' Respondent shall submit to the EPA reports on Tasks Iand II when it submits the RCRA FacilityInvestigationWorkplan (Task III).B. ProurassThe Respondent shall at a minimum provide the EPA withsigned, quarterly progress reports containing:1.A descriptionand estimate of the percentage of the RF1completebt2.3.Summaries of all findings:Summaries of all changes made in the RF1 during thereporting period;4.Summaries of all contacts with representativeof thelocal community, public interest groups or Stategovernment during the reporting period:5.6.7.8.Summaries of all problems or potentialproblemsencountered during the reporting period:Actions being taken to rectify problems:Changes in personnel during the reporting period;Projected work forthe next reporting data, etc.C.Draft and Pina&Upon EPA approval, the Respondent shall prepare a RCRAFacilityInvestigationReport to present Tasks IV-V. TheRCRA FacilityinvestigationReport shall be developed indraft form for U.S. EPA review. The RCRA FacilityInvestigationReport shall be developed in final formatincorporatingcomments received on the Draft RCRA FacilityInvestigationReport. Task VI shall be submitted as aseparate report when the Final RCRA FacilityInvestigationReport is submitted.. .
Page 119
32A summary of the information reporting requirements contained inthe RCRA FacilityInvestigationScope of Work.is presented below:[NOTE: Due dates are calculated from the effectivedate of thisOrder, unless otherwise specified.]pacilitvSubmissionf Due DateDescription of Current Situation(Task I)Pre-InvestigationEvaluation of CorrectiveMeasure Technologies(Task II)RF1 Workplan(Task III)Draft RF1 Report(Tasks IV and V)Final RF1 Report(Tasks IV and V)(Tasks IV and V)Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies(Task VI)Progress Reports on Tasks I through VISixty (60) daysSixty (60) daysSixty (60) daysIn accordancewith approvedscheduleSixty (60) daysafter EPAcomment onDraft RF1ReportConcurrent withFinalRF1 ReportQuarterly
Page 120
SCOPE OF WORK FOR CORRECT= MEXSUi?ES STUDYAtWESTERN NEW YORK SERVICE CENTERTask VIII: Identificationand Development of the CorrectiveMeasure Alternativeor AlternativesTask IX: Evaluationof the Corrective Measure Alternativeor AlternativesTask %: Justificationand Recommendation of the CorrectiveMeasure or MeasuresTask XI: Reports
Page 121
SCOPE OF WoRX FOR A CORRECTIVE MEASURE STUDYATWESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CEWTERThe purpose of this Corrective Measure Study (CESS) is to developand evaluate the corrective action alternativeor alternativesand to recommend the corrective measure or measures to be takenat the Western New York Nuclear Service Center.The Respondent(the term Respondent whenever used in this Attachment shallinclude both the New-York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthority(EPA ID Number NYD986905545) and the United StatesDepartment of Energy (EPA ID Number NYD980779540) will furnishthe personnel, materials,and services necessary to prepare thecorrective measure study, except as otherwise specified.IJCOPEThe Corrective Measure Study consists of four tasks:Task VIIIzIdentificationand Development of the CorrectiveTask IX:Task X:Task XI:Measure Alternativeor AlternativesA. Description of-Current SituationB. Establishment of Corrective Action ObjectivesC. Screening of Corrective Measures TechnologiesD. Identificationof the Corrective MeasureAlternativeor AlternativesEvaluation of the Corrective Measure AlternativeorAlternativesA. Technical/Environmental/HumanHealth/InstitutionalB. Cost EstimateJustificationand Recommendation of the CorrectiveMeasure or MeasuresA. TechnicalB. EnvironmentalC, Human HealthReportsA. ProgressB. DraftC. Final
Page 122
2TASK VIII: IDENTIPICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRE CORRECTIVEACTION ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERNATfVESBased on the results of the RCRA FacilityInvestigationand considerationof the identifiedPreliminaryCorrective Measure Technologies (Task II), theRespondent shall identify,screen, and develop thealternativeor alternativesfor removal, containment,treatment,and/or other remediation of thecontamination based on the objectives establishedthe correctiveaction.forA. Descriptionof Current SituationThe Respondent shall submit an update to the informationdescribing the current situationat the combined facilityand the known nature and extentof the contamination asdocumented by the RCRA FacilityInvestigationReport. TheRespondent shall provide an update to information presentedin Task I of the RF1 to the Agency regarding previousresponse activitiesand any interim measures which have orare being implemented at the combined facility.TheRespondent shall also make a facility-specificstatement ofthe purpose for the response, based on the results of theRCRA FacilityInvestigation.The statement of purpcseshould identify the actual or potentialexposure pathwaysthat should be addressed by corrective measures.B. Fstablishmentof Corrective Action ObjectivesThe Respondent, in conjunction with the U.S. EPA, shallestablish site specific objectives for the correctiveaction.These objectives shall be based on public healthand environmental criteria,informati$n gathered during theRCRA FacilityInvestigation,EPA guidance, and therequirements of any applicable Federal statutes.At aminimum, all correctiveactions concerning ground waterreleases from regulated units must be consistent with, andas stringent as, those required under 40 CFR 5 264.100.C. Screeninq of Corrective Measure TechnolodesThe Respondent shall review the results of the RCRA FacilityInvestigationand reassess.the technologiesspecified inTask II and identify additionaltechnologies which areapplicable at the combined facility.The Respondent shallscreen the preliminarycorrective measure technologiesidentifiedin Task II of the RCRA FacilityInvestigationandany supplemental technologies to eliminate those that mayprove infeasibleto implement, that rely on technologiesunlikely to perform satisfactorilyor reliably,or that donot achieve the corrective measure objective within a
Page 123
3reasonable time'period.This screening process,focusesoneliminatingthose technologies which have severe limitationsfor a given set of waste and site-specificconditions.Thescreening step may also eliminate technologies based oninherent technology limitations.Site, waste,andtechnology characteristicswhich are used to screeninapplicabletechnologies are described in more detailbelow:1. Site CharacteristicsSite data should be reviewed to identifyconditionsthat may limit or promote the use of certaintechnologies.Technologies whose use is clearlyprecluded by site characteristicsshould be eliminatedfrom further consideration;2.3.Waste CharacteristicsIdentificationof waste characteristicsthat limit theeffectivenessor feasibilityof technologiesis animportant part of the screening process.Technologiesclearly limited by these waste characteristicsshouldbe eliminated from consideration.Wastecharacteristicsparticularlyaffect the feasibilityofin-situ methods, direct treatment methods, and landdisposal (on/off-site);andTechnology LimitationsDuring the screening process, the level of technologydevelopment, performance record, and inherentconstruction,operation, and maintenance problemsshould be identifiedfor each technology considered.Technologies that are unreliable,perform poorly,orare not fully demonstrated may be eliminated in thescreening process.For example, certain treatmentmethods have been developed to a point where they canbe implemented in the field without extensivetechnology transfer or development.D. Identificationof the Corrective Measure AlternativeorAlternativesThe Respondent shall develop the Corrective measurealternativeor alternativesbased on the correctiveactionobjectives and analysis of Preliminary Corrective MeasureTechnologies,as presented in Task II of the RCRA Facilityinvestigationand as supplemented following the preparationof the RF1 Report. The Respondent shall rely on engineeringpractice to determine which of the previously identifiedtechnologiesappear most suitable for the site.
Page 124
4Technologies can be combined to for% the overall correctiveaction alternativeor alternatives.The alternativeoralternativesdeveloped should represent a workable number ofoption(s) that each appear to adequately address all siteproblems and correctiveaction objectives.Each alternativemay consist of an individualtechnology or a combinationoftechnologies.The Respondent shall document the reasons forexcluding technologies,identifiedin Task II, assupplemented in the development of the alternativeoralternatives.
Page 125
TASK IX: E3ALUATION OF TRE CORRECTrVE l4ZASURE ALTERNATTPE ORALTERNATIVESThe Respondent shall describe each corrective measure alternativethat passes through the InitialScreening in Task VIII andevaluate each corrective measure alternativeand its components.The evaluation shall be based on technical,environmental,humanhealth, and institutionalconcerns. The Respondent shall alsodevelop cost estimates of each corrective measure.A. TechnicaI/EnvironmentaZ/~umanRealth/Institutiona&The Respondent shall provide a descriptionof eachcorrective measure alternativewhich includes, but is notlimited to, the following:preliminaryprocess flow sheets;preliminarysizing and type of constructionfor buildingsand structures;and rough quantitiesof utilitiesrequired.The Respondent shall evaluate each alternativein the fourfollowing areas:1. Technical;The Respondent shall evaluate each correctivemeasurealternativebased on performance, reliability,implementabilityand safety.a. The Respondent shall evaluate performance based onthe effectivenessand useful life of thecorrectivemeasure:i)Effectivenessshall be evaluated in terms ofthe ability to perform intended functions,such as containment, diversion,removal,destruction,or treatment.The effectivenessof each corrective measure shall bedetermined either through designspecificationsor by performance evaluation.Any specific waste or site characteristicswhich could potentiallyimpede effectivenessshall be considered.The evaluation shouldalso consider the effectivenessofcombinations of technologies:andii) Useful life is defined as the lengthof timethe level of effectivenesscan be maintained.Most corrective measure technologies,withthe exception of destruction,deterioratewith time. Often, deteriorationcan beslowed through proper system operation andmaintenance, but the technology eventuallymay require replacement.Each correctivemeasure shall be evaluated in terms of the
Page 126
6projected service lives of its componenttechnologies.Resource availabilityin thefuture life of the technology, as well asappropriatenessof the technologies,must beconsidered in estimating the useful life ofthe project.b.The Respondent shall provide informationon thereliabilityof each corrective measure includingtheir operation and maintenance requirements andtheir demonstrated reliability:ilOperation and.maintenance requirementsinclude the frequency and complexity ofnecessary operation and maintenance.Technologies requiring frequentor complexoperation and maintenance activitiesshouldbe regarded as less reliable thantechnologies requiring littleorstraightforwardoperation and maintenance.The availabilityof labor and materials tomeet these requirements shall also beconsidered; andii)Demonstrated and expected reliabilityis away of measuring ti~ti risk and effect offailure.The Respondent should evaluatewhether the technologies have been usedeffectivelyunder analogous conditions:whether the combination of technologies havebeen used together effectively:whetherfailure of any one technology has animmediate impact on receptors:and whetherthe corrective measure has the flexibilitytodeal with uncontrollablechanges at the site.c.The Respondent shall describe the implementabilityof each corrective measure including the relativeease of installation(constructability)and thetime required to achieve a given level ofresponse:ilConstructabilityis determined by conditionsboth internal and external to the facilityconditions and include such items as locationof underground utilities,depth to watertable, heterogeneityof subsurface materials,and location of the facility(i.a., remotelocation vs. a congested urban area). TheRespondent shall evaluate what measures canbe taken to facilitateconstructionunderthese conditions.External factors which
Page 127
7affect implementationl$ncludethe need forspecial permits or agreements, equipmentavailability,and the location of suitableoff-sitetreatment or disposal facilities:andii) Time has two components that shall beaddressed: the time it takes to implement acorrective measure and the time it takes toactually see beneficialresults.Beneficialresults are defined as the reduction ofcontaminants to some acceptable,pre-establishedlevel..a.d. The Respondent shall evaluate each correctivemeasure alternativewith regard to safety.Thisevaluation shall include threats to the safety ofnearby communities and environments as well asthose to workers during implementation.Factorsto consider are fire, explosion, and exposure tohazardous substances.2. Environmental;The Respondent shall perform an EnvironmentalAssessment for each alternative.The Environmental.Assessment shall focus on the facilityconditionsandpathways of contamination actually addressed by eachalternative.The Environmental Assessment for eachalternativewill include, at a minimum, an evaluationof: the short and long term beneficialand adverseeffects of the response alternative:any adverseeffects on environmentallysensitive areas: and ananalysis of measures to mitigate adverse effects.3. Human Health;andThe Respondent shall assess each alternativein termsof the extent to which it mitigates short and long termpotentialexposure to any residual contaminationandprotects human health both during and afterimplementation the corrective measure. The assessmentwill describe the levels and characterizationsofcontaminants on-site, potentialexposure routes, andpotentiallyaffected populations.Each alternativewill be evaluated to .determine the level of exposure tocontaminants and the reduction over time. Formanagement of mitigationmeasures, the relativereduction of impact will be determined by comparingresidual levels of each alternativewith existingcriteria,standards, or guidelines acceptable to EPA.
Page 128
aInstitutional.The Respondent shall assess relevant institutionalneeds for each alternative.Specifically,the effectsof Federal, State and local environmentaland publichealthstandards, regulations,guidance, advisories,ordinances, or community relationson the design,operation,and timing of each alternative..B. Cost EstimateThe Respondent shall develop an estimate of the cost of eachcorrectivemeasure alternative(and for each phase orsegment of the alternative).The cost estimate shallinclude both capital and operation and maintenance costs.1. Capital costs consist of direct (construction)andindirect(non-constructionand overhead) costs.a.Direct capital costs include:i)ii)iii)iv)Construction costs: Costs of materials,labor(including fringe benefits and worker'scompensation), and equipment required toinstall the corrective measure.Equipment costs: Costs of treatment,containment, disposal, and/or serviceequipment necessary to implement the action:these materials remain until the correctiveaction is complete:Land and site-developmentcosts: Expensesassociated with purchase of land anddevelopment of existing property: andBuildings and services costs: Costs ofprocess and non-process buildings,utilityconnections, purchased services, and disposalcosts.b.Indirect capital costs include:ilEngineering expenses: Costs ofadministration,design, constructionsupervision,drafting,and testing ofcorrective measure alternatives:ii) Legal fees and license or permit costs:Administrativeand technical costs necessaryto obtain licenses and permits forinstallationand operation:
Page 129
9iii) Start-up and shakedown costs: Costs incurredduring corrective measure start-up;andiv) Contingency.allowances:Funds to cover costsresultingfrom unforeseen circumstances,suchas adverse weather conditions,strikes,andinadequate facilitycharacterization.2. Operation and maintenance costs are post-constructioncosts necessary to ensure continued effectivenessof acorrective-measure.The Respondent shall consider thefollowing operation and maintenance cost components:a.b.C.d.e.f.9-h.Operating labor costs: Wages, salaries,training,overhead, and fringe benefits associated with thelabor needed for post-constructionoperations:Maintenance materials and labor costs: Costs forlabor, parts, and other resources required forroutine maintenance of facilitiesand equipment;Auxiliary materials and energy: Costs of suchitems as chemicals and electricityfor treatmentplant operations, water and sewer service, andfuel:Purchased services: Sampling costs, laboratoryfees, and professionalfees for which the need canbe predicted:Disposal and treatment costs: Costs oftransporting,treating,and disposing of wastematerials,such as treatment plant residues,generated during operations:Administrativecosts: Costs associated withadministrationof corrective measure operation andmaintenance not included under other categories:Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs: Costs ofsuch items as liabilityand sudden accidental'insurance; real estate taxes on purchased land orrights-of-way;licensing fees for certaintechnologies:and permit.renewaland reportingcosts fMaintenance reserve and contingency funds: Annualpayments into escrow funds to cover (1) costs ofanticipatedreplacement or rebuildingof equipmentand (2) any large unanticipatedoperation andmaintenance costs: and
Page 130
10i.Other costs: Items that do not fit any of theabove categories.
Page 131
11TASK X: JUSTTPICBTION 3ND RECOMMENDATION OF TRE CORRECTIVEMEASURE OR MEASURESThe' Respondent shall justify and recommend a correctivemeasurealternativeusing technical,human health, and environmentalcriteria..Tais recommendation shall include summary tables whichallow the alternativeor alternativesto be understood easily.Tradeoffsamong health risks, environmental effects,and otherpertinentfactors shall be highlighted.The U.S. EPA will select,the corrective measure alternativeor alternativesto beimplemented based on the results of Tasks IX and X.. At aminimum, the following criteriawill be used to justifythe finalcorrectivemeasure or measures.A. Technical1. Performance - corrective measure or measures which aremost effectiveat performing their intended functionsand maintaining the performance over extended periodsof time will be given preference:2. Reliability- corrective measure or measures which donot require frequent or complex operation andmaintenance activitiesand that have proven effectiveunder waste and facilityconditions similar to thoseanticipatedwill be given preference:3.Implementability- corrective measure or measures whichcan be constructed and operated to reduce levels ofcontamination to attain or exceed applicable standardsin the shortest period of time will be preferred:and4. Safety - corrective measure or measures which pose theleast threat to the safety of nearby residents andenvironments as well as workers during implementationwill be preferred.B. Ruman IiealthThe corrective measure or measures must comply with existingU.S. EPA criteria,standards, or guidelines for theprotectionof human health.Corrective measures whichprovide the minimum level of exposure to contaminants andthe maximum reduction in exposure with time are preferred.c.znvironmentalThe corrective measure or measures posing the least adverseimpact (or greatest improvement) over the shortest period oftime on the environment will be favored.
Page 132
12TASK XI: REPORTSThe Respondent shall prepare a Corrective Measure Study Reportpresenting the results of Task VIII through X and recommending acorrectivemeasure alternative.A.prouressThe Respondent shall, at a minimum, provide the U.S. EPAwith1.2.3.4.5.6.7.a.9.signed, quarterly progress repo’rts containing:A descriptionand estimate ofcompleted;-.Summaries of all findings:Summaries of all changes madereporting period;the percentage of the CHSin the -'duringtheSummaries of all contacts with representativesof thelocal community, public interest groups or Stategovernment during the reporting period;Summaries of all problems or potentialproblemsencountered during the reporting period:Actions being taken to rectify problems:Changes in personnel during reporting period;Projected work for the next reporting period: andCopies of daily reports, inspection reports,laboratory/monitoringdata, etc.B. praftThe Report shall at a minimum include:1. A descriptionof the facility;a.Site topographic map & preliminarylayouts.2. A summary of the corrective measure or measures;a.Description of the corrective measure or measuresand rationalefor selection:b.Performance expectations:6.Preliminary design criteriaand rationale:
Page 133
13d.General operation and maintenance requirements;ande.Long term monitoring requirements.3. A summary of the RCRA FacilityInvestigationand impacton the selected corrective measure or measures;a.Field studies (ground water, surface water, soil,air): andb.Laboratory studies (bench scale, pick scale).4.Design and Implementation Precautions:a.b.C.d.e.f.5.costa.b.c.c.FinalSpecial technical problems:Additional engineering data required:Permits and regulatory requirements;Access, easements, right-of-way:Health and safety requirements;andCommunity relationsactivities.Estimates and Schedules:Capital cost estimate:Operation and maintenanceProject schedule (design,operation).cost estimate: andconstruction,The Respondent shall finalize the Corrective Measure StudyReport incorporatingcomments received from EPA on the DraftCorrective Measure Study Report.
Page 134
14A summary of the information reporting requirements contained inthe Corrective Measure Study Scope of Work is presented below:[NOTE: Due date's are calculated from the effectivedate of thisOrder, unless otherhse specified.]PacilitvSubmissionI Due DateDraft CMS WorkplanFinal CMS WorkplanDraft CMS ReportAs approved(Tasks VIII, IX, and X)in WorkplanFinal CHS ReportSixty (60)days afterPublic and EPAcomment onthe Draft CXSProgress Reports on Tasks VIII, IX, and XNinety (90)days after EPANotificationSixty (60)daysafter EPAcomments onDraft WorkplanQuarterly
Page 135
. .- .I-..--A???.. -J&L w ’ _ . . . 5’ - - Ii--? I /N-MAP 3aWEST Vi4LLEY Di?MU~Vs”TRA TKW F%XVfXTSOLID KhSTEMhNAGEMENT UNITS--------LEGEhJDDOE RESPONSIBILITYper RCRA 3008(h)OrderNYSERDA RESPONSIBILITYper RCRA 3008(h)OrderWVTIP BOUNDARY,\\~\&#??.i-7.l +-MAP 3bNEB YORK NYCLEAR SERVICE CENTERIIE::;;;z,XS?CS~L AREASTAT?JSCONSTRUCT!ON C !,EUOLI~ION LA’;CF!LLw9vc\m \ M\\ I \ \ I\ \ \ ‘, \ \ ,, , 23 LAC;““N(5,::::$L-T-\r\\I\NOT xns.:\\\/9”yf?If3T~f4*$5ACZ>,‘E5wuL‘t PCNDS(2) ACTiV?SOLMNT DIKENOT AC:‘.:EFFLUENT MIXING 3X7’?,AC7,LE,\\;r/CB !.IAIN;ENA:.CE WCP SAM?lRYLEACH flELDNOT AC:;‘,:“L” uJ~rJSTA:;Jr-n?. “r .--aJ.C.\I\“L..S\L,.:<OT iiT;,,= iNEW HARDSTAND STC?AGi AREAACTWE10INCiNERA\TORNOT AC-::WA COUTAINER STCRACEACTbESTORAGE TA’IK USE3 N 5ZE?ICH SYSTZ.4ACT’,EWTR:FICATION FX2:LI-f:ESi TANKSACTI:E,iTRIFiCATION FXUTYTEST TAXXSACTILEHIGH LEML ‘WsSTE :rViKSACJLE:vCHELIICAL ?RCCESS ZLL HARDST-\S3AC7lLE:5LAG STCRAGE 3L:c’;CACX’.E!bLAG STORACi (LSA . B 2)ACTI’.E,$ALA; STCRAGE (LS; 3 dr 4).!‘JXELOW Z.EL;‘iAS~ T?EA?.lEVT =-,:L,TYAC1LELI’x.o‘YiAS~ ?~A-vfu;sYs::‘.lACI’ESCPER?:A:E?IT -XA.:E\sTSYSTEUACT.‘.E‘/iTR!FICAT!ON FAC:L:YAC-!‘.<913,vAS:E;=!EA?lE:<T S’S’U2x!.4CELLACT:‘.:CE’.!EXT SOL 3,“C”VSYS~U-zE;,C:, ,;qrzz;E,s->q;c.L’-z.~yj-.,...~=~-,j;$.zI””L””J--i L-?:i 3.S’OSlL?<.:zri‘a:: A,-‘.:53;-2\1,a,:;:-:icc”.;31 A,-‘.:x:-3‘;0’7-;i?*:r--i:-;;?c:,‘:3; A)- .<?$-Isp; --y. ,, :-x2-:;x\o-‘iY57;---T>r‘‘2 yqz;T..f‘.-;;,“e:T*‘c-‘.:--.-APPQnY.SC1LC‘.:-‘-;:,.s,;,:,, ,‘,, I‘.‘-> -r.:Yf‘,-- ^. -;-I.“.‘-::-2. A‘.? ). -----.-~-_ -L--L-.i-’

Ceci est la version HTML du fichier https://www.wv.doe.gov/Documents/DOE_Stipulation_Of_Compensation.pdf.
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCOALITION ON WEST VALLEY:NUCLEAR WASTES h RADIOACTIVE:WASTE CAMPAIGN,:Plaintiffs,-V-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant. .:. .::::.CIVIK, No. 86-7052-CSTIPULATION OF COPIPROMXSErm-L ,.SETTLEMENTWHEREAS plaintiffshave filed this action challengingcertainproposed actionsof the United States Department of Energyrelatingto the disposalof low-levelradioactivewastes generatedfrom the solidificationof high-levelradioactivewaste, andWHEREAS plaintiffsand the defendant have met during thecourse of this litigationin an attempt to resolve throughcompromise the issues raised in the litigation,andWHEREAS plaintiffsmaintain that the defendants"Finding ofNo SignificantImpact" dated August 6, 1986, which supportedapproval of disposalof certainradioactivewastes in twofacilitiessituatedat the Western New York Nuclear Service Centerin West Valley,New York, should be annulled as contraryto theNational Environmental Policy Act in that an EnvironmentalImpactStatement (HIS) should have been prepared beforehand,and that
Page 2
-2.certainradioactivewastes which the defendantintends to disposeof are not “low-levelwastes” but are instead "transuranicwastes,"and that an EIS should be preparedby a date certainandthat judicialreview is necessary for other reasons as well, andWHEREAS the defendantmaintains that the EnvironmentalAssessment undertaken which ultimatelyresultedin a Finding Of NOSignificantImpact proceeded in a manner within all statutorymandates of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act and theguidelinespromulgatedthereunder,includingthose promulgatedbythe Council on EnvironmentalQuality,WHEREAS the defendant during discussionswith plaintiffs,hasmade representationsto the plaintiffsbased on preliminaryevaluationsdone by the defendantin good faith,which theplaintiffsutilizedin arrivingat this settlement.Thoserepresentationsare as follows:a. should the Class B/C wastes have to be movedfrom the existingemplacementas a result of theEnvironmentalImpact Statemgnt,it is estimatedthatthere would be minimal occupationalradiationdosesassociatedwith such potentialfuture movement ofthe stored Class B/C wastes which would be furtherevaluated during the EnvironmentalImpact Statementprocess ; andb.the defendant estimates that the costs ofconstructionat the tumulus location for emplacementpurposes is approximately$2,000,000and the costs ofconvertingthe storage facilityinto a tumulus asapproved by defendant is approximately $18,000,000.
Page 3
-3-WREREAS, each of the partiesis desirous of resolvingthislawsuitSOthat one of the foremost objectivesof the West ValleyDemonstrationProject Act can be met, that is, the immobilizationof the liquid high-levelradioactivewaste located at the WesternNew York Nuclear Service Center (hereinafterreferredto as"Center"),andWHEREAS, the partiesdesire to avoid extended litigationandconcomitantdelay to the West Valley DemonstrationProjectand thepartiesfurther desire to advance the best interestsof the publichealth and safety in light of the high-levelnuclear wasteslocated at the Center, nowIT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between theplaintiffs,Coalitionon West Valley vuclear Wastes & RadioactiveWaste Campaign, and the defendant,United States of America andthe United States Department of Energy, by and through theirrespectiveattorneysas follows:1. As used herein,the term "defendant"shall mean theUnited States of America and the United States Department ofEnergy and the term "plaintiffs"shall mean the CoalitiononWest ValleyNuclear Wastes and the RadioactiveWaste Campaign.2. The partiesacknowledgethat this agreement shall notconstitutean admission of liabilityor fault on the part of theplaintiffsor the defendant or on the part of their agents,
Page 4
-40contractorsor employees; this agreement is being entered into sothat the best interestsof the public and their health and safetycan be served by the expeditioussolidificationof the high-levelradioactivewastes located at the Western New York Nuclear ServiceCenter and by the transportof said waste to an appropriatefederal repositoryfor permanent disposalin accordance withprovisionsof the West Valley DemonstrationProject Act, PublicLaw 96-368.The proceduresand actions set forth in theprovisionsof this agreement shall in force and in effectsupersede the "Finding of No SignificantImpact [FONSI] forDisposal of Project Low Level Wastes", dated August 6, 1986.3.The Departmentof Energy had planned to prepare anEnvironmentalImpact Statement concerningclosure for thepost-solidificationphase of the project.The defendant herebyagrees that the scope of that EnvironmentalImpact Statement shallinclude the following:a. Disposal of those Class A wastes generated as a result ofthe activitiesof theeDepartmentof Energy at the West ValleyDemonstrationProjectas mandated by the United States Congressunder the West Valley DemonstrationProject Act.However, in lieuof undertakingsuch an EIS, the defendantreserves the right to:i. disposeof the Class A wastes in accordance withapplicablelaw at a site other than the Center; orii.evaluate disposal of those Class A wastes in a separateEIS; or
Page 5
-s-iii.seek and obtain Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC)review and approvalof any proposed disposalmethodologyfor such Class A wastes at the Center.b. The disposalof those Class B/C wastes generatedas aresultof the activitiesof the Department of Energy at the WestValley DemonstrationProjectas mandated by the United StatesCongress under the West Valley DemonstrationProjectAct.4. The parties hereby agree that the closure EnvironmentalImpact Statement process -- includingthe scoping process -- shallbeginno later than 1988 and that this process shall continuewithoutundue delay and in an orderlyfashion consistentwithapplicablelaw, the objectivesof the West Valley DemonstrationProject,availableresourcesand mindful of the proceduralprocesses(includingpublicinput) needed to complete theaforesaidEnvironmentalImpact Statement.The defendantagrees toprovidea six (6) month public comment period for the draft EIS.5. Pending such EnvironmentalImpact Statement,theplaintiffswithdrawand waive any objectionor claim concerningimmobilizationof the Class B/C wastes in a cement form consistentwith the applicableNuclear RegulatoryCommission "TechnicalPositionon Waste Form, May 1983, Rev. g".
Page 6
6.The plaintiffswithdraw and waive any objectionor claimconcerningthe placement of the solidifiedClass B/C wastes in the'RTS Drum Cell"already under constructionat the West ValleyDemonstrationProjectpending a determinationof the disposalofthese solidifiedClass B/C wastes as a resultof the EnvironmentalXmpact Statement.The Class A and Class B/C wastes shall beretrievablyand temporarilystored pending the EIS or in the caseof Class A wastes untilfulfillmentof the alternativedisposalprovisionsunder paragraph3(a), supra.7. The partiesagree that for considerationof any on-sitedisposal,the defendantin the MS shall evaluateerosion impactsand erosion controlimpacts and the need for erosion controlmeasures.8.While this agreement will not in and of itselfsubjectthe Departmentof Energy to formal NRC procedures,nor to actionsrequiredby law for licensed activities,it is hereby agreed thatevery good-faitheffortshall be made to evaluatethe site and thedesign(s)relativeto the provisionsof 10 C.P.R. S61.50 ands61.51.Similarly,if the Class B/C waste form does not satisfyor meet otherwiseapplicableNRC regulationsand guidelinesat thetime of the draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement,the defendantagrees that the scope of the EnvironmentalImpact Statement shall
Page 7
evaluatereasonable additionalsite suitabilityand disposalfacilitydesign safeguardsto provide reasonable assurance thatexposuresto humans are within regulatorylimits and guidelinesestablishedby the NRC.9. The defendantagreesto hold and undertake meetings on aquarterlybasis at a locationat or near the West ValleyDemonstrationProject site to which members of the localgeographical,educational,scientificand politicalcommunities--includingplaintiffs-- shall be invited,SOthat the defendantcan advise such participantsof the statusof the EnvironmentalImpact Statement process includingcurrent resultsand in order toreceive public comment. The meetings shall commence duringorpribr to the EIS scoping process.10. The defendant agrees to make availableto the plaintiffsat the West Valley DemonstrationProject Public Reading Room forpublicinspectionupon reasonablenotice,at reasonablehours andwithouta search charge, those documents requested with reasonablespecificitywhich are reasonablyrelated to the preparationof theEIS for the West Valley DemonstrationProject includingbackgroundinformationwhich would be availableunder a Freedom ofInformationAct requestto the Department of Energy in accordancewith the provisionsof that Act.Should any person wish to have
Page 8
copies, they may have such at nominal charges providedfor underthe Freedom of InformationAct.11. The defendantagrees to expeditiouslyseek and abide bya determinationor prescriptionprovided for under the West ValleyDemonstrationProject Act from the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission(NRC) as to whether waste material(other than high-levelwaste)intended for disposalby the Department of Energy in conjunctionwith the West Valley DemonstrationProjectwhich waste materialcontains elements having an atomic number greater than 92 inconcentrationsgreaterthan ten (10) nanocuriesper gram but lessthan or equal to 100 nanocuriesper gram, are transuranicwastesor low level wastes within the meaning of the West ValleyDemonstrationProject Act, Public Law 96-368 for disposalat theCenter.For disposalat locationsother than the Center, suchdisposal will be in accordance with applicablelaw.Thisdeterminationor prescriptionshall be binding upon all partiesexcept that plaintiffsreserve their right to seek judicialreviewof such determinationor prescriptionof the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to the extent that such determinationor prescriptionis arbitraryand capricious,an abuse of discretionor otherwisereviewableas not in accordance with the-law.12. The partiesagree that this agreement shall fully andfinallysettle all the claims set forth in the Complaint and shall
Page 9
be binding upon the plaintiffsfor themselves,their successors orassignsand shall release the defendant of liabilityfor all thoseclaims set forth in the Complaint.However, such release isconditionedupon compliancewith the terms of this agreement.Additionally,it is expresslyacknowledgedthat this agreement isdesigned to ensure that an EIS process is undertakenin accordancewith the terms of this agreement and consistentwith applicablelaw. However, the plaintiffsreserve all their rights tochallengethe contentsof any EIS under applicablelaw once theEIS process is completed.ROGER P. WILLIAMSAssisyant Uni

Ceci est la version HTML du fichier https://www.wv.doe.gov/Documents/DOE_SNI_MOU.pdf.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTBETWEEN THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANSAND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYThis Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the Seneca Nation ofIndians and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide for notification to the SenecaNation in advance of any shipments of West Valley spent nuclear fuel and high level waste andForeign Research Reactor spent fuel (hereafter referred to as “spent nuclear fuel and high levelwaste”) across Seneca Nation lands and to provide for the safe and secure transportation of suchmaterial, including the development of culturally sensitive risk management strategies andemergency planning and response, in coordination with the Seneca Nation.RecitalsWHEREAS the Seneca Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe with sovereign governmentalauthority over its lands, including over activities affecting the health or welfare of theSeneca Nation; andWHEREAS the DOE has an American Indian Policy to ensure an effective implementation of agovernment to government relationship with tribal governments, including fuhillment oftrust obligations and equal protection measures arising from DOE actions which maypotentially impact American Indian traditional, cultural and religious values and practices,natural resources, treaty and other federally recognized and reserved rights; andWHEREAS the DOE is considering the shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste fromits West Valley Demonstration Project across Seneca Nation land en route to storage atthe Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory or disposition at a geologicrepository; andWHEREAS the DOE is also considering the shipment of spent nuclear fuel from research reactorsin Canada across Seneca Nation land en route to the DOE Savannah River Site; andWHEREAS the DOE may consider shipping other radioactive material across Seneca Nation landin the future; andWHEREAS the Seneca Nation and the DOE desire to work together to ensure the safe andsecure transportation of such spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, with advancenotification to the Seneca Nation, through the Nation’s President and Treasurer, of anysuch shipments;Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following terms and conditions,the Seneca Nation and the DOE agree as follows:Page 1 of 5
Page 2
I.Put-Doses and AuthorityA.Purposes. This Agreement identifies Seneca Nation points of contact. The DOEagrees to notify those contacts in advance of any shipments of spent nuclear fueland high-level waste across Seneca Nation land, in accordance with applicablefederal law, DOE directives, and the provisions set forth herein. The DOE agreesto provide emergency planning and response with regard to such shipments, incooperation and consultation with the Seneca Nation and incompliance withapplicable federal law and the provisions set forth herein; and establishes agovernment-to-government relationship between the Seneca Nation and the DOEin the administration and implementation of this Agreement. For purposes of thisAgreement, the term “Seneca Nation land” means all land within the territorialboundaries of the Seneca Nation, including all land within the exterior boundariesof the Allegany, Cattaraugus and Oil Spring Reservations, and all other. land overwhich the Seneca Nation exercises governmental jurisdiction.B.Authority. The DOE is authorized to enter into this Agreement by the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended; Executive Order 13084, May 14, 1998(published May 19, 1998 in 63 Fed. Reg. 27655), Consultation and Coordinationwith 1.ndia.n Tribal Governments; Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994;Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments(published May 4, 1994 in 59 Fed. Reg. 2295 1); and DOE Order 460.2,Transportation and Packaging. The Seneca Nation is authorized to enter into thisAgreement by Resolution of the Seneca Nation Council, attached hereto asAttachment A.II.Specific ResponsibilitiesA.Notification. The Seneca Nation President and Seneca Nation Treasurer arehereby designated the points of contact for all communications from DOEregarding the transportation of spent nuclear tie1 and high-level waste acrossSeneca Nation land. The DOE will ensure that notification will be delivered bymail and postmarked at least 7 days before the beginning of the 7-day periodduring which departure of the shipment is estimated to occur. Notification will besent to the following addresses:President/TreasurerPresident/TreasurerSeneca Nation of IndiansSeneca Nation of IndiansAllegany ReservationCattaraugus ReservationP.O. Box 23 11490 Route 4388 183 Center RoadIrving, NY 14081Salamanca, NY 14779fax: (716) 945-1565fax: (716) 532-6272Such notification shall comply with the applicable provisions of 10 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) parts 71 and 73 and DOE Order 460.2 and, in instances wherePage 2 of 5
Page 3
there is no applicable regulation for tribes, shall comply with the regulations forstates for the applicable type of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste beingtransported, codified in 10 CFR 71.97, 73.37(f), and DOE Order 460.2. Inaddition, DOE commits in this Agreement to contact the President and theTreasurer by telephone at 716-945b 1790 (Allegany) and 7 16-532-4900(Cattaraugus) as soon as practical after the DOE plans to ship spent nuclear fueland high-level waste across Seneca Nation land, even if such plans are notf%alized, and to continue to provide the President and Treasurer with updatesregarding such shipment. The DOE also shall contact the President and theTreasurer by telephone at least 5 days before any such shipment takes place.B.Protection Against Unauthorized Disclosure. The Seneca Nation commits thatinformation provided to the President and Treasurer pursuant to paragraph Aabove shah be protected against unauthorized disclosure until at least ten daysafter a shipment has entered Seneca Nation land, provided that the President andTreasurer may disclose information contained in the nottication to emergencyresponse authorities at any time. The information to be protected is thatinformation specified in the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 73 and in DOE Order460.2 and, in instances where there are no applicable regulations for tribes, in theregulations for states for the applicable type of high-level waste being transported,codified in 10 CFR 73.21.c. Emergency Response and MitigationIRemediation. The DOE will provide foremergency response, mitigation and remediation, which shall include both thepersonnel and the equipment necessary to perform such activities, in the event ofany incident or accident involving the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste across Seneca Nation land. The Seneca Nation will provide a tribalmonitor at the incident site to oversee an effective cleanup. The DOE has beenworking with the Seneca Nation to develop culturally sensitive risk managementstrategies and emergency planning to prepare for and implement protective actionswhen responding to incidents and accidents. The DOE shall incorporate suchstrategies into its emergency response plans and actions.D.Information on Route Conditions. The Seneca Nation President and Tretiurerwill be the point of contact for information on weather, highway conditions andany other conditions which might impact a shipment traveling across SenecaNation land. The President and Treasurer will be available to provide informationon such conditions, and also will contact the person identified by the DOE as theDOE’s point of contact whenever the President and Treasurer become aware ofconditions that may impact an impending shipment.E.Other DOE Responsibilities Under Federal Law. The DOE shall remainresponsible for performing its responsibilities under federal law connected withshipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, including but not limited toensuring compliance with requirements for driver qualification, driving rules,Page 3 of 5
Page 4
vehicle and equipment inspections, packaging and labeling, registration, permittingand licensing.III.Other Terms and ConditionsA.B.c.D.E.F.G.H.Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by theSeneca Nation and the DOE.Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party, oruntil superseded by an amendment which explicitly modiGes or replaces thisAgreement.Termination. Either the Seneca Nation or the DOE may terminate thisAgreement without cause by giving at least 30 days written notice to the other.Amendment. This Agreement is intended to be a working *document which maybe modified by the parties by written amendment executed by both the SenecaNation Tribal Council and the DOE. For example, the parties may expand thisAgreement to cover other spent nuclear fuel and waste materials, to provide fortraining of Seneca Nation personnel, and to add additional parties to theAgreement.Cooperation. The Seneca Nation and the DOE shall cooperate fL.l.ly with eachother, consult with and assist each other and act reasonably, in good faith andwithout delay in the performance of all activities hereunder.Dispute Resolution. All disputes under this Agreement shall be resolved, ifpossible, through mutual cooperation between the Seneca Nation and the DOE,provided that where such resolution is not possible, this Agreement may beterminated pursuant to section 1V.C. No action may be taken in any court toenforce this Agreement against the Seneca Nation or the DOE. However, DOEremains liable for compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, andother requirements.Sovereign Immunity. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construedto waive in any way the sovereign immunity of the Seneca Nation, the DOE, orany of their agencies or instrumentalities.Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, such holding shallnot invalidate any other nrovision hereof.Page 4 of 5
Page 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Seneca Nation and the DOE have caused this Agreementto be executed and approved.Dr. Carolyn H!b.ntoon, Assistant SecretaryOffice of Environmental ManagementU.S. Department of EnergyDate: 7~ 3$2@00Gregory P. Rudy, MbagerSavannah River Operations OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyElizabetktowes, Acting DirectorWest Valley Demonstration ProjectU.S. Department of EnergyDuane J. Ray, PresidentSeneca Nation of IndiansDate.7 -2 b NO0.Date: 7 -26 -zmDate: ;3 - / .? -U 0Page 5 of 5


This website is administered by ECS under a joint contract with DOE and NYSERDA. ECS manages the content of the website. DOE and NYSERDA are joint owners of the content and have approved all content for publication.
Copyright | Privacy Policy