DOE: "10 Year Plan"

[Marylia Kelley <marylia@igc.org>]

From: marylia@igc.org (Marylia Kelley)

Dear Careerpro folks. I spoke electronically and in person with several of
you regarding the Department of Energy potentially reneging on its cleanup
committment in the ROD at Livermore Lab. I also promised Laura, who is
looking into the issue of the federal government's backsliding on
commitments, that I would post Tri-Valley CAREs' comments on the DOE "Ten
Year Plan." This plan lays the groundwork for the DOE to walk away from
cleanup commitments at Livermore and across the complex. Groups, including
ours, are registering our concerns loud and clear in an attempt to head off
the more regressive aspects of the "Ten Year Plan" process. For relevant
national issues as well as Livermore site details, read on:
September 18, 1996

Alvin Alm
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington D.C. 20585

Dear Assistant Secretary Alm:

Enclosed please find Tri-Valley CAREs comments on the Draft 10-Year Plan by
the Oakland Operations Office of DOE. As you are aware from our
discussions, Tri-Valley CAREs is a community group representing 1,600
families that have specific interests in Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL). We are the recipients of a Technical Assistance Grant
from the US EPA for both Superfund sites at LLNL (i.e., the Main Site and
Site 300). Our Specific Comments are addressed to these two sites. However,
our General Comments address the 10-year planning process as a whole and
are not limited to our specific interests at LLNL. Below are our comments.
General Comments

1. We are very concerned that your Guidance for the 10-Year Plan directs
that each site should assume" optimum regulatory flexibility". We do not
believe that adequate budgetary projections will be made with this
assumption. Its not clear how a site manager could make this assumption,
and how it would provide a realistic projection. As an example, the 10-Year
Plan for the LLNL main site assumes that the future regulators will accept
a 25 parts per billion (ppb) standard for total VOC in the groundwater.
State regulators were not consulted, and at least one has expressed strong
opposition to this concept. For reference, the clean-up standards for
drinking water are now used by all three regulatory agencies involved [US
EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)] are the Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs), which are 5 ppb for TCE. The legally binding Record of
Decision (ROD) for the main site also sets a clean-up standard for total
VOCs at 5 ppb, a fact not mentioned in the 10-Year Plan. If the 10-Year
planning process is used as a device to allow facilities to abrogate their
legal requirements or to walk away leaving 5 times the contamination in the
groundwater than is allowable in their RODs, then its major effect will be
to undermine cleanups rather than promote them.

2. The Guidance for the 10-Year Plan directs that the site plan should be
developed with the assumption of recognition of strong stakeholder values.
One "Principle" in achieving the vision of the 10-year plan is to create a
"collaborative relationship between DOE, regulators and stakeholders".
However, stakeholders were not involved in the development of the draft
plan. We believe that this is a fundamental error, in that a collaborative
relationship can only be created when stakeholders are informed and
involved at the outset of the process. This cannot be emphasized too
strongly.

3. One major problem that we see in the Guidance for the 10-Year Plan stems
from the definition of "complete cleanup". As we read this definition, it
really means "remedy in place". As you are aware, often times the operating
and maintenance costs of significant groundwater treatment systems, which
must be operated for long periods of time, are very expensive. We think
that this definition may be very misleading to the public and to Congress.
We are concerned that there could be a funding backlash in 10 years when
the sites are not "cleaned up". We believe that the definition of "complete
cleanup" should therefore be clarified or changed.

4. The plan for the two sites assume that WIPP opens in 1999, and that all
waste can be disposed of by 2006. We think that this is an optimistic
scenario and believe that the plan should indicate a fall back position.

5. Demolition and decommissioning old reactors and old buildings should be
included in the site plans. There is still an entombed reactor and the
tritium building at the LLNL main site, along with several other buildings
that have been languishing in the D&D chain for years. None are mentioned
in the description of projects at the site. There is potential mortgage
reduction for these buildings.

6. In Attachment 4, p. 29, one of the key assumptions is that there will be
"no discovery of substantial new contamination or additional releases." We
believe that this assumption may lead to substantial shortfalls in future
budgets. In Particular, at LLNL Site 300 this assumption is inappropriate
in that there are ongoing investigations and that all contamination has not
yet been characterized. We are very concerned that this type of assumption
will lead to a budget devoid of resources to characterize the site, and
come up short on clean-up estimates. At the very least, some contingency
should be placed in the 10-year Plan.

Specific Comments
The LLNL Draft 10-Year Plan is a short document with several long
Attachments. Unfortunately, some of the Attachments do not have page
numbers. In the following comments, the page numbers are counted from the
first page of the Attachment, excluding the title page.

1. In the body of the plan, p.8, there is no recognition of tritium wastes.
Tritium wastes are a problem at the main site and Site 300.

2. Referring to Attachment 2, page 1, there are disposal costs for TRU
waste in 1997 and 1998, but it is assumed that WIPP won=EDt open until 1999.
This needs to be explained.

3. Referring to Attachment 2, page 2, under X. Decommissioning, there
should be a budget for post-project completion, surveillance and
maintenance.

4. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 3, re TFD: while we support funding the
proposed Accelerated Cleanup Initiative (ACI), it is conditioned on the
fact that there is sufficient public involvement and no changes to the
standards in the ROD.

5. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 5, re TFF: it is assumed that fuel
hydrocarbons will undergo "active intrinsic biodegradation", thus no
further action is needed. We would like to see the basis for this
assumption.

6. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 12, no timelines are given. We believe
schedules should be worked out with stakeholders and clearly spelled out.

7. Referring to Attachment 4, pp. 21 - 25, the clean-up strategy assumes
that extraction wells near the leading edge of the plumes will be shut down
after 10-15 years, after which the focus will be given to the source areas,
because they contain more finely grained, impermeable materials. This is
the first time we have heard of this plan. Please note that the cleanup
strategy states that hydraulic control of the plume related to TFC and TFF
is not yet achieved. Therefore we believe that the plan is optimistic, if
clean up to the level that is codified in the ROD is to be met.

8. On the same pages, modeling indicates that distal plumes will be cleaned
up to 25 ppb 10 -15 years after buildout, which is expected in 2003, while
source areas are expected to be cleaned up to 25 ppb 23 years after
complete buildout of the treatment systems. This would abrogate the ROD,
and as mentioned in the General Comments, is of great concern to us.

9. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 23, under remediation strategy, the
intention to negotiate cleanup levels that are established by using "risk
management strategies that employ natural attenuation" wherever possible,
has no basis. Our concern is that DOE assumes too much, thereby setting
itself up for a short fall in funds down the road.

10. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 28, under the HE Process area, the plume
may leave the site boundary above MCLs. We are concerned about this, and
would like to see specifics about how to prevent it in the 10-Year Plan. As
currently written, no funds will be allocated to remedy this situation.

11. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 32, the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) does not agree with DOE=EDs interpretation o=
f
California=EDs non-degradation policy. We agree with the CVRWQCB
interpretation of the non-degradation policy. Effectively this means that a
plume must be cleaned up or hydraulically controlled so that it will not
act as a continuing source of pollution. The plan also states that DOE is
requesting variance from CVRWQCB for Bldg. 834. This variance would ask
that contaminants be allowed to be left in place, although this aquifer is
defined as a "potential drinking water source" by the State of California.
We oppose a variance. Further, we note that variances of this sort should
not be confused with actual clean up.

12. Referring to Attachment 4, p. 34, under HE Process area, the plan
states that high explosive compounds "are not likely to require
remediation." This is not our understanding. In fact, the standard that has
been negotiated for explosive compounds is derived from the US EPA Region
IX Preliminary Remediation Goals. The Lab has not even tested for explosive
compounds at this level, so in effect, the site is not characterized.
Again, the wording in the 10-Year Plan may serve to effect under funding of
the project.

13. Referring to Attachment 4, the plan assumes the following : at OAK 21,
TRU waste expected to be generated at a rate of 1 cubic meter per year; at
OAK 22 , p. 4, low level mixed wastes are treated and disposed of in sewer;

at OAK 23, p.7, low-level waste generation rate will continue to be
approximately 215 cubic meters per year; at OAK 24, p. 2, continue the
present practice of burning of HE wastes; and, at OAK 25, p. 3, continue
the practice of "on-site treatment followed by sewering of water". We think
that these assumptions can only be supported if all necessary steps are
taken to integrate waste reduction and pollution prevention plans within
operations. We would support plans by DOE to charge back the costs of waste
management to operations to provide an incentive to reduce waste and
prevent pollution and encourage stakeholder participation in this process.

Sincerely,

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
5720 East Ave. #116
Livermore, CA
Ph: (510) 443-7148
=46x: (510) 443-0177