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

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 1 of 22

Exhibit 26-E

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 22

~ational

Environn~enta~ Policy Act

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page August 1989 3 of 22

NEPA

10.0 - NEPA SCOPE OF AUDIT Qverview of NEPA issues Management Structure a. Overall organization b. Training c. Record keeping NEPA compliance planning 4. 5. 6. 7. NEPA/CERCLA NEPAJRCRA and integration Determinationof level of NEPA review required ProceduraJ aspects of NEPA documents Technic~dcontent of NEPA documents

10-!

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

August 1989 Page 4 of 22

NEPA FINDINGS

NEP~JAF-1

Improper Useof Memos-to-Fileand Improper Relianceon the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement Absence NEPA of Determinationfor the Plutonium Recovery Option Verification Exercise Adequacy the RockyFlats Plant Site-Wide of EnvironmentalImpact Statement Inadequate Integration Documentation of NEPNCERCLA

NEPNAF-2 NEPNAF-3 NEPNAF4 NEPNAF-5 NEPA/AF-6

Inadequate Inappropriate UseOf Section D of or DOEsNEPA Guidelines ImproperForwardingof Memos-To-File to Headquarters

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES; NEPA/BMP-1 Lackof Coordinated Site-WideStrategy to Ensure Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act Lack of NEPA/CERCLA Integration for the 881 Hillside Remedial Action Need Expedite NEPA to Determinationsfor the 903 Pad, Mound,and East TrenchesHazardousWastes Burial Sites Remedial Actions and Priodty Remedial A~ons

NEPA/BMP-2 NEPNBMP-3

NOTEWORTHYPR,~CTICE~; NEPAJNP-1 Rockwell NEPA Compliance Committee

I0-3

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit Disc!aline

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

August Page 5 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act (NBPA)

Audit Findlna Number Audit Ftndlno Title ImproperUseof Memos-to-Fileand ImproperRelianceon the Site-Wide EnvironmentalImpact Statement

Audit Findlnc~ and Aoollcabte F~eference A Supercompactor Repa.ckaging and Facility (SRF) is proposedto be constructed end operated at the Rocky Fiats Plant in support of DefenseProgram's overall waste minimizationefforts. Thesignificance of potential environmental impactsassociatedwith the project havenot beenadequatelyaddressed accordance in with the requirementsof the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is estimated that the facility will process 50,000 cubic feet of mixed transuranicwaste eachyear, which is proposed be shipped to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). to Thewastewouldinclude combustibles,usedHigh Efficiency Particulate Air filters, and miscellaneousmetal and glass. A spacehas been identified in Building 778 to house the SRF. A cementbase has been poured and components the supercompactorhave of been ordered from a vendor. On April 4, 1989, DOE AlbuquerqueOperations Office issued a Memorandum-to-File (MTF), basedon their review of an Action Oescription Memorandum (ADM)describing the construction and operation of the SRF, which concluded that the potential environmental impactsassociatedwith the SRF were"clearly insignificant" and required no further NEPA documentation. The NEPA Audit Teamreviewed the SRFADM and determined that it wasnot immediately clear that the SRF operationswouldresult in no significant environmental impacts, e.g., questions remain regarding the potential occurrence a criticality accident. Useof the MTF therefore inappropriate, as is of is reliance on existing NEPA documentation, since operation of the SRFis not addressed in the RockyFiats Plant Site Environmental Impact Statement(DOWELS-0064, 1980). Aoolicable Cltatlon and Re~ulrement~

DOEOrder 5440.1C (6.c.3), DOENEPA Guidelines Section A.3.c.1, and the NEPA Guidance memorandum regarding use of Memos-to-File dated March 25, 1988, state that the MTF "intended for use only in those circumstences is whereit is immediately clear that a proposed action will haveno significant environmental impacts." TheSRF proposed action doesnot fit into a categoryof actions listed in SectionD of the DOE NEPA Guidelines (52 FR 47668-47670,December 1987). 15,

Basedon a review of the ADM the SRF,and in accordance for with the Section A.3(c)(2) of the DOE NEPA Guidelines, an Environmental Assessment (EA) should be prepared for the proposed construction and operation of the SRF,RFO should contact the Office of NEPA Project Assistanceto discussthe scopeof the EA, including the required level of impactanalysis and the possibility of summarizing referencingsections of the Safety and AnalysisReportfor Building 776, if the analyses both pertinent andcurrent. Finally, are

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 6 of 22

the EAshould consider whethersuperccmpaction wouldforeclose other wastetreatment alternatives, particularly thoserelevant to current andpotentiaJ wasteacceptance criteria for the WIPP.

10-6

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006
NE~A/AF-2

Page 7 of 22

August

National Environmental Policy Act Audit Pit, diner Number

Absence a N EPADetermination of for the PlutoniumRecovery Verification OptionExercise Audlt Plndln¢~ and Ao~llcable No record of a NEPA determination could be found for the Plutonium RecoveryOption Verification Exercise (PROVE) a review of the RockyFlats Plant NEPA in records. The PROVE facility in 8uildthg 371 is 90% completeat a cost of approximately$60 million. Thefacility will use full scale plutoniumrecoveryprocessingequipment recover low to plutonium content ashfrom the incinerator in Building 771. It is unclearto the NEPA audit teamto whatextent the PROVE facility constitutes either a continuation of an activity describedin the Rocky Fiats Plant Site Environmental Impact Statement (DO~EIS-006~, 1980) or represents an action that is connected to the proposedPlutonium RecoveryModification Project (PRMP),which, like PROVE. will recover plutonium from residue materials in Building 371. A NEPA determination should havebeen made the PROVE for facility preferably prior to initiation of detailed designbut in anycaseprior to beginning construction. Aoollcable Cltatfon and Reoulrement$

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)regulations (40 CFR 1501.2) and Section A.I. of the DOE NEPA Guidelines require that the DOE integrate the NEPA process at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values and to avoid delays later in the process. DOE Order 4700.1 Attachment II-Part F(3) recommends appropriate NEPA that documentation completedpdor to initiation be of detailed design. Since the PROVE facility appearsto be connectedwith the proposedPRMP with respect to NEPA, should be noted that the PRMP currently the subject of an environmental it is impact statement(EIS) analysis and as such, in accordance with Section 1506.1 of the Councilon Environmental Quality regulations, interim actions related to it mustnot (1) havean adverse environmental impact, or (2) limit the choiceof reasonable alternatives. Recommendatloq~ In accordance with the applicable CEQregulations, DOE Orders, and DOE'sNEPA Guidelines, an Action Description Memorandum is needed (ADM) describing the mission and potential environmentalimpacts associatedwith the PROVE facility, including its potential links to the PRMP. ADM The should be provided to the Office of Environment, Safety and Health for consideration as soon as possible so that a NEPA determination can be made and the appropriate NEPA requirements implemented.

10-7

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 8 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act NE.=A]AP.3 Audit Flndfnq Tltl~ Adequacy the l::locky Flats Plant of Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement

~.udltPtndin~~nd Aooi!cab!e The RockyFiats Plant (RFP) Site Environmental Impact Statement (SIS) 0064), issued in 1980, wasreviewedto determineif a supplemental is required for SIS RFP operations. TheRFP provides a faidy accurate description of the basic mission SIS of the RFP,whichhas not changed significantly sincs 1<380.However, several areas of concern regarding the adequacy the RFPE{S were noted whenconsidering (1) the of basesfor certain assumptions underlying calculations of environmental impacts, (2) the lack of analysis in some impact categories, and(3) the significance of several completed and/or proposed process modifications. Noteworthy areas of concern and/or deficiencies include:

1)

No analysis is presented of potential impacts associated with earthqu~,kes because the RPR essentially assumes SIS that all production facilities would remain intact in the event of an earthquake.This assumption nowgenerally is agreed by experts to be false. The SiS did acknowledge that building design codeshad become morerestrictive after the majority of the key RFPproduction facilltles were built and that a seismological study was being undertakenin conjunction with safe~ studies to determinethe risks associated with seismic eventsat the RFP site. TheSISconcluded stating that "if the findings of the by seismological study results in conclusions significantly different than thosestated in the draft SIS, then DOE suoolement SIS." will this Several studies completedsince the RFPSIS was issued, including a recent report by DOF-'s Office of the Inspector General (IG) titled "Potential Impactand Mitigation of Seismic Eventson Production Facilities at the RockyFiats Plant ([NS-(~-B9-1, January 13, 1989), have concluded that in the event of earthquake several buildings at RFPare vulnerable to heavy damage even or destruction. Although somestructural upgrades have been completed for buildings that are the greatest contributors to risk, the potential for leakage of contaminants from RFP remainsin the event of an earthquake accordingto the IG report. The F_IS commitment revisit the earthquakeanalysis has not been to satisfied in a NEPA document. There is limited discussion, and no quantitative analysis of impacts to groundwater, for either radiological or hazardouschemical contamination, although RFPis now aware of such contamination. Although the RFPEIS identifies metalsandorganicchemicals usedat iqFP, it doesnot considerthe fate of thesepotential pollutants. Sources potential fluxes of contamination the of to groundwater include percolation from settling ponds,contaminated surface water drainages, and rainwater leaching of redioactive end hazardous materials from contaminated soils. Potential impacts from these sourceswerenot addressed in the RFP SIS.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL Augu=t1989

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 9 of 22

3)

Thereis a very limited analysis of hazardous (nonra~iological) air emissions the RF~F,iS. TheEIS specifies quantities of representative c,~emicalsreleased to the air but doesnot calculate concentrations for comparison applicable to standards. After the ~FP EIS was issued, hazardouswastes and the hazardouscomponent of mixed wastes at RFPbecamesubject to regulation under the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RC~A). The potential impact of several P, operations, e.g., wastecharacterization, storage, and processing, should be addressed light of RCRA in requirements. Transuranic(TRU)wasteprocessingfacilities, storage areas, and transportation packagingfa.ciiities have beenmodified and/or constructed since the E~Swas issued. Further, a comparison the quantities of T~Uprojected to be generated of at RFP presented the draft EIS for the Waste as in Isolation Pilot Plant indicates an increasein TRU generationrates relative to those of the RFP EIS.

6)

TheRFPEIS doesnot addressimpacts to RFPworkers although it is current 0OE policy to analyze significant occupational impacts in NEPA documents,to the extent possible. RFP has an ongoing EnvironmentaJ Restoration (ER) Program that has identified several cleanup activities and alternatives under both CERCLA RCRA and (some of which hold the potential for environmental impacts). Most of these environmental impactswerenot identified in Ihe RFP F.IS, and, if so, they were not quantitatively analyzed. Additionally, an updatedRFPsite biological and environmenta~ baseline (i.e,, a record of flora and fauna, and soi~ and groundwater contamination) is being generated in conjunction with the ER program that supersedes that presentedin the RFP F,IS.

8)

Several aspectsof the field of safety analysis anddsk assessment haveevolved substantially and. as a result, may modify conclusionspresentedin the RFP F,IS. (It maybe possible to showthat certain risks wereoverestimated.) Examples changesinclude, newradiation dcsimetry models, revised release fractions associated with accidents, newrisk conversionfactors for hazardous chemicals, and revised probabilities associatedwith the RFP maximum credible accident. TheRFP doesnot discuss RFP'spotential imp~.cts to on-site and surrounding EIS wetlands, although wetlandswerenoted during the NF,PA audit. Environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposedPlutonium RecoveryModification Project (PRMP) must be addressed the appropriate NEPA documentation,and the projects relationship to the RFP EIS, if any, mustbe clarified. Potential impacts on the AFPwastemanagement system due to both the operation of PRMP and the decontamination and decommissioning of equipment in F,uilding 371 preceding PRMP must be analyzed.

11)

NF..PA documentation requirements for the proposed operation of the new Plutonium Recovery Option Verification Exercise in F,uilding 371, and any bearing on the conclusions drawn in the RFPEIS, must be resolved (see NEPA~AF-2).

10-10

NEP~'AF-3

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Citation

Document 195-14
and Reoulremente

Filed 07/27/2006

1989 Page 10 of 22

The Council on Environmental Quali~ (CEQ)regulations for implementing NERA (40 CFR 1502.9(c) specify the circumstances whic,n preparation of a supplemental ;or EIS required, if: (i) Theagency makes substantial changes the proposed in action that are relevamto environmentalconcerns;or (ii) Thereare significant newcircumstances information relevant to environmentalconcernsand bearfng on the proposedaction or its impacts. ~n addition, Section C.2(a)of OOE's NEPA guide~inesstates that "whereit is unclear whether an EIS supplementis required, DOE will prepare an analysis which provides sufficient information to support a determinationwith respect tO the oriteda of 40 CFR 1502.9(¢),(i) and (ii)." Theguidelines go on to say that "Where determines DOE that F.IS supplement not required, DOE is will prepare a brief memorandum explains which the basisfor that determination." Finally, it is importantto consider the usefulnessof the RFP as a generalreference EIS on whichto basecategorical exclusionsin light of the guidance issued by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) on March 25, 1988. In the context of using particular categorica{ exclusionthat relies on actions being "substantially the same as" those in an earlier NEPA document,the memorandum states, that "in order for the assessment the earlier document be "currently valid', the methods analysis (e.g.. in to -f risk assessments) environmentalregulations and standards applied in the earlier and document mustbe essentially the same those applicable today. If the environmental as baseline has changedsince the previous analysis, the prevEousanalysis maynotbe valid."

When measured against the CEQ criteda for determining whena supplemental EIS is required, it could be arguedthat the net effect of the above-mentioned concernswould require preparation of a supplement the RFP to EIS. If a supplement to be prepared, is RFO should discuss the scope of the document with EHto ensure that it adequately implements site-wide NEPA a strategy. Considerationmustbe given as to the usefulness of either combining separating(if it doesnot give rise to illegal segmentation or under NEPA) several of the ongoing and proposedFIFP projects, e.g., the Environmental Restoration Activities, the PRMP, PROVF,, several wastemanagement the and activities pertaining to processingTRU waste. At a minimum, accordancewith the DOE in guidelines, and in light of the RFPEISs commitment revisit the issue of seismic risk, an analysis should be prepared to to determine if a supplementis required. The analysis should be completedas soon as possible and sent to EHfor a determinationon whethera supplement the F~FP is to E~S required. Finally, RFP cautioned is regardingthe useof the categorical exclusionthat relies on the current validity of the RFPEIS as a meansto provide NEPA coverage for newly proposedactions. The NEPA audit team finding number"AF-5" provides additional recommendations discussion regarding use of categorical exclusions and the RFP and EIS.

10-11

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 11 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act Audit Flndlnc~ Number ~.udlt Ffndtno Title A~pdlt Finding and Aoollcabie E~eference DOE Guidanceregarding National Environmental Policy ActJComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation Liabilit'! and Act (NEPNCERCLA) integration has not been adequately conveyed to the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) and, as a result, the integration of the NEPA CERCLA and processes at the AFPhas not been implemented. The general lack of guidance from DOE regarding integration of the NEPA CERCLA and processes makes difficult for RFP developandefficiently implement it to plans for NEPA documentation several high pdorit'y remedialactions, e.g., t~e 881 Hillside Area(see for NEPA/BMP-2), 903 Pad, and the East Trenches. the Aoollcable ~:ttatton and Requirements NEPA/AF-4 InadequateIntegration of NEPA/ CERCLA Oecumentation

DOE Notice 54(~0.4, "Integration of EnvironmentalCompliance Process," establishes Departmentalpolicy to integrate, whenpossible, the requirements of the NEPA and Remedial Investigation~Feasibility Study (RI/FS) processesfor remedial actions under CERCLA. pdmaryinstrument for this is to be the RI/FS process, supplemented,as The needed,to meet the procedural and documantationalrequirements of NEPA. public The review processes of CERCLA NEPA and will be combinedfor RIIFS-NEPA documents whereappropriate. R~~qmmendatlon~ In accordancewith Notice 5400.4, NEPA/CERCLA integration should conform to the following generalguidelines. RFP's existing plans for NEPA documentation for CERCLA actions should be modified to integrate NEPA with the planned CERCLA process. RFPshould consult with the Office of Environment,Safet~ and Health (EH), as necessary, regarding the implementationof the current NEPNCERCLA integration policy, For CERCLA remedial action activities for which it is not clear that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required, a RI/FS-EAdocument should be prepared and submitted to EHfor review and approval prior to the detailed analysis of the screened FS alternatives (i.e., no later than the conclusionof the FSInitial Screening step). This document to include the RI is (or draft RI), thosesections of the draft FSwh{chcan be completed prior to the detailed analysis of alternatives, anda EA-levelanalysis of thosealternatives. If appropriate, EHwill issue a Finding of NoSignificant Impact(FONSI). a FONSI If can not be supported, the subsequent RI/FS process will be integrated with the EIS process to producethe RI/FS-EISdocumentation. (It should be noted that in discussing the timing of RI/FS-EA documents with the FIFPNEPA staff, concernwas expressed that the level of EAanalysis requested in the past by EHis not available at the conclusionof the FSInitial Screening
10-13

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

NEP~/~F-4

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 12 of 22

step. TheRFP staff indicated that conceptional designis required for the level of detailed analysis that has been required. However,EHguidance to the field operations and programs has been that the OQE Notice 54,G0.4. provides sufficient warningthat the needed information should be made avallal~le at this stage of the FSarid that the RI/FS WorkPlan should include plans for obtaining the (nformation. AFPstaff should consult w(th the Office of NEPA Proiect Assistance further guidance clarification of this guidance, necessary.) for and if

3)

For CERCLA removalactions (i,e., a category of CERCLA actMties that generaJly involve a short term responseto a problem, possibly an emergency action Io reduce an immediatedanger or threat to the population or environment), NEPA requirementsshould be integrated with the EngineeringEvaluation/CoatAnalysis (EE/CAs). The EF_./CAs(and e brief supplemental alternatives analysis, appropriate, to meetthe requirementsof NEPA) should be submitted to EHfor determination of whetherto issue a FONSL If it is determined that an EIS-level NEPA review~s required for anycategoryof actions proposed under CERCLA, documentationat requirements of an EIS the are to be included in the FS documentand the integrated draft RI/FS-EIS documentis to submitted to EHfor review and approval. The p.r~3cedura~ requirements of the NEPA process (such as a 45-day public comment E[S period on the draft document) also to be integrated into the RI/FSprocess. are For interim actions taken as removal or remedial actions, the CERCLA documentation(the E~CA,"interim RemediatAction Plan," or R~IFS) should include an appropriate level of NEPA analysis of alternatives and should be submittedto EHfor a NEPA determination.

6)

tn response the field's lack of understanding the NEPA/CERCLA to of integration process, and in light of the manypriority remedial action activities, it is recommended EHissue additional guidanceproviding morespecific details that on implementation the integration policy as soonas possible. of

10-14

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit Dlsctollne

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 13 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act NBPNAF-5

Audit Ftndlna Title Audit Ftndlnc~ and Aoollcabfe Reference

Inadequate Inappropriate Useof or Section O of OOE'sNEPA Guidelines

NERA determinations madeby the Albuquerque Operations Office did not properly reference categories of actions listed in Section O of the DOE NEPA Guidelines. In a review of forty-one NEPA determinations on proposed actions madesince 1986, no reference to the use of Section D was found, although manyof the determinations appeared rely primarily on two categorical exclusions listed in Section D (either to "Actions that are substantially the same other actions for which the environmental as effects havealready beenassessed a NEPA in document ..." or "General plant projects Twenty-sevenof the forty-one proposed actfons were determined to have adequate NEPA documentation basedon the assertion that the actions are "substantially the same as actions previously evaluated in existing NEPA documentation and determinedto be insignificant." The implicit use of this Section D categorical exclusion was rarely accompaniedby required documentation to demonstrate that (1) the actions are substantially the same, the effects weredetermined be cleadyinsignificant, and(3) (2) to the (original) assessmentstill valid. is In some of the Action Descrfption Memoranda(ADMs) that support the NEPA determinations, a general statementwasmade that the 1980RockyFlats Plant site-wide EIS (DOE~EIS-0064) analyseswereapplicable, but the relevant sections of the EIS were not cited, nor werequantitative comparisons providedto supportthe claim. For the more recent NEPA determinations,it is particularly importantto be specific when referencing the RockyFiats Plant EIS in view of the caution expressedby both the President's Council on Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA guidance regarding reliance on NEPA documents that are morethan five years old. Inadequate use of Section D appears to have contributed to inappropriate NEPA determinations certain projects. For example, proposed for the Fluidized BedIncinerator (FBI) Tdal Burn wasoriginally determinedto be adequatelycoveredby a Memo-to-File (MTF), despiteits similarity to a class of actionslisted in SectionD that normallyrequires an EA("DOE actions whichenableor result in engineeringdevelopment activities, i.e., detailed design, development,fabrication, and test of energy systemprototypes"). Similarly, the proposedSupercompactor Repackaging and Facility (SRF), which would process 50,000 cubic feet of transuranic mixed waste annually, was originally determined to be adequately covered by a MTF.The proposedaction has since been determinedby Headquarters require an EA. to The general lack of information and appropriate references in the NEPA determinations raises questions concerning the appropriateness of NEPA determinations similar to those used for the FBI and SRFfor several additional actions reviewed in the NEPA determinationfiles. For example:

10-15

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Action

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 14 of 22

Descrtotton Construc~on a newbuilding to handle of plutonium-contaminated clothing and respirators Action involvesconstructionof a large building, guardpost, and parking Action involvesconstructionof a 99,700squarefoot building Action involves removaland decontaminationof equipment and Reauirements

Plutonium Area Laundry

Consolidated Non-Nuclear Manufacturing Facility PlutoniumAnalytical Laboratory 8-90 ND/SB Program Requirements Aooltcable Citation

DOE NEPA Guidelines (ComplianceWith the National Environmental Policy Act. 52 47622,December 1987), Section A.3 states that if the proposed 15, action is listed in Section D, it should be determinedif the action is categorically excludedfrom NE,=A documentation should be the subject of an EAor EIS. If the action is not listed in or SectionD, it should determined the effects are clearly insignificant and, if so, a MTF be if should be prepared. If the potential environmentalimpacts of the proposed action are unclear, an EA should be prepared to determine whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact if an EISis required. or The Office of Environment,Safety and Health (EH) issued NEPA Guidance related to the use of MTFsand catsgorio~] exclusions in a memorandum dated March 25, 1988. The guidancestates that whenever categorical exclusion which relies on "actions which the are substantially the sameas other actions ... assessedin a NEPA document", is proposedto be used, documentationsimilar to an MTF should be prepared to support the conclusionthat the actions are substantially the same, effects weredetermined the to be clearly insignificant, andthe assessment still valid. Additionally, when is relying on a site-wide EIS as the basis for this categorical exclusion particular note was made regarding subjectivity of this reliance endit was the cautioned that "It is very difficult to apply this categorical exclusionsuccessfully, especially when relying on general, sitewide NEPA documents that are morethan five years old." TheMarch t988 memo 25, further states that if a proposed action doesnot fit clearly into a classof actionslisted in Section andif it fails the test of "clearly insignificant", then D, an ADM should be preparedand submitted to EHfor a determination of the approprfate level of NEPA documentation. Recomrrlendatlons NEPA determinations madeby RFO should explicitly refer to Section D and state whetherthe proposed action is listed there, with specific reference to the applicable analysis in the RockyFlats Plant EIS, if use of this document appropriate (see NEPA is Finding NEPA',AF-3).An item relating to Section D should be incorporated into the EnvironmentaJ Checklist that is used by the RFPNEPA Compliance Committee. Increased coordination betweenF~FPandEHis neededto determine howcategorical exclusions oan be used more effectively for RFPproposed actions. Individuals responsible for making NEPA determinations should consult with EH regarding the
10-16

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

August Page 15 of 221gag

NEPA requirements any I~rol~osal t~at doesnot clearly fit into a categorically for excluded class of ast~ons.NEPA determinations.~ndtheir associatedADMs. all for projectsapl~roved since 1980 shouldbe sentto t~e Gffice of NEPA Project Assistance in EH review. for

10-17

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

NEPAIAF-6 Page August 22 16 of 1989

National Environmental Policy Act NEPA/AF-6 Audit F~ndlno Title Audit PIndlnd ~nd ADollcable NEPA determinations made the field office level were not properly forwarded to at Headquartersfor review. A comparisonof recent NEPA determinations maintained in records at the RockyFlats Plant w{th NEPA determinationson file at DOE Headquarters in the Office of NEPA Project Assistance(EH-25)indicates that approximately of the 50% NEPA determinations made the field office level could not be accounted at for in the Headquarters files. An examinationof the RFPNEPA files found a total of forty-one NEPA determinations with supporting Action Description Memorandums (ADMs)madeon proposed actions since the beginningof 1987. (Note: An additional nineteen ADMS filed at the field were office but were unaccompanied any NEPA by determination. It could not be determined whether these projects were cancelled, postponed or proceeded without a NEPA determination.) Twenty-t~oof the forty-one NEPA determinationsincluded EH-25on the distribution list, while the remainingnineteendid not. Twenty-fourdeterminations were foundin the EH-25 files. It could not be determined fromthe RFP files when and/or if the remainingcopies were sent to EH-25. EH-25 was informed by the Albuquerque Operations Office (ALO) in a memorandum dated May17, 1988, that it wouldbe providing copies of the NEPA determinationsto EH25 on a quarterly basis. AeDIlcabl e Citation and Requirement8 ImproperFor'wardingof Memos-to-File to Headquarters

NEPA Guidance Related to Memoranda-to-File and Categorical Exclusions (EH Memo dated March25, 1988) states that, as specified in DOE Order 5440,1C,8. copy of the documentationfor such determinations is to be sent promptly to the Office of NEPA Project Assistance... "i.e., within two weeks making determination." of the Recommendations The DOEOffice making the NEPAdetermination should send copies of all determinations(e.g., MTFs Categorical Exclusions) to EH-25 and within two weeksof the determination. Furthermore, although there is no requirement to send ADMs EH-25 to (except when the DOEOffice is uncertain about the needed level of ,NEPA documentation), providing this supporting documentationwould greatly improve and facilitate the ability of EHto review the NEPA determinationsand provide feedbackand guidancein a timely manner.

10-19

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 17 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act NERNSMP-1 ~MPFtndlnd Title Lackof a, Coordinated Site-Wide NERA Strategy

1)

The Rocky Fiats Plant lacks a site-wide coordinated strategy to ensure compliancewith the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),which fosters significant confusion regarding overall NEPA requirements at the site-wide, program,and project levels. Thelack of a NEPA strategy at RFP resulted in has questionable determinations regarding the required level of NEPA documentation for a number ongoingand/or proposed of activities (e.g., Site Remediation, the Plutonium RecoveryModification Project, the Plutonium RecoveryOption Verification Exercise, and the Supercompactor Repackaging and Facility). The NEPAaudit team's review of 1980 RFPSite-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adds to the team's concerns regarding the adequacyof NEPA coveragefor RFP(see NEPAJAF-3). It appearsthat one of the major causesof this lack of NEPA understandingand planningis the unavailability of RFP staff that canbe assigned ensure to that the requirements of NEPAare satisfied. For e×ample, the Rockwell NEPA Compliancecommittee(NCC), established in January 1989, is responsible for oversight and review of the NEPA planning and review process, training, oonsultation, and maintenance of the Rockwell's centralized NEPA files. However, none of the NCC membersare able to devote more than a small fraction of their timeto NEPA activities.

3)

Inadequatecommunication coordination, due to both a lack of understanding and of the requirements of NEPA and to a lack of time, was noted amongthose responsible for implementingthe NEPA process at the RFP.Misunderstandings, often resulting in the need for time-consumingand costly revision of NEPA documents,appearto have beencaused, in par;, by conflicting responsesand guidance received from Headquarters,Albuquerque OperationsOffice, and RFP. At the time of the NEPA audit it was not clear whohad the responsibility for making the NEPA decisions at RFP. Neither RFO Rockwellcurrently havecomputerized or systemsto track the status of the NEPAreview process and the status of NEPAdocuments (e.g, environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, categorical exclusions, and Memoranda-to-File). The NEPA audit team understands that computerizeddata base for NEPA under developmentby Rockwell, and the is status of NEPA reviewfor all projects is beingincludedin the "Facilities Project Slatus Summary Report."

Aoollcable

f~MP and Recommendatlon.~

1)

It is a fundamental premiseof NEPA that consideration of environmental imoacts be a part of an agency's decision makingand planning processes. DOE's t~EPA Order 5440.1C as well as DOEOrder 4700.1, "Project Management System" requires NEPA integration .e~ in the planning phases of the Department's activities.
10-21

NeFzA/eM~-I Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL Auguat 1989

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 18 of 22

it is recommended an appropriate team of Headquartersand RFPmanagers that and staff be.establishedto developa site-wide NEPA st~teg3, to be presentedto the Sectetar~ for consideration. NEPA documentation requirementsfor individual projects shouldbe determined basedon this site-wide strategy. Additional RFP staff are necessary/tofacilitate a morecomprehensive interface with on-site functional groups in an ongoingprocess to ensure that DOE policy and procedures regarding implementation of NEPA pa~t of their planning are process.

3)

Theresponsibilities and authorities for implementingvarious elements of the NEPA processat RFP should be clearly delineated, particularly in light of the recent management restructuring within DOE. All personnel charged with implementing the NEPA requirements should be provided with NEPA training and the appropriate wdtten guidancematerials. The Office of NEPA Project Assistance should consider conducting a NEPA training workshop the RFP. at The RFPshould develop and implementa computerizedtracking systemfor the status of all NEPA NEPA-related and documents decisions and the status of and NEPA-review process for all proposed actions,

10-22

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit 0~clolfne

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 19 of 22

Naticnal Environmental Policy Act

BMPFTndlnd 13tie

Lack of NEPNClERCLA Integration for the 881 Hillside AreaRemedial Action

1)

Lack of Integration: NlEPA documentation being prepared for the 881 Hillside Area remedial action has not been properly integrated with CERCLA documentation. particular, a draft lEnvironmentalAssessment In (lEA) prepared for NEPA purposes not integrated with the Remedial was thvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) preparedto satisfy requirementsof CIERCLA. Althoughintegration of NEPA and CERCLA documentation is not mandatorywithin DOLE,it is the Department's policy to do so, if possible, to reduce resources neededto implementboth processesseparately. Environmental Assessment Review: Because separate NEPAdocumentation wasdrafted for the 881 Hillside Area remedial action, it was reviewedby the NlEPA audit team to determine if it provided an adequateNEPA analysis. Tne draft lEA wasfound to contain substantial deficiencies. For example, there is no demonstration that the Ambient Air Quality Standards inhalable particulates for wouldbe met, dsks from wind dispersion of radionuclide contaminated soils has not been evaluatedfor remedial action workers, and there is no assessment of impacts the generalRocky to Fiats Plant population.In addition, there is a lock of descriptive information on the proposedaction and the RFPsite (e.g., on hydrogeology,effectiveness of the proposedaction, administrative controls, mitigative measures, and compliance with ARARs).

3)

Relevance of SubsequentCERCLA Documentation: While conducting the onsite NEPA audit, it wasbroughtto that teams ettantion that since the draft EAwas prepared an interim action has been proposedfor the 881 Hiliside Area to mitigate potential groundwatercontamination. A document referred to as an "interim RemedialAction Plan", which conforms in part to an lEngineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, has been preparedunder ClERCLA addressinterim to action activities. A preliminaryreviewof this document indicates that it contains much the descrfptive information that the EAlacks (e.g., RFP of environmental baseline and hydrogeologicdiscussion). @MP and Recommendations

At~Dllcable

DOlENotice 5400.4, "Integration of EnvironmentaJ Compliance Processes,"established to Department's policy to integrate the requirements of the NlEPAand Remedial thvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) processesfor remedial actions under CBRCLA. The pdmary instrument to satisfy the integration process wasidentified as the RI/FS process. This process is to be supplemented,as needed,to meetthe procedural and documentational requirements of NBPA.NBPA finding numberNlEPAJAF-4 provides a general discussion regarding implementation of DOlENotice 5400.~- (reference NIEPA/AF-4). Basedon the NEPA audit team's review of the draft EA, and in light of the information presentedin the "lntedm Remedial Action Plan," the mostexpedientNIEF'Astrategy for the 881 Hillside Area Remediation would be to redirect efforts toward an integrated
10-23

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 20 of 22

NEPNCERCLA approach. This could be accomplished by supplementing the existing "Interim RemedialAction Plan" with an envircnmen~ analysis basedon Chapters5 and 6 of the draft EA, "EnvironmentalEffects of the Proposed Action" and "Environmental Effects of Alternatives," respectively. These chapters should be revised to addressthe deficiencies outlined above. RFPshould contact t~e Office of NEPA Project Assistance to discussthe details andscope the environmental of an~Jysis,if necessary. The resulting integrated documentwould provide NEPA coverage for the proposed interim action. Additional NEPA analysis will likely be needed before final remediatlon cantake place.

10-24

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 21 of 22

National Environmental Policy Act BMP F~ndlno Number NEP~SMP-3 Needto Expedite NEPA Determinations for the 903F~ad.Mound, and East Trenches HazardousWastes 8udal Sites and Other Remedial Acgons

It is critical that NEPA determinationsfor all CERCLA remedialaction projects be made in a timely manner facilitate effective integration of NEPA to documentation requirements into the CERCLA process (see NEPA Finding NEPA/AF-4). An Action Description Memorandum (ADM) for the "903 Pad, Moundand East Trenches Hazardous Waste Budal Sites Remedial Actions" was prepared and submitted by Rockwell to RFAO in March 1989. The ADM was forwarded to DOE'sAlbuquerque Operations Office for a NEPA determination, which at the time of the NEPA Audit wasstill pending. Thesubject remedialaction hasbeenidentified as a pdodtyaction in the June28, 1989, "Rocky Flats Plant Agreement Principle" betweenDOE the State of Colorado, with interim in and cleanup activities (pursuant to the "903 Pad Groundwater Cleanup"provision of the agreement) scheduledto begin by January 1990. ,~,ppilqebi ~ BMPand Recommendal;10n~

DOE Notice 5400.4 established a Departmental policy to integrate, whenpossible, the documentaticnal and procedural processes of NEPA and CERCLA. Implementation of these processes should begin during a project's eadyplanning stagesto avoid potential programmatic delays. Further, in accordance with NEPA guidanceissued by the Office of Environment,Safety and Health (EH) in a memorandum dated March25, 1988, "If proposed action doesnot fit clearly into a class of actions listed in SectionD of the DOE NEPA guidelines, andif it fails the test of 'clearly insignificant', then an ADM shouldbe prepared and submitted to EH for a determination of the appropriate level of NEPA documentation." Therefore, it is recommended the ADM the 903 Pad remedial that for actions, and any other ADMs pdority remedial actions, be fen,yardedto EHfor NEPA for determinationsas soonas possible. It is particularly important that a timely NEPA strategy be developed the 903 Pad for cleanup activities because, although interim actions that mayinvolve groundwater pump-and-treat activities would not appear to require substantial environmental analysis, potential environmentalimpacts associated with continued remedial actions involving soil disturbanceat the 903 Padmayrequire a moreextensive NEPA analysis. If the scopeof the current ADM the 903 Padactivities doesnet adequatelyaddress for th e potential for further spread of plutonium as a result of soil disturbance during remedial actions at the 903 Pad and the potential for possible cumulative impacts of airborne transport of hazardous materials dudng remedial activities from other proposed remedial sites, this information should be submitted as an addendum the 903 Pad to ADM.

10-25

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit 0t~ctollne

Document 195-14

Filed 07/27/2006
NEPNNpol

Page 22 of 22

NEPAINP-1 August1989

National Environment ~olicy Act

A.udlt Ftndlne Number Audit Ftr~dlnd Title

Rockwetl NEPA Compliance Committee

Noteworthy Practice A Rockwell NEPA ComplianceCommittee(NCC)was formed January 1989 to provide in oversight, guidance, and review for the RFPNEPA documentation requirements. Membership inctude Rockwell Managers designeesfrom the following Groups: or Environmental Management Facilities Project Management Legal Department RCRNCERCLA Programs Safety Analysis A Rockwetl policy documententitled "Rocky Fiats Plant Implementation of Documentation Requirements for the Nationat EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA)"(EM-0800) was prepared. Particular emphasisis given to review and screening of proposed projects. EnvironmentalChecklists (ECS)are nowrequired to be preparedby Project Administrators(PAs) for all proposed projects following Rockwellgeneralstaff and DOERFAO approval of the project. ECsare reviewed by the NCC and an Environmental Checklist ReviewFormis prepare which documents whetheradditional documentation is required (i.e., andADM). Although RFAO not represented on the Rockwell NCC;all major Rockwell NEPA is decisions are subject to the formal DOE review process. Minor NEPA decisions are documented Environmental Checklist reviews. The chair person of the NCChas in agreed to send copies of the completed NEPA Environmental Checklist reviews to RFAO. In addition, a NEPA training program being offered for RFPbuilding managers, is HS&E area engineers, and Facilities Project Management staff for the purposeof presenting the fundamentalrequirements of NEPA to stress the importance of implementing and NEPA during the early planning stagesfor a proposed project. TheNEPA audit team believes that this policy and its proceduresare an outstanding exampleof an approachto implementthe requirements of NEPA an effective and in timely fashion.

10-27