Michelle S Kaptein and R. Doug Greenwell
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

The Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is an active, operating facility just over 1/3 square miles in size that supports numerous maintenance, construction, and operational activities. The ICPP's current mission is to manage the high-level waste and spent-nuclear fuel presently stored at that facility and received from other INEEL facilities. There are 95 identified Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites within the ICPP. Many of these CERCLA sites, located throughout the ICPP area, contain radionuclide-contaminated soil. To achieve compliant remediation of these soils without impacting the facility's mission necessitated the integration of CERCLA actions with those of Facility Operations. To accomplish this integration, the Environmental Restoration Directorate at the INEEL developed a Contingent Non-Time-Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) to bound a wide range of radionuclide contaminated soil management activities (including facility operations) and support accelerated restoration. The NTCRA approach is consistent with recent guidance from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document, "Expediting Cleanup Through Contingent Removal Actions," March 1997. Key elements of the NTCRA approach include (a) identifying expected site conditions, remediation needs, and potential deviations; (b) evaluating remediation alternatives against expected conditions and deviations; and (c) establishing contingency plans for expected deviations. An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis was developed for the NTCRA which addressed remediation of up to 20,000 cubic yards of radionuclide-contaminated soil from existing storage, plant construction and maintenance, and identified CERCLA sites. Lessons learned from NTCRA implementation include the need for (a) effective identification of applicable or appropriate and relevant regulations (ARARs), (b) accurate and thorough site characterization, and (c) cooperation among all parties involved in the NTCRA.

Environmental Restoration at the INEEL is governed by a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFA/CO) made among the DOE, EPA, and Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. This agreement effectively moved the investigation and cleanup of past releases at the INEEL from a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) process to a CERCLA process. Under the FFA/CO, the INEEL was divided into 10 Waste Area Groups (WAGs) to facilitate environmental remediation efforts. Nine of these WAGs are operating facilities that have missions independent from those of Environmental Restoration.

This paper discusses the challenges faced in supporting a $67M, five year, electrical utility upgrade project that involved excavating 20,000 lineal feet of ductbank entirely through WAG 3 CERCLA sites (see Figure 1). Because the ductbanks were to be installed only three feet below grade, up to 4,500 cubic yards of soil would be excavated that could not be physically returned to the excavation. The amount of this unreturned soil containing radionuclide contamination was unknown, but expected to be significant. Because the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was still in progress, the NTCRA was prepared to incorporate other ICPP soils determined to meet the same removal action objectives into its initial scope. The subsections that follow describe how concepts from DOE/EPA guidance were applied to solve facility specific problems at ICPP.

In order to define the NTCRA scope, bounding conditions were developed that entailed identifying broad categories of ICPP soil requiring management. The following soil categories were included in the scope:

• Soil from existing stockpiles being managed in Radioactive Materials Areas
• Excess soil from the electrical utility upgrade project
• Excess soil from funded projects in the design stage
• Excess soil from both on-going and future maintenance activities
• Soil from CERCLA sites where remediation could be expedited prior to signing a Record of Decision
• Soil from investigation derived wastes.

The expected contaminant of concern uniting these diverse categories of soil was low-level radionuclide contamination. However, some degree of uncertainty existed in both the nature and extent of this contamination; recognizing, that at the INEEL, with such a complex and varied 49 year operational history, it would be possible to detect unexpected hazardous constituents during confirmatory sampling.

The organizational approach used required that Environmental Restoration use EM-40 funds to develop NTCRA documentation and address public comments, and that Facility Operations use EM-60 funds for project implementation and compliance. Close coordination among the various participants was required. The Operable Units (OUs) at WAG 3 were evaluated based on the size of various sites, the location of the release, etc. Risk assessment was used to estimate the likely quantities of remediated soil to include in the NTCRA. Discussions with facility management identified existing soil piles and construction projects that were expected to generate low-level radionuclide contaminated soils.

A difficult aspect of using the NTCRA process to support construction projects was the attempt to conform the NTCRA process to milestones which had been previously established without regard to the CERCLA process.

The chosen remedial alternative for soils included in the NTCRA was on-site disposal at either of two available facilities. This flexibility was retained due to the uncertainties in actual soil contamination. If the waste acceptance criteria of the more cost effective disposal facility could not be met, some or all of the soils could be disposed at the second facility.

In addition to radionuclide contamination, two of the CERCLA sites included in the NTCRA, that were based on planned disturbance by construction, were also thought to potentially contain kerosene and petroleum products from past releases. Waste management options were identified for these sites in the event that analysis revealed the presence of kerosene or related constituents above regulatory limits or cleanup goals that would prevent this soil from being disposed in the identified areas.

In order to account for the possibility that RCRA hazardous waste would be encountered, a contingent ARARs table was developed as an appendix to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis document. One set of ARARs was developed for the expected scenario of low-level radioactivity only. Hazardous waste determinations demonstrating the soil did not contain RCRA listed waste (based on process knowledge) were a prerequisite for inclusion in the NTCRA. However, if analysis determined the presence of RCRA characteristically hazardous constituents, not only would the remedy change, but the ARARs, which had to be used to manage the waste, would also change. The ARARs for the radionuclide-contaminated soils did not include RCRA requirements, with the exception of performing a hazardous waste determination. Air regulations for concentration of particulate matter and emission limits for radionuclides were addressed, as well as stormwater control and disposal facility location standards. The contingent ARARs for hazardous waste listed all of the RCRA regulations pertinent to the removal action. These included the substantive requirements related to hazardous waste container storage requirements, preparedness and prevention, closure and decontamination, containers, waste piles, and land disposal. If soils containing RCRA hazardous waste were encountered, the contingent ARARs would automatically become effective. By negotiating both sets of ARARs with the State and EPA prior to actual removal work, a contingency plan was in place, should it be required.

One of the greatest challenges faced from using this regulatory approach was completing NTCRA documentation on a hard milestone schedule so construction for the electrical utility upgrade project could start as planned. With the intention of fostering good relations between the DOE Idaho Operations Office and the State and EPA, and to limit the number and severity of Agency comments received during the public comment period, a schedule was developed that included State and EPA participation even though the NTCRA is outside of the FFA/CO and as such does not require Agency approval. Additionally, Removal Action Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) require an EPA review per NCP Section 300.415E4iia. The SAP was an integral part of the NTCRA documentation. Throughout the entire NTCRA process, the state and EPA were kept informed and encouraged to review draft documentation along with LMITCO and DOE-ID reviews. As a result of this coordination and open communication between the parties, the draft distributed for public comment included input from the state and EPA. Since an extension to the thirty day public comment period would have caused an unacceptable delay to the planned start of construction of the electrical utility upgrade project, it was imperative that everything possible be done to minimize the possibility of an extension, as well as numerous revisions which would also delay finalization of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis.

One setback experienced by the project team occurred after approximately two months of document preparation when an external decision caused a major schedule delay and descoping effort. Two soil piles and 565 boxes included in the original scope were removed from the NTCRA due to the suspicion that they may contain RCRA listed wastes. Since this issue could not be resolved in a timely manner, and rather than risk the approval of the entire NTCRA, these soils were removed from the NTCRA scope. This descoping caused almost every section of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis to be rewritten and the cost estimate to be revised. This experience illustrates the importance of accurate and thorough site characterization for all sites to be included in a NTCRA. In addition, it can be problematic to attempt an innovative regulatory approach on a tight schedule. Schedule contingency should have been incorporated to account for the many inherent uncertainties.

Another difficulty encountered when Environmental Restoration and Facility Operations cooperated on funding and implementation of the NTCRA was that facility personnel were unfamiliar with CERCLA requirements. Enhanced communications and training in CERCLA requirements as they apply to a particular DOE site are recommended.

The organizational approach used by Environmental Restoration and Facility Operations, i.e., pooling resources so they could use the NTCRA process to solve facility specific problems, has been successful. A key point regarding this cooperation was the demonstration that a NTCRA under CERCLA does not necessarily equate to EM-40 funding. The actual removal was funded by EM-60, which is a fundamental change in the way of doing business at the INEEL. To date, the entire 20,000 lineal feet of electrical ductbank have been successfully excavated, and soils have been sampled, analyzed, and segregated as established in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis document. In this case, the total volume of radionuclide soils excavated was only approximately 15 cubic yards and the contingency was not triggered. However, the lack of adequate characterization data available for these sites necessitated the use of CERCLA framework to prevent halting the project during construction and to assure regulatory compliance was maintained. Several other construction and maintenance projects have been completed within the boundaries of the NTCRA, and soils are being prepared to be transported for disposal. Recent approval has been received to perform a similar NTCRA at the other INEEL WAGs and an analogous approach is planned for that project. This technique would be easily applied to other DOE sites where facility waste issues may be addressed under a CERCLA program with a NTCRA.

BACK