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

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 1 of 41

Exhibit 26-B

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 41

Section

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 3 of 41

5.0 - WASTE MANAGEMENT SCOPE OF AUDIT Reviewconformance RCRA of Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSO)Units with U.S. EPAand CDH hazardouswaste regulations. Reviewconformanceof RCRA units with RCRA TSD Part B Permit applications (hazardous, low-level, TRU mix) and RCRA requirements. Review status of residuet~'eatmentand storage. ReviewWasteStreamCharacterization Study (WSC). Review rationale for preliminary wasteclass designations. Correlateanalytical data with preliminary wastestream classifications. Reviewand update process flow diagramsbasedon inspections. Identify areasfor wasteminimization. Evaluate the adequacy implementationof ~he RCRA and waste characterization program. Reviewconformancestatus of RCRA issues in 1986 ComplianceAgreement.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

wASTEMAN,,&GEMENT Page August1989 4 of 41

WASTE MANAGEMENT FINDINGS

WM/AF-1 WM/AF-2 WM,'AP-3 WM/AF--4, WM/AF-5 WM/AF-6 WM/AF-7 WM/AF-8 WM/AF-g

Building 334 Satellite Accumulation Areas 750 DrumPad L~nd San Storage ContainerLabeling - 90-Day Areas Building 884 Aisle Space MixedWastes Subject to LandDisposal Restrictions StorageProhibitions - Buildings 561and 774, Rasidue,'Waste Issue Classification Hazardous Waste Facility Inspections Mixed Low-LevelWasteSubject to Land Disposal Restriction - Vacuum Filter Sludgeand Pondcrete MixedLow-LevelWasteSubject to Land Disposal Restriction - Saltcrete, Cemented Composite Chips, and Roaster Oxide Deficiencies in TRU and TRU Mixed Waste Characterization

WM/AF-'~ (3

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: WM/SMP-1 WM/BMP-2 WM/BMP-3 WM/BMP-4WM/BMP-5 WM/SMP-6 WM/BMP-7 WMJSMP-8 WM/BMP-9 WM/BMP-10 Management Approachto Environmental Programs WasteMinimizatiOn Program Deficiencies in WasteStreamCharacterization Study (WSC) Pondcrete Saltcrete Solidification/Storage and Deficiencies RCRA Storage Area and Cargo Container Storage Deficiencies- 750end561 Deficiencies at the 561 ContainerStorage PadStaging Area RCRA Part B Oistdbution RegulatedMaterial Procurement Control Hazardous WasteTankOverfill Controls & Alarms Management Assessmentsfor Long RangePlanning 5-3

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL Document 195-11 WAST~ MANAGEMENT
August lg89

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 5 of 41

WM/BMP-11 WM/BMP-12 WM/SMP-13

Management Residue of Landfill Capacity Constraints StandingWaterin Building 664

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit ~l~cloltne

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/AF-I

WM/AF-1 Page 6 of 41

Audit Flndlnd Nurnl~e, ~.udlt Flndln~ Title Audit F}ndlno and A~t~tlcable

E~uilding334 Satellite Accumulation Areas

Storage of containers of hazardouswaste at Building 334 did not conformwith RCRA regulationslimiting quantities of wastein satellite accumulation areasto 55-gallonsand removalof the full drumwithin three days. This condition maybe related to delayed response by WasteOperations to removal requests and difficulties in identifying individuals responsible for drumremoval(I-WM-28,WM-62). Exarnplasof the problems which were observedare: 334 - 1084Satellite Accumulation Are~ One55-gallon DrumSolvent One55-gallon DrumOakite Both drumslabeled hazardous. Buildina 33,~ - ~ Satellite Accumulation Area One55-gallon DrumSolvent One65-gallon DrumWasteCoolant Both drumslabeled hazardous. E~uildin~33~. - 1413Satellite Accumulation Ar~ One55-gallon Drum nonhazardous material (wires) in drumlabeled hazardous Two55-gallon Drums EPtoxic (mercutT)light bulbs of Nondesi_onated (Unofficiat~ Satellite Accumulation Area Five 55-g~dlon drums crushed of fluorescentlight bulbs (EPtoxic for Mercury)and one drumof water coolant. All drumswerelabeled as hazardous had no accumulation but start date. Ao~llcable Citation and Reaulrement~

40 CFR 262.34 allows the accumulation of up to 55-gallons of hazardouswaste in a satellite accumulationarea. However,once the 55ogallons is reachedthe generator must m~rkthe container holding the excessaccumulationwith the date and remove the container within three days. S~orage 90-dayaccumulation in areas is allowed for up to 90-days provided the containers are labeled as hazardouswaste and the date upon whichaccumulation began clearly marked the container. is on

5-5

WM/AF-1 Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL A, uguz~t1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 7 of 41

1) 2) 3)

Remove drumsin excessof the 55-gallon limit from eachof the authorized the satellite accumulation areasto an authorized90-.dayor permittedstoragearea. Remove drumsfrom the unauthorized all satellite accumulation area. Markaccumulation start dateson all of the containersin excess 55-gallons. of Establish a 90-dayarea at Building 334 in accordance with the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) procedures and mark the accumulation start date on each of the containers. A procedure should be established in which all generators responsible for satellite accumulationareas and 90-day areas have current names and phone numbers personsresponsible for samplingand removingdrums. of Training of generators should be improved that generators are moreawareof so satellite accumulation area requirements and the need to obtain 90-day accumulation*area designationswhen storagetime limits in satellite areas are at risk of being exceeded to factors such as processchanges. due Post storage requirementsat eachsatellite accumulationarea (e.g., one drum limit, requirement remove to excess within three days), using large, easyto read, placards. increase the frequencyof internal audits'inspections of the 90-dayaccumulation areas. Quarterly audits are currently being conductedby WasteCertification. The RFP plans to transfer this responsibility to RCRA/CERCLA with inspections/auditsto be conducted at least a monthlybasis (I-RAD-31). on

5-5

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 8 of 41

WM/AF-2 August 1989

Audit Dleclollne ~q~lt Ftndlno Number

Waste Management WM/AF-2 750 DrumPad L~nd 8an Storage (Nonradioactive HazardousWastes)

Audit Ftndlna Title Audit Findlna and Aoo!!cab!e Reference

Nonradioactive hazardous wastes are not being shipped off-site due to the lack of a reasonable upper limit for radioactivity. Shipmentswere suspended 1988 at the in recommendationof an auditor from Ihe Albuquerque Operations Office that no containerswith radioactive counts in excess zero countsper minutebe shipped of (I-WM-33). As a result of the suspension shipmentsof hazardous of waste to off-site commercial treatment/disposalfacilities, containers of wastesubject to the [and ban havebeenin storagefor longer than oneyear. Examples as follows: are Drum Number Date* 87456.2 87429 88584 89231.2 88378 87114 87052 2/24/87 5/8/87 3/29/88 1/5/88 4/20/88 5/16/87 5t2~87 Constituent Toner Waste Coolant Solvent Trichlor/Alcohol Acetone/Chlorinated Solvent Freon TCE

"Dateof accumulation start Thesematerials are not being stored solely for the purposeof facilitating proper treatment, recoveryor disposal, whichis the only purpose whichwastes for subject to the land ban maybe stored longer than one year. Aoollcable Cltatlon and Reaulrem~nt~

40 CFR 268.50 allows the storage by an owner/operator of a treatment, storage o.r disposal facility of land ban wastes for up to one year solely for the purposeof accumulationof such quantities of hazardous wasteas necessaryto facilitate proper recovery, treatmentor disposal. Recommendations

1)

TheRocky Flats Plant (RFP)should establish a practical radioactivity limit, for nonradioactive hazardous wastes. Once the limit is established, the nonradioactive hazardouswastes should be shipped off-site for treatment or recovery.

5-7

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 9 of 41

WMIAF.3 August 1989

Audit Dieciollne Audit ~indtnd NumbeE Audit Ftndln~ Title Audit Pindlnc~ and A~!lcable Reference Deficiencies in labeling of hazardous waste containers were observed [n 90-day accumulationareas. Examples the observeddeficiencies include (I-WM-32,WM-62): of ContainerLabelthg - 90-OayAreas

A drumcontaining hazardous magnesium solids did not have accumulation start date.
Area Buildth~ 447 Room 501

Drum#66331 not have an accumulationstart date. Drum did #66333 the initial accumulation had start date scratched out. g0-OavArea Buildina 865 Drum ~6766had no date or information on tag. The operator stated that the drumhad beenin the accumulation area since April 2, 1989. 90-OavArea Building.707-1409 Drum #69284 lacked an accumulationstart date. Applicable Cltatlon and Requirements

40 CFR states that all containers holding hazardous 634 wastein 90-day accumulation areas musthavethe accumulation start date marked their hazardous on wastelabel. Recommendations

1) 2) 3)

Provide enhanced training to waste generators to reinforce the RCRA labeling requirementsfor 90-clay'areas described in the RockyFiats Plant (RFP)proceduresand in RCRA regulations and limitations. Post the storage and labeling requirementsand limitations in each90-dayarea, using large, easyto read, placards. increasethe frequency internal inspections/audits the satellite accumulation of of areas. Quarterly audits are currently being conductedby WasteCertification. RFPplans to transfer this responsibility to the RCRA/CERCLA Office with inspections/audits to be conducted at least a monthlybasis (I-RAD-32). on

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management

Page ,~,ugust41 10 of 1989

Aqdlt Flndlna .Numbe~ Audit FIndlno Tltle Audit Findlna and Aoollcable Reference

WM/AF-4 Building 884 Aisle Space

Theaisle space the E~uilding 884mixedwastestoragefacility is insufficient to allow in unobstructed movement personnel, fire protection equipment, of etc., in the .=vent of ~ emergency. current aisle spaceis approximatelythe space width of a drum. "Fhis The deficiency wasnoted in an COH inspection of June13-17, 1988, (I-WM-33)and had not beencorrected by July 6, 1989. Thereis a potential for similar conditions I:o occur in other storagefacilities ~,e capacity limits are approached. overcrowding E~,uilding The in 884, and consequent narrowaisle spaceresults from the lack of available spacein other RCRA storagefacilities. A~llcable Citation and Reouirements

40 CFR265.35 requires the maintenanceof sufficient aisle space to allow the unobstructed movement personnel, fire protection equipmentand decontamination, of and fire equipmentand decontaminationequipmentto any area of the facility in an emergency.

1)

Providesufficient aisle space reducingthe inventory in this area andshifting by the plac.=ment the remaining of drums.This will require acquisition of additional storage space. The aisle space should be sufficient to allow a forklift with sidewayforks to move~n the aisle to removeindividual drums, if necessary, without the needto move other drums. Assess future need additional permittedstoragefacilities. the for Increase the frequency of internal inspections/audits of mixed-waste storage areas. Quarterly audits are currently being conductedby WasteCertification. The RockyFlats Plant (RFP) plans to transfer this responsibility to RCRA/ CERCLA inspections/audits to be conductedon at least a monthly basis with RAD-32).

2)

3)

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
~lt Otsctoline

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/AF-8

Page 11 ofM/,O, F.5 W 41
August 1989

MixedWastesSubject to Land DisposalRestrictions Storage Prohibitions - Buildings 861and774. Audit Findino and Aooltcable Drums and tanks containing land disposal restricted wastes have beenin storage for longer than one year. The561 cargo container storage area is usedfor storage of lowlevel mixedwasteoils contaminated with solvents, solvents and organic wastes. Some of the wastes stored in the cargocontainersare subject to land disposal restrictions for solvents effective November 1986, and thus also subject to the one-year storage 8, limitations. Examples such drums of include the following: OnJm Number 88075 88453 87647 85208 88288.3 Date" 9/1/87 3/22,/88 7/3188 5/8/85 12/19/87 Oil Freon Waste Oil Chlorinated Solvent Oil

"Dateof Initial Accumulation Two10,000gallon tanks (T-102, T-103) located in Building 774 contain low-level mixed wastes(containing solvent contaminated oils) subject to land disposal restrictions. Thesewastes wereoriginally destined for treatment in the Fluidized BedIncinerator (FBI). In 1987and eady1988, the RockyPlats Plant (RFP)wasproceeding with plans conducttrial burns and eventually operatethe unit until both DOE regulatory agency and concernsand requirementseffectively put the project on hold. Theselow-level mixed waste storage tanks (T-102 and T-103) located in Building 774 contain solvent contaminated oils. An unspecified amount TRU of mixedwaste in storage at RFP mayalso contain solvents at levels subject to the land disposal restrictions including the one-year storage limitation. TRU-mixed waste containing solvents such as the drummed solidified organics wastefrom the organic and SludgeImmobilization System (OASIS)at Building 774 may havebeenin storagefor longer than oneyear while awaiting the openingof the WIPP Facility. Theseland disposal restricted materials are being stored due to the lack of currently available treatment, recovery or acceptable disposal alternatives. There are no commercialfacilities permitted to receive mixed wastes. DOE low-level mixed waste treatment facilities at OakRidge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP) Los Alamos and National Laboratory(LANL)are backlogged several years (I-WM-33),and approval for the WIPP no-migrationpetition for TRU-mixed wasteis pending.

5-13

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WMIAF-5
AUgUSt 1989

Document 195-11
and Reoulrements

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 12 of 41

Aoollcable Citation

40 CFR 268.50 allows the storage (by an owner/operator of a treatment, storage or disposal facili'~y) of land disposal restricted wastesfor up to one year solely for the purposeof accumulation suchquantities of hazardous of wasteas necessary facilitate to proper recovery, treatmentor disposal. Storagedueto lack of proper recovery, treatment or disposal is not addressed.
Recommerldatton~

In coordination with DQE-HQ Office of EnvironmentalGuidanceand Compliance, determine the feasibility of entedng into a compliance agreementwith the appropriate regulatory agency(ies)to ob~napprovalfor the continuedstorage TRUand low-level mixed waste subject to LDRrestrictions until adequate/ suitable treatment, recovery, or disposal can be developed put in place. and

2) 3)

Reviewall processes which generate these types of low-level mixed wastes contaminated with solvents/organics to evaluate options for wasteminimization/ elimination. Pursuethe possibility of shipping low-level mixedwasteto another DOE facilib/ with the capability and capacity to appropriately treat the waste to meet applicable LDRstandards, (e.g., TSCA incinerator at OakRidge, low-level mixed waste incinerator at LANL etc., as well as the WasteExperimental Reduction Facility at the Idaho National EngineeringLaboratory [INEL] currently being evaluated by RFP). Evaluatecost, time and technical feasibility of modifyingthe FBI to satisfy DOE and regulatory requirements and, if found appropriate, makenecessary modificationsand operatethe unit to treat low-level mixed wastes.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit Dlsciollne ~,.gdlt

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Mar~agement WM/AF.6

Page 13 ofWM/~F-6 41
~,ugust 1989

FtndlnQ Number

Audit FlndlnQ T]tle Audit Ftndlno and Aoollcabte

Residue/Waste Clasaiiica~ion

Certain processed materials currently classified as residue are in fact solid waste. [f these wastescontain hazardous materials, they are subject to RCF~A Ireatment, storage, anddisposal regulations. Production activities of the RockyFlats Plant (RFP) create a variety cf processed materials. Many these materials contain sufficient concentrationsof transuranics for of the material to be consideredas economically recoverable or aboveEconomic Discard Limits (EeLs). Those materials with concentrations above EDLsare considered "residues" by DOE stored for future recovery. Materials with concentrations of end transuranics below EDLsare considered wastes by DOE.Residual processedmaterials at RFPare grouped into a series of Item Oescription Codes(IDCs), with Ihe IDC consisting of a particular type of material. The IDCs are usually plant-wide and associated with a process stream. EachIDC containing transuranics has an associated EDL. The EDLis established annually by U.S. DOE hosed on the cost of producing plutoniumand the recovery processcost. Thereare some materials classified by RFP residue that are belowthe EDL. During as the Special Assignment Team Review, the contents of 550 drumsclassified as residue were reviewed. Fourteen (14) drums(lOG 414) were found to contain waste below EDL but wereclassified as residues because they require processingbefore they could be shippedto a disposal facility, In addition to plutonium,these drums contain calcium which mayqualify it as a RCRA-mixed waste, The reactive nature of calcium requires that the material be oxidizedto conform with wastesite ecceptance criteria. Eighteen (18) drums (IDCs 330, 336, 442, 480), which are below EDLare stored residue becausethey contain too much enriched uraniumto allow the packages be to shipped as exemptfrom fissile shipping requirements. Theenriched uraniumcontents needto be reducedto below15 gramsper drumto satisfy the exemption limit. Thereis currently no action beingtakent5 preparethis material for wastedisposal. Twelve(12) drums(lOGs484, 485, 486, 487, 489), which are below EDLare stored residue because they contain classified parts whose identification needsto be destroyed for security reasons before they can be discarded as waste. Although a process for = destroying the identification of these drums beenapproved RFi security, these has by drumshavenot been preparedfor disposal. Twenty(20) drumsbelowthe EDLrequiring relatively simple or no further processing wereidentified during the samereview. Theseinclude IDCs440, 336, 655, 441, 442, 368, 480,301,331, and 330. Theabovementioned categories of residues are arguably solid wastesand subiect to RCRA regulations if hazardous. Currently, they are being stored in an unpermittedarea which is not in conformance with RCRA requirements.

S-lS

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
WM/~,F.9 ~,ugust1999 A~olfcable

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 14 of 41

Citation

and Reouirements

40 CFR 261.2 states that solid wasteis any discardedmatedalthat is not excluded. 40 CFR 261.3states thet a solid wasteis a hazardous wasteif it is not excludedandit meets of the Following any criteria: 1) exhibits characteristicsof hazardous waste,2) it a listed waste,or 3) it is a mixturecf a solid waste a listed waste. and DOE5820.2A states that any matedal that is knownto be or suspected of being contaminated with transuraniumradionuclidas shaJl be evaluatedas soonas possible in the generating process, and determinedto be either recoverable material, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed waste, or nonradioactive trash in order to avoid commingling the vadousmatedal streams. Recommerldatlorts

1)

RFPshould review residue materials and determinewhich drumsof residue are classified as residue only for the purposeof processinginto a suitable waste form. Thesedrumsof matedaJ should be evaluated for hazardous characteristics and, if hazardous,removed appropriate RCF~A to interim status storage areas. This may require revision of Part A andPart 8 Applications. The category of residues belowEDLsand requiring no further processingshould also be evaluated to determine which drumsare hazardousand. if hazardous. removed appropriate RCRA to permitted storage areas. Revisions of Part A and Part B Applications maybe required.

5-16

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 15 of 41 WM/AFo7
August 1989

Audit Dtsch311ne

Waste Management WM/AF-7 Hazerdous WasteFacility Inspections

Currentreports do not completelydocument status of deficiencies identified during the inspections. It is impossible to determine if each tank in Building 374. has been inspected daily because the type of form used. The inspection form does not have of separate columnsfor each tank. The form only indicates where problems have been observed. Oncea problemhas been detected, succeeding inspections do not always note that the problem still exists eventhoughit has not beenrepaired. Thedate of the repair is not noted on the inspection form (WM-56).Consequently,inspection forms cannotbe usedto track the condition of the tanks or verify that repairs are beingmade in a timely fashion. All deficiencies are not alwaysnotedon the form. For example, during the audit the level gaugeon Tank231Aoutside of Building 374 wasinoperative. A review of the inspection reports showed that this deficiency wasnot noted in the daily inspections (WM-55). Ap~tlcable Citation and Requirements

40 CFR 265,194 describes those items that must be inspected on a daily and weekly basis for tank systems. 40 CFR 265.15 describes general inspection requirements for RCRA facilities including recording inspections in a logbook and noting the date and nature of any repairs and remedial actions, and requiring the operator to remedy deterioration or malfunctions. Recommendations

1) 2)
3)

Inspection formswhichallow checkoffsfor eachtank (e.g., one form with columns for each tank) should be developed.See attached example form. Recordon the inspection form which tank(s) havea problemeachday until the problem repaired. is Note on the inspection forms, the date on which repairs wasmade.

5-17

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/AF-7
August1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 16 of 41

Attachment Unit Name: Unit Number: Date: T~me: Inspector: Signature:

Yes 1) Overfill/spill control equipment operational 2) Signs of hazardous wasterelease 3) Improper maintenanceof secondary containment 4) Tankvents obstruction 5) Temperature tank outside allowable of range,if applicable 6) Pressure tank outside allowablerange, of if applicable fittings or pipes 7) Leakingor damaged to 8) Damage level sensing devices 9) Cathodic protection, if applicable

No

~

Yes

NO

Comments/Problems:

Repair Date:

Note: Thisform for illustration purposes Specific is only. forms bedesigned appropriate each must ~s for facilit~ and Cank or system,

5-18

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
&udtt Discipline

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 17 of 41
1989

Waste Management WMJAF-8

Audit $~ndlnc~ Title

Mixed Low-Level WasteSubject to Land Oisposal Restriction Vacuum Filter Sludge and Pondcrete

~udlt PTndln~ and Aoo!lcab!e Process knowledge wastecharacterization data indicate that solidified vacuum and filter sludge (by-pass sludge) and pondcretemaybe prohibited from land disposal effective May 1990.This is dueto levels (i.e., ccncentretions the wasteand/orwasteextract) 8, in of restricted waste present which exceedland disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards.

1)

Vacuum filter sludgegenerated solidified st Building 374 is categorizedas a and mixed LLW waste containing solvents and possibly scheduledwastes under the LDRregulations. Available sampling and analysis data indicates that solvent levels in the solidified sludge meetthe LOR treatment standards, however,no data is available on levels of L'DR scheduled waste (i.e., cadmium) the in solidified sludge (WM-10).Basedon process knowledge, the metal cadmium knownto precipitate out as part of the Building 374 liquid waste treatment processandconcentratein the vacuum filter sludge. Pondcreteis the solidified mixture of (waste) sludge from the solar pondsand Portland cement. Pondcrete is categorized as a low-level mixed waste containing solvents under the LDR regulations. Available samplingand analysis data indicates that solvent and cyanide ~total end amenable)levels in the pondcrete meet the LDRTreatment Standards (WM-3and WM-4). However, analytical results of Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity testing indicate levels cadmium(i.e., a scheduled waste) in the pondcrete will exceed the LDR Treatment Standards effective for mixed waste on May8, 1990 (WM-3). The RockyFiats Plant (RFP)correspondence hazardous on constituents of low.level wastecharacterize the hazardous constituent concentrations of pondcreteas 42 ppmcadmium based on EPtoxicity test results (versus the potentially more stringent TCLP test stipulated under the LDRregulations) (WM-11).The TreatmentStandardfor cadmium concentrations in wasteextract is 0.066 ppm for EPAWaste Codes F006, F007, F008, and F009 (40 CFR 268.41a). (F006 consists of wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations; F007, F008,and F009are spent cyanideplating bath solutions, plating bath sludges, and stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are usedin the process.) The anticipated LDRTreatmentStandardfor cadmium be proposed characteristic wastes(0006) is 1.0 ppm. to for

2)

RFP recognized,andis currently addressing,the needto fully characterizeIow-!evel has mixed waste potentially subject to land disposal prohibition in the Mixed Waste Management and WasteCharacterization Plan being developed/revised as part of Plan the June 28, 1989, Agreementin Principal between DOE and the State of Colorado (WM-12).The WasteCharacterization Plan is to be updatedand revised by September 30, 1989, and development the Mixed WasteManagement is to be completedby of Plan November 30, 1989.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
WMIAF-S

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 18 of 41

Aoollcable

Citation

and Reaulrements

Pursuant to the Hazardousand Solid WasteAmendments 1984, EPARegulations set of forth in 40 CFR Part 268, prohibit the land disposal of restricted hazardous wastes unless the wastesmeettreatment standardspromulgated under Subpart 0 of these regulations, unless a variance, extension, or exemption beengranted. has Recommendatlor~s As part of the WasteCharaztedzationPlan to be updatedand revised by September 30, 1989, fully characterize the aforementioned low-level mixed wastes by conducting statistically valid samplingof the wastesusing the appropriate LDRtest methodology (i.e., TCLP), or total constituent analysis as applicable. Based on the waste characterization sampling and analysis results, implement, as appropriate and necessary, the best treatment alternative being evaluated in the Mixed Waste Management Plan scheduled for completion by November 1989. 30,

5-20

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/AF-9

Page 19 ofWM/AF-9 41

August 1989

Audit Ftndtno Number in n Ti

Mixed Low-LevelWasteSubject to LandDisposalRestriction - Saltcrete, Cemented Composite Chips, and Roaster Oxide

Insufficient wastecharacterization data currently exist to adequately determineif [he following low-level mixedwastestreamsare (or will be) prohibited from land disposal due to concentrations of restricted hazardouswastes exceeding the land disposal restriction (LDR)treatmentstandards: Saltcrete, a solidified mixtureof salt residuefrom the evaporation process the at liquid wastetreatmentfacility (Building 374) andPortlandCement. Cemented composite chips, a solidified mixture of metalchips, incIuding stainless steel, uranium,aluminum, beryllium with solvent contaminated and cutting oil and F~ortland Cement packedin drums.

3)

Roaster oxide chips (generated before January 1988), uranium metal chips oxidized in the Building 447 chip roaster and packedas uraniumoxide in 30gallon containers in 55-gallon overpackdrums;prior to January1988metal chips werecoatedwith solvents.

The Hazardousand Solid WasteAmendments prohibit the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless the wastesmeet treatment standards established by the EPAunder the LDRregulations. Based on process knowledge and/or preliminary sampling and analysis, these wastes are categorized as low-level mixed wastepossibly containing solvents and/or scheduledwastesunder the LDRregulations (WM-1,WM-2, and WM-11).Representative sampling and analysis data at RFPfollowing LDRstipulated teat methodology limited or nonexistent, to date. RFP recognized is currently is has and addressingthe needto fully characterize low-level mixedwastepotentially subject to land disposal prohibition in the Mixed Waste Management ~'[en and ~ h~ ~ being developed/revised as part of the agreement in principal betweenDOE the State of Colorado (WM-12). and Citation and Reauirements

Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments 1984, EPARegulations set of forth in 40 CFR Part 268prohibit the land disposal of restricted hazardous wastes unless the wastes meet treatment standards promulgated under Subpart D of these regulations, unless a variance, extension, or exemption beengranted. has

S-21

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
WM/AF-9 ~,ugu~t1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 20 of 41

As pa~l: of the wastecharacterization plan to be updatedand revised by September 30, 1989, fully characterize the aforementioned low*level mixed wastes by conducting statistically valid samplingof the wastesusing the appropriate !.DR test methodology (i.e., TCLP) total constituent analysis ~s applicable. Based the wastecharacteror on ization samplingand analysis results, implement, a,oprepdate necessary,the best as and treatment alternative being evaluated in the Mixed WasteManagement scheduled Plan for completion by November 1989. 30,

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
/~udlt Dlsotollne

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/AF-~ 0

Page 21 of 41

Audlt Findin~ Number A~4glt Findlne Title Audit Findlnc! and Aoollcable

Oeficienc!es in TRU and TRU.Mixed WasteCharacterization

The current RockyFlats Plant (RFP)practices for classifl/ing wastesas TRU TRU or mixedmay result in incorrect classification of wastes.Waste classification is determined by process knowledge and by assay. RFPmaterial c~assifications which were created for nuc!earaccountability are called Item 0ascription Codes (IOCs). IOCsare plant wide designations a particular type of waste. of EachIOChas an associated EDL (Economic Discard Limit) for plutonium. If a container of wastehas plutoniumlevels abovethe EDL,it is considereda recoverableresidue and not a waste. Wherethe assay shows plutonium levels to be below the EDL. the container's contents are considered to be waste. The determination of the plutonium content is made one of three types of counters. TheLowSpecific Activity Counter by (LOSAC) paSsive/active counter are used for counting non-line generatedwastes. and The LOSAC passive/active counters can distinguish between low-level (<100 and nanocuries/gram) and TRU(>100 nanocurias/gram) wastes. Segmented Gamma Scanners (SGS)are used for assaying line generatedwastes. The SGSs cannot distinguish between low level and TRUwastes since they canqot determine Pu at the 100 nanocuries/gram level (I-WM-9,15, 21, 29) RFP assigns IOCsto specific classes of waste. This listing is basedon conservative assumptions. any IDCcould be hazardous any location, it is alwaysdesignatedas If at hazardous even though at somelocations that waste would actually be nonhazardous. The SGS computerizedcounting programcan handle only a limited number [DCs due of to limited computermemory.Therefore, the addition of an IDC to the SGS counting program allow differentiation of wastes the basis of the generation to on tocation requires deletion of an IDC. (The passive/activecounterdoesnot havethis limitation.) A request has been made for funding to upgradethe SGS memory (I-WM-51). Thecurrent practices at RFP also can havethe potential to incorrectly designatelowlevel wastesas TRU.This mayoccur for materials which are countedon the SGS.The SGSis not sufficiently sensitive to differentiate between TRUand non-TRU concentrations. Undercurrent practices as observed during the audit, oncea material is counted by the SGS and shownto be below the EDLit is automatically considered a TRU waste. The use of this assumption mayresult in an unknown quantity of low-level wastebeing classified and handledas TRU waste. A review of assayresults obtained ~ from INEL. the storagesite for RFF TRU TRU-mixed and waste, indicated that ten percent of the wasteshippedto the site between 1981-1989 low-level (WM-71). is Certain IDCs. below the EDL. generated at multiple locations would always be designated TRUmixed whencounted on SGS even though at somelocations they are nonhazardous non-TRU. or Examples are as fellows:

5-23

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/AF.10
August 1969

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 22 of 41

831 832 833 Ac~llcable Citation

Combustibles, 0ry, TRUWaste Combustibles, Wet, TRU Waste Ptastic(Teflon, PVC, Poly. etc.), TRUWaste and Reaulrem~r~t~

0OEOrder 5820.2Aorates that any material that is knownto be or suspectedof being contaminated with transuraniumradionuclidas shall be evaluatedas soonas possible in the generating process, and determinedto be either recoverable material, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed waste, or nonradioactive trash in order to avoid commingling the vadous materiaJ streams. Be¢ommendatlons

1)

Drums counted on the segmented gamma scanner that fall below the EDLshould be recountedon the passive-active counter or LGSAC distinguish whetherthe to material is TRU low-level waste. Additional passive-active drumcounters or or LOSAC should be acquiredas necessary facilitate this. to Thenumber IDCsshould be expanded improvethe capability of distinguishof to ing hazardous from nonhazardous material on the basis of generation location. Process knowledgeused to assign IDCs to waste classes should be updated and/or confirmed by sampleanalyses (see related finding WM/BMP-3).

2) 3)

5-24

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/BMP-1

Page 23 of 41 WM/~MI=-I
August 1989

BMP Ftndlna Title

Management Approach to Environmental Programs

Implementation of the environmental programsat the RockyFlats Plant (RFP) lacks coordination, and is hinderedby poor communication. lines of authority are fragThe mented,and not clearly defined. Examples difficulties arising from this situation of include: Thelevel of quality assurance applied to documentation related to environmental programs, such as RI/FSs, has not been adequateto meet Ihe programs' needs (see F~ndingsGW/SMP-4, IWS/AF-2,[WS/AF-4,IWS/AF-5,IWS/AP-6, SWlSMP-1). 2) There has not been adequatetime allocated for the review of Environmental Restoration documents (see Finding IWSiBMP-2). The RCRA/CERCLA Programis currently a part of Plutonium Operations and mustcompete with productionactivities for resources.In fiscal year 1989. eight pdority RCRNCERCLA did not receive funding (I-WM-73). tasks The RCRALCERCLA Programis supported by 77 full-time equivalent employees but only nine report functionally to the programmanager. The manager stated that this situation hinders his ability to effectively manage RCRA/CERCLA activities (I-WM-73).

3)

5)
6)

The analytical QA/QC programsare not coordinated betweenthe three omsite laboratories that support the environmental programs (see Findings RAD/AF-3, RAD/AF-4,RAD/AF-5, QA/AF-1,QA/AF-2,QA/BMP-1). Personnelare not fully awareof Plant policies and proceduresthat relate to environmentalactivities (see Findings SW/AF-6, WM/BMP-8). Formal procedures and adequatetraining are lacking for manyenvironmental activities (see Findings TCM/AF-4, TCM/AF-5, TCM/AF-6, TCM/AF-8, TCM/SMP-2, TCM/BMP-4, IWS/SMP-1,RAD/AF-2. RAD/AF-3,RAD/AF-4, RAD/AF-5, SW/AF-4, SW/BMP-3, WM/AF-1, WM/AF-3, WIWSMP-7, WM/BMP-8,QA/AF-1, QAIAF-2. AIr/AF-2).

8)

Deficiencies in waste storage areas, the WasteSteam Characterization Study, waste minimization efforts, and waste handling and management programs indicate a lack of overall wastemanagement coordination (see Findings WM/AF-1,W~VAF-2,WM/AF-3,WlWAF4, WM/AF-5,WM,'AF-6, WM/AF-7, WM/AF-8,WM/AF-9, WM/AF-10; WM/BMP-2, WM/BMP-3, WM/BMP-4.,WM/SMP-5, WM/BMP-6, WM/BMP-7,WM/SMP-8,WM/SMP-9,WM/BMP-10; TCM/AF-1). Thereis no coordinatedsite-wide strategy for the implementation the National of EnvironmentalPolicy Action (NEPAJBMP-1).

g)

8-25

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/BMP-1
Augu~lt 198e

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 24 of 41

Aooll¢~le

B~I = and Recommendations

A well organized, coordinated approachshould be taken in order to properly implement environmental programs. 1) 2) A strategy should be developedand implemented integrate the existing manto agement and information systems. Resourcesshould be madeavailable to support all priority tasks that are essential to the implementation individual environmental of programs.

5-26

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/~3MP-2

Page 25 of 41

WasteMinimization Program

The F%ckyFiats Plant (RFP) waste minimization program does not contain all the elementsof the proposedU.S. EPAguidanceon effective waste minimization programs published June 12. 1989, in the Federal Register. The 1984 Hazardousand Solid WasteAmendments (HSWA) require that generators of hazardouswaste establish waste minimization programs.Generatorsare required to certify that they havewasteminimization programs. The gu{dance published by U.S. EPAis intended to assist generatorsin establishing effective wasteminimizationprograms only for hazardous not wastebut for other mediaas well As defined by U.S. EPAproposedguidelines, in the June 12, 1989, publication, effective waste minimization programsshould have the following elements: Top ManagementSupport OngoingWasteCharacterization WasteMinimization Assessments GeneratorCost Allocation System TechnologyTransfer Pedodic ProgramEvaluations Allocations of Resources The RFPhas established a waste minimization program which does address someof these elements. A chlorinated solvent substitution programhas beenestablished and resulted in a greater than 50 percent reduction in the use of solvents in the non-PSZ areas (WM-33). Specific goals for reduction in the use of chlorinated solvents and reduction of water usagehave beenestablished (WM-33).However, the existing waste minimization programand implementationof the programhas several deficiencies described as follows: I) 2) 3) Top management support has not been demonstrated a finalized written plant via policy. A draft policy hasbeenprepared(I-WM-2). The WasteStream Characterization Study (WSC)conducted in 1986/1987 has not beenupdated(see related finding WM/BMP-3). Waste minimization assessments of process areas are not conducted on a pedodic bases (I-WM-2). RFP not established a systemfor allocating the costs of handling wasteto has individual generators (i.e., buildings or processes). According plant personnel. to RFPaccountants said that the accounting system does not allow such cost allocations (I-WM-2). RFPdoesnot have an ongoingprogramfor transferring "experiences learned in wasteminimization" from one program building to other programs buildings or or (I-WM-2).

5-27

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/SMR-Z
August 1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 26 of 41

6)

RFP does not havea programfor periodic evaluation of the wasteminimization programs(I-WM-2). RFP not always allocated resourcBsfor implementation wasteminimization has of projects. Thefollowing projects havebeBnidentified by RFP havenot been but implemented(I-WM-2, WM-67):
WASTE MINIMIZATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A)

$131K

A centrifuge unit is nasded wash to uranium chips prior to briquening.Tneuranium briquettes are melted£nto ingots whichcan be t~tcled, if they meetthe chemicalpurity specifications. If the ingots aze waste,Ihis wasteis greatly reduced volume ~n aver the current oxide wasteform. Theingots will als~ meetthe Nevada Site waste Test a~eptanca criteria whichlhe uraniumoxide wastedoesnot. A pneumsti¢ transfer system Building 771will reduceTRU for wastegenerationby S0drums year by eliminating plastia per wastefrom bagcuts. is cut froma glcvebox line will providean accurate means of segregatingTRU low.level at the source. A study and waste has shown this will reduceTRU wasteby 13 percentfor each gioveb~x where this system used, is Shredding eduiement size reduceplastic bottle wastein will tlne 4 3AS&C, 9uilding 771. Therewill be a redu~ion~rcmone six-foot bagcut per shift (fills onedrum) one~o-footbag to cut shift. per Ansqueous cleaner for Mcdei Building 707will replacea G, solvent vapor degreaser clean nonplutonium to parts. This will result in ~pproximstely to 100gallon/month 50 1,1,1trichlorcethane volume rsduction, A fire safely u~rede certain areasin Building 707is needed Io before a nonhazardous solvent substitute be introduced can into the glaveb~x linas to replacecarbontetrachloride. Carbon tetrechloride, a hazardous solvent,currently usedin is machining plutonium. of

B)

$200K

C)

$2QOK

D)

$I00K

E)

$150K

F)

$200K

The equipment for items B and C is available, yet space and resources for implementation of these projects havenot beenallocated available. None the other projects of havebeeninitiated (I-WM-2). Aoollcable BMP and Recommend~itlon8

TheU,S. ERA publication in the Federal Register of June12, 1989, describes E,=A's proposed guidelines for establishing effective wasteminimization programs.To comply with the EPAguidance, RFPshould establish a waste minimization programwith the following components:

5-28

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

WM/BMP-2 Page 27 of 41 Augu=t 1989

Top ManaoementSuooort Establish a written wasteminimizationpolicy signedby management. Implement formal policy by establishing goals for all waste the streams, designating building wasteminimization coordinators and providing increasedemphasis wasteminimization training. on Waste Stream Charactedzatfon (WSC~ Revise and keepup-to-date the WasteStreamCharacterization Study (see related finding WM/SMP-3). As a part of the WSC revision, identify points in processes which at wastes might be minimized. Waste Minimization Assessments Ongoing reviews of processes should be conducted identify to points at which wastesmaybe minimizedby such means as recycling of materials, substitution, equipment changes, etc. These reviews should be made part of the ongoingWSC re-evaluation. Waste Management Costs Determine true costs of wastemanagement including costs for personnel,recordkeeping, po[lution control equipment, treatment and disposal, radiation protection measures, compliance, oversight, etc. This is a prerequisite allocating coststo individual for generators.

Allocate "fully loaded"costs of wastemanagement the buildings to and/or processes generatingthe wastes.Oneof the mosteffective means reducingwastegenerationis to require individual of generators be responsible the costs of wastedisposal, with to for the costs beingdirectly tied to their generation rates. The opportunity to reducecosts directly by reducingwastes generated will often inspire innovativethinking andmuch closer attention to details of material handling suchas wastesegregationand materials used.Theavailability of cost informationalso allows generators justify processand/or material changes to and/or substitution necessary effect reductionin quantities and/or to toxicities of wastes generated.
¯ Technoloov Transfer

Establisha formal program the transfer of "lessonslearned"at for one building or processto other buildings or processes.

5-29

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/BMP-2

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 28 of 41

~eriodic ProqramEvaluations Establish a program performperiedic internal audits to evaluate to the effectiveness, completeness implementation the overall and of waste minimization program.

RFPshould review proposedwasteminimization projects and allocate resources their implementation. for WasteMinimization CoordinatOrs Wasteminimization coordinators should be appointedfor each building. These coordinators should work with the RFP site waste minimization maneger.They should also be assigned responsibilities related to the re-evaluationof the WSC related (see finding WM/BMP-3).

5-30

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
waste Management WM/BMP.3

WM;SMP-3 Page 29 of 41 August1989

BMPFindtna Nurrfber B~P Findln~ Title

Oeficienoies in WasteStream Characterization (WSC) Study

The WasteStream Characterization (WSC)Study conductedin 1986 and 1987 does not accuratelyreflect the past or presentRocky Fiats Plant (F!F,=) wastegenerationprofile. This study was conductedby RFPand submitted to U.S. E,=A and COH part of the as June 1986 RCRA/CERCLA Compliance Agreement. it is currently being used by COH and U.S. EPA evaluating the facility RCRA in permit applications, including determining which facilities should have RCRA permits (hazardous, low-level mixed and TRU mixed). However,the document has not received a complete formal review at RFP.It will be used in establishing final permit conditions. The following areas requiring improvementwere identified in review of the WSC (see Appendix C, WasteStream CharacterizationEvaluation). 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) TheWSC not accurately describe the wastestreamprofiles at the time it was did submitted (types, classification, quantities,etc.). TheWSC not reflect the current wastestreamprofile (types, classifications, does quantities,etc.). The WSC does not provide information on hazardous characteristics wastes (this was not required by the RCRA/CERCLA agreement). of TRU

Discrepancies exist between the designation of wastes as hazardous or nonhazardous associated analytical data, and Thereis no formal ongoingprocess for updating the WSC. The WSC does not reflect changes in waste stream designations and classifications made response Notices of Deficiency (NOD) the Hazardin to on ous and Low-LevelPart B application, BMP81n~ Re(;ommen~a~ton$

6)

,.Apollcable

The WSC should be updated and resubmitted to the CDHand U.S, EPAby RFP. The following is a list of specific recommendations re-evaluating the WSC. for These recommendations based on the evaluation of the WSC, are observations made during the audit, andon related audit findings and8MP findings.

1)

RFPshould appoint one site WSC coordinator to be responsible for the reevaluation and on-going updating of the WSC study. This person should work with designated building waste characterization coordinators. The site WSC coordinator should be responsible for maintaining the site WSC databaseand coordinating with the RFP manager responsible for wasteminimization activities (see related finding WM/BMP-2).

5-31

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
WM/BMPo3 AugUSt 1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 30 of 41

2)

Eachbuilding should have one individual appointed to serve as the building wastestreamcharacterization coordinator. This individual should also serve as the building waste minimization coordinator (see WM/SMP-2 waste on minimization). Thebuilding WSC coordinator should be technically qualified and knowledgeableabout materials used, processes, wastes generated within the building, and ai:plicable regulations. This individual should provide the infor~ mation needed the FIFF WSC by coordinator for updating and maintenance the of RFP WSC datE)ase. TheI::IFP site WSC coordinator should provide training for building WSC study coordinators. This training should include at a minimum: Identification waste; of materials which mayresult in generation of hazardous that may result in hazardous waste

3)

Types of processing activities generation;

Characterization of hazardous wastes; Informationto be providedon the building wastestream summaries; How identify opportunities for wasteminimization; to Generalinformation on FICRA requirements; Generalinformation on FIFPproceduresfor low-level and TRU waste; and Determining needt'or additional analytical data. The objective of this training should be to give the building waste system coordinator sufficient knowledge conduct the re-evaluation of the WSC to and conductwasteminimizationactivities. The scopeof the WSC study should be broadened such that it ¢z~ be used as a wastemanagement tool. It should inctude information that can be utilized to determineand allocate costs associated with wastemanagement, to identify ~nd methodsto reduce the volume of wastes generated on-site, and establish a baseline of quantities of hazardous wastesgenerated facilitate evaluations of to the effectiveness waste of minimization efforts.

S-32

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 31 of 1989 Augus~ 41

WM/eMI=.4

Waste Management WM/BMP-4 Pondc:ete Saltcrete and SolidificationzStcrageOeficiencies

Solidified pondcreteand saltcrete, both consideredmixed(hazardousend radioactive) wastes, have beendeteriorating, resulting in crumbling of wasteforms, splitting of containers holding the solidified wastes, and releases of hazardous was~es a powin deredform from containers. (l-WM-52) In May1988, the boxes of pondcrete stored in area 904 were slumping. Theseboxes consisted of solidified sedimentsfrom the solar evaporationpondsthat werepackaged in cardboardcontainers (I-WM-52). This material had beensolidified at Building 788. When slumpingwasobserved,solidification at Building 788 wasstopped(I-WM-52). the Thedevelopment work for the proosss wasinadequatein that the correct water/cement ratio was not established, and ~urthermore, there was a Iack of process control at Building 788 solidification facility (l-WM-67, I-WM-68). Remediationincluded the installation of a flow meter anddeterminationof a newwater cement re~io. Much the of existing inventory of pondcrete will not meet the current Nevada Test Site (NTS) standardwhich requires the pondcretecontainer to withstand a load of 4000pounds per squarefoot. Theexisting inventory of pondcrete, as packaged cardboardcontainers, in is deteriorating end the cardboardpackaginghas no load-bearing capacity. The Rocky Plats Plant (RFP)will haveto repackage pondcreteinto containers meetingthe NTS the standardor resolidify the pondcrete (I-WM-67, I-WM-68). Saltcrete (solidified 374 evaporator sludge) also shippedto NTS found in 1986 was contain hazardous constituents. Thesehazardous constituents were organic solvents. As e result, shipmentto NTS stopped.Thesaltcrete wasinitially stored indoors in wee Building 964, but in 1987wasmoved outdoorsdue to lack of sufficient stcrege spacein Building 964. (I-WM-52).Packages saltcrete are coveredby a tarp, however, cover of the allows somemoisture to pass through. As a result during freeze/thaw, and we~'dry cycles, the saltcrete hasdeteriorated..Thisdeterioration occurswhen moistureinfiltrates the tarpaulin covers and cardboardcontainers end goesinto the solidified block. The salt dissolves leaving void spaces,which, when filled with water, freezes, resulting in expansionand cracking of the block. In addition, microscopystudies haveshown that the composition saltcrete is not uniformwith cement salt particles intermixed.It is of and also suspected that swelling of saltcrete is causedwhen dried salt occupiesa greater volume it loses water in the normalconcretedrying process(I-WM-67, as As a result of these processes,cardboardpackages saltorete and pondcretein the of inventory are deteriorating at a rapidly increasingrate. Peckages splitting andfine are particles of pondcreteand saltcrete are being released. When releases are observed during inspections, they are cleaned up. Split packages are, at a minimum, taped or repackaged(I-WM-67, I-WM-68). Saltcrete and pondcreteare stored in areas 750 and 904 which are RCRA storage pads without roofs. Since only solids are stored at theseareas, secondary containment not is required accordingto RCRA regulations. RFPcollects precipitation at 904 by means of surface sloping and berms. This precipitation is collected in tank trucks and subsequently transported to Building 374 for evaporationand treated as e reoioac.'ive
5-33

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL WM/BMP-4
1989

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 32 of 41

waste. Similar measures not in effect at the 750 area. Runoff from 750 flows over are andthroughthe bermout of the 750 area. ]n addition, the 750 paditself, constructedof asphalt, is deterioratedandcracked,with the likely result that there is movement water of throughthe asphalt baseinto the underlyingground potentially carrying contaminants. Thecurrent inventor~ of deteriorating pondcretaand saltcrete will not be repackaged before the next freeze/thaw cycle occurs due to lack of pl~ysicat and manpower resources (I-WM-49, I-WM-52). Thus,it is likely that there will be an acceleratedrate pondcrateand saltcrate deterioration. In addition, the problemsof swelling of the saltcrate will continue as long as the existing solidification process is employed. However, for pondcreteand saltcrete currently generatedand packaged, the newwaste packages(plywood boxes) should meet the NTScriteda even if the solidified waste wouldnot. unless these packages experiencesignificant deterioration prior to shipment for disposal. A~llcable BMP and Recommendations

1)
2)

Development work should be conductedto devise proceduresand/or solidifying agents leading to morestable wasteforms as necessaryto meetNTSacceptance criteda andmaintain wasteform integrity dudng storage. The current repackagingprogramshould be accelerated. Shipment of pondcrete and saltcrete should be closely coordinated with solidification operations in order to avoid prolonged storage under adverse conditions. Moreeffective means protection against water intrusion on to the solidified of wasteforms should be used, suchas storage undera roofed area for the current inventory of pondcrete saltcrete. and

3)

5)

Run-off from the 750 pad should be collected as is doneat the 904 pad. Run-off from both padsshould be analyzedto determineif it is a hazardous wasteand/or contains radioactive constituents, andmanaged accordingly.If run-off is found to be hazardous radioactive, run-on should be preventedand run-off should be or collected by meansof sloping the surface, providing collection sumps,and constructing impermeable bermand storage area surfaces. Theweekly inspections of 750 and 9£)4 storage area should be expanded daily to inspections and documented appropriately.

6)

5-34

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/~MP-5

Page 33 of 41 WM/BMP-5
August lSS9

BMPFinding TTtle

RC~A Storage Area and Cargo ContainerStorageDeficiencies 750, 561

Aqueous organic liquid wastesare stored in cargo containers at the 750 and 561 and container storage areas. Storage in cargo containers leads to various problems describedas follows:

1)

Cargocontainers have heat buildup in the summer.Contents of drumsheat up causing drumsto bulge with the consequent needfor repackaging.The site has imposed a requirement on generators to leave five-inch headspacein drums containing liquids (1-WM-31,34). Contentsof containerswith aqueous contents freeze in the winter, again leading to container deterioration andthe needfor overpacking deteriorated containers of (I-wa-31,34).

3)

Cargocontainers have only one door which is at the front. Potential safety problemsexist for workers if a release wereto occur in the front of a cargo container while the workerwasin the back (I-WM-31,34). The Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) has established requirements to ensure that materials that are incompatible(i.e., may adverselyreact with oneanotherin the eventof a leak or spill) are not stored together.Tosatisfy theserequirements, is it often necessaryto transfer drumsbetweencontainers. Thus, the use of cargo containerswith spaceIimitations leads to increaseddrumhandling with potential for releasesas the result of additional increasedmovement increasedspill or and damage potential (WM-28,29, I-WM-31,34).

TheRFP plans to request funding for a 25,000foot prefabricated metal storage building to be built on the 904 pad to store an estimated 2,300 drumsand 250 boxesof waste presently stored out doors in 7 different storagea'eas. This building will be usedas a central location outside of the PSZ for wastestorage end shipmentoff-site (WM-66, IWM-68). A~ol!cable 1) BMP and Recommendations should be placed on a

Constructionof the proposed centralized storage facility highpriority.

2)

RFPshould investigate the foreseeable RCRA storage needsprior to finalizing the design spaceof the proposed facilib/. This investigation shouldconsider any materials that are not currently classified as hazardouswastes, but maybe reclassified as suchin the future. Adequate temperature control to prevent heating and freezing of liquids should be provided.

3)

S-3S

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit Discipline ~MP Ftndlna

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 34 of1989 Augu=t 41

WM/BMP-6

Waste Management WM/~MP-6 Oeficienciesat the 561Container Storage Pad Staging Area

Number

BMPFTndlna Title

The lack of a paveddrumstaging area at the 561 container storage pad increases the potential for accidentsand wouldmake spill cleanupmeredifficult. Thecurrent staging area surface is rough. Thearea in front of a row of cargocontainers561 F, 561A,561 561C, and 561D progresses from sandyin front of 561Fto stony (i.e., stones one inch or morein diameterin front of 561D).This leads to increasedpotential for accidentswhile staging drums. In addition, the lack of impervious surface mayenhance mitigation of potential contaminants results in difficulties with spill cleanupfrom any releases and dudng staging (WM-62). ApDllcable BMP and Re¢ommendatTons

A pavedstaging area should be provided for the 561storage area.

5-37

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Audit Dl~!clollne

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/~MP-7 RCRA ~ Distribution Part

August Page 35 of 411989

WM/BMP-7

J~MI= Flndlna Number I~MP Flndlna Title I~MP FIndtna

Theoperating personnel for various RCRA storage areas including 750, 561, 884, 952, ~69, and 776 Room 134, were unaware t~e permi~edstorage capacity limits for of their areas. In at least onecase it wasreportedthat the information hadbeenrequested but not supplied. Operatingpersonnel also did not haveaccessto portions of the Part permit applications dealing with their areas (I-WM-34,I-WM-37, I-WM-39). and Recommerfdatlons 1) 2 3) Operating personnel should be advised of the storage capacity of the RCF~A storage areas wherethey work. Permittedstoragecapacity in terms of numbers drums,containers, etc., should of be postedat eachstorage area. Copiesof relevant portions of the Part B permit applications should be made available to the "hands-on foremen"of RCRA units.

5-39

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/BMP-8

WM/BMpo9 Page 36 of 41 August 1988

RegulatedMaterial Procurement Control

Implementationof the RockyPlats Plant (RFP) Policy for Procurement Control needs improvement.The use of hazardousmaterials at RFPis limited to restricted areas througha Policy for Procurement Control (A-6). Theobjective of this policy is to assure compliance with regulatory requirements,achievement wasteminimization goals, and of an increase in workplace safety. This is achievedby designatingindividuals in various areas to be responsible for reviewing and approving procurementrequests. These individuals are also responsible for maintaining a record of amountsand use of hazardous substances purchased. During Audit interviews with several persons authorized to review and sign procurement orders, responses questions regarding the to Policy ranged from "the person is on the list no longer hasthat job; I took her place who but I don't knowabout the P~licy" (I-A-18), to personswhokept copies of procurement orders they had signed, and one person whohad prepared a log as specified in the Policy (I-A-19). It should be noted that the individual whois properly maintaining the procurementlog has responsibility for the areas of the Plant wherethe majority of materialslisted in this Policy are in use. Aoollcable aMP and Recommendations

RFPM 2-506. RCRA-Regulated PNC Matedal ProcurementControl Policy, October 3, 1988. Personnel responsible for implementing the Policy for ProcurementControl should be adequatelytrained. 2) 3) A form should be developed and provided to persons authorized Io sign procurement orders to encourage them to keep records in a common format. ThePolicy should designatean individual or department/position haveoverall to responsibility andauthority to implement Policy. the Recordsof procurement of designated substances should be forwarded on a periodic basis (perhaps monthly) to the individual designated with overall responsibility. A computerdatabaseshould be set up to record procurementinformation. This databasewoulddocument information required for preparation of annual reports for SARA, Title 3, and to record progress in efforts to eliminate the use of halogenated hydrocarbons.

6)

A periodic summary materials procurement of (perhapsquarterly) submittedback to persons designatedto review and sign procurement orders could ser~e as a reminder their responsibilities. of

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
~/aste Management WM/BMP-9

Page 37 of 41 August1989

B~P Findlna Title ~MP Finding

Hazardous WasteTankOverfill Controls and Alarms

Hazardous wastetanks in Building 374 and %ilding 774 are not individually alarmedfor overfills. Buildings 374 and 774. are usedto treat liquid hazardous wastestreams. All tanks (29 in Building 374., 28 in Building 774) in these buildings are considered hazardous wastetanks. Overfill resulting from wastebeing oontthuaJlyfed into the tanks wouldeither overflowfrom onetank to anotherandfinally to a common overfill collection sump tank or froman overfill tank directly to the common overfill collection eump tank. All but eight tanks in Building 774. are individually alarmed that operatorswill know so when andwhich tank is overfilling and thus can act immediately stop the flow to the tank to overfilling. In the case of the individually alarmedBuilding 774 tanks, the operator immediatelyknows which tank is over-flowing. The remaining eight tanks in Building 774 and all the tanks in Building 374 are not individually alarmedfor overfills. Theoverfill collection sump tank in Building 374 is alarmed.However, the operator only knowsthat an overfill is occurring. He doesnot know whichtank is overfilling. In order to find out which tank is overfilling, he must individually checkeachtank. This mayresult in the capacity of the overfill collection sump tank being exceeded before corrective action is taken. Ap~licabl e BMP and Re¢0mmendattons

Section 265.192 of CDH RCRA regulations requires that where hazardous waste is continuously fed into a tank, that the tank be equipped with a means stop the inflow to (e.g., a work feed cut-off systemor by-passsystemto a stand-bytank). Thesesystems are intendedto be usedin the event of a leak or overflow from the tank due to a system failure. While the existing systemmaysatisfy the regulatory requirement,the lack of individually alarmedtanks maylead to an overflow of the collection sump task before corrective action can be taken. All hazardous wastetanks on-site should be equipped with individual overfill sensing devicesandalarmsso that the operatorsimmediately know whichtank is overfilling.

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

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Management WM/BMP-10

Page 38 of 41

WMISM~IolO Augu=t 1989

Management Assessmentsfor Long-Range Planning

Management Assessments that serve as the cornerstone for comprehensive long-range planning have not been performed. Although several studies were proposedin the 1984. Long-Range WasteManagement Plan, noneof these studies wereperformed.Thestudies include: 1) WasteStream Segregation Study - Objective is to keep the waste streams segregated. WasteVolume ReductionStudy - Objective is to examine current waste-handling practices; identify measures be taken to reduceamount wastes to of generated.

3)

Cost of ComplianceDetermination - Determine actual cost associated with regulatory compliance basedon current waste-handling practices (including labor, material, and equipment costs).

Studieslike these could significantly contribute to a reduction in wastegenerationrates and waste management costs. Manyof the current waste handling practices were developedbefore current regulatory requirements cameinto existence, and changes have beenaddedin incrementsto meet newrequirements. Aoplktabl e BMP and Recommendations DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management states that the generation, treatment, storage, transpo~ation, and/or disposal of radioactive wastes, and the other pollutants or hazardous substances they contain shall be accomplished a manner in that minimizesthe generationof such waste. The Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) should conduct the studies proposedin the Long-Range WasteManagement to the extent that the abovestated information is not already Plan available to ensure that the waste management activities are conductedin a cost efficient manner that wasteminimizationefforts at the site are comprehensive. and

WM/BMFo11

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
¯ udlt Discipline

Document 195-11

Filed 07/27/2006
Waste Manag