John Whiting
Kaiser-Hill L.L.C.
John Chapin and Gary Guinn
Rocky Mountain Remediation
Services L.L.C.
ABSTRACT
The Department of Energy (DOE) at Rocky Flats has commenced the actions to close the Site in accordance with the scenario outlined in an aggressive 10-year plan. This action will include the regulatory framework provided by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This paper documents the regulatory documents and process that have been adopted at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) to implement its decommissioning program. Each document is discussed in regards to its contents and its regulatory elements. The Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA), the tri-party agreement, implements the DOE/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance on decommissioning with the State of Colorado involvement. The Facility Disposition Process chronicle the cleanup process of the RFETS from operations to final disposition. The Decommissioning Program Plan (DPP)_ documents how decommissioning is conducted at RFETS. Decommissioning will utilize a Decommissioning Operations Plan (DOP) for high risk projects or the RFCA Standard Operating Protocol (RSOP) for all other buildings. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and administrative records will be included in each project. ARARs are discussed for general knowledge.
HISTORICAL
Rocky Flats, 6,262 acres Site that began operations in 1952. The Plant's primary mission was the production of component parts for nuclear weapons. This mission remained until February 1991 when the Department of Energy (DOE) realign the nations weapons product program (56 CFR 55921) and in February 1992, Rocky Flats mission changed to its current mission. The Site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) September 1989 and is currently aligned with two Operable Units (OUs), Industrial and Buffer Area. The Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA) is the fourth tri-party agreement developed by DOE, EPA, and CDPHE. It is the first plan to specifically identify decommissioning within its scope.
Initially, all decommissioning of surplus federal facilities owned by the DOE were rolled up into several DOE Orders, none that had decommissioning in its title. Early actions were completed as "Maintenance Actions" or "Best Management Plans," which had no definite regulatory process or structure. These sites are now fair game for the State and EPA to require additional cleanup and/or sampling/monitoring for unidentified constituents. With the identification of the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) removal action as a decommissioning process, the DOE will be able to finalize their cleanup efforts and integrate their cleanup plans. "The Policy on Decommissioning Department of Energy Facilities under CERCLA," a joint EPA and DOE memorandum on decommissioning, identifies a boiler plate flow process for decommissioning actions. The framework specifies a graded approach, consistent with 10 CFR 830 and DOE Orders. The Decommissioning Resource Manual is also provided by DOE to assist in the implementation of that framework. Each DOE site will have to complete a site specific document, similar to the Decommissioning Resource Manual, to incorporate state and local requirements, permitting requirements, and Price-Anderson regulations.
Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA)
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) has utilized the above guidances and has through negotiation with EPA Region Eight and CDPHE, developed a process for Site cleanup that includes decommissioning. The provisions of RFCA comprise the legal document that describes the relationships between the Agencies during cleanup. The RFCA provides the regulatory framework, CERCLA removal actions, for achieving the ultimate cleanup of RFETS. This was completed by creating a common vision, 10 year plan, and implementable elements for near-term and intermediate site conditions, found in the preamble to the RFCA. Through this vision several processes, definitions and documentation processes were developed to accelerate cleanup and decommissioning. RFCA specifies which regulator/oversight (EPA, State, or Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board) is the lead regulatory agency (LRA) for each area within RFETS, providing a single oversight and consistency between like buildings.
RFCA also provides a schedule, time table, for the approval process of all regulatory documents and regulators assistance in the scoping phase, document development, and approval process. With this assistance, issues are addressed specifically, cost issues are considered and the path forward is a joint decision creating an accelerated documentation process that gets the worker in the field quicker.
Facility Disposition Process
The Facility Disposition Process is the methodology by which any facility on RFETS transitions from operations to final disposition. This action is accomplished through a seamless process, identified in this oversight document, through three interim steps: Deactivation, Decommissioning, and Remediation. Each process handing off to the next, with minimal duplication of efforts. Deactivation identifies high risk conditions, permitted concerns, and special nuclear material (SNM), and processes these issues to a "safe" condition. The facility is then transferred, through a checklist, to decommissioning for dismantlement, decontamination, and demolition. Once the facility is completed, it is transferred, by a memorandum of understanding (MOU), to remediation for action or inclusion in a Corrective Action Document/Record of Decision (CAD/ROD).
Decommissioning Program Plan (DPP)
The DPP is the CERCLA regulatory document that directs the management of the decommissioning program. This umbrella document addresses generic issues on regulatory ES&H compliance, definitions, risk evaluations, options, technologies, waste management, training, and radiological issues for the approximately 500 buildings to be decommissioned at Rocky Flats. This document includes the management structure, general/regulatory/schedule assumptions, transition elements from deactivation, quality objectives, and process flow for decommissioning. This Plan is implemented through thirteen decommissioning plans on specific elements of Decommissioning: Mobilization, Demolition, Administration, Training, Project Staffing, Data Quality Management, Health and Safety, Environmental, Quality Assurance, Records Management, Characterization, Radiological Survey, Waste Management, and Permits. These plans are executed through the Site's Integrated Work Control Program (IWCP). The DPP is approved once by regulators and the public, utilizing the CERCLA process, and then is a part of each actions administrative record for each project.
Decommissioning Operations Plan (DOP)
The DOP is a subordinate document to the DPP that is created for specific building or facilities that present higher than acceptable risk is during decommissioning. These 6-10 buildings at Rocky Flats are mostly plutonium facilities and for these few buildings a DOP will be created with a 30-45 day public review, to provide additional technical information for that facility. The number of facilities requiring this document is small due to the deactivation that takes place prior to decommissioning and their removal of the majority of the hazards. Most facilities, after deactivation, will be transferred as radiological facilities, downgraded from nuclear category II or category II facilities.
RFCA Standard Operating Protocol (RSOP)
The RFCA recognized the repetitive functions that existed in decommissioning of buildings and addresses the remaining buildings (other than those identified for DOPs) under one regulatory document, RFCA Standard Operation Protocols (RSOP). This document, another subordinate document to the DPP, provides the details to the decommissioning process and specific regulations. Examples of RSOPs are Characterization, Waste Management, and Health and Safety.
Regulatory Issues
The inclusion of regulatory requirements must be accomplished at each level of the CERCLA process, with authority and oversight being well identified. A master list of ARARs specific to decommissioning is included in the DPP. Project specific ARARs are included in the DOPs or the Project Document, when RSOPs are utilized. These requirements are included into each project by utilization of the Rocky Flats Procedures and specific requirements in the IWCP. The IWCP and Site procedures are the methodologies by which all work is accomplished at Rocky Flats.
ARARs
To ensure protection of human health and the environment, and to ensure proper management of remediation waste, the LRA, in conjunction with the supporting regulatory agencies (SRA), is required to identify those promulgated standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that will be met during the implementation of the remedy. The identified promulgated standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations are called ARARs. As defined in the NCP, ARARs are as follows:
Applicable Requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. Only those standards that are identified by a State in a timely manner and that are more stringent than Federal requirements may be applicable. [See 40 CFR 300.5]
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site. Only those State standards that are identified in a timely manner and are more stringent than Federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate. [See 40 CFR 300.5]
When determining the extent to which on-site CERCLA response actions must comply with other environmental and public health laws, one should distinguish between substantive requirements, which may be applicable or relevant and appropriate, and administrative requirements, which are not.
Substantive requirements are those requirements that pertain directly to actions or conditions in the environment. Examples of substantive requirements include quantitative health- or risk-based restrictions upon exposure to types of hazardous substances (e.g., MCLs establishing drinking water standards for particular contaminants), technology-based requirements for actions taken upon hazardous substances (e.g., incinerator standards requiring particular destruction and removal efficiency), and restrictions upon activities in certain special locations (e.g., standards prohibiting certain types of facilities in floodplains).
Administrative requirements are those mechanisms that facilitate the implementation of the substantive requirements of a statute or regulation. Administrative requirements generally include the approval of, or consultation with administrative bodies, consultation, issuance of permits, documentation, reporting, recordkeeping, and enforcement. In general, administrative requirements prescribe methods and procedures by which substantive requirements are made effective for purposes of a particular environmental or public health program. On-site response actions must comply with substantive requirements and not administrative requirements, except as provided in the Interagency Agreement (IAG) dated January 22, 1991.
To-Be-Considered (TBC) Standards
In addition to ARARs, the lead and support agencies may, when appropriate, identify other non-promulgated advisories, criteria, guidance documents, or proposed regulations that are TBC to supplement an ARAR provision for a particular release. TBCs are typically issued by Federal or State governments, are not legally binding, and do not have the status as potential ARARs.
Of particular importance to the RFETS is the inclusion of DOE Orders along with or in lieu of other identified ARARs and TBCs. Since DOE Orders are not promulgated standards, they do not qualify as ARARs under the CERCLA definitions. Nevertheless, DOE Orders, whether promulgated or not, may be contractually enforceable on contractors that operate or manage a DOE facility.
State ARARs
Under the NCP and CERCLA Section 121, remedial actions must comply with ARARs which include State promulgated environmental regulations that are more stringent than Federal environmental requirements and that are identified in a timely manner by the State. The 1988 preamble to the NCP states that the phrase of general applicability is meant to preclude consideration of State requirements promulgated specifically for one or more CERCLA sites as potential ARARs. For a State requirement to be a potential ARAR it must be applicable to all remedial situations described in the requirement, not just CERCLA sites (see 53 FR 51438). The March 8, 1990 preamble to the NCP defines the term "legally enforceable" to mean State regulations issued in accordance with pertinent State procedures and that "contain specific enforcement provisions or [are] otherwise enforceable under State law" (See 55 FR 8746).
In terms of identifying more stringent State requirements as ARARs, Section 121(d)(2)(C) of CERCLA states that "[A] State standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation (including any State siting standard or requirement) which could effectively result in the statewide prohibition of land disposal of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants shall not apply" unless the following conditions are met:
The process of identification of ARARs is described and graphically depicted in Section 1.2.4 of the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final (EPA/540/G- 89/006), August 1988. In general, the identification process involves a two-part evaluation to determine if the promulgated environmental requirement is applicable or, if not applicable, relevant and appropriate.
The first step in this process is to determine if the requirement is applicable. The basic criterion for determining if a requirement is applicable is that it directly and specifically addresses or regulates the hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, action being taken, or other circumstance at the site. To determine if the particular requirement is legally applicable, it is necessary to refer to the terms, definitions, and jurisdictional prerequisites of the statute or regulation. All pertinent jurisdictional prerequisites must be met for the requirement to be applicable. In addition, previous court decisions could also play an important role in determining if a particular requirement is applicable.
If the requirement is not applicable, the second step is to decide if it is both relevant and appropriate. The basic considerations to make this decision are to determine if the requirement 1) regulates or addresses problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site (i.e., relevance), and 2) is appropriate to the circumstances of the release or threatened release such that its use is well suited to the particular site. Determining if requirements are relevant and appropriate is site-specific and must be based on best professional judgement including the characteristics of the remedial action, the hazardous substances present at the site, and the physical circumstances of the site and of the release. The site-specific conditions must be compared to the statutory or regulatory requirements. The EPA further clarifies that requirements determined to be relevant and appropriate do not need to be legally enforceable (see 55 FR 8743).