Free Statement of Facts - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 1 of 31

EXHIBIT 26

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 31

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 3 of 31

This document developedto be used as a tool by the Oepartment Energyto was of improvethe environmental program the RockyFlats Plant. Potential problemareas at andrecommended coursesof action to resolve these situations havebeenidentified. Thescope this efforl; specifically excluded of investigationof allegationsincluded the in affidavit usedby the U~-S.Oepartment Justice andU.S. Environmental of Protection Agency secudng searchwarrantfor the Rocky in a Flats Plant. It is not within the scopeof this document provide the readerwith a comprehensive to understanding the nature of the environmental of activities andprograms performed at theplant.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 4 of 31

CONTENTS SECTIONS PREFACE EXECUTIVESUMMARY1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Introduction Air Surface Water Groundwater Waste Management Toxic andChemical Materials Radiation QuaJityAssurance Inactive Waste Sites andReleases

Policy Act 1 0.0 National Environmental APPENDICE S
Ao

EnvironmentalTeam Organization OperationalEvaluationof the Rocky Flats Sewage Treatment Plant Waste StreamCharacterization Evaluation Compilationof Data on VOC Emissions the Atmosphere to FromRockyFlats Plant Action PlanOutline

B. C, D.

F. G. H.

Agreement Principle in Weekly Agendas List of Site Documents Contacts/Interviews

J. K.

Acronyms Abbreviations and RockyFlats Plant Maps Buildings Ust and
V

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006 Page 5 of 31 ~XECUT|VESUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TheEnvironmental Team undertakenaudit and sampling/monitoringactivities to has performan assessment environmental of conditions at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP).The assessment conducted was from June6, throughJuly 21, 1989. Theobjectivesof theseactivities wereto determine: whether not anyimminent or threat exists to public healthor the environment a result of RFP as activities; if RFP operations are being conductedin accordance with applicable environmentalrequirementsand best management practices; andthe current status of previouslyidentified environmental prcblems. In addition, existing environmental management programsat RFPwere evaluated. Weaknesses gaps in the programs or wereidentified and recommendations developed. ACTIONS TAKEN; An environmentalaudit wasperfcrmedand recommendations provided to be used were as a basis for improvements areassuchas: in environmental monitoring site remediation waste management quality assurance sewage treatmentplant operation wastestreamcharacterization environmental impact analysis
A supplemental environmental monitoring program was implemented to better characterize and monitor materials released to the environment from the Plant (e.g., sewage treatment plant infiuentJeffluent, site boundary drainage sediment, outdoor storage pad drainage, ambient air monitoring for organics, stack/vent monitoring for organics). Results of the analyses will be provided in separate reports.

Theaedal surveys previously scheduled for 1991wereperformed determineif the to environmental radioactivity had changedsince 1981 and to provide additional informationon the interaction of groundwater surface water. Resultsof the surveys and will be provided separate in reports. OBSERVATIONS: Nosituations whichposean imminent threat to public health or the environment wereobserved. Implementation of the environmental programslacks coordination and is hinderedby poor communication. lines of authority andresponsibility are The fragmented not clearly defined. A strategy that integrates the existing and management information systemsneedsto be developedand implemented. and
Environmental monitoring programs require improvements to more accurately characterize and monitor plant-related emissions, discharges, and ambient conditions.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Augus~1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 6 of 31

Effective implementationof the site remediationprogram has beenadversely impacted poor communications, by coordination, planningand scheduling. Implementationof an effective waste management programhas beenseverely hinderedby site wastestorageconstraints, conservativewasteclassification practices,anda lack of optionsfor treatment final dispositionof waste. and Thequality andreliability of sample collection, laboratory analyses,and other informationgenerated supportof the environmental in monitoringandrestoration programs not adequate achieve program are to goals. Management maintenance the sewage and of treatment plant (STP) has received low priority resulting in inefficient operationwhichcould create problems in meeting future permit requirements. The1987Waste StreamCharantedzation Study, which is used to support waste management activities (e.g., permitsandwasteclassification), doesnot reflect current wasteprocesses the plant. Thestudy has never beenfully reviewed. at Consequently, internal inconsistencies exist. Thescopeof the study wasnot broadenough serve as an effective wastemanagement to tool.. A comprehensive strategy needs to be developed and implemented for performing activities requiredby the NationaJ Environmental Policy Act.

ES-2

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 7 of 31

~nt~od~ction

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 8 of 31 INTRQOUCT|ON
AUgust 198e

1.0 - iNTRODUCTION OnJune 6, 1989, agents of the U,S. Department Justice and the U.S. Environmental of Protection Agency entered the U,S. Department Energy's RockyFiats Plant (RFP) of execute a searc~ warrant. The search warrant was issued on the basis of an affidavit which alleged possible regulatory and criminal violations of environmentallaw at the plant site. In the processof collecting evidence,the agentsseizedrecordsandobtained numerous environmental samples. OnJune6, in a separatebut parallel effort, the Secretaryof Energy,Admiral James Watkins (U.S. Navy, Retired) mobilized a "Special AssignmentTeam"to provide the Department with an independentevaluation of operations and practices at the Rocky Flats Plant. The Special Assignment Teamwas divided into four groups to perform the various aspects of the evaluation. The four groups were concernedwith 1) Management and Operations,2) Safety, 3)Environment, 4) Legal Matters. This document the report and is of the Environmental Team. Description of the Rocky Flats Plant TheRFP a government-owned, is contractor-operatedfacility that is part of the nationwide nuclear weaponscomplex. The plant has been operated since 1952 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies. The management and operations contractor was DowChemical Company until 1975 whenit was succeeded by Rockwell International. Theprimary mission of the plant is the development production of nuclear weapons and components fabricated from plutonium, uranium, beryllium and stainless steel. The principal operations performedare metal forging, fabrication, assembly and chemical processing. There is heavy emphasison production-related research. The plant's capabilities are uniquein the nuclear weapons production complex. Theplant is located in northern Jefferson Count~,Coloradoabout 16 miles northwestof Denver. Other nearby communitiesinclude Boulder, Arvada, Westminster, Broomfield and Golden. The 364 acre manufacturingcomplex,located in the center of a 6500 acre buffer zone, consists of over 100 buildings with over 2.7 million squarefeet of building space. The RFPhas an annual operating budget of about $480 million including an annual construction budget of about $60 million. It employsapproximately 6000 personsand annually spendsabout $156million with approximately 10,000 vendors. Total capital investmenthas been$757million and the estimatedreplacement cost is $4 billion. The DOE modernization study identified the relocation of the RFP'soperationsas a long term objective. Plant operation is expected to extend over 20 years as transition of the apera~ons a newsite (or sites) is completed. to Puroose of the Assessment of Environmental Conditions The purposeof the assessment environmentaJconditions was to determine: whether of or not any imminent threat exists to public health or the environment a result of RFP as activities; if RFPoperations are being conducted in accordancewith applicable environmental requirementsand best management practices; and the current status of previously identified environmental problems. In addition, existing environmental

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
INTROOUCTiON August1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 9 of 31

management programs at RFPwere evaluated. Weaknesses gaps in the programs or wereidentified and recommendations developed. ScoJ~e of Assessment of Environmental Conditions The scope of the assessment environmental conditions was governedby an action of plan outline (Appendix whichwasdeveloped E) during the first weekof the assignment. The action plan outih~e is consistent with the "Agreement Principle" betweenthe in United States Department Energyand the State of Coloradowhich wasavailable in of draft during the development the action plan outline and which was signed on June of 28, 1989 by Secretary Watkins and GovernorRomer (Appendix F). The outline is also supportive of Secretary Watkins' TenPoint PIan for Environmental Protection and Waste Management announced June27, 1989. Theaction plan outline identified action to on be t~ken in the short term, midterm and long term andidentified generalactions as well as actions related to specific environmental media:surface water, grounc~water, and air soil/sediment. Actions included not only audits and reviews but also initiation of substantial supplementary environmentalmonitoring, surveillance and modeling. Every effort wasmade involve personnelfrom the Environmental to Protection Agency and the ColoradoDepartment Health in planning and observingthe work of the team. of General items includeda determination anyactual or potential threats to public health of or environment, a comprehensive environmental audit, a review of potential environmental exposure pathways, a review of the waste stream characterization program (Appendix C), a review of waste management tracking systems, and verification of quantities of mixedtransuranicandhazardous wastes stored on the site. Actionsrelated to surfacewaterincludedinitiation of additional surfacewatermonitoring, an evaluation of the sewage treatment plant and the lines feeding it, providing support for the issuance of a newNational Pollution Discharge Elimination system(NPOES) permit, identification of potential upgradient,off-site sourcesof surfacewaterpollution anda~ evaluation of the interaction of groundwater surface water. and Actions related to air quality includedverification of the inventory of volatile organic compound (VOC)sources (AppendixD), a modification of the site-specific atmospheric dispersion modelto allow prediction of ambientVOC concentrations,initiation of ambient samplingfor VOC's,conductingstack monitoring at the principle VOC emission points, and expansionof the radiological air monitoring programto include americium-241 as well as plutonium. Actions related to groundwater included review of the existing groundwater monitoring program,identification of potential pollution sources which mayimpact groundwater, review of well construction, identification of seepsand springs, assessment the of interaction of surface water andgroundwater, review andidentification of potential and contamination from sourceshydraulically upgradientfrom the Plant. Actions related to soil and sediment included reviewof existing data, sediment sampling at perimeter surface water infiuent and effluent locations, use of aerial and ground radiological monitoringfor identification of contaminated soil on and aroundthe plant, evaluation of existing protocols for radiological soil sampling, and initiation of a radiolcgical soil monitoringprogram key ~reaswithin the security zone. for

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 10 of 31

Methodoloav The team's work wasaccomplished using a varie~ of resourcesselected on the basis of expertise. The environmental audit was directed by staff from the DOE Headquarters Office of Environmental Audit and conducted with the staff from other DOE elements and contractor personnel experienced in the audit process. Most of the sampling and analysis was conducted by contractors with experience in the OOE Environmental Survey Program.The_aerial survey was conductedby a DOE contractor responsible for that function. Rockwell international was assigned certain tasks, for examplethe expansionof the meterological dispersion modelto include VOC's and determining the feasibility of analyzingthe ambient samples americium well as plutonium. air tor as Oneof the first actions of the environmental teamwasto obtain splits of the samples obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental Investigation Center. These split samples were received, packagedaccording to Department Transportation regulations and shipped to analytical laboratories from of June 10 through June 21. Onehundred and ~,,enty-three samplesof water, sludge, sediment, and soil were obtained. Typically 10 analyses per sampleare being run according to EnvironmentalProtection Agencyprotocols. Thelaboratory results are tentatively scheduled completionby September, for 1989. Additional samples wereobtainedat the initiative of the environmental teamfrom June 22 through June 28 and from July 12 through July 14. Thesesamplesincluded influent and effluent site drainage sedimentsat the buffer zone boundary, sewage treatment plant liquids and sludges, and liquids and sedimentsfrom drainageditches, seeps, and drainagepipes. Forty Five samples weretaken. Typically ten analysesper sample will be performed using Environmental Protsct~onAgenc-~, protocols. Results are expectedto be available by September, 1989. Sampling for ambient volatile organic compounds performed at four stations was according to Environmental Protection Agencymethods. Twosamplers were located near the buffer zoneboundary,one in the predominantlyupwind(NW)direction and one in the predominantlydownwind (SE) direction. Twoother samplerswere located, about 400 yards apart, at the plant fence boundary the general downwind in direction. Eighthour sampleswere collected on June25, June 28, and July 13. An effort wasmade to sample when the wind was blowing in the predominant direction. Appropriate meteorological data were collected and will be used in data evaluation. Colorado Department Health and EnvironmentalProtection Agencypersonnel participated in of the planning process, wereprovidedwith the samplingplan and wereinvited to observe the sampling.Results are expected the end of August, 1989. by Stack samplingfor volatile organic compounds performedat the major sources of was emissionfrom July 11 through July 19. Stacksweresampled Buildings 444, 77~., 460, at 707, and 776/777 during actual or simulated normal operating conditions. Environmental Protection Agencysamplingand analysis protocols werefollowed where possible. Colorado Departmentof Health personnel observedthe sampling and were providedwith duplicate samples. draft report on the stack sampling expected the A is by end of August,1989. A comprehensive review of the sewage treatment plant (STP)wasinitiated. This effort included evaluations of the STP'soverall capacity to meetNPOES permit limitations, the operational efficiency of the STPas currently operated, the sampling and analysis activities relative to STPoperation and NPOES compliance, and the STPeffluent discharge pathway. In conjunction with this effort, a comprehensive sampling and

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 11 of 31

analysis programto characterize Ihe influents and effluents to and from the STPis currently underway. Results of these efforts will be used to supl~ort any recommendations operational changes. Oependingon the sampling and analysis for results, the STP review could continue for an extended period. The draft report on the STP included in Appendix is 8. A comprehensive aerial survey of the RockyFlats Plant wasconducted.A survey using normal and infrared photographyand a multi-spectral scannercarried in a fixed-wing aircraft wasflown from June26 throughJune30. A radiological survey using helicoptermountedgamma-ray spectroscopy equipmentwas flown from July 8 through July 14. Thephotographicand scannerdata will be useful for defining groundwater surface and water interactions, wetlands surveys, and identifying any stressed vegetation. The results of the radiological surveywill be compared the results of a similar 1981survey to to identify anypossible changes the environmental in radioactivity. Preliminary reports of both surveysare expected the endof August, 4989. by The EnvironmentalAudit Team consisted of seven technical specialists managed a by Team Leaderfrom DOE'sOffice of EnvironmentalAudit. Thetechnical specialists were selected on the basis of their expertise and experience in eight major media or regulatory-related technical areas: 1) Air, 2) Radiation, 3) Quality Assurance, Waste 4) Management, Surface Water; 6) Groundwater; inactive WasteSites and Releases; 5) 7) and 8) Toxic and ChemicalMater4als. The Audit Teamwas supported by DOE Special Assistants and other members the Environmental of Team.In addition, there was a six member team auditing site conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The names,audit functions and organizational affiliation of the teammembers providedin Appendix are A. The audit scope was broad, encompassing all media and major applicable environmentalregulations. Environmental programs,activities, and conditions at the RFPwere assessed against the applicable requirements of Federal and Colorado Departmentof Health environmental regulations, DOE orders, RFF-specific permit conditions, and best management practices (BMPs).BMPs were defined using accepted industry practices and the professional judgement the technical specialists. Specific of Federal environmentalregulations consideredduring the audit included: 1) CleanAir Act; 2) CleanWater Act; 3) National EmissionStandardsfor Hazardous Pollutants Air (NESHAP); ResourceConservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA); 5) Toxic Substances 4) Control Act (TSCA);6) SuperfundAmendments Reauthorization Act (SARA); and 7) Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA); and 8) FederalInsecticide, Fungicide,andRodenticideAct (FIFRA);and9) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Formal audit protocols were used as guidance in conducting this assessment.Among the protocols used were: 1) Draft POE RCRA Audit Protocol; 2) NEICMulti-media ComplianceProcedures; 3) U.S. Air Force Environmental ComplianceAssessment and Management Program, GuidanceManual; 4) U.S. EPATSCA Inspection Manual; 5) U.S. DOE Environmental Survey Manual; 6) U.S. EPAMulti-media Compliance Inspection Manual; 7) Draft Multi-media EnvironmentalCompliance Inspection Manual (U.S. GeneralServices Administration; 8) U.S. EPA RCRA Inspection Manual;and 9) U.S. DOE,NEPA Compliance Audit Protocol. Audit activities wereinitiated dudng week June12, ;989, before the learn arrived the of at the RFP.Thepro-arrival activities includedreviewof available documentation allow to the specialists to gain familiadbj with the RFP.preparationof site-specific audit scopes

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 120UCT|QN ~NTRO of 31
AugustlS89

for eachtechnical speciality, and preparation of draft agendas. Theaudit scopesare presented the beginning the individual technical discipline sections. in of On-site audit activities were conductedfrom June 19 through July 14, 1989. June 19 and20 weredevoted respirator fit testing, site health, safety, andsecurity briefings, to site environmental briefings andan audit kick-off meetingto discusswith RFP personnel the on-site audit process, introduce the teammembers site personnel, and asta~lish to procedures coordinatingdaily activities. A copyof the weeklyagendas individual for for technical specialists-is includedin Appendix Theon-site audit activities includedfield G. inspectionsof RFP facilities, prope~es, wastesites, reviewsof site recordsandfiles, and interviews with site personnel, and observationof selected activities. A "~st of Site Documents" "Contacts/Interviews', utilized as references by the Audit Team,are and included in Appendices and 1., respectively Using information gathered from these H sources, the audit teamevaluatedwhetheractivities and conditions at the RFP satisfied applicable environmental orders, regulations, and best management practices; identified potential environmental problems; and maderecommendations for improvement. The Audit Teamalso madenote of site practices, activities, and programs that were consideredto be exceptional and warranteddocumentation purposesof information for transfer to other DOE facilities. Representatives of the Colorado Department Health and the U.S. EPA,RegionVIII of wereinvited to participate in the audit, joining teammembers facility inspectionsand on during personnel interviews. In addition, they were invited to attend daily team debriefings along with representatives of RockwellInternational and the RockyFlats Office. During these meetings,individual teammembers reportedon the day's activities, significant observations potential findings. and Prior t'o leaving the RFPon July 14, 1989, the technical specialists prepareddraft findings for submissionto the Audit Team Leader. During the weeks July 17 and July of 24, 1989, these findings wereincorporated into this report as presentedin Sections 2 through 10. "Acronymsand Abbreviations" used in this assessment are included in AppendixJ. Audit observationshavebeenorganizedin this report within the eight technical areas evaluated, and categorized as Audit Findings, Best Management Practices, or Noteworthy Practices. Thespecific format of the observations varies with the type of category. Theformatsare detailed on the following pages.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL INTROOUCTION
August1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 13 of 31

This section contains the audit findings identified by the audit team. Audit findings are activities or conditions which, in the judgment of the audit team, maynot satisfy applicable environmentalregulations, DOE Orders (including draft orders and internal memoranda, wherereferenced), consent orders, agreementswith regulatory agencies, or permit conditions. These findings maybe indicative of actual or potential regulatory compliance problems-or inadequacies in the site's approach to achieving the performance objectives associatedwith regulatory requirements. The audit findings are presentedby audit discipline. There is no significance to the ordedng the findings within eachaudit discipline. of Each audit finding will be presented the following format: in Audit Discipline Audit Finding Number Environmental mediaand/or statute The sequential number assignedto eachaudit finding within an audit discipline Thetitle of the audit finding to which the finding pertains Description the activity or condition of whichdid not satisfy an applicable environmentalregulation or DOE Order requirement Theregulation or requirementaudited proceeded the appropriate citation by Recommendations include both may immediate actions taken to correct a specific condition observed be to unsatisfactory, and comprehensive, tong-term actions designed address to a broadoategoryof problems the or potential root causes the finding. of

Audit FindingTitle Audit Finding and Applicable References

Applicable Citation and Requirements Recommendations

1.6

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 14 of 31 INTRODUCTION
August1989

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES FINDINGR This section contains the Best Management Practice (BMP) finding identified by the audit team. BMP findings involve activities Dr conditions where,in the judgment the audit of team, BMPs ~ be employed. BMPs derived from regulatory agencyguidance, accepted industry practices, and are professional judgment. BMP findings are generally not indicative of regulatory compliance problems. BMPs typically usedwhenregulations, which are usually minimum are requirementsfor a particular practice or activity, do not apply, go far enough,or exist. Most BMPs complement existing regulations and provide an added degree of protection when prudently employed.Unlike regulations, with which complianceis a must. compliance with BMPs optional. The decision to employ a 8MPis based on professional is judgment, common sense, and available resources. BMP findings are presented audit discipline. Thereis no significance to the ordering by of the findings within eachaudit discipline. EachBMP finding will be presented the following format: in Audit Discipline BMPFinding Number Environmental mediaand/or statute The sequential number assigned to each8MP finding within an audit discipline Thetitle of the BMP finding to whichthe finding pertains Description the activity or condition of to which a BMP could and should be employed Description of the BMP applicable to the findings, rationale for whythe BMP could and should be employed,and specific recommendations implefor mentation.Include as a reference the source from which the BMP was derived.

8MP Finding Title BMPFinding

Applicable BMP and Recommendation

1-7

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
INTROOUCTION August 1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 15 of 31

This section ¢or~taJns descriptionsof practices which,in the judgment the ~udit team, of are noteworthy. Noteworthy practices include practices, activities, or programs which have general al~plication to DOE facilities and are 9o exceptional that they w~'rant documentation the purposes information ¢ansfar among facilities. A practice for of DOE maybe noteworthy becauseof its design or execution. The presence or absenceof noteworthypractice~-at a facility should not be viewedas a measure a facility's of environment performance. Noteworthy practlcas are presentedby audit discipline. Eachnotewor~y practice will be presented the following format: in Audit Discipline NoteworthyPractice (NP) Number/Title NoteworthyPractice Environmental mediaand/or statute A sequentiaJ number assignedto each NPwithin an audit discipline. Each number followedby a descriptive title is Descriptionof the noteworthy practice.

1-8

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 16 of 31

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 17 of 31
August Air 11989

2.0 - AIR SCOPE OF AUDIT 1. Reviewconformance with criteria pollutant requirements(EPAand (3OH) a. b. c.. 2. CE)H aiE-e_miasion permits Sourceemission quantification Ambient-air monitoring

Reviewconformance with CDH regulations regarc~ing volatile organic compounds a. Emission limits b. Disposal by evaporation or spillage c. Degreaser/cleaner requirements d. Storage and transfer requirements e. Storage and transfer-gasoline

3. Reviewuses of volatile organic compounds, locaiJng and correlating major usage points andvents that emit volatile organics to the atmosphere. Reviewconformancewith Federal NESHAP CDH and HazardousAir Pollutant Regulations a. Radionuclides b. Beryllium c. Asbestos

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 18 of 31 Air

August 1989

AIR FINDINGS ~UDIT FINDINGS: AIR/AF-1 AIWAF-2 AIR/AF-3 AIR/AF4 AIWAF-5 Monitoringof Exhaust Ventsfor Beryllium Effluent Air MonitoringProgram Radioactive AmbientAir Monitoring Program Air Pollutant Emission Notices VCCLosses From OASISFeed Ta~ks

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES: AIR/BMP-1 Minimizationof Solvent Use

2-3

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 19 of 31
AIr/AFol August 1989

Audit Dtsclollne.

Air Air/AF-1

&t4dlt Ftndlno Tltle Audlt Ftndln~ end A~ltcable

Monitoringof Exhaust Ventsfor Beryllium

TheRockyFiats Plant (RFP)procedurefor monitoring beryllium emissionsdoes not adhere to the requirements of the National Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAP) the Colorado Air Pollution Control ~nd Regulations. The U.S. EPA has specified an emission standard for beryllium from stationary sources of not morethan 10 gramsper 24-hour period, and a stack samplingrequirementand methodology emissiontesting as pa~t of the for NESHAP. Also, the ColoradoAir Pollution Control Regulationslimit beryllium emissions from machining operations to not more than 10 gramsper 24-hour period. Exhaustvents at the RFPare continuously sampledfor emissionsof particulate beryllium. The standard operating procedure (A-19) being used results in two filters being collected per week eachsamplinglocation. These at filters are composited over a onemonth period, and analyzed beryllium, with for results reported in grams per month and a concentration expressed units of in micrograms per cubic meter. Aoolfcable Citation and Reaulrement8

40 CFR 61.32(a): EmissionStandardfor Beryllium 40 CFR 6t.33(a): Stack SamplingRequirement Section 61.32(a) established an emissionlimitation for beryllium from stationary sourcesof not morethan 10 grams over a 24.-hour period. Section 61.33(a) requires that emissionstests be conductedaccording to Method 104, or if approved the EPA,accordingto Method by 103. Colorado Regulation - III.A.2: Applicability to Machine 8 Shops Colorado Regulation - 111.8.1.a: Emission 8 Standard Beryllium for Section III.A.2 specifies that machineshopsthat process beryllium, beryllium oxide, or any alloy containing morethan 5%beryllium are subject to the emissionstandardfor beryllium, whichis established in SectionIIl.S.l.a at not morethan 10 grams over a 24-hourpedod. Recommendatlone

1)

Supplementthe existing monitoring program by conducting exhaust emission testing (one-time test) to accurately determinethe maximum emissions that will occurin any 24-hourpedod vents serving beryllium at machiningand processing areas as specified in 40 CFR AppendixB, 61, Method104 or ScreeningMethod103, which wouldproduceresults that could be compared the prescribed standards. to

2.5

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
AIr/AF-1 August 1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 20 of 31

Seeka waiver of emissionstesting under 40 CFR 61.13(I). The requirementto conductemissiontesting by Method 104. or Method 103can be waivedby the EPA Administratorif, in the Administrator's judgement, sourceis meetingthe standard. An the application for waiver should be accoml=anied the source by reporting information required in 40 CFR 61.10.

3)

As an aitemate to recommendation seek written approvalof the 2, current emissionstesting methodology from CDH Regulation per 8-111-C4.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006
Air

Page 21 of 31 AIr/AF-2
August 1989

Audlt Ftndlnc~ Numbe~

Air/AF-2 Effluent Air MonitoringProgram

Agdlt F~ndlnc~ and A~oJJ~able Reference Deficiencies in Rocky Fiats Plant%(RFP)effluent air monitoringprogram adversely may affect determination of radioactive materials released to the atmosphere.These deficiencies include: 1) Uncertaintyaboutthe volumethc flaw rate of effluent air in the exhaustduc~.In plutonium exhaust ducts, Eastech vortex shedding flowmeters are used to produce direct read-out of the volumetric air flow throughthe duct; however, a no suitable methodexists for calibrating the Eastechflowmeters over the anticipated operating range. To calibrate the Eastechflowmeters, it wouldbe necessaryto remove spparatus to a test laboratory wherethe duct would the needto be simulated. Theseunits have not been calibrated by the RFPsince their installation in the mid-1970s. Calibration accuracy st the time of installation wasestimatedby the manufacturer -,. 20 percent (A-24). There at are no flow measuring devices located in ducts exhausting uraniumprocessing areas, wherefan velocities and duct dimensionsare used to calculate flow rates. To quantify emissions based on the sample determinations, it is necessary haveaccurate data on the flow rate of the effluent streambeing to exhausted. Short duct runs do not provide for acceptable mixing length requirementsfor locating sampling ports. Samplingprobes are located in the exhaust ducts downstream the final stage of HEPA of filtration to sample the effluent stream prior to dischargeto the atmosphere. duct lengths are not sufficiently long The to allow probe placement in accordance with 40 CFR60, Appendix A, ReferenceMethod1. Sampling not isokinetic (i.e., sampling whichthe linear velocity of the gas is in entering the samplingnozzle is equal to that of the undisturbedgas streamat the samplepoint). The sampling probes are of fixed internal diameter, and sampling is conductedat a constant volume-flowrate of two cubic feet per minute. Therefore, isokinetic samplingis achievedonly if the effluent air velocity in any duct happens matchthe air velocity being drawninto the to samplernozzle. No records have been identified that demonstratethat samplingprobes have been regularly inspected to determineif the nozzle tip is in good physical condition and clean, and to assure that the probe has not suffered damage. Site personnel werenot able to identify the mostrecent inspection date of the probes Calibration stickers are not being properly used.Calibration of the samplers is conducted quarterly (I-A-3G). Stickers on the samplersshowed that calibration had been accomplished during the weekfollowing July 1, 1989. Twosamplers (371-2 and102-3) could not be calibrated, althoughthey wereboth affixed with

2)

2-7

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL AIr/AF-Z
August 1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 22 of 31

signedand datedcalibration stickers. This incorrectly implies that the samplers are in calibration.

6)

Samplerflow calibration requirements are not clearly wdtten. The vacuum gauges used on the particulate samplers in 8uilding 707 are U-tube manometers. calibration stickers and the calibration procedure(RAI~-44) The state that the level of the top of the oil in the manometer recorded the flow be for calibration. This is ambiguous with respect to U-tube type manometers, since eachleg of th~ "U" has a level. Thelevel of the higher leg wasobserved be to consistently approximatelyone-half of the value recorded on the calibration st~cker. This suggeststhat the vacuum adjusted to obtain the desired value was by readthgthe distance between high and low oil legs in the tube. While the the apparent methodused is valid, it aopears to conflict with the procedural instructions and this inconsistency maylead to incorrect adjustmentof the samplerflow rate. There lack of a system identify out-of-serviceinstruments.In I~uilding 707, is to several inoperable tritium monitors were observed. RFPpersonnel reported that these hadbeenremoved from service but they did not have"out-of-service" tags or anysimilar notation.

8)

There are delays in submissionof calibration worksheets to Environmental Management. The calibration worksheets are to be used by the Radiation Monitorto record anydifficulties encountered during calibration or the existence of any systems requiring repair. The worksheets are transmitted to Environmental Management personnel who initiate work orders for system repairs. Accordingto RFP personnel, it mayrequire two to four weeksbefore Environmental Management receives the worksheet because of the time needed the Fladiation Monitor to preparethe document internal mailing for and time (I-FlAD-27). Consequently, repairs of systems maybe unnecessarily delayed. Calibration worksheets not properly completed.A calibration worksheet(Aare 25) for samplers in Buildings 371 and 374. was reviewed: the sheet was not dated as required and one columnon lhe form that requires a yes/no response had a numerical onto. This maybe an indication that calibration personnel maynot fully understand calibration procedures requirements. the or

9)

I0) Thereis no prohibition in the RFP procedures against using data from sampling systems that are out of calibration. This mayresult in the use of inaccurate monitoring data. The actual flow through the sampler cannot be determined with existing equipment. The air-flow rates are checkedand reset twice per weekwhen filters are changed; however,there is no means determinethat the air flow to rate through the samplerwas constant throughout the samplingperiod and the sample collector is not required to record any flow-rate deviations. Thus, it is assumed a constant air flow rate of two cubic feet per minuteoccurredover that the entire period. The RFP has recognizedmanyof the deficiencies in the effluent monitoring program andhas requestedfunds for upgrades the system(FIAD-42). Theproject includes: to 1) Improvedair-flow measurement devices;

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 23 of 31

AIr/AF-2 Augusl 19~9

Improvedsampling probes and associated instrumentation conforming to ANSI N13.1 - 1969; and 3) Improved alarming air monitors.

In addition, RFP personnel havemade other recommendations improve the effluent to monitoring program_._. These [dentitied belowin the Recommendations are section. Ao~llcable CltetloFI ~nd Reaulremente

DOE Order 54~0.1: GeneralRequirements Effluent Monitoring. for 40 CFR Subpart H: National Emission Standardsfor Radionuctide Emissionsfrom 61 Departmentof Energy (DOE)Facilities. Section 61.92 sets an emission standard basedon dose assessments. Section 61.92 requires the determination of radionuctide emissionsand the calculation of doseequivalents basedon the measured emissions. Performanceand Design Criteria for Systemsused in DOE Facilities to Sample and MeasureAi~orne Radionuclide Emissions to comply with 40 CFR61, Subpart H, January 1986, DOE/EH (issued for comment). ~ ~ecommendatlons 1) 2) Install samplingports in exhaustducts in accordance with 40 CFR Appendix 60, A, ReferenceMethod1. Conductmeasurement exhaustedair using newsamplingports to obtain: of Multi-point velocity profile of air flowing through exhaust duct. Temperature air flowing through exhaustduct. of Static pressureof exhaust duct. Moisturecontentof exhaust stream. air 3) Usethe following methodologies from 40 CFR AppendixA: 60, Reference Method Sample velocity traverses for stationary sources. 1, and ReferenceMethod2, Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. Reference Method2A, Direct measurement gas volume through pipes of and small ducts. Note: The RFPhas submitted an Engineering Job Order (A-23) which when implemented, will allow determinations of exhaust flow rates per above recommendations 2. and 3. 1,

4)

Developand implementa programfor periodic inspection of effluent sampling probes to assure that they remain in acceptable physical condition. The RFP hasprepared draft procedure a (A-26) that deals with this issue.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL AIr/AF.2
August 1989 5)

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 24 of 31

Improve effluent s~mpling equipment provide for. to continuous record of sampler flow rate air Integrated flow measurement over sampling pedod Note: The need for these improvements is recognized in a Sample Improvement in the Air Effluent MonitoringCharter(A-27). Plan

6)
7)

Develop and implement progratn of periodic refresher training for radiation a monitoring personnel whoperformeffluent monitoringsystem calibrations, filter change-out, re-set of sampler flow control. and air Revisethe effluent c,'~libration procedures (RAD-4,$) specifically define the to method recording the manometer of readings. Institute "tag-out= procedures out-of-service monitoring equipment for such as the tritium monitors:

9) 10) 11)

Revise proceduresto require "tag-out= of systemsin needof repair, and the immediate notification of the party responsible repair initiation. for Develop guidelines to expedite transfer Environmental Management personnel. of calibration worksheets to

Expedite implementationof the effluent monitoring upgradesalready proposed by RFP(RAD-42),

2-I0

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 25AIr/AFo3 of 31
August 1989

Air Audit Flndlnct Number Air/AF-3 RadioactiveAmbient Monitoring Air Program

A~tdlt Flndtna Title Audit F~ndlna and ADollcable

Thereare deficiencies in the ambientair monitoringprogram radicnuclides. for As a consequence, accuracy of measured the concentrations of plutonium in ambient air are quastional~le. These data are reported monthlyand annually, and are usedin calcula~ngannual radiation doseto the public to confirm dosecalculations that are made basedon radioactive effluent emissiondata. Deficiencies identified by the audit teaminclude:

1)

The present ambient air samplers in the onsite, perimeter, and community samplingnetwork maynot be capable of maintaining constant air flow rates within the 25 to 35 cubic feet per minutespecified in the RFP procedures(A20). An examination of data reported for January 1989 showed that 13 of 33 samplers had operated at averagevolumetric flow rates below the desired range of 25 to 35 cubic feet per minute (A-20). A sampleroperating at a low volumetricflow rate, whichequates a low air-flow velocity, will tend to capture to only small diameterparticles, while another samplerat higher volumetric flow rate andvelocity will capturelarger particles. Thedifferent particle sizes may show different activity levels. Particulates maybe lost to samplerinterior surfaces. The presets: sampler designpresentsa surfacearea inside the samplerthat is 2 to 3 ti .~.as larger than the 8 by 10 inch filter. Particles of dust entedngthe samplercan impact this surfaceand/orsettle beforethey reach filter with the result that particles the maybe lost to the samplercabinet and never counted. Thesampling equipment morethan 15-years-old, and component is parts break down frequently (I-RAD-33). Samplers maynot be properly located. The existing radioactive ambientair monitoringnetworkwasestablished following limited siting criteria whichused a ColoradoState University wind tunnel study (A-21) as a basis; however,the exact locations of these samplers have not been recently documented be to representative for the RockyFlats area. Relocation of the monitors maybe warrantedto reflect morerecent knowledge local meteorologicalconditions, of newfacilities on the RFP, and recent developmentof nearby communities (RAD-42). The RFPdoes not analyze ambient air samples for amedcium-2~.l. For preparing the doseassessments, is assumed it that the americium-2¢1 activity is 20 percent of the alpha-emitting plutonium activity becausethis is the maximum americium-to-plutoniumratio that maybe present in RFPplutonium from the decay plutonium-241. of However, is not clear that this assumption it is valid becausesomeprocesses at the RFPseparate plutonium and americium and the latter maybe released independently of the former. In addition,

2)

3)

2-11

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
AIr/AFt3 August 1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 26 of 31

becauseof chemical dissimilarities, environment. 6)

these elements mayseparate in the

Theambientair monitoring samplesare not analyzedfar uranium. Many the ambientair samples analyzedonly for total long-lived alpha; it of are t~as been assumedby the RFPthat this would be adequate to show any increases of the plutonium-in-air concentration. A recent examinationof air monitoring da-t~ failed to show correlation between any total !ong-lived alpha and plutonium-in-air concentrations (RAD-53).

The RFP has recognized deficiencies described above and recommended improvementsin a Self ImprovementPlan that is included in the Environmental Management Charter, Radionuctide Ambient Air Monitoring Program (A-20), Conceptual DesignReport- Health PhysicsProjects for the Rocky Plats Plant (RAD-42), and in Evaluation of On-site AmbientAir SamplerLong-lived Alpha Data (RAD-53). Aoollcable Citation and Reaulrements

DOE Order No. 5400.1, General EnvironmentalProtection Program. DOE Order No. 5480.1B, Environment,Safety, and Health Programfor Department of EnergyOperations. "Clarification of Applicable Radiation Protection Standardsfor the Public and the Environment,"Memorandum0istribution from JohnTseng, Acting Director, Office of to Environmental Guidanceand Compliance, U. S. Departmentof Energy, November 4, 1987. "Radiation Standards Protection of the Public in the Vicinity of DOE for Facilities," Memorandum Distribution from W. A. Vaughan,Assistant Secretary, Environment, to Safety, andHealth, U. S. Department Energy,August5, 1985. of DOE Order5484.1, Chapter3 (Draft). Thesedocuments establish the requirementsfor environmentalradiation protection programs,including the need to perform dose assessments the requirement that and they be as accurateandas realistic as is feasible. Recom mendatlons

1)

Design and install newsamplers configuredto minimizeinternal surface area to limit particulate losses within the samplers. The conventional high-volume sampler for total suspended particulates as described in 40 CFR50, AppendixA, would provide a better sampler design; however, a new blower design wouldbe required to permit continuousoperation. Incorporatea flow-control system that will maintaina constantair flow rate over the samplingperiod. Sucha systemwouldautomatically adjust the flow rate as the filter load builds up, and at the sametime adjust the flow rate to accommodate changes in atmospheric temperature, baromethcpressure, and line voltage.

2)

2-12

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 27 of 31
Atr/AF-3 August 1989

3)

Replace the total long-lived alpha analysis of ambient air samples with radionuclide specific analyses. Analyzesamples plutonium, americium-24.1, for and ui'anium. Expeditean alr-cllspersion modeling study to verify presentsaJ'npler locations or design a newambientair samplingnetwork.

2-13

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 28 of 31
AIr/AF*4 August 1989

Air Audit Ptndlna Number Air/AF-4 Air Pollutant Emission Notices

~,udlt Ftndlnc~ "l'ltle Audlt Ftndlna alld Aoolfceble Reference

TheRocky Flats Plant (RFP)hasnot filed Air Pollutant Emission Notices(APEN) for potential sources. Over its operating history, the RFPhas applied for and obtained from the ColoradoDepartment Health (CDH) following air emissionpermits: of the Permit No. C-12931 Permit No. C-12932 Incineratorat Building122,for Classified Waste Paper Multiple chamber incinerator at Building 771 for plutonium-contaminated plastic, paper, rubber, andcloth Demonstration-scale pilot-scale and fluidizsd-bedincinerators in Building 776 Landdevelopment 300 acres; ovedot of gradingand associatedgrading of area south and east of RFP Jefferson County in

Permit No. C-13032 Permit No. 87JEO84L

Air Pollutant EmissionNotices (APEN) havebeen provided to CDH only 58 sources, for 50 of which describe potential beryllium sources (I-A-32). CDH indicates that APENs are needed essentially all vents except cafeteria vents and plumbing for vents. It has been estimated by RFPthat APENs neededfor about 4000 vents and tanks (1-Aare 32). Manyof these vents serve areas wheretoxic, hazardous, or odoroussubstances can be emitted. The RFPand the CDH have met and are negotiating required information. Aoollcable Citation and Reqgirerner~ts a schedule to provide the

Colorado Regulation3 - II.A; Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements. A generalrequirement that states that no personshall permit emissionof air pollutants unlessand until an Air Pollutant Emission Notice hasbeen filed with the CDH. Recommendations Developand implementa programto conduct a comprehensive survey of facilities compilethe fnformation necessaryto completethe required APENs. to

The necessaryinformation required for preparation of the APENs be obtained by can conducting a building-by-building survey to locate exhaust vents or stacks, and to identify sources of pollutants being exhausted.Engineeringdrawingsof ventilation systems can assist in the correlation of sourcesof pollutants with emissioncontrol
2-15

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL AIrlAF-4
Auguet 1989

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 29 of 31

systemsand exhaustpoints. Thefollowing information sources can be helpful in this effort:. Information on ducts/plenums potentially beryllium: emitting radionuctides and/or

Environmental ManagementCharter, Air Effluent Monitoring, by M. R. Boss, Rockwell International, Environmental Management, March. t-0, 1989 (Draft). Radionuclide Source Report for Rocky Flats Plant, National Emission Standmd for Radionuclide Emissions from Departmentof Energy (DCE) Facilities (40 CFR SubpartH), by M. R. Boss, RockwellInternational, 61, Environmental Management, December 1988 (Unpublished), Information on chemicaluse areas: Computerized chemical inventory databasefor 1988/89, A. J. Petrocchi, Rockwell International, Industrial Hygiene. Information on volatile organic compound emissions: Compilation of Data on VOC Emissions to the atmospherefrom Rocky Flats Plant, DOE Environmental Audit, June 19 - July 14, 1989(Appendix

D).

2-16

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 30 of 31

AIr/AF-5 August 1989

Audit Dlsclallne Audit FTi3cllnc~ Number

Air Air/AF-5 VOC Losses from OASISFeed Tanks

Audit Findlno and Aoollcable Volatile organic compounds(VOC), including carbon tetrachloride, l,l,1trichloroe~ane, and Freono113, are being lost to the atmosphere from tanks T-13 and %14,at the Organic and Sludge Immobilization System(OASIS)in Building 774 as result of inappropriatetank filling and agitation techniques (I-A-36). Waste oil/solvent mixtures from Buildings 707 and 777 are transferred to these two tanks (about 350gallon capacity each), which serve as feed tanks to OASIS.The waste oil/solvent enters the tanks through fill pipes located about 12 inches from the tank top which exposesa greater surface area for vaporization than would occur with submerged or bottomfill. Thesolvent vapor (VOC) displaced through vent lines to the atmosphere is during tank fill. Additional solvent (VOC)is vented to the atmosphere during air spargingof the tank contents, whichis practiced to preventseparationof the wasteoil andsolvent. Althoughthe stated purpose spargingis to achievemixing, the practice of also accelerates losses of VOC throughvaporization. APPlicable Citation and Requirements Transfer of Volatile OrganicCompounds

ColoradoRegulation7 - Ill.B:

ColoradoRegulation 7 - V: Disposal of Volatile Organic Compounds SectionIlI.B requiresthat all VOCs (exceptpetroleum distillates) transferredto anytank or containerlarger than 56 gallons (212 liters), shall be transferred using submerged bottom filling equipment.Section V prohibits disposal of VOCs evaporationif the by quantity exceeds gallons per day in an ozonenon-attainmentarea. TheRockyFlats 10 Plant is located in an ozonenon-attainment area. Recommendation s 1) 2) Repipetank fill bottom fill. systemfor tanks T-13 and T-14 to provide submerged fill or

Replace spargingwith mechanical air agitation to reducevaporization losses.

2-17

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-9

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 31 of 31

Air/BMPol August 1989

,A, ud t Olsctolln~ BMP Findlna Number

Air AIR/SMP-1 Minimization of Solvent Use

BMP FTndlno Title

Thepotential exists for the RFP further reduceits emissions hydrocarbons the to of to environment.Production operations at the RockyFlats Plant (RFP)presently require the use of large volumesof three halogenated hydrocarbonsfor cleaning oil and grease from machined parts, machinery,and machine chips. In calendar year 1988for example186,816 poundsof carbon tetrachloride, 36,893 poundsof Freon-113, and 47,630 poundsof 1,1,1-trichtoroethane were used (A-l). These substances, when releasedto the atmosphere, considered be harmfulto the protective ozone are Io layer. In addition, carbontetrachloride is likely to be controlled as a hazardous pollutant air under the National Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations becauseit is a suspected human carcinogen. Colorado Departmentof Health (CDH) regulates emissions of these substances under rules controlling releases of volatile organic compounds. The RFPaddressed the need to reduce, or eliminate, the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents in 1986 (A-17) and established a HalogenatedSolvents Task Team about a year later (A-4). Through efforts of this team, several solvent uses the have been eliminated and aqueous-based cleaners have been successfully substituted (A-4 and A-5). A Hazardous Material Procurement Policy has beenput into place to restrict andcontrol the useof thesetypes of materials (A-6). Substitution Freon-TF in place of carb~on tetrachloride has been considered, but would only represent a stop-gap measure (A-17). Several techniquesthat wouldallow continueduse of carbontetra.chloride havebeen considered over the years, including vapor recovery by chilling the saturated gas stream to condense carbon tetrachloride vapor to liquid for recovery (A-17) and the absorption of the carbon tetrachloride vapor on a carbon bed. To date, no suitable substitute for carbontetrachloride has beendeveloped,nor has a systemfor emission control beensuccessfully demonstrated (1-A-38). Ao~licable ~ BMPand Rec0mmen~latton

Continueefforts of Halogenated Solvents Task Team eliminate halogenated to hydrocarbons restricting uses and by substituting aqueous-based by cleaners wherepossible.

2)

Replacepresent carbon tetrachloride hose nozzles in glove boxes with flow restricting nozzles to reduce the rate of solvent usage. Reconsidera vapor recovery systemto condense solvent vapor to liquid to minimize emissions the to the atmosphere. Expand scopeof Halogenated Solvents Task Team addressall solvents. to

3)

2-19